The Sun.
London, England, 1852-12-10 00:00:00

arrangement. Wisat he had- said about finality was upon
tie general principle of attempting finally to 'settle fiscal
iLuestions by the votes of this house.
Mr. MOFFAT asked whether the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer intended the refining in bond to extend to foreign
as well as colonial sugar, and whether it was to be com-
pulsory or optional ?
Lord STANLEY said that the questions of the hon.gen-
tleman were of great im ..rtanee, and would, doubtless, be
answered by his right friend (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, who was absent) when the subject should come
before the house. He (the noble lord) had no wish to pro-
long this debate, which appeared to be rapidly dying a na-
tumi death, but there wes sonic little discrepancy in the
views of hon. gentlemen on the other side. The hon.
member for Westbury (Mr. Wilson) had attempted to
prove that the Weat Indian colonists were not suffering at
all. Immediately afterwards another hon. gentleman
arose, on the same side, admitted their sufferings, and
ascribed them to a great social change. To this the
hon. member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) added, by way
of consolation,' that the existing class -of proprietors
must be entirely replaced by another. He (Lorid Stanley)
would state, in reply to the observations which had been
eade by honourable gentlemen: that which he should have
thought from the general policy of the Government, it
was quite unnecessary for him to say—namelv, that the
settlement of 1846, as modified by that of 1848, was re-
garded by them ae a final one, and that they had now no
intention whatever to reimpose a system of differential
duties. By a final settlement he did not mean that it was
not to be conclusive; but no power could induce the
Legislature of a free country to adopt a compulsory po-
licy for all time to 001130. At the same time there was
not the slightest intention on the part of Government of
interfering in any way to prolong that differential duty
which was now about to expire. (Hear hear.) There-
fore, under those circumstancesi he could not look on
this motion, or the debate to wheh it had given rise, as
bearing practically on any policy which was now about
to be adopted. It was neither more nor less than a chal-
leng,e—a fair challenge—fairly thrown out to members on
the Government side of the house. The hon. gentleman
said, in effect—" You were 'wrong in the view you
took of the act of 1846, and we were right ; and now
we call upon you to admit the fact that you
were in error." If it were really made a charge against
them (the Government) that they did not, from the very
first moment of the passing of theactt of 1846, admit it to
be a final eettlement, or one conducive to the prosperity of
the colonies, that was an imputation under which they
might very well be content to lie ' • for that censure at-
tached not only to them and those who habitually voted
with them, but it attached equally to that great statesman
whom it was impossible not to recognise as the real if not
the nominal author of the act of 1846. It would not be
disputed that Sir Robert Peel practically carried- that act
through the house ; for had he and his supporters op-
posed it the Government would not have been able to
carry it. While supporting that measure, Sir R. Peel
distinctly declared that he entertained serious appre-
hensions as to what its consequences might • be, and
that the only thing which induced him to, support it
was, the political consideration- how far its passing or
its rejection would affect the state of parties ; thus prefer-
ring a less claim to a greater, a less important to'a more
important interest. Taking the act of 1846, in con-
nexion with previous acts, be would be .5 bold man who
would say that-that policy had been otherwise than un-
just. He did not deny that he had entertained expectations
as to the evils of the act of 1846, which had not been
realised. But looking at that measure, not as it was seen
now by the light of experience, but as it appeared then, he
contended that it was rash and unjust. Mr. Wileon had
made rather light of the alleged distresses of the West India
Planters ; but the report of a local commission of inquiry
issued by the Governor of British Guiana in 1850, spoke of
the wholesale abandonment of property, and the disappear-
ance of all marks of civilisation as results of the legislation
of 1846. Statistics furnished by that commission showed
that 42,000 out of 80,000 of the inhabitants only were pro-
ducers, and of these 20,000 had since emigrated, leaving
only little more than 20,000 engaged in productive labour.
He admitted that in the last 12 or 14 months there was a
considerable improvement ; still he must deny the propo-
sition that there was no such thing as general die.
tress. The statement of the Governor of Jamaica,
which had been read, on the last day of last year,
proved that great distress still existed ; and so late as
August last, he stated that the revenue did not meet the
public expenditure, though it had been reduced' one-third.
Wbere the wages of labour were not exorbitant, he ad-
mitted that the colonies were more prosperous than they
had been for years past, To re-impose a differential duty,
en as to benefit the colonies that were suffering, was a po-
litcal impossib"ity. (Hear, hear.) t There had been a
most gratifying change in the last few months, arising out
of the suppression of the Brazilian slave trade ; that trade
was now utterly extinguished ; and there was a prospect
of free labour being employed also in Cuba, by the impor-
tation of Chinese. Should this be the case; the prosperity
of our West India colonies wonkl he greatly inceeased.
}Ls hoped this was. the last time on which the sugar duties
Add be discussed in that house.
The motion was then agreed to,
THE YARMOUTH PETIT/ON.
Mr. M. GIBSON presented a petition' from the gentle-
men who had signed the recognisance in the petition of
M'Cullagh against the sitting members for Great Yar-
mouth, stating that they believed they had bound them-
:elves by the recognisances they had signed, reeret,,, ting that
the sureties had been declared insufficient, and praying the
house to redress the grievance under which they laboured,
'.'.rd to take means for preventing that recurrence in future.
lho right hon. gentleman said he wished to call the atten-
ion of the house to the petition presented by Mr. M'Cul-
iagh, who claimed tohave been electedfor Great Yarmouth,
and who disputed the return. (The right hon. gentleman
read the petition, which has been printed with the votes.)
He did not ask the house to review the decision of the examiner
of recognisances, or to pass any ()Onion as to its validity, or in
any way to sit as a court of appeal. He was well aware that the
decision of theexaminer in those matters was final and con-
clusive. His object was to show that, on the face of those
proceedings, circumstances bad arisen which rendered it
necessary for Parliament to consider whether 4t might not
be necessary to amend the act itself under which proceed-
:ngs wore taken in reference to the ta:al of election peti-
:ions. The reason of the decision was, that the words
sitting members" were used instead of "sitting mem-
oer." On the same day the examiner had reported that a
similar recognisance, in which the words "sitting mem-
-001.3 were also used, was unobjectionable. But the °him-
, ion being taken in the case of Great Yarmouth, he de-
- ; led that that objection was valid, and therefore fatal to
any further proceedings with the Petition. He did not
mean to reflect, in the slightest degree, upon the
examiner of recog,nisancee- no, doubt he had endea-
vovered to discharge his recognisances.;
conscientiously, in re-
ference to what he believed to be the requirements
of the act of Parliament. But ho (Mr. Gibson) found
fault with the act itself, and asked that it should
he amended. Petitioners would be placed in a great
difficulty if there was no power of amending technical
Ajections to recognisances. In this case the
for loner had found his sureties ; nobody contended for a
mment that they were not good and substantial
:sureties, and capable of undertaking all the liabilities re-
ittired by the act. The fifth clause of the act gave the
'orm of the recognisance, and added, " With such altera-
tions as may be necessary to adopt such form to the cir-
cumstanced of each case," dearly showing that the act con-
templated necessary alterations. There ought to have been
s power in the act to enable the examiner to amend, and
call on the sureties to sign the amended form, eo that
hey might still be liable for costs, if the decision was
gainst them. The motion ho had to submit was in the
following terms :—" That a select committee be appointed
to inquire into the operation of 11 and 12 Vic., cap.
93, as regards recognisances and to report their opinion to
the house whether it is expedient to amend that act." The
:4 days having expired, it was out of Mr. M'Cullagh's
rower to present a new petition. Another circumstance
la this case was, that the hearing-of the objection was
taken at an earlier period than the stipulated three days
after notice of the objection. He (Mr. Gibson) brought
forward this matter solely on public grounds, in order that
technicalities might not be allowed to stand in the way of
justice.

Mr. HUME seconded the motion.
Mr. WALPOLE said he was glad the motion was not in
eonformity with the prayer of tho petition, which asked the
house to interfere with what the examiner had done. Tour
years ago the opinion of the house had been expressed
against this, and in a subsequent act it was purposely pro-
v!fied that the decision of the examiner as to the recog-

nisances should be final and conclusive. Such being the
law, the last thing for the house to do would be to undo
what it had taken so much pains to establish; The hon.
gentleman said that a distinction had been made by the
xaminer between the Great Yarmouth case and the
tiridgenorth case; but in the latter, the objection never
was raised; consequently, the examiner had no op I
ty of giving an opinion one way or the other. " ren
Great Yarmouth case came on, the agents for the
,„ting member took the objection, and the examiner
decided. against the sufficiency of the recognisances. It
w;,,s said there had not been the regular three days' notice.
Ile found that notice was given on the 23d, and the case
was heard on the 26th. This being so, the hon. gentleman
'odd exercised a proper discretion in not founding his mo-
tr.3n on the prayer of the petition. ' Ho asked for a select
committee; and the Government had no objection to sueh
a committee being appointed. But as there were a great
,any election petitions, he thought it hotter to defer the
opointnient of this committee a fow days, as other tech-
nical difficulties might arise on other petitions which might
also be referred to the same committee. The committee
wotdd also have to consider whether recognisanoes might
not sometimes be left purposely informal ,• as well ao to
draw a distinction between formal objections and those
r~hich went to the substance. Perhaps it might be well.
111 come cases, to require the deposit of au amount suffi-
cient to cover the costs, so as to afford the requisite secu-
rity to the sitting members.
~kfter a few words from Sir a •WILLOUGHBY and Mr.
4"-r. tatusorr, the motion was agreed to.
the motion of Sir H. WILLOUGHBY the following
rot 4171, Wag
oli4inea bordered :---.Copy of any.lnformation that can be
poor rate
ti?: the Poor Law Board, as to relief out of the
or in aid
of Parties on the ground of being "out of work,"
:ho arrionnt"vores ; stating thenninher of such parties, and
Ind such relief, in any of the unions in England
SELFcur
Mr. HENLEIAtMITTEE ON RAILWAYS.
select Tcommittee aumarninated the following members as a
Mr. W. Gladstone, 4,,nrays :—Mr, lionrey, Mr. Hums,
Patten, Colonel Mure, -"abouchere, Mr. Eit'rutt, Mr. W.
3lilnes, Mr. E. Derdsu,aPt'ain Jones, Mr. Dorados, Mr. M.
Mr. J. MACGREOronand. Laffau,
ecuplo.ined that the railway in-
terest was not sufficiently re
addition of the name of Mr. ere,(l. and suggested the
Mr. FREWEN concurred in the snB
Mr. HENLBY had no objection tJ,‘"e""°n•
addition which
would tend to promote the object for which!!3`
'nted
was appoi • . the committee
Mr. lIINDLEY would rather the committee „,,
f3ctly independent of the railway_ interest i being wconirr;
that interest was' quite powerral enough to take ca„ noi

question, and said thaatin,
Lo
Air. GEACII thanked tto Government for h v•
frrappled with this important
itieipated that it would prove beneficial to the public at

MUNTZ ilia not see why the railway interest
‘liotld be especiall^ renresonted.
_ A chairman of a ralla, ay
/1 the house wanted
company might be OVlinined I and a-- -
VAS common s3nse.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY did not we why railway mag.
'rates 141.toulfl sit on the committee.
• Mr. J. MACGREGOR had no wishto press his augges-
zaoa against the sense of the house no motion was then agreed to, ;rid the house adjourned
at nine o'clock.