The Sun.
London, England, 1845-02-28 00:00:00

~~~r~~aat~: ~ ~~t~.

LONDON, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1845.

The House of Lords met at Five o'clock.
Earl FORTESCUE presented a petition irom the Rev.
Dr. CARWITHEN, praying fora revision of the rubric
and also petitions from various places in the diocese of
Exeter, complaining of the attempts which had been re-
cently made, under the sanction of the Bishop, to revive
obsolete observances, and to introduce new ones, in the
performance of public worship. These petitions also
prayed for an alteration in the rubric. The Noble Earl
expressed it as his opinion that it was the duty of the
Legislature to interpose for the regulation of the Church
in all parts of the country. The Noble Earl concluded
by moving that the petition be printed.
The Bishop of EXETER was responsible to the Church
alone for his conduct, and therefore would not make any
defence of his conduct in that House, but would merely
state that the line of conduct which he had adopted had
been forced upon him by circumstances. lie had called
a Canonical Council, and two-thirds of the members of
it had advised him to take the steps which he had

adopted. Neither the Parliament nor the QUEEN pos-
sessed the power of altering the rubric ; that power was
vested in the Church alone. He was perfectly willing
to support a Bill for repealing the Statutes of ED-
WARD the SIXTH and ELIZABETH, which had so
much frightened Dr. CARWITHEN ; but these Statutes
did not apply in cases of obstinate refusal to obey the
rubric. He hoped their Lordships would not enter into
the consideration of the question unless they felt it was
their duty to do so, but he doubted whether they had the
right or power to interfere.
Lord BROUGHAM deprecated all Parliamentary inter-
ference in the controversy which was at present dividing
the Church. As a son of the Church, he certainly agreed
to the rule that the laws of the Church should be made
by her fathers, and he certainly did not think that that
was the place fcr discussion upon this subject.
The Bishop of NORWICH rejoiced that the petitions
hal been presented. There was a general feeling of
opposition among the laity to anything like an approxi-
mation to the rites of the Catholic Church.

After a few words from the Bishop of LONDON, the
petitions were ordered to be printed.
A conversation then ensued on the subject of the ex-
pedition of the ill-fated Bandeiras from Corfu, in the
course of which the Earl of ABERDEEN stated that
the expedition had been planned and executed in a week ;
that neither himself nor Lord SEATON had any know-
ledge of it before it sailed ; and that on its sailing Lord
SEATON had refused to dispatch a steamer to bring it
back, but had dispatched a boat to Otranto to put the
Neapolitan authorities on their guard. He deeply re-
gretted that Lord SEATON had not cumplied with the re-
quest that had been made to him, for if he had dispatched
the steamer there was little doubt but that it would have
brought back the persons who had gone on this expedition.
He had no reason to believe that either the Neapolitan
or any other Government had sought to entrap the
Bandeiras—the very fact of the coast being unguarded
contradicted such a supposition. But though he fully
exonerated the Neapolitan Government from any collu-
sion in this matter, he did not mean to say that there
had been no treachery, for he believed that there had
been, but where the treachery originated, and
how far it extended, he was not prepared to say.
Lord BEAUMONT, who had originally put the question-
on the subject, expressed himself satisfied with the ex
planation, and their Lordships adjourned.

The House of Commons sat at Twelve o'clsck.
The Railway Clauses Consolidation Bill passed
through Committee.

The House resolved itself into Committe on the Rail-
way Companies' Consolidation Bill, and disposed of
several clauses, after which the Chairman obtained leave
to report progress, and the House resumed.
The Company's Clauses Consolidation Bill passed
through Committee, and the House adjourned at Ten
Minutes to Four o'clock.

At five the House re-assembled, and among the peti-
tions presented was one by Mr. WAKLEY from the in •
habitants of Finsbury, demanding such an investigation
into the proceedings which had been adopted with re-
gard to opening the letters of Mr. T. DUNCOMBE, as
should either justify the implied suspicions of the Go-
vernment or fully establish the innocence of their long-
tried and faithful representative.

Sir R. PEEL stated that it was not the intention of the
Government to take the duty off what was commonly
called •' straw plait," but that it would be removed from
plait made of chips, and of straw or grass.
In answer to a question by Mr. IIUME, on the subject
of the registration of foreign seamen domiciled in this
country,
Mr. CORRY said they would be entitled to be regis-
tered, on taking the oath of allegiance.
Sir R. PEEL said, in answer to a question, that he
should not be prepared to state the intentions of the Go-
vernment on the subject of Scotch banking until after
Easter.

Mr. Ross gave notice of a measure on the subject of
mixed marriages in Ireland.
Mr. BRIGHT then rose, and in the course of
an able, argumentative, eloquent, and very temperate
speech, directed the attention of the House to the
evils of the present system of game•laws, which injured
the farmer, by keeping up a large head of game, which
destroyed his produce. Aggravated evils, arising from
a scarcity of food, demoralised the inhabitants of the
rural districts, and occasioned a great destruction of
human life in conflicts between gamekeepers and
poachers, and brought many an unhappy wretch to a
disgraceful and ignominious end on the scaffold. The
Honourable Gentleman concluded a speech replete with
valuable information on the subject, by moving, amidst
loud cheering, for a Select Committee to inquire into
the subject.
Dr. BOWRING seconded the motion.

Sir J. GRAHAM thought the Hon. Gentleman had
stated sufficient to entitle him to an inquiry, and, there.
fore, he would not oppose the motion, and he was satisfied
that the result of that inquiry would show that the gen-
try of England had fulfilled their duties.
Mr. V. SMITH thought the Government ought to have
taken up the subject ; as they had not done so, it would
perhaps be better to delay legislation until next year.
Mr. DARBY did not think that any Cteration in the
laws would do away with poaching. There would be
always found in the rural districts idlo persons, who
would rather poach than work.
Mr. H. BERKELEY did not oppose it, but he denied
that the preservation of game occasioned the evils which
the Hon. Gentleman had stated.

The House was subsequently addressed by Captain
Rolls, Mr. HUME, Mr. LIDDELL, Mr. AGLIONBY, Colonel
SIBTHORP, Mr. G. BERKELEY, Mr. ESCOTT, Mr.
WAKLEY, Mr. NEWDIGATE, Mr. COBDEN, Sir ROBERT
PEEL, and other Hon. Members, and the motion was
agreed to.
The House adjourned at Eleven o'clock.

The resolution moved by Lord JOHN RUSSELL,
by way of amendment on the Ministerial proposition re-
specting the alteration of the Sugar Duties, has been
very carefully worded. Its terms either comprise or dis-
tinctly touch all the bearings under which the general
application of such a proposition can be viewed. They
declare-Ist., that this Ministerial plan professes to set
up a distinction between foreign free-labour and foreign
slave-labour sugar, which is vain and illusory ; 2d., that
they aggravate the evil of the protection already given
to the colonist at the expense of the consumer ; 3d., that
they so tend to impair the revenue as to render the removal
of the income and property-tax, at the end of three
years, extremely problematical indeed. Now it is diffi-
cult to say, with confidence, under which of these aspects
the proposition impugned is the most objectionable.

We have ou former occasions directed attetion to the
very defective machinery by which it was contemplated
to ascertain this important element of the character of
growth—whether free or servile. The public mind by
this time seems pretty well made up to the imperfect
test which any " certificates of origin " can really sup-
ply as to this matter. But there is a great economic
error in the scheme of apportionment of duty, as between
our own colonial and foreign free-labour produce. If
it was thought right to encourage free-labour produc-
tion in foreign possessions, by admitting some portion
of such sugars into the market of home
consumption, from whence we have hitherto rigidly ex-
cluded it—what must be the inevitable result of bur-
dening it with a discriminating duty higher than that
which is paid by our own West India sugars ? That
the foreign cannot compete with the colonial commodity
to any extent beneficial to the British consumer. Were
the duty on our own colonial sugar reduced still more, the
public would benefit little by the resulting diminution of
price, so long as the growth of foreign free-labour could
only enter the market under the disadvantage of a much
more than proportionate protection to our West Indian
sugar, in the rate of the relative or differential duty imposed
upon it. All that foreign free labour could pour into
the hom e market, would fall far, very far short of the
demand which would exist, were the home consumer
fairly dealt by ; and we do not believe that, under the
most favourable circumstances, the increased production
of our islands, &e., will next year be so great as at all
to fulfil the maximum expectations of Sir ROBERT
PEEL. But how CAR either Sir ROBERT PEEL Or
Mr. GLADSTONE have gravely imagined that any de-
vice upon which they could hit, will ever pre-
vent the introduction and consumption of slave-
grown, in the place of free-labour sugar ? And if they
cannot ensure the entire and honest working of their
own principle, what becomes of the case for the specific
new charges of duty suggested, or fur resisting the just
demands of the British consumer to have foreign sugar
admitted at a duty much more nearly approximated to the
duty on our colonial sugar than it has hitherto paid, or
even than it is now proposed to subject it to, as to
give him, the consumer, the benefit of a sensible,
visible reduction of price ? The truth seems to be,
that the " certificates of origin" will not be worth the
paper on which they are printed, and the stamps that
are to authenticate them. Let us pass over altogether
the
.rauconisaitdeed papers," consideration facility and success with which
othaser pthuerypoaserse, i
called, can
each of
bethe at all
times obtained, for
where it is proposed to grant these
posseeertificates for suga
with us, a right to bring in their
Are there no States which
nautarrs treaties
certain favourable rates ? True, there may be express
exceptions in particular stipulations against the slave-
grown sugars of these States. But what is to prevent
them from importing from other States—which do no-
toriously employ, and perhaps exclusively, slave-labour—