The Sun.
London, England, 1848-07-08 00:00:00

COUNTY COURTS.

Sir J. DUCKWORTH wished to ask the Secretary
of State for the Home Department whether or not the
Government had decided on the payment of the officers
of county courts by salaries instead of fees; and if so, et
what time that arrangement was intended to be carried
our.

Sir GEORGE GREY said the subject had been
under the consideration of the Government, and that
an Order in Council was now in preparation and would
be submitted to her Majesty at the next. Council upon
the stilject.
E!'\'CUMBERF.D ESTATES (IRELAND) BILL.
wished to know what course the
G3v, :Anent intended to pursue with respect to the
Ericusr).er...i E-tates (Ireland) Bill?
Sir G. Glt/nr said that he should propose that the
Douse should sit on Tuesday next at twelve o'clock, in
order to resume the debate on the Bill, and that then
they should d,termine when they would next proceed
,aith its consideration.
LAW OF MARRIAGE.

Mr. S. WOK I'LEY gave Donee that on an early day
he 5 houid move for leave to introduce a Bill to amend
the ht‘v of marriage.
1Elt,111: ELECTION.

Mr. STAFFORD, pur,uatit to notice, moved that
Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk
of the Crown, to make out a new writ for the
election of two burgesses to serve in this present
Parliament for the borough of Derby, in the room of the
Right Honourable Edward Strutt and the Honourable
Frederick Leveson Gower. whose election has been de-
termined. to be void. There were now only two
writs lett, namely the Darby and the Leicester, but, after
what had transpired with reference to the notoriously
corrupt borough of Leicester, it was not his inten-
tion to move the issue of that writ during
the present session. All these eases of bribery might
now be inquired into. and he was very glad to hear that
the Bill of the lion. Baronet opposite had been taken up
by the Government.
Sir J. HANMER said the opinion of the House was
strongly expressed in favour of his Bill when it was first
under discuzsion ; but at that period, looking to many
important questions Government had on hand, it
was impossiole to expect them to take it up.
The Noble Lord, however, since he had got rid a
many of those questions had taken up the Bill, and he
was glad to say that there was now every prospect of
this important subject being fully inquired into.
Mr. FREWEN objected to the issuing of the writ. It
was inconsistent to suspend the writ, and in a few days
after to issue it. If a division took place, he should vote
against issuing the writ.
Mr. HUME suggested that the motion should be with-
drawn. If it was persevered in he was sure the House
would not agree to it. The Honourable Member for
Northampton had connected his name with the proceed-
ings at Leicester, which he said were disgraceful. Ile
had nothing to do with Leicester whatever, but he re-
collected when the Tories in that borough had prac-
tised most disgraceful conduct; and if there was impro-
per conduct on the part of the Reformers it must have
proceeded from the contamination of the practices of the
old Tories. The Hon. Member might throw as much
dirt at him as he pleased, but it would not stick, but re-
booncl on himself.

Mr. ANSTEX said the issuing of the writ would not
impede inquiry any more than a Member occupying his
seat during the inquiry into a contested return impeded
the inquiry into the merits of the case.
Mr. Alderman SIDNEY supported the motion. He
was averse to corrupt practices, but a writ should not be
susperded.
Mr. O'CONNOR would say nothing of the purity of
his constituents, but he could prove the case of money
having been spent in bribing the electors of London.
Thirteen non-electors had been on his committee. A
party had sent them 451. for their services, but they re.
turned it.
Captain HARRIS said that bribery was a misde-
meanour, and could be punished by law.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the House had already
decide:l five times that these writs should not be issued.
He should therefore move as an amendment that the
writ should not issue until the Isth of August next.
"Mr. STAFFORD said, that when he joined the name
of the Member of Montrose with the Radicals of Leices-
ter, he did not mean it in a personal sense; he only ad.
verted to him in his political views. What was now pro-
posed to be done by the Noble Lord was what he had
frequently asked for—that the parties should be put out
of suspense, and that the House should declare whether
they Mould issue the writ or not. He would not, there-
fire, oppose the amendment.
Mr. HENLEY said it was understood that nothing
would be done with regard to the issuing of those writs
without previous notice.

Lord J. RUSSELL said he should then give nutice
for Monday next.

'I he motion was then withdrawn.
SUGAR DUTIES.

On the order or the day for going into Committee on
the Sugar Duties being read,
Mr. HUME presented a petition from Kingstown, Ja-
maica, signed by one thousand proprietors, complaining
of distress, and praying relief.
The Marquis of GRANBY presented a petition from
Liverpool, praying for inquiry into the conduct of the
Colonial-office in withholding dispatches.
Mr. BRIGHT called attention to a memorial trans-
mitted from the Chamber of Commerce of the 30th May,
with regard to the sugar duties. He wished to know the
views of the Government on the subject of the memorial.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he could not give a
reply without referring to the memorial.
Mr. ANSTEY wished to know whether it was the in-
tention
of the Government to permit the West India
colonies to import slave-grown sugar to make molasses
for exportation, and also for the purpose of being refined
for exportation?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the Hon. Member had
not given notice of the question, and he was not pre-
pared to give a reply.
Mr. CARDWELL wished to know whether it was in-
tended that the House should meet to-morrow, if the
Bill went through Committee to-night, in order to re-
ceive the report?
Lord J. RUSSELL said, he could not say then, as it
must depend on the state of the business.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY wished to call attention to
the dispatch of Lord Harris, of the 21st of February,
1848, and to ascertain whether the statements in that
account were his real sentiments. The opinion of Lord
Harris clearly established the
,cost of production to be
such that the colonists were entitled to the greatest ex-
tent of relief this country could afford. In Trinidad, in
the year 1847, the cost of production reached lie. 70.
per cwt., so that the production really cost more than
was obtained for the article in the market, leaving no-
thing for the interest of capital. Lord Harris went on
to say that the quality of the sugar grown in the British
islands was inferior to that produced by slave labour,
and he accounted for this fact by the want of expe-
rienced labourers which the colonial planters suffer.
He had a right to claim Lord Harris as one of the
strongest evidences of the difference of the cost of pro-
duction in free labour and slave-grown countries, and
that his testimony should be added to that of almostC
every other person who had given evidence on the
question. He could extract ;min blue books the essence
on the important point of the cost of production. The
statements made in tho course of the debate by the Hon.
Member for Westbury, and the Right Hon. Gentleman
the Member for Manchester, struck him as being more
remarkable than others he had heard. The Hon.
Gentleman estimated the cost of production in Cuba at
15s. 10d. per cwt., while the Right Hon. Gentleman
(Mr. Milner Gibson) fixed it at 10s. 4d. in Jamaica. If
those statements were correct it was quite clear the House
was losing time, and that so far from Jamaica wanting
protection, it was Cuba that stood in need of it;
but the truth was, that two more extraordinary blun-
ders never had been made. He could produce fifteen
witnesses to prove that the cost of production did not
exceed from Bs. to 12s. per cwt. Indeed it was estab-
lished by irrefutable evidence that, while in slave-grown
countries the cost of producing sugar varied from Bs. to
10s. in British possessions, the expense at the present
moment varied from 16s. to 245., or the expense of the
latter was to the former as two to one, while the quality
and proportion were in the ratio of 98 to 75, or as 6 to 5.
In determining the scale of duties those matters ought to
be borne in mind.
The EII'EAICER then left the Chair, and the House re-
solved itself into Committee on the sugar-duties resolu-
tion, Mr. BERNAL in the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN having read that portion of the
first resolution determining the scale of duty to be
charged on colonial Muscovado sugar.
Mr. Baususws withdrew and Mr. BAILLIE post-
poned amendments which they had intended proposing.
Mr. BARKLY, pursuant to notice, moved that from
and after the sth July, 1848, to the sth July, 1854, in-
clusiSse, the duty on British plantation Muscovado sugar
should be I4s. per cwt. ; and on foreign Muscovado,
184. 6d. He explained the grounds on which he made
this proposal. His object was to continue the present
duties on sugar imported into this country for a period
of six years. He did not propose to alter the rates on
either toreign or colonial sugar. He merely submitted
that the Bill of 1846 should remain in full force for six
years, with this alteration, that he proposed to make a
change in the standard sample, in comparison with which
the duties at the Custom-house were levied on inferior
descriptions of sugar. He further proposed that there
should be only one class of white clayed sugar, instead
of two classes, adopting the proposition of the Govern-
ment with respect to brown clayed sugar, and of the
Right Hon. Gentlemen the Member fur the University of
Cambridge in reference to brown clayed. The Hon.
Gentleman, after some further remarks which were
barely audible in the gallery, read the following scale of
duties, which he intended moving as amendments to the
Government resolutions, and he proposed the portion of
the scale directly referring to British plantation and
Colonial sugars :