The Sun.
London, England, 1862-06-25 00:00:00

property, and so far national property. We think,
too, that the parish should require the building to
be kept tenantable. But by whom ?=that is the
question. We reply unhesitatingly—by the rent-
free tenants. If the use of the church be conceded
to one sect in the parish, it may be the largest,
but in some parishes it is the smallest, then, that
sect which claims exclusive use ought
to bear the charge exclusively. If other
sects are required to repair the building, be-
cause they are parishioners, then they ought,
because they are parishioners, to have the right to
conduct their own services in the place alternately
with the others. Such is the the practice in some
places on the continent, and then an equal rate on
all to keep up the building would be quite fair.
Not improbably the time may come when English-
men will wonder at their ancestors for confining
public national buildings to the worship of one
sect; and they will think us exceedingly illiberal
and narrowminded, that three or four services, in
accordance with the views of different sects, oould
not be peacefully celebrated in one Christian Church
on the same Sunday by different bodies of
Christians.

Sir GEORGE GREY, the only member of the
Government who spoke, affirmed strongly that
Mr. ESTCOURT'S plan would only create more con-
fusion and than now existed; and he
denounced with not a little caustic the conduct of
gentlemen who, at the same time, objected to pew-
rents, and yet claimed for certain wealthy families
the right to appropriate pews. On this subject,
Mr. BUXTON, speaking, he said, from personal
knowledge of the poorer classes, took the same view
which we gave the other day, that that part of
, +l, „ had so r^-14-c.
of independence, that they liked the chapel better
than the Church, because they then paid what they
could afford for their pew, and felt themselves as
independent as their richer neighbours.
Mr. DISRAELI came out with some pompous
platitudes on the question, which we should have
thought good taste might have led him to avoid,
although he has had high Whig example. " After
a quarter of a century, we had discovered that
Church rates involved the principles of a National
Church of local government, of the privileges of the
great body of the people, and of the predominance
of the majority on which our whole social system
depends." If Mr. DISRAELI really believes all this
parade of great principles to be bound up with
Church-rates, we must confess that our belief in his
capacity and judgment must be altogether changed;
and if he does not, which we are sure is the truth,
why does he condescend to such Cider Cellar de-
clamation. Mr. DISRAELI throws 'on the Govern-
ment the bringing forward of a plan. As they
decline, we submit that the leader of the Opposi-
tion is the next person responsible.

For the sake of sufferers under the Cotton Famine,
of commercial men who may have transactions with
the Government, and of India also, we ask the at-
tention of the public to a case which requires, we
fear, the support of public opinion. We need not say
that we have not the slightest interest in the
Madras Irrigation and Canal Company beyond
that, which on public grounds we took in the com-
pany at its commencement. We then carefully
examined its claims to such aid and co-operation as
the Government of India could legitimately furnish ;
our readers may remember that we were satisfied
then, and we have ever since had increasing reason
to be satisfied, that the enterprise would as cer-
tainly as anything human could, be a profitable
one to those who embarked in it; while to the natives
of that part of India, it would prove one highly
beneficent, being at the same time advantageous to
the Indian public treasury. We need not re-
trace nla ground—indeed, that ground' is better
understood now than it was even a few years ago.
A few sentences embody the chief advantages of the
scheme. Water for irrigation is the wealth, but
also the want of India, the water being abundant, but
running away wastefully to the sea. Cheap convey-
ance for its produce, especially for the distribution of
the local and interior produce, is an equal neces-
sity. The Company's scheme therefore embraces the
distribution of the superabundant waters, by canals
which at the same time convey the produce; with
the addition of tanks, and of dams across rivers.
The Company, the natives, and the landlords, that
is the Government are to share equitably the pro-
ceeds of the works.
Lord STANLEY, one of the most business-like
and enlightened Indian secretaries we have ever
had, and whom it would be well for India and Eng-
land if party considerations allowed us still to have
in that post, agreed in December, 1858, in order
to facilitate the raising of the requisite capital, to
guarantee 5 per cent. on a work which should be
estimated to cost a million sterling. In January
following, in accordance with the agreement, his
Lordship directed the Madras Government to select
a suitable project—this was done—and the Madras
Government, in July, 1859, reported to the Score
tart' of State that their most competent engineer,
to whom they had referred the matter had selected
what is known in India as " the Toombudra project."
Unfortunately, for this business, the Government

had changed in the interim, and Sir CHARLES
WOOD had succeeded Lord STANLEY. We must
not weary our readers with details and unknown
Indian names; the sum is this—the Company
accepted the " Toombuddra project "—but when the
Madras Government Engineer, and the Company's
Engineer went more carefully into the matter, they
reported that an extension of the canal and irriga-
tion scheme which would cast £350,000 more was
so desirable that the whole ought to be received as
one scheme, and the guarantee of five per cent.
extended to the whole.

We are sorry to say that Sir CHARLES WOOD,
without any communication with the Company,
wrote to India himself, requirine the limitation of
the scheme to what would cost only the £1,000,000.
The consequence was that a modified scheme would
at an enormous proportionate cost, benefit but about
500,000 acres ; while the entire scheme, at about
one-third more outlay, would extend the irrigation
over four times that space. When the Company
knew of all this, they handsomely offered to raise
the additional capital, without guarantee, receiving
themselves the profit of the additional capital. The
Government law officers declared this to be a fair
and proper solution of all difficulties, and certainly
every honourable man of business will concur with
them. It seems scarcely credible that Sir CHARLES
WOOD would neither guarantee the capital and
take a part of the profits, nor allow the company to
do the work with unyuaranteed capital; such,
however, was the fact !

The Company now took high legal opinion,
which with the case they stated, was sent to Sir
CHARLES WOOD. It was in favour of the corr.-
pany's legal right, according to the agreement with
Lord STANLEY, to the whole scheme. Sir CHARLES
WOOD disputed the legal opinion, aeding, that the
L°l3:lPany had omitted certain matters. The direc-
tors of the Company asked for the omitted matters,
offering to
re-state the case—Sir CHARLES WOOD
refused i
Re refused any kind of arbitration—he
would hear of nothing but his own proposal ! Thus
arbitrarily and dictatorially dealt with the Com-
pany, confident in their legal position, fell back