§ MR. RICARDO wished to ask a question of the President of the Board of Control. It was understood that treaties were in existence with foreign countries by which they were allowed to trade with the East Indies under their own flags; and Rat not only from their own ports, but from the ports of Great Britain. However, there were local regulations in India imposing double duties on commodities brought in foreign bottoms. It was now generally reported, that by an Act of the Governor General, ships of foreign countries were to be allowed to trade with India on the same terms as our own ships. He wished to know how far this liberty was allowed to foreign countries?
§ SIR, J. HOBHOUSE begged to say, in answer to the question, that it was true that, by an Act of the Government of India, differential duties were entirely done away with. That had taken place in consequence of orders sent by the Court of Directors and the Board of Control, last December. He had not the least objection to lay this Act on the table of the House; and he would add, for the hon. Member's information, that this Act, and also a document showing on what grounds the Act ad passed, had been laid before the Indian Committee; and besides that part of the Act to which his hon. Friend alluded, the Governor General had also done away with the duties from port to port, the reason being that land transit duties having been 706 for some time done away with, it was also thought expedient to do away with sea duties. All those Gentlemen who were acquainted with India, knew well that by an Act passed in 1839, the coasting trade was confined exclusively to British bottoms. There could be no interference with the coasting trade by foreign vessels; but as to the other question, all differential duties were done away with.
§ LORD G. BENTINCK said, that it was stated that the legislative Act had been so framed, that all goods from Singapore would come into India free of duty. The House was aware that Singapore was a free port, and the Act had been so framed that no exception had been made against the goods landed at Singapore, reshipped, and brought into India; and assertions had been made, that any goods landed at Singapore, and reshipped, would come into any part of the continent of India free of all duties. He begged leave, therefore, to ask his right hon. Friend whether this impression on the public mind were or were not correct? If it were correct, whether instructions to that effect went out from this country? Whether it was the intention of the Governor General of India; or whether it had arisen altogether through some oversight and some mistake on the part of the Governor General of India?
§ SIR J. C. HOBHOUSE, in answer to the question put to him by his noble Friend opposite, had to say that of course this matter had not escaped notice; and he had thought it his duty yesterday, on seeing the return of this Act, and the regulation of the Government of India, to inquire at the India House whether they had any explanation in reference to this, which appeared to be an omission on the part of the Government of India? The Act, as drawn up, certainly appeared liable to the objection made by the noble Lord. He had seen a gentleman, of whom he had asked for an immediate explanation as to whether or not this was an omission accidentally or by design. An impression prevailed that advantage might be taken of Singapore being a free port, that a new bill of lading might be had, and that no duty having been paid at Singapore, no duty would be paid at Madras or Bombay. The Customs duties of India amounted to 50,000l. or 60,000l., and certainly there was no intention to give that up. He conceived it must be some accidental omission.