The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-01 00:00:00

independence, or the independence of an/ other man
who may have sat, or may sit, on this side of the House. But
again I repeat, that bong in the position which I hold, I will
pursue that caurse which 1 believe to be for the public interest.
And if in pursuing that object mys-lf, I shall have the Hon.
Gentleman's vituperation, and even the loss of the confidence
of this side of the House as a penalty, to that penalty I shall
be ready to bow, and to submit to the consequences.—(Cheers.)
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when there appeared:—
For the motion
Against it l6B
Majority against the motion
SUGAR DUTIES.

them an intimation of the danger that was hinging over them;
but he understood the Noble Lord to say, that the explanation
upon that particular point had been entirely satisfactory. He
could not butt egret that the House had commenced this dis-
cussion with an imputation throe n out upon en Hon. Gentle•
man on the opposite benches ; but he was glad the explanation
hail proved satisfactory, for nothing would have been more pain-
ful to him than that such an imputation should have remained
unsettled. He would not di,ctiss with the lion. and Learaed
Gentleman the question which he had again agitated, as to
whether the issuing of the earrants could be satisfactorily
maintained in a court of law. Supposing the Hon. Gentleman's
position to be maintained in a court of law—supposing that
these warrants were not senctioned by the common law of the
country, jet still the responsibility would fall upon the House,
and not upon the Executive Government. The power was cer-
tainly not immediately t ancti ned by a statute; but then they
had introduced words into the statute which led to the impres-
tion that the Government had the power to exercise this autho-
rity. All past Governments had exercised the power of open-
ing letters, and, therefore, if they were found
to be in the wrong, the blame would not at-
tach to the Minister, but to Parliament. It was
the duty of the House to clear up all doubt on the
matter by a declarat.ry statement that such power existed. But
he would net enter further into the question, but merely to re-
mark that any alteration in the custom ought to be reserved for
a separate discussion. The power ought to be maintained fir
reasons stated by the Noble Lord opposite, but he thought it
would be attended with danger to make the recommended
pubic proclama ion. He should, however, be always prepared
to remedy any abuse of the power.—( Hear, hear. ) With
respect to the subject immediately under consideration,
he did not say whether or not there should be now a
public itiquiry at the bar of the Ileuse, with respect to
the alleeed opening of the letters of the Hon. Member. Some
Hon. Member who had spoken recently had imputed to them
that they had made a charge against the Hon. Gentleman—that
they were not the defendants, but the Hon. Member was being
charged by us with improper transactions. Now not ore
word of that charge had they ever said. It was the Honour-
able Member himself, who, it appeared, relying upon informa-
tion which he received from the Post-office, publicly declared
that his letters had been opened, or that he strongly suspeceed
they had. Now, if the lion. Gentleman had not made that
declaration, no one would have known that the Hon. Gentle-
man had any ground for suspicion. So that, in fact, the Hon.
Member had made the charge himself. The question which
then came was, whether, in consequence of this suspicion
ntertained by the Honourable Gentleman, they should
summon the officers of the Post-office to the bar
of the House, and institute a public inquire. Now,
it had been admitted in the course of that debate, that
the Hon. Gentleman, as a Member of Parliament, stood in
no different position from any other subject of her Majesty.
Thus, every individual out ot the House pnesessed the same
rights the Hon. Member did. If, therefore, his Right Hon.
Friend were to answer the question of a Member of
Parliament, or acceded to the motion, they would have a
petition presented by another individual, not being a Member
of that House, alleging that his letters had been opened, and
would he not have the same right to demand an answer as well
as the Hon. Member for Finsbury ? No v, if they acceded
to this amendment, they would compel the Government to
answer this question, or the party would turn round upon them,
and say, he was not protected by the law.—(Hear, hear.) They
would have no end to these questions, and they would have
to summons Colonel Maberley to the bar ot that House
time after time. He entirely agreed with those Hon. Members
who said this was not a personal matter. He claimed a full
puticipation in the responsibility of his Right Hon. Friend.
He defended the exercise of this power, and he considered that
every Member of the Government was liable to share in the
responsibility which attached to it. Now, let him ask, if his
Hon. Friend were to answer the question, would it forward the
necessity for inquiry ? No, certainly not. Then, would the
House of Commons be acting justly with the Government in
insisting upon a reply from his Right Hon. Friend ? Last year
they thought it desirable that a fu;l and complete inquiry should
be made into these practices to allay the public excitement
which prevailed on the subject. In order that every explana-
tion should be given, it was thought that the inquiry ought to
be made before a Secret Committee, very few dissented to the
proposition, and the general opinion of the House appeared to
be in favour of the Committee, as compared with any other
tribunal. There was no division whatever upon the subject,
and by the vote of the House it was determined that a Secret
Committee should be appointed. Upon that
_Committee there
were nine Gentlemen, five of whom had recorded their votes
against the Government, upon a leading political, question.
The Committee sat, and immediately afterwards it was stated
to them that in the autumn of 1E42, during the disturbances in
South Wales, two clerks of the Post-office were sent down to
the disturbed districts with warrants, and directions to open
and inspect the letters of certain persons.—( Hear, hear.)
By the frankness and unreservedness of their explanations be-
fore the Committee and the public of the facts of the dates of
the warrants, other parties wutild be led to seek similar re-
dress. Would they call the officers of the Post-office on the
presentation of a petition, that petition prompted by the
inquiry of that Committee ? Would they call on the Secre-
tary of State to say whether he had issued his warrant or not,
and if he declined answering that, would they have an inquiry
at the bar?
Mr. DUNCOMBE—It is privilege.
Sir R. PEEL continued—The Hon. Gentleman fell back
on privilege. Thu Hon. Gentleman was pressed by the argu-
ment. He felt that he (Sir R. Peel) hail proved so com-
pletely that once open an inquiry in this case, and they could
not limit it. The Hon. Gentleman now said it was a case of
privilege.
Mr. DUNCOMBE—I always said so.
Sir R. PEEL continued—Others had contended that there
was no distinction in that respect between the Him. Gentle-
man and the meanest subject of the realm. Other persons
would say, You appointed a Committee on general allega-
tions not proved, and you have appointed an examination at
Sour bar because a Member states that he can prove that his
letters have been opened. I have no remedy by law. I ask
you to give me the same advantage you have given one of your
own Members. My character was risked as his was. I have
no remedy in a court of law. Let me have the satisfaction you
have given to him : call the officers to the bar, and ask them
to show the legality of the warrants for opening my letters."
It would be vain to draw the distinction of a breach of pri-
vilege, insofar as that question was now concerned. The Hon.
Gentleman did not bring it forward now as a question of pri-
vilege. In that case, then, he (Sir R. Peel) said that it was
acting unjustly towards the Government. The Government
had been told that the inquiry would be a secret one. They
were told that the tribunal would be a fair and impartial one.
They were called before that tribunal, and they gave
their evidence, and that tribunal acquitted diem of
all improper motives, and yet it was now said, that that ac-
quittal was not complete, and an inquiry at the bar was called
for. If there was to be that public inquiry they could not
limit it to this particular case. They were surely bound to
inquire into the acts of others. They must go into an exami-
nation of the acts of their prerlecesors, or the examination
would not be complete. The inquiry must extend to all the
warrants which had been issued since (832. If that kind of
inquiry were demanded, could they consistently refuse it ? If
Colonel Maberly were brought to the bar and a Member were
to extend the inquiry beyond th 3 limits of the Hon. Gentle-
man's motion, would they call on the Speaker to stop the exp.•
mination on the ground that Colonel Maberly had been called
for a specific purpose? It would be impossible. It would be
inconsistent with common justice. They must extend the
inquiry to the case of every petitioner who could make out as
bad a prima facie case as that of the Hon. Member for
Finsbury—and he really could not conceive where the man
was who could not—they must extend that inquiry to every
petitioner who told them that he was labouring under an un-
just imputation, and therefore wished to rescue his character
front an unjust suspicion. But they must go further. They
should extend the public inquiry to the warrants which had
been in existence since 1822. He did not believe that any
former Government would have reason to deprecate that. He
firmly believed that this power, when exercised by the Noble
Lord, was exercised for honest and public purposes. He was
as firmly convinced of that as that he was then addressing the
Hisure.—( Cheers.) He did not suppose that the Noble Lord
would deprecate inquiry from personal motives.—(" Hear,
hear," from Lord John Russell.) But did they think it de-
sirable to institute such an inquiry? His firm conviction was,
that they would never get a more complete and perfect in-
quiry than that of the Secret Committee. He wished
to convince the House that they could not limit
this inquiry to individual cases. On this, and
the other grounds which he bad stated, he must
give his opposition to the motion of the Honourable Gentle-
man. He would have closed here, had it not been for the
speech of the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury. He hoped the
lion. Member, having discharged the bile which had been ac-
cumulating during the past week, felt himself more at ease
than he was.—( Laughter.) He told the Hon. Gentleman
at once that he would not reciprocate personalities.—(Cheers.)
If he felt an inclination to de so, the lion. Gentleman cer-
tainly would have a great advantage over him.—( Cheers and
laug,nter.) He thought he had found sufficient allusions of a
personal nature. He had heard them made from benches im-
mediately behind him, and he never felt it necessary to answer
them. He would not have answered them if it had net been
that the Hon. Gentleman seconded a motion of which he en-
tireiy disapproved, which he said he did in a friendly spirit. In
the course of his speech, the Hon. Gentleman charged him
(Sir R. Peel) with having appointed to office a gentleman who
had been concerned in a plot. lie would make no reference to
that, because the Honourable Gentleman had made a very
honourable apology. He did not think he was at liberty
to refer to it, because the Honourable Gentleman having
been betrayed into an error, had frankly avowed
it. But it was in consequence of the declaration made by
the Hon. Gentleman in seconding the matien that he did in
a friendly sdirit. At that time there was a feeling running
through the House, which in this country there was no word to
express, but which, in the French Chambers, was termed the
wvensent vivace. He could assure the Hon. Gentleman that
he had not the slightest wish to fetter his independence, or
the independence of any Member of that House. lie thought
that every man should be the guardian of his own indepen-
dence, and if he disapproved of any act of the Government, or
disapproved of the general policy of the Government, he
might censure the act and condemn the Government. He had
no power to exercise by which he could prevent the Hon.
Gentleman from adopting an independent course of
action. He ( Sir Robert Peel) courted no man's favour.
He thought he understood the relation in which a Minister
ought to stand towards those who gave him general support.
Ile thought it well to possess their conf.dence, and he thought
he would not incur the risk of losing that confidence by taking
the course which he believed was for the public interest.
That course he had taken, and thatecourse he would continue
to take. If the Hon. Gentleman thought any acts of his (Sir
R. Peel) were at variance with the policy which he supported
in 1834 in Government and since, let those acts be examined,
arid let the Hon. Gentleman vote against them and condemn
theist. If, continued the Right Hon. Baronet, in respect to
the Church, you think that any course pursued by the Govern-
ment endangered that institution, it would be suffi-
cient to oppose that particular act. If you think
that we have, at variance with our principles, greatly extended
popular privileges, or invested fresh blood of democracy into
the working of the Constitution, tell us so and oppose it. If
you deny our commercial and financial policy, oppose the par-
ticular act ; and if you should think that we are no longer
worthy of your credit or confidence, mark your want of confi-
dence by a public declaration of opinion, and by a distinct op-
posinon. I should deeply regret the loss of that confidence to
which the Hon. Gentleman refers, but -I firmly say that, as
the Minister of the Crown, I will attempt to do good as far
as I can ; and if, in attempting to do that, I should forfeit
the confidence which I hive so much prided, I shall adopt
that course, rather than retain that confidence at
the
expense of public opinion.—(Cheers.) A 3 I said before, if
our general policy be objectionable—if it is not sound—if we
are interfering with the rights of property—if we are infringing
the prerogatives of the Crown—if we are undermining our
civil or sacred institutions—prove that we have done so, and I
should acknowledge that your confidence has been forfeited.
Sir, the Hon Gentleman has referred to the relations in winch
I stand to Mr. Canning, and thinks, on that account, he is
fairly tool; led to withhold his confidence and respect. Sir, it
ought not to be a quotation from Mr. Canning that should open
the Hon. Gentleman's eyes to my misfortune. The Hon.
Gentleman must have been aware in 1841, and subsequently,
of those relations towards Mr. Canning. and of the course
which I have pursued with regard to that most eminent Klan;
and the knowledge of that course, not an accidental quotation
from a poem, ought to have disentitled me to the Hon. Gen-
tleman's confidence and respect at a much earlier period than
now. But, Sir, as I sa d before, it is not my intention to re-
ciprocate personalities with the Honourable Gentleman. I do
not wish, in the slightest degree, to fetter his

the average prices of sugar in Calcutta, that this was not
quite so profitable a trade as it was supposed, for he un-
derstood that there was a vague idea abroad that
sugar could be made for nothing in India. He
was well aware that those who exported sugar from India, from
the year 1836 and several years after, if they did not lose by it
they certainly made very little. Perhaps Hon. Alembers did
not know that sugar in India was grown in a manner very
different from that of the West Indies. In the one the cane
grew on the plantation where the sugar was manufactured,
while in the latter the saccharine juice was conveyed away in
pots to a considerable distance, and at considerable expense.
He would not dwell longer upon the subject, but he trusted he
had shown what the effect of the proposed measure would be
on the manufacturer, the retail dealer, and on the public. If
the House should determine that those discriminating duties
should be continued, let them at least have them administered
fairly, and not entrust to subordinate officers the means of as-
certaining the quality, material, and strength of the different
sugars.—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. HUME said he had never heard more complete or
convincing arguments than those used by the Hon. Member
who had just sat down, for he had had many opportunities of
witnessing the truth of his statement during the time he had
been in India. It did appear to him that it would greatly
tend to the public benefit, if the Hon. Member's views could
be carried out, and effect more real good than all the meddling
the trade had undergone, year after year, for a long time past.
He did think that the Right Hon. Baronet ought to deal with
those differential duties, for if he did not, the time might come
when he would be driven to a more abrupt cessation of them.
Let there be a time limited for the alteration, a time stated,
so that those who had embarked their capital in the business
might not be injured, without in any degree lessening the
advantage which the consumer was led to expect. Last session
the Right lion. Baronet had led them to expect that the
subject of diffe-etitial duties would this year have been set at
rest for ever. Let them look at the conduct of Holland. Holland
was in possession of the finest sugar colonies in the world, and
in the management of those colonies she was excelled by no
country in the world. They had attempted to apply these
differential duties, but had found the attempt unavailing. So
it was with the East Indies. Let them give the growers of
sugar the opportunity of applying their capital to other
objects. Li t not the Right Honourable Baronet attempt
again to impose the strong fetters which had been struck off a
few Sears ago. There was no doubt but that the difference
between brown and Muscovado sugar was difficult to ascertain.
But he must say that the motion of his Hon. Friend had ex-
hausted the subject, and had suggested the b?st adjudication,
in his opinion, between the Government and the country.
The motion was then put, N hen

On the motor, for going into a Committee of Ways and

Means,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated, in
answer to a question put by Le.rd John Russell, that various
difficulties always arose when it was proposed to make a reduc-
tion of duty. With regard to those persons to whom the Noble
Lord had referred—namely, those who had sugar in bond, and
their claim for an allowance, he (the Chancellor of the Ex-
cl:equer ) could really see no d;fference between them and
thosetwho paid the duty and took away the sugar to their o.cn
warehouses. But, however, he thought it fair on reflection to
limit the commencement. of the new duty to the 14th of March,
so that the parties might be able to get rid of their stocks-by
that time.

SUGAR DUTIES.
Mr. HOGG then rose to bring forward the resolution of
which he had given notice. He feared that after the very
exciting debate which had just concluded, he would not
be able to obtain that attention to the subject upon
which he was about to move, notwithstanding its impor-
tance. However, before calling the attention of the House to
the motion, he thought it right on his own part, and on the
part of every one connected with the East Indies, to thank the
Government for the great boon conferred by them on that
country, as well as on the West Indies, in consequence of the
great reduction made in the duties on sugar. But thongh he
highly approved of that part of the measure, he entertained a
strong objection to the differential duty proposed by the Go-
vernment. Neither he nor those on whose behalf he appeared
had any objections to make to the abstract justice of a differen-
tial duty. It was perfectly fair and just that sugar
of a finer quality and higher value should be subject
to a higher duty than sugar which was inferior in value
and quality. His objection, therefore, was, not to the
principle, but to the application of a discriminating duty. Per-
haps the House was not aware that up to 1836 there had al-
ways been a discriminating duty of 10s. on East Indian sugar,
in excess over the duty imposed on West Indian sugar ; and
so long as the East Indian interest had an exclusive right of
trading between the East Indies and t his country, p e•haps there
was some ground for that excess of duty upon East Indian
sugar. But, after the year 1833, when the East India trade
was thrown open, there was no longer any excuse for con-
tinuing that distinction. In 1834, the Right Hon Gentlemau
oppo-ite sail there was, upon principle, no pretence for con•
tinuing the distinction ; and the Right Him. Gentleman on
his side of the House declared, in language no less strong,
that there was no reasonable ground for its continuance. But
though there was no ground on abstract principle for the dis-
tinction, both the Right Hon. Gentleman opeo.ite and the
Right Hon. Gentleman near him referred to the situation of
the West Indies at that period as a justification. And, considering
the peculiar circumstances of the West Indies at that time,'
he admitted that. the application of the rule might be just and
reasonable. But in 1836, Lord alonteagle, then Mr. Spring
Rice, stated, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the time had
then arrived when justice to the East Indies required that the
duty should be equalised, and when that equalisation could'
take place without injustice to the West Indies. Therefore,
since 1636, the sugar produce of the East and West Indies
was subjected to the same duty, and all he now asked was, that
that equalisation should be continued. Before he had given
his notice, and after it, he had stated to the Right Hon.
Gentlemen the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that if he found
the discriminating duty were impracticable, he should abandon
them, but if he found them practicable, he should apply the
scale of those duties equally to both the East and West
Indies. He contended that the duties, as they were now to
be imposed, were not equal both to the East and the West
Indies. In the East Indies the manufacture of sugar was the
same as it had been for centuries past. The sugar there was
not clayed, while it was in the West Indies. The sugar there
was filtered through grass, which made it whiter and clearer,
and the result of the proposed scheme would be, that they
would have sugar, the produce of the East Indies, coming in
on the higher duty of 16,., while they would have the Musco-
vado. containing more saccharine matter, coming in at a lower
duty. Now, he would put it to the House if that was fair. It was
said that the East India sugar was poor; true, it was, but it
bore is the market a price above its value.—( Hear, hear. )
Why was it so? Because the East India sugar was used by
grocers to mix with smaller quantities of Muscovado sugar,
and thereby reduce its value. The result of the duty would be,
that the tax of 2s. 41. would fall upon the sugar used by the
middling classes. It might be said that the East Indies might
avoid this by altering their mode of manufacture, but it
was well known that the East Indians were peculiar in their
ways, and it would not be easy to persuade them to adopt a dif-
ferent course. The result of the additional duty would he that
orders would go out from this country to the East Indies, tell-
ing the people there not to send white sugar, but black, dirty,
Parliament sugar—( A laugh)—and, in the end, they would
completely check all improvement with respect to sugar. The
improvement in sugar was increasing every day—( Hear, hear)
—but the Chancel', r of the Exchequer was doing all he could
to check it. He contended that every man ought to have the
right of making white sugar for the public. The words of the
enactment proposed absolutely declared the colour sugar should
be, in order to pay a high or a low duty; they had, in the Act
which it was proposed now to pass, enacted that East
India sugar, however strong, provided the colour was
avoided, might come in at the lower duty. They ought
to declare that the documentary duty should be placed
on sugar, not on account of its colour, but its strength. lie
thought it was for the interest of the public and the consumer
that the discriminating duty should be taken off. This was no
matter of speculation, and in order to show that, he would
refer to some documents on the subject. The Hon. Member
then referred to several returns, far the purpose of showing
that discriminating duties were not good. He might be told,
perhaas, that this was not the first time that a discriminating
duty had been proposed ; he might be reminded that the Right
Hon. Gentleman the Member for Taunton, and the Right
Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Excheqner, under the
late Government, had introduced a measure founded on that
principle. But that precedent was wholly inapplicable to the
present case, because it was then proposed to admit the higher
class cf Hay ennah sugars. On that occasion his Right Hon.
Fri nd the Member for Newark, who was thoroughly ac-
quainted both with the East and the West, and who oscillated
between the two, expressed a very strong opinion. He
had the authority of the Right Hon. Gentleman for
stating that a discriminating duty was impracticable.—( Hear. )
He then read the extract to the effect he had just stated. He
had reason to think that the Right Hon. Gentleman did not
believe that to be correct. If it were not, his authority for the
statement must be his excuse for introducing it to the Hon e.
But every one mu,t, recollect the stiamg opinion expressed by
the Chancellor of the Exchequer last session ; he adverted to
the difficulties of collecting a discretionary duty, and the incon-
venience of depending on Custom-house officers. That was the
opinion of the Right Hon. Baronet last year, that was his (Mr.
Hog,g's) opinion then, and that was his opinion now. He had
told the House that in 1821 a discriminating duty was imposed
on Ewa Indian sugar, but so great was the confusion it caused,
and sa vexatious was it to the trade, and so constant a source of
loss was it to the revenue, that in 1823, only two years atter it
was imposed, this discriminating duty was removed. In the
year 1825 all discriminating duties on British sugars were
removed, and from that time to the present there
had been no discriminating duties whatever. In 1825,
all the Acts of Parliament relating to the Customs were
submitted to Mr. Deacon Hume, and that great authority
advised that all discriminati• g duties should be abolished. The
present proposition was more objectionable than the proposition
of the Hon. Member for Bristol last year. He proposed a dis-
criminating duty of 4s. 3d., but it was to be limited to foreign
sugars ; he did not say that it was to be applied to East Indian
sugar. He contended they must have one thing or another ;
they must have a discriminating duty on all sugars, both
foreign and home grown, or they must have none at all.
Believing that they could not have one that would operate
fairly, he wished to have none at all, and that was the object
of his motion. The Hon. Member for Bristol understood the
subject thoroughly, and was verb fair in what he said. He
said there might be a discriminating duty, but that it ought to
be levied according to She quantity of saccharine matter con-
tained in the
,sugar ; that would be fair, and he had not a
word to say against it. If they had any such instrument as a
saccharometer, to measure the strength of the sugar—
if they had any such means of ascertaining its quality,
he had not a word to say against the intro-
duction of the duty, but let them make it fair in its applica-
tion. In that debate his Hon. Friend took no narrow view to
the East Indian interest. He spoke with regret, that the pro-
duce of the East Indies had fallen short of late years ; he was
quite right. Both the East and West Indies were in the
same boat, and they together produced a good supply of sugar
for the public. The great experiment they had tried with
respect to slavery, and the object of the Right Hon. Baronet
would be realised. But if they checked the production of sugar
in the East Indies by a discriminating duty, and rendered the
quantity not sufficient for the consumption of the country, no
rower on earth could keep out slave sugar.—( Hear, hear.)
fhe object of both the East and West Indies was to preduce as
much good and cheap sugar as they could for the public; that
was the only object of keeping up the protective duty. In the
West Indies there was, he believed, a limit to the production
of sugar ; but he believed he did not speak the language of
exaggeration, when he said that in the East Indies the ca-
pabilities of producing sugar was almost unlimited. In the
evidence of Mr. Trevellian, it was stated, that north from
Hintlodan to the mouth of the Ganges. through all the tract
that was called the Valley of the Ganges, there was the
power of producing sugar enough for the consumption of a
whole. world. lie did entreat the House not to introduce
a measure that would tend to check this production. It had
been said that the East Indies had no claim—at least a very
small claim—to protection ; and the assertion had, to his
great astonishment, been responded to by the Hon. Member
ter Newark, late the President of the Board of Trade. He
implored the House to look at their East Indian empire,
to consider its ' extent, equal to nearly the whole
of Europe, with four times the popu'.ation of the United K. ing-
d,m ; an empire founded, maintained, and extended, without
subjecting the mother country to a charge of a farthing. ; an
empire that defrayed the expenses of all the establishments,
civil and military, out of its own resources.—(" And of its
religions, too !" from Mr. Hume.) A country that remitted to
Europe what he might term an annual tribute of three millions
sterling. Why did he call it a tribute? Because they had
no commercial return for it. India sent home, for home ex-
penditure, three millions of tribute, which was now paid, and
would continue to be paid ; and the wonder of all Englishmen
was, how such a tribute could continue to be paid,
India receiving no return.—( Hear, hear.) India, again,
poured into this country an annual stream of wealth
in the fortunes of the public servants, who, having spent their
lives in the East, returned to end their days at home, and this
to an amount he had heard estimated at 400,0001. or 500,000/.
annually. India took six millions of English manufactures,
which included seven million pounds of cotton twist, and thre-
and a half millions of cotton pieces. lie would beg the manuo
facturing interest to consider this; and yet thirty years agd
India itself was a great manufacturing country, and exporten
to England nearly three millions in cotton goods and muslid
pieces. What was the case now ? English manufactures had
expelled these goods, and supplanted theta even in India. Di-
he complain of this? Nu, so far it was the ordie
nary course of trade and the introduction of ma-
chine!), that had effected it. But pending this transition
English manufactures were imported into India at 3% per
cent. duty, while not a single article from India was admitted
here under a duty of 10 per cent. The once flourishitig dis-
trict of Deccan was now reduced to a state of misery and des-
titution--lts manufactures were ruined, and the people
were driven to the culture of their rich and fertile
soil ; and while India was in this state of transition, he
was told that it was not entitled to protection.
He had now by him a letter which he had received from a pri-
vate friend of his, but he would not trouble the House by read-
ing it, but it contained very valuable statements, which went
at great length Into financial details. It said that though
hitherto India was remarkable for its agricultural property as
regarded sugar, yet he had every reason to believe that there
was great prospect of extended sugar cultivation, but that
India was increasing her extent of cultivation of sugar in order
to pity fur English manufactures.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon.
Member opposite had dwelt much on the fluctuation of prices
of sugar ; but he (Mr. Hogg) could show by a few figures in

. .
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that his
Hon. Friend was justified in bringing forward this motion.
He was sensible of the full value of the East Indian colones.
He was sensible of their value in the consumption of articles of
commercial value ; and he believed, that if additional means
were supplied, that power of consumption would largely in-
crease. Nor was it the least evidence of their value that
India had offered the opportunity to men of rising to eminence
by the exercise of their ability, and through the force of
honourable character. Ner did he feel this value decreased,
when he sew these men returning home to fulfil the functions
of legislators with equal ability.—(Chcers. ) For himself
personally, he might say that he did not wish to impose any
duty on the sugar of the East Indies, different from that im-
posed on sugar from any other of the possessions of her Ma-
jesty. An imputation had, he believed, been thrown up in
him, from the circumstance of his connexion with I,arties who
had property in the West Indies, but he did trust that, from his
position, he would be the last man in the House to act in this
matter from interested motives. His Right Hon. Friend had,
last session, proposed a differential duty on foreign produce,
but an equal duty for the sugar of all the British posses-
sions. There was, then, a distinctive duty only
given to the produce of Briti-h possessions. But
it was improbable, if not impossible, to carry this
scheme of differential duties into effect. There was such a
slight difference between the clayed sugars of Java and
Manilla, that it was impossible to levy the duties rightly, and
they felt themselves almost obliged to refuse admission to these
sugars. If the suggestions contained in his Hon. Friend's
speech were to be followed, those difficulties would be doubled.
'1 his he thought was worthy of consideration. He was aware
that the imposition of differential duties was always an encou-
ragement to the inferior article. They had endeavoured to
encourage the manufacture of sugar both in the East and the
West Indies, by removing the prohibition of refined sugars
and admitting sugar in a state tit for use without any further
process. With respect to the observation of his Hon. Friend,
he felt bound to deny that colour was the only criterion for
ascertaining the quantity and regulating the duty.—(Hear. )
The standard taken was what was called the Java sugar, which
he had been informed was a safe one, a point below which a
lower duty might be established when the sugar was of an in-
ferior quality, and vice versa. The same difficulty of making
distinctions existed before as well as now. The term " white
clayed " might be ternaed a fair test of quality. He did not
mean that this standard should be solely applied to white sugar,
but sugar by any process rendered equal to the Javan. Colour
would not be a distinguishing character. For a long period, up
to the year 1825, the duty had been imposed on the principle
that Muscovado and clayed sugars should pay a different duty.
In 1821, in addition to the higher duty, a differential duty was
established between clayed and brown sugar. If they adopted
the resolution as it stood of taking the quality of white clayed
sugar as the test, they would take a practical and a useful
test., and one which would confer equal justice on all. He did
not believe that the basis of the calculation of the Hon. Gen-
tleman would be found to be correct.—( Hear, hear.)
Colonel SIB I'HORP rose amidst loud cries of " Order,
order," and " Hear, hear," but he ultimately gave way to
Mr. HAWES, who said that he was inclined to coincide
with the mover.—( Hear.) It was, in his opinion, quite vain
to think of establishing distinctive duties ad valorem, between
the products of the East and West Indies. Those very duties
were adverse to their principles, as they endeavoured to exclude
the finer sugars. That, he believed, was the main object of
their differential duties. He trusted the Right Hon. Baronet
would re-consider this question.
Sir R. PEEL said they all had but one common object in
view. The Government did not wish to subject the East
Indies to any new disadvantage. They did not wish
to benefit the West Indies tt the expense of
the E.st Indies ; for the East Indies were as much
entitled to consideration as the West. The question the Go-
vernment had to consider was, whether they would adopt
a uniform duty of 15s. or 165., or a discriminating duty. They
were of opinion that words were introduced which would de-
scribe what class of sugar should be admitted at the 14s. duty,
and what at the 185. But if there was to be no discrimiminat-
ing ditty with regard to their own colonies, he would object to
a discriminating duty with regard to foreign sugar.—( tlear,
hear...) He should say that the best course to pursue would
be to allow the resolution to pass, to ascertain if they could
find words which would make the quality of the sugar known
to the trade themselves ; and for this purpose they were in
commun'eation with the Custom-house officers. Then, if they
could not agree to the views of his Hon. Friend, his lion. Friend
could in Committee renew his motion, when the sense of the
House might be taken upon it.
Mr. F. BARING said that he came to the House to express,
as we understood, au opinion favourable to the scale of duties,
but after what had passed he would not enter into the subject.
He did not suppose it was the intention of the Right Hon.
Baronet, in asking to have the resolution passed, to prejudice
those viho had other motions to make.
Sir R. PEEL replied in the negative.
Mr. GLADSTONE thought that the words to be intra-
duced would have very little affect in altering the sense of the
the purpose of correcting two
His near him (Mr. Hogg) had said
mistakes.resoluti resolution.
. But
Hon.he rose
Friend for
that he said that the East Indian interest were not entitled to
any favour. Now he said no such thing. What he said was,
that the principle on which the West Indian interest
justified the 108. duty was
wholly inapplicable to
the case of the East India interest. That was all he said.
The other point to which he referred was that it had been
stated in the newspapers, that he had said that the editor of
the 11:conomist newspaper had made certain statements from
an intentioe to deceive, or from misconception. He supposed
that what he had said was not heard distinctly, but as he was
informed that he had given pain to an individual in
what he had stated, he thought it right to say
that he had no intention of throwing the slightest mural impu-
tation or rellection on that gentleman. As to the question of
classification he admitted that the Hon. Member for Lambeth
had raised it fairly ; he admitted that there would be a difficulty
in working-out such a system, but he did not think that
the Honourable Member for Lambeth was aware of the
extent of the difficulty. The only way of getting out of that
difficulty was to say that raw sugar and double refined shouid
pay the same duty. He had never said one word against classi-
fication.
Mr. HOGG expressed himself satisfied with the course
proposed to be adopted by the Government, and withdrew his
amendment.
The House then went pro forma into a Committee of Ways
and Means, the resolution was agreed to, and the report was
ordered to be received on Monday.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
House, at One o'clock, adjourned to Monday.

Tlll4l SUM, LONDON, SATURDAY MORNING, IVIA.RCII 1., 1845.

York and North Midland (Doncaster Extension).
Sheffield, Ashton-under-Lyne, and Manchester Railway.

The following petitions for Bills were also reported, and the
reports referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders :
Cambridge and Lincoln Railway.
Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr Railway.
Glasgow Junction Railway.
London, Worcaster, and South Staffordshire Railway.
York and North Midland Railway.
Manchester, Bury, and Rossendale Railway (Heywood

Branch).
Newcastle and Darlington (Brandling Junction ) Railway,—
Petition for Bill reported, and Bill ordered to be brought in
by Lord Harry Vane, Mr. Hodgson Hinde, and Mr. Hutt.
York and North Midland (Bridlington Branch) Railway,—
Petition for Bill reported, and Bill ordered to be brought in
by Sir John Lowther, Mr. Redhead Yorke, and Sir John
Johnstone.
Manchester, Bury, and Rossendale Railway (Heywood
Branch),—Petition for Bill reported, and Bill ordered to be
brought in by Mr. Walker and Mr. Brotherton.
Harwell and Streatley Road,—Petition for Bill reported,
and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robert Palmer and
Mr. Pusey.

RAILWAY COMMITTEES.
(YESTE It DAY.)
Sub-Committee No. 2 assembled this morning, in Com-
mittee-room No. 6—present, Sir J. Y. Butler, Mr. Bram
stone, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Yotko, and Mr. Walker.
SHREWSBURY AND BIRMINGHAM RAILWAY.
Tile Committee proceeded with this case. Objections were
taken to the books of reference, inasmuch as they did not
properly describe the property. On the plans was one num-
ber. and in the books of reference another.

Mr. HArwooD, for the promoters, contended that the par-

tics whose property was aifected could not have mistaken the
property described.
Mr. YORKE said this the Committee had not to consider.
They must look to the letter of the standing order. •
The Committee decided that the standing orders had not
been complied with.
There were fourteen other similar objections, all of which
were sustained. _

Mr. BURKE stated, that since the adjournment, the parties
on the other side and his own had come to an arrangement
with respect to certain objections, which would be admitted
or abandoned as the case might be. He had another peti-
tion to appear upon from Mr. Whitmore, but believing that
he had made out a sufficient case of error against the Bill, he
would not offer and• evidence upon this second petition.
The Committee prepared their report accordingly.

Sub• Committee No. 3, assembled this morning, Mr,
Aglionby in the chair.
CORNWALL RAILWAY (FROM PLYMOUTH TO
FALMOUTH).
This was the first line called on, and it was stated that a
petition had been presented complaioing of non-compliance
with the standing orders, bearing the signature of Thomas
Harvey, Secretary to the Devon Central.
Mr. Harvey or any other opponents having been called to
appear, the Chairman was about proceeding formally with
the investigation, when
A gentleman, named Thomas, stepped forward and said
that he had been brought all the way from Falmouth, at the
request of Mr. Tilley, the solicitor, to give evidence in oppo-
sition to this line. he had seen both Mr. Tilley and Mr.
Harvey this morning, but neither of them had appeared in
the Committee-room.
Mr. TURNER, M.P., said that he understood the petition
had been withdrawn, and that Mr. Tilling had signified his
intention of not appearing against the Cornwall line. This,
however, was denied.
Mr. VENABLES, the Parliamentary agent, said that he had
had upwards of seventy witnesses in attendance on Wed.
nesday, and bad brought them up again to-day. He trusted
therefore that the Committee would not allow another ad-
journment to take place.
'the CHAIRMAN said they were placed in an extraordinary
position. As they had to consult the Speaker on a matter of
business, the Committee would adjourn for a few minutes, in
order to give the petitioners time to appear, if they felt 60
disposed.
On the return of the Committee, it was found that no Par-
liamentary agent fur the opposition was in attendance.
Mr. Thomas said that his property would be much injured
by the projected line, and he was anxious to address the
Committee on the subject of his opposition to the Bill.
The CHAIRMAN had some doubt whether he could allow
such a course of procedure, but would consult with the Com-
mittee on the matter.

The room was then cleared of strangers.
CLYDESDALE JUNCTION RAILWAY.
The Committee reported that the standing orders in this
case had been complied with.

Sub-Committee, No. 4, assembled at Twelve o'clock, in
Committee-room, No. 7. The following were the Members
present :—Sir W. Heat.hcote (Chairman), Mr. Wm. Evans,
Mr. Stewart Mackenzie, Mr. Gisborne, Mr. Packe, and Mr.
Childers. .