POSTSCRIPT.

SATURDAY. LonD JOHN RUSSELL surprised the House of Commons, last night, by pro mulgating more than his promised "statement of intentions" on West Indian affairs: he propounded measures which purport to be for the relief of the Sugar Colonies. He proposes a loan of 500,0001. for the encourage- ment of free immigration to the West Indies; and, instead of renewing protective duties on Foreign sugar, he proposes to attain a similar end by lowering the duties on Colonial sugar. The measure is too late, and too small: even Mr. Bright, an eminent professor in that Manchester school under which the Government acts, avowed that the plan was only one to throw dust in the eyes of the colonists; and the advocates of the West Indian in- terest declared that it would be totally inefficient to save the West Indies from ruin. So Lord John Russell would have done better if he had stuck to pure " free trade," as laid down in the act of 1846: by this deviation, he earns the sneers of his Manchester friends, only to do the Colonies the dis- service of putting them off with a pretence of help—sufficient to block out real help, but not to do good. He wanted Members to reserve their com- ments till Monday: the packet had been detained one day, and he wished it to carry out his speech—without comments. He was disappointed: the packet carries out, with Lord John's proposition, an unanimous declara- tion of its worthlessness, from all parties.

The Act 9th and 10th Victoria, c. 63, having been read, Lord Jon Rue- SELL rose to move that, on Monday next, the House should reaolve itself into a Committee to consider the said act. Lord John reviewed the past legislation concerning the West Indies; especially referring to the Negro Emancipation Act of 1834, and the alteration of the Sugar- duties, admitting foreign free-labour sugar in 1845, and all foreign sugar in 1846. The Enfancipstion Act was a great act of humanity and justice; and he verily be- lieved that if it had not been passed we should have had a series of disturbances Of course such a change in these Sugar-duties would require a corresponding change to be made in the duties on refined and doable refined white clayed sugars, and on molasses.

Complaints had been made by the West India proprietors of the differential du- ty on rum. Last year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had proposed that the differential duty on rum should be 6d. Some difficulty arose on that proposition, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer raised it to 9d, although he maintained that fid. was quite sufficient. The Chairman of the Board of Excise thought that 4d. was sufficient as a differential duty; and Lord John therefore could not agree to impose a higher differential duty on runs than that sum. There was one question connected with this reduction of duty, which would make it necessary to withdraw the permission given last year to use sugar in breweries. With regard to the use of sugar in distilleries no change in the present law would be made. He had now stated to the House the proposition of the Government. He thought that it would be convenient, if the House would allow him, to print his resolutions now, and he would then propose to submit them to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

The proposition was received with strong disapprobation from every quarter of the House.

Sir ROBERT INGLIS and Sir JOHN PARneerrost condemned it, on the ground of encouraging the slave-trade.

Mr. BERNAL, Mr. BARELY, Mr. HENRY BAILLIE, Mr. HUME, Mr. HENRY DRUMMOND, Mr. PHILIP MILEs, Mr. HENLEY, Mr. HUDSON, and Mr. EvErAtrr DEarisosi, all condemned the plan as totally insufficient to avert the ruin of the West Indies. Mr. BARELY declared that the loan of 500,0001. would be useless for purposes of immigration—it might as well be thrown into the sea. Mr. BER- NAL claimed on behalf of the West India proprietors the right to import their produce into this country free from all duties whatever. Mr. HERMES, Lord GEORGE BEsrrnircE, and Mr. DISRAELI, vigorously urgd both objections—the encouragement of the slave-trade, and the insufficient aid to the West Indies. Mr. Disraeli called it a paltry and perilous measure; and sharply accused the Government of breaking faith with the West Indies. Lord George fastened a serious imputation upon Mr. Hawes, of having withheld from the Committee on the West Indies, for fifty-six days, a despatch of Sir Charles Grey, Governor of Jamaica, suggesting a plan of relief for the West Indies. Mr. HAWES attempted to "fence " with Lord George (as the latter phrased it); pro- tested upon his honour; there must be some mistake; he would " inquire " about it.

The measure was attacked on Free-trade grounds by Mr. BRIGHT, Mr. COB- DEN, and Mr. CHARLES VILLIERS; Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright calling upon the House not to overlook the sufferings of their own fellow countrymen in Yorkshire and Lancashire.

In his reply, Lord JOHN RUSSELL complained that Members had not taken his advice to reserve their objections till Monday. and insurrections which must have been fatal to the prosperity of the West Indies. The gift of 20,000,0001. to the West Indian proprietors showed that the Parlia- ment and people of England were disposed to make important sacrifices to prevent

distress and ruin from falling on them. Both that act and the acts of 1846, he maintained, had been completely successfuL The main object of the act of 1834

was to give freedom to 800,000 slaves, and to place them in a condition of independence and prosperity. That object was admitted on all hands to have been attained. The main object of the act of 1846 was to obtain a cheaper and

larger supply of sugar with a diminution of burdens to the people of England; an object which he showed by financial returns had been completely accomplished. The consumption of sugar mcreased from 244,000 tons in 1845 to 290,700 tons in 1847, and is still increasing. The revenue derived from the duties on sugar in- creased from 3,745,0001. in 1845, to 4,596,0001. in 1847. Lord John reviewed the measures which had been taken for introducing la- bourers from the East Indies into the Mauritius, from the East Indies and Africa into the West Indian Colonies; which he admitted had not been very successful. The present state of the case is, that labourers may be introduced from any Bri- tish possession in Afiica, with only this provision, that there should be an officer on board the vessel who shall take care that there are no transactions resembling the purchase of slaves or the slave-trade, and that the person who emigrates to the West Indies should go there with his own consent. Also, " liberated Afri- cans," from captured slave-ships, are conveyed direct to the West Indies, instead of being sent first to Sierra Leone. But the suspicion entertained in this country, that the slave-trade might be revived under the pretence of immigration—the fear that slaves should be compelled to work in the West Indies—retarded for a longer period than was quite fair or.just to the West India proprietors the immigration into the West Indies. He proposed, therefore, to do more now than he should have done had that question been settled some years ago, and had there been a fair import of labour since the year 1834. He proposed to make ea advance to the Colonies, on the security of the colonial revenues for the purpose of meeting the expense of immigration; or rather, he should say, that he pro- posed to guarantee a colonial loan not exceeding 500,0001., in addition to 160,0001. which the House had already guaranteed this session. Complaints had been made of the too rapid operation of the act of 1846; and that under it one class of sugar had advantage over every other class in the clas- sification of duties, which it ought not fairly to have. In considering that sub- ject, he frankly avowed that he did not think it fair to the British consumer to impose a differential duty of 10s. on sugar to last for ten years or more, for the purpose of reviving the industry and prosperity of the West Indies. He there- fore looked in another direction: he looked to the experience of late years, in which be saw that, with regard to many articles on which the duty had been di- minished and the price had been lowered, the revenue had been no loser whilst the consumer had been a great gainer. He quoted a table showing that from 1825 to 1841 every fall in the duty on sugar had been accompanied by a rise in the consumption, and every rise of duty by a fall in the consumption; a fact also shown by the returns for 1845-7. He therefore looked to a large consumption of sugar for the means of modifying the act of 1846. What he proposed was, that the duty on colonial sugar should be reduced after the 5th of July in the present year to 13s., and should be reduced subsequently a shilling every sue- ceeding year until it reached 108. He likewise proposed that the duty on ordi- nary foreign Muscovado sugar should remain as fixed by the act of 1846; but he proposed a new distinctive duty for foreign brown clayed sugar. In this species of sugar, the foreign producer had an undue advantage, from the wide variation of quality which might be made to come under that head; and thus the foreigner is able to introduce a very high quality of that sugar under the low range of duty. Lord John proposed a distinctive scale for brown clayed, or quali- ties equal to brown clayed, foreign sugars: from the 5th of July 1848 to the 5th of July 1849, the duty would remain at 20s.; and it would then be reduced ls. 6d a year, until it reached a 10s. duty in July 1854. The proposed duties, then, would stand thus— Year ending July 5.

a. d. s. d.

a. d.

1849 20 0 18 6 13 0

1850 18 6 17 0 12 0 1851

17 0 15 6 11 0

1882 15 6 14 0 10 0

1858 14 6 13 0 10 0

1854 13 0 12 0 10 0

Equal 10 0 10 0 10 0 Foreign.

Brown Clayed. Muse.

Colonial Muscovado. Finally, it was ordered that on Monday next the House should resolve itself into a Committee to consider the Act 9th and 10th Victoria, c. 63.

Mr. LABoricuEEE then moved that the House resolve itself into Com- mittee on the Navigation and Regulation of Ships and Seamen. Mr. HEaniEs objected to the discussion of such an important measure at so late an hour; and, after some very useless talking, the House divided: the motion was carried by 119 to 32; and the House went into Committee. The resolution being put by the Chairman, Mr. Sy near regretted that the Government was determined to force on the discussion of the Naviga- tion-laws; and he moved that the Chairman report progress. Mr. La... BOUCHERE regretted the course taken by the Opposition, which appear factious and unnecessary. A parenthetical scene of an amusing character then occurred.

Mr. HUDSON fell into a tone too personal, and received a lecture. Mr. Stumm wished to enter his protest against a practice which was indulged in by certain honourable gentlemen of making constant personal allusions to other Members of the House. After thirty years' experience, he must say that he had never known any honourable Member come down after dinner, night after night, flushed—he would not say with champagne—( Great laughter, and cries of " Order! ") The honourable Member opposite (Mr. Hudson) would excuse him for saying that the personal allusions he was accustomed to make were very unfair. He hoped the debate might go on without renewed personality. Mr. Htinsorr returned Mr. Hume's fire. (Loud cries of " Spoke!" and " Qua_ tion! ") He supposed Mr. Hume was speaking to the question when be told the House about the champagne Members had drunk. Mr. Hudson supposed that the dress he appeared in had caused an inference to be drawn—[smiling goodhumouredly, and pointing to his own white waistcoat—whereat the House laughed excessively]—but the truth was, he had gone home to accompany his family to a party, and then returned to the House after only forty minutes' absence. (Roars of laughter.) He never attacked Mr. Hume for wearing a white waistcoat and trying to look a little gay: he confined himself to public and to legitimate subjects; never referred to such things as Greek loans. (" Orderer) At all events, he would never charge Mr. Hume with dining out or giving a dinner to a friend.

The House presently cleared for a division. In the absence of reporters, Mr. COBDEN appears to have been very severe on Mr. Hudson; for subsequently Mr. DISRAELI retorted with an allusion to " graver imputations on former occasions vented in the House—accusations of stimulating to assassination and echoes of frenzied applause thereupon." He thought that Sir. Cobden should add his apolo- gies to the honourable Member for Sunderland.

The division negatived the motion to report progress, by 144 to 48.

Lord GEORGE BENTINCK moved that the Chairman quit the chair. Ife. LABOUCHERE complimented him on his success in obstructing public busi- ness, and gave in.

Earlier in the evening, Mr. STARPOR.D moved the issue of the writ for Derby borough. Opposed by Mr. HUSLE; and negatived, by 89 to 36.

In the other House, Lord STANLEY called attention to the present state of the laws regulating the importation of foreign corn. He did not mean to renew the discussion as to the policy of giving protection to the agricul- tural interest; but it must be recollected that we had at the present time a duty on corn which had neither increased the price of food nor aggra- vated discontent; and he put it to the Government whether it would not be in accordance with sound policy to continue the existing duties at they now stood for a period of five or six months, so as to enable Parliament to determine next year, after experience, whether the inconvenience of a tri- fling duty would not be outbalanced by the financial gain of three-quarters of a million of money. The Duke of RICHMOND supported the motion, with some retrospective complaints of the manner in which repeal had been carried. Earl GREY deprecated any disturbance of the settlement made after such great agitation in 1846. The topic was then abandoned.