The Sun.
London, England, 1848-07-04 00:00:00

TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 4, 1848.

the reduction now expected in the price of labour was
known. If they had asked for 16s. they would have
been subsequently told, " You forget that labour will be
25 per cent. cheaper. You forget the alteration of the
rum duty, and the proposed immigration of labourers."
The Committee hail anticipated all these objections, and
in proposing 10s. had given credit fur these items.
Well, then, the colonies being in the position which had
been universally acknowledged, and the sum proposed
being. conceded to be a just and moderate protection,
he thought that the Government were bound to concede
it on their own admission. With regard to the gene-
ral scope of the Government measures, he admitted
that they were of a remedial character, but only to
such an extent as to qualify the blunders of 1846.—
(Hear, hear.) If it were of advantage that free negroes
should be conveyed to the colonies instead of to Sierra
Leone, why had that not been done in 1846 ? He said
then that immigration was only a remedy for previous
blunders.—(Hear, hear.) It was said then that great
benefits were to be derived from a new mode of classifi-
cation as to clawed and muscovado sugar. Why had
not that been done in ;1846? These were blunders
again.—(Hear, hear.) Again, half a million was to be
given; but it was only two months since it had been
calculated that 170,000/. would be sufficient.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Only
for two colonies.—(hear, hear.)
Mr. DISRAELI—Oh, it was said that the others did
not require it. But now it seemed it was necessary to
grant 670,0001. Could that grant be looked upon as
otherwise than a remedy for the blunders of 1846 ?
(11ear, hear.) Something had been said as to the en-
gagements which bad been entered into with our colo-
nies at the time of emancipation. He had never alleged
that a contract in the vulgar sense had been entered into.
He was willing to admit that no such contract existed.—
(Ilear, hear.) But would any one assert thatif the
West Indians had not expected a continuance of their
market they would so quietly have accepted the terms
they were offered ? It was the principle of protection
to the colonies that destroyed the Government in 1841—
the principle which then went to the country, and which
it was thought was then decided. And were they now
to turn round and tell the co:onists that this was all a
delusion—that the phrases and solemn pledges then
made, and the words sugar and free trade, were
merely cries as evanescent as the mottoes on their
election banners ?—(llear.) The Right Hon. Gen-
tleman (Mr. Gibson) opposed the proposition because it
went to support the interests of the colonies and was ad-
verse to the foreign trade. No one knew the import-
ance of the trade of the Brazils—no one had urged on
the House the necessity for a treaty of commerce with
the Brazils—more than the Right Hon. Gentleman.
But he would not ask the Right Hon. Gentleman for a
treaty of commerce with the Brazils. That was a new
subject, and he intended ere long to bring it before the
House—(Hear)—but he would ask, where was the Bra-
zilian trade which we were told over and over again was
worth more than that of all our colonies together ? It
had been said, if you assist the colonies, why not assist
the manufacturers of Manchester and Bolton ? The
reason was that they had had the monopoly of legisla-
tion, and though he believed they were in as disastrous
a state as the colonies, it was because they had departed
from the sound principles of commercial legislation
themselves that they were in their present position ; but
in the case of the colonies they had, without any fault
of their own, been made the victims of our legislation.
But after the course which had been taken, after the adop-
tion of free-trade principle, ho was surprised to hear the
Right Hon. Gentleman, as one of the advocates of this
principle, now come forward and say that our own ma-
nufactures had as much right to be protected as the
colonies.—(" Oh, oh," and "Divide, divide.") With
regard to the Mauritius, as showing the effect of our
legislation in that colony, he had a statement from the
books of Messrs. Reid and Irving, which, in justice to
those gentlemen, he would read. It appeared that in
August, 1843, the balance of account against their prin-
cipal agent for their estates in the Mauritius was 78,0001.
after an immense, a lavish, but a justifiable expenditure
in the improvement of their property. In the same
month in 1845, a year after the Act of 1844, for ad-
mitting foreign free-labour sugar, the balance rose against
them to 183,0001., and in the same month in 1847, twelve
months after the Act of 1846, which admitted slave-

labour sugar into the home market, it was 410,000/
This was the position of a house that never bought a
single ton of sugar, all the money having been advanced
in cultivating their own estates on the faith of Acts of
Parliament, the violation of which entailed upon them
a loss of from 400,000/. to 500,000/. Then, with regard
to the argument of the too great increase of our colonial
empire, the Mauritius was the key to India. If we had
possessed the Mauritius fifty years before we did, we
should have conquered India with less difficulty, and re-
tained it with far less cost.—(Hear, hear.) And suppose
that colony were now in the hands of the French, what
would be our position in regard to our Indian posses-
sions? It was the same as to many of our other colo-
nies; and he contended that imperial as well as com-
mercial considerations were consequently involved in the
consideration of this question. Let America possess
Canada, the West India islands, and the Gulf of
Mexico, and what security should we have for retain-
ing the commercial advantages which we now en-.
joyed? The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon
(Sir J. Graham), who admitted that he supported the
Government proposition against his conviction, said that
he did so because he (Mr. Disraeli), in opposing the
measure of 1846, had said the time would soon come
when a spirit of reaction would arise, which would corn•
pel the rescinding of that measure, and the Hon. Baronet
would not vote with the Hon. Member for Droitwich,
because he would not assist In fulfilling that prediction.
But the Government had themselves fulfilled the predic-
tion. His prediction was not in favour of any particular
duty. What he said was that the Hues() would have be-
fore long to change its course of legislation—(Hear,
hear)—that it would have to go back, and they had
gone back.—(Protectionist cheers.) And whether the
protective duty proposed was 7s. or 10s., the reaction was
the same. Reaction was not a thing which could be regu-
lated by Act of Parliament—the course of reaction, which
was the ebb and flow of public opinion, was inevitable
—it was the courage of hope deferred—of false repre-
sentation, and of the awakening of the nation out of the
delusion into which it had been lulled. And when they
found the capital of the country wasting away—the
mills standing still—the labourers idle—it was not sur-
prising that there should be distrust in the theories the
adoption of which had, produced those results.—(Hear,
hear.) It might be well for the Right Hon. Baronet
(Sir J. Graham) to say there was no reaction : he re-
membered gentlemen who used to adopt the cry of " no
surrender," and then laid down their arms—(Hear, hear)
—but such bravado would not arrest the progress of
public opinion on the inevitable course of human affairs.
Let them continue the course they were now quitting
with so much hesitation and so much timidity, and let
the principles of the Right Hon. Member for Manchester
be pursued, and within an interval of two years the
Right lion. Baronet would have to raise the cry of " no
reaction " amid a dissolving empire and a despairing
people.—(Cheers, and cries of " Divide.")
Mr. C. P. VILLIERS denied that the majority of the
Sugar and Coffee Planting Committee were Free-traders,
or that they were in favour of reaction. There were
ten Protectionists and only five Free-traders on that
Committee.—(Cries of " No, no," and " Name.") He
repeated there were ten Protectionists either in principle
or for the occasion on the article sugar on that Commit-
tee.—(Name.) Then, as to the question whether the
proposition of the Hon. Member for Droitwich was car-
ried by a majority. The proposition to which the Com-
mittee could not he brought to agree was that of a 10s.
protection duty ; and the lion. Member for Liverpool
was only able to carry it by two Members leaving the
Committee, who, had they remained, would have voted
against it. There was no evidence taken before the
Committee which showed that protection was necessary
for the prosperity of the West India colonies ; the effect
of the evidence was rather to show that what was re-
quired was a forced introduction of labour, and the ex-
clusive possession of the British market.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON—What he had said was, that
the Committee did recommend a 'duty of ten shillings.
But he was disposed to hope that it would not be neces-
sary to keep up that amount of duty longer than three
years, and after that there should be a descending scale.
Lord G. BENTINCK rose merely to answer the
question he had been challenged to answer respecting
the constitution of the Committee. Of the 15, whose
names were settled between the Secretary of the Tree.
sury and himself, only three bad voted against the bill
of 1846—(hear, hear)—Sir J. Pakington, Mr. P. Miles,
and himself. Five had voted in favour of that Act, Mr.
Labouchere, Mr. Goulburn, Mr. M. Gibson, Mr. C.
Villiers, and Mr. Ewart.—(Cheers.)---There were of
avowed Free-traders, whose opinions on the subject
were not known, Mr. Cardwell, who did not vote
for or against the Act of 1845; Sir T. Birch, Mr. H.
Hope, Mr. J. Wilson, Mr. J. Matheson, and Sir E.
Buxton. The resolution of the Committee, which was
eventually carried was proposed by Sir T. Birch, the
Member for Liverpool, and it was by the special desire
of the Secretary to the Treasury acting for the Govern-
ment that Sir T. Birch had been put upon the Com •
mittee.—(Hear.) Lord G. Manners was the only other
Member, and he was supposed to favour the opinion of
the chairman. He had fairly stated the competition of
the Committee, and he appealed to that house-(Hear,
hear)—whether its decision in favour of the reso-
lution moved by the Hon. Member for Droitwich was
not entitled to respect as the opinion of a Committee
fairly and impartially framed and constituted? If there
was any bias it was certainly against the
planters' interest, and in favour of of the opinions of the
Noble Lord.—Gear.)slle had muchlto say in justifica-
tion of his lion. Friend's resolution, but at that late hour
he would not enter upon the subject, but reserve himself
for another occasion.—(lronical cheers.)
Mr. CARDWELL having said a few words explain-
ing the course taken by him and Mr. Goulburn on the
Committee.
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority —62
Mr. BARKLY, who said he had also an amend-
ment to propose, moved that the Chairman should re-
port progress.
Lord J. RUSSELL requested that the Committee
might be allowed to proceed with the resolutions.
The CHAIRMAN having put the question that
" thirteen shillings" should stand part of the preamble,
Mr. GLADSTONE said lie thought the resolutious
were of so much importance and intricacy that it would
he impossible to get them through before Wednesday.
He would not say whether blame might not attach
to the Government for not bringing the question on
earlier. He thought it objectionable that duties should
be thus levied on a simple resolution of the House; at
all events,
no advantage would be gained by commenc-
ing a consideration of the resolutions now. He would
recommend the Noble Lord, now that the house was in
Committee on the sugar duties, to take a temporary re-
solution continuing the duties of 1846.
Mr. COBDEN saw no great object to be gained

passing these resolutions now. It would be running a
race against those merchants who were importing large
cr.rgoes of sugar on the assurance that the scale would
not be interfered with. If the resolutions were passed,
it would be a serious loss to those merchants who
had probably given a kigher price for the sugar in
expectation of having Is. 6d. less duty to pay.
• ti`o Lord J. RUSSELL said that, seeing the Ape ns
that had been made, he would not now press the Com-
mittee to pass the resolutions. He would not propose a
temporary resolution continuing the duties, because such
a course would be quite unlooked for. As it appeared
the question could not be settled before the sth July, he
would propose that the Chairman should report pro-
gress; and he would name Friday next for going on
with the resolutions.

Mr. GLADSTONE wished to know what would be
done in reference to the duties which would come into
operation on Thursday? It was not a question affecting
merely those who had sugar in bond, but those who had
it on the way towards this country.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in an-
swer to Mr, Gladstone's former remarks, said it had been
the invariable practice to give directions for the altera-
tion of duties on a simple resolution of the House. He
referred to several cases in point, and said that that
precedent would now be followed. By the course now
proposed, all the sugar that came in between the sth and
the time the resolution was reported, would come in at
the reduced duty.
Mr. GLADSTONE repeated that this arrangement
would be attended with great inconvenience. He urged
the Noble Lord to give notice of a resolution for this
day, to be reported on Wednesday, and thus the question
would be kept open.
The motion for reporting progress was then agreed
to, and the House resumed.

June
25

25
24
24
23

Aberdeen ..........

Amiens and Boulog,ne .........• •• • •
Arbroath and Forfar ••• •• •• •• •• •• ••

Chester and Birkenhead. • • •• ••
Caledonian—. ....... ..... ••

1,08.6

807
4,197
93G
127

514

HAYMARKET THEATRE.

Mr. and Mrs. Charles Kean took their benefit at this
Theatre yesterday evening, on which occasion the per-
formances consisted of Sir E. Bulwer Lyttou's play of
Money and of Mrs. Centlivre's comedy of The Wonder,
Mr. and Mrs. Charles Kean sustaining respectively the
characters of Arthur Evelyn and Clara Douglas in the
first piece and of Don Felix and Donna Violante in the
second. It is a work of supererogation to descant at this
time of day on the merits of the Arthur Evelyn of Mr.
Charles Kean; it has long been the delight of every
playgoer, and is acknowledged by every critic to be the
best on the stage. The Clara Douglas of Mrs. Charles
Kean is beautiful exceedingly. As intensely pathetic as
that of any of her predecessors, the Clara Douglas of
Mrs. Charles Kean is more ladylike—more like what
we should expect Clara Douglas to be, seeing she has

always been used to mix in good society. This tone, which
can only be caught by mixing in good society, has been
given to the character by Mrs. Charles Kean, and there-
fore is she par excellence the Clara Douglas of the
author. The great feature of the evening was, however,
the first appearance of Mr. Charles Kean in comedy.
We say his first appearance in comedy, for albeit Money
is called a comedy, the character of Evelyn is essentially
tragic. Not so that of Don Felix, in which Mr. Charles

Kean appeared for the first time last evening. Knowing
and admiring as we do the genius of Mr. Charles Kean
in tragedy, believing that his genius as a tragedian has
not yet completely developed itself, and that although
he has done great things (greater than any man now
living has ever done), yet that he will do greater still ;
having attentively watched his career from that certain
night in October, 1827, when the young boy, full of
genius and enthusiasm, but as yet unformed in his art,
appeared in the character of Norval at Drury-lane, and
made "a most palpable hit;" having followed his career
through his long course of provincial practice (by which
he was made an artist) until his re-appearance
in London in the character of Hamlet, after a
patient study in the provinces of many years,
at once placed him at the head of his profession.
having since watched his careeref uninterrupted success,
and assisted (to make use of a French expression) at all
his triumphs; having also the greatest possible faith in
his genius and powers, we will confess we felt anxious
for the result of the experiment of last evening. Not
that we dreaded anything like a failure—genius never
can fail entirely—but we feared lest, not trusting suffi-
ciently to his own inspirations, Mr. Charles Kean might,
in a line entirely new to him, be tempted to adopt some
of the traditional conventionalities of the part, and
thus give us, albeit a good Don Felix, such a
Don Felix as divers who have gone before him have
given; or, on the other hand, that he might overleap
the bounds of comedy, and make of Don Felix an
Othello. W e were, n _tmeirk, ws,..ratly nutinioca ZAL,
Don Felix of Mr. Charles Kean; not only was it a bril-
liant success, it was a perfect triumph. He pitched the
character from the beginning somewhat higher than his
predecessors have done of late years, but he maintained
the pitch throughout, making of it an harmonious whole,
which will, if we mistake not, be the model of all future
aspirants to histrionic fame in the character of Don
Felix. He was, indeed, the chivalrous and im-
passioned, but somewhat hasty and hat-headed,
Portuguese nobleman, and he had the good taste
never once to condescend to claptrap, and never,
however inviting might be the situation, to descend to
buffoonery. His jealousy was real, and excited our
sympathy, albeit we were aware of its utter ground-
lessness, and although amused at the dilemma in which
he constantly finds himself placed, it was impossible not
to feel for his misfortunes. He was, in fact, the Don
Felix of the comedy—Don Felix the gentleman as con-
tradistinguished from Don Felix the buffoon, as he is
too often represented to be. Full of earnestness, full
of power, by turns pathetic, impassioned, and sar-
castic, the Don Felix of Mr. Charles Kean was the
triumph of genius chastened by taste and a consummate
knowledge of art. This is his first, we hope it will nut
be his last, appearance in comedy. There are divers
cognate characters to Don Felix to be found in the
works of our old dramatists which Mr. Charles Kean
might revive with great advantage both to himself and
to the public. Mrs. Charles Kean has long been the
best Donna Violante on the stage. In the personation
of the lady, par excellence, of our haute comedic no one
can approach her. It is in these days de-
lightful to witness her impersonation of cha-
racters of the class of Donna Violante. In this
line she stands alone, unapproached and unapproach-
able. She was excellently supported by Miss Emma
Harding, who in the part of Donna Isabella, had
an opportunity of appearing in a " character," an op•
portunity of which she knew well how to avail her-
self. Her Donna Isabella was admirable. Mrs. Ilumby
acted Inis, as she alone can act pert chambermaids.
Websti?.r's Lissardo was the beau ideal of the smart, in-
triguing valet. Why does he not revive the
comedy (not the opera) of the Barber of
Seville, and act the part of Figaro himself! Mr. and Mrs.
Charles Kean were called for at the conclusion of each
of the 'comedies, and bouquets a foison showered upon
them. Her Majesty and Prince Albert honoured the
theatv, with their presence. and arrived soon after the
commencement of the performances. At the conclusion
of thet -play there was a loud call for " God save the
Queen," with which the band complied. Her Majesty
then game forward to acknowledge the compliment, and
the cheering with which she was received was en-
thug: istic. Prince Albert also was loudly cheered.
The house was crowded to suffocation. Before the
rising; of the curtain standing room was not to be had iu
the p it. The box lobbies even were crowded, and the
gallevies were a sea of heads.
(From the Times.)
Mr. and Mrs. Charles Kean's benefit took place last
night, and the house was crammed to suffocation. Her
Maje: sty, who had bespoken the pieces for the occasion,
atten led with Prince Albert, and was loudly cheered by
the aildience at the conclusion of the comedy of Money.
The m umerous cries for the " Queen" soon changed into
a gen oral shout for the national anthem, which was
played . by the orchestra amid loud applause, to which
her 10.ajesty responded.
T11:0 novelty of the evening was the appearance of
Mr. and Mrs. Kean as Don Felix and Donna Violante
in 11 Ira. Centlivre's Wonder, which had been compressed
into three acts, and placed as an afterpiece to Money.
It w as the first time that Mr. Kean acted a comic part
in I ,ondon, and he gave a great deal of humour to
Don . Felix. While he was earnest with his jea-
lous. T., he was particularly happy in depicting . the
state t of wonder and uncertainty, in which the sensitive
love) 7 is constantly placed. The haziness generated
bete teen his own suspicions and the sharpness of Donna
Viol (ante was most ludicrously expressed in his counte-
nan cc. The drunken scene was at once natural and
higl ay comic. Mrs. Kean's Donna Violante was a most
finis 'bed performance. She maintained the aspect of
con scions rectitude amid the mazes of an intrigue of
whi ch she is so unwillingly the leader, so that the con-
star display of an artfulness, induced by necessity,
Bev er caused the spectator to forget the natural
dig) city of the woman. The great point, when on the
disc overy that Colonel Briton has escaped from the
cha) nber, she suddenly recovers her presence of mind,
afte, 7 an agony of terror, was admirably given. The
heal ty laugh marked one of those rapid transitions that
cans lot fail to create surprise, and elicited an unanimous
burs t of applause.
A t the conclusion of Money, Mr. and Mrs. Kean were
calk d before the curtain, and received a shower of bow
quet T.