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
=embers 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- bart.
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. hart. 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 produce of freelabour, it would tend
to discourage slavery in those parts. The house was aware
of the plan which they had 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, teen 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-
posalofthehon.memberpreviousto and since they had been
left in a minority (hear, hear.) The rt. hon. 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, bear.)
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 soasco by surprise. Lord Sydenham told them in
the year 1839 that they must. prepare tnecasetves ror 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 bon. 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 bon. 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 coin-
13inations 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 IL
Peel) shall prcpose that the duty be 245., 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 of legislative business. Many of the
government measures had been opposed, and they had
not been carried, andthere 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 sometime to reform them as much
as consistent, to relax as much as possible restrictive
drites, 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-
-Tided, when there were—
Against Mr. Miles proposal .
For it.

Majority in favour of the Government

.. 253
.. 233

HOUSE OF LORDS.--...TUESDAY.

Tile Insolvent Debtors Bill and the Court of Bank-
_ Tuptcy 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
,opiritual welfare of the community.
The Earl of MINT° called attention to the continuance
•of slavery in Cuba.
The E irl of ABERDEEN said it was too true that the
!leave-trade was still persisted in, especially as he had
lboped that through the influence of General Valdez the
%traffic in slaves would have been brought to a close ; on
the ,contrary it had increased. He trusted, however,
t tatin:Cuba it would not be long before a salutary change
yv using. be effected.
...tile Slave Trade Treaties Bill was then read a third
time And passed.
Ea 71 SrnADBROKE, in reference to the fires wbch were
unfor t!luately of too frequent recurrence in Sussex and
the nei thbouring 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 fzequency of these fires.
Lord EraYMAN was of opinion that the fires were
traceable to a discontented and agricultural population.
The House then adjourned till Friday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—WEDNESDAY.
On the motion of Mr, 'FirsE, it was ordered that the
petition of the Solicitors for Mr. O'Connell and the other
raversers be printed with the votes.
The Lord Mayor and Corporation of Dublin were in-
traduced in their court suite, &c., made their appearance
atthe bar, and delivered a petition condemning the mode
in which 'Mr. O'Connell and his companions in prison
.had been tried as totally opposced to constitutional princi-
ples, declaring that the parties had not had a fair trial—
that the law of conspiracy laid down was wholly subver-
t Give of the liberty of the subject—and calling upon the
house to take the law of conspiracy into their serious con-
sideration, acid to preserve inviolate the right of free dis-
cussion.
Mr. IV-I,:'E gave notice that, on the 2d of July, he will
move a select committee to inquire into the formation of
the special jury which tried O'Connell, and alto into the
proceedings adopted by the court.
postponed for a fortnight.
The Count!! Courts Bill was
The committal of the Vestries in Churches Bill %yd.; op-
posed by Mr. HOME and others, but ultimately carried by
a majority cf 87 to 73.
Mr. Hume !noved the adjournment of the house.
Sir R. PEEL seid be was in favour of the general prin-
ciple of the bill, but there were certain clauses which
might be altered or omitted, and for that rurpose they
must go into committee, ivPs nega-
After another long delilter the adjournment
tired by 83 to 75.

Mr. HOME then varied the terms of his opposition, by
moving the adjournment of the debate, and appealed to
the fact of the smallness of the majority, as a proof that
there was a strong feeling within the house, as well as out
of doors, against the bill.
Mr. O'BRIEN declared it impossible to go on against
such a systematic opposition, moved an amendment on
Mr. Hume's amendment that the house sh.)uld adjourn.
This was carried amidst much cheering and laughter, and
the house adjourned at a quarter-past seven o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-THURSDAY,

On the motion of Mr. GLADSTONE, a Dill for the regu-
lation of railways was read a first time, and ordered to be
read a second time on Monday next. .

--
In reply to a question from Captain LAYARD,
Sir It. PEEL said there was no truth in the rumour
that Earl de Grey had resigned the Lord Lieutenancy of
Ireland owing to the precarious state of his health.
The house then went into committee on the Sugar Du-
ties Bill.
Mr. LABOUCHERE inquited whether, if the Brazils and
Cuba abolished the slave trade, the provisions of this bill
would still apply to them after they would have thus
placed themselves in the same situation as the United
States, where slavery existed, although the slave trade was
abolished.
Sir R. PEEL said the question was hypothetical, and as
the bill was only for one year, any suca changes of cir-
cumstances might be met as they occurred.
After some observations from Mr. V. SMITH and Mr.
GLADSTONE,
Lord PA LMERSTO described the course pursued by the
Government as intricate and tortuous, and calculated to i
increase their embarrassments as they proceeded. How
could the government lay down a rule to ascertain whe-
ther sugar was the result of free labour or slave-grown ?
How could they determine respecting the nice distinc-
tions by which slavery appeared to he graduated between
the positive slavery existing in Cuba and Brazils and the
more mitigated serfdom prevailing in other countries.
After a short discussion Mr. Hume moved the post-
ponement of the clause in order that the distinction be-
tween free-labour and slave-grown sugar might be more
distinctly defined.
Considerable discussion ensued, in the course of which
Sir W. JAMES asked if this distinction between free-
labour and slave-grown sugar was to be permanent:'
Sir R.. Prvor demineti to ple.hre himself that it should
LL, permanent.
After a lengthened discussion Mr. HumE withdrew his
motion, but intimated that on the bringing up of the re-
port he would bring forward a motion for the purpose of
having a definition of what really was slave-grown sugar.
Mr. LABOUCHERE then strenuously condemned the
system of certificates, which he contended would never be
made effectual, while, on the other hand, it was fraught
with evil. _

Mr. GLADSTONE entered into a lengthy explanation in
order to prove that the system of certificates was likely
to prove an effectual check to the importation of slave-
grown sugar.
A prolonged debate ensued, at the close of which
Lord YALMERSTON said he would divide upon the
clause, in order to take the sense of the committee upon
the system of certificates of origin.
On the division the clause was carried by a majority of
114 to 60.
Mr. F. BARING pressed upon the house the difficulties
which would arise in carrying out this bill from our
treaties with Denmark and other countries, in which
treaties were clauses guaranteeing that the produce of
those countries should be admitted on the same terms as
that of the most favoured nation.
Mr. GLADSTONE said there was a power given to the
Queen in Council to meet such difficulties as those re-
ferred to by the right hon. gentleman.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE adverted to the preamble of the bill,
which stated that these duties bad been " freely and
voluntarily given," and moved that they be omitted us
untrue. The hon. member severely attacked the members
who had voted on Monday with the Government, having
on Friday voted against it on this question, and said they
bad brought upon the House of Commons the hatred
and contempt of the people to a greater degree than it
had been visited upon any former House of Commons
whatever.

Sir R. PEEL very happily retorted on Mr. Duncombe,
clearly showing, from his own observations, that he was
totally ignorant of the main principles of a bill upon which
he had twice solemnly passed judgment.
Mr. LABOUCHERE congratulated Sir R. Peeel on the
improved cheerfulness of his tone as compared with what
it was on a recent occasion, and hoped that Mr. Duncombe
would not persevere with his motion.
Mr. DUNCOMBE said he would not press his motion to
a division.

A singularly animated and amusing debate followed, in
which Mr. Borthwick contrived to place Mr. Ross (of
Belfast) upon his defence, for having voted on the Fac-
tories Bill, first on one, and then on the other side of the
question. The personalities resorted to elicited frequent
roars of laughter.
The house then resumed, and the report was ordered
to be received this day.
Sir R. PEEL then expressed a fear that he was misun-
derstood in his reply to a question from Mr. Layard, at
an early part of the evening, respecting the resignation of
the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. The state of the noble
earl's health since he went to Ireland was such, that he
had for a long time pressed his resignation on the Govern-
ment. and he (Sir R. Peel) did not mean to imply that no
immealate cnange stioulu Laxe Ibil tioveru-
ment. The resignation of the noble earl was not owing
to any political cause whatever.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the house adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-FRIDAY.

In reply to a question from the Earl of CLNRENDON,
The Earl of ABERDEEN said that the rumour was true
that Don Carlos had proposed through a nobleman, not
a member of that house, that he would resign his claims
to the crown of Spain, and submit to any other sacrifice
which could lead to the pacification of that country, pro-
vided a marriage were effected between his son and the
present Queen of Spain. That proposition he had trans-
mitted to the courts of France and Spain ; but he must
say that he could not help entertaining the opinion that
the return of Don Carlos to Spain would occasion a civil
war in that country, and create great dissensions even in
the palace itself.
A lengthened discussion took place on the Bankruptcy
and Insolvency Laws Amendment Bill and the Debtor
and Creditors Bill, the former being introduced by Lord
Brougham, and the latter by Lord Cottenham, and the
object of both being somewhat similar, they were dis-
cussed in conjunction. The Lord Chancellor suggested
that both bills should be referred to a select committee
to inquire which bill was preferable, or whether a mea-
sure preferable to either might not be compounded from
both. _ _

Lord BROUGHAM assented to this arrangement ; but
Lord COTTENH AM persevered in moving that his bill be
read a third time, to which an amendment was moved
that it be sent to a select committee. .

This led again, to a discussion, it being contended by
Lord Campbell, Lord Cottenham, and the Earl of Minto,
that referring the bill to a select committee was in effect
getting rid of it for the present session.
The third reading of the bill was negatived by a majority
of 28 to 4.
The bill was then referred to a select committee.
Some other business was then disposed of, and their
lordships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—FRIDAY.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL declined to answer a question
put by Mr. Christie, respecting his having followed the
custom of Abingdon, by scattering fifty pounds amongst
the crowd on the day of election
Sir R PEEL, in reply to a question from Mr. Sheil,
said that the instructions given by the Government to the
Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, respecting the exercise of
Church patronage, were, that regard should be had to
professional fitness and capacity, without any reference to
political considerations. The Government had also mani-
fested in every way their determination to uphold the
national system of education in that country.
On bringing up of the report on the Sugar Duties Bill,
Mr. EW ART moved that the same rates of duty should
be levied on sugars, whether the produce of slave or free
labour.

After a few observations from Mr. JAMES and Mr.
BARCLAY, the house divided, and Mr. Ewart's motion
was defeated by a majority of 183 to 65.
The report was then agreed to, and the third reading of
the bill was fixed for Monday.
On the motion for going into committee on the Dis-
senters' Chapels Bill,
Mr. PLUMPTILE regretted that this bill should have re-
ceived the sanction of the Government—a bill which
would have received the most decided opposition had it
been proposed by Lord John Russell, and in comparison
with which the appropriation clause was honesty and
purity itself. He moved as an amendment that the order
for committing the bill be discharged.
Sir R. PEEL said the question was treated by the
Government as one of property, and not of faith. They
were not endowing Unitarianism, but deciding a contro-
versy as to the rights of property by that rule of prescrip-
tion which was the foundation of all justice. Notwith-
standing, therefore, the unpopularity and misconstruction
to which it would expose them, the Government still
thought the course they pursued the right one.
After a discussion of dels length, Mr. PLUMPTRE
withdrew his amendment, he house went into com-
miftee.
indicating
shouldating specific
religious On the second clause, Mr. SHAW moved an amend-
ment that if any congregation possessed documents con-
temporaneous withteheweange of 2
dowmes }earsnt,
religious doctrine, the
taken as evidence contradictory of those documents. His
object was to enable the Synod of Ulster to claim certain
endowments alleged to befounded for Trinitarian doctrines.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL said that the amendment
would in the very case of the Synod of Ulster be pro.
ductive of the most monstrous injustice.
Sir. R. PEEL quoted some resolutions of the Synod of
Ulster, showing that their object was to obtain possession
of endowments which they considered to have been
despoiled from the. Trinitarian body.
The committee divided, and the amendment was nega-
tived by a majority of 161 to 43.
The discussion upon the other clauses occupied a coo.
sidexable portion of the evening.
The County Coroner's Bill was read a third time.

CASE OF MARIA JOAQUINA.--LOrd Canning, Under
Secretary of State in the Foreign Department, has written
to the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, acknowledging the
receipt of the memorial of the Town Council. remonstrat-
ing against this woman being made the victim of Portu-
guese bigotry for having embraced the Protestant religion.
His lordship states that the British minister at Lisbon
should ascertain the circumstances of the case, and make
the fitting representations.