The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-05 00:00:00

CUBA SUGAR.

Sir ROBERT had to state that
there had been a farther correspondence, which he would
on a future day bring before the House, but that at the
present moment there wculd be some inconvenience in
discuising the question.
Mr. IA ODEHOUSE moved for a return of the
amount of money levied in the years 1813, 1824, and
1834, in the shape of poor-rates, showing the ratio it
bore to the population, and distinguishing the amount
levied on landed property.
Mr. lIUTT wished to be informed what was the
intention of Government with respect to those prisoners
who had been tried and found guilty at Brazils, at the
last summer assizes, for a felony, in which the British
Government prosecuted. It appeared from the reports
that it was the opinion of some of the judges that the
question was beyond their jurisdiction. Ho also wished
to know whether it was the intention of the Government
to repeal the Act passed during the last session, in-
tituled " The Brazilian Felonies Act."

Sir J. GRAHAM, in reply, stated that it might be es
well to inform the House that there was no appeal from
the Brazilian Criminal Court, and that all the judges had
met together for the purpose of deciding on the validity
of the points raised on behalf of the prisoners. Should
it be the opinion of the judges that the points were
such as to warrant a stay of the judgment against the
prisoners, the Government intended recommending her
Majesty to grant them a free pardon.
He would, in conclusion, say, that it was not the inten-
tion of the Government at present to propose any alte-
ration of the Act of last session.

Sir ROBERT PEEL said, he was asked for the pro-
duction of any correspondence which was presented last
year from the Brazilian Government, and he hoped the
lion. Gentleman would postpone his motion to some
future time.
Lord Aberdeen had written to the Brazilian Govern-
ment, and negotiations were pending, which would re-
sult, he hoped, in a similar arrangement as that which
had taken place in 1835.
In answer to a question from Mr. PATTISON,
Sir ROBERT PEEL said that the reduction could
not take place on seeds until the month of June next.
The reduction shall take place from that day, in con-
formity with the resolution come to by her Majesty's Go-
vernment. . . .

Mr. ELLIS said that he had occasion to make repre-
sentations to his constituency on the subject of the
changes proposed to be introduced by the Right Hon.
Baronet, and he could state, that after the manifestation
of some anxiety, which was perhaps not unnatural, they
generally concurred in the measure which the Right Hon.
Gentleman proposed to bring forward. At the same time
they sent a memorial praying that the reduction might
not take place till the Ist July.
Sir R. PEEL doubted whether the suggested alteration
would be productive of any advantage. He was glad,
however, that the constituency of the Hon. Gentleman
had evinced a concurrence in the contemplated reductions
and such a readiness entitled them to great credit.
Sir Robert PEEL in reply to a question from Lord
John Russell said that he proposed to make the reduction
on corn, to take place immediately after the resolution
was passed and reported.
IRISH SPIRIT DUTY.
Sir 11. BARROW wished to ask the Bight lion.
Baronet opposite whether any alteration was to be pro-
posed by which the landed interest in Ireland would have
the benefit of the British market for Irish spirits. The
reascn he asked the question was, because he had seen
that it was the intention of the Government to
admit foreign spirits into this country at a less duty than
they now paid. What he wanted, in fact, to know was,
whether by the proposed change, the Irish landowner
and distiller would be placed in a worse position in the
English market than they now were.
Sir R. PEEL said that Irish spirits were now per-
mitted to enter the English market upon the same
footing as English spirits, and that surely could
not be deemed a grievance.—(Hear, hear.) At present
Irish spirits paid but 2s. 10d. and 7s• 16d., while fo-
reign spirits paid a great deal more ; so that it was not
likely that Irish spiri:s would be brought into any dis:
advantageous competition with foreign spirits.—(bear.)
The Hon. Baronet spoke of the subject as if it were a
grievance; but ho (Sir R. Peel) really could not see how
it could be deemed such.—(Hear.) There certainly
would be no proposition to alter the Irish spirit duties
for the present.
REPEAL OF PENAL ENACTMENTS.

Mr. WATSON then moved for leave to bring in a
Bill for the further repeal of enactments imposing pains
and penalties on her Majesty's Roman Catholic sub-
jects on account of their religion. He did not intend to
go into the details of this measure, because a very con-
siderable portion of the Bill had already received the
sanction of the Criminal law Commissioners, to whom it
had been referred. It was sufficient to say that the ob-
ject of the Bill was to remove the pains and penalties
which had been at one period imposed upon her Majesty's
Roman Catholic subjects—one of those penalties being
the imposition of death if any Catholic exercised his re-
ligion. It was surely time that such enactments as
these were removed from the statute books of
England, and therefore it was that he (Mr. Watson)
did not expect that he should meet with any opposition
on this siioject. There was one part of the Bill to
which he begged particularly to call the attention of the
Right Hon. Baronet the Member for the University of
Oxford, and that was the necessity for the repeal of the
severe enactments against the Roman Catholic clergy.
He did not desire that any discussion should take place
that evening, as a future opportunity would be given
to any argument " which could be brought to bear
upon the subject. But he could not help calling
the Right Honourable Baronet's attention to
one of time penal enactments, which imposed

transportation for life upen the reguler clergyman of th
Roman Catholic Church who should curie into this'
country after the passing of that particular Act of
Parliament. He believed that there existed no one
class cf men who did more good in their avecation, and
yet, if they carre into that country in the discharge of
their duties, they were liable to - transportation.
He repeated that he thought it high time
that these enactments should be removed from the
statute book. It was a perfect absurdity to speak of them
as a saSeguard to flat, Church of England, and to argue
that as such they should be still kept up. To these few
observations he should add nothing further on the sub-
ject, then but simply move for leave to bring in the Bill:,
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that his attention had
been called to this motion of the Learned Gentleman in
consequence of his (Sir James Graham) being appointe ,
chairman of the cemmiszion to which the Bill was re-
ferred. In consequence of what passed at the close of
last session on the subject of pains and penalties not
only as affected Roman Catholics themselves, but others
of her Majesty's subjvct i also, measures were taken to
remedy the evils complained of by the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman. A Bill of such a nature
as the Horn:il-Ode Member proposed had been
laid on the table of the other House of Par-
liament by the Lord Chancellor, and every effort had
been made by Government to secure the passing of
that Bill. He hoped, that in a very short time,
that Bill would be on the table of the House of Commons.
The measure would be fully as-comprehensive as the one
announced to the House last Se2siou. _ . . .

Sir R. 11. INGLIS taid that be had determined not to
speak On that subject, until after the answer of the lion.
Baronet. He rejoiced that he had done so, but only on
o•w account. He wished that lion. Gentlemen would
leave these matters in the bands of her Majesty's Go-
vernment. He believed that the advice just given by the
lion. Baronet alight, with reason, be given to other
Members. Before he coal,' withdraw his formal opposi-
tion to this Bill, he wishtd the House to remember that
the Bill now put forward was substantially the same as
the one introduced last year. It was a Bill to repeal
the Act of Supremacy—to enab'e Roman Catholics
to assume the Sees of the Established Church—it was a
Bill to allow processions of this sect when processions
of other sects were prohibited to avoid public disturb-
ance, and it was a Bill to repeal the Act for the expul-
sion of the Jesuits. Did any 'Honourable Member
remember that a Bill of this nature was

ut fi.rwarti in that House on the sth of July

last. His Hon. Friend had said, with regard to that
Bill, that he did not oppose its going into committee,
but he could not agree to all its provisions. It would
be better for lion. Members to leave these things

in the hands of God, instead of going down to that
House night after night and wasting a good deal of time
And, therefore, though he d!d not seek that his sugges-
tion should be adopted, yet he believed that it would be
found that the most useful mode of carrying
these measures would be to suggest them first,
and then leave them in the hands of the Govern-
ment. As far as he understood—he repeated it delibe-
rately—that Bill comprehended the five points which
lie had already related; nevertheless a Bill substantially
the same was to be brought in by the head of the legal
profession iu this country which he would again declare
went to repeal the Act of Supremacy.