The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-09 00:00:00

SUGAR DUTIES.

Mr. F. BARING .aid he wished :to put a ques-
, tioni-to-the.-Right Honourable the President of the
Board of Trade which he had mentioned on a former oc-
-castOti., It was whether the sugar of the Danish colo-
nies was "to come in tinder the lower duty in the Sugar
Bill. ; • •
Mr. GLADSTONE said there were established. and
settled rakes to govern our commercial intercourse with
Detxiark; and those would be abided by. He did not
see any casein which it was at all necessary to ask the
opinion t the law officers of the, Crown.
ALGIERS..
Mr.-SHEIL said he,wished to put-three questions to
the Right Hon. Gentleman at the-head of her Majesty's
Government. The first question was, whether Lord.
Aberdeen-had received any answer from the French
Government to his 'dispatch of the 28th of January,
1842, and if so would there be any objection to
-lay that upon:the table of the House; the second was,
had the British Government aPplied.for an exequatur for
our Consul at Algiers ; and the- third Was, had England
done anything-to allow France to entertain the opinion
'that she-was entitled to the possession of Algiers?
" Sir- R. PEEL thought it would be much better to
leave the matter entirely between the Executive Go-
vernments of the two countries. No answer
had as yet been received to the • communica-
tion which had been 'forwarded 'by the Earl of
Aberdeen to. the Minister na, France.' With respect to-
the question regarding the Consid-:General' in Africa,
he. could only say that he..liatt acted under the same. in-
structions . which had, been .forwarded to, hipi during
the tenure of office of .the. Government with Which the,
Right Him. .Gentleman was himself connected.
Sir CHARLES NAPIER, . after alluding to the naval
.Strepgtli in -the 'Mediterranean and at home, said
he wish4d to put three questions to the Right
Honourable Iltuvilet. He wished to know, in . the:
f4it. Pll4, viiether- it was true, as had been stated in
.§.(44 ,of, 111e.SPitiiish.p-ap-er.ii; that 'Spain had consented
to
allow France to send troops into MOroeCo through Ceuta?
`His 'second questionnwas whether the Emperor of Mo-
rocco bad refused all mediation the part of this
country? And lastly, he wished to ask whether it was the
intention of her.Vajesty's. Government. to increase the
naval force of the country?
Sir ROBERT -PEEL said that there never was a
period at which this country could make a
greater naval. demonstration within a- short space
of time thin at the present moment. With. respect to.
' the- second question of the Hon: and Gallant Officer, as.
to the permission by the Spanish Gov,4rnment-to France
to- allow troops to pawl through Ceuta to MoroccO,
he could only say that he had never beard of
such an arrangement 'having been entered into.
The. next question of the Hon. and Gallant Member
Was whether. all mediation on the part of this country
had been refused- by _the Emperor of Morocco, and in
answer to that question,' ho (Sir R. Peel) had to state'
that the British Consul-General at Algiers was no*
zthe Emperor . of -,Morocco,. acting under if 4
instructions of her Majesty's Governmen.tolind;,therefore
it could not be said that the Emperor of Morocco had re-
I fused al) mediation. In answer to the last question of the

Hon. and Gallant Officer, he had to state that her Ma-
jesty's Government had already taken measures to place
such an amount of naval force in the Mediterranean as
would be sufficient to protect British interests in that
part of the world should their interests be at all menaced.
Mr. C. WOOD said the question of his Hon. and Gallant
Friend ( Sir C. Napier) was not whether it was the intention
of the Government to increase the naval force in the Mediter-
ranean, but whether it was the intention of the Government to
increase the naval force of the country ? It was the constant
practice of the present Government when in opposition, to up-
braid her Majesty's Government with the paltry amount of the
naval force—with the weakness shown upon the seas in com-
parison with other Powers, and with the defenceless condition
of our coast. But never had the Whigs left the shores of Eng-
land—the interests of England—so utterly at the mercy of the
foreigner as they were now left by the Tory Government, by
the crippled state in which they allowed the British navy to re-
main. He asked the Government, then, if it was their inten-
tion to put the naval force of the country ira such a condition as
to command confidence at home and respect abroad?
Sir It PEEL said he would not give any answer to the
question. Her Majesty's Government were responsible for
the safety of the country—for the honour of the country ; and
whenever one or the other were endangered, they would have
no have no hesitation whatever in instantly coming down to
Parliament, and asking for the amplest means of repelling pro-
vocation.—(Hear, hear.) He had been used unfairly, for the
notice given to him by the Gallant Officer was simply whether
it was the intention of the Government to increase the naval
force in the Mediterranean.
Lord PALMERSTON said there was no ground at all for
complaint on the part of the Government, especially when
their attacks of the year 1838 were remembered. In his
opinion, a Government ought always to be ready to state the
amount and distribution of the forces of the country, and
whether increase was intended or not. The amount
of the naval force of England was less now than
ever it was, and it W 65 the duty—the absolute duty
—of the Government—to satisfy Parliament that it would
be so strengthened and increased as to be prepared for any
emergency that might arise.—( Cheers. )
Sir R. PEEL said, the proceeding altogether was a most
unfair one. Why, even if he had had notice of a question,
whether or not he was going to increase the naval estimates,
he would not have answered that question. Every question
that he had had notice of, and it was proper to answer, he had
answered. But beyond that he would simply repeat what he
had before said, that her Majesty's Government was respon-
sible for the honour of ,the country, and were not likely to
shrink from the obligations which office imposed upon them.
Lord HOWICK utterly denied the unfairness complained of,
and it was absolutely ridiculous, coining from a quarter where
so little of punctiliousness had beers shown in former days.

RAILWAYS BILL.
Mr. GISBORNE said he rose not to continue the discus-
sion which, perhaps, had gone far enough at that moment, but
to offer some observations before the Speaker left the chair,
upon the Bill for the regulation of railways, which they were
that night called upon to read for a second time. The Right
Hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade could
not have failed to observe that, from the moment his Bill had
been brought forward, opposition had sprung up against it, and
that opposition had so increased and strengthened as to justify
him (Mr. Gisborne) in saying that the whole railway world
was in decided array against it. He was far from saying that
the present laws regulating railways were perfect, but better
far have their imperfections than such regulations as the Bill
then before the House would impose. He might certainly
carry the measure, backed as he was by the power of Govern-
ment, but no measure passed hostilely would ever work well,
or tend to the good conduct of railways. He therefore hoped
the Right Hon. Gentleman would withdraw the. Bill for the
present session, and save him from the necessity of dividing
the House upon it. If the Right Hon. Gentleman could not,
or would not, do this, he should move that the Bill be read a
second time that day six months.
Mr. C. RUSSELL said he would vote for the adjournment.
Railway companies felt that they had not been fully and fairly
heard before the House, and he was of that opinion too. Every
advantage had been withheld from them, and every obstruction
thrown in their way. Every advantage was taken by the
Government in the examination of witnesses, and railway
companies were excluded from the investigation contrary to
custom and to precedent. Notwithstanding all the pains which
the Government had taken to force their scheme, their case had
completely broken down, even according to the testimony of
their own witnesses. The whole proceedings were based on a
principle of reciprocal interest, which was necessary in order
to obtain support. The President of the Board of frade ad-
mitted that his scheme had failed, and up to a few days before
the Committee had closed its labours, the Right Hun. Gent'e-
man had not determined upon any particular plan of operation.
On behalf of the railway companies, who were perfectly unani-
mous in opposing this Bill, lie offered his most decided opposi-
tion to it. Universal alarm had been felt regarding
the scheme proposed by the Government, and a deputation,
consisting of some of the largest railway proprietors
in England waited upon the Right lion. Baronet at the head
of the Government, but their proposal was rejected. On be-
half of all. the railways in the kingdom—on behalf of one hun-
dred millions of property—he begged of the House to give them
time to consider this important measure before Parliament. The
evidence, which was so voluminous, had riot been on the table
longer than since the middle of June, and had not been perused
even by the Ministers themselves. Was the House prepared
even to discuss the propriety of so important a change in rail.
way speCulatiou ? They asked for time till the early part of
next session to consider this Bill, and lie hoped the House would
not refuse the prayer.—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. GLADSTONE said he did not think the Non. Member
for Nottingham had well considered his motion ; for the effect of
it would be a refusal to entertain or even consider the measure.
The Bill must be first explained to the House and to those out
of doors who had petitioned the House in suchi 'numbers. The
Bill proposed to the House had the sanction of the Govern-
ment and of the Railway Committee, and was, in fact, grounded
upon the reports of Railway Committees. He felt that it would
he necessary to explain the objects and nature of the Bill.
Mr. HAW ES said he did not think it had been reasonable to
promise an opinion upon the Bill when the body of evidence
that had been laid on the table of the House had not been
perused. Since the evidence had been laid upon the table,
various most important measures had been under the considera-
tion of the House. They had been discussing a Joint-Stock
Company's Bill, a Bank Charter Bill, and other most im
portant subjects. Besides, he did not think the Right Hon.
Baronet at the head of the Government had acted fairly toy
them, for on a previous occasion he said the House should be
very cautious hew they interfered with existing railway com-
anies. He thought the Vice-President of the Board of
crude had failed to make out a case to resist the motion of the
Hon. Member for Nottingham.
Mr. COLQUHOUN said he thought it would be wrong to
refuse to enter into the discussion at prevent ; however,
he must say, that they had not as yet sufficiently pe-
rused the -report of the Committee. He considered the
present step a moat dangerous one, and one unprecedented in
the history of British Legislature, transferring almost all the
power from private capitalists to Government, and yet 'that -
same Government had refused to interfere with factory labour
on the very mine principle on which they now attempted to act.
The idea of passing such a Bill at such a period of the session
was absurd, and the provisions of the Bill were most unfairc
injurious, and of an unprecedented nature.
Mr. WALLACE said he believed the railway interest had
come down to that House for the purpose of stopping the pro-
gress of this Bill upon the ground that the Legislature at-
tempted to interfere between railway companies and the public.
The Railway Committee upon which the report on the table
was founded was composed for a great part of railway capitalists;
and a great number of witnesses were examined on behalf of
the railway interest. He protested against those Hon. Mem-
bers who were directly interested in railway speculations
voting on this Bill. He would support the second reading.
Mr. GISBORNE was averse to discussing the Bill at so
late a period of the session, and before Hon. Members had time
to peruse the evidence.
Mr. H. HINDE denied, in the most positive manner, that
the railway interest had, in any way, attempted to obstruct the
Bill of the Government, but due time had not been given for
the consideration of the evidence. If the Right Hon. Gentle-
man would postpone the decision on the measure till next ses-
sion, he would offer no opposition to a full discussion, and a
second reading of it during this session. At the same time,
even if the Government persevered, he would offer it no unfair
opposition.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said the question now before the
House was not whether it should affirm the principle of the Bill,
. but whether there was anything in its nature to prevent its
discussion in the present session. He thought they should dis-
cuss the measure fully during the present session. The mea-
sure was as mu-h the offspring of the Committee as
of the Government, and he would vote for its second
reading. It had been said that the evidence on the
table had not been fully known or promulgated,
but according to the statements of railway companies them-
selves they seemed fully acquainted with the evidence, and
with every principle the Bill introduced, and they gave it their
unqualified condemnation. He did not think the interests of
the companies and those of the public were distinct and sepa-
rate, hut were altogether identical. He thought the Bill be-
fore the House would be eminently beneficial to both. He
hoped they would now proceed to discuss the Bill in the usual
way, and trusted the Hon. Gentleman would not press his
motion to a division.

Sir R. PEEL said he thought there was a growing opinion
among the public that railway companies were becoming mo-
nopolies. The Hon. Member was still worse than the Athe-
flan, for the Athenian said ‘4 Strike, but hear," but the Hon.
Member would strike but refuse to hear. Must there not be
something Very errot,ecnis in the system when the Hon. Mem-
ber for Nottingham Inoved'that the Order of the Day be read,
merely beeause his Right HOW Friend, the Vice-President.of
the Board of Trade; had attempted to explain the principles of
the Measure to the House? The object of the Government
was to-prevent undue exaction and to make these great public
concerns as beneficial both to the-capitalists-and to the public as
"possible:- It had been said that the present period of the ses-
sion was too late to ' introduce any measure on the sub-
jeet of railways, but they had had . sixty new
applications for railways during the present session,
and they would in all probability hats sixty more.
He could never believe that the House of Commons would so
far protect and shelter monopoly, as to prevent his Right Hon.
Friend, the representative of the Government, from explaining
the objects and nature of the Bill. The Government, he re-
peated, had and could have no other object in view but the pub-
lic good. They offended a large and influential body of capi-
talists, many of their strenuous supporters, so that they must,
at all events, get credit for perfect disinterestedness. Again,
the Government only adopted the suggestionsand recommenda-
tions of the Committee ; they were, in short, only carrying out
their recommendations, and acting in accordance with the evi-
dence brought before them. Until the four tellers declared at
the table of that House that the motion of the Hon. Member
opposite was successful, he never could believe that the power of
monopoly was so strong in the House of Commons, as to refuse,
not only to pass a useful measure, but to deprive the Govern-
nient'of the power of explaining its principles, nature, and ob-
jects. All the Government wished was a full, fair, and impar-
tial discussion ; they would be ready to hear suggestions from any
Hon. Member, and give them their best consideration. The
sort of strategy which had been resorted to by railway
'directors was rather of an unusual description. The Right
Hon. Gentleman read a • circular from the railway directors
• which had been received by a grocer at Deptford, requesting
of him, as an elector, to request of his representative to give
-the Goeernmont Railways Bill all the opposition in his power.
• but the grocer replied that if he had a vote himself he would
give it in favour of the-Government measure, so that the rail-,
way directors did not further impress on this individual the
necessity of communicating his opinions to his representative.
( A laugh.) No ; let the measure-be judged upon its merits
and utility, and by that test the Government was prepared to
abide.— (Cheers. )
Mr. R. YORKE recommended the-Hon. Member for Not-
• tingharn to withdraw his mo:ion.
Mr. GISBORNE 'then withdrew his motion.
Several petitions against the Railways Bill were presented
fecn-verions railway vompeniee.
i, 'BIT. GLADSTONE then rose to move the second reading
of the Bill.. He asia that this was not a question of party, on
which the Government could appeal to the sympathy of their
supporters: Everything that could be done to throw
.opposition i.n.the way of this Bill had been adopted on the
part . of, many of the. railway companies in the country.
The statements,•however, upon which, that. opposition was
founded_ were all at , variance ;with facts. No Bill that had
-ever come before Parliament had eyer, met .with. geater
representation. So anxious were the bovernment to secure
to railway companies a full and fair representation in the Com-
mittee, that four gentlemen were appointed on that CoMmit-