The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-26 00:00:00

INDIA.

Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN asked the Secretary of State
for India whether instructions had been sent to the Indian
Government to take steps to reduce the amount promised
by the Home Government for compensation for losses by
the Indian mutiny : and whether or not a special de-
spatch to India was sent about January last upon the
subject of these compensations ; and if so, whether
there was any objection to lay that despatch, or
the last despatch upon the subject, upon the
table of th , house : and, further, whether the million ster-
ling awarded by the Home Government, as compensation
to sufferers by the Indian Mutiny, was to be the minimum
as well as the maximum of such compensation. If it was
the intention of the Imperial Government to deduct
English income tax from the interest payable on promissory
notes of the Indian Government, where such interest was
payable in this country by drafts on the India Treasuries :
Whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Ministers to
allow the Indian Government to deduct Indian income tax
from the interest payable on promissory notes of the Indian
Government after English income tax had been already
deducted from such interest in this country : Or, whether,
in other words, interest on Indian promissory notes was
subject to a double income tax ?
Mr. BARING said that no instructions had been given
in reference to the amount of compensation. As regarded
the income-tax, he thought it not advisable to give any
answer to the question at present.
TAX BILLS.

Lord PALMERSTON moved that a select committee be

appointed to search the journals of both Houses of Parlia-
ment, in order to ascertain and report on the practice of
each house with regard to the several descriptions
of bills imposing or repealing taxes. That the
committee do consist of Lord Palmerston, Mr.
Disraeli, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr.
Walpole, Lord J. Russell, Mr. S. Estcourt, Sir G. Grey,
Sir J. Pakington, Sir J. Graham, Mr. Henley, Mr. R. P.
Bouverie, Colonel Wilson Patten, Mr. Massey, Mr. Ben-
thack, Mr. John Bright, the Attorney-General, Sir Hugh
Cairns, Mr. More O'Ferrall, and Sir William Heathcoto.
He considered it would be desirable for hon. members at
present to abstain from entering into any discussio i on the
subject. In his opinion the better course would be for
hon. gentlemen to defer their observations (whatever their
opinions might be) until after the committee had made their
report. The appointment of the committee pledged the
house to nothing except that hon. members wished for in-
formation which they did Rot at present possess.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said that he thought no one could
object to the course which the noble lord the First Lord of
the Treasury proposed, and the assent of hon. members
was not required by the adoption of the present motion,
Mr. E. JAMES said he regretted that he could not
agree with the right hon. baronet. He thought that dis-
cussion before the present time would have been
premature, but now that the house was in posses-
sion, of the decision of the House of Lords,
all the precedents of the House of Commons justified
hon. members in taking some active course in referince to
the act of the Upper House. (Hear, hear, and no, no.)
He had no desire to urge on her Majesty's Government a
course that would be premature ; but he thought the House
of Commons had a right to know what steps her Majesty's
Government proposed to take in reference to the vote of the
other house. Having referred to the course adopted by
the House of Commons in 1742, when the House
of Lords rejected a bill for an inquiry into the
conduct of Sir Robert Walpole, the hon. and learned gen-
tleman said he could not help thinking there was no neces-
sity for moving for a committee to ascertain precedents;
and, without meaning any disrespect to the Government,
the course they had adopted was merely a pretext for delay
and temporising. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) He
thought some immediate action was necessary for the asser-
tion of the privileges of the, House of Commons, and for

the vindication of the dignity of the Government.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE followed on the same side, and
read a resolution agreed to at a recent meeting of delegates
from Aifferent bodies interested in the repeal of the duty,
suggesting that the house should meet in November
next fertile purpose of considering the subject. He agreed
to that suggestion, for the House of Lords did not reject'
the bill—they merely postponed the second reading, and at
the time specified the finances of the country might be in
such a position as to remove the objection en the ground of the
fiscal position of the country. He concluded by emotion to the
effect that the house at the close of the session should not
be prorogued, but should merely postpone its sitting until
November, during which the question might be more fully
considered.

Mr. WHALLEY seconded the amendment, and said he
had supported the financial scheme of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer on the faith of the duty on paper being repealed.
Mr. BRIGHT said—l have been sorry to observe that
since this question has made its appearance in this house a
few members on the other side have been disposed to treat
it as if it was one of no importance. Now if I was unfor.
tunately a member of the party opposite, I hope I should be
able to discover that there was something grave and impor-
tant in this question, and in the position in which the house
is placed in regard to it. . (Hear.) I hope also I should be
able to dispossess my mind of those feelings which to 2 itften
attend party triuraPhs) and which too often blincriiiielYes to