The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-03 00:00:00

LIBEL BILE.

Lord CAMPBELL postponed this Bill, in conse-
quence of the absence of Lord Denman.
Lord BROUGHAM suggest€d that the Bill should
be taken on Thursday.
Lord CAMPBELL said a very important notice was
on the paper respecting the Post office, which might
occupy a considerable time.

The LORD CHANCELLOR—WeII, I have a Bill on
Friday, but, however, take it before my Marriage Bill
on Friday.—(Laughter.)
The Bill was then postponed till Friday.
THE SUGAR DUTIES BILL.

The Earl of DALHOUSIE rose to move the third
reading of this Bill. He thought it was absolutely ne-
cessary that they should have an abundant supply of
sugar at as cheap a rate as possible, seeing that this
article had now become, not an article of luxury, but of
necessity. It was to accomplish this object that the pre-
sent Bill had -been introduced. The Noble Earl then
read several statements to show that, of late years, the
supply of sugar, to this country had not been equal to
the demand. He also read a comparative statement of
prices within the last seven years. He then entered into
an explanation of the general alterations which were in-
tended to be effected by the proposed measure, as they
were lately explained in the debates on this Bill in the
other House of Parliament. He contended that the coun-
tries producing sugar by means of slave-labour
ought not tp be placed on the same footing
as those countries producing sugar in which slave-labour
was not employed; and in support of this view he re-
ferred to the opinion of Mr. Deacon Hume, as given be-
fore the Import Duties Committee on this subject. To
admit slave-grown sugar on the same footing as free-
labour sugar would be to offer a bribe for the continua-
tion of slavery and the slave trade. He thought that the
protection of 10s. per cwt., proposed by this Bill, in
favour of the West India producers, was sufficient, and
he, therefore, confidently recommended it to the adop-
tion of their Lordships.
Lord MONT EAGLE deprecated the course of the
Government in having left this question in a state of
uncertainty. He thought this was unjust both to the
consumer at home and to the producer in the West In-
dian colonies. He objected to this Bill because it would
cause fluctuation in price, as it made the supply to this
country dependent upon the laws of other countries.
He had . no hesitation in saying that he should
vote against an equalisation of the duty be-
tween all foreign sugar and West India sugar,
as he believed that an equalisation of the
duty at present would be an injustice to the West
Indian produce. Ho ridiculed the system of certificates
of origin, and contended that it would be useless. He
also ridiculed the idea that this Bill would have the
effect of curbing the slavery system, for he helieved that
it would have just a contrary effect. In proportion as
they consumed free-labour sugar in this country would a
vacuum be created in foreign countries, and that vacuum
would have to be filled up with a supply of slave-labour
produce. This Bill would indirectly encourage the
slave trade, and be could, therefore, but de-
signate the Bill as a hypocritical farce. The principle
of this Bill, he contended, was bad, and the measure
would, therefore, produce no beneficial results.
Lord BROUGHAM differed entirely from his Noble
Friend in supposing that this Bill would give encourage-
ment to slavery and the slave trade. He contended that
such a measure as this was only carrying further into
practice the principles upon which slavery and the slave
trade were abolished. He did not deprecate the use of
cotton on account of its being the produce of slaves, nor
did he deprecate the use of coffee on the same ground;
but the reason he deprecated the use of sugar, the pro-
duce of slave labour, was that the labour required for
the production of sugar amounted to torment in the
persons performing the labour. This, however, was not
the case with respect to the production of cotton and
coffee. He would always support any measure which
would have the effect of checking the extension of the
horrors of slavery as it existed in Cuba and Brazil, and
he therefore gave this measure his fullest and most
earnest support.
Earl St. VINCENT complained of the West India
planter having been placed in the position of being un-
able to command that labour which his trade and his
wants required. This had placed the West Indies in a
most disadvantageous situation. If they hail had a full
supply of labour the necessity for this Bill would never
have existed.

The Earl of RADNOR denied that the distress which
existed amongst the West India interest had arisen out
of the emancipation of the slaves. Equal distress to that
which existed now had frequently occurred long prior
to the time of emancipation. He said the distress which
the West India interest suffered arose out of the monopoly
which they possessed. He thought it was a great hard-
ship on the West India proprietors that they should not
be allowed to refine their sugar before they sent it to
this country. He would remind their Lordships that
the West Indies could not supply sugar sufficient for the
consumption of this country. In 1801 the importation
of sugar was upwards of four millions of pounds, while in
1844 the amount was not larger.
Lord BROUGHAM—HaIf of that was for exporta-
tion in 1801.
The Earl of RADNOR—No, it was for home con-
sumption.
The Earl of DALHOUSIE—In 1815 four millions of
pounds were imported, and of that two millions were
taken for exportation, and two millions of pounds more
were consumed last year than in 1815.
The Earl of RADNOR contined. He maintanied that
the existence of the monopoly in favour of the West
Indies had the effect of retarding cultivation and im-
provement. That monopoly took away the incentive to
produce to the fullest extent, because in the years when
the most was produced the value obtained for the sugar
was the least, but in years when little was produced, a
very large value was obtained. This, he contended, was
the mischievous effect of monopoly. To the Bill before
their Lordships he could have no objection, because it
was a step taken in the right direction. It was a step
towards the abolition of differential duties, which were
most injurious in their effects. He had no objection to
give the West India interest protection, provided they
could prose that they were entitled to it ; but he would
never give it them by means of differential duties. He
would rather pay
.two millions annually than maintain
differential duties in their favour—for differential duties
were only taxes on the pockets of the consumers in this
country.
Earl ST. VINCENT explained.
Lord ASHBURTON said the home consumption of
sugar had doubled since the year 1801, and it was there-
fore necessary that such a Bill as this should pass, both
to secure cheapness of price and a proper return to the
revenue. The supply at present, though large, was not
sufficient for the demand, and it was their duty there-
fore to adopt such measures as would increase the supply
of sugar to the people of this country, to whom sugar
had become an article of necessity.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE thought tbis mea-
sure partook of many good and sound principles, and he
only regretted that it was not carried further. The prin-
ciple upon which the Bill proceeded was the interest of
the consumer in this country—he whose interests had
too long been neglected. He deprecated the system of
certificates of origin, as he considered it to be useless.
The most powerful Government in the world—that of
Napoleon—had found it so. He calculated that it was
impossible by such means as these to put down slavery,
because those very countries possessing the greatest fa-
cilities for the production of sugar were the countries
where slaves were employed. He hoped, therefore, that
this Bill was only a step towards further legislation on
the subject.
Lord BROUGHAM explained.
The Earl of DALHOUSIE briefly replied.
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
Lord REDESDALE presented a petition from Pais-
ley against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
Thir Lordships then adjourned.

of disposing cf the points of law before the case pro-
ceeded to trial, and it never could happen in Scotland,
that after the trial was concluded the proceedings were
rendered nugatory because the matter set forth in thein-
dietment was not sufficient. After four witnesses
had been examined, the prosecutor stated that he should
abandon his case. The prisoner therefore had no op-
portunity of staking a defence ; and he must say, in
allusion to what had been stated with respect to the
foreman of the jury, that it was a most fortunate thing
for the prisoner that that juryman did nut try him.—
(Hear, hear.) If the jury dtd not return a verdict at
all, it was the duty of the Court to dismiss the prisoner,
never to be tried again. The protest was not given in
until the next day. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman
then read a letter from the Clerk of the Court
to the Solicitor-General, stating that when the
question. of " not guilty" was put to the jury,
they said they had no objection to that verdict.
In this.particular case both judges were of opinion that
the evidence was not sufficient to sustain a charge of
rape. The girl's own evidence was contradictory. This
he stated on the authority of the Advocate-Depute him-
self. Ha read a letter from that gentleman, stating that
the evidence of that girl was shaken, and that a verdict
of" not guilty" was returned, against which the written
protest of the jury was not rresented till some time after-
ward. lie saw nothing to complain of in the case. He did not
gather from the statements before him that the conduct
of the judge was at all overbearing, and he informed the
House that that gentleman had been for eighteen years
at the head of his profession. He did not think that any
ground for inquiring into the case had been made out.
In his opinion, the motion ought to be negatived.
Mr. WALLACE replied. As usual, whenever he
brought any case before the House with respect to the
conduct of his countrymen, he never received any assis-
tance from that House.—(A laugh.) He believed that
Mr. Muir had been most improperly snubbed
by the Lord Justice Clerk, and he had no
doubt if the Learned Judge had been at the bar instead
of being on the bench Mr. Muir would have pulled his
nose.—(Great laughter.) The truth was, Mr. Muir
had never intended to give up the case.—(Hear.)
He felt confident that the Learned Lord Advocate would
not wilfully misrepresent, but he (Mr. Wallace) believed
that he had greatly misunderstood it. There could be
no doubt whatever that the girl received treatment of a
most brutal description, and had he (Mr. Wal-
lace) been one of the jury (and he had
been accustomed to act as a j ury man)—
he would certainly have come to the conclusion that the
prisoner was guilty, and have returned a verdict accord-
ingly. The unfortunate girl was now thrown upon the
wide world— a child, he might say, she being only twelve
years of age—with a stain of the most serious nature on her
character—that she had been a consenting party to the
vile offence, and moreover, that she had perjured herself,
and also that the respectable' woman with whom she
lived had forsworn herself. He had a bundle of papers
in his pocket, which if the Learned Lord
would peruse might alter his opinion regarding the
medical testimony which had been given. But this case
had been met by Hon. Gentlemen opposite in the way
they always met such cases ; they barely listened
to such statements, but never with any intention
of remedying the grievance complained of. He never
felt more convinced of the justice of any case than that
which he had laid before the House, and, feeling so,
would consider it a breach of his duty if he did not push
the matter to a division. _ _

The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion 3O
Against it 149
Majority against the motion -119
Upon our re-admission to the gallery, we found
Sir R. PEEL upon his legs, suggesting that lion.
Members who had motions upon the paper for to-night,
and who had precedence of the Hon. Member for Fins-
bury, should give way, in order to give that Hon. Member
an opportunity of bringing forward his motion on the
subject of the Post-office. Unless the Hon. Gentleman
who had precedence gave way, it would be impossible
for the Honourable Member to bring on his
motion until a late hour, when it would be
impossible to discuss it fully. Considering the notice
which bad been given, and the attention the subject had
attracted, he considered it of great importance that it
should be decided this evening, and he hoped that other
Hon. Members who had notices on the paper would
give way.
Mr. MACKINNON said, that after what had fallen
from the Right lion. Baronet he should have no objec-
tion to comply with the wishes of her Majesty's Govern-
ment, and postpone his motion until another oppor-
tunity.

Lord INGESTRE said he had a motion which stood
next on the paper, and he would follow the example of
the Hon. Member fur Lymington, on two conditions,
one of which was, that other gentlemen who had mo-
tions on the paper should do the same, and the next,
that there should be an understanding that they were
to have precedence on another day in the same order
that they stood at present.
Captain PECHELL hoped that the Noble Lord would
not give up his motion. The claims of the Gallant
Officer (Captain Dickenson) had been before the House
for some years.—(Loud cries of" Order, order.")
Mr. TRELAWNY had a motion on the paper on the
civil disabilities of the Jews; he should consider himself
quite in the hands of Hon. Gentlemen on this side of
the House.—(Cries of " Go on, go on.")
The SPEAKER said, if other Members who had
motions on the paper did not give way, and it was
determined that the Qrders should be proceeded with,
the Hon. Member for Lymington would, of course, have
precedence.—(Cries of " Go on, go on.")
Mr. WILLIAMS hoped that the Hon. Member would
persist in his motion.—(Cries of " Order, order.")
Mr. MACKINNON, after some hesitation, said he
would withdraw his motion.

Mr. MONKTON MILNES said he had a motion on
the paper which he considered of great importance,
with respect to the:trial of a Maltese at Tunis for murder,
but he had too much experience of that House not to
know that it would be useless to press it against the
general wish. Her Majesty's Government had also ex-
pressed a desire for the Hon. Member for Finsbury to
proceed. He should not press his motion ; at the same
time, he could not see why Government were so anxious
for it to come on to-night ; but, an anxiety to that
effect having been expressed, he should, of course, give
way.

Sir C. NAPIER hoped the Noble Lord (Ingestre)
would persist in the motion which he had on the paper.
Lord INGESTRE was willing to give way, but
hoped he would have some assurance as to the time when
his motion on again.
would see the impossibility of his assigning a Govern
hesei could
id i. bringi)E E
said he was sure Hon. Gentlemen
ment day for these motions. He begged to state that
her Majesty's Government were most anxious to meet
the motion of the lion. Member for Finsbury, and he
was surprised that impediments seemed to be thrown in
the way by Hon. Gentlemen on the other side, who
seemed to wish to force the other motions forward; but
he hoped, without insisting on any conditions, the Hon.
Gentlemen would postpone them. He hoped that consi-
derations justice.--considerations of the nature of the
imputation made against the Government, and the im-
pressions produced- on the public mind, would induce
Hon. Gentlemen, without making conditions, to allow
the motion of the lion, Member fur Finsbury to be
brought forward.
Lord INGESTRE said the Right Hon. Baronet had
somewhat misunderstood him. He did not wish to make
any conditions with the Government—all he wanted was
for :these motions to be considered as dropped orders
from to-night.
Mr. TRELAWNy, after some short discussion, also
postponed his motion with respect to the laws imposing
civil disabilities on persons professing the Jewish
religion.
POST-OFFICE—OPENING LETTERS.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE then rose to bring forward
the motion of which ho had given notice,_ for
a . Select Committee to inquire into the Secret
Department of the Post-office. In bringing the subject
forward, he begged to thank the Hon. Members who had
postponed their motions in order that he might bring his
on.—(Hear,hear.) He begged leave, however, to ob•
serve, that when the llouse met at four o'clock, he was
totally unable to discover any anxiety on the part of the
Government, or its officials, to make. a House in order
to allow him to bring the question forward. At that
hour there was not a single member of the Government
in their places, and it was the Speaker alone that made
the House.—(llear, hear.) He was glad to learn that
the Right Hou. Baronet was anxious upon this question,
and he hoped that, being so, he would grant the inquiry
which he asked. The Bight Hon. Baronet had said that
the public ought to be satisfied. If he was sincere in
that, he (Mr. Duncombe) would tell him that the only way
to satisfyit was to grant his motion. The matter had come
on him rather by surprise, and many Members had left the
House
under the supposition that the motion would not come
on before ten o'clock. He (Mr. Duncombe) knew
not how this question was to be treated, whether as a
vote of confidence, or whether the representative system
was to be set aside, and, instead of the question being
treated on its merits, it was to be looked upon as a vote
of confidence. Now, if it Was to be looked at in the
latter point of view, he must confess that that was a
most unconstitutional way of treating it. Gentlemen
might rote for it as a vote of confidence, but if they did
so, he had no hesitation in saying that many Members
would vote a confidence they did not feel. He wished
this question to be treated on its own merits. He did
not
tk
of their
nowwhet
letters the parties who complained of the
opening tters were to be told that they might
go into a court of law. The answer that had been given
by the Right Honourable Baronet on the subject had
been considered most unworthy of a Minister of the
Crown. how were the public to go to law, he would
ask, with a Minister of the Crown ? It was not Mr.
Mazzini's letters alone that had been opened. He
could show that hundreds of letters had been so
dealt with. Who, he would ask, were to be the wit-
nesses when the parties went to law? Not the Right
Hon. Baronet, or the Postmaster-General, but their
subordinates, and what chance he would ask was there
for the public with such witnesses as those ?—(Hear.)
ile (Mr. Duncombe)
this q appealed to the representatives of
the people on question.—(Hear, hear.) He was de-
termined that it should be tried at the bar of public
opinion—(Hear, hear)—and not in a pettifogging
lawyer's office.—(Great cheering.) A breach of confi-
dence had been perpetrated at the Post-office, under the
authority of the Government. The inquiry he now
asked was into the general system. They had already
gone into the cases of Mr. Mazzini and Captain Stolz-
mann, and he wished now to inquire into the whole
subject, and for that purpose he intended to move for
a Select Committee, to inquire into a department of
her Majesty's General Post-office, commonly called the
Secret or Inner office, the duties and employment of the
persons engaged therein, and the authority under which
the functions of the said office are discharged.
He meant to add these general words to the motion,
and with which he had concluded a former motion on
this subject—" that it be a direction to the Committee to
report to the Rouse, whether it is expedient to make

THE SUN, LONDON WEDNESDAY MORNING, JULY 3 1844