HC Deb 26 February 1858 vol 149 cc15-21

Order for Consideration read.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, he understood that Her Majesty's present advisers were not in a condition to-day to take charge of the Bill, and it was therefore their wish that it should he moved on i that (the Opposition) side of the House. The subject had been fully gone into on Monday last; he had no remarks to add upon the subject now; and he begged, therefore, to move that the Bill be read a third time on Monday next.

MR. MANGLES

believed there had been an understanding with an hon. Gentleman opposite, that the Bill should not come on for discussion until Friday, the 12th of March.

MR. G. A. HAMILTON

said that, considering the Bill had passed through several stages, he was not instructed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ask for any delay on its last stage. Nevertheless, as it seemed to be desired by some hon. Members that the Bill should undergo further discussion on the third reading, it would he very inconvenient that that stage should be taken in the absence of his right hon. Friend. Perhaps, therefore, the House would allow the third reading to he adjourned until Friday, the 12th of March.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

had merely mentioned Monday next, Because he understood it to be the wish of the present Government that the next stage of the Bill should be taken on that day. Its further postponement was entirely a matter for their consideration.

MR. MANGLES

observed that the hon. Member for Devonport (Sir E. Perry) bad said he was inclined to oppose the Bill. Now, it was most desirable for the public service that the Bill should pass at once; but if there was to be opposition, of course it would be uncourteous on his part to attempt to force on the measure faster than was wished.

SIR ERSKINE PERRY

said the House had never had an opportunity of discussing the principle of the Bill. It was understood the other day that this discussion would take place when the Bill went into Committee, but to the surprise of many hon. Members it was passed through Committee after the Government had resigned. The question he wished to bring before the House was that of the liability im- posed by this measure upon the country. There was no wish on his part or that of others to throw obstacles in the way of the Directors getting money to put down the Indian mutiny; but it had been pointed out that ample means existed for obtaining the money in another and quite as speedy, or, indeed, speedier, manner. He felt sure that the important principle involved in this measure respecting Indian finances and English liabilities ought not to be passed over by the House sub silentio; and he, therefore, gave notice that on the third reading he should call attention to this principle, and pointed out the dangerous precedent now sought to be established, and the risk which would be run of imposing heavy liabilities on the finances of this country.

MR. AYRTON

said, the House, by a large majority, had determined in favour of a Bill for the government of India through the Crown, instead of through the Company. Her Majesty's present Ministers then expressed an opinion that no legislation should take place respecting India during this Session. Now, it appeared to him highly inexpedient to pass this Loan Bill unless there was a distinct understanding that the Government would proceed to legislate in accordance with the Vote of the House; and, therefore, on the third reading he and other hon. Members would probably desire to raise this question, and ascertain the intentions of the Government on the subject.

COLONEL SYKES

said, he could not think that this Bill had any connection with the question of the future government of India, nor could he believe that any Member of that House would deliberately throw obstacles in the way of obtaining the requisite funds for the despatch of stores and reinforcements to our army in India. He could not see that it now mattered who was responsible for the expenditure of this money—the money must be had, and he hoped the House would not allow of delay.

MR. CARDWELL

said, much weight should, no doubt, be attached to the difficulties which it was declared would arise if any delay occurred in raising this money. Every facility had been given to pass the Bill through all its stages, and the proposal of the hon. Member for Devonport was to have a discussion on the final stage. Now the House ought to consider the questions which the Bill involved, and to which they were likely to assent if they now parted with all i control over its provisions. The measure was one which proposed to establish a new precedent with regard to loans for the service of India. It authorized the Company to go into the London money market and raise loans to a large amount. There was also a clause enabling them to raise money here for open loans in India—that is to say, to furnish the constant ways and means by which a deficient revenue in India was to be supplied. Now, prior to this outbreak a chronic deficiency existed in Indian revenue, and that deficiency would of course be largely increased under present circumstances. There was no certainty that even the present inadequate revenue would be maintained; and other difficulties existed on this subject on which he need not now dwell. The House had no control over Indian expenditure. No provision was made by this Bill for paying the interest of the money intended to be borrowed, except through the medium of these open loans — a further unlimited charge on the revenue of India. These considerations raised a question no less important than this—to what extent were they in that House, and how far was the Consolidated Fund of England, to be responsible for a deficiency in the revenues of India? Now, on the first reading of this Bill he put this question to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he confessed he thought nothing could be more clear and explicit than the answer of the right hon. Gentleman— namely, that the whole burden was to be thrown on the resources of India, and that none could by any possibility be thrown on the resources of England. If, however, he was rightly informed, on the occasion when the Bill passed through Committee, which was, he believed, in a House of less than forty Members, a discussion arose as to whether any liability would, directly or indirectly, attach to the revenue of this country; and in that discussion the Minister then responsible for the government of India distinctly stated that no doubt there was a moral obligation upon England to furnish the money if the resources of India should prove inadequate. Now, of two courses each had its advantages. If money was raised chargeable only on Indian resources this country was, of course, free from all liability. On the other band, if, at starting, the responsibility of England wore openly proclaimed, the advantage would be gained of raising the money required at a very much lower interest. But there was another course, in taking which the combined disadvantages of both the others accrued, and that was first to raise money at a high rate of interest because you did not choose to say that England was responsible for its repayment, and then to admit, in the language of the late President of the Board of Control, that a moral obligation was thrown upon the country, by which, in the last resort, it would be bound. This was not a trifling question. The burden one way or another, of which this was only the small end of the wedge, amounting to something like £70,000,000 or £100,000,000 of money; and the proposition that this subject should be debated on the third reading of the Bill, at a time when the opinions of the new Ministry might be expressed respecting it, was, he thought, a most reasonable one upon a question of such magnitude. When Sir Robert Peel, in his speech on the income tax, let fall an expression that there was a deficient revenue in India, and that this country might at a future time be called upon to guarantee some loan for the service of India, that expression was at once laid hold of as clothing the whole Indian debt with the guarantee of England. He was afraid that if they passed the third reading of this Bill, the Minister responsible for India having stated that if the resources of that country failed there would be a moral responsibility upon the Parliament of England to supply the necessary funds, they would be establishing a precedent of the gravity of which they were not sufficiently aware. The course which he recommended was that whenever the third reading was taken Her Majesty's Government should be prepared to state through some of their organs their views upon the subject, and he thought it would be only fair that further discussion should, if possible, be postponed until the Minister responsible for the finances had an opportunity of giving his opinion upon this question.

MR. VERNON SMITH

said, that no doubt it was a matter of great convenience—indeed, almost of necessity—that this Bill should pass as soon as possible, in order to enable the East India Company to raise a loan upon the most advantageous terms; but, at the same time, it was not right nor convenient that the Bill should be hurried with precipitation through the House, and without proper discussion. It was true there had been one or two debates upon particular points, but they had not been developed as much as was desirable. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Cardwell), however, had completely misquoted what he (Mr. Vernon Smith) said upon a previous occasion. Either his right hon. Friend was not present, or be (Sir. Vernon Smith) had been misreported. What he stated was, that it was desirable to pass this Bill as soon as possible—that being a time when he and his colleagues had resigned their offices, and were only holding them for the purpose of carrying on the Government—and that, in order so to do, it was his intention to accede to the proposition of the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring); to reduce the amount to be borrowed from £10,000,000 to £8,000,000, and to withdraw that clause of the Bill which involved a, novel principle, namely, whether the Indian Government should be allowed to raise subscriptions for an Indian loan in England. The Member for the City of London objected to that proposition, because it followed that the Company might be allowed to raise any sum they pleased for Indian purposes. He (Mr. Vernon Smith) therefore thought that the point ought not to be pressed, and that the Bill ought to be passed without it, only by way of convenience. Upon that the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) said that that was his opinion also, and if the clause wore withdrawn he should not oppose the Bill. Upon that understanding he (Mr. Vernon Smith) left the House; but he was now told that this 11th clause had not been withdrawn, which he thought gave reason for some dissatisfaction, and was a good reason why there should be further discussion; and, therefore, he thought the proposal of the Government to postpone the third reading to the 12th March was not unreasonable. He (Mr. Vernon Smith) had not stated that there was any moral obligation binding upon the people of England to supply a deficiency in Indian revenue. What he had stated, in answer to the objection of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth, namely, that a change of the Government would produce a moral obligation of this sort, was that the moral obligation was the same whether the Government was changed or not. The moral obligation was exactly the same whether India was held for the Crown in trust by the East India Company, or whether it was held by the Crown itself. But he had never said there was a moral obligation upon England to discharge this debt. On the contrary, he said that he thought that the same rule which applied to Canada and the other Colonies ought to be extended to India. They raised their debt on the security of their own revenues, and he did not see why the loans for India should not be contracted separate from the Imperial revenues. He was glad to have had that opportunity of explaining the misrepresentation. He did not think it was possible to resist the arguments of those hon. Gentlemen who thought there ought to be an adjournment of this question.

MR. CARDWELL

explained, that he had obtained his information from one of the usual sources of information, which he then held in his hand—a newspaper.

MR. G. A. HAMILTON

observed, that he had not asked for a postponement of the Bill. On the contrary, he had said that he was not instructed by his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to ask the House for an adjournment. When, however, it was stated that there was likely to be a discussion on the Bill, he said he thought it right that such discussion should be postponed till his right hon. Friend should be in his place. He had, therefore, named the 12th of March for the discussion on the third reading.

MR. GLYN

thought the introduction of the principle embodied in the 11th clause of the Bill totally uncalled for. He trusted that hon. Gentlemen opposite would give some explanation as to the course they intended to adopt, or else take some measures to put the Bill on a more satisfactory footing.

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

suggested that the difficulty might be obviated by moving that the clause be struck out.

MR. MANGLES

said, that there had been no inadvertence or mistake whatever in the introduction of this clause. The question was, that the words should be "for the public service in India," and not "for the public service in India and England." It was suggested that the clause should be confined to India. But the Committee deliberately consented to the other form of expression. He also begged to remind his right hon. Friend (Mr. Vernon Smith) that the Colonies could go into the market for money, and that Canada and other bonds were freely negotiable like other securities.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

begged to make a proposal, which was this—to fix that the third reading of this Bill be taken on Monday next; and in the meantime an opportunity would be given of considering what would be the effect of postponing the third reading, and whether it was material that the Bill should pass through Parliament before the 1st of April, which was the end of the financial year. If the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should have made himself master of the whole circumstances in the meantime, Her Majesty's Government might find Monday a more convenient opportunity of stating their intentions.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, that the immediate question was, what would he the power of the House as to striking out a clause on the third reading?

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that if this stage of the Bill was passed no clause could be struck out on the third reading. The best course would be to postpone this stage until Monday.

Further Consideration adjourned till Monday next.

House adjourned at Six o'clock till Monday next.