The Sun.
London, England, 1845-02-26 00:00:00

of time in arguing so obvious a proposition. But when
we discussed the question last year, certain answers
were offered to the proposal which I then made, that all
foreign sugar should be subject to the same duty,
whether it were the produce of free labour or of
slave labour. I think it necessary now to take
some notice of these answers. I objected that
this distinction was illusory. I said there was no ob-
jection to take tobacco or cotton at the same duty from
the countries where they were slave-grown as from the
free states. It was answered that certainly the Govern-

will rise to 345.

Nov, Sir, what is the

the consumer, while it kept up a distinction between
free and slave labour. It risked the revenue,
not for the sake of the Queen's revenue,
or the army or navy, but for the sake
her Majesty's Government in reference to the sugar
of a particular class, which forms only a small portion of
the population of the country. The Noble Lord concluded
by moving the following resolution:—That it is the
opinion of this House, that the plan proposed by
duties, professes to keep up a distinction between foreign
free labour and foreign slave labour sugar, which is im-
practicable and illusory ; and, without adequate benefit
to the consumer, tends so greatly to impair the revenue as
to render the removal of the income and property-tax, at
the end of three years, very uncertain and improbable.
The SPEAKER having put the question,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose
and said that when the Noble Lord who had just sat
down had first given notice of his motion, he (the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer) was induced to hope that it
would be found the more convenient course for himself
and the House to introduce this discussion after the
Speaker had left the chair. He (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) was, however, prepared, with confidence, to
advocate the measure proposed by Government, and
he was quite ready to meet the Noble Lord on the
ground he had himself laid down. He could
assure the House that he met the Noble Lord on
that ground with perfect confidence, and he hoped
that he should emulate the Noble Lord in the tone
and temper with which he had conducted that discussion,
and he considered that a question of the greatest inte-
rests to the consumer should be discussed as far as pos-
sible without any of that acrimony which was too often
exhibited on the floor of that House.—(Cries of
" Hear, hear.") The Noble Lord objected to the
proposition of the Government, and he (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) therefore forbore to make
any comment on the peculiar terms of the resolution
submitted to the House. The Noble Lords did not say
one word on that objection to the proposition of Govern-
ment, because they attempted to draw a distinc-
tion between the sugars the product of slave-
labour, and those imported from what was
termed slave holding countries. The Noble Lord dis-
claimed on this occasion all imputations as to the views
of Government, and he (the Chancellor of the
Fxchequer) would not refer to any such. The
Noble Lord repeated most of the arguments used on
preceding occasions, and he said that lie could see no
distinction between the admission of sugar produced
by slave labour, and the admission of cotton and
other materials produced in the same manner. He
admitted that there was one common principle involved
in the admission of these articles, the produce of
slave labour ; but the Noble Lord had not ad-
vanced any new view—he had only repeated over
and over again the arguments which had been
so often urged on that House, not only on the previous
debates on this question during the present session,
but on occasions antecedent even to those, but he
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) maintained that
there was a very great distinction between the encourage-
ment given to the slave trade in the admission
of that commodity and those others to which the
Noble Lord had referred. It had often been announced
in that House that there was a great waste of
human life in the cultivation of sugar as com-
pared with the growing of coffee.—(Hear, hear.)
The great importation of slaves from the coast of Africa
to Cuba and other foreign countries was carried on, not
for the purpose of the cultivation of cotton, but, of
sugar, by the aid of slave labour. There could
not be a stronger proof of this than the testi-
mony of those who were on the spot, and wit-
nessed: it. He had now before him the report of the
Brazilian Consul on this part of the subject, and
he would take the liberty of reading an extract from it.
[LEFT SPEAKING.]

effect of this rate of 14s. ? The rate, I am aware, is
actually II s. 2d. ; but the rate being 255. 2d., and that
255. 2d. being reduced to 1 Is. 2d. there is a difference of
14s. But this will be enough to prevent any benefit to
the consumer. The fact will be, that there will be in
this a remission of ss. to the consumer, and Gs. to the
West Indian planter. Other calculations have been made,
and these give 6s. to the consumer, and ss. to the West
Indian planter. But supposing all the duties equal, and
these not more than Bs., the benefit given to
the West Indian planters will not be less
than 1,100,0001, and this tax will be imposed simply for
the sake of the benefit to the West India planter
and the Exchequer, for the tax will be equally divided
between the West India planter and the Exchequer.
It is a tax divided between the Exchequer and the Weo
India colonies—one part of it going to the revenue, the
other being for the benefit of the plaster. But then,
Sir, it is said that you must give this great protec-
tion on account of the state of the West Innies, and
the abolition of slavery. Sir, I could not vote
kr my Honourable Friend the Member for Man-
chester the other night, because that the West
Indies have a very considerable claim upon us owing to
the recent abolition of slavery. Let us observe what is
the state of the West Indies in consequence of the
very great advantage given to them. The West
India labourers have had the advantage of a great
state of prosperity ever since the passing of the
Act of emancipation. During the last year that state of
prosperity has diminished, in so far as the amount raised
trom labour had decreased, and the wages of the labourer
had not been more thaa 7s. per week. Now, under this
state of affairs, what had taken place in the West In
dies has been this :—There has been a great stimulus to
immigration—there has been a great number of labourers
attracted to the West Indies, in order that there might
be a sufficiency of labour to supply the sugar of this
country. But, Sir, the way in which that scheme has
operated has been this : A tax has been imposed under
these circumstances, which has borne with great severity
on the labourer. In proof of this, I hold in my hand a
letter from a person, who is a remarkable man, during
the anti-slavery agitation, and who now has a most ex-
traordinary influence over the n'inds of a great part of
the population of Jamaica. The person to whom I :al-
lude is Mr. Knibb, the Baptist missionary, and this letter
was written by him in 1844. Mr. Knibb says, "I do
not believe there is another labouring population on
the face of the earth who would so patiently
have borne this reduction in their wages. It was made
too, at a time when a tax was imposed upon the country
which had no other effect than to increase the price of

ment did not propose to interfere with the tobacco or
cotton duties, or with commerce long established ; but
that in all new regulations which might be in-
troduced, they would make the distinction be-
tween the produce of free labour and that of
slave labour. But this is not the fact, for the proposal
of this year, as well as that of last year, does make an
alteration ; but the distinction between foreign free and
slave labour is not observed. Take coffee for instance—
last year the duty was reduced from Sd. a pound to 6d.,
and the same duty was imposed upon foreign slave-grown
sugar as upon the produce of free labour. With respect
to copper ore, it is proposed this year to admit without
duty that which is the produce of slave labour. And
with regard to cotton, you are going to take off the
whsle duty this year, and you do not propose to make
any distinction between that which is raised by the
labour of slaves in our foreign possessions and
that which is raised in the East Indies, and else-
where by free labour.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, I find, ac-
cording to those who are the greatest opponents of
slavery—philanthropists who take this view—that we
ought to discourage all productions of slave labour.
These persons admit that we cannot exclude alto-
gether the products of slave labour, yet still some
of them regard with dissatisfaction the encourage-
ment which is given to slave-grown coffee and cotton.
But, in point of fact, you cannot discourage slave labour,
for although you profess to limit yourselves only to the
produce of free labour, yet, if the distinction could be
kept up—if your Custom-house regulations could
be so maietained, that none but free labour
produce should be admitted—still the free la-
bour sugar, kept from the market of the world for
your supply, would be replaced in the market of the
world by the slave grown sugar which you excluded.
The reply to this was of a very refined stature, and I
own I think not a very successful one. It was, that you
would in fact make a difference of price in the markets
of the world between free and slave labour sugar ;
that the free labour sugar of Java and
other countries would command a better price
than slave labour sugar in consequence of your
restriction. I do not think that this will be the case for
supposing the whole consumption of sugar to be 670,000
tons,Jfyou take away 20,000 tons for the consumption of the
continent, as there is; no difference made on the continent
between free labour and slave grown sugar the probability
is that the greater part of the want thus created V% ill be
supplied by the sugar of Cuba and Brazil, which admits
of great extension, and that this 20,000 tons additional
will be the produce of slave labour. But in the next
place there was this difficulty in the project
you proposed, that you could not in point
of fact, confine your consumption to the free
labour sugar of foreign countries. You had certain
treaties with foreign powers by which you had agreed
to admit their articles on the same terms as those of the
most favoured nations ; therefore, you could not exclude
the produce of those countries consistently with
the maintenance of those treaties. There are se-
veral countries which come into this catalogue ;
and the fact as accorded with the argument then ad-
vanced that you would not effectually exclude slave-
labour sugar, for the only sugar, and that but a small
quantity, which has been imported under the Act of
last 3 ear was said to be the sugar of Venezuela, and
was, in fact, sugar produced by slave labour. I have
heard various statements with regard to this slave-grown
sugar. Some say it has been recognised as the sager of
Porto Rico, others say it is the sugar of Surinam or Bra-
zil. But those I have seen on this subject generally agree
thatit was not the sager of Venezuela, but sugar
which by some fraud or other was passed as Venezuelan
into this country.—(Hear.) This is but a single in-
stance, but it has happened very early in the course of
your experiment. It has happened so early, that it has
preceded any of those importations for the sake of
which you altered the law. Now, if this
is the case already, what may you expect from
the whole of the next ten years, for instance, if you
preserve this distinction ? What can you expect but
this—that ingenious persons will contrive schemes by
which they may more effectually evade your regulations,
and that the sugars of Brazil and Cuba will be sent
to the ports of Venezuela and other ports, where
they may find a Consul who is not suspicious,
or Custom house authorities, who are open to a bribe,
and by this means constantly evade the provisions you
have made for the exclusion of any sugar that is not
the produce of free labour. If this be the case,
then I submit that it is impracticable to keep
up this distinction. You are attempting that
which is contrary to the nature of things—
you are attempting that which you cannot follow out in
practice. I will not say that there has been any hy-
pocrisy in this proposal, as I do not wish to use any ar-
gument of that sort ; but admitting, and giving every
credit for good intentions, as much as was claimed, it is
not a proposal that can be carried into effect, and it is
impossible that your regulations can actually exclude that
slave-grown sugar which you propose to exclude.
It is hardly worth arguing this question again. It is
quite clear that the manufacturers of sugar in Brazil and
in Cuba, so long as you send value for their sugar, and
indifferent whether you yourselves consume the sugar or
not. All that they ask for is, a market for their pro-
duce, and when they obtain that they are satisfied
with the resut. Such, Sir, is one of the obvious defects
of the measure, defects which I think will, from
year to year become more and more obvious
and striking. I proceed next to what I consider
Another fault in the measure, and that is, that I con-
sider it rather aggravates than otherwise the protec-
tion given at present to the colonies. I was
happy to hear, the other night, the principles of
free trade admitted by all who spoke on the question,
except by the Vice-President of the Board of Trade.
The Right Hon. Gentleman the Member f•ir Newark,
who so lately quitted the office of President of the
Board of Trade, made a most remarkable declara-
tion on this subject,. He admitted that the East
Indies had no claim for protection—he admitted that
nothing but the scarcity of labour in the West India co-
lonies, resulting from the Emancipation Act, could form
a ground for protection respecting sugar. This is a most
important admission.—(Hear, hear.) It is most im-
portant because it evidently admits this, that it was no
reason because the produce was the produce of our colo-
nies, that any protection whatever should be extended.
Mr. GLADSTONE—I did not say that these colo-
nies had no claim for protection. What I said was,
that they had no claim for greater protection than 10s.
per cwt.
Lord J. RUSSELL—Then I misunderstood the Right
Hon. Gentleman. I thought he said the colonies had
no claim for protection. However, this admission of
only 105. per cwt. protection narrows the question of
protection very considerably, because a protection
of 10s. or 10s. 6d. per cwt., according to the proposal
of the Right Honourable Gentleman, is not required
by justice with respect to 70,000 tons which
come from the West Indies. With respect to
the Mauritius, there:s is a sufficiency of labour for
the Mauritius. Newspapers even tell us that
the labourers cannot get sufficient employment.
This demand of protection to the amount of 10s. 6d.
does not apply either to Barbadoes or Antigua, because
those colonies have likewise a sufficiency of labour.
Then the demand of protection made on behalf of the
West Indies amounts only to a claim of protection
for that amount for Jamaica, Trinidad, and De-
merara. Now this, I must say, makes a great
difference In the case ; because you are proposing an
equal protection of 10s. 6d. both for those who may in
justice demand it, and for a great many others who have
no such claim. Now, Sir, let us examine the protection
which is thus proposed. My Honourable Friend the
Member for Manchester, in bringing forward his
motion the other night—and I find it impossible not
to refer to that debate, because it raised what
was a' part of the present question—(Hear, hear)—my
Hon. Friend stated on that occasion that the protection
given amounted to a tax of about 2,300,000/. on the
people of the United Kingdom. My Noble Friend the
Member for Sunderland stated that it was a protection
to that amount, acd at the same time, he said that there
had been a difference of above 7s. 6d. in the price of colo-
nial and foreign sugar. The Right Hon. Gentleman the
Member for Newark, to whom I must again allude, said
that there was an evident inconsistency in these argu-
ments—that if the difference was no more than that, it
was impossible that the protection could be more than
14s. Now, certainly, when I heard that declaration I
felt impressed with the importance of it as
coming from the Right Honourable Gentleman,
but at the same time I could not agree in its
justice, and I will state my reasons why I think it is not
correct. What the Right Hon. Gentleman proposes is,
not to continue the present importation and the present
duty, but a new importation and new rates of duty. If
the present importation were to continue, and the differ-
ence of price, which was 20s. and 275., we might say that
there was only that difference of price, and that with
the present rate of duty there was no greater
protection. But let it be observed, that the protection
proposed to be given is on a consumption of 250,000
tons of sugar. What is assumed by the Right lion.
Gentleman opposite is, that the consumption of sugar
will increase from 207,000 to 250,000 tons ; and the
consequence must be, that until this foreign sugar which
is proposed to be admitted, comes into the market, the
West India sugar will continue to rise in price,
Therefore supposing, Sir, that the price of sugar now
was 205., it appears on the admission of the Right Hon.
Gentleman the imposition on the 15,000 tons of foreign
sugar would make it 285., and make the price at which
foreign sugar will be brought in the market not less
than 48s. Now, supposing that the price of West India
sugar is now, as it was a few weeks ago, 285., it will
then by the addition of a 14s. duty be raised to the price
of 425., and is, will not be until it has risen to
48e., that foreign sugar can be brought into the market
to compete with West India sugar. If sugar be, there-
fore, at the price which it was a few weeks ago, the
price at which it as ill be sold will give a protection of
14s. a cwt. to West India sugar. If this be the
case, the measure of the Government will not give to
to the consumer the benefit which will be lost to the
revenue. This competition, therefore, Sir, does not
s
" price me
ef calculationsu
togarghivaoesf any benefit to the country.
:Ye " r theise n t Right i3gohs t.
orH Hon.
.1 the
e consump-
tion nGentleman,snm pi
-f
tion will be decreased, and foreign sugar, cannot conic
into the market. The_pr.i of West India sugar will,
in that case, rise, and there will not then be the con-
sumption of 250,000 tons which has
andbe oenrtreul2astoedo as
as the consumption of the country
tons, 15,000 tons being subject to the foreign d'ut°3°-,
it will be a Rat consequence that the price

provisions, and, of course, as this tax pressed more upon
the articles of food which they consumed, it
must have tended still further to reduce their wages."
Now, Sir, this proves that the plans you propose, though
they may have the effect of giving so large an amount
as a million or upwards to the planters, will not have
the effect of increasing the comforts or happiness of the
peasantry of the West Indies. I believe that the admis
sion of labourers from Africa to the West Indies, if
conducted under regulations and allowed to take
place in small numbers, would be for the ad-
vantage both of the West Indies and of Africa.
I have recorded that opinion, and I still believe both that
the civilisation of Africa would be promoted by persons
going from Africa to the West Indies, and that the ge-
neral prosperity of the West Indies would be improved
by that plan. In the first place I should beg the house to
bolt back, and seeing the Right Honourable Gentle-
man the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment, with whom I acted in the Committee that
preceded that Act, in his place, I would ask of him
what made the Act of Emancipation so successful, as it
was universally allowed to be, so far as the peace and
happiness of the people of the West Indies was con-
cerned? Why, because, much to the credit of the
masters of slaves of that day, the slaves were
so far brought into a state of civilisation
that when the act of emancipation took place, society
fell into its natural order, and no outbreaks or riots
were committed, as might have been expected from the
sudden change from slavery to freedom. But be it re-
collected that the change had taken place nearly thirty
years after the slave trade had ceased ; thereby the
people of the West Indies had become to a great
degree civilised, and this great revolution was made
without convulsion.—(Bear, hear.) lam stating what
is to the credit of the owners of the slaves in the West
Indies. But if you are now to introduce vast numbers
of Africans from the shores of Africa, if you were to
take them from places which were still in a state of
barbarism—if you were to transplant them into
the West Indies and turn them at once to
labour, I cannot but foresee that, in long course of
time, you would have a population whom it .would be
difficult to bring into that state of civilization which your
present negro population of the West Indies are in.
And yet that is the attempt you are now making. I
hardly think it will succeed, because I think the very
great cost of carrying labourers from Africa to the West
Indies is very much against it. But still the attempt is
making in this way, by rnakinglarge loans in Trinidad and
Demerara, and taxing the people and especially
taxing the admission of their food—for the pur-
pose of raising means to bring great num-
bers of :eople from Africa to the West Indies.
Any law which you may pass in this country which
has a great tendency to give a monopoly, as far as this
country is concerned, to sugar, the produce of the West
Indian colonies, will produce a disadvantageous effect
upon the labourerers in the West Indies. In the first
place, it will tend to the oppression and disadvantage of
of the labeuring population of the West Indies. I
state this upon the authority. of Mr. Knibb.—
(Ironical cheers from the Ministerial Beaches, answered
by counter cheering from the Opposition.) Mr. Knibb
is a man who possesses great authority among the
labouring population of the West Indies—a man of most
remarkable talent, and of great influence and authority.
in the next place I think it would endanger the future
condition of the West India colonies, making it doubtful
twenty years hence—when we consider the immense
numerical superiority of the black population over the
white—whether the colonies may not be the scene of some
most frightful convulsion. And all this is done to keep up
a system which is contrary to your own proposed prin-
ciples, and is proposed to be brought about in the most
artificial manner. I am free to confess that it appears
to me that this attempt to produce an artificial price of
sugar in this country, as you say, for the purpose of giving
an advantage to the West India Colonies, must result in
producing effects which must be very dangerous, and
may be quite fatal to the interests of those whom you
are anxious to protect.—(Hear.) But when gentlemen
speak of the additional advantage which this system of
protection is to confer on the labourers in the West Indies,
let them not entirely forget that there are also labourors
in this country.—(Cheers.) That there are labourers
employed in agriculture—(Cheers)—and that there are
artizans employed in manufactures who also require
some little consideration.—(Cheers.) I can readily
conceive that a sudden and immediate reduction of all
duties on foreign produce, as compared with the produce of
the West Indies, to 14s, or to 285., might produce such
an immediate disadvantage to the West India proprietor
as to cause a great shock ; but, on the other hand, if
you attempt to give an additional advantage to
the planters you will put off to a still further period the
time which we all hope to see arrive, when the principles
of free trade shall be universally adopted.—(Hear, hear.)
I heard the other night an Hon. Gentleman who has re-
cently become a member of the Government, state that
the principles of free trade were true in the abstract. That
principle I believe is universally admitted ; but I wish
to see the practical application of these principles with
regard to such great articles of consumption as that
which we are now called on to consider.—(Cheers.)
I now come to the results which the Right
Honourable Baronet stated would ensue from
his proposition, as far as the finances of the
country were concerned. He stated that the result would
be an increase in the consumption, from 207,000 tons,
with a consequent increase to the revenue of 1,300,0004
Now it appears to me, without any injury whatever to
the West Indies, you might remit the whole of that—if
you were to have, for instance, 20s. or 28s. ; or it re-
ducing the duty very largely, you were to have a similar
duty to that proposed by the Right Hon. Baronet of 10s.
or 125., and of 18s. or 20s. on foreign produce—you
might not make any difference in the present prices
between the colonist and the foreign producer, but you
might preserve a very great part of your income, and
you might have the -means of making this experi-
ment. The Right Honourable Gentleman has pro-
posed this experiment with regard to sugar. He
might make that experiment with regard to sugar,
and he might preserve the whole of the revenue, if he
would but admit all foreign sugar, and decrease the pro-
tection he proposes to give. Suppose the price of foreign
sugar to be 20s„ if he were to add a duty of 205.,_ he
cannot have a less price than 40s. If you were to have
a very much less duty, it is evident that the consumer
would obtain a great benefit, and you would very much
' increase the consumption of sugar. It is very doubtful
as you now stand, whether the loss of 1,300,0001. will
be the total loss the revenue will sustain ? Unless
consumption increase at the rate the Right Hon. Gen.
tleman anticipates, the loss to the revenue will be
1,800,0001. or 1,900,0001. Now if you could but save
that revenue, I think I have shown that there need be no
additional price to the consumer. You need not make
the consumer pay a single farthing more for sugar, and
at the same time you might preserve the whole of the
revenue. Now, when I consider the various duties there
are which press heavily on the consumer which might be
lightened if you had but that sum, you could spare as
part of the surplus, I cannot think this great sacrifice to
the West Indian planter at all desirable or advisable.
There are various duties with regard to which
the Right Honourable Gentleman has declared
his disapprobation. There were duties which
were mentioned when the tariff was discussed
I will take a small instance, cheese and butter.—(Hear,
hear.) When there duties were mentioned, it was said
that the duty was thirty per cent., and in some inferior
descriptions of cheese 100 per cent., and the Right Hon.
Gentleman the late President of the Board of Trade
said, it was impossible to look to main-
taining that duty. That duty was very high. But he said it
was then impossible to make experimentsin the revenue.
There are other duties that press heavily on silk and
other things, which ought to be removed ; and if the
Hon. Gentleman has a surplus of 1,300,0001., I think
the experiment ought to be tried whether or not
some reduction might not be made in the duties on those
articles without affecting the revenue.—(Hear, hear.)
When there was no surplus, of course the experiment
cannot be made, but when the Ministry had one,
it was their duty to try how far they could reduce
taxation. It was proposed by the Government to impose
a duty of 14s. on sugar the produce of our own colonies,
while in colonies where the slave trade existed, it is pro-
posed to exact a duty of 28s. The consequence of that
is a great burthen upon the consurner.—(Hear, hear.)
It may be said that the subject is one for a Com-
mittee, that is, whether or not it would be wise to
take away all duties in sugar, or make a gradual
reduction, but, in my opinion, the plan proposed
by the Government does not give adequate benefit to

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY ‘26, 1845.

and I did so, hoping against hope.' I told him repeatedly
I would leave him to his fate, never to return, and I did so,
at how great a sacrifice let the present well foreseen (as
likely to happen) apparent ruin, to which Bayley's belief
of the Raja's assertions exposes me and mine, testity. Good
bye, I have been very foolish, 'hoping against hope,' and
misled by the Raja's promises, and at times even his sem-
blance of amendment. If your inquiry is to proceed in spite
of my letter, it should commence with the installation of
Sirfagee, in 1799, and Mr. Torins and his annuity of 1,0001.
per annum ; Colonel Blackburn ditto, Fife's ditto; and, above
all, to entertain the fact whether I have made any altera-
tion in the method left me by poor old M'Lean. No excuse,
I know it and deeply feel it. It does not signify whether it
is the mere bite of the apple, or eating it all. Touch not,
taste not, or the act of insolvency and the choice left me.
And I was foolish. " 1 am faithfully yours,
" A. DOUGLAS."
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, having concluded his address,
proceeded to produce his evidence, which almost entirely
consisted of written testimony sent over from India. The
reading of these parchments occupied the remainder of yes-
terday and a great part of to-day.
Mr. KELLY addressed the jury for the defendant.
Lord DENMAN, with regard to the letter, expressed his
clear and distinct opinion that the Learned Counsel who
conduced the prosecution would not have been justly dis-
charging their duty to the public bad they not laid that letter
before the jury. In his opinion the evidence adduced was
admissible for the purpose of proving the charges which had
been made, and if the jury believed that evidence, the ver-
dict must be for the Crown.
The jurors intimated their belief of the evidence, and ex-
pressed their readiness to pronounce the verdict.
A discussion then ensued as to the counts on which the
verdict should be taken, and certain counts were selected
for that purpose. The verdict was then entered for the

Crown. - -
Lord Penman, on the application of Mr. Kelly, reserved
to the defendant leave to move to enter a verdict for him,
in case the Court should think that the objections taken in
the course of the trial by Mr. Kelly were sustainable in law,
or that the evidence was not sufficient to support the informa-
tion. His Lordship took the opportunity of expressing in
strong terms his approbation of the conduct of Mr. Bayley,
who had succeeded the defendant as resident at Tanjore, and
who, notwithstanding any precedents afforded by the con-
duct of former Residents, had positively refused those advan-
tages which they had accepted, and which had been likewise
offered to him. Mr. Bayley had done himself much honour
iu thus preferring the performance of his duty to the gratifi-
cation of his interests.

TUESDAY NIGHT'S GAZETTE.
DIVIDENDS DECLARED.
E. Gill, tinman, Chester—first div. of 61/2d. in the pound,
Feb. 27, or any subsequent Thursday, at the office of Mr.
Cazenove, Liverpool.
W. Whiting, landing waiter, Wallasca, Cheshire—first div,
of Is. 10d. in the pound, Feb. 27, or any subsequent Thurs
day, at the office of Mr. Cazenove, Liverpool.
J. H. Shanklin, landing waiter, Wallasca, Cheshire—first
div. of Is. 2d. in the pound, Feb. 27, or any subsequent
Thursday, at the office of Mr. Cazenove, Liverpool.
J. Cuttell. clothier, Holmfirth, Yorkshire—first and final
div. of 2lAd. in the pound, Feb. 25, or any subsequent Tues-
day, at the office of Mr. Fearne, Leeds.
A. Ellis, grocer, Mexbrough, Yorkshire—first and fine'
div. of 3s. 10d. in the pound, Feb. 25, or any subsequent
Tuesday, at the office of Mr. Fearne, Leeds.
T. W. Wilson, linen manufacturer, Barnsley, Yorkshire—
first and final div. of 2s. ld. and 7-12ths of a penny in the
pound, and those who have received a former dividend may
receive a third and final div. of 7-12ths of a penny in the
pound, Feb. 25, or y subsequent Tuesday, at the office of
Mr. Fearne, Leeds.
D. Button, pawnbroker, Albion-place, Battle-bridge—se-
cond div. of 51 d. in the pound, March 3, and two following
Mondays, at the office of Mr. Alsager, Birchin-lane.
J. Pledge, bricklayer, Vauxhall- street, Lambeth—second
div. of 4s. ed. in the pound, March 3, and two following
Mondays, at the office of Mr. Alsager, Birchin-lane.
I. Isaacs, army clothier, Chatham—first div. of 9d. in the
pound, March 3, and two following Mondays, at the office of
Mr. Alsager, Birchin-lane.
11. Miles, woollen draper, Southampton—second div. of 9d.
in the pound, March 3, and two following Mondays, at the
office of Mr. Alsager, Birchin-lane.
E. Walker, auctioneer, Newman-street, Oxford-street—
first div. of 3s. Sd. in the pound, March 3, and two following
Mondays, at the office of Mr. Alsager, Birchin-lane.
J. Piggott, jun., cabinet maker, Richmond, Surrey—second
div. of 61/2d. in the pound, March 3, and two following Mon-
days, at the office of Mr. Alsager, Birchin-lane.
C. B. Bayley, draper, Abingdon—second div. of Is. Id. in
the pound, March 3, and two following Mondays, at the
office of Mr. Alsager, Birchin-lane.
N. Blake, linen draper, Edgware-road—second div. of 6d. in
the pound, March 3, and two following Mondays, at the office
of Mr. Alsager, Birchin-lane.
G. Rossiter, jeweller, Bridgwater—first div. of 2s. 4d. in the
pound, March 3, and two following Mondays, at the office of
Mr. Alsager, Birchin-lane.
DIVIDENDS.
At the Court of Bankruptcy, Basinghall-street.
W. I. Welsh, attorney, Great Queen-street, Lincoln's Inn -
fields, March 18, at eleven—J. Clay, draper, Dewsbury,
Yorkshire, March 19, at two—W. Notman, pianoforte maker,
John—street, Tottenham-court-road, March 18, at twelve.
In the Country.
H. Whittaker, silk throwster, Macclesfield, March 19, at the
Manchester District Court—E. Thornley, scrivener, Hinckley,
Leicestershire, March 11, at the Birmingham District Court
—W. Cochran and J. P. Robertson, merchants, Lima, South
America, March 20, at the Liverpool District Court.
CERTIFICATES to be granted, unless cause be shown to
the contrary, on the day herein mentioned.
J Hannen, tallow melter, Little Britain, March 28—E.
Brentnall, builder, North Brixton, March 18—P. J. Meugens,
broker, Dunster-court, Mincing-lane, March 19—II. H. Foot-
head, wholesale milliner, Fore-street, Cripplegate, March 20
—W. Neiman, pianoforte maker, John-street, Tottenham-
court-road, March 20—J. Smith, draper, Liverpool, March
19—S. Peach, grocer, Nottingham, March 22—8. B. and
B. G. Owen, tailors, Pall-mall, March 18—J. C. Petrie,
miller, Bedlington, Durham, March 18—E. Hemming, needle
manufacturer, Astwood-bank, Worcestershire, March 18—
G. Alexander, innkeeper, Bcaminster, Dorsetshire, March 18
—T. Shillito, chemist, Leeds, March 18-3. Leybonrn, cabi-
net-maker, Bradford, March 18—H. Nicholl, worsted spinner;
Halifax, Yorkshire, March 18—J. Yeardley, W. Yeardley,
and E. Yeardley, flax spinners, Ecclesfield-mill, Yorkshire.
March 18.

PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.
T. and B. B. Whinney, job masters, Piccadilly—M. and J.
Whitehead, joiners, Sheffield—J. and F. Haysom, builders,
Upper Belgrave-place—R. and J. Firth, Cleckheaton, -York-
shire—W. Parker and W. Houghton, builders, Birmingham
—J. Hammill and W. Thompson, merchants, Liverpool—G.
11. Rollet and E. Newmarch, builders, Gainsburgh, Lincoln-
shire—J. Sandbach, sen., and J. Sandbach, jun., wine mer-
chants, Chorlton-upon-Medlock, Lancashire—J. Sharer, P.
Sharer, J. Gibson, and J. Stokoe, drapers, Sunderland—J.
Wilson, A. Pilling, and W. Milner, woollen manufacturers,
Huddersfield (so far as regards J. Wilson)—W. Neale and
IL Wright, carpenters, Leicester—S. Crispin, and E. Dow-
sing, tobacconists, Carlton-street, Regent-street--J. Bromley
and J. Drake, window -glass cutters, Oxford-street—J. H.
Brinkworth, A. Silcock, and W. Eyres, coal merchants, Chip-
penham—W. Eyres and A. Silcock, iron founders, Chippen-
ham—T. Dakeyne and S. Jones, tanners, Ave Maria-lane—
T. Dakeyne, S. Jones, and G. W. Waters, tanners, St. An-
drew's-road, Newington (so far as regards G. W. Waters)—
E. and A. Brook, grocers, Wakefield—J. Green, W. Watson,
and A. H. M`Dougall, wine merchants, Pall-mall—J. Stubbs
and C. Rollings, attorneys, Birmingham—W. J. and A. Bun-
nett, blind manufacturers, Newington-causeway—W. Rose,
jun., and J. Searby, woollen drapers, Spilsby, Lincolnshire—
J. Byrne and T. Anderson, silk manufacturers, Manchester—
H. Mason and S. Fawcett., spinners, Great Horton, Yorkshire.
SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS.
John Davidson, baker, Currie, Edinburgh, March 3 and 24,
at two, at the chambers of J. Nisbet, Edinburgh.
James M‘Laren, merchant, Coupar-Angus, March 1 and
24, at one, at the chambers of W. Greig, Perth.
William Jack, boot maker, Falkirk, March 4 and 25, at
one, at the office of Russel and Aitkei, Falkirk.
Archibald Gordon Macdonald, coach contractor, Annat,
Argyllshire, March 5 and 26, at twelve, at the Banavie Inn,
Kilinallie.
Hugh Kennedy, grocer, Content• upon-Ayr, Feb. 28 and
March 28, at twelve, at the chambers of W. Kirkland, Ayr.
John Kerr, merchant, Greenock, Feb. 27 and March 20, at
twelve, at the White Hart Inn, Greenock.

GLASS DUTIES
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.
Mn. EDITOR,—You will greatly oblige me by inserting
the following few lines in your valuable paper:—
Being a commercial traveller in the flint-glass trade,
and now on my journey, I have, since the proposed
alteration on duties by Sir Robert Peel, met with great
difficulties to convince my customers, and other parties,
that there is any difference between the present duty ou
flint and sheet glass, in consequence of Sir Robert Peel
stating, in the house of Commons, that the present duty
about to be taken off glass would reduce the price 300
per cent.; but the present duty on flint glass being only
three farthings per pound, it is my wish that the public
may be shown that the great reduction Sir Robert Peel
named can only be upon sheet glass, and that it is un-
fortunate for the trade I am connected with, that Sir
Robert Peel did not name the difference of duties
between the two articles. I am, Sir, very respectfully,
W. H. PARISH,
Of Stourbridge, Worcestershire.
Lincoln, Feb. 23, 1845.

England, Scotland, and Ireland alike, for they all paid alike,
and bore a great cost— no less than 25,0001. per
annum —for the pm yment of their judges. He held in
his hand the Act that was passed for increasing the salaries of
those judges, in order to diminish the arrears of business, and
to facilitate justice. He would read another extract to the
House as to the state of the Scottish law, and that return
showed that in the course cf one session there were only eight
eases adjudicated on. He (Mr. Wallace) had many facts in
his possession, all bearing upon the question, but he would
confine himself to the particular matter of his motion. He
had obtained, last year, a return, showing the number of cases
adjudicated on in England, as also in Wales, in Ireland, and in
Scotland. The result of that return he would lay before Hon.
Members, and he requested their particular attention to it.
The return was for the session of 1e44, and the proportion of
cases in the different countries was as followed :—To the
thirteen millions of population in England there were 154
judges, thus showing one judge to every 100,000 inhabitants ;
Ireland, with a population of eight millions, had 124 judges ;
and Scotland, with above three millions, had 94 judges, thus
showing one judge to every 27,000 persons. The people of
Scotland complained most grievously of the two courts of law,
and of their ever-varying judgments. The Scottish bar was
now so much reduced both in the 'umber of first-rate, and
other counsel, that it was perfectly impossible that
persons could get their cases conducted without a
very great, indeed an enormous expense.—(Hear, hear.)
It appeared that in Scotland the vacations of the Courts of
Session exceeded the time of the sessions themselves. One
court sat 113 days, and the other only 103 days. By a re-
turn, which he had moved for in 1840, it appeared that for ten
years there had been 813 appeals to the House of Lords. Out
of these 598 came from Scotland, or nearly three-fourths of
the number cf the whole kingdom. The Hon. Member then
referred to several documents to show the comparative expen-
diture of the law courts of Ireland, Scotland, and England,
and the business done in each. He contended that the busi-
ness in the criminal, as compared with the civil courts, was
simple, easy, and disposed of with facility. He next referred
to the time devoted to judicial business by the House of Lords,
which, he said, did not average five hours a day. Then with
respect to the Court of Quarter Sessions, he would beg leave
to read a short statement upon that subject. Having done so,
he then went on to scy, that the reason he had brought this
question forward was, because he had hitherto entirely failed
in inducing the Government to give them a better system of
jurisprudence. All over Scotland criminals were brought up
time after time, and for a series of slight offences
might be convicted and sentenced to transportation.
In England there was a frequent opportunity of
trying prisoners, but in Scotland, they had the old jog-trot
system of holding an assize once in six months. They had
wisely legislated for England and Ireland in this respect, for
prisoners were tried at periods near to the time when their
offences had been committed, and they had, therefore, a great
advantage over Scotland towards the repression of crime.
During the sitting of the Court of Session, and then only, pri-
soters were tried once a week in Edinburgh. , Why was riot
that system adopted over the whole of Scotland? But, in-
stead of this, persons were kept in prison who might be inno-
cent, for four or five months, and this was so because the con-
venience of the judges was consulted rather than the proper
administration of the law. He did submit that this was a
state of things which ought not to be suffered to continue.
There was great inconvenience to the inhabitants of Scot-
land generally, under the present mode of proceeding.
lie believed that nothing could be more injurious to the morals
of the people of Scotland, and to their right to have justice
fairly administered, than the present system. With respect te the
penitentiary system, that was found to be an entire failure.
it hen the criminals were discharged they returned to their
old habits ; and he was satisfied that if the House adopted his
recommendation, it would remedy the evils. If the proposal
he had suggested met with the approbation of the House, there
would be a great improvement in the general jurisdiction of
the courts of Scotland. The Honourable Member con-
eluded by making the motion of which he had
given notice :—" To bring before the House the amount
of business done yearly by the Court of Session, and the nature
and extent of the duties of the judges composing that Court;
and to ask leave to bring in a Bill to repeal so much of the
Act 1 William IV., c. 69, as provides that there shall be thir-
teen judges in the said court ; and to extend the jurisdiction of
the stipendiary county judges, called sheriffs, by giving them
the power of awarding the punishment of transportation, in
the event of the judges in the Court of Session being reduced
below the number of thirteen."
The LORD ADVOCATE objected to the motion. The
Hon. Member had not made out any case for any alteration
of the constitution of any of the Scotch Courts. In 1840 the
Hon. Member had made a proposition very similar to this. At
that time an investigation had taken place. That investigation
had been full and ample, and what was the result? It had then
been decided, not that there should be a reduction of the num-
ber of the judges, but that the business should be so divided,
that each case should obtain more of the time of each
of those judges. Many of those views which the
Hon. Gentleman entertained at the time that investiga-
tion took place, he seemed now not to have taken. One of the
two inner chambers of the court—those courts of appeal which
reviewed the adjudication of causes before single judges—has
before it an excess of business. At the date of the Commis-
sion in 1840 the business of those courts was less than it had
been for some years before. It continued to be much smaller
than it had been up to 1842, and during that and the following
year it gradually increased ; but he believed no inconvenience
had arisen from this circumstance, or to affect the result of the
investigation of the Committee in 1842. It should not be sup-
posed that because a greater quantity of business is at times
performed in one court than another, that that court was inef-
ficient or useless. Still less should it be supposed that because
a less number of cases was heard in one court than another, that
Court was idle. A combination of circumstances some-
times threw a greater quantity of business into one court
than another. In one of the divisional courts of Scotland
there was at that moment a most fortunate combination of
talent and legal knowledge.—( Hear, hear.) It was not
wonderful, therefore, that such a number of causes were
brought there. If two courts were wanting in 1840, which
it was clear were required at that time, surely they could not
in 1845 dispense with one of them. It frequently happened
that causes of greater intricacy were brought into one of the
courts—the hearing of those causes was more protracted—and
occupied a greater length of time. It would, therefore, be
seen that the number of causes was a most fallacious test. But
even with respect to the number to which the Hon. Member
had so pointedly alluded, let him, instead of considering the
mere quantity, look to the description of those causes. Now,
those gentlemen who reported in the law courts, reported only
those cases which were in some points of view remarkable, and
deserving notice. He would read for the House, from an official
return, the record of those causes that had been tried in the
two courts. In the first division of the court in the ear 11M2,
108 causes had been reported. In the second 158. In the
first division, in 1834 (the year ending Nov. 4), there had been
98 causes tried; in the second 111. The judges of both courts
were almost continually occupied between the circuits and what
was done in the ordinary courts and in the chambers. The
whole period intervening between the rising of one session and
the sitting of another, was in this manner occupied. The Hon.
Member proposed to do away with the circuits of the supreme
judges, and to vest in the sheriffs the power of passing sentence
of transportation. He thought that this would be an unwise
and unsatisfactory measure. At present those who were sent
to be tried before the circuit courts had their cases previously
anxiously investigated. If they gave to sheriffs this power,
what would ensue? There were thirty-one sheriffs, each of
whom might arrive at a different decision. At all events, it
was quite clear that with such a number there could be nothing
like uniformity in the punishment, than which nothing could
be more desirable. Here were thirty-one separate discretions,
in addition to the judges; and, in short, he did not know of any
course that would be mere likely to cast a blot upon their
criminal jurisprudence. At present no man was tried
subject to transportation without being defended by counsel.
In the High Court of Justiciary every man was defended by
counsel. If he asked for counsel, the request was at once con-
ceded, and he got any counsel; he chose to seek. If it were a
serious charge, no counsel at the bar would refuse his assist-
ance, be the situation of the accused never so odious. One
case of this nature, in which counsel had been asked—they
must be all familiar with it—the case of Burke and Hare. The
present Lords Moocrieff, Jeffreys, Robinson, and Cockburn,
lent their assistance.--( Hear, hear.) After some further ob-
servations the Noble Lord concluded by saying that without a
ease of great necessity, which the Hon. Member had not made
out, his proposition could not be maintained, and he therefore
felt bound to oppose it.
Mr. FOX AULE said, that whatever opinion they might
entertain as to the merits of the question before the House,
they must all admire the ability, good temper, and moderation
with which his Hon. Friend had introduced it. He felt hound
to say that he did not agree with him—( Hear, hear)—and en-
tirely agreed with the Noble and Learned Lord that it would
be unwise to give the inferior courts greater jurisdiction than
they had at present. Such being the case, he could not assent
to this motion. But it was possible that circumstances might
arise to bring this matter under the notice of the Government,
and if such circumstances did present themselves means might
be devised by which the business of the Court of Session might
be so regulated that parties coming to that court might be
redressed. He would not say what means ; but perhaps one of
the most obvious was to give parties coming to that court the
power of choosing their own courts, Should this means be
devised, he believed it would be sufficient for the purpose; but,
if not, there was little doubt but that other means would
present themselves of obviating the difficulty.
11r. WALLACE, in reply, said that he understood that the
opinion of the Lord Advocate was, that young persons who had
committed an offence should go on until their tendency to
offence was nurtured into habit.—(" No, no," from the
Treasury Benches.) Either such must be the case, or else
the offences which were daily committed must be stopped.
What was the course pursued ? Young persons were seldom
brought before the inferior courts. They were first subjected
to the jurisdiction of magistrates, then of the sheriffs, and then
of the Court of Session. There was no power that could
ieflict the punishment of transportation below the Court
of Session. Now, it was well known that persons
were frequently committed, respecting whom it was
not known whether they were subject to the penalty of
transportation or not, and no fitting adjudication of their
case could be made. The Hon. Member for Perth had passed
a Bill to remedy some of the defects of which he (Mr.
Wallace) complained. But he believed that it was the
opinion of all Scotland that that measure was a perfect failure,
or if not a perfect failure, yet as nearly so as possible. It did
not, at any rate, obviate the evil of which he (Mr. Wallace)
complained. The real question was, whether prisoners liable
to transportation should be tried once in six months, as was
the system now followed in Scotland, er whether they should,
as he desired, be brought to trial once in every ten days or a
fortnight. The judges complained that their time was so
occupied by reading papers that they had no sufficient oppor-
tunity of fulfilling their public duty. Now he (Mr. Wallace)
wished that no papers should be read by the judges. If the
judges were so oppressed, and had their duties to perform, he
would put the Jurisdiction Act in force. He believed that the
judges acted on something the same principle as the Board of
Trade. They were fonder of reading those papers at home
than of doing their duty in the public courts. He had been led
to believe that the custom of the Board of Trade was for its
several members to take the papers to their own houses, and,
after considering them there, to give their decision, when
they assembled at the office. Now, in his (Mr. Wallace's)
opinion, it was perfectly absurd to go on to a certain position,
then submit the papers to a judge, for him to put in his
pocket, to consider at his leisure at home. The Lord Advo-
cate had said that a remedy for these defects would be to allow
the people to choose their own courts. But, for his part, he
believed that the true remedy would be to allow the
people to choose their own judges, rather than their own
courts. It was his belief that if the Lord Chief Justice Clerk,
by any accident were to be removed to any other Court, he
would have as little business to transact as he had now. He
was aware that he was using strong language, but he believed
the facts of the case would justify the use of such language ;
and he hoped, at least, that the discussion of the matter in that
House would do some good. In the face of the opposition
which he had experienced, he felt it would not be wise to pro-
ceed, and therefore he should withdraw his motion ; but he
believed that the admonition to the judges would be of service,
and he should consequently have the less regret in withdraw-
ing his motion.
CONDITION OF LIBERATED NEGROES.
Sir R. H. INGLIS said that his object in calling the atten-
tion of the House to the motion of which he had given notice,
was simply one of benefit to the persons whom he was de-
sirous to serve; and he therefore hoped that the terms
were such as would avoid any hostile discussion. When
negroes were deported from Africa arid taken by our vessels, it
was generally supposed that they were provided for. From the
time the slave trade was abolished by law it was certainly