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

of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. There
was no intention of the Commissioners 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-
evosr.—( Hea r hear.)
Sir NV. 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 PATES BILL.

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
forward 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. P. SHAW gave notice that he should move
an amendment to the second clause of the Dissenters'
Chapels Bill.
MPTROPOLITAN 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 w,ill allow me to make it, when the
Howe 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 House the course
which her Majesty'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 several
years past views we expressed when oppo
.-
nents of her Majesty's Government, and whicn
we have entertained since tti e 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 fur 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 hest in our power for
the extinction of slavery in our dominion; 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 20,000,000!. 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
against the application of British capital in
countries where the slave trade was carried on.
By that Act the House conferred very considerable
powers upon the Executive to visit with heavy penal-
ties all persons subject to the control of the British
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
have 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 I
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 cf 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--I
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 slaver are imported
into that island every year. It is, therefore,
impossible that the questionlantationsofcantracieveer come in
Cuba and the British p
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. Ido 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 hitherto 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

China, where sugar is raised by free labour,
might be a fair competition, yet to expose him
to a competition with Brazil and Cuba, would
be most unjust to the British planter. It was
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 reference 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 hid made
on the subject of 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
ask, 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 things 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, bat 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
Cent. Stock, by far the greatest operation effected in
r 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 pressed forward
in the present, that it was necessary to impose a re-
duction on the 3 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 also 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
proposition 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 with studiously to avoid
saying anything which is Capable of contradiction in
the way of argument, andß, 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
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-
thought i' prices Should rise, in con-
sequence
betterippnrl 3
ec—reel tf a
aeourcdoo thefu,scl
could
nnnttchoerrtoe
eua increased esbdbtocnda efilmt
therefore,
.partiesn db , tahnteyo
that Wtsiatukeceswhts
security
would
Indianiclusde rbit:yl
against such an event as that of a scarcity of sugar

by admitting sugar the produce of free labour at the
duty we proposed. We had another reason for dealing
with this question in the present session. I'Ve wished
the producers of free-labour sugar to know what the
intentions 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 inte•
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
proeeedings 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 30s. ; 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 10s. ; 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-
hy—(Cries of " No,"
11
Int tgio,it'oansdomexpressions understanding
Members were under any obligation to vote—(Hear,
der sta
onfdsinug surprise)—l don't say lion
hear)—but I certainly was given to understand that
that 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 en the other side there is any general obliga-
tion to support the proposition of my Hon. Friend—
(Hear, hear)—but I say that many Hon. Gentlemen
opposite preferred supporting the motion of my Hon.'
riend 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
motion.—(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 ; for, 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. The 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, 1843, 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 268,000/. as compared with 158,000/.
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
lion. 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
expectation; 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 you 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 inferiar 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-
vernment will still retain their original opinion, and
they cannot consent to ask for an escape from their
present difficulties by undertaking to give an in-

creased protection to West India sugar.—(Opposition
cheers.) Now my opinion on the sugar question,
and the effect of duty on sugar, is worth very
little. It can only be formed from general reasoning
as to the effect of prospective duties on the sugar trade;
it can only be a speculation by me founded on
experience with regard to other duties ; but I have
received by the post of this morning, from a high
practical authority, strong confirmation of the views
which I have expressed in this respect, that there
is danger in a prospective reduction of the duty, and
that there is no sufficient ground for a discriminating
duty in favour of white clayed sugar, the produce of
our colonies. The gentleman from whom I received
this letter states that he has been engaged in the sugar
trade for 20 years, that he turned over near a million of
money per annum, and was most desirous to see the
duty on foreign sugar, and more particularly on colonial
sugar, reduced as much as possible; but he was quite
certain if Mr. Miles's proposition was carried into
effect as it stood, it would be most disastrous to all
parties interested, as well as to the revenue.; for no
person would engage extensively in the trade, know-
ing that the duty would he much lower in No-
vember, when the 4s. duty would be taken off.
He would likewise strongly recommend them to place
the same extra duty of 4s. on the better class of
foreign colonial sugar, as Mr. Miles proposed to put it
on what he called white clayed free-labour sugar.
It was well known that extensive refineries had been
recently erected near Calcutta, and in other places,
for the purpose of making a fine strong-grained
sugar. This fine kind of sugar had of late got very
much into use, and bade fair to supersede the use of
refined or lump sugar; so much so, that scarcely any
other was used. This fine crystallised sugar
was likewise made in Demerara, and was
now selling at 705., while brown Muscovado
sugar was selling at 565. Now, observe (continued
the Right Honourable Baronet), the brown Mus-
covado sugar which sells at full price for 565., is
exposed to a competition with sugar the produce of our
own colonies, which is worth 705.; and it is exposed
to competition with it at exactly the same rate
of duty ; there is no discrimination whatever.
These processes of manufacture, the result of the
application of great capital, are bringing into the
best market, in competition with the ordinary pro-
duce of the West India colonies, great quantities of
fine sugar, at the same amount of duty. You
propose to make no distinction between those colo-
nies, but to admit sugar from all at the same rate ;
hut you do propose, in respect to foreign sugar, to
establish a discrimination which you do not propose
to apply to your own. If this foreign sugar, which is
worth 705., as compared with other sugars at .565., is
admitted at the same duty, why should you not be
able, supposing there be white sugar coming from
Java or Manilla, to compete with the sugar of Java
precisely in the same way, as the coarsest description
of sugar, worth 565., will come into competition with
the coarse description of foreign sugar ?—(Hear,
hear.) Those, then, are the grounds upon which her
Majesty's Government do not think it would be just
to vote for the discriminating duty in favour of colo-
nial sugar which is proposed by my Hon. Friend's
resolution, which gives a protecting duty of 4s.—
, (Hear, hear.) We cannot, therefore, assent to the
proposal of my Hon. Friend, because, after considera-
' tion, we entertain a decided preference for our own
plan. We do not think what he proposes is one which
ought to receive the assent of this House, and it is
not, therefore, in our power to vote for it on its merits.
Differing from my Hon. Friend on the merits, in a
purely commercial point of view, I do not hesitate to
admit, on the part of the Government, that, upon po •
litical grounds, I cannot undertake to adopt his plan.
My Hon. Friend, in supporting his motion, said there
was no very material difference between the pro-
posal of her Majesty's Government and his own—
that he proposed, in respect to both classes
of sugar the same amount of protecting duty ; and
that therefore we might without difficulty adopt the
amendment of my Hon. Friend. It it be a matter of
no importance we are disinclined to adopt it. It
was carried by a combination of those who generally
support us, by a combination with our political oppo •
nents. If the measure be unimportant, and such
combinations take place in support of it, it is
surely significant of a want of con idence.—(Hear, hear.)
If you cannot effect an important public object, if there
be no great difference in the two proposals, in conse-
quence of the concurrence between political opponents,
that surely bears strongly on our condition as an exe-
cutive Government, and diminishes our moans of doing
our duty. Ido not believe that the concurrence in the
vote was a casual concurrence, growing out of the de-
bate. Circumstances—l may be wrong—but my im-
pression is that it was apreconcerted arrange neat.--
(Loud cries of " No, no," in which Mr. Mile i joined
heartily.) When my Honourable Friend tells me that
that is not not so lam bound to believe him, bit still
we inferred there had been a preconcerted uncle sitand-
ing.—(Cries of " No, no.") Understand me, I not
complaining—(Cries of " Oh, oh ")—but I have a right
to state it.—(Hear, hear.) I do not deny the right of
Hon. Gentlemen to enter into combinations, but I have
a right to consider what bearing that has upon the pos
sitien of the Government when it may determine as to
whether it will accede to an unimportant proposition.
I cannot doubt the right of the two parties to combine
if they please to carry an unimportant proposition, but
I must claim for myself the right and manner of determin-
ing what the effect of my position would be in consequence.
When my Hon. Friend originally gave notice of his
amendment, it was to this effect—that he should pro-
pose a reduction of duty upon British colonial sugar to
the amount of 20s.—(Hear, hear.) My Hon Friend did
not indicate any intention at that time of reducing the
duties in the form and manner which he subsequently
submitted. His original proposition was, that a reduc-
tion should be made upon British colonial sugar, but tl,at
there should be no reduction upon foreign. The Noble
Lord opposite (Lord John Russell) had made a motion
which proposed that there should be a protective duty
upon all sugars intended to be admitted of ten shil-
lings ; and my Hon. Friend (Mr. Miles), at a subsequent
period, amended his motion, and shaped it in the form in
which it was ultimately brought before the House ; and
fearing that the 'West India party, who had some mis-
givings, might hereafter have their opinion quoted
against him, he accounted for his conduct by saying that
the forms of the House did not admit of his sticking to
his original proposition. Now, in that my Hon. Friend
was quite wrong, for nothing could have been more easy,
if it had suited the views of my Hon. Friend and of all
his supporters—(Hear, hear, and laughter)—than for
him to have adhered to his original proposition, and this
in perfect conformity with the orders of the House, and
without calling forth, Sir, your vigilance, or of running
that risk which some of the West India party think
he has incurred by giving effect to his own
measure. It must be recollected that when my
Honourable Friend (Mr. Miles) was asked
whether he would make any relaxation in that portion
of his amendment which referred to the higher duty on
white clued sugar, that his answer was he was not
prepared to do so.—(Hear, hear.) Nov, I am as little in-
clined to be mortified,or to complain of any language used
in the course of debate as any man. I cannot however
altogether forget the terms in which my Hon. Friend
(Mr. Miles), as the mover, and the Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
(Bailie), as the seconder of his resolution, introduced
this subject. I have no desire to exhibit the slightest
feeling of temper on this occasion. Indeed, I have no
feeling of the sort, but I cannot but allude to the ob-
servations which were made by the Hon. Gentlemen
who supported the motion. My Hon. Friend said that
the Government were sacrificing the colonial interests,
and the first proof which he gave of that proposition was
the reduction of the duty on foreign wool, and,
although he admitted that that reduction would not
materially interfere with the home production, yet still
he said that it was a blow to the Australian interests.
Now I hope I shall be able to satisfy my Hon. Friend on
that point. There has been a considerable sale of Aus-
tralian wool since that reduction, and three or four
days since I was assured by an Hon. Gentleman, sitting
on the other side of the House, that there never had been
a more brisk sale of Australian wool ; that a rise in price
had followed the reduction, and that te price of Austra-
lian wool was higher now than it had been before the
reduction of the duty on foreign wool.—(Cheers.)
Therefore my lion. Friend cannot quote against us the
reduction of the duty on foreign wool as destructive of
the Australian wool. My Hon. Friend said that we
had better throw off the mask.—(Loud cheering.)
My Hon. Friend having naturally a fellow-feeling with
the agricultural interest, calls upon them to unite with
him. It is but natural and legitimate that he should do
; but my Hon. Friend makes a direct appeal to the
Noble Lord, and to those opposite who act with him,
and states that he is prepared to combine with them for
the purpose of rescuing the colonies. He made that ap-
peal to the Noble Lord knowing that the Noble Lord
was prepared to establish no distinction whatever between
sugar, the produce of free labour, and sugar, the produce
of slave labour.—(Hear, hear.) My Hon. Friend the
Member for Inverness, who seconded the motion, said
that our course was vacillating and tortuous—(Hear)--
and that the West Indian interest had no confidence in
the intentions of her Majesty's Government. He also
appealed to Hon. Gentlemen opposite for their support,
which was willingly granted. Now, I cannot help in-
ferring from the speeches of my Hon. Friends and their
supporters, that in their opinion it is not desirable to in-
troduce any distinction of duty between slave-grown
sugar and free labour sugar.—(Hear, hear.) On such
an occasion as this it is right that I should speak with
perfect unreserve, and state the reasons why, be the
consequences what they may, we aro determined to
abide by the proposition which we first made,—(Cheer-
ing and counter cheering.) My Hon. Friend said that
certificates of origin are no security. If my Honourable
Friend was justified in the observations which he made,
he must concede the admission of all foreign sugar, or
maintain the present system. My Hon. Friend is of
opinion that a certificate of origin was no security against
the introduction of foreign sugar, and I do not see how,
holding that opinion, he can escape from the conclusion
that all foreign sugar ought to be admitted, or the scale
of duties remain as they aro. The Hon. Member who
seconded the motion expressed in still more decisive
terms his opinion of the impoliey of maintaining the
distinction between free and slave-grown sugar. The
Honourable Member admitted that he should prefer
a duty of 15s. on all foreign sugars to a duty of 10s.
applied by the Government to so me particular kinds.
There was a material difference between the principles
of the Government and those of his Hon. Friend. Her
Majesty's Government have determined that they cannot
be the authors of such a proposition. Under these cir-
cumstances, the course her Majesty's Government pro
poses to pursue is, this :—Tbe Noble Lord opposite

(Howick), towards the close of the debate on Friday, in
inviting other gentlemen to join him in excluding cer •
taro words from the clau:e, said, and said very truly,
that the adoption of this suggestion need not bind any
'one to support the particular proposal of his Hon. Friend.
He said if his motion was successful, it would be within
the discretion of those who might support him to make
any proposition they might think fit, as an amendment to
that of the Government. lam sure the Noble Lord will not
exclude her Majesty's Government from the same privilege.
The Noble Lord made a successful appeal to those who
were disposed to support the motion of his Hon. Friend,
but I can assure the Noble Lord that there are others
who will not be influenced by it.—(Laughter.) For
the purpose of giving the House the opportunity of re-
considering the subject, and saying whether there is
any weight in the reasons which I have given to-night
for not adopting. the proposition of my Hon. Friend,
when the proposition is brought forward for reducing
the duty to 205., I shall move .that the duty be 245. I
shall make that proposition, not merely because it is
the one which I approve of as preferable for the pro-
spective interests of the country, but because I think
it most unwise to carry any further alteration this year.
We consider that it is of importance that the countries
producing sugar, east of the Cape, should know what
course will be taken in the course of the ensuing
session regarding the sugar duties. We do not intend
to propose, at any time, the admission of slave-labour
sugar on the same footing as we propose to admit sugar
the produce of free labour.—(Hear.) It may be said,
then, why don't you abandon your measure altogether
and propose the continuance of existing duties until the
usual period, or until some period in the course of the next
session? I will state to the House, why I do not adopt that
alternative. Suppose we did altogether adopt that
course—during the next sesssion, if we were entrusted
with the Government, it might be our duty to make a
proposal on the subject of sugars, That proposition
would of course involve the admission of free-labour
sugar. It might involve a considerable reduction of duty,
if a duty were proposed on British colonial sugar, and a
corresponding reduction on sugar the produce of free
labour.—(Hear.) But observe, if there were no previous
notice given, and if you still required certificates of ori-
gin as a condition of free-labour sugar—observe, I say,
the position in which we would be placed in approach-
ing the consideration of the sugar duties, without any
previous notice or any previous steps being taken by
Parliament. (At this moment there was considerable
noise in the House. The Right Hon. Baronet waited a
moment, and then .finding it did not subside, said he
hoped he might be able to obtain silence whilst he stated
the steps the Government intended to pursue. After a
feW moments, silence having been restored, the Right
lion. Baronet proceeded.) If they merely continued
the existing sugar duties until next year, and then pro-
posed to deal with the general question of the sugar
duties, in what position would they be ?—(lronical cries
of " Hear, hear," from Lord Howick.) I know the
Noble Lord would be relieved from difficulty, because he
would admit sugar indiscriminately from all countries ;
but we, who entertain a distinction between the
two classes—foreign sugar, free labour and slave
grown—we should have to consider between
the two alternative a, either to reduce the duty on British
colonial spear to a considerable extent, and in that case
observe what we should be doing—we should, in effect,
be establishing a monopoly in the British market fee
British colonial sugar fa- several months ; for we should
wait for certificates of origin before we could admit
American suear.—(Hear.) Let us assume that we pro-
pose a reduction on British colonial sugar, amounting to
sixteen shillings—unless we could open some source of
competition, the British colonial producers would have a
monopoly in the British market, and the reduced amount
of duty would have no effect whatever in creating com-
petition.—(Hear, hear.) If we took another course—if
we took the coarse, to enable our competitors to
pour in their supply, we must make the reduction of the
duty on British sugar take effect frens a certain day,
eight or niqe months from that period. Consequently,
both these causes would lie o; en to all the objectio-s
whi,ch we at present urge. The motion of my Hon.
Friend fixed a definite day or a definite duty, but the
more they reduced the amount of duty the greater was
the tendency to derange the market and to reduce the
supply.—(Hear.) On that ground I am not inclined to
propose a continuance of the present sugar duties. and
because it would interfere with the general policy
which I propose to pursue respecting the sugar duties.
I have now stated to the House as fully as is necessary,
and as clearly as I could, the course which the Govern-
ment intends to pursue, and the motives which influenced
us in making the proposal. lam not, I cannot be in-
sensible to the position in which the Government has
been of late placed—(The Right Hon. Baronet here,
and during many parts of the remainder of his speech,
spoke in so low a tone of voice as to be frequently hut
indistinctly heard in the gallery)---nor to the difficulties
which have occurred in the progress of legislation.—
(Hear, hear.) I cannot help feeling that we have pro-
posed measures in the course of the last and during the
present session in respect to which that progress has
not been made which use thought might have been made,
but which, not having been made, leaves us, I own, in a
very unenviable position.—(Hear, hear.) I will not
attempt to impute blame to the House, but cannot help
saying that I fear we must contemplate, at the close of
the present session, the same result as at the close of
the last session.—(Hear, hear.) ThOse measures which
we have proposed—measures connected with the in-
ternal policy of the kingdom—have not been suc-
cessful.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to. some of
them, we have not received that co'dial support,
assent, and approbation from some of those Hon. Gen.
tlemen who usually support the Government, which we
had been induced to expect, and for whose opinion and
character we entertain the highest respect.—(Hear.)
I am bound to say, speaking with perfect candour, that
we cannot look for that co-operation and support on the
the present occasion by.holding out expectations of any
change in the measure which we have proposed. The
measure we believe to be good, and we must not with-
draw from it. If the measure does not entitle us to the
support of Hon. Members who usually vote for the
Government, we deeply regret the forfeiture of that
confidence. We did not expect indiscriminate or ser-
vile support, but only such as would enable us to ad-
vance in the course of useful legislation.—(Hear, hear.)
Our course has been to maintain and protect the exist-
ing institutions of the country, and, at the same time,
to introduce such improvements as are compatible with
the maintenance necessary for the purpose of
ensuring the welfare and tranquillity of the commu.
nity. We have recorded our desire to relax the system
of protection and prohibition, and allow moderate com-
petition between domestic and foreign produce. We
have attempted, to reconcile the introduction of prin-
ciples which we believe to be founded on truth with
every rt'gsrd for existing interests, and every precaution
to prevent embarrassment and undue apprehension.—
(Hear, hear.) We feel it necessary to repeal some of
the laws which preceding Parliaments had passed, and
to propose a measure of reformation regarding the Ec-
clesiastical Courts.—f Hear, hear.) Her Majesty's Go-
vernment have been defeated upon that question it may
appear a very simple and isolated one ; but we consider it
a question of great importance.—(" Hear, hear," from
the Opposition.) I repeat, we cannot pretend to con-
ciliate support by receding from the proposition we have
made. I wish to speak with perfect candour—l deeply
regret that we have forfeited the confidence of those who
generally give us their support ; but I cannot ask you
(turning to the Tory benches) to vote for us to-
night by encouraging expectations which we are
not prepared to realize. For the course which
we hare hitherto taken with respect to the gradual, safe,
and circumspect relaxation of those duties on articles
which come into competition with the domestic produce
of this country, we cannot say that we entertain any
feelings of regret or of repentance, nor any conversion to
different principles. We are prepared to abide by the
course we have pursued—we will continue to profess the
same principles, and to proceed in the same course of
gradual improvement, and this I feel obliged to declare
at a period when important consequences may be thee
result.--(Cheers.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose and said—The Right
Hon. Gentleman has brought under the consideration of
the House other and far different topics from that imme-
diately under discussion. The Right Hon. Baronet has
invited remarks and discussion upon subjects of deep
public interest, and from which, being so invited, I can-
not forbear from entering inta.—(Hear, hear.) What
the Right Hon. Gentleman proposes in the question be-
fore the House is simply to reverse the decision of Fri-
day night.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") It was said
truly enough, that, according to the statement of my
Noble Friend, it was competent, according to the
forms sf the House, to move an amendment or altera-
tion in the terms of the proposition of the Hon. Member
it Bristol ; but it does so happen that the change
which is actually proposed is neither more or less than to
negative, by a majority, the decision of Friday night.—
(Hear, hear.) The proposal is, that the present sugar
duties, so far as colonial sugar is concerned, shall be
continued—that all the duties on foreign sugar, at least
as regarded the produce of slave labour, be continued ;
and that our own proposition, a duty of 345. per cwt.,
on sugar the produce of free labour, be continued. That
is, in effect, the very proposal which was placed before
the House on Friday night, and which the House de-
cided against. I must say, although it is not for me to
estimate the conduct of the Right Hon. Gentleman at
the head of the Government towards his supporters,
that harder terms were never, in my opinion, imposed
by any Minister.—(Load cheers from the Opposition.)
It appears to me that, according to the proposition of the
Right Hon. Gentleman, no measure of Government or
finance could be laid before the Legislature upon which
ho was not prepared to say, " Let us, as the Govern-
ment, make our proposition—it is your dut:it to accede to
it.—(Loud cheers and cries of " Hear, hear," from the
Opposition, and partial,cries of " Bear, hear," from the
Tory benches.) And, if by any chance its taking our
impartial and independent view of the i aterests of the
country, you come to a conclusion differs int to that at
which we arrive, we will ask you then to reti -ace your steps.
—(Cheers, and " Hear " from the same qi teeters.) You
must, in short, affirm what you deny, ai id deny what
you affirm, and exhibit yourself to the co untry ate a de-
graded and disgraced body of men."—(Lo ud cheers and
cries of " Hear. ') That is the proposition of the Right
Hon. Baronet, and that is the propositie m to which I
am not prepared to agree.—(Hear, hear.) I cannot, I
believe, be •counted one of those who h eve been the
general supporters of the present Ge ssvernment.—
(Laughter.) I am not one of those :wh o enjoy that
distinction—(Renewed laughter)—and it is not likely
that I shall be compelled to chaege my curse on this
subject. It is for those who have been the supporters of
the Government to consider whether, on way subject,
they are prepared to surrender their will to, she dictation
of the Right Hon. Baronet. And be it remembered,
that it is not any direct or long cherishecl principles
which they are called upon to sanction—not, en confirma-
tion of those principles upon which they acted when
they placed him in office, and supplanted his. p: redecessors.
but principles the reverse of these.—(H ear, hear.)
The Right Hon. Gentleman now showed then a how they
could abandon those doctrines to which t490,Y pledged