The Sun.
London, England, 1838-04-04 00:00:00

SLAVERY,

Mr. SCARLETT, pursuant to notice, moved for a copy
of any communication from the Colonial Office to the Marquis
'3! Sligo, the Governor of Jamaica, directing the sudden eman-
cipation of the apprentices upon the estate of Philip Anglin
Scarlett, Esq., and for copies of any other documents relating
to thet transaction. The Hon. Member said that his object
was to ohta.in some compensation for the ruin inflicted on this
telbang y gentleman by the deprivation of his property.
Sir G. GREY said the case was simply one of law,
hinging entirely cn the construction of an Act of Parliament,
and t-uat parallel cases involving the same question were tow
'before the Privy Council for adjudication. To be valid, the
slaves should have been registered every three years, but as
these on the estate of Mr. Scarlett had not been sm registered
ahoy were declared entitled to their freedom, in conformity
-with the Emancipation Act. He (Sir G. Grey) regretted
that this case had been brought befora the House, because he
'could not consent to the motion as it stood ; but if the Hon.
:Member would move for a copy of all tl-e correspondence
-that had taken place between the Colonial Office and the
f;overno! of Jamaica on the subject of the emancipation of
all sives similarly circumstanced, he shou'd have no objection
I.re grant them.

-Mr. SCA R LETT was understood to agree.
The ATTORNE Y. G E NERA L said a few words in jus-
tification of the opinion given by the Law-officers of the Crown.
On the mo-ion of Sir G. GREY the amended returns were
ordered, and the subject dropped.
SOAP TAX.
Mr. GIL LON presented a petition from the soap manu-
facturers of the metropolis, praying the total abolition of the
tax on soap. The Hon. Member then brought forward his
motion to the same effect. He would submit to the House
some statement to prove the decline and decay of the trade in
the first instance. From 1833, when half the duty on soap
was abolished on the motion of the present Earl Spencer, the
amount manufactured was as follows :-
1833 154,579,990 lbs.
1834 154,260,000
1835 160,374,000
1,36 159,038,664
1837 . 152,114,157
'Which shewed a decrease in the gross quantity of five per
cent. ; and, as between 1333 and 1537, of seven per cent.
Then, the decrease on the quantity entered for home con-
sumption was proportionably great, or even greater; for as
between 1833 and 1836 it amounted in comparison of the
two years, one with another, to ten per cent. at least. This
decrease, though great, would have been still greater but for
the brisk demand which arose for the article last October ;
and he (Mr. Gillon) felt satisfied that if the returns of the last
year had been made up, it would be found to have still more
exceeded that amount. Much of the decrease in the re-
venue was undoubtedly to be attributed to smuggling. In
many towns the soap manufactories were set up evidently as
a mere pretext for smuggling. At Chippenham, for instance,
it appeared by the returns that one made 1571b5. of soap in
the course of the year—a quantity certainly not worth paving
a four-pound license for. They now no longer needed
but could work effectively on a small scale, which left no traces
of the purer alkali now employed. The candlemakers have
all the facilities on the spot for the production of the best
soap. There are three hundred of those actively employed in
the operation in England, and it is believed with good reason
that they make a large quantity of soap illicitly, not being
under the surveillance of the -Excise. The Hon. Member
complained that the soap manufacture was subjected to a set of
antiquated rules and heavy penalties of the reign of Queen
Anne, which it was impossible to observe. Our laws did not
enable the manufacturer to use vegetable oils in his process
without loss, so that branch of the manufacture was left to
foreigners. Again, the soap duty did not extend to Ireland,
and he could see no reason why English manufacturers should
pay duties that they did not. Further, the inequality of pres-
sure bore heavily on the poor, for whose sake it was most de-
sirable to repeal it. If, however, the whole duty could not be
abolished, he saw no reason why the suggestion of the Com-
missioners to reduce the duty from lid. to Id. should not be
complied with. He concluded by moving the total abolition
of the duties on soap.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER felt that
it was only prudent before totally repealing a duty yielding
between 700,0001. and 800,000/. per annum to inquire
whether they could spare that amount from the revenue.--
( Hear, hear.) If so he would be happy to comply, but there
were many objections to the proposition. All the taxes ought
to be considered together in a case of this kind, and when
they considered that last quarter there was a deficiency of
625,0001., they would see that it was impossible to concede
the demand. He thought that the reduction of the duty one-
third would be a very hazardous experiment, and that the in-
troduction of any equalising duty in Ireland would tend very
much to encourage smuggling in the remoter parts. The
abolition of the duty in England would almost have the effect
of destroying the soap manufactories in Ireland, for they at
present complained exceedingly of the rivalry they were ex-
posed to. With respect to the reduction of expenditure re-
commended, it had been going on for the last seven years.
Indeed Government had been more forward than the House in
its desire for reduction. Again, he must repeat that he was
not prepared to sacrifice 800,0001. of revenue without ending
some equivalent. He had some Bills ready for the purpose of
simplifying the laws, and removing every impolitic restriction;
but in the present state of the revenue he could not consent
to the reduction of so important a sum in the absence of all
equivalent.
Lord SANDON thought that in the present state of the
revenue a proposition for the total reduction of the tax ought
not to be persisted in. The revenue was at present admitted
to be a declining one, and under these circumstances he was
of opinion that the recommendation of the Commissioners
ought to be attended to. With this view of the case he would
move as an amendment on the motion of the Hon. Gentleman
(Mr. Gillon) that the duties on soap should be reduced by
one- third.

Mr. BENETT, under all the circumstances, could not vote
for the motion,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would op-
pose both the motion and the amendment.
Mr. HUME thought the decline of the revenue would war.

rant Ministers in undertaking the experiment. If the Noble
Lord's motion were carried, it would take fifty per cent. off
the duty, and place the manufacturers in the position in which
they ought to be. Our military and naval establishments were
now on a higher scale than they had been for years, and the
Civil List also ; and the Government had no right to claim a
particular economy on those heads. He should support the
motion of the Noble Lord opposite.
Mr. HAWES said that in supporting this motion of his
Hon. Friend he was satisfied that he was supporting a
motion which, if carried, would lead to an increase rather than
the injury of the revenue.
After a few words in explanation from the CHANCEL-
LOR of the EXCHEQUER,

_
Mr. F. B. BARING said that the question with regard to
the injury to the revenue related to the ensuing year—( Hear)
—and he was astonished, when the Budget was so soon to be
brought on, and after his Right Hon. Friend had told the
House that the revenue could not spare a reduction of
200,0001. that an experiment like this should be pressed upon
the country.—( Hear.)
Mr. W. CAMPBELL opposed the motion.
Mr. WALLACE supported the amendment of the Noble
Lord, on the ground that it would increase the revenue, and
put down smuggling.
Sir G. SINCLAIR would not agree to any reductions
which would embarrass the finances of the country.

Mr. G ILL ON replied, and said that after what had been
stated he would withdraw his motion in favour of the amend-
ment of the Noble Lord.—(Hear.)
Lord SANDON also said that after the statements of the
Hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of the Treasury, he was not
disposed to press his amendment.--(Loud cries of " Divide,"
" Withdraw," " Divide.") The Noble Lord was understood,
however, to say that, consulting the wishes of Honourable
Gentlemen, he would take the sense of the House •n his
amendment.—(Renewed cries of " Divide," " Withdraw,"
" Divide.")
The SPEAKER expressed it as his opinion that the Noble
Lord could not, according to the rules of the House, take the
course which he proposed. The Noble Lord must withdraw
his amendment before the motion of the Hon. Member for
Selkirk could be withdrawn. _

Lord SANDON was perfectly ready to adopt the sug-
gestion of the Chair, and should, therefore, withdraw his
amendment.

Mr. GIL LON then withdrew his motion.
The question was then put on Lord Sandon's amendment,
and the House divided. The numbers were—

For the amendment
Against it
Majority —B9
The original motion was then put, and negatived without a

division.

Mr. BE AMISH moved for leave to bring in a Bill to regu-
late the sale of bread in Ireland.
Mr. WARBURTON did not think the House should con.
sent to the introduction of such a measure, without knowing
something more about it. It might be a good or a bad mea-
sure, for aught he knew to the contrary. If it went to remove
absurd restrictions it would be good ; but if, on the contrary,
it was designed to establish restrictions it would be bad. He
should like to know something more about it.
Mr. BE AMISH said that the only object of the measure was
to assimilate the law on this subject in Ireland to that of this
country.
Mr. P. THOMSON said that though he would not oppose
the introduction of the Bill, he would in no way pledge him.
self to support it. There had been many measures of this
kind, but each turned out to be worse than the other.
Mr. SHAW would give no opinion as to the Bill until he
saw it. If he should not be of opinion that it was an import.
ant one, he should oppose it.
Leave was then given to bring the Bill in.
BELFAST ELECTION.

Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL, in pursuance of the notice which
he had given, rose to call the attention of the House to the
petition of the electors of Belfast, relating to the present
system of taxing witnesses' expenses in election cases. The
Hon. Member said that he had in vain searched for pre-
cedents as to the course which he ought to pursue. This
case was, in fact, unprecedented in Parliamentary law.
The petition to which he referred related to the claims of
two Hon. Gentlemen now Members of that House for
their expenses in coming to London and attending before the
Belfast Election Committee, to substantiate their qualifica-
tions, with respect to which there had been some doubt. The
agents of the Earl of Belfast and Mr. Gibson, the late Mem-
bers, were advised that the question of the qualification of
Mr. Tennent and Mr. Dunbar should be raised, and these
Hon. Gentlemen were accordingly served with the Speaker's
warrant to produce the necessary documents so show that
their qualifications were sufficient. On receiving the Speaker's
warrant Mr. Tennent refused to attend unless his expenses
were paid, and served a notice to that effect, upon which the
Messrs. Montgomery, the agents for Lord Belfast and Mr.
Gibson, give an undertaking that they would pay to Mr.
Tennent such expenses as should he awarded to him. Mr.
Tennent subsequently claimed of Messrs. Montgomery a sum
of 101. for travelling expenses to London ; a guinea a day for
twenty-three days, while he attended before the Committee ;
and a further sum of 101. for travelling expenses back to Bel-
fast. Mr. Dunbar adopted the same course, and gave notice
that until the amount which he claimed was paid he would
remain in London at the expense of the parties who had en-
tered int-) the undertaking. The agent, too, of Mr. Tennent
and Mr. Dunbar had furnished an account of 1231., although
be came to London to attend to his professional duties. By a
case in Perry and Knapp's report it appeared to have been
laid down by the late Speaker that witnesses were only enti.
tied to the necessary expenses in coming up to attend before
the Committee, and that all their other charges were subject
to taxation. Much of the delay in the Committee had oi i-
ginated with the Counsel of the Honourable Gentlemen
themselves, anti he thought that such claims as these were
most utjust, and ought not to be sanctioned by that
House.—(Hear, hear, hear.) To avoid expense the matter
had been referred to Mr. Rose, one of the clerks of that
House, and as he had decided in favour of allowing the
expenses it was only an act of justice to him that some
inquiry into sueh mattors should take place. He thought it
due to the character of the House that some inquiry should
take place, or that some expression of the opinion of the
House should be made. It should not, in his opinion, be
sanctioned that a claim of this kind should be made. He would
conclude by moving for a Select Committee to take into con-
sideration a petition from the electors of Belfast, with respect
to the present system of taxing witnesses' expenses in election
case s.

Mr. DUNBAR did not rise for the purpose of opposing
the motion of the Hon. Member for Kerry ; but as his name
had been introduced into the petition, he was sure that the
House would pardon him for introducing a few observations
with respect to it. It had been truly stated in the petition,
that a demand had been made on his part for his expenses,
and he thought no doubt could be entertained of his right to
do so, as the officers appointed by the House had awarded ex-
penses in similar circumstances to his colleague. This was not,
however, the reason why he had made a claim for expenses.
His reason was tint Lord Belfast's agent had made a de-
mand, amounting to about 1.5/., and when he (Mr. Dunbar)
was made aware of this, he informed his solicitor that if he
chose he might apply for the amount of the expenses to which
he ( Mr. Dunbar) was legally entitled. He had been served
with a notice (as we understood the Hon. Member) to pro-
duce a certain deed, in order to afford to the sitting Members
the fullest opportunity of questioning his qualification and of
searching into it. He was advised to be prepared with the
witness to that deed, lest some cause of complaint or objection
might be raised if that witness was not present. Accordingly,
he had been placed under the necessity of bringing the witness
be alluded to at great expense from the north of Ireland, and
that witness being a professional man, and having been detained
for upwards of three weeks, he felt bound to allow him three
guineas a day and his expenses back again, and this witness
alone had-cost him (Mr. Dunbar) upwards of one hundred
poands. Now, after he had been subjected to all this expense,
would it be believed that that deed never had been asked for
—( Hear, hear, hear.) But that was not the only expense to
which he bad been subjected with respect to his qualifica-
tion. He had been questioned respecting another deed, and
after that deed had been produced, and after the opposite party
had considered and perused it, they found that it would not
answer their purpose. They accordingly returned the deed,
and refused to give it in evidence. Now, he asked the House
was not this a case of hardship ? It would be quite a mistake
for any one to suppose that the parties to the petition were the
parties whom he sought to obtain his expences from. Why,
no man could be considered in his senses who would think of
expecting a single farthing from them. Two of them had
been struck off by the Committee as not being qualified to vote
as 101. freeholders. They were mere men of straw. He
wished to make one observation with respect to a gentleman
whose name bad been mentioned in connection with this case.
He alluded to Mr. Bates, than whom there was no more res-
pectable gentleman in his profession. That gentleman would
never have thought of asking for his expences, if Lord Bel-
fast's Agent had not made an application for his expences.
After a few words from Mr. WYNN and Mr. H. GRATTAN,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was unable to concur in the
motion. He thought that they could not do so without in-
terfering with those officers who had a most responsible duty
to perform.

After a few observations from Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL,
The motion was withdrawn.
AYRSHIRE YEOMANRY CAVALRY.

Mr. G ILL ON rose for the purpose of moving for returns
on this subject. The Hon. Member concluded by moving for
" A copy of any precognition taken for, or report made to,
the Lord Advocate of Scotland, respecting the conduct of the
Ayrshire Yeomanry Cavalry, in and near the town of Kilwin-
fling, during the last election for the county of Ayr; espe-
cially such extracts as will show the order issued for the as-
sembling of the above corps, or any part of it, on the day pre-
vious to the said election ; the name or number of the troop
or troops assembled, and the number of men from other
troops than those ordered out; with the names of the officers
commanding or accompanying the troops which turned out on
that occasion, and stating whether with their own troops and
nten, or with those of other troops ; also the name of the
place or places where the officers and men were ordered to
meet, and were quartered, during the day and night previous
to the aforesaid election ; also the hour and place at which
they paraded on tho election day ; the distance of that place
from the polling station at Kilwinnirag ; the hour they marched
into that town ; stating also the pace at which they were con-
ducted, and the hour and place of their arriving at the polling-
booth, the time they were kept there during the hours of poll-
ing, and when relieved from duty."
The LORD ADVOCATE objected to the production of
these papers. According to the law of Scotland these precog-
nitions were quite private.
Mr. FERGUSSON supported the motion.
Mr. WALLACE also supported the motion, which wag
withdrawn.