The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-28 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON FRIDAY MORNING, JUNE 28, 1844.

61i-"Etti AL 3.,,P!,Ti%
Their Lordisrlip''s ai:' LORDS, June 27.
-sembled at Five o'clock.
At B ROTHELS SUPPRESSION BIEL.
Th
r•
eq e t of the D 1;e of WELLINGTON,
the Ri's,""l G.\ UMW V. ~ho in the absence of
; .7" 4 !',-ter eliar:ie of sh;v, postponed
;111`;(1revl.tv,r Thurs.l.o.
liisimp of f4INTCOL V pre.ent. d se-,-..rul petitions
"ri„,tthe Diss.,nters' (11 ipo,s Bill.
tign "'shop of pres. oted peti-
Ealiot,n Derby ando,ker
O. I OWE, pre: uteri ns ii,, ion ~f
Thet's Bishop
St As.jpil 411, I Bang-r
'shop ov LONDO:' prese,tel ni}ward. 90
Erwin v,,vious parts of the co,,,,tiy agitint )ee
ittiin,,e,rm Chapels Bill. He 1110 k tha• ooportnnitj
this " 41'4 the disetiss;(ms which had n pline :It .11
Itip:ele.asure had not hai the eff-ct of alte;'lng I,i, opinion
ode
!trig it. Although s,rne amtndin-•i!.: 11'6 been
kentsin knother Owe, yet he did not, thin' tho .e amend-
toisof w(mld have the effect of doing ay with the
liobi 'evens tendency of the measure. H. hoped his
the; and Learned Friend on the Woolsack would wire
Niedtordships some time to consider before they were
uPon to pass those amendments.
th PRIVY COUNCIL BILL.
Lora e request of the LORD CHANCELLOR, _
it 111 till M nRouGHAm postponed the second reading of
onday.
Th
, POOR-LAWS (IRELAND).
topie: Atarynis of CLANRICARDE rose to move for
°f any declarations in ejectments or notices to
ha Commis—
inse reland, or upon the guardians o anyp.
fr,,:ijeet in moving for these returns was to obtain
tools nue! Majesty's Government some expression of opt-
ifelanPit respect to the present system of poor-laws in
the /7' He wished also to call the attention of
101,840yernment to ihe manner in which the work-
Ireland were built, and as to the manner
.
et tale they were supplied with water. In Tan)
kti,nl the. drainage and sewerage were entirely
the" He was borne out in this statement
Ickils statement of Mr. Penethorn on the subject.
Ott g,"t be thought that this was a very unimportant
1411i,e-: but he could assure their Lordships, that the
Itcli-` Was one well worthy of their eon-
ratio
Inrk n• The Noble Marquis then read several
tipk, to from various reports which had been made
the ,tba subject of workhouses in Ireland. While
itittrior-laws in Ireland remained in their pre-
tekedBt4te, they could not hope to see any
ttehrY, for the evils which were so widely
to ",'ned of. At present it frequently cost more
letiki°deet the poor-rates in Ireland than the
„Ilkt amount of rates collected. He knew
nhatiu k_the Ballinasloe union no less than 400
th- 'en employed in the collection of the rates,
(bait did not succeed in collecting above 14/.-
14ito°.4r-) At the union of Tuam the guar-
geins. were unable to get a collector, and
Itiee,ln rates to meet the charges of the union, an
°1114;":)„4 upon the workhouse had been put into the
oft •
h„- °' the sheriff.. —(Great laughter.) A meeting
ltg„," guardians of this union was lately held, and at
Ift meeting a "motion was made to admit the public,
tit•
l'e motion was rejected, on the !.,,Tound that
Public were admitted so the board-room,
►11,1444.-„eriffs' officers themselves would take ad-
or the opportunity and rush into
t`Nis rinse•—(Laughter.) He thought the poor-law in.
~Nlll,-; required: the earnest attention of their
▪ cPi, and ho thought that inquiry ought
1,7 instituted into the subject as early
albei,B%ible. He blamed the Commissioners, for
tt,l'ivd that they might have carried out the law for
ievi4tage of the country had thy adoptedi
pqm• "t'llt course to that whien they hud taken. e
ver, that the Government would take up
A 1 et, and institute a thorough inquiry into it.
'hike of WELLINt4TON said there was no ob-
,(loji„%t" the production of the papers for which the
") isl`i,‘aLtarquis moved. With regard to the reports
R~iti" the Nobly Marquis had referred, respecting the
thng a the p oer-law in Irland, e thaight he me.ht
,est, 't they fully justified e
the c-hmplaints which i
had
104%4' rosneeting the poor-law. In con-
"f th,- report of Mr. Penethorne, a.Committee
4kls;vll app ,intd in the o'her House of Parliament,
e, 000 as the report of that Commi:te., should be
Government would be prepared to
• me-tstire with respect to this subject, and
Nets.-urdships would then have the whole matter before
T• he
Earl of MOUNTCASFIEL said that the com-
e-' • of want of water in the workhouses of Ireland
714,,verY general throughout the whole country, and
4oleneed several cases which had come under his own
'111,4e•
Itioue; -..arquis of CLANRICARDE expressed his gra-
ite-4)n at hearing what had fallen from the Noble
9tOsl,,and expressed a hope that early in the next sea-
IA IVlne steps would be taken to alter the present lavv.
'iolier:e°tion was then agreed to, and their Lordships
d.

•
110UsE OF COMMONS, June 27.
ktEAR.Ea took the Chair at Four o'clock.
OC,,,LAGSTON-UPON-HULL DOCK BILL.
order of the day being read for the third read-
Irthis Bill,
L'ttlat . "YAWN moved the addition of the following
1--"
~k"And be it enacted, that no ves?el re-
-1'0:° to the Port of Hull, and not entering the
pll3'h, one of them, of the said Dock Company,
1-M 1,7 liable to any tonnage duty to such
,Company.
till ,1141 re it enacted, That vessels entering the port
Lltt, ,rattl any of her Majesty's North American
more colo-
than
not be charged or chargeableewiteth
Z' beliintlo, and threepence
reerpaetnecseasper rvesseisgispayr
Hu
ton
from dock
the the
sa
Baltic. Also the omis,lion oftlls-
e
classes
es in the amended clauses
eef•lt—t 299, and 290."
the a short conversation the clauses were referred
f 'Ztanding Orrs' Committee, and the third read-
tae Bill Ordedered for next Tuesday.
1,114, VOTING IN COMMITTEES.
r adjourned debate on the right of Members to vote
_
'llter-,atatlltt.ttea on questions in which they have a person
I,;:,aas then resumed ; the que-tion. arises from the
eiaL''',e,on the Middle Level Drainage Bill.
,e.
eillea 'COURT cited a variety of cases from ct
plhtoll former Speakers of against the House, the
kN4,11.! voting under such circumstances, and moved
.e
a
~41)11 to the etfect that no Member, either in tit,
°P to Committee, should give a vote where he had
‘l:!..jhterese
b4t t.EI-VV thought it would be impossible to carry
1n the case of Railway Bills and
the improvement of t,twns, thowgh ,Menthers
'''l.:ll,,illterest tom, it W 1.3 absalately necessary that
eti•se the ri tilt to vote.
W • -
htliq ARBUR, YN thought that as long as the ralo.s
welt, in, existenceth-v etig'it to tat observee,.
of op.:nion that de., votes ot
her ,hiro and the Hon.
H For f I. etie-el inalere ought to be objeete.l t.i.
iheTight it' utterly impo,sible
1.1411,1. •"-Tal rule:; of the Hons.:. into affect, t he
Nl' It this', theof the Co oinittees of t
-secoigtttuao,
Orter'llght to be ,:iterel.
;I Sr few w from Lori '7:',RANVII.LE
,k, ,‘sEp.
lOr~M WIWI, •
‘• t sac motions as these rrt!;ist
11,`T'''I'• If the vote of Ir. Yortw. the Memner
Abe 4i
-)ridcr-', was. to be considered bal bet:wise he had
14-ntorest in the uestion, what, he would ask, he-
tAit,:rf; tile votes of Hon. Members last night on the
tj cil.t.?l, the corn-laws ?—(llear.) Had not two-
th„!? wbri Member. who voted an interest in the ques-
eq,? vo, 'lli also, became of the votes of those who gave
vOsb,,-{,'% the sugar question, which was shortly to
j:`•)te the _Muse ?—(llear.) The landlords who
II I e't night for a continuation of the term laws,
kr:lr•P hie.. rents, and their own individual interests.
%hes igrke's vote was to be questioned, he was. ready
toentlb two-thirds of the votes given last night on
lik4:lotiriavaeNvs.s, and a great number of those given on the
thsa• SIBTHORP would like to know how the
tt entlentan who had just sat down had voted on
Ottl..'W.tiera Bill ?—(Hear, hear, and laughter.)
e°,ll.lt, aAKLEY had no hesitation in stating to the
at:' Gallant Member the course he had pursued ;
0511.-1.14 he could say was, that he hoped the
e)11, tveprlLl Gallant Member. would follow his example.
let,allea division when it was proposed to give the
in" the 1,4 additional sum for mileage, he had invariably
'kle °Ur., and his name was not to be found in a
P.,Nsion on that question.
144 t T-48COTT thought the Speaker should state
tliltj'c'Cs the rule of Parliament as applicable to this
°ll.
t.
iticigetti4rnALl.lEß thought it would be better to leave
IN,. as it was.
SCOTT withdrew his amendment.
the-"('ene's amendment, nearly to the same effect,
it kr. i eld.
4kve ,k,„Y'r ER thought it would be a cause of great
Itktiorti,,,--nee and uncertainty if, after a Committee had
41'2,48 -:‘,14 weeks, the report should be rejected on
Vl%44i;ksorne objection to the vote of a particular
" li"° had not been before objected to.
agreed
aLs- thee -I,.4O‘ICCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
last, and thought that
84;4: -Ailetroil.),ArLitmiabierotwho spoken
his vote, it could not
Ott aPtttia be objected to.
g
YOFtKEe 'would have no objection to
a,Afte4w Ills motion.
.;11,114:atwanf.ew Words from Mr. PUSSY,
the motion was
ti 41)'',/st was then brought up.
41:),,11 '1 '4I)STONE hoped there would be no ohjece:
tccrpoint of form, to the proceeding whi„che he n
11).0"-Ihav-!Pose. It appeared to h;m that
Cr, riu Just, taken place on the subject had t the
h '414 unsetiefecter state. It 2ppoarecl that the
teo 1,4 ,
04,b, power of nee:rong the (11!-31iole, but
eteti.;,, tie Committee ought to here this imforma-
fp at) 11(4 "In ie ated to-them in a more formal manner. It
4t
, wh tthcient that they should !Lather that information
the La 4 passed in the House in the course of debate.
ter rulw
outereforo frameil a proposition affirming ththat.tilt !tea ~,,the House i with respect to the vote of an n•
.
dir tiouse7einher, extended likewise to Committees 01
tit:Ctif)u lie did not think that a question put for
iktitlns't 11'1'1 guidance ouebt to remain without a re-
R 4-" to the 10'•verl, " That the rule of this lita--,e re-
el
ttitino, I( votes of Members having an interest in a
4 een,',o'ie: arty likewise. to any vote of a Member
ktir„ 117,A.Isttee.
e"4lr 44)(11,13(FEIT°N had no doubt that the rule of the
lite the 6 - Couirnitt«,—the only potot was,
001411huld qinle terraine the point f itself ?
t.
to have the decision of the CtlAr mili the
ever e Spti,
,s,that ~Lis-ER said there could be ne doubt. what-
: Vhar;:ue rule of the House was binding also
—l'44". • It had been so decided on many

he lionourahlo Meady,r for
Oxford had quoted a decision of Mr. Speaker
Abbott in 1811, who then laid it down as a rule, which
had existed for 200 year:,, that the vote of a Member of
the House having a direct interest in a question must be
disallowed.
Sir ROBERT PEEL could not doubt but the autho-
rity of the Speaker must be decisiv.- ou this
point ; but wha, was to he the authority
det-rmine it—the chairman of the Committee, or a
maiorite of i, ? In some eases it would dis,qualify Mem-
bey's for votin:,; on a Railroad Bill. The question was,
whether in a doubtrul case, the Committee could deer-
mine the application to the rule.
Sir G. GREY said that the rue would have disquali-
fied some of the Members on the South Devz,li Railway
Commi,tee.
Sir R. PEEL said the Thglit 1-lon, Baronet had no,
quite apt,rehended t nature of his objection. He quite
admitted that the duty to be discharged was an invi-
dious one; but it was a cons-i'ution,tl question, whether
any authority less than the House itself should have the
power of deciding that a Member should not vote.
Mr. F. SHAM' thought it would be very inconvenient
to lay down a general rule with respect to a particular
case. He was of opinion that if the Chairman intimated
to a Member that he ought not to vote, that Member
would not persist in voting. If he did, it would be open
to the Committee to appeal to the House.
Mr. WAKLEY said it might happen on the Post-
offic,, question that a motion would be proposed that
the Government did not possess the confidence of the
House. In such a case would Hon. Gentlemen vote for
maintaining themselves in office ?—(Hear.)
The SPEAKER said the Bill applied only to Mem-
bers who had a direct pecuniary interest.
Lord J. RUSSELL said his own opinion was, that
very often Members were more interested indirectly-
than directly. It happened that he himself had pro-
perty to the value of 801. or 901. a-year in these lands,
though he did not think that that occurrence would in-
fluence his vote. If the House agreed that the rule
applied to Committees of the House, then the Committee,
having this resolution before them, upon a question
being stated, any Honourable Member who felt he came
within the rule, would abstain from voting ; if, on
the other hand, he did not come within the rule,
it would be inconvenient for the Committee to de-
cide that particular question. He thought that
when there was an objection before the Committee,
it would be proper to bring the subject before the House,
which would then act in the nature of a court of appeal.
After some observations from Mr. GREENE,
Mr. PUSEY said that he thought the course of the
debate had justified what the Committee had done.

Mr. ESCOTT wished the House would make some
positive rule on the subject, as the question would con-
stantly arise.
The SPEAKER then put the motion, which was car-
ried without a division. _ _

Mr F. FIZENC Fr presented a petition, but the nature
of it could not he heard amid the noise which prevailed.
NOTICES OF MOTION.

Mr. COLQTJHOUN gave notice that on the third
reading of the Dissenters' Chapels Bill, he should move
that the Bill be re •d that day six months. He wished to
know when the Right Hen. Thronet intended to intro-
4nce the measure ?
sir R. PEET, the rleaure had already been
so ful7y t'l!),,ght that the third realintr, of
the Bill might be taken after the Bank Charter Bill on
that evening.
Dr. BOWRING gave notice that he should to-mor-
row ask the Rio-ht Hon. Gentleman, if the report was
e,
correct that the Zollverein had determined to increase
the duty on the importation of British iron. •
STATE OF THE LABOURERS IN NORFOLK
AND SUFFOIS.—INCENDIARISM.
. .

Sir W. JAMES wished to ask the Right Honourable
Baronet if there was any truth in the reports
which he had seen in the Times newspaper, that, in
the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, it was customary
in cases in which ab'e-bodied labourers applied
for relief from the boards of guardians, to require
him to produce a sort of round-robin from all the farmers
of the district, stating that they hid refused him work.
This, he cansidered, was giving the magistrates end
guardians too vreat power over the poor labourers who
were bound to the soil by the land of settlem. nt, and he
wished to know if it were correct.
Sir J. GRA HAM could not give any answer as to
the. accuracy of certain statements which had appeared
in the Times newspaper ; but he was prepared to answer
the question of which the llon. Baronet had given notice.
The Hon. Baronet had given notice of his intention of
asking whether it was true that a system of denying
relief altogether to able-bodied paupers prevailed in
certain parts of the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk,
more particularly in the union of Hatherley, unless they
could produce a certificate from all the farmers in the
union that they had refused them work. He had caused
inquiries to be made into the subject, and he did not be-
lieve that the system prevailed to any great extent, in the
counties of Norfolk and Suffolk. There was no such
union as the union of Haverly. There was a parish of
Haverly, in another union, and he believed that the prac-
tice complained of did prevail in that parish. He could
assure the Hon. Member that the practice had been un-
known to him, and he extremely regretted that it should
have arisen. As soon as it became known, the Poor-law
Commissioners had directed the Assistant-Commissioner
to inform the board of guardians that they must discon-
tinue the practice, and he believed there was no proba-
bility that it would become general.
Mr. M. GIBSON wished to correct a misrepresen-
tation of what had fallen from him last evening. He
had been represented as saying, in reply to the Right
Hon. Gentleman opposite, that the wa.zes in Suffolk
were sufficient. He had said no such thing. He had
said that it was useless to call upon individuals to raise
wages, as if individual farmers could give what wages
they Pleased. He thought it was an unfair attack to
make upon the farmers of Suffolk. He wished to put a
question to the Right Hon. Gentleman on the subject of
the incendiarism. The Right Hon. Gentleman had
Stated that he believed the peasantry were, to a great
extent, free from the charge of incendiarism; but there
were persons perambulating the country setting fire to
farm buildings. He wished to ask if the Right Hon.
Baronet would have any objection to issue a Commission
to inquire into the cause of the incendiarism prevailing
in the three counties, and if he had none, he (Mr.
Gibson) would move an address to her Majesty for that
purpose.
Lord J. RUSSELL wished to ask if there were many
prisoners in the calendar for the approaching assizes
charged with the crime of incendiarism.
Sir J. GRAIIANI was obliged to the Noble Lord for
haviror interposed the question. It was quite true that
there were many prisoAers in the calendar for those
thre,, counties charged with incendiarism. Their trials
would take place at the next assiz:.s in the regular man-
ner. and th • evidence on those trials could not fail to
threwthr- light on the causes which had led to the late un-
hapny inltendiary fires. The Hon. Gentle..tr-tn had mis-
terstool what he (Sir R. P. e') had said. He had
xai•l that ,lid not. beleve the peasantry of
these c inn-
tie., eommitt,>d these crimes, but that they were perpe-
tra.ed hr neiAbou, s thp> sufferer-. through pique and
With respoet to the Commission, he thought it
,v 0,1,1 he tirridvi:able. the assizes afire approaching.
an I the trials would shortly come on, a hen all the cir-
cumstance: mode pubic.
Mr. AGLIONBY asked whether it was not the duty
of the Assisiaat-Corn uission-r: to prevent. such illegal
the Right !lon. Baronet hitns&f had con-
practices u s
demird ?
''ir J. GRAHAM believed the attention of the Assis-
t,;„_commi.,sioner:; had not been called to such a
pra •tiep.

THE IRISH STATE TRIALS.
Mr. WYSE wished to -tate. that having received a
promise from the Right lion. Baronet at the head of the
Government, that if he wo:lld po-tpone his motion re-
Speeting the rocent trials in Dublin until after the coun-
sel for the CroNn should have made their statement
upon the writ of error in the douse of Lords, he (Sir R.
Peel) would allow the motion to come on upon a Go-
vernment day. Upon that understanding he was willing
to postpone his motion.
Sir R. PEEL assured the Hon. Gentleman that he
should keep faith with him.

IRISH MAGISTRATES.—MR. O'DRISCOLL.
Mr. ROSS wished to put a question to the Noble Lord
the Secretary for Ireland. Some time ago Mr. O'Driscoll,
a magistrate of Cork, was convicted of an assault, and
after his conviction he insulted the magistrates who had
found him guilty. Afierward4 Mr. O'Driscoll was in-
vited to tender the resignation of his commission, on the
ground of infirmity. Mr. O'Driscoll resigned. He
(Nlr. Ross) had been informed that Mr. O'Driscoll had
been reinstated. He wished to know whether such was
the fact, and how it had come to take place ?
Lord EIAOT had received no communication from the
Lord Chancellor of Ireland that would enable him to
ans.ver the question ?
Mr. ROSS said he would put the question upon an-
wher occa,ion.
ROCHDALE YEOMANRY.
Mr. BRIGHT said that last night he had presented a
petition with respect to the formation of a corps of yeo-
manry at Rochdile, and had given notice that it was his
intention to put a question to the Right Hon. Baronet,
the Seer 'ttry of State for the Home Department, upon
the subject this evening.
Sir J. GRAHAM trusted that the Hon. Member
would give notice of his question for a future day, as he
must confess that he was totally unaware that it was the
intention of the Hon. Member to put any question
to him.
Mr. BRIGHT would give notice of his intention to
put the question on Monday.
ORANGE PROCESSIONS.
Mr. 'WYSE postponed his motion with respect to
, Orange pro..essions till Monday next.

{ )!; 1t

SUGAR -DUTIES
:ha: the Duties Bill be read a

lA\\

..._._ S rc),t, to address the
iiii intention to detain the House
a'
sue.
nt
gh getht I,
only
butwas
ot•or not
ad
a -
sincesub-
ject the discussion had taken place he had
.-s,elee
h
tion as to slavery in Java, and that was
intended
Lase the
to which at the present moment he
dress himself. The object of the Government in intro-
ducing the present Bill was or was not to increase
supply of sugar. Whatever the extent of the bpeorta-
tion of sugar under the Bill might be, it was to
ported distinctly as • the produce of free labour, and im-
ported with slavery. Now, he (Mr. Hawes) thoughtt
he should be able to show the House, upon
authorities that could not be questioned, that
very little sugar could be imported from the east
that was not more or less tainted with slavery or the
slave-trade. 'ln 1814, it was calnulated by competent
atithf,rty, Sir Sturn'ord linftba, that there were in Java
27,000 slaves, and the Chinese not only countenanced
slavery, but were actually ~lave dealers themselves. Sir
George Siauntoo, in his able work, showed that slavery
t,xisteil to a very considerable extent in China. The
1-1,-$ll. Member then read several extracts from Sir George
Stauntea's work, to prove that slavery existed in the

Ck.le,t:al Empire. Some of these extracts went to state
that a stave in China, who wiltay and seriously injured
his master, should be put to death with slow torture ;
those slaves who struck their master should be put to death ;
the slave who accidentally killed his master should be
killed, according to the same law, by strangulation; and
a master might punish a slave to any d-gree short of
death t‘ithout incurring any guilt. How could the Bri-
tish Government prevent the slave grown sugar from
coaling into this country from China, once they agreed
to receive Chinese sugar? Certificates of origin would
be no guarantee. It would be ludicrous to suppoie the
like. The Hon. Membertheuquoted an extract from a re-
port of Sir Fowell Buxton, to show that slaves were
largely exported from the territories of the Imaum of
Muscat, both to Java and Zanzibar, and from other
authorities, to prove that slavery existed in both places.
After these authorities, how could the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet expect that no slave-grown sugar, consistent with
tke provisions of the Bill, would be admitted into the
country? If the Government really entertained the desire
of discountenancing slavery by this measure, they would
most assuredly fail in it. But how could the country
expect that the Government was sincere in its object,
seeing that so many of the members of it were decidedly
opposed to the abolition of slavery ?
Sir JAMES GRAHAM—Why?
. .

Mr. HAWES thought the Right Honourable Baronet
himself had not been a very strenuous advocate of the
abolition of slavery. Neither had he ever heard the
Right Honourable the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in
all the long discussions on the abolition of slavery. He
would not further intrude on the time of the House.

Mr. GLADSTONE said that after the very full dis-
cussion this question had already received he would not
long trespass on the time of the House. Regarding the
question of slavery in Java, to which the Honourable
Gentleman chiefly confined his arguments, there was very
little slavery there, and that only domestic slavery ; the
inhabitants of Java were as free as the people of this
country.
Mr. P. M. STEWART was sorry to hear the Right
Hon. Gentleman repeat the statement he had made the
other day; he would le we it to the Dutch authorities to
say whether slavery existed in Java or not. The Right
Hon. Gentleman said that slavery did not exist in Java,
and that the slave trade did not exist. Now, he re-
peated again that the whole of the labour of Java was a
forced labour; and that the whole produce of that island
was the result of that labour. Was this a system of free
labour, according to the plain sense of the word? Forced
cultivation, and forced deliveries, were enforced by the
Dutch Governor, and within ten years the quantity of
sugar thus raised had been increased twenty-five times.
Was that a kind of labour as free as that of the peasants
of this country? It would require something more than
a French pamphlet to prove that this was free labour.
The coffee of Java was another article which still more
strongly proved the fact that labour was forced. Every
householder having six acres of land was compelled to
cultivate 1,000 coffee trees, and was also compelled to
deliver the pr. duce to the Dutch Government at 61. 6d.
per cwt., the market price being 40s. Could this be
called free labour? Of the Bill itself, he might say that
no measure had ever inflicted so much injury and mis-
chief on the great West Indian interest as this Bill.
But passing by all this, it appeared that the sugar of
Siam was also to come into this country. Now, of all
sptems of slavery that of Siam was the worst. It was
ou.eageously bail, and was supported by the worst kind
of slake dealing and ki in tpping. The Bill had deranged
the whole trade, had thrown it into confusion, had les-
sened consumption, and injured the revenue, while in the
manner in which it had gone through the House, it had
done no credit to the strong Government. On many
points the Government had been completely out-argued.
and on one almost out-voted ; and the measure had
created a most unfavourable impression out of doors,
causing serious misgivings as to the judgment and, he
feared, the justice of her Majesty's Government.
Mr. GLADSTONE agreed with the Hon. Gentleman
th t a very severe system of slavery did exist in Siam ;
but the Government had not decided that its sugar was
to come in ; it had not been included in the Bill.

Mr. MANGLES could not let the Bill pass without
protesting against it. He was always glad when the
measures of the Government partook of the principles of
free trade ; but he felt that there was something more
precious still than free trade—that was justice. He did
not think that the colonial interest had been treated
with common justice. Nor had the interests of their
East Indian possessions been at all considered. He de-
precated this measure of the Right Hon. Gentleman be-
cause it would tend to injure the cultivation of sugar in
India. It threw the sugar growers there open to new ;
competition ; and though free trade was a very. good
thing, there was something better, and that was Justice
and fair play.—(lronical cheers.) He now came to the
case of the West Indies. He considered that great in-
jury was done to the West Indian interest by not allow-
ing the emigration of free labour to the Mauritius and
West Indies. The Noble Lord the Member for North
Lancashire and the Right Hon. Gentleman opposed the
introduction of free labour, though they now favoured it. ,
But what was done now might have been done ten years
ago. The circumstances were precisely the same. The
Anti-Slavery Society were fighting the battles of the
slave states of America when they opposed' this
measure. They not only did injustice to the West
Indies, but to the hill-coollies themselves ; for
they would make their fortunes if they were
allowed to come to the Mauritius. At home
they made scarcely anything, and they existed in a state
of barbarism which would be considerably removed if
they were allowed to emigrate. He did not believe there
would be any good derived from their colonies unless a
moral ploughshare was driven over the Colonial-office.
That was the great obstacle to colonial improvements.
He had the sincerest respect for the Noble Lord who
presided over that office, and for the ability which ho
always disp'ayed ; but if he had all the heads of Cer-
berus, and all the hands of Briareus, he would not be
able to manage the large and numerous interests com-
mitted to his charge. He would oppose the measure of
the Government, because he thought it was unjust.
Lord STANLEY said he would not have spoken on
this subject at all were it not for the allusion which had
been made to him by the Hon. Gentleman who had just
sat down. The Hon. Gentleman gave another proof
that however strenuous an advocate one might be for free
trade, he soon found out that there were some par-
ticular questions to which free trade was not applicable.
—(Hear, hear.) He therefore hoped the Hon. Gentle-
man would talk no more about those who advocated free
trade in the abstract.—(Hear, hear.) Now, with regard
to the case of East India sugar it appeared to him most
monstrous to consider that the East India body were
hArily dealt with.—(Hear, hear.) They were placed on
a footing of equality with the West Indies, and in addi
tion to this they had the cheap labour of the hill-
coolies for 2d. a day, which the Hon. Gentleman '
thought so necessary to the West Indies. And
yet with those advantages and the additional advan•
tages of British capital and machinery, the
Hon Gent'eman says that with a duty of 10s. in their fa-
vour, they could not compete with the sugar-growers of ,
Java and Manilla. The East Indies had abundance of
time to compete, and with an almost unjust advantage
over the West Indies, with the sugar of Java and Ma-
nilla; and yet they complained and desired to keep up
the monopoly they had. The Hon. Gentleman, who was
so great an advocate of free trade was the man, the only
man, who put himself forward to complain of the hard-
shin and injury done the East Indies by the admission
of Java and Manilla sugar.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon.
;;entleman then referred to the way he (Lord Stanley)
had acted with regard to the admission of free-labour
from India to the Mauritius and the West Indies. The
Hon. Gentleman used the same arguments which (Lord
Stat ley) urged in 1842 for the admission of hill-coolies.
The first step which he took, when be was appointed to
the Colonial-office, was to bring forward a measure for
the admission of the hill-coolies into the Mauritius, and
lie w‘ts opposed to bringing forward that measure by the
Hon. Member for Northampton, and the Hon. Member
for Beverley, who had so much practical experience on
the subject.
Mr. MANGLES—He was never beyond Calcutta.
Lord STANLEY --Yes; but it was in Calcutta that
the use of kidnapping was resorted to to such an extent—
(Cheers)—and that such frauds had been committed,
while the vessels were passing down the river. He i
(Lord Stanley) objected n 1840 to the removal of the
restrictions on emigration to the Mauritius, till the report
of the Governor-General on the subject had arrived.
From the time when the Government came into office
in 1841 they had kept this question steadily in view.
In 1842 they introduced the system of immigration into
the Mauritius; and after its success there they would
take measures for extending it to the West Indies. If
they had acted more hastily, they would have been
charged with imprudence. If the failures which had
formerly occurred had been repeated, it would have
created an insuperable obstacle in the minds of the
people of this country to the extension of the emigration
to the West Indies. The Government were sensible of the
importance of pouring a supply of labour, safely and
continuously, into the West Indies; but they were an-
xious to do it in such a manner as to promote the best
interests of the colonies themselves, and to avoid those
evils which would be the most serious obstacle to a con-
tinuous supply of labour.
Mr. WARBURTON said he was sorry that the sup-
port which free trade had at one time received from the
West Indies had been so short-lived, and that his Hon.
Friend below was now one of the warmest combatants
in favour of exclusive principles, The Hon. Gentleman
below him complained of injustice to the West Indies.
He said that free trade was a good thing, but justice
was a much better thing. Let them compare the injus-
tice done to the West Indian proprietors on the one
hand with the injustice done to the labourers on the
other. In England they talked of the moral and social
condition of the labourers, but who gave any thought to
the moral condition of the hill-coolies ? Was it right
to bring Mahomedans, Hindoos, and Pagans of all
kinds from different parts of the world to the West
Felies, without any regard to the effect on themselves?
—(}fear, hear.) Now, he had a suggestion to make to
the Government in reference to the measure before the
Ilat-e. It was proposed to give the West and East
Indians a protection of not less than a million and a half
a year. Now, would it not be better that the people of
this country should pay 500,0001. a year in the shape of
annuity to the West Indian proprietors, than that this
protection should continue? He believed that that would
be the cheapest course, and the one most advantageous,
in the long run. for the West Indians themselves.
Lord SANDON totally disagreed with the Hon. Gen-
tleman in reference to the question of. immigration. He
believed that. if labourers were not provided for the
West Indies, the colonies would be thrown out of cul-
tivation, and they would thus be left entirely dependent
lon Cuba and Brazil. Whether, in the present state of
those countries, this was desirable, he left the House to
judge.

Mr. BRIGHT said that, if he came to that House
complaining that he could not sell his manufactures at a
sufficiently high price, and asking for a law to give him
a higher, the language which would be applied to
him would be scarcely Parliamentary.—(Hear, hear.)
He thought that nothing more monstrous could be than

that the Legislature should interfor, to protect interests
which might prosper better if they were not protected.
The Right lion. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, had stated to the House that the West Indies
had a claim for protection, and a just claim, on the
ground that the system of slavery under which their
grounds had been cultivated was abolished, and that
there was a great scarcity of labour, although their lands
were exceeding!), fertile. Now, he would ask the Right
Hon. Gentleman what claim had Mauritius, and the
other colonies in the East, where there wits scarcity of
labour, to a protective duty of 10s. ? He asked what
reason could be given for this most unjustifiable pro-
tection ?

Mr. BORTHWICK (who rose amid loud cries of
" Time, time," and laughter) said that he would only say
one word on this question.
Sir ROBERT PEEL—One, one.—(A laugh.) Mr.
Borthwick considered the measure as dangerous and
injurious to the West India interest ; and he was sur-
prised that no pers el connected with that interest had
opposed it in the Committee. It was, therefore, left to
him, and to those who thought with him, to defend that
negle,ted interest. An Hon. Member opposite had said
that the question was as plain as that " two and two
make four ;" but there was no analogy between this
question and abstract arithmetic : for two and two fools
would not make two wise men.—(Laughter.) He was
prepared to contend, that the planters had not gained
by starving, but were the victims of it. The slave-trade
in the British colonies was the own child of the British
Legislature. He venerated the names of Wilberforce
and Clarkson, as much as any man could—(A laugh)—
but he could show from the history of the colonies, that
traffic in slaves in the first place, and the continuance of
slavery afterwards, were matters of reproach to the
British Legislature rather than to the colonists.
Much had been said about Ithe twenty millions that had
been raised for the extinction of slavery. Why, the
fact was, the planters had lost a hundred millions. The
Hon. Member, after going at some length into the de-
fence of those who had voted with Government, con-
cluded by stating his determination to support the third
reading of the Bill.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL would not assert that he
was going to say only one word, but he would endea-
vour to make the remarks that he was about to address
to the House as short as possible. Before, however, ho
spoke to this particular measure, he must make some re-
ference to the statements made by the Noble Lord the
Secretary of State for the Colonies. In what he had
stated to the House, therefore, was one remarkable mis-
take. He stated that there was a measure brought in
by the late Government, in 1838, which sanctioned the
introduction of labourers into the colonies, but that it had
been found that such abuses existed is consequence of it,
that the Government withdrew the measure. Now, there
happened to be a few remarkable facts connected with
it, and the most prominent was this, that there being
abuse, the question was brought forward, according to
the history given of it by Hansard, by an eminent op-
ponent of the Government in the House of Lords, and
at that time Lord Glenelg stated that it was his object
to permit the introduction of labourers into the West
Indies for the purpose of producing competition and
preventing the natives from falling into a state of bar-
barism. He stated that it was likewise his intention to
continue the Order in Council of 1838 till 1840. It
was, therefore, in the contemplation of Lord Glenelg and
his Government to continue the emigration, and to en-
deavour to prevent the abuse which might take place
under the Order in Council. The Order in Council was
to continue till 1840, for the purpose of seeing whether
emigration from England to the West Indies might not
be safely continued. It was then agreed that
the measure should be withdrawn till further
inquiry could be made. This course was adopted
in consequence of the opposition that was made to the
measure. When he (Lord J. Russell) was at the Colo-
nial-office, he endeavoured to promote emigration to the
Mauritius, and he was told that the best way to do that
would be, instead of advising her Majesty to issue an
Order in Council for that purpose to introduce certain
clauses in a Bill for that purpose. Such clauses were
introduced, and they were defeated by the political oppo-
nents of the Government. He thought, therefore, that
the Noble Lord could not take much credit to himself for
having resorted to the allowance of the emigration of
labourers. No doubt the Noble Lord had well attended
to this subject, but it was much to be regretted that he
had not attended to it before.—(Hear, hear.) With
regard to the particular measure now introduced, he
could not but remind the House of what its history was.
It was introduced upon the ground, that there was not a
sufficient supply of sugar in this country.—(Hear
hear.) Those who represented the West India
interests said that there was no falling off in the produc-
tion of sugar, and they objected to the introduction of
the Bill. He (Lord J. Russell) did not agree with them,
for he stated a greater supply was wanted. The Noble
Lord then referred to the different supplies of sugar for
the last three or four years, and observed that during
the last year there had been a falling off of the number
of tons imported. That was very likely in consequence
of the uncertainty that had prevailed with respect to the
present measure. He (Lord J. Russell) thought
that it would have been most desirable, if any measure
on the subject of sugar was to be introduced, for the
Government to review the whole subject, and bring for-
ward a permanent system, and not one of the present
fluctuating character. It seemed to him that the maxim
of the Government was to give the greatest possible dis-
turbance to the interests of the producer, without giving
any advantage whatever to the consumer.—(Hear, hear.)
Much discussion had taken place about free and slave
labour. The present measure left that subject as un-
certain as it had ever been. The statements of his Hon.
Friend near him with respect to slavery in Java re-
mained uncontradicted. It was true that the Noble Lord
at the head of the Colonial department had said that the
slaves in Java bore a small proportion to the inhabitants
of the place. That might be, but that was no ground
hatever for adopting the course that was now pro-
posed. With respect to the protection of the sugar-
growers, he thought it ought to be equal over the whole
world.-2-(Hear, hear.) He had on a former occasion
made a motion to that effect, but he bad failed in carrying
it. Then came the proposition of the Hon. Member for
Bristol, and he must call the attention of the House to
the situation in which it placed itself upon that
subject. That proposal was given notice of long be-
fore it was brought on. The Bill was read
a first and second time ; and it was not until the mea-
sure was in Committee that the proposition was brought
forward in a full House ; and that House decided in
favour of the proposition by a majority of twenty. This
was on the Friday. Upon the Monday, without any
notice, that decision was reversed, and the proposition
which was affirmed on the Friday was negatived on the
Monday. It had been said that the course the House
had pursued was sanctioned by what had taken place
when Lord Althorp was Chancellor of the Exchequer,
when a motion was made and carried for the repeal of
the malt-tax. Now in his (Lord J. Russell's) opinion,
the decision of Monday night was nothing like the de-
cision on the malt-tax. The decision on that question
was not taken in a very full House. It was a question,
likewise, that affected the whole finance of the year ; and
Lord Althorp said that it was but just that the House,
having come to a decision, of the importance of which
Members were not aware, that they should have an op-
portunity of maturely considering the whole question,
and of determining whether they would have a malt
tax or a property-tax. He (Lord J. Russell) thought
that on that occasion it was but right that the House
should have an opportunity of reconsidering the subject,
but in the present case there was nothing resembling it.
The first decision was taken after long notice ; and the
next after no notice at all. For himself, he (Lord J. Rus-
sell) when he came down on the Monday, was not aware
that was to be done, and it was not till he heard the
determination of the Right Hon. Baronet, that he knew
the course that was to be pursued. It was true they
had heard of meetings at the Carlton Club on Sunday,
and rumours were rife upon the subject ; but the Right
lion. Baronet, without any notice whatever, came down
on the Monday, and proposed that the House should
undo what it did on the Friday. Now what was the
course that had been pursued by the House upon
that occasion ? Why many Hon. Members who had
actually voted for the amendment of the Hon. Member
for Bristol on the Friday night actually voted against it
on the Monday night ; other Members left the House,
and ultimately the proposition of the Hon. Member for
Bristol was rejected. Now it was to have been expected
that upon the rejection' of that proposal some other
proposition would have been brought forward by some
Hon. Member for the purpose of rejecting the propo-
sition of the Government, but nothing of the kind had
taken place—no further step had been taken, and they
were now reading the Bill a third time, and not a single
Member had been found to oppose the introduction of
foreign sugar in the manner proposed by the Govern-
meat. The fact was the Right Hon. Baronet had told
Hon. Members that he would not remain in office
unless the vote of the Friday night was rescinded,
and that threat had had its duo effect. He
agreed with what had been stated that it would not have
been wise in the Government to have introduced the
Sugar Duties Bill again, without any alteration, but that
he (Lord J. Russell) saw no reason why they should not
have supported the proposition of the Hon. Member for
Bristsl. The question that was to be decided on the
Monday night was between the character of the House
of Commons and the Prime Minister, and the character
of the House of Commons was sacrificed to him.—(Hear,
bear.) Such was the state of things to which the Go-
vernment had brought the House. Such a state of things
he was confident could not last; for of this he was sure,
that if the House of Commons was unmindful of its own
character, dignity, and privileges, the country would
form a most indifferent opinion of them. He
believed Hon. Members to be mindful of the declarations
they had made at their elections, and the pledges they
had given to their constituents. Was the course pursued
on Friday night consistent with their pledges, or the
character of that House. Why the country would at
once see that Honourable Members, instead of keeping
their pledge, were supporting measures because they
were agreeable to the party in office. The people, they
might depend upon it, would not tolerate such proceed-
jugs, and it was but due to the character—to the cha-
racter of Members themselves, whatever their pledges
might have been—whatever their politics might be—
whether Conservative, Whig, or Radical—to take care
that the Acts of that House should be the solemn de-
clarations of its opinions, and that those Opinions, when
once formed, should not be changed or altered. The con-
sistency of the House of Commons was of far more im-
portance than any particular measure, and in parting
with this Bill he must enter his solemn protest against
the course that had been pursued by the House with
respect to it.—(Hear.)
Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS was anxious to say a
few words in order to defend his consistency. When
he notified his determination to vote against the amend-
ment of the Hon. Member for Bristol, he stated that his
opposition to the Government measure was unabated, and,
in order to show that he had been consistent, he had come
to the House that night for the purpose of voting against
the measure if any division should take place.--(Hear.)
He would give his vote, aye or no, for every proposition

that was brought before him. He thought the measure
of the Government would be most unjust and injurious
to the West India interest. The principle he would
always stand upon was the principle of full protection to
our colonial empire. He considered the proposition of
the Hon. Member for Bristol and that of the Govern-
ment to be opposed to the principle, and he had, there,
fore, opposed both. He thought they ought to maintain
the principle of prohibition against all foreign sugar.
From the year 1831, when they indulged their humanity
at the expense of the West Indian interest, the produc-
tion of sugar had diminished. It was just beginning to
increase, and now they again attempted to curb it. He
had hoped, after the first division on the question, that
the Government would have thought it ad isable to re-
enact the present duty for another year, for in this he
would have heartily supported the Right Hon. Baronet.
Sir R. PEEL said that he was unwilling to prolong
that discussion because he was anxious to proceed with
other business to which he wished to direct the attention
of the House, and nothing would have induced him to
say a word excepting the speech of the Noble Lord
opposite. He must say that he considered that his lion.
and Gallant Friend was perfectly justified in the vote
which ho had given upon this question. His Hon. and
Gallant Friend was decidedly opposed to the measure of
the Government, and he was also opposed to the propo-
sition of the Hon. Member for Bristol. If the Noble
Lord had proposed that the third reading of this Bill
should be rejected, he would !save the support of his
(Sir R. Peel's) Honourable and Gallant Friend.—
(Hear, hoar, from Sir H. Douglas.) He could not see
how his Hon. and Gallant Friend could take any other
course than that which he did, for he would
not have been consistent in doing otherwise
He thought that the Government were - per-
fectly justified in the course which they took
in attempting to rescind the resolution to which the
House had come. There was no distinction between
that course and the course which was pursued on the
malt-tax. Lord Althorp pursued the same course with
respect to the malt-tax, yet he (Sir R. Peel) never heard,
either from the Noble Lord opposite, or any other
Member, that that course was degrading to the House
of Commons. The real object ought always to be the
public interest. He still entertained the opinion that
the proposal of the Government was more advantageous
to the country than the proposition of the Hon. Member
for Bristol, and he could not help thinking that it was
becoming in the Government to submit the matter for
the reconsideration of the House. He thought there
was great objection to a prospective reduction of duty,
definite in amount, and to take effect on a cer-
tain day. He thought that such a prospective
reduction, definite in amount and time, had a great ten-
dency to damage the country in the interval. It would
affect the consumer, because there would be no reduc-
tion in price; but an increase, and that increase would
go into the pockets of persons who had no claim to their
sympathy, namely, the pockets of the grocers and the
retail dealers, who happened to have a sufficient quantity
of sugar on hand to enable them to dole out an imperfect
supply. There would be a loss to the revenue without
any corresponding benefit to the eonsumer, or advantage
to the producer. He still entertained the opinion that
there was nothing inconsistent with the duty of the
House of Commons in their entering into a reconsidera-
tion of this question. The Noble Lord fairly admitted
that it would have been hardly consistent with the credit
of the Government if they had proposed a con-
tinuance of the old sugar duties. Ilis Honourable
and Gallant Friend (Sir H. Douglas) thought this
was the wisest course to pursue, and no doubt
those of the West India interest who voted with
the Noble Lord thought so too. The Government
thought it desirable. owing to the increased de-
mand, and the tendency to increased prices, to admit
competition with foreign free-grown sugar. They ad-
hered to their opinion, and he must say that he never
could understand the ground on which the Noble Lord
opposite had opposed the proposition of the Government.
He could not doubt that the Noble Lord had done so
from public motives, but he could not help thinking still
that it was the duty of the Government to resist the
combination which was formed against them, and to at-
tempt to procure the deliberate sense of Parliament upon
the resolution which they believed to be for the public
interest. He rejoiced in the course which they had
taken, and he thought no discredit whatever had been
thrown on the House of Commons by their having re-
considered the decision to which they had come on a
former night. The Hon. Member for Durham asked hini
why he did not go further with respect to the abolition
of protection. If the Hon. Member had listened to the
debates which took place in that House, he must have
discovered the difficulty which existed to prevent him
from doing so. There were the difficulties arising from
the strenuous opposition of the advocates for protection,
and when they came to deal with details, the most formi-
dable difficulty was to be found in those who were
the loudest in their declarations in favour of free trade.
One Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Mangles) who was
a purist with regard to free trade, had attempted to
show the House of Commons that it was unjust to
diminish the protection on East India sugar, and that it
was unjust to allow Manilla and China sugar to come
into competition with East India Sugar. How could the
Hon. Gentleman advocate the admission of slave labour
produce? How could the Hon. Gentleman make this
consistent with his former doctrine? The Hon. Gentle-
man said he was the decided advocate of free trade and
the admission of slave-grown sugar, and yet, when there
was a particular measure reducing protection, he de-
nounced the authors of it as being unjust to his friends.
So with respect to the article of cheese. It was pru-
dent to reduce the duty on cheese. If he were called
upon to name the man who was the decided advocate of
free trade, he would say it was the Hon. Member for
Chester. And yet, when there was a proposition to
reduce the duty on cheese, that Honourable Member
said it would be unjust to do so. And so it always
was and always would be in these cases. And when
the Hon. Member for Durham asked him (Sir R. Peel)
why he did not remove protection, he could only say that
the removal of protection was incumbered with great
difficulties, and among the greatest difficulties was the
opposition of those who pretended to be the advocate of
free trade principles.
Mr. MANGLES explained.
The Bill was then read a third time, and passed.
BANK CHARTER BILL.

On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
CHEQUER, that the House resolve itself into a Com-
mittee on this Bill,

Mr. WODEHOUSE wished to put a question to the
Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, of
which he had given notice yesterday. He felt it his
duty to do so. The question he wished to put was,
whether it was the intention of the Government to ex-
tend the provisions of the present measure to Ireland
and Scotland?

Sir ROBERT PEEL had no hesitation in saying,
that when the measure now under the consideration of
Parliament had become law, the Government intended
to put itself in friendly communication with bankers in
those countries, with a view to extend the provisions of
this measure in respect to the regulation of the currency
to Scotland and Ireland. He rather thought, however,
that such a measurecould not be brought forward during
the present sessi,m.
Mr. WODEHOUSE thanked the Right Hon. Baronet
for his answer, which was perfectly satisfactory. He
would then give notice of his intention to move for the
restoration to the banks of the power of convertibility re-
specting silver, which they possessed prior to the Act
of 1816, to the extent it then existed. but no further.
In answer to a question from Mr. F. T. BARING,
Sir R. PEEL was understood to cay that it was not
the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill re-
garding the Bank of Ireland during the present session.
If however they should change their opinion on this
subject duo notice of such intention would be given to
the House. _ _

After a few words from Colonel SIBTHORP and from
Mr. PHILIP HOWARD, who presentmi a petition from a
Carlisle Banking Company, con plaining of the dimi-
nished powers of the country banks, which the Bill
before the House would enact, and praying for larger
privileges, and by Lord WORSLEY from another bank-
ing company to the same effect.
Mr. RAIKES CURRIE, after some prefatory ob-
servations said, that a memorial had been drawn up and
signed by the majority of the directors of the bank of
which he was a member, respecting certain provisions in
the Government measure, but that memorial had not
been presented to the Right Hon. Baronet in deference
to his (Mr. It. Currie's) request, as he did not wish
to embarass the Government until the measure was fully
before the House. Many influential bankers, amongst
whom were Messrs. Loyd and Grote, and other gentle-
men extensively connected with commerce and banking,
were adverse to many provisions of the measure, and
for whom he might say.
" Alalim cum Catone errare quam,
Cum istis hominibus idem sentine."
He wished to see a perfect convertibility of the paper
currency ; but the Hon. Member for Lambeth assumed
that this measure was brought forward for the purpose
of preventing those great oscillations of price which had
hitherto occurred. Now, as he (Mr. Raikes Currie) ap-
prehended it was not directly meant for any such pur-
pose—that was hoped to be an incidental effect of its
provisions. It was hoped that this Bill would prevent
that intensifying and that spasmodic action which for-
merly used to occur in the endeavour to bring back the
gold to the bank. The advocates of a metallic standard
said that in the abstract the best state of things was a
metallic currency, and they would allow departure from
this to a system of paper money, for.two: reasons,
and for two reasons only. First, for sake of
economy ; and, secondly, for the sake of convenience.
They hal now got to something which would test men's
opinions. Did the Hon. Gentleman opposite expect any
other advantages from a convertible paper currency
than those of economy and convenience ? There were
those who expected relief from taxation and discount in
addition to those advantages, but the moment they aimed
at those, lie believed they endangered the convertibility
which they all agreed was the object of the present mea-
sure. He regretted to hear what had fallen from the
Hon. Member for Nottingham, with regard to Mr. Jones
Loyd, who, he said, was a free-trader in everything
except what he dealt in himself. The London
bankers could have no interest in the present measure.
To those who agreed in what he had stated, the measure of
the Right Hon. Gentleman must appear a strict logical
sequence. What he blamed the memorialists for, was
that they admitted his premises, and denied his con-
clusions. The whole principle which the Bill professed
was that of non• interference—that no body of men and
no Government should be able to interfere with the
currency. "Whatever private London banker gave his
opinion in favour of the measure, it took away from
them the only remaining monopolies they had, while the
conntry bankers were dealt very leniently with. It was
urged that, when the balance of trade was against them,
gold would leave the country and a great tightness in
the circulation would be the result. But that was neces-
sary, to prevent them from falling into extreme danger.
He had supported this measure in all its stages, and he
thought the Right Hon. Gentleman might look back with
§atisfaetion to the changes he had brought about in the

currency system. Ire first brought back the standard in
1819, and, since that time, he supported the principle of
that measure against all opponents. He gave it his
cordial support, because it recognised a true principle
which was adapted to the present circumstances of the
country, with great practical sagacity.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. GISBORNE explained. The expression which
he had used with regard to Mr. Jones Loyd was, that
he was a free trader in everything except that which he
dealt in himself; and to that extent he considered him-
self perfectly right, for Mr. J. Loyd was an advocate
for free trade except in credit, which was what he
dealt in.

Mr. C. WOOD said that Mr. J. Loyd was not in any
concerned in this measure, so far as having any in-
terest in it. He believed Mr. Loyd was for the aboli-
tion of restrictions on everything.
Mr. NEWDEG ATE said it was difficult to apply the
rules of normal philosophy, which seemed to have so
much weight in the mind of the Hon. Gentleman who
had just spoken to this question. He thought the pre-
sent measure bore the impress of that difficulty. He
thought the difficulties of the subject arose from the high
measure of their standard. The pound contained so much
of the precious metal, that it was difficult to supply it.
a purely metallic basis ; and the fact of 14,000,000/.
being necessary to carry out the present measure,
justified him in the statement. He had acted
against his feelings and his friends in the views he
adopted upon this question ; but they were his honest
opinions— (Hear, hear)--and he gave expression to
them. He might be mistaken in his views, but he
thought that there should be a paper superstructure on
a metallic basis. He thought that even the present mea-
sure proved they could not ensure perfect convertibility
with so high a standard. Ile was no opponent of the
metallic standard, but he thought it was not applicable
to the present circumstances of this country.
Sir W. JAMES rose, but such was the noise which
prevailed in the House while he was speaking, that it
was impossible to hear what he said.
The House then went into Committee, Mr. GREENE
in the Chair.

On clause 4 being proposed,
Mr. COLLETT asked the Right Hon. Baronet to give
a clear definition of what was to be considered bullion.

Sir R. PEEL—AII gold of the proper assayed fineness
would be received at the Bank as bullion, at 31. 17s. 9d.
per ounce, the difference between that price and
3/. 17s. 14-d. being just enough to cover the expense
of coining.
Mr. C. WOOD informed the Hon. Member that gold
in whatever shape, except that of the coin of the realm,
and even that, if it was under weight, was considered as
bullion; foreign coin was also bullion if of the standard
value.—The clause was then agreed to.

On clause 5 being proposed,
Sir W. CLAY put a question to the Right Hon.
Baronet as to the mode in which the issues of the Bank,
based on security, were to be made.
Sir R. PEEL said it would depond on the extinction,
from some cause or other, of the issues which banks
other than the Bank of England were at, present allowed
to make. The Bank of England having 9,000,000/. of
notes more than sufficient for the supply, and suppose
100,0001. of country notes to be withdrawn, in that case
it appeared to him that the Bank of England might,
with perfect propriety, supply the void to that extent
from its banking department, without disturbing the
arrangement as to 14,000,000/. Should the whole
amount of 9,000,0001. be withdrawn, it was clear that
an issue to this amount might take place on securities.
Various cases might arise intermediate between the issue
of notes to a very small amount, and the issue of notes
sufficient to supply the void in the whole country circu-
lation, supposing it were withdrawn. With all respect
for the Bank of England, he must say he thought it
advisable, with reference to the past, to take precautions
against any fresh issue upon security without the inter-
vention of the Council. This was an additional check
upon the issue of notes upon fresh securities without
public notification of the circumstances under which the
fresh issue took place. It should be recollected that the
public were to have the whole net profit of the issue of
notes upon securities.
Sir W. CLAY purposed, in clause 5, lines 30 and 31,
to move the omission of the following words :—" Her
Majesty in Council, upon the application of the said
Governor and Company, to authorise and empower ;"
and in lines 38 and 39, of the following words :---" The
proportion of two-thirds."
Mr. MARK PHILIPS and Mr. GISBOHNE supported
the clause.
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON opposed the clause.
Mr. C. WOOD did not see how the difficulty supposed
would be got over.
Mr. TURNER thought the proposition with respect
to the country banks was rather harsh. He deprecated
doing away with the country circulation in ten years.
Sir R. PEEL was convinced that if this Bill passed it
would be the best protection to the really sound country
bankers.

Mr. M. PHILIPS supported the clause. It would
have been well if in the district which he represented
nothing but Bank of England notes had been circulated.
Mr. MILES supported the amendment.
In answer to a question from Mr.MUNTZ,
Sir R. PEEL said they might assume that the country
bank circulation was nine millions, which might be sud-
denly withdrawn. They would assume that the Bank
of England circulation, applied to commercial purposes
in the metropolitan districts, was twenty-one millions.
They provided that the Bank should issue 14,000,000/.
in securities and 7,000,0001. upon bullion, which was
easily convertible into gold. Now, he would assume, for
the sake of argument, that 9,000,000/. of country circu-
lation to be withdrawn for the purpose of circulating
Bank paper, and they said that the same principle should
be applied to the 9,000,000/. as the 21,000,0001., namely,
that there should be 3,000,0001. on bullion and 6,000,0001.
on securities ; or, if they estimated the total amount of
Bank notes in the country at 30,000,000/., then there
must be 10,000,0001. of bullion, in order to support the
circulation of 30,000,0001., the same as they required a
stock of 7,000,000/. for a circulation of 21,000,000 L

Mr. TURNER said the Right Hon. Gentleman had
made some statements regarding the country banks
which were grossly incorrect. It was not true that the
country banks had nine millions in circulation in gold,
and very little inquiry would convince the Right Hon.
Gentleman of the erroneous nature of his assertions.

The amendment was then agreed to.
Sir W. CL AY then rose to move that the following
words be added to the fourth clause:—" And gold bul-
lion in exchange for Bank of England notes at the like
rate."

Sir R. PEEL thought the amendment unnecessary.
He assured the Hon. Gentleman that he wished to keep
out as many si~ notes as he could, provided there was a
security of their being paid. Though it might appear
expensive to keep a stock large enough to give that
security, it would be more than repaid by the increased
confidence of the public.
Mr. GISBORNE said his objection to the measure
was, that it tended to reduce prices, as the only means
by which this country could procure gold. We could
only get it by giving more goods for it than other coun-
tries could give. This lowering of price would operate
injuriously, and would be an injustice to all debtors,
and tend to give an undue advantage to all creditors.
Sir R. PEEL said, if the law passed as it stood, the
Bank would be able to carry on both its operations si-
multaneously.
Mr. GISBORNE said he had as much right to appeal
to a time when the Bank had only two millions of gold
in its coffers, as the Hon. Baronet had to appeal to its
now having sixteen millions.

Sir R. PEEL said he wanted to avert the paroxysms
of credit that led to such a result.

Mr. KEMBLE supported the amendment.
Mr. C. WOOD was also inclined to support it.
After a few words from Mr. S. WORTLEY, and Col.
SIBTIIORP,

Mr, T. BARING said, in the present state of the
Bank there would be no necessity for this clause. In a
few years, however, there might be such a change of
trade as would produce an efliux of gold, and then re-
course would be had to the clause, and the effect would
be to diminish the circulation by three millions. The
Bank itself had no interest whatever in asking for
issues.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL begged to ask of the Right Hon.
Gentleman, how he could explain the advantage to be
gained by the Bank of England in their issues by the
substitution of their notes for country notes ?
Sir R. PEEL said that the country banks were obliged
to reguiate their issues by those of the Bank of England.
The Noble Lord asked what inducement the Bank of
England had to substitute Bank of England paper for
country paper, that it would have no profit from ; that
was all very true, but they would by that means guard
against loss. Bank notes would be appreciated, and the
consequence would be an influx of gold for notes, by
means of which the Bank would make a profit. Ile
knew it would be impossible to introduce this measure
without causing some clamour, but he trusted the House
would allow the measure to have a fair trial. He
trusted the House would not adopt the amendment of
the Honourable Baronet. He believed if the House
adopted the Bill, it would be found to work well. He
trusted, therefore, that the House would support him in
adhering to this clause.
Mr. F. BARING would support the clause, and the
Bill generally.
After a few observations from Mr. MILDMAY,
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the Commit-
tee divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment

Against it
Majority in favour of the clause
Sir R. PEEL stated that he would, to-morrow (this
day), take the Dissenters' Chapels Bill first, and then
the Bank Charter Bill, and on Monday proceed with the
Irish Registration Bill.
The Chairman then reported progress, and obtained
leave to sit again.
Lord WOIISLEY moved for a Select Committee to in-
quire into the expediency of facilitating the inclosui e
and improvement of commons, to consist of Lord Wors-
ley, Mr. Cowper, Mr. Aglionbv, Mr. Talbot, Mr. 'Wright-
son, Mr. Bouverie, Mr. Brotfierton, Lord Granville So-
merset, Mr. Pusey,Colonel Wood, Viscount Sandon, Mr.
Barneby, Mr. Alderman Thompson, Mr. Estcourt, and
Mr. Robert Clive. The Noble Lord said that if this Com-
mittee were granted, he would to-morrow withdraw his
Bill in reference to that subject for the present session.
Colonel SIBTIIOHP asked if the Noble Lord could
expect a Select Committee to sit at that period of the
session with any chance of success ? lie thought the
measure had better be put off altogether till the next
session.
Sir R. PEEL thought the Committee was advisable,
as the measure would be improved by it.
The motion was agreed to, and the louse adjourned
at Half-past One.

Admiral Sir Baldwin Walker, K.C.B. (Yaver
Pasha), who distinguished himself at. the capture of St. Jean
d'Acre, in 1840, arrived at the Burlington Hotel, Cork street,
on Saturday last, from Constantinople. The gallant Ad,
miral has been for some years (..A)miliander-in-Chief of the
Sultan's navy.