The Sun.
London, England, 1845-02-22 00:00:00

L'T

LONDON, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1845.

The House of Lords met at Five. Returns were or-
dered on the subject of the sugar duties, on the motion
of Lord MONTEAGLE of the number of Roman Catholic
students in Trinity College, Dublin, on that of Vis-
count STRANGFORD ; and of the number of complaints
made at the Post-office of the non-transmission of news-
papers, on that of Lord CAMPBELL. An addition was
made to this latter motion, for a return of the number
of newspapers sent to the Dead Letter-office, in conse-
quence of being without directions, on the motion of the
Earl of LONSDALE. Some petitions were presented, and
their Lordships adjourned.
The House of Commons met at Twelve o'Clock, and
resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House
on the Railway Consolidation Bill. The whole of the
clauses were agreed to with some verbal amendments,
and the House resumed.

On the motion of Lord G. SOMERSET, the Orders of
the Day for the Committees on the other Railway Con-
solidation Bills were postponed to Tuesday, when the
House will again sit at Twelve o'Clock. The House
adjourned from Half-past Three to Five o'Clock.
On the re-assembling of the House several Railway
Bills were brought in and read a first time, and various
petitions were presented and notices of motion given.
In answer to Sir W. CLAY, the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER stated that it was intended the reduction in
the sugar duties should take place immediately after
the day on which the resolutions should have been
agreed to. The Right Hon. Gentleman made a similar
statement with regard to the export duty on coals, and
that in every case the same ru!e would apply, unless
when specially ordered otherwise.
The order of the day for renewing the adjourned de-
bate on Lord Howie K's amendment to Mr. T. Dux-
COMBOS motion, on the subject of Post-office espionage,
was then read, and the debate was resumed by ➢lr.
COLLETT, who considered the report of the Secret Com-
mittee most unsatisfactory ; he, therefore, should vote
for further inquiry.
Sir R. COLBORNE opposed the motion, as calculated to
cast a stigma on the character of his noble relative, who
had been Chairman of the Committee of the other House

Mr. FEartAND asked if the letters of the members cf
the Anti• Corn-law L* ague had 6, en opeocd ? If they
had not, Mr. DUNCONBE had been treated unfairly by
Sir J. GRAHAM, who only could have opened the letters
of the Hon. Member for Finsbury in order to gratify a

" prurient curiosity."
Mr. STIWTT, as a member of the Committee of last
year, vindicated their proceedings. ll© thought, how-
ever, that the power of opening letters should only be
granted on information on oath, and that parties should
have warning of warrants having been issued to read
their correspondence, and should have the same redress
as they had at present with regard to search-warrants
in case of illegality or irregularity.

Mr. COLQUHOUN opposed both tho amendment and the
original motion.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS and Mr. BLEwirr supported the

original motion.

Mr. B. COCIIRANE did not think that the fact of
having had his letters openad cast any reflection on the
character of the lion. Member for Finsbury, and should
therefore oppose the motion.

Lord C. HAMILTON said that so far from the Hon.
Member for Finsbury having been injured by these pro-
ceedings, he believed it was the greatest hit he had ever
made in his life.

Mr. WATSON denied that the law gave the Secretary
of State the power to open letters, which it appears he
had exercised. He might detain, but not open; and
if the Government were desirous of trying the legality,
let them acknowledge the fact, produce the warrant,
and bring the whole question to trial.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL having attacked Mr. D'ls-
RAELI for his support of Lord Howicx's amendment,
proceeded brit fly to reply to the legal objections of Mr.
WATSON, and concluded by calling on the House to resist
the motion and the amendment.
Lord JOHN RussELL contended for the existence and
exercise of the power of opening letters by the Govern-
ment, as necessary for securing the public peace, but de-
clared that it would be unwise to resist inquiry into the
case of the Hon. Member fur Finsbury.

Sir IL PEEL followed the Noble Lord, and deprecated
all further inquiry.
Sir J. ITANMER, Sir G. GREY, and other Hon. Mem-
bers then addressed the House.

After a lengthened discussion, Mr. T. DUNCOMBE re-
plied, and withdrew the original motion ; when the
House divided, and Lord flowicK's amendment was re-
jected by a majority of 95. The numbers being for the
amendment 145 against 240.
Mr. T. DuNcoMnE then gave notice that on Tuesday
he should move that the officials of the Post-office be
summoned to the bar of the House, for the purpose of
informing the House under what authority they had
been parties in detaining, delaying, or opening his post
letters.
The House adjourned at One o'clock.

From the most saccharine of vegetable productions
modern science can extract the most powerful acid
et known to our ch,,mi.zts. It is hecstuse of their
knowledge of this fact, wt, suppw,e, that membets of
very conflicting parties tail opinions are bent upon
teaching Sir ROBERT PEEL r.nd Air. GOULBUEN, that
to meddle with Sugar duties may be one of the
bitterest tasks which it can devolve on a Minister to
perform. The House of Commons' paper of " Notices
of Motions" for Monday next, supplies a delectable
illustration of this phenomenon. When Sir ROBERT
PEEL brought forward his financial statement; on the
14th instant, his proposition about the contemplated
reduction of the sugar duties was, perhaps, the least
palatable of all the fisaul changes he proposed. It is true
the Right lion. Baronet assumed that the result of such
alterations as he advocated in these duties would be
to reduce the cost of sugar to the consumer by some
10. a pound. Undoubtedly, if this could be realised,
the boon would be a most beneficial and a very con-
siderable one. But what were the anticipations
assigned by himself as the data on which he calcu-
lated this resulting diminution of price ? The largely
increased production of the Mauritius and of our
chief West India sugar-growing colonies. Now, to
this increase of production certain conditions are in-
dispensably necessary. The most paramount of these
is a vastly enlarged application of free labour to the
soil from whence this extended production is to be
raised. But what favourable prospect of this sort has
the singularly ineffective colonial administration
Of Sir R. PEEL'S Government supplied us with ? Is
it to be found in Lord STANLEY'S cold and sybil-like
responses (ambiguous in their expression, super-
ciliously indifferent in their tone), to the planters
and proprietors, and legislatures of our colonies, when
they have remonstrated and entreated, in vain, touch-
ing his halting, uncertain policy about encouraging
the importation of Coolies for Bengal ; or promoting
with good faith and energy the immigration of active
and skilful labourers from the coasts and islands of
the Chinese empire ? We are far from doubting,
for an instant, the prodigious fertility of Jamaica,
the Mauritius, or Trinidad ; but the scarcity of field
labour, and the apathy of the emancipated negroes,
who formerly supplied it to those possessions,
have, for some years, kept their powers of
production in comparative abeyance. That
scarcity must be effectually remedied, in the first
instance, before the increased import, or anything
coelxoteni extended
sugars u
like it, can be looked for, which is the basis of Sir R.
PEEL'S
sanguine expectations of largely reducing the
P
gaamrsoutno
ttohfeproduce British
be
eonnsout consumer. If,
r suchice
of
avert'
the simple operation of ilia plan willa,; be to give in-
creed protection to the sugar
colonies and the Mauritius, at.. of
theourexWest Indian
colonies
h
consumer, to the benlfit of the planter.e l auttioer
of a clever little pamphlet which has just been Sent to
us, called "The Sugar Question," proposes -to