The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-18 00:00:00

serious in discouraging slavery, they should forbid
the importation of cotton, corn, wool, sugar, molasses,
rum, cocoa-nuts, hides, tallow, horns, tobacco,
snuff, cigars, and almost every imaginable
foreign commodity that is used by the in-
habitants of the United Kingdom. The mills of
Lancashire and Yorkshire are kept going solely by
slave labour. One-half of the consumption of the
country imported from foreign States is the produce
of slavery, and it therefore is utterly absurd to make
a distinction between free-labour and slave-labour
sugar. The only point of interest in Sir ROBERT
PEEL'S speech was that the Government would not
yield to the amendment of Mr. MILES, and that
they would abide by their original proposition. He
accordingly announced that, when the motion was
made for reducing the duty on West India sugar to
205., he shotild move that it be 245. the cwt.
The speech of Sir ROBERT PEEL was remarkable
for its candour. He admitted that the Government
had been defeated on several important questions
during the present session; that, consequently, little
or nothing had been done ; that Parliament might
be prorogued, and business, as at the close of the
preceding session, remain nearly as when they met ;
that many of his usual supporters had not lent him
their support, but whatever might be the consequence
the Government were determined to persevere in
their course by a gradual, safe, and circumspect re-
laxation of those duties on articles which come
into competition with the domestic produce of the
country. This free trade speech did not seem to
please the Tories, and the Right Hon. Gentleman
sat down amidst cheers rather from his foes than his
friends.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL adverted briefly to the dif-
ferent topics of Sir ROBERT PEEL'S speech, and said
the main drift of it was to make Members on the
other side, the usual supporters of Government, undo
what they had done on Friday, and thereby destroy
their independence as Membdrs of Parliament.
Mr. P. MlLas regretted that Sir ROBERT PEEL was
determined to oppose the motion carried by a ma-
jority of 20 on Friday ; he regretted also that he was
compelled to oppose the Government, but he could
not shrink from his duty, and must persist in his
amendment.

Sir ROBERT PEEL immediately rose, and moved
that the blank be filled up with 245.
An interesting debate ensued, in which Mr. KEM-
BLE, Mr. DISRAELI, Mr. LABOUCHERE, Lord STAN-
LEY, and many other Members joined, and for which,
owing to want of space, we must refer to the Parlia-
mentary report. The House divided ; the numbers
were, for Mr. MlLEs's motion, 233; against it, 255 ;
majority for Ministers, 22.
The other orders of the day were then disposed
of, and the House adjourned at a Quarter to One
o'clock..

The present House of Commons had already
earned, in dealing'with the Factory question, an un-
enviable celebrity for the facility with which it could
be brought to unvote to day what,it had voted yes-
terday;' to affirm, absolutely, to day that which it
shall as fully and distinctly retract to-morrow. But
the flexibility of purpose which it betrayed last
night, has scarcely been paralleled by any Legislative
Assembly since that which was summoned, in the
dead of night, to meet a koman CIESAR in solemn
Council, and then and there did gravely advise the
Imperial Majesty on the moat eligible mode of dress-
ing a monster turbot. On Friday night last, as our
readers will remember, the Commons, by a majority
of 20 votes, in a House of 462 Members, exclusive
of four tellers, decided that the words in the first
clause of the Sugar Duties Bill, introduced by her
MAJESTY'S Ministers, which charged a. Customs
duty of "1/. 4s. per cwt."—" in respect of sugar the
growth of any British possession in America, and
imported from thence," SHOULD NOT stand part of such
clause. And inasmuch as this question arose on the
" amendment" proposed by Mr. PHILIP MILES, to the
effect that the duty in respect of "sugar the growth
of any British possession in America, and imported
from thence," should be 11. per cwt., the Com-
mittee, in the ordinary course of things, would
doubtless, have gone on, on Friday evening, the
amendment being next specifically proposed from the
table, to affirm it by the same, or very nearly the
same, majority. Ministers, however, begged for time
to consider the course they should take in the matter,
after the adverse vote against their original clause.
Last night Sir R. PEEL, at the close of one of the
worst and most tedious speeches ever delivered by
him, announced that Government were determined
to adhere to the original clause. The wonderful
consequence was that, upon the House resolving itself
into Committee on the Bill, after a short debate, Mr
MiLEs's amendment was lost, and was negatived by 'a
majority of 22 ; namely, Noes 255, against Ayes 233.
Thus the majority of Friday night of 20 against
Ministers, was converted into a majority in their
'favour, last night, of 22, on virtually one and the
same question !
We have no room, this evening, for an analysis of
the two divisions, or for further commentary on them..
Mr. WILLIAM BAGGE, Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS, Mr.
CHARLES GORING, and Mr. C. TURNOUR, we
observe among those whom new lights, illu-
minated between midnight on Friday and midnight
on Monday, had induced to become opponents of the,
amendment they had previously supported. It has
been, altogether, after allowing for the fact' that
twenty-four more Members voted last night than on
Friday—one of the most extraordinary " crosses " (in
sporting parlance) ever got up on the Parliamentary
course I