The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-06-25 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-MONDAY.

- -
Before five o'clock the house was exceedingly full with
members on both sides, and the space below the bar ap-
propriated to strangers was also crowded. Amongst
those present we noticed Lord Morpeth, and a number of
Peers.
Sir R. PEEL entered the house a few minutes before five
o'clock. After a short pause,
The Right Hon. Bart. said it was probable the house
would expect some statement from him of the course her
Majesty's government intended to pursue in consequence
of the vote on Friday night on the subject of the sugar
duties (hear, hear.) He had a statement to make, but if
the house had no objection, he would make it after they
bad resolved into a committee on the Sugar Duties Bill,
Lord J. RUSSELL said, there could be no objection to
the course proposed by the right hon. hart.
The house then went into committee, Mr. Greene in
the chair.
Sir R. PEEL said, the house having resolved into a
committee, he would state the views which her Majesty's
government entertained on the subject of the Sugar Du-
ties Bill, and the course they intended to pursue (hear,
bear.) The right hon. bart. proceeded to state his opi-
nions upon the question of slavery as connected with the
duties on sugar, and reviewed the various discussions
which had taken place. Her Majesty's government
thought it would be unjust to the British planter to enter
into competition with the foreign grower who used slave
labour. He could not, however, help thinking that if they
encouraged the introduction of sugar from Cuba, Java,
and perhaps China, the produceof free labour, it would tend
to discourage slavery in those parts. The house was aware
of the plan which they bad proposed to effect this intro-
duction. They proposed that there should be a differen-
tial duty between foreign and colonial sugar of 10s. per
cwt. They wished the growers of free labour sugars to
know the opinion of parliament on this subject, in order
that, at some future period, no party should be taken by
surprise. What they had proposed they believed to be a
safe measure as regarded the revenue and the consumer,
and not injurious to the West India interest. They had,
however, been met by a counter resolution, proposed by
the hon. member for Bristol, who proposed a different scale
of duty. Her Majesty's government had considered the pro-
posal ofthehon.member previous to and since they had been
left in a minority (hear, hear.) The rt.bon.bart. said, after
full consideration her Majesty's government retained
their former opinions ; they could not adopt or acquiesce
in the proposition of the hon. member for Bristol ; they
were of opinion that their original resolution would be
most advantageous to the revenue and the public, and
not injurious to the West India interest. (Hear, hear.)
His hon. friend proposed to make a reduction of about
one-sixth in the duty on sugar. He believed that reduc-
tion would not benefit the West India planters, the sub-
jects of their commiseration, but the benefit would go
into the pockets of the retailers of sugar. (Hear. hear.)
The West India proprietors ought not to complain of
being taken by surprise. Lord Sydenham told them in
the year 1839 that they must prepare themselves for some
alteration. Next year the property tax expired. and then
the question must be raised, whether it was to be renewed
or discontinued ? And this question must greatly depend
upon the continuance of the sugar duties. Another ob-
jection to the motion was, that the government could not
consent to a discriminating duty of 14s. on certain de-
scriptions of sugar—they could not consent to give in-
creased protection to the West Indian colonies. (Hear.)
He differed with the hon. member for Bristol on the me-
rits of his proposition, and he felt bound to oppose it on
political grounds. If the question was one of unimpor-
tance, it carried with it distrust in the government, and
had a bearing on their existence as an executive ; and if
acquiesced in by them, it was giving encouragement to
future attempts. He believed, however, the motion was
carried by preconcert—(hear)—with hon. gentlemen op-
posite. (Hear.) He did not complain of combination ;
parties had a right to combine if they pleased—(hear ;)
but as a minister of the crown, be had a right to say whe-
ther he would adopt the recommendations of such com-
binations or not. He declined acquiescing in the propo-
sition of the hon. member for Bristol, let the consequences
be what they might. Under these circumstances the
course her Majesty's government intended to pursue was
this : for the purpose of giving the house another oppor-
tunity of reconsidering the question, if the hon. member
proposes to make 20s. as the amount of duty, he (Sir R.
Peel) shall prcpose that the duty be 2-Is., and on that
question he should take the sense of the house. (Hear.)
He was not answerable for the state they were in as re-
garded the progress oflegislative business. Many of the
government measures had been opposed, and they had
not been carried, and there must be an arrear for the close
of the session, which he deeply regretted. The wish of
the government had been to protect the great institutions
of the country, at the same time to reform them as much
as consistent, to relax as much as possible restrictive
duties, and to mend the ecclesiastical establishment. He
deeply regretted if they had lost the confidence of friends,
but he could not ask for their voting that night under
professions, which could not be realised. Her Majesty's
government would go on in the course of steady legislation.
Lord J. RUSSELL rose and said, that the proposal of
Sir R. Peel was neither more nor less than that the house
should retract its former vote and disgrace itself.
After speeches from Mr. Miles, Mr. Cochran, Mr.
Kemble, Mr. D'lsraeli, Lord Sandon, Mr. Goulburn,
Mr. Entwistle, Lord Howick, Lord Stanley, Lord Pal-
merston, and one or two other members, the house di-
vided, when there were—
Against Mr. Miles proposal ..
For it

255
233

Majority in favour of the Government ..

HOUSE OF LORDS.-TUESDAY.

22

The Insolvent Debtors Bill and the Court of Bank-
ruptcy Bill passed through committee.
The Bishop of Ripon moved the first reading of the
Leeds Parish Bill, and gave a brief outline of its objects,
which, he said, were eminently calculated to promote the
spiritual welfare of the community.
The Earl of MINTO called attention to the continuance
of slavery in Cuba.
The Earl of ABERDEEN said it was too true that the
slave-trade was still persisted in, especially as he had
hoped that through the influence of General Valdez the
traffic in slaves would have been brought to a close ; on
the contrary it bad increased. He trusted, however,
that in Cuba it would not be long before a salutary change
would be effected.
The Slave Trade Treaties Bill was then read a third
time and passed.
Earl STB.AonitoKE, in reference to the fires whch were
unfortunately of too frequent recurrence in Sussex and
the neighbouring counties, attributed the fires to an over-
grown and discontented population and too mitigated
punishment. The noble earl presented a petition com-
plaining of the frequency of these fires.
Lord Datimarr was of opinion that the fires were
traceable to a discontented and agricultural population.
The House then adjourned till Friday.