The Sun. — London, England, 1845-03-15 00:00:00

10 5 uefo Jag and Q portr r r, toe od dEstisw, llatttpou,i L i)it ed to the — 03 (04 is, faint _ . urnats, 0! lie CO" f lit tb6 ti c Instructs d y b y do eputaies2l'_., 014 b oloP of Arc 1 L i o. of Atttoo9 jot, ving o f ios ho 15° last B — ut her dividing r ot! lei,ore aticoltsc, rai lroad , „ t te• )laine ti c l eo ce, tod %it) do. the fray 31' on i lle ' ° ib; De bt 4 — s'e" 3 °`: 40 ce accused tyl thep 0 v e a fatootiS cide, Ile had 'nee, 4nl , 1 , de' t h e cru a t ,tra 'a t be f the 0 . 00 !) , .. tio0 the rceol lt p `veri , l IOW hi' o f IV ralirO3dS.ere, Lcipsic, 11 , v t to the ! es an d th e °t )l' f !onialitte of „ se to o ver to Pr'llt, and 13 ; ) ti l e tee ° ' ahvaildinoyfaresr, the Cola): ei hati -„/".. ; O bt$11 :0/ LrY ieb°l'e EX ' 1101/ .. th! eit for_ 04 i bii ' , F 3 o P t „ of C ° T i tl' i: to-n i g lit' •11 r u. ,or A sec° rt to o., th her /D ial' ~ Pa lau J a me , sow. to her et to Itoo• ecte e% „ l'. i r i tta) 4rt l A °J ' !7.lgri " be, eto le.aloet. !.-(Petei;e CO CK o f Or; be l esse so cl erati °lls tot V I Dt • es do tiler Ittiog 50 11. diveo tit atg tie to t he 11 re I T 3 , Qt ag ti` il t iet iito r,co ar e 1 ;h e der t( t tbthat 4 nab S ir o f 4.9 t0 t has " e- 11, e ertig- w hici i4 m eot , b°° " rho i n, 0 neigh eel ,o I L A 1• ot io' Fr ith u ;„ll , i t :ijenc e t : her , r e e l ; ' c iefi o e it tw o t , ear, A ,t o ° t t b l ' e pa l t t i . e o o; v • but 311' ate tivit fort il3 l l . T he rool ltit ere C°.. „bt P er"t ::t I) ,re 3 riot 3 lov tilt e ' or e ti eti 0 111 c °l ' der 6e. p cts c iteioeti in fot . l a pacen a pd IDU re , nuillere j 9 a r .efa ;e be a" f o n S 6 " ore ther e ,3, A v• aleS iu ie u r 4,10' )e l `'ns l ; S :•of , for th e f 1° gooo'' os b , . or proci',o FAd IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. , HOUSE OF LORDS, s.'arch , 411 'Olin CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Nil' ool!ack Y after Fiv e o'clock. L SC HOOLMASTERS OF SCOTLAND. klat'eds CAMPBELL presented a petition from the school hnsse,r. °f Scotland, praying for the provision of dwelling ott 4 rt i i "LN YON as ked why L cnoolmasters? CAMPIiF.L L said that in every petition which had teti s 4, l :!ented to the House this provision had been expressly u• The schoolmaster at present hail what was eaPed nld , t ;, e nd,” which consisted only of two small rooms. He Iter" . '" the Noble Lord th,t these respectable individuals deri„, c i e ,!riplish e d in every branch of learning, and that if he had tie, - t i l ` ;Ns education from one of them, he would have found ss le " s kill in communicating it would have rendered hint tsi 2L ' t °,ra i plished as he now was ; and he thought the Noble Lord 4 ra ,ye spared his jeers. h ON protested that he only asked a question, and pr eys rio. the slightest disositicn in the world to ex the,ol7:6lneast disrespect for the b ody of individuals from whom emanated. nit i t; S EES OF ST. ASAPII AND BANGOR. l'etipijal'i of these of HEREFORD presented a petition against the se sees, „lAri K ,„,COLLEGE OF MAYNO Oai TH. be d ' , AVON presented a petition against the incrsase 4s s h i g re r ant to the College of laynooth from Newhall, in OT A H EI T E. ; ', 1, 1e pa:- of MINI s,id, that understanding that his Friend the First Lord •of the Admiralty was 4 POsed, anel unable at present to attend in s et !' lie thought it would be unfair to bring forward r,:tki se i l° , tl with reapect to Otaheite in his absence. He b„ .° bring it - forward after the holidays, but at any d to withdraw it for the present. D itch WATER FI-41 BILL (SCOTLAND). 0tti,,,,; I NTO moved the second reading of this Bill. Its aqst '° protect the fish in fresh water rivers in Scotland t,l it e Public, and the public in the enjoyment of the rro thle , L e 5 f bUCCLEUCH agreed with the general prin rthsed " 15 but with regard to its details he was not o"w to g' • . . od wasi ,t , e any opn. then rea d a second time. p u Ltd t„ FREEME OF THE CITY. Ct. er ,'JUGH All moved for a return of the number of t - kt i - 7 'live freemen of the City of London during a 5l. i ' B4 3. enihng on the Ist of April, 1844. He t u b e ''' t enlinn of throAing the slightest disrespect tt4 ;ilr 4i, Corporation el London, of which lie was an .rn,° emlier, by moving for this return, nor did he in u:l",. forward the bill which he introduced on the qrlri it i o Ct ting. He stated this to relieve the anxiety of the r P n ' the head o ffi cer of which, he meant I ,tti l L r d or, hact to-day directed the City cleat, a n,eer to communicate with him on the toee ii that communication the City Remem l e t z liressed, on the part of the Corporation, much hi! introducing the measure into Parliament. without litil,,,', ls e 'n•ulting the CorpCorprratio of the City of London. k: l t itot";Y were reduced very low, but he thought they 1 4e4 i tt eed so loss as not to be alw, - (1 to introduce a it ' u otit the previous consent of a corporation. 11 4 ? RICULT ITR AI. IMPROVEMENTS. lti et rin e , e of RICHMOND gave notice of his intention, t~lofto bring forward a motion to ascertain the pro bo7P°inting a Select Committee to inquire whether 114 4 ss e d Proper that some legislative enactment should O t tlil ed for the purpose of enabling the owners l N ett k ..Property e ff ec t ua lly to drain and otherwise improve ti rti ..4 * The Noble Duke, at the same time, moved for th PL-t h , ei t number of licenses granted to tuinpike -keeper ‘ 4 • distinguishing the names of the keepers and the 4 4 Ito SCOTCH BANKING. l a 7teeti "SYLN gavenotice that on Tuesday next, it was t jar ° , n to ask a que-t n ion of the ' Noble Duke, referrring Yet of her Alajestv's speech which stated that it was tAtlistittlitpe present session of Parliament that some alters itt j a ,)e , , e ,,, m tll a n d d e . in the law relating to the present system of le the uI SAI3ILITIES OF THE JEWS. ,h,r j "ding of the order of the day for the third read bak'wish Dimbilities Removal Bill, , t yte e of CAMBRIDGE rose and said — My Lords, 'i tt Nes i Sa y only a few words in expressing my cordial con !felin d t e t his Bill. Since I have returned to this country nan b Y opportunities of seeing the good that is done lqtes e Y the members of the Jewish persuasion, and 4 9 1tdo ge mar s to placed I belong a great part of the te„ d° oe mar be to their credit. I have fie 4,s4tilt kith one gentleman who has been High Sheriff 44:11.,4t12 also of - the city of London, anti, my ind another gentleman, who is now High Sheriff of tg o. u Si been High Sheriff of London four or five t My Lords, it is only justice to that I l k , P 4 l4 s e t ° state one thing, which is a great credit to him. 4. 4, ) so me time ago, to les summoned—to be invited -1.4 t4h t ti - r . ,h eet itig at Winc ' hestcr, for providing funds to pro h s i e Xtension in that diocese. Upon that occasion, °4 'A los • Montefiore in the gardens, and 44 °t1 14'° , " hands a considerable sum of money, which (as ' we understood the Illustrious Duke) It"t't of at libertYto mention. I should also say that, in l'oe att u e world where I passed a long part of my life, re t „ ite members of the Jewish protession as distin- NR s; their high character and charitable disposition. '`. o far, I am equally bound to state that no one A t % a l l an xious for the passing of this Bill than I am „Ns, ho,' s entiments of attachment to the Church to Ntlip k ; ti gt I must say that, as long as I live, Irwin give ' ll: i tho a r , t . t o whatever measure of toleration may be pro -I.o4,„;flittry to the Established . Church. grstia " CHANCELLOR said—Aly Lords, I am 'ts er l by the assent of his Royal Highne's to this 10 , 4 ker,9--and I now move your Lordships that it be third t i m ' Y Iva% e. kes,, rai then read a third time, amidst a slight, but 'T'AN,,.;flurmur of approbation. 'T DUTIES ASSIMILATION BILL. Nit te tt ll i : o ' the day for the third reading of this Bill was StilitnariNTEAGLE said that as this Bill would affect a t h Ls f r et. of disputes in Inland he thought that time kislorded for - the reconsider ' atinn of thisßill. He was *Ale 6. , ng to elicit any opinion respecting this Bill from i t :tt ke• but he thou.sht that a reconsideration of the bl i the 611 1 was neeessa ' ry. i r tk.os i' of WELLINC TON said that the Noble Lord ' •gse„ ts 9 to apprehend the correct nature of the Bill. ate vto ' i t that the Bill had better be read a third time. k e ss l(l be t ample time for the reconsideration of t he thttttls L o e Bill even during the present session, and then 41 might, if he thought proper, act on the repo rt hill Co mmissioners. little then read a third time, and the House ad e isefore Six o'Clock. 1 , 1 11 1 ,40 r, 'tt,;' ) l'k E OF ct).pi ,i 1 March l 4. ; t tit 4 th et t look the Chair at Twelve o'clock, and immediately k. lli t 'tle. ‘ , , e ,liouse went into Committee on the ' 41 11, 4,1 11, 11 . 1 " ' CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION BILL 5 q ,, 4 44 clau ses o f th e Bill from 94 down to 100, both lathe tosite Se verally put and agreed to without discussion. ll' 'ttee then took up the postponed clauses of the Bill. 04 4 ,415 t:4 , 1°n of Lord G. SOMERSET, a clause was intro st,taea of clause 5, which had been shuck out, giving Ni b of in;_°cotipiers of land more specific recompense for the 1,, 1 1054ry they might have sustained by the construction l itt i kli;"lit„,, k s _ II . or by the loss of the land taken fur them. o f ii . "' l4 t) also brought up a clause in place of clause 44, ti i ' t her 4 , - , Wa Y Companies to make sufficient approaches to pri k:ls'io,t7ads which were affected by the works of railroads. tiltl tin, ' " of the same Nonce Loan, several clauses which i litt - v s o to in the Companies Clauses Consolidation Bill O R t'''re s h d ced into this 13111. The Noble Lord said that as thought they might with safety be introduced into "te w ai geY were agreed to.: t 4t:t•tl,s also introduced to prevent railway companies from e sea:o impede, cross, or in any way affect any creek or I s 4 t i N tn, Or to alter or amend the same, without the consent 6,5 1 ttai l „ , l 'oliers of the Woods and Forests, or the Lords of ' Dein ss„ • () . N . 8 previously obtained. 'tot M ERSEY, in the absence of his Hon. Friend the s',, ,* ts r i: .. 4 itl,.; r i e . la nd, begged to move the introduction of a clause wh i ,`kat no works should be constructed by railway IS tt s :t ait , e " would affect the fall, or discharge, or alter the t t es ‘ .. ‘ a ni of water without the supervision and consent of °ll,B in Ireland. The Noble Lord said that was ci sttt l Provided for by the 6th Victoria, but the introduc tt,k e would make the obligation general in Irel and . o g the Loan then moved an amendment to the 20th clause, 1. :1) Of :, Power of a railway company to take temporary Ot ki. ta ~'_and without previously paying the price of it. The te t t i. a Tt_thed to exempt from this power cultivated fields, 11 6 1 , 1 4 % , 4 , 4 14° aohes to a mansion-house, or . any other ?ma t': , r ound. As the clause originally stood, a railway t have power to take possession of land for the pur- Ni t 'lls7, 3 , e, extending in depth 1,000 yards from the centre iN 4 '40; I lse Noble Lord proposed to alter the num ber k t i tt: j Se,,, H oßp moved that the number be only 100. ',,EIIsET suggested that his amendments should be ,'"en the Gallant Colonel would be at liberty to move ~,14,111,1sItsaittogether. j . N,, ‘ "4)11 4 1.1 , L , ° , 11 P was understood to agree to this suggestion. hl"' W et 'IS thought the powers given to engineers by : t o . s e too great. s '&t t i , l eti t ' i es e 6 t R SET said that, if the clause had been made kr eitt, 2n this general Act, the companies might have d 1 rt e. Ih r Powers in a special Act than were proposed to be k r ,lo s 'ng e words which he proposed to introduce %ere these: i,414 1 lioo! a venue, or other ornamental road, nor an approach ttrl house.,. , about Li I S t . ON said the interpretation clause seemed to I , 4 4 lt''Sit i V t n the limitations the Noble Lord had alluded to. Cty f .' 110 1t1 ) said the limitations were all in favour of ti„ r ial?,, g e ntlemen. Now he knew of no class that ought t itt h s i 4 e P r etected as gewlemen. In what situation did tt.. t atio ac e the poor man or tenant, farming a few k t ,;;Dor ai ..„ He Might have inroads made on his property for lk s 'll, ll la, PUrposes, for the making of bricks, or for every Il t 'ti, t h illst a t n il " Yance. The Noble Lord said he might bring an of e c ompany ; but would the railroad company pay Art p ti l G nel t hat action, a s well as the damage done to him? 4 1, 41 iJ t Y 'nith °rP) was not sent to that House to defend It tt lSl,J'ars °f• l ; W hat were called gentlemen, they could better tli ai l hi ght t h softie of it than the poor man, and though such W hol '4 " the gentleman, they would altogether annilii. 11121, 41 1 4 ia e , °l the hard-earned property of the poor man. If 51, 74 ik,' 4 it ; and justice dealt out by a British House of Corn. tt l o le difr et a ' high time that another reform of it should take Pt i l ous e e n' hien sent there. He solemnly protested against the "qty 4 'd from n o thi n g else but a desire to protect I t aks ° le th h - th, h umbler classes. The Noble Lord said he had kn ew se nse of the House on it, and he would do so, So Nt :'„e shou'd fail. ts, "th at '" I ISET agreed to introduce an amendment into t ltt, t Y to c :' o Uld limit the occ upation of the land to the time o .!t * f e „," r tlet only th a t p ar ticular portion of the line. ~ the i l , wor ds from C o l one l H oLLES TON and Lord G. So 4, s fit 4 4 i1 e • 0 a4 1, : e as ame n d e d , was agree d to. 1.4,404 t lex E GERTON, in the absence of the Hon. Mn.rritt 't qt ne Wh o Was eng age d on an e:ection Committee, moved t tot sth i dep osi ,. ° the 21st cla us e, which gave a railway company Is Nose_h too hint the estimated price, to take possession of any k il hs thi s ,:' oe required for slip banks or side cuttings, and taii2 l et a ,,,"wer was the princ,pal object of the amendment. thllskty c ' e it was provided that disputes between landholders to „,,,, -QM Panies should be referred to two justices of ai t h lNle ice — whether the railway absolute , y required the land k. 4 114, lar ids " e enience, but the justices had no power to order 'N s , the w and materials should not be taken. The Hon. 1, 1 0 .ore tg - ,,, vea another amendment to supply this de io,; Ni t , li t "N ti `oe ' , SET complained of the vagueness of the lan -11Ah%1,7'' and en ` h °ellt• It was liable to many and various con k Is 't er gare large discretionary powers to the justices. %i I h wipuld not object to the amendment then, but on st,ikePr. Out altogether. t v 24 l :,.Xor tit ," .. r , s were then agreed to. tik:szartit,,,,i,,,,.::::o;-ai....nilswoSbtaproposed a clause to enable persons in Obtaining water power, and of carrying current: :ti sti : IA ease _ as to form the works necessary for such pur tt "1' dispute should arise between the railway 'to iu bsit th t he person de s i r i ng t o o bt a i n such water diseete to the Commissioner: of Public Works in Ireland, who should have to adjudicate thereon, and authorise the construction of such works as they deemed not likely to be in. jurious to the railway. Lord G. SOMERSET said that they had not the power to con sider this clause in Committee, and the motion was withdrawn. The CHAITZM&N Laving lett the chair, reported float the amend ments had been agreed to, but it was immediately discovered that an omission had been made with respect to the interpretation clause.—The Bill was then recommitted, and the mistake was rectified. The CHAIRMAN, baring again left the chair, reported progress, and the Bill was pas•cd through Committee. The report was or dered to be brought up at twelve o'clock on Monday. LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION BILL. On the motion of Lord G. SOMERSET the Home went into Committee on the Lands Clauses Consolidation Bill, and clauses 1 and 2 were agreed to. All the clauses up to 23 were agreed to. Upon clause 23 hcing proposed, _ . . Mr. T. EGERTON s aid he thought that was the best opportunity for him to propose an amendment which he had contemplated. He proposed that the owner of land which was to be taken by the Corn. -',any should have the option of choosing either an arbitration or a jury. Ile could not conceive any mode fairer than that of arbitration. In case of dispute, the arbitration might be appointed by the Board of Trade. To accomplish his object he should move the omission of paragraphs 23, 21, 25, and 26, and the insertion of those of which he had given notice. What he suggested was adopted in the Scotch Lands Consolidation Bill, and he did not see why the same prin ciple should not be applied in both countries_ Lord G. SO MERSET said, that if he rightly apprehended the Honourable Member's o!•ject, it was to secure to both parties the option, to a certain extent, say 1,0001., of settling their diffe rences by arbitration. To that extent he would not object to such an arrangement, but he would not go beyond it. Mr. G. CRAIG believed that Scotch landowners would be very glad to have this option. It was, in fact, a necessary security to parties whose property was taken by compulsion. Lord G. SOMERSET said that he had no doubt but that the sheriff weuld be able to secure the services of twenty-four indivi duals, who would act correctly, but he thought he ought not to be restricted in his selection. He (Lord G. Somerset) himself had been placed in a position in which, having a jury to select, he had been told that he could not find twenty-four persons within that district who lived in the county, and he was obliged to g 3 out of the county. He had no objection to accept the Hon. Member's amendment to the extent of 1,0001., but he would not go beyond tt. He thought that if the sum was greater than that, that the company ought, as well as the land. owner, to have the option of arbitration or decision by jury. Mr. T EGERTON said, that according to the Noble Lord's state ment the company would have the advantage of the advice and aisistance of engineers and other professional persons. Now it was evident that the landowner was utterly unable to compete with the company under those circumstances, and in the cases of large towns it was well known that the landowner had no chancy whatever. But the person he wished to protect was the small land owner, the man who possessed three or four acres, and he hoped that the Noble Lord would kindly consent to his amendment. Mr. AGLIONBY said that he by no means wished to depreciate the trial by jury, but he could by no means put the same implicit faith in English juries that the Honourable Member for Cheshire seemed to entertain, for he did rot believe juries to be by any means infallible. He knew a case near Lancaster, where a beautiful house, with delightfully situated grounds, at the end cf the town had been ruined beyond all power of money to recompense, and what did the jury decide upon ? Why they gave absolutely less for the land taken than the proprietor had paid for it two 'years before. He (Mr. Aglionby) did not see the necessity of employing a professional person at all, and he thought that a plain man with a knowledge of land was quite able to arbitrate as well as any other person. He would engage to pick twenty-four mem out of the county of Cumberland who would arbitrate just as s•rtisfactorily as the best professional person in the world. He knew of one case whore the expense of arbitration was 1,200!, and the landowner was actually compelled to receive 600/. less than he ought to have done for the arrangement, which was a grievous loss to him. Mr. Forbes, Sir Denham Norreys, and Mr. Fitzstephen French, expressed their dissatisfaction with the clause, and hoped the amend ment would be adopted. On clause 39 being put, Mr. AGLIONBY objected to the time and place for holding the ury being fixed by the warrant to the sheriff requiring him to summon the jury. LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION BILL. Lord G. SOMERSET said the sheriff was bound to summon persons who were indifferent, and in consequence railway directors could not possibly form a jury in their own case. As to the place ofmeeting, there must be some rower of fixing the locality. He would add some words limiting the circuit within which the meet ing should be held Mr. A GLIONBY thought the Noble Lord did not see the full force of the objection that had been raised. The distance within which the juries was to be summoned ought not to be limited; the jury ought to be formed in the same manner as others were. The clause was then agreed to. Clauses up to 47 were passed without discussion. On clause 48 being put, Mr. AGLIONBY pointed out a great legal difficulty that would arise under this clause; it was a nice legal question, depending on the construction of Lord Denman's Act of last session, with respect to the admissibillity of witnesses. A case had arisen in which the evidence of a railway director was proposed to be taken in favour of the company, and a doubt arose whether, as he was only collectively interested as a director, lie came under the ex. elusion clause, which referred to parties individually interested. This was a difticult question, in which it was desirable the opinion of a higher Court should be taken. lie wished to alter the clause so as to allow either party to carry this question by an appeal to a superior court, so as to set aside any error in the decision of the sheriff Lord G. SOMERSET said the proposition would decidedly favour the railwly companies, and operate against the landowner; as by the enormous expense of legal proceedings, individuals would be frightened into taking an arbitration, instead of taking the decision of a jury. Mr. AGLIONBY asked what the Noble Lord meant by enor. mous expense ? The process would be merely that of an ordinary motion in the Court of Queen's Bench, a thing of every day prac• tice. It was not to be supposed that the question would oe car tied through every court up to the House of Lords for decision. He believed the cost of such a motion was exceedingly moderate. Lord G. SOMERSET could not say precisely what the expense would be, but taking all the proceedings together, it would be more than the lion. Member anticipated. He b:lieved this clause wa drawn up in strict accordance with every railway Act, aed almost every company's Act that had passed through that House; and he was not prepared to alter in this general Act what Parliament had so repeatedly sanctioned. The clause was then agreed to. Clauses 49 up to 77 inclusive were then agreed to. On clause 7S Using proposed, Mr. AGLIONBY slid he thought it was not right that the owner of land should be compelled in all cases to incur costs in proving his title. A man might have a good holding title, trough a bad selling one. Lord G. SOMERSET said he believed the intention was, that landowners should be fully remunerated for all expenses which they were compelled to incur. He would make inquiry on the subject. On clause 92 being proposed, imposing on railway companies the obligation of taking land in certain cases, Mr. AGLIONBY objected that the clause did not provide for the case of a tongue of land being cut off and separated from other land in such a manner that it could not be conveniently used by the owner. Lord G, SOMERSET said that, after giving the matter some consideration, he thought it would be difficult to introduce the proposed amendment. In the selling of the land that was taken such a circumstance ought to be taken into account, in aggregation of the amount. On the whole, he thought it would be be►t to leave the matter to be considered in the arbitration; but he would again take the subject into consideration. Clause 92 and the remaining clauses of the Bill were agreed to. The House then adjourned till Fi•e o'clock. The House resumed at Five o'clock. SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BiLL. On bringing up the report from the Select Committee on Petitions en the petition for leave to introduce the South- Ei.stern Railway Bill, Mr. DODD moved that such petition be withdrawn, and that leave be given, in conformity with the recommendation of the Select Committee on Standing Orders, to present petitions for the introduction of seven different Bills, with reference to the matters comprised in such first-mentioned Bill.—Agreed to. The Edinburgh:and Harwick Railway Bill was read a second time. The Dublin and I)rogheday Bill was read a first time. BAD CROPS.—INCOME-TAX. Mr. CHRISTOPHER presented a petition from the farmers of Lincolnshire, stating that the crops of wheat and other agricultural produce were generally deficient, and that this, conjoined w;th the alteration in the tariff, the admission of Canadian corn at a re 'ueed duty ; and the increased burdens upon them by reason of the income-tax, pres , ed too much upon the agriculturists, and they prayed the House to adopt measures for their relief. ARREST OF WAGES. Mr. SPOONER presented a petition, signed by 4,500 dealers in Birmingham, complaining of the Bill passed last session for the abolition of imprisonment for debt ; and they prayed that that part of it relating to arrest of wages might be modified, as at present they suffered great inconvenience in consequence of the difficulty of recovering their jest debts. BIRMINGHAM RAILWAY EXTENSIONS. The Host. MEMBER also presented two petitions, one of them signed by the Directors of the Birmingham and Worcester Canal, agninst the extension of the Birmingham extension line. POOR-RAT FS. Mr. MILES presented a petition from the county of Wor cester, against the unequal burden of the Poor-rate. FOULMIBE INCLOSURE BILL. On the motion of Mi. ALLIX, the Foulmire Inclo3ure Bil was raad a second time. CHARITABLE BEQUESTS ACT. _ _ .... Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL presented a petition, signed by 146 of tlie Roman Catholic clergymen of the archdiocese of Dublin, complaining if certain provisions in the Emancipation Act ; and also against the late Charitable Bequests Act, and praying for its total repeal, and the substitution irntead of the Bill drawn up by the 1-lon :Wernher for Cork. MAYNOOTII COLLEGE. Mr. YOUNG presented a petition from the county of Cavan, against the proposed increased grant to the Roman Catholic College of tlaynooth. LIGHTING THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. Mr. HUM begged to give notice that he would, on Mon day next, call for the report of the expenses that had been in curred by the experiments made in lighting this House. Captain PECHELL gave notice that he would to-mor row put a question, in order to ascertain the number of places in Wales in which petty sessions were holden ; also a question relative to the Ju-tices Clerks' fill. Sir W. CLAY gave notice of a motion relative to Messrs. Smith's distillery case, the nature of which we could not understand. .~., `'_ THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY MORNING, MARCII 15 1845. opportunity of substantiating those charges if it were in their power. Mr. A G LI ONBY was one of th , . , Members who had spoken on the occasion alluded to. He did not know whether or not the Government alluded to him, but if they did he begged,to inform the Hon. Under Secretary tl - at he need not wait until Tuesday. for he (Mr. Aglionby ) was perfectly ready now to substantiate any charges which he had made against the tfficers at the head of the Colonial Department. If the Hon. Under Secretary did not wish to wait until Tuesday, he was perfectly ready now to give his oph.ion as to the conduct of Lord Stanley. Lord HOWICK understood the Hon. Under Secretary to say that. on fuesday he meant to go into the defence of the conduct of Lord Stanley. Now, if the papers for which the Hon. Under Secretary meant to move were necessary to the defence of Lord Stanley, he must protest against any discussion taking place on the subject until he should be in possession of those papers, so as to be enabled to form an opinion on the Noble Lord's policy as regarded New Zealand. Mr. MANGLES having been a party to that debate, and having expressed a strong opiniOn on the conduct of the Co lonial-office, rose to answer the accusation of the Hon. Gen tleman. He was quite ready to substantiate any charge which he had made against Lord Stanley. He would not allow the Hon. Gentleman to dictate to him. Mr. HUME rose to order, but was interrupted by Lord J. RUSSELL, who said that the Hon. Gentleman had made a statement which he (Lord J. Russell) did not clearly understand. He wished to know what it was that the Hon. Gentleman proposed to do? Mr. G. W. HOPE said that the character of the Noble Lord who was at the head of the Colonial Department had been attacked on the other night, when the motion on the sub ject of New Zealand had been brought forward. A charge had been brought against him by the Hon. Member for Lis keard. Now he was desirous of defending the conduct of the Noble Lord, and he wished to introduce a motion fur papers, for the purpose of having that opportunity. Mr. HUME asked if those papers. furnished a specific an swer to the charge against the Noble Lord ? Ile should wish to know what was the specific charge made against the Nsb!e Lord, from which the Hon. Gentleman wi-hed to defend him. Mr. G. W. HOPE understood that the charge brought against the Noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Depart ment was, that he had produced one set of instructions to the New Zealand Company, as the instructions which he had given to the Governor who had been sent out, and that he had given another set of instructions to the Governor inconsistent with those shown to the Company. and which he (lid not produce to them. And that, thereby, the Noble Lord's governor or agent in the colony was not in possession of instructions, or rather his instructions were not such as to enable him to carry out the arrangement originally made by the Noble Lord with the Company. Sir H. INGLIS said, that as the House would have no means of investigating the charge unless it had time to read the papers, he would suggest that it would be better to post pone the question till after the recess; they would then have been able to consider the documents. lie did not see the Hon. Member for Liskeard in the House, or he was sure he would consent to postpone his motion till after the recess. Mr. 11 A NGLEtt.; said, as the Noble Lord ,Lord J. Russell) and the Right lion. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford had prolonged the discussion, and the Hon. Under Secretary for the Colories had been allowed to speak twice, he did not understand why he should have been considered out of order. If the lion. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies imagined there was any disposition on the part of the New Zealand Company to shrink from ingoiry with respect to the charge made against the Colonial Department in general, and Lord Stanley in particular, he was mistaken. The Hon. Gentleman need be under no apprehension but that he would have a full discussion of the whole matter. With respect to what the Hon. Gentleman had said of a pe tition in course of signature in the City, he might depend on it the merchants and traders of the City were not the per sons to be influenced to sign a petition containing charges against the Colonial Department, or any other department of the Government, unless they were convinced of the justice of the charges. If he supposed the Colonial-office stood well with the country, the Hon. Gentleman was under a delusion ; if he thought the Colonial-office was not reprobated by the whole country, and considered as a plague and a nuisance, he believed the Hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary, and the Noble Lord at the head of the department, were the only per- sons who held that opinion. Sir R. INGLIS said, the intention to press tie charge had now been stated in terms about which there could be no mis take. His Hon. Friend, therefore, should not be content to take the discussion on a motion on which the House could express no opinion. He should frame his motion in such a manner as to elicit the opinions of the House. It would then appear whether it was true, as alleged by the Hon. Member who spoke last, that the Colonial Government was reprobated by every individual in the country, except the Noble Lord at the head of the department, and the Hon. Under Secretary. He ( Sir R. Inglis) believed it would appear by a large and unanimous majority of that Ilouse—(Cries of " Order")—he was perfectly in order ; he believed it would appear by a ma jority of that House, and what was no less important, by the opinion of the majority of the country that such was not the general opinion of it. Lord EIOWICK thought, after what had passed, that the policy that had been adopted by the Government with respect to New Zealand ought to be brought before the consideration of the House. Sir 11. PEEL felt that he was bound to say something on this question. He was certain that the course pursued by the Noble Lord opposite would never answer the purposes he had in view. But, besides the general question, there was another question in which Noble Friend was distinctly charged with bad faith—a charge brought forward at the close of the discussion the other night, after both his Right Hon. Friend and himself had addressed the House. His Noble Friend was most anxious that they should not separate for the holidays without having an opportunity of dis tinctly explaining his conduct by referring to the documents, and showing, as he (Sir 11. Peel) thought he could conclu sively show, that the accusation of want oF good faith in his transactions with the New Zealand Company was without foundation. He did not apprehend that his Noble Friend wanted to cal on the House for any expression of opi nion on the general question, but his Hon. Friend, as the re presentative of his Noble Friend, was most anxious in a matter that need not necessarily provoke any discussion on the ge neral policy, but on a matter in which his personal conduct was involved, and an accusation of want of good faith made, that an opportunity for explanation should be given.—( Hear, hear.) His Noble Friend, feeling as a man of honour on this subject, did not wish the /1. ‘use would separate without such an oppor tunity being afforded.—( Hear, hear. ) Mr. A GLIONBY was glad that the Right lion. Baronet had spoken nut in the way he did, feeling that any person whose public conduct was atraigned should have an opportunity of offering an explan tion to the House. And if the Hon. Secretary for the Colonies had taken the same course, he believed that. this discussion would have been termi nated before. Those who took part in the former debate, com plained that no notice had been given to them. The lion. Se cretary for the Colonies had given notice, indeed, five minutes ago behind the Speaker's chair.—( Hear, hear.) But was that an intimation which ought to receive Parham ntary sanction? —( Hear, hear.) The Committee who sat last year took an in terest in this discussion. Was any intimation g iven to them that this question was about to be raises!? If he understood the Hon. Gentleman, he intimated his intention of bringing before the House, for discussion and division, the whole ques tion of the complaints made by the New Zealand Company against the Colonial-office, and the demand for reparation. But he begged to tell the Hon. Under Secretary. that he could not drag on a discussion when he pleased. The H. n. Baronet had correctly stated his (Mr. Aglionhy's) views the other night. He did nut think that debate would take the angry turn it af terwards did, and he certainly did not intend to bring on the New Zealand question except as a Bernier resort. He would tell the Right lion. Baronet that the petition to which reference had been made was one to which the atten tion of Hon. Members was particularly requested. Great con sideration had been given to the wording of it, and they only made application in it to the justice of the Government. The petition was not yet ready, and it was doubtful whether it might be presented, and a motion founded upon it, before Easter. Until ths: facts produced before the house were ex hibited in a condensed form, it would lie useless to expect Hon. Members to enter into a discussion upon ,he subject. There existed a feeling in the minds of Hon. Members prejudicial to the interests of the New Zealand Company and in favour of the Government. Ile had many striking facts to show that the New Zealand Company had endeavoured to de a great public good, but they hail been thwarted by the Government: He could not think that the Right lion. Baronet had entmed into the merits of this case. If the claims of the New Zealand Company could be shown to be just, and if their interests were injured by the proceedings of the Colonial Government, if their hopes were protracted, surely it was but rea•onable that the Hou-e should pay some attention to their claims. He did think that the recent appeal to the House might be useful. The Company appeared before the House as claimants for justice. Ile did not object to state all the reference that had been made to Lord Stanley in the petition which was in course of signature, and if he entered upon the subject somewhat lengthily, he hoped the House would excuse him. lie had not expected that the discussion on the other evening would have degenerated into these personalities. He (Mr. Aglionby) had then objected to the ward instructions." He was ab tut to object to the word " instruction," and to have substit.tted for it the word " order," but he would now allude to another point before he did so. He had heard of very hostile and angry letters that had been written and passed between Lord Stanley and Captain Fitzroy upon this subject ; but he could not further allude to them, as he understood they had been withdrawn. However it might be said that the New Zealand Company should make out their case, and then it would devolve upon Lord Stanley to make good his objection to it. It had been further said that that had been done, and that the Colonial-office had sanctioned the explanation ; and therefore he (Mr. Aglionby) would say that this was an agreement, though Hon. Gentlemen opposite might say it was only " a document." But, let its name be what it may, he had many many times met Captain Fitzroy since, and conversed with him upon the subject. Yet he (Mr's Aglionby) up to that time had never heard of those letters, though he mentioned to Captain Fitzroy what had already taken place on this subject. Now, he would ask, what was the reason that those letters which, no doubt, contained — Sir ROBERT PEEL begged leave to remind the Hon. Member that he ought to confine himself to his arguments, and not assume the contents of a letter. Mr. A GLIONIIY—EIe begged pardon for having trans gressed any rule of discussion, but at all events he believed it was admitted that Lord Stanley had received those letters.— He could not understand how these letters had been kept secret. If he had been aware of this duplicity it would have induced him as an individual to consult Lord Stanley on the subject, and unless some explanation were given, he should never he able to meet that Noble Lord with anything :Ike good faith. Mr. HUTT could not see how the subject could be brought before the House on Tuesday. Many motions of considerable importance stood on the paper for that day, and he therefore could not see how the question could b.l brought forward. He did not think that the Hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies would have displayed so lunch zeal to have the matter discussed on Tuesday, had he not been aware that it was quite impossible that it could be brought forward. Mr. HUME said there was a charge made against the Noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, and another against the Colonial Department of the Government. Now, he would suggest, that these two charges should be discussed separately. Would it not. be better for the Government to take the one on an order day, when they could command time and pst pone the personal charge until another occasion ? The first question might be taken on Monday or Wednesday, but he thought Monday the pri ferable day. Sir H. PEEL said the sugar duties and other measures of importance were to be brought forward on those days, and he saw no reason why the New Zealand question could not come under the consideration of the House on Tuesday. Lord JOHN RUSSELL entirely agreed with the Hon. Member for Montrose, whatever was the day mentioned. It would be better to separate the p-rsonal charge against the Noble Lord from that question which related to the govern ment of the colony of New Zealand. For his part, he wished the question to be fully discussed, and every explanation given. There was no doubt there would be a large majority to support the Noble Lord ; but the other question was invested with more importance, and he hoped it would not be lost sight of. New Zealand was an important colony, and, if rightly go verned, he thought it was destined to have a great influence on that part of the world. He believed the 18,000 or 20,000 Englishmen residing there were destined to become the pro genitors of the future governors of that part of the world. The correspondence which had taken place between the Colonial Government and the New Zealand Company did net evince a very goad spirit, but he hoped when the matter was brought forward it would be discussed with more calmness. Mr. HOPE said several of the important motions which stool (or Tuesday had been withdrawn, and he certainly enter tained the idea of being eLab!ed to bring the question forward on that &iv. Mr. COLLETT, as one of those who had a motion on the paper for Tuesday, was quite prepared to Postpone it, if it would in any way convenience the Government. The matter then dropped. eumstances totally unprecedented in the history of commercial legislation. Last year they had passed a 13i11, fixing the duties up to the month of July. Au Hos. Al stmlint—No: June. Mr. LAI3OUCH ELIE—WeII, June in this year ; and they were now called upon, at an earlier period, to alter the very spirit and letter of that Act. They were disturbing the ar rangements on which the parties connected with the sugar-trade had calcula'ed, and on which they had relied. They had a right to conduct their commerce in accordance with the principle of that Act, ar d it w oull be a most unusual circumstance if Parliament were to step in and disturb those arrangements. He did not wish to introduce matters which had been already sufficiently discussed on the former t venings, and he would therefore confine himself to this one particular. What did Government do in this case? They called upon the House to effect a total change in the very measure they had passed the year before. The respectable merchants who signed the memorial begged the House and the Government to renounce their inten tions with regard to the sugar du ies. He had stated last year, and he repeated again, that if the Government had settled the question during the last session, they would have been spared the difficulty r&f their present position. If they had settled the property-tax also last sevion, they would also have avoided the difficulties arid perplexities which now attended that question. How would this proposed measure affect the holders of sugar in bond? They had purchased sugars in large quantities, at a con siderably higher rate of duty than would be levied under the present measure proposed by the Government. The Bight Bon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that if Government granted this boon, it would be a departure from e tablished rule, and would furnish a dargerous prece dent. But he (Vr. Labouchere) thought that when they could so much and so easily alleviate the hardship endured by a large and respectable body of persons, it was incumbent on them to do so. If Paz !lament had passed a Bill for a year, and if they afterwards sought to disarrange the settlement made so lately, it was but perfectly reasonable that they should at least protect those individuals from the loses which they might sustain by such a change in the sugar duties. The Honourable Alember for Lambeth had stated that many persons in this town would be great sufferers, and he knew of four houses in Liverpool that had at that time in bond at least 550 tons of ; sugar, on which they had paid duties to the amount of 6,000/. Was it fair or just that these men should suffer to this extent by the proposed alterations of the Government? Certainly not. He agreed with the general principle pursued by the ( hancellor of the Exchequer, but he greatly doubted the propriety of the answer returned Ly the Government to the memorialists.. He greatly doubted the propriety of, after having passed a measure for one year, to seek to subvert it at the end of nine months ; and he was of Opinion, therefore, that Government should use all en deavours to mitigate the hard hips to which the sugar mer chants would be exposed by the alteration. Sir H. DOUGLAS said that he had presented a petition, a few days before, to the same effect ; but he was not aware that any of the names of the persons who had sig ned the memorial would be found attached to the petition. Of this he was cer tain, that not one of tho sugar refiners signed that memorial. Ile had, after a careful consideration of the circumstances, come to the conclusion that the representations of the memorialists were founded in justice and in equity, and he would therefore rote in favour of the motion. Mr. A GLIONBY was anxious that some indulgence should be extended to those smaller merchants who took sugar out of the Quern's warehouses, to supply the present demand. Those who had large funds could afford to purchase 1-rge stocks, and to leave them in the Queen's warehouses for an indcfin'.te pe riod ; but there was a still larger class of purchasers who were obliged to remove from the Queen's stores What was required for the present demand, and he thought it hard that they should not have the same advantage as the other and more favoured class.—( Hear. ) Mr. CARDWELL considered that the Government, in pro posing the Act of last session, for one year, did not pledge themselves that no further alteration would take place until that period were expired. They had been told in the me morial that the Act of last year had been passed for twelve months, and that upon the faith of no change being male in it merchants were induced to make large purchases. But every body knew that some further alteration was intended. Mr. F. BARING said he did not wish to trespass long upon the time r , f the House, and therefore he would begin by saying that this question had been discussed in a spirit of of hostility more warm than he had been led to expect. But, then, he should observe on the other hand, that if . he were disappointed by the manner in which this question had been met, he should also be ready to admit that the circumstances with regard to the importation of wine, and the bottling of it, demanded some explanation. The Chancellor of the Ex chequer had given a certain power to extensive merchants with regard to bottling wines; but why not give some relief to the small retail dealers?---( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government had said something to the effect that such an extension of the excise laws would be made; and if so, he (Mr. Baring) would ask why not also give a protection to the small dealers in sugar ?—( Hear, hear.) Pe (Mr. Baring) had been told that the required relief would be found in the reduced prices of sugar that would follow the proposed alterations ; but he very much feared that no such result would follow. Sir GEORGE CLERK said he did not rise for the purpose of defending the charges made against the Govern ment upon this question ; but he begged to assure Hon. Members opposite, that the dental of the drawback, of which they so much complained, would not be found to present so many causes of complaint as appeared to be anticipated. He hoped the House would agree with his Right Hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that any deviation from the established practice would be a most dangerous precedent, and he wondered that the Hen. M. tabor for Montrose, and others who were the great advocates of economy, and always so care ful of the public purse, should recommend this sacrifice of the revenue. Mr. H UME said it was true that he had often had occasion to complain of the extravagance of Ministers, and of the House—( Hear, hear, and laughter)—but he had never complained of justice.—(Loud cheers.) The proposition of the Government in the present case was not only against justice, but it was against the law.—( Hear. ) The Act of Parliament for the sugar duties now in force was to have continued until the sth of July next ; and he had received letters from Liverpool, London, and other places, stating that the holders of sugar in bond had acted upon the understanding that there might be some change in the law in July, but not until then.---( Hear, hear.) He thought that the late Chan cellor of the Exchequer had ♦ery properly pointed out the difference, as to whether the alteration was to take place now or in July.—( Hear hear.) The parties who would he prepared for an aberation in the law in July were now taken by sur prise.—( Hear, hear.) He agreed with his Right Hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, that no change of this kind could take place without some loss to individuals. But he never before heard, that where there was gross injus tice done, the House would not interfere to remedy that, be cause justice could not be completely done in all cases.—( Hear, hear.) The practice of the Government in this case was very sharp practice indeed—( Hear, hear)—and this was not the case ebli regard to sugr alone, but every other exciseable stock now on hand. If the Chanc.llor of the Exchequer should read in the newspapers to-morrow what be had said this evening, he would see that it was unworthy of a Minister of the Crown. The House was bound to interfere to prevent in justice, which no consideration of revenue could warrant. Sir ROBERT PEEL was sure the House would believe that it was the wish of the Government to effect great com mercial changes with as little inconvenience as possible to in dividuals. He had received deputations front Liverpool, Lon don, and other places, and he appealed to the Hon. Members who accom;•anied those deputations, whether he had not given every manifestation of a desire to avoid injustice?—(hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman who spoke last accused the Go vernment of "sharp practice," as if he were speaking of low practitioners upon the outskirts of a profession. The Hon. Member overlooked the fact that they (the Ministers) were public men, actuated by no other influence than a desire for the public interest.—( Hear, hear.) In the case which Ind been referred to—that of the wine duty—what his Right Hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury had said in his letter was, that in the event of an increase of the duty it was not the practice to add the increase to duty previously paid upon stock still in bond. Mr. Alderman HUMPHERY—Is not the duty increased upon stock still in bond ? Sir R. PEEL did not think that a single case could be shown where stock in bond, having paid the lower duty, was afterwards charged with the increase. Ministers had felt it their duty to adhere to the usual practice, at the same time that they admitted that there would be a great loss to indi viduals, which they regretted.—( Hear.) He could not deny, however, that it seemed to be the sense of the House, that in this case there ought to be some amount of drawback.—( Hear, hear.) But he did not believe teat the late Chancel:or of the Exchequer or the late President of the Board of Trade would give their opinion in favour of that view. if they did not think that this was a special case calling for special consideration.— ( Hear, hear. ) He had frequently supported them on similar occasions, as in the ease of the Danish Claims; and, or. the other hand, he had frequently received their support, for he believed that all men in office knew what it was to have to con tend with pressure in these Hear, bear.) He thought that the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exche quer proposed in this case that the total amount of drawback which had been paid should be returned to the party who }Aid it, but that, if in consequence of the reduction, and the keep ing back of stock, prices should rise, there should be no greater amount of drawback than the actual loss.—( Hear.) He consi dered that Ministers had done their duty in adhering to the general rule. But he understood the sense of the House, unin fluenced by party feeling, that this was a special case, and that it did not necessarily lead to a precedent for other demands.— ( Hear, hear.) He hoped the House would understand the difference between sugar in bond in the Queen's warehouse, under the seal of the Customs and that in the hands of the general dealers.—( Hear, and cheers.): In this case the article might be considered as one which came under the Excise rather than the Customs. It being understood then that it was the opinion of the House of Commons that a draw back should be allowed on sugar upon which the duty was paid, and which remained in the Queen's stores, he thought, on this account, it would be unwise if the Executive Government op posed itself to what appeared the prevailing opinion in the House, bet he trusted that they would be supported by the House in resisting the demands of those, whether wholesale dealers or retail grocers, who had not the same special grounds of exemption. To this extent, therefore, he was willing on the part of her Majesty's Government to make some pro• vision by which the Treasury would I.e enabled not to restore the whole amount of duty to those particular parties, but to make them such compensation as would be equivalent to the whole of the loss sustained by them ; that loss being estimated to the period when the reduction was to be made. —( Hear. ) Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that no person could suppose the Government were actuated by any other motive or wish than the protection of the public revenue. He thought that case which the Right Hon. Baronet had taken into his con sideration was exactly the case put by the Right Hon. Gentle man the Member for Portsmouth. That case rested in the first place cn the justice of extending the time to the period con templated by the former Aet, and secondly in the certainty that no fraud could be committed, and he understood that the Right Hon. Gentleman, taking the circumstances into his consideration, was prepared to consider the loss sustained by those who paid the duty on sugar in bond, before the reduction of the duty, and to make them some corn; ensation. Such being the case, he thought his Hen. Friend the Member for Lambeth could not do better than withdraw his resolution, and leave the matter in the hands of the Government. He sup posed that these parties so circumstanced would have a power of making representations as to the arrangements Government might think fit to make, and that it would be open to them, if they thought any cireumstaeces with regard te their case were not fully considered, to make representations of those circum• stances to the Government. Mr. Alderman HUMPHREY was rejoiced that persons who hail paid the duty on sugar in those circumstances had the assurance of the Right Hon. Baronet that they would receive some remuneration for the money they had paid. Mr. HAWES said, that after what had fallen from the Right Hon. Baronet, he thought the proper course for him to pursue would be to withdraw his resolution and leave the matter in the hands of the Government. Mr. WILLIAMS said, that as the Right Hon. Baronet had admitted the principle of allowing a compensation to those persons who had paid the duty on sugar w hich remained in the Queen's stores, he thought that in justice he was bound to cares , out the principle, and deal in the sane manner towards those who had paid the duty, and removed the sugar to their own warehouse's, but who had not broken bulk. In that case, no fraud could be committed. The resolution was then withdrawn. REFINED SUGAR. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER laid he did not think that the Hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir W. Clay) would act with prudence if he brought forward his motion with respect to refined sugar, after the discussion which had just taken place. The case of the refiners had a double aspect— they had claims for the sugar which was in bond, and on which the duty had been paid, and they also put for ward claims on account of the sugar which had bron taken out of bond. Of course, with regard to the sugar in bond which had paid the duty, the refiners would participate in the general advantages which all other persons similarly circumstanced would have. But the Hon. Gentlemen would see that the other question was one of a dif ferent character, and that they had not the same claim upon the sugar which was taken out of bond, and which they might have exported. Sir W. CLAY said that the case of the refiners was different from the ether persons who took sugar out of bond, because the refiners must of necessity take it out, while the others need not. The case of the refiners was not different from those who had sugar in bond upon which the duty was paid, be cause it was impossible that any fraud could be committed by them. The same concession, therefore, should be made in their favour. On a former occasion, the Right Hon. Gentle man the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the refiners could take cas e of themselves, and that they had exported con siderable quantities of sugar. Now, he begged to say, that the Right Hon. Gentleman was mistaken in the information he had received on that subject. The refiners of London exported very little, with the exception of one gentleman who exported sixty tons of refined sugar. They did not ask for a remission of the whole duty, but for a remission calculated for a given number of weeks. He would not now call for any expression of opinion on the part of t` .e House, but he hoped the Right Hon. Gentleman would consider the case of the refiners, which was one of great hardship. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was under stood to say that he would state on Monday what he would do. The case cf the refiners was somewhat different from the other case ; but he held in his hand a return, from which it ap peared that forty-fire thousand three hundred cwt. of brown sugar and 1,000 cwt. of refined sugar was exported from London, the drawba:k on which was received by the refiners. If the House would allow him till Monday he would inquire inte the subject and state what he would do.—( Hear.) Sir W. CLAY said that this statement was to him per fectly satisfactory, and he only hoped the details would be as satisfactot y as the plan. Mr. lIUME said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had postponed the further consideration till Monday, and he must say that on all the points the statement appeared to show a very satisfactory conclusion, but as time was afforded for the consideration of those matters, he trusted that some infor mation would be given with respect to the exports. The Right Hon. Baronet had stated that he was anxious to bring about those changes with as little loss and unpleasantry to individuals as possible ; and this, he thought, ought to be sa tisfactory through all the country. SUGAR DUTIES. The House then went into Committee on the Sugar Duties, and on the clause for levying the duty on refined sugars, Mr. HUME said that he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, as they were desirous that the colonies should enjoy the advantage of protection, why they subjected sugar which was introduced into this country from the East Indies of the same quality as refined to a greater imposition than that which was laid on refined ? By th:s imposition there was a duty of 2s. 4d. against the colonies. Now as the co lonies were a charge on the revenue of this country he could not see any reason why there should be this imposition laid upon that produce which ought to support the colonies ; he could not see why this 2s. 4d. should be retained. He thought the better plan would be to give two years after the 14th March, when the new duties were to come into operation, and then to alter the duty by the amount stated ; so as to make the duty upon sugar refined, but only equal to clayed sugar, the same as that on elayed sugar. Fie wished to protect the public against any combination of the sugar refiners, for he thought that such a combination might very easily be en'ered into ; but of the fifty-two sugar dealers in Landon he believed there were twenty-four who were very large holders of stock. He could not see wlsy the growers of the East and West Inslies were unable to introduce any sugar in a refined state Into this country. He could not see why they should not avail themselves of the advantages they possessed for refining, and so introduce it into the country in a refined state, He knew it was the policy t 3 protect the manufactures of England ; but he thought that, in the present in'tance, such a deviation from the usual policy was for the benefit of England as well as of the colonies; and he should, therefore, propose that instead of lies. Bd. the duty at the end of two years, the duty on refined sugar equal to elayed sugar should be 16s. 4d., and that these words should be in serted after 18s. Bd. in the clause. On the amendment being put, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the lion. Gentleman was proposing an amendment in 1845 which would not come into operation till 1547. The fact was, that refined sugar was introduced at the same . ate as Muscovado. Mr. HUME said that perhaps it would be better to alter the time front two years to six months; but he saw a difi'culty, and he would, if permitted, wit l ;draw the motion. The amendment was accordingly withdrawn. On the 3d clause, which directs the imposition of classified duties, Mr. HAWES said that he had hoped that this system of classification would not have been persisted in. He was certain that the plan was so objectionable that he hoped the trade would have influenced the decision of the Right Hon. Gentle man the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and led him to withdraw this plan altogether. He held a letter in his hand from a per son very largely engaged in the sugar trade, who stated that it w as utterly impossible todistinguish the several classes of sugar. He could not, in fact, understand the motives for the imposi tion of these extra duties on foreign sugars, buthe now thought he saw the reason for them. The fact was, that foreign sugar, generally speaking, was of a higher quality than colonial sugar, and it was in order to prevent it coming into competition with colonial sugars, that this duty was imposed. He thought it was unfair that the consumer should be made to pay simply for the sake of giving advantage to the colonists, and he should feel it his duty to take the sense of the House on the insertion of this clause. He had lately had a communication from Amster dam, where they bad got experience in the sugar trade, and it stated positively that it was utterly impossible to distinguish the qualities of sugars, for it very often happened that sugars of an inferior sort were sold at higher prices than these which were obtained for qualities rated as of a superior description. At Liverpool a great sugar business was done, and a friend from that place had written to him to say, that if these elastdfication duties were brought into play every different parcel of sugar would have to pay a different duty, and that many would have to employ a Custom-house officer for every hogshead of sugar that was opened. The Govern ment ; roposed to procure sample tests or standard samples, as they called them, by steam and railroad, so as to rectify the mistakes of provincial officers. But he woul I tell them the quality of those samples would alter every day. He had hoped to have had the assistance of his Hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Hogg) on this occasion. lie had bad it on the discussion of the duty on East India sugar, and he could not understand on what princip'e he did not vote on this occasion. Much had been said about the American tariff. He held in his hand a copy of that tariff, and he could assure the blouse that there was no country in which sugar was introduced at such low rates as in America ; and he, therefore, hoped that this clasification of duty would not be retained. The Hon. Member concluded by moving the omission of the clause. The CH a NCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that had the lion. Member for Lambeth been present at the discussion of the duty on East India sugar he would have been aware that every point to which he had addressed himself had been very fully considered.— ( Hear, hear.) When the sugar trade was in its regular state the difficulty ap prehended by the Hon. Gentleman would not arise. The sugars were sampled as delivered out of the ships for the pur poses of trade. After the immediate difficulty arising from the first rush into the market, no difficulty would exist. The Hon. Gentleman said he had received letters condemnatory of the Proposed plan. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had received letters some condemning and some approving of thq plan, but many of the reasons alleged against the plan were in reality strong reasons in its favour. Mr. BRIGHT said he had had an opportunity of conversing with a wholesale grocer, who had been present at the first sale of Manilla sugar, and this person told him that great difficulty arose from this classification. The reason assigned for this was that it was felt impossible to tell what amount of duty the sugar would be liable to under the new classifica tion. This individual expressed his conviction that this classi fication would be the source of endless difficulties to the trade. If the Hon. Member divided the House, he should certainly divide with him. The clause was agreed to without a division. Clauses 4 to 12 inclusive, were then agreed to. On clause 13 being proposed, Mr. HAWES complained of the clause as a departure from the Warehousing Act. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought the clause was not such an infringement of that Act as would justify the House in rejecting it. On inquiry, he bad found that the re-weighing cost the Government 8,0001. a year ; whilst, the variation was found to be only 14 lb. in 1,503 cwt. of sugar. Mr. HUME said, the proper course for the Government to pursue, was to levy the duty on all the sugar that actually went into consumption and no more. Why could not the Chancellor of the Exchequer take an average of the quantity of sugar in different warehouses, and make an allowance of one per cent. ? Alderman HUNIPHREY said, the proposition of the Go vernment would be a premium for fraud. Mr. FOSTER said it would cause great injustice, and no individual would be satisfied. Mr. HAWES said, the Government was undoing what had been done by former Acts of Parliament. The Chan cellor of the Exchequer said it would effect a saving of 8,0001. a year; but he thought it was a very large estimate. He trusted Hon. Members had beard enough to justify them in voting for the omission of the clause. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the Corn. mittee divided, when the numbers were, For the amendment ......... Against it Majority for the clause beints -- On the gallery being re-openen, Mr. HUME was addressing the Committee. He wanted the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain how the proposi tion could be said to he founded on economy ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained that he had taken the opinions of those acquainted with the subject, and he was justified in adopting the measure. Dr. BOW RING said, for the sake of saving 8,000!. a year to the Government, a gross injustice was about to be done. Applications had frequently been made to the Treasury for a drawback of the duty on the waste of bonded goods, and they had seemed so equitable in principle, that they had again and again been conceded. Alderman HUMPHREYS could not see the use of having such officers, or of having sugars under lock at all. He would ask why not make the parties give security for the sugars when entered, and have no officers at all ? Mr. HAWES said it appeared to him that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was putting his authority against that of Mr. Huskisson ; and he (Mr. Hawes) would ask, Which was the House to be led by ! What was the object of warehousing sugar at all? It was, in fact, only making men pay a duty on waste, while the object was to prevent fraud, by compelling them to pay duty on first-class sugar, and thus increase the revenue. Now he did not think this should be persevered in ; and if it should, he now would give notice that on bringing up the re port he would move for the omission of the clause. Mr. HU%IE said he understood that the actual waste on a ton of sugar, after it had been warehoused, was about three cwt., and, therefore, nothing could be more unjust than to make the merchant pay for that. If the Bill were to pass with these imperfections, he would say it was a mode of retro grading that would be most unwise. Alderman HUMPHREYS would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to suppose that one of the weighers could not write the figures in his Blur-hook, and, therefore, he passed a quan tity of sugar a quarter of a cwt. short, then the Crown would be defrauded by employing such officers, and yet such were not unfrequent. Mr. MILNER GIBSON begged to draw attention to a fret which this Bill presented. He understood by it that mo lasses here to be admitted at a duty of Ss. 9d. from all foreign countries from which sugar should be admissible. Now, the 6th clause gave a power to admit sugar at a duty of °Ss 9d. from countries under reciprocity treaties, but there was no provision for admitting molasses from these countries. The clause was then agreed to ; and clauses 14 and 16 were next agreed to, without discussion. Mr. RICARDO would like to know how white clayed sugar could he distinguished from brown, by sample, in ten years hence? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER :aid that the Bill contained :a provision for renewing the sample from time to time. Mr. M. GIBSON could not see why the preen - hie of this Act should not set forth the fact, that it was merely intended as a protection to East India proprietors.—( Hear, hear. ) Mr. BRIGHT believed that the question was now better understood in the country than it had ever been before. lion. Gentlemen connected with the West India interest must not imagine that the question was finally settled. Next year, when the question would be brought forward again, a more deter. mined opposition would be made to the passing of this measure, and he trusted that the opposition would lie backed by an in crease of public opinion. He hoped that Hon. Gentlemen opposite would take warning and cultivate their estates to the utmost possible extent. lie entered his protest against this Bill; as one that was altogether unjust. Mr. I3ORTH WICK c - ntended that protection to the Weit India interest had been rendered necessary by the legislation of that House. Lord JOHN RUSSELL wished to say a few words upon a subject concerning which he had addressed the House on a former occasion. He alluded to emigration to the West Indira and to the Mauritius. This country, which had done so much (or the destruction of slavery, should take care that no course was permitted which would revive it. He had received seve ral letters from persons who were related to missionaries, and who stated that considerable alarm existed in consequence of some proclamations which had been issued regarding emigra tion. When he had spoken on the subject before, he adverted to Jamaica, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer told him that a loan had been made for the purpose of emigration. He (Lord J. Russell) was informed that a proclamation had been issued sanctioning loans for the purpose of emigration. Thus he thought it was only proper that the Government should lay all the information they possessed on this important matter be. fore the House. Previous to any measure regarding sugar being sanctioned by Parliament, they should be aware in what manner Government approved of what had been done regard. ing emigration. It was said that the Noble Lord the Secre. tary for the Colonies some time ago stated that it was in contem plation to propose a guarantee for such loans. He wished to know «hether it was really intended to introduce any Bill on the subject? Sir W. JAMES denied that a single farthing would be put into the pockets of the planters by the proposed change. When the Hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Bright) was Chancellor of the Exchequer, which no doubt he expected to become one day or another, but which might God avert, said the Hon. Member earnestly.—( Laughter.) When the Hon. Member had attained that position and entirely removed protection from the colonies, then their ruin would speedily follow. Mr. HOPE said he could assure the Noble Lord there were no grounds whatever for his apprehension. It was an erro neous supposition that there was not now sufficient work for the emigrants in the Mauritius and West Indian colonies. Since the Government had taken up the system, there was abundance of employment. Some might be unemployed there, but they were persons unfit for agricultural labour. The Go vernment would have no hesitation in producing all the papers. Lord HOWICK said that he had no desire that emigration, however desirable in other respects, should be carried on by means of these loans. Mr. HOPE said that there was no report from Antigua. Mr. P. M. STEWART said that all the West Indies re• quired was a sufficiency of labour. They were told that there was a sufficiency oflahourers to be obtained at Penang and Sin gapore, and that they could be obtained in any numbers; but in the present state of the West Indies, he did riot think that it would be advisable to act upon the lie races. The Hon. Mem ber for Durham (Mr. Bright) had said that it was a good plan to kick a man when he was down, but he would beg to tell the I on. Member that they 3et retained sufficient vitality in them to resist any attack that they could bring. The Hon. Member for Northumberland said that there was no want of labourers in the West Indies, but he would ask the Hon. Mem ber what would he the state of their cotton factories if they deprived them of labour ; he had said that without labour it would be impossible to continue the manufactures of this country.—( Hear. ) Sir W. JAMES explained, amid much interruption, and said that he only wished to say that if they would give the West Indies plenty of labour, they would beat slave-grown sugar out of the market. Mr. HOPE believed that all the papers which contained the instructions had been sent cut for the transmission of la bourers to the West Indies. lie believed that the difficulty was this : the vessels which had been sent out to carry the Chinese had not been sent direct to Singapore, and or, their arrival at the island the . shipping agent did not perfectly under stand the instructions which he had received, and he declined to act upon them. The Bill was then passed through Committee, the Chairman reported progress, and the report was ordered to be brought up on Monday next. On the inquiry of an HON. MEMBER, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the Customs' Putiss Bill would be taken the first thing on Monday. NEW ZEALAND. Lord EBRINGTON wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government when the discussion on the New Zealand business would take place ? Sir R. PEEL replied, that though it was inconvenient to say on what day the discussion would be taken, in eonsequenci of the indisposition of his Noble Friend, yet he would, for the" present, appoint Tuesday. COTTON DUTIES. Mr. THORNELY said that he did not know whether the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government was aware of the quantity of cotton now waiting for the decision respecting the duty. He believed there was as much as 300,000 bales cow in the country, and he should be glad therefore to know on what day the consideration of the duties would be brought on. Sir R. PEEL said that it should be brouebt on as soon as possible, but it was evidently clear that it was out of his power to force the business of the country. The House sat frequently from twelve at noon till twelve at night, with little intermis sion, but the cotton duties should be brought on as soon as an opportunity could be provided. AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS. After frequent calls from the Opposition benches, Mr. MILES said that he would not interrupt the Com mittee.—( Hear, hear, and cries of "Go on," "Go on.") He thought that it was at his own option whether he went on or not, and he would not go on at that time of the night. Great aspersions had gone abroad, the most gross calumnies, that the friends with whom he acted were only going into a sham battle—( Ironical cheers for some moments)—now what they de sired wcs a fair, stand up fight, and they wished to show that the distress among the agriculturists was deep and widely sprees!. Mr. HUME wished much to know what the fight was to be about. Mr. FERRAND said he would tell ate Hon. Member for Montrose what it was to be about. The Right Hon. Baronet the Seeretai y for the Home Department had stated the other night that distress was prevalent end serious among the agri cultural labourers, that it could be no longer neglected. Now he (Mr. Ferrand) would tell the Right Hon. Baronet that not only was the distress great among the labourers, but that thousands and thousands of farmers in England were at this moment insolvent and ruined by the measures of the present Government since the canoe into office.—( Hear, hear) —and the fight was to show that this was the case. If the Right Hon. Baronet was sincere in his regard for the labourer, why did he not allow the Committee—( Hear, hear) —asked fur by the Hon. Member for Stockport (Mr.Cobden)? Why did he not meet the challenge which that Hon. Me sober threw out to him ?—( Hear, hear.) In saying this he would tell them why he did not vote >for that Committee. He did not vote because he was for the protection of the agricul turist and not for his destruction.—( Hear, hear.) The motion of his Honourable Friend was intended to protect the agriculturist, and he hoped he would persevere. Her Majesty's Government had forfeited—and forfeited de servedly, the confidence of the agricultural interests. They obtained power by making the agricultural interests believe that they were their best friends. They had the confidence of those who sat behind them, and his firm conviction was, that if another dissolution of Parliament should take place they might rest assured that instead of a majority of ninety, they would be in s minority of two nineties. Mr. P: BORTHWI CK said, that the Hon. Member for Knaresborough had risen to answer a question put by the Hon. Member for Montrose, but he had not done so in the manner the lion. Gentleman had expected.—( Hear, hear. ) They could all affirm the proposition of the Hon. Member for Somersetshire ; but what, under Heaven, did his proposition amount to? They all were agreed that the interests of all classes ought to be r'ghtly considered. He trusted that the agricultural section of the House would set up some real anti not abstract principle. He had heard from those (the Tory) benches that restrictions in trade were owing to the Whig Lord—(Laughter)—and the aristocracy of England— ( Laughter)—and he had heard from the opposite benches that the truest and the best friends were the free-traders. But the lion. Member for Somersetshire bad put a proposition which might be equally coincided in by the Hon. Member himself, and by the Hon. Member for Stockport. Why if they carried the resolution it only affirmed that the House thought the agricultural interests deserving of consideration. Whatever intention the lion. Member had in bringing for ward the subject, the result was, that it served only to mystify and delude the farmers of England. The free-traders called themselves the farmers' friends, the Hon. Member for Somer setshire, called himself the farmers' friend, and the Government called themselves the farmers' friends, and among them the far mer were suffering most intensely from the proceedings of their friends.—( Laughter. ) Lord JOHN RUSSELL would not trouble the House at all at this time, but as the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Miles) had put off to Monday next the motion of which he had given notice for to-night, he thought the Hon. Gentleman ought to let the House know what were the particular taxes which ho would promise to be remitted.—( Hear.) As he was on his legs he would take the opportunity of observing that the Right Hon. Baronet opposite had stated that he would go through as much of the Committee of Sup ply before Easter as would enable the House to agree to the Mutiny Act. But as the questions in supply would of neces sity give rise to prolonged discussions, he thought the Right Hon. Gentleman had better postpone them until after Easter. Sir R. PEEL said that he did not intend to propose any other estimates before Easter, but those that were necessary for the public service, such as the half-ray list, &c. He would take that opportunity of saying, that he could not put upon the motion of the lion. Member for Somerset the same construc tion that had been put upon it by the Hon. Member behind him (Mr. Borthwiek. ) He thought it would be impossible for the House to affirm that resolution without indirectly pledging itself to the remission of some tax or other that pressed upon agriculture. As he was not prepared to acquiesce in such a pledge he could not agree to the motion. Mr. MILES would not refuse to answer the question of the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell). His motion would apply to the reduction of the county rates, assd other burdens upon land, to the amount of about 400,000/. Mr. BRIGHT wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet when it was his intention to put an end to the anxiety which vre railed on the subject of the cotton duties? With an omnipo tent Government—( A laugh)—the question could be settled in five minutes. There was at present great difficulty in the manufacturing districts, in consequence of cotton being with held from the market, in the prospect of the duty being speedily taken off. Sir R. PEEL said that he would bring on the Committee as soon as possible. The House then proceeded to the other orders of the day. The rlastardo Bill was read a third time, and passed. NEW ZEALAND—LORD STANLEY. Lord EBRINGTON said that the Noble Lord the Secretary for. the Colonies stood accused, for nearly a year and a half, under grave charges, brought by the New Zealand Company, and he wished to ask whether any answer was intended to be given to those charges? Mr. HOPE said that the charge against Lord Stanley had been made in that House only two or three days ago, and the House might be assured that it would be fully answered. The Infeftments Bill (Scotland) was read a a second time' and ordered to be reported. ATMOSPHERIC RAILWAY. Mr. SHAW said that at that late hour of the night he did not mean to occupy the time of the House in asking for a select committee to inquire into the principle of of the Committee principally on the ground the atmospheric railway. lie asked for thde oafppaoinrtempeonrit of the Board of Trade, which stated that the atmospheric sys tem bad succeeded in a mechanical point of view, but Now its suc cess in a commercial point v eri of on view tliat was gr o d u u i ti n b i tful it Is; ad ow bes h .n c' would ask for a Commi ttee: tried in the Dublin and D alke y line, and was found to answer; e and it was about to be established in two lines in England. He thought that it was most important to decide the question at this important period of railway speculation. WINDOW-TAX. Lord DUNCAN gave notice of a motion for the purpose of inquiring into the operation of the window-tax, and the mode of applying the tax so levied. THE PORTLAND VASE. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL gave notice of his intention to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the protection of pro perty in the Museum and other public places.—( Hear, hear.) POST-OFFICE ESPIONAGE. Mr. WAKLEY mooed that the petition from Finsbury re specting the Pos:eoffice, presented on the previous evening, be printed.—Ordered. NEW ZEALAND COMPANY. Mr. G. W. HOPE said that several charges against his Noble Friend at the head of the Colonial-office had been made in and out of that House, accusing that Noble Lord of a breach of faith. The Government had not had as yet any opportunity for vindication, for, on a previous occasion, when the subject was brought under their notice, it was done in such a manner that though the Government were indirectly accused they could not enter into their defence. He had been informed that a peti tion was in course of preparation, and that several merchants in the City had been solicited to sign it. These petitions imputed to the Noble Lard misconduct, and breach of faith in relation to his conduct towards the New Zealand Company. He felt sure the House would agree with him that it was only the fair play which an Englishman had a right to expect, that when a charge was brought against him he should have a full opportunity of answering it on the earliest opportunity. He should therefore bring forward a motion on Tuelday next, giving the New Zealand Company an GREECE. Mr. B. COCHRANE said he wished to ask a question of the Right lion. Baronet respecting the communication which had been held with France upon the affairs of Greece. He did not wish to say anything which would interrupt the entente cordial between this country and France. lie was aware that, whatever might be the nature of the conduct of the Government, the people did not share in the feelings of the Minister. He had been lately there, and had heard the conduct of the Ministry denounced in the most unmeasured terms, but, if there was any difficulty, he did not wish to open the question, but he trusted such was not the case. Sir R. PEEL said that the opinion expressed on this oc casion was not, he thought, effected by anything which had fallen fom him. With respect to the country of Greece itself, it was most desirable that the present attempt should prove successful, for it was a great attempt. to combine a popular government with a limited monarchy. With respect to Sir Ed ward Leon, he had heard some commews the other eight on naval officers ; but he believed that all would allow that in the difficult position in which that gallant officer had been placed, he had exhibited to example that the affairs of a great country might with safety be committed to the care of a naval officer. With respect to M. Piseatori, the Hon. Gentleman must excuse him making any remarks. With respect to Genaral Church, he must say that he and every Member in that House had joined in the expression of deep regret for the removal of that gallant and distinguished officer from office. He had served his country with ability and zeal for more than twenty years, and what was the cause of the removal of that distinguished officer? With reaps ct to the loan promoted by Russia, France, and this country, he believed that Greece was ready to pay the burden of its debts. He felt sure the House would excuse him for not expressing an opinion as to the acts of the Government.. He conceived it to be his duty to respect the independent aciions of the Government, and he would rather not trust himself with the expression of his opi nion, however strongly he might feel on the occasion. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. Mr. WILLIA.NIS atked if the Right Hon. Baronet in tended bringing in the estimates on Monday ? it R. PEEL said that it had been his intention to bring forward the Army and Navy Estimates before Easter, hut other matters of greater importance would prevent his doing s Those questions which affected the settlement of our com mercial policy, and the affairs of trade, must be first disposed of. It was, however, absolmely necessary that the Government should have a vote of money before Easter, and he hoped the House would make a sufficient grant, which would not at all prejudice the discussion of the Estimates. Mr. HUTT said that certain documents had been trans mitted to the Government by the East India Company, relative to the trade in grain and flour, which had not been yet laid on the table of the House. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER pill ha lad made some inquiries, but could not account for their non-pro duction. Mr. HUTT said he had taken great pains to obtain this do cument. He spoke to the lion. lien:leman opposite (Sir G. Clerk) four or five times, and, finding it of no use, mentioned the matter publicly to the House. Ile had offered to copy the document himself, or send his servant to do it, but the offer was declined, and the document had nct been produced. Really the business of the country ought to be more punctually attended to. Sir G. CLERK said he had made inqui;y snd found that no official notice had been rent to the Board of Tiade from that House for the production of the document. He had notwithstanding given directions that the paper should be laid on the table of the House. . . Mr. HUTT said Ile was the more anxious about it, because he had intended to make a motion on corn and $ cur, grounded upon this document, and that notice he intended to place on the paper before Easter. Sir H. PEEL said he would take care that the Hon. Mem ber should hare the document. THE SUGAR DUTIES. On the motion thst the Speaker leave the chair for going into Committee on the Sugar Duties Bill, Sir WILLIAM CLAY presented petitions on the sub ject, and Mr. HAWES presented a petition from wholesale houses in London, praying for a drawback of duty on sugar now in bonded warehouses. Sir W. CLAY, in the absence of Mr. Wallace, wished to move, on going into Committee on the Sugar Duties Ri 1. that compensation be made to such refiners as have paid the duty of 9..b5. 3d. on their stocks undergoing the process of refining, and who shall nut have had time to get quit thereof, previous to the new scale of duties taking effect. A long discussion ensued as to whether this motion or that of Mr. Hawes, which followed on the paper, should have pre cedence. _ Sir H. PEEL observed that it was of the greatest import ance that, in respect to moving questions, they should adhere implicitly to the rules of the House. However, he did not wish, in consequence of mere technical formality, to prevent a full discussion. _ . _ I Itimately the SPEAKER decided that Mr. Haw•es's motion should come on first, then the 13i11 be recommitted, after which the other motions on the subject could be brought forward. Mr. HAWES then moved " that provision be made in the Bill for the drawback of the amount of the duty reduced, on such duty-paid sugar as now remains in the Queen's ware house," '1 he course pursued by the Government in this matter was altogether unusual. A change was about to be made in one of the great articles of commerce at a most unu sual period—at a time too when the dealers in this commodity were wholly unprepared for such a change. A great quantity of sugar lay in bonded warehouses in this country, over which nobody had any control but the Government officers. How ever anxious the House miebt be to confer a great publio benefit. he was sure they would be anxious to avoid doing so with the certainty of causing great individual losses. If some such motion as he proposed were not sanctioned this would certainly be the case. The petition he had that night presented was signed by six of the principal London sugar dealers, and he begged the earnest attention of the House to the situation of those individuals. Messrs. Conway and Co. had in bond 10,000 cwt. of sugar; Messrs. North and Co. more than 3.000, and Messrs. Stubbs and Co. about the same quantity. Now, in one instance, there was a stock in hand of not less than 550 tons, and one house had experienced a loss of not less than 5.0(i0/., and several others bstween 0 ,0 0 0/. and 3,0001. Not only was this the case with respect to houses in London, but in the country also, as might at any time be seen by the circular of the trade. Liverpool and London, two great depots of sugar, the wholesale dealers there were in the habit of retaining considerable stocks in their hands, for, in consequence of railroads and steam, the Communication was so rapid that the retail dealers could order whatever they required almost from day to day, and thus the large houses were the parties who held the stocks for present consumption. He (Mr. Hawes) could draw precedents both from past times and the present. The first precedent he would draw w as f rom t h e year 1838, w h 4.n the Right Hon. Barnet was in office. They allowed the drawback on glass. In the case of gliiss, the glass manufaiiturers had the power of exporting glass, and demanding the drawback ; and if, in consequence of any peculiar circumstances, the trade was depressed, the merchants could resort to the Act of Parliament, and get the drawback ; and this actually took place on ore occasion. The whole of the stock in hand was ex i mrted, and the foreign market was flooded. The Government then en tered into a compromise, and granted 75 per cent. reduction of the duties. In the case of wine, also, the duty had been remitted on the stocks in hand. In 1843 a me morial had been presented to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the case of French wines, and the Right Hon. Gentleman had promised that, although the negotiations with Portugal had terminated without any favourable result, yet that, in any future treaties, the claims of French wines should be attended to; and with respect to the stocks in hand, the drawback was always allowed—when the alteration of the duties took place, in 1787, by the 27th Geo. 111., and when again, in 1814, by the 54th Geo. 111., the drawback was allowed; and by 6th Geo. IV., in 1825, the drawback was again allowed. By the Ist and 2d William IV., the duties were equalised, and the drawback was again allowed. When application was made to the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, he hail pro mised that, on the reduction of the duty, consideration should be made for their case. Now the sugar on which the remission of duty was prayed for, the goods were in the iden tical state, of the same colour, and in the identical place where it was when the duty was paid. He held in his hand the me morial of the sugar dealers, upon whose representations the Right Hon. Baronet had said he hail thus early brouelst on the reduction of duty, and by that it appeared that the memorialists did not expect the change at this unusual period of the year ; and the memorial does not justify the argument which had been used for the unusual course which had been pursued. What_ the memorialists desired was a permanent set tlement of the question. The trade wished the continual changes to which they were liable to be done away with—they did not look for a settlement at this early period, and certainly anticipated that time would be allowed them to work off their stocks in hand, for, if not, they certainly would ha v e i nvested to the extent of the stocks which they held. It was the cus tom to make the vote for the sugar duty an annual duty, and they desired that. the fluctuations to which they were subjected should be done away with by some permanent enactment. If this early settlement, and not the permanent settlement, had been the end the memorialists sought, their object would have been attained. It was, however, said that the allowance to the wholesale dealers would have been an injustice, unless the allowance was made also to the retail dealers. He held in his hand a bundle of letters from all parts of the country, and by those he learned that the stocks in the hands of the retail dealers were never so light as at the present moment. That it was difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain the extent of the stock in the hands of the retail dealers, he was quite ready to allow; but he thought that this circumstance ought not to pre vent that justice should be done to wholesale dealers, and thus obviate that stagnation in the trade which was now so grievously felt, and he did hope that from these several consi derations lier Majesty's Ministers would be moved to listen with attention to the representations of the memorialists, and with this hope he would leave the matter to the House and the Government. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER trusted that he should not seem to treat the motion of the Hon. Member for Lambeth with want of attention. If he did oppose it, public considerations alone induced his conduct. If he granted the petition of the memorialists he would be doing injustice to all other parties engaged in the trade. Now the petition which the Hon. Gentleman had presented was from six of the whole sale sugar dealers in London, when the wholesale dealers alone amounted to fifty-two. The lion. Gentleman seemed to think that these gentlemen conceived themselves taken by surprise. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought that if any person had observed the course of the debates during last session, he must have conceived that one of the earliest mea sures this year would be some modification of the sugar duties. So far as the time at which the ch a n ge in the duties had been proposed hire? the they hadthoseparties nofair caimo cause au a return that the Government anticipa ted fr om this change in the duty was a greatly increased consumption, which would make up for any loss which the complainii g parties might sustain. The Hon• Gentleman had grounded his claims for these parties on precedent, and alluded to what had taken place some years ago with respect to sugar. That precedent to which the Honourable Gentleman referred he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought was not analogous to the pre sent one. In that case no notice as in the present case was given, so with the ease of wine t o w hi c h t h e H on. Gentleman had referred. Wine was an excisable article, and therefore the course which had been adopted at the time of the reduction of the duty upon it could not be taken now with respect to sugar. Mr. LABOUCFIERE said that upon this question he had been dispo•ed to adopt the line which the Right lion. Gen tleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done, but yet, upon mature deliberation, he had come to the conclusion that, in the present instance, a case had been made out by the mer chant; of London, who bad signed the memorial, and he thought that the House would not be acting justly by them if it did not adopt some measures which would be calculated to afford them the relief they prayed for. He thought that, under the pecu liar 1 circumstances, it was the duty of the House to comply with the whole of their demands, and to make such arrange ments as would mitigate the evils they complained of. The sugar duties had been brought forward this setrion under cir- r t /A %.1 T . % r. A rri TT n A V Ann t - .) t VI A 113 ri LI 1 r 10 A . . 111.