Debates anti 113rotetbinas in Vat!lament.

THE SUGAR-DUTIES BILL : MINISTERIAL EXPLANATION.

At five o'clock on Monday, when the House of Commons went into Committee on the Sugar-duties Bill, Sir ROBERT PEEL explained to a crowded House, the views of the Government with respect to the adverse vote of last Friday.

The opinions they entertained upon the subject of the Sugar-duties were those which they had entertained for several years past—views they expressed when they were in Opposition, which they had avow ed since they had been intrusted with power, and which at the present time they still entertained and intended to act upon. The ordinary considerations which determined matters of financial and commercial policy did not apply to the particular article of sugar. This country had taken up a strong position in opposition to the slave-trade, and had voted without reluctance 20,000,0001. for compensation for the abolition of slavery in the British dominions. At the present day, a great annual expenditure was incurred on the coast of Africa and other parts of the world by this country, for the suppression of the slave-trade ; that expenditure not being intended to benefit any part of our own dominior s, but being carried on for the supposed advantage of other par- ties, with whose domestic institutions we have no concern. In the last ses- sion an act was passed enforcing additional penalties on the employment of British capital in the slave-trade. They had therefore, by the whole tenour of their policy, given conclusive proof that they were governed with respect to the slave-trade by a different principle from that which regulated them in every other kind of commercial transaction. When the present Government were in Opposition, in 1839, they supported those who were then in power in re- sisting the proposal then made by Mr. Ewart, the effect of which, if it had met the sanction of the House, would have been to reduce the protective duty on Foreign sugar, as compared with British Colonial sugar, to the amount of 12s. That proposal was resisted by Lord John Russell and his colleagues, on grounds similar to those on which the present Government depended. The views of the present Ministers, whether well-founded or not, were at least consistent views. There could be no doubt that the Legislature considered expense as subordinate in importance to the great object of suppressing the slave-trade. To open the British market to the sugar of Brazil and Cuba, would give an increased stimulus to the slave-trade. Though a limited, quali- fied competition of sugar the produce of free labour might be permitted with West India sugar, yet it would be dangerous to have a differential duty of only 108. on the sugar of Brazil and Cuba. At the commencement of the year, the Government considered what course they ought to pursue with respect to sugar, entertaining these opinions. As bearing on the question, an event of considerable importance would occur this year. On the 10th No- vember 1844, the existing treaty with Brazil would expire. "Previously to that day, it is most difficult for Government to deal at all with the question of sugar ; because Brazil is entitled, by the engagements of the • existing treaty, to have her produce received in the markets of this country on the footing of the most favoured nations. On the 10th of November in this year that state of things will cease." Sir Robert explained why they wished to postpone the consideration of the general financial condition of the country, as connected with the renewal of the Income-tax, until next year. It was desirable that the House, before coming to a decision on to important a question as the renewal of the Income- tax, and many other questions necessarily depending upon it, should be in pos- session of the greatest and fullest experience as to the effect of those altera- tions in the Customs-duties which were made in 1842, when the Income-tax was proposed. There had been indications of returning prosperity in the coun- try, but they might be delusive. There were two great subjects which they considered they were called upon to biing before the House this session,—the reduction of the Three-and-a-half per Cent Stock, and the measure for the regulation of the currency. There was also a great mass of legislation to get through. "How were we to deal with this question of the admission of foreign sugar? To propose the continuance of the Income-tax and make no pro- posal on the subject of sugar, would probably not have conciliated the approval of the House of Commons. I doubt whether the House would not almost have considered a proposal respecting the Sugar-duties a necessary condition of the renewal of the Income-tax. It was impossible for us, pending the treaty with Brazil, to make that proposal. Supposing in the month of March we had brought on the question of the Income-tax and the Sugar-duties, and proposed in that month any considerable reduction of the duties on sugar, Brazil would have been entitled, until November 1844, to share in all the advantages of that renewal, and would have had a positive claim to admit her sugar into the mar- ket of this country with the advantage of whatever reduction would have been made. Now, from the combined operation of these three reasons, I think any gentleman who permits me to assume that we are right in making a distinction .between free-labour sugar and slave-labour sugar, will admit that we had no -alternative but to postpone the consideration of any very extensive measure in respect to the Sugar-duties until our discretion was unfettered, so far as Brazil was concerned, by the termination of the treaty. We therefore did resolve deliberately not to ask the House to pronounce an opinion in the course of the present session with respect to the continuance of the Income-tax. At the • same time, we felt it to be our duty to make a proposition to the House on the subject of the Sugar-duties. We saw indications of a rising price. The price of sugar at the commencement of the spring was about 2s. higher per hundred- weight than the average of the last two years. There were reasons to appre- hend that there might be a deficient supply. In the month of November 1844, the period would arrive when we should be at liberty to deal with the question of free-labour sugar. The only monopoly that remains almost is that of sugar." (A laugh, and cries of" Corn, corn ! "from the Opposition side of the House.) Certainly of the great articles of consumption in this country, the only one in respect of which an unqualified monopoly existed was that of sugar. Foreign sugar was effectually excluded by a duty of three guineas the hundredweight ; and they thought it their duty to break down the monopoly so far as to admit free-labour sugar at a differential duty of 10s. "I am bound to say that, not- withstanding the discussions which have taken place, we adhere to our opi- nions. We believe these to be more safe for the revenue, advantageous for the consumer here, and likely to promote the enlarged and permanent advantage of the West India body." In submitting that measure, however, to the con- sideration of the House, they were met, in the first instance, by the amendment of Lord John Russell ; who proposed that the duty of 34s. should be indis- criminately applied to sugar the produce of any country, without reference to the source whence it was derived, or the kind of labour by which it was pro- duced. He took a division on that point, and the proposal of the Government in that respect was affirmed by a considerable majority. On a subsequent stage of the proceedings, they were met with a counter-proposal on the part of the West India body. It was proposed by his honourable friend the Member for • Bristol, that there should be a departure from the scheme of the Government. " The House implied an opinion, I presume, that bis scheme was preferable to ours—("Hear, hear I" and "No, no ")—well, an opinion adverse to our pro- ' posal ; my honourable friend proposed that, instead of the relative duties being "-Ns. and 34s., the relative duties should be 20s. and 30s.; that there should be firm _the lath of November next a reduction of doty on British sugar to 20s., and that from the same day there should be &discriminating duty as respects certain description, of sugar called White Cloyed sugar, or sugar equivalent to White Clayed sugar, to the extent of 14s. Her Majesty's Government have, as it was their duty to do, considered the proposal of my honourable friend. Acting, I trust, not under the influence of temper or disappointment at being in a minority, they have maturely considered the proposal ; which I still must think, if the Government were inclined to adopt, it would probably meet with the sanc- tion of the House, because I cannot help thinking there must have been some understanding that honourable gentlemen whom I see opposite,wereonany of them at least, to support the proposal of my honourable friend. (" No, so f") I don't say that the vote given the other night at all involved any obligation to support it, but certainly I inferred that there was an understanding that the proposal was to receive support from the other side of the House, as opposed to the proposal of the Government. I do not say that the vote itself binds any gentleman, but certainly it gave reason to suppose that there was, on the part of many, a disposition to support the proposition of my honourable friend, as opposed to the motion of the Government. I will now, Sir, assign the reasons why her Majesty's Government, after consideration, notwithstanding the vote come to the other night, retain their original opinions, and are not prepared to adopt the motion of my honourable friend. They cannot acquiesce in that motion as a mode of escaping from the difficulties in which they may be placed, because, on additional and more mature consideration in the interval, they dis- approve of that proposition, and they think their own original proposition pre- ferable for every interest in this country. My honourable friend proposes that there shall be from the 10th of November next a prospective reduction of duty. We think prospective reductions of duty, to take effect from a certain defined period, are objectionable in principle. We think that the consumer will derive little advantage from that reduction of duty, that the revenue will be subjected to loss, and that the West India interest will not be the party that will benefit by the increase of price which will take place in the mean time. We think it not impossible, if the market is to be supplied until the 10th November at the present rate of duty, with a certainty that on the 10th November there will be a diminished rate of duty,—at this period of the year, which is a very criti- cal one as respects the Sugar-duties, (the period of the year when there is an increased demand for sugar on account of the prevailing habit of preserving fruits and the making of home-made wine,)—we think that at this particular period there will be an observable increased demand and an increased price, on account of the unwillingness of retailers of sugar to take out supplies in the interval between the present day and the month of November, when there will be a known reduction of duty to a certain prescribed and definite amount. We think the West India interest will not benefit by that increased price, but that those grocers and retailers who may happen to have ample supplies of sugar will refuse to increase their stock, but will increase their demand on the public." He had looked into the effect produced by the prospective reduction of the Timber-duty, and found that there was diminished demand for the article—diminished payments into the Exchequer ; parties waiting till they could take advantage of the diminished duty, and then, having got the dimi- nished duty, the supply taken out in the ordinary way. The amount of re- duction in the Timber-duty was about one-sixth of the previously existing duty; very nearly corresponding with the amount of reduction proposed by Mr. Miles. " Although I am willing to admit that the stocks of timber are much larger than the stocks of sugar, yet still I think it is highly probable that the same results will follow—that there will be a depression of the sugar-market for the five months that will elapse before the 10th November next ; that there will be increased price, and that that increased price will not go into the pocket of the West India proprietor, the object of your sympathy ; that there will be increased loss to the revenue, loss to the consumer, and no benefit ex- cept to the retailer, who has no particular claim on your protection. I there- fore retain my opinion that this prospective reduction of duty, to take effect from November next, is unwise. I know it is said that we ourselves encou- rage an expectation that at no distant period the Sugar-duties.may be recon- sidered. But I apprehend that any such expectation as this, contingent on the continuance of the Income-tax, would produce a very different effect on the market from the notoriety that upon a certain day, the 10th November next, an amount of duty, named also, is to apply to a given article." If any evil did arise from this expectation, the present Government was not the only one which was chargeable with making prospective changes of duties : the Whigs had done so too. "Upon another ground the Government cannot ac- quiesce in the proposition of the honourable gentleman. We cannot agree to a proposal that there shall be a discriminating duty of 14s. in favour of certain species of Colonial sugar. I will not now enter into the question whether or not there should be a classification of sugar according to certain processes of manufacture : all I contend for is this, that if this classification be desirable, it ought to be universal in its application ; that in justice to the consumer, if you classify sugar the produce of Foreign countries, you should classify sugar the produce of our Colonies. There is as great a variation in the quality of sugar the produce of your own Colonies as there is in the quality of sugar the

i

produce of Foreign countries; and there is as much of injustice n subjecting the coarser description of sugar to a competition with sugar of the highest qualities, each being the produce of our own Colonies, at an equal rate of duty, as there is in subjecting your own sugar to competition at an equal rate of duty with sugar the produce of Foreign countries. I cannot admit the justice of making the classification in the case of Foreign unless you are prepared to make it equally in the case of our own sugar. And, therefore, if we ever came to that part of the proposal of my honourable friend, the Government retain their original opinion ; and cannot consent to seek for an escape from their present difficulties by undertaking to give an increased protection to theWest Indian interests." His own opinions were worth little, but he had that morning received a letter from a high practical authority confirming his view that there was danger in A prospective reduction of duty, and that there was no sufficient ground for a dis- criminating duty in favour of the "White Clayed sugar" of our Colonies. His correspondent had been extensively engaged in the sugar-trade for the last twenty years, and latterly had "turned over" nearly a million sterling yearly ; and he said—" I am quite certain, if the proposition of the honourable Mem- ber for Bristol be carried as it stands, it will be most injurious to all parties in- terested, as well as to the revenue ; for no one will deal in an article that is cer- tain to be cheaper in November. I would likewise strongly advise you to place the same extra duty of 4s. on the better qualities of Colonial sugar which the honourable gentleman proposes to put on White Clayed free-labour sugar, as it is well known that extensive refineries have been recently erected near Calcutta and other places, for the purpose of makings fine sugar very nearly equal to the refined, but just so much under it as to be admitted at the other rate of duty." This fine sugar sold at 70s. while the brown Muscovado sold at 56s., yet the same duty was paid by both. "We cannot assent, therefore, to the proposal of my honourable friend, because we entertain a decided preference for our own measure, upon recon- sideration; and we do not think his proposition ought to receive the assent of the House upon its merits. But, Sir, I admit, differing as we do from my honourable friend upon the merits of his measure, in a commercial point of view—I do not hesitate to admit that upon political ground. I cannot, on the part of the Government, consent to adopt it. [Here the House assumed an aspect of the deepest attention, and the most entire stillness ensued.] Some of those, too, who supported my honourahls friend said there was no material difference between the proposal he nmze and that made by the Government, and that therefore we might with" difficulty have assented to his amendment. Sir, if it be a matter of “utmportance, we cannot consent to concede to the proposi- tion. [ Sir Robert pronounced this with more than usual emkahasia,and proceeded after a pause, in a tone forcibly expressive of wounded feeling.] It was carried by a combination of those who are our general supporters with our political opponents. (Cheers from some of the Ministerialists.) If the measure, I re- peat, be an unimportant one, in proportion to its unimportance is it significant of a want of confidence in our administration. (Loud cries of" Hear, hear!" from all parts of the House.) If you can effect a great public object, that is a reason for proposing an alteration in the plan of the Government ; but if you Cannot effect any important object—if there be no great difference in the value of the two propositions—then, I say, the concurrence between our political opponents and our political friends has a bearing on our position as the Execu- tive Government of this empire. [These words, uttered with great energy, elicited renewed cries of "Hear, hear I " from all parts of the House.] It does in our opinion compel us to resist ; for, if acquiesced in by us, it would be an encouragement of similar combinations. (Laughter, and ironical cheers.) I do not believe, Sir—I cannot believe—that the concurrence in that vote was a casual occurrence, arising out of our debatings on the subject. (" Hear 1") I may be wrong, but my impression is that it was a preconcerted arrangement between some of those who oppose and some of those who support us. (Cries of "No, no! ") When my honourable friend—of course a word from him would be sufficient to destroy this delusion in my mind, if delusion it be, but I will tell him why I believe the vote was the result of a concert between some of those who support, and some of those who oppose us. I am not complain- ing. [Some ironical cheers and laughter, on account of Sir Robert's manner being marked with more of bitterness than he acknowledged. Sir Robert, apparently annoyed, proceeded with elevated voice.] No, but I have a right to observe upon such a combination. I do not deny the right of honourable gentlemen, if they think fit, to enter into such combination: I do not con- descend to deprecate them : but I think I have a right to consider what bearing the result has upon the position of the Government, when I am de- termining whether I will acquiesce in an unimportant proposition, as an amend- ment to a plan of the Government, carried by a combination such as I have alluded to. I am not, I repeat, denying the right of the tw2 parties so to com- bine. Into that I enter not. But I claim for myself thekight—and I mean to exercise it!—the right of determining what effect upon my position as a Mi- nister of.the Crown my acquiescence in the arrangement proposed would pro- duce. ("Hear, hear !") Sir, when my honourable friend originally gave no- tice of his amendment, it was to this effect—that he should propose a reduc- tion of duty on British Colonial sugar, to the amount of 20s. My honourable friend indicated no intention at that time to reduce the duty on Foreign sugar from 34s. to 30s.; consequently, the amount of his protection on all sugars was to have been 14s. He then makes a motion for a protection of only 10s. The honourable gentleman—my honourable friend,' [added Sir Robert, cor- recting himself,] at a subsequent period, said, he had found the West Indian interest, 'alarmed at his indicating' the amount of protection he thought sufficient, had quarrelled with him for not taking up a higher amount of pro- tection, and that be, fearing the opinion might be afterwards quoted against them, had altered his plan, making a greater distinction in his discriminating duties. Now, my honourable friend in this was quite mistaken. [Sir Robert, Who had spoken the foregoing sentences with an ironical expression, went on in a tone severely sarcastic.] My honourable friend might have found that nothing could have been more easy for him than to have suited the views of his supporters, yet adhered to his original proposition—of establishing a protection of 14s. In perfect conformity with the orders of the House—with no proba- bility of his being checked, Sir, by your vigilance—he might have contrived so to have shaped his motion that he might have established his protection to the amount of 14s., and thus have avoided the risk of embarrassment of which he professed such apprehension. But my honourable friend being invited to state whether be could make any relaxation in that part of his proposal which referred to the duty on ' White Clayed' sugar, intimated that be was not -piepared-to exercise any discretion on the subject, and that he was deter- mined to adhere to the diminished duty of 10s, on the one hand and the in- creased protection of 14s. on the other. Sir, I am not inclined, I hope—[Here Sir Robert hesitated somewhat, seemingly from the difficulty of suppressing his feelings]—to be mortified, or to complain of the language used in the course of debates with respect tons, who, as Ministers, have to endure with silence, if not with patience, the harshest expressions. I cannot, however, altogether forget the terms in which my honoutable friends the mover and seconder of the amendment recommended it to the consideration of the House. Without feel- ing the slightest temper, I am only remarking on the bearing which the pro- ceedings have upon the position of the Government. My honourable friend said we had indicated an intention to ' sacrifice ' the Colonial interests ; and the first proof he adduced of this was our abolition of the duty on the im- portation of wool, by which he said, though it did not interfere with the home produce, we had struck a blow at the Australian interests. I have the satis- faction of stating to my honourable friend, that since the abolition of the duty on foreign wool, there has been a considerable sale of Australian wool, and that the price, since the abolition of the duty, has been greater than at the same period in any former years. Then my honourable friend mid, we had now 'thrown off the mask,'—naturally attempting to induce the agriculturists to Cooperate with him : but then, he made a distinct appeal to the noble Lord opposite, declaring that he was prepared to combine with him for the purpose of *setting the colonists—making the appeal to the noble Lord with the know- ledge that the noble Lord was prepared to abolish all discriminations in duty between Foreign sugar and Colonial; and the honourable Member for Inverness Improved upon my honourable friend, declaring our course vacillating and tortuous,' and that the West Indian interests 'could have no confidence in our intentions,'—he also making an appeal to the honourable gentlemen opposite for the support which they apparently willingly conceded ; but further—there are occasions on which the most perfect frankness should be shown—the honourable Members did, I think, intimate that in their opinion no distinction should be made between free and slave-grown foreign sugar ; averring that the certificate of origin would be no security. Sir, if they were justified in these observations, I think there could be scarcely any alternative except the admission of all Foreign sugar at an equal rate of dloAy, or the maintenance of the present monopoly of sugar. There is a great difference of opinion on the principle between her Majesty's Government and my two honourable friends, and those who are equally the authors of it; for her Majesty's Government are determined that they cannot be the authors of any other proposition than their own. The course which her Majesty's Govern- ment propose to pursue is this—The noble Lord, towards the close of the debate the other night, invited the honourable gentleman to join with him in excluding certain words; stating, and stating very truly, that the adoption of his sug- gestion would not bind any one to support the particular proposal of the honourable gentleman. But, if this motion were successfully made by his honourable friend, then those who had supported it might make any proposal they should think fit as an amendment to the proposal of the Government. I *551 sure the noble Lord would not wish to exclude her Majesty's Government from the exerci.s. of the same privilege. ("Hear, hear I " and laughter.) If any there be who did preconcert the motion of my honourable friend, they woitkl be bound to support him ; but all others were at perfect liberty to make any other motion. For the putp.xe of giving the House an opportunity of re- considering this sabject, and of determining whether there is any weight at- tached to the reasons I have urged tonight to not adopting the proposal of my honourable friend, if he does make that motion, that 20.. shall be inserted as the amount of duty, to lake effect.from the 10th of November 1844, I propose to move upon that occasion, and to take the sense of the House upon my motion, that 24g. be the duty ; that is 'easy, thatthere shall be no reduction of the duty on British Colonial sugar. ("Hear, hear!") I shall not propose that motion merely because we believe it to be preferable to the other, but he- cause that in carrying a measure this year on the subject of the Sugar-duties, it is important, as indicative of your intentions next year, that the producers of sugar in countries to the Eastward of the Cape should know what will be their fate in the course of the next session with respect to the Sugar-duties. We do not intend topropose at any time the admiesion of slave-labour sugar on the same footing on which we propose to admit sugar the produce of free labour." ("Hear, hear 1") It might then be asked, why propose any change this year ? Because in the course of the next session, if then in power, they might have to propose the admission of free-labour sugar and a reduction of duty : but no notice having been given, and certificates of origin being required for Foreign sugar, Colonial sugar would possess a monopoly of the market for several months pending the arrival of those certificates. " I have thus, Sir, endeavoured to state as fully and as clearly as I could, the course which her Majesty's Government intend to pursue, and the motives which induce them to take it ; but I am not, and cannot be, insensible to the position in which we have been placed, as far as concerns the progress in gene- ral legislation. I cannot help feeling that we have proposed measures, in the course both of last session and the present, in respect to a hich that progress has not been made which we think might have been made, and which not having been made leaves us in certainly an unenviable position. (" Hear .!" and a laugh.) I do not pretend to blame either side of the House for this ; but the fact cannot be denied. We must, therefore, consequently expect the same results at the close of the present session which were witnessed at the end of the last,—namely, that we had presented measures connected with the internal policy of the Government to the consideration of Parliament and had not been successful in obtaining their consent. We cannot, also, conceal from ourselves, that, in respect to some of the measures we have proposed, and which have been supported, they have not met with that cordial assent and agreement from those for whose character and opinions we entertain the highest and sincerest respect. But I am bound to say, speaking here of them with perfect respect, that we cannot invite their cooperation and support upon the present occasion by holding out expectations that we shall take a middle or another course with regard to those measures which we believe to be best for the interests of the country and consistent with justice. (" Hear, hear !") We must continue to propose and to support those measures. Nevertheless, we regret that our measures have not been deemed entitled to support ; and we deeply regret the forfeiture of that confidence which is necessary for the credit of a Government, and which has not been so exemplified upon the motion of my honourable friend as it should be. Not that there should be a servile acquiescence in all our plans, nor that we should receive indiscriminate support, but, at least, there should be given to us ability to proceed with those measures of legislation which we believe important to the public good. Our business should be to maintain and protect the great existing interests of the country, at the same time ad- ministering in them such improvements as we think compatible with their maintenance and necessary for the purpose of insuring their general efficiency. We have thought it desirable to relax the system of protection, and admit into competition with articles of the domestic produce of this country articles from foreign lands. We have attempted to counsel the enforcement of principles which we believe to be founded in truth, with every regard for existing institu- tions, and every precaution to prevent embarrassment and undue alarm ; and we feel it necessary to maintain the laws which preceding Parliaments have passed : and we will not conceal that in respect to our ecclesiastical institutions, our intentions appear to have been defeated in the House of Lords in regard to one measure, which, though it may be considered an isolated one, is still a very important one. But, though I cannot conceal all this, I shall deeply regret it, if we have forfeited the confidence of those who have given us so truly and honourably their support. But I cannot ask for it by encouraging expectations which we are not prepared to realize. We think the course we took the right one ; that a gradual, safe, and circumspect relaxation of the Sugar-duties, which would have prevented undue competition in the domestic produce of this country, was the best. We cannot profess any repeotance ; we cannot declare our conversion to a different principle. We are prepared to abide by the en- gagements we have made and the principles we profess ; and the same course of gradual improvement is the course we must continue to pursue. And I think it necessary to make this declaration at a period when it cannot by con- sequence be taken as the result of other proceedings."

Lord JoHN RUSSELL said, Sir Robert Peel had introduced other matters in his speech than the subject before the Rouse, and thus in- vited comment and reply upon them.

"The right honourable gentleman has referred to the decision of the House on Friday, and has said, truly enough, that it is competent, according to the forms of the House, for him to move any alteration in the terms of the proposi- tion of the honourable Member for Bristol. But it does so happen that the change he proposes is no other than the reestablishment of the same proposi- tion which was negatived by a majority of the House on Friday. He proposed that the present Sugar-duties, so far as Colonial sugars are concerned, shall be continued ; that all Foreign duties on Foreign produce, so far as slave-labour sugar is concerned, shall be continued; and then he takes his own proposition of 34s., with regard to sugar the produce of free-labour states. That is the very proposition which was brought before the House on Friday, and against which the House decided. (Cheers.) I must say, that it is cot for me to esti- mate the value of the right honourable gentleman's continuance at the head of the Administration, but much harder terms have never been proposed to the House of Commons than the right honourable gentleman proposes. (Laughter and cheers.) It appears to me that, according to his proposition, there is no measure of Government, no measure of finance, no measure of legislation, upon which he is not prepared to say, ' Let us as a Government make our proposi- arms. It is your duty to acquiesce at once.' (Loud cheers from both sides of the House.) And if, when the sense of the House is taken upon any inde- pendent question affecting the interests of the country, you come to a different conclusion from that to which I have arrived, I will ask you then Co retract your vote, and deny that which .yon have affirmed, and exhibit yourselves to the country as a debased and slavish assembly.' (Repeated cheers on both sides.) That, and no other, as I understand, is the proposition of the right honourable gentleman ; and it is a proposition to which I for one am not prepared to agree. But I am not one of those who have been general supporters of the Govern- ment: ■ (Laughter.) I have not that distinction. It is not, therefore, likely thatTiliguld be compelled by that threat to change my course upon this sub- ject. (Chars.) It is for those who have been the supporters of the Govern- ment to consider whetter they meant, in giving their support, that all free- will, upon every neliii0iihatever, was surrendered to the right honourable gentle- man—and, be it remembered, surrendered not according to any known principles to which they had assented when they voted to place him in office, but according to principles which in many respects are the reverse of those they expected." (Cheers.) Lord John denied that the vote of Friday was the result of a political combination; though he asserted his right to enter into such combinatiou 114.-d he thought proper. As to the 34s. duty of Mr. Miles, neither he nor his party were pledged to that ; it was yet to be considered. The " political combina- tion ' existed quite as much on the other side of the Rouse, for come Opposi- tion Members had voted with Ministers. There was much is Sir Robert's apeech which he could not consider as necessary to the matter in hand, and Into the consideration of which be would not follow him ; but he could not see the force of the objection which be stated for not bringing this subject forward before. With respect to the differential duty of 34s. on the White Clayed sugar, he thought there was some fairness in the principle on which it was founded. " This, however, is a matter of detail in reference to the honourable Member's proposition ; but what the right honourable Baronet opposite now proposes is, that we should agree to that which we negatived the other night, and should now positively affirm that to be expedient which we then declared to be inexpedient. (Cheers.) The right honourable Baronet, as I understand him, proposes this course quite as much on political as on commercial grounds. Be declares that it is necessary for him that his supporters should show such confidence towards him that they should be ready to agree to this proposition of his. I must say, as I commenced by observing, that this would be a melan- choly proof of their subservience. Both the amendment of the honourable Member and the proposition of the Government have been fully argued ; and after that full argument, and in a full House, we decided by a majority of 20 against the Government proposition. I can see no reason for changing our votes; and when the right honourable Baronet tells me that if he yielded to the majority, other occasions would be found in which he would be exposed to similar decisions from majorities similarly composed, let me tell those who voted in the majority the other night, that if they now agree to the proposition of the right honourable Baronet, there will likewise arise other occasions when the right honourable Baronet will act towards them with the same disregard, and treat their opinions in the same overbearing manner. (Cheers) ) Let them depend on it, that however much they may consider themselves as a ma- jority of the House of Commons, their opinions and their views, if they act as the right honourable Baronet now proposes, will hereafter have no weight. The right honourable Baronet, being once assured of their support whatever his propositions may be, might frame those propositions in a manner which they might think most injurious to the country ; but, having once given this proof of their subservience, they would find it too late to retract, and their inde- pendence will be gone for ever." (Loud cheers.) Mr. P. MILES denied in toto the conspiracy or combination of which Sir Robert Peel had spoken. Lord John Russell had stated the case correctly.

It was with regret he heard the right honourable Baronet declare that he intended to persevere with his bill ; for he thought that the right honourable Baronet would have been justified in paying due deference to the decision of a majority of that House, and postponing his measure till another session. (Cheers.) He thought that the right honourable Baronet should not have placed a large body of his supporters in the painful position of either continuing their support, or withdrawing altogether from the House. But having un- dertaken the responsibility of advocating the views of the West Indian in- terest, he did not now intend to shrink from that responsibility. He cer- tainly should take the sense of the House on the amendment he had proposed.

On the question, that the duty on sugar the growth of any British possession in America, and imported thence, should be 20s. the hundred- weight, being put,

Sir ROBERT PEEL proposed, by way of amendment, that the duty should be 24s.

After some conversation respecting the order in which the proposition and the amendment should be put to the House, Mr. GREENE, the Chair- man of the Committee, decided that the question that 20s. stand part of the clause must be first pat. Sir GEORGE GREY then asked Sir Robert Peel, if his amendment were carried, would he also move another amendment, restoring the other part of the original proposition relating to the duty on Foreign sugar ? Sir ROBERT PEEL answered in the affirmative.

Mr. B. COCHRANE said, that more deference was due to the House than Ministers had shown.

This question now ceased to be a question of the Sugar-duties ; it became a question of the independence of that House, and one involving the personal honour of the Members. Taking this view of the question, he could not thit night support the Government by voting with them.

Mr. KEMBLE, Mr. WARBURTON, and Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS briefly addressed the House, declaring their intention to vote with Ministers.

Mr. LABOUCHERE thought that a Ministry might, under some cir- cumstances, not improperly ask the House to reconsider a vote ; but not on Sir Robert Peel's ground—that even a matter not important ought to be stiffly maintained by a Minister, lest a negation of it should be con- strued into a want of confidence. He preferred Mr. Miles's plan to that of the Government, and he did not understand how any Free-trader could do otherwise. He had been no party to the conspiracy to which -the Premier made allusion : he was in Somersetshire when he heard of the intended motion of Mr. Miles, and he wrote to his friends in Lon- don saying he thought they ought to support the amendment of 20s.; and that was the only part he had in the conspiracy.

Sir ROBERT PEEL denied the use of the term " conspiracy."

Mr. DISRAELI said, that not having been present during the debate of Friday, he was somewhat astonished at the event which had trans- pired: he was not a little lost in wonder when he heard that the resig- nation of Ministers was talked of.

" I congratulate the Ministry—of course I congratulate the country—that instead of resigning an Administration, the right' honourable gentleman has only moved an amendment." (A laugh.) The ease of Lord Althorp and the Malt-tax bad been mentioned ; hut that was a remarkable and peculiar case. " Several years have elapsed since that case occurred : it was left for the mut of the present Conservative' Administration—it was left for our own ex- perience—to witness a state of public affairs nearly analogous. Twice within the present session have the Ministry been driven to resort to the precedent of this case of extreme emergency.' About a month ago, this House was called upon to rescind a resolution on a subject most important to its character, and of the deepest interest to the great body of the nation ; and, for the first time since the Malt-tax vote, this House submitted to that process, which was pre- viously regarded with so much distrust, and only submitted to from such over- bearing necessity. (Loud cheers.) I cannot help thinking, Sir, that some mysterious influence must be at work to place us, within a month, in precisely the same position, and to put us before the country under circumstances which, I believe, no one in this House, whether he be on this side or the Opposition side, can describe as other than degrading to us all. (Repeated cheers.) It may be that the right honourable gentleman will retain power by subjecting us to this stern process; but I should mistake the right honourable gentleman's cha- racter if I were to suppose that be could greatly value a power which is only to be retained by means so extraordinary—I doubt if I may not say, by means to unconstitutional. 1 think the right honourable gentleman should deign to corn:hat little.more the feelings of his supporters. I do not think he ought _to den there unreasonably through the mire." To call upon them to rescind one vote was enough. He thought that those gentlemen who managed the details .of the naxtyhould draw up some tariff of Parliamentary disgrace. They should be to ',We bare gauged your independences, and you may have a semblance of Parliamentary freedom 5.5 far as this point ; but the moment you go further, you must either submit to public disgrace, or we must submit to private life." He remembered very well, that in the year 1841, when the right honourable gentleman opposed the motion of the noble Lord the Member for London, he commenced his speech in these remarkable words—. He had never entered into the Anti-Slavery cry, and he would never enter into the cry of Cheap Sugar." Now the right honourable gentleman had adopted cer- tain opinions of a very decided character with respect to slavery; and he told us that cheap sugar was of such importance that the existence of his Ministry depended upon it, and that the character of his supporters must be sacrificed to secure his Ministry. Twenty-four months had only elapsed and the right honourable gentleman came forward with a detestation of slavery in eve7 place—except in the benches behind him. (" Hear, hear!") If the Anti- Slavery repugnance were only a little more prevalent—if the right honourable gentleman did not expect upon every division, and at every crisis, that his gang should appear, and the whip should sound with that alacrity which he under- stood was now prevalent—it would be a little more consistent with the tone which he assumed with respect to the slave-trade, and with that which was now the principal subject of discussion. It was better for the House of Com- mons, and for the right honourable Baronet, that this system should at once terminate. (Loud cheers.) He deserved a better position than one that could only be retained by menacing his friends and cringing to his opponents. (Much cheering.)

Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS, who had voted against Ministers on Friday, explained amid great laughter, that he should vote with them tonight against Mr. Miles's proposition, but against them when their own pro- posal came before the House ; for he objected to both changes, as in- jurious to the West Indies. Lord SANDON regretted that Government had not adopted Mr. Miles's proposition, or something like it.

He had heard with regret the speech of Sir Robert Peel. He regretted the course which the right honourable Baronet had taken, and not only the course adopted with respect to the Sugar question, but the general tone which he had lately assumed. (Cheers.) He seemed to think every vote adverse to a Go- vernment measure one of want of confidence. This was a system never before attempted in this country. He would go further, and say it was a system under which he did not believe that the present or any Government could exist—it was, in fact, a system under which all free government was impossible. (Continued cheering.) As to the question before the House, he believed the proposition to be an improvement on the old system ; but still, what the West Indians wanted was a supply of efficient labour. If the Government would give them this, the West Indies might yet prosper ; but without it nothing could prevent the introduction of slave-grown sugar. Mr. SREIL supported the 20s. duty ; quoting Mr. Huskisson's opi- nion in 1829, when he and Mr. Grant had proposed to reduce the duties upon Colonial sugar to 20s., and on Foreign sugar to 28s.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that Mr. Huskisson's ar- gument was not applicable to the present state of things.

The reduction then proposed was to 20s. for British, and to 28s. on all Foreign sugars, whether the produce of free or slave labour; and it was quite evident. therefore, that if by the reduction of duty then proposed, there would have been a vastly-increased demand throughout the country, that that demand could have been met by admitting all Foreign sugars in bond, without any delay or any intervention of forms preparatory to its admission. But oow, free-labour sugar alone was proposed to be admitted; and was necessary to give timely notice to the growers of it ; hence the Government did not propose to reduce the duty at once. As to the proposed reversal of the decision of thejlouse.oil, last Friday, he did not entertain the views of some who Iptd preoMed There was nothing in the constitution of the House or the practice of Parlia- ment which prohibited the House from being called upon for a second decision on the subject upon which it had already decided. It was said, the importance of a subject must be the guide in reversing a decision: if so, this was a case in point, the subject being one involving the slave-trade and slavery. It Was right at any rate to call upon the House deliberately to confirm its former de- cision if it was disposed to adhere to its judgment. He must condemn the tone of Mr. Disraeli's speech. The real question under consideration was, whether it was expedient to diminish the amount of sugar-duty proposed by Ministers by the small sum of 4s. Now this reduction of duty was not proposed to take place until November, and they had every reason to suppose that the effect would be not only to injure the revenue, but, as his right honourable friend had shown, to afford no relief to the consumer. When November arrived, sup- posing the proposition to be carried, he thought that honourable gentlemen sup- porting the arrangement would find it difficult to show that with the necessary delay after November, before the supplies of sugar to be brought from Java and Manilla could arrive in our markets, that the effects would be to create for the West India interest a monopoly of the market from November until February, and to transfer into their pockets the dif- ference of duty thus lost to the Government. As to the loss to the revenue by this scheme, it was lightly treated, because it only amounted to 500,0001., while they were in possession of a large surplus. But how was it that surplus amounts of revenue were reduced, and heavy debts and embarrassments contracted ? It was not, he believed, by making immense reductions and sweeping away at once enormous amounts of revenue that a country became indebted and embarrassed ; but it was by gradually yielding to moderate reductions of revenue, gradually diminishing the amount of surplus' that that surplus gradually dwindled away until they had nothing left to deal with.

Mr. P. M. STEWART said, the condition of the West Indian interest at the present moment was harder and more severe than ever.He hall heard no good excuse for the conduct of the Ministry in making their proposition. The measure was not for admitting free-labour sugar alone ; it would not practically have that effect. ' He read a document to prove that in Java the sugar was raised by forced labour. He thought the proposal of Mr. Miles better than that of the Government, and he 'would support it Mr. ENTWISLE was opposed to the Government measure, because he was in favour of protection to the produce of the labour of all British subjects. He thought the West Indies required more protection instead of less, until they should be supplied with sufficient labour for that which had been taken from them. As he did not, however, consider they would be safe for a year under the protection of gentlemen opposite, he could not record his vote in the same way as on Friday. [Cries of" Oh!" and laughter.] , • Mr. ESCOTT condemned the factious conduct of Conservative Mem- bers towards the Government ; but wished Sir Robert Peel had gone further in his reforms.

Mr. \Frames! MILES taunted Mr. Eseott with ehange of opinions— He for one would not measure his corn by thc Winchester buslael. (Luny& ter.) The West India interest did not for the same protection which they, now possessed, but they desirea a little more than the Government offered. How could they support the Corn-law a and yet refuse protection to the West Indians ?

Lord HOWICH was glad to hear from Mr. Escott that the people of this country were no longer in favour of the antiquated doctrines of Monopoly.

He thought the time would come when equality between British and Foreign sugars might be granted; yet he was not averse to assisting the West Indians in their present difficulties. The proposal of Mr. Miles was a fair and just proposition; but he thought it would be advisable that the superior descriptions of sugar, whether British Colonial or Foreign, should pay 4s. higher duty than the inferior. If they adopted as the general rates of duty, for ordinary sugar, 30s. for the free-grown Foreign and 20s. for British, they would completely meet the justice of the case by imposing 4s. additional on White Cloyed sugar. There was some force in the objection urged by Sir Robert Peel, that the effect of delaying the reduction till the lit November would be to throw the advan- tage into the hands of large holders of sugar ; but this objection might be re- moved by making the low rates of duty take effect immediately. As to Brazil, let them give that country the advantage of her treaty, as they proposed to give to America. There would not be time for this to act as an encourage- ment to the slave-trade; for on the 10th November Brazilian sugar could come in only at the high duty. "You will thus make your proposition more advantageous to the consumer, to the West Indians, and to the revenue; because you will receive a very large amount of revenue from Brazilian sugar, on which the 30s. duty will be charged. I believe it will give so great a spur to consumption by reducing the rate of duty, there being always at this season of the year an increased demand, that the West Indies would suffer no loss. In this manner, you will conciliate all the different interests, the revenue, the consumer, and the West Indians." He hoped they would not rescind their former vote. It was quite a new doctrine the Government laid down, that a vote on any matter against them was a with- drawal of the confidence of the House; that when Government made a stand, it was the duty of the House to give way, or the Government wasjustified in going out. "Why, if that is to be the case, we really may save ourselves a vast deal of trouble, by confining our proceedings to an annual vote, at the beginning of the session, of confidence or want of confidence; and having satisfactorily- dis- posed of that, all might go to their homes, and leave her Majesty's Ministers to exercise that dictatorial power which they seem bent on exercising." (Laughter and cheers.) if Ministers attempted to resign on a question like this, it would be a mere vain form. But Sir Robert Peel said it was not a mere question of taxation—there was something more horrid behind. And such was the fact, for Ministers on certain questions were not unanimously supported by their adherents. But what was the cause of this ? Ministers, before entering office, had led their supporters to entertain expectations which they had not fulfilled: in fact, they had become from various causes Free-traders. They had been obliged to deal with some of the most monstrous abuses of the old system of protection, and thus alienated their partisans; while, from a want of boldness on their measures, more especially in dealing with the Corn-law, they had failed to conciliate the Free-trade party. Hence their present position. " This is a state of things to which it is high time an end should be put. Government may put an end to it by adopting boldly, consistently, and decidedly, their own principles of commercial policy—by ceasing to halt between two opinions, to urge now an argument in favour of protection, and then to balance it by an argument in favour of free trade in the abstract, without ever reducing it to practice. If they declare in favour of free trade, with a due respect to existing interests, I am persuaded they will have the cordial and disinterested support in all those questions of those who sit on this side of the House. If, on the other hand, they declare themselves distinctly and on principle for maintaining Maws aatlses are, have no doubt they nil rally round them again those wilose present hostility is now so much zomplained of." Or, on the other hand, let the agricultural party declare their opinion against Ministers, oust them, and form a government of their own : or, if this party felt that public opinion was too strongly opposed to the doctrines of restriction for them to act, then let them yield to the tide at once, and no longer maintain a vain contest. He felt there was an obvious rottenness in the present state of things, and on the occasion of any convulsion the system must of necessity fall. "1 am persuaded that the continuance of that sort of anarchy, for I can call it nothing but anarchy, which now exists, will be attended with the most perni- cious results to the public welfare and the character of our public men."— (Loud cheers.)

Lord CLIVE said he should vote as he had voted on Friday.

Lord STANLEY thought Lord Howick had been in error in supposing Sir Robert Peel to hold out threats to Members.

It was necessary for the Government to detail to the House the position in which they were placed. This had been done ; and an intimation given that if Government did not retain the general confidence and support of their friends, it would be idle further to attempt to conduct the public business. He be- lieved Lord Howick to be in error if bethought the main body of Conservatives were not favourable to the Government : a tew might be discontented with it, but that was the fate of all Governments. He did not think the agricultural body would derive much advantage from following the course indicated by the noble Lord. " Whatever may be the fate of her Majesty's Government, so long as they are supported by this House, so long, undeterred by the extreme opinions of the noble Lord opposite, or the extreme opinions of a contrary ten- dency on this side of the House, will they maintain that steady and cautious course—(Cheers from the Ministerial side, and ironical cheering front the Oppo- sition)—which in their deliberate judgment they believe to be best adapted to the development of industry, and at the same time to the protection of the main and leading interests of the country." They boldly asked the House to reconsider their condemnation of Ministers on Friday. They depended on no technicalities. He admitted their position frankly and fully. He fully ad- mitted the claims of the West Indies to protection. Was the same protection offered to them by the Free-traders, with whom Mr. Miles was associated, as was offered by the Government ? Quite the contrary, for they proposed to admit slave-grown sugar. The Government offered the same protection to the West Indians as Mr. Miles ; for the 4s. additional duty he had no chance of obtaining ; but by his proposition the revenue would suffer, and the con- sumer would have to pay an enhanced price for five months. Nor would the producer benefit by this ; for his sugar would be under lock and key, the grocer reaping the advantage of an increased price. Ile did not wish to dictate to any one what opinion he should entertain ; but Government had a right to ask for fair and generous treatment from those who supported them in the main. If they continued to hold office after repeated defeats, he well knew what treatment they might expect from their opponents, and what they would deserve in the way of censure. They called upon those Who had acted against the Government no longer to associate themselves with those who if they catne into power would be very little disposed to give any very favourable indulgence either to the claims of the agricultural interest or to the West India body.

Lord PALMERSTON said, that a great objection to the Ministerial pro- position was its making—or attempting to make—a distinction between slave-grown and free-labour sugar ; and this objection was shared by Mr. Miles's proposal, though he much preferred it to that of the Go- vernment.

'With respect to the conduct of the Government, he must say, notwithstand- lag their disclaimers, that they had threatened Members that night; and he

thought such threats brought seriously into danger the independence, charac- ter, and dignity of the House of Commons. When a Government nes defeated on some important question, it ought to retire : but had that been the conduct on more than one occasion of the present Ministers ? The other day, they made the House reverse its decision on the Factory Bill, because it was an im-

portant measure. The present measure was said not to be a questiou of im- portance ; yet, because it was comparatively unimportant, the Government re- fused to retain office unless the House rescinded its vote, because. on account of its insignificance, defeat was considered the greater affront. " The great ques- tion for the House to consider is, whether it can surrender its independent will, its sincere conviction, at the mere dictation of the Government—whether ho- nourable Members who have supported their opinions by their votes, and, un- der a deep conviction, have cried 'Ay ' on Friday, are to be compelled to cry No ' on Monday." Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN said, the Ministers were in possession of the support of the great agricultural body ; and the vote of Thursday showed that that of Friday did not indicate a want of confidence in Government.

Colonel SII3THORP briefly addressed the House in support of the Go- vernment, amid much laughter and confusion. Mr. M. Ginsos said, the question was between the Government and the extreme protection party ; and the question for an advocate of free trade to consider was, did Mr. Miles's proposition give the country a larger measure of free trade than that of the Government? It Was one for giving a larger protection. He quoted letters to prove that practically it would give a protection of 14s.; as the sugar of Java, Manilla, and Siam, would be declared subject to the highest rate of duty.

Mr. ROEBUcK. considered that Mr. Gibson had taken an erroneous view of the matter : for his part he should vote for the 20s. duty, though proposed by " monopolists." The West Indians by their proposition w ere not only advancing their own interest but that of the consumers. But it was said that this was a vote inimical to the Government. He for one had no enmity to the Government; on the contrary, he should be sorry to see them out ; but he could not on that account disregard the interests of the consumer. It was a remarkable thing, that that uhich had happened frequently to the late weak Government had now, on several occasions, happened to the present Government, supposed to be so strong. To what was that owing? It was owing to that force out of doors, which, independently of all majorities, was always pressing upon the Government : the consequence was, that the great interests of the community were brought into collision with the sectional interests of the few ; and that would always in future be a necessary condition of carrying on the Government ; for the voice of the people had declared that the protective system could no longer be maintained. Ile ridiculed Mr. Dis- raeli and his philosophy. The honourable Member had delivered one of those specimens of profound and mystical philosophy which enabled him to earn the reputation of being wise by propounding difficulties which he did not solve. (Laughter and cheers.) That Was a cheap mode of acquiring that reputation. He had known many books of three volumes full of it. (Laughter.) They had seen a great deal of anger in the honourable gentleman, and, it might be thought, some disappointment. (Laughter and cheers.) A reverend gentleman once preached before Mr. Pitt, and his sermon was founded on the following text—" There is a lad among us who bath five barley loaves and three small fishes ; but what are they among so many ? " and he thought that that text would explain a good deal of the honourable gentleman's speech. ("Hear, hear ! ") The Committee then divided—

For Mr. Miles's motion 233 Against it 235 Majority for the Government 22 The announcement was received with cheering.

Mr. MILES then said, that after the distinct expression of the opinion of the Couunittee, he would not trouble them to proceed any further with his proposition.

Sir Robert Peel's amendment, that 29s. and 34s. be inserted, was then agreed to.

The several clauses of the bill (with the exception of clause the third, which was postponed) were then agreed to. The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Thursday.

The bill was considered in Committee on Thursday. A long and desultory discussion arose on the third clause, which gives power to her Majesty by Order in Council to declare the sugars of other countries to be admissible as not being the produce of slave-labour. It was urged by Mr. LABOUCHERE, Mr. VERNON SMITH, Lord PALMERSTON, Mr. HOME, Mr. P. M. STEWART, Lord HowieK, Mr. BERNAL, and Mr. SHEIL, that no sufficient distinction exists to enable the Government to ascertain whether the sugar is the produce of slave-labour or not. Java more particularly was alluded to, as a country where domestic slavery is tolerated ; and it was contended that the system of forced labour by which the produce of Java is cultivated so nearly approaches to slavery that it is almost impossible to make a distinction between the two condi- tions. Mr. P. M. STEWART asserted that the labourer is there trans- ferred with the soil, and forced to work ; from which he could only escape by a payment of 7-1 guilders. That this was virtually slavery might be imagined from the fact, that when reiistablished in 1836, a re- bellion and consequent massacre of the labourers occurred. As an in- stance of the futility of attempting to make a distinction between sugars the produce of free and of slave labour, he stated that a cargo of Brazilian sugar had recently been exported from Liverpool for Bombay, there to displace an equal quantity of East India sugar, which might be imported into this country. Lord PALMERSTON contended, that to admit sugar the produce of free-labour, gave virtually as great encou- ragement to the produce of slave-labour as if it were admitted direct. He would not call it hypocrisy, because that implied some purpose to deceive those to whom it was addressed; but he would say, a more barefaced delusion, one more obvious to the meanest capacity, never WRS propounded to Parlia- ment, than to pretend that they were continuing the discouragement to slave. grown sugar when they were withdrawing from the markets of Europe all free- labour sugar. Of course, they must thereby diminish the supply, and increase the price of the rest, and give consequently a direct, immediate, and consider- able encouragement to the growth of sugar by the labour of slaves. Mr. GLADSTONE and Sir ROBERT PEEL undertook to answer these objections. In the first place, with regard to the produce of countries where slave-labour is employed, but where the slave-trade has ceased, no difference would be made between them. As to Java, they main- tained that the domestic slaves were not employed in the gelds: the great distinction between the former slaves in the West Indies and the labourers in Java was, that the latter could withdraw themselves from their labour when they pleased. Lord PALMERSTON, however, showed

that wherever there were slaves, no matter for what use, there must be a slave-trade : take the Ottoman dominions for example—there, domes- tic slavery was fed by a most extensive slave-trade, of the worst kind. Mr. Iaviso proposed, that the privilege of bringing sugar to England at the free-labour duty should be confined to those states which do not import sugar for their own consumption. This was negatived without discussion or division.

On the fourth clause, which requires certificates of origin, Mr. LA- BOUCHERE, Lord PALMERSTON, MT. CAMPBELL, Mr. HAWES, Dr. Bow- BING, Mr. HUME, and Mr. A. CHAPMAN objected, that it would be alto- gether useless as a prevention of the admission of slave-made sugar ; for a certificate was of no real value ; and such a provision would serve to place the British Consuls in an invidious position with foreign mer- chants. To this objection Mr. GLADSTONE replied, that the production of a certificate of origin did not exclude the power of making a demand for other evidence ; nor was such a proposition a novelty. The efficacy of such certificates, he maintained, was evidenced by the operation of the act for the regulation of the coffee-trade, in which the temptation to fraud was much greater than under the present bill. Fraud could not be committed without expense, and he believed the additional cost would amount in the case of sugar to at least the sum to be gained. The different modes of packing sugar in different countries also afforded ample means of ascertaining whence it came. Lord PALMERSTON divided- the Committee on the clause ; and it was carried, by 114 to 60. The other clauses of the bill were agreed to ; after a few remarks from Mr. BARING relative to its interfering with existing treaties with Den- mark, and the probability of fraud being committed by the merchants in India, by sending to this country slave-grown sugar. To the latter objec- tion Mr. GLADSTONE answered, that the gain by such a fraud would not amount to more than 2s. or 3s. per hundredweight, which was not suffi- cient temptation to incur the risk.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE proposed to make an alteration in the preamble of the bill, to render it more correct ; for as it stood it was positively false. It stated that the House bad "freely and voluntarily resolved," &c. Now it was nootrious that the House had acted under coercion : therefore he moved that those words be omitted. Mr. Duncombe alluded to the re- versal by the House of its former decision after the Premier had threat- ened to resign unless Mr. Miles's amendment was rescinded.

"Sir, I don't blame the right honourable Baronet at all for the course which he took : I don't blame him at all for the language which he used to his supporters behind him—I think he treated them exactly in the manner that they deserved to be treated. (Great cheers and laughter.) I think, after the experience he had of them upon a former evening during the Factory Bill, when they were so kicked, cuffed, and insulted, that they are quite capable of standing a little more; and kicked again they shall be. I must say, there never were a set of gentlemen—there never were a set of spaniels—so well broke in, and so sub- missive to their master as they were upon that occasion. Then, I ask this House, what do you suppose the people out of doors will think of this transaction? Do you suppose that, of all the Parliaments that ever existed in this

country, there ever was a Parliament or a House of Commons on which was bestowed so much of the contempt of the people of England as there is upon this House ? I tell you, there never was a House of -Commons that was so intensely hated, distrusted, and despised, as is the present House of Commons."

Sir ROBERT PEEL rose in apparent great good-humour„ and twitted Mr. Duncombe for some mistakes he had made in his statements of figures; and said such ignorance of the business before the House was more likely to bring it into contempt than the reversal of a former deci- sion. He denied that he had said he expected acquiescence in all the measures the Government proposed; he never gave utterance to so ar- rogant a sentiment. What he said was, that the Government would not consent to purchase the support of their friends by the abandonment of the great principles they had avowed, and to which they were determined to adhere.

I did, no doubt, mean to indicate with respect to this question, that I did think it materially interfered with our financial and commercial arrangements; and I did probably intimate what might be the possible consequence of a with- drawal of support. ("Hear, hear ! " mingled with ironical cheers and laugh- ter.) I thought it fair to do so. I knew I should have been taunted if I had said nothing about it, and had concealed my real opinions; and therefore I asked for their support—not because this was a question between 208. and 24s., but because I thought it would amount to an indication that the House of Com- mons disapproved of our proposals with respect to the Sugar-duties. I doubted whether it would not be equivalent to a disapproval of the principles upon which we were about to act—of discrimination between slave-grown sugar and free- labour sugar ; and I thought it did amount to an indication of that want of confidence which ought to be followed beyond a doubt by such a result as want of confidence pointed to. (Cheers, some of them ironical.) Those were exactly the expressions which I used, and to which I must abide : but I totally disclaim the intention or the fact of having stated that with respect to every measure introduced by the Government we expected the support of our general sup- porters, and insisted upon the complete adoption of all our measures. These conclusions have been come to by persons, for the purpose of dissatisfying my honourable friends behind me : but I do hope that my honourable friends— (Laughter from the Opposition)—yes, I say honourable 'friends,' for I must say that no man, speaking of general measures, ever received greater proofs of confidence than I have received—I do hope that my honourable friends will not be deceived by the circumstances to which the honourable gentleman has re- ferred for the purpose of promoting dissension, not only upon this but among gentlemen upon his own side of the House."

Mr. LABOUCHERE congratulated Sir Robert Peel on the more cheerful and agreeable tone in which he had addressed the House than on a recent occasion.

e I am sure that the House and the country must be rejoiced to hear from him expressions tending to indicate, that upon mature consideration he feels that the language held by him upon a late occasion is not altogether that which it be- came a British Minister to address to a British House of Commons." (Great cheering.) Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE would not press his motion to a division ; but he thought Sir Robert Peel ungrateful to him, after the opportunity he had afforded him of making a speech to set himself right with his friends : instead of a sower of dissension, he had been a peacemaker Sir J. HANMER, Mr. Ross, Mr. BORTHWWK, and Colonel SIBTHORP, spoke in explanation of their votes on the late divisions : but the House had become too impatient to hear them. The preamble of the bill was then agreed to.

VESTRY MEETINGS IN CHURCHES.

On the motion for going into Committee on the Vestries in Churches ill, on Wednesday, Mr. Hu= moved that the bill be taken into consi-

deration that day six months ; on the ground that the measure would not produce any beneficial results, whilst it would be the cause of great

additional expense. The only disturbances that occurred in churches were during meetings to pass church-rates, when every parishioner liable to the rates had. a right to attend ; and as one half of them were Dissenters, it was not likely they should submit quietly. The best way, therefore, to prevent such disturbances in churches, was to abolish church-rates.

Sir James Gstanion supported the motion for going into Committee, where the details of the bill could be improved ; for which impose, he offered the assistance of the Law-officers of the Crown.

Captain PECHELL objected to the bill as unnecessary. The measure had excited great distrust. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE could not agree to the bill going into Committee to be experimented on ; and he recommended Mr. S. O'Brien, the author of the bill, not to trust to the spurious offers of the Mome Secretary.

Mr. Escorr conceived this bill to be one of those bad measures the tendency of which was to alienate from the Church the affections of the English people.

Lord PALMERSTON did not think that there was anything in the bill which ought to induce the House to make an alteration in what PM

now a long standing arrangement, and which he thought was congenial to the feelings of the people. He suggested, as the better course, to let the bill drop ; and, if there was to be any legislation on the subject; that the Law-officers should bring in a fresh measure.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL agreed in the general principle of the bill; which was to prevent the holding of Vestry-meetings in churches. Within the last two or three days, he had become acquainted with facts which appeared to render a bill of this kind essential. In a large and populous

parish in the neighbourhood of the Metropolis, a Vestry-meeting took place in

the church, and the entire proceedings were such as he believed no person of good feeling could justify. The meeting took place at three o'clock in the afternoon ; an evening service was to be celebrated afterwards. The meeting was large and disorderly. (Cries of "Name ") The place he alluded to was Shoreditch. This disorderly nuisance, of so offensive a character, continued till the time for attendance upon service ; and the meeting was obliged to be dispersed for that purpose, when the church was in a state which rendered it totally unfit for the decencies of worship. He did not see the Member for Bath in his place ; but he would not be ashamed to contend in his presence, that he was one of those who whenever they enter a place dedicated to the service of God were inspired with a feeling of reverential awe. He was ex- tremely desirous of preventing the desecration of places applied to such holy purposes, by preventing meetings therein of a disorderly character.

Mr. R. YORKE, Mr. B. DENISON, Captain Rous, and Mr. W. 0. STAN+ LEY, spoke shortly against the bill.

Mr. WAKLEY opposed the measure ; against which he said there wag a strong feeling in the country. It was sheer nonsense to talk of disgraceful proceedings contaminating a building. If that were so, what would be the condition of the House in which they met ? If the proceedings within a building could contaminate, every one who entered that House would be in danger of las life ; for the disgraceful, immoral, canting, and hypocritical proceedings, took place there. (Laughter.) The House divided on the question of going into Committee—For the motion, 87; against it, 73; majority, 14.

Mr. HUME moved the adjournment of the House, as the bill had not been expected to come on : he had himself seen several Members turned back at the door by the Secretary of the Treasury. He considered the bill as another instance of the grasping spiritof the Church.

Mr. ROEBUCK seconded the motion for adjournment.

As to the feeling of reverence, spoken of by the Solicitor-General as being

inspired within churches, that was an additional argument against preventing people from meeting there. Was not that feeling of decorum likely to affect those who came to transact parish-business in the sacred edifice, more thanif they disposed of it in the tap of the Magpie and Stump ? They were entrapping people into the commission of crimes, to be visited by the pains and penalties of Ecclesiastical law—crimes which were not so likely to be committed, as in the tap-room, when surrounded by the hallowed associations of the church ; into which the whole Ecclesiastical law of England was imported by this bill, and where brawling ought not to be considered an outrage on the religious feelings of the community. The ho- nourable Member for Northamptonshire was affected—he would not ..say tainted—with a mistaken notion of Popery: influenced by the refined and ea- persublimated Popish doctrine of the sacredness of the church, he would pro- hibit all secular matters from being discussed within the building; consigning everything connected with the parish to the tap-room, where the offset:airings of the community, and all that was vile, mischievous, low) and wretched, were accustomed to congregate.

Sir ROBERT PEEL recommended the House to go into Committee pre forma, with the view of making some amendments; the bill might then be reprinted, and they would have another opportunity of dismissing ate provisions in their altered shape. He objected to those provisions which granted the Bishop the power of licensing places for holding meetings, and to the transaction of ecclesiastical business at an inn.

Mr. SHEIL objected to the bill as an unnecessary change in existing usages. He had attended many meetings in Roman Catholic churches without witnessing any outrages; and he thought the influence of -the clergyman should be sufficient to prevent any improper conduct.

The Solicitor-General had said he entered a church with peculiar awe : he wee glad to hear the honourable and learned gentleman was in the habit of attend-

ing church, and that he did not content himself with following the example of Lord Eldon, who, when asked why he did not go to church regularly, said he was a buttress of the church, and supported it from without. Mr.Warsom thought no sufficient necessity had been shown for the WI There would be more scandal in compelling clergymen to preside at meetings in public-houses than in the Vestry-meetings as at present held. The existing law was sufficient to prevent any improper conduct in churches.

Mr. Snavr, in answer to a question why it was not proposed to ex- tend the operation of the bill to Ireland. stated that few Vestries were held in that country, and they were generally held in the vestry-room, not the churches.

After another assault on the bill by, Mr. WAKT.EY,—who declared himself to be a supporter of the Church,—Mr. S. O'ItatErr replied ger nerally to the various objections to the measure ; and the Rouse agani divided, negativing the motion for adjournment by a majority of 8; the numbers being 83 against 75.

Mr: Hume then moved the adjournment of the debate ; and, after some further skirmishing, Mr. S. O'BRIEN, finding the opposition to the bill so systematic, moved as an amendment to Mr. Hume's motion, that the House should adjourn. This was carried with alacrity.

OPENING LETTERS AT THE POST-OFFICE —COUNT OSTROWSKI.

On Monday, the Earl of RADNOR brought the subject of the opening of letters at the Post-office by order of the Home Secretary before the House of Lords, by moving for a return of all warrants granted by the Secretary of the Home Department to the Postmaster-General for the opening of letters since the 1st January last.

When Sir James Graham was questioned on the subject, he stated, that he had granted a warrant, which had been acted on only in respect of one indi- vidual, but that that warrant had been withdrawn. From this it might be in- ferred that it was a sort of general warrant for opening letters ; and he could imagine nothing more unconstitutional. It had ever been the boast of this country that letters were sacred—that they went through the Post-office per- fectly free and unexamined. But that excellent principle was now violated. Formerly, when letters were opened, the parties were informed of it by the words " opened and read by authority" being marked on them: now, the reading of them was a matter of secrecy. He also referred to the case of Count Ostrowski, a Polish gentleman, who had been arrested without a warrant, and his papers seized, one of which was still detained. He demanded some expla- nation of such extraordinary conduct ; he asked by what authority this was done?

The Duke of WELLINGTON said, the Home Secretary was warranted in what he had done by the provisions both of old and of recent acts of Parliament.

Such a power must exist somewhere. He thought it would answer no good purpose to demand these warrants, unless a specific case of wrong was made out : this had not been done, therefore he trusted they would reject the motion. As to the case of the Polish gentleman' he had been taken up in consequence of expressing himself in a violent and indiscreet manner ; but after examination by a Magistrate be was liberated: none of his papers had been kept back. This was not a case to be brought before the House : if anything wrong had been done, it would be a subject for investigation elsewhere. Lord CAMPBELL agreed that the law gave power to the Home Secre- tary for opening letters.

But this was a power which ought to be construed strictly; and to this effect, that there should be a particular and express warrant in respect to every one of the letters to be opened ; the language of the act being, "nor to the opening, or detaining, or delaying of a post letter, except in obedience to an express warrant," tirc. In his humble opinion, a general warrant would be clearly illegal.

Lord BROUGHAM was not prepared to agree with the construction put upon the act by Lord Campbell.

How was it possible for a Secretary of State, let him be ever so acute and perspicacious, to know how many letters the suspected traitor was to receive on a certain morning ; and also to know what kind of letters they were to be, what places they were to come from, what post-mark they were to bear, what kind of handwriting they were in and paper written on,—because all these things were necessary to be known to be able to give a warrant for each letter, and to define the sort of letters to which the warrants were to be applied ? If _Lord Campbell's construction of the act was correct, the sooner a new one was passèl. the better. It was necessary for a Government to have power to open letters. A long succession of Governments had exercised the power, and he was not prepared to abrogate it.

Lord DENMAN regretted that the motion was resisted ; for in such a case all the information which could be given ought to be given to the public.

He thought the construction of the law by Lord Brougham the correct one, inasmuch as he did not see how the Post-office could open the letter of A. B. unless there was a free exercise of the power to open every letter. But then that only increased the danger of the practice. Yet how was A. B.'s letter to be discovered, unless either described beforehand, of which his noble and learned friend pointed out the impossibility, or unless the Post-office was authorized to open every letter until they found it? In this case, it would be impossible for aggrieved parties to obtain redress from courts of justice. Indeed, in some instances letters might be destroyed which those to whom they were directed might never have heard of. This was not a state of things fit for a free country.

The Marquis of NORMANRY could not agree to the motion. As to limiting the warrant to the opening of a single letter, the thing was im- practicable for any useful purpose.

The Marquis of CLASTRICARDE called attention to the fact, that in both the cases before the House foreigners were the parties who had suffered : and with regard to Mr. Mazzini, there did not appear the slightest rea- son to suppose that he was engaged in any plot against the state. It was reported that this gentleman's letters had been opened at the suggestion of the Sardinian Minister resident in this country : if such was the fact, it was surely very reprehensible conduct on the part of a Minister. With respect to Count Ostrowski's case, it had been reported that his papers had been submitted to the inspection of the Russian Consul.

The Duke of WELLINGTON said there was no foundation for such a report.

The motion was then negatived.

MISCELLANEOUS.

KILMARNOCK ELECTION. The agents for the petition against the return for the Kilmarnock Burghs have declined to proceed ; of which notice was given by the Speaker on Monday. DISFRANCHISEMENT OF SUDBURY. A. bill for disfranchising the borough of Sudbury was brought in by the Solicitor-General on Thursday, and read a first time LORD-LIEUTENANCY OF IRELAND. A question was put to the Government on Thursday, by Captain LAYARD, respecting the rumoured resignation of Earl De Grey; to which Sir ROBERT PEEL returned two different answers. When first asked, he said there was "no truth whatever in the report "; though he would not deny that the state of the Lord Lieutenant's health was such as to render it desirable he should be relieved from the labours of office. This answer was made immediately after entering the House. At a subsequent part of the night, Sir ROBERT reverted to the subject. He said he thought the question referred to intended resignation "on public grounds " : the fact was, Earl De Grey had resigned—bat it was solely in consequence of ill health.

DUBLIN CORPORATION PETITION. The Mayor of Dublin, in his robes of office, appeared at the bar of the House of Commons on Wednesday, and pre- sented a petition, signed by himself and the Aldermen and Burgesses of the City of Dublin, complaining of the sentence which had been passed upon Daniel O'Connell and others. The petition was read at length. It set forth the main points urged by the counsel for the prisoners during the trials; complaining of prejudice and unfairnese, and praying the House to preserve the right of free discussion in Ireland. Mr. WYSE gave notice for the 21 July, to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the facts as to the construction of the Jury-. panel.

SLAVE-TRADE TREATIES. The Slave-trade Treaties Bill was read a third. time and passed in the House of Lords, on Tuesday ; after attention had been. called by Lord MINTo to the increase of the Slave-trade in Cuba since the recall of General Valdez,—a fact which was admitted by the Earl of ABER- DEEN, but he said measures had been taken to put a stop to the evil. THE DEBTORS AND CREDITORS BILL went through Committee in the Lords on Monday, on the motion of Lord COTTENHAM.

THE INSOLVENCY BILL was read a second time in the Lords on Monday, without discussion : it being agreed to discuss the question in Com- mittee. The Lora, CHANCELLOR intimated his wish that this and the pre- ceding bill should be considered together. Lord COTTENHAM, however, ex- pressed his determination to push his bill through the House independently of the Insolvency Bill. INCENDIARISM IN SUFFOLK. On the presentation of a petition to the House of Lords, on Tuesday, from Suffolk, praying for inquiry relative to the increase of incendiarism in that county, the defective state of the law respecting setting fire to out-buildings was remarked upon by Lords DENAIA.N and CAMPBELL. The Judges differ in opinion whether the offence amounts to a felony. Lord. WHARNCLIFFE promised to mention to the Home Sceretary the suggestions made for remedying this uncertainty.

NIGHT•POACHING PREVENTION BILL. A division took place in the Commons, on Thursday, on the motion of Mr. ESCOTT, on the question of agreeing to the Lords' amendments on this bill. The amendments were agreed. to, by a majority of 63 against 12.

THE SCOTCH PARISHES BILL was read a third time and passed, os. Thursday.