The Sun.
London, England, 1861-03-20 00:00:00

MEXICAN BONDHOLDERS.

Mr. BUTT asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Af-
fairs whether any official intimation had been received at
the Foreign-office of the appropriation by the new Mexican
Government of 50 per cent., or any other proportion of the
customs duties or revenues, to the payment of the debts
due to the holders of the State bonds ?

Lord J. RUSSELL repeated i; substance the answer he
had previously given on the subject.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (£4,000,000) BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
EAST INDIA (INCOME TAX).
t Mr. CRAWFORD called the attention of the House to
_he levy of income tax upon incomes and profits arising in
ler±_cha, which were already subject to an income tax in that
cu,'..l.lltrY ; and moved that the petitions from mer-
p."44tB and others of London and other parts of
umpoentliticotedingdom, agains.t. the. levy . of an. income tax
read
7 msss and profits arising in India, which were al-
to the housete an income tax in that country, presented
be referred .oupon the 7th day of this instant March,
Property Taxi'. the Select Committee on Income and
attention of banitHe said that this subject occupied the
with India. 1,e1:01: and others commercially connected
by
c: empl.oyed in planting coffee, tea, and
sugar in India
anies in this country had to pay a
double income-tax, EkT,Pd
.considered that a great hard-
Withship which pressed very he
he'roinstly on industrial operations.
regard to India
ended that a wide distinction
should be drawn between itiglattetiec.:
her colonies, for the latter
had the power of regulatin
own expenditure, while
ry
of
statetrcd of this country
the former was entirely under the
in that respect—the Secrete
go being despotic, and
his orders law. He did not wish to
subject as
odtbhe debt
to whether or no we should assume the lryiaboiNvltiotily:
iicsispyroobiedret
of India, and he believed that that country
tailment of her expenditure, be ultimately enabled
out of the revenue for her own contingencies.
in bringing this question forward was merely to prevent 1
the Government interfering in the financial affairs of India,
in a manner calculated to operate injuriously on the inte-
rests of the latter; and he believed that such could be easily
effected by introducing a bill to amend the India Income-tax
Act, so that the double imposition of the income tax should
be removed. He believed that the inevitable result would
be that this country would shortly recoup itself for any

I temporary loss it might sustain in the reduction of revenue
to the Treasury by a continuance of the present double tax.
1 He concluded by stating the substance of the petitions from
the bankers and others on this subject, and contended that
benefit must necessarily result from referring the same to
a select committee.
Sir M. FARQUHAR cordially seconded the motion.
Mr. T. HANK EY opposed the motion, and said he
could not see how the subject could be referred to the
committee in question, which could only properly consider
the question arising out of the levy of income tax in this
country. The principle of income tax in this country was,
that all incomes of a certain amount should be taxed,
from whatever source derived. He did not want to
enter into the question as to how far this principle
was correct, his only object was to show that this double
tax complained of was inseparable from the state of the two
countries in reference to their financial position. He ad-
mitted, no doubt, that some difficulty might be experienced
in obtaining money in this country for the construction of rail-
ways and other undertakings, but too much of that difficulty
should not be attributed to the double taxation, and he
contended that the house had nothing whatever to do with
the subject.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose to say
that the Government had no objection to the motion of his
hon. friend, though they did not in allowing the reference of
the petition to the select committee, give any:sanction to the
opinion that income derived from India should be exempted
from taxation in this country, and he also concurred with
his hon, friend (Mr. Hankey) in thinking that the question
did not come within the immediate scope of the inquiry of
the committee. He begged to say he was exceedingly sorry
that his hon. friend the President of the Council of India
was not able to be present in consequence of indisposition,
because, as Secretary of State for India, he was much more
largely interested in the question raised by the hon. mem •
ber than he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was. It was
one of great importance to Indian finance, and but very
slightly affected that of this country. Whether the payment
of double income tax was or was not conducive to the finan-
cial advantage of India, was a question upon which he was
not called to enter. The question for him, as Chancellor of
the Exchequer, was a much narrower one, and he did not
think that the select committee would be warranted in deal-
ing with the question as stated by the hon. member. One
very important point connected with the assessing and the
levying of the income tax was, that they taxed the pro-
perty of persons in this country, who had property any-
where ; and the argument of his hon. friend went to this,
that property possessed in India by persons resident in:
this country, should be exempted from the payment of the
income tax in this country. Now, the levying of the in-
come tax was done by the Board of Inland Revenue, and
they administered the law as they had done for the last
twenty years ; and when the hon, gentleman charged the
Board with illegal proceedings, he must remind him that
the Board acted upon the advice of their legal adviser.
The point which his hon. friend wished to refer to the
committee was, whether persons who had property in
India, and paid income tax there, should pay income tax
upon the same property by their residing in England ;
whether, in fact, they should cripple the payment of the
income tax in England by not applying to property in India
the rule which was applicable to property possessed by
Englishmen in other countries. He (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) would not, however, object to the petitions
being referred to the committee, as his hon, friend desired.
His hon. friend contended that persons in this country
should not be called on to pay a double income tax—one in
England and another in India ; and he argued that, because
the Government here had control in India, that country
should be exempted, as regarded the income tax, from the
rule which applied to all other countries. Well, the prin •
ciple in favour of such an exemption would alter the whole
basis of the levying of the income tax since 1842; but he
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) believed that the parties
who were represented by his hon. friend possessed so much
good sense that they would soon reconcile themselves to the
apparent difficulty, (Hear.) He did not object to the
matter going before the committee, but he was afraid it
would not come within the scope of the inquiry for which
the committee was appointed. (Hear.)
Sir S. NORTHCOTE said the question at issue, which
was raised by the petitions, went to the basis of the whole
system upon which the income tax was levied. It was one
of great magnitude, and he did not see what result could
arise from sending them before a committee.
After a few words from Mr. KINNAIRD,
Mr. DISRAELI expressed a hope that the house would
pause before they gave their assent to the motion. It was,
no doubt, one of the great privileges of her Majesty's sub-
jects to bring under the consideration of that house any
grievance under which they considered they laboured. He
was bound, however, to say that if this question should be
sent to the consideration of the committee, it would not
only complicate, but add to their labours, and clog the
committee with the consideration of a matter which should
be left to the house and the Government. (Hear, hear.)
He was of opinion that there was no reason in the argu-
ment in favour of the exemption, and the whole subject of
Indian finance would be brought before the committee
which had been appointed for a very different purpose, if
they gave their assent to the motion. He therefore hoped
the house would not agree to it. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT said he entirely agreed with what had
been said by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Disraeli).
Giving their assent to the motion would only do mischief
to the committee, and although the right hon. gentleman
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) hid given his assent to
the motion, he (Mr. Bright) would venture to ask his hon.
friend the member for the city of London, after the discus-
sion which had taken place, not to press his motion. (Hear.)
Mr. CRAWFORD replied, and said that from the obser-
vations of the hon. member for Buckingham, he saw rea-
sons for acceding to the suggestions of the hon. member
for Buckingham. He therefore begged leave to withdraw
the motion which he had made on the subject.
THE AFFGHAN WAR.
Mr. DUNLOP then rose to move for a select committee
to consider the " Correspondence relating to Affghanistan,"
as presented to the house in 1839, and the same correspon-
dence as presented in 1858, and printed by special order of
the house in 1859, and to report on the discrepancies be-
tween the two ; and also to inquire into the circumstances of
the preparation of that correspondence for being presented
on the former of these occasions ; and to report their opinion
whether any, and if any what, precautions should be taken
to secure that documents presented to this house by the Go-
vernment as copies or extracts of correspondence, or other
papers, shall give a true representation of the contents of
such correspondence or papers. The hon. member said he
thought he should be able to show the house that this was
one of the grossest cases of falsification of public documents
which had ever occurred in the annals of our Parliamen-
tary history. (Hear, hear.) It might be said that the
present complaint referred to an event which had occurred
long ago, and that it was useless now to rip the matter up.
It was quite sure that these papers were laid
on the table in 1839,.m0re than 20 years ago; but they
went out to. India before the unhappy death of Sir Alex.
Barns, who witnessed the injustice which had been done
him in the mutilation of his despatches. One or two of the
actual despatches were sent home by Sir A. Burnes, and got
abroad, and in 1842 a motion was made by the hon. member
for Inverness-shire (Mr. H. Baillie), an 1 seconded by the
right hon. member for Bucks, for the production of farther
papers. That motion was lost by a majority of (July nine.
Subsequently the hon. member for Sheffield, seconded by
Mr. Hume, moved for papers, but this ma)tion was also lost.
Such rejection was not to be wonder 4 at when it was consi-
dered that Lord Broughton, theme President of the Board of
Control, gave an assurance that there had been no garbling
of the despatches. In this country it was customary to place
faith in what fell front the lips of a Minister on such subjects,
and the statement of Lord Broughton was believed. But in
1851 the history of this fraud was exposed by Mr. Kaye, in
his " History of the War in Affghanistan." The investiga-
tions of that gentleman put it beyond a doubt that there
had been a great mutilation of these documents. The state-
ment en the part of the Government was still persevered in,
and in 1858 the hon. member for Sheffield carried a motion
for the production of further papers. But a struggle was
still kept up against their being printed, and it was only in
1859 that these documents were published in a blue book,
prepared under the superintendence of Mr. Kaye, in his
official capacity, at the India House. In this blue book,
prepared with great care and ability, the portions mutilated
from the former papers were bracketed. He (Mr. Dunlop)
confessed that he had read those later papers with mingled
feelings of amazement, indignation, and shame—(hear)—
with amazement at the extent and audacity of the falsifica-
tions ; with indignation at the injustice done to poor Sir A,
Burnes ; and with great shame that a department could be
found capable of resorting to such an expedient. (Cheers.)
The Affghan war was an unrighteous and causeless war, but
on that account the despatches should have been given in
their integrity. The hon. member then proceeded to give
instances in which the despatches had been garbled and falsi-
fied, prefacing the dissection by a reference to the supposed
des
ire ass oofn for u Russia
rn toe extendterentering
upon
her h
dominionst ewar.
It
w
t o Indiaa s
as being
thethought
necessary by Lord Auckland that De
aoisdte Mahomed
toahtohme recoveryedKhan
should be removed, and Shah Soojah be
of his throne. The papers, as laid before Parliament in 1839,
certainly upheld the policy of this view ; but if they had been
given ungarbled and unmutilated they would have placed
that policy in a totally different light. The hon. member
referred to the first dispatch of Sir A. Burnes to show that
everything which told favourably for Dost Mahomed Khan
had been systematically expunged, and turned to the entire
dispatch to show that Dost Mahomed Khan had spoken and
acted with the greatest loyalty to our rule. He next alluded
to a document written by the Russian ambassador at Teheran,
of which our Government had obtained possession, but sup-
pressed, and which had come into the hands of Sir A.Burnes.
Here was the confidential secretary of Dost Mahomed,who
was represented to be already hostile to us and most friendly
with Russia,aztually giving fo Sir A.Burnes the letter of the
Russian ambassador at Teheran,and that fact was concealed.
In a subsequent despatch of Sir A, Burnes those passages in
which he spoke of the friendly feeling of Dost Mahomed
were also suppressed. He now came to a remarkable des-
patch, connected with the appearance at Cabul of Captain
vle"iellithe Russian ambassador. That despatch contained
nine paragraphs,whereas all but two were suppressed. (Hear,
Ameerhear.) onSira Ace.rtßajuurnildie.scribedha visit he had with the
mg! with a letter in his held from