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 years reduced the duty 25 per cent.
The general tenour of the evidence before the committee
was, that the duty was not a grievance; the duty
produced about £1,500,000. The principle of the house had
been of late years to remit small taxes at home, and to
rest the revenue on a few large ones. India was before
us in this respect, and the salt duty was the only Indian
tax on a consumable article; consequently the consumer
was the better able to pay this one tax of 9d. per head
per annum. He urged that it ought to be left to the
Indian government to decide the best means in which
they could collect the revenue of the country, and we
ought not to legislate for English interest against those
of the people of India.—Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE denounced
the conduct of the company on this question, and urged
the government, even if deaf to the cries of India, to
listen to the voice of our own manufacturers.—Sir J.
HOGG admitted that there was just ground of complaint
prior to 1836, before which the company had a monopoly
both of production and of sale, by which foreign salt was
practically excluded. He contended that, under the
circumstances of the native, the twelve pounds which
had been spoken of, was a fair average, because there
were a variety of other condiments and spices which the
inhabitants of India could obtain at the lowest possible
price. He stated that the duty had been reduced, and
a further reduction would take place when circumstances
allowed. Declaring that the trade in salt was entirely
free, he opposed the amendment of Sir J. Pakington.—
Mr. HUME was desirous to see the salt monopoly
abolished, believing that it operated unfavourably for
the health of the natives, and he also wished to see the
trading character of the company at an end.—Mr. LOWE
admitted that the company had a monopoly, but not one
to which an odious sense attached. It was only a
restriction, necessitated because the company had to raise
a certain revenue. The company gained nothing by the
restriction, but stood impartial between the importer,
the manufacturer, and the consumer, and had no interest
in what had been assailed with so many hard names.
The proposed clause would not serve the interest of the
British manufacturers.—Lord J. RUSSELL observed that
though Sir J. Pakington's speech had been against the
salt tax, his clause did not touch the question. The
Indian government 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 was 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 efforts had 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
met the case advanced by Sir J. Pakington. They 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. 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. WIGRAM
moved a clause to the effect that no law made by the
Governor-General in Council should be invalid only by
reason of its affecting a prerogative of the Crown,
provided such a law should have received the previous
sanction of the Crown.—Sir. C. WOOD assented to the
clause, which was agreed to.—Mr. WIGRAM moved
another clause for disposing of fines and penalties
incurred by judicial sentence in India. It was intended
to do away with an anomaly.—Sir C. WOOD also assented
to this clause which was agreed to.—Sir C. WOOD
brought up clauses for fixing the qualification and
salaries of directors. The former he proposed to fix at
£1,000 instead of £2,000, and the latter at £1,000 instead
of £500. The chairman and deputy-chairman were to
have £1,500 each. The first of these clauses was agreed
to, but the second was resisted by Mr. Blackett and
other members; and Lord J. Russell after defending the
proposition itself, assented to its being brought up on the
third reading.

The house went into committee on the Hackney
Carriages Duties Bill.—Mr. LOWE, for Mr. Fitzroy,
brought up a clause for altering the recent cab act,
so far as to make 6d. payable for each person, in excess
of the number of two, who should employ a cab.—The
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that it was
desirable that the legislature should put itself entirely
in the right upon this subject; but intimated that
there should be no submission to those who were now
seeking to practise upon the public.—Sir J. SHELLEY
thought that the rash act of the cab-drivers had put
them entirely out of court; and that they ought not to
be listened to until they brought back their cabs and
petitioned the house.—Lord D. Stuart said that there
ought to be no concession to clamour, though he
thought that the carriage act had been hastily passed.
He considered that the strike had been ill-advised.—
After a long discussion, the clause was carried by 88
to 9.—Other clauses were proposed, one in reference to
back fare, which it was proposed should be charged
beyond four miles from Charing cross.—These were
agreed to.

On Friday, July 29th, the discussion on the South
Sea Annuities Bill was resumed.—The CHANCELLOR
of the EXCHEQUER stated, that the object was to offer
to such stock-holders as were legally disqualified from
accepting the option offered to others by the act of
the early part of the session, the terms declined by the
latter. Admitting his disappointment with the result
of the communication projected by that act, he
attributed that result partly to the delay in passing the
act, and also to the events which had taken place both
in the political and the natural world, events which
could not be foreseen. He denied, however, that the
plan had entirely failed, stating that advantage had
actually accrued to the exchequer, and he defended
the policy of the act.—Sir F. KELLY opposed the
resolutions, which he considered to be both unjust and
unnecessary, and urged that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer should rather seek to remedy than to extend
the mischief which had been effected.—Mr. J. B. Smith
also opposed the resolutions, as did Sir H. Wiiloughby,
—Mr. G GLYN supported them, as likely to work
advantageously.—After further discussion, Mr.
DISRAELI protested against the reasons which the
Chancellor of the Exchequer had assigned for the
non-success of his scheme, a result which had been
foreseen from the first by all who understood the
subject.—On a division, the second reading was carried
by 117 to 67, and the third resolution was agreed to.

The Government of India Bill was read a third time.
—On the question that it do pass, amendments were
proposed—chiefly previous amendments in another
shape; and they were discussed at much length.
Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE moved a clause to enable
natives of India to lay their cases of appeal before the
Lords Justices, who should be empowered to refer
them to the judicial committee of the privy council:
rejected by 99 to 48.—Mr. BRIGHT proposed a clause
renewing the plan for a building in Westminster:
rejected by 100 to 72.—Sir Charles WOOD moved a
clause fixing the salaries of the chairman and deputy
chairman of the East India Company at £1500 a year,
and those of the directors at £1000; an increase in
conformity with the expressed desire of the house. The
house went into committee to fill up blanks as proposed.
It appeared on a division that Sir Charles Wood had
mistaken the feeling of the house; for the proposition
was negatived by 99 to 83; and the blanks were filled
up with the original lower figures, £1000 and £500.—
The house resumed.—In reply to Mr. Bright, Sir
Charles WOOD said he believed the law would oblige