The Express.
London, England, 1851-07-01 00:00:00

*
years 1822 and 1814, contained respeetirly ha teem
No. 140 of the present session, and No. 33 of 1/1411:
He had asked the registrar of imports at the C ho
for an explanation, and had desired him m . that re;
turn which was incorrect. lie (Mr. Wan belittle
that 'the return of the present sessipras aecut%te. ~
THE CENSUS OF 14249.. , .

Sir W. SOMERVILLE, in r tocolosiat
said, the mace why the returns o the Irish ceases had not
been published was, that they had not all been received.
CONVICTS FOR VAN DIEMEN'S LAND.
Mr. HAWES, in reply to Sir W. MOLVAMOILTH, said
that a vessel had been taken up for the conveyance of 300
convicts to Wan Diemen's Land.
WORSHIP OF JUGGERNAUT.
Mr. J. WILSON, in reply to Sir R. bums, stated
that by the last mail there had been received a copy of a
bill which was in progress la the Board of Council of India ,
for the purpose of prohibiting the collection of fees, and
relieving tie goverment from contributing towards the
support of the temple of Juggernaut. There would be
no objection to lay the papers on the table.
THE IIMW HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Sir E. N. BUXTON had to ask the noble lord at the
head of the Woods and Forests first when the house
would sit in the new house of parliament ; and secondly,
whether it was proposed that the present House of Com-
mons should be taken down until it had been proved
that the new house w.ss suitable for the sitting of parlia-
ment ?
Lord SEYMOUR had nothing to do with the new House
of Commons, and therefore could not answer the first ques-
tion. (A laugh.) With regard to the second queseion,
he might say that he had not heard that it was the inters-
tice to pull down the present House of Commons.
ADMISSION OF JEWS TO PARLIAMENT.
Sir B. HALL said that circumstances had occurred to
attach an additional importance to the progress of the
Jew Bill. The noble lord would recollect that a few even-
ings since ho had fixed the Oaths of Abjuration (Jews)
Bill for Thursday next, sod it now stood the first order on
the paper for that day. Within these few days Mr. Salo-
mons, said to be a Jew, had been returned as a member of
the house, and he was anxious to know whether the noble
lord would take the bill as the first order on Thursday.
Lord J. RUSSELL replied that he intended to take the
bill as the first order on Thursday.
Lord J. RUSSELL, in reply to Lord DUNCAN, said he
proposed to take the Chancery Bill on Thursday, next to
the Jew Bill, and then the Woods and Forests Bill.
Lord J. RUSSELL, in reply to Mr. Iloshima:r, said he
" • ` '

understood the Ecclesiastical. Commissioners had no power
to interfere with the lease of the Horfield estate lately
granted for three lives by the Bishop of Gloucester.
CHICORY AND COFFEE.
On the order of the day for going into committee on the
Customs Bill,
Mr. T. BARING moved that it be an instruction to the
committee to make provision for preventing the mixture of
chicory with coffee by the venders of coffee. In
considering the redaction of the duty upon coffee
two questions occurred. One was, was the reduc-
tion to such an extent as to prevent the future
adulteration of coffee; and, if that was not the case, them)
WAS it fair to those who imported coffee and paid a duty of
40 per cent. upon it to be placed in competition with ea
article that paid no duty ? Now, the proposed duty was 3d.
a pound, and untaxed chicory cost about 4d. a pound. Ho
quite agreed that the reduction of the duty on coffee
would naturally give a stimulus to the consumption
of coffee, but they could not expect that a re-
duction of the duty to 3d. would prevent adulteration.
The value of coffee might he taken at 10d. a pound. Chi-
cory was the dearest article used in adulteration. Beans
might be had cheaper, and mahogany sawdust and tan for
almost nothing; but take the dearest article, chicory, the
cost of which was 4d. a pound. Half a pound of coffee cost
61., and half a pound of chicory cost id., making 7d. alto-
gether, and this mixture was selling in the market at from
Is. 411. to 2s. per lb. as canister coffee. He asked them,
then, if they could prevent adulteration by reducing the
duty on coffee? Then came the other question, did they
act fairly towards the producers and importers by placing
their product in competition with untaxed chicory.
It hail been proposed to take off the tax upon
coffee. lie believed that would be an improvident
sacrifice of revenue, but if they dealt consistently with the
freemen of coffee they would prevent its being mixed with
chicory, laving that they would not allow tobacco to be
grown without taxing it like foreign tobacco, nor saccha-
rine matter to be produced in this country without taxing
it like foreign sugar. lie said let chicory be grown freely
as it is, but let it be sold as chicory, and do not let it be
sold as what it was not. It was no answer to him to tell
him that adulteration existed before. Ho knew they could
not entirely prevent fraud, but it was one thing to stamp
fraud with disgrace and another thing to stamp it with
legality. Nor was it an answer to tell him that there was
a difference between excise interference with regard to
coffee, and with regard to tea, tobacco, mid pepper. Coffee
still yielded a duty of nearly 000,0001. per annum. They
did not prosecute a man who adulterated coffee, but they
did prosecute a man who adulterated tea, tobacco, or
pepper. Therefore, as a question of revenue, they were
bound to interfere. Ile might he told that he was interfer-
ing with the produce of the British soil, and with the con-
sumption of an article which paid the agriculturist well;
but, however beneficial the culture of chicory might his,
the use of it, as at present, was not founded on justice.
They might as well say that because sloe leaves were the
produce of Withal soil they might be mixed with tea, as t•
say that chicory ought to be mixed with coffee. lie believed
that in this respect there was but one common interest of all
three, and that was to prevent fraud and protect the
lemet dealer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, in
seder to prevent the admixture of chicory with coffee, ha
must keep an army of excisemen, and that the public could
take care of itself. The rich certainly might have their
coffee ground at home, but the poor had not the habit, and
many of them bad not the ability to purchase a sufficient
stock. The right hon. gentleman also, if he understood
him arivlit, said the admixture of chicory with coffee did
not materially diminish the consumption of coffee. Now,
he had always said that he was interested in the cultivation
and importation of coffee, and he should be ashamed of
himself if he were to conceal that fact, and the house would
therefore treat with what reserve it ought the opinion of
one who was interested. But all who were in the trade
were unanimous in saying that this Treasury minute
had diminished the consumption of coffee, and had there-
fore injured the coffee trade. The hon. member then quoted
figures to show that the consumption of coffee, notwith-
standing the diminution of price, had year after year Mien
off, whilst that of tea, in spite of a high duty, was increasing.
The object of his motion was not to go back to that state of
law which prohibited a seller of coffee to have chicory in his
stock, but full liberty would be given him to keep it in
stock and to sell it; out he was not to sell it under the
name of coffee. They did not want to have any interfer-
ence with the trade. All they asked was, that vent-
ment should not stand godfather, and give a legal christem-
lug to chicory in the name of coffee. A ammerial had
been presented by 3,682 grocers, praying that the 11 minute should not be repealed, because, as they .11.:r7
would be • great injury to the conscientious dealer, who
would be prevented from mixing coffee with chicory, while
the unscrupulous dealer would not be prevented. Now,
were these memorialists conscientious at unscnipukeM
dealers ? If they were unscrupulous deal what=
ante could they attach to their opinions P Ist he
otherwise. Ile believed the greet body of die gnat= le
be respectable men, and that if the Trews,' leinnies
were repealed, the great mesas of them would owe to pre&
dee this imliosition, a great many of them preedeing it be.
ease they believed it to be sanctioned by the Thema.
The hem. gentleman concluded by moving the reagedimi.
TM CHANCELLOR of the EICEM,QHHB NM he
should be the last person to attribute day f= minim
to his hen. ("tient' bringing forwarding beaus
as was an importer of cease. AU he seed tits Kamen.
aide gentleman to do wee le aloe the puma the Mot they
he asked for himself. The leer. Indiefeen rid be wee
mach surprised that be (the alentaillar of the ischeqner)
bad not taken &different MOM SSW the Ma majority in
his favour. Why it cerednly weld have been strange if
be bad taken • ~se whit his own conviction of that
which was right, that sane senne being upheld by a majo-
rity. He certainly win enepshmi at a ass of that kind
being pressed in that hem& In aid time se drabs it woe
the practice for the goverment se bleeder* is all soda el
questions, forestalling and remitting, sod the mixture of
various articles, not confined to coffee. His hon. frigid
wished them to go back to a state of things ia white they
had interference of that kind. Why, so long bash as 111111,
the inconvenience of that mane was felt, sod the *seise
was restrained. In 1840 the prohibition against
having chicory on the premises of the coffee
dealers was found to be so inconvenient and op-
premise, that prosecutions did not take place. What tooa
place then ? Some of the unscrupulous dealers did
adulterate the coffee, and in order to avoid an excise prose-
cation, in almost every town his right hon. friend issued
the Treasury minute now the subject of discuseion ; and
from that time to this no excise interference had taken place
with regard to the admixture of chicory with coffee. Go-
vernment had been called upon to interfere, and had re-
fused, and he thought they were right, and had pursued
the same course. He did not think it right that the coffee
dealers should be subject to excise interference to prevent
the mixture of coffee with chicory. His hon. friend said he
did not very much mind the mixture of coffee and chicory,
but he was very much against adulteration with worm in-
gredients. He entirely concurred in the statement that so
far as concerned the question between the consumer and the
dealer, the consumer ought to be left to take care of himself,
and if the article were bad, the tradesman lost custom.
The hon. gentleman seemed to think that the mixture of
coffee was in all cases a prejudicial practice, but there was
not the slightest reason to believe, whatever might some-
, tunes be the case, that such was generally the fact. The
objectionable materials referred to would materially affect
the taste of the article, and thus would be readily found
out ; besides which, the present low price of chicory would
offer scarcely any inducement to resort to such adulterations.
Chicory would, in most cases, improve the coffee, whereas
the loathsome articles which had been mentioned would
palpably injure it. But the parties who made use of chi-
cory were very indignant at
rthege ijir:sutation, that under the
pretence of doing so, they were ty of the conduct with
which they had been cha . He (Sir C. Wood) had
received a letter that morning from a coffee roaster,
who stated that the permission to use chicory had
caused the disuse of the inferior samples which were
formerly common. He said that previous to the treasury
minute a large portion of the coffee sent over was so offensive
that the men employed in roasting it were often unable to
remain in the place during the process; but the use of
chicory had rendered this trash unsaleable. (Hear, hear.)
Besides, any mixture with coffee except that of chicory was
still unlawful, and if the hon. gentleman would give him
(Sir Charles Wood) information of any such deleterious
mixture he should be able to institute a prosecution just the
same as it the treasury minute did not exist. But mutest