Bill was considered in committee, after some opposition
from Lord BROUGHAM, and the clauses agreed to.—
Several bills were advanced a stage.

On Friday, July 22, the Earf of ABERDEEN moved
the second reading of the Succession Duties Bill.—The
Earl of DERBY attacked the measure, as pressing
unjustly upon real property in a variety of ways, which he
described. He prophesied that if the government passed
the measure, they would soon find it necessary to repeal
it. In the meantime he did not oppose the second
reading, but would content himself with opposing some
of the worst features of the bill in committee; and he
declared his intention especially to contest that portion
of it which made the tax retrospective.—The Duke of
ARGYLL answered the various objections in detail, but
insisted upon considering the measure in its proper
aspect—its relation to the general scheme of taxation;
and in doing so made a comparison between the
advantages offered by the respective budgets of the late and
the present government.—The Earl of MALMESBURY
attacked the measure on the same grounds as Lord
Derby. The tax, he said, besides being unjust, was
"cowardly, disgraceful, and absurd;" and he went so
far as to say that it was based upon the encouragement
of the worst vices of the community. He expressed his
intention of opposing some of its most offensive portions
in committee.—Earl GRANVILLE remarked, good–
humouredly, upon the strength of the epithets brought
to bear against the tax, which he also defended against
special objections. Alluding to a favourite subject of
complaint—the necessity of subjecting title deeds for
examination—he remarked, that it was a notorious fact
that the aristocracy, when they wished to mortgage
their estates, "did not care twopence to whom they
showed their title deeds"—and made a point of showing
them, indeed, to Jews, and persons of the worst character.
—Lord St. Leonards urged some legal arguments
against the measure, the Duke of Newcastle answered
him, and the Earl of Harrowby followed, in objecting
to the bill.—The bill was then read a second time.

On Monday, July 25, the house went into committee
on the Succession Duties Bill. The Earl of DERBY
moved an amendment on the second clause, to the effect
that the tax should be applicable only in the case of
settlements made subsequent to the date of the act.—
The motion was opposed by the Earl of ABERDEEN, and
after a debate of some length, negatived by 102 against
68. Several minor amendments were negatived without
division, and the bill passed through the committee.

In the HOUSE of COMMONS on Monday, June 27, the
adjourned debate on the Government of India Bill
was resumed by Mr. COBDEN, who declared the whole
case to have been prejudged, and stated that from the
period of the introduction of the bill he had declined to
attend the Indian committee. If the amendment were
carried, he should return to his place therein. Remarking
that he had never treated this as a party question,
he proceeded to consider the double government. He
could not see that there existed any double government,
for the act for the government of India gave no
irresponsible power (except as to patronage) to the
Court of Directors, and he could regard this court only
as a screen behind which was the real government, and
which he was anxious to remove. It was the John Doe
and Richard Roe of government, shams of law which
we had lately done away. If there were any hope for
India, it was in that country being governed in the same
way as the colonies, so that public opinion might reach
it. That opinion would get rid of wars and annexations.
After condemning the policy which actuated the
authorities on this latter sutiject, he explained the
character of the secret committee, and showed that, if
the President of the Board of Control chose, he might
order the annexation of China, against the will of that
committee. The Court of Directors deserved all the
taunts they met on the subject of misgovernment, for
submitting to such a system. On the subject of patronage
he contended that reform was needed, and dwelt
upon the desirability of giving appointments to the
natives, which the directors, paid by patronage for their
services, were not likely to bestow: and he urged that
if the patronage were placed in the hands of a minister
of the Crown, it would become the interest of the people
of England to see that it was distributed to the natives.
He next observed upon the anomalous relations between
the Queen's ships and the Indian government, and, by
a sketch of the proceedings of Commodore Lambert at
Rangoon, illustrated his position that the Governor–
General of India could do no more than solicit the aid
of the Royal Navy, not being able to direct its
operations. No provision had been made in the bill in
reference to this subject. Then, approaching the financial
question, and remarking that it was impossible to
separate the fate of English and Indian fiiianc- s, he
commented on the discrepancy of the statements of the
various advocates of the Company; and, showing that
during the last nineteen years there had been a defalcation
of twenty–eight millions, he urged that those who
liad proved that they could not take stock in a way
which, in the case of the humblest trader, would satisfy
a commissioner in bankruptcy, were not fit to be trusted
with the financial administration of India. The mere
increase of revenue, with an increased debt, was no
answer to this charge. That debt had increased in
proportion to the addition of territory, and Sattara,
Scinde, and the Punjab were all admittedly governed
at a loss. Believing that the public were as yet ignorant
on the subject, but that public opinion would be formed
upon it, he supported the amendment, which gave
an additional two years for consideration.—Sir J.
GRAHAM, said that the importance of the question
could not be exaggerated, and he was glad to see that,
though there was much difference of opinion on the
subject, it had as yet taken no stain of party feeling.
After remarking on the difficulties of the question, he
replied to the objection that the government measure
was not permanent, that if the measure were good, it
would be legislation for the permanent government of
India; if not, it would be open at all times to parliament
to apply the corrective. Observing that Lord
Stanley's candour rendered his propositions less effective,
he proceeded to answer his objections seriatim, declaring
that the government measure had been prepared with
the utmost care, and that Lord Dalhousie's recommendation
had not been made in answer to the representation
of any member of the government. In reply
to the objection that there was no danger of agitation
in India, he reminded the house that there had
never been a similar case of suspension to that now
proposed. There had been but two or three objections to a
bill which contained some forty–four clauses. Large
changes and important checks were provided, to which
no objection had been taken, and the points on which
difficulties had been raised, being questions of degree,
and not of principle, were proper for consideration in
committee. The real questions were those of delay
and of double or single government. On the
first, after adverting to the state of Asia, he referred to
the opinions of Lords Ellenborough, Hardinge, Dalhousie,
and Panmure, Sir J. Hobhouse, and Mr. Baring,
in favour of immediate legislation. Our force in India
was slender, our empire being mainly one of opinion.
Government had felt compelled to propose immediate
legislation, and nothing but a sense of duty would have
induced them to take a step which caused a painful
division among their friends, besides arousing opposition
from their antagonists. On the second point, the double
government question, he urged that a balance of power
could not be distasteful in "England, and that seventy
years' experience had been in favour of the present
system. He and other members of the government had
shown that they were not afraid of innovation, but an
innovator must show the necessity for what he proposed.
This they had done in the present case, and it was
incumbent on those who would go further to prove that
what they demanded was necessary. The government of
India had worked well, as was shown by the balance of
testimony which had been obtained. He cited Mr. Mill
in evidence that the best possible moral check on the
minister of the Crown was afforded by the existing
system, namely, the check of reason. To show what
sort of men the system employed, he referred to the
deeds of Generals Nott and Pollock, Lord Hardinge,
and others, in war, and to peaceful services yet more
valuable, and he implored the house to pause before it