The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-08 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY MORNING, MARCH 8 1845.

long explanation, for the purpose, as it appeared to him,
of justifying the motion of which he had given no-
tice. He (Lord Lincoln) begged distinctly to repeat
what he had stated on the last night, that this motion
was a gross imputation on likuselr, as far as his public
character was concerned. lie did not blame the Hon.
forward this subject. If he sus-
pected a public servant, he was quite right in bringing it
he conceived he had a
fGo
relny tal
redm. a n
Whatfor b r
Ineg
right to say, was, that when the
i(uLgord Lincoln) did say, and what
Hon. Member had Placed the notice on the books of
the House—a notice, the plain intent and meaning of
which was, to charge corruption to a public
servant in the discharge of his official euties—
when such notice had once appeared upon the books of
the House, it was an injustice to him (Lord Lincoln)
and towards the public, who were as much interested
in the character of their servant, as he
himself was—(Hear, hear)—not to bring that
subject forward at the very earliest opportunity, in
order to give that public servant an opportunity of clear-
ing his character. The Hon, Member for Coventry had
not yet even acknowledged the injustice of the imputa-
tion in the motion which he brought forward. He (Lord
Lincoln):agreed with the Hon. Member that any Hon.
Member giving notice of a motion should bring it for-
ward himself. But why, he asked, did the Hon. Member
for Coventry not act on his own principles, and bring
this motion forward himself ? Why did he leave it to
the Hon. Member for Montrose to do so in his absence ?
That was one cause of complaint he had against the
lion. Member for Coventry. Another was, that he had
put a notice on the books which bore on the face of it a
most unfair representation of the facts. The Hon.
Gentleman, with a perversion of vision, had read the
motion on the books, and then the extract from the
report of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, in a
manner which was intend to convey to the House a
meat unfair representation of the case, and he would not
be wrong in supposing, with an evident intention to mis-
lead the House of Commons, and to lead the public to a
different interpretation than the facts of the case war-
ranted. What was the extract which the lion. Gentle.
man had quoted ? It would be found in the 29th page
of the report issued by the Commissioners of Woods
and Forests in August last—" To sale of certain parts
or portions of land adjoining to the Hafod estate."
What was the motion of the Hon. Member ? It was
for a return of all surveys and valuations of 7,438 acres
of land sold for 1,0491. 15s. 9d. The Hon. Member had
shown by his statement—though he was absent from the
House last night, that he had read his (Lord Lin-
coln's) observations upon this subject, in that morning's
papers, and therefore he had made himself master
of them, and of the explanation he (Lord Lincola) had
given of this affair; and yet the Hon. Gentleman now
professed to say that that which he had just read was a
full and fair representation of the transaction through-
out. He ( Lord Lincoln) would not now enter upon any
further explanation on this subject.—(Hear, hear.) He
conceived that he entered upon it at sufficient length
last night ; and he said then, and he would say now,
that he was ready to produce, and he would produce, in
spite of the remonstrances of the House to the contrary,
ail the documents connected with the transaction, cal-
culated to give the fullest explanation, except, perhaps,
a mass of letters which contained a quantity of matter
irrelevant to the subject, and which it would be an enor-
mous and almost useless labour to wade through.—
(Hear.) He said last night, and he would say now
again, that, even in the absence of these documents, not
the slightest doubt remained upon the mind of any other
Hon. Member of the House ; but if a suspicion did dwell
upon the mind of the Hon. Member opposite, he (Lord
Lincoln) hoped, when all the documents were before the
House—and indeed he thought he was bound to do so
—to bring forward a substantive proposition upon it—
(llear, hear)—and if he did not, he (Lord Lincoln) would
then feel himself in a position to impute to the Hon.
Member that which would be anything but creditable to
him.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman had said that
if he were in the House last night, the result of the de-
bate on this subject would have been very different from
what it was.—(Hear, hear.) Now he (Lord Lincoln)
would insist upon the production and the reading of all
the documents he had alluded to ; and when they had
been read he did think that the Hon. Member would be
bound, in justice to the public, in justice to that House,
and in justice to the lion. Member's fair fame, to place
upon the books of that House a motion founded upon
this investigation.—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. WILLIAMS rose amid loud cries of " Order, order,"
and said he merely wished to say _a werd or two in explana-
tion. He begged to remind the Noble Lord opposite that bis
notice was merely to the effect that he would move for copies
of the surveyor's valuation of the estate purchased by the Duke
of Newcastle, and described in the report of her Majesty's
Commissioners of Woods and Forests. When he had framed
his notice upon the subject, he showed it to an Hon. Member
opposite, who approved of it ; and he then showed it to the
Hon. Member for Montrose, and it was at his suggestion that
he had altered it to its present form. With regard to the
other things which the Noble Lord had thrown out—( Cries of
" Spoke, spoke," amidst which the Hon. Member sat down).
Mr. HUME said, as he had been alluded to, he begged to
assure his Hon. Friend that he was very sorry that he was net
there on the previous cvening.—( Hear, hear.) He had
meant to act kindly to the Hon. Gentleman and the Noble
Lord.—( Hear, bear.) He must confess that when his Hon.
Friend consulted him, he said that the entry was very sus-
picious, but he advised him to get the papers first, and not
commit himself before he was acquainted with the facts.
He promised his Hon. Friend, not only that he would assist
him in getting the papers, but if they were not satisfactory, in
obtaining " further inquiry." That was the usual and proper
course for an Hon. Member to pursue under such (imams
stances.—(Hear, hear.) He could not agree with the Noble
Lord as to the course which ,an Hon. Member was bound to
pursue, after bringing forward a subject of this nature ; he
thought that if he were satisfied that was a sufficient reason
for withdrawing.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) He must now
confess that, as long as he had been in Parliament, he had never
heard an explanation more satisfactory, and more exculpatory
than that of the Noble Lord.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) He
would not be a party to' suspending for one moment the duty
of freeing the Noble Lord from suspicion.
Mr. MACKINNON wished to say a few words in expla-
nation. About a year and a half ago, he was treating for the
purchase of this estate, and he was fully aware of the claims
which the Government might have had upon it. With regard
to what had been said by the Hon. Gentleman, he begged to
say, that if the estate was sold by auction that it would not
bring one-twentieth of what it brought by private contract,
because it would be of no value to any other person except the
Duke of Newcastle.
The subject then dropped.
CUSTOMS' DUTIES.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER gave notice
that if the debate on the property and income-tax was concluded
in sufficient time on Monday evening, he would propose to go
effect to that resolution which repeals the ex-
pinto a Committee on the Customs' Duties on that night, for the
purposeort
JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL.
In answer to a question by Captain PECHELL,
of
duties. giving
Sir J. GRAHAM said that if the Justice of the Peace Bill
was read a second time that evening, he died not intend going
me Committee on it till after Easter.
RAILWAY RESOLUTIONS.
In answer to a question by an How. MEMBER,
Mr. GREENE said that some further resolutions, with re-
gard to railways, would be ready in a few days.
Mr. MILES said that he had a motion for Monday night on
the question of the Speaker leaving the chair fur the purpose
of going into Committee on the property-tax, upon which he
was afraid he must occupy some of the time of the House.
He hoped the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, did not intend by his notice to interfere with that
debate.

Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment whether the permissive power, given under the 4th
and sth of William IV., to the Poor law Commissioners
to make alterations in unions had ever been put in force?
Sir J. GRAHAM said that though such a power ex-
isted, it had, in fart, never been exercised.
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN begged to ask the Right
Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government when
it was intended that the abolition of duty on agricultural
seeds should take effect ? Also, whether the list would
include clover seed ?

British public because 3,000 quarters of corn bad been ad-
mitted last week at a duty of 205.?
Mr. HUME was surprised at hearing the statement of the
Right Hen. Baronet. The Eight Hon. Baronet was positively
misstating the arguments of his friends.—( Hear, hear.) His
friends had always contended that the object of the corn-laws
was to keep up the price of corn. —( Cries of "No, no," from the
Ministerial benches, answered by cheers from the Opposition.)
The Right Hon. Baronet had not answered the direct ques-
tion of his Hon. Friend the Member for Stockport.—(Hear.)
His Hon. Friend had stated the exact amount and the exact
quantity, and although it was possible that the actual amount
did not all go into the pockets of the West Indians—( Cheers
from the Ministerial benches)—yet there could be no guess
tion but that a proportion, and a very large proportion, of
that amount did find its way into their pockets.—(Cheers.)
The question was, what was that amount ? That depended en-
tirely upon the quantity. That was the question which the
Chancellor of the Exchequer had been called upon to answer,
and to that question no answer had been given. Why, let
them take even the case of corn. There could be no doubt
but that the imposition of the duty tended to raise the price
of corn throughout the country. They might tell him that a
rise of one in twenty would not produce any perceptible
efect. It might not, but a rise of one in seven or of one in
five would produce a very great effect, and that would be suf-
ficient to show how fallacious was the argument of the Right
lion. Baronet.—(Hea. ) The Right Hon. Baronet had, in
fact, shirked the -question.—( Cheers.) Why did he go to
corn ?—( Hear, hear.) Why did he not keep to sugar ?
( Hear.) He had gone to corn, because he thought it would
attract more attention.—( Hear.) Sugar was the subject of
discussion at the present moment and let them keep to sugar.
—( Hear, hear.) Before he sat down he would offer a little
advice to those Hon. Gentlemen opposite who were pressing
the Right Hon. Baronet on this subject. He would advise
Hon. Members who supported the West India interest not to
drive their pretensions too far, or they would make it appear
evident that that relief would not be extended to the country
from the reduction of the sugar duty which the country was
entitled to expect.—( Hear, hear.) The time was fast ap.
proaching when any protection would be entirely out of the
question. He was anxious to see the West Indians amply
supplied with labour, and to see them prospering, but if they
persist in pursuing the present course, the country would
soon consider that they were not worthy of that consideration
which had hitherto been extended to them. He wished to
see questions denuded of all that intricacy and of all that fallacy
which had been had recourse to, simply to hide the fact that
this protection imposed a heavy tax upon the country. He
wished the Claancellor of the Exchequer would consider the
question, argue it fairly, and show what would be the real effect
of imposing this additional duty on foreign sugar.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said that the argument which had
been used by the Right Hon. Gentleman the First Lord
of the Treasury, in reply to the question of his Hon. Friend
the Member for Stockport and to the observations of his
Noble Friend the Member for Sunderland, did appear to him
one of the most extraordinary evasions which he had ever
heard. The plan of the Government supposed a regular trade
in sugar to this country, to the amount next year of 20,000
tons of foreign sugar. His Hon. Friend had contended that
the price paid for colonial sugar would be governed by the price
of the foreign sugar. Entirely evading that argument, the
Right Hon. Baronet, with what in so able a debater he must
believe could only be a desperate plunge of despair, said that
he was bringing forward a precisely analogous case in the cir-
cumstances of the corn trade. What were the circumstances
of that trade as described by the Right Hon. Baronet himself?
That there was a quantity of 3,000 quarters of corn imported
into this country, to meet 20,000,000 quarters of home-grown,
and that this 3,000 quarters of foreign corn had the
same effect on the 20,000,000 of home-grown, as
the 20,000 tons of foreign sugar would have on
the 230,000 tons of colonial sugar. But there was this
difference in the cases—the Right Hon. Baronet supposed,
when he spoke of those 3,000 quarters of foreign corn, that
its importation had been a favourable speculation to the
trader, but he believed the Right Hon. Baronet would find
that this was contrary to the facts of the ease. Had it been
under the operation of the sliding scale—( Hear, hear)—a
winning speculation 2—( Hear, hear.) Had the transaction
been of a nature to encourage the importation of curn in
future ? He was astonished the Right Hen. Baronet should
have ventured to use such an argument. What was the state
of the corn trade at the present moment ? A large quantity
of foreign corn, after having been kept in warehouses for a
considerable time, at a loss to the importers, became at last so
damaged that it was impossible it could afford to pay duty, and
rather than pay it it was thrown into the river.—( Hear,
bear.) By the operation of the sliding scale the trade in corn
was rendered a destructive one—( Hear,' hear)—and the Right
Hon. Gentleman gravely compared it to the sugar trade, which
he intended to introduce into this country—he endeavoured to
establish a perfect analogy between circumstances entirely dissi-
milar. He hoped that, however the scheme of corn duties might
have pleased the Right Hon. Gentleman, the infliction of a curse
in sugar duties, on a similar principle, would be spared to the
country. His (Mr. Labouchere's) purpose in rising was to
protest against the argument brought forward by the Right
Hon. Baronet, that a principle founded on circumstances ap-
plicable to corn would afford an argument which would equally
apply to sugar. There never was a more complete failure at
an answer than in that attempted by the Right Hon. Gentle-
man.—( Hear, hear.) Because 3,000 quarters of foreign corn
had, forsooth, been introduced in one week—and it would be
absurd to say that that could have any effect on the price of the
corn consumed in the present season—it was attempted to
show that there was some analogy between that case and the
ease of foreign and colonial sugar, as affected by the BB! in-
troduced by her Majesty's Government.
Mr. GLADSTONE said there were two questions before
the House, and there was considerable complaint on the on
side and on the other, because they had not been answered.
A question had been put by an Hon. Gentleman on the other
side, which he had no hesitation in saying did not originate in
a desire of gaining information.—(Hear, hear.) His Right
Hon. Friend, the Hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), had ob-
served to the Hon. Gentleman, that two could play at that
game, and had excited considerable irritation by his mode of
retort.--(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Gladstone) believed that a
fair answer was never given to such a question as that of the
Hon. Member for Stockport. One Right Hon. Gentleman
opposite said it was not fair to take the small quantity of corn
which came in within a week, and to argue from that as if it
formed an appreciable portion of the trade. He did not know
that he differed from him upon that point ; but he would give
a slight modification of his night Hon. Friend's question. In
1843, there were introduced one million, or one million two
hundred quarters (that, at least, was not an imperceptible
quantity ), and it paid about 15s. a quarter. In 1844, there
came in about eight or nine hundred thousand quarters, which
paid about 17s. a quarter. He asked Hon. Members
whether, looking at the average of wheat in 1843
and in 1844, they would hold that the price of
wheat was not raised in 1843 by 15s. a quarter, and in 1844
by 175., over what it would have been without a corn-
law ? The Right lion. Gentleman (Mr Labouchere) said
that upon the 3,000 quarters money was lost. But did the
1,000,000 quarters introduced in 1843 involve a loss of money ?
If so, why were another million imported? The Right Hon.
Gentleman had said, that a quantity of corn had been thrown
into the river in consequence of the prejudicial operation of
those protective duties at one time. Why, of course, if the
Right Hon. Gentleman referred to a trader in desperate cir-
cumstances for arguments of this sort, he could no doubt find
many of them. The Hon. Member had referred to a paper of
six or seven years old, and it was from that be had read the
occurrence of a quantity of corn having been thrown into the
river; but he (Mr. Gladstone) would ask, how could a state
of things of a date so far back be made analogous to those of
the present?-4 Hear, hear). On the whole, he (Mr. Glad-
stone) did think that the proposition of his Hon. Friend near
him was founded on principles consistent with justice, and
sound truth and equity.—( Cheers.) The Hon. Member for
Stockport had said that it was a plain question of arithmetic,
and he argued that if the duty, say upon 200,000 tons of sugar,
was to be 10s. 6d. the cwt., that the price of the sugar to the
dealer would be the same per cwt. in addition. But he (Mr.
Gladstone) would ask, how did the Hon. Member mean to
make the sugar duties applicable to the principle on which the
duties on corn were regulated ?—( Hear, hear.) If the Hon.
Member meant to argue that, because 10s. 6d. was the duty
do
on
ssou
br lut 0
hes. 6(cl sho
3.
r.Gud b
llad
stoe
ot
eh
)e additiondiffered
from
thero him, price,a Inde t him
con-
tended that the fact was not so, and objected that such should
be assumed as the fact. Amongst the many points which
might be introduced into this subject, in order that it might be
submitted to a full and fair discussion, was this one :—Suppose
that British sugar was not worth by two-thirds what foreign
sugar was, and that the duty on British sugar was 10s. 6d.
per cwt., and that on foreign was 235., surely the 235. duty on
the more valuable article was only a fair, proportionate ad
valorem duty.--( Hear, hear.) As to the Hon. Gentleman
putting this in the form of a question, and endeavouring to get
an answer, whether it came to one million or two millions and
a half, though as a mere stratagem in debate, there might be no
objection to such a course. But as a question for information
—though lie would not say it was deserving of no attention—
yet it was desirable that an answer such as that given by his
Right Hon. Friend should be given to it, who put a question to
the Hon. Gentleman, which he hoped some Hon. Gentleman
en the other aide of the House would be disposed to answer
more satisfactorily.—(Laughter. )
Mr. ROEBUCK said that the Right Hon. Gentleman
(Mr. Gladstone) had said that the Hon. Member for Stock-
port had put a foolish question, which was answered by another
foolish question of the Right Hon. Baronet.—( Hear, hear.)
But the Hon. Member for Stockport put a very pertinent
question, in his opinion, and it was answered with exceeding
dexterity by the Right Hon. Baronet, for he answered one part
but not the whole. The question of the Hon. Member for
Stockport was a plain, clear, definite, and brief question, un-
derstandable by anybody. Nothing of that character could
be applied to the answer of the Right Hon. Gentleman.—
(Hear' hear.) The question was, "if a certain amount of
duty be placed on foreign sugar as a means of protection, what
is the loss to the consumer by that protection ?" That was the
real meaning of the question. The Hon. Member said that
the loss to the community must be measured by the gain to the
planters. But that was not altogether the case, for the loss
was derived in part from the quantity of labour and capital
thrown away, and therefore the protective duty would only
give a partial protection. The question of the Hon. Member
for Stockport was accurate enough, but when it was asked
whether the importation of 200,000 quarters of corn would in-
crease the price of corn, ho did not think that was an accurate
question, because the quantity was so small, but if it
were large, it would be an accurate question.
And, therefore, the question put by the Hon. Menaher for
Stockport was a question put for information sake alone. IWhat
was the protection of ten shillings put on for ? On this sub-
ject he held a letter in his hand, a letter written by a Gentle-
man named Gladstone—(Hear, hear)—in the Times of that
day, in which he said they must protect the colonists—that
was, in effect, saying they were to have worse sugar at a higher
price. It was supposed they derived great benefit from the
West and East India colonies. He denied that altogether.
The value of the West India colonies was to be measured by
the exact amount of our loss. They paid them 'a large tax in
the shape of duty on sugar, and it had not been shown why this
country should pay them more than 2,000,0001. of money every
year in the shape of protection duty.
Sir GEORGE CLERK said, the Hon, and Learned
Member for Bath advanced an argument which no other Hon.
Member would, he believed, be inclined to support him in—
that our West India colonies were rather a loss than an advan-
tage to us. He would not, therefore, apply himself to this
question, but rather reply to the observations of the Hon.
Member fur Taunton who admitted that some protection
ought to be extended towards our colonies, and was not satisfied
that they should enter into unlimited competition with foreign
countries. The Hon. Member for Stockport had put a specific
question, and had drawn an inference which the premises did
not justify. He presumed that because there was a differential
duty of ten guineas a ton on foreign free sugar, and the amount
imported, 230,000 tons, that the people of this country were
thereby taxed to the amount of 2,300,0001. Now, that argu-
ment was altogether irrespective of the quantity supplied by
the colonies, and the greater the colonial supply the greater the
amount of taxation on the people of this country.—(No, no.)
He admitted that if the supply from the West Indies was in-
considerable, and that we were obliged to take our
sugar from foreign countries, the protective duty would be
very much felt. But at the present mement, when thes'jp
ply imported from our foreign possessions could bel greaterll
6!
oeo 00. (:.
than ever was consumed in a single year by the peop
3cooonn,oootry,l.h?owlfctohuelydwthereey
atbe
osauebejetocterdemtoit aatial tax of 0
pr
the immediate consequences might be favourable
oe t
tcot
tvheed ens-,
be
a-
sumer by a small reduction in the price of sugar, but would
the consuming class, for
afterwards highly injurious even to
the growers would, in most instances, give np their plant
time', and its culture would In to $ great extent discontinued.

Sir R. PEEL said, the removal of duty would take
place aftQr the present sowing ; probably, in the month
of June. Clover seed would not be included.
PURCHASE OF CALIFORNIA.

Mr. S. WORTLEY said he wished to put a question
to the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Govern-
ment on the subject of a paragraph which appeared in
the newspapers, and which appeared to receive confir-
mation, in a neighbouring country. It was stated in the
Times newspaper that the English Government had
offered to Santa Anna a sum of 25,000,000 dollars for
the province of California in 1837, and that that beauti-
ful province was on the point of being given up to Great
Britain. The paragraph stated that that was another
proof of the undermining ambition of Great Britain ;
and it also stated that 5,000,000 dollars had been
offered by the American Government Now, though
that was a paragraph in the newspapers, it professed to
have some foundation, and considering the aridity with
which all statements of that kind were laid hold of, both
in France and in the United States, tending to raise
prejudices against the policy of Great Britain, he wished
to ask, first, whether the Right Hon. Gentleman was
aware of any correspondence on this subject having
taken place ; and, secondly, whether there was any
foundation whatever for such statement ? _

Sir R. PEEL begged to state in the most distinct and
explicit manner, in answer to the question put by his
Hon. Friend, that he was not aware of the existence of
any such correspondence, and he believed the report al-
luded to was as utterly without foundation as any report
that ever existed. There were a great many reports re-
specting the un€lermining ambition of Great Britain,
but he believed such reports were often spread as a pal-
liation for the insertion of others. lie was not aware of
any such correspondence being carried on, and he could
find no trace of such a correspondence, so that the report
was utterly destitute of the shadow of a foundation.
Lord PALMERSTON said, on behalf of the late Go-
vernment, that they had never offered in 1837, or any
other year, 37,000,000 of dollars, or any other sum for
any Mexican province.
BUENOS AYRES.

Lord PALMERSON gave notice that he would, on
Monday, put a question to the Eight Hon. Baronet on
the subject of a note presented by Mr. Mandeville, the
representative of Great Britain, on the 16th December,
1842, to the Government of Buenos Ayres, on the subject
of the dispute between that Government and Monte
Video.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was
not his intention to interfere at all with the motion of his
Hon. Friend ; but it was very important that the question of
the repeal of the export duties should be discussed. His Hon.
Friend would have another opportunity of making his motion.
Mr. M. GIBSON said tbat it would not take ten
minutes to repeal the duty on cotton. Why not go on with
it now ?—( Laughter. )
Sir R. PEEL said that the Hon. Member for Liskeard had
a very important motion on the subject of the property and
income-tax, and till that was disposed of he could not assent to
the remission of any taxes.—(Laughter.) He hoped they
would be enabled to proceed with the reduction of the Customs
on Wednesday.
On the question that the SrEaxita do leave the chairon
order that the House should resolve itself into a Committee of
Ways and Means,
Mr. COBDEN rose to address the House. As they were
going to vote a certain amount of protection to the colonial
proprietors, there could be no ol4ection, be thought, to that
amount being known as well as it could. The Chancellor of
the Exchequer calculated that they would receive 230,000
tons of colonial sugar. On that he granted ten guineas a ton
protection ; he then calculated on receiving 20,000 of foreign
sugar. Now, he (Mr. Cobden) thought it was evident that
before they received that amount of sugar they would have
paid the ten guineas a ton on colonial sugar.—(Hear, hear. )
Then, the amount they were able to vote in the way of protec-
tion was 2,415,000/., in fact, the tax they were about to vote
would be 3,900,0001., and the tax they voted to colonial
proprietors would be about 2,500,000/. That was an amount
which would enable the Right Hon. Gentleman to relinquish
the window and soap duties, and would leave him half a mil-
lion of surplus besides. He hoped, if there was any fallacy
in what he had stated, that it would not go uncontradicted.
" The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could net at
all acquiesce in the reasoning of the Hon. Gentlemen, or the re-
sults he had arrived at with respect to the protection of colo-
nial sugar, in contradistinction to foreign.
Lord HOWICK, whose first sentence was inaudible, said the
point ought to be cleared up. It was one of extreme import-
ance. It was a clear and plain proposition, and capable of a
categorical answer—aye or no. He understood the point put
by the Hon. Member for Stockport to be this : the Right Hon.
Gentleman proposed a protecting duty of ten guineas a ton on
foreign free sugar ; therefore, if it were not for this protecting
duty, the growers of this sugar could afford to sell it ten
guineas a ton cheaper than they actually will sell it under
the proposed arrangement. That was the point,
and if it was incorrectly stated, let the Right
Hon. Gentleman point out where the error was. If
foreign free sugar could be sold ten guineas a ton
cheaper, he wanted to know how it was, he repeated, if that
duty were removed, why it would not answer the grower to
sell it ten guineas a ton cheaper ? He saw no reason why it
should not be so. The only difference would be that the
Ty the lion.reasurywo Memberuldrecei frveoten guineas a ton less. The point put
b
Stockport was, that if foreign sugar
can be offered ten guieneas a ton cheaper than colonial sugar,
this protecting duty was imposed?
would not colonial sugar, if obliged to come into the market
on equal terms with foreign sugar, be reduced in price ten
guineas a ton ?—( Hear. ) And in truth was it not to prevent
theHe confessed,f all of colonial
that
asugarfte thatll the debating r
on the subject, he was
at a loss to understand what protecting duties were, if it were
not for this purpose. But if they did raise the price ten
guineas a ton byl this arrangement, and if the quantity men-
tioned bp:the on. Member for Stockport would come into
the market, he wished to know where was the error of the
Hon. Gentleman in saying that they were going to
a
impoze a tax on the consumer of 2,400,0001.?
Sir R. PEEL said, in the course of last week 3,000 quarters
of foreign corn had been brought into our markets at a duty of
20s. the quarter. The consumption of foreign wheat was esti-
mated at not less than twenty millions of quarters, and, with
the exception of one million of quarters, the whole of the re-
maining nineteen millions was derived from domestic supply.
Did the Noble Lord contend that, because 3,000 quarters of
wheat were brought in and paid a duty of 20s. a quarter, that
the remaining 19 millions was raised so much in price above
its natural cost. How did the Noble Lord reconcile that with
the statement made by him the other nighL on this subject ? An
attempt had been made to show that, in Jersey and Guernsey,
where the trade in corn was free, the price of wheat was not
lower than it was in this country. Now did the Noble Lord
contend that a tax of 19,000,0001, had been imposed upon the