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

temporary loss it might sustain in the reduction of revenue
to the Treasury by a continuance of the present double tax.
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 countryfor 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 ho 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 ho 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-
i meil.,
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) had 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
he motion which ho 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, more than 20 years ago ; but they
went out to India before the unhappy death of Sir Alex.
Burns, 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 I seconded by the
right hon. member for Bucks, for the production of further
papers. That motion was lost by a majority of only nine.
Subsequently the hon. member for Sheffield, seconded by
Mr. Hume, moved for papers, but this motion was also lost.
Such rejection was not to be wondered at when it was consi-
dered that Lord Broughton, then 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 from 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
amazement;e
stahnd
feelings. of amazement, indignation, and shame—(hear)—
with
indignationt aht g h
ee
atat
shame extent
the andi
ntjhaaas
ttui
ade
injustice
ot
falsifica-
tionsl3uaurnthyoerouslidr
Abe ftdepartmentothpeo
e
found capable of resorting to such an expedient. (Cheers.)
j he 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
designs of Russia to extend her dominions to India as being
the reason for our entering upon the war. It was thought
necessary by Lord Auckland that Dost Mahomed Khan
should be removed, and Shah Soojah be aided to the recovery
of his throne. The papers, as laid before Parliament in 1839,
certainly upheld the policy of this view ; but if they had been
given =garbled and =mutilated 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 writtenby the Ruasianambassador 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,ae,tually giving to Sir A.Burnes tho letter of the
Russian ambassador at Teheran,anil that fact was concealed.
In a subsequent despatch of Sir A, Barnes 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 Cabal of Captain
Vicovich,the Russian ambassador. That despatch contained
nine paragraphs,whereas all but two were suppressed. (Hear,
hear.) Sir A. Burnes described a visit he had with the
lameer on a certain morning, with a letter igt his hassil fiesta