presented a Petition from 300 tradesmen, inhabitants of the Strand, and the parish of St. Martin-in-the-Fields, complaining of the losses they had sustained in trade by the delay which had taken place in carrying the improvements into execution. The petition was signed by every shopkeeper in the Strand, and they stated, that they had petitioned in favour of the improvements; but had they known the delay which was to take place in carrying them into effect, and the loss they should sustain in consequence, they would strenuously have opposed the measure. Four years had elapsed since the commencement of the alterations, and they were not yet completed, nor was there any probability of their soon being so. Mr. Arbuthnot, when in office, assured him (Mr. Hobhouse) that the works should be carried on as rapidly as the funds of the Woods and Forests would permit. He thought the petitioners, who undoubtedly sustained great loss in their trade, ought to expect and demand the immediate completion of the work, as much as if the improvement were the project of some private individual. The case was one of great hardship, and the petitioners, who had memorialized the Board of Works, &;c., without the least attention being paid to their complaints, had no other resource than to apply to that House.

said, that the office over which he had the honour to preside had not been so neglectful or inattentive to the representations of the petitioners as was stated. The fact was, that considerable delay had arisen from the number of persons with whom Government had had to treat for the houses and ground. There were the freeholder, the landlord, the tenant, and under-tenant, &c., all which had certainly created a delay. The time allowed by the Act of Parliament was seven years; however, the whole of the purchases were now nearly brought to a conclusion. There were only three houses the purchase of which was not yet settled; and, out of the whole number, there remained only seventeen to be paid for. The ground was nearly cleared, and plans fully arranged and determined on. It was unjust to the Board of Works to say nothing had been done; and when the extensive pile of buildings which had been erected where the Exeter Change stood, within the last twelve months, was looked at, it could not be said that any delay beyond that which was unavoidable had taken place. Government had been put to a stand at one time for money, but the vote of last year, of 300,000l., as a loan, had removed that difficulty. He could state, that with respect to the upper part of the Strand, beyond Southampton-street, it would be completed in a very short time, and the whole as quickly as possible. With respect to the alterations at Charing-cross, a further delay of a few months would take place.

Petition laid on the Table.

said, that before they became a subject of deliberation in the House, he begged to add, that a duty of 1l. 2s. 6d., as it was printed in the Resolutions, should be only 1l. 2s., and he wished at the same time to state, that he was prepared to allow the East-India sugars of a low price to come into the market on a proportionate reduction of duty, similar to the West-India sugars of the same kind; but the higher description of East-India sugars were, in all respects, to remain in the same relative condition as to duty as they had been before the contemplated alterations.

spoke as follows—Sir, as I perceive it is not the intention of my right hon. friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to propose any other alteration or modification of these Resolutions than that he has just now announced with respect to East-India sugars, I must crave the indulgence of the House while I offer a few observations on what appears to me to be the most extraordinary, and the most incomprehensible, and the least practicable proposition that ever was submitted to the Parliament of this country. This Resolution was proposed on Monday last, and the consideration of it postponed in order to allow it to be printed. I am glad that it was so postponed, for that has given time for consideration, and I believe there never was a proposition connected with the trade of this country which, now that it has been considered, is viewed with more alarm, or seems better calculated to produce endless trickery and confusion than that which is now before us. The proposition, if I understand it right, goes to reduce the duty on sugars, of a certain description of quality and price, from 27s. to 20s., and my right hon. friend alleged, as the reason for the reduction, the distressed state of the West-India Colonies. In order to prove this distress, my right hon. friend, when he brought forward his propositions, cited the case of two estates, and explained the extent of the produce and the cost of cultivation. These two estates were, I presume, in the same Island, and, probably, in the same parish; but if he had taken the whole of the old Islands belonging to Great Britain as proofs of the distress of the West-India interests, I believe the illustration would not have been inapplicable or exaggerated. I believe all the ancient Colonies belonging to this country, Jamaica, Barbadoes, Antigua, St, Christopher's, Dominica, all these islands are in a state of much greater distress than those which have been recently annexed to our possessions. The land of those islands produces now a much smaller quantity of sugar, in comparison, than the islands which have been taken into cultivation at a later date, and are not so worn out and exhausted by repeated crops; but, at the same time, by the superior skill employed in their cultivation, and by the judicious application of capital in their management, the sugar that is produced in the old Colonies is known, although small in quantity, to be of a very superior quality. Now the Resolutions of my right hon. friend are intended to relieve the distressed colonists of the West-Indies; but that distress, from these peculiar circumstances, prevails to an infinitely greater extent by comparison in the old colonies than in the new, and the Resolution, therefore, by endeavouring to extend the sale of the coarse sugar produced by the new colonies will tend, of course, to exaggerate the distress, to perpetuate the burthens, and to increase the difficulties of all the old colonies where relief is known to be most required. The islands of Barbadoes and Antigua, although two of the most fertile of the old colonies, do not produce more than one-third of the sugar grown upon lands of the same extent in the richer and more fertile colony of Demerara; and, therefore, the proposition which goes to increase the sale of the sugar of the new colony will diminish in a proportionate extent the demand for the limited produce of the old colonies, which from the circumstances of their situation are most in need of assistance. Before I go further, however, I would ask my right hon. friend to explain to me the meaning and bearing of the Resolution which he has proposed, for notwithstanding it has been extensively circulated, and amply considered, I know, from the best information, that there is not a man in this city, whatever may be his situation, planter or merchant, buyer or seller, or broker, who thoroughly understands the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to bring his plan into operation. Sugar, it is well known, is sold at what is called the long price—that is, the price including the duty; and the result of the measure will be, that whether a man sell his sugar at 54s., or at 47s., hewill in the end obtain just the same price. If he sell his sugar as worth 54s., it will be considered 7s. better, andthe duty paid must be the high one; so that in fact as the duty in one case might be only 20s., and in the other 27s., the price obtained by the planter might be just the same. This, however, is not the only difficulty which these Resolutions produce. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman in what possible way he can hope to check that fraud and collusion to which they hold out so much temptation? Sugar is not sold in small quantities, but generally in very considerable lots, of fifty or 100 hogsheads at a time. Was this purchase, then, to be made with no better consideration as to quality and price than some fifty or 100 sheep in Smithfield Market? Some sugars are worth 30s. Some are worth 60s., how are the gradations of the right hon. Gentleman's scale to be established, if the whole fifty hogsheads are purchased at 20s.? Is a broker to be at liberty to pick out a hogshead, and say, I like this, and is he to take it at the price of the others? How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to guard against tricks of this kind? Is the valuation to be upon each hogshead of a whole lot? How are the duties to be paid? Are they to be paid when the purchaser pleases? If that be so, then the purchaser will watch his time, tender his duty when the price is low, keep the sugar till the price rises, and then sell it at a great gain to himself, and a great loss to the Revenue. Again, in taking the averages, how is the right hon. Gentleman to guard against receiving the lowest duty on the primest sugar? These, and fifty other modes of trick and delusion will be resorted to for the purpose of evading the duties, which will defeat the object of the right hon. Gentleman. I can conceive also many cases in which, from the nature of the right hon. Gentleman's scale, it will be utterly impossible to ascertain at what price the sugar is sold, or what is the duty payable on it. I will take a particular instance of this; suppose my right hon. friend to be a seller of sugar, and that he has a broker dealing with him for a purchase. Sugars, as I have observed before, are always sold at the long price. Well, the price agreed upon in the case I put is 52s. The Custom House officer appears to take his part in the transaction, and the seller, as usual, demands an account of the duty he has to pay. The average price of sugar in the market I will assume has been 25s. during the week; and by this price the Custom House officer will demand 27s. as the duty on sugar, of a price more than 1s. above the average, for if he demands only 25s. 6d., that will be the case. No, replies, the purchaser the price, since you ask 27s. duty, is only 25s., and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Resolution says, "If such sugar shall not exceed in value such average price by more than 1s. the cwt, the duty shall be 1l. 5s. 6d." How is it to be ascertained which is right, and which is wrong? Or, supposing that "The Gazette" enables the Custom House officer to state the amount of duty for one week, what is to prevent the broker holding the sugar over till the price is stated to be 1s. less than the average? Or how, in fact, can the sugar-dealers be prevented from having the price most advantageous to their own interests without considering that of the Revenue? In point of fact, it will not be possible to prevent the collusion and fraud to which the complex and confused proposition of my right hon. friend will invite those engaged in the sugar market; unless indeed, which I think will be the result, the Government becomes the purchaser of all the sugars in the market. How the Government is to dispose of the sugars after it has purchased them is another consideration. If a seller chooses to dispose of his sugars at 25s., and the Go- vernment officers think they are worth 26s., what then, I ask, is to be the result? except that the Government must become the purchaser of all the sugars that are brought to sale. These are a few, but not all the objections I find to this plan. With respect to the drawback, I have other and more serious objections. Does my right hon. friend mean to say that he will continue to pay a drawback of 6s. or 7s. the hundred weight more on all sugars exported from this country than the duty paid on them? The plan now before us will lower the price of all the higher description of sugars; but it cannot possibly raise the price of the lower, and we shall in future have to pay a drawback, not on a duty of 27s., but on a duty of 21s. This is not all the objections, however, to be found in the practical details of this measure. I believe, and I am supported in that belief by many of the most experienced merchants of the day, that these 20s. sugars will be brought into competition with all the finer descriptions of sugar, and that the coarse-grained sugars of Demerara will, through the process of refining in this country, beat out of the market all the fine sugars of the old colonies. These, and suggestions like these, are diffusing the greatest anxiety, alarm, and agitation, among all those connected with the West-India Islands. Then there is the question of molasses. That article is made from a description of sugar called "bastards." Is there no alteration to take place with respect to it? If there is not, I have no hesitation in saying that all those who have imported that article to the extent of some 30,000 or 40,000 hogsheads, must be utterly ruined by the quantity of inferior sugars which will now glut the market at the low scale of duty imposed on them. I now come to the consideration of the calculations of my right hon. friend connected with this project. He calculates the probable loss to the revenue, if there should be no increased consumption, at 400,000l.; but he assumes that the increased consumption which will ensue from lowering the duty, will compensate for the half of that loss. In the first place, unless the drawbacks are altered he will perhaps lose rather than gain by the increase of business his plan may occasion. I believe, therefore, that he miscalculates; and that as the increased consumption can only take place in low-priced sugars, the average rate of duty he will obtain will not be above 20s. and that his loss will be much greater than he imagines. He cannot gain any advantage on the low-priced sugars exported, because the drawback will absorb the whole of it. I would just ask the House to consider the prospect of paying 7s. or 8s. per cwt. by the reduction of duty from the taxes of this country by way of drawback, in order that we may be enabled to export a greater quantity of sugar to Hamburgh or the Baltic; and yet this will probably be the disadvantage derived from a system of reducing duty, the most vicious that any Minister of this country ever contemplated. I feel as strongly as any man the distressed state of the West-India colonies; but feeling that, I would give relief to all, instead of adopting a partial, unsatisfactory, and injurious scale of gradation, which, by professing to relieve, merely adds to the burthen, and is calculated deeply to injure the revenue of the country, without conferring advantages on any but the foreign consumer. I know that an inquiry has been commenced at the Board of Trade, and that Government intend to take measures for an extensive adoption of the system of ad valorem duties. I think that system a good one; but at this late period of the Session there is no time for an inquiry into the best method of applying those duties, or for the adoption of any suggestions which might be made on the subject. Under these circumstances, I would really press upon my right hon. friend that which I urged on his consideration this morning—the propriety of adopting for one year a system plain, practicable, free from all objections, and calculated to come immediately into use. I would propose that system of duties recommended by my right hon. friend (Mr. C. Grant) last year, and again recommended this morning. I would propose that my right hon. friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should at once reduce the duty on all sugars, of every description, from 27s. to 20s. This would give relief to all the colonies, the old as well as the new. There would be no difficulty in carrying it into execution. It is simple; it would be effectual; and I thoroughly believe it would not involve the revenue in the course of a year in such great losses as the complicated, defective, ill-digested, and partially understood plan of my right hon. friend. I recollect the right hon. Gentleman said last year, in the debate on this question, that the reduction of duty to 20s. would produce a diminution of the revenue to the extent of at least one million, if there was no increase of consumption to compensate for the loss. Now, I will take the benefit of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman when he introduced these Resolutions the other evening, and I will anticipate, as he did, that the increased consumption consequent on this reduction would amount to just one half the loss; for, as the right hon. Gentleman anticipated an increase of 200,000l. in a reduction of 400,000l., I may fairly anticipate that the increased consumption would give 500,000l. if the loss of duty was a million; and I don't think I am over sanguine in making that calculation. After the very great reductions of taxation which have been announced in the present Session, I certainly am not one of those who can say we are in a condition to spare 500,000l. of our income; but I would call the attention of the House, and of the right hon. Gentleman, to the propositions which accompany these Resolutions with respect to the spirit duties. The right hon. Gentleman proposes an additional duty of 6d. per gallon on all Spirits, British and foreign. This duty, supposing the consumption to be the same as last year, would produce 750,000l. The right hon. Gentleman, at the time he explained the system of finances for the year, took credit for 300,000l. which he expected to be produced by an increased duty of 2d. on Scotch and Irish, and of 1s. on English spirits. Now allowing that 300,000l. to be deducted from this 750,000l., there would still remain 450,000l. as a set-off against the probable loss of half a million, which might be incurred by that reduction of duty which I recommend. I therefore say, that the reduction of revenue on the whole income of this year will be little or nothing compared with the benefits that are likely to result from the measure I propose. Feeling, however, as I do on this subject, I would say, that even if we were to suffer some loss for the first six months, such is the deplorable state of the planters in those colonies—such is the suffering and distress to which many highly respectable families, and the children of affluent parents, have been reduced by the general fall in the prices of all West-India produce—that I think it would be wise and sound policy on the part of the Parliament of this country, to manifest its sympathy and its feeling for that long-suffering class of our fellow-subjects, by offering, even at some temporary inconvenience to ourselves, all that relief and assistance which, in the present distressed and embarrassed condition of all classes, it is in our power to give them. Much as the West-India planters have been promised, from time to time, nothing has as yet been done for them. Up to this hour, although every class in the country has received some relief, nothing has been done for them. No attempt has been made to relieve their staple commodity from the burthen which oppresses it, although the reductions which have been made in the duties on coffee, and other articles of the same description, give us reason to hope that the effect of such relief would tend to increase rather than diminish that revenue which is supposed to offer the obstacle. I am bound to say, while I thus claim for the West Indies some relief from the Legislature, that, since the duties which I wish reduced were first imposed, we have passed laws with regard to their property, which, however wise, prudent, politic, and humane, they may be, are yet, in a pecuniary point of view, calculated to produce a very injurious effect on their estates. I mean those laws which apply to them as the owners of slaves. I will take one of these laws, which I think more than any other entitles the West-Indians to claim some relief from the Government which imposed it. I allude to the law which prohibits the West-India planter from removing his slaves from one island to another, or even from one colony to another, no matter how great may be the demand or the necessity for such removal. I am sorry to be compelled to discuss in a British Parliament any question having reference to a right of property in our fellow beings. But the West-Indians are placed in a very peculiar situation with respect to the estates which they cultivate. They found those estates burthened with slaves, placed under their authority by many Acts of the Legislature, and they are bound to regulate themselves with regard to them as property, in a manner peculiar and embarrassing. I have said they cannot remove them to any other colony where they may be more useful. I may be told they can sell them if they do not want so many. But they cannot be disposed of in an island where the land is overstocked, and if they discontinue the cultivation of sugar, because it is unproductive, they still further increase their difficulties, because they do not require one-tenth part of the number of slaves for the cultivation of any other description of produce. I may be told, however, that it is in the power of the planter to emancipate the negroes if he cannot employ or support them; but there again the law interferes and prevents emancipation unless the negro can support himself, because he must otherwise become a burthen to the community. This, then, is the state of the West-India planters under the present law. Employ the negroes they cannot; emancipate them they cannot; support them they cannot; and there are I know, not one, but several, islands at the present moment in which the whole produce of the land is insufficient for the support and clothing of the negroes who are necessarily retained on it. These are the results of our regulations, of which, be it recollected, I do not complain, and which I do not wish to see altered; but this, I say, is the situation in which you have placed the West-India proprietors—these are the regulations you have imposed on them—and I think they very much strengthen the claims which, in common with all others, they have on the Parliament of the country for relief. They are the only class to which, since the Peace, no relief has been afforded. It has been frequently avowed in this House that they deserve that relief. It has been frequently promised them, but, unfortunately, taxes in this country are never remitted unless in some case of great difficulty, and when the urgency of the moment imperiously demands it; and when that moment comes, the claims of the West-Indians, however strong, or however pressing, are always deferred to the louder and more pressing clamour of those interests more immediately connected with our domestic embarrassments. The West-Indians, after long suffering and great patience, now claim from Parliament the fulfilment of a portion of its promise, and they come to us, I say, with additional claims on our justice, because of the regulations we have thought it necessary to prescribe with respect to the management of their properties. For these reasons I recommend the reductions I have proposed; and I again entreat the right hon. Gentleman to consider the nature of his plan. If that plan does not work, as I contend it will not, in the way he expects, I entreat the right hon. Gentleman to look at the consequences. The right hon. Gentleman in his Budget proposed to confer a boon on the West-Indians by the imposition of 1s. a gallon on all British spirits. It was felt, it was acknowledged to be a boon, and it would have given relief without the slightest prejudice to any other interest, however the contrary may have been supposed. But what will be the situation of the West-Indians—that boon being withdrawn, and an additional duty of sixpence imposed on rum, if the measure of the right hon. Gentleman fails as it must, to give any relief? I therefore entreat the right hon. Gentleman to adopt the measure proposed last year; for that he shall have my vote. I do not say it is the best that could be devised; but it is the only intelligible, feasible, and practicable plan which at this period of the session can be put in execution. I implore the right hon. Gentleman to consider the consequences which result from these discussions, and from this continual alteration of opinions; its effect has been, to suspend all trade at this the most active period of the year. I am now standing here as the representative of, I admit, in a general sense, all the interests in the country; but I am also the immediate Representative of the second great commercial town in this empire; and I speak the opinions of the greater portion of the extensive and important interests of that great emporium of commerce, of all those closely bound by their interests with all the West-Indian Colonies, when I say that this system of indecision, and of experiment, produces there the greatest alarm, inflicts serious injuries on commerce, and is calculated to unsettle all the transactions between man and man. Only look at the spectacle which has been produced by the way that Government have, proceeded with the Spirit-duties. When the right hon. Gentleman proposed to lay a duty of 1s. on British spirits, orders were of course sent out to the West-Indies to make more rum and less sugar. Is it nothing to these interests to have declarations, emanating from a Government like this, taken up and abandoned without system, foresight, or consideration? Look at the course that is pursued with regard to other articles. Three months ago it was announced that the growth of tobacco in this country would be encouraged under certain regulations. Orders were of course sent out to America to stop the importation of tobacco in anticipation of this change. Now, however, comes a determination that tobacco shall not be grown in this country. Is it to be conceived that a vacillation of this kind does not produce the most injurious effects on the interests of individuals? I say, Sir, it is the duty of a Government to digest its plans better, and when they are thus digested, to be more steady in its resolves. Ministers ought to come to Parliament with a fit, and proper, and well-digested system of action. Their measures should be prepared so as to effect the least possible mischief to the commerce and the existing arrangements of society whenever change is rendered necessary; and when the means of effecting that change are adopted with wisdom and foresight, they should be rigidly adhered to. In the great concerns of the general policy of this country, whether foreign or domestic, it is not fitting that temporary difficulties should be ever met by temporary expedients. We cannot manage the extensive and complicated transactions of Government in the same manner as we would manage an army, and put forth a law one day, as a kind of advanced guard, which may be ordered to draw back the next day. I am not stating my own feelings so much as the feelings of the people, who are placed in such a state of alarm and difficulty that they do not know one day how to proceed, because they know not what the next day may bring forth. It is not, therefore, in the tone of angry reproach, but of admonition, that I call on the right hon. Gentleman to abandon that course of vacillation, retractation, adaptation, and alteration, which unsettles all the transactions of commerce, and renders the measures of the Government suspected or disliked. The former mode of proceeding was much preferable; namely, that a measure should be deliberately considered by his Majesty's Government before it was brought down to that House. Infinitely superior was that to the system of introducing a plan without sufficient consideration, and then if a clamour were raised, and if petitions were presented against it, of abandoning it without any consideration at all. A great complaint has recently been made of the number of petitions presented to the House. Why, that was the necessary result of bringing forward subjects without an adequate previous investigation. I am decidedly of opinion, therefore, that a proposition should be well considered by the person who undertakes to make it, before he brings it forward, and that he should not bring it forward in an undigested state, and then allow it to be kicked out, for the purpose of substituting another. I confidently predict that the proposition now made by the right hon. Gentleman will not be found practicable in its details; and that it will occasion a considerable loss to the revenue; while, by equalizing all the duties on sugars to 20s., those evils will be avoided, and satisfaction will be given to all parties.

, before he troubled the House on the subject, wished to know what course his right hon. friend the member for Inverness, intended to pursue; whether he proposed to move the resolutions again which he had moved last year, or to adhere to those which had been ordered to be printed on Monday last, in order that the House might be fully aware of their nature.

said, he still retained the same opinion respecting the sugar-duties which he had entertained for the last two years; but he was afraid, as had been rightly stated by his right hon. friend, that at this period of the Session, and owing to the lengthened discussion to which it would give rise, that there would be little chance of carrying the measure into effect this year. He stated, therefore, that it was not his intention to bring forward the resolution, of which he had given notice, this Session; but simply move those which he had laid before the House last year. In making this admission, he did not mean at all to concede the question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—he still retained the same opinion, and he only abandoned it for the time, because he saw the extreme difficulty of attaining his object this Session, and also because he was convinced that it would be better to grant some relief than none. He should not, therefore, move his resolutions agreeably to the suggestion of his right hon. friend. He begged leave to remind the House that what he proposed last year was, to reduce the duty on West-India sugar to 20s. the cwt., and on East-India sugar to 27s., and to take off the duty on refined sugar in bond. After the able speech of the right hon. member for Liverpool, he considered that it would be only wasting the time of the House to say more than that it was his intention to oppose the resolutions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he considered them partial in principle and impracticable in detail, and because they would not produce that good which the West-India planter and the community at large had a right to expect. The right hon. Gentleman then moved, as an amendment, that all brown, Muscovado, or plain sugar, the produce of British possessions in the West-Indies or North America, or the Mauritius, should be admitted, on paying a duty of 20s. the cwt.

said, he had been anxious to ascertain what course his right hon. friend, the member for Inverness, intended to pursue, and he was obliged to his right hon. friend for having, by his answer, not only gratified his curiosity, and that of the House on the subject, but made an effectual reply to the grave admonition, if not, indeed, angry remonstrance, which his right hon. friend the member for Liverpool had just addressed to him. His right hon. friend, the member for Liverpool, had denounced his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) conduct with respect to these sugar-duties, as so undecided and vacillating as to deserve severe reprobation. Yet it now appeared, that after having received the full benefit of the admonition which that denunciation involved, his right hon. friend, the member for Inverness, came down that evening with the intention of supporting resolutions differing altogether from those which he had proposed no longer ago than on that day week! He did not blame his right hon. friend for this change, or for deferring to the opinion of his right hon. friend, the member for Liverpool; but he certainly called on his right hon. friend to submit with him to the admonition which his right hon. friend the member for Liverpool seemed to wish to bestow on him exclusively. He was certainly as much authorised to make the change which he had proposed in his measures, as his right hon. friend was in not seeing on Monday last the difficulties in the way of imposing an ad valorem duty on sugar which had since flashed upon his mind. If his right hon. friend saw good reason for believing that his present proposition would be more conducive to the general interest than that which he had so recently made, other persons were surely entitled to a similar liberty of thinking and acting, and he might claim for himself, without being subject to the charge of indecision and vacillation, the right to propose any alterations in a measure in its progress through Parliament, by which, in his opinion, it might be amended.^* He would now beg leave to offer to the House a few observations on the objections which had been made by his right hon. friend the member for Liverpool to the plan recommended by his Majesty's Government. The first was, that it would confer a benefit on the newly-acquired colonies, and not on the more ancient possessions of the Crown. He freely confessed, that in forming an opinion with respect to the nature and amount of the duties on sugar, he had made no distinction between the old and the new possessions of the Crown. He knew no reason why he should select any one class of those possessions for particular favour, or why he should not consider them as all equally entitled to the consideration and protection of Parliament. He by no means, however, concurred in the justice of his right hon. friend's argument, that the proposed measure would aggravate the distresses of the old colonies. He could not allow that the proposed benefit would be exclusively confined to the newly-acquired colonies, or that the old colonies would not derive any benefit from the reduction of duties on low-priced sugars, which was what his resolutions would effect. Complaints of the most urgent character had been made by those who produced the coarser sugars, and overloaded as the market was with them, he was of opinion that a measure which would tend to relieve the market of them would benefit the producers of the finer qualities of sugar. The next objection made by his right hon. friend was, that it would be found impracticable to apply the proposed scale of duties to the different classes of sugar, so as to be effective in producing a revenue. He was perfectly aware when a change was made in duties which had been long established, and which had been collected in a particular fashion, that any new arrangement must be attended by some slight inconveniences, by some doubts and difficulties, aggravated probably by those persons who might not find any advantage in the change. But he confessed that he was not aware of any reason why ad valorem duties might not as easily be collected on sugar as on other commodities. The same objection as that made by his right hon. friend, the member for Liverpool, was equally applicable to the resolutions which had been proposed so recently as Monday last, by his right hon. friend the member for Inverness. With respect to an ad valorem duty, it must be recollected that it was not necessary that the sugars subjected to it should be estimated precisely at their price in the market. It would be enough if they came within a certain limit of price, affording a sufficient latitude to facilitate the operation of collecting the duty. And although his right hon. friend, the member for Liverpool, had stated various cases in which doubts might arise as to the precise duty which it would be right to impose; he could tell his right hon. friend that those who were conversant with the subject, and were in the practice of collecting duties of a similar description, would have no difficulty in drawing up a tabular statement of the duties which each class of sugars ought to pay, showing both to the dealer and to the officer the just course to be pursued. As to collusion and fraud, there was no doubt that collusion and fraud might take place in levying all ad valorem duties. But had that ever been considered a valid objection to the imposition of such duties? Had it not been found possible to counteract the disposition to collusion and fraud, and to levy such duties equally and fairly? Look at other articles on which an ad valorem duty had been imposed. Look at cotton; was there not an equal disposition to collusion and fraud in levying the ad valorem duties on cotton; and had not means been successfully taken to guard the public from its ill effects? The next objection which his right hon. friend had made respected the drawback. His right hon. friend thought that it would confer too great a benefit on the exporter of West-India sugar; that he would receive a larger amount of drawback than, under the present rate of duty, he was entitled to receive; that, in fact, it would amount to an excessive bounty on the exportation of sugar. If this were a general remission of the sugar duties, then he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would admit that too great a bounty might be given to the exportation of refined sugar. But the case was different when the remission was confined to the lower description of sugars. His right hon. friend knew that the refiners did not use the lower descriptions of sugar at present, because it paid so much duty, and because the quantity of refined sugar produced from it was so small. If by the proposed remission of the duties on the lower kinds of sugar they should come into the hands of the refiners, and be extensively used for their trade, the drawback would not be open to his right hon. friend's objection. If, he were not mistaken, he had the authority of his right hon. friend himself for not thinking the principle or effect of an increase of drawback so prejudicial as some persons might suppose. If he were not greatly mistaken, at one period, when this very question of the West-India sugar duties came under consideration, at a time when his right hon. friend was in office, he was not indisposed to give an increased drawback on other classes of sugar which were admitted into this country. He knew too well his right hon. friend's deep acquaintance with commercial matters, to suppose that he would for a moment adopt what was calculated to be prejudicial. There was another objection, which was, that as sugar had hitherto been sold at what was called the long price, it would hereafter be sold at what was called the short price. To the public it was of no importance whether the sugar was sold with the duty or without it. But to the West-India planter few circumstances could be more advantageous. At present he had an interest, somewhat distinct from that of the merchant, and rather in favour of sales at the short price; for he had first to pay the commission to the merchant, and then the duty, and to risk the market price, duty and all, if the customer failed in his payments. The planter would be therefore better off by selling at the short price, for he would incur no risk as to the amount of the duty. He would now say a few words on the plan which had been suggested by his right hon. friend, the member for Liverpool, and moved by his right hon. friend, the member for Inverness. He did not quarrel with the plan, except as it would affect our general financial relations. When that plan was discussed, on a former occasion, he had stated, that a general reduction of duty at that time would have risked a reduction in the Revenue of above a million, and that the Revenue was not in a state to run such a hazard. If he were now able to sacrifice a million or a million and a half of the public Revenue, he would not give his right hon. friend the trouble of moving his Amendment. Having, however, made a reduction in the Revenue of 3,300,000l. he was not prepared to risk a further reduction of above 1,000,000l. For this reason he had felt himself bound so to shape his plan as not to endanger a loss greater than the country could bear. In limiting the apprehended diminution to 200,000l., he had gone to the full extent of what the public interest would permit, at the same time that he afforded a material relief, both to the proprietor and to the consumer of sugar. His right hon. friend proposed to reduce the duty 7s., and seemed to think that the half of the loss would be compensated by additional consumption, while the deficiency would be covered by the increase of the duties on spirits. He did not believe, however, that the increased consumption would or could go to that extent in the first year, and in the present state of the expenditure he could not allow that it was not material if the Revenue derived from sugar should fall off an additional 250,000l. If not material with respect to sugar, it could not be so as to other articles, and if he were to yield to this, the general argument, it would be applied to every other branch of the Re- venue. He by no means differed from the right hon. Gentleman on the principle of the expediency of all practicable reduction. He had always been anxious to relieve several large classes of the community from the evil which high duties inflicted upon them. There were great differences of opinion with respect to the effect that the reduction of the duty on the lower descriptions of sugar would have on its consumption by the poorer classes of the community in this country. Some thought that its consumption might be much increased; others that it was an article in such general use, that its consumption would be very little increased. Let the present proposition be tried. By relieving the lower descriptions of sugar from a high duty, they might perhaps be brought within the means of a class from whom alone an extensive consumption could be anticipated. But to take off 10s. of the duty on the superior descriptions of sugar would not at all increase the consumption of sugar by the higher orders. The consumption, by the higher orders, of the finer sugars as compared with the consumption by the lower orders of the coarser sugars was very trifling, but if the consumption of the latter could be increased by a diminution of duty on the sugars which they were accustomed to purchase, the effect might be considerable. What he wished was, to see how the plan now proposed would work, in order to aseertain to what degree the relief which it was so desirable to afford might be extended without hazard to the Revenue. That was the principle on which he had framed his resolutions. They were calculated to relieve the pressure under which the commodity at present laboured, and enable Parliament to judge of the expediency of any similar proceeding in future. His right hon. friend the member for Liverpool had charged him with vacillation and indecision. When he had once brought a measure before Parliament, to express a sincere opinion that it was susceptible of improvement, and to act upon that opinion, might be a fault; but it was a much greater fault to press forward, from an absurd view of political consistency, any class of measures which subsequent consideration might induce the proposer to believe would not be productive of the benefit which he originally expected. He had departed from his first propositions for the reasons which he had already stated. The change in his right hon. friend the member for Inverness was, however, much greater than his change; and when his right hon. friend, the member for Liverpool, taxed him with having produced great uncertainty and stagnation in the sugar trade by his propositions, he would ask, in return, whether any other proposed alteration of the duties would not have produced similar uncertainty and stagnation? It was at his right hon. friend's suggestion that he had postponed the subject for a week, in order to give time for its better consideration. But his right hon. friend must also know that that delay could not but be productive of uncertainty and stagnation in the trade, the persons interested in which would naturally wait for the decision of the House on the subject before they engaged in any new speculations. Such was the necessary consequence of all propositions involving an alteration in the duties on any commodities. It had occurred with respect to beer—it had occurred with respect to leather—and of course it must occur with respect to sugar. If, however, the House gave to the Resolutions which he had proposed the sanction of its authority, all this uncertainty and agitation would speedily subside; and he was convinced that the operation of these Resolutions, carried into effect, as they might be, by able hands, would afford relief to that part of the West-India trade which was peculiarly suffering, and would be a valuable guide to the House with reference to any future proceedings on the subject.

^* The vacillation imputed to Mr. C. Grant by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which is scarcely perceptible in the debate, was this;—last year he proposed the following Resolutions.—

"That the duty on West-India sugar should be reduced to 20s. a cwt.

"That the duty on East-India sugar should be reduced to 25s. cwt.

"That all sugars should be admitted to be refined in bond without duty or drawback."

Last Monday he submitted to the House the following Resolutions, as intended to be proposed by him this day.—

"That it is expedient to reduce the duty on sugar.

"That it is expedient to levy the duty on sugar according to the value of the different qualities of the article, rather than by a fixed rate, adopting such discriminating scale between West-Indian, East-Indian, and foreign sugar, as may seem proper, in reference to local and peculiar circumstances.

"That it is expedient to admit all sugars to be refined, in bond, without duty or drawback."

And on this day he gave up this plan, for the reasons briefly stated in the text, and adopted the proposition of Mr. Huskisson.

supported the Amendment. He thought, that if Mauritius sugar were included in the average, it would have the effect of very much reducing it. Great inconvenience, too, would arise from the increased supply of inferior sugar, and from the perpetual change to which the average would be subjected. For if in one week the average were raised by an arrival of fine sugar, it might be lowered in the next by an arrival of bad sugar, and thus might a man be compelled to purchase under one duty and to sell under another. He also contended that the right hon. Gentleman's plan would, if carried into effect, alter the whole scale and confuse the commercial transactions of this country. He acknowledged that the object of the measure was to afford relief to the West- India interests, which were certainly in a state of lamentable depression; but even viewing it in that light he thought it objectionable, as temporary and confined, while it was evident that something permanent and general was wanting. In fact, the only way to get our West-India trade upon a fair footing was, to afford it protection from the unfair competition of the foreign Slave-trade, and so to place our commercial transactions in a state of security, which could be only done by a real and extensive reduction of the duties. He highly approved of the taking off the 7s. duty, but more should be done, or the difficulties under which our West-India islands laboured would never be conquered. The source of these difficulties, which he begged leave to explain, was this.—At the Peace, there was a large surplus of sugar brought from them, beyond what the consumption of this country could take off, and which was exported to the Continent, and sold there at fair prices. Notwithstanding the consumption had increased in this country, since that time, from 2,100,000 cwt. to 3,800,000 cwt., in the last year there was still a surplus here of about 800,000 cwt., which must find a market on the Continent. There it came into competition with the sugars of the foreign colonies. The planters of Brazil, of Cuba, &c., who had carried on the Slave-trade to an enormous extent, had thereby been enabled to supply the continental markets at so cheap a rate, that our sugar could only find a sale at the most reduced prices, and these reduced prices necessarily affected the whole scale of prices here. Had we not admitted Mauritius sugar in 1825, we should now have had no surplus. How was this state of things to be remedied? Owing to the great reduction of price, which had been all at the expense of the producer, for the duty of 27s. per cwt. was maintained, the same as when higher prices prevailed, the consumption had extended, and the Revenue had augmented nearly 2,000,000l. since the Peace, but the planters had been ruined. Within the last nine months the continental competition had lowered prices here from 8s. to 10s. per cwt. more than at the commencement of last year. What had been the consequence? Whilst ruin was inflicted on our colonies, the consumption and Revenue in this year were greatly increased. By returns on the Table, it appeared that in the first quarter of the year, ending the 5th of April, the consumption had increased 160,000 cwt. beyond any former period; and a further return, up to the 1st of May, shewed the increase, at that period, to be nearly 220,000 cwt. It was clear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had in his coffers, at least 200,000l. increase of Revenue from sugar, up to the 1st of May, beyond the estimate of his budget; and the consumption was still going on in the same ratio. The small reduction of duty, proposed by the Amendment, of 7s. per cwt. would not immediately benefit the colonist, but it would admit of a further reduction of price, without further disadvantage to him; it would probably get rid of the surplus that now weighed down the markets, and having got rid of that, the trade would admit of regulations which might greatly extend it. He would next suggest, for example, that if the sugars of the Slave-colonies of Spain and Portugal were to be admitted into this country, a preliminary step should be, to demand a pledge from these countries, that they would use their best endeavours to put down the abominable traffic in human blood which they now unblushingly sanctioned. The sugar-trade might then be extended, to the advantage of Europe, and the great interest of the British Revenue.

said, he was unfortunately opposed to the right hon. Gentleman on this question; but it was a consolation to him to know that he held opinions on the subject similar to those of practical men—of brokers, merchants, and all others possessing commercial information with whom he had conversed. Had he not happened to have been present at the commencement of the debate, he should have been led into a great error respecting the object of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He really should have supposed, from the tone and tenor of his reply, that he was advocating, not the Resolutions he had propounded to the House, but the proposition of the hon. member for Inverness, which suggested the imposition of an ad valorem duty. He had doubts whether an ad valorem duty were advisable; it was not, however, necessary to enter on that subject at present. It was sufficient to remark that the right hon. Gentleman seemed to dilate upon his plan, as if it was simply a pro- posal for an ad valorem duty. But such it was not; for it possessed all the disadvantages of an ad valorem duty, and in any others which were peculiar to itself. Again, he had to observe that the right hon. Gentleman had altogether passed over the difficulties suggested by his right hon. friend, as certain to attend the collection of the Revenue. The right hon. Gentleman had contented himself with simply saying, "it may appear difficult to you, Gentlemen of the House of Commons, but I am assured by practical men that it is not difficult." He knew, however, that there were practical men in Mincing-lane as well as in the Customs, and they were decidedly of opinion that the plan was impracticable. Besides, he was by no means convinced that there had not been a little message to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, from the practical men at the Customs, stating that the plan was in its details impracticable, and that his scale could not be acted on. Now, touching on this, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, how he could possibly make out, that the seller derived equal advantage by disposing of his sugar at 54s. and at 47s. To him the calculation was incomprehensible; and he believed, if the scheme could be carried into effect, that it would make all sugars of the same price in the market, and that Government would be made the possessor of all the sugars imported. It was his deliberate opinion, that the plan was unintelligible and impracticable. If, however, the Chancellor of the Exchequer possessed an argument to show his scheme was practicable, he certainly ought to bring it forward for the benefit of those who were not so enlightened upon the subject. But admitting that the plan was practicable, where was the benefit of it, and in what was it superior—or rather, was it not in all respects inferior to the proposition of the right hon. member for Inverness? The Gentlemen connected with the West-India interest ought to pause before they consented to regard this measure as likely to be beneficial to the West-India cultivation. It was true that the new colonies might derive some advantage from it; but how would it be with the old—with those which produced fine sugars? The quantity of sugar in the market would be greatly increased, while the price would be diminished. This appeared even from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement, who allowed that the prices of all sugars must be reduced. Besides, it was to be remembered that this measure included the Mauritius sugars; and it appeared that within the last six months 18,000 tons of Mauritius sugar had been imported into the country: that was to say, one-fifth or one-sixth of the whole consumption of the kingdom—and all this at little more than 20s. per cwt. Next he had to ask why should the right hon. Gentleman exclude East-Indian interests from the benefits of his plan; and especially, since some time ago a proportional relief had been promised to them? He alluded to what had taken place on the 29th of May, when the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald pledged themselves to the East-India Committee, that before the close of the Session, the sugar-trade generally should be taken into consideration, with a view to affording relief to the interests which were depressed. He therefore thought he had a right to express his surprise at the right hon. Gentleman proposing this measure without any allusion to the East-Indian interests. At least the right hon. member for Inverness's plan had the advantage of including them. He must also beg to express his surprise at what the right hon. Gentleman had said respecting drawbacks. The right hon. Gentleman said, that after the duty had been paid, a drawback of 27s. would not be money taken out of the pockets of the country for the advantage of foreigners. Notwithstanding this assertion, he begged leave to inform the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he had herd from a man much interested in it, that if the draw back of 27s. were continued, he would have a bonus of 9s. 8d. on every hundred weight of sugar he exported. He hoped, therefore, that the country would not consent to be taxed for the benefit of foreigners. In conclusion he protested against the right hon. Gentleman's proposal; first, as unintelligible; second, as impracticable; and lastly, unjust to the East-Indian interests, partial to the West-Indian, and injurious to the country generally. Before sitting down, he wished to say one word. The right hon. Gentleman had taunted his right hon. friend with altering his proposition. But what had been the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman himself? Had not the vacillation of Government been most unworthy, and most injurious to the commercial interests of the country? At the commencement of this Session, when he moved for a committee upon taxation, the right hon. Gentleman, in an anxious voice and frightened tone, deprecated all meddling with the sources of the Revenue. "You must not touch sugar, said he; you must not touch rum; you must not touch any of the great articles of our commerce; for by your interference you will throw the whole commercial relations of the country into a state of utter confusion." But what did the right hon. Gentleman do himself? Had not his whole course for the Session been one scene of injurious meddling with the sources of our Revenue; in proof of this he had only to cite the still agitated and undecided questions respecting the duties on rum, on spirits, on tobacco, and now on the subject before the House. He concluded by saying he would support the Amendment.

hoped that the House would not rely on the dictum of the hon. member for Dover, who boldly asserted that this measure was impracticable. That rested on nothing better than the authority of sugar-brokers in Mincing-lane. The House would, on the contrary, trust, he believed, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had not brought the measure forward without duly consulting the practical officers of the Customs on the subject. The demands of the planter were founded in justice, and his case required commiseration. The grower of the lowest-priced sugars lost fifty-five per cent by his sales; the grower of the finest not above fifteen: such was the effect of the present bad times. In the days of West-India prosperity there was only a difference of 6s.; for the best sugar then sold at 38s., and the worst at 32s.; or to put it at present in another point of view, there was 20l. more of money value in a hogshead of the best sugar than in a hogshead of the worst. He had heard that an estate producing 130 hogsheads of sugar per year brought the proprietor in debt 1,200l.; but not to overstate the case, he would mention what he knew. An estate producing 150 hogsheads of sugar, selling at 48s. per cwt. brought the proprietor in debt about 35l. Three such estates, twenty-five years ago, would have placed a man in the highest affluence. Now, the more he had of them the greater was his encumbrance, and the more certain his distress. Some of the proprietors of such estates were so reduced, that, being unable to make remittances, their children had been driven from the boarding-school, and in some instances had actually been lodged in the workhouse. Much had been said against Ministers for abandoning the proposed arrangement of duties on rum and other spirits, but in fact, they had not calculated on such a storm as had arisen. They were sensible how unwise it was to attempt to legislate in the face of hostile public opinion. He certainly was sorry that it was not possible to give the West-Indians relief, on account of the danger to the national Revenue. He knew that the public creditor must be paid—that there was a positive undertaking that his property should be preserved—but it was right to remember at the same time, that there was an implied engagement to protect all other property; that all government was for the preservation of persons and property; and therefore, that West-India property, no more than funded property, was to be confiscated by severe taxation. He would accept the relief now proposed, but he hoped that his Majesty's Ministers would find it expedient next Session to give still more extensive and effectual relief.

was in favour of the Amendment. He contended that East-India sugar should be admitted. The Indian manufactures had been destroyed by the admission of our goods at two-and-a-half per cent into India; yet we refused to receive the staple commodity of that country, unless at a duty which amounted to a positive prohibition. He should support the Amendment, though he should have liked it better if the duties on all kinds of sugar had been equalised.

observed, that the West-India colonies were most important to this country, both in a military and naval point of view. Such was the opinion of all the officers who had served on that station: and not only did they require our protection on that ground, but also on account of the quantity of manufactures which they took from us. As long as the colonial system was to be supported, these colonies must have their interests attended to. He doubted much whether any considerable benefit would be conferred upon the West-India trade by the measure of the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, he believed that the right hon. Gentleman had been driven into this measure by an influence somewhat unconstitutionally exercised out of doors, and in his opinion the Irish Members did not consult their own interest in exercising that influence. He trusted that the House would not permit such an influence to be successfully employed. It was now proposed to give a great preference to the sugars imported from the Mauritius; but it ought to be recollected that we sent but little, very little of our manufactures to the Mauritius, and we obtained no rum from them. He was for continuing the old system.

said, that he felt called on to make a few observations, in consequence of those which had fallen from the hon. member for Dover, respecting the pledge supposed to have been given upon the subject of East-India sugars by the late President of the Board of Trade. He sincerely wished that that right hon. Gentleman were present to answer for himself; but he was convinced that he had not gone further than this—that whenever he, as President of the Board of Trade, should have the opportunity of advising the Government with respect to the remission of taxes, the case of the sugar duties,—as well upon the point of the general reduction, as upon that of a nearer approximation of the duties upon the East and West India sugars—should be taken into consideration by him, and forcibly urged upon the Government. He was convinced that his right hon. friend could not have offered, in the present state of the Revenue, to reduce a duty that would have put in jeopardy a sum of 1,200,000l. a year. He (Mr: C.) concurred in the propriety of the partial remission of the duty, but what were the modes in which this was to be done? There were but two. Either a reduction of the duty on all sugars, by which we should place a large revenue in jeopardy, at the same time that the reduction would be so small that nobody would thank us for it, or by removing the duty from that particular portion of the community which was most subject to pressure. When this measure was charged with being one of partial relief, his answer was, that in that consisted its utility. The pressure was partial, so must the relief be. Some hon. Members supposed that the Revenue would not be hazarded by the first of these measures, because, as they asserted, the consumption of sugar would be much increased, and they expected that the amount of duty would rather be increased than lessened, though its rate was lowered. How did they attempt to prove that position? By stating that the consumption of sugar would increase among the lower orders; for among the higher they admitted it would remain much the same as at present. He doubted that such an increase would take place as to be sufficient to make up the amount of diminished revenue, and he doubted also whether the proposed reduction would relieve the planter as much as was imagined. But the present measure tended to reduce the price to those lower classes amongst which the encreased consumption is expected. The principle of the measure proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was good, and it would be followed by an Act which would render it still more beneficial to the sugar-refiner. In consequence of the provisions of the last Act, the sugar-refiner had been compelled to export the bastard sugar, and to employ only the finer sorts in his manufactory. That obligation would now no longer be necessary, and the sugar refiner, would be able to work with greater profit. Some hon. Members blamed the measure because it did not go on the principle of an ad valorem duty. An ad valorem duty was a duty that became higher and higher in proportion to the higher price of the sugar, by which the difficulty of procuring the article was made greater to the consumer. Such a principle of taxation did not appear to him to be fair, and he therefore objected to it. With regard to the drawback, he would admit that there would be a bonus of 1s. 8d. operating in that way after this measure passed; but that would be for the general advantage of the West-India colonies. He should be glad if it were possible at present to go further in the way of reducing the duties on West-India sugars, and if it were possible, to put upon an equality in that respect the duties upon sugars from both parts of the globe; but as he did not think so, he should oppose the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.

explained. He read a memorandum of the interview last year between a deputation from the East-India merchants and the then president of the Board of Trade, Mr. V. Fitzgerald, purporting that the right hon. Gentleman then promised, that in the next Session of Parliament the question of a general reduction, both in the duties on West-India and East-India sugars, should be taken into consideration, and that the interests of the East Indies should not be overlooked. It was rather hard, he added, that, under such circumstances, instead of their interests having been consulted, that they should now find their produce burthened with what amounted to an additional discriminating duty of 7s., and they had a right to complain that faith had not been kept with them.

had not such confidence in the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to be induced to vote for his measure first, and consent to wait for his subsequent explanation of it. His proposition was only a few days old,—it introduced a new system of taxation, and a new mode of estimating the value of the article in this trade; and it was not therefore fair to be called upon to assent to it after only two or three days' consideration. It went also to alter the whole system of the trade; and were they to assent to it because they were told that the right hon. Gentleman had two or three measures still behind the scenes, such as that with regard to refiners, referred to by the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, which were intended to comfort and console the West-India interests? The question before the House was, whether they would support the Amendment, and reduce 7s. of the duty, or assent to a measure on a principle which all merchants connected with the trade had pronounced to be partial, unjust, and impracticable. The right hon. member for Liverpool had shown many difficulties connected with this measure, all of which had before been represented to him (Mr. Bright), and he had been requested to press them on the attention of the House. The measures of the right hon. Gentleman, though they might not have been intended to produce such an effect, were calculated to spread dissension amongst the West-India interests, but they had, to their great honour, united in their opposition to this measure. In his opinion, too, the law held out a bounty on the fabrication of bad sugars, and that was in every way an evil. There was not a greater curse on trade than the interference of the Excise in its management; and he trusted that the merchants engaged in this trade would not permit the Excise to interfere with them. The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down doubted whether the increased consumption would make up for the diminution in the duty; but surely he could not have entertained that doubt, if he had carefully examined the returns even within the last three months. The East-Indian merchants were taken by surprise by this measure; and the right hon. Gentleman must not wonder that they felt disposed rather to oppose than support it. The West-India interests also had every reason to complain of the proposed additional duty on Rum, which would tend still more to prevent the consumption of that article. There was no interest which could be satisfied with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's plan, and he should certainly support the Amendment.

observed, that the Government had failed to redeem the pledge which it had given, to bring the subject fairly and fully before the House this year with regard to East and West India sugars. They had last year promised a full consideration of the subject this Session. There were three interests affected by it. First, there were the people of this country; then the people connected with the West Indies; and lastly, those connected with the East Indies. All parties were entitled to equal advantages, and they should be extended to them; but the right hon. Gentleman's proposition would not benefit the people of this country, and would not benefit the East-Indians. His measure only went to afford relief to one class, and partial relief was always unjust. After the sound principles laid down by the right hon. Gentleman last year, with respect to duties, his present proposition was most surprising. He wished in particular to call the attention of the House to the effect of this measure with respect to East-India sugars. The duty on them at present was 37s. Now, under the proposed measure of the right hon. Gentleman, when the duty on West-India sugar would be reduced to 24s., the duty on East-India sugars would be forty-five per cent greater than it; when reduced to 22s. the duty on East-India sugars would be fifty-four per cent greater; when reduced to 21s. the difference would be sixty-four per cent; and when reduced to 20s., which was the place that the right hon. Gentleman stopped at in his scale, the difference between the duties on West and East Indian sugars would be eighty-five per cent. This was a violation of the pledge which had been given by Government on this subject. He thought the House ought to adopt the Amendment of the right hon. member for Inveness, though he should have been better pleased had the duties on both kinds of sugar been equalized. As things now stood, the East-India interest was injured, while that of the West Indies was not benefitted. The price of sugars must depend, not on the sugars of the East Indies, but on those brought from the Brazils and Cuba, and in both these places they could raise sugars cheaper than in the West Indies. He trusted, therefore, that this system of injustice would be no longer continued towards the East Indies. A great deal of irritation existed in this country against the West-India interest, in consequence of the belief that the high sugar duties were kept up solely for their benefit. He did not believe that that interest derived any real benefit from these high duties, and he hoped that they would be reduced.

said, that the hon. Member could not have been in the House early in the evening, when his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated, that an alteration was also to be made in the duty on East-India sugar, with a view to adapt the duty upon it to the proposed reduced duty upon West-India sugar. The duties would stand upon the same relative footing, and only the hon. Member's absence, therefore, accounted for the erroneous calculations he had made, as to the supposed increased difference which would be produced between those duties. The House, it appeared to him, had now to decide upon two measures—one, that proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was a cautious measure of reduction of duty, with a view not to risk too much of revenue—a matter which, under the present circumstances of the country, most of those who had addressed the House admitted to be of considerable importance. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to apply the relief which he was enabled to afford to those who were most distressed and most embarrassed, and whose distress and embarrassment materially affected the remainder of the body. His right hon. friend, who had introduced, not his own motion, but the motion of the right hon. Member beside him, proposed to make a sweeping reduction of duty, taking the chance of what might be the ultimate loss. An ad valorem duty had been objected to—a fixed duty had been thought to be more expedient. It might be so; but an ad valorem duty had been decided upon to endeavour to afford relief where relief appeared most wanted. In all the communications addressed to himself and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the greatest disadvantage was stated to have arisen from the low-priced sugar, because the refiners could not make any use of it; and this failure occurring in an original branch of the trade, could not but press on such a class as the West-India proprietors, who had an interest in every species of the commodity. It was stated by some persons, that this was to be treated as a kind of contest between our old and new sugar colonies; but he, like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was ready to admit that no difference should be allowed between them—that they were entitled to equal protection and care; and that any Government would be guilty of a partial injustice that would act in a contrary manner. But was it not true that the old islands were interested in the question of the old and new sugars? and he would put this particularly with respect to Jamaica, the interests of which it was most important to protect. It was undoubted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did intend to benefit the low sugars; and in making calculations as between sugar at 54s. and 47s. it was clear that the proposed regulation would be most favourable to the sugar at 47s. His right hon. friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in opening this measure to the House, had put it upon the ground of affording relief to those sugars that now laboured under the greatest difficulty, and did not hesitate to consider them before those which were secure of a better sale. The greatest objection, and the one urged most vehemently, was the difficulty of carrying this plan into execution. But if the principle were one which the House ought to adopt, the plan should be agreed upon, though the difficulty should be admitted. He, however, denied that there was any practical difficulty or impossibility. Gentlemen in that House put the case upon the difficulty, as between merchant and merchant, or merchant and officer, as to the scale of duty. Although, however, the subject did not belong to his own department, he had had several communications with persons conversant with this branch of trade, and they, notwithstanding all the objections stated by hon. Gentlemen, have felt no difficulty at all on the subject; and each of them came with a table in his hand, to show how the thing might be made to work. He did not pre- tend to be practically conversant with the subject, but relying on the knowledge and information of practical men, who considered that the plan could be easily effected, he could not suffer the objection made in the House to have any weight with him. Another objection was, that there would be a return of drawback claimed exceeding the amount of the duty paid. But his right hon. friend could not have applied himself to the consideration of this question with his usual accuracy, when he calculated the surplus this way at 8s. or 9s. per cwt. If it were now admitted that there was a bounty, in point of fact, on the drawback; if that were now admitted, the bounty gained by this measure could, under no circumstances, exceed the reduction of duty proposed, but generally, and he might say always, could not possibly equal that sum; and the hon. member for Dover, in consequence of his being too practical a man not to know this, had retracted his original doctrine: it was known that raw sugar sold for the same price, both in the home and foreign market, and that fact put an end to the question of a bounty. It was true that there had been a bounty—namely, when the duty was reduced from 30s. to 27s. then there was a bounty of 3s.; and it was also true, that after this there existed a difference between the prices of the home and foreign market, by which the British planter benefitted. But that difference no longer existed. His right hon. friend had remarked with too much asperity on that part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's plan, which he said would cause an advantage to the exporter of 8s. or 9s. But the opinion of persons of observation was, that it would not amount to more than 1s. 6d. Even on the mere supposition that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would adopt as vicious a system as that of giving a drawback greater than the amount of duty, he wished to remind his right hon. friend of one circumstance. When that Gentleman had been a member of the Government, and his advice was taken, a plan had been formed, and communications entered into with the West-India interest, that there should be three rates of duty—viz. 27s. on the West-India sugars, 31s. on East-India, and 32s., upon all foreign sugars, with a bounty of 32s. on all sugars exported. Thus giving a bounty of 32s. on all exports, although the duty levied would have been lower than that amount. Formerly all sugars derived equal advantage from the low duty, but the proposition at present was the drawback to all that was exported, which was, in general, that of a refuse description, too bad for the refiners, and which, if manufactured in this country, would not give an adequate produce. He believed that the refiner, who used the low-priced sugars, would not be a gainer at all. But to suppose that he could gain to the amount of 8s. or 9s. his right hon. friend would find, on inquiry, was quite an illusion. His right hon. friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had been accused by the right hon. member for Liverpool of vacillation—of unsteadiness, which was both a discredit to the Government, and an injury to the people. But he would ask any one who knew the progress of that House with respect to financial questions, whether it was a ground of accusation that a Minister, on discovering that the plan he had originally intended to act upon was injurious, should abandon it? Such, indeed, was the course pursued by all who studied to ascertain what was best for the country; and he asked whether that was not the best plan? He would, for instance, remind the right hon. member for Liverpool of the various changes he himself had been obliged to make in his plans with respect to the measures he had introduced to the House. The hon. member for Dover accused the Chancellor of the Exchequer vehemently, because he contrasted the change now made by his right hon. friend, and his suspension of opinion on one particular branch of trade, with the severity that his own motion met with when he brought forward a plan of a general nature. But the case was extremely different, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer only suspended opinion upon one point, while the hon. member for Dover's motion went to suspend opinion upon all the sources of revenue in the country. The hon. Member's motion did not refer merely to beer, or to spirits, but went to suspend the hopes and fears, and opinions, of all classes in the community. The right hon. member for Inverness was not sufficiently explanatory as to the extent of the Resolution now submitted by him. He had moved only one, which professed to be but a part of a series. On a former occasion—which already had been referred to that evening—the right hon. Gentleman had proposed that foreign sugar should be admitted at a duty of 28s.; his plan having been, that West-India sugar should be admitted at 20s., East-India at 25s., and foreign sugar at 28s. Well, that did not appear to be his right hon. friend's proposition to-night; and he would only beg to ask, what it was, more especially as he had mentioned that this was but one of a series of Resolutions.

said, that his first Resolution was, that the duty on all sugar imported from the West-Indies and the Mauritius should be 20s., and that the duty on East-India sugar should be reduced from 37s. to 25s. per cwt. He had also another Resolution, in which his right hon. friend concurred—that of allowing sugar to be refined in bond. This was the scope of what he intended to propose.

begged his right hon. friend's pardon; but as that was the end of his hon. friend's proposed Resolutions, which he was glad to hear, it would save him the necessity of going into the question of foreign sugar.

had said nothing respecting foreign sugars, his Resolutions referring only to sugars imported from the West Indies, the Mauritius, and the East Indies.

.—The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in introducing an ad valorem duty, had stated that his object was to afford practical relief; and he concurred in his views, and believed that an ad valorem duty, limited within the extent he had gone to—an extent not too greatly risking the revenue of the country, would afford more relief than any other that could be resorted to. He did not mean to say that parties would not be relieved if a greater reduction were made in the duty, but the whole question was, whether, under the present circumstances of the country, the House ought to venture on a greater reduction; and whether his right hon. friend would be justified if he should go as far as to take off 7s. or 15s., as had been required elsewhere. No one was more aware than himself of the benefit of a reduction of duty in order to promote consumption; but when, by giving up 7s. per cwt., it would require an increased consumption of 1,200,000 cwt. of sugar to cover a deficiency of 800,000l. in the revenue, he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be at all justified in putting so much to hazard. An argument in favour of a possible increase of revenue had been drawn from what had occurred within the last two months. But any Minister who would calculate from the returns of two, or even four months, as to what the amount of revenue in the year would be, would be justly exposed to very great censure. The utmost expected to be gained by the new duty on Spirits came to 200,000l., while the loss calculated to arise by the new system of sugar duties was 400,000l.; so that there was thus a sum of 200,000l. hazarded in the hope that it would be repaid by additional consumption, and at the same time afford a relief to the West-India interests. To go beyond that, his right hon. friend would not be justified. For all these reasons he should vote against the Resolution of the right hon. member for Inverness.

could not vote either for the original Motion or for the Amendment. The first was impracticable, and the last put in hazard a larger amount of revenue than the country could afford at this moment to lose. Notwithstanding what had been just said by the right hon. Gentleman, respecting the opinion of experienced persons out of doors, he had not heard one Member, practically acquainted with the subject, assert that the plan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer could be executed. An ad valorem duty on sugar could not be collected, for although tea was liable to an ad valorem duty, it was imported by one corporate body, and sold in one way, so that the amount of duty was at once ascertainable. If sugar could be so imported and so sold, the difficulty of an ad valorem duty would be at an end. He had always thought the contest between East and West India sugar in the home market most absurd, because the price of both was regulated by the market to which the surplus were sent. If the surplus were sent to Hamburgh or Amsterdam, the price at home must be regulated by the price of that surplus abroad. He did not think that the measure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was calculated to give any extensive relief to the West-India planter, unless the monopoly of the home market could at the same time be secured to him. It was also necessary to consider the relief that ought to be given to consumers of sugar, and in that respect he thought the proposition would do little. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last had given no sufficient answer to the right hon. member for Liverpool, on the point of draw-backs and bounties; and it seemed very clear that an exporter would obtain an advantage of about 7s. per cwt. As he had before remarked, the country, in its present state, ought not to run the risk of sacrificing the revenue it would relinquish by reducing the duty on sugar, as was suggested in the Resolution of the right hon. member for Inverness.

said, that he wished to say a few words on the last point to which the hon. member for Callington had adverted, and which he considered to be by far the most important consideration which had yet been introduced into the debate. That point was simply this—was it the duty of the House, in the present state of the finances of the country, and after the remission of taxation which had already been made in this Session, to run the risk of impairing the revenue further, by making the reduction on those duties which his right hon. friend proposed? The taxes which had been already remitted, by the abolition of the duties on Beer and Leather, amounted to 3,300,000l. His right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had told the House that he expected that loss of revenue to be compensated by the new duties on Spirits, to the amount of 400,000l., and on Stamps to the amount of 200,000l., leaving a total loss of revenue amounting to 2,700,000l. His right hon. friend behind him now proposed another remission of taxes to the amount of 1,200,000l. looking only to the compensation to be derived from the additional duty on Spirits, which was calculated to produce 200,000l.; thus proposing, in reality, another reduction of taxes to no less an amount than 1,000,000l. His right hon. friend expressed a hope that the sum so lost to the Revenue would be made up by the duties paid on the increased consumption of sugar which would follow the reductions he proposed to make. It was an experiment frightfully hazardous; for could the House calculatethat500,000l. would be produced to the revenue, when, in order to raise that sum, there must be an increase in the consumption of sugar amounting to a full eighth part of that which was already consumed in the country? But even if that sum should be produced, there would still be an additional deficit of half a million of revenue to supply: so that upon the whole revenue of the year there must be a deficit of 3,200,000l. to be made good upon the most favourable calcula- tion. Such being the case, would it be wise to make any further reduction? His right hon. friend had reminded the House of the savings which the Government would make by the reduction of the 4-per-cents. He wondered how his right hon. friend could have referred to that point, because it was sure to excite in his mind a reminiscence of which he was bound to avail himself. How had the Government been able to effect the reduction of the 4-per-cents? By the maintenance of the public credit. It was by the manner in which it had kept up the public funds that Government had been able to avail itself of its credit to reduce the rate of interest, and to diminish the annual taxation of the country, in that respect, by no less a sum than 700,000l. It was on this very account that he doubted the policy of incurring the risk of having any deficiency in the revenue. If they ran the risk of having to make up a deficiency by an issue of Exchequer Bills, or a loan from the Bank, they must bid adieu to all further hopes of relieving the revenue of the country by a reduction of the rate of interest paid for the support of the public credit. He had heard his right hon. friend behind him talk of the vacillation exhibited by his right hon. friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Now he would remind the House, that this remission of taxes differed from every other. It was impossible to take advice upon it from those who had the best knowledge, because they were deeply interested in the result. If those persons, after the remission was agreed upon, told Ministers that they were going to do what was unjust, were they to be blamed if, on learning the injustice which they were going to commit, they changed their original course of action? That the charge of vacillation should have come from that particular quarter certainly did surprise him. For a week past public notice had been given by the right hon. member for Inverness that the motion which the House would have to discuss was for a reduction of the duty of sugar, not according to a fixed rate of the article, but according to the quality of the sugar. The proposal now made by his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, did not differ from the principle advanced in the notice of motion given by the right hon. member for Inverness, as would appear by a reference to the terms of the notice. The second Resolution which the right hon. Gentleman had given notice of his intention to move declared, that it was expedient to levy a duty on sugar according to the value of the different qualities of the article, rather than by a fixed rate. Up to half-past five o'clock that evening, he believed that it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to propose a reduction of the duty upon that principle. The charge of inconsistency and vacillation, therefore, came with very bad grace from the right hon. Gentleman, who had abandoned his original proposal, and substituted a fixed rate of duty instead of a duty imposed according to the value of the article. The right hon. Gentleman, it should be recollected, stood in a different situation from his right hon. friend. The former acted only as an individual Member of Parliament: the latter was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman had filled an important situation in the Government of the country, and was well acquainted with all the bearings of the subject. If the right hon. Gentleman, with all his experience, found it necessary, after a week's consideration, to propose Resolutions not only at variance with those of which he had originally given notice, but directly opposed to them, why should he deny to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the privilege of changing his opinion with respect to the practical operation of a measure which he had propounded? He did not mean to say that the right hon. Gentleman had not a good excuse for changing the nature of his Resolutions. The Resolutions proposed by the right hon. Gentleman to-night did not agree with those which he moved last year. He thought that no imputation rested with any man for changing his course of conduct with reference to matters so complicated. In such circumstances, individuals must be governed by communications from parties interested in the question. No imputation could rest upon any man for changing his course, rather than, by a protracted contest in that House, submit to the chance of keeping the whole country in suspense and creating great inconvenience. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer was convinced that his original proposition was not a convenient one, he thought that so far from its being his duty to occupy the time of the House with a contest on the subject, he did his duty towards the country and towards all parties interested in the question, by announcing the change which his intentions had undergone, and submitting the new proposition to the House. He would not enter into any details respecting the Bill, but he saw no difficulty in fixing the duty in the way proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Member who spoke last admitted that the principleof the measure was just. Then why not affirm the Resolutions which contained the principle? He hoped that the House would prefer the Resolutions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to those proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, without notice, which called upon the House to relinquish one million of revenue in the present state of the public finances, trusting to an increased consumption to compensate the diminution. In his opinion, the proposition was fraught with consequences so dangerous, that no consideration could induce him to give it his support. He also hoped that the House would by its vote show a determination to maintain the public credit, and to enable the Government to make a further remission of taxation by the reduction of the interest of the Debt.

said, that however much he respected his right hon. friend who had just sat down, he denied his right to call upon any private Member to adhere to resolutions which he had not proposed to the House. His right hon. friend seemed to think that a Member had no right to change his opinions, but that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might do so, and refrain to press Resolutions, of which he had given notice. That was a new doctrine, which was perfectly consistent with the present mode of proceeding in that House. In it was to be found the secret of the changes which had marked the conduct of Ministers this Session. That doctrine influenced them in the cautious course which they had pursued. His right hon. friend seemed anxious to have the honour of his company in the wandering voyage he was undertaking. He wished him to

"Pursue the triumph and partake the gale,"

in the undulating course which they were proceeding in. But he must decline to sail in such company. His object in all that he had done on the subject was, to afford relief to the distresses of the sufferers in this country, the West Indies, and the East Indies.

said, that his right hon. friend had quite mistaken him, if he supposed he cast any imputation on him for his change of opinion. He had merely alluded to the conduct of his right hon. friend, for the purpose of showing that even an individual, the best informed upon the subject, had found reason to change his opinions in a very short time. The only point upon which, perhaps, he could bring a charge against his right hon. friend was, that he had not given the Chancellor of the Exchequer notice of his intention to bring forward a new proposition to-night.

said, he had so frequently discussed the subject with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he thought a notice was unnecessary.

, not having been present at the commencement of the discussion, did not know exactly what the Resolutions were, and begged that they might be read again.

The Committee divided: For the Amendment 144; Against it 182; Majority 38.

The question was put on the original Resolution.

congratulated the House on the great knowledge and acuteness which had just been displayed by so large a portion of its Members. A large majority had been found to express their opinion on a subject of great peculiarity and embarrassment. He had heard the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer twice stated, but he could not succeed in understanding it. He had applied to the left and to the right, but he was still utterly unable to comprehend the subject upon which he was called to give a vote. There were, however, 182 Members so perspicacious, so nimble of apprehension, as to be able to find their way through what to him appeared only an inexplicable difficulty. This circumstance was to him a matter of distant admiration,—of extraordinary and hopeless envy; but to the House it ought to be a matter of unceasing and unbounded congratulation, that they were possessed of 182 men of such rare sagacity, although there were 144 others who declared themselves incapable of comprehending a tittle of the subject. He thought that the proposition of the right hon. member for Inverness was more intelligible than that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The latter he could not presume to follow, even at a distance, and if he were called upon to give a vote, finding that he could not induce the hon. member for Southwark, the member for Hertfordshire, the member for Taunton, and several others, to reflect upon him any portion of the light which shone upon them, or to direct him to a clue to guide him in the maze in which he was involved, he must, however unwillingly, vote against the Resolutions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

denied the practicability of carrying the proposed plan into execution, The Chancellor of the Exchequer contended that it was practicable, because henceforth all sugar would be sold at what were called short prices instead of at long prices. The thing was absolutely impossible. He would tell the Committee why. At present there was a fixed duty of 27s., which was to be deducted from the long price, in order to ascertain for how much the sugar sold above or below the average price. The average price was made up each week by deducting 27s. from the long price. To make the matter clear, he would suppose that the average price this week was 25s., which had been arrived at by deducting 27s. from the long price of sugar sold in the antecedent week. It was impossible that a knowledge of the average value of sugar could be obtained, except by deducting 27s. from the long price. This was so obvious, that he wondered at the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement on the subject. He thought he could show, to the satisfaction of every man of business, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not understand his own proposition. He would put a very possible case to the right hon. Gentleman, and if his plan were capable of being put into practice, he could give him an easy answer. He would suppose the average price this week to be 25s., and that a lot of sugar was sold at 52s. When the sale was made the Custom-house officer asked the seller what he had sold the sugar for? 52s. was the reply. The Customhouse officer deducted 27s. from the 52s., and found that 25s. remained as the average price. The seller told the Customhouse officer that he could not ask him to pay a duty of 27s., because the Resolution of the Chancellor of the Exchequer declared that that duty was not to be paid unless the sugars were sold at 1s. above the average price, whereas, in the present case, the average price was not exceeded at all. That was a poser to the Customhouse officer. He admitted that the statement was correct, and fixed the duty at 25s. 6d., which left the seller a nett price of 26s. 6d. on the transaction, so that, in fact, he sold the sugar at 1s. 6d. above the average. He wished the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state how this difficulty could be avoided. There was not a man in the House, there was not a practical man in the Customs, there was not an ingenious man in the Cabinet, who could give him an answer upon this point. The right hon. Gentleman called this an ad valorem duty. He denied that it was so. It was no more an ad valorem duty than the impost affixed to the ascending and descending scale with respect to wheat could be considered an ad valorem duty. He certainly should vote against the whole of these Resolutions, because he looked upon them, in the first place as impracticable, and because, in the next, if they were attempted to be carried into effect, they would be liable to be constantly evaded and defeated. His right hon. friend recommended the measure as tending to give relief to the West-India interest; but it would do no such thing. It would give relief to the Mauritius, to Demerara, to Trinidad; but it would give no relief to our old West-India colonies. It would give an advantage to the former, which did not want assistance, and it would not confer any advantage on the latter. The sugars which this scale of duty would allow to come more readily into the market were the sugars of Demerara, and places where it was obtained at a less proportionate cost than were the finer sugars of our old colonies. At present, he believed, the price of a slave at Barbadoes or at Antigua was not above 35l. or 40l., while in Demerara, or Trinidad, or the Mauritius, the price of a slave was from 80l. to 90l. This showed which colonies were flourishing, and which were in distress. But the measure would do worse than withhold relief from those by whom it was most wanted—it would add to their distress—it would bring in the sugars of those other colonies at a cheaper rate, and check the consumption of the sugars of our old colonies. Neither would the measure give any relief, or be of any advantage, as his right hon. friend supposed, to the poorer and lower classes of this country. The fact was, that the sugars they chiefly consumed were the Muscovado sugars from our old colonies, while the coarse sugars, on which the duty was to be reduced, were chiefly employed by the refiner, and converted into that sugar which was exclusively consumed by the rich. He declared that if the Government passed this measure it would ruin the colonies, and it must be prepared to take the negroes into its own keeping; for it would be impossible that they could be profitably employed in cultivating sugar. The right hon. Gentleman next proceeded to complain of the various statements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at different periods, and he declared that he did not like that right hon. Gentleman's piecemeal budgets. He had come forward with one statement in March—one plan then, and he had another statement and another plan now. He believed that his right hon. friend had not contemplated any reduction of taxation till after the House had forced him to reduce taxes. He believed this from what had occurred in Parliament, and from what had been stated both in that House and the other. At the opening of the Session, he believed that the Government had not contemplated any reduction of taxation. The Duke of Wellington had stated in the House of Lords that the reductions could not extend beyond 1,500,000l., and nine days afterwards his right hon. friend had proposed a repeal of taxes to the amount of3,000,000l. His right hon. friend had stated a week ago, that the revenue he should obtain from his proposed increase of the duty on spirits would be 300,000l.; but the quantity of spirits consumed last year was 31,390,000 gallons, and this, at sixpence pergallonadditionalamountedto760,000l. From this, 300,000l. must be deducted for the credit the right hon. Gentleman had given himself when he brought in his budget in March; so that he would have 466,000l. additional revenue to meet any defalcation occasioned by the reduction of the sugar duties. But he had his right hon. friend's admission that the reduction of the duty on sugar would be compensated by the increased consumption; and supposing that the loss to the revenue would be 500,000l., here was 460,000l. obtained from Spirits to meet it. By assenting to his proposition then, there would have been no hazard to the public credit, nor would the public creditor have been alarmed, or the public revenue put in jeopardy. But in place of the Resolutions he had proposed, his right hon. friend had carried his own unintelligible propositions. But his right hon. friend's plan was as ill digested as it was unintelligible. On last Monday he was not prepared to give any relief to the East-India sugar; but since then the East-India gentlemen had been with the right hon. Gentleman, and he had therefore altered his plan. His was an ill digested plan therefore. He thought his right hon. friend could not be aware of the consequences of his change. He accused his right hon. friend (Mr. C. Grant) of vacillation; but if he had proposed any Resolution whatever last Monday, it would have had no effect on the trade of the country. But when the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed his Resolutions, they affected the whole trade of the country. The consequence of his changes was, that commerce was arrested. The whole trade of the country was at a stand-still. A commercial paper, which he had received from the town which he had the honour to represent, stated, that "the rum, the brandy, the whiskey, and the gin trade are all at a stand; the brewers and maltsters are all at a stand; the manufacturers of tobacco and snuff are all at a stand; the sugar trade is also at a stand, and there is an end to the production of bastards." The right hon. Gentleman went on to say, that bastards was sugar made from molasses, of which 40,000 hogsheads were annually produced. He would also like to know what the right hon. Gentleman meant to do with molasses, and the sugar made from it? The right hon. Gentleman would find his plan impracticable; he would be obliged to abandon it, and he had better do it at once. It was three months since the Beer bill was brought in, and so many interests were concerned in it that that bill ought to pass. He would tell his right hon. friend that his Sugar Bill would never pass. Before it could pass, petitions would be poured in against it from every town of the empire, and then his right hon. friend would find that he was wrong, and he would give up his unintelligible measure. After all the promises made to the West-Indians, therefore, they were to get nothing but an additional duty of 6d. per gallon laid on their Rum. He believed that it would be better to do nothing than to throw the matter into confusion, and he would therefore vote with the hon. member for Callington. The West-Indians presented a case of great and urgent distress, demanding instant relief, and this measure would only embarrass and injure them. He wished, therefore, to give notice, that on bringing up the report, he would renew his proposition to reduce the duty on sugar to 20s. When the Bill was brought in, two months could not carry it through Parliament, and he again therefore advised his right hon. friend to abandon it.

wished to explain that, having voted in the majority, it was clear to him what the majority voted for, though some Gentlemen described the proposition as unintelligible. The question was, whether they would at once reduce the duty on West-India sugar to 20s. and on East-India sugar to 25s., and he for one, thinking it hazardous to make such an experiment on the Revenue, had voted against the proposition. With respect to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's plan, he must say he thought it impossible to levy an ad valorem duty on sugar. In the present state of circumstances, he thought it was advisable to leave things alone; but if relief must be given to the West-Indians, it would be better to reduce the duty at once 5s. He thought, however, that it would be hazardous to give up so much revenue. The neat surplus of last year, the real amount of National Debt paid off, was only 1,700,000l. Under such circumstances, he thought more caution was due to the means of raising the Revenue. He again recommended the right hon. Gentleman either to withdraw his measure altogether, or at once to reduce the duty 5s.

said, that he could not accede to either of the propositions of the hon. Gentleman. He could not accede to the latter of the two, because, like that hon. Gentleman, he wished to run no risk of causing a defalcation in the Revenue. The reduction of the duty to the amount of 5s., would diminish the revenue 800,000l., and the reduction of the duty to the amount of 7s., as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, would diminish the revenue 1,200,000l. He could assent to neither of these propositions. In answer to one question put by the right hon. Gentleman, he would state that when sugar was at 52s. the duty would be 25s. 6d. With respect to the right hon. Gentleman's observations as to Spirits, the quantity consumed last year was not 31,000,000 but 26,000,000 gallons, which would be the amount of revenue he had stated. He affirmed that it was in the contemplation of his Majesty's Government to make reductions of taxation, even before the Session commenced. His right hon. friend stated that the Government would not be able to pass the Bill when it was brought in; he was but too well a ware of the difficulty of passing measures this Session, but he also knew that it was not his fault. The Beer Bill had been repeatedly brought forward, and he was as anxious as possible to pass that measure. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by saying he should not accede to the recommendation of the hon. Member.

rose to say a few words in reply, but was interrupted by cries of "Question." The right hon. Gentleman, after a pause, said he had a character and a station to support in that House, and he would not be put down by any man. He denied that he had ever threatened to make use of extraordinary means for defeating this measure. He had intimated his intention to take the sense of the House on his right hon. friend's (Mr. Grant's) Resolutions on bringing up the report, and he adhered to that determination, because, as he said before, the plan of the right hon. Gentleman was complicated and impracticable. With respect to the duty on Spirits, he found the quantity of home-made Spirits consumed in 1829, set down at 22,690,000 gallons, and of Rum, at 8,700,000; and these two numbers together made 31,390,000 gallons. If there were any mistakes in these returns, he had only to say, that they came from the department over which his right hon. friend presided.

said, that he was in the same situation as the right hon. member for Liverpool. He found the Resolutions of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer wholly unintelligible; and he was satisfied that such an opinion was shared by every Member of the House, whether supporters of the Government or opposed to it. He had some doubts whether Gentlemen would vote that 2 and 2 made7½, but he had none that they would vote that 2 and 2 made 6.

observed with reference to the complaints made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer relative to public business, that if Ministers had appropriated the order days to public business, the measures of relief might have been carried through. In fact, however, Ministers appeared more anxious to get the Supplies than give relief; and it came out the last time the Beer Bill was before the House, that it was connected with certain measures of Excise, which were not yet before the House.

observed, that the hon. and learned member for Knaresborough had been very facetious and severe on the subject of the majority. It so happened that a minority was never satisfied with the course taken by a majority, nor was that to be expected; though the hon. and learned Gentleman charged the majority with not understanding the proposition which it had affirmed, he seemed, as indeed he acknowledged, not to understand it himself. The hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to think that the majority voted in favour of the original Resolution of his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He wished that were the case; in fact it was not; and the House had only decided that the Amendment should be rejected. The vote proposed to the Committee was, that the duty be reduced to 1l. and all Gentlemen who were not prepared to relinquish 1,200,000l. revenue, very properly opposed it. The other question which yet remained to be decided was, whether the plan of relief to the West-India interest proposed by his right hon. friend should be taken into consideration. If the Committee rejected that proposition, it would reject the only measure for the relief of that interest which remained. At the same time let it be remembered, that in voting for this Resolution, hon. Members would reserve to themselves the power of voting against the Bill Bill to be founded on it, if, on further consideration, they should think the existing law preferable to the Resolution of his right hon. friend.

understood the question upon which the majority divided as stated by the right hon. Secretary; but that was not the first time that votes had been given on a measure, not so much in reference to its own merits, as upon comparison with another. In point of fact, the majority who opposed the Amendment, voted upon what he must still call an unintelligible proposition. In voting against the Amendment, Members were, in substance, though not in form, supporting the government proposition—at least the greater part of them. If a great per centage of the majority were asked whether they voted for the original Resolution or for the Amendment, specifying to them the nature and effects of either, he was pretty certain they would reply, "do not talk to us of a duty of 20s. or of the proportion of averages; we know nothing about either—we only know we voted for the government plan, against the plan of the member for Inverness." The right hon. Gentleman said, ingenuously enough, he wished the question were decided in favour of the Government; the Committee was going to decide it: he was aware of that, and he trusted that a great number of the majority of 182, among whom he hoped to find the hon. member for Callington, would not vote for the unintelligible proposition, although they opposed the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman said, "Do not negative this proposition, for we have negatived the duty of 20s., and no other scheme of relief remains if you reject the present." This was very adroitly put, to catch the support of the friends of the West India Interest; but he hoped that they would not be deceived by it. Even if the Committee decided against the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Resolution, he would not have Gentlemen hopeless of relief. No doubt a more satisfactory plan might be devised and acted on. They should recollect the great courtesy shewn by the Government in conceding disputed points, when it found it could do no better. For his own part he loved to see a government, when it found itself in the wrong, vacillating, and at length getting into the right. The present Government had frequently, done that; and there was no reason why it should not do so again. It began the Session without any intention of relieving the country from taxes, but it had concluded by taking some off. It was said,—"will you oppose a duty so productive to the revenue as that on sugar—will you support a proposition that must reduce the revenue by 1,200,000l.—are you prepared to cancel the National Debt?" The same train of argument applied to any reduction of taxation; yet, when Government found that there was a strong feeling for reduction, though no spoliators of the public creditor, they did reduce taxation. He trusted Gentlemen would oppose the present Resolution. If the Committee would not vote for a Resolution which it was doubtful whether they who proposed it understood, and the meaning of which others certainly could not comprehend, let the Committee not be afraid that either the Resolution of the member for Inverness would be re-introduced and adopted, or that the right hon. Gentleman himself would not succeed in framing a more satisfactory and intelligible measure than the present.

The Committee divided; For the original Resolution 161; Against it 144;—Majority 17.

There House resumed; Resolutions to be reported on Tuesday.

observed, that it would be impossible adequately to discuss the subject at that late hour.

The Order of the Day was read.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved that the Amendments be read a second time.

said, he should have been glad, if he had been enabled, to address the House at an earlier hour, because he then should have felt it incumbent upon him to have stated shortly the reasons which induced him to doubt the efficacy of this measure for the purposes for which it was proposed, and to have urged the House to take into its consideration whether it were expedient to sacrifice so large a portion of the revenue of the country, without any proportionate effect. He should not, at the present moment, follow that course; but as the measure was proposed as one of relief—as it was stated to be introduced as an effectual means of relieving the poorer classes of the community—he might be allowed to say, that if he could have believed that this Bill would enable the industrious labourer to carry home to his family that beverage of which we all boasted, he should have rejoiced at its introduction, and should never have made any opposition to it. But he believed whatever relief the Bill might afford in large and populous towns, that it would confer no benefit at all upon the labouring classes. The principle of the Bill, however, had received the sanction of the House, and it would not become him now to place himself in opposition to it. Being desirous of economising the time of the House, he should proceed to state, as shortly as he could, the two propositions which he was about to submit for its consideration. It was impossible to regard this measure without taking into consideration the property which would be affected by it—he alluded to the large property of the numerous publicans, which would be materially affected by it. That such property would be injured by the measure, as it now stood, was a proposition which he had never yet heard denied. It was with the view of easing that class of persons, and of removing from them the heavy loss with which they were threatened, that he brought forward his first clause. The property involved was considerable, and the circumstances in which it was placed were such that it was impossible the proprietors should not meet with the favourable consideration of the House. That property had been invested under the sanction of Parliament, and had been considered as secure as that of the fundholder. He must beg to remind the House of the peculiar situation in which the publicans were now placed. In 1828 his hon. friend the member for the University of Oxford brought in a bill which received the sanction of Parliament, and by which it was considered that the question was finally settled. If, after the solemn declaration of Parliament, that property should be invaded, and at one blow be destroyed, the persons so affected would have ground to complain of great injustice. It was not only the immediate possessors of this property who would be injured, but all those who were connected with them. Jointures might have been made, and mortgages executed, all of which would be affected by this change. The first amendment he should propose was, to limit the clause giving permission to drink the Beer on the premises, to a permission to vend the Beer, but not to allow its consumption in the place or house where it was brewed or sold. This would show sufficiently that he was no enemy to opening the Beer-trade for the benefit of the community, whilst the Legislature took care to accompany it by a provision which would tend to defeat the demoralising effects of holding out additional inducements to those already in existence, to the waste of time and the consumption of the wages of the labourer in riot and tippling in numerous taphouses. It would of course bring the farmers and their labourers to their own fire sides and families, instead of estranging them from their homes and their duty. He was decidedly averse to the Bill in its present shape; for whatever might be done in the metropolis by the activity of the Excise, such was the strength of the temptation to the violation of law in districts on the coast, that the license to sell Beer would, in all such places, prove a pretext for selling smuggled spirits. A more extensive police and excise must be adopted, as a consequence of any such general permission. If they should pass the Bill with its present unrestricted permission to sell Beer, it would be a departure from the long recognized principle of the Legislature on this subject, and be a sacrifice of that principle to mere considerations of revenue. Its increased produce in that respect was merely conjecture, and extremely over-rated. The whole of the arguments now used had been resorted to in the defence of Mr. Estcourt's bill two years since, and, after being maturely canvassed, were deliberately refuted. He believed, in addition to these considerations, that the effect of the Bill would be highly injurious to the moral interests of society. The second amendment he should propose was, that the Bill be passed for three years only. If the Bill were erroneous in principle, three years would be too long for it to last; but if it were found to work well, as they had been promised it would, then it would be time enough to make it a part of the permanent law of the country. He moved for leave to bring up his first clause.

seconded the Motion. Unless such a clause were introduced, the effect of the Bill would be to abstract a labouring man from his family, instead of conferring upon that family the benefits which the Bill professed to contemplate.

stated, that he could not agree to the clause proposed by the hon. member for Kent, because he thought it calculated to create irritation and injury; but at the same time he regretted that a clause had not been introduced into the Bill similar to that for which he had recently voted, to secure the publican from the hardships to which he would now be subjected.

was persuaded that if the Beer were permitted to be sold at the houses in question, those houses would be the resort of criminals, and would also tempt the industrious labourer to waste in them the means which ought to be applied to the support of his family. He was aware of the objection which existed against the existing monopoly of the public-houses by the brewers. He did not believe that it existed, except to a small extent, and not in an injurious form. But if it did, he was sure that the present Bill, even with the proposed Amendment, would not be sufficient to put it down. The publicans in this country were a large body of respectable individuals, and their interests ought not to be injured unless for some great purpose of general benefit. His conscientious conviction was, that the Bill would not answer the purposes proposed by those who brought it forward. His experience as a magistrate and a country gentleman had led him to this conclusion; and he, accordingly, felt it his duty to support the Amendment.

assured the Members that, rising at that late hour to address them on a subject which had been already fully discussed, he would not detain them for many minutes. It was not necessary that he should, for the hon. Baronet had not brought forward anything in defence of the clauses he proposed, that had not already been proposed, discussed, and rejected by the House at a former period, when the hon. member for Reading had moved a clause with the same object, and to the same effect. Both the hon. Members were, in fact, arguing the cause of a particular class of the community against the great mass of the population. The brewers and publicans were the parties on one side, the labouring population of England on the other. The first were, he allowed, a most respectable body, and one possessed of considerable weight, and enjoying the advantage of having influence, and talent, and education enlisted in their defence. The other party possessed not the same facility of combining to give expression to their feelings and desires, but he besought the House not to consider that on this account they were indifferent to the question which was to be that night decided. He could assure them it was not the case; he had received numerous letters from all parts of the country expressive of the people's gratitude for the good intentions evinced towards them, and their anxiety that the measure should be carried into effect. And strange to say, he had that morning received letters from the counties of Kent and Essex, from gentlemen who represented themselves as chairmen of committees recently formed, and who stated that the unanimous feeling of the people was in favour of the measure, and that if sufficient time were afforded, a vast number of petitions, which were then in progress, would be sent up to express their opinions within the walls of that House. The efforts of those interested in opposing the Bill had been great and unremitting; they possessed peculiar facilities of giving a unanimous utterance to their feelings, and they were sure of strenuous support from the hon. Gentlemen who had espoused their cause. The labouring population enjoyed not those advantages; but surely the House would not deal more hardly with them on that account. On the contrary, they should rather entertain a prejudice in their favour, and a leaning to their side. With respect to the first clause proposed by the hon. Baronet, its effect would be, were it adopted, entirely to destroy the principle of the Bill, and he believed the arguments in its favour might be divided under two heads; first, the unjust invasion of property; secondly, the question of morality. That there would be some sacrifice of property upon the part of many brewers and publicans, he at once acknowledged and deplored, but it was certainly better that a few should suffer, than that the public at large should be deprived of a great benefit. Nor could he bring himself to believe that the loss of property would be so great as it had been represented by the hon. Member. The brewer who was established, would enjoy a great advantage over any new-comer; and if he were disposed to carry on a fair and proper trade, he might still set all competition at defiance. Then, as to the question of morality, he denied that any injury would be inflicted on the morals of the people by the increase in the number of public-houses; and he contended that experience with respect to the effect produced by the small retail breweries further proved this. By increasing the number of brewers, and removing penalties injuriously imposed, for errors instead of crimes, the House would take away all temptation to evade the law; and thus put an end to all those vexatious informations and prosecutions which so much conduced to immorality upon all sides. The clause for limiting the duration of the Bill to three years he must also oppose. The measure had the assent of the great mass of the people; it was for their benefit Government was determined to take off the Beer duties, and it was also determined that the people should have the advantage of it, and not, as would be the case if the Bill were not carried, a certain class of persons who enjoyed a monopoly in the sale of the article. The measure, he had no doubt, would work well. It would conduce at once to the comfort of the people, in affording them cheap and ready accommodation; to their health in procuring them a better and more wholesome beverage; and to their morality in removing them from the temptations to be met with in a common alehouse, and introducing them to houses of a better order, which, notwithstanding the apprehensions of certain hon. Members, were guarded by stricter securities than the former; for in all cases the landlord was to be responsible for the conduct of those entertained in his house, and if they created any disturbance either within doors or in the neighbourhood without, he would be held accountable. Under all these circumstances, he called on the House to reject the Amendment. If at that late stage of the proceedings they were to accede to it, it would be a great disappointment, as well to the views of many honourable members, as to the country at large.

opposed the Amendment. He thought an increase in the number of public-houses would be of great advantage to the agricultural population. He had himself witnessed cases of great inconvenience from the great distance of public-houses from the spot in which the labouring man was employed. Many bad consequences resulted from his not being able to have his comfortable meal and his beer in some neighbouring house; of these one was, that he was sure to go to the public-house on the Saturday, and in a single debauch spend more money than would have sufficed for his refreshment during the entire week. He also was of opinion that it was quite unnecessary to make any provision that the Bill should expire at the end of three years, since it could be revised or repealed at the end of one if it were not found to act well. Such a provision, too, could only have the effect of maintaining excitement, and encouraging illusion.

supported the Amendment. The multiplication of public-houses he considered a great evil, both from its unjust effect upon the interests of those who had embarked capital, upon the faith of old standing agreements, and from the injury it must inflict upon the morality of the people.

advocated the motion of his hon. friend, the member for Kent. He entirely concurred in all his views upon the subject. It was most unjust to deprive the brewers and publicans of their vested rights; and it was impossible not to perceive that the morals of the people must suffer by throwing open so many ale-house doors to them.

would not support the Amendment if he believed it destroyed the principle of the Bill, for there were many things in the Bill that he liked. He wished that the labourer should enjoy the opportunity of having a good and wholesome beverage in a convenient place, and at a moderate price; but he thought there could be no greater evil than having every house in a village turned into an ale-house. It was a mistake to suppose that there was not competition at present; and it was likewise an error, to imagine that an increase in the number of brewers would improve the beer. Within a space of two miles in his neighbourhood there were twelve breweries, and four free houses, one of which was his own, and the beer sold in that was decidedly the worst of the four. There had been five public houses, but one had been got rid of, and since then the parish had been much quieter than before. For these reasons he felt bound to support the Amendment.

denied any wish to plead the cause of a party against the community. He remarked, that sufficient time had already been given, for all who desired it to petition. The Bill, like many others, had been then three months before the House; yet there were only eight petitions in its favour, while there were four hundred and eighty-three against it. Feeling that it was a measure calculated to do much injury, he should feel it his duty to divide the House.

The House divided;—For the Motion 108; Against it 138—Majority 30.