The Sun.
London, England, 1864-05-03 00:00:00

THE UNDER SECRETARIES OF STATE IN THE

HOTJSE.

Mr. WALPOLE asked whether, in consequence of what
had recently occurred in reference to a gentleman who had
been appointed one of her Majesty's Under Secretaries of
State, and the difficulty that had arisen in reference to the
same, it was not intended by Government to introduce a
bill on the subject.
Sir G. GREY said that there was great difficulty in the
construction of the act of 1858, and therefore it was pro-
posed to bring in a bill on the subject. (Rear, hear.)
CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.

On the consideration of this bill, as amended, there was
some discussion.
On clause 12,
Mr. MALINS moved an amendment to the effect that
policies of insurance should be exempted from the payment
of the ad voloreut duty; and the house divided.

For the amendment
Against
M sjority —.37
The clause was then agreed to.
Mr. J. B. SMITH moved that the duties on sugar should
be continued in force for one year only. He contended that
the Chancellor of the Exchequer was endeavouring to re-
verse the free-trade policy that Parliament had sanctioned
after so severe a struggle, and to prefer the sugar refiner to
the sugar producer.
Mr. LEA.THANI seconded the motion, and Mr. CAVE
opposed, and Mr. LINDSAY and Mr. CRAWFOILD sup-
ported it.
Mr. CHUM-EWING, as a large producer of sugar, said
he would most consult his own interest if he were to vote
for a uniform duty, but as such a system, if unaccompanied
by the privilege of refining in bond, would have the effect
of raising the price on the consumer, he felt bound to
support the proposition of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer.
Mr. MOFFATT recommended a return to the former
system of imposing the sugar duty for one year only.
Mr. AYB TON condemned the proposal of Mr. Smith
as impracticable, as well as unfair to the producers and re-
fitters of sugar.
The discussion was continued by Mr. BATHURST and
Mr. BUCHANAN.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER held that
the question at issue was not one between the refiner and
the consumer of sugar. True, the refiner said he could not
compete if there were a uniform rate of duty; but, so far
from asking for protection, he complained bitterly of the ad
valorem scale now proposed, and that the limit between re-
fined and unrefined sugars was too small to enable him to
compete with the foreigner; but he did not ask for protec-
tion. All he appeared to want was equality. As to the
insinuation that he (Mr. Gladstone) had become an apos-
tate to the principle of free trade, he repudiated it with
indignation; and contended that, if the house were to
agree to the motion of his hon. friend the member for Stock-
port, its effect would, inieed, be to reverse that enlightened
and progressive policy.
On a division the motion was negatived by 97 to 14.
The report was agreed to, and the bill ordered for third
reading to- morro w. _ _

On the order for going into committee of supply,

Mr. F. PEEL stated, in reply to Mr. Cox, that 50 acres
of land were to be reservtd, under the Inclosure Act of
last session, as a recreation ground in the parish of Chig-
well, Essex.
Tho house then went into committee of supply on the
navy estimates, and
Mr. W. MAIITIN moved to strike out the item of
.C 1,649 for additional accommodation for spinning ma-
chinery at Chatham ; but, after some discussion, the motion
was withdrawn.