The Sun.
London, England, 1851-04-04 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 3.
INQUIRY INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND
TERRITORIES OF THE EAsr INDIA COM
PANY.
ANSTEY (in continuation)—Mr. Grant, in in•
troducing the Bill, declared that the political existence of
the natives would be acknowledged. Now Parliament
had a right to demand in what way the recognition 131
the Bill of the existence of 100,000,000 of men had been
acknowledged by those to whom the trust was consigned;
and the House ought not to hesitate to grant an inquiti
on the spot, conducted by men above the suspiciott
of partiality. By the Bill of 1833, the removal of
certain grievances was supposed to be provided for.
The House was bound to ascertain whether those

grievances had been redressed. He asserted that there
was not one grievance in existence at the time which
did not now exist in all its original deformity. Taker
for instance, the question of monopoly. When Mr.
Buckingham brought the question of the land revenue.
under the notice of Parliamant in the form of a motioer
Mr. Grant said, "that is rather a matter fit for the eon'

sideration of the Governor-General and his legislative
council, and I trust he will be able, with the accession 01,
power we propose to give him, satisfactorily to dispose of
the general question. The particular subject of the
ryotwar rent is a subject for the Law Commission." Oa
the following day Mr. Grant said, "I am happy to be
able to assure the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wilbrabatn)
that the Government, both at home and in India, hate,
agreed that the taxes on opium and salt shall be removed.
Nov up to this moment the Governor-General had nest
legislated on the land tenant question—nothing had beep'
done by the Law Commission relative to the ryotwar
rent, and the monopolies still existed. At the present
moment the House was only in possession of the ell'
deuce of those whose interest it was to stifle inspirit
and endeavour to obtain the prolongation of their power,
fur no one imagined the East India Company an angelic',
hierarchy, or the Board of Control a community 0'
arcbangels.—(A laugh.) He would now draw the
attention of the House to a remarkable document,'
which would show that the natives of India were'
keenly alive as to their grievances. On the 1201
of February, 184.0, an address, signed by no 1901
than 100,000 of the natives in Madras and its vicinitii
was presented to the then Governor of that Presidencit
in which they said: " We are the people of this country'
inheriting this land for thousands of generations; fecon
our industry its wealth is supplied; by our arms it if
defended from foreign foes; by our loyal obedience ta
the established Government its peace and its safety are
maintained." Now, he would ask the House if it yrile
just to ignore the existence of such a people? Not 01111
did the grievances complained of in 1833 still exist, bay,
the people were in a worse condition than they were Of
that time. He would not trouble the House with any,
the evidence adduced before the Select Committee to
quire into the growth of cotton in India, but would ea'
fine himself to the language of the report, which bore 00
the face of it every mark of compromise. That reporti
which was unanimously adopted by the Committees cg
which the Honourable Member for Honiton (Sie J. 11;
Hogg) was a member, thus describes the condition of t'P'
natives of India now under British rule:—" The vet
low and abject condition of the cultivators of the s
the absence of capital, and the extent of the Governors',
demand for rent or revenue, circumstances which 1g etr
brought prominently under our notice, rendered it ri,.11
1
cessary for your Committee to enter at considers by
length into an inquiry into the system of land sag di
went, and to take the evidence of several officers of 'OO
Indian Government on the subject. It appears-o,i,
the testimony of almost every witness, that the Cop `!,,
tion of the cultivating population of India is one of
treme poverty; and this is stated to be the case in efell',
part of the country to which the evidence with regard
cotton cultivation specially refers." This was the COld
dirion of the people who had enjoyed the blessings ..01
British rule, under guarantees imposed by the Briny
Parliament in 1833, for a period of seventeen yes'
The Committee spoke of the extent of the Governin
demand for revenue. Now how was the revenue of In.? 1,
made up? Of direct taxes, indirect taxes, monopoblir
and wholesale confiscations. The servants of the el;
puny welt to India under the pretence of delivering 1-t/
people from the tyranny of their Mahommedan and Ddisaf
ratta conquerors,,but according to the unanimous testiMo;
of all the witnesses examined, and the documents prod*
before every Committee, the company in every. ..4711g
had improved even upon the maximum exactly:to
that existed under either the Mahommedan or Mahrs'i
rule, for they never claimed the direct sovereigsiiii
of the soil of India. Mr. Carnac Brown betol
asked to define his notion of a native cultivator of bill
in India, said, " to me he has always appeared to
person whose whole province has been to raise re1e13,,,1t
fur the East India Company." To raise this one art7hl
of revenue—the rent laid upon the land occupied by 70
natives—nine tenths of them were sold up every e[ty
unless it should please the collectors to showsl"
mercy. These parties had the power to imprison psi
in default; but Mr. Williamson, who was for a P.
time connected with the presidency of Bombaye%ut
" the power of imprisonment has, in moat cases, int
into disuetude, because if the insolvent is in prisQoo
must be fed." The company must feed him, but II
company did not choose to undergo that expenee•ehil
appeared from the report of the Committee of 1813 "ro,
the power of constraint and sale was a much more /40,
atious and oppressive power, and much more unpoPlot
than the power to imprison. Notwithstanding Ib,/
enormous exactions, the net revenue never amountetol
20,000,0001., although, under the comparatively mild
equal system which existed in the worst time of tIVI
former conquerors, 13,000,0001. were easily annol,4
raised. The revenue derived from land was in no casehli
than 45 per cent. on the return. The assessment on 11"0"ti
this exaction was made, was a one-sided assessunli
founded, perhaps, on some data in the archives of the a 43.0;
pany, which existed long before the idea of low prlirgi
and on this data they had proceeded to calculate 10
value of the land without consulting the natives. 0
districts where the assessment was permanent, the feje
sons who are subject to it never get it altered or redo of
and on the other hand, in districts where the assessoloo
is annual, the most exorbitant levies were raised, and ty
services of the collector were valued in proportion by
sums which be succeeded in extorting from the i 5114.01
tents. In estimating the amount of the collection a
value of the crops for .the year was always takes ;00
consideration, and the smallest possible pittanpe
which life could be supported was left to the wrat°
population. But these were not the only grievana°ol
which the native of India had to complain. He also Poi
a house-tax and a trade-tax; and as an instance of
manner in which the latter tax operated, it migh.loop
stated that a carpenter paid twice the value of the,,theto
which he used for licence to carry on his trade. .i-froo
was also all through India a tax upon water drawo„olo
wells, an article especially needed in the warm orit/
of India, where it was used by the husbandmen 1140 e
cultivation of their land. And in addition to all tlif
taxes and confiscations, and indirect taxes levied 01) 00:
pits, and, until a recent period, upon exports also', 00.
natives had further to endure monopolies of some ai
great necessaries of life, which the East India Coelscri
retained in their own hands, and which, by a just recipe'
bution of Providence, were gradually, but surely, re f;
ing the revenue which those monopolies were origwoll
intended to enhance, besides contributing more,'"
more every day to the misery of the people. '•,40,
monopolies were those of salt, opium tobacco, bees
tumeric, and other articles. With regard to the 0,1°,00
poly of salt, he need not remind the House that salt 0'
an article of prime necessity to a rice-consuming 13:y
!emu like that of India. Now, it could be demonsti.:o'
that the price of salt imported into India could not
sibly exceed one shilling a bushel on the quays of 50 of
or Bombay. But, by the internal laws of the col° ori
salt was made a contraband article, and the natives e/10,
forbidden to import it, or to make it for thense,o
either on the coast or in the interior. This proho/1„, so
was enforced by tremendous penalties, in regar"te
which it would be sufficient to mention one provisielloof
cognised by the courts of law. By this regulation, 0
native bringing salt water from the sea, and subjectillt
to evaporation for the purpose of, extracting the tto
was guilty of a violation of the monopoly with reor-40°
salt, and he might be conveyed before a collectort;
was also a magistrate, and, upon conviction, migirde
imprisoned and kept to hard labour for a term 0I;0/
months, besides being obliged to pay a fine of '-ote
hundreds of rupees if he was considered able to 0,
charge it. Now, what compensation did the 9011
pany make in return for this monopoly? They
certain manufactories of salt, one in particular iD
Suuderbund, a district which, under European rule, 0,";0
become a waste of sand and jungle, flooded by the We
of the Ganges in the wet season, and at all times frB,od,
by tigers. In this spot was the principal manufs°'„
of salt, where the company
natives, who were bound by tenure to this serviael;
compelled a certain troor
work in the manufactory. These natives, living, Alisl
climate too pestilential to admit of a European rea"od
were continually swept awayby
in it, were carried off in hundreds by disease,
id
winter oo
it was calculated that from forty to fifty of theta roe
annually carried off by the tigers which infested 08
spot. Now the salt which might be purchased 0041
quays of Bombay at Is. a bushel could not be bolo
in the Sundettund under ls. 6d. a bushel. After 1‘,104
made it was carried to the depits,of the East India 'O6
pang, where the monopoly price was fixed; and it 001
tact that, whatever the prime cost might be, it wile 01 fp°
enhanced 280 per cent. at the dep6ts of the compavi:. ;1).
salt was then sent off to other depits in the interiot;oo
price being further enhanced by the way, so that bYpeti
time it reached the hands of the consumer, the price abel,
rose to 10 or 12 rupees, or from 20s. to 245. a bi."l:t 011„
An Bon. Gentleman behind him reminded him t 1".."
alteration had taken place with respect to the thilt
monopoly. True ; but what was the nature of ifeo
alteration? From the evidence of the collectors, gored(
before the Committee on Cotton, in 1848, it sled, of
that when, with the view of conciliating some sli.h.ottil
the public approbation, it was agreed that the tax ti:00",
be taken off exports, the East India Company deraisp,
some equivalent for this concession, and they ascoPPel:
raised the price of salt, which was now 25 pet 01.!,
higher than it was in the year 1833. It was a relf IP:
able circumstance that the appearance in India °
ostr
mysterious and formidable disease known by tbet tY,
of cholera, was simultaneous with the creation otri
salt monopoly. They both came into that cell;; bel
the same time with the East India Company, °lnt IS
have never since disappeared from the soil; and site
stated by the scientific witnesses before the Cort" too
already referred to, that the use of vegetables b. 7001,
natives without salt, together with the wretcheaL, roe,
tary condition to which the country was reduced, leard
together the direct causes of cholera.—(Hest; hot
He would now pass from the salt monopoly to the
t,piurn—a monopoly which, he need hardly refill OS.
F:VC;be, Was the cerise of a Woody and s';iegrac,renugh bil
%rah the Empire of China some years ago. I.'",ia eS,
found that the East India Company was dire' igr
solely responsible for the monopoly of opito'