Commons Sitting of 15 February 1841

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—East-India Rum; County Bridges.—Read a second time:—Administration of Justice (No. 1 and 2); Turnpike Acts Continuance (Ireland).—Read a third time:—Court or Exchequer (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By Mr. Clay, Mr. Easthope, Mr. Ormsby Gore, and Mr. Law Hodges, from Whitechapel, Leicester, Carnarvon, and various other places, against the existing Poor-laws.—By Sir E. Knatchbull, Mr. Labouchere, Sir E. L. Bulwer, and Mr. Macaulay, in favour of, and by Mr. S. O'Brien, against the Copyright of Designs Bill.—By Sir R. Inglis, Mr. Miles, and Sir T. Fremantle, from Southampton, Hinton, Blewitt, Somersetshire, and places in Bucks, in favour of Church Extension.—By Mr. Macaulay, from Edinburgh, for Reform in the Medical Education, and for an Alteration of the Tariff.—By Sir H. Vivian, from a Medical Society in Cornwall, for Medical Reform.—By Mr. Lockhart, from West-India Merchants in Glasgow, against the Equalization of the Duty on East and West India Produce.—By Mr. T. Parker, from Attorneys and Solicitors of Preston, for the Removal of the Courts of Law and Equity to the

625
vicinity of the Inns of Court.—By Mr. Ormsby Gore, from Oswestry, for an Extension of the means of Spiritual Instruction in the Colonies.—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from Manchester, for the Pardon and Restoration of Frost, Williams, and Jones.—By Mr. M. Philips, from Manchester, for an Alteration of the Laws relating to the Exportation of Machinery.

COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH FRANCE.
Mr. Grotebegged permission to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, in reference to the duty on foreign wines and spirits. It would be in the recollection of the House, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in bringing forward the budget of last year, reserved a considerable sum in consequence of a contemplated diminution in the duty on foreign wines and spirits. It was understood that negotiations had been going on with the French government since that period, connected with the reduction of those duties; but the uncertainty that still existed as to the amount of the reduction, or, indeed, the doubt that, under all circumstances, might be fairly entertained as to whether there was to be any reduction at all, occasioned much inconvenience and embarrassment to the trade. The question, therefore, that he wished to put was, whether the President of the Board of Trade entertained a hope of the probable and speedy conclusion of the arrangements between the governments of the two countries, and a reduction of the duty on wines and spirits consequent thereupon.
Mr. Labouchere, before answering the question put to him by the hon. Member for London, begged to set him right upon a point on which he had fallen into a mistake as to what was last year said by his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was true, that his right hon. Friend stated, that he thought it right to provide a certain sum for duties which he apprehended might be diminished in consequence of negotiations then going on with the French government; but his right hon. Friend carefully guarded himself as to wines or brandies, or other articles upon which he thought it likely the reduction would be effected. He admitted that the suspense occasioned by the protracted nature of the negotiations going on between that country and France had caused great inconvenience to the trade, and it would be very desirable to put an end to that suspense as speedily as possible. Under ordinary circumstances, he should have felt it his duty to urge upon the French government the
626
speedy settlement of the question, and he certainly should have done so were it not for motives which would obviously suggest themselves to the House. He trusted, however, that he should be able, in the course of a short time, to give a distinct answer upon the subject.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL.
Lord J. Russellbegged, for a moment, to claim the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Sugden) opposite with reference to the Administration of Justice (No. 2) Bill. When that bill was introduced, he bad informed the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it was the intention of the Government to oppose it, but that he could not then state in what stage of the measure that opposition would be offered. He was unable, at that moment, to state all the reasons and grounds which he wished to have an opportunity of stating, for not acceding to the bill, in consequence of the indisposition of the Lord Chancellor. The objections that he entertained would, perhaps, be more properly stated upon the motion for the second reading, which stood for that evening; but as he was prevented by the circumstance to which he had alluded from entering into the subject at that moment, he should not propose to resist the second reading, provided it were distinctly understood that he should have an opportunity afforded to him of stating his objections fully on the motion for going into committee.
Sir Edward Sugdenwas very much obliged to the noble Lord for explaining the course he proposed to pursue. He thought that the bill which he had had the honour to introduce ought to be read a second time that evening, in order that it might go on pari passu with that of the Attorney-general. But he had not the slightest objection, under the circumstances that had been referred to, to allow the discussion to stand over till the period that the noble Lord had intimated.

CUSTOMS DUTIES—EAST-INDIA RUM.
On the motion of Lord John Russell, the Report of the Committee on the Customs Duties Acts was brought up.
On the question that the Report be agreed to,
Mr. O' Connellwished to observe, that this measure was calculated to do much more good to England than to India. It was calculated to diminish the price of

627
sugar, and also the price of rum to the British consumer. It was very important, therefore, to the British consumer, seeing that the price of sugar was now so very high. It was also calculated to be of much benefit to the British manufacturer. By opening a market for the produce of India in England, a wider market would be obtained for the manufactures of England in India. So that in both of these respects, the measure would be particularly useful. He was, therefore, glad that it had been undertaken; and having intimated some opposition to it upon its introduction, he now readily waived that opposition upon the ground he had just stated; and also, because he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Control, that the question of slavery in India was of too much importance to be entertained or discussed incidentally. Undoubtedly a matter of that kind demanded to be brought forward in a distinct and separate form; and he should be glad to have an early opportunity of discussing it upon its own merits. He might, perhaps, have been induced to enter somewhat more at length into the subject upon the present occasion, except that he thought the papers moved for by the right hon. and learned civilian, the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Dr. Lushington), were calculated to throw much additional light upon the matter, and it was desirable that the question, whenever it was discussed, should be approached with all the information that could be obtained regarding it. For, although slavery in India was qualified by the slaves having rights which they had not in other countries where slavery was admitted, yet its influence upon society, particularly in the intercourse between the sexes, and the imprisonment of females, not as wives, but as concubines, was of so much importance to the well-being of India, to the advance of civilization, and to the probable introduction of Christianity into those extensive possessions of the British Crown, that the House could not have too much information before it prior to its entering into any discussion upon the subject. He trusted, however, that the present Session would not be allowed to go over without a more ample consideration of this topic than had been accorded to it in previous years. There was another point of great importance connected with this subject—he alluded to the landed tenures in India, or rather to
628
the want of landed tenures in the greater portion of India. There were portions of India under what was termed the permanent settlement. That was a subject of extreme magnitude, and one which he would, if no other Member did, bring under the notice of the House before the present Session closed. There were immense districts not permanently settled. The landed revenue was assessed either on communities, in something of the nature of corporations, or of individuals under the denomination of ryots. It was not denied that the natives had rights to the soil. It was said, the India Company had no right to the soil; but they claimed the right of assessing what they termed land revenue, which in reality was rent. He did not think the right of any man to land could be valuable when another man had the right and the power to impose whatever rent he pleased, followed by the sale of the interest of the individual, if the rent were not sufficient, and accompanied by all the evils which must necessarily attend so unsettled a state of things. The general rule in India was, that no man was proprietor of the land. In many districts in which men laid out their capital this thing only was certain, that decreased produce brought with it increased rent; and, he believed, it would be found that this system was universally followed by the increase of the jungle. As cultivation decreased the jungle increased, and was inhabited by wild beasts of every description, which almost forbade the residence of men in its vicinity. He believed the people of England were not apprised of the horrible consequences of this total insecurity and absence of all title for the land. He happened to have in his hand a list of the periodical famines in India, calculated from the year 1760 and 1761, the period in which Lord Clive might be said to have established our empire in that country. In the year 1766 there was a famine, another in the year 1777, another in 1780, another in 1782, another in 1792, and another in 1803—thus giving a famine in each cycle of tea years. But let the House mark how they had increased of late years. In the year 1804, there was a famine, in 1819, there was a famine, in 1824 there was a famine, in 1829 there was a famine, in 1832 there was a famine, in 1833 there was a famine, in 1836 there was a famine, and lastly, in 1837 there was a famine, which extended to 1838, existed in 1839, and which it was

629
doubtful whether it was even now terminated. These increasing periodical famines were also increasing more horribly in extent. During that of 1837 and 1838, it was necessary to employ men to shove the dead bodies into the rapid part of the stream of the Ganges. Nothing could exceed the horror of the scene. The air was polluted—the land covered with carcases—the average destruction was 10,000 per month. He attributed many of those famines to the state of the landed tenure there. He was sure that the East-India Company were not acting wisely or prudently, even in reference to their own revenues. They would obtain infinitely more if they adopted a more liberal policy. He did not mean to say, that the famines to which he had referred were general, and universal over the whole face of our possessions in India. He admitted, that they were most of them local; but in many instances they extended over vast districts, and, as he had stated, were attended with the most horrible consequences. Within the last thirty years, there had been seventeen or eighteen years of famine, during which English sentinels or sepoys were placed along the banks of the rivers to prevent mothers from drowning their infants. A more terrible proof of the extent of the famine could not be offered. He had thought it necessary not to allow the question now before the House to pass over without saying so much on behalf of the people of India. But as regarded the measure itself, he gave it his most cordial support.
Mr. Hoggobserved, that if a discussion were opened upon the subject to which the hon. and learned Gentleman alluded, it would occupy more time than could be afforded on that occasion. With respect to the permanent tenure, it could not be doubted that the Marquess of Cornwallis established it from the best of motives. But it had not been productive of the good that was expected. Its effect was to constitute the Zemindars absolute proprietors, and to deprive the rest of the population of the rights which they had from time immemorial enjoyed. Though that settlement had some advantages, it was also attended with inconveniences, which induced the Indian government to be cautious in extending it to other parts of the country. He would also observe to the hon. and learned Gentleman that he should not hastily adopt every statement connected with India that might be
630
found either in the newspapers or in pamphlets. There had been, it was true, local famines in India, but every one acquainted with India must be aware that the assertions of the hon. and learned Gentleman were altogether exaggerated.
Mr. Humelooked upon the matter as one of great importance both to England and to India; and would urge his hon. and learned Friend to select a day on which the subject should be brought before the House. He believed, that any one who paid attention to the affairs of India must have heard, with great regret, of the statements made at different meetings respecting the proceedings in that country, and which statements he believed to be in many instances altogether groundless. It was not true that so many famines had taken place in India as his hon. and learned Friend had mentioned. There might have been much distress in certain districts, but such cases could not be considered as general famines. With regard to the creation of the tenure in India, it was a subject of great difficulty, and one which the House might more conveniently discuss at another moment.
Mr. O'Connellhad been misunderstood by his hon. Friend. He (Mr. O'Connell) had expressly said, he did not believe that these famines had been universal. He had spoken of them as local evils, but still evils of vast magnitude.
Mr. Ewartrose, on account of an observation which had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman, to the effect that the measure would be of greater benefit to England than to India. Now, from the evidence taken before the committee of last Session, it was manifest that the measure would be very beneficial to India, because, in the manufacture of rum and sugar, they must employ the natives of India. It was the most economical plan to do so. This would be also beneficial to England, because it would increase the market for British manufacture; he thought, therefore, that they must admit that the measure was a great boon to India as well as to England.
Mr. Goulburnwished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, whether, in this proposed equalization of the duties on East and West India rum, it was intended to reduce the duty on rum imported into Scotland and Ireland to the same amount as the duty paid on rum imported into England. The right hon. Gentleman must

631
be aware that, as regarded the two former countries, the high duty at present levied amounted to an actual prohibition.
Mr. Laboucherereplied, that the sole object contemplated by the present bill was to place the rum of the East Indies on precisely the same footing as that on which the rum of the West Indies had previously stood.
Mr. Goulburn: And leaving the same prohibition upon the importation of rum into Ireland and Scotland.
Mr. Labouchere: That question is not touched by the present bill.
Report received, a Bill founded upon it brought in and read a first time.

LORD KEANE.
Lord John Russellmoved the order of the day for the bringing up the report of the Committee on her Majesty's message.
On the motion that the report be agreed to,
Mr. Humesaid, that as the House had agreed by a large majority to the grant of the pension, he would not oppose the reception of the report, but should support the motion of his hon. Friend in committee. He wished to know whether, before that discussion came on, the noble Lord would object to lay before the House all the correspondence which had taken place between the Government and the court of directors respecting the granting a pension to Lord Keane. He (Mr. Hume) understood, that a correspondence had taken place, and that the court of directors had expressed an opinion, that Lord Keane was already amply rewarded. Now, if that were the case, he thought they should either have a copy of their proceedings, or a denial of the fact.
Lord John Russellcould not produce any correspondence on the subject, and with regard to any communication that might have taken place between the Government and the court of directors, he could only say, that the substance of it was totally different from what the hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose. The directors did not give an opinion to the Government, that Lord Keane had already been amply rewarded, but, on the contrary, they declared, that they thought it most just that an application should be made to Parliament, to confer upon that noble Lord some signal acknowledgment of its sense of the value of his services in India.
Mr. Humesaid, that the noble Lord
632
quite misunderstood his question. His question was, whether an application was made to the court of directors to grant a pension, and whether they had refused.
Mr. Hoggfelt bound to state, that the court of directors, in reply to the application made to them, expressed, in the strongest terms, their opinion of the merits of Lord Keane, and their opinion, as far as it could weigh with her Majesty's Government, was, that Lord Keane was entitled to the pension to himself and his two heirs, in the way in which such grants were usually made to distinguished soldiers, who for their gallantry and skill had been raised to the Peerage. But the court of directors went on to say, not only as a matter of finance, but because they thought it honourable to Lord Keane, that as his services had been recognised by the British Parliament, the pension also should be conferred by the British House of Commons.
Report received.—House adjourned.