The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-15 00:00:00

he (Mr. Hume) had been in that House, he had witneeset
three attempts to make aesriminating duties, but they had
all felled. Under the plan of the Government there would
be a large supply
pweanen eye rpteari npaol
ume7lli;iimthnie
of sugar from America, and the consumer
epdriiacteeloyf tsoughaarv.e a benefit of one half-
Mr. COLQUHOUN said that whilst the friends of the
Government plan trusted that by it the consumers would have
their sugar at a halfpenny per pound less, it ought also to be
known that by the plan of hie Hon. Friend the Member for
Bristol, the reduction to the consumer in the price of his sugar
would be one penny. The Right Hon. Gentleman had
strangely enough stated that this year's supply of sugar must
be locked upon as a decreasing one, whereas it would turn nut
to be an increasing one. The stock of sugar was greater now
than it had been ireviously knots n to be. We had a stork at
the present moment of 40,t 00 tons, and yet this was the time
selected for the introduction of the Government measure, and fur
the singuler statement in support of it made by the
Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
It had been said that the rod was over them; but they were
driven by the roe of stern neeetsitt. They could not go
beyond the amount of duty named by the Government. He
had heard nothing in the arguments of either of his Hon.
Friends that induced him to change his resolution to vote for
the amendment of the Hon. Member for Bristol.—( Hear.)
Mr. ESTCOTT said lie knew that many West India pro-
prietors had been ruined. He knew, also, that it was the duty
of the Government to apply a remedy to their case. They
had been reduced to this condition under a p-ohibitory system,
and be wished to ask the Hon. Member for Bristol whether be
thought his proposition would be the cure for the condition in
which they were placed ?—(Divide, divide.)
Dr. BOWES ING rose amid• loud cries of "Divide." He
said they had a right to take the benefit of the declaration. of
the Hon. Member fur Bristol, that he did not mean to aug-
ment the amount of protection; but it was perfectly clear that
a duty of Ios. upon 20s. was a somevrliat greater amount than
his. upon 245. He felt a great disposition to support his Hen.
Friend, because a reduction of duty would tend to cause a re-
(Weikel of cost.—(lear, hear ) The amount of duty was one
of the elements of price, and whatever diminished the duty must
diminish the price of an article. At that hour of the night, and
with the House so impatient, lie should not detain it, except to
inquire what the Hon. Member for Bristol, with such a re-
spensibility resting on his shoulders, meant to do with the pm-
position of his Hon. Friend?
Mr. COLLEI T said. as -a free 'trader, he should support
the proposition of the Hon. Member for Bristol.
Mr. JAMES said he shout; not attempt again to move the
flinty hearts f her Majesty's Government with the bad case of
the West Indian proprietors, but he wished to make one re-
mark on something that had fallen from the Right Hen. the
President of the Board of Trade. He understood him to say
that next year it. was in contemplation to apply the principle
of an ad valorem duty to sugar. If he would do that he should
have his vote. He would also ask one question. Was this
foreign st gar to be brought in in foreign vessels, or was it to
be imported in what were called foreign bottoms?
Mr. GLADSTONE said it would be imported according
to the provisions of the navigation laws. Under certain con-
ditions it would be all° sed to be brought in foreign vessels.
Mr. HAMPDEN said he was unwilling to enter into the
subject at all, but he was urged to it by the instinct of self-
preservation.—( Hear, hear.) He avowed at once that he had
e personal interest in the question.—( Hear, hear, and a laugh.)
He did not ask them then for any deference; they might re-
ceive his arguments with all the distrust and suspicion which
arta bed to the opinions of an interested man.—( Hear, hear.)
As for his facts, be should only use those that were deplorably
notorious.—( Hear, hear.) He should not go into the whole
question of the policy of commercial restrictions. He should
only ask them not to enforce them with greater stringency on
the \Vest Indies than on any other country. They must re-
member that they could not apply the same principles now, in
their present complicated circumstances, that they could
do if they were Leginning to establisn a system of trade
de novo. With the higlr prices and -heavy burdens which
existed in this country, it would be impossible for them to con-
tend with other nations without protection. They Were de-
priiing the West Indian interest of protection, and the conse-
quence was that the proprietors were abandoning their estates.
If the object of the Government was to benefit the consumer,
they could effect that object by adopting the proposition of the
Hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, and at the same time
!cave a small profit to the NV est India proprietors. He rose
with pain to oppose her Majesty's present Govern-
ment, but he thought their conduct relative to the
West India interest, was cruel, unjust, and tyrannical.—
( Hear, and cheers.) He had on more than one occasion
voted with her Majesty's Government against his own con-
scientious judgment.—(Great laughter and ironical cheering.)
He repeated it, and he would tell why he did so. It was be-
cause on certain important rational questions the Right Hon.
Gentleman at the head of the Government could take a wider
survey of those questions than he could, and had also access to
sources of information beyond his (Mr. Hampden's) reach.
For these reasons he considered it more'prudent and patriotic
to surrender his own opinions to the Right Hon. Gentleman's
judgment—(lronical cheers.) But there were certain ques-
tions upon which he could not vote with the Government—as
the New Poor-law and the present question.—(Cries of
Question, question," " Sugar, sugar. ) He considered
British merchants more likely to come to a sound conclusion on
this subject than any Minister, however large his comprehen-
sion. If the cheapening of sugars to the extent of a penny
were to great a boon surely this country should contribute
something towards the national benefit.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was not one of those who blamed
the Government for having proposed an alteration in the
sugar duties. He did not think that the reasons given in
favour of these proposed alterations were so strong as those
which had been urged in 1841 in favour of a similar motion,
hut they were nearly as s•rong, and of a very simi ar character,
and, therefore, he did not blame the Government for having
eroposed the alteration—( ear. )—but he did think that the
manner in which they had brought the proposition forward, the
nature of the proposition itself, and the proposal that another
alteration should be made next yeer, had introduced great dif-
ficulties into the questioe.—( Hear, hear.) \\ ith re-
eard to the question before the House to-night they
nad to consider the proposition of the Government,
on the one hand. and the proposition of the Hon. Member for
Bristol on the other. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Presi-
dent of the Board of Trade, following the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, had shown that the great objection to the proposi-
tion of the Hon. Member far Bristol was the evil that must
follow from the reduction of the duty not taking place before
November. No doubt some evils would follow from that pro-
emition, but alb( were the inevitable results of the manner in
which the proposition of the Government had been brought
forward. If that proposition had.been similar to all former
propositions of a similar nature which had been brought for•
ward for the reduction of duties, the reduction would have

taken place at once both on foreign and colonial sugar. Bat
the House bad followed the guidance of the Right lion.
Gentleman opposite, and had adopted the proposition of
the Government, and made a distinction between free
labour and other sugar, and the Hon. Member for Bristol.
:lad, consequently, been obliged to frame his proposition accord.
in. to that decision. Having so framed it, it appeared clear
that the reduction would not be less than 9s. The reduction
of duty p-oposed by the Hon. Member for Bristol would give a
reduction of Id. per lb. on sugar more, which would be a great
advantage to the consumer, and on that single ground he pre-
ferred the proposition of the Hon. Member for Bristol to that
of the Government.—( Cheers) But the Hon. Member for
Manchester said that the proposition of the Hon. Member for
Bristol would give a greater protection to the West India interest
Now, he did not think that the proposition would give any
greater advantage to the West India interest than the proposi-
tion of the Government. He did not think that the Hon. Mem-
ber for Manchester was well founded in his facts. The Right
Hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had stated
the subject with great fairness ; he had stated that the protec-
tion given by the Right Hon. Gentleman's proposition,
and that given by the proposition of the Hon. Member for
Bristol was equal ; therefore, in point of protection, the two
propositions were equal—there was no superiority of protection
afforded by the proposition of the Hon. Member for Bristol.
—( Hear, hear.) His Right Honourable Friend the Member
for Taunton had stated that the sugar imported from Siam,
Java, and Manila would, in general, be brown sugar, and not
white clayed sugar, which was imported from Brazil and Cuba,
at.d the Right lion. Gentleman the President of the Board
of Trade had as-erited to that statement. It would be of little
advantage to add anything to the authority of the said state-
meets, but the returns of the imports of sugar into the United
States from Siam, as published in the newspapers, showed that
.he sugar from that country was chiefly brown, and not
(flayed sugar. It would, therefore, follow that there could be
no great advantage in the way of protection in the 14s.
as compared with the 10s. duty. If, therefore, only the sugars
of Java, Manilla, and Siam, were admited, there would be
nothing gained in the shape of protection by the adoption of
the proposition of the Hon. Member for Bristol ; but if the
clayed sugars of Bristol and Manilla were to come in, then, in-
deed, it might make a difference. On the whole, he thought
the proposition of the Hon. Member for Bristol was more ad-
vantageous to the consumer, and,therefore,he shouldsuppert it.
The peat advantage gained by the proposition of the Hon.
Member for Bristol was, that it would increase the consump-
tion. The Right Hon. Gentleman the President of the Boardl
of Trade said it was impossible to consider this question in a.
large and comprehensive manner, because it would be necessary
in that case this year to consider the question of •the income-
tax. It would be very desirable that the House should know
whether or no they meant to continue the income-tax,
and he saw no just reason why - they should not
state it. 'I he pri ssnt proposition created great alarm,
among tho sugar growers, and it was calculated to prevent
capital from beiog employed—to diminish the energies neces-
.:ary to well-directed enterprise, and had already produced
great disturbance in the market. He saw no reason why the -
whole system should not be considered and finally settled this
year. lie did not say that the proposition of the Hon. Member
was a perfect settlement of this question, but in the difficulties
in which the House was placed, he considered it preferable to
the Government proposition, and should vote for it.
Captain BERKELEY would support the Government pro.
posit ion.
Mr. MILES replied. In answer to a question of the Right
Hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, he
would say that he did not intend his proposition, if carried into
effect, should be permanent.
Captain GLADSTONE then rose, but was not at all
audible in the gallery.
Mr. RICARDO rose, but was met with loud cries oat
" Divide, divide," and great uproar.
Captain BERKELEY—If this debate is not allowei to Be
on, I shall move the adjournmeet.—(Uproar.)
Mr. RICARDO said that before he could support the amend.
trent of his Hon. Friend he wished to know whether his Hon.
Friend would be willing to give up the 45., for if he did not
consent to do so the amendment, in point-of fact, would be as
establish a differential duty of 14s. per cwt.--( Great uproar.)
Lord HOW ICK rose amidst great uproar, and said I only
rise to explain to my Hon. Friend that he is in a mistake as
to the form we now are about to vote. The Hon. Gentlernatt
has moved certain substitutions for the clause as proposed by
her Majesty's GOvernment, and the question will now be pat
that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question;
and if we have a majority ,on the first question and negative the
Government proposition, it will then be competent for any
Hon. Gentleman who wishes to propose an amendment ora
the proposition of the Hon. Member for Bristol, to move.to
leave out any part of that proposition. The question, there.
fore, upon which we are now to vote is not the adoption of the
amendment of the Hon. Member for Bristol, but aye or no,
will you, or will you not negative the plan of her Majesty's
Government. As I believe that plan to be a bad one, I shalt
vote against. it, but I am not pledging myself to adopt this
amendment of the Hon. Member for Bristol without alteration
or substitution.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw. The Committete
then divided, when the numbers were—
For the original motion 221
Against it ........... .. 241
MAJORITY AGAINST TUE GOVERNMENT
The announcement of the result was received with tree
mondous cheering.
Sir R. PEEL said:that the Dissenters' Chapel Bill was ked
for Monday next, but he thought that the resolution of this
night was of so much importance that the Committee theta
take precedence of the other business.
THE SALMON FISHERIES BILL.
The house having resumed,
The Salmon. Fisheries (Scotland) Bill, after a brief can.
versation between Mr. Warburton Mr. Drummond, and the
Lord Advocate, passed through Committee.
COMMERCIAL MARINE COMMITTEE.

Mr. HAWES, in resuming the discussion on the nominse
tion of this Committee, complained of the, partial coliplezies