The Marquis of Lansdownesaid, he had a petition to present from the merchants, traders, and inhabitants of one of our most important colonial possessions, Calcutta, who thought themselves aggrieved by transactions which had taken place there. These opulent persons complained that, without any sufficient notice, and on grounds which they considered illegal, the local government imposed a heavy stamp-duty on all transactions which might take place in that city. The local government had thought itself entitled to raise that duty, under the 53rd of the late king, by which 1368 it was enabled to raise in Calcutta all such duties on goods and merchandize as it was legally justified in raising in other parts of India. The petitioners, however, did not conceive that, under the name of duty on merchandize and goods, was included a duty so vexatious as a stamp duty. The petitioners considered themselves entitled to protection, inasmuch as they laboured under peculiar privations, being prevented from acquiring property in the same mode as the other native inhabitants, and inasmuch as they furnished a large proportion of the revenue of India, in the form of duty on Customs. They considered that the government of India could not be justified in raising such a duty as that of which they complain; inasmuch as, if the government had the power, it had possessed it ever since the passing of the 53rd of the late king; but, during all that time, the government had in no case had recourse to that duty. The petitioners complained, that they had been denied the opportunity, at a public meeting, of expressing the public opinion on this question; the government having interfered to prevent such meeting. They complained, that this tax was secretly determined upon in India, secretly communicated to this country, to procure the order of the Court of Directors, and secretly sent back again to India; so that the duty was in force before the petitioners had an opportunity of considering or protesting against it. The legal question was undoubtedly an important one, upon which he should be very sorry to hazard an opinion. But he would venture to say, that, as the time was approaching when their lordships would have to legislate for the whole of that vast empire on the renewal of the charter, it was incumbent on them to acquaint themselves with the mode in which the fiscal resources of that country were administered, with the purpose of placing them on a secure and firm basis.
Lord Melvillesaid, that this subject was submitted to their consideration, first, upon the legality of the proceeding, and next, on its expediency. With respect to the former, he thought it quite clear, that, by the 53rd of the late king, there was a legal power to impose this tax: it had been affirmed by the Supreme Court, the judges of which were unanimous as to the strict legality of the act. If die parties were dissatisfied, why not bring the question before the privy council in the form of an- 1369 appeal? As to the expediency, he could not conceive why a tax which had for thirty years been freely levied in the provinces, should not be equally collected in Calcutta. No reason had been assigned for the distinction, and the Board of Control, so far back as the time of Mr. Canning's presidency, had sanctioned the order of the East-India Company to the authorities in India to levy it. The local government, however, did not act upon this order or suggestion for some years after. With respect to the preventing of meetings of the people upon the subject, so far back as 1806 orders were sent out which bore the signatures of lord Henry Petty, lord Althorp, and other high official persons, to prevent such meetings. So that, were the order right or wrong, the complaint ought to be attended to.
§ Ordered to lie on the table.