The Sun.
London, England, 1848-07-22 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EV

would consider that the establishment of an American
line of packets would be of great advantage to the trade
of this country. He understood that the pre-
sent cause of complaint was that a duty was
levied upon all letters brought by American
packets, and he could assure the Government that any
such distinction made between letters brought by those
packets and by English packets would have a prejudicial
effect upon both countries.
THE LAND SCHEME.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR claimed the indulgence of the
House while he made a few observations with respect
to certain aspersions which had been cast upon his
character as to the application of the funds
of the National Land Company. He begged to state
that after a most rigid investigation of the
whole accounts by an accountant appointed by the
Committee, the Chairman reported to the Committee
this day that so far from Mr. O'Connor hating absorbed
the funds, there was now due to him the sum of 3,2001.,
as well as remuneration for his services for three years
and a half.—(Cries of " Order, order.")
The SPEAKER informed Mr. O'Connor that he was
out of order to refer to the proceedings of a Committee
which had not reported to the House
Mr. O'CONNOR said what he wished to complain of
was that the Chairman had made no report of the
matter to the House. (The Hon. Member sat down
amidst cries of " Order.")
SUGAR DUTIES.

On the motion for going into Committee on the Sugar
Duties,
Lord G. BENTINCK earnestly pressed upon the at-
tention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the necessity
of withdrawing this Bill, and of going into a
Committee of the whole House, for the pur-
pose of asking for new resolutions. As yet they
had heard no satisfactory answer from the Hon.
Gentleman as to how they purpose to deal with those
difficulties to which he had referred on former occasions.
An attempt had been made to explain away the acts of
the Council of Jamaica, but in truth no proper explana-
tion had been given. lie therefore contended, as
the matter stood, that it would be absurd to
pass a Bill which would not be found practical. No
doubt the Hon. Member for Westbury would get up and
say that the 9th and 10th Viltoria did not confer upon
the colonial legislature any power to remove prohi-
bitory duties. Now he (Lord G. Bentinck) thought
that the Acts had been passed in a very opposite spirit.
In that spirit four of the colonies had acted for the
Queen in Council, and the Legislature had confirmed
what they had done, though it was set up now that the
authors of the Bill never pretended that it gave any such
power. In 1846 the Member for the University of Cam-
bridge (Mr. Goulburn) stated that the Act intended to
leave the colonies entirely at liberty to frame their own
laws with regard to the trade of these colonies. The
Noble Lord cited the speech of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, to show that the Government introduced
the Bill in the spirit he had stated.—(Hear, hear.)
How, he would ask, could it be pretended to be the in-
tention of the Act to prevent the British colonies from
repealing prohibitions and restrictions, and yet that
was the only ground on which it could be said the Act
of 1845 overrode the Act of the Colonial Legislature.
The Act of 1846 expressly empowered the colonial le-
gislative authorities, with the consent of her Majesty in
Council, to repeal any customs duty, so far as the same
might affect them. I❑ this case the only informality
was, that the Act of the Colonial Legislature had not
been laid before Parliament within thirty days after it
received the assent of the Crown, if Parliament should
be sitting, or, if not sitting, within thirty days after its
next meeting. But this was the laches of Ministers
themselves, who, though Parliament met in November,
and continued sitting more than thirty days, neglected
to lay the Act of the Colonial Legislature, which had
received the royal assent in August, 1847, ou the table
of the House until April, 1848.—(Hear, hear.) Well,
then, the Colonial Legislature, acting in the spirit of
the Imperial Legislature, had passed an Act admitting
foreign refined sugar at a duty of 20s. per cwt. Trinidad
admitted sugar, refined or not refined, at ss. the cwt.,
and St. Lucia at 16s. Bd. Then he contended that,

under the present resolutions, no sugar coming from
those colonies could be admitted into this country con-
sistently with truth at the 13s. duty.—(Hear, hear,)
Then as to the injury to the British refiner by
the admission of refined sugar from Holland, it
was complained by the refiners that this measure
of relief had already raised the price of Dutch
refined sugar from 2s. to 3s. a cwt., and re-
duced the value of British refined sugar to the same
amount. When it was known on Monday last that
Dutch refined sugar could come into this country, a
complete stagnation came over the sugar trade here.
Let the House consider what was the position of the
British refiner. A large quantity of sugar had come in
from Java and elsewhere, which, owing to the state of
the Jaw, could not be refined here, but might be taken to
Amsterdam, there refined, and then brought back here
with the Dutch bounty, on it to compete against the
sugar refined in this country. What chance had the
British refiner under such circumstances ?—(Hear, hear.)
He proposed to submit an amendment in Committee
which, as it did not go to impose a higher rate of duty,
the Speaker allowed might be put, though it was a nice
point; but he would submit it to the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, whether the best course would not be to
withdraw the present Bill altogether, and bring in new
resolutions, upon which a proper Bill might be founded;
for no one coulil believe that Government knew what
they were doing when they framed the resolutions the
House had passed, and by which so serious a blow
was inflicted on the British refiner (Hear, hear)—
for if they did, what excuse could they make for
keeping the trade and the country in ignorance
of the intention to make so great a change in the
law Y But if Ministers refused to take that course, he
was prepared to unmask a new battery against them—
(Hear, hear, and laughter)—he was ready to open a new
budget of Ministerial blunders in respect to this mea-
sure.—(Hear, hear.) He was in a position to prove that
they had made as many as twenty-three blunders in their
calculation of their scale of duties.—(Cheers and
laughter.) To make himself intelligible, he must ex-
plain that all the different rates of duty were based on
the rates of duty leviable on muscovado—muscovado
sugar, to use a railway expression, was the datum line of
the calculation. Molasses were taken, as at 37 per
cent. of the value of muscovado, white clayed at one•
sixth, high refined at one-third, and double refined at
one-half higher than muscovado. With the first schedule,
he had no fault to find ; but when he came to the
second, that was, the duties to be levied on the sugar of
other British possessions than those where foreign sugar
was not excluded, he found that the amount fixed by the
scale was 11.3 a. 4d., whereas it ought to be 11.35. 7d. In
the next item, single refined sugar, in the first four columns
there was no mistake, he supposed, because those '
columns referred to old duties, and required no calcula-
tion, but in the fifth column, the duty for the year
1852-3, the amount stated was 15s. while the proper
amount, taking muscovado as the basis of value, would
be 15s. 4d., and for the next year, 1853-4, the duty in
the schedule was set down at 14s. 2d., instead of 14s. Bd.
Thea on white clayed sugar for 1852-3, the duty stated
in the schedule was 13s. 3d. instead of 13s. sd. ; for
1853-4 it was 12s. sd. while it ought to be 12s. 10d. In

the duty on molasses in the first column for 1848.9 that
which was charged ss. 7d. ought to be ss. 10id. for the next
year it was ss. 3d. instead of ss. sd, ; and for the third
it was 4s. 9d. instead of 4s. 1 lid.; for the fourth 4s. 43.
instead of 4s. 6d.-; for the fifth 4s. Id. instead of 4s. 43. ;
for the sixth, 1853-4, it was 3s. 11d. instead of 4s. lid.
-(Hear, hear.) On double refined sugar in the third
schedule the duty set down for the year 1852-3 was 195.,
it ought to be 19s. 6d. ; for 1853-4 it was 175., while it
ought to be 18s.-(Hear, hear.) He was surprised
Ministers could not obtain the assistance of persons con-
versant with common arithmetic to calculate these
duties with something like correctness.-(A laugh.) In
the same schedule and for the same year the duty stood
for 1852-3 at 16s. Bd., it should be 17s. 4d.; for 1852-3 it
was 15s. 2d., while it ought to stand at 16s. Hero was a
difference of 10d. against the British refiner. Then in
the article of white clued, for 1852-3 the amount set
down was 14s. 9d., instead of 15s. 2d.; and for 1853-4 it
was 13s. 2d., instead of 14s. The same irregularities ex-
isted in the Hon. Member for Westbury's pet scale-the
" brown clayed ;" and if, as had been sometimes said, it
was the nature of greatness to be irregular, the Hon.
Gentleman had certainly succeeded.-(Hear, and a
laugh.) ss. 11(1. ought to have been 6s. 4d., ss. 4d.
ought to have been ss. 9d., 4s. 11d. ought to have been
ss. 3d., 4s. 6d. ought to have been 4s. I Id., and, in the
sixth column, 4s. Id. ought to have been 4s. 7d. Now,
that was the sum total, making. 23 errors-(Hear, hear)
-and he would ask whether it was too much to expect
of the Government to throw out altogether this horribly
blundering piece of legislation, and frame fresh resolu-
tions in accordance with the intentions of Parliament and
the Legislature?-(Cheers.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that, as it would be extremely difficult to go through all
the various points touched on by the Noble Lord, he I
would answer them one by one as they arose in Com-
mittee.

Mr. GOULBURN thought that, before they went
into Committee, it was absolutely yto know
the plan the Government meant to propose, because,
if it should involve ani increase of
duties it might be necessary to go into a Coem.meixtitseteinogf
the whole House.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that the only alterations intended were a reduction of
certain duties respecting refined colonial sugar, and the
correction of some inaccuracies respecting foreign refined

sugar.
Mr. DISRAELI considered thestatement
wedsuch of the
Noble Lord exceedingly clear. It
ag-
glomeration of error in thisßill,that
wheithroeuat evllydiindeiano,t
think they should go into Committee
their want of confidence in an Administration
mistakes.—strati
ntht
could produce a measure so saturated w
(A laugh.)
Mr. CARDWELL also pressed forexplantahteioin
explanation,
the ground that if they were dissatisfied with
Gentleman's explanation in Committee they would have
no remedy.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that the whole subject was matter of the purest detail,
and that if his explanations were not satisfactory it
would be competent for the Hon. Gentleman to move
that the Chairman report progress.
Mr. M. GIBSON controverted the idea of the Noble
Lord the Member for Lynn, that the heading of the co-
lonial scale of duties was incorrect, and that the impor-
tation of foreign sugar was not prohibited at Jamaica.
But that error, if error it were, must be completely nu-
gatory, because the Colonial Act was ruled by the Act
of the Imperial Legislature. If the Noble Lord had ' givenhave
a
found
a ddeeperthat
the
headingconsideration
f thesethe scalessubject e
fh
colonial
owl
eonui
al dl
duties was perfectly accurate.
After a few words from Mr. HERRIES the House
went into Committee.
On the Ist clause being proposed,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that the Bill was not open to the charges of inaccuracy

which the Noble Lord so lavishly directed against it.
As to what the law was he had never entertained the
least doubt; but the Noble Lord having on Wednesday
last stated that the Customs had demanded the payment
of a higher rate of duty from parties importing Jamaica
sugar than was legal, he sent to the chairman of the
Board of Customs, and found from him that no such de-
mand had been made, and that the entry of no sugar
had been refused. The general wording of the Bill
before the House clearly expressed the condition upon
twhich
mtihs
sei
osugar
eo of
at a
tnhye pistorwt particulara
tceo
01 of n
dya
twya, s a
ne udt itthl ed
at
condition was the prohibition of the import of foreign
sugar into that colony. The reason for that was stated
in a letter from Mr. Deacon Hume to the Treasury
in 1839, in which he said, " It is well known that the
object of the prohibition is to prevent those colonies
in which sugar is produced from being made the medium
of a fraudulent transit of foreign sugar, as the produce
of those colonies, into this country."; Accordingly,
when the power of admitting sugar from the East India
provinces were conceded, a distinctien was mad's), and
it was contained in the present Bill, as to the rate of
duty on sugar from colonies from which the importation
of foreign sugar was not prohibited. The sugar im-
ported from such colonies was therefore made liable to
pay a higher rate of duty, because they did not pro-
hibit foreign sugar; consequently the condition on which
the lowest rate of duty was demanded upon sugar im-
ported from our colonial possessions was that the im•
portation of foreign sugar into such colonies should
be prohibited, and this was done with the view of pre-
venting foreign sugar being fraudulently imported here
through those colonies. Now that was the case before
the passing of the last British Possessions Act. In
1839 the question was raised whether foreign sugar
refined in England was or was not to be considered as
British produce, and the decision of the Government
was that it was British produce, and as such admissible
into the colonies. But lest any misapprehenlion should
arise upon the subject, in the British Possessions Act of
1845, which was introduced by the Right Hon. Gentle-
man opposite (Mr. Glsdstone), and which was the exist-
ing Act, in the prohibition clause there was a special ex-
ception of sugar not being refined in bond in the United
Kingdom ; and it was impossible, therefore, that any
colonial law could affect that prohibition. If the British
Possessions Act were repealed, that sugar might come
in ; but it was distinctly provided that the importation
of foreign sugar was prohibited into all the West India
islands, and it was necessary that it should be so to
allow them to send their sugar here at the lower rate of
duty.
Mr. BARKLY referred to the Parliamentary papers
of 1846 to show that foreign sugar was practically ad-
mitted into all the Britich West Indies in violation of,
and though alleged to be excluded by, the British Pos-
sessions Act.—(llear, hear.) That was the real question
to consider—which was simply one of fact.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the question was
rather what was the law. The Hon. Gentleman quoted
returns to show that foreign sugar was imported into
Barbadoes, Demerara, and other of our West India colo-
nies in violation of our British Possessions Act, but the
fact of that importation did not prove its legality. The
Hon. and Learned Gentleman having quoted several
Acts on the subject, contended that any and every Colo-
nial Act in opposition to the British Possessions Act
must be null and void.
Mr. CARDWELL said that the confusion which had
occurred on this subject might have been obviated if the
attention of the parties concerned had been called at the
proper time to the change which had been made in the
schedule by the Jamaica Legislature.
Mr. WILSON said that the Act did not come into
operation until the 12th of this month, and as early as
the 15th warrants were prepared in conformity with the
Act of Parliament, and he did not think that much in-
terference to the trade had taken place.
Lord G. BENTINCK assured the House that he
knew cases in which' considerable inconvenience had oc-
curred. The real question was—Was the sugar im-
ported to the colonies or was it not? It was known that
it was, and that it paid the duty. How then could any
man be called upon to present a warrant stating that his
sugar was imported into this country from countries into
which foreign sugar was not imported? How could
Parliament pass an Act that would lead to warrants
bearing falsehoods on the face of them?
The ATTORNEY GENERAL said that all that
parties were called upon to state was that the importa-
tion of foreign sugar into the colonies was prohibited—
not that it was not imported. It was, in short, the dif-
ference between what was law and what was fact.
Mr. GOULBURN then moved that after the words
"growth or produce of British possessions" there be in-
serted the words " in America, or any other British pos-
sessions."
After a desultory conversation, in which the CHAN-
CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Mr. GLADSTONE, and other
Members joined, the Committee divided on Mr. Goul-
burn's amendment, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it 73
Majority against it —4s
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then
rose to propose an alteration in the duties levied upon
refined sugar, and referred to a question which had
been put by the Hon. Member for Leominster (Mr.
Barkly), who had expressed his belief that these du-
ties were not fairly in proportion with the duties levied
OR muscovado sugar. If this were so, it would be pro-
ductive of a practical objection. But this was a ques-
tion which referred only to one part of the duties; for
it was notorious that the colonists did not refine, and
unless there was a permission to refine in bond no co-
lonial sugars would ever be used in this country.
After a full inquiry into the subject, he was of opinion
that the duty on refined sugars had always been taken
too high—that was, assuming that the same amount of
duty should be paid on sugar which was refined as would
have been paid on the raw sugar refined not in bond.
With regard to the admission ,of Dutch sugar, it had
always been held that any article manufactured in a
country should be taken as the produce of that country,let
it be grown where it might. England had always insisted
in every case in which she had " the most favou red
nation" clause, on the admission of our manufactures
without reference to the place whence the raw material
had been procured. The matter had been argued in
1835 in this country on the very question of the admis-
sion of foreign sugar refined in this country to the West
India possessions; and the decision then was, that no
matter where the sugar was grown, it must be held to
have become the produce of this country, and was so ad-
witted into the West India colonies. This principle
was most distinctly laid down, and he had, therefore,
not thought it necessary to re-enact an exclusion which
it was impossible to maintain. He now proposed that
the rate of duty at which foreign sugar came into this
country should be the same as that at which the same
sugar was introduced here to be refined. Two ob-
jections were raised to this—one by the refiners, who
complained of the Dutch bounty; the other by the
shipping interest, on the ground of the navi-
gation laws.' But there was no ground for saying
that the Dutch refiners had any advantage from their
bounty over the English refiners, who were allowed to
refine in bond. A proof of this was the fact that the
Dutch refiners had applied to their Government to be al-
lowed to refine in bond. As to the navigation laws,
their operation would probably only be for another year,
and they would not cause a difference of above Is. a cwt.
—(Hear, hear.) The only party who could complain
was the West India producer; and, from the information
he bad received from a variety of sources, he was in-
clined to believe that the proceeds of the foreign suear
refined in bond paying 20s. duty would be rather abOve
205.; hence the colonist would have the same protection
against the foreign sugar refined here in bond as he
had against foreign sugar generally. It was
also to be observed, that the greater the pro-
ceeds of the refined sugar the higher duty would it
have to pay. He proposed, then, to reduce the duty on
colonial double-refined sugar from 19s. Gd. to 18s., and
on single-refined from 17s. 4d. to 16s. In this case, as
in that of the foreign sugar, it would make little differ-
ence to the owner of the sugar whether he paid the duty
on it in the raw or refined state. By these means he
hoped to extend the consumption of sugar, and at the
same time to consult the interests of the colonists. He
proposed now to take the reductions of 19s. 6d. and
17s. 4d. to 18s. and 165., and also those in the first

column. In the third column he admitted there were
some inaccuracies, though not to such an extent as was
imputed by the Noble Lord; and he should take time to
consider the effect of these more fully. He now moved
the reduction of 19s. 6d. to 18s.
Mr. GLADSTONE contended that the Government

' had no right to lay down the principle that sugars should
only be regarded accordini, to the country of their manu-
facture, and not that of their production. He questioned
whether Holland was entitled to have her sugars refined
in the East Indies admitted on the same terms as
those refined in Belgium. A country bad a right, if it
chose, to take a distinction founded on the place where
the article was produced; that distinction had been taken
by other countries, and acquiesced in by us. There were
also traces of it in our own laws. By the Act of 1832,
sugars refined in England from colonial sugar were made
admissible to the North American colonies free of duty,
while those sugars refined from foreign sugars were sub-
jected to a duty of 10 per cent. Again, by the 5 and 6
Vict., c. 47, the manufactures of the Channel Islands
made of foreign materials were deemed the produce of
foreign countries, and held to be imported from such
countries. Therefore, if we recognised that principle as
against ourselves, we were perfectly entitled to do so
with regard to foreign countries, in the way proposed by
the Noble Lord.

a p Mr.
c i6a tAi oill3 ofiV
this L L deemed
subject
t h it necessary
tthe
Committee to
d
have some knowledge of the conditions and circumstances
under which Government proposed that refining in bond
was to be carried on; and of this information they were
destitute. In the proposed reduction of duty from 19s. 6d.
to 18s. everything depended on the accuracy of the cal-
of this country, owing to the intimate way in which the
culators ; for if, unfortunately, a mistake were made,
the consequences would be most ruinous to the refiners
, question was mixed up with that of the Dutch refiners.
He thought that longer time ought to have been given to
consider the alteration now proposed. He had under-
i stood the impression amongst practical men, as to the
265. Sd. and 245. Bd. on foreign sugar, to be, that the al-
teration would operate unfavourbly towards, our own
trade. Not only ought the Committee to be in posses-
sion of the calculations whence these results were drawn,
but they should also know what regulations it was pro-
posed to apply to the trade of the refiner. Would the
Chancellor of the Exchequer have any objection to lay
the salculations before the Committee? The reduction on
1 colonial refined sugar would be inoperative for a consi-
derable time; and before the reduction from 26.. Bd. to
245. Bd. on foreign sugar, the House ought to have the
information he had referred to.
Mr. BARFLY said the duty of 245. Sd. on refined was
• in bond might be an excellent. thing
for the •
colonies in
' • but meanwhile care must be taken of 1
equivalent to a duty of 18s. sd. on raw sugar. Refining
process of time,
• our own refiners, and they must not be exposed to the

competition of the Dutch refiners. It had been strongly
that the Dutch bounty was no advantage to the
refiners of that country; but he knew that in
foreign
argued
countries the British refiner was every year more unable
to enter into competition with his Dutch rivals
a remarkable fact, that since the pit- Lt was
had been made known, son,-
..eratiens proposed
,ry of M`Queen and Co. This could not
been stimulated to s•-• capitalist in the City had
great injury on the British refiners as well
eze colonists.
Dutch refine aoscribe 70,000/. for resuscitating
etolnr. J. WILSON said th
attsduty of 245. Bd. on refineed
but inflictqwuaessteigonniwynalsesnitmtpolya wdhoetythoerf
20s. on raw sugar. Formerly, these duties had been
levied on no principle whatever. Government had taken
great pains to ascertain the exact produce of a hundred
weight of sugar, and the result oftheir inquiries
refined
of
the sugar,bu t y of
said 6 to d
be uthis jroi
yese dby
foreign was,
s. 8. ande
that the duties which they proposed to fix
on
245. Bd.
were exactly equivalent to the duty of 20s. on the raw
Dutch refiners had been imported into discussion
;
but he considered that it was quite beside the question
before the Committee. The bounty, so-called in Hol-
land, was merely is. drawback,
and only applied to the
sugar refined for home consumption.-(Hear.)
beets reached ;
That point had long ago b
and hence the
Dutch re4:iners had petitioned the Government to be
allowed to refine in bond. as was done by the English
refiners. The case of the Dutch refiners referred to by
the lion. Member who had last spoken had no reference
whatever to this question; for the arrangements had
been made three weeks before the Government plan was
known. The Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr.
Gladstone) had correctly laid down the principle that we
were entitled, on entering into treaties, to make what
conditions we chose; but it should be remembered that
the question referred to a treaty already in existence-
not one about to be made. With respect to the naviga-
tion-laws, he held in his hand a price current of Cuba,
by which he found that the difference between the pri-
vileged and unprivileged flags amounted only to 15s. per
ton, or 9d. per cwt. He denied that the British refiner
would have any ground of complaint with the scale now
proposed.
Lord G. BENTINCK had heard the proposed reduc-
tion on British refined sugar with great pleasure. This,
accompanied with the permission to the colonists to re-
fine in bond, would be a great boon; but he regretted to
hear that the measure would occupy a long time in its
preparation. He was convinced, from the statement
made to him by an extensive merchant, that the protec-
tion afforded by the navigation-laws was equivalent to
2s. 6d. per cwt.; and he could only account for the
statement of the Honourable Member for Westbury,
that the difference of rates at Havannah was only 9d.
per cwt., by supposing that the parties who freighted
the unprivileged ships, deceived by the large pro-
mises of our Whig Government, had supposed that
their vessels would be admissible here as soon as they
arrived, owing to the navigation-laws having been
repealed. He was led to the conclusion that the Dutch
refiners would, by this means alone, enjoy a protec•
tion of 2s. 6d. a cwt., besides their bounty, which he must
still regard as a bounty. He had in his hand two
specimens of Dutch sugar; one of these was at 235. in
this market on Saturday last, but which rose to 255.
after the alteration proposed by the Government. The
other specimen had risen from 21s. 2d. in bond to 245.
Bd. With regard to the Dutch treaty and the assertion
of the Government that the Dutch were entitled to in-
sist on the admission of sugar refined by them, though
not the produce of their own country, how was that to
be reconciled with the fact that the Government up to
the 30th of May, were resolved to maintain the Act of
1846, which contained a clause that the shipmaster or
consignees of foreign vessels were to prove that the sugar
to be imported at the lower rate of duty was bona fide
the growth and produce of the country from which it
was forwarded?-(Hear, hear.) They dealt in that
manner with regard to Cuba, Porto Rico, Brazil, and
their own British possessions, and it was a most moe-
strous absurdity fur Holland to expect to be treated in
a more favoured manner than their own possessions.
Mr. MITCHELL thought that the Noble Lord had
greatly exaggerated the difference of freight caused by
the navigation laws when he made it 21. 105. He be-
lieved that 255. was considered the outside difference,
and for himself ho believed that 10s. was much nearer
the truth.
After a few words from Lord G. BENTINCK and Mr.
MITCHELL in explanation, the duty.of 18s. was sub-
stituted for 19s. 6d. In the next item;l6s was sub-
stituted for 17s. 4d., and corresponding chances were
made in several other items up to a certain point, be-
yond which, in consequence of some inaccuracies
and mistakes contained in the Bill, the Committee did
not proceed.
On the motion of Mr. CARDWELL the Bill was com-
mitted pro forma, with a view to its being reprinted ;
the Chairman reported and the House resumed.
Mr. BARKLY hoped that the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer would bring the Bill under the consideration of
the House as soon as possible.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
would do so, but it could not be brought forward on
Alonday.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he had given notice of
a measure of great importance for to-morrow (Satur-
day), with which he should feel it necessary to proceed
without fail or delay.- (Hear, hear.)
STRIKING OF JURIES IN IR2LAND.
On the motion that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of Supply,
Mr. KEOGH rose to bring forward the motion of
which he had given notice two months ago. If he felt
doubtful before as to the course he should pursue, the
circumstance which had occurred that day made him
still more doubtful.-(Hear, hear.) Her Majesty's Go-
vernment had been in office for more than two years, and
in the present session the House of Commons had as•
sented to two measures of coercion against the people of
Ireland. He was not then going to make any remarks on
the propriety or impropriety of the motion of which the
Noble Lord had given notice; but it increased the re-
sponsibility of any Member who had to submit a motion
respecting Ireland, that her Majesty's Government
found the country in such a condition that they could
not be answerable for its peace except by a temporary,
though a long, suspension of the constitution of the
realm.-(Hear.) He persisted in his determination to
bring the motion forward, because if her Majesty's Go-
vernment were able to give a satisfactory explanation of
the facts he was about to submit to the House, it would
go far to enlist public opinion in favour of the course
they had pursued and were going to pursue, and would
satisfy the minds of moderate thinking men in Ireland,
whose opinions, be must say, had been strongly estranged
from her Majesty's Government by reason of the eourse
they pursued in reference to the late trials in that coon-
try. It might be said, that if anything had been out of
the usual course, it was done against an atrocious crimi-
nal. But he apprehended that the Noble Lord would not
say, that even the most atrocious criminal was not en-
titled to a fair and impartial trial. The insult that had
been offered to the Roman Catholic population was ag-
gravated by the circumstances in which that criminal
was involved, for it showed, however clear the case
against him, that the Roman Catholic population of Ire-
land were considered as unworthy to be trusted even when
acting under the solemn obligation of an oath. The
mode of selecting juries was theoretically the same in
Ireland as in England, the law under which they were
chosen being the same, namely, the 3d
and 4th of William IV. But he was prepared
to prove that in every transaction connected with the
case of John Mitchel, now a convict in Bermuda, from
the original selection of the panel to the time of trial in
the box, there had been a gross invasion of the due ad-
ministration of justice.-(Hear, hear.) And, first of all,
he begged to call the attention of the House to the fact
that in Ireland the sheriff, who was appointed by the
Crown, had the striking of the jury list. The practice
was different in this country, and particularly in the
city of London. The names of those who were qualified
to act as jurors were collected in a book called the
jurors' book for the city of Dublin. It so happened
that the jurors' book for the present year contained
4,570 names. Of these 2,965 were Roman Catholics,
and 1,635 were Protestants. There were therefore more
than two Roman Catholics for every Protestant in the
jurors' book. From that book it was the duty of the
sheriff to select such a number of names as would be
sufficient to try all the offenders during the commis-
sion. In this particular case the sheriff selected 150 names,
which selection was made by the sheriff personally, and
not by ballot; and it followed that more than 4to 1
of the jurors selected were Protestants. There was
something very singular about this. By the Act of Par-
liament, the sheriff, when he selected the panel, was
bound to sign it, and the summonser was obliged to
summon the jury six days before the trial. Now the
trial of Mr. Mitchel took place on the 20th. Some jurors
were summoned on the 11th, some on the 13th, and
when those summoned on the last day came into court
it was found that they wero not on the panel for Mr.
Mitchel's trial at all. Now it was on the 13th that
Mitchel was arrested, and the inference, therefore was,
that either a new panel had been substituted, or the
sheriff had not signed that from which the jurors were
selected.--(Hear, hear.) Upon Mitchell's trial a state-
ment was made by counsel in open court, which he was
bound to say would have its duo weight in this
country. It was said, openly and unreservedly,
that the brother of the Attorney-General for
Ireland, who acted as clerk, had tampered
with the lists. The high sheriff was examined as to the
preparation of the panel. His answers were anything
but satisfactory. He said, to the best of his belief, it
was regularly prepared, that it was prepared before the
13th, and that it was all prepared in one day. But the
under-sheriff, in his examination, contradicted all this.
That gentleman said that he prepared the lists, and that
its preparation occupied him two days. Two gentle-
men were selected to inquire whether the jurors were
fairly chosen or not. They decided that they were, and
the sheriff further stated that they were selected for their
superior wealth and respectability. Well, what followed?
•
It turned out that of the whole 150 on the panel only
28 wore Roman Catholics . that, in the first 78 names
only four were of that faith, and that all the rest were
put at the bottom of the lists.-(Hear, hear.) But it
would be said that this was accidental, and that the
sheriff's impartiality was not impugned. He would,
however, state a fact which would prove that the
arrangement could not have been accidental, or
as some alleged alphabetical. There wero two
jurors in Dublin, named Moore, both resident in
the same street, carrying on the same business, and
being of equal respectability. One was a Protestant,
the other was a Catholic. The name of the Protestant
Moore was 12th on the list, that of the Roman Catholic
Moore was placed No. 122. How differently were not
things conducted in England? On the trial of Frost, it
having been noticed that a panel was arranged alphabes
tically, objection was taken to it, not as being evidence
of partiality, but as being unusual. Lord Campbell,
who appeared for the Crown, acquiesced in the objecton,
and the names were put into a ballot box and drawn by
lot. Very different was the conduct of the Irish Attor-
ney-General upon the trial of Mr. Mitchel. Unlike