The Sun.
London, England, 1841-06-11 00:00:00

sTrIE-StN,

• - - -
nalties, and disabilities, as persons convicted of wilful
and corrupt perjury are by law liable to, and may be
prosecuted for the same at any period within five years
after he shall have made such declaration."
Mr. W.ARBURTON simply asked himself whether
such a clause would be effectual in preventing bribery or
not.—(Hear, hear.) It would have the effect of making
the public believe that electors were purer than they
really were. As to the effect of such a declaration, he
would merely allude to the declaration taken by officers
of regiments when their commissions were bought or
sold. On such occasions both the buyor and seller de-
clared on their honour that they had neither given nor
taken directly or indirectly a greater sum than the regu-
lation price, and the colonel of the regiment certified that
he verily believed that the regulations with regard to
price had been strictly complied with. Yet every one
who knew officers, knew that these regulations were
never complied with, but were absolutely considered a
(lead letter, and this took place among a class of men who
were considered as the very pink of honour, and who were
bound to sacrifice every thing rather than that honour.
Yet it was among these gentlemen that this asseveration
was violated. A solemn aseveration was made that
certain things were done, and yet the declaration made
had not the slightest foundation. There was another in-
stance in which the oath was prescribed, but equally dis-
regarded. By the 28th of Henry VIII., c. 15, sec. 9,
all Bishops and Archbishops, upon ordaining clergy-
men, were required to put to them a corporal oath that
they would learn the English language and teach it,
and support a school for that purpose, and also that they
would assume the English garb and fashion. Every one
knew that that oath was-constantly violated. The oaths
to obey the statutes at the Universities af-
forded another instance of the manner in which
such asseverations were. evaded ; nor was any
discredit attached to these parties. Under these
circumstances, how could it be imagined that the pro-
posed declaration would have the effect of preventing
bribery ? His opinion was, that the only effect would
be to cause the agents to conceal what had occurred till
a considerable period had elapsed. He wished to see
Members elected, net for their money but for their
merits, and believing that this Bill would not promote
that end, he could not give to it his support.
Colonel SIBTHORP said the effect of the Bill would
be to prevent the rich from benefiting the poor even by
giving a few shillings in charity, and it should have his
strenuous opposition.
Sir DENHAM NORREYS was in favour of making
the oath as stringent as possible. He considered bribery
by an agent no less deserving of punishment than bri-
bery by the party himself.
Mr. E. TURNER and Mr. W. ROCHE supported
the clause.

Colonel PERCIVAL opposed the clause.
Mr. T. B. HOBHOUSE said that no declaration could
be made that would not be evaded.

Sir R. HARDINGE wished to know by what tribu-
nal any Member of that House was to be tried when he
had been guilty of bribery.
Mr. O'BRIEN apprehended that he would be- tried
in the usual manner, and by the Common Law Courts.
Mr. BROTHERTON apprehended if it was the wish
of the House to put an end to bribery, there could not
be any objection in a Member declaring that he had not
been guilty of bribery. He was for adopting any course
that would put an end to bribery.
Mr. WAKLEY said that he believed the House
was not sincere in its wish to get rid of bribery—
if it was, the cure was easy, and that cure was to
enlarge the constituency.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped
the Noble Lord, from what he had experienced, would
put aside his views of finality ; and, if he did, he (Mr.
W.) did not despair of seeing him come forward shortly
as the Radical Doctor to cure all the evils that at pre-
sent existed in the representation of the country. He
did not believe that any declaration would prevent Mem-
bers from bribing. He believed if the clause was car-
ried, it would have no good effect. He trusted, there-
fore, the Hon. Member for Limerick would withdraw
the clause.

Lord J. RUSSELL thought if the declaration was
not productive of good, it was calculated to do a great
deal of harm. He could not conceive that any good ef-
fect would be produced by a declaration. He believed
that after a short time a declaration would become a dead
letter. He did not wish to make any final declaration on
I-. subject, but, as at present advised, he could not agree
-4. the clause.
--LTNEY said they had for some long nights
to adop.
Mr. COLi ;n which much sympathy was shown
had a long debate, in
had sugar debates, - !,,ht they
which sympathy ; but why
for the negroes ; last n. FY
which dogs were talkeS
should not some of their lin--namt
?e would envy the;life
ri
be shown to them-
selves ? If the clause became 1a.7
of the toad under the harrow to itiat of a Member of
Parliament, living perhaps under w:.'ak nerves for
five years at the mercy of any disreputable informer.
The Legislation they were now engaged in was useless,
and therefore mischievous. He trusted the Hon. Mem-
ber for Limerick would not forte them to a division, for
the motives of those who conscientiously voted against
the motion would be sure to be misregesented out of
doors.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, the House
divided, when there appeared—
For the clause
22
Against it 5l
Majority against the clause —29. •
On our return to the gallery, we found—
Mr. S. O'BRiEN calling the attention of the House to
the expenses to which candidates were put to bring-
ing up voters. It ww.: most desirable that, in Ireland at
least, such expense should be brought as low as possible,
and that such payment of allowance should not be
deemed bribery. He would co:'fine the allowances to ss,
for the expenses of attending at the poll, and 6d. per mile
for travelling—to that extent it ought not to be con-
sidered bribery.lNHe brought up a C 4143,80 to that effect.
Sir R. BAIESON agreed with the Hon, Member, but
the greatest blessing that could be conferred on Iratind in
election matters would be to extend to her the English
system of voting' at various places in the.county. It
would save much of drunkenness and loss of life. He
was certain that if they did away with treatinc, in Ireland
they would disfranchise more than one-half of the
county electors, for they could not travel 30, 40 pr 50
miles to the county town, and remain there five days
his own cost.
After a few words from -Sir G. GREY and Colonel
SIBTHORP, the clause was withdrawn.
. The House resumed, the Report to be received to-
morrow.
The Report of the Committee on the Banks of Issue
Bill was brought up.
The Metropolitan Improvement Bill went through
Committee.
The County Bridges Bill was read a second time.
The Highway Rates Bill was also read a second time.
The School Sites Bill was reported, with amendments.

THE EASTERN QUESTION.

,The following is a transcript of a noie from the Representa-
tivts of the Four Power-, in reply to a communication to them
from the Ottoman Government :

" The undersigned have the honour of acknowledging the
receipt of the note, dated April 27, by which his Excellency
Chekib Effendi, Ambas,ador of the Sublime Porte, in commu-
nicating to them the instructions he has la'ely received. has
been pleased to appeal to the Conference of the Foreign
Powers, to adjust certain difficulties, which have arisen re-
specting the interpretation of some of the clauses contained in
the firmans issued On the 13th of February last, with regard
to the definitive arrangement of the affairs of Egypt. The
clauses, respecting which the Sublime Porte desires to know
the opinion of the four Allied Courts, are confined to the three
following points:—
" 1. The question of heredite ;
"2. The fixing of the tribute ; and
"3. The military promotions.
" The general regulations which serve to solve these three
questions have been determined, in principle, by the Conven-
tion which the Sublime Porte concluded on the 16th of July,
1840, with the Courts of Austria, Great Britain, Prussia, and
Russia. It is accordingly to the principles laid down in that
Convention that the undersigned telt bound to refer, in the va-
rious communications which they bad the honour of address-
ing to the Ottoman Ambassackr, and especially in their notes of
the 30th January and of March 13. Resta'', on the same basis,
the undersigned, in compliance with the desire expressed by
his Excellency Chekib Efff ndi, hasten to offer him the flllow-
ing explanations:—
" QUESTION OF THE HEREDITE.

" The Sultan, in realizing the intention which his High-
ness had manifested from the beginning of the Eastern crisis,
has formally announced his determination to leave the heredit-
ary administration of the 13..chalic of Egypt to the family of
Mehemet Ali, so long as he and his descendants should conti-
nue to render themselves worthy of that favour, by fulfilling
faithfully the conditions thereunto attached. The principle
once legally admitted by the Sovereign authority of the Sul-
tan, there only remains to be regulated the mode in which the
post of Governor of Egypt shalt be transmitted from one mem-
ber of the family of Mehemet Ali to another. Now, it has
been agreed that that transmission should take place by means
of the investiture which the Sultan will grant to the new titu-
lar. It is in accordance with that Principle that his Highness,
in reinstating Mehemet Ali in the functions of Governor of
Egypt, has deigned to address to him the firman of the 13th of
February.

" Moreover, by a special provision which the Sultan has
thought proper to communicate to his Allies, that Sovereign
has dispensed Mehemet Ali from repairing to Constantinople,
in order to receive in that capital the investiture of his Pa-
chalic. At the same time his Highness deigned to declare that
he would oispense, likewise, Ibrahim Pacha front proceeding
to Constantinople when he in turn should be called to succeed
Mehemet Ali in the functions d Pacha, and that the firman
of investiture should then be sent to him in Egypt. In adapt-
ing this clause, such as it was communicated to the Allied
Courts, the Sublime Porte has itself indicated the mode agree-
ably to which his Highness proposes to provide for the here-
ditary admini,tration of the Pachalic of Egypt in the family of
Mehemet Ali.

" According to this mode, and conformably with the usages
established in the Ottoman empire, it is consequently Ibrahim
Pacha who, as the senior descendant of the family, shall even-
tually be called ui on to succeed Mehemet ' Ali in the• post of
Governor of Egypt.
"In virtue of the same rule, the senior member of the
family after Ibrahim Pacha shall be considered as the presump-
tive successor of lorahim in the post of Governor of the
Pachalic of Egypt. Such is the general rule which the Pleni-
potentiaries of the Allied Courts consider as belt adapted to the
interests of the Sublime Porte, and most in conformity with
the usages established in the Ottoman empire. Ia replying
thus to the appeal which the Ottoman Ambassador has just ad-
dressed to them, in consequence of an order of his Govern-
ment, they have thought proper to declare that the appoint-
ment to the post of Governor of Egypt belongs exclusively to
his Highness; that this right is exercised, arid manifests itself
each time by the investiture conferred on the new titular; and,
finally, that the investiture granted by the sovereign authority
constitutes the title in virtue of which each new Governor
,shall be called to rule over Egypt, in the name ofhis Highness,
as a province forming part of the Ottoman empire.
FIXING OF THE AMOUNT OF TRIBUTE.
" The separate act annexed to the Convention of the 15th of
July had not settled the amount of tribute to be paid. It only
laid down as a principle that a tribute should be paid annually
to the Porte, and that it should be proportioned to the extent
of territory the administration of which should be entrusted to
Mehemet Ali, and that the Pacha of Egypt, on condition that
he pay a regular tribute, should collect the taxes and imposi-
tions legally established in the Dame of the Sultan, and should
provide for all the expenses of the civil and military establish-
ments in the Pachalic.

In referring in this place to the position laid down as a
principle by the Convention of the 15th of July, the Plenipo-
tentiaries of the Powers who signed that Treaty would consider
that they had exceeded the limits of their mission were they to
pronounce an opinion on the amount of tribute to be. paid, and
which they consider as a financial measure relative to the in-
ternal administration of the Ottoman empire, which the under-
signed (as they already expressed in their note of the 13th of
March), do not regard as coming within their province.
" Moreover, not possessing the necessary statistical infor-
mation to serve as a base for a correct judgment on the finan-
cial resources of Egypt, they could not express any opinion
upon the amount of annual revenue which the Sublime Porte
might draw from this province.
" Nevertheless, in order to satisfy, as far as they can, the
wish expressed by Chekib Effendi, in the name of the Sub-
lime Porte, they think they ought to suggest that instead of
fixing the tribute at a proportional part of the gross revenue
cf Egypt, it would be more to the interest of the Porte to de-
termine the amount by a fixed sum, which would insure his
Highness the receipt of a certain income. Such sum might
be varied according to circumstances, for which reason it might
be better that the fixed sum be declared subject to revision at
certain epochs. •
" MILITARY PROMOTIONS.

" The separate Act annexed to the Treaty of July contains
an article stating that the land and sea forces to be main-
tained by the Paella of Egypt shall be always considered as
forming part of the forces of the empire, and maintained for
the service of the State.'

" According to this principle the military forces employed
in Egypt being those of his Highness the Sultan, the officers
giljniarive promotion in virtue of the Sovereign will alone, to
whom grmy and the fleet belong.
" Setting pot from this principle, which is to he generally
applied, the undersigned can only attach a secondary import-
ance to the difficulty which has arisen relative to the question
of military promotions in Egypt. It is for the Sultan to de-
legate what authority he pleases to the Governots of Egypt.,
roserving to himself the power to extend or restrain those
powers according as experience and the necessities of the ser••
vice may demonstrate the propri« ty of so doing.
" If, in the present nate, the undersigned have thought pro-
per to confine their observations to the three above-mentioned
points, it is because that they have, by their collective notes of
the 30th of January, lath March, and by the P4Socol of the
March, already made known their opinion specting the
other awndiljons contained in the separate act annexed to the
C•onvention of the pth of July, 1840.
-,:s.t7severing in thteheviutanwdsearspigdneodpidm i
opinions which
expedient
hichth
to referemani-
f
to
gesa'dyile nitsu'st consider the submission formally made
mani-
fested in. the
by Mehoutt Ali as absolute, and consequently regard the
Turco-Egyptian question as terminated.
"Accordingly the Mftdersigned cannot admit the supposi-
tion that the ache, wife (Night to by grateful for the pardon
which the Sultan has deigned to want him and the favours
conferred by his Highness on himself and his family, should
not keep within the bounds of the obedience and submission
which sue that conditions of that pardon and those favours.

0` Thelsleuipaontiaries of the Allied Courts, in communi-
cating these observations to his Excellency Chekib Effendi,
invite him to be pleased to make Illem known to his Court,
these observationi being intended to serve gs the comple-
ment of the contents of heir collective note dated tha lath of
Marsh last. . .

They seize this opportunity of renCwing, Ro.
"ESTERHAZ'Y " NEUMANN."

" PALMERSTON.
" BULOW.
" BRUNOW.
" London, May 10, 1841."

SPAIN.
FINANCIAL DECREES.
(From the Madrid Gazette of June 1.)

DECREE OF THE REGENT OF SPAIN ADDRESSED TO THE
MINISTER OF FINANCE.

"Having taken into consideration the utility of forming a
commission charged with the examining and proposing to me
of such measures as shall be judged suitable to .an effectual and
speedy execution of the plan of taxation to be presented to the
Cortes, with the probable amount of the expenses for the en-
suing year, 1842, In my quality of Regent of the realm during
the minority of her Majesty Queen Donna Isabella the Second,
and conformably to the advice of the Council of Ministers, I
have decreed as follows:

" Art. I. There shall be formed a commission composed of
persons of distinction, of experience and zeal, which shall be
charged to examine, in the shortest possible space of time, and
to propose to me those measures most adapted to the plan of
taxation to be brought before the Cortes with the budget of
1842.

" Art. 2. Are appointed members of said commission, Don
Pio Pita Pizarro, lieputy, President ; the Director:General of
the Funds and of the Sinking Funds, the Cashier-General of
Stock and Dividends ; Don Pascal Madoz, Assessor to the Su-
perintendence of the Public Treasury; Don. Andre Aubiano,
Member of the Upper Court of Accounts; Don Pablo Pcbrer,
Don Jose Maria ()reuse; and Don Eusebio Rodolfo, Chief of
the Budget DepartMent and the Ministry of Finance, who will
'al the functions of Secretary.
" Art. 3. The commission to assemble in the hall set apart
for the meeting of the Funds Department, on the days and at
the hours to be fixed upon by the President, for the completion
of the formalities, conformably to Art. 72 of the constitution.
" Art. 4. All the Ministers, the corps, and the authorities
will aid the Commission in its researches, and furnish all the
information it may require, for the interests of the undertak-
ing with which it is specially charged. You will consider as
heard, and will enforce the execution of the vresent decree.
" The Duke de la VITORIA.
" The Palace, May 28, 1841.
" To Don Pedro Surra y Rull, Minister of Finance."
A second decree of the 28th, upon the Report of the Mini-
ster of Finance, orders the formation of a Commission similar
to the above, for the speedy examination of the measures
best adapted to determine the private budget of each depart-
ment of the :Ministry, and to estimate the general expendi-
ture of the State, to be annually presented to the Cortes.
The following to be members of said Commission :—Don
Augustin Fernandez Gamboa, Deputy for Naxarre, Presi-
dent ; Don Cesar Maria Saenz ; Don Miguel Alejo Burrill.
Don Raman Maria Temprodo, Deputy Don Mateo de Aillon,
Member of the Upper Court of Accounts"; Don Antonio
Larrua, Intendant of the Army; Don Jose Maria Morente,
Chief of the Department of the Interior; Don Francisco de la
Have, Chief of the Marine Department of Commerce and of
the Government of the Colonies ; Don Alexandro de Contillo,
Chief of the Department of Foreign Affairs ; Don Joaquinus
Morcus de la' Penat, Chief of the Department of the War-
office ; and Don Joaquin Mario Perez, Chief of the Department
of the Budget at the Ministry of Finance, to be Secretary. All
facility to be given to expedite their business.

SIR ROBERT PEEL AND MR.
ASHWORTH.
(From the M,lnchescr Guardian.)
TO THE EPITOK OF THE MAN:MP:STEIL G U ROLA V.

Turton, tith mo., 6, 16:11.

ri ICSPECTED /Jaye to request your insert/ in of
the following ctrrespondence, winch ha- I,assed between Sir
R. Peel and myself, in reference to certain statements, made
in his speech on the sugar du, ies, on the 18th ult.
I have prefixed to it an extract from that speech, and also a
letter, previously addressed by me to Sir Robert Peel, through
the medium of The Sun newspaper. This letter has already
appeared in the Guardian, but I think it desirable now to re-
peat it, with the view of rendering the subsequent correspon-
dence more intelligible.
As a week has elapsed without a reply to my letter of the
Ist instant, I presume the correspondence is now terminated.
I am, respectfuly your friend,
HENftY ASHWORTH.
[We emit the letter and the extract, as not necessary to
make our readers acquainted with the facts of the case.]

Turton, Bolton, 5 mo. 29, 1841.
Respected Friend, Sir Robert Peel, Bart.—l find that thou
bast stated, in reply to an inquiry of Mark Phillips, Esq.,
that thou hcdst not received any direct communication from
any of the deputation wha waited upon titre, from the Man-
chester Chamber of Commerce, concerning thy statements to
the House as to their opinions of Sir. Greg's pamphlet; and
that, if "any such were now seat, that thou would frankly
state the result."

It would also appear, that thou bast demurred to nptice my
published letters to thee,—probably upon a point of etiquette,
because I had not previously submitted then' personally to
thyself.
I should regret, if I had inconsiderately disregarded the
usual courtesies of life ; but be pleased to reflect for a mo-
ment :—After thou had assailed my constituency, time, and
nut etiquette, became my first duty to consider in the removal
of so foul an imputation; and my determination to publish at
ince, was hastened by the recollection, that thy reply to the
note of the deputation had kept them waiting seven days.
If I have fail. d in respect in not forwarding a copy of my
published letters on the day of publication, I regret it.
The subject which requires thy explanation is thy assertion
that the deputation, and especially myself, had advocated
opinions in favour of protecting duties to our colonies.
Thou wilt bear in mind that, at our interview, the deputa-
tion handed thee a copy of the resolutions passed at the Cham-
ber ; also a copy of their " Report on the injurious effects of
restrictions on trade ;" these thou promised to read, and upon
them we rested our case.

As the documents deprecate the discriminating duties on
British colonial sugar, and as the deputation most fully con-
curred in stating that they repudiated the principle of " pro-
tection and monopoly" as a system of legalised robbery, it is
due to them, as well as to myself, that thou should explain
how thou happened to misrepresent our views and opinions.
I am, resl•ectfully, thy friend,
lItNRY ASH WORTH.

Whitehall, May 31, 1841.
Sir,—l have this day received y our letter of the 29th instant,
and hasten to give that reply to it which I would readily have
given to other letters which professed to be addressed to me by
you, if I bad received them..
I make no complaint of discourtesy on your part ; but I took
for granted that you did not expect an answer to letters respect-
ing which you made no communication whatever to me. It is
true, as you observe, that some days elapsed before I made an
appointment for receiving the deputation of which you were a
member. I made ir, however, previously to the discussion
to which the interview referred, and 1 would have
made it at an earlier period had it been in my
power. It is no easy matter, I assure you, to attend
Committees in the morning, debates in the evening, trans-
act all the other business that is connected with Parliamentary
life, and to make immediate appointments with parties who
wish for interviews on public matters. You observe, that
" the subject which requires my explanation is my assertion
that the deputation, and especially yourself, had advocated
opinions in favour of protecting ditties to our colonies." Now.
1 beg leave to say, that I made no such assertion. Since I
received your letter, 1 have looked at the report of that which
I did say, as given in the Morning Chronicle (I select that
paper on account of its political bias) ; and it appears to me
that the report is a fair and correct one. I beg leave to refer
you to that report, and I will state in addition the facts of the
case according to my recollection of them. I received a depu-
tation from the Chamber of Commerce of Manchester. That
deputation urged very strongly the doctrines of free trade,
and the universal application of them, and placed in my hands
a document chiefly founded on the evidence taken by the
Import Duties' Committee, enforcing similar principles.
I remarked, that however trite the doctrines of free
trade might be in the abstract, there were occasionally
considerations in the practical application of them, which could
not be safely disregarded. I urged encouragement of slavery
and the slave-trade as a consideration of this nature, and one
which might fairly be urged against a strict application of the
principles of free trade to the produce of slave labour. Upon
this 1 was asked by one of the deputation whether I had seen
a pamphlet of Mr. Greg on the subject of the extinction of the
African slave trade; and if I had not, whether I would under-
take to read it. It was described as a very able work, and cal-
culated to make a great impression by its force of reasoning.
I answered that I had not seen the pamphlet—that I would
certainly read it ; and on my inquiring where 1 could procure
a copy, I was told that one would be sent to me. That copy
was sent to me by you with a note, which I read in the House
of Commons, in which " you commend the pamphlet to my
attentive perusal," and remark, " that you had not heard that
either Sir Powell Buxton or any of his adherents had even at-
tempted an answer." When I read the pamphlet, in fulfil-
ment of my promise, I found an able and powerful argu-
ment in favour of the continuance, for the present, of a
high discriminating duty on foreign sugar ; an argument
not urged slightly and incidentally, but urged at the con-
clusion of the pamplet, after a full review of the question of the
sugar duties, and in anticipation of many of the arguments
used subsequently in the debate in the House of Commons. I
ascertained that this pamphlet was writ ten by a gentleman who
is the brother of one of the Members for Manchester; it was
commended to my perusal at an interview which 1 had with a
deputation from the Chamber of Commerce of that town. It
was sent to me by the member of that deputation who took
the leading part at the conference which I had with them, and
was described by him as a pamphlet to which no answer had
been given.

Finding in this pamphlet, coming into my possession under
such circumstances, an elaborate and successful argument in
favour of my views as to the policy of continuing for the pre-
sent a high protective duty on foreign sugar, I considered
then. and I consider now, that I was fully justified in the use
which I made of it. I think Mr. Brotherton, the Member for
Salford, who, before I could mention the pamphlet, exclaimed
in the House, Now it is coming," must have laboured under
impressions very similar to mine. You are perfectly at liberty
to make whatever use you please of this letter.
I have the honour to be. Sir, your obedient servant,
To Henry Ashworth, Esq. ROBERT PEEL.

Turton, Bolton, 6th mo. Ist, 1841.
Respected Friend, Sir R. Peel, Bart.—On reading thy let-
ter of yesterday, and the report in the Morning Chronicle, to
which thou refers me, 1 am by no means convinced that the
statement made in my letter of the 29th is incorrect, namely,
that thou had in substance asserted, that the deputa ion, and
especially myself, had advocated opinions in favour of protect-
ing duties to our colones.

I find, in the report to which thou refers me, the following
passage in relation to Mr. Greg's pamphlet :—" That the
members of the Chamber of Commerce at Manchester were
the advocates of free trade, and were the men who were now
agitating the country against the Corn-laws ; and they it was
who asked him ('ir R. Peel) to read this pamphlet ; they
told him they
,would abide by the decision he came to upon
this pamphlet. —( Morning Chronicle, May 19.) Thou must
be aware that this statement, so made by thee, was incorrect;
that the deputation did not, as on behalf of the Chamber of
Commerce of Manchester, ask thee to read this pamphlet;
that it was myself who directed thy attention to it, from con-
siderations arising incidentally out of the previous conversa-
tion; that this took place after the business of our inter-
view had been concluded; that this (Mr. Greg's)
pamphlet was not given thee by the deputation, but
was sent to thee some hours afterwards, in my own name,
companied by a note, having a reference to Sir Fowel
flux-
tou's scheiilfs, and not to any advocacy of protective duties ;
and that nothing WO id to thee, from which thou could draw
the conclusion that KB ha 1 140 en deputed by the Chamber of
Commerce to lay that pamphlet b, fore thee ; and thou must
also be aware, as 1 have before reminded thee, that it was not
this pamphlet which tiw Deputation left thee, but the " Re-
port of the Chamber of COrtialefee tin the IlljufiPhs Enkiets of
Restrictions on Trade," and the 't resolutions "ef the Charo.,
ber, founded thereon ; these thou promised to read, and upon
them we rested our case ; and that neither m) self, nor either
of my aolleagiuis, over said that we should abide the decision
thou came to ppm) Mr: cirS's pimpht? or any thing to the
like effect. _ .

It was with considerable surprise that I found, by thy letter,
the following defence of the course thou hast taken. Thou
sayest, Finding, in this pamphlet, coming into my posses-
sion under such circumstances, an elaborate and Succei4ful
argument in favour of my own views, as to the policy of con-
tinuing, fer the present, a high protective duty on foreign
sugar, I considered then, and I ccnsider now, that I was fully
justified in the use which made of it,"
I conceive, therefore, that I, the gentlemen with whom
acted, and the body by which we were deputed, have all a right
to complain of the colouring which is given in thy speech to the
conversation which took place at thy house.
The Chamber of Commerce of Manchester was responsible
only for the acts of myself and my colleagues as a deputation ;
and, though it may be considered fair by an astute politician to
catch at an expression of private opinion by an individual on an
incidental point, and to try to fasten it upon the body by which
he was deputed, I do not think that such a course is calculated
to promote that frank and unreserved communication with pub-
lic men, from which I am sure they, and the community, may
frequently derive considerable advantage.
I am, respectfully, thy friend,
HENRY ASHWORTH.

SIR ROBERT PEEL AND THE DEPUTATION OF
THE MANCHESTER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
Chamber of Commerce, Manehester, June 7, 1641.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE MANCHESTER GUARDIAN.

Sir,—That the public may judge of the misrepresentations
which have been made in Parliament, and in the public jour-
nals, respecting the interview of the deputation of the Chamber
of Commerce at Manchester with Sir Robert Peel, we beg to
hand you the correspilndence which has passed between that
gentleman and ourselves, which we shall be obliged by your
inserting in your next publication.
We are, Sir, yours respectfully,
J. B. SMITH,

HOLLAND HOOLE.

Chamber of , Commerce Manchester, June 1, 1842.

SlR—The statement made by you in the House of Corn.
mons on the 18th ultimo, with reference to your interview
with the deputation of the Manchester Chamber of Com.
merce, led Mr. Ashworth, one of the deputation, to address
a letter to you, through the public journals; but, having left
London, we were not aware, until we saw by your ri ply to a
question from Mr. Al. Philip, in the House of Con-mons, that
you had received no direct communication on the subjtct from
Mr. Ashworth.

So many misreiresmtations have appeared in the news-
papers arising out of your reported statement in Parliament
of what passed between vou and the deputation, that you will
not be surprised ewe feel called upon, in our own justification,
and that of our colleague, to repeat the facts as they oc-
curred, for the purpose of giving you an opportunity of cor-
recting the mis-statenn nts which are contained in the re-
po' ted'aceount of your speech.
You are reported to have said, " That it was not the
first time you had been indebted for arguments to the Cham-
ber of Co. amerce of Manchester—you had had the benefit
of the arguments of the Honourable Gentleman the late Pre-
sident of that Chamber (Mr. G. W. Woo(l); you had to re-
turn the same acknowledgments to that Honourable Gentle-
man's successor."
Now, you did not in your speech (as reported) think proper,
on this occasion, to make use of a single argument adduced by
thk Chamber in its " report," or inits resolutions," or
through its de but, instead thereof, you have chosen
to select from a pamphlet Written by Mr. w. R. Greg (re-
commended to your perusal by Mr, Ashworth with reference
solely to Sir Fowell Buxton's scheme) certain passages, nevi dF
adverted to by Mr. Ashworth, and representing to the House
the opinions expressed in that pamphlet, as those of the deputa-
tiod, and on which they rested tkeir case.

I You ate reported to have ,aid. " tiers. was a man corenetted
! with the inanuf esturing intesests—a membsr of the Cie mber
of Gemmel ee at Manchester--det,eted by ti:ens to conic to
Londoil to rep, sent their iseeresjs, prep ered to see an en-
larged and liberal view of this questant, with r. ter, nce a the
interests both of the manufacturer and the cons:en:cr. And
what ware the conclusions to which this gentleman came ?
He said few things coul,i he more cert tin than that the situa-
tion of the sugar cultivaeor would be ruiee t, that r apital would
be destroyed, that it would lead to the abandonment of the
land by the present white population, and that not only would
the great measure c f emancipation have signally failed, as far
as negro slavery was concerned, but the moral effect on other
countries would he wholly lost."—Morning Chronick, May 19.
Not one syllable of the above, attributed to the deputation,
was uttered by any one of them.
You are further reported to have said, " The Honnurable
Member who laughed might not be a member of the Chamber
of Commerce at Manchester, but he should recollect that the
numbers of the Chamber of Commerce at Manchester were
the advocates of free trade, and were the men who were now
agitating the country against the Corn.laws ; and they it was
who asked him ( Sir It. Peel) to read this pamphlet ; they
told him they would abide by the decision he Caine to upon this
pamphlet."—Morning Chronicle, May 19.
Now, what the deputation invited you to read, and on
which they were satisfied to rest their case, was not Mr. Greg's
pamphlet, but the Report of the direetot e to a special general
meeting of the Chamber of Commerce and Manufacturers at
Manchester, on the injurious effects of restriction on trade,
and the necessity of immediate changes inour commercial pol•ce,
held I ltb March ; mid also the " resolutions" adopted at another
special general meeting of the Chamber, held on the 22d Apt il,
both of which documents were handed to you by the deputa-
tion, and which you promised to read.
Not one word will be found in these documents in favour
of the "temporary continuance of the present discriminating
duties on sugar." On the contrary, the report of the Direc-
tors before referred to, states that—" The tax imposed on the
consumers, by being obliged to give above double the prices
for sugar and coifs° to our colonies that these articles can he
purchased at from other countries, amounts to upwards of
6,000,000/. per annum, levied for the exclusive benefit of the
colonies, to whom, a few years ago, the British people paid
20,000,000/. for the abolition of slavery.
" The total value of British and Irish produce and manu-
factures exported to the British West Indies, in 1839, amounted
to 3,986.598/. ; of which about one-fourth is re-exported to
the South American and neighbouring States ; so that, at the
present time, including the interest on the slave-compensation
money, the British people are paying 7,000,000/. per annum
to our West India Colonies for the privilege of Bering their
products of the value of 3,000,000/. a year."
The second " resolution" unanimously adopted at the spe-
cial general meeting of the Chamber, held on the 22d of April
last, is as follows :
" 't hat it is inconsistent with just government to impere
taxation for any other than purposes of revenue ; that all pro-
tecting or discriminating duties, imposed for the purpose of
raising artificially the prices of home or colonial productions
above their natural prices in the markets of the world, are an
unjust tax upon the great body of the consumers, for the ex-
clusive benefit of a privileged class."
It was furthermore expres•ly stated to you by the deputation
that they conside. ed monopolies as unwise and unjust, and,
stripped of their disguise, they could view them in no other
light than as legalised robbery.
The propriety of admitting slave-grown sugar for consump-
tion was a point introduced into discussion by yourself. You
intimated your dissent from placing it in competition with that
of free labour, and thus indirectly encouraging slavery; whilst
the deputation contended, that the only possible or rational
mode of abolishing slavery throughout the world was to show
the superiority of free over slave labour. But that you did not
mistake their opinions on the subject of free trade is evident
from the following questions which you put to them, viz.:—
Do you advocate universal free trade? They replied, certainly.
Then, have not the West Indians a right to demand free trade?
Certainly. Then I, as a West Indian, might say, Give ire a
free trade in slaves. To which they replied, that human
beings were not considered to be a legitimate mercantile com-
modity.
When the business of the deputation had closed, and the
Members had left their seats to depart, Mr. Ashworth asked,
in reference to the question of free and slave labour, whether
you had seen some observations upon Sir Fowell Buxton's
schemes, in a pamphlet published by W. R. Greg. On your
stating that you had not, Mr. Ashworth promised to send you
the pamphlet.
'this simple and true recital of the circumstances of our in-
terview calls upon us to declare, both in justification of our-
selves and in defence of the body which sent us, that the le-
pressntations which you are reported to have made in Parlia-
ment do not convey a correct account of that which actually
occurred ; and we respectfully request that you will do us the
justice to correct, before the House of Commons, the mis-
statements which, we trust, hove been unintentionally made, or
incorrectly reported.—We have the honour to be, Sir, yaur
obedient servants, 3. B. SMITH,
HOLLAND HOOLE.
Sir Robert Peel, Bart., M.P., London.

hitvhall, June 2, 1841.
Gentlemen,—l beg leave to acknowledge the receipt of your
letter of yesterday, referring to the debate which took place in
the House of Commons on the ISth of May, now nearly a
fortnight since.
On Monday last (the 31st of May), I had a letter from Mr.
Ashworth, being the first communication which had reached
me on the subject of that debate. I replied to Mr. Ashworth's
letter on the day on which I received it ; and, as he was a
member of the deputation, and as I have stated to him my re-
col►ection of the conversation which passel, so far as concerns
the pamphlet of Mr. Greg, and the circumstances under which
it was recommended to my notice, I beg leave to refer you to
that letter, of which 1 have authorised Mr. Ashworth to make
whatever use he pleases.
In that letter, I observe that I had referred to the report of
my speech in the 'limning Chronicle, and that it appeared to
me a fair and correct report.
There certainly however, a material error which is no-
ticed in the second page of your letter. It would appear from
the Report, that I had ascribed to a member of the deputa-
tion the statements "that the situation of the sugar cultivator
would be ruined—that. capital would be destroyed— that it
would lead to the abandonment of the land by the present
white population—and that not only would the great measure
of emancipation have signally failed, as far as negro slavery
was concerned, but the moral effect on other countries would
be lost."

In reference to this passage ycu observe, " that not one
syllable of the above, attributed to the deputation, was uttered
by any one of them." This is perfectly true. Those state-
ments are in the pamphlet of Mr. Greg, and I so described
them to be, and read from the pamphlet the particular passages
f which the above report gives only the general summary.
I am sorry to say that my recollection is at variance with
yours on some parts of your statement. For instance, as to
the claim of the West Indian proprietor to be allowed a free
trade in slaves. My observation clearly pointed not to a re-
newal of the slave-trade for the benefit of West India pro-
prietors, but to the unequal footing on which a British colony
would be placed by the strict application of the principles of
free trade, if that colony had to compete on equal terms in the
home•market with the produce of Cuba; when in the one
case slavery and the slave trade were effectually abolished, and
were not so in the other.

Then as to the circumstances under which Mr. Greg's
pamphlet was recommended to me. It is true that, when the
conference was over, and the members Gf the deputation had
left their seats and were about to depart, I inquired where I
could procure the pamphlet of Mr. Greg, and was informed
that it should be sent to me ; but there had been a previous
conversation as to that pamplet, and it had been strongly re-
commended to my perusal towards the close of my conference
with the deputation, and in consequence of my remarks as to
slavery and the slave trade.
If I am asked any question in the House of Commons on
the subject. adverted to in this letter, I shall be prepared to
state my recollection of what passed at the interview which I
had with you, in conformity with the communications which 1
have made to you and to Mr. Ashworth.

I have the honour to be, Gentlemen, your obedient servant,
J. B. Smith, Esq. ROBLIIT PEEL.
Holland boole, Esq.
Chamber of Commerce, Manchester, June 3, 1641.
Sir—We have received your favour of yesterday, in which
you acknowledge that a portion of the report of your speech
to which we called your attention, as reported in the Morning
Chronicle, which attributes certain statements to the deputa-
tion, is incorrect ; and that those statements were described
by Zou in your speech as extracts from Mr. W. Greg's
pamphlet.
Dere is another point, however, which you have not noticed,
btit which we deem of more importance, as brtween us and
the Chamber of Commerce, by whom we were deputed; as we
are made by the report of your speech in the Morning Chro.
nick to have put in AL . Greg's pamphlet as our ca-e, and to have
expressed ourselves willing to abide by your decision on that.
We hog, therefore, aga.n to call your attention to the report
of your speech as tollows .—" '1 hat the members of the Cham-
ber of Commerce at. Manchester were advocates of free trade,
and were the men who were now agi ating.the country against
the Corn-laws; and they it was who ask, d him ( Sir R. Peel)
to read this pamphlet, They told him they wou±d abide by
the decision he came to upon this pamphlet."—Morning Chro-
nicle, May 19.
We have again to reiterate, that this is totally at variance
with what really took place at our interview ; and it will afford
us pleasure to be honoured by another communication from
you, stating that this part of the report of your speech is also
Incorrect.

We have the honour to be &c.,
J. B. SMITH,
HOLLAND HOOLE.

Sir R. Peel, Bart., M.P.

Whitehall, June 5, 1841.

Gentlemen,-1 am not aware of any error in that part of the
newspaper report to which you refer in your letter of the 3d
instant. If there had been, I would as willingly have admitted
it, as I did admit the errcr noticed in my former letter.
I have stated to Mr. Ashworth my recollection of the cir-
cumstances under which the pamphlet of Mr. Greg was
strongly recommended to my notice, at an interview which I
had with the deputation of which 3ou were members.
Mr. Ashworth took the leading part at that interview. If it
were intended by Mr. Ashworth to recommend to me parts
only of the pamphlet of Mr. Greg, the reservation ought to
have been made at the time. If, again, Mr. Ashworth was
speaking sometimes in his individual capacity, and at others as
a member of the deputation, or if he offered to me suggestions
from which you dissented, I cannot but think that an intimation
to that effect ought to have been conveyed to me during our
interview.

I have the honour to be, Gentlemen, your obedient servant,
J. B. Smith, Esq. • ROBERT PEEL.
Holland Boole, Esq.

IVMIt'NT I:NG IM"

- - 71

NAVAL I.NITELI.;GENCL

( From thii‘ Brifihton Gazette..) • •
PoilTsmouTH, JUNE 9.—The hen,
Austen, sod Natriles. 16, Lieut. Bet.utb‘, hove been pui cut
ot
commission, and tyith kill be doclied
The schooner Fair Rosamond, commanded by Lieut. Bulwillb
will go out of the harbour on Friday; des ined the Afrieslb
sea, ion.
The name of the Captain appointed to succeed Sir Charter
Napier in the command of the Powerful, 84, has not yet teen.
spired.
The Rapid, tender-brig, Lieut. Tryon, is still off the Sneed
coast, affording protection to the fishery.
The steamer Alban, Mr. King, master, has proceeded ti
Dublin with the depot of the 82eRegiment, and thence will
to Sheerness.
Rumour sends the Edinburgh, "2, Captain Hen3erson, !it!.
Implacable, 72, Captain Harvey, to Lisbon, to be stationed'
the Tagus.
The Dublin, 50, flag-ship of Rear Admiral Thomas, it
on in dock, and will shortly be masted. Seamen et:ter ' ratty
freely for thi; ship, for the South American statimi.
The Sapphire, troop-ship, Mr. Cole, master, is on bet :17
home front the Leeward Islands, and may be shortly exPec'
The steamer Spitfire, commanded by Lieutenant Tringbasion;
having despatches for Vice-Admiral Sir Thornea arve,v, .
supernumeraries for the West India Squadron, bag left-
Bari.adocA, to touch at Plymouth and Falmouth.
The Pique, 36, Captain Boxer, it daily expected from sheo'
ness. Captain Alexander Ellice, 11. P., for Harwich, it 1414:
ported, is to have the Pique, vice 'Boxer, appointed Corn
dare at Jamaica.
The Electra, 16, Commander Mainwarinz, may be ex
in England with specie from the Braids at the end of .“"j.
The Orestes, 16, has left the station for China.
AT SPITES a A D.—lndus, 84; Monarch, 84; and Verneutt
Ix linanoca..—Queen, Victory, Excellent, Biqa' Getre,l9-
yacht, Dublin, Bittern, Fair Rosamond, Echo, and flag tea'."---