The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-28 00:00:00

THE SUN. LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JUNE 28, 1853

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY.)

ENCUMBERED ESTATES (IRELAND) ACT

CONTINUANCE BILL.

On the question of going into committee on this bill,
Lord ST. LEONAP,DS suggested that the Govern-
ment should not press this bill in its present shape, and
should not propose any similar bill for a longer period
than six months. He was not one of those who found
fault with the original bill ; but he had always regarded
it as a strong measure to meet an exceptional case,
being in regard to property what the suspension of the
Habeas Corpus Act would be with regard to personal
liberty, and he did not think such a system ought to be
continued longer than the immediate necessity. Why
should Ireland be thus permanently subjected to a law
which no one thought of permanently applying to Eng-
land ? (Hear, hear.) The Encumbered Estates Court
worked on the condition of a direct sacrifice of the
rights of individuals, and at the expense of a contraven-
tion of many wise laws affecting the relations of landed
property. There were social evils from the present act
which were not ordinarily observed. One great evil was
that the system of mortgages was interfered with, and
money could not, on legitimate occasions, easily be
raised in that manner. (The noble and learned lord
illustrated his arguments by detailing cases which he
said exhibited monstrous injustice.) At this time there
was a vast diversity of opinion in respect to the act.
This he knew, because he had just come from Ireland.
He called upon the Government to consider the objec-
tions he had made, and to postpone the committee, in
order to reframe the bill. If his suggestions were not
acceded to he should oppose the further progress of the
bill.

The LORD CHANCELLOR regretted that his noble
and learned friend had not been present at the previous
stages of the bill, when the objections which he now
offered might have been better considered, and when the
noble and learned lord would have heard the views of
the Government on the general question. He agreed
that this legislation was exceptional ; and at variance
with established principles. But what were the indica-
tions that the necessity for this act had ceased ? He
referred to the numerous petitions presented for the
renewal of the act—viz., from Feb. last, at the rate of
35 per month. (Hear, hear.) This showed that public
feeling in Ireland continued to demand this system.
(Hear, hear.) Under the circumstances the Govern-
ment could not bring the system to an abrupt termina-
tion ; and it was, therefore, merely a question to what
period could they limit the renewed act, and by what
means could they best bring the system to a conclusion.
It was generally admitted that a preliminary to the
discontinuance of the act must be the accomplishment
of a uniformity in the Irish and English Courts of
Chancery ; and that, it was understood, had been the
view of the late Government. The offices of Masters of
Chancery in Ireland were at present so full of business
that they could not possibly for some time do the work
of the Incumbered Estates Court. His own opinion
was, admitting that the system should not last a day
longer than was indispensable, that a bill continuing the
act from session to session would not have been a judi-
cious course, and he had calculated that a period
of less than two years would not suffice. Looking
to the consequences of the act, he thought Parlia-
ment had every reason to congratulate itself on its
legislation in this direction, and though it might be true
as the noble and learned lord had said, that these forced
sales had occasionally not produced good prices, yet in
general, the sales were satisfactory ; and at any event
their lordships were not to overlook this great advan-
tage—that the purchaser got with the property a clear
and indefeasible parliamentary title. A few figures
showed how vast were the social blessings conferred by
this act on Ireland, The property sold in the court up
to April last had realised 8,700,000/. ; and of that
6,100,0001. had been distributed ; and it should be un-
derstood that there was a necessary delay in distributing
the proceeds, for it was difficult to ascertain clearly to
whom the money really belonged, which was the reason
why, though two years would now only be taken for
receiving further petitions for sales, four years would be
taken in order to enable the court to distribute the new
properties it might sell. With regard to the details, all
he could say was, that [no new powers whatever were
taken, and that in that respect his noble and learned
friend was in error. With respect to the second clause,
affecting tenancies for life, to which great objection was
taken in Ireland, the government would consent to
withdraw it. (Hear.) _ _

,
After a few words 'from several noble lords the house
went into committee.

Clause 1 was agreed to, with verbal amendments.
Clause 2 was, after some discussion, on the suggestion.
of Lord ST. LEONARD'S, struck out, the LORD CHAN-
CELLOR undertaking to prepare and bring up a clause
better framed to carry out its object, at another stage of
the bill.
The clauses with the exception of 11, were agreed to,
and the house resumed.

views that this tax would affect unfairly the land of
Ireland ; but he confessed he now despaired of their
lordships agreeing to any alteration in the bill. The
noble earl then expressed his opinion in reference to the
compensation for the extension of the income tax to
Ireland, alleged to be found in the remittance of the
Consolidated Annuities ; and he then proceeded to state
his amendment, which was that the 13th clause be so
altered as that the assessment on Ireland may be assimi-
lated to that in England. He concluded by saying that
as his amendment (the effect of which would be to make
the tax payable by the occupier instead of by the land-
lord) would but put the bill in the form in which it
stood when introduced, he hoped the Government would
not oppose him.
The Earl of ABERDEEN said that the noble earl
was mistaken in supposing that the change made in the
bill was owing to the influence of any particular class of
members in the House of Commons. The change was

the result of a conviction on the part of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, that the plan deprecated by the noble
earl was the only just one. The subject had been much
considered by the Government, and it was with much
doubt and hesitation that they had introduced the mode
of levying the tax referred to by'his noble friend, and it
was only in consequence of further reflection and discus-
sion that the present form was adopted. The principal

reason of the -Government for adopting that forin was,
that in the first place the extension of the income tax to
Ireland was made under very favourable circumstances
in consequence of the poor law valuation being made the
basis of the tax, for that valuation was generally highly
favourable to the possessors of land, being generally be-
low the rental. When it was not the landlord was en-

titled to pay on the valuation and not on the rental.
Therefore, in every point of view, consideration had been
shown towards the landlords. As the law now stood the

English landlord was liable for all holdings up to 101.,
and they were equally as liaole as the landlords of Ire-
land were for alarge proportion of their tenantry, and

the objection of hie noble friend applied equally to Eng-
lish landlords. But it was manifest that if the occupiers
were liable, many of whom paid 4/. rent, the multitude
of persons from whom the tax was to be collected would
be so great as to render it scarcely possible to be ac-
complished. If the tenant was called on to pay the tax
without a hope, or prospect, or claim on the landlord
for reimbursement, then among such a description of
persons the most serious consequences would be pro-
duced ; and great alarm and discontent would be
raised ; for it would be impossible to persuade those per-
sons that the income tax was not intended to be laid on

them ; and, in fact, it would often be laid on those who
were utterly unable to pay it, and if they did, without
the most distant prospect of its being repaid. The object
was to lay the tax not on the landlord but on the lessor,
the person who received the rent. If not, there would
be a difficulty in saying where the tax was to be sought.
There was a provision in the clause now in question
which enabled the Commissioners to come on the occu•

pier for the tax if they thought fit. He could only say
that the change in the bill of which his noble friend
complained had been solely from a conviction that it was
necessary for the peace and welfare of Ireland and from
no other motive, and he did trust that although the tax
was not raised by the same mode as in England, yet
that there was nothing in it whichcould be characterised
as the application of a different law to Ireland to that
which was applied to England. The burden was the
same, and the only,difference was in the mode of levy-
ing the tax. He could not see any good reason for the
change proposed by his noble friend. His noble friend
said that landlords in Ireland do not get their rents ;
but the same objection might, and, indeed, did exist in
England and Scotland, but it was no objection to the
principle of the tax, nor was it a peculiarity applicable
only to Ireland. His noble friend had grossly exagge-
rated the difficulty of the case, although there might be
some difficulty. 'He did not think it consistent with the
duty of the Government to give any sanction to the pro-
position of his noble friend.
Lord BEAUMONT, with great warmth, denied that
this was simply an Irish question, but one in which
the principle of the tax was involved. The bill came
with a he on the face of it, for, according to its provi-
sions, it professed to tax property producing income ;
but when you came to the machinery, it was found that
a tax was imposed on that property which produced
nothing. In England such an attempt to tax capital
would not be borne, and he felt the more warmly on the
subject when he saw an attempt made, which should be
resisted to the utmost, to take advantage of the weak-
ness of the injured party. (Hear, hear.) The noble
lord then characterised the speech of Lord Aberdeen as
the weakest answer to arguments he had ever heard ;
and proceeded to contend that the principle on which all
rates and taxes were considered was, that they were in
reduction of rent, and that only the residue went to the
landlord. The income which was produced by land
came first to the occupier, and his rent was diminished
by so much as he paid out on it ; but here you do not
go to the land and tax the income produced by it ; but,
on the contrary, you went to the man who ought to re-
ceive the residue, and pat the tax on him, without
going to the property out of which you professed to raise
the tax ; and, after that, not a fraction came from the
land which you professed to tax. That system was an
encouragement to the nonpayment of rent, and would
introduce new elements of discord into Ireland, while it
was adding to the many wrongs which landlords in Ire-
land had received from Governments and Parliaments,

as if the object was to crush them.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE was glad that noble lords
connected with Ireland, and especially the noble lord
who moved the amendment, had treated the subject in
a more calm and rational spirit than the noble lord who
had just sat down had. He appealed to the calm judg-
ment of the house as to whether there was any principle
of injustice in the proposed plan. The noble lord (Beau-
mont) had talked of their not daring to levy the tax in
this way in England or in Scotland ; but he (the Duke
of Newcastle) denied that there was any departure from
established principle in the plan, for in England every
landlord was liable for every tenant whose rent was
under 10/. ; but if they had proposed to assimilate the
law in Ireland to that now in force in England, its ope-
. .

ration would have been that the landlord would have
had almost universally to pay the tax and not the tenant,
for the great majority of the tenants held at far lower
rents than those in England. As regarded Scotland,
the whole of the taxation was levied on the landlords ;
and so far from landlords in England and Scotland
thinking it a hardship a great many of them voluntarily
took the course now proposed for Ireland. An Eng-
lish landlord, a noble friend of his, possessing property
in a northern and a midland county, had stated to
him that he paid the tax on his rental in all cases. In
Ireland to compel the occupier to pay would, in tho
majority of cases, be calling on men to pay the tax who
were not liable to it, whereas in most instances in Eng-
land it was exactly the reverse. He had that morning
received a return printed for the House of Commons,
containing statistics showing the state of the occupiers
of land in Ireland at the present time. It appeared that
the total number of occupiers valued at Cl. and under was
564,144 ; the number of those rated above 6/. but under
2001. was 397,575, which added to those under 61. made
the number of tenants valued under 2001. not less than
961,719, or nearly one million. The number of occupiers
rated over 2001. was only 3,716; and there was no doubt
that if those who were rated over 3001. were estimated,
they would be found not to more than 1,000 or 1,500.
That showed that the adoption of any other principle of
levying the tax than had been adopted would have been
attended with great inconvenience. There was another
state of things in Ireland which did not exist in England ;
namely, that the valuation of land in many cases ex-
ceeded the rent. What inconvenience would be caused by
the tenant being called on to pay the tax according to
the valuation, for in that case he would pay a larger
sum than he could recover from the landlord. In Ire-
land the tenant did not hold directly from the landlord
as they did in England and in Scotland, and unless the
plan proposed was adopted, the levying of the tax might
be made an instrument of great oppression by the mid-
dlemen. In Ireland also it was the practice for rents
never to be paid for twelve or eighteen months after
they were due, and if the occupiers were made to pay
the tax, they ought to be called on to pay it on a rent
which in fact was not payable till twelve months after-
wards. That would be introducing a new element of
confusion in the relations between landlord and tenant,
which no man who wished well to Ireland would wish
to see introduced. He could admit of no analogy be-
tween England and Ireland, because in the one the in-
terests of the landlord and the tenant were identical,
while the payment of the tax by the tenant, which would
ultimately fall upon the landlord, was easy and unobjec-
tionable. (Hear, hear.)
Lord CAMPBELL felt it to be his duty to vote for
the amendment, as he had often heard it proclaimed in
their lordships' house that the law of the two countries
ought to be assimilated as much as possible. It was on
that account that he was not rising when he heard that
the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to extend the
income tax to Ireland. Such a proposal, he thought, was
both just and expedient ; but in proposing that the tax
should be levied in the manner pointed out by the bill,
the Government had fallen into the mistake of not only
extending the tax to capital as well as income, but
of drawing an invidious distinction between two parts
of the kingdom. He need only remind their lord-
ships that as the bill now stood the owner of a fee
simple not in his own occupation, or in [the receipt of
any rent from the tenant in possession, would still have
to pay the tax upon the poor law valuation of the estate.
Now in England no such rule as this prevailed, since
the landlord was only taxed upon the amount of rent
which lie actually received, and he could see no reason
or just motive why a different mode of collection should
be applied to Ireland. It was a notorious fact that in
some parts of Ireland [the rents were only half paid,
while in others they were not paid at all ; and yet the
bill as it now stood would enforce the tax upon the full
amount of the rent. This was a downright mockery,
because if a tenant absconded, or became bankrupt, the
landlord would still have to pay the tax, nay it might so
happen that the tenant, to spite his landlord, would
neither abscond nor become insolvent or bankrupt,
though the landlord might want him to do so—(a laugh)
—but would persist in retaining possession of the pro-
perty and ,paying no rent, so that the landlord should
be forced to pay an income tax upon income which lie
had never received. Now this was both unjust and in-
convenient truly, and thoroughly realising the idea of a
heredidatus damnosor, and so far from being an act of
justice, it was an act of gross injustice to Ireland. (Hear.)
Lord MONTEAGLE said the difficulty which always
surrounded the extension of the income tax was the
want of an equitable mode of collection, and he was sure
unless some alteration was made in this clause the ex-
periment which was now for the first time to be tried
would prove a failure, Only let the house consider the
injustice of giving the collector of the tax the option of
singling out one of three individuals to pay the tax, viz.,
the landlord, the lessor, or middleman, and the tenant
in possession ? Could anything be more monstrous or
unjust than that ? And yet their lordships were told
that the bill had been framed upon equitable principles.
The Duke of ARGYLL said the practice of collect-

ing the income tax from the landlord prevailed in the
Western Highlands of Scotland, where the land was
held upon a similar tenure to that of the greater part of
the property in Ireland. The landlords there had con-
sented to pay the tax themselves, because experience
had shown that if it was collected in any other way it
would be exceedingly oppressive to the tenant.
The Earl of CLANOARTY supported the amend-
ment, and for this reason—he apprehended that the tax
would ultimately be made permanent, and it was for
that reason that he wished to see it based upon the
most equitable principles that could possibly be devised.
Their lordships then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it

. 34-16

On our re-admission into the gallery,
The Earl of LUCAN was addressing the house, com-
plaining of the 42d clause, which allows the deduction
of one-third in respect of terminable annuitiespayable by
landlords in repayment of loans. He moved the omis-
sion of the clause.

After some discussion, in which the Duke of ARGYLL
and the LORD CHANCELLOR supported the clause, and the
Earl of WICKLOW and the Marquis of CLANRICARDE op-
posed it, their lordships divided.
For the amendment lO
Against it 2l-11
The clause was then agreed to, and the bill was read
a third time and passed.

EXCISE DUTIES ON SPIRITS BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
Their lordships then adjourned at five minutes past
one o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.)
THE INDIAN COMMITTEE.
Mr. HINDLEY wished to ask the President of the
Board or Control, whether it is the intention of the
Government, in the event of the passing of the India
Bill that the committee on India shall be terminated,
or whether they shall be continued until the committee
agree to a final report.
Sir C. WOOD said he had no intention to interrupt
the proceedings of the committee ?
THE INDIA BILL.—(ADJOURNED DEBATE.)
The motion for reading the order of the day having been
put and agreed to, this debate was resumed by
Mr. COBDEN, who said he should probably not have
addressed the house, had he not formed part of the com-
mittee ; and he wished to offer an observation on the ques-
tion asked by Mr. Hindley. Allusion had been made to
the sittings of the committee during the last Parliament.
They might speak of the last Parliament as they did of the
long Parliament—as something passed and gone, and mere
matter of history; and the conduct of that committee
ought not to be cited as any authority in that house. It
was such as to disentitle them to all confidence. That
committee was appointed to inquire into the important
question of the government of India. It divided its in-
quiry into eight heads, the first being the machinery by
which the government of India was carried on. After
examining 18 witnesses on that head, every one of whom
had been either an official in the employment of the Court
of Directors or the Board of Control, or had been in some
manner connected with one or other of those services, tho
committee came to a kind of qualified resolution, approv-
ing of the conduct of the Government of India. At some
future time, when some dusky agitator on the banks of the
Ganges should want to find a grievance with which to
appeal to a Hindoo (population as against the conduct of
the Government of India, he would cite that fact, and it
would be a most potent one to raise their indignation ; for
a more unfair proceeding was never committed by any tri-
bunal calling itself impartial. Two members voted
against that resolution, and they were in a minority of two.
With regard to the committee of this year, before they had
proceeded half through the inquiry they had laid down
for themselves it was announced in that house that the
Government measure for the government of India was
preparing. From that time he had not attended that com-
mittee. No member of the house was pore assiduous than
himself in attending committees ; bul from the moment
that announcement was made, he considered that the
question had passed out of the hands of the committee.
He saw no good they could do in collecting facts and in-
formation for the government of India, seeing that they
were generally obtained from persons who came from
India, or who had been employed there, and who were
more accessible to the Indian authorities. The whole case
was prejudged; they had brought in their verdict without
going through the ordeal of a trial ; and ho must decline,
unless by the Speaker's peremptory command, or at the
order of the house, attending any more to sanction such a
proceeding. (Hear.) They were now called on to vote for
an amendment which virtually postponed the whole ques-
tion for two years, leaving in the interim the government
of India as it was. If that were decided affirmatively,
he should be happy to return to his duties in the com-
mittee, and give his constant attention to the inquiry,
which would then be of great importance in deciding
the question. (Hear, hear.) He did not at all regard
this in the light of a party question. (Hear, hear.)
It had been imputed to the people of Manchester,
who had certainly given interest and prominence
to the question, that they had taken rather too material
a view of the subject, and had looked at is as a question
affecting too much the interests of Lancashire. If that were
true, at all events it could not be said to have been taken
up in a political party spirit. So far as he was acquainted
with the state of parties in Lancashire and Yorkshire, he
believed they were generally in favour of postponement,
with a view to further inquiry. (Hear.) More inquiry
was wanted. The question before them was the whole go-
vernment of India ; and the problem to solve was, whe-
ther they should have what was called a single or a double
government. In discussing that question he was met with
this difficulty—he did not see and could not understand
that it was a double government. He had sought in vain
to find what power the Court of Directors had to entitle
them to be called a government at all. Looking through
the act of 1834 to find what irresponsible power was given
to them, ho found they had none whatever, except the dis-
posal of tho patronage. The act loft the whole controlling
power to the board of commissioners for managing the
affairs of India ; therefore he looked upon the Court of Di-
rectors, not as a government, but as nothing but as a screen,
behind which the real government was hid. It was
because he wished to get rid of that screen, and that the
real government might stand before the house and the
world in its proper character, and take upon its shoulders
the responsibility of the misgovernment of India—if there
were any—that he wanted to have this matter simplified,
and do away with the double government—i.e., to bring
into one office the government of India. (Hear, hear.)
There had been much misapprehension with regard to this
double government. Till the last year or two ho did not
believe anybody understood it at all. Lord Hardinge spoke
of it as a mystery, and said it was looked upon as a mystery
in India • and he mentioned the instance of an officer of
rank in India, who had written an indignant letter to the
President of the Board of Control in reference to a commu-
nication of the secret committee of the Court of Directors,
expressing his indignation at the conduct of that com-
mittee,. and he was only restrained from sending it, by
Lord Hardinge telling him that the secret committee was
the President of the Board of Control himself. (Hear,
hear.) Those who were most authoritative in that
house on the question of double government, when
pressed in examination before the committee, showed that
they had never understood what the meaning of double
government was. One gentleman who had been often
cited (Mr. Marshman, the conductor of the Friend of
India, a strong advocate of "things as they are,") when
fairly probed and pushed on the subject, showed that he,
who was instructing them all, and sending pamphlets to
all the members of the Legislature, had very little funda-
mental knowledge of what this Government was. He
was asked—" In seeking to acquaint yourself with the
form of government for India, you would resort exclu-
sively to the act of Parliament under which the present
government of India is constituted?—Yes. Do you find
that by this act of Parliament any discretionary powers
are vested in the Court of Directors, except with reference
to the disposal of the patronages ?—I should think they
are responsible to the Board of Control. Admitting that
the Court of Directors have no uncontrolled power in the
government of India, how can you make them responsible
either to Parliament or to the people of India ?—Yot it
was the intention of the act to confer certain powers upon
them, and to give a control over the exercise of those
powers to the Board of Control. You admit that unless a
party has power intrusted it, it cannot be responsible for
the exercise of its power ?—No, I can, therefore, only say
that they are responsible for the exercise of all the powers
given to them in that act. You still say that this act was
intended to vest a certain power in the East India Com-
pany?—There must have been some object in view in
creating the present Government of the East India Com-
pany.
You say you believe that the intention of Parliament
was to give certain powers to the East India Company ;
having admitted that no such powers exist except in the
disposal of patronage, you would admit that, if Parlia-
ment had such object, it has failed to accomplish it ?
That very much depends upon the working of the sys-
tem. Although Parliament may have exempted nothing
from the control of the President of the Board of Control,
yet it is certain that the Court of Directors were intended
to be a body employed in the administration of the affairs
of India. To the extent of the disposal of patronage?—
Not merely to the extent of the disposal of the patronage,
because the patronage of the Court of Directors consists
only in appointment to service, and not in appointment to
office. The great patronage lays in the hands of the Go-
vernor-General and the governors of the various presiden-
cies. All the patronage which the Court has to dispose of
is the appointment to writerships and cadetships. Will you
explain to the committee what power the Court of Direc-
tors have under this Charter Act beyond the disposal of the
patronage ?—I cannot exactly speak to that, because I have
not seen the interior working of the system of either the
Court of Directors or the Board of Control. I only wish
for an answer founded upon this Act of Parliament for the
government of India?—All I can say is, if this Act of Par-
liament was intended to give them no power whatever,
except the disposal of patronage, it could not be considered
an act for vesting the administration of affairs in the hands
of the East India Company." He admitted that if there
was no power vested in the Court of Directors but the dis-
posal of the patronage, that it was no government at all ;
and that was all the power they possessed. The evil of
this mystery was that where the responsibility of the
government existed could hardly be pointed out by any in-
telligent person. (Hear, hear.) There could be nothing
worse than mystery in the forms and proceedings of an
administration except it were mystery as to the source
whence those proceedings emanated. We had been lately
simplifying our courts of law, and getting rid of fictitious
" John Doe" and
forms of proceeding : we had abolished
" Richard Roe." (Hear.) Here was " John Doe" and
" Richard Roe" in the form of an Indian government ;
and for whose benefit ? (Hear, hear.) Was it for the be-
nefit of the people of India ? Upon that ho would cite
the authority of a gentleman who was brought before the
committee by the Court of Directors, who had filled very
high offices in India, and was destined probably to fill
higher—certainly one of the most remarkable officers in the
civil service—Mr. Halliday. He was almost in the high-
est civil employment in India ; and he spoke in the face
and presence of the Court of Directors, his masters and
employers. Ho had used the expression, that the charter I
being for 20 years, was considered by the natives of India
as farming them out for that period. (Hear, hoar.) He
was asked,—" You used the expression farming the go-
vernment.' Do you believe the people of India think the
government of India is farmed to the Company in the
same sense that the taxes were farmed at the period you
allude to? They use precisely the same word in speaking
of the renewal of the charter. They will talk with you as
to the probability of the jareh,' or farm,' being renewed,
and, as far as I know, they have no other term to express
it. Is that sot merely through the infirmity of their lan-

guage ; have they any word which signifies delegation ?'
—They may have ; I speak of the fact, and their use of
the term carries with it a corresponding idea. How would
yen translate delegation' into Hindustanee ; might not
`Jarch' be a fair translation of the term ?—lt would
rather signify farm or lease. You said that, in fact,
the government was that of the crown, and that
the natives, as they become more enlightened, will
more and more understand it to be so?—lt is the case. As
they become more and more enlightened will not the mis-
chief which you consider arises from their notion of a
farm disappear of itself ?—lt may in that sense, no doubt,
and does ; and yet there arises a proportionate weakness to
the Government, from their seeing that the body held up
as their apparent governors are not their real governors.
Without wishing to speak irreverently, it has somewhat
the appearance of a sham." (Hear, hear.) Throughout
his examination the changes were rung continuously on
the word " sham;" but it gave an idea of what he thought
of the government of his employers or masters, in whose
presence he was speaking. He disposed of the whole ques-
tion as regarded the interests of India, and of this country
also, if we wished to govern India cheaply and beneficially.
He said—" If you were to change the system, and to
govern India in the name of the Crown, you would im-
mensely add to the reverence which the people of India
would have for your government, and increase the stability
of your empire in the eastern world." (Hear, hear.) Mr.
Marshman himself, though he did not speak of carrying on
the government of India under the Crown, distinctly and

repeatedly laid it down that the government of India
should be carried on in one office, that the President of

the Board of Control, or whoever was the responsible
minister of India, should sit in the same room with those
who constituted the council, now the Court of Directors
in Leadenhall-street, and should communicate with them
orally, instead of by correspondence as at present. But
what were the evils of this delusive form of government ?
The first and greatest of all was this, that public opinion
was, diverted from the subject, that that enlightened
public opinion was not brought to bear on Indian ques-
tions, which would be the case if India were governed in
the name of the Crown, just the same as the colonies had
been. It might be answered that if India were governed
as the colonies had been it would be governed badly ; but
if any good had arisen from our government of the colonies,
it had come from enlightened public opinion emanating
from this country, and chiefly brought to bear on our colo-
nial empire in that house. (Hear, hear.) If there were
any hope for the amelioration of India, it must come from
the same source ; and he wanted the Indian government to
have such a tangible, visible form, that the public opinion
of this country might be able to reach it, and that there
might be no mask or screen before it as now. (Hear,
hear.) With an enlightened public opinion brought to
bear more directly on the affairs of India, there would be
a better chance of avoiding that source of all fiscal embar-
rassment, constant wars and constant annexations of terri-
tory. (Hear, hear.) In other parts of the world, no mini-
ster of the crown would take credit for offering to annex
territory anywhere. On the west coast of Africa it might
not be less profitable to extend our territory than in Bur-
mah ; yet a resolution of a committee of that house, many
years ago, forbad the extension of our territory in tropical
countries. When an adventurous gentleman, Sir James
Brooke, went out and took possession of some territory on
the coast of Borneo, the enlightened government of Sir R.
Peel and his colleagues resolutely resisted all attempts to
induce them to occupy any territory there. Recently,
when it was announced in the house that orders had been
given to the admiral on that station that on no account
should any fresh territory be acquired, the announcement
was received with loud cheering. (Hear, hear.) We had
arrived at a point when public opinion in the house and the
country would prevent any such thing, and he believed
that the leading statesmen on both sides would resolutely
set themselves against any extension of our territory in
tropical countries. Then how was it that this went on
constantly in India, to the loss and dilapidation of the
finances? With a declaration in the journals of that house
and in an act of parliament never repealed; that the honour
and interest of this country was concerned in not extend-
ing its territory in the east, still these continual annexa-
tions west on in India. Why did these things happen ?
It was because at the present time all the authority in
these matters was loft in the hands of the Governor-Gene-
ral of India. He said virtually, because he believed they
rested in point of law with the President of the Board of
Control. Nothing could be more conclusive than the dis-
tinctness of the avowal of Lord Broughton that he was re-
sponsible for the war in Affghanistan, and Lord Ellenbo-
rough declared that when he was president of that board,
he knew that he governed India. He was therefore, asto-
nished when he heard the right hon. gentleman opposite
(Mr. Herries) state that neither he nor his predeces-
sors in office were responsible for the wars in India, but
that the Governor-General was the person responsible for

them. When there existed such differences of opinion on
such an important question, a question which involved not
only the fate of India, but of England, was it not high
time to come to some definite understanding on the subject?
Was it not right when such differences of opinion existed
between men of the highest authority, that there should be
a little delay, in order that they might all come to an un-
derstanding on so vital a point ? Practically he believed
that these things were carried on in India where the Go-
vernor-General was surrounded by an atmosphere of a war-
like tendency—where the mere rumour of war was received
with favour by all that constituted public opinion in that
country. Even Lord Dalhousie himself says on this sub-
ject, that it was his deliberate opinion that in the exercise
of a wise policy nothing could be said against acquiring
new territory or revenue. (Hear, hear.) Yet this was
said in the teeth of an act of Parliament which declared
that it was contrary to sound policy to annex any more
territory to our dominions. (Hear, hear.) And this de-
claration of Lord Dalhousie came out before the declara-
tion of the President of the United States, General Pierce,
who made a qualified declaration that the United
States would annex territory by every just and lawful
means, and which declaration of the President of the

United States was received with great disfavour in this
country. The English people and Parliament were apt to
regard the government of India as something apart from
their own interests, as something for which they were not
responsible—from which they were to gather fruits with-
out the responsibilities that should accompany them ;
and it was his firm opinion that nothing- would awaken
the people of England to a full sense of the responsibility
and peril which attached to them in this matter, but a
due appreciation of the state and prospects of the
revenue of India. (Hear.) Here was the declaration made
by Mr. Marsham, one of the great organs of public opinion
in that country, and one of its most influential mon.
" Every ono out of England is now ready to acknowledge
that the whole of Asia, from the Indus to the sea of
Ochotzk, is destined to become the patrimony of that race
which the Normans thought, six centuries ago, they had
finally crushed, but which now stands at the head of Euro-
pean civilization. We are placed, it is said, by the mys-
terious but unmistakable designs of Providence in command
of Asia ; and the people of England must not lay the flat-
tering unction to their souls that they can escape from the
responsibility of this lofty and important position by simply
denouncing the means by which England has attained it."
When asked if Calcutta was a good central station for
the metropolis of India, ho said, " it may not be at pre-
sent, but it will be a good central station when we extend
our dominion eastward." This showed the projects
which the most influential men in India had in view. He
would now refer to the secret committees of the India
House. Did they know what the secret committee of the
Court of Directors was ? He (Mr. Cobden) would tell
them. Why, there were three gentlemen at the India
House, through whom all communications were made from
the President of the Board of Control that affected peace
or war, or annexation of territory. It was in the power
of the President of the Board of Control to sit down and
write an order to annex China, and send that order to
these three gentlemen, who formed what was called the
Secret Committee at the India-house ; and they would be
obliged to send the order to India for prosecution by the
Governor-General. They might altogether disapprove of
the order, but nevertheless they would be compelled to
send it to India. Mr. Melvill, Secretary to the East
India Company, stated that in all cases of declaration of
war it is within the power of the Board of Control to act
through the Secret Committee, without the concurrence of
Court of Directors—that orders might be sent out by the
President of tho Board, through the Secret Committee, to
annex the Burman or the Chinese empire to India without
the English people knowing anything about the order.
The Court of Directors could not knew it. On the ques-
tion being asked—" How aro the English people to know
it, if the Court of Directors do not know it ?" his reply was
—" Till it comes back from India, till it is a fail accompli,
or the result of the orders is ascertained, they cannot know
it." (Hear.) Now, what was the practical effect of this
state of things ? The Court of Directors were often at-
tacked for not making railways and works of irrigation ;
and he thought they deserved the charges brought against
them so long as they submitted to the humiliation of their
present condition. How could they be expected to make
railways and other public works when they could not pre-
vent the President of the Board of Control, or the Governor
General, at any time wasting the substance which should
be applied to those improvements ? Why a Government
so situated did not deserve the name of Government.
(Hear, hear.) He wanted to know what would bo the
motives of 24 honourable men who submitted to be taunted
with those evils, and had not the spirit to resist the
cause of it. (Hoar, hoar.) But, beside the impossibility
of making these improvements, there was another evil
arising from what was called the double government. The
reward these gentlemen got for submitting to this humilia-
tion was the patronage. Now, one of the great evils of
tha present government in India was, that the patronage
was disposed of to Europeans in a great many instances
where it ought to have been given to the natives. (Hear,
hear.) As the Court of Directors were paid for their
services by patronage, and not by stipends, they of course
made use of that patronage by bestowing it chiefly
on their friends and relatives in this country. Now,
he wanted to see a great number of natives of India
brought into the service of the Government. If they
abolished this so-called double government—if they abo-
lished the Court of Directors, and brought the Govern-
ment into one office, under the responsibility and control
of a Minister for India, then public opinion would in-
sist upon the natives of India getting some of this
patronage. (Hear, hear.) On this subject there was a vast
deal of misapprehension in the public mind. Nothing came
out clearer before the committee than this, that the natives
were well fitted to hold the higher class of offices. Indeed,
in a judicial capacity, they already executed 97 per cent.
of the cases disposed of. Let the natives be employed in
some of the high offices—those with salaries of 2,0001. or
3,0001. a year. The natives would be glad to do the work
for less than half those stipends, and that would be to
them as much as the whole amount of Europeans. The
evidence in favour of the capacity of natives to fill the
higher officers was overwhelming. All the great au-
thorities in Indian matters—Monroe, Malcolm, Elphin-
stone—concurred in opinion on this point. Sir George
Clerk, of Bombay, and Mr. Halliday, in his evidence, took
the same view of the question. The only way of
insuring the employment of natives in the higher offices
was to take away the patronage from the Court of Direc-
tors. He would now call the attention of the house to a
point of considerable importance, which was strikingly
illustrated by the facts attending the commencement of
the Burmese war in which we were now engaged. The
hon. member here gave a detailed statement of the cir-
cumstances connected with the origin of the war, with
the view of showing that Commodore Lambert com-
menced hostilities in defiance of Lord Dalhousio's express
instructions that he was to avoid doing so until he had
communicated with his lordship, and received further
orders. Two months after the Marquis of Lan
,sdowne was
.
speaking in high terms of the conduct of the King of Ava
but at that time Rangoon had been devastated, and the
war was going on. (Hear, hear.) Nay, before Lord al.
housie at Calcutta had received the King of Ave.'s answer
to a letter which his lordship had written to him, he was
committed
t:rs. This brought
ac tsof hostilitiesught him to
perfor;drionintthteofawchic
face ofh
his own
he was desirous of calling the attention of the house.
Lord Dalhousie had no power to give orders to Commodore
Lambert in that station : he could merely request and
solicit the co-operation of the commanders of the Queen's
forces, just as we might solicit the co-operation of a friendly
foreign Power, See what the effect of this system was. If
Commodore Lambert had been liCt out with, orders fro

the First Lord of the Admiralty, he would not have dale 3
to deviate from them in the slightest respect, much less
to commence a war. (Hear.) Owing, however, to the
anomalous system existing in India, Commodore Lambert
felt at liberty to act on his own responsibility; and hence
the Burmese war. (Hear.) Why had not this blot
been hit upon by the framers of the present bill ?
(Hear, hear.) Could there be a stronger proof of
the undue precipitancy with which the Government
measure had been introduced than this, that it left
the great defect which he had pointed out—a defect
leading to results of immense gravity—uncured? (Hear,
hear.) The Government could not plead ignorance—they
could not allege that their attention had not been directed
to the matter. On the 25th of March Lord Brougham re-
ferred to the subject in the House of Lords, and on that
occasion Lord Broughton, who had just left office, stated
that he had received an official communication from Lord
Dalhousie relative to the anomalous character of the re-
lations subsisting between the Governor-General and the
Queen's commanders, and expressing a hope that the evil
would be corrected in the forthcoming Charter Act.
(Hear.) Now, however, the bill was introduced without
any notice of the subject. (Hear.) The financial part of
the question deeply affected the interests of this country.
If any breach should be made in the finances of India,
England must step in to repair it. We had already done
so three times in the °muse of the century, and we
should do so again, if it were only for a point of honour.
The hon. member for Guildford, referring to the finances
of India, on Friday night, adopted a tone which was
by no means justified by the circumstances of the case.
The hon. gentleman twitted the member for Manches-
ter and those who acted with him on this question with
having said that the debt of India had increased up-
wards of 20,000,0001. since the date of the last charter.
The hon. member for Manchester was justified in his
statement by the evidence of Mr. Melville before the
ofon committee,t2roa:ooot e d,nifc.oer
Ittnhheapt
al gentlemanasssti
nocharterh e in
udsetc
observe
red that the
Lords'debt
c
t
was extremely difficult to arrive n't any undisputedamountedbs
in
connection with Indian affairs. Mr. Prinsep differed from
the hon. member for Guildford; the hon. member for Guild-
ford rve tto h
facta up-
wardst i
ford differed widely from the hon. baronet the member
for Honiton ; they all differed from Mr. Melville, and this
gentleman, in his evidence, occasionally differed from tho
papers to which he had affixed his signature. The hon.
baronet the member for Honiton stated the deficiency at
15,344,000/. ; but he had not taken into the account, as ho
was bound to do, the sum realised by the commercial assets
of the company. Three or four years subsequently to the
renewal of the charter in 1833, the company's assets, con-
sisting of ships, stock, kc., were sold, and realised
12,661,000/. What r3ople wanted, in taking stock, was
to know how much richer or poorer they were as compared
with the last time of striking the balance, and yet these
gentlemen kept out of view a sum of upwards of 12,000,000/.
which they had consumed, exhausted, and spent, and they
ins fact,aidth atthartheerewwasasa odnelfiyciaendceyficoifencyof
28,000,0001.,15,344,0001.,, ascompared
when
in fact, thare was a deficiency of 28,000,0001., as comparetl
with the former period. (bar, hear.) The hon. member
for Guildford shook his head, but ho (Mr. Cobden) ap-
pealed to the house whether those who were intrusted with
the affairs of the East India Company, and who could not

take stock in a way to satisfy any commissioner of bank-
ruptcy in the case of the humblest retail trader, were en-
titled to manage the vast concerns with which they were
intrusted ? (Hear, hear.) The amount then of defalcation
in the last 20 or 19 yours had been 28,000,0001., and if
things were to go on in the same way for the next 20 years
they would have a debt very nearly approaching
100,000,0001. (Hear, hear.) But the worst part of the
case was that whereas in former instances, when this ques-
tion had been discussed, there as something very bad in-
deed in the present and the past, yet the house was always
told that there was something in the future to be appealed
to which would compensate for all previous calamities ;
but now it was a remarkable circumstance that, while
there was nothing satisfactory in the past, still less
was there anything satisfactory in the future. (Hear,
hear.) The hon. member for Honiton had told the
house that, with respect to one essential item of Indian
revenue—that of opium—ho considered it in peril. That
hon. gentleman did not seem to see how ho was changing
his tone and assuming two characters in the course of his

speech, when dealing with the future and the past. Tho
hon. gentleman, in answering in an indignant tone the re-
marks of the hon. member for Manchester, said with the
view of showing that the " constitution had worked well,"
that—" The gross revenue had increased nearly 9,000,0001.,
yet many taxes had been entirely abolished and others ro-
duced. Was it not astounding, when the Indian revenue
had increased to such an amount, to hear declamation
about the misery, the destitution, and the poverty of the
country? The debt showed an increase of 15,344,000/.,
but what was this compared with the increase which he
had shown to have taken place in the revenue ? The re-
venue had increased in an infinitely greater proportion, so
that the increase of the debt was perfectly immaterial?'
Now, what would a person think of a steward who came
before him with an account of the condition of his estate,
and told him that the debt had increased so much, but, as
the rents had increased so much more, it did not signify
how the debt had increased ? Yet the steward might have
said, that he had spent the money in improvinc, the estate,
in erecting buildings, and making roads. The directors of
the India Company, however, did not tell the house that
they had increased irrigation or the facilities of com-
munication in India. All this money had been wasted,
and was gone, and the people had no compensation for it.
(Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Honiton argued that
it was of no consequence how the India Company got into
debt, so long as they had increased the revenue 30 per cent.
Was it, then, to such financiers that the fate of India and
of England—for the interests of both were connected—was
to be intrusted ? If the hon. member for Honiton and his
colleagues in the India direction were to have another lease
of the management of India, on the plea that they had
brought the finances of India into such a state that it was
not, desirable that Parliament should assume the manage-
ment of the country for itself, would not that be an induce-
ment for them, when the question next came under consi-
deration, to show that the state of Indian finance was even
much worse than it was at present, and that the debt and
embarrassments of the people of India had been consider-
ably added to ? (Hear, hear.) After the experience of
the past, would Parliament allow.this system to go on, or
would it not grapple with the question at once ? (Hear,
hear.) The hon. member for Guildford, in the course of
his remarks, took the hon. member for Manchester to task
on the subject of the Punjab and its expenses. The hon.
member stated, in the jaunty style to which he had al-
luded, that the acquisition of the Punjab had not increased
our expenses, because the troops there had been pushed
from the frontier, and, therefore, constituted no addition
to our expenditure. To aid the judgment of the hon.
member for Guildford on this point, he would give him
the following figures :—ln 1835 the number of troops,
European and native, in India, was 184,700, and in 1851,
when the last return was made, 289,500. Consequently,
there had been an increase of upwards of 100,000 since
1835. In that time the European force had been increased
from 30,800 to 49,000, and he contended that an increase
of troops had been occasioned by the acquisition of the
Punjab. Now, if ho could treat this question as many
persons did—if he could believe that the East India Com-
pany was a reality, and that England could trade with
India without being under any responsibility for the future
good government or the finances of India, ho should not be
inclined to disturb the proposed arrangement ; but he had
an impression that they could not leave a more perilous in-
heritance to their children than this constant increase of
Indian embarrassment. (Hear, hear.) The English race
could never become indigenous in India, and that empire
must be governed by a succession of transitory visitors,
and he did not believe it would be to the interest of the
English people to govern permanently 100,000,000 of po-
pulation so many miles distant. The mass of the people
had no interest with reference to India, except in honest
trade, for they could not share in the patronage if it were
worth anything. Therefore, if it could be shown that the
India Company was a reality, he should not be a party to
withdraw from it their vast and responsible trust, and place
it in the hands of the Minister of the Crown. But when he
saw that that vast territory of India was now being go-
verned under a fiction—that the company really was, as its
most faithful and able servants had declared it to be, a
sham—ho did not wish that the people of this country
should delude themselves any more by the idea that they
could escape responsibility by putting the government of
India behind a screen and fancying they themselves were
not responsible. (Hear, hear.) On this account he desired
to look the question fairly in the face, and lot the people
know the difficulties and dangers which beset it. They
night, if they chose, pass the matter over for the present ;
but all experience showed that the question came back
every time with increased liabilities and responsibilities.
(Hear, hear.) Since the last charter more territory had
been acquired by conquest than in the same period before,
and the debt had been constantly increasing in proportion
to the increase of territory. They had annexed Setters,
and their own blue books recorded the fact that that was
governed at a loss; and the same was the case with Scindo
and the Punjab. Where was all this to end ? It tended
to cause a drain on the resources of the older and more
fertile province of Bengal to meet the deficiency caused
by these new acquisitions. They were now going to annex
Pegu. Let him not be told that this annexation would
be any benefit. Lord Dalhousie had said, over and over
again, that he looked on the annexation of Pegu as an
evil second only to war itself, and that if we were obliged
to annex Burmah, then he might say farewell to all im-
provement in the Indian finances. (Hear, hear.) The
hon. gentleman concluded by expressing his intention to
vote for the amendment, with the view of deferring the
consideration of the question as to the permanent govern-
ment of India for two years.
Sir J. GRAHAM said—l have long given attention to
the subject now under consideration, and it so happened
that when on the last occasion the renewal of the charter
for 20 years was conceded by Parliament, I had the honour
to be associated with the gentlemen who sat as a committee
to consider the principles of the scheme of Government.
Lord Grey being at the head of the Administration, it so
happened that on that committee I was associated in pre-
paring that measure with Lord Lansdowne, Sir James
M'lntosh, and my right hon. friend the member for Edin-
burgh, whose voice I, in common with the house, rejoice
to hear again—(hear, hear)—and whatever may be the
merits of the measure prepared by the committee to which
I have alluded, it was adopted by the united voice of many
of the most distinguished members of the Administration
of which I have now the honour to be a member. Ido not
conceive it possible a more grave, more difficult, or more
important question can be discussed in any Legislature.
(Hear, hear.) Its importance is not to be exaggerated, and
I am happy to observe that, although there is much differ-
ence of opinion on this subject, there has not up to the
ipnrgesednistpmlaoymedendt,uribeengn
thse
ds liisgehutsgesresitoanftac.
for ti(onua
no
as
yorr,s
uhpeeahar trm.y)
motives
to far too
consideration.
(Hear, hear.) For good
gravity
ot c foren t eervoii of the
into
theohei t matter
question is, shall we, as a deliberative as-
sembly, provide for the maintenance—l was about to say
the preservation of the Crown of England—of one of the
brightest jewels attached to the realms of this empire
(Cheers.) It has been won by men of pre-eminent talent
in a series of years, and it would be a sad disgrace to this
country if, by any erroneous or mistaken policy, that jewel
should be suddenly wrested from us. (Hear, hear. We
are now discussing a question intimately connected with
the safety and the maintenance of our empire in India. I
have said the matter is important, but it is also most diffi-
cult. Think of legislating for a people distant 10,000 miles
from the seat of Government, whose manners, whose lan-
guage, whose habits, and whose feelings aro imperfectly
known to the vast majority of this house ! And yet you
are called upon, the British Parliament is now called upon.*
to provide a constitution by which the happiness and Use
good government of that people shall be provided for.
(Hear, hear.) That is in itself difficult, and though all
our honest prejudices are naturaily strong in favour of
free government, yet fivra the nature of this question,
we are about to vaatutain despotic Government, for it