3. Moved by Mr. Colvin, seconded by Mr. Brown-That this Meeting cannot omit this opportunity of expressing its grateful admiration of the unsolicited and often renewed efforts of William Woolrych Whitmore, Esq., and other members of the Legislature, in support of the claims of India to be put on an equal footing, in point of import of duties, with the other tropical dependencies of the British Crown; and that the Chairman of this Meeting do communicate, accordingly, by letter, to Mr. Whitmore, our respectful thanks, and our solicitations for his continued and powerful assistance in a cause which must eventually prevail, when it shall have been fully discussed, and thoroughly understood by our countrymen at home.

4. Moved by Mr. G. A. Prinsep, seconded by Mr. E. TrotterThat the Most Noble the Marquis of Lansdown and the Right Honourable Lord Goderich be respectfully requested to present and support our Petitions to the House of Lords, and Mr. Huskisson and Mr. Whitmore to the House of Commons.

5. Moved by Mr. E. Trotter, seconded by Mr. J. Cullen-That the following gentlemen be appointed a Committee, for carrying into effect the several objects contemplated in the Resolutions, with power to add to their number: Messrs. Young, Colvin, Gisborne, Bruce, Melville, Brown, Allport, Boyd, G. A. Prinsep, H. Mackenzie, T. Bracken, W. Patrick.

6. Moved by Mr. W. Melville, seconded by Mr. W. PatrickThat the following draft of the Petition to Parliament be adopted by the Meeting; to be engrossed, signed, and despatched, with all practicable expedition.

THE PETITION.

'I. That your petitioners have observed, with the utmost satisfaction, the various Acts of Parliament which have within these few years, been passed, for the purpose of facilitating commercial intercourse between Great Britain, her colonies, dependencies, and all other countries; and the unqualified recognition of those sound principles of political economy, by which such intercourse ought invariably to be regulated. Relying on these public pledges, that your Honourable House have nothing more at heart, than, by moderate and equal duties, to promote the most advantageous distribution of capital, and application of industry, your petitioners beg leave respectfully to remind your Honourable House, that the duty of 37 shillings per cwt. charged on East India sugar, (while that payable by the sugar of the West Indies and the Mauritius is only 27 shillings,) necessarily has the effect of greatly restricting the export and import trade, the public revenue, and general prosperity of India.

II. That an equalization of the duties on East and West India s gar, would also be of the most essential benefit to all classes in

Great Britain, for whose relief from acknowledged distress the Legislature has so frequently desired to provide the means. 1. To the manufacturer-by the increased facility of making returns for the goods sold in India, thus removing a serious obstacle, which at present exists, to the extended consumption of British manufactures in that wide field. 2. To the ship-owner-by a favourable effect upon freight. 3. To the artizans, agriculturists, and general community of Great Britain-by providing the means of meeting the annually increasing demand for sugars at considerably reduced prices. And 4. While the benefits of the measures would thus be shared by the British manufacturer, the ship-owner, and the general community, and a stimulus be given to the extended production of sugar in the British possessions in the East, the revenue, derived by Great Britain from East India sugar, instead of being diminished, would unquestionably be materially augmented.

That your petitioners are not aware of any objection that has been, or can be urged, to an equalization of the duty, except that its tendency to reduce the selling price of sugar in England would be prejudicial to the interest of the planters in the West Indies ; but, if similar objections have been over-ruled, in numberless instances of a return to sound commercial policy, and if the vast addition to the exportation of sugar from the Mauritius, which immediately followed the equalization of the duties in 1823, has not been considered a sufficient reason for withdrawing the privilege then extended to that island, your petitioners trust that the same just and wise principles will be applied to promote the agriculture and trade of India.

III. That the cultivation of sugar cane in India is subject to a still greater discouragement than an extra duty of 10s. per cwt., in the regulations of the East India Company, sanctioned by Acts of Parliament, and strictly enforced by the local Government, which prohibit British subjects from being proprietors of land. While this prohibition is maintained, your petitioners submit, that, although exportation of tropical productions and the importation of British manufactures have been considerably extended, still the opening of the trade, which was granted in 1813, must remain comparatively valueless, the revenues of India unnecessarily cramped,* and the Native inhabitants but partially impressed with the feelings of attachment to the British Government so desiderable to be cherished.† While,

The original draft of the petition said, that the public revenue would continue inadequate to the ordinary exigencies of the public service;' a mode of expression not merely more forcible, but better, because nearer the truth.

+ The original draft said, that the natives of India would remain unimpressed with feelings of attachment to the British Government;' a better and truer phrase than the one substituted for it.

therefore, we are actuated by a regard to our own immediate interests, we contemplate, in the concession of the prayer of our petition, the attainment of objects essential to the welfare and permanence of the British Empire in India. Similar disadvantages to those consequent on the sugar duties, are felt as regards rum, coffee, cotton, ginger, and other articles of Eastern produce, the removal of which is equally called for.

"The prayer of your petitioners is, that your Honourable House will be pleased to take into consideration the expediency of equalizing the duties chargeable on sugar and other articles imported from the East and West Indies; and of abolishing all such restrictions, on the resort of British subjects to, and on their residence in, India, as are calculated to affect the commercial prosperity of the country.'

*

We gather, from the 'Hurkaru' of the following day, that the proceedings of this meeting were attempted to be interrupted by the party attached to the existing state of things, but that the attempt was ineffectual. We give the account in the words of the paper itself, as well as the excellent arguments of its Editor, on the matter discussed. He says:

'Our readers will have seen, by the sketch we gave yesterday of the proceedings of the meeting at the Town Hall, that the attempts, which were made to prevent unanimity from prevailing at it, did not succeed. Though not numerous, it was unanimous as to the resolutions proposed, and the petition carried, adopts the very words of the requisition in regard to restrictions on persons resorting to and residing in India. To us, we confess, it is a matter of indifference what construction may be put upon those words here for we feel thoroughly satisfied that, in the legislature of Great Britain, the power of transmissiont will be deemed and taken to be in

* The original draft prayed for the removal of all restrictions on the resort to and residence in India of British subjects; or, in other words, it asked for the abolition of that absurd, as well as tyrannous, law, which compels every Englishman visiting India, to have a license so to do, and empowers the Government to banish him (notwithstanding such license) without trial, whenever they please. The alteration, which makes the object of the prayer the removal only of such restrictions as are calculated to affect the commercial prosperity of the country, is the worst that has been made in the petition, from the original draft; as it leaves the judgment of, whether the power of preventing Englishmen from settling in India, and of banishing them without trial afterwards, be injurious to its commercial prosperity or not, open to further discussion. The affirmative should have been declared by resolution, and the removal of the restriction asked on that ground, as an admitted one. As it stands, it is so weak and conditional, as to be worth little or nothing.

This term, transmission,' is the gentle phrase used in India for 'transportation,' a punishment applied here to legally convicted felons only, and ranking next to death, in severity and ignominy. In India the

cluded by them. Some may conceive, that this power has been leniently exercised, but many admit that it has been, and none deny that it may be, abused. Mr. Colvin* thought that his own case was a proof of the leniency with which the power was exerted. With every deference, however, to that gentleman, we cannot admit that his case is any argument at all in favour of the opinion, that the power of transmission has not been abused, or that it is wise to continue it. He may have been fortunate in possessing uncommon prudence, in holding opinions precisely in accordance with those in power, or in possessing influence with them; but it is needless to say, that this is not every British subject's case. We all khow that individuals have been sent home for no other reason but that which existed in Mr. Colvin's case, viz. being in India without a license. That he has not been transmitted for that cause, only proves then, that the law may be administered with partiality as well as with injustice and oppression, and that is rather a strange argument in its favour, we take it: although all will admit, that society has benefited by the partiality exhibited in this particular case, inasmuch as it has kept among them, an individual of whose worth there is but one opinion. It is, moreover, as unfair in principle as it is unsound in logic, to argue from individual cases, when the favourable instances alone, of the exercise of the power, can be safely dwelt on. If it were otherwise, we should not have the least difficulty in showing, that Mr. Colvin's case is only an exception which proves our position, that the power has been and may be abused and we would venture to predict, that it will be again, if the British Legislature suffer it still to disgrace the statute book.

:

With those who hold that the continuance of the power of transmission, whether it be an evil or a good, has no connection with a petition for the equalization of the duties on East and West India sugars, we conceive it to be a waste of time to argue. The equalization of duties could do no good, unless an improved manufacture led to an increased demand for our sugars; they could not compete with the West India sugars, even if the duties were equalized without this and this improvement will never take place without the extensive investment of British capital, and the application of British skill and enterprise. To say, then, that the existence of a power, which might destroy, in a moment, the property in which that capital was vested, and banish the skilful and enterprising superintendants of it, and further, that the continuance of a law which prohibits Europeans from holding land, have no connection

power is claimed by the Governor, permanent or temporary, to inflict this dreadful punishment, without trial, on any man he pleases, without even assigning any reason for his act !

* A near connexion of Mr. W. B. Bayley, who has been a Government Secretary in India, (i. e. a Minister,) or a Supreme Councillor, for thirteen or fourteen years!

with the sugar question, is as absurd as it would be to contend, that the distracted state of Ireland is no bar to the investment of capital there; an argument which no political partisan at home has ventured to maintain, and which seems to us repugnant to reason and common sense.

'It is said, moreover, that not merely the question of transmission, but that of removing the restrictions on Europeans resorting to India, are question of party politics. They are not so at least in the British Parliament; and those who hold this opinion, seem to forget, that they are furnishing their opponents, the West Indians, with a stick wherewith to break their own heads. What reply would they make to the West Indians, when they say "Here you would destroy our partial monopoly, interfere with our prescriptive rights, render our property valueless, and yet rigidly maintain your own close system. You ask all, and would give nothing in return." Whatever the knowing ones here may imagine, we are confident the Legislature will never equalize the duties on sugar and the other produce of India, while they continue the Company's monopoly, and their system of exclusion founded on it.

'We cannot agree with Mr. Prinsep in thinking, that it is essential to avoid the appearance even of seeking to curtail what he termed the political rights of the Company, when we are petitioning the British Legislature; for we believe that, in that assembly, as well as elsewhere, the opinion is rapidly gaining ground, that the political rights, or as we would say power, of the Company, must be curtailed, if not abrogated altogether; and we cannot think that a body of British subjects can do any injury to their appeal for commercial privileges, the safe exercise of which must depend on the protection of just and equal laws, if they boldly declare their object, and claim the British right, of being subject only to the power of those laws, and not to that of arbitrary authority, which condemns, untried, and punishes, unheard.

With most admired consistency, the 'Bull' affects to triumph over the fact, that the abolition of the power of transmission is not prayed for, in the petition, in so many words-in short, that the thing asked for is not actually named, for that is the fact; yet the 'Bull' has all along admitted, that the terms of the requisition did actually involve the power of transmission, or, at least, that they admitted of that interpretation; and those very words of the requisition are embodied in the petition! In any case, the policy of continuing the power of transmission as it is, of modifying or limiting its exercise, or of abrogating it altogether, must be left to the wisdom of the Senate. The subject brought before them, they will deal with it as they, in their wisdom, see fit: the petition, therefore, is

• The John Bull' newspaper of India, the organ of arbitrary princi ples in that country.