The Sun.
London, England, 1848-06-30 00:00:00

SUGAR DUTIES.

Mr. BARELY called the attention of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer to the fact that the sugar duties would
expire on Wednesday next, and wished to know what
course he intended to pursue supposing that the resolu-
tions with respect to them had not been passed through
Committee and reported on before that day.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was in
hopes that the debate on the question of going into
Committee would be concluded that evening, and that
they would ba enabled to go into Committee to-morrow,
and discuss the resolutions, and have them reported
to the House on Monday or Tuesday ; in that
event the usual Treasury order would be issued with
respect to the duties. It the resolutions were not re-
ported before the expiration of the duties, he confessed
he did not know what course to adopt.
. . .

Mr. BRIGHT said it would be in the recollection of
the House, that when the corn question was under dis.
eussion—when it was a matter of protection—it was held
that the mere reporting of a resolution to the House
was not sufficient to allow the new duties to be taken,
but that had it been a question of revenue that
course could have been pursued. Now, as the present
was a matter of protection, he thought the same rule that
was observed on the corn question ought to be prevail
now.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
Honourable Gentleman was perfectly correct in his
statement, but in 1830 an additional duty of 6d. was
levied upon rum, and that duty was immediately levied
upon the resolution being reported to the House.
There was, however, a stronger precedent than this,
in 1831, when an additional duty was imposed
upon one particular description of wine, and lowered
upon another. In that case the duty was levied imme-
diately upon the resolutions being reported to the House,
and the same course was proposed to be followed in the
present instance.
Mr. BRIGHT wished to ask- the Right Hon. Gentle-
man whether Government had made any arrangement
with a number of parties who had cargoes of foreign
sugar coming on their way to this country, which were
expected to be entered at 18s. 6d. after the
sth of July, instead of 20s. It would be re-
membered that only three weeks ago an intimation
was given by the Government that they did not intend
to alter the Act of 1846, and it was upon the faith of
that declaration that these cargoes were ordered.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
according to the present regulations all cargoes afloat
would have to pay 20s.
Mr. ROBINSON wished to know how it was proposed
to enforce payment of the 205., if on the sth of July the
existing duty of 18s. 6d. were tendered.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
they should refuse to allow the cargoes to be entered.
Mr. HILDYARD apprehended this was a question of
law and not of precedent, and he put it to the Attorney-
General whether, if a party on the sth of July tendered
the duty which by law could be demanded, and Govern-
ment refused to receive it and detained the goods, Go-
vernment would not be liable to make good the loss which
might result from such detention?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that case would
be met by the resolutions, as reported to the House,
being taken to be the existing law.
VAN DIEMEN'S LAND.
On the motion of Mr. ANSTEY, the following papers
were ordered to be laid before the House:—Copies of
correspondence and papers in the Colonial-office re-
lating to the decisions of the two Judges con-
stituting the Supreme Court of Van Diemen's
land, against the validity of certain acts of the Le
gislative Council of that Colony, or to the removal of
Algernon Montagu, Esq., the Puisne Judge of the said
Court, or to any proceedings taken for the removal of
Sir John Lewes Pedder, the Chief Justice of the said
Court.
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL DISTRESS.
Mr. NE WDEGATE wished to know whether it was
true, as reported, that the Seeret Committee on com-
mercial distress had refused to hear the evidence of two
gentlemen who were enabled to lay some important in-
formation before them ?
The SPEAKER informed the Hon. Member that the
report of the Committee had not yet been laid on the
table of the House.