GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL. (Hansard, 15 August 1853)

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
moved that 1724 the House agree to various Amendments in the clauses up to Clause 43.

SIR JOHN FITZGERALD
said, that the experience which he had had convinced him of the great necessity there was for the insertion of this clause in the Bill. The simple food of the natives of India absolutely required salt in order to make it palatable, while at the same time the wages of the people were so low that it was difficult to obtain this or any other necessary of life. If the House should agree to the Lords' Amendment, and exclude this clause, he hoped something would at least be done in order to provide the natives of India with unadulterated salt at a cheaper rate than the present price.

§ MR. GREGSON
said, he objected most decidedly, on behalf of the poor natives of India, to the excessive duty which was at present imposed on salt in that country. He would remind the House that salt shipped here at 10s. a ton had a duty of 7l. 10s. imposed on it in India, where the wholesale price was generally ten guineas a ton, and what the retail price might be it was impossible to calculate. He could refer to a case in which he had made a shipment of salt to India, and after much delay and difficulty was permitted to take the salt into India, where it was found so superior to the salt manufactured by the Company that, notwithstanding the enormous duty, a considerable profit was made. He trusted that, if that monopoly were to be continued, and if Clause 44 were to be struck out of the Bill, the Company would, at all events, reduce very considerably the amount of this duty. He believed that under such a reduction the Company would derive from the tax a larger revenue than that which they received from it at present.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
believed that the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred occurred before 1832—that it took place when the Company had a monopoly, which they had not now. He (Sir C. Wood) should be the last person to maintain a high duty on salt, and was perfectly ready to concur in any reduction of the duty on salt which could be assented to with common prudence and discretion by the Government of India. It was contrary to all sound principle that this House should take on itself to legislate in detail for India. There was one large branch of the 1725 revenue—that arising from opium—which was in a most critical condition; and if, owing to the revolution in China or other causes, that branch of the revenue should fall off, great difficulty might be the result. The Indian Government had shown no indisposition to reduce the duty on salt; and there had been three reductions within a limited period, which amounted on the whole to 25 per cent. Reductions had been made as the state of the finances allowed. The last reduction produced no effect for several years. No resuscitation of the revenue took place till three years after the reduction. The clause proposed to be left out did not affect the rate of duty. It did not propose a reduction of duty, but only that the process of collecting the duty which was now practised should no longer exist, and that an excise duty, to be collected by excise officers, must be the rule. If that were the ground on which the clause was supported and carried, the House of Commons were doing for the Indian Government what the House of Commons did not do for the Government at home. In the omission of the clause the other House had, he thought, acted very wisely.

§ SIR DE LACY EVANS
said, the was glad to learn that it was not on principle, but rather on technical grounds, that the right hon. Gentleman concurred in the omission of this clause; that the right hon. Gentleman was rather in favour of the clause, but that he thought the House ought not to interfere with the actual administration of India. Though obliged to acquiesce in the Amendment of the other House, in consequence of the delays which might otherwise arise, it was impossible that the House of Commons could express itself too strongly in favour of an alteration of the duty on salt. The opinion of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Gregson), who was well acquainted with the subject, was entitled to much weight. Having been in various parts of India, he (Sir De L. Evans) could corroborate the statements of the hon. Member for the county of Clare (Sir J. D. Fitzgerald), and he hoped the President of the Board of Control would not content himself with a statement of his readiness to concur in acts of the Indian Government on the subject, but that he would take steps to have the salt duty put on a different footing. It would be quite inconsistent with the free-trade principles of the present Government to allow the existence of this tax, or to prevent the free introduction of salt into India 1726 from this country. The right hon. Gentleman had justified the tax on the ground of the necessities of the Indian Government. He (Sir De L. Evans) confessed that this was not a very satisfactory way of viewing the question; because, if the reform of the system was to depend upon the state of the finances of the Indian Government, which the right hon. Gentleman had not intimated were at all improving, he was afraid that that reform loomed rather far in the future. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that a better mode of equalising the revenue and expenditure of the Indian Government would be to abstain from those wars in which they so frequently indulged. If they would avoid entering upon wars upon such futile grounds as those which had led to the war in Burmah, for example, this tax might soon be got rid of. He did hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would not merely content himself with expressing his readiness to concur with the Government of India in any proposal for altering the tax, but would also strongly recommend the Government to adopt some proposal.

§ MR. HADFIELD
said, he could not allow this discussion to end without entering his protest against the omission of the clause relating to the salt tax. He looked upon the salt duty as one of the most objectionable taxes which could be imposed upon the people of India, and would therefore move that the House should disagree with the Amendment of the Lords by which the clause had been struck out.

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, the hon. Gentleman could not move a substantive proposition. The Motion before the House was, that the House should agree to the Amendments of the Lords. The hon. Gentleman could move a negative to that Motion.