begged to ask the right hon. Baronet opposite whether the Government intended to maintain the present prohibitory duty on foreign sugar?

said, that, without intending anything like personal disrespect to the hon. Member, he must decline answering his question. To do so would be inconsistent with his duty, for he might be asked a similar question with respect to every other article upon which a duty existed.

I rise to propose a question of which I gave notice on Friday, and to which the right hon. Baronet may return an answer or not, as circumstances may determine him. The question relates to the negotiations now going on with Brazil. In the first place I will ask whether the British Government has acquiesced in the interpretation which her Majesty's late Government put upon the article in the existing treaty with Brazil, which relates to the duration of that treaty? The next question I have to propose is, whether the right hon. Baronet thinks himself at liberty, in the present state of the negotiations now going on, to say whether those negotiations, as far as they have hitherto gone, justify him in entertaining a well-founded hope that they will lead to a satisfactory conclusion, by the ratification of a treaty of commerce with the Brazilian Government? I wish, also, to ask a question relating to another matter, and, although I have not given notice of my intention to propose it, I hope the right hon. Baronet will give an answer to it, either now or on some future day. I beg to ask what is the state of our negotiations with the government of Hanover upon the subject of the Stade duties?

The noble Lord is perfectly aware, and probably a great majority of the House is also aware, that there existed a material difference of opinion between the British Government and the Brazilian Government, relative to the duration of the commercial treaty which was concluded between the two countries some years since. I understand the difference to have been this:—The Brazilian government contended that the treaty expired in the month of November, 1842, whilst the British Government (the late as well as the present) contended that the proper duration of the treaty extended to, at least, November, 1844. The Brazilian government, for some time, strenuously contested our construction of the treaty; but at length acquiesced in it, and the existing treaty, therefore, will continue in force until November, 1844. The British Government has sent a representative on a special mission to Brazil, for the purpose of attempting to negociate a commercial treaty. If this attempt should prove successful, the treaty would not, necessarily, take effect only from the expiration of the present treaty; but it might, possibly, be so arranged as to take effect at an earlier period—of course with the consent of the two contracting parties. It would not be consistent with the present state of the negotiations to hold out any expectations of that nature. The negotiations are not so advanced as to justify me in alluding to what may be their probable result. With respect to the negotiations with Hanover relative to the Stade Duties, I must state, that the propositions made by our Government have not been acquiesced in by the government of Hanover. At present nothing definite has been determined. We maintain the ground which we assumed, and Hanover has not acquiesced in our propositions. I may add that the Elbe States are at present negotiating with Hanover on the subject.

I am anxious to ask whether the right hon. Baronet can communicate any information respecting two other commercial treaties, which have long been the subject of negotiation between the British Government and the Governments of France and Portugal. The right hon. Baronet must feel how injurious this long suspense must be, and how desirable it is that an end should be put to it. I should be glad, therefore, if it were in the power of the right hon. Baronet, that he should give a satisfactory assurance to the House of the probable termination of the negotiations. From a late declaration of M. Guizot, that statesman appears to entertain some hope that the negotiations between this country and France may be brought to a satisfactory conclusion; and I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentlemen can confirm that declaration, or can hold out a hope that a more liberal system of commercial policy will be adopted between the two countries than that which now prevails.

I concur with the right hon. Gentleman in lamenting the long delay which has taken place in these negotiations. With regard to the commercial treaty with Portugal, that delay has been most injurious to trade. At the same time, being convinced of the policy of securing to both countries the reciprocal advantages to be derived from the extension of commerce, the Government has been most unwilling to break off the negotiations. But they have remained so long in suspense, that it is now almost a doubt whether it would not have been better to close the correspondence than submit to the inconvenience of so long a delay. The negotiations are still going on. Within a few days we have received new proposals from the Portuguese government, and the time will shortly arrive when her Majesty's Government will feel it necessary to break off the negotiations, unless they can be brought to an issue. I am convinced that the delay which has occurred with respect to the negotiations with Portugal, by paralysing the wine trade, has materially affected the revenue, and is one cause of the deficiency which we have reason to lament. With respect to France, I have the satisfaction to state that negotiations for effecting a commercial treaty with that country have been renewed, and have been received with that degree of favour which leads her Majesty's Government to hope that a beneficial arrangement may be made. Her Majesty's Government feel deeply that the advantages of such an arrangement should not be confined to mere commercial transactions, but that it should be the means of cementing more closely the ties of friendly connection between the two countries, and, though I wish not to speak with undue confidence, I sincerely hope that a sense of the common interests of both countries will finally lead to more extended commercial intercourse between them.

I wish to ask a question connected with the affairs of Syria. I have received a letter informing me that those persons who had their houses burned and property destroyed by our operations in Syria, have not received a single shilling in the way of compensation. I beg to ask whether Emir Beschir has received compensation for his losses?

If the hon. and gallant officer had given me notice of his question. I would have made inquiry on the subject. I will do so now, and give an answer on a future evening.

I wish to know whether the papers relating to Afghanistan will be soon laid before the House.

The papers are rather voluminous; but I will take care that a proper interval shall intervene between the delivery of the papers and the motion for the vote of thanks to the Governor-general and the army.

said, that in the statement made the other night by the right hon. Baronet, in reference to the number of cruisers on the coast of Africa, he had said, that he should be able in two or three days to afford the information required. Since then the question had been mooted in the French Chambers, and it had been stated that the cruisers furnished by each power were to be attached to the African station alone, and that they were not to go to the coast of Brazil and to the Cape of Good Hope. It had also been stated by the Foreign Minister of France, that in the execution of the article he had stipulated for a certain number of cruisers, and had demanded that they should remain attached to that coast for which alone their warrant was issued. He wished to ask whether the Government assented to what M. Guizot had stated to have been agreed on, or whether, in the treaties of 1831, and 1833, there was any mention of a stipulation to that effect?

did not think that the statement of the hon. and gallant officer could be an accurate report of the Speech of the French Minister for Foreign Affairs. There had been no engagement entered into which compelled this country to limit the number of its cruisers—it was at liberty to exercise its own discretion as to what force was necessary for the suppression of the Slave-trade. The French had an equal right to exercise their own discretion in determining what number of cruisers they should employ; they had entered into no engagement to limit their number. The hon. and gallant officer asked him whether it was true that the right of search had been confined to the coast of Africa. What this country had undertaken to do was this, that when an officer was removed from one station to another, he should receive a fresh warrant, authorising him to act upon the new station.

wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer what course had been taken by the Government for the purpose of ascertaining the frauds in the Custom-house, and whether it were the intention of the Government to lay the information on that subject on the table of the House?

said, a commission had been actively engaged in the prosecution of inquiries, and there was every prospect that in a short period the result of its investigations would be presented to the House. He thought it right to say, that in case any part of the report should involve materials respecting which prosecutions were pending, he should withhold that part of the report until the prosecutions had been determined.

rose for the purpose of putting a question to the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had asked when the papers relating to the Affghan war would be laid on the table of the House. He (Mr. Roebuck) wished to ask if those papers would include all the information that existed relative to the commencement of the war? His reason for asking that question was this: the vote of thanks which the right hon. Baronet had given notice of his intention to move, included not only the army, but the Governor-general, and inasmuch as the vote of thanks to the Governor-general would necessarily depend upon the policy which he had pursued in withdrawing the troops within the Indus, the House ought to have all possible information respecting the policy of the war from the commencement. Therefore, he would ask the righ hon. Baronet, first, if he could, consistently with his duty, submit the two questions separately to the consideration of the House; and, if not, whether he would be prepared to give to the House, before he proposed the vote of thanks, all the evidence which would be necessary to enable the House to judge of the propriety of the war?

said, the hon. Gentleman would, no doubt, recollect that an intention had been expressed of laying before the House papers to a certain extent respecting the war. The papers which Government intended to produce would, he thought, afford to the House a full opportunity of judging of the policy of the withdrawal of the troops from Affghanistan. But the Government did not propose to give any other papers than should be sufficient to enable the House to form a judgment of the skill and valour of the troops and their leaders in their departure, and of the policy of the withdrawal. It was not intended to carry the information to be communicated to a period beyond that. If the hon. Gentleman would wait till he saw the papers, he would then know whether they sufficiently tended to throw light on the policy of the Government.

said, that as the subject of the Poor-law had not yet been adverted to, he wished to know whether it were the intention of the Government to bring that question under the consideration of the House within the next fortnight?

said, he would take an early opportunity of introducing a bill for the amendment of the Poor-law Act; but he would not pledge himself to do so within the next fortnight.

gave notice, that on that day fortnight he would call the attention of the House to the question of the Poor-law.

I wish to know whether the right hon. Baronet intends to lay upon the Table copies of the correspondence which took place between Lord Ashburton and Mr. Webster relative to the boundary treaty. After what has appeared in the newspapers during the last two days, it is very necessary that the House should be in possession of it.

I did not intend to produce the correspondence.

The right hon. Baronet says, he did not intend to do so; I wish to know whether he now intends to produce it.

I have not heard sufficient from the hon. Member to induce me to alter my intention.

appeared at the Bar of the House, and read the following Answer from her Majesty to the Address:—

"I thank you for this loyal and dutiful Address.

"I rely with confidence on your attachment and support; and you may depend upon My constant and anxious disposition to watch with equal care over the interests of all classes of My Subjects."

said, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck) had asked whether the papers to be placed on the Table of the House would afford an opportunity of taking a view of the policy of entering on the war in Affghanistan. He (Lord John Russell) was not certain whether he had distinctly understood the right hon. Baronet's reply. It had hitherto been usual, when votes of thanks had been proposed, to confine that vote merely to thanks for the manner in which the military operations had been carried into effect, assuming the policy out of which these operations had resulted to be correct, leaving it perfectly free to the Members who might concur in the vote of thanks for the military operations, to question the policy, the adoption of which had led to those operations. Now, the notice of the right hon. Baronet had been given in the usual terms, and he wished to know whether it were the intention of the right hon. Baronet to propose the vote of thanks in the usual way; that was to say, to confine himself to asking for a vote of thanks for the manner in which the military operations had been carried into effect, or whether he meant to ask the House for its approval of the policy of withdrawing the army within the Indus, and of the whole of the policy of the Governor-general and the Government?

said that, in moving the vote of thanks, he intended to adhere strictly to the object mentioned in the notice which he had given. He intended to confine the vote expressly to the military operations, and did not intend on that occasion to ask the House to express any opinion of approval or disapproval of the policy which had led to the withdrawal of the troops within the Indus. Those, therefore, who might be opposed to the policy of the war, might still join in the vote of thanks for the skill and energy with which the military operations were conducted. He intended, in short, to adhere to what had been the uniform practice on similar occasions; but though the papers were intended to bear on the military operations, and not on the policy of the war, yet it would be difficult to lay before the House all the requisite papers without producing enough to enable hon. Members to form their own opinions with respect to that policy. He proposed that the papers should commence at the period when the first violent outbreak took place, shortly before the murder of Sir W. M'Naughten; and the main object in producing the papers was to enable the House to judge whether or not that public acknowledgment he should propose should be considered satisfactory. He should not invite discussion upon the policy itself; but he believed the information afforded by the papers, although they might not throw any new light upon the original policy of the war, would necessarily throw new light upon the policy of the withdrawal of the troops; although that was not his immediate object in producing the papers.

felt some difficulty relative to the position in which the question then stood, and for this reason: the right hon. Baronet had introduced into one motion two very separate and distinct propositions; the one a vote of thanks to the Governor-general, and the other a vote of thanks to the troops. Now, no matter what might have been the policy or justice of the war, it would be proper for the House to vote thanks to the army. That was quite clear. But the whole policy of the Governor-general was connected with a proclamation issued by him, in which he set forth his opinion respecting the policy of the whole war, as well as his motives for the withdrawal of the troops within the Indus. He wanted to know whether the vote of thanks would include that proclamation? He quite agreed, for his part, with the Governor-general, as far as his present lights conducted him; he should be prepared to support the vote of thanks, on the ground of that proclamation. But he could clearly understand that there might be strong feelings on that side and on the other side of the House respecting that proclamation. He thought that it would not be sufficient to lay before the House those papers only which related to the transactions immediately previous to the outbreak. They should have the papers necessary to judge of the origin of the war, namely, of the policy and justice of maintaining our troops to the west of the Indus; and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would separate these two distinct propositions—namely, the vote of thanks to the present Governor-general, and the vote of thanks to the army; and that he would give the House every information relative to the whole series of events in India.

said, he thought it would then be premature to enter upon a discussion of the question. He would undertake to lay before the House such papers as her Majesty's Government might think desirable; and he would communicate them to the House some days before he would call upon the House to adopt any proceedings with respect to them. He would also undertake to give several days' notice of the precise terms of the motion he should propose. He believed that such a course was warranted by former precedents. That was the course pursued in the case of the vote of thanks to Lord Auckland, a vote of thanks which he (Sir Robert Peel) supported, although he protested at the time against being supposed to approve of the policy of Lord Auckland. Still he thought it right to give his thanks for the skill and energy displayed by the noble Lord in his preparations for carrying on the war. When the papers were before the House the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck) would see whether they were sufficient to enable him to form his views. For his (Sir R. Peel's) part, he intended strictly to follow the precedent of the vote of thanks to Lord Auckland.

said, that public attention had been drawn to a map, marked with a strong red line, bearing on the question of the American boundary. Had the right hon. Baronet received any information respecting that red line?

No, but he had received another map, with a completely different boundary line marked on it.

Would it not be right to produce a copy of the map?

The map is represented to be in the king's library at Paris.

thought our ambassador at Paris might be written to for a copy.

wished to ask the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department, whether he intended to introduce any bill this Session with regard to chapter property in North Wales?

said, that he intended to introduce a bill upon the subject, and it would be the same in substance as that brought in last Session.

rose to move, that the Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown, directing the issue of a writ for the election of Members for the borough of Sudbury. The hon. Member observed, that he had undertaken his present task in compliance with the wish of his constituents, who, as they had no one else to ask, had applied to him,—"Quoniam nemini obtrudi potest itur ad me." The question relating to Sudbury had been so often before the House, that he would not take up its time by again entering upon it, but would only observe, that no case had been made out to keep the borough without its representatives in Parliament.

said, that the hon. Member might obtain his object by allowing the amendment of another hon. Member to stand as an original motion, to which he could move, if he pleased, an amendment.

After the bill that had been unanimously passed last Session by that House for the disfranchisement of Sudbury, he had not expected on the first night of the Session notice would have been given of a motion for the issue of a new writ. The most extensive bribery was proved to have prevailed at Sudbury, but as the motion for the new writ was not to be pressed, he should make no farther remarks on the subject, but would, in the course of the evening, move for leave to bring in the bill, of which he had given notice, for the disfranchisement of the borough. In the mean time he would move that the Speaker should not issue his writ for the election of a new Member until the 20th March next.

said he would not object to such a motion.

then moved, "That leave be given to bring in a bill to exclude the borough of Sudbury from sending burgesses to serve in Parliament." He founded his motion upon the report of the committee, who had found that gross bribery had prevailed at the late election.

thought that no case had been made out which could justify the House in taking the extreme course of disfranchising all the electors of the borough. He had taken an opportunity last Session of moving that the adjacent hundred be added to the borough. This, if acceded to, would have had the effect of introducing a sufficient number of good electors into the borough. The committee had not carried their inquiry far enough to prove the general corruption of the borough. At Stafford it had been proved that of 945 electors, 804 had received money for their votes; but if they looked into the case of Sudbury, they would not find more than eight or nine cases of persons who had received bribes; and it was not, therefore, just to take away the franchise from those who had done nothing to forfeit it. He thought that before the House proceeded to this step it ought to be in possession of the fullest information. With this view, he would move, as an amendment,

"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the corrupt practices alleged to have prevailed at the last election for the borough of Sudbury, and to report the result of their inquiries to the House."

If general corruption should then be proved, he would not object to the hon. Member's bill; but, until such proof were given, he would oppose it.

said, that when this question was before the House in the last Session he took the liberty of interposing between the hon. and gallant Member and the issue of the writ, and the House agreed with him on the occasion, and he hoped it would not now stultify itself by giving a negative to the report of the committee of last Session, and by allowing the hon. and gallant Member to steal a march upon it in the beginning of the present. The committee to which the election petition relating to the return for Sudbury had been referred had unanimously reported that gross and systematic bribery had prevailed at the last election, and that the borough ought to be disfranchised. To carry out the report of that committee such a measure as the proposed bill was necessary. When the bill was before the House in the last Session, it was first moved that counsel be heard against it. That was negatived. It was then moved that the virtue of the adjoining hundred be infused into the representation with the view of purifying it; but even that the House would not accept, and the bill for disfranchising the borough was passed, and sent to the Lords, but at too late a period to allow a chance of its passing, and it was not passed. After this, would the House consider that another committee of inquiry was necessary? Would such a committee be considered necessary, when it was already proved that more than 200 of the voters of the borough were bribed in one day? He thought an example should be made of that most delinquent borough, and he hoped his hon. Friend would press his motion.

thought last Session, when the facts of the case were fresh in his recollection, that there was ample reason for sending the bill for disfranchising Sudbury up to the House of Lords. Considering the unanimous report made by the committee and the evidence which they reported to the House, and as he was not aware of any new facts [loud cheers] which would induce him to alter his opinion, he should give his vote in favour of the introduction of the bill.

approved of the course taken by the right hon. Baronet; therefore he also would give his vote against the amendment.

was very desirous to improve the constitution of committees on private bills, by prohibiting the attendance on them, as Members, of any Member of the House who was interested for or against any bill. He wished to assimilate the practice of that House to the practice which prevailed in the House of Lords, where it had been eminently successful. To attain these ends he begged leave to move the following resolutions:—

"1. That it is expedient that committees on private bills should be approximated more nearly than they now are to judicial tribunals, and exempted as much as possible from all motives of local and personal interest; and that the responsibility and efficiency of committees of this House in general would be promoted by diminishing the number of Members composing them.

"2. That, with a view of attaining these objects, the number of Members composing committees on opposad private bills be reduced to seven.

"3. That such seven Members be appointed by the Committee of Selection, after the second reading of such bills; but that, previous to such appointment, the Committee of Selection do ascertain from each of such seven Members, that he is willing to serve, and that he is, neither through his constituents nor himself personally, interested for or against the bill in question; and that, in case he is unable to serve, or is interested as aforesaid, the Committee of Selection do appoint some other Member to serve in place of him.

"4. That the Committee of Selection appoint no Member to serve on more than one such private bill committe at a time.

"5. That the number of Members composing Select Committees be likewise reduced to seven; except on special cause shown to the satisfaction of the House for extending the number to more than seven.

"6. That, previous to the naming of any such Select Committee, the Member who moves for its appointment shall communicate with the Committee of Selections; in order to avoid, as much as possible, the appointment of Members to serve on such select committee who may already be fully occupied by a private bill committee, or by other select committees.

could not give his assent to the resolutions proposed, because the amended system which was in practice in private committees during the last Session had worked very well, and had given pretty general satisfaction. No Member could now vote upon any bill in committee who had not attended and heard the whole of the evidence which was offered either in support of it or against it. The Committee of Selection now appointed three Members who were wholly unconnected with the locality to which the bill they were appointed to consider applied; they were, therefore, impartial judges, whose opinion had great weight. It was found very difficult, upon many occasions, to secure the attendance of three gentlemen who had no interest in or were wholly indifferent to the matter brought before them, and it would be still more difficult to secure the regular attendance of seven. Gentlemen would find it a heavy tax upon their time, and if these resolutions were adopted the consequence would be that many days would be lost and great expense incurred by necessary adjournments, consequent upon the absence of some of the gentlemen appointed, But he thought it was absolutely necessary that gentlemen locally connected with bills should be on the committees. Suppose that seven disinterested Members were appointed, and really did attend, and that the bill before them was that for making a railway; if it ran near a nobleman's or gentleman's mansion, or through his park, he had ample means at hand to employ counsel to protect his interests; but who was to protect the interests of the small proprietors? Who so well as the gentlemen who represented them in the House? Besides, the local knowledge which the Member had was often the means of explaining a point in five minutes, which counsel, who spoke only from their briefs, might have spent hours over, and left in the dark after all. Notwithstanding the many objections which had been started to the composition of private committees very few objectionable bills were passed, and they were generally bills which were unopposed. But, even with respect to them, a new system had been introduced by the hon. Member the late chairman of ways and means (Mr. Bernal), by which it was almost impossible that an objectionable bill, even unopposed, could be passed.

said, that these resolutions seemed to him to be recommended by sound sense and an accurate estimate of what such a tribunal ought to be. The tribunal in question ought to approximate more nearly than it did at present to a court of law. This country prided herself on her judicial tribunals, where such evidence as ought to be received was admitted, whilst such as ought to be rejected was refused, and he saw no reason why Committees of this House on private bills should not be of the same nature. He also approved of the resolution which went to reduce the number of the Members of the Committee to seven. In his opinion the responsibility of the private bills Committee ought to be greatly increased, and he thought his hon. Friend took a very accurate view of this subject by endeavouring to throw on the shoulders of every individual in the Committee every possible responsibility; all that his hon. Friend proposed was, that with respect to Committees on private bills, they should introduce the same principle and recognize the same rules as had been for some time adopted, and, he might add, with so much convenience elsewhere.

entertained an opinion decidedly adverse to the motion. The hon. and learned Member placed the question on a false ground, when he represented a private Committee as a body of a strictly judicial nature. He thought it entirely different. A private Committee was appointed to discharge legislative functions, and do, with respect to a private bill, what the House itself did in the case of a public bill, taking that course which the force of opinion and circumstances pointed out as expedient. A select Committee on a private bill stood in the same situation as a Committee of the whole House on a public bill, and discharged similar functions. A judicial tribunal was not the best fitted to decide on questions of expediency. If the representatives of places or districts affected by the bills were excluded Irom the Committees, all these questions and discussions now disposed of in the Committees would be introduced into the House itself, to the exclusion of more important business, and the undue consumption of the public time.

must admit that he was not particularly enamoured of the motion now introduced, nor in love with the present mode of proceeding upon private bills. There were very great difficulties in the way, and, do what they might, the conflict of opinions to which the right hon. Gentleman had just adverted, and which he wished to avert from the time applied to public business, could not be prevented. If there were any thing like a public principle in any bill that was introduced, he defied them to get rid of that conflict of opinions; but he had long thought they should do something to radically change the present system, and he did not think it impossible to obtain one less objectionable. He considered that they should have some person in the capacity of a judge who should sit and preside over the tribunal before which opposed bills should be instituted, conducted, and finally settled, and, that there should be certain rules and regulations of conduct maturely considered and agreed to by the House by which that judge, be he whom he might, should guide the decisions of the Committee in conformity with them. When all the information was collected and decided on by that judge, who should consider whether the rules and regulations of the House had been properly followed or not, that should be transmitted with a report from the judge to the House, and then the House would have something solid and on which it could depend to place its own decision. It had often been said that a job might easily be effected by the present system of passing unopposed bills, and if any such job were in view it was only to present a petition. The bill was referred to the Committee as an opposed bill, and the job might then be effected. He much feared that his hon. Friend could not cure that defect; and, as he did not consider that the resolutions would effect any good object, he was not prepared to support them.

approved of the resolutions which would approximate the practice of the House of Commons to that of the House of Lords, and had been recommended by former Committees. Members connected with districts from which bills were pending were now placed in a most embarrassing situation, being equally pressed by both parties to support them. He could not conceive any two cases more exactly similar than the trial of a question of property before a jury, and the trial of such a question before a Committee of that House. All the improvements which had been made in election Committees had for their object to find individuals to serve on the Committees free from local influences and party feelings. The same arguments applied to the present case; and as to the difficulty of obtaining the services of Members, was it to be supposed that in the whole House five impartial and uninfluenced men could not be found to try a question affecting a particular section of the country.

said, select Committees were to be considered as not legislative but judicial bodies, and the more impartial they were rendered the more of public confidence they would enjoy. Since this had been in some degree regarded in the election Committees they had been much more respected.