Lord Wharncliffe intends on Tuesday to propose examining the Chairman of the East Indian Company.
February 27.
Wrote a note to Loch to tell him of Lord Wharncliffe's intention. He does not like the idea at all, and wishes to see me before the Committee sits. I have named Monday at eleven. I told him my feeling was against his being examined, as I thought it unfair; besides, he was not the best witness. I told Lord Wharncliffe he should examine Lord Amherst.
At the Cabinet room I attempted to read the papers respecting Irish education. My opinion is that it would be better to let the matter rest for the present; the agitation of it may revive animosities, and if any good be attainable, it may be attained at a more favourable period than the present. I rather doubt whether it might not be yet more safely left to the people themselves, as education in England and in Scotland.
March 1.
Cabinet. We were to have talked about Irish education, but more important matters intervened. There is a motion on Friday of Mr. Davenport's for a Committee on the internal state of the country. Peel thinks there will be a union of parties in favour of it. He feels it must be opposed. Some of the friends of Government have said they must vote for it. He proposes that Goulburn should to-morrow give notice of his intention of explaining his views as to taxation on Monday week. Peel thinks that he can procure an adjournment of the debate till after Goulburn's exposé.
Goulburn suggests taking off the whole of the beer tax, and remitting the hop duty for this year, as well as remodelling it. He likewise proposes lowering the duties on East and West India sugar, the former from 37_s_. to 25_s_., and the latter from 27_s_. to 20_s_.
As the revenue is decreasing, these reductions cannot be taken from it. There must be a commutation. This he proposes to be a modified property tax, to apply to landed property, all fixed property, and the funds as well as all offices, but not to the profits of trade.
March 2.
There seems to have been some incivility last night on the part of Sir Charles Burrell and Sir E. Knatchbull against me, with reference to my opposition to the Duke of Richmond's motion on the wool question last year.