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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

of the Corrimissidnets ot Woods and Forests. There
*as Ito, interition of the Cottimigsioner§ of
.Woods
and Forests of building houses within the
park.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") There was a
strip of land belonging to Greenwich Hospital ad-
joining the park, and in order to render that ground
more available, it had been agreed to give up a piece
within the park, but the park would remain exactly
of the same extent. In company with one of the
officers of the Hospital he had gone over the proposed
alterations, and, not approving of the plan, had sent it
back for alteration.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HAWES—Am I to understand there is no
foundation for the report about building in the park ?
The Earl of LINCOLN—No foundation what-
ever.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir W. CLAY presented a petition from certain
Wesleyan deputies against the Dissenters' Chapels
Bills ; and other petitions from the Tower Hamlets
to the same effect.
COUNTY RATES BILL.

SOUSE Off' 4,,aubs; ittite if.
'Pheir Louisliipls asserrlblei at Five o'clock.
OPENING LEITERS AT THE POST-OFFICE.

The Earl of RADNOR, adverting to the petitions
which were presented a few evenings ago in the House
of Commons, complaining that the parties who had
signed those petitions had had their letters opened at
the Post-office, expressed his surprise at this power
having been so recently exercised, and contended
that no ground existed for such a stretch of authority.
He was inclined to say that such a power ought not
to exist; but if it did exist, he thought it ought to
he exercised under responsibility. He should take
that opportunity of moving for a return of the num••
ber of letters which had been opened at the Post-office
since January, 1844. He would also take that oppor-
tunity of asking for some explanation as to the arrest
3f the Count Ostrowski, who bad been forcibly taken
From his lodgings on a vague charge being made
'Against him. He (the Earl of Radnor) contended
that this arrest had been made contrary to law, and if
this gentleman had killed one of the parties who came
into his room he would have been perfectly exculpated
in law.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said that if the
Noble Lord had looked into the statute-book, he
would have found that the power of opening letters
by the Secretary of State had been exercised since
the reign of Queen Anne ; and the warrant which
was necessary at the present time, was precisely in
the same form as that which was required in the time
of Queen Anne. If it should appear that the
Secretary of State had abused this power,
that would be ground for inquiry, but in
the present instance there was nothing of
the sort, and, therefore, there was no ground
for the Noble Lord's motion. With respect
to the other matter alluded to by the Noble Lord, to
slay the least of it the person alluded to had acted in
a most indiscreet manner, and if there had been any
thing improper in his arrest he had his remedy. It
was a subject for the consideration of a court of law,
and not for that House.
Lord CAMPBELL thought the question of open-
ing letters under a warrant from the Secretary of
State was a question requiring the earnest considera-
tion of their Lordships.—(Hear, hear.) He con-
tended that the words of the Act of Parliament, which
gave the Secretary of State this power, provided that
for every letter opened there should be a separate
warrant isued by the Secretary of State under his
hand and seal.

The order of the day for the further proceeding
with the County Rates Bill was read in order to be
postponed.
STATE TRIALS (IRELAND).
Mr. WYSE said that he was compelled to defer
the motion of which he had given notice to-morrow
night on the subject of the State trials in Ireland, in
consequence of the delay which had taken place in
laying before the House the papers which he had moved
for; he, therefore, gave notice that he should bring it
for ward on the first supply night, as an amendment to
the motion that the House do resolve itself into a
Committee of Supply. He begged to move that the
petition which he had that night presented be printed
with the Votes.—Agreed to.

DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL.
Mr. F. SHAW gave notice that he should more
an amendment to the second clause of the Dissenters'
Chapels Bill.
METROPOLITAN BUILDINGS BILL.

Mr. MACKINNON wished to ask the Noble
Lord when he intended to bring forward the Metro-
politan Buildings Bill?
Lord LINCOLN would bring it forward the first
opportunity.
POOR LAWS.

Mr. HOGG presented two petitions against the
new poor-laws.

SUGAR DUTIES.

Sir ROBERT PEEL, in rising to move the
order of the day for going into Committee on the
Sugar Duties, said—Sir, it is probable that the House
will expect from me some statement of the course
which her Majesty's Government propose to
pursue under the circumstances in which they are
placed by the vote of Friday night upon
the sugar duties ; and assuming that a statement
will be in general conformity with the wishes
and feelings of the House, I am prepared to make it,
if the House will allow me to make it, when the
House shall have resolved itself into a Committee,
and Mr. Greene shall be in the chair. Before we pro-
ceed any further with the resolution, I will then take
the opportunity of stating to the louse the course
which her Malesty's Government propose to pursue.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he thought there could
be no objection to that course.
The House then went into Committee.
Sir R. PEEL then rose and said—Sir, I propose
now, with the permission of the Committee, to put it
in possession of the views her Majesty's Government
entertain with respect to the effect of the decision of
Friday evening on the subject of the sugar duties, and
the course which it is their intention to pursue
as a preliminary to their intention. The Com-
mittee will permit me, perhaps, to refer,
in the first place, to the course the Government have
pursued in the present year with respect to the finan-
cial policy of the country, and the motives which
have induced them to take the course they have pur-
sued, and particularly the views they entertain upon
those particular duties which were imposed on foreign
and colonial sugar. The opinions we entertain on
the subject of the sugar duties are those we
have entertained and continued in for r several
years past views we expressed when oppo-
nents of her Majesty's Government, and which
we have entertained since we have been entrusted
with power, and which we still at the present time
entertain, and intend to act upon. We are of opi-
nion that the ordinary considerations which deter-
mine matters of financial and commercial policy
do not apply to the article of sugar. We
find that this country had adopted, with
respect to the slave-trade, a particular course
of action, from which it may be inferred that
it considers the continuance of the slave-trade as one
of the greatest evils and curses by which humanity
can be surrounded. This country has entered into
treaties with foreign Powers, engaging them to co-
operate for the putting down of the slave-trade. Un-
der ordinary circumstances we are willing to admit
that the regulation of the affairs of every country is
within the province and exclusive jurisdiction of each
independent State, but we have engaged other powers
to co-operate with us by treaties for the suppression
of the slave trade, the chief onus of attempting to
suppress which has fallen on this country. We have
thought ourselves justified with regard to the general
interests of the world to do the best in our power for
the extinction of slavery in our dominions, and we have
thought ourselves justified upon considerations wholly
apart from interested motives, but as the promoters of
humanity, to call upon this country to make greater
sacrifices for the suppression of the slave trade, than
any other country in the world. This country had
voted 20,000,0001. of money, and up to the present
hour great expenditures were going on in Africa and
other parts of the world, not in the dominions of this
country, but at its expense, for the suppression
of slavery. In the course of the last session
we passed an Act enforcing additional penalties
countries where the slave trade was carried on.
againstthat
At
chte British capital in
House
eonconfoefrred very considerable
powers upon the Executive to visit with heavy penal-
ties all persons subject to the control of the British
thae"Hliocua
Crown, who might use their capital for the purpose
of giving encouragement to the slave trade. We
have, indeed, for years, by the whole tenor of our
policy, given conclusive proof of our intention of go-
verning by different principles that branch of
our trade in which slave labour is by other countries
employed to those which generally prevail over
and guide the general commerce of this country.
When, in opposition, we supported those who were
then in power—l refer to the year 1839—in resist-
ing a proposal which was made by the Honourable
Member for Dumfries, the effect of which would
havo been to reduce the protective duties,
upon foreign sugar, as compared with British colonial
sugar, .to an amount of twelve shillings. That pro-
posal was resisted by the Noble Lord opposite (Lord
J, Russell) and his colleagues, upon grounds on
which he will do me the justice to say I
have never mentioned with anything approach-
ing to a taunt—which I have never considered
as imposing any impediment to a reconsideration of
the sugar duties, and which I have never referred to
excepting for this purpose—to show that a very high
and respected authority did entertain the opinions I
have now expressed, that, upon the sugar question,
Parliament should be guided by different principles
than those which generally governed it in dealing with
the other great commercial questions. When the
Right Hon. Gentleman, I refer to (Mr. Labouchere)
was met with the argument as to cotton and coffee,
his reply was that he was not prepared to say that the
course of legislation he suggested was consistent with
the broad principle which usually governed
our commercial transactions, that it should
be borne in mind that the ten articles
referred to did not come into competition with the
free labour of our own colonies—and that it would

Lord BROUGHAM thought this was a matter well
worthy of the consideration of Parliament, but he
expressed his regret that the subject had been intro-
duced without notice. Re said it was impossible to
Carry out the object of the provision in the Act of
Parliament for the issuing of a warrant for the open-
ing of such letter, inasmuch as to be enabled to do so
the Secretary of State would have to be acquainted
with all letters the person whose letters were to be
examined was about to be receive.
Lord DENMAN regretted that the return of the
Noble Earl was resisted, as this was a subject
that ought to be fully inquired into. It was a subject
of great importance, and was not at all connected
with party considerations, and he believed that the
only object of this motion was to obtain information.
If this motion were rejected, he trusted that the
Noble Earl would give notice, and bring the subject
Forward at a future day, with a view to the considera-
tion of the clause in the Act which gave the Secretary
0 State the power of opening letters, for, in his (Lord
Denman's) opinion, such a power ought not to be
in existence one hour.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord BROUGHAM and Lord CAMPBELL briefly ex-
plained.
The Marquis of NORMANBY said that it was
only in cases where danger was apprehended to the
State that this power of opening letters by the Secre-
tary of State was exercised. He did not think that
et present there was any ground shown for the
production of the returns which had been moved for.
tie believed that the Secretary of State would be very
glad to,have this power removed out of his hands, for
it was a very unthankful arid unpleasant power to
hold.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said that the
letters which had been opened were the letters of a
foreigner, and 'he understood that they had been
opened at the suggestion of the Sardinian Minister in
this country. if this were the case, he thought it
Was an interference which ought not to be tolerated.
He thought they ought to know precisely what the
law upon this subject is.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said there was no
►round whatever for the rumour which the Noble
Marquis had adverted to.
The motion-was then negatived without a division.
PRESBYTERIAN MARRIAGES.
The LORD CHANCELLOR laid on the table a
Bill on the subject of Presbyterian marriages.
LIBEL BILL.

Lord CAMPBELL postponed the second reading
of the Libel Bill till to-morrow (this clay).
POOR-LAW (IRELAND).
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE postponed his
motion for calling the attention of their Lordships to
the subject of Mr. Penethorn's report on workhouses
in Ireland, till Thursday.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said that Mr.
Penethorn's report had been referred to a Committee
of the other House of Parliament in consequence of
some letters having been received, contradicting por-
tions of the report ; and when the Committee had
concluded its labours, the Government would be pre-
pared to take some steps upon it.
SURCHARGES UNDER THE COURSING

ACT.
The Duke of RICHMOND moved for the num-
ber of surcharge's which had taken place under the
Coursing Act.—Ordered.
DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL.

The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL presented peti-
tions against this Bill.
Lord LURGAN presented a petition in favour of
giving power to the Poor-law Guardians in Ireland
to apprentice children who had been brought up in
workhouses.
DEBTOR AND CREDITOR BILL.

This Bill went through Committee, and was or
tiered to be read a third time on Friday.
INSOLVENT DEBTORS' BILL.

Lord BROUGFIAM moved the second reading of
this Bill, and proposed to take the discussion on the
next stage.
The Bill was read a second time.
PARISH CLERKS' REGULATION BILL.

This Bill passed through Committee.
The House then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 17.

The SPEAKEIt took the chair at a few minutes to
Four o'clock.
DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL.

Petitions against this Mil were presented by Mr.
B. Smith, from Norwich; Mr.Duncan,from Dundee;
Mr. Chute, from King's Lynn; Lord J. Stuart, and
Mr._H. Berkley from Bristol. _

Mr. B. SMITH presented a petition from the
printsellers of Norwich, praying for protection
against art-unions.
Mr. HA.MILTON presented a petition from Ireland
against the national system of education in Ireland.
Sir E. FILMER presented a petition from Kent
praying for protection to agriculture.
Mr. G. KNIGHT presented a petition from 1,800
inhabitants of Port Phillip, New South IVales, com-
plainifw of the Governor. General having removed a
judge from the bench, and praying for inquiry into
the circumstances.
Mr. C. ROUND presented a petition from Suffolk,
against the Bank Charter Bill.

-Mr. YORKE presented a petition from Essex,
praying the House to take steps to arrest the progress
of mcendiarism in that county.
" Lord ELIOT presented a petition from Cornwall,
praying that the owners and not the occupiers, of
small tenements may be rated to the poor.
KILMARNOCK ELECTION.
The SPEAKER informed the House that he had
received a letter from the agents on the petition
against the return of the Kilmarnock burghs, stating
that it was not their intention to proceed with the
petition.—(Hear, hear.)
THE STATE TRIALS.

not then do to interfere with the success of the great
experiment then in operation, by opening the flood
gates to a supply of -foreign sugar which might
inundate the British markets, and materially
interfere with the prospect of success to
the great cause of emancipation of the slaves.
We considered these views to be well founded, and
we acted upon them when opposed to the Right Hon.
Gentlemen opposite. These views appear to have
received the sanction of a very high authority—of
a gentleman, whose name I have never mentioned
in this House, without accompanying it with my
expressions of respect for his authority—l
mean the late Mr. Deacon Hume.—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. Hume, the advocate of the complete removal of
all restrictions—the decided opponent of the protec-
tive system—the authority who, of all others, had ex-
pressed his positive opinion in favour of unrestricted
commerce, and of the abolition of all protection—Mr.
Hume had excepted articles the produce of slavery
and the slave trade, as not coming properly: under
the consideration of our commercial legislation.
" It is now thirty years ago," said Mr. Hume,
that you abolished the slave trade—you have now
abolished slavery. I cannot therefore believe that
any question of free trade can arise between Jamaica
and Cuba. Cuba has not only an abundant and
fruitful soil, it has not only the advantage, if it can
be called an advantage, of slavery, but it is notorious
that from 40,000 to 50,000 slaves are imported
into that island every year. It is, therefore,
impossible that the question of trade between
Cuba and the British plantations can ever come in
the category of free trade." Such were the opinions
of Mr. Deacon Hume in 1840, and I think that it
would be unjust to expose the British planter, who
has neither the advantage of slavery or the
slave trade, to the competition of Brazil and Cuba—
countries possessing a virgin soil more fitted by
nature for the production of sugar than any other
country. I do not think that' it would be proper
to expose the. British planter to the competition of
those countries. We have had most convincing proofs
that hitheito all our efforts for the suppression of the
slave trade to Cuba and the Brazils have proved inef-
fectual. The public mind in those countries is not
awakened to the frightful 'horrors of that traffic
and although the competition with Manilla and

Mr. WYSE presented a petition from Pieree Ma-
honey and others, the solicitors to the traversers ,in
the late Statetrials, complaining of the course pur-
sued at the late State trials in Dublin, and praying
the House to institute some legal inquiry into the
system that had been adopted in empannelling the
jury. The petitioners also expressed a hope that
that Housa would be found the guardian of trial by
jury. The petition was ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. HARDY presented petitions against the Dis-
senters' Chapels Bill.
Lord ASHLEY presented several petitions to the
same effect.

Mr. LIDDELL presented a petition from Durham,
signed by 4,000 persons, praying. the House to con-
tinue protection to agriculture.
Mr. WAK LEY presented a petition from the
stage coach and carriage proprietors of the metro-
polis, complaining of the monopoly of railways.
Mr. HAWES presented petitions against the Dis-
senters' Chapels Bill.

GREENWICH PARK.
Mr. HAWES said he had a petition to present
from certain inhabitants of Greenwich, complaining
that there was an intention on the part of the Govern-
ment to make an encroachment upon Greenwich Park,
and to bUild private residences therein. Seeing the'
Noble Lord, the Chief Commissioner of Woods and
Forests, in his place, he trusted he might waive cere-
mony upon the occasion, and take the liberty of ask-
ing him if such intention did exist ?
' The Earl of LINCOLN was quite willing to ac-
cede to the wish of the Hon. Member, and had great
pleasure in assuring him,that, the. anxiety of .the petit
tioners was not justified by any application or conduct

should not be delayed past the 10th of Novem-
ber. We thought that if, at this period of
the year, there was an increased demand for
sugar, and there should be a deficient sup-
ply—we thought if prices should rise, in con-
sequence of increased demand, the West Indian'
interests could not be benefited by any such rise- in
price; and we thought, therefore, that it NVOUltlibe
better for the interests of all parties to take security
against such an event as that of a scarcity of sugar

TIIE SUN, LONDON, TrESDAY ETENING, JUNI 18, ig44,

China, where sugar is raised by free labour,
might be a fair toMpetitioni, yet to expose him
to a competition with Braiii end Cuba, would
be most unjust to the British planter. It *as
but very recently that the House of Commons
came, to an unanimous decision, declaring that expense
was to be a subordinate consideration to the suppres •
sion of the slave trade. We are of opinion that the
opening of the British market to sugar the produce of
Cuba and Brazil would give an increased encourage-
ment to the slave trade, as carried on between those
countries and the coast of Africa. We therefore en-
tertain an opinion that, after the decision of the House
of Commons, it would be inconsistent to give that en-
couragement. lam not insensible to the arguments
—at least, I attach their due weight to them—which
attempt to show that the opening of the markets of
England to sugar, the produce of free labour, -would
indirectly give encouragement to sugar, the produce
of slave labour, in Cuba and Brazil. But I cannot
help entertaining the conviction that the encourage-
ment of free-labour sugar will ultimately tend to
prove that free-labour sugar can compete favourably
with that grown by slaves, and thus, indirectly,
if not directly, it will act against slavery.
These are the general grounds upon which
we still entertain the opinion that, although
it may be said with referenle to the West Indian
interests, to admit a limited and qualified competition
with free-labour sugar, yet we think it dangerous to
admit, as my Hon. Friend proposes, this sugar at a
differential duty of 10s. We think that admission
would be inconsistent with the. course this country
had taken, and the declarations the House had made
on the subject 01 the slave trade. With these opinions
the question upon which we had to decide at the
commencement of the present year was this—
what course shall we pursue with respect
to the admission of free-labour sugar ? Now,
of course, Sir, I do not mean to ask any gen-
tleman to give up the opinions which he has formed
as to the policy of pursuing a different course. I
only assumed that our opinions were correct, and on
that assumption it is I argued that there ought to be
a discriminating or distinctive amount of duty. I
aslc, Sir, what course consistent with that opi-
nion, and with the admission of foreign sugar,
can we pursue ? As bearing on this question
an important event will shortly occur. On the
10th of Nov., 1844, the existing treaty with Brazil will
cease. Previous to that day it would be most diffi-
cult for that Government to do away with the discri-
minating duties. Entertaining the opinions which I
have avowed, I have thought it right to adopt a dif-
ferent course, for Brazil is entitled to have her pro-
duce admitted into her Majesty's dominions on the
footing of the most favoured nations ' • nor could the
title of Brazil to that equality be affected by,
any alteration in our relations with other countries;
she has a clear right that her produce shall be in.
troduced on the same footing as that of Java, Ma-
nilla, and Siam, but on the 10th of November that
state of thing's will cease. Therefore, at the com-
mencement of the year, in considering what course it
was our duty to pursue, we came to the conclusion,
that the alteration which we have proposed
was the only one which we could adopt.
It had been said that instead of post-
poning the consideration of the great questions
which must be considered before the expiration of the
treaty, we should have declared our general financial
and commercial policy in the present session, and
that we should have declared our intentions as to the
renewal or continuance of the income-tax, and the
reduction of the duties on the importation of foreign
produce, but we thought that before we asked
the House to take into consideration the important
question of the renewal and continuance of the in-
come-tax, we should be possessed of the fullest ex-
perience as to the effects of those alterations in the
Customs' duties, which took place in 1842,
at the time the income-tax was proposed.
Many of those were not to have effect till a recent
period, and before the question for the renewal of
the income •tax it would; be advantageous that the
House should know what had been the result-of those
reductions of the Customs' duties. In the case of the
important alteration of the timber duties, the total
amount of reduction did not take place till October
last. There was, therefore, but a limited period in•
which to determine the effect of the reduction on
timber. There have been also for months past de-
cisive indications of increased' demand for in-
dustry ; of greater employment amongst
the manufacturing and working classes gene-
rally ; indications, I think, that cannot be ques-
tioned, of returning prosperity as far as trade and
manufactures are concerned. I expressed an earnest
Wish to the House that those indications of returning
prosperity might be significant of their permanence ;
but at the same time, we have on 'former occa-
sions been deceived by appearances of prosperity,
so that they cannot be perfectly relied on. That
constituted a decisive reason why, before we
took a revision of the whole commercial policy
of the country, with a view of abandoning the income-
tax, or whatever else we might think advisable, we
thought it advantageous that time should elapse to
decide upon the effect of the measures we have passed.
Another and more conclusive reason for postponing till
next year the consideration of the tariff was, that we
had every reason to believe that in the present session
we should call the attention of the House to two other
great financial questions, which would probably
press for immediate consideration. The one was a
reduction of the interest on Three-and-a-Half per
C.!ent. Stock, by far the greatest operation effected in
modern times, the failure of which would be to every
interest the most unfortunate. The other was a pro-
position of great importance, which I, as the organ
of the Government, submitted to the House—the
renewal of the Bank Charter, the regulation of
joint-stock banks, and the regulation of the paper
circulation. At the commencement of the
session we foresaw that there was every prospect
that both of these must undergo alteration,
and we thought it was not desirable, seeing also the
mass of legislation which was left undisposed of in the
course of last session, and which was presse I forward
in the present, that it was necessary to impose a re-
duction on the 3i per Cent. stock, and that it was also
necessary to propose a measure for the regulation of
the Bank Charter, to call the attention of the House
to other measures of great commercial importance,
and the question of the renewal of the income-tax.
There was a third reason alp for postponing the mea-
sure, which to our minds was- conclusive. How
were we to deal with this question of the admission
of foreign sugar ? To propose the continuance of the
income-tax, and to make.no proposal on the subject of
sugar, would probably not have conciliated the
support of the. House of Commons. It would,
I think, have been expected that on pro-
posing the renewal of the income-tax, some proposal
by her Majesty's Government, in respect to the sugar
duties, must be made. I doubt whether the House of
Commons would not almost have considered a pro-
posal with respect to the sugar duties a necessary
condition of the renewal of the income-tax. It was
impossible for us, pending the treaty with Brazil, to
make that proposal. Supposing, in the month of
March, we had brought on the questions of the in-
come-tax and the sugar duties, and had not, at
the same time, proposed any considerable reduction
of the duties on sugar, Brazil would have been enti-
tled, until the month of November, 1844, to share in
all the advantages of the renewal, and
would have made a plausible claim to admit
her sugar into the market of this country, with
the advantage of whatever reduction might have
been made. Now, from the combined operation of
those three reasons, I think any gentleman
who permits me to assume that we are right in
making a distinction between free-labour sugar and
slave-labour sugar, will admit that we had no alter-
native but to postpone the consideration of any very
extensive measure in respect to the sugar duties
until our discretion was unfettered, so far as Brazil
was concerned, by the termination of the treaty. We
therefore did resolve deliberately not to ask the House
to pronounce an opinion in the course of this session,
in respect to the continuance of the sugar duties.
At the same time, we felt it to be our duty to make a
preposition to the House upon the subject of the sugar
duties. We saw indications of a rise in price. The
price of sugar at the commencement of the spring
was about 2s. higher than the average of the last two
years. There were, then, reasons to apprehend
that there might be a deficient supply. In the
month of November, 1844, the period would arrive
when we should be at liberty to deal with the ques-
tion of free-labour sugar. The only monopoly that
remains, almost, is that of sugar.—(Suppressed
laughter, and cries of-" Corn, corn.") Ido not wish
to provoke a discussion. I wish studiously to avoid
saying anything which is capable of contradiction in
the way of argument, and, still more, anything which
can provoke angry feeling.—(Hear.) But, certainly,
of the great articles of consumption in this country,
the only one with respect to which there is almost
unqualified monopoly, is the article of sugar. On
the article of foreign sugar there is a duty of
three guineas, which operates as an exclusion.
We thought, therefore, it was our duty to avail ourselves
of the earliest opportunity of proposing a measure
which, without being detrimental to the interests of
Brazil, might be of advantage to the community
at large, without- injury to the revenue, and
which would have the effect of breaking
down monopoly, by admitting sugar, the
produce of free- labour, at a duty something
above that on which colonial sugar was in-
troduced, and we thought that such a measure

by admitting sugar the produce of free labour at the
duty we proposed. We had another reason fctr dealing
with this question in the present session. We wished
the producers of free-labour sugar to know what the
intention of Parliament were—whether it intended
to confine the competition With Colonial to free-la-
bour sugar, or between colonial sugar and that pro-
duced by slave labour. It was also our anxious wish to
take security against increased prices. Notwithstanding
the discussion that has taken place we adhered to the
opinions we have hitherto expressed, believing that
the measure we proposed will not be injurious to the
revenue, will be advantageous to the consumer,
and likely to be productive of the best into •
rests of the West Indian proprietors themselves.
On submitting, however, to the consideration of the
House, the measure on sugar duties determined upon
by the Government, the Noble Lord opposite (Lord
John Russell) assuming our distinctive sums as
between colonial sugar and foreign sugar not the
produce of slave labour, proposed that the
duty of 345. should be applied indiscriminately,
without reference to the source whence the sugar
might come. The Noble Lord took a division upon
that proposition, and our measure was affirmed by a
considerable majority. At a subsequent state of the
proceedings we were met by a counter proposition
on the part of the West India party. It
was proposed by an Honourable Friend of mine,
the Member for Bristol (Mr. Miles), that there
should be a departure from the scheme of the Go-
vernment—that instead of the relative amount of
duties being as we proposed, namely, 245. and 345., it
should be 20s. and 305.; and that with respect to a
certain clayed sugar, there should be a discriminating
duty to the• extent of 4s. We had proposed
that the discriminating duty should upon all
sugars be 103. ; he proposed a protection to
the amount of 14s.—(Hear, hear.) Her Majesty's
Government have considered the proposal of my Hon.
Friend—acting, I shall say, not under the influence
of temper caused by being in a minority—but upon a
careful and dispassionate view of the whole subject—
they have considered it one to which they cannot
give in their adhesion.—(Expressions of surprise.)
That proposal of my Hon. Friend—supported accord-
ing to some understanding by—(Cries of " No,"
" no," and expressions of surprise)—l don't say Hon.
Members were under any obligation to vote—(Hear,
bear)—but I certainly was given to understand that
khat proposal of my Hon. Friend (Mr. Miles) was to
receive the support of the other side of the House.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman is under no such
obligation; he expressed his opposition. I do not
say that on the other side there is any general obliga-
tion to support the proposition of my Hon. Friend—
(Hear, hear)—hut I say that many Hon. Gentlemen
opposite preferred supporting the motion of my Hon.
Friend to supporting the proposition of her Ma-
jesty's Government.—(Hear, hear.)- I do not say
that there was any general disposition on the part of
all Hon. Gentlemen opposite, but certainly there was
a disposition on the part of many to support that
naotion.—(Hear, hear.) Her Majesty's Government,
after a serious consideration of the subject, notwith-
standing that vote, have not changed their former
opinion, and are not prepared to adopt
the motion of my Hon. Friend. We are not prepared
to acquiesce in that motion ; Ifor, on additional and
more mature consideration of that proposition, we
think that our original proposition is preferable to it.
—(Hear, hear.) My Hon. Friend proposes that after
the .20th of November next a prospective reduction
of the duty shall take place. I think the proposition
for the reduction of the duty to take place at a
distant day is most objectionable. rThe consumer
will derive no advantage whatever from it, and the
West India interests will not be benefited by the
increase of price. The period between this and the
10th of November is a most critical time in
the sugar •trade, on account of the increased
demand for sugar for the preservation of
fruit. This will, I think, give rise to an in-
creased price, on account of the unwillingness of
the retailers to take out a supply of that article at the
present duty, when they know that in the month
of November a reduction will take place. Ido
not think that the West Indian interests will be
benefited by it, because the retailers of sugar will
refuse to increase the supply so as to meet the
demands of the public. The only effect pro-
duced by the proposition of my Hon. Friend would
,be to increase the profits of the growers, and • retail
dealers of sugar, who had stock on hand. I wish
shortly to draw the attention of the House
to what took place in 1842, when we pro-
posed a reduction in the timber duties. We
were induced, in consequence of the representa-
tions of the parties interested, to forego our
first proposition, which was for an immediate
reduction of those duties; and, in order to give the
holders time to dispose of their stocks on hand,
to postpone the reduction until October, 1843, when
it was certainly known that there would be a great
reduction -in the duties on timber. The measure of
reduction was to receive completion, and the per-
manent duty to take effect on that day, the sth of
October, 1843. I have compared the effect of this
change in the timber duty, on the demand, and on
the public revenue. I have compared the amount of
duty received in the quarter ending the sth of
January, 1842, with the corresponding quarter,
between the 10th of 'October, 184.3, and the sth of
January, 1844. I omit the quarter of 1842,
because the duties were then in a state of change,
and I considered the fairest period with which to
make a comparison was the quarters of 1841 and
1843. In the quarter ending the 10th of October,
1841, the total amount of timber duty received by
the Exchequer was 646,0001. For the following
quarter the total amount of duty was 292,000/.
The proportion, therefore, between the timber
duties received in the two quarters was as 100 to 45.
But in the quarter ending the sth of January,
1844, the duty being then settled, the amount re-
ceived was 268,0001. as compared with 158,0001.
The reduction in the timber duty made by the tariff
was about one-sixth. My opinion is, though I am
willing to admit that the stocks of timber are
larger than the stocks of sugar, that it is highly
probably the same results will follow; that there will
be a depression in the sugar duties in the five months
elapsing before November 10th ; that there will be
an increase in the price, which will go into the
pockets, not of the West India interests, but of the
retailers ; that there will be an increased price
to the consumer, and a loss to the revenue,
with no advantage to any interest except
the retailer, who has no claim on their protection.
He thought, therefore, that the proposition of his
Hon. Friend for the reduction of the duty, to take
place upon a stated day, would be most unwise.
We ourselves are accused of having encouraged ex-
pectation, that there should be a further consideration'
of those duties, and that there might be a further
reduction contingent upon the result of the income-
tax, and its renewal or discontinuance. But that
vague expectation is very different from a
fixed assurance that a certain reduction shall
take place and shall be effected on a particular day.
If there be any inconvenience arising from holding
out such vague expectations, her Majesty's present
Government alone have incurred the blame. The late
Chancellor of the Exchequer has before now held out
expectations of an alteration in the sugar duties contin -
gent upon circumstances. When he brought forward his
proposition in 1841 for an alteration in them, he said
that the West India interest had no right to complain
that they were taken by surprise, because Lord Sy-
denham had informed them, in 1839, that they must
prepare themselves for a change in the sugar duties,
and that that change would take place in 1842, or
possibly earlier. So that the late Government cannot
be said to have given the word with] the blow—
(Laughter)—but they told the West Indians to pre-
pare for the blow. But we have not said anything
more than what was known to every
one. We said that the income-tax would
expire next year, and that when the time
for its expiration arrived the consideration
of its discontinuance or renewal must be combined
with the consideration of these and other im-
port duties. Surely that explanation and avowal
could not have the same effect as the particular an-
nouncement that the reduction is to take place upon
a stated day. Sir, on another ground the Government
cannot assent to the proposition of my Hon. Friend.
They cannot acquiesce in the proposition that there
should be a discriminating duty of 14s. on certain
sugars.—(Hear, hear.) I will not now enter into the
question whether a classification of sugar, according
to certain processes of manufacture, or according to
certain qualities, be desirable or not ; all I contend
for is -this, that if a classification be desirable,
it ought to be universally applied.--(Hear, hear)
and that to do justice to the consumer, if yon classify
sugar the produce of foreign countries, you ought to
classify sugar the produce of your own colonies.—
(Hear, hear.) lam of that opinion, because there is
as great a variation in the quality of sugar the
produce of your own colonies as there is
in the quality of sugar the produce of
foreign countries. There is as much injustice in
subjecting the coarse descriptions of brown
sugar coming into competition with sugar of
the highest quality, such being the produce of
your own colonies, to an equal rate of duty
—there is as much injustice in that arrangement as
there is in subjecting your own sugar to compete, at a
corresponding rate of duty, with sugar the produce of
foreign countries, and in subjecting the inferior classes
of your own sugar to competition with the inferior
classes of foreign sugar, as the superior class of sugar
the produce of your own colonies, with the superior
class of sugar the produce of foreign countries. But
I cannot admit the justice of taking a classification
of foreign sugar until you are prepared to
make it in the case of your _ own sugar;
_

and therefore, Sir, if we ever come to that part of the
proposition of my Hon. Friend, her Majesty's Go-
veymisent will 'still retain their original opinion,. and
they cannot consent to ask for an escape from their
present diffictilties by undertaking to give an in-