The Sun.
London, England, 1833-07-12 00:00:00

MPERIALPARLIAMENT

THIS DAY, FRIDAY, JULY 12.

HOUSE OP COMMONS.

The SPEAKER took his seat at a quarter past 12 o'clock,
at which time there were nearly 100 Members present.

LONDON BRIDGE BILL.
On the motion of Mr. Alderman WOOD, the London
Bridge Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be com•

mitted.

EAST INDIA COMPANY'S CHARTER.
Mr. C. GRANT moved the order of the day for going
into Committee on the East India Company's Charter Bill.
Mr. EWART rose and moved a resolution, as an
instruction to the Committee, to consider the propriety
of admitting East India sugar and coffee, the produce of
free labour, on equal terms with sugar and coffee, the
produce of the West Indies, and to consider the propriety
of giving facilities to the admission generally of sugar and
coffee, the produce of free labour.
Mr. WILBRAHAM said lie had also to move an instruc-
tion to the Committee, relating to the monopoly of salt in
India, and its effect on the commerce of this country.
The SPEAKER intimated his opinion, that according
to the present regulations of the House, they could not
move those instructions at the morning sitting, as it
would be investing themselves with a greater power than
they at present possessed, which was to proceed with
measures which had been sanctioned already by the House.
Mr. HUME suggested, that as the proposed resolutions
related chiefly to the customs' duties, he would suggest
that it would be better for his Hon. Friend to move them
as amendments to the schedule in the General Customs
Bill.—(Hear.)
The SPEAKER said, if the resolution were moved now,
they might create an unnecessary discussion, for they could
be moved as amendments when the House was in Com
mittee.

Mr. WYNNE and Mr. BERNAL were of opinion that
they could he moved as instructions to the Committee.
Mr. WILBRAHAM did not wish unnecessarily to take
up the time of the House now, if the Right Hon. Gentle-
man (Mr. Grant) would assure him of an opportunity of
bringing forward his motion at any other stage of the
measure.

Mr. ROBERT GRANT said, if the Honourable
Member were disposed, he could move his amendment
when the Committee arrived at the fourth clause of the
Bill. He thought, however, it would be inconvenient to
occupy the time of the House upon the revenue of India.
The subjects embraced in the resolutions had been under
the serious consideration of Government ; but the Bill did
not affect the revenue of India—it left it as before.

Mr. WYNNE again contended that the instructions
could be moved, for the House bad always exercised the
right of giving mandatory instructions to a Committee.

After some further observations from Mr. EWART
and another Hon. Member,
The SPEAKER said, the only mode for the Hon.
Member to adopt was, to give notice of his intention to
make a motion, that when the House had under discus-
sion the General Customs Bill, the House should then
resolve itself into Committee, with a view to the altera-
tion of the duties.

Mr. EWART then withdrew his motion.
Mr. WILBRAHAM also withdrew his motion re-
lating to the monopoly of salt in India, on the same
account.
The House then went into Committee.

Sir ROBERT INGLIS expressed his satisfaction that
his Right Hon. Friend opposite, and his Majesty's Mi-
nisters, had preserved so much of the mode of govern-
ment, and detail of management, with ref.rence to one of
the largest civilized empires the world had ever witnessed.
The Bill bore sufficient evidence that his Majesty's Go-
vernment was satisfied with the merit and system evinced
by the East India Company. He also declared
his satisfaction with the whole progress of the
correspondence between the Government and the
East India Company, and that it had led to such
modifications as appeared reasonable to both parties.
There was, however, one point omitted in the Bill, to
which he would take leave to direct the attention of the

House. The Government had provided that there should
be a Commission established to superintend the law; but
there was no commission provided for to procure the

abolition of slavery. This it was most necessary to do,
for there could be little gained by experience on the ques-
tion of West India slavery, which was so dissimilar to that

of the East Indies. He apologised for rising on the first
question, as he should feel it to be his duty to ask the
indulgence of the House on future stages of the question;
which indulgence be hoped would be conceded to him, when
the House bore in mind, that when the question was last

brought before the Government, it was peculiarly under
the consideration of one to whose opinion he felt bound,
not by hereditary prejudice, but by conscientious feelings.
He alluded to the part taken by his father (Sir Hugh
Inglis).
Mr. GRANT suggested that it would be better to defer
any discussion on the point referred to by the Hon. Gen-
tleman until the clause upon which his recommendation
mightbe moved came under the consideration of the House.
Mr. WYNN wished to he informed by his Hon.
Friend whether any, and what alterations would be made
in the Bill? He wished also to know if the management
of the political government of the East Indies was to be
vested in the hands of the same number of persons as at
that time ?

Mr. GRANT could not make any statement of what
alterations would be made, if good reason were shown
for making them. Of course there would be verbal al-

terations a; the Bill went on in Committee.
Mr. WYNN did not consider the answer he had re-
ceived such as his observations were entitled to. With-
out meaning any offence, he might consider that his Hon.
Friend considered them to be unworthy of attention. He
would, however, ask what were the views of his Ma-
jesty's Government with respect to the army ?
Mr. CHARLES GRANT thought that the progress
of the Bill ought not to be interrupted at the present mo-
ment by any discussion on this point, as he thought it
would be better to take it upon another stage of the
Bill, when several of the clauses that had no objection to
them had been gone through. Great consideration had
been bestowed upon the condition of the Indian army. He
thought it would lie premature to enter now into the
subject adverted to by the Right Hon. Member.
Mr. HUME thought the Ist and 2d clauses of the Bill in-
volved the question under consideration. He was ready to
admit that he was anxious to continue the government of
India as it at present existed ; but he was unwilling to
continue the Court of Directors as they were now consti-
tuted, and with the same privileges.
. . . .

Mr. R. TODD wished to know whether the Noble
Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) intended to make
any alterations in the mode of transmitting bills to and
from India.

Lord ALTHORP slid not see any necessity for making
any alteration in the present system.
The preamble of the Bill was then postponed.
After acme verbal amendments, the first clause was
agreed co.
On the second clause being proposed,
Mr. HUME rose to object to the extension of the East
_

India Company's Charter to the year 1854. He thought
twenty years a very long period to resign the Government
of India into the hands of the East India Company. In
his opinion, public interest required that some break
should take place in that period, and it was a question with
him whether the House should not admit, as in the case
that at the end of ten years it should be open to the Go-
vernment, if the public interest required to recall the
Charter, it being impossible to say what events, political
or commercial, might take place requiring the adoption of
such a step. Under such circumstances he thought it
would be better to leave the subject open. He thought the
period of ten years a very fair trial, as the public in that
time would have a very fair opportunity of seeing how far
the management of the East India Company was consistent
with the public good, and it would have the effect of put-
ting the Company upon the spur to act in the best manner
they possibly could.
Mr. C. GRANT said there was no expression in the
Bill which could fetter the power of Parliament to inter-
frre excepting as to the point which the Hon. Gentleman
had just alluded to. It was agreed on all hands that
some term ought to be given, the question, therefore, wee,
what term ought to be allowed? He thought ten years
too small, because he agreed with the Hon. Member that
much good ought to be expected, and he trusted that
much benefit would result from this measure, and
that the government of the Court of Directors ought
not to be subjected to constant changes, which he was
afraid they would be, if no longer term than ten years
was allowed. But besides that, he thought there was
another great objection to the shortening of the term,
namely, that the East India government was so inti-
mately connected with the revenues of the country. They
ought to be allowed a long term, in order to give them an
interest in the revenues, and to secure a capital.
Mr. HUAIE was afraid the Right Hon. Gentleman bad
misunderstood him. He had no objection to continue it
for twenty years, if there was a proviso introduced, that,
at the end of ten years, Parliament should take the sub-
ject into consideration, if they thought fit.
Mr. C. GRANT said it might be a principle of com-
promise, but he thought it right to inquire whether,
under the present circumstances, such au arrangement