The Sun. — London, England, 1844-06-18 00:00:00

The Blarqulis of CLANRICARDE said that the letters which hafl olrened were the letters of a foreigner, and he understood that they had been opened at the auggestion of the Sardinian Minister in this cotmtry. - If this .;vere the case, he thought it was an int(!rfarene2 which ought not to be tolerated. lie thought they ought to know precisely what the Itivs , Upon this subject is. • • 'The Dulle of WELLINGTON said there WAS no Found whatever for the rumour nhich th e N o bl e Marquis had advertel to. ihe motion was then nqatived without a division. PRESBYTERIAN MARRIAGES. The LORD CHANCELLOR laid on the table a Bill on the subject of Presbyterian marriages. LIBEL BILL. Lerd CAMPBELL postponed the second reading n't the Libel Bill' till to-morrow (this day). • POOR-LAW (IRELAND). The Marquis -of CLA.NRICARDE postponed his .motion, for Calling th e a tt en ti on o f their Lordships to the subject of Mr. Penethorn's report on workhouses . in Irclanel, till Thursday. .The Duke Of WELLINGTON said that M r . • renpthoru's report bad been referred to a Committee a the other House of Parliainent in consequence of 946 , 3 letters haying been received, contradicting por --lions of the ,report ; and when the Committee had zoneluded its labours, the Government would be pre pared to take sonic steps upon it. 6.' , U.RCHARGES UNDER, THE COURSING ACT. 'l'll, Dilke of RICHMOND moved for. the num ,ber of surcharges. which hail taken place under the Coursing Act.—Ordered. DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL. The Etrl of MOUNTCASIIEL presented peti isms against this Bill. Lord- LTURGAN presented a petition in favour of eying power to the Poor-law Guardians in Ireland to apprentice children who had been brought up in workhou; , ?s. DEBTOR AND CREDITOR BILL. • This Bill went through Committee, and was or dered to tic read a third time on Friday. INSOLVENT DEBTORS' FILL. • • Lord I3RGUGII.AbI. moved the second reading of this Bill, and proposed to take the discussion on the 'noxt 6tagO. The. Bill was zllad „a sioond time. PARISH CIJERKS' REGULATION BILL. .• This Bill passed' through Committee. The Hot;2o then ,udjourned. „ I . I.IOUSE,OF % ommONS, June 17. Spruiri; tools the chair at a few minutes to Four o'cl(;ck. DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL. -Petitions against this Bill were presented by Mr. B. Smith, from Norwich; Ivlr.Dnncan,from Dundee; Mr. Chute, from King's Lynn; L or d J. Stuart, and Mr. fi. Berkley from Bristol. Mr. 8.. SMITH presented a petition from the printsellers of Norwich, praying for protection , against art-unions.. : Mr. HAMILTON presented 6 petition from Ireland against the national system of education in Ireland. Sir V."FILMER presented a petition from Kent praying for protection to agriculture. Mr. G. KNIGHT presented a petition from 1,800 inhabitants of . Port Philip, New South Wales, com plaining of the Governor- General having removed a ,!edge from the bench. and' praying for inquiry into the circuiraitaik-es. • , . Mr.. C. ROUND presented a petition from . S affoik, against the. Book. Charter Bill. Mr. YORKE presented a petition from Essex, pray* thuffe!.ise-to take steps t+ crest the progress of ineend:aristn in. that County. Lord ELIOT presented a petition from Cornwall, Praying Cid the owners nnu not the occupiers of email tenements may bn rated to the poor. KILAIkRNOCK ELECTION. The SPEAKER. informed the House that he had vamlved a letter froni the agents on the petiti o n against the, return of the. Kilmarnock burghs, stating that it was :not . their intention to proceed with the petit ion.—(Hetir,. hea r ,) TUX STATE TRIALS. - Mr. WYSE presented a petiti on f rom Pi erce Ma honey and others, the solicitors to the traversers in the late State trials; , complaining of the course par sue:d at the late. State trials in Dublin, and praying the House to l inslitiite some legal inquiry into the !iyatem that hid" been adopted in: ecnpan ne lli ng t h e Jury. The petitioners also expressed a hope that that H 01133 would -be found, the guardian of trial by jar . y The petition was ordered to-lie On the t a bl e . Mr. HARDY presented petitions against the Dis flouters' Chapels Bill. Lord ASHLEY . presented several petitions to the aame effect: . • • I,..IDDELL PrcienteJ a petition from Durham, signed by 4,000 persons, praying the House to con tinueprotection to agriculture. Mr. WAKLEY presented a petition from the stage coach and carriage proprietors of the metro polis, complaining of the monopoly of railways. her. HAWES presented petitions against the Dis. 50312tere Chapels'BilL GREENWICH PARR; 131 r. HAWES said' he had a petition to present from certain inhabitants of Greenwich, complaining that thorn was an intention on the part of the Govern ment to make an eneroachment upoii: 7 Greenwich Park, and to build ?lento residences therein. Seeing the I nteori 7l " . ..Chief : Commissioner of W oo d s an d tee°face,N..trusted he might waive cere- AtZWuPon - tt**, - . occasion, and take the liberty of ask ,llluln--,6l:tustlatepAon did exist ? : L_kL I VCOLN was quite willing t o a c - T 41 7. - s '77l l ,iti‘i Hon. M em b er , an d h a d great that the.armiety of the peti- Y ezrz application or conduct ~( 1' ~.. . , IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, Julie 17. Ttair Lordships Resembled at Five o'clock. OPENING LETTERS AT THE POST-OFFICE. The Earl of RADNOR, adverting to the petitions talaieh wei'e presented. a few evenings ago in the House of Commone, complaining that the parties who had signed those petitions had had their letters opened at the Peet-office, expreseed his surprise at this power batting been so recently exercised, and contended the.t no 4round existed for such a stretch of authority. 1 - . Ta: was inclined to say that such a power ought not .to exist; • 'out if it did exist, he thought it ought to be exercised • under responsibility. He should take that opportunity of ntormg for a return of the num , . ber of letters which hod been opened at the P os t- o ffi ce since January, 1844. He would also take that oppor tunity of Faking for some explanation as to the arrest of the Contu Oetrowslic who had bc-en forcibly taken . from his hxkings on a vague charge being made against him. Ile (the Earl of Rednor) contended thatthis arrest. had been made contrary to law, and if this getitlerima had killed one of the parties who came into his room be would have been perfectly exculpated in law. The Duke of WELLINGTON said that if the Noble Lord had looked into • the statute-book, he would hare found that the power of opening letters by the Secretary of State had been exercised since the reign of Queen Anne ; and the warrant which was necessary at the present time, was precisely in the same form as that which was required in the time of Queen Anne. If it should appear that the Secretary -of State had abused this power, net would be ground fur inquiry, but in the present instance there was nothing of the . sort, and, therefore, there was no ground for the Noble Lord'e motion. With respect to the other Mattee alluded to by the Noble Lord, to . say the least of it the person alluded to had acted in a moat indiscreet manner, and if there had been any thing improper in his arrest he had his remedy. It was a subject - for the consideration of a court of law, and not for that House. Lord CAMPBELL thought the question of open ing letters under a warrant from the Secretary of State was a question requiring the earnest considera tion of their Lordships.—(Hear, hear.) lie con tended that the words of the Act of Parliament, which Revs the Secretary Stets this power, prodded that for every letter opened there should be a separate warrant isued - lie the Secretary of State under his hand and seal. Lord BROUG HAM thought this was a matter w e ll we: of the consideration . of Parliament, but he expressed his regret that the subject had been intro dueed without notice. He said it was impossible to earry out the object of the provision in the Act of Parliament for the issuing of a warrant for the open ing of such letter, inasmuch as to be ena bl e d t o do so the Secretary of State would have to be acquainted with all letters the person .whose letters were to be examined was about to Le receive. Lord DENMAN regeetted that the return of the . Noble Earl wee resisted, as this was a subject that ought to be fully ineuired hit°. Tt was a subject of great importance, and was not at all connected with party corsiderations, and he believed that the only object of this motion WM to obtain information. .If this motion wore re,;eeted, he trusted that the Noble Earl would give notice, and bring the subject forward at a future day, with a view to the considera tion of the dance in the Act Lich gave the Secretary of State the power ()fee:et:thug letters, for, in his (Lord Pecnmax's) opinion, such a power ought not to be in ekistemo one hour.—(liear, hear.) Lord 13301,70116 M and Lord CAMPBELL briefly ex. p'ained. - • The Marquis of NORMANDY said that it was , only in cases where danger was apprehended to the State that this: par; sr of opening letters by the Secre tart of State was exorcised. He did not think that at present there was any ground • shown for the production of the returns which had been moved for. He belie-red that the Secretary of State would be very Flad to have this power removed out of his hands, for it eons a very unthankful and unpleesant power to hold. of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. There was no intention of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests of building houses within the park.— . -(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") There was a ' strip of land belonging to Greenwich Hospital ad joining the park, and in order to render that ground more available, it had been agreed to give up a piece within the park, but the park would remain exactly of the same extent. In company with one of the officers of the Hospital he had gone over the proposed alterations, and, not approving of the plan, had sent it back for alteration.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. HAWES—Am I to understand there is no foundation for the report about building in the park ? The Earl of LINCOLN—No foundation what evosr.—( Hea r hear.) Sir NV. CLAY presented a petition from certain Wesleyan deputies against the Dissenters' Chapels Bills ; and other petitions from the Tower Hamlets to the same effect. COUNTY PATES BILL. The order of the day for the further proceeding with the County Rates Bill was read in order to be postponed. STATE TRIALS (IRELAND). Mr. WYSE said that he was compelled to defer the motion of which he had given notice to-morrow night on the subject of the State trials in Ireland, in consequence of the delay which had taken place in laying before the House the papers which he had moved for; he, therefore, gave notice that he should bring it forward on the first supply night, as an amendment to the motion that the House do resolve itself into a Committee of Supply. He begged to move that the petition which he had that night presented be printed with the Votes.—Agreed to. DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL . Mr. P. SHAW gave notice that he should move an amendment to the second clause of the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. MPTROPOLITAN BUILDINGS BILL. _ _ Mr. MACKINNON wished to ask the Noble Lord when he intended to bring forward the Metro politan Buildings Bill? Lord LINCOLN would bring it forward'the first opportunity. POOR LAWS. Mr. HOGG presented .two petitions against the new poor-laws. SUGAR DUTIES. Sir ROBERT PEEL, in rising to move the order of the day for going into Committee on the Sugar Duties, said—Sir, it is probable that the House will expect from me some statement of the course which her Majesty's Government propose to pursue under the circumstances in which they are placed by the vote of Friday night upon the sugar duties ; and assuming that a statement will be .in general conformity with the wishes and feelings of the House, I am prepared to make it, if the House w,ill allow me to make it, when the Howe shall have resolved itself into a Committee, and Mr. Greene shall be in the chair. Before we pro ceed any further with the resolution, I will then take the opportunity of stating to the House the course which her Majesty's Government propose to pursue. Lord J. RUSSELL said he thought there could be no objection to that course. The House then went into Committee. Sir R. PEEL then rose and said—Sir, I propose now, with the permission of the Committee, to put it in possession of the views her Majesty's Government entertain with respect to the effect of the decision of Friday evening on the subject of the sugar duties, and the course which it is their intention to pursue as a preliminary to their intention. The Com mittee will permit me, perhaps, to refer, in the first place, to the course the Government have pursued in the present year with respect to the finan cial policy of the country, and the motives which have induced them to take the course they have pur sued, and particularly the views they entertain upon those particular duties which were imposed on foreign and colonial sugar. The opinions we entertain on the subject of the sugar duties are those we have entertained and continued in for several years past views we expressed when oppo .- nents of her Majesty's Government, and whicn we have entertained since tti e have been entrusted with power, and which we still at the present time entertain, and intend to act upon. We are of opi nion that the ordinary considerations which deter mine matters of financial and commercial policy do not apply to the article of sugar. We find that this country had adopted, with respect to the slave-trade, a particular course of action, from which it may be inferred that it considers the continuance of the slave-trade as one of the greatest evils and curses by which humanity can be surrounded. This country has entered into treaties with foreign Powers, engaging them to co operate fur the putting down of the slave-trade. Un der ordinary circumstances we are willing to admit that the regulation of the affairs of every country is within the province and exclusive jurisdiction of each independent State, but we have engaged other powers to co-operate with us by treaties for the suppression of the slave trade, the chief onus of attempting to suppress which has fallen on this country. We have thought ourselves justified with regard to the general interests of the world to do the hest in our power for the extinction of slavery in our dominion; and we have thought ourselves justified upon considerations wholly apart from interested motives, but as the promoters of humanity, to call upon this country to make greater sacrifices for the suppression of the slave trade, than any other country in the world. This country had voted 20,000,000!. of money, and up to the present hour great expenditures were going on in Africa and other parts of the world, not in the dominions of this country, but at its expense, for the suppression of slavery. In the course of the last session we passed an Act enforcing additional penalties against the application of British capital in countries where the slave trade was carried on. By that Act the House conferred very considerable powers upon the Executive to visit with heavy penal ties all persons subject to the control of the British Crown, who might use their capital for the purpose of giving encouragement to the slave trade. We have, indeed, for years, by the whole tenor of our policy, given conclusive proof of our intention of go verning by different principles that branch of our trade in which slave labour is by other countries employed to those which generally prevail over and guide the general commerce of this country. When, in opposition, we supported those who were then in power—l refer to the year 1839—in resist ing a proposal which was made by the Honourable Member for Dumfries, the effect of which would have been to reduce the protective duties, upon foreign sugar, as compared with British colonial sugar, to an amount of twelve shillings. That pro posal was resisted by the Noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) and his colleagues, upon grounds on which he will do me the justice to say I have never mentioned with anything approach ing to a taunt—which I have never considered as imposing any impediment to a reconsideration of the sugar duties, and which. I have never referred to excepting for this purpose—to show that a very high and respected authority did entertain the opinions I have now expres se d, th a t, upon t h e sugar quest i on, Parliament should be guided by different principles than those which generally governed it in dealing with the. other great commerc i a l questions. When the Right Hon. Gentlema n , I re f er to (Mr. Labouchere) was met with the argument as to cotton and coffee, his reply was that he was not prepared to say that the course of legislation he suggested was consistent with the broad principle which usually governed our commercial transactions, that it should be borne in mind that the ten articles referred to did not come into competition with the free labour of our own colonies—and that it would I not then do to interfere with the success of the great experiment then in operation, by opening the flood gates to a supply of foreign sugar which might inundate the British markets, and materially interfere with the prospect cf success to the great cause of emancipation of the slaves. We considered these views to be well founded, and we acted upon them when opposed to the Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite. These views appear to have received the sanction_ of a very high authority—of a gentleman, whose name I have never mentioned in this House, without accompanying it with my expressions of respect for his authority--I mean the late Mr. Deacon Hume.—(Loud cheers.) Mr. Hume, the advoCate of the complete removal of all restrictions—the decided opponent of the protec tive system—the authority who, of all others, had ex pressed his positive opinion in favour of unrestricted commerce, and of the abolition of all protection—Mr. Hume had excepted articles the produce of slavery and the slave trade, as not coming properly under the consideration of our commercial legislation. "It is now thirty years ago," said Mr. Hume, that you ab o li s h e d the slave trade —you have now abolished slavery. I cannot therefore believe that any question of free trade can arise between Jamaica and Cuba. Cuba has not only an abundant and fruitful soil, it has not only the advantage, if it can be called an advantage, of slavery, but it is notorious that from 40,000 to 50,000 slaver are imported into that island every year. It is, therefore, impossible that the question lantations of can traci eve e r come in Cuba and the British p the category of free trade." Such were the opinions of Mr. Deacon Hume in 1840, and I think that it would be unjust to expose the British planter, whO has neither the advantage of slavery or the slave trade, to the competition of Brazil and Cuba— countries possessing a virgin soil more fitted by nature for the production of sugar than any other country. Ido not think that it would be proper to expose the British planter to the competition of those countries. We have had most convincing proofs that hitherto all our efforts for the suppression of the slave trade to Cuba and the Brazils have proved inef fectual. The public mind in those countries is not awakened to the frightful horrors of that traffic ; and although the competition with Manilla and China, where sugar is raised by free labour, might be a fair competition, yet to expose him to a competition with Brazil and Cuba, would be most unjust to the British planter. It was but very recently that the House of Commons came to an unanimous decision, declaring that expense was to be a subordinate consideration to the suppres sion of the slave trade. We are of opinion that the opening of the British market to sugar the produce of Cuba and Brazil would give an increased encourage ment to the slave trade, as carried on between those countries and the coast of Africa. We therefore en tertain an opinion that, after the decision of the House of Commons, it would be inconsistent to give that en couragement. lam not insensible to the arguments —at least, I attach their due weight to them—which attempt to show that the opening of the markets of England to sugar, the produce of free labour, would indirectly give encouragement to sugar, the produce of slave labour, in Cuba and Brazil. But I cannot help entertaining the conviction that the encourage ment of free-labour sugar will ultimately tend to prove that free-labour sugar can compete favourably with that grown by slaves, and thus, indirectly, if not directly, it will act against slavery. These are the general grounds upon which we still entertain the opinion that, although it may be said with reference to the West Indian interests, to admit a limited and qualified competition with free-labour sugar, yet we think it dangerous to admit, as my Hon. Friend proposes, this sugar at a differential duty of 10s. We think that admission would be inconsistent with the course this country had taken, and the declarations the House hid made on the subject of the slave trade. With these opinions the question upon which we had to decide at the commencement of the present year was this— what course shall we pursue_ with respect to the admission of free-labour sugar ? Now, of course, Sir, I do not mean to ask any gen tleman to give up the opinions which he has formed as to the policy of pursuing a different course. I only assumed that our opinions were correct, and on that assumption it is I argued that there ought to be a discriminating or distinctive amount of duty. I ask, Sir, what course consistent with that opi nion, and with the admission of foreign sugar, can we pursue ? As bearing on this question an important event will shortly occur. On the 10th of Nov., 1844, the existing treaty with Brazil will cease. Previous to that day it would be most diffi cult for that Government to do away with the discri minating duties. Entertaining the opinions which I have avowed, I have thought it right to adopt a dif ferent course, for Brazil is entitled to have her pro duce admitted into her Majesty's dominions on the footing of the most favoured nations; nor could the title of Brazil to that equality be affected by any alteration in our relations with other countries; she has a clear right that her produce shall be in troduced on the same footing as that of Java, Ma nilla, and Siam, but on the 10th of November that state of things will cease. Therefore, at the com mencement of the year, in considering what course it was our duty to pursue, we came to the conclusion, that the alteration which we have proposed was the only one which we could adopt. It had been said that instead of post • poning the consideration of the great questions which must be considered before the expiration of the treaty, we should have declared our general financial and commercial policy in the present session, and that we should have declared our intentions as to the renewal or continuance of the income-tax, and the reduction of th e d u ti es on th e i mportat i on of foreign produce, but we thought that before we asked the House to take into consideration the important question of the renewal and continuance of the in come-tax, we should be possessed of the fullest ex perience as to the effects of those alterations in the Customs' duties, which took place in 1842, at the time the income-tax was proposed. Many of those were not to have effect till a recent period, and before the question for the renewal of the income•tax it would be advantageous that the House should know what had been the result of those reductions of the Customs' duties. In the case of the important alteration of the timber duties, the total amount of reduction did not take place till October last. There was, therefore, bat a limited period in which to determine the effect of the reduction on timber. There have been also for months past de cisive indications of increased demand for in dustry ; of greater employment amongst the manufacturing and working classes gene rally ; indications, I think, that cannot be ques tioned, of returning prosperity as far as trade and manufactures are concerned. I expressed an earnest wish to the House that those indications of returning prosperity might be significant of their permanence ; but at the same time, we have on former occa sions been deceived by appearances of prosperity, so that they cannot be perfectly relied on. That constituted a decisive reason why, before we took a revision of the whole commercial policy of the country, with a view of abandoning the income tax, or whatever else we might think advisable, we thought it advantageous that time should elapse to decide upon the effect of the measures we have passed. Another and more conclusive reason for postponing till next year the consideration of the tariff was, that we had every reason to believe that in the present session we should call the attention of the House to two other great financial questions, which would probably press for immediate consideration. The one was a reduction of the interest on Three-and-a-Half per Cent. Stock, by far the greatest operation effected in r modern times, the failure of which would be to every interest the most unfortunate. The other was a pro position of great importance, which I, as the organ of the Government, submitted to the House—the renewal of the Bank Charter, the regulation of joint-stock banks, and the regulation of the paper circulation. At the commencement of the session we foresaw that there was every prospect that both of these must undergo alteration, and we thought it was not desirable, seeing also the mass of legislation which was left undisposed of in the course of last session, and which was pressed forward in the present, that it was necessary to impose a re duction on the 3 per Cent. stock, and that it was also necessary to propose a measure for the regulation of the Bank Charter, to-call the attention of the House to other measures of great commercial importance, and the question of the renewal of the income-tax. There was a third reason also for postponing the mea sure, which to our minds was conclusive. How were we to deal with this question of the admission of foreign sugar? To propose the continuance of the income-tax, and to make no proposal on the subject of sugar, would probably not have conciliated the support of the House of Commons. It would, I think, have been expected that on pro posing the renewal of the income-tax, some proposal by her Majesty's Government, in respect to the sugar duties, must be made. I doubt whether the House of Commons would not almost have considered a pro posal with respect to the sugar duties a necessary condition of the renewal of the income-tax. It was impossible for us, pending the treaty with Brazil, to make that proposal. Supposing, in the month of March, we had brought on the questions of the in come-tax and the sugar duties, and had not, at the same time, proposed any considerable reduction of the duties on sugar, Brazil would have been enti tled, until the month of November, 1844, to share in all the advantages of the renewal, and would have made a plausible claim to admit her sugar into the market of this country, with the advantage of whatever reduction might have been made. Now, from the combined operation of those three reasons, I think any gentleman who permits me to assume that we are right in making a distinction between free-labour sugar and slave-labour sugar, will admit that we had no alter native but to postpone the consideration of any very extensive measure in respect to the sugar duties until our discretion was unfettered, so far as Brazil was concerned, by the termination of the treaty. We therefore did resolve deliberately not to ask the House to pronounce an opinion in the course of this session, in respect to the continuance of the sugar duties. At the same time, we felt it to be our duty to make a proposition to the House upon the subject of the sugar duties. We saw indications of a rise in price. The price of sugar at the commencement of the spring was about 2s. higher than the average of the last two years. There were, then, reasons to apprehend that there might be a deficient supply. In the month of November, .1844, the period would arrive when we should be at liberty , to deal with the ques tion of free-labour- sugar. The only monopoly that remains, almost, is that of sugar.—(Suppressed laughter, and cries of " Corn, corn.") Ido not wish to provoke a discussion. I with studiously to avoid saying anything which is Capable of contradiction in the way of argument, and ß, still more, anything which can provoke angry feeling.—(Hear.) But, certainly, of the great articles of consumption in this country, the only one with respect to which there is almost unqualified monopoly, is the' article of sugar. On the article of foreign sugar there is a duty of three guineas, which operates as an exclusion. We thought, therefore, it was our duty to avail ourselves of,the earliest- opportunity of proposing a measure Which, without being detrimental to the interests of Brazil, might be of advantage to the community at large, without injury to the revenue, and which would have th e effect of br eaking down monopoly, by . admitting sugar, the produce of free labour, - at a duty something above that on which colonial sugar was in troduced, and we thought that such a measure should not be delayed past the 10th of Novem ber. We thought that if, at this period of the year, there was an increased demand for sugar, , and there should be a deficient sup thought i' prices Should rise, in con sequence betterippnrl 3 e c — r e el t f a aeourcdoo thefu,scl could n n ntt c hoe r rto e eu a increased e sb d btocn d a efilmt therefore, .partiesn d b , tahnteyo that Wtsiatukeceswhts security would Indian iclusde rbit:yl against such an event as that of a scarcity of sugar by admitting sugar the produce of free labour at the duty we proposed. We had another reason for dealing with this question in the present session. I'Ve wished the producers of free-labour sugar to know what the intentions of Parliament were—whether it intended to confine the competition with colonial to free-la bour sugar, or between colonial sugar and that pro duced by slave labour. It was also our anxious wish to take security against increased prices. Notwithstanding , the discussion that has taken place we adhered to the opinions we have hitherto expressed, believing that the measure we proposed will not be injurious to the revenue, will be advantageous to the consumer, and likely to be productive of the best inte• rests of the West Indian proprietors themselves. On submitting, however, to the consideration of the House, the measure on sugar duties determined upon by the Government, the Noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell) assuming our distinctive sums as between colonial sugar and foreign sugar not the produce of slave labour, proposed that the duty of 345. should be applied indiscriminately, without reference to the source whence the sugar might come. The Noble Lord took a division upon that proposition, and our measure was affirmed by a considerable majority. At a subsequent state of the proeeedings we were met by a counter proposition on the part of the West India party. It was proposed by an Honourable Friend of mine, the Member for Bristol (Mr. Miles), that there should be a departure from the scheme of the Go vernment—that instead of the relative amount of duties being as we proposed, namely, 245. and 345., it should be 20s. and 30s. ; and that with respect to a certain clayed sugar, there should be a discriminating duty to the extent of 4s. We had proposed that the discriminating duty should upon all sugars be 10s. ; he proposed a protection to the amount of 14s.—(Hear, hear.) Her Majesty's Government have considered the proposal of my Hon. Friend—acting, I shall say, not under the influence of temper caused by being in a minority—but upon a careful and dispassionate view of the whole subject— they have considered it one to which they cannot give in their adhesion.—(Expressions of surprise.) That proposal of my Hon. Friend —supported accord hy—(Cries of " No," 1 1 I n t tgio,it'oansdomexpressions understanding Members were under any obli ga ti on to vote—(Hear, der sta onfdsinug surprise)—l don't say lion hear)—but I certainly was given to understand that that proposal of my Hon. Friend (Mr. Miles) was to receive the support of the other side of the House. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman is under no such obligation ; he expressed his opposition. I do not say that en the other side there is any general obliga tion to support the proposition of my Hon. Friend— (Hear, hear)—but I say t h at many Hon. Gentlemen opposite preferred supporting the motion of my Hon.' riend to supporting the proposition of her Ma jesty's Government.—(Hear, hear.) I do not say that there was any general disposition on the part of all Hon. Gentlemen opposite, but certainly there was a disposition on the part of many to support that motion.—(Hear, hear.) Her Majesty's Government, after a serious consideration of the subject, notwith standing that vote, have not changed their former opinion, and are not prepared to adopt the motion of my Hon. Friend. We are not prepared to acquiesce in that motion ; for, on additional and more mature consideration of that proposition, we think that our original proposition is preferable to it. —(Hear, hear.) My Hon. Friend proposes that after the 20th of November next a prospective reduction of the duty shall take place. I think the proposition for the reduction of the duty to take place at a distant day is most objectionable. The consumer will derive no advantage whatever from it, and the West India interests will not be benefited by the increase of price. The period between this and the 10th of November is a most critical time in the sugar trade, on account of the increased demand for sugar for the preservation of fruit. This will, I think, give rise to an in creased price, on account of the unwillingness of the retailers to take out a supply of that article at the present duty, when they know that in the month of November a reduction will take place. Ido not think that the West Indian interests will be benefited by it, because the retailers of sugar will refuse to increase the supply so as to meet the demands of the public. The only effect pro duced by the proposition of my Hon. Friend would be to increase the profits of the growers, and retail dealers of sugar, who had stock on hand. I wish shortly to draw the attention of the House to what took place in 1842, when we pro posed a reduction in the timber duties. We were induced, in consequence of the representa tions of the parties interested, to forego our first proposition, which was for "an immediate reduction of those duties; and, in order to give the holders time to dispose of their stocks on hand, to postpone the reduction until October, 1843, when it was certainly known that there would be a great reduction in the duties on timber. The measure of reduction was to receive completion, and the per manent duty to take effect on that day, the sth of October, 1843. I have compared the effect of this change in the timber duty, on the demand, and on the public revenue. I have compared the amount of duty received in the quarter ending the sth of January, 1842, with the corresponding quarter, between the 10th of October, 1843, and the sth of January, 1844. I omit the quarter of 1842, because the duties were then in a state of change, and I considered the fairest period with which to make a comparison was the quarters of 1841 and 1843. In the quarter ending the 10th of October, 1841, the total amount of timber duty received by the Exchequer was 646,0001. For the following quarter the total amount of duty was 292,000/. The proportion, therefore, between the timber duties received in the two quarters was as 100 to 45. But in the quarter ending the sth of January, 1844, the duty being then settled, the amount re ceived was 268,000/. as compared with 158,000/. The reduction in the timber duty made by the tariff was 'about one-sixth. My opinion is, though I am willing to admit that the stocks of timber are larger than the stocks of sugar, that it is highly probably the same results will follow ; that there will be a depression in the sugar duties in the five months elapsing before November 10th ; that there will be an increase in the price, which will go into the pockets, not of the West India interests, but of the retailers ; that there will be an increased price to the consumer, and a loss to the revenue, with no advantage to any interest except the retailer, who has no claim on their protection. He thought, therefore, that the proposition of his lion. Friend for the reduction of the duty, to take place upon a stated day, would be most unwise. We ourselves are accused of having encouraged ex pectation, that there should be a further consideration of those duties, and that there might be a further reduction contingent upon the result of the income tax, and its renewal or discontinuance. But that vague expectation is very different from a fixed assurance that a certain reduction shall take place and shall be effected on , a particular day. If there be any inconvenience arising from holding out such vague expectations, her Majesty's present Government alone have incurred the blame. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer has before now held out expectation; of an alteration in the sugar duties contin gent upon circumstances. When he brought forward his proposition in 1841 for an alteration in them, he said that the West India interest had no right to complain that they were taken by surprise, because Lord Sy denham had informed them, in 1839, that they must prepare themselves for a change in the sugar duties, and that that change would take place in 1842, or possibly earlier. So that the late Government cannot be said to have given the word with' the blow— (Laughter)--but they told the West Indians to pre pare for the blow. But we have not said anything more than what was known to every one. We said that the income-tax would expire next year, and that when the time for its expiration arrived the consideration of its discontinuance or renewal must be combined with the consideration of these and other im port duties. Surely that explanation and avowal could not have the same effect as the particular an nouncement that the reduction is to take place upon a stated day. Sir, on another ground the Government cannot assent to the proposition of my Hon. Friend. They cannot acquiesce in the proposition that there should be a discriminating duty of 14s. on certain sugars.—(Hear, hear.) I will not now enter into the question whether a classification of sugar, according to certain processes of manufacture, or according to certain qualities, be desirable or not; all I contend for is this, that if a classification be desirable, it ought to be universally applied.—(Hear, hear) and that to do justice, to the consumer, if you classify sugar the produce of foreign countries, you ought to classify sugar the produce of your own colonies.— (Hear, hear.) lam of that opinion - , because there is as great a variation in the quality of sugar the produce of your own colonies as there is in the quality of sugar the produce of foreign countries. There is as much injustice in subjecting the coarse descriptions of brown sugar coming into competition with sugar of the highest quality, such being the produce of your own colonies, to an equal rate of duty —there is as much injustice in that arrangement as there is in subjecting your own sugar to compete, at a corresponding rate of duty, with sugar the produce of foreign countries, and in subjecting the inferiar classes of your own sugar to competition with the inferior classes of foreign sugar, as the superior class of sugar the produce of your own colonies, with the superior class of „sugar the produce of foreign countries. But I cannot admit the justice of taking a classification of foreign sugar until you are prepared to make it in the case of your own sugar; and therefore, Sir, if we ever come to that part of the proposition of my Hon. Friend, her Majesty's Go vernment will still retain their original opinion, and they cannot consent to ask for an escape from their present difficulties by undertaking to give an in- creased protection to West India sugar.—(Opposition cheers.) Now my opinion on the sugar question, and the effect of duty on sugar, is worth very little. It can only be formed from general reasoning as to the effect of prospective duties on the sugar trade; it can only be a speculation by me founded on experience with regard to other duties ; but I have received by the post of this morning, from a high practical authority, strong confirmation of the views which I have expressed in this respect, that there is danger in a prospective reduction of the duty, and that there is no sufficient ground for a discriminating duty in favour of white clayed sugar, the produce of our colonies. The gentleman from whom I received this letter states that he has been engaged in the sugar trade for 20 years, that he turned over near a million of money per annum, and was most desirous to see the duty on foreign sugar, and more particularly on colonial sugar, reduced as much as possible; but he was quite certain if Mr. Miles's proposition was carried into effect as it stood, it would be most disastrous to all parties interested, as well as to the revenue.; for no person would engage extensively in the trade, know ing that the duty would he much lower in No vember, when the 4s. duty would be taken off. He would likewise strongly recommend them to place the same extra duty of 4s. on the better class of foreign colonial sugar, as Mr. Miles proposed to put it on what he called white clayed free-labour sugar. It was well known that extensive refineries had been recently erected near Calcutta, and in other places, for the purpose of making a fine strong-grained sugar. This fine kind of sugar had of late got very much into use, and bade fair to supersede the use of refined or lump sugar; so much so, that scarcely any other was used. This fine crystallised sugar was likewise made in Demerara, and was now selling at 705., while brown Muscovado sugar was selling at 565. Now, observe (continued the Right Honourable Baronet), the brown Mus covado sugar which sells at full price for 565., is exposed to a competition with sugar the produce of our own colonies, which is worth 705.; and it is exposed to competition with it at exactly the same rate of duty ; there is no discrimination whatever. These processes of manufacture, the result of the application of great capital, are bringing into the best market, in competition with the ordinary pro duce of the West India colonies, great quantities of fine sugar, at the same amount of duty. You propose to make no distinction between those colo nies, but to admit sugar from all at the same rate ; hut you do propose, in respect to foreign sugar, to establish a discrimination which you do not propose to apply to your own. If this foreign sugar, which is worth 705., as compared with other sugars at .565., is admitted at the same duty, why should you not be able, supposing there be white sugar coming from Java or Manilla, to compete with the sugar of Java precisely in the same way, as the coarsest description of sugar, worth 565., will come into competition with the coarse description of foreign sugar ?—(Hear, hear.) Those, then, are the grounds upon which her Majesty's Government do not think it would be just to vote for the discriminating duty in favour of colo nial sugar which is proposed by my Hon. Friend's resolution, which gives a protecting duty of 4s.— , (Hear, hear.) We cannot, therefore, assent to the proposal o f my Hon. Friend, becau se , after considera ' tion, we entertain a decided preference for our own plan. We do not think what he proposes is one which ought to receive the assent of this House, and it is not, therefore, in our power to vote for it on its merits. Differing from my Hon. Friend on the merits, in a purely commercial point of view, I do not hesitate to admit, on the part of the Government, that, upon po • litical grounds, I cannot undertake to adopt his plan. My Hon. Friend, in supporting his motion, said there was no very material difference between the pro posal of her Majesty's Government and his own— that he proposed, in respect to both classes of sugar the same amount of protecting duty ; and that therefore we might without difficulty adopt the amendment of my Hon. Friend. It it be a matter of no importance we are disinclined to adopt it. It was carried by a combination of those who generally support us, by a combination with our political oppo • nents. If the measure be unimportant, and such combinations take place in support of it, it is surely significant of a want of con idence.—(Hear, hear.) If you cannot effect an important public object, if there be no great difference in the two proposals, in conse quence of the concurrence between political opponents, that surely bears strongly on our condition as an exe cutive Government, and diminishes our moans of doing our duty. Ido not believe that the concurrence in the vote was a casual concurrence, growing out of the de bate. Circumstances—l may be wrong—but my im pression is that it was apreconcerted arrange neat.-- (Loud cries of " No, no," in which Mr. Mile i joined heartily.) When my Honourable Friend tells me that that is not not so lam bound to believe him, bit still we inferred there had been a preconcerted uncle sitand ing.—(Cries of " No, no.") Understand me, I not complaining—(Cries of " Oh, oh ")—but I have a right to state it.—(Hear, hear.) I do not deny the right of Hon. Gentlemen to enter into combinations, but I have a right to consider what bearing that has upon the pos sitien of the Government when it may determine as to whether it will accede to an unimportant proposition. I cannot doubt the right of the two parties to combine if they please to carry an unimportant proposition, but I must claim for myself the right and manner of determin ing what the effect of my position would be in consequence. When my Hon. Friend originally gave notice of his amendment, it was to this effect—that he should pro pose a reduction of duty upon British colonial sugar to the amount of 20s.—(Hear, hear.) My Hon Friend did not indicate any intention at that time of reducing the duties in the form and manner which he subsequently submitted. His original proposition was, that a reduc tion should be made upon British colonial sugar, but tl , at there should be no reduction upon foreign. The Noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell) had made a motion which proposed that there should be a protective duty upon all sugars intended to be admitted of ten shil lings ; and my Hon. Friend (Mr. Miles), at a subsequent period, amended his motion, and shaped it in the form in which it was ultimately brought before the House ; and fearing that the 'West India party, who had some mis givings, might hereafter have their opinion quoted against him, he accounted for his conduct by saying that the forms of the House did not admit of his sticking to his original proposition. Now, in that my Hon. Friend was quite wrong, for nothing could have been more easy, if it had suited the views of my Hon. Friend and of all his supporters—(Hear, hear, and laughter)—than for him to have adhered to his original proposition, and this in perfect conformity with the orders of the House, and without calling forth, Sir, your vigilance, or of running that risk which some of the West India party think he has incurred by giving effect to his own measure. It must be recollected that when my Honourable Friend (Mr. Miles) was asked whether he would make any relaxation in that portion of his amendment which referred to the higher duty on white clued sugar, that his answer was he was not prepared to do so.—(Hear, hear.) Nov, I am as little in clined to be mortified,or to complain of any language used in the course of debate as any man. I cannot however altogether forget the terms in which my Hon. Friend (Mr. Miles), as the mover, and the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. (Bailie), as the seconder of his resolution, introduced this subject. I have no desire to exhibit the slightest feeling of temper on this occasion. Indeed, I have no feeling of the sort, but I cannot but allude to the ob servations which were made by the Hon. Gentlemen who supported the motion. My Hon. Friend said that the Government were sacrificing the colonial interests, and the first proof which he gave of that proposition was the reduction of the duty on foreign wool, and, although he admitted that that reduction would not materially interfere with the home production, yet still he said that it was a blow to the Australian interests. Now I hope I shall be able to satisfy my Hon. Friend on that point. There has been a considerable sale of Aus tralian wool since that reduction, and three or four days since I was assured by an Hon. Gentleman, sitting on the other side of the House, that there never had been a more brisk sale of Australian wool ; that a rise in price had followed the reduction, and that t e price of Austra lian wool was higher now than it had been before the reduction of the duty on foreign wool.—(Cheers.) Therefore my lion. Friend cannot quote against us the reduction of the duty on foreign wool as destructive of the Australian wool. My Hon. Friend said that we had better throw off the mask.—(Loud cheering.) My Hon. Friend having naturally a fellow-feeling with the agricultural interest, calls upon them to unite with him. It is but natural and legitimate that he should do ; but my Hon. Friend makes a direct appeal to the Noble Lord, and to those opposite who act with him, and states that he is prepared to combine with them for the purpose of rescuing the colonies. He made that ap peal to the Noble Lord knowing that the Noble Lord was prepared to establish no distinction whatever between sugar, the produce of free labour, and sugar, the produce of slave labour.—(Hear, hear.) My Hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, who seconded the motion, said that our course was vacillating and tortuous—(Hear)-- and that the West Indian interest had no confidence in the intentions of her Majesty's Government. He also appealed to Hon. Gentlemen opposite for their support, which was willingly granted. Now, I cannot help in ferring from the speeches of my Hon. Friends and their supporters, that in their opinion it is not desirable to in troduce any distinction of duty between slave-grown sugar and free labour sugar.—(Hear, hear.) On such an occasion as this it is right that I should speak with perfect unreserve, and state the reasons why, be the consequences what they may, we aro determined to abide by the proposition which we first made,—(Cheer ing and counter cheering.) My Hon. Friend said that certificates of origin are no security. If my Honourable Friend was justified in the observations which he made, he must concede the admission of all foreign sugar, or maintain the present system. My Hon. Friend is of opinion that a certificate of origin was no security against the introduction of foreign sugar, and I do not see how, holding that opinion, he can escape from the conclusion that all foreign sugar ought to be admitted, or the scale of duties remain as they aro. The Hon. Member who seconded the motion expressed in still more decisive terms his opinion of the impoliey of maintaining the distinction between free and slave-grown sugar. The Honourable Member admitted that he should prefer a duty of 15s. on all foreign sugars to a duty of 10s. applied by the Government to so me particular kinds. There was a material difference between the principles of the Government and those of his Hon. Friend. Her Majesty's Government have determined that they cannot be the authors of such a proposition. Under these cir cumstances, the course her Majesty's Government pro poses to pursue is, this :—Tbe Noble Lord opposite (Howick), towards the close of the debate on Friday, in inviting other gentlemen to join him in excluding cer • taro words from the clau:e, said, and said very truly, that the adoption of this suggestion need not bind any 'one to support the particular proposal of his Hon. Friend. He said if his motion was successful, it would be within the discretion of those who might support him to make any proposition they might think fit, as an amendment to that of the Government. lam sure the Noble Lord will not exclude her Majesty's Government from the same privilege. The Noble Lord made a successful appeal to those who were disposed to support the motion of his Hon. Friend, but I can assure the Noble Lord that there are others who will not be influenced by it.—(Laughter.) For the purpose of giving the H ouse t h e opportun i ty of re considering the subject, and saying whether there is any weight in the reasons which I have given to-night for not adopting . the proposition of my Hon. Friend, when the proposition is brought forward for reducing the duty to 205., I shall move .that the duty be 245. I shall make that proposition, not merely because it is the one which I approve of as preferable for the pro spective interests of the country, but because I think it most unwise to carry any further alteration this year. We consider that it is of importance that the countries producing sugar, east of the Cape, should know what course will be taken in the course of the ensuing session regarding the sugar duties. We do not intend to propose, at any time, the admission of slave-labour sugar on the same footing as we propose to admit sugar the produce of free labour.—(Hear.) It may be said, then, why don't you abandon your measure altogether and propose the continuance of existing duties until the usual period, or until some period in the course of the next session? I will state to the House, why I do not adopt that alternative. Suppose we did altogether adopt that course—during the next sesssion, if we were entrusted with the Government, it might be our duty to make a proposal on the subject of sugars, That proposition would of course involve the admission of free-labour sugar. It might involve a considerable reduction of duty, if a duty were proposed on British colonial sugar, and a corresponding reduction on sugar the produce of free labour.—(Hear.) But observe, if there were no previous notice given, and if you still required certificates of ori gin as a condition of free-labour sugar—observe, I say, the position in which we would be placed in approach ing the consideration of the sugar duties, without any previous notice or any previous steps being taken by Parliament. (At this moment there was considerable noise in the House. The Right Hon. Baronet waited a moment, and then .finding it did not subside, said he hoped he might be able to obtain silence whilst he stated the steps the Government intended to pursue. After a feW moments, silence having been restored, the Right lion. Baronet proceeded.) If they merely continued the existing sugar duties until next year, and then pro posed to deal with the general question of the sugar duties, in what position would they be ?—(lronical cries of " Hear, hear," from Lord Howick.) I know the Noble Lord would be relieved from difficulty, because he would admit sugar indiscriminately from all countries ; but we, who entertain a distinction between the two classes—foreign sugar, free labour and slave grown—we should have to consider between the two alternative a, either to reduce the duty on British colonial spear to a considerable extent, and in that case observe what we should be doing —we should, in effect, be establishing a monopoly in the British market fee British colonial sugar fa- several months ; for we should wait for certificates of origin before we could admit American suear.—(Hear.) Let us assume that we pro pose a reduction on British colonial sugar, amounting to sixteen shillings—unless we could open some source of competition, the British colonial producers would have a monopoly in the British market, and the reduced amount of duty would have no effect whatever in creating com petition.—(Hear, hear.) If we took another course—if we took the coarse, to enable our competitors to pour in their supply, we must make the reduction of the duty on British sugar take effect frens a certain day, eight or niqe months from that period. Consequently, both these causes would lie o; en to all the objectio-s whi,ch we at present urge. The motion of my Hon. Friend fixed a definite day or a definite duty, but the more they reduced the amount of duty the greater was the tendency to derange the market and to reduce the supply.—(Hear.) On that ground I am not inclined to propose a continuance of the present sugar duties. and because it would interfere with the general policy which I propose to pursue respecting the sugar duties. I have now stated to the House as fully as is necessary, and as clearly as I could, the course which the Govern ment intends to pursue, and the motives which influenced us in making the proposal. lam not, I cannot be in sensible to the position in which the Government has been of late placed—(The Right Hon. Baronet here, and during many parts of the remainder of his speech, spoke in so low a tone of voice as to be frequently hut indistinctly heard in the gallery)---nor to the difficulties which have occurred in the progress of legislation.— (Hear, hear.) I cannot help feeling that we have pro posed measures in the course of the last and during the present session in respect to which that progress has not been made which use thought might have been made, but which, not having been made, leaves us, I own, in a very unenviable position.—(Hear, hear.) I will not attempt to impute blame to the House, but cannot help saying that I fear we must contemplate, at the close of the present session, the same result as at the close of the last session. —(Hear, hear.) ThOse measures which we have proposed —measures connected with the in ternal policy of the kingdom—have not been suc cessful.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to. some of them, we have not received that co'dial support, assent, and approbation from some of those Hon. Gen. tlemen who usually support the Government, which we had been induced to expect, and for whose opinion and character we entertain the highest respect.—(Hear.) I am bound to say, speaking with perfect candour, that we cannot look for that co-operation and support on the the present occasion by.holding out expectations of any change in the measure which we have proposed. The measure we believe to be good, and we must not with draw from it. If the measure does not entitle us to the support of Hon. Members who usually vote for the Government, we deeply regret the forfeiture of that confidence. We did not expect indiscriminate or ser vile support, but only such as would enable us to ad vance in the course of useful legislation.—(Hear, hear.) Our course has been to maintain and protect the exist ing institutions of the country, and, at the same time, to introduce such improvements as are compatible with the maintenance necessary for the purpose of ensuring the welfare and tranquillity of the commu. nity. We have recorded our desire to relax the system of protection and prohibition, and allow moderate com petition between domestic and foreign produce. We have attempted, to reconcile the introduction of prin ciples which we believe to be founded on truth with every rt'gsrd for existing interests, and every precaution to prevent embarrassment and undue apprehension.— (Hear, hear.) We feel it necessary to repeal some of the laws which preceding Parliaments had passed, and to propose a measure of reformation regarding the Ec clesiastical Courts. —f Hear, hear.) Her Majesty's Go vernment have been defeated upon that question it may appear a very simple and isolated one ; but we consider it a question of great importance.—(" Hear, hear," from the Opposition.) I repeat, we cannot pretend to con ciliate support by receding from the proposition we have made. I wish to speak with perfect candour—l deeply regret that we have forfeited the confidence of those who generally give us their support ; but I cannot ask you (turning to the Tory benches) to vote for us to night by encouraging expectations which we are not prepared to realize. For the course which we hare hitherto taken with respect to the gradual, safe, and circumspect relaxation of those duties on articles which come into competition with the domestic produce of this country, we cannot say that we entertain any feelings of regret or of repentance, nor any conversion to different principles. We are prepared to abide by the course we have pursued—we will continue to profess the same principles, and to proceed in the same course of gradual improvement, and this I feel obliged to declare at a period when important consequences may be thee result.--(Cheers.) Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose and said—The Right Hon. Gentleman has brought under the consideration of the House other and far different topics from that imme diately under discussion. The Right Hon. Baronet has invited remarks and discussion upon subjects of deep public interest, and from which, being so invited, I can not forbear from entering inta.—(Hear, hear.) What the Right Hon. Gentleman proposes in the question be fore the House is simply to reverse the decision of Fri day night.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") It was said truly enough, that, according to the statement of my Noble Friend, it was competent, according to the forms sf the House, to move an amendment or altera tion in the terms of the proposition of the Hon. Member it Bristol ; but it does so happen that the change which is actually proposed is neither more or less than to negative, by a majority, the decision of Friday night.— (Hear, hear.) The proposal is, that the present sugar duties, so far as colonial sugar is concerned, shall be continued—that all the duties on foreign sugar, at least as regarded the produce of slave labour, be continued ; and that our own proposition, a duty of 345. per cwt., on sugar the produce of free labour, be continued. That is, in effect, the very proposal which was placed before the House on Friday night, and which the House de cided against. I must say, although it is not for me to estimate the conduct of the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government towards his supporters, that harder terms were never, in my opinion, imposed by any Minister.—(Load cheers from the Opposition.) It appears to me that, according to the proposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman, no measure of Government or finance could be laid before the Le g islature upon which ho was not prepared to say, " Let us, as the Govern ment, make our proposition—it is your dut:it to accede to it.—(Loud cheers and cries of " Hear, hear," from the Opposition, and partial,cries of " Bear, hear," from the Tory benches.) And, if by any chance its taking our impartial and independent view of the i aterests of the country, you come to a conclusion differs int to that at which we arrive, we will ask you then to reti -ace your steps. —(Cheers, and " Hear " from the same qi teeters.) You must, in short, affirm what you deny, ai id deny what you affirm, and exhibit yours e lf t o t h e co untry ate a de graded and disgraced body of men."—(Lo ud cheers and cries of " Hear. ') That is the proposition of the Right Hon. Baronet, and that is the propositie m to which I am not prepared to agree.—(Hear, hear.) I cannot, I believe, be •counted one of those who h eve been the general supporters of the present Ge ssvernment.— (Laughter.) I am not one of those :wh o enjoy that distinction—(Renewed laughter)—and it is not likely that I shall be compelled to chaege my curse on this subject. It is for those who have been the supporters of the Government to consider whether, on way subject, they are prepared to surrender their will to, she dictation of the Right Hon. Baronet. And be it remembered, that it is not any direct or long cherishecl principles which they are called upon to sanction—not, en confirma tion of those principles upon which they acted when they placed him in office, and supplanted his. p: redecessors. but principles the reverse of these.—(H ear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman now showed then a how they could abandon those doctrines to which t49 0 ,Y pledged I free trade—(Hear, hear them the sustainnie nt themselves on the hustings, and join the advccaonil Right Hon. Gentleman in office was thought by teg7 o sufficient excuse for this desertion. But they svere,P.,,, called upon not only to abandon those P rinc ect upon which they formerly acted, but the !Zoe recent convictions of their own mind. I repeat , never were harder terms imposed on any those which the Right Hon. Gentleman imposed on of The Right Hon. Gentleman said that the proposition the Hon. Member was the effect of political combinstn of some of their own supporters, and of others opp:r1; to him. The Noble Lord then explained, in show that there was no preconcerted plan between In self and the Right Hon. Gentleman the late PresidenVe the Board of Trade ; in fact, seeing Mr. Miles rut& was quite accidental, his Right Honourable Fop as soon as he heard the nature of the in" in , which Mr. Miles had originally made, and which he subsequently altered, announced his determination d the to support that motion, but at the same time stated supporters try nature of the'proposition which he (Mr. Labouc could support, and if the Hon. Member framed )iis?nhe tion so as to obtain that support, it surely could not ei s called combination. Ido not see (said the Noble 1.0„,,u_i how the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of thLti ch u i vernment can, after the open declaration of n 37 i r s o f Hon. Friend in this House, term our votes the resuets. a "constructive conspiracy.—(Laughter, and c ri e t ae " Hear, hear.") non. Members on this side House, remarkable for their advocacy of free trade ciples, voted for the Government. If there has been combination or conspiracy it is surely among tke‘sioit nary supporters of Government.—(Hear, hear.) 11 ' 0 0 those Hon. Members on this side of the House who V with the Government will find it difficult to reconvA their objections against a duty of 345. and 245 e . 0 , their support of a duty of 63s.—(Hear, hear, and lunge, ter.) Perhaps they think the Right Hon. Gen tle M; after all the most effectual promoter of free tra de • ciples. Well, now with respect to the former part traded Right Hon. Gentleman's speech, I do not think .. necessary to advert in this debate. I do not me d i, enter into the question which was so fully t he cussed on my proposition with respect duty on free-labour and slave-grown sugar. l eo respect to the income-tax I do not wish to 11);bt the Right Hon. Gentleman at any length. The 11 '45S MIL Gentleman said that the reduction of the int' e b, on the Three-and-a-Half per Cents. was one greutt` cis jection to the re-imposition of the income-tax. Bu t a t reduction was decided on in March, and we need I) o f have waited until after Easter for the considerati on t these subjects. The Right Hon. Baronet says ° a ro great many legislative measures h: vs been passed• at doubt there was the Bank Chart r, a most impor t j r measure, but we had also several c. her measures of gislation which were not of so much imp •-tance. Ifi t i o take, for instance, the Ecclesiastic. 1 C iurts Bill , „ 0 . Irish Registration Bill, and other Bil e, w ich the Y:b. 1845 would have been quite seen enu gla to hav e s eae mitted to the consideration of the Hou e. I it thiu, re Right Hon. Gentleman might fiirly have said, “f t ,; e cl are great questions relativ e to fi nan ce—we have red ae the interest on the Three-and-a-Half per Cents., en d ja i have now to bring bef o r e y ou ques ti ons of comMe rc ia . policy, and the question of the continuance of W ou ld come-tax." I think that the House in that cas e lv .0 have felt that it was desirable to turn all their atte ntlo t to those great subjects. I should have distinctly s,, ta re a that any loss to the revenue w ou ld b e me t better 'prod years than it could he met in two years, and I 5 1 0 0 have proposed the continuan c e o f th e income-tax ked the next year. Now, the Right Hon. Gentleman t '", s e much about the disadvantage of m a ki ng a presPe c i l o reduction in November, b u t I canno t un d ers tand ei t ' a , from him or from the Right Hon. Gentleman the 9 111' 1 , cellor of the Exchequer, ho w th a t p ro p os ition, wm c o s, so beneficial with respect to foreign free-labour can be so very injurious to cob nial sugar.—(• be „ e n ite But that, in many respects, it is i n j urious . I tun 'roe ready to admit. But the Right Hon. Gentleman lug Chancellor of the Exchequer, th e oth er n i g ht, in arguer,l that question, and putting the case of colonial Sao said, " Nobody will be r ea dy t o b u y b ueause of tbeP l.o. posed reduction :" but when he came to his own Pr ° r se sition, he said " Eve r yb o dy w ill b e rea d y t o s ell beoun_ e they will be glad to get rid of an ar ti c l e on which dial will be a reduction in November." It, therefore, as not understood him, must be benefi c i a l i n one se nse, and to in another.—(Hear, hear.) Now, Sir, with reel:l ee : 4s , the imp irtant part of this subj ec t, th e re d uc tion be I own that it does seem t o me, genera ll y s p e aking, to b, a fair prorosition that the raw a r ti c l e s h ou ld not be s , ba t jetted - supposing both are the subj ec t s o f duty - l t h the raw article should not be subj ec t e d t o com petiti' ll° jo the manufactured article at exactly the same duty ens therefore, therefore, does not seem to me to be a fair principle(- Wirt the Hon. Gentleman is pro cee di ng . But, on the °t e ne t hand, if that proposition s h ou ld be adopted, I think th ' g r e if there is a distinction with regard to foreign suga r ' j a . ought to make a similar distinction with regard to °l er , nial sugar. It app ears th a t suc h was th e o pinion a P t . Deacon Hume, and that appears. from a letter in newspapers, to he the opini on o f M r . Gladstone. He newspapers, proposed a duty of s s . a dditi ona l i n case of colonial:, sugar, and is. 6d. in regard to foreign sugar. I thin e ' we have the practice in the United States and Haag r in favour of that example. I should be glad to hell o from the Hon. Member for Bristol, when he comes 1" t , that part of the proposition, why it is that he tbin ke absolutely necessary to ent e rtain a duty of 346 ' or what objection he can have to a 245. dutfi, in the case of colonial sugar? But, Sir, this is matter ° detail in regatel to the Hen. Member's propositit What the Right Hon. Gentleman now prorp-ses is, the House should agree to that which they negati‘"`: the other night—that they should po,itively affirm Ill s ' as expedient which they then declared to be inexp.clien‘ The Right Hon. Gentleman, as I understand him, does this as much on political as on commercial greundse-' (Cheers.) He declares that it is necessary to him !;' t have that confidence from his supporters that they Wt be ready to agree with him in this proposition. say, as I commenced by observitw, that it would to" melancholy proof of their own subserviency.—(Che er l ' That question has been f u lly argue d, a nd in that argument, and by the nu mb er o f twent y in a full H °us h; the Committee decided agai ns t th e proposition of Government. Again I say. that I see no reason for the _ majorty to change their votes. But let me tell thos* who voted the oth er ni g ht, t h at if the' , now ag re r 1 1 ; the proposition of the Ri g ht H on . G en tle man , the lbg Hon. Gentleman will treat them with the same d is ,„ re ; gard in future—will t rea t th e i r op i n i on i n the su'' n overbearing manner.—(Ch eers .) L et t h em depend a• it, that however they m a y cons id er t h emse l v es as a ;15 jority of the House of Commons, that their opinion s t he their views will here a ft er h ave no we i g ht ; that Right Hon. Gentleman being once es - slued of their Or port, would be enabled to make propositions whi ch they might think most injurious t o the country ; but "lu ring given this proof of subserviency, they will find them'selves unable to reco ver th e i r independence. ull ich e d gone at once and for ever.—(Th e N o bl e Lord rcst ll his seat amidst loud cheerin...) Mr. M,LES—I t rus t, Si r , th a t I shall net: be tresn a r., i4 ,. on the time of the C omm itt ee if I now ma k e a f e w obserg, tions. The Right Hon. Gentleman a t th e h ea d of thl c eo vernment told us that he thou g ht some consp i rac y 158 b- L entered into with the other side of the House. That , beg to deny in Coto.—(Ch eers .) Th e N o bl e L or d, the 1 % 1 % e bee for the City of London, has c orrec tl y state d the rev w ft why I altered the motion of which I originally gave no tice. 00 is quite true that I gave notice fo r a re d uct i on o f t he diel c fr o er 245. to 20s. in the fi rs t i ns t ance on sugar , t h e p.,:edure 0 . - 00 colonic'possessions. In the first d e b a t e w hi c h - : took ° Pla„ ce ,. f that question the Right H o n. G ent l eman , t h e .Chance a. the Exchequsr, asked me what h o p e I cou ld l as . v e of P e pii - a h a t neatly maintaining that duty. In that same de Se to tbe o Hon. Gentleman, the Membe r f or T aun t on sa id, as I u- c; e os• stood him, that he would support a reduction (If dot tO e r and 305., and he also seemed to s ay, f rom w h a t 1: c ad g a ` frm him, that he I also would reb e incli li ned to t 30' cr o iminating duty. he le t iea A io collect that the I krob r reer 1841, proposed a discriminating duty o f 6 s . I e l ope "t re at Majesty's Government will give the West India . bod,Y A t boo for having gone to them on several occasions, at id of that they considered that this m e as ure , i n th e ,pe event ! -te o ed the West Indian colonies, would amount to alms ist re tioa that it ought not to be proposed until after a tare, e itier ° , 4 :: f ity'e of Coollie labour had taken place. B u t, Si r , j het ,b 1,8•!: that . Government refused to listen to th em , an d it vree,' ° ; ite d reason that they framed this mea sure , w hi c h weeeal eu Ltion to give them a larger amount of p ro t ect i on t h an t l a l ' Pr°P-heerti of her Majesty's Govern men t. I con f ess . Si r , eat I tbet with regret the declaration of the Right Hon. Go a!ettlei l kat it he intends to persevere in his Bill. I think, Sir,. t :,ty of would only have been paving a due deference to the • rfor'' ( her this House for him to have postponed his measure is se ° f h is session; he would not then have placed a large beclY . ° 0 of supporters on this side of the House in the painful pos' the either supporting him or withdrawing altogethe r frct t he House. I have undertaken C.e responsibility of ad' ioer ti ,f,l to cause of the West Indian body, and Ido not new i° iii shrink from that duty.—(Loud cheers.) I can a 11 1 .1' 012 addition, that I will certainly take the sense of that " ° ; -- Tb° the amendment which I have proposed,—( Chet g.' sd itssi' Noble Lord opposite put a question to me about tb' e u,!„ west nating duty ; I can answer that I think the whole d • tu- duty India body would have no objection to a discrimis atins o , to of 4s. on colonial sugar, but there is a very great op ° ° , l , iy sal ' it from the East India body.—( Hear, hear.) I can e 5 ,.,'",;e4 , . that I myself have r.o objection to a discriminating d I now, Sir, move the amendme n t w hi c h h as been 1 ) ""' your hand. 241 , Sir R. PEEL moved that the blank be filled 's!) with bode. The CHAIRMAN (M r . G reene ) sa id- he &pest e o tas ks that the course they would have to pursue would bee t tbi t the amendments in the proposition as they went on, and proposition should then be put as amended. t k bad .ey Lord HOWICK wished to know whether, after ke sof discussed the question of amount of duty, they could mu , nce y alteration as to the time at which the duty-should comes' d the The CHAIRMAN apprehended that they must antes proposition as they went on. • importan I vie" Mr. BERNAL said, there were two very rablo for their consideration. He entertained very eon" t oe, doubt himself as to whether in a CoMmittee of a fiscal asst 24 ,. the Committee having determined that the duty 5 .r ... .„ . a 01 should not be imposed, they could . reconsider the inn)? o '7 a ny the same duty.—(Hear, hear.) He had not e xanu t t?e a ? precedents on the subject, but it was his opinion, b ` ,O l. journment of a former Committee on the B 11. In . a t _ roc 0 , could nut reconsider that question. That Cot:mites W h o: r oo of the former Committee, they rejected should , t r, ed anion originally introduced, that 245. duty s hould ne l r_ to p on a cwt. of sugar. That was rejected, and when them a; _ O l of his Hon. Friend was brought forward to reduce that eopen ', he duty, le' ba d ti ch u a e r s g ti e on on of the he p s u 4 b s. li d c, uty it . waTshhiselwclksthaitoteheoyhjceocutlidonr be make. The second was that the 20s. being the lower mitted.—( Hear, hear.) t the question' o h u e gh r t e j t e o c h te e d fir t s h t e p n ut tthoothheigCohomr mdiottttyeeo,fan2d4st.hasthoioltditatheshoseo.b.li The CHAIRMAN was understood to say, the of a 245. duty could be reconsidered as pa rt of the pope! ! o u vi y et . The duty H must on. Gen be tleman put was right in saying th t first, and the ques a tio therefore sira . PEELhe, that apprehended etent for had been negatived by the Committee, it was comp them to propose the 245. duty as a substitute. gallery, Mr. Roebuck, which were inaudible in the by the Sir G. GREY said that the Rht Hon. Gentleman, bar art t t as of tthheedPurtYP:flitthi°rnee. guineas' After a few words from Lord J. Russell, Mr. Home, an til present amendment, proposed to adopt pro . tan which were negatived the other night. He ( Sir G. CY ) vote to be carried, the B i g ht Hon. Gentleman to ask, before they cam e to a vote, whether., n s t u en p d p e o d s.in o g ptryLis , LO DON, TUESDAY MORNING, JUNE 18, 1844.