Debatt an routbings in Varliament.

SCGAR-HUTIES,

On Monday, the House of Commons having gone into a Committee of Ways and Means, the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER brought for- ward the measure for altering the Sugar-duties.

It would be his object to reconcile various conflicting points—to reconcile the measures for securing an ample supply of sugar, now become almost a ne- cessary of life, with the principles on which Government have acted in resist- ance to the slave-trade, and also sr ith the interests of those who have invested their capital in the Colonial possessions of the country. Before the emancipa- tion of the Negroes, the produce of our West Indian Colonies was more than sufficient for the consumption of this country, about one-third of the whole amount being exported ; which had the effect of keeping down the price to the level of that which the surplus commanded in the markets of Europe. When Negro-emancipation took place, there was a probability of the supply being considerably diminished. To meet that probable diminution, Parliament brought the duties on East and West Indian sugars to a nearer level; admit- ting to our market a large supply of free-grown sugar from our own dominions in the East. lie apprehended no great scarcity from the continuance of the present system : but when he considered the improved condition of the people within the year, the increase of employment and wages, the consequent demand that would arise for sugar, the rise of 28. per hundredweight that took place in the price last year, he thought it his duty to provide not merely for the supply that might be immediately required for the consumption of the country, but also to create something of a surplus. In our altered relations with China, facilities exist for getting supplies from that country; and to ex- tend our trade from that quarter, freer admission should be given to other articles than those which we have hitherto received. Therefore he felt it his duty to submit the proposition for admitting free-labour sugar upon the terms stated in the resolutions which he should move. The proposal to admit free-labour sugar was not made for the first time in that House, and the prin- ciple had never been objected to; but alien he formerly resisted such a measure, be grounded his opposition upon particular circumstances of the times, espe- cial the state of commercial treaties with Brazil and the United States. It won d be necessary to secure two points—to guard against the introduction of slave-grown sugar under another guise, and to admit sugar at a rate which would secure a sufficient competition in the supply. With regard to the first point, little difficulty could arise. It had been essential to the commercial in- terests of this country that a distinction should be drawn as to the produce of different countries subject to different treaties; and in those countries Govern- ment had found certificates of origin, the certificate of the shipper, coupled as he intended it should be in this case with the certificate of the authority In the port whence the commodity was shipped, efficient in preventing the invasion of the principle of protection. With respect to the facilities for the introduction of sugar, he did not believe that any gentleman would think that a protective duty of 10s. per hundredweight was more than a necessary amount of pro- tection for the colonists. On the proof of absence of slave-trade and slave- labour, the principle of the measure might be extended to meet any exigency that might prevail. Java alone furnishes a large surplus of sugar beyond the quantity required by its own inhabitants ; but the quantity could be very con- siderably extended; and so it could also in Manilla. As to China, no definite account can be given of its production ; but it is known to export a large quan- tity to neighbouring countries. Mr. Goulburu proceeded to argue against the three amendments of which notice had been given. In 1842, Mr. Ewart proposed, as he did now, to abolish all distinction of duty on Foreign and Colonial sugar ; and with the general consent of Parliament that proposition was rejected. A similar proposition in connexion with the duty on coffee was raised this session ; hut Parliament adhered to its opinion that protection is due to the Colonial possessions of the empire. Mr. Miles was prepared to argue that the protection proposed to be given to Colonial sugar is insufficient, and that therefore the duty on Colonial sugar also should be reduced. Be knew and sympathized with the difficulties under which the colonists had laboured and still were labouring ; he could make great allowances for their alarm at any change of duty which might arise, lest it should ultimately operate to their disadvantages and injury. But he could not persuade himself that there was that ground for apprehension with which they seemed to be possessed. He believed that the measure be was about to propose would be found one which, though it might not meet their present and immediate approbation, would ultimately prove to be one best calculated for insuring their permanent prosperity. He did not deny that the measure would reduce the price of sugar, or at least prevent an augmentation of price ; but nothing could be more injurious to the West Indies than any sudden or continued increase in the price of their staple commcdity, which would create a hostile feeling in this country. The position of these countries was peculiar : they were likely to have, at an early period, great additional facilities for employing within them additional labour, derived from other countries ; and, in order to attain this advantage, they would probably be called upon for an investment of capital, which was necessary for the transport to those colonies of the emigrants who were prepared to labour there. He thought, therefore, that before the colonists were called upon to embark in that enterprise or to undertake that transaction, it was right that they should be distinctly informed what protection they would have against the sugar of other countries, which, like themselves, used free labour only. The protection now afforded was that which appeared just and fitting for the case. Lord John Russell was prepared to extend to all Foreign sugar the advantage which Government proposed for free-labour sugar. That was no new question between the noble Lord and the House ; and Parliament had recorded the opinion, that after the efforts and sacrifices to abolish the slave-trade, it would be incousistent with honour to adopt such a proposition. And Lord John Russell had before condemned the course which he now recommended. In 1841, he proposed a discouraging duty of 40s. upon that Cuba sugar which now he would introduce at 34s. Why he would extend that favour to sugar which could be grown by the maintenance of the slave-trade alone, it was for him to explain. Mr. Goulburn met the argil.- merit that the admission of free-labour sugar into this country would create a vacuum in the European market, to be filled by slave-labour sugar. He dis- believed the assertion ; but suppose it were so? What was the great argument used in this country against the abolition of the slave-trade ? It was said, if we abolish the slave-trade, it would pass into the hands of those nations which would carry it on without regulation, and the evils of slavery would be greatly aggravated : and that result was undoubtedly true. But Parliament felt, that whatever might be the guilt of that transaction, it attached to us so long as we carried it on, and it was no excuse that we might carry it on more indulgently than other nations ; we must put away from us the opprobrium of the system altogether. In like manner, when the question of slave-emancipation was dis- cussed, the same argument was used. We were told it would be better to con- tinue slavery in the West Indies, because if we did not it would be extended in other parts, where its evils would not meet with those mitigations derivable from our beneficial legislation. But the answer then, as before with regard to the slave-trade, was—" The liberation of the slaves is a public, a national duty: we are prepared to take all the risk; let other nations adhere to it with greater avidity, at least from the opprobrium of slavery we shall be free." And so, if the result of this measure, however unlikely, were to be that of increasing slave-grown sugar in the markets of the Continent, it would not be our encou- ragement that would give rise to it ; it would not be our want of legislative provision that would lead to the increase of the evil ; and, whatever the extent of the evil, at all events our consciences would be free.

The second of his resolutions related to those countries which have treaties with us, to secure the admission of their produce on the footing of " the most favoured nation." They are the United States, Mexico, Columbia, Buenos Ayres, Bolivia, Brazil, and Peru. All these countries have declared against the slave-trade ; and most of them—the South American republics—have taken measures to repress slavery. In St. Bartholomew, a Swedish possession, slavery still exists ; but the produce of sugar is very small, and is taken directly to Sweden. Slavery exists also in the United States; in which the produce varies considerably, but may be estimated at 50,000 tons per annum. The United States, however, import the far larger amount of their sugar from other sugar-growing countries; and therefore he thought it was capable of distinct proof, that it could not be for the interest of the United States—and that was the point to which they must look on a question of this kind—it could not be the interest of the United States that their sugar should be brought to this country. The first question which regulated the interest of the trade was the price for which the commodity could be sold ; and he found that the price of sugar at New York was higher than at Liverpool and London. To suppose, therefore, that the American producer of sugar would convey it to Liverpool or London in order that it might come into competition with the free-grown sugar of other countries, when by retaining it at home he would enjoy a pre- mium of Ils, in the way of duty and obtain a higher price than he could get here, would be to impute to the American producer such a neglect of his own personal interest, as, whatever might be his other faults, he was by no means liable to. Be had heard that America was so anxious to send over her sugar to this country that she would even give a bounty of from Ils. to 15s. the cwt, on its exportation: but then again he would say, the well-understood interests of America were our protection. The statesman who should propose such a thing would never meet with the concurrence of that Legislature which has shown a great aversion to bounties; a system which had been abandoned, because a better knowledge of commercial principles prevailed. Mr. Goulburn concluded by moving the resolutions—" 1. That towards raising the supply granted to her Majesty, the several duties now payable OR sugar be further continued for a time to be limited, save and except that front and after the 10th day of November nest there shall be charged on Brown, Muscovado, or Cloyed sugar, certified to be the growth of China, Java, or Ma-

nilla, or of any other foreign country the sugar of which her Majesty in Coon-

tU have declared to be admiesible as not being the produce of slave-labour, 31.14s. the hundredweight, together with an additional duty of 5/. per centum on the aforementioned rate. 2. That from and after the 10th day of Novem- ber next, her Majesty be authorized, by order in Council, to give effect to the provisions of any treaty now in force which binds her Majesty to admit sugar the produce of a foreign country at the same duties as are imposed on sugar the produce of the most favoured nation."

Lord Jonar RUSSELL moved the amendment of which he had given notice.

If he again appeared upon the old battle-field upon which he had been worsted, it was because Mr. Goulburn sounded a note of retreat, and gave up half the contested field. Mr. Goulburn began by saying, to justify alteration, that the supply is not sufficient; an argument which was repelled successfully by some of those now on the Ministerial benches. " But the right honourable gentleman says, the price of sugar is 81:1 very high.' According to the last Gazette, the price of sugar from the British possessions in America was 36s. per cwt.; and the average price of the three descriptions of sugar was 37s. 3d. I don't know what was the exact price at the time when the late Government brought forward its proposal; but the average price for the year 1841 was 385. 3id., and for the year 1840, on which our calculations partly proceeded, no less than 48s.; and now, says the right honourable gentleman, a price of 37s. (2s. more than the price last year) is a conclusive argument for an alteration of the Sugar-duties. I remember, too, as to the amount available for consumption. that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Sandon) stated it on that occasion at 240,000 tons, and the honourable Member for Beverley at 260,000 tons. What was the statement made the other day ? Why, that the sugar available for consumption in 1844 from the West Indies amounts to 128,000 tons, from the East Indies to 70,000, and front the Mauritius to 32,000; besides which, there are 40,000 tons left from last year's consumption. Recollecting that the con- sumption during the last few years has not exceeded 200,000 tons, I ask, is not a supply of 2.30,000 tons as strong an argument to prevent you altering your Sugar-duties in 1844 as a supply of 240,000 tons was in 1841 ? But if there are general reasons sufficient to induce this House to reconsider its determina- tion at that time, and if that is to be done with the consent of the Govern- ment, let us make the measure a straightforward and consistent one—a measure in accordance with all the principles of trade; and if you think fit to continue some protection to the trade of your own Colonies in consideration of what they have already been deprived of by your interference, let the distinction be made between our own Colonies and all Foreign countries only; and do not raise up two lines of distinction; do not make a conclusion from which you will find it difficult to escape; do not contradict all those maxims on which the commercial progress of this country has been based. The right honourable gentleman says, 'This is not a new principle,' because, he says, it was pro- posed by the honourable gentleman behind me, and discussed in this House. Why, if the right honourable gentleman were to come down to the House with a proposal for universal suffrage, be might as well say that that "as not a new principle, because the honourable Member for Rochdale had proposed it to the House, and it had been debated. ("Hear, hear.'" and a laugh,) In fact, this is a new principle, to say that you will regulate your tariffs on the grounds of morality—that you will erect pulpits in your custoinhouses—that you will make your landing-waiters preachers of Anti-Slavery doctrines : this is alto- gether unprecedented. In the first place, I object to the principle itself; it can lead to nothing but mischief; it is impossible that you can act consistently upon it. You take a great number of commodities from various countries of different degrees of civilization; from some in which barbarous chiefs exercise a despotic power of life and death, from others in which millions of people are in the low state of serfs. From these people you buy various commodities: but when the goods arrive, you don't ask, What are your practices—what is your social condition—what are the moral guides by which your Sovereigns and Senates are governed ? ' No; you treat it as a pure matter of trade ; they came to sell goods which you buy, selling them goods in return ; it is a mere question of trade : and with respect to commerce, I am quite sure that the best thing you can do for the social happiness of the world, ay, and for the interests of Christianity and morality, is to allow commerce to take its own way—to trust to the civilizing influence which all commerce must have, and to the assurance that we are not attempting to interfere violently and by fiscal regulations with the customs and manners of other nations." Brazil and Spain must be offended by the measure ; in itself a sufficient reason for not affirming the resolutions. They proposed to legislate for Java: now the accounts from Java informed them that sugar cultivated there was compulsory—that persons holding a cer- tain quantity of ground were compelled to cultivate it, and part with the pro- duce at a certain price. (" No, no ! " from Mr. Gladstone.) Well, the right honourable gentleman might perhaps be better-informed; but he doubted whe- ther, after all, they were in a condition to legislate satisfactorily with reference to the state of that country. It was enough that we should know chat was the best legislation for ourselves and our colonies, without disputing what le- gislation they should propose for other states. The peasantry of Manilla, too, he believed, were in a very low state of ignorance ; and because slavery existed in Porto Rico, if a person came with a hundredweight of sugar, would our Customhouse-officers say to him, " We are greatly shocked at the existence of slavery in Porto Rico; and therefore, while we admit Java sugar, we can have no trade with you ? " That would nut be true, for we had trade with those countries ; but what was the state of that trade? Why was it that in Cuba and Brazil they were induced to grow sugar, and by slave-labour, greater than for their own wants? The reason was, that they might obtain other productions of which they were in want. And whence did those manufactures come? From Lancashire and Yorkshire. Therefore, we now induced the people of Cuba and Brazil to employ slave-labour to get the manufactures of Lancashire and Yorkshire ; and by vending them these manufactures, we as much encouraged slavery as if we directly consumed their sugar. In like man- ner, we took from Russia a like quantity of tallow and hemp, paid for with slave-grown sugar, which we bought with our manufactures. W hat was the amount of our trade with Cuba and Brazil ? In the year 1840, we sent out manufactures to Cuba to the amount of 863.5201.; in 1841, the amount of our exports was 895.441/.; and in 1842, 711,9381. This was in addition to what we sent by way of Jamaica. To Brazil we sent, in 1S40, manufactures to the amount of 2,625,0001.; in 1841, to the amount of 2,556,5541.; in 1842, to the amount of 1,756.000/. The greater part of these manufactures went actually to those people who were encouraging slavery ; and yet the right ho- nourable gentleman told them that they ought not to encourage slavery ! Mr. Goulburn had failed to show that another argument was unfounded. It bad been suggested that the Americans, instead of consuming their own sugar, would import the sugar of Cuba and Brazil, and send their own sugar to this country. Of that description of sugar 150,000 tons were imported to the United States last year, and for several years the importation had been 40,000 tons. He believed, too, that it was quite as cheap to send sugar to Liverpool M to New York ; that if sugar were sent with a cargo of cotton, the sugar being a heavy article and the cotton light, the freight would be very much re- duced; and thus merchants would have a great advantage in sending sugar from America to this country. This appeared, indeed, quite A natural source of profit; and to.attain it they would admit the sugar of Cuba and Brazil at a low rate of duty, besides getting a market for their own productions. The ho- nourable gentleman did not think that this would be the case ; and he quoted the price of raw sugar. That price, however, included, he believed, the duty; but he believed that all persons importing a quantity of foreign sugar would be entitled to export a similar portion of the produce of the United States: and at all events, it was in the power of the Americans to make ar- rangements by which a very low duty on Cuba and Brazilian sugar would equalize it with their own, and thus enable them to export it to this country. Mr. Goulburn attached too much weight to the certificates of origin. False certificates were not an entire novelty in this country. There bad been times towards the latter end of the war when it was a very common thing to intro- duce manufactures falsely as being the growth of particular countries, by means of false certificates. Lord John alluded to the apprehensions entertained by persons connected with the West Indies, almost as great in 1844 as they were in 1841, when the Government of that day proposed a differential duty of 12s. He would retain the differential duty, but he thought that the prohibitory duty of 63s. ought to be abandoned ; and for these reasons. In the first place, it appeared that the supply of sugar from 1831 to the present time had not been such as to enable the people of this country to consume sugar at the same rate at which they consumed it in 1831 ; for whereas the consumption of sugar per head in the years 1831, 1832, and 1833, was at the rate of 191b. and 201h. per head, it had fallen since then to 171b. a head, and in one year to 161b. In 1830, the consumption was 191b a head ; in 1833, it was 201b. and 11-100ths ; in 1842, it was 161b. and 19-100ths; and in 1843, 171h. and 36-100ths. This he conceived to afford a strong reason why these duties should be reconsidered. Another reason was afforded by the great increased consumption of tea and coffee since the commencement of the century, and the inadequate consump- tion of sugar in proportion. Generally speaking, the tendency of the con- suming-classee had been to diminish the consumption of spirits and beer, and articles of that kind, in proportion to the increase of population, hut to increase the consumption of tea and coffee. It was a remark of Mr. Huskisson, that two-thirds of the consumers of coffee in this country were in the habit of usirg it without sugar. The consumption of coffee in 1801 was 750.8611b.; in 1841, it was 27,298,3221b. The consumption of tea, in like manner, increased from 20,237,753lb. in 1801, to 36,675,6671b. in 1841. The increased consuniptioa of sugar during the same period was only from 3,639,565 cwt. to 4,057.628 cwt. So that, taking tea and coffee together, they had increased between 1801 and 1841 from 20,988,000lb. to 63,973,0001b., or threefold ; whereas sugar had only increased in proportion of 8 to 7 and 2-10ths, or about one-eightb. The population during the same period had increased in the proportion of 8 to la. Now these facts appeared to him sufficiently to prove, that heavy duties and differential duties had so far prevented the natural increase in the consumption of sugar, as to render it necessary that they should be considered with o view to some change.

He proceeded to consider the manner of effecting the change. It would have been wise in the Government to have given to the West Indies every means of increasing immigration. The experiment of the employment of Indian labour in the Mauritius had proved successful ; it was no longer difficult to transfer East India labour to the West Indies. One very high authority on this sub- ject, who was originally opposed to the plan—he alluded to the former Governor-General of India, Lord Auckland—was now of opinion, that if there were proper precautions and a sufficient amount of tonnage, there would not be any objection to the introduction of Indian labour into the West Indian Colonies. Lord John maintained against Mr. Ewart, that the West Indies are still entitled to some protection. He proceeded to explain why, after proposing a duty of 40s. on Cuba sugar, he now proposed one of only 34s. : he did not know the Government proposition in time to shape his own notice, and there- fore he confined his own resolution to Brown or Muscovado sugar : but it would be a question whether an additional duty of 6s. or some other amount should not be imposed on sugar partially refined. Lord John concluded with some general remarks in favour of free trade, and a quotation from a speech of Lord Shelburne in 1783 against monopolies. His amendment was—" That, towards raising the supply granted to her Majesty, instead of the duties of Customs now payable on Sugar, there shall be charged on Brown or Muscovado sugar, the produce of any Foreign country, the sum of 34s. the hundredweight."

Mr. GLADSTONE defended the Government measure.

He contended that the present position of Government was very different from that of Lord John Russell in 1841; as the experiment of slave-emanci- pation had not then been fairly tried, and also there is now more uncertainty as to the continuance of the supply. The noble Lord had been witty on the subject of commercial morality, and having pulpits upon the decks of ships, and converting landing-waiters into preachers but perhaps there may have been pulpits on the decks of our men-of-war, and our captains may have been con- verted into the preachers of morality on the slave-trade. The noble Lord had spoken with great doubt as to the sugar of Java being the produce of free la- bour. Now there certainly was no positive means of knowing the fact except from the laws of Java, which declare all labour to be essentially free. The system in Java was, that the rent of the land should be paid partly ill produce, and in some cases, as in the cultivation of rice, paid partly in labour ; and he did not think that it would be found a disadvantage if this mode of paying rent in kind was practised in this country. In Java, no man was bound to hold land longer than he thought proper, any more than he was in this country. He was as free to quit it or to cultivate it as he was here. It was true, how- ever, that in Java there was a certain kind of slavery, but in no way connected with cultivation or agriculture. It was a kind of domestic slavery, and was confined to a class of persons not natives or persons imported into the Wand, but domestic servants employed in the houses, and who came from Sumatra and other neighbouring islands. This class of persons could not enter into the consideration of this question, inasmuch as they had nothing to do with agri- culture. As to the quantity of free-labour sugar, Java, Manilla, arid China probably produce 100,000 tons ; one half of the produce of Java goes direct to Holland; but about 50,000 tons of sugar would be available for the British market. Touching upon the argument about Russia, he asked Lord John, whe- ther he would refuse to discourage the use of slave-grown sugar in one case be- cause he could not do no in all ? if so, he would be inconsistent with his own argu- ments on the Factory Bill. He combated the argument that a vacuum would be produced in the European market, to be filled up by increased production of slave- grown sugar. To free ourselves from the guilt of promoting slavery, wherever the consequences, we did so; and our example, he trusted, would be followed. The Danish Government was about to pursue the same humane course; and he

hoped that great country France would soon carry it into full effect. The

growth of sugar in the Brazils had greatly decreased, and many estates were out of cultivation, arising from our discouragement of slave.labour by the re- fusal of tbe sugar of that country. He contended that the effect of the mea-

sure of his right honourable friend would be, that the price of Java sugar would reach a higher point, whilst the sugar of Cuba and of the Brazils would remain at the same price; and that that difference of price would be in favour of the growth, not of the slave-grown sugars of Cuba and of the Brazils, but of the free-labour sugar of Java and Manilla. So there would he a sensible though

a small premium in favour of free-labour over slave-grown sugar. That cer-

tainly would cause a void. The noble Lord opposite said that that void would be filled up by the sugar of slave-countries; but he begged to ask, why must this be so ? The turn of price—and they all knew of how much importance in commercial matters was the slightest turn of price—would be in favour of five-lahnur sugar. Then why must the void be filled up by slave-grown sugar? The noble Lord had argued the question as if the growth of Java and Manilla anger were incapable of increase: but was that reasonable ? Mr. Gladstone proceeded to argue, that the alleged law for regulating the imports and exports of sugar in the United States was most improbable ; asked by whom it had been decreed ; said that inquiries of several persons well informed failed to detect the faintest trace of such a regulation ' - and argued that the price of sugar at New York, which averages 35s. or 36s., while in this country it is 36s. or 37s., and the cost of the voyage, would prevent its being sent over. As to facilities for the introduction of labourers into the West Indies, Lord Stanley had left nothing undone for the purpose. It would not be just to the people of England, who had so long paid a high price for their sugar, to delay the measure of relief; especially as there was now an increase in the price. [Mr. Baring—" The price has not risen lately."] It had coneiderahly increased since1843. At the same time, he did not deny that this was a severe measure as respected the West Indies. The West Indies were at the present moment pressed by an accumulation of disasters ; and he quite believed that most West Indian proprietors, who managed their estates by the instrumentality of an agent, hail, of recent years, been losers. He him- self knew one case of an estate, of itself very well calculated to be profitable, which in 1840, when sugar had been almost at a famine price in England—at a very exorbitant rate—had left its owners very much minus. So he did not deny the difficulties with which the West Indian had to contend : he did not deny the increased pressure to which of late years they had been exposed. But if those difficulties were great, if that pressure was ruinous, they would be in- creased and not diminished by maintaining high prices in England. The question was one, however, to be approached by a consideration of the general balance of advantage and disadvantage. He for his own part did not believe it to be in the power of the Legislature to bring the West India Colonies into a sound and healthy state. ("Hear, hear! ") That soundness was to be ob- tained alone by very different means. The introduction of labourers might do something. Fresh and more judicious management—the presence of resident and responsible managers, above all other things, was required to regain their sinking prosperity. The West Indies had, he admitted, a crisis tonnes through ; but all that could be expected of England was during the continuance of that crisis to hod to them all possible assistance. (" Hear, hear "from Mr. P..111. Stewart.) The honourable gentleman might treat it with ridicule, but he would remind the House of the aid which the Government were about to afford to the West Indies. They were about to propose a differential duty of 10s. per cwt. upon Foreign sugar. Was that a trivial assistance ? He wished to show to the honourable Member for Renfrewshire that the Government was not un- mindful of these Colonies. Did the honourable gentleman think that if the West Indies had had a good supply of labour the Government would have pro- posed so high a duty as 10s. per cwt. ? Mr. Gladstone cited a conversation which be had had with a deputation from the Auti-Slavery Society, to show that they recognized the distinction between free-grown and slave-grown sugar ; though he admitted that there was some difference of opinion among them.

Mr. LABOUCHERE assailed the measure at some length ; treating it as insignificant, and contending-that no-ease had been made out that it would practically discourage skivAlsitl•and reading a long list of places that might send cargces of sugar, Avhich *oder existing treaties we could not refuse.

Let it not be forgotten that we were actuated by sentiment and passion, as well as by reason, on subjects of this kind. He WIN persuaded that the coun- tries we were now excluding from our consideration would feel acutely the affront thus put upon them ; and be really believed that the present Govern- ment by this nonintercourse system of legislation upon the Sugar question, were in reality doing far more to prevent and counteract the effects of the in- fluence of this country in behalf of the Negro population, than could ever be compensated by any advantage that could possibly arise with reference to sugar from this paltry measure of exclusive policy.

Mr. PATRICK MAXWELL STEWART complained that Government acted while still in much ignorance on the subject ; and urged the refer- ence of the question to a Select Committee. Instead of rising, he said, the price of sugar is actually falling ; for on the 3d June last year it was 368. 10d., now it is 36s. 8id. He read extracts from the speeches of Sir Robert Peel and Lord Stanley, delivered in May 1841 ; in which Sir Robert Peel declared, that, for special reasons, the preference which the East and West Indies had in the British market should be retained ; and Lord Stanley averred that no distinction could be practically as- certained between slave-grown and free-grown sugar from Foreign countries—

If the Government bad at a proper time—three years ago, or five years ago— if they had supplied the West India possessions with labourers, as they now proposed to do, that would of itself have settled the differential duties. The pro- duce of the West Indies would have been increased by the amount of tree- labour introduced ; that produce would have been surplus produce, and that surplus would at once have settled the prices and the question.

Mr. HOME said that the measure would give satisfaction in no quarter.

If they had used one half of the money spent in vain attempts to put down the slave-trade on the coast of Africa by force, in providing a supply of labour for the West Indies, they would have been acting in a much wiser way than they had done. He was sorry to see that all this debate bad turned upon whether slave-grown or only free-grown sugar should be admitted. But the peat question was, how the home-consumer could best be benefited ? He be- lieved that this could be well effected by reducing the Colonial duty to 15s., and leaving a differential duty of 10s. Were such a measure carried, he be- lieved that the increasing consumption of tea and coffee effected by a reduction of the Sugir-duties would produce an equal revenue to that which these three sources at present supplied. The present measure, he maintained, would ex- cite hostility towards Great Britain in various quarters, where it was most im- portant that it should not exist. Feelings of ill-will were rapidly springing up between Britain and Foreign countries on account of our intermeddlizig with their inatitutions.

Mr. Tnomas BARING admitted that the principle of the Government measure was a good one : but he did not think it was well-timed, nor was it brought forward with a proper regard to existing interests. He thought it would have been better if the Government had reserved any change to the time when our whole financial policy could be reviewed.

The Committee divided on Lord John Russell's amendment ; which was negatived, by 197 to 128. The resolutions were agreed to, and ordered to be reported on Wednesday.

The resolutions were reported on Tuesday; when a bill founded upon them was introduced, and read a first time ; it was read a second time on Thursday, without discussion ; and ordered to be committed on Monday next.

THE WOOL-DUTIES: THE SUPPLEMENTAL TARIFF.

an the-House of Lords, on Monday, Lord KINNAIRD asked the Duke of Rinhmond, whether he intended to make any motion on the subject of the* Wool-tluties ?

Certain reterna.relative to wool bad been laid on the table; and perhaps the noble Duke was now satisfied, considering a late appointment that bad beat made in the Government, that the wool-grower was not likely to suffer by the proposed alteration.

The Duke of RICHMOND called upon Lord Binnaird to make his charges openly, if he had any to make; and not to deal in insinuations, contrary to the practice of the House or of society. " What does the noble Lord mean by alluding to a recent appointment ? Does be suppose that I would suppress my opinion because an appointment was given to one of my family last week—because a brother of mine has been made a Lord of the Treasury ? Does the noble Lord believe that my mouth is to be gagged in this House because my brother has accepted that office ? I say that this is not an honourable or manly course of proceeding. I knew nothing whatever of the appointment of my brother to the Lordship of the Treasury until after he got the situation. He came to me and asked my advice; and my answer to him was, I think you had better remain as you are, in the com- mand of your regiment: you are the hest judge, but I would not take office, because 1 would not be bound to vote for all the measures of Government' My brother did, therefore, as he pleased." As to the Wool-duties, he would speak on the third reading of the bill.

Lord KINNAIRD professed himself satisfied that the Duke of Richmond MIS above being " gagged " by any considerations of the kind. He only mentioned the appointment at the moment, as, considering the noble Duke to be the leader of the agricultural interest, it might be supposed as indicative of his approval of the Government measure, The Duke of RICUMOND—" I am not the leader of the agricultural party; I follow my own opinion. I am very happy, however, when that party agrees with me: but I do not think that the great body of agriculturists do agree with me on the subject of wool, or more petitions on the subject would have been sent in."

Later in the evening, the Earl of DamousrE moved the third read- ing of the Customs Amendment Bill ; briefly explaining that it con- tained clauses of different kinds—to regulate the collection of the Cus- toms, to prevent smuggling, and to alter and newly adapt some duties.

The Duke of RICHMOND offered a few objections to the measure.

The removal of the duty on wool would be no benefit to the manufacturer here, because Foreign Governments would immediately put on a duty to pre- vent the importation into their dominions of woollen goods manufactured here. A great many of the short-wool-growers of England felt with himself that the measure was inexpedient, and ought not to pass. He further disliked it be- cause it was another step towards free trade; which, if extended, would, he believed, be the ruin of this country. If, therefore, he could have had any prospect of success, he should have divided the House against the third read- ing: but, feeling that many noble Lords who thought with him on many sub- jects would not have supported him on this, he should not offer any further opposition than to say "not content" to the third reading; for he never offered a factious opposition to any Government. He also objected to the re- duction of the vinegar-duty, which was too large. About 3.000,000 gallons of vinegar annually are made, almost all from malt : the whole of that trade would be destroyed, and there would be a defalcation of 25,000/. a year from the Malt-tax. He regretted that the opposition to the bill was so very limited: bad the Tariff been thrown out, they would not have heard of the Canada Corn Bill; and if this bill were thrown out, perhaps they might not hear of some other measure to be brought forward next session.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE replied.

He was surprised that his noble friend did not yet see that the reduction of the wool-duties had already benefited the British grower ; and the present re- duction would serve the growers of South Down wool. Since the former re- duction of duty on foreign wool, the price of wool had been :gradudlly rising in' this country. With respect to the duty on vinegar, his noble friend said the Government had taken off too much: now he (Lord Wharncliffe) was a great supporter of the Cum -laws, and a great supporter of protection; but, he must say, he thought it was too much the disposition of persons who supported those laws to take their stand on points which it was not fit for them to take their stand on. He did not share in his noble friend's apprehension as to the re- sult of this reduction of the duty on vinegar. Vinegar would be made cheaper in this country from malt than it could be procured from abroad; so that there as no fear of the demand for malt, or the revenue from it, falling off.

The bill was read a third time, and passed.

EXPORT-DUTIES UPON Co..

In the House of Commons, on Monday, Lord HARRY VANE called attention to the export-duties on coal, with a view to their aboliton. Circumstances have altered since Lord Howick failed in a similar motion. Then, it was said to be too soon to abrogate a duty which had been so recently levied—an objection which no longer applies : then, there was a deficiency in the revenue—now, there is a surplus. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given up the wool-duty, which amounts to three-fourths the duty on coal ; and the coal-trade, suffering under great depression, is entitled to the same measure of justice as the wool-trade. When the export-duty was taken off in 1835, the trade increased, until the reimposition of the duty in 1842; and the new tax has caused a greater displacement of capital and labour than if the old duty had been left on. In 1842, the quantity exported was 1,667,450 tons; in 1843, it was 1,547,000 tons ; showing a decrease of 109,000 tons, although the demand on the Continent has increased. Another effect of the duty is, that Northern countries, which formerly took unscreened coal, now take small coal, which returns the smallest amount of profit to the trade. The duty has caused the greatest distress in the trade, having deprived the people of one day's labour in the week ; and the distress has caused discontent and disputes between the masters and the men. The shipping-interest has also suffered very greatly from the diminished exportation.

Lord H. Vane's motion was—" That this House will resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to take into consideration so much of the Act 5 and 6 Vic. c. 47, as relates to an export-duty on coal, with a view to its im- mediate repeal."

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed the motion, and dis- puted Lord Harry Vane's statements.

He questioned the diminished exportations. He admitted that if a com- parison were made between the years 1843 and 1842, there was a certain dimi- nution in the export; but if the year 1843 were compared with 1841, it would show an increase.; and the latter was the fair and proper comparison to make, because in the year 1842 the trade was affected by the announcement made in March that the coal-duties were to be altered, as was proved by the fact that the exports in the earlier half of that year exceeded by some hundreds of thou- sands those in the latter half. Was it true that the duty had affected the trade at all ? Had there not been other reasons ? He would test that by taking the amount of exports to our Colonies, as to which there had been no variation its the duty. In 1841, the quantity of coal exported to our Colonies was 344,000 tons; in 1842, 353,000 tons ; and in 1843, 307,000 tons. Again, as to the coal sent from other ports to London, in regard to which also there had been no va- riation of duty, in 1842 the amount was 2,754 tons ; in 1843, 2,663 tons. It was formerly said that the duty would ruin the trade with France : the trade with France had increased since 1841; also that with Russia. The persons interested in the coal-trade used to complain that they could find no market for their small coal: since the alteration of the duty the amount of small coal ex-

ported had increased from 148,000 tons in 1842 to 456,000 tons in 1843. As to the depression of the shipping-interest, there has been a general lowering of freight in all branches of trade. On the whole, he thought that no ground had been shown for the remission of the duty.

Mr. WARBURTON also opposed the motion ; for different reasons.

Be could defend this tax upon the grounds laid down by Mr. Ricardo, that any country that could produce any article of necessary consumption in more abundance and at a cheaper rate than any other country, was justified in laying on an export-duty on that article. But it was not upon Mr. Ricardo's views that be defended the duty on coals, but upon the much more important ground, that the produce of coal in this country, accessible to the sea, was limited in quan- tity, and could not be lightly parted with : and it must be recollected that coal was not an article that could be reproduced, like corn and other products of the earth. Mr. Taylor had given it as his opinion that there was a sufficient quantity of coals in Northumberland, Durham, and Cumberland, to last for 1,727 years. But Dr. Buckland, and other authorities, had reduced the number of years for which they estimated a supply to three or four hundred years. In 1827, however, it was given in evidence before a Committee by Mr. Tomkins, a solicitor largely engaged in collieries, that the supply of the best coal could not be calculated to be produced for a longer period than sixty years. Moreover, what claim had the coalowners on public sympathy ? Was it not notorious that they Lad formed a set of trade-regulations which prevented the raising of a larger quantity of coal in the North within a given time in each colliery ; and even of what was raised a limited portion only was allowed to be sold? To the English purchaser the price was 30s. the chaldron, while the foreign purchaser could buy the same coal at the pit for 18s. the chaldron. In fact, the English ships were not permitted to load at all, but were compelled to halt in the Forth as long as it suited the wishes or interests of the coalowners. Then there was a small coal, named bean coal, which the owners refused to sell at all to English purchasers, and only disposed of to foreigners. Now, this coal was admirably calculated for lime-burning, and would be of the greatest use to agriculturists instead of importing guano. The price at which this coal was sold to the foreigner was 3s. a ton, while to the English purchaser it was re- fused at any price; the object being to compel the English to purchase the dearest and best coal at 30s. These coalowners, then, did not come before the Rouse with clean hands, but as a set of determined monopolists.

Mr. HUME also complained of the combination among the coalowners to debar the people of London from a proper supply at a fair rate.

The system carried on in London by the coal-brokers—for they were the managers of the business—was to ascertain the market-price of coals, say 22s., and if a fall took place to 21s., then brokers only sent in a certain number of ships, so as to raise the price again to 22s.; and thus they had the power of raising or lowering the price just as they pleased, and acted accordingly. It often happened that there were five hundred ships in the river, and not one would be suffered to enter, but all waited for a rise of prices. Ile believed there were at this moment two hundred and fifty ships waiting for that pur- pose; and they often waited as long as seven weeks to make a dear market.

The motion was supported by Mr. GRANGER, Mr. HODGSON HINDE, Mr. LIDDELL, Mr. BARING, Lord HOWICK, Alderman HUMPHERY, and Mr. WALLACE; opposed by Sir GEORGE CLERK and Mr. HUTT.

Mr. BUNCOMBE vindicated the conduct of the working-colliers, whom Mr. Liddell had accused of "roughness." They had been perfectly peaceable : they had offered to refer their dispute to impartial arbitra- tors, and courted inquiry into their case by a Committee of the house: Jae masters refused the arbitration ; and they it was, therefore, who had really "struck."

On a division, the motion was negatived, by 110 to 74.

QUIET POSSESSION OF CHAPEL PROPERTY.

On Thursday, the order of the day for the second reading of the Dissenters' Chapels Bill having been read, an immense number of petitions on the subject were presented : those against the measure fill three well-packed pages of the Votes and Proceedings, those in favour of it, one page.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved the second reading of the bill ; ex- plaining its objects, which, he said, had been much misapprehended. Petitions against the measure had been presented from the Wesleyan Me- thodists and other Dissenters, and from members of the Church of England, alleging that the parties were aggrieved by the bill, as it went to take away their right to certain property. Neither the property of the Wesleyan Me- thodists nor that of the Church could be touched by it. It would, however, prevent a great deal of litigation, such as that in Lady Hewley's case; in which the Independent Presbyterians alleged that the Unitarians were not en- titled to certain funds, as their tenets were not those of the founder : but the case had lasted fourteen years, and might last fourteen more, without deter- Joining what class of Dissenters were entitled. He respected the conscientious scruples of Churchmen ; but it was now too late to inquire whether the Legisla- ture had acted wisely or not in extending a complete system of toleration to all. That had been the spirit of the legislation of the country for a long time past. It was the spirit of the act of 1779, which relieved Dissenting ministers from the necessity of subscribing to the Articles of the Church; and the act of 1813 repealed the excepting clauses of the Toleration Act against the TJnita- rians, and also the act of William which made it blasphemy to deny the divi- nity of our Lord. But he believed that the alarm was wholly unfounded, that this bill would have the effect of encouraging Unitarian doctrines in this country. The bill was adopted by Government on the recommendation of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; and it came down from the House of Lords with the concurrent approbation of all the legal authorities in that House. The first clause was an essential part of the measure. An act was passed in 1813, legalizing the foundation of schools or chapels for the benefit of the Unitarians, and placing them upon the same footing as other Protestant Dissenters. The question then arose respecting founda- tions which might have been made before 1813, when the Unitarians were ex- cepted out of the Toleration Act—namely, would they or ought they to take from that body, which was now legal and could legally endow chapels, that which they possessed, because it was given to them before the year 1813? Be thought it could hardly be said that they would be giving full effect to the act of 1813 unless they made it retrospective, as had been done with the act which was passed subsequently to the emancipation of the Roman Catholics, for the purpose of putting their schools and charities upon the same footing as those of other Dissenters. That act had been held to be retrospective, and Roman Catholic foundations made before it passed were now held to be legal. The first clause of this bill put not only Unitarians, but all Protestant Dis- senters, on the same fooling in that respect ; it rendered the Toleration Act retrospective. The second clause related to Dissenting chapels only, and did Rot relate to general charitable foundations. By the present law, the will of the donor must be binding; but it is not to be assumed in the case of every religions charity that it was founded for a particular sect, even though the donor held the doctrine of that sect. It was said that the bill would encourage trustees to violate their trusts, and hand over the property for purposes not in- tended : it would do no such thing. Dissenting chapels were founded in this pay. Congregations of Dissenters from the Church of England, wishing to establish places of meeting and chapels of worship, formed together voluntary associations which associations subscribed funds, purchased the land, and built the chapels. The chapels, in the first instance, were vested in trustees; which was necessary, there being no corporate body. But he was told that so little had the trustees to do with the arrangement or control of those chapels, that in the great majority of cases, where the original trustees died off no fresh trustees were appointed to succeed them ; the congregation relying upon pos- session. In this country every question of private right was decided upoa usage—twenty or thirty years possession ; and that prevailed against the Crown, and even against the Church. Why should it not be ap- plied to the property in Dissenters' chapels ? But, he was told, there would be this disadvantage—the consequence might be, that property now possessed by Presbyterians or other Dissenters would in the lapse of time fall into the hands of Unitarians. How could it be so ? By this bill, the usage must be that of the congregation—not a portion of the congregation. Suppose there was a trust for the benefit of Presbyterians—if the minister went into the pulpit and preached Arian or Unitarian doctrines, any single member of the congregation might apply to have him removed. The congregation must have sanctioned the appointment of the minister : they must also have sanctioned the change of doctrine, before any case of the sort could occur. There was therefore no real ground for apprehension that any Presbyterian congregation could be ousted andits property handed over to Unitarians. Go- vernment would be willing to listen to any suggestion and to make any altera- tion which could render more clear the principle that they intended to apply to chapel-property.

Sir ROBERT INGLIS opposed the measure, chiefly, but not exclusively, on the ground that it violated the law of property.

Members of the Church of England had a direct interest in the maintenance of those principles which this bill violated. Ever since the Municipal Cor- porations Act, the management of charitable foundations, originally vested in members of the Church of England, bad been placed in the hands of gentle- mea who would not even profess to be nominally members of that church ; and if they were permitted to hold property vested in them far twenty- five years, there would be considerable danger to the permanence of those finindations as connected with the Church. He was willing to admit, that when Parlia- ment had relaxed the penal laws, and in 1813 gave a legal sanction' or at least a legal permission, to those who denied the doctrine of the blessed Trinity, it followed, perhaps it ought to follow, that foundations which previously to that year were illegal should receive the sanction of law ' • and so far, if the first clause had been limited to that object, it should not have provoked or justified opposition to the bill : but that was the ut- most concession he could make. The force of the Attorney-General's argument, however, applied to the second clause of the bill. His honourable and learned friend said that property held in trust did not appear to him to re- quire any greater protection than property held by private individuals: but Sir Robert could not help thinking thgestreogih of the case rested here—that whereas they might safely take an uninterrupted possession far twenty- five years as a sufficient guarantee of the squndness of the title of the person who held it, inasmuch as his next neighbour would not be likely to suffer an undisturbed possession of what be might be entitled to, the case was very different in respect to trust property, where the interest was so divided that out of twenty individuals named in a trust-deed it was very improbable that half knew their names were mentioned at all; so that, by little and little, the whole character of the trust might be altered by those on the spot electing persons of their own more immediate persuasion, and gradually changing the trust from Trinitarian to Arian or Unitarian uses. To remove a trustee, of course there must be an ap- plication to the Court of Chancery ; but how far then would the bill prevent litigation ? Sir Robert Inglis referred to the strenuous opposition organized by the Trinitarian Dissenters ; and after glancing at some defects in the con- struction of the measure, he asked what constituted "usage "? If it were the preaching of the minister, what was to he the evidence of that ? Sir Robert concluded by moving that the bill be read a second time that day six months.

Mr. PLIIMPTRE seconded the amendment ; declaring that the measure outraged and insulted the Christian feeling of the country ; and he never would avoid an opportunity of protesting against an infraction of what he and a large portion of his fellow-subjects held dearest—reli- gious truth.

Mr. MACAULAY began his support of the bill by complimenting Sir William Follett on his powerful and luminous argument, and Sir Robert Inglis on his dispassionate temper ; observing that Mr. Plumptre had supplied what Sir Robert had omitted—theological animosity.

The whole stress of the case appeared to lie in the second clause. Now, the second clause rested on this principle—that prescription, as a general rule, ought to confer a title ; that there was a limitation of time, after which titles, al- though they might have originated wrongfully, could not rightfully be set aside. He never could have expected at this day to be called upon to defend the principle of prescription, which is to be found in all laws, in all countriee, and in all times—in Greece, Rome, France, England, America—in the time of ancient Athens, of Justinian, and of Lord Tenterden. It is at the very founda- tion of property ; for imagine a man sued on a bill of exchange accepted by his great-grandfather in 1660, or turned out of his house because a musty will of Charles the First's time has been discovered! It was complained that the bill was retrospective : so were all statutes of limitation ; and in the present case the actual property of the possessors is so mixed up with the endowment that the principle of limitation applies with double justice. In illustration, he mentioned chapels at Cirencester, Norwich, Manchester, and other places, where Unitarian doctrines have been preached for seventy years, and where the chapels have been rebuilt, embellished, provided with libraries, and with burial- grounds, endeared to the possessors by the most sacred associations of buried affec- tion. In reply to the charge that the Unitarians are guilty of fraud because they retain funds bestowed by Trinitarian founders, lie pointed to other sects who had abandoned the tenets of their founders : the first Scotch Seceders differed with Whitfield on State connexion, but now the Dissenters of Scotland clamour for the Voluntary principle ; Wesley to the last condemned lay ad- ministration of the sacraments, which was permitted by Conference soon after his death ; and thus every building belonging to a Methodist society is devoted each Sunday to what John Wesley pronounced to be a sin. But be was most astonished to see the Irish Presbyterians cry out against an ex post facto act. The Presbyterians of Ireland had gone on celebrating marriages according to their own rites for a long time, and the Unitarians had also occupied certain chapels for a long series of years ; and neither in the one case nor in the other was any question on the subject raised until recently. About the same time, however, the question in both cases was suddenly raised' and then the courts of law, however much they might regret the necessity, felt bound to declare, that according to the law neither in the case of marriages nor in the case of chapels was prescription to be set up. And would the Irish Presbyterians, who would desire an act to be passed to relieve them from the obligations of this, now oppose the Unitarians, who sought a similar privilege ?

Mr. COLQUHOUN contended, that a distinction must be drawn be- tween private property and trust property in applying the principle of usage ; and he protested against the Legislature stepping in to arrest the course of law.

Mr. BERNAL thought that the Opposition should not content them-

selves with giving a silent vote in favour of a measure founded in in- tegrity. Mr. MONCKTON MILNES felt bound in justice to support the bill. He deprecated leaving unjust laws on the statute-book till some practical difficulty like the present draws attention to them ; and he asked, what credit would redound to orthodoxy if the chapels in Leeds and Norwich were really taken away from their possessors?

Mr. Fox MULE regretted his painful position in opposing political friends who supported the measure. He condemned the proposal to supersede the intention of the founder by a prescription of twenty-five years. If the bill were passed, it would not only be unjust to foundations at present established, but would be the means of check- ing the Christian benevolence of persons who might be anxious hereafter to found such trusts as those with which they were then dealing. Neither the Scotch nor the Eoglish law of limitations was what he understood by the term "retrospective "; that is, it did not bar actions to be commenced within a Emited period after the passing of each act. He denied that the bill would prevent litigation ; though, without it, a dread of the mazes of Chancery might do so. And he complained that the Presbyterians of Ulster bad had no oppor- tunity of being heard by counsel against the measure- Mr. W. E GLADSTONE entered into a long retrospect of the religious history of the country, by which he showed, that at the time when most of the endowments held by Unitarians were instituted, between 1690 and 1710 and for thirty years after, the founders might be sup- posed to be generally alive, watching the progress of events ; that the Dissenters began in that period to manifest a general reluctance to sub- scribe to the Articles asserting the doctrine of the Trinity ; that even those who did so were not proved to have the intention of binding their posterity ; and that it was in fact an open question.

Mr. SHEIL was delighted to hear Mr. Gladstone pronounce the bill reconcilable to the sternest state conscience ; and, as a Roman Catholic, he declared that the great body of his persuasion in Ireland was to a man in favour of the measure. To illustrate the hardships which it would prevent, he mentioned the case of Mary Armstrong, the widow of an Unitarian, who receives a pension from an Unitarian fund ; and if the bill were not to pass, she, with four daughters, would be deprived of their pittance. Amidst repeated laughter, he told Sir Robert Inglis to look at home when he insisted on observing the intention of a founder. " What I am going to suggest to him has occurred to my own consideration from a notice he has given himself= Sir Robert Harry Inglis—to insert in the seventh section of the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, (saving Royal residences, eatbedrale,&c.) after the word 'erected,' the words and the College of the Blessed Virgin Mary, near Winchester.'" I think the case of William of Wykebam's College at Oxford even stronger than that of Winchester. Does not he know that William of Wykellam, the founder of Rt. Mary's College, selected, as men- tioned in his life, the Virgin as his peculiar patroness ; that be gave directions for a rho:A to be performed in honour of the Virgin ; and that her statue should be placed in some high spot, as a conspicuous intimation of his regard? Does tot he know that William of Wykeham directed that mass should be Bahl three times a day for the repose of Ws soul, and that Ave Macias and Salve Reginas should be every night performed by the choir? Now, I ask, has there been no breach of trust in the case of William of WykAam? Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that notwithstanding the preponderance of argument all on one side, almost unexampled in his Parliamentary ex- perience, Ile could not let the debate close without giving the bill his decided and persevering support. "1 am bound to say, that my opinion was formed without any very deep consideration of thq historical truths or of the legal doctrines which have been presented to us in the course of the debate upon this subject. With respect to the legal doctrines, I am not about to undervalue the great legal doctrines which are to be found in the law of England : the great doctrine of trusts, I dare say, ought to be held in much veneration and respect : but I say this, that if that or any other great legal doctrine imposed the necessity of inflicting wrong. I would look out for a mode of obtaining an alteration of that doctrine; because, first, I think that individual justice requires it ; and secondly, because in proportion to the impot tance of the doctrine—iu proportion to the necessity of obtaining it—so in proportion is increased the necessity of not subjecting it to the odium of being an instrument for inflicting wrong. I think it would be unjust to permit any rule of law to be so applied that chapels now held by certain Dissenters from the doctrines of the Church of England shall be taken from them, and applied we know not to whom ; because, after we have taken them away from the present possessors, there will arise most complicated and most intricate questions as to whom that possession shall be bestowed upon." Repeating that the bill would not touch ecdowments where the founder had ex- pressly declared that the doctrines of the Trinity should be pi eached, he pro- ceeded. " I can understand why the Unitarian should have said nothing as to his intention—the principle of the law was against it. There was a motive for the concealment of his intentions ; it was wise in him to deal in generalities, because the law that then existed told him that if he contravened the doctrine of the Trinity his property was forfeited. But ;thy should the Trinitarians, who meant to maintain the Trinity, remain silent as to their intentions ? The doctrine of Unitarianism was repugnant to their feelings; the law would respect their endowments ; and if the intention existed, what motive could they have then in their trust-deeds for expressing nothing more specific than the chapel was founded for the worship of Almighty God, by Protestant Dissenters of the Presbyterian denomination?' Is it not more probable that the founders of those chapels were hostile to any subscription whatsoever ; that they wished to retain full freedom of opinion ; that they objected to conform to any sect ; and that they therefore refused to bind their successors by any formula of par- ticular doctrines—respecting in them that freedom of opinion which they claimed for themselves ? And can 1 then, with any justice, presuming that to be their intention—would it, I say, be showing a respect for the trust, a veneration fur the intention of the founders, if I were to impute to them opinions and desires which they never entertained ? " Sir Robert stated the case of the disputants in llsier. " In the year 1830, the Re- monstrants of Ulster, basing previously- professed Unitarian doctrines, se- parated from the Presbyterian Synod; and the separation aas made upon the distinct understanding that the Remonstrant Sy nod should remain in posses- sion of all the privileges and immunities enjoyed by them before. Their cha- pels then were in decay. The members of the congregation, however, since 1830, have repaired the chattels, rebuilt them, taken fresh sites, furnished addi- tional burying-grounds, and have altogether much improved their condition. Not a word of disturbance was heard till after the decision in Lady Hewley's ease; and then the principle which governed that decision induced persons who appeared to have no direct interest in the matter to bring actions against the Remonstrant Synod of Ulster. To do what ? To recover Trinitarian property ? No; but to take from Unitarians the chapels they have built or enlarged, and the burial-grounds where their wives and fathers are interred." A deputation from the Remonstrant Sy nod appealed to Government ; Minis- ters attempted to bring about an amicable accommodation ; but failing, there was no other course open than legislation to prevent injustice. Sir Robert concluded by reminding the House that charity is greater than faith. Lord JOHN RUSSELL so completely concurred in Sir Robert Peers opinion as to the preponderance of reason on one side, that he thought it unnecessary to enter into any argument in favour of the bill : he merely rose to express his strong feeling that it was founded on sound principles of policy and justice.

Lord SANDON said, his bias in favour of the measure had been strengthened by the discussion. The House divided, and the amendment was negatived, by 307 to 111; majority in favour of the bill, 190.

RESTRICTION OF LABOUR IN FACTORIES.

In the House of Lords, on Monday, Lord WHARNCLIFFE moved the third reading of the Factory Bill. The discussion which ensued watt utterly destitute of novel remark. The Earl of RADNOR disapproved of meddling at all with the labour of the people ; and advocated the re- moval of duties from all articles of consumption. The Duke of &ernes- LAND expressed his regret that the bill did not limit the duration of daily labour to a still shorter period. Lord BROUGHAM protested against the passing of the bill ; which he feared might not be the last of the kind. The Marquis of NORMANBY hoped that it would not be the last; The bill was read a third time, and passed.

ENCLOSURE OF COMMONS.

On Wednesday, Lord WORSLEY moved the order of the day for going into Committee on the Enclosure of Commons Bill. He explained, that he had had communications with Government, who objected to certain parts of the bill ; those parts would be omitted, and the bill would be reprinted ; and he wished it now to be committed pro forma, in order to that arrangement. Colonel SIBTHORP, retaining undiminished his objections to the bill as a whole, consented to waive his intended op- position in this stage, for the express purpose stated by Lord Worslsy. Mr. Hums also waived his threatened opposition ; recommending Lord Worsley to withdraw his bill altogether, that another might be intro- duced next session by Government ; and warning the House against consenting to the principle of shutting up commons and greens against the recreations of the poor. Several Members briefly expressed their sentiments on the bill. Lord SANDON, Colonel WOOD, and Lord JOHN MANNERS, evinced strong jealousy of any measure of enclosure. Mr. AGLIONBY, Mr. CHARLES BULLER, Mr MILES, and Mr. WARBURTON, advocated the judicious enclosure or improvement of commons, and contended that the measure would brine.' enclosure bills under a more efficient control. All, how- ever, insisted on securing the rights and recreations of the poor, except that Mr. AGLIONBY said he would not be a party to maintain any "idle rights "—he would have it laid down in the bill what commons or waste lauds should remain untouched. Mr. F. H. BERKELEY objected to the enormous powers which the bill would confer on the very doubtful tribunal of the proposed Commission ; and he stoutly defended "the parks of the-poor." The bill was committed proforma, amended, and ordered to be printed; to be recommitted that day fortnight.

HAMPSTEAD HEATH.

In the House of Lords, on Thursday, the Earl of EGMONT moved tlIr second reading of Wilson's Estate Bill.

The object of the bill was to enable Sir Thomas Maryon Wilson to dispose of certain parts of his estate at Hampstead, for the purpose of investing the purchase-money in landed property elsewhere. It was said that the bill would. interfere with certain provisions of the will of Sir Thomas Wilson's late father; but, on inquiry, he learned that many bills of a similar nature had passed that House and received the sanction of the Legislature. Lord DENAIAN felt great pain in being obliged to oppose a bill brought forward by a gentleman with reference to the appropriation of his own property. There was nothing before the House that did not show that this bill did. most materially interfere with the will of the late Sir Thomas Wilson ; and, whatever that will required—whatever burden it imposed—it was right that it should be borne by the party who held under it. Sir Thomas Wilson, in his will, dated the 3d of September 1803, directed that no person who came into possession of the Hampstead estate should lease it for a longer term than twenty-one years. This might be inconvenient to the new possessor ; but the late Sir Thomas Wilson came deliberately to that conclusion, and it was proper that his direction should not be contravened. By that will, the Charlton estate might be leased for sixty-one years, but the Hampstead estate was not to be leased for more than twenty-one years. It was said that it was not meant by the instrumentality of this bill to enclose Hampstead Heath ; and he agreed that such was the fact, looking to the common meaning of the word "enclosure." The Heath would not be divided into small and minute por- tions, it was true; but the bill would give the power of granting to any builder, for building purposes, 400 acres of land—of that land, be it remem- bered, which now made Hampstead such a healthy and happy place—where thousands of persons from the Metropolis daily enjoyed themselves during the Sue period of the year, in a manner which they could not do elsewhere. It might be alleged that the restrictive clause in the will was unjust and unrea- sonable for his part, he considered that it was most just and reasonable; and he hoped that Parliament would not come in and with a high hand set it aside. In his opinion, they would be weakening the security of their own property if they interfered with that will. The restriction in this case formed a positive condition under which the present Baronet held this estate; and to interfere with it would be to plant the root of a great evil to the enjoyment of property in this country. Be hoped their Lordships would view this bill in the same light in which it bad been viewed by his noble and learned predecessor Lord Tenterden, and by Sir Nicholas Tindal the present Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, and refuse to sanction it. Under all these cir- cumstances, he felt it to be his bounden duty, though with great reluctance, to move an amendment, "that the bill be read a second time that day SIX months." Lord COLCHESTER and the Earl of WICKLOW contended that no dis- tinction should be made between the present and. the many similar ap- plications, but that the bill ought to be suffered to go into Committee.

Lord CAMPBELL supported the amendment.

He could see no hardship inflicted upon Sir Thomas Wilson, who at present clearly enjoyed all the benefit that his ancestor ever intended him to enjoy. Whatever the law gave him he had; and be now called for the special interfe- rence of the Legislature to give him powers which by the law and of right did not belong to him. Whilst, however, the rights of Sir Thomas Wilson would not be interfered with by refusing this bill, the passing of it woula very mate- rially interfere with the rights of the copyholders, whose property it would de- preciate some 30 or 40 percent: the effect of the bill, in reality, would be M add to the property of one man and to diminish the value of the property of others.

Lord CoTTEEmast did not fear that the bill would result in covering Rampstead Heath with houses; and he argued that it was only just to pass it. He would caution their Lordships, that if they capriciously refused to one in- dividual what they granted to others, they might lose that character for im- partiality and of dealing out equal justice to all which it was so essentially ne- cessary for the Legislature to maintain. A portion of the argument against the present bill had been founded on the assumption that Parliament had no right—that is to say, it would be inexpedient and unjust for Parliament—to grant to any person the power of building on his own laud, if such building shut out the prospects or interfered with the pleasures theretofore possessed by the owners of the adjoining lands. Their Lordships well knew that doctrine such as that would not stand for a moment in any court of justice.

The Earl of MA.NSFIELD and Lord BROUGHAM opposed the bilL On a division, Lord Egmont's motion was negatived, by 31 to 20. The bill therefore was lost.

JUSTICES' JUSTICE.

On Tuesday, Mr. HUME drew attention to the case of Alfred Moore, a licensed hawker, who had been imprisoned by the Magistrates of Shrewsbury. The man was arrested by Thomas, a Policeman, and locked up. Next day, he was brought before the Magistrates ; and, no witnesses having appeared against him, he was sentenced to three months' imprisonment, on a charge of going about with begging-letters. The man bore a good character, and the only evidence against him was, that some begging-letters were found in his possession. There were 72,000 persons summarily convicted last year, mostly for terms of im- prisonment not exceeding two months, but somethnes for two or three years; and a case of that kind forced attention to that unlimited power of imprisonment. Mr. Hume moved for papers relative to Moore's case.

Mr. DISRAELI and Sir JAMES GRAHAM both gave explanations ; the gist of which is, that Moore was taken up in the market-place for being drunken, violent, and abusive ; when in custody, he was searched, and in his pocket were found begging-letters, one imitating the handwriting of a lady named Armstrong, another that of one of the Members for Shropshire ; and the man was panished for endeavouring to obtain money under false pretences.

Mr. WAHLEY asked if it was lawful to search the man's pocket in that way ? On which several Members cried, "it is the usual course."

Mr. AGLIONBY asked, was the man convicted of obtaining money ? Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, he was convicted of endeavouring to obtain money under false pretences. No practice could be more inconvenient than for Members to try, on technical grounds, to get the House to quash a conviction.

Mr. WAKLEY strongly objected to thus manufacturing a charge out of documents which, he had no hesitation in saying, had been stolen from the man's person.

Was this lawful ? True, there were courts of law to appeal to : but every one knew that lawyers would not act except for those who had money to pay them. He hoped his honourable friend the Member for Montrose would assist the poor man to go into a court of law. (Loud laughter.) Ile hoped his honourable friend and others would assist the poor man ; and, for his own part, he would be happy to contribute. Indeed, the attempt ought to have been made before the matter was brought before the House. (Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) He hoped honourable gentlemen who cheered would con- tribute. (Cheers.) As that was their intention, he had not a word farther to say.

The motion was affirmed.

MISCELLANEOUS.

NEw WRIT ordered—for Enniskillen, in the room of the Honourable Ar- thur Cole, who has accepted the Chiltern Hundreds.

THE RovAu ASSENT was given by commission, on Thursday, to the Fac- tory Bill, the Customs-duties Bill, the Stamp-duties Bill, and some other bills.

CURRENCY. Mr. MUNTZ put this question to Sir Robert Peel, on Thurs- day. In the event of such an export of gold as should withdraw from circula- tion all notes exceeding fourteen millions issued against securities, were the said fourteen millions, or any part of them, to be payable in gold on demand ; and supposing three millions issued against the Exchequer Bills to be withdrawn from circulation, how were those notes to be redeemed which were issued against the eleven millions of debt due to the Bank ? Sir ROBERT PEEL de- precated such hypothetical questions : but he thought that the intention of the bill was quite clear. The Bank was allowed to issue notes on securities to the amount of fourteen millions. The debt due from the Government to the Bank, to the amount of eleven millions, was assigned as part of those securities, and the remainder were securities over which the Bank had an entire control. Thus, in the highly improbable contingency alluded to, the Bank would have direct power over three millions ; and, if it became necessary, the credit of the Government was sufficient to obtain means to redeem its debt. But this was an extreme case, one which he did not at all contemplate.

STATE OF THE BRITISH COMMERCIAL. MARINE. On Tuesday, Mr. LYALL moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the state of the commercial marine of this country, and the best mode of encouraging the employment of British shipping. Mr. GLADSTONE assented to the motion, as one to ascertain if the difficulties now pressing on the shipping interest could be relieved : but he de. precated the notion which some parties might entertain, that the inquiry could call in question the reciprocity treaties; the abandonment of which would be quite absurd. Mr. IlawEs wished to extend the inquiry into the causes of the distress. After a abort conversation, an amendment to that effect was ne- gatived, without a division. Dr. BOWRING moved an amendment to include in the investigation the effect of taxation and 6scal restrictions on the building and equipment of ships and payment of wages. Mr. GLADSTONE said that he wished the inquiry to be general and not restricted : but he objected to point- ing out special topics, which would only operate to keep others out of view. Dr. BOWRING withdrew his amendment ; and the motion was affirmed.

DISTURBANCES IN GUERNSEY. On Tuesday, MI'. THOMAS DUNCOMBE asked whether it was true that 600 soldiers had been sent to Guernsey ; and if so whether they had been sent on account of apprehended disturbances in that dead ? Sir JAMES GRAHAM answered, that information from the Governor of Guernsey had induced the Government to send a temporary reinforcement of troops. There had been some excitement, in consequence of local differences ; bat the whole matter was under judicial investigation. Government placed the most implicit reliance on the loyalty of the people of the island.

WESTMINSTER BRIDGE. OR the motion of Sir ROBERT INGLDI, OR TIM.. dAY, a Select Committee was appointed " to inquire into the present state of Westminster Bridge, and into the expediency of continuing the present ex- penditure thereon, or of erecting a new bridge on or near the site thereof; and also into the amount of the Bridge estates, and the liabilities thereon."