On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
fine to give this one their support . ( Hear , hear , and 1 lighter . ) He , however , who ventured to think that 7 ? president of the Board of Control had hitherto . paid quite enough , could not see in this hill merits o extraordinary as to warrant his voting for an access ion of salary to its author . ( Hear , hear , and laughter . ) He could not , therefore , give his . vote in favour of the proposition . ^ ; .. So he divided the committee , and was beaten by 116 to 29 . Mr . Wise moved a clause enacting that one-third of the admission to Addiscombe should be given to sons of Indian officers . But Sir Charles Wood contended that none could now be excluded who deserved admission , and Mr . Wise was defeated by 101 to 29 ,
Sir John Pakiitgton moved the insertion of a clause for putting an end to the manufacture of stilt by the East India Company from and after the 1 st of May , 1856 , after which the manufacture and sale of that article should be absolutely free . It has become the duty of Parliament to put an end to this obnoxious monopoly , which prevents the operation of the usual rules of supply and demand . The Indian authorities-are not to be trusted on the subject , and the remedy m ust be afforded by the British Parliament . The Company charge what they pleased for salt , and imposed a uniform duty of 300 or 400 per cent . The sterling price of the salt is 81 . 5 s . per English ton , which by various impositions rises to 251 . per ton before it reaches the consumer , and is then adulterated , at the rate of from 25 to 40 per
cent ., with sand , dirt , and ashes . Salt which is supplied m Worcestershire at 10 s . per ton is charged 1400 per cent , at Calcutta , and the peasant bought it at fifty times the English price . In England the average consumption of salt is from 211 bs . to 251 bs . a year ; in America , 271 bs .: in Russia , 231 bs . ; in Austria , 201 bs . ; in Prussia , 181 bs . ; in France and Belgium , 211 bs ., and this is real salt ; while in India , where the vegetable diet of the natives makes salt far more indispensable , the consumption even of this mixture of sand , dirt , and ashes , is but 12 lbs . It takes two months of the peasant ' s labour to purchase this . Sir J . Pakington then went into painful details to show the sufferings of the natives in consequence of this state of things . He also showed how it interfered with what might be the prosperous fisheries of India .
Sir Cha . ui . es Wood said that the honourable baronet had better have demanded it in the name of the people of Droitwich , and remarked on Sir J . Pakington ' s indignation against taxing the food of the people of India , he having all along contended for a tax on corn and other articles of food at home . Sir John wished to have a monopoly on the part of the manufacturers in this country—a monopoly with which the present arrangement certainly interfered . There had been a monopoly in India in former times ; but the recommendations of 1836 had been fairly carried out . There was no monopoly of the sale of salt , as far as the consumer was concerned . There were five different
competing supplies of the article , all exposed to an equal duty . There was no evidence to show that the people of India complained of the want of salt . The salt sold by the Government was pure , the Bengal rather less so than the imported , and any adulteration took place after it had left the Government warehouses . Thousands of people had been thrown out of employment by the importation of salt from England . The Company had within the last seven or eight years reduced the duty 25 per cent . The general tenor of the evidence before the Committee was that the duty was not a grievance ; the duty produced about 1 , 500 , 000 /! . Mr . J . G . PniLMMORE assailed Sir C . Wood for his retrogado policy , and hia advocacy of what it was mere quibbling to say was not a monopoly .
Sib James Hogg , declaring that the trade in salt was entirely free , oppo . sed the amendment of Sir J . Pakington . Mr . Tatxon Egerton supported tho amendment . Sir Herbert Maddook opposed it on t ho ground of his objection to the species of interference contemplated . Mr . Addekley bolicved with Napoleon , that if " England undertook tho internal government of India , that country would be lost to us . " Had this been a were resolution on tho subject , he should , however , have supported it . Mr . Hume was desirous to see the unit monopoly abolished , believing that it operated
unfavourably for tho health of tho natives , and he also wished to see tho trading character of tho Company at n » end . Mr . Danuy Skymour supported tho uinond-Jnent . Mr Lowe objected to tho form of tho clauso , which recited the Com puny ' is act , and said that if tho latter was » umciont , tho clauso was useless , and if not , it was useless to recito it . Ho admitted that tho Company had a monopoly , but not one to which an odious nonso attached . It vvhh only ft restriction , necessitated because tho Company had to mine a certain revenue . Mr . John M'Gituaoit opposed tho clause , because no financial provision ought to bo introduced into tho present bill . Lord John ltuasEiji wished to observe , that though Sir J . Pakington ' s speech hud been against
the salt-tax , his clause did not touch the question . The Indian government , in the exercise of its discretion , and under Lord Dalhpusie , a nobleman of high authority , had thought that the best mode of raising a part of the Indian revenue was by means of a salt-tax , and if this clause were agreed to , and a deficiency in the revenue occurred , the Indian government would ,-for the first time , be able to say . with justice that such deficiency had been occasioned by the British House , of Commons , and might refuse to lay any "new tax upon the people of India .
Mr . Disraeli said , that Sir J . Pakington ' s effort has been in the first place to destroy a monopoly . He combated the view he imputed to Lord J . Russell , that there was no identity between the revenues of India and of England . Such had not been Sir R . Peel's view . If there were embarrassment in Indian finances , England must ultimately deal with it , but such a consideration could not weigh in discussing the topic before them . He had heard nothing which niet the case advanced by Sir J . Pakington . They had had to consider whether those whom they entrusted with power in India were willing and able to deal with the grievance in question , and , if not , whether it was not the proper time for interference . After some sarcasms directed at Mr . Lowe , including a rebuke to him for having
imported from other popular assemblies an inconvenient habit of interrupting a speaker , he reiterated that if the case against the salt monopoly had been made out , this was the fitting period for Parliament to legislate on the subject . Had they considered the consequences of a population in a chronic state of bad health ? He was surprised at the taunt with which Sir C . Wood had commenced his reply , and inferred from it that his case was weak . The House would decide upon the broad merits of the case , remembering that if this opportunity should be lost , another might not occur for remedying this great evil . The House then divided , and the numbers were—For the clause . . . . . . . 117 Against it ......... 107
Majority for Sir J . Pakington ' s clause 10 The clause was added to the Bill . Mr . Blackett moved a clause to the effect that a member of the Government should every session make a statement to the House on the subject of Indian finances . Lord J . Russell sneeringly said , that the clause was incomplete . It only enacted that the President of the Board of Control should make a speech every year . It really ought to enact how long the speech should be , and whether the President of the Board of Control should be sent to prison if he failed to make it . Mr . Hume was surprised at the tone of Lord J . Russell , especially as a statement had been recently made that it was intended to bring forward an annual India budget . The clause was negatived .
Sir C . Wood brought up clauses for fixing the qualification and salaries of directors . The former he proposed to fix at 1000 Z . instead of 2000 J . and the latter at 1000 / . instead of 5001 . The chairman and deputy chairman were to have 1500 / . each . The first of these clauses was agreed to , but the second was resisted by Mr . Blaoicett and other members ; and Lord John Russell , after defending the proposition itself , assontccl to its being brought up on tho third reading . There was a , debate on the third reading of the India Bill . New proposals were made by the Indian reformers ; n new debate in which the representatives of all parties joined .
Mr . J . G . Phillimore made one of his declamatory speeches against tho wrongs perpetrated by the Court of Directors on Indian princes ; and ho proposed , hs tho present was not the tribunal for the trials of such matters , that there should bo powers given in the bill to bring such cases before tho President of tho Board of Control , who should bo required'to rofer the case to the Privy Council . Mr . Lowe objected to tho suggestion in a " flippant " way , which called forth a second declamatory speech , at tho intensity of which tho House laughed , from Mr . P . Mxnutoirair , and a severe but gontlomanly and tolling , rebuke from Mr . Blaoickt'i .
Tlio discussion having proceeded , Lord John ItuHSETjTj look part , ami generalized and olovated the dobato . He reminded the House , that they were all agreed that a despotism was the only government of India ; and , referring to the cited cases , he argUed that these despotic acts were inevitable ; but ho considered that they had future Beciiritios against the caprices and tho injustices of despotism in tho high character of the men they were attempting to obtain for Indian Horvico ; and ho contended that , at any rate , such oases must bo dealt with in India , and not in England . Flagrant cases , such an those- of Warren Hustings ,
were for the future impossible ; but if they did ^ jj ^ pFG ^ why , the-Warren Hastings would not escape ^ Hfiaii House and Westminster Hall—Lord John not ; doubtr ing that there would be Burkes , and Sheridaiis , and a Whig party to-impeach the malefactor . Mr . Bright believed British , villanies in India were as rife as ever ; and he- ' wanted some security that villains should be punished . If they were tried in India ! they never would be . Sir J . HoGG ' made one-of his customary defences . The point of his defence was , that the Company never did wrong . Mr . Phillimore ' s clause was lost by 99 to 48 . Mr . Bkight re-proposed his plan for bringing the " India House" and the " Board of Control" under
one roof . - Sir C . Wood resisted the proposal . While there was a double government there must be a double set of offices . [ A debate ensued , the result of which , with the rest of the business of the evening , we shall give in our Town Edition . ]
SUCCESSION DUTY IN THE LORDS . This bill has furnished the chief subject of debatewhat may fairly be called a debate' —a thing rare at this period of the session . On the motion for going into committee on Monday , Lord St . Leonards resisted—There had been no petitions against it , because it was not of a nature to draw down immediate opposition , and because it was not understood . He pledged his credit that , should the bill como into operation , no man could live without his legal adviser at his elbow . This was no party question . ( Ironical cheers from the Ministerial side . ) He charged the Government with having created
the necessity for this coercive bill . Stating that it was conceded on his side of the House that real estate ought to be put upon the same footing as personal , lie proceeded to argue against the imposing a duty on settled property , which Mr . Pitt had never ventured to tax in times of war , and which had always been regarded by the law with favour , and as sacred . He demanded what was the difference between a fund in possession and one in reversion , insisting that for the purposes of the bill they were the same thing , being equally a man ' s own property . Complaining of the mode in which children wculd be taxed , and also of the way in which tho bill would affect Scotch entails , he gave notice of an amendment to the effect that
where a tenant for life should have paid a higher duty than 1 per cent ., persons of his family should , on succeeding , pay 1 per cent , only ; and of another amendment , to the effect that if a man made a settlement on the marriage of his children , no death in the settler ' s lifetime should render the property subject to duty . In reference to this latter point he made a pathetic appeal to their lordships' recollection of how many desirable marriages had been delayed by the consideration whether a young couple would be able to meet their future expenses , and he denounced the interference of the taxgatherer with such a young couple ' s marriage settlement . JSTo man , he went on to urge , would be able to make any disposition of real or personal
property without its becoming matter of observation to Government . Every encumbrance ever created would afc once become open to the tax-gatherer . After animadverting upon tho operation of the Act on leaseholds , he warned their lordships that the taxgatherer would never have his oye off them in regard to their property . Mentioning sorno minor amendments which ho intended to propose , ho declared that his object was to savo the people of England from enactments which would bring discomfort to every home . There ought to bo no mistake about the bill . No man would , after it had passed , go out of that House without having prospectivoly a mortgage on his property in favour of tho Government .
The Lord Chancellor remarked , that the majority of Lord St . Leonards' observations were upon details whieli might be discussed in committee ; but he felt it his duty to notice the gross exaggerations and extraordinary colouring of the preceding speech . What more could be hoped for any tax than that it should not be unpopular ? The real fooling of tho opponents of this bill was that it was understood in tho country , which comprehended that the great landed proprietors ought to be put in the . same category with the people . There were but two principles in the bill—namely , that legacy duty , hitherto paid by personality only , should also bo paid by reality , nnd that the duty hitherto paid only on death in possession should be so arranged that no person should be
able to withdraw himsi'lij by means of settlement instead of will , from tho burdens of payment duo to tho State . These principles being recognised , there was no reason why the House ahould not go into committee . Meeting Lord til . Leonards' detailed objections , ho observed , that the rates chargeable on' children were not unjust , and that they were not even no heavy as what were charged on personal estate . lie replied to the case of Scotch entail .- ! , and then , in order to nhovv how small was tho reason for harrowing up their Lordships" feelingH , he calculated tho payments which would bo made by a son who , ut thirty-nine , should succeed to an estate of 1000 / . si-year net . He would pay 37 / . 10 s . for four yearn—namely , 71 . lO . v . per annum more than ho now would pay for tho incomo-tnx , and
Untitled Article
¦ ¦ . -: - ¦ ¦ ¦¦¦ ¦¦ ¦ < m BM JutY 30 , 1853 . ] THE LEADER . " ¦ v - ¦ - " ^ fcW ¦ ...... ¦ . . . . ' ¦ ¦ . . / . I ... ' :... ¦ ivii' -. nS t ^^?' . ^ ' *; . - " ' '"' ' ' ^ ' !' - ¦' . :
-
-
Citation
-
Leader (1850-1860), July 30, 1853, page 723, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1997/page/3/
-