introduced an Amendment the better to secure mansions, ornamental grounds, and private roads from invasion by railway companies. It also altered the distance from 1,000 yards to 500 yards, with some minor changes of the same kind.

still entertained his objection to the whole clause, and was resolved to resist it. If he could not expunge it altogether in this stage, he would at least amend it, in order that it might not be so gross an attack upon private property. He entered his solemn protest against it, and hoped, if not here, that in another place, where landed property was more regarded, the clause would be rejected.

observed that if his hon. and gallant Friend's Amendments were adopted, the clause would be valueless. He hoped that they would not be pressed; but that a solemn protest such as that just entered would be deemed sufficient.

pointed out the particular instances in which railway companies had unduly invaded private property and ornamented grounds. Gentlemen's seats, mansions, and parks were exposed to most severe injury, and he hoped that nothing that could be done to protect them would be omitted in the Bill.

added that such was the main object of his Amendments to the clause. He intended also to give private parties the Common Law remedy against nuisances, if companies erected brick kilns, coke ovens, or other annoyances near a mansion.

objected to the enormous powers given by the clause to engineers; the less care an engineer took in laying out his plans the greater was the latitude given to him by the Bill.

urged that allowance ought to be made for engineers, who might not be able in the first instance to lay out their plans and lines with as much exactness as afterwards. He could not consent to modify the clause more than he proposed by his Amendments in the hands of the clerk.

remarked, that many special Acts gave greater powers of this description than the Bill under consideration.

called attention to the situation of the poor man whose private property was invaded, or a nuisance erected in its neighbourhood, and who had no remedy beyond an action at law, the costs of which he could not afford. He considered the clause so oppressive, that if he found nobody to support him he would divide against it at the proper stage. He had not been sent there to protect the rights of gentlemen only; and if the notion of other Members was that all they had to do was to take care of the rich, who could take care of themselves, it was high time the House underwent a new reform.

proposed an Amendment, giving parties whose property was taken, the option of arbitration or an appeal to a jury. Juries were usually, he thought, biased, and decided against private parties, and in favour of companies. His object, therefore, was to secure a fair trial before an arbitrator, if a party preferred it.

was willing to consent to the introduction of the Amendment, if the option between an arbitrator and a jury were not confined to the private party, but given to the company also.

admitted the difficulty of obtaining a fair trial in many cases where appeal was made to a jury, and referred to the practice in Scotland, which was in conformity with the Amendment.

did not agree by any means in the general censure passed upon juries for partiality to railway companies. He doubted whether the landowner would be benefited by arbitration as much as was expected. He contended that if the option were given, it ought in fairness to be given to both parties.

said, that if the option were also given to the company, the company would, in all cases, be guided in making its choice by the fact whether they could get a jury or an arbitrator most favourable to them. Small landowners were constantly bullied by companies, and compelled to take the sum offered, or to appeal to a tribunal which was notoriously ill-disposed towards them.

contended, that trial by jury, though on the whole a great good, was not in all cases, an unexceptionable tribunal. Juries were formerly mad against railways, whereas now they were mad in favour of railways. He did not mean to charge them with corruption, but it was certain that in most cases juries did not administer justice. On the other hand, a well-informed arbitrator was usually as impartial as he was competent; in Cumberland he could point out many gentlemen who would be able to give a fair and discreet decision in a dispute of the kind.

proposed an Amendment, in order more effectually to give parties an appeal from the Sheriff to the Court above on points of law. A case had arisen whether directors on railways were competent witnesses; collectively it had been decided they were admissible, under Lord Denman's Act, inasmuch as they had no separate interest; but this was a point upon which high and legal authorities were at variance. He proposed a clause enabling either party to apply to the Court above in order to set right an error in the Court below.

apprehended that such an Amendment would be greatly in favour of companies who could afford to appeal, and against private parties who, perhaps, had not funds to enable them to pursue the case into the Court above. The practical effect must be to compel parties to resort to arbitration, in order to avoid the expense and inconvenience of a lawsuit.

hoped that the noble Lord would pause until he had had time to make inquiries as to the expenses of such appeals; he did think that a Motion of the kind in the Court above would cost more than was within the means of a moderate man; it might not cost 2l., and certainly not 20l.

did not pretend to say what an appeal of the sort might cost; an ex-parte statement must first be made to the Court above, which would occasion an answer from the other party, and then there seemed no means of knowing where the expense would end.

said, that it would be in the recollection of the House that certain charges had been made against his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Office. The charge related to the alleged conduct of his noble Friend to the New Zealand Company, and the charge was, that he had been guilty of a gross want of faith, and of deception. The Government had not had as yet any opportunity of vindicating the noble Lord; for on a previous occasion, when it was brought under their notice, it was done in such a manner, that, though the Government were indirectly accused, they could not enter into their defence. He perceived that the hon. Member for Liskeard had given notice of a Motion for Tuesday, which had reference to the affairs of that Colony; but that notice, as was the case with the last which had been brought before the House on the subject of New Zealand, would give no opportunity for the vindication of the conduct and character of the noble Lord. He submitted to the House that such a course was not fair. The noble Lord had been distinctly charged in that House with conduct not becoming a Public Officer or a gentleman; and he (Mr. Hope) found that a petition was in course of circulation, and solicitations were being trade to persons of high standing in the City to sign it, imputing to the noble Lord misconduct as regarded the New Zealand Company. He thought the House would agree with him that it was not fair that a charge should have been made, and not have been brought forward and substantiated. And as he (Mr. Hope) perceived it was not the intention of the New Zealand Company formally to substantiate that charge against the noble Lord before the Easter recess, he thought the House would further agree with him that it was due to the noble Lord's character, and to that fair play which every Englishman was entitled to, that such charge should be brought forward and gone into. He should, therefore, on Tuesday next, give a formal notice for the production of Papers for the purpose of raising the question, and enabling the New Zealand Company to substantiate the charge which had been made, if it was in their power to do so. He should also state, with reference to the Motion of the hon. Member for Liskeard, that he would adopt the course which the hon. Member complained he had not adopted the other night, and present the Papers to which his (Mr. Hope's) Motion referred, so that the hon. Member might at once have them in his hands.

was prepared to repeat and substantiate the charge which had been made against the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies either then, on Tuesday night, or at any other time; and he was therefore quite in the hands of the hon. Member the Under Secretary for the Colonies. He was willing, if the hon. Member wished, now to repeat the charge, and give his opinion of the conduct of the noble Lord, in order that the hon. Gentleman might be perfectly aware of what he had to meet on Tuesday.

thought if the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies meant to raise the whole question, the Papers ought to be produced before he grounded any Motion upon them; as also the Papers which had been moved for the other night; and the hon. Gentleman had better not, therefore, fix so early a day as Tuesday for bringing the subject before that House.

said, that having been the party who had, he believed, in the first instance, and in the strongest terms, given his opinion as to the conduct of the noble Lord, he might be allowed to say, in answer to what had fallen in the shape of accusation and taunt from the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies, that he should be quite ready to substantiate any charge which he had brought against the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies. But at the same time, he must say, that he should not allow the hon. Gentleman to dictate to him at what time he might choose to do so.

said, the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies had made a statement which he did not clearly understand. What was it that the hon. Gentleman proposed to do? to lay certain Papers on the Table and take no further step? was that the course which he meant to adopt?

said he wished to take the same course which had been taken the other night—to move for Papers for the purpose of raising the question, in order to put before the House and the public the personal character of the noble Lord, in whose department he (Mr. Hope) served, and afford an opportunity of substantiating the charges which had been made, independently of the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard, which was for the production of other Papers. As he had before said, he would do what the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard complained he had not done the other night, he would have the Papers presented, so that they might be in his hands, and he, begged to state to the noble Lord the Member for Sunderland that the Papers moved for the other night should be in the hands of hon. Members by Monday morning.

thought the hon. Member should state the distinctive charge made against the noble Lord, and if the Papers which the hon. Gentleman was about to present had any reference to the charge, the House should be in possession of them before the matter was discussed.

said, the charge which he understood to have been made was this—that the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies had entered into what was stated to be an agreement with the New Zealand Company, and having done so, he undertook to give certain instructions to the Governor of New Zealand—that he gave one set of instructions as those which he had proposed to the New Zealand Company, and another set of instructions to the Governor, inconsistent with those which had been proposed to the Company; and thereby the Governor and Agent in the Colony was not in a position, or rather his instructions were not such, as to enable him to carry out the arrangements which the noble Lord had made with the Company.

stated, that if the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. C. Buller) were present he would consent to postpone his Motion, fixed for Tuesday next, until such time as the House was put in possession of the documents. It was most desirable that hon. Members should have an opportunity of inspecting the documents that were intended to be laid upon the Table before going into any fresh discussion on the question.

["Order"]. He did not see how he could be out of order in prolonging the discussion, considering that the hon. Member the Under Secretary for the Colonies had been allowed to speak a second time on the subject. He rose merely for the purpose of observing that if the hon. Gentleman thought there was any disposition on the part of the New Zealand Company to shrink from any charge made against the Colonial Government in general, and Lord Stanley in particular, he was exceedingly mistaken. With respect to what had been said about the procuring of signatures to petitions in the City, he could tell the hon. Gentleman that leading mercantile parties in the City were not to be influenced to sign a petition against the Colonial Department of the Government, without being thoroughly convinced of the truth of the matter to which they pledged themselves. It' the hon. Gentleman supposed that the Colonial Office stood well with the country, he was not a little mistaken; for he could tell the hon. Gentleman that it was reprobated by the whole country—it was considered to be the plague and nuisance of the Empire, and he believed that the hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord at the head of that Department were the only two individuals in the land who regarded it any other light.

said, he would wish to test the propositions of the hon. Member who had just sat down by a vote of that House; and if the hon. Gentleman, instead of bringing forward a Motion for the production of Papers on which there would be no division, would move a substantive Resolution respecting the conduct of the noble Lord, or for the production of some Papers to which the New Zealand Company were not entitled, they would then have an opportunity of ascertaining how far the hon. Gentleman's proposition was correct. He thought they should have some proposition submitted to them on this subject, on which no discussion had as yet taken place; and an opportunity for discussion would not be afforded to them, either by the Motion of the hon. Member for Liskeard, or that of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of the Colonies. If they had such a Motion brought before them, they could then have an opportunity of testing the truth of the allegation of the hon. Member who had last addressed them, as to whether the conduct of the Colonial Government was reprobated by every individual in the country except the noble Lord and his representative in that House.

was very much inclined to concur in the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for the University of Oxford, as after all that had passed it was absolutely necessary that the policy pursued by the Colonial Office, and by the Government of New Zealand, should be brought under discussion in some manner by which the sense of the House could be taken respecting it. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of the Colonies would, of course, use his own discretion on the matter, and if he fixed on Tuesday next for that discussion, he would, for one, not make the slightest objection; but he would repeat that the matter ought to be brought forward in some shape or other, and that hon. Members ought, in the first place, to be afforded time for reading the Papers about to be presented to the House on the subject. They ought to have an opportunity, before coming to any decision upon it, of considering the whole of the policy of the Colonial Office with regard to New Zealand, and be thus enabled to arrive at some decisive result. After the recent discussion, and the proceedings of last year on the question, he considered the House bound to come to some decision, and not to leave the subject in its present most unsatisfactory state.

said, after the discussion which had taken place on Tuesday last, it was natural that there should be, on the part of his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies, and of his Colleagues, an earnest desire that the sense of the House should be taken in some form or other on the policy pursued by the Colonial Office with regard to the New Zealand Company; and if any doubts were entertained by the hon. Gentleman on the subject before that evening, he thought they mast be effectually removed by the expressions which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Mangles). He believed that hon. Gentleman was a Member of the New Zealand Company, and upon the authority of the knowledge which he thus acquired he had declared it as his opinion that the Colonial Office, over which his noble Friend presided, was viewed by the commercial interests of the country as being at best but a nuisance. He thought the hon. Gentleman, after making such a declaration, was under an obligation to bring forward some proposition of the kind, speaking, as he did, on the part of the Company, and as a Member of the House. He was well aware that no hon. Gentleman could be compelled to bring forward any Motion with regard to the general policy of any branch of the Executive Government. That was a matter which was left entirely to their own discretion. The House had been left in doubt, on the former evening, as to the existence of any intention on the part of hon. Gentlemen connected with the Company to bring forward any distinct charge against the policy of the Colonial Office. He thought the hon. Gentleman who had seconded the Motion on that occasion (Mr. Aglionby) had told him that such a Motion might be made, but he gave no distinct pledge upon the subject. Whenever that question did come forward—if it were to be brought before them at all—then he concurred with his hon. Friend (Sir R. Inglis), it would be a proper time to call upon the House to express their opinion distinctly regarding it. But, quite apart from the question of the general policy of the Colonial Office, there was also another matter to be considered. A distinct charge had been brought against his noble Friend, implying want of good faith on his part in his dealings with the New Zealand Company. That charge had been brought forward towards the close of the recent debate, and, he believed, after both he and his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies had addressed this House. His noble Friend was most anxious that the House should not separate for the recess without giving him a distinct opportunity of explaining his conduct, and, by reference to documents, showing, as distinctly as it was possible to be shown, that there was no ground for that accusation against him. His hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies, as the representative in that House of his noble Friend, was most anxious to enter as soon as possible, not into the discussion of the general policy of the Colonial Office, but into the charge against his noble Friend of want of good faith; and both he and his noble Friend were unwilling that the House should separate without hearing the explanation which he had to offer.

expressed his gratification at what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet ronet the First Lord of the Treasury. The right hon. Baronet had treated the subject, as was to be expected from him, in a fair spirit; for when any hon. Gentleman had a charge made against him, either in his private character, or in his public or official capacity, it was but just that the earliest opportunity should be afforded to him of explaining those charges away. But he thought he had some right to complain of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies for bringing forward such a question on that evening, without giving any intimation to him or to any of the hon. Gentlemen connected with the New Zealand Company of his intention of doing so. [Mr. G. W. Hope: I have given such an intimation]. [Mr. Mangles: The hon. Member mentioned the matter to me five minutes ago, behind the Speaker's chair]. An intimation given only five minutes before the hon. Member brought the matter forward was scarcely sufficient notice to him or his hon. Friends. Was that intimation consistent with Parliamentary usage, or with the general courtesy which hon. Gentlemen were in the habit of extending towards each other on such occasions? The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies intimated that he would immediately bring forward the whole question of the New Zealand Company against the Colonial Office; but the right hon. Baronet had taken a much narrower ground, and had expressed his intention of merely seeking an inquiry into the charges affecting the character of the noble Lord. The right hon. Baronet had distinctly recollected the expressions which he (Mr. Aglionby) had used on a former evening. He had not, at the time, expected that the debate would have taken the somewhat angry form of discussion which it afterwards assumed, and he accordingly spoke merely of the probability of the question being brought before the House as a dernier ressort, in case the Company failed to get justice done to them by the Government. For many weeks past a petition had been in preparation by the Company; but in consequence of hon. Members being obliged to attend daily to business in that House from twelve o'clock at noon to twelve o'clock at night, he and other hon. Gentleman connected with the Company had been unable to bear their proper share of the burden of preparing it. It was a matter requiring much consideration to frame the petition in a proper way, so as to bring their case fully and clearly before the House, and accordingly it had been modelled and re-modelled, but at the same time with an anxious desire of having it ready to present to the House at as early a period as possible. He had made inquiries on the preceding day on the subject, and he was informed that the petition was not yet in a state for presentation, and doubts were even entertained whether it could be brought forward before Easter. But until that petition was presented, and the substance of the voluminous blue book on the Table of the House on the subject was arranged in a somewhat intelligible and condensed form, it was impossible that the Company could be dragged into a discussion. It was to be supposed that there would be a feeling abroad against the Company, and in favour of the Government, in such a case, which could only be met on the part of the Company, by strongly putting forward their grievances in a petition. Though he had used the word "might," in speaking of the question being brought before the House, he did not mean by it to imply the strong wish of the Company to bring forward their case if the justice of their demands were not longer opposed. He did believe that the intervention of the House might be dispensed with, and that the Government, and the right hon. Baronet opposite in particular, would yield them the justice which they required. With regard to the other part of the question, he might observe, that he was extremely glad that Tuesday had been fixed for bringing it on, and he had not the slightest objection to state at present what the charges were which he would then urge against the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies. He would, if it were thought better, write to the noble Lord on the subject, and thus inform him of these charges in private; but he thought it only just to many hon. Members, who would wish to take a part in the debate, to bring them forward publicly. In the debate the other evening much difference of opinion was expressed with regard to the use of the words "agreement" and "instructions"—the hon. Member for Liskeard being opposed to the latter term, and the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies having an equal objection to the former. There was also on that occasion a debate about the word "promises." But what were the facts? After many long negotiations on the part of the New Zealand Company with the Colonial Office, the hostile letter that had been sent by the Company was agreed to be withdrawn. It was then agreed, after many discussions on the matter, and at the suggestion of Lord Stanley, that the New Zealand Company should make out a proposal setting forth the whole of their terms and demands: but instead of their sending it in officially, Lord Stanley required that the draft only of the document should, in the first place, be transmitted to him, when he would express his assent or dissent on each item. The document was thus examined; and the several heads of it decided upon, either by Lord Stanley or by others in his Office; and after the Iterations thus suggested were finally disposed of and agreed to by the Company, was not the document one, he would ask, to which he had a right to apply the term "agreement?" The next step taken was to give instructions to Captain Fitzroy, and the letter of the 12th of May, 1844, from Mr. Hope to that gallant officer was accordingly written. He had been often in company with Captain Fitzroy, both in the presence of Mr. Hope, at the Colonial Office, and on other occasions, and he never had the slightest intimation given to him that any letter had been written to Captain Fitzroy from the Colonial Office, except that letter of the 12th of May. During the entire of the negotiations between the Colonial Office and the Company, and while every paragraph in that letter had been discussed and commented upon, there had not been the slightest intimation given to the Company that any other letter was in existence. If he had known of other instructions having been given to Captain Fitzroy, which were kept secret from the Company, he for one would have thrown up the entire negotiation at once.

observed, that the hon. Gentleman ought, perhaps, merely to state his facts for the present, without reasoning upon them at the same time.

said, he would act upon the suggestion thrown out by the right hon. Baronet, and confine himself strictly to a statement of the facts. He was about to observe, that during all his interviews with Captain Fitzroy, that gallant Officer had another letter in his pocket from the Colonial Office, besides the letter of the 12th of May, though he and the Company never heard a word about it. Lord Stanley received a letter from Captain Fitzroy, after the issue of the letter of May, stating the doubts that had been raised, and that had occurred to himself, about the instructions which he received in May; and to that letter a second letter, containing further instructions, had been sent from the Colonial Office. His complaint of Lord Stanley was, that this second letter should have been kept a secret from the Company. In the month of December — six months after Captain Fitzroy had sailed for New Zealand—the Company, on application to the Colonial Office, received copies of Captain Fitzroy's letter and of Lord Stanley's answer. His attention was not called to these letters until the subsequent June, or twelve months after Captain Fitzroy had sailed, and then it was remarked that Lord Stanley's letter had been marked confidential. But, said the Under Secretary for the Colonies, there was nothing in Lord Stanley's second letter that was inconsistent with his first letter. He would enter into that part of the case on Tuesday; but for the present he would only observe, that even if there were no inconsistency between the two letters, that was no reason whatever why the second letter should have been kept a secret from the Company.

reminded the Under Secretary for the Colonies, that the noble Lord the Member for Bath (Lord Duncan) had given notice of an important Motion on the subject of the window-tax for Tuesday evening, and there were also some other Notices fixed for the same evening. Was it intended to bring on the debate about New Zealand on that evening or not?

said, it appeared to him that they ought to separate distinctly the personal charge against Lord Stanley from the general charge against the Colonial Department. As it was clearly most desirable that the first of these matters should be disposed of with as little delay as possible, he would beg to suggest to the right hon. Baronet the propriety of taking one of the Government days fr bringing it forward, and of having it fixed for Monday next.

said, he trusted the Government would not be pressed to adopt such a course, at a time when there was so great a necessity for bringing on the Sugar Duties and the alterations in the Tariff with as little delay as possible.

said, his only wish was to have some definite time fixed on for bringing the matter forward.

said, he entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), that whenever these subjects were brought before the House, an effort should be made to keep the charge against the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, and the question of the policy of the Colonial Government, entirely distinct. He for one should wish that the charge made against the noble Lord of breach of faith should be at once entered into, and that every explanation which could be given upon it should be heard; and the result he had no doubt would be—as had been anticipated by the hon. Member for the University of Oxford—a large majority in favour of the noble Lord. Of that he could have no doubt: but there was another question remaining of a most important kind, which the House should not overlook—a question which was not merely confined to the character, or to the folly, or to the immediate interest of the Administration. It was the question of the government of that important Colony. For his part, he believed if the islands of New Zealand were properly colonized and cultivated, and rightly governed, they were destined to have great weight in the future condition of that part of the world. He believed that the 18,000 or 20,000 Englishmen who inhabited that Colony were destined to exercise a powerful influence in the future government of the greater part of that hemisphere. He thought, therefore, that they ought as much as possible to separate the consideration of that great question from all mere personal matters. For his part, he could not at present form an opinion as to whether the New Zealand Company were right in making any charge against the noble Lord, or whether the noble Lord were right in the course which he had taken in opposing their views; but of this he felt quite convinced, that the tone adopted by the noble Lord in writing to the Company, and the tone used by the Company in their replies, were of far too angry a character to be taken in negotiations between the Government of the country and a public Company. If the differences between the noble Lord and the New Zealand Company were to be discussed in that House in the same spirit in which the letters between them had been written, then he would say that it was most important to keep the debate on that matter quite distinct from the general Motion on the condition and government of the Colony. The first subject could be made a separate discussion, and at some other day and time the House could consider in a calmer mood the instructions which had been given by the noble Lord for the guidance of Captain Fitzroy as Governor of New Zealand and secondly, whether the conduct of that Governor had tended to promote harmony, and had conduced to the welfare of the Colony. Without offering any opinion as to the propriety of bringing forward the subject before the House, he hoped he would be permitted to put in a word on the part of the public, and to express a hope in their name that the House would take immediate steps for rescuing that important Colony from the distress and misfortune in which it was at present plunged. If, in any discussion on that latter subject, it should appear that he was himself liable to blame for acts done under a former Administration, he was quite willing to bear his part of the reprobation of the House, provided they adopted measures for ensuring a better system in future.

wished to explain that he did not observe the Notice of the hon. Member for Liskeard on the Book until late in the day, and he had afterwards no opportunity of stating his intentions to any of the hon. Gentlemen who had taken a part in the recent debate until coming down to the House, when he mentioned the matter to the hon. Member for Guildford. Having perceived that the Motions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvon (Mr. Sheil), and of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Ward), which had been fixed for Tuesday, were postponed until after Easter, he had come to the conclusion, that he could more readily bring the subject forward on that evening than on any other day before the recess, and he trusted that he would be enabled to do so when the time arrived.

begged to ask the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury, whether the English Government had made any representation, or were about to make any representation, to the French Government relative to the conduct of M. Piscatory, the French Ambassador, respecting the dismissal of General Church from the service of the King of Greece? The present condition of that country attracted very considerable, interest; and the recent occurrences there were such as to call for prompt and particular inquiry. M. Guizot had very often latterly made observations about the entente cordiale existing between France and this country; but certainly the conduct of the Representative of France in Greece was very far from exhibiting that friendly feeling. He had been in Greece last year, and he could state to the House that the conduct of the French Minister was denounced by every person in that country as shameful and disgraceful. He would also inquire whether any steps were to be taken about the payment of the Greek loan?

was not at all surprised at the interest which his hon. Friend had shown on all matters connected with the destiny of Greece. He believed his hon. Friend had the advantages arising from a personal knowledge of that country in discussing any questions connected with it, and he showed a praiseworthy desire that Greece should furnish an example to the world of a popular Government coexistent with liberal institutions. He believed his hon. Friend had been influenced throughout by the sincerest desire to promote the interests of that country. As to Sir Edmund Lyons, he might say that in some recent discussions in that House, observations had been made about the incapacity of naval officers in conducting civil affairs; but that gallant gentleman was an example that affairs of great importance connected with a great country might with safety be committed to the hands of a naval officer. The opinion of Government, therefore, with respect to Sir Edmund Lyons remained entirely unchanged. With regard to M. Piscatory, the hon. Gentleman would, he hoped, excuse him if he declined making any public reference, as a Minister of Her Majesty's Government, to the conduct of the Representative of another Power. In respect to General Church, he should own that he entirely concurred with the hon. Gentleman in his expression of deep regret at the removal of a man from his office under the King, in a country to the interest of which he had devoted all the best energies of his life for a period of twenty years. How the Government of Greece could be insensible to the claims of that gallant and distinguished officer, was to him a matter of the strangest mystery. With respect to the immediate relations between this country and Greece, respecting their guarantee, in conjunction with France and Russia, for the payment of the Greek loan, he could assure his hon. Friend that it was a subject which he had not lost sight of, and he trusted that Greece would be able to bear the burden of her own debt. He was sure that the House would excuse him if he forbore expressing any opinion as to the constitutional character of a Foreign Government, or as to the domestic acts of that Government. He had his own opinion as to the changes which had taken place; but he was bound to respect the acts of a Foreign Government, and therefore he would refrain from expressing any opinion.

said, that in the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Greenock, the task devolved upon him to bring forward a Motion on the subject of compensation to sugar refiners for the sugar now in process of refining. He understood that some difficulty arose as to the form of proceeding, in consequence of the manner in which the Notice had been given. He was anxious to ask the Chair whether it was competent for him, after the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth had been disposed of, to bring the question of a drawback forward, under the shape of an instruction to the Committee, or whether he could bring forward his Motion in the Committee?

said, that as the Notice stood on the Paper, the Motion of the hon. Member was intended to be made on the Question that the Speaker leave the Chair; but the hon. Member for Lambeth had a prior Notice on the Paper, and when that was disposed of, it would not be competent for the hon. Member to propose a second Amendment on the same Question. He apprehended also that the Motion could not be brought forward in the Committee on the Bill without a previous instruction, which instruction would not be regular unless after a resolution to the same effect had been agreed to in a Committee of the whole House.

expressed his wish to give every facility to afford the hon. Member the opportunity to take the sense of the House on the question.

had intended to have brought the subject forward when the House was in Committee of Ways and Means; but he had been requested by the right hon. Gentleman not to do so at that stage, as it was most desirable to pass the Resolutions without delay. The right hon. Gentleman had promised that facilities should be afforded for bringing it forward on a future day. It would be most unfair to the parties to prevent their case being heard, as it was evident that the impediment had been occasioned by a misunderstanding.

considered that it was of the utmost importance in proceedings on Bills, and above all on Money Bills, to adhere as strictly as possible to the rules of the House. There were undoubtedly circumstances in this case which might offer some ground for departing from the rule; but the evil would be, if they once admitted an irregularity, that when the circumstance which gave rise to it was forgotten, it would be established as a precedent. He could, however, assure the hon. Member that the Government would not throw any impediment in his way in bringing forward the Motion. Suppose that when the Bill had passed through Committee and the House resumed, the Motion was made pro formâ, that the Bill be recommitted, then the hon. Member could bring forward his Motion; or the same course could be adopted on a future day when the Motion for bringing up the Report was proposed.

observed, that this was a very important question, and it was most desirable that it should be settled at once. He thought that the best course would be for his hon. Friend to make his Motion on the Question that the Bill be re-committed. He was not quite sure that because the Resolutions had been agreed to in the Committee of Ways and Means, as to the reduction on the duties, that they would not introduce arrangements to carry out the object of the Resolutions, both as regarded the duty and the drawback.

thought that it was desirable that the question should be at once decided. On the first glance of the Motion of his hon. Friend, it would appear as if his proposition involved the imposition of a burden on the public in the shape of the drawback; and if that was the case, it was clear that it must originate in a Committee of Ways and Means. He did not say that this was the case, but it certainly appeared so on the face of the Resolutions. He was sure that there was no wish to evade the question; therefore it would be better at once to determine what step should be taken.

suggested that the subject should be recommitted to the Committee of Ways and Means. He trusted that, in consequence of merely a technical objection, they would not be prevented from bringing the subject forward.

had no wish to let technical objections stand in the way of the Motion; but it was a matter of considerable importance that they did not establish a precedent which would give rise to serious evils. The right hon. Member for Portsmouth observed that he thought in Committee on this Bill they might make arrangements as to the levying the duty, and also as to the drawback. It should be remembered that the Sugar Bill was an annual Bill, and that it enacted specific duties for a limited period. They had already adopted in the Committee of Ways and Means the Resolution as to the amount of duty, and they had made an estimate of the sum that would be received. Would not a clause introduced in the Committee on the Bill, involving the question of drawback, imply the making a payment out of the amount of duty to be received under the Bill. If this were the case it was clear that it could not be introduced in Committee on the Bill.

could not help feeling strongly the hardship of the case. As he understood his hon. Friend the Member for Rochester, they could not now give the drawback, because it involved a charge on the public. He did not think that this could be a rule, as he could not conceive how a drawback could be regarded as a tax on the country.

thought that the best arrangement that could be adopted, and that which was most in conformity with the rules of the House, was to allow the Bill to pass through Committee, and that on the House resuming, a Motion be made for the recommitment of the Bill, and the discussion be taken on that Motion,

said, that his object in rising was to move that provision be made in the Bill for the drawback of the amount of duty reduced on such duty-paid sugar as now remained in the Queen's warehouses. This was not a question which involved fraud or collusion, which other cases of drawback might do. The case was not one of great public interest, but that of private parties, who would be affected in consequence of the measure now before the House having been brought forward under peculiar circumstances. It was the case of individuals residing in London, Liverpool, and other places, who might suffer in consequence of Her Majesty's Government having proposed an alteration in the Sugar Duties. He trusted that the House would agree to his proposition, as the alteration was made most unexpectedly, and at an unusually early period of the year. He asked for a remission of duty paid on all sugar yet in a bonded warehouse. In nearly all cases where goods were in a bonded warehouse the duty had not been paid; but according to the usage of the sugar trade it was customary to keep sugar in these warehouses after the duty was paid, and the Crown, or the officers of the Crown, had the complete control over the goods. If the amount in question was small, the parties whom he represented would not urge the House of Commons in this matter, or wish to obstruct a measure of this kind, as it affected their private views. He felt that he should be justified in stating this, when he had informed the House of the amount in question. The parties whom he represented were six of the principal wholesale sugar dealers in London; and they stated in the petition which he had presented, the quantity of sugar they had locked up in the Queen's warehouses, the duty on which had been paid, and on which they now prayed a drawback. It appeared that the house of Conway, Phelps, and Co., had 10,000 cwt. of sugar so circumstanced; North and Co., 3,750 cwt.; Stubbs and Co., 3,000 cwt., and the other houses about 3,000 cwt. more—making altogether nearly 1,000 tons of sugar. At Liverpool and other places there were about 590 tons. The whole amount of duty that would be affected by acceding to this drawback was about 6,000l. The House would see that this involved a loss on individuals which they ought not to be called upon to bear. He would give instances where, under similar circumstances, a drawback had been allowed on sugar. This was the case in 1830, when the right hon. Gentlemen then filled the office which he now held. Again, in the proposed reduction of duties in the present Budget, it was proposed to allow a drawback to the glass manufacturer to the amount of 75 per cent. In 1843 also, when an alteration was anticipated in the wine duties, the right hon. Gentleman intimated, in answer to a memorial from the wine merchants, that in case of such an event a drawback would be allowed for the stocks in hand. No such reduction of duty then took place; but there were other cases with regard to the wine trade in which this had really been done. Thus, it appeared that drawbacks had been allowed in cases where there was nothing like the same security against fraud and collusion as there was in this case, for the sugar was exactly on the same spot as before the duty was paid. The hon. Member concluded by moving as an Amendment,—

"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'provision be made in the Bill for the Drawback of the amount of the Duty reduced on such Duty-paid Sugar as now remains in the Queen's warehouse, instead thereof.'"

agreed with the hon. Gentleman that this ought not to be considered as a party question. The settlement of these questions involved considerable difficulty, seriously affecting, as they did, the interests of individuals; and if he felt bound to adhere on this occasion to what he considered the best for the public interest, he could assure the hon. Member that it was not for want of considering the situation of those who might be sufferers by the change of the law. But he was impressed with the feeling that, if he attempted to relieve them, he might inflict a still more serious injury upon others who were in the same trade. The hon. Gentleman had presented a petition from six wholesale dealers in sugar, complaining that, having paid the high duty on sugar, and left it in the Queen's warehouse, they ought to receive back the difference between the duty they had paid and that which was about to be imposed. Now, in the first place, he would call the attention of the House to the fact that these six petitioners formed but a small proportion of the trade. There were in the metropolis fifty-two wholesale dealers in that commodity; and many of them had stocks of sugar equal to the petitioners, which they had transferred from the Government warehouses to their own, and therefore, so far as their pecuniary interests were concerned, they were equal sufferers with the petitioners. If he remitted the duties in the one case, he should inflict an injury upon parties who were in a different situation. For it was obvious that if two parties had equal stocks of sugar, the one in the Queen's warehouse, the other in his own, if the Government were to give the drawback to the one and refuse it to the other, they would give the one man a great advantage in his future commercial pursuits which they denied to his competitor. The hon. Gentleman had urged as one argument for the conceding of the drawback, that these parties were taken by surprise. Now he thought that there never was a time when parties could be less taken by surprise than on the present occasion. It was impossible that any man could attend to the discussions of last Session, and not imagine that a considerable alteration in the Sugar Duties would accompany the renewal of the Income Tax. So much was this the general opinion that the retail dealers had purposely kept the amount of their stock low, in order to prepare for the change. Then it was said that the change had taken place earlier than was expected. Now he thought that, as it was well known the Income Tax was meant to be renewed, any man who knew that the tax expired on the 5th of April, would know that the Sugar Duties, which were to be considered contemporaneously with the Income Tax, must come under consideration early in the Session. And, further, a memorial had been presented from the merchants, shipowners, refiners, and grocers in the metropolis, praying that the measures to be taken with regard to the Sugar Duties might be announced early in the Session, and that they might come into speedy operation; and among the memorialists was one of the gentlemen who had signed the present petition. But, said the hon. Gentleman, the petitioners would not have objected to the change, if it had been intended as a final settlement, or settled on a satisfactory basis. Now there was nothing in the fact that the Sugar Duties were granted for one year, instead of being placed among the general Customs of the country, to be continued till Parliament should otherwise determine, that ought to alarm the wholesale dealers; and as to these duties being placed on a satisfactory basis, the Government hoped, that, by the reduction of the duties, and the consequent reduction in price, there would be a greatly increased consumption throughout the country; and he trusted that the prosperity of the trade would so increase as to make up to them for their present loss. But the great argument on which the hon. Gentleman grounded his claim for these parties, was on the score of precedent; and he had particularly referred to the drawback on sugar of which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was the author several years ago. On that occasion there was an alteration of the Sugar Duties, and he had given the holders of stock a drawback of three per cent.; and he must say that the effect of the measure was to give considerable dissatisfaction. The general rule was, that on the Customs' Duties being reduced, no claim was allowed for the difference in the duties; when the duty was increased, no claim was made for the greater amount of duty on the stock in hand: and when the duty was reduced, no claim was admitted for the drawback. With respect to the Excise Duties, the rule was different; and for this obvious reason, that the excisable manufactures were carried on under the eye of the Government Officers, and the duty was charged at a very early stage in the process of manufacture. This was the reason why they allowed a drawback on glass; and for this further reason, that, when the duty was increased, the higher rate was charged on the stock in hand. But the hon. Gentleman had relied a great deal on the course pursued with regard to wine, and had referred to the drawback allowed on the reduction of duties in 1787. But at that period the wine was charged under the head of Excisable duties; and though at the reduction of duties in 1825 the wine trade had been transferred to the Customs' department, yet the Excise surveys and permits operated at the time, and they still came under the category of the Excise. So it was in 1831, when Lord Althorp reduced the duty on one kind of wine, and increased it on another; he took the increased duty on all the stock in hand which was liable to it, and gave the drawback on all the stock in hand which was entitled to that advantage. But this was never the case with regard to the Sugar Duties. He admitted that he had deviated from the rule on the occasion to which he formerly referred; but his experience on that occasion gave him no desire to repeat it. Under all these circumstances, he felt bound to state that he could not accede to the Motion.

fully concurred with the general rule which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had laid down, that in ordinary circumstances drawbacks ought not to be granted. But the question which the House had to take into its consideration was this—whetherornot there existed any peculiar circumstances in this case which would afford a fair ground for departing from the general rule; and, for his part, he must say that, having looked into the question with every disposition to take the line which the right hon. Gentleman had recommended, and fully impressed with the danger of departing from a rule which, in the main, was sound and proper, he still had come to the conclusion that the present was a case in which he did not think the House would act justly unless they made some reasonable arrangement which would mitigate the hardships of which the petitioners complained. What were the peculiarities of this case? He believed that the Government had pursued a course with regard to the dealers in sugar which was unprecedented in the commercial legislation of this country. Last year they had passed an Act altering the Sugar Duties, and enacting that the new duties should continue till the 5th of July, "and no longer;" and they now disturbed the arrangements on which dealers had a right to rely, and, three months before the expiration of the Act, they had passed another law subjecting the Sugar Duties to another alteration. He did not complain of the Government for having taken this course; he believed that it was rendered absolutely necessary. But by whom was that necessity created? Why, by the Government itself. In the memorial to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred, there occurred this remarkable expression: "That the measure of last season had disturbed not settled the question." He had taken the liberty of saying at the time what he felt equally strongly now, that it was most desirable for all interests that the question should have been settled last year rather than now. And he might observe that the relief which the right hon. Gentleman had given to the retail grocer by postponing the operation of the duties, had aggravated the embarrassments of the wholesale dealer; for, in point of fact, there had been, during the whole of the interval, a complete paralysis in the trade, so that the wholesale merchant could not dispose of his stock at all. But the right hon. Gentleman said, that if he gave this boon to the petitioners, he would put them in a more favourable situation than their competitors who had removed their stock from the Queen's warehouses. He did not think that was an argument at all, because the Bill had been brought forward at a period of the Session when it was all a matter of haphazard whom it hit, depending entirely upon the stock of sugar parties might have on hand. When he saw that means could be taken without the possibility of fraud of relieving a respectable body of men, he thought it was the duty of the House to take the means which were necessary for the alleviation of the evils caused by their own legislation. It was a very hard case for individuals to be mulcted by an Act of Parliament. From a statement put forth by the wholesale grocers of Liverpool, it appeared that four houses in Liverpool had five hundred and fifty tons of sugar in the Government warehouses, on which they had paid duty to the amount of 6,000l. This was to the parties concerned a serious calamity — brought upon them—(he did not mean to renew former discussions)—but brought upon them, as all must acknowledge, by the most unprecedented and extraordinary course of legislation which had been pursued with regard to the Sugar Duties, subverting the arrangement which had been made last year, and after enacting that the duties should last for one year, and no longer, declaring now that they should last for only nine months. He was glad that his hon. Friend had separated this question from the case of the sugar refiners. That was an important question, on which he would not at present give an opinion. But in the peculiar case now before them, it was impossible to allege that it afforded the slightest opportunity for fraud, as the whole of the sugar on which a drawback was sought was at this moment under the Queen's Lock. He entirely agreed with the general principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman respecting drawbacks; but, in the present instance, he was of opinion that a case had been established for relief—a case which could not be drawn into a precedent, or which would break down that rule—because the Government had converted the Annual Act into a period of nine months only. He therefore, concurred with the Motion.

said, it was his intention to vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Lambeth, because it was one deeply interesting to his constituents. He had presented a memorial signed by one hundred firms in the sugar trade, and, though much had been made of another memorial on the same subject, he was in a position to say that not a single wholesale grocer or sugar refiner in Liverpool had signed it. All these gentlemen were under the impression that the Act of last year would be suffered to expire, even in case there had been an alteration in the Sugar Duties; and, therefore, they were taken quite unawares by the proposal of the Government. The result of his own intimate and thorough conviction was, that the case of the memoralists as brought before the House by the hon. Member for Lambeth, was founded on equity, and should therefore have his support. He regretted the absence from illness of his noble Colleague, as he had no doubt that his voice and his vote would be also given for the Motion.

said, that considerable anxiety was felt in the country among retail dealers on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that if they extended their indulgence to sugar in the Queen's warehouse, why not also extend it to sugar out of the Queen's warehouse? That might be received as an answer to the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere); but his point was, that the same indulgence should be extended to others who had taken their sugar out of the Queen's warehouses, having paid the duty. By the proposition now before the House they would give all the benefit to the capitalists and extensive dealers, who could afford to purchase large stocks and let them remain in the Queen's warehouse; while no benefit would be conferred on the less extensive dealer, who might find himself necessitated to take his sugar from the Queen's to his own warehouse. That seemed to him a great hardship, particularly as parties purchasing stocks had done so in the belief that no alteration would be made in the law for twelve months.

said, it was quite impossible in reductions of taxation to reimburse everybody that unfortunately suffered. That being the case, it would be unjust to all the others if one were to be made the exception. That general rule had been admitted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The parties who had kept their sugar in bonded warehouses had had, under all the circumstances, a longer notice than was usually given when a reduction of duty was contemplated. The House had been told, in corroboration of that fact, that several retail stocks had been kept low; and the arrangement of last year, which was termed by some hon. Members a disturbance of the trade, was in itself an intimation of subsequent settlement. That being the case, the question arose whether or no the subject before the House was one which could fairly claim exception from the general rule. If, however, the principle was admitted as regarded the Motion under discussion, in what consisted the difference between the wholesale grocer who kept his stock in bond, and the retail grocer who took his stock out of the Queen's stores? In principle there was no difference whatever. If the first exception was admitted, the second should be admitted also: and so the House would go on, from shade to shade in the matter, until it became impossible to draw a line of distinction between the exception and the rule, or say when one should end and the other begin. That would give rise to the greatest uncertainty in practice; and the multiplication of precedents established by it would lead to far graver acts than was anticipated. The case of the hon. Member who last spoke might be pressed as strongly as that of the hon. Member for Lambeth, if once the principle of exception was admitted; and, therefore, although the necessity for adhering to the settled rule in cases where hardship existed was to be regretted, it was also inevitable. He should therefore oppose the Motion.

said, that the principle now sought to be maintained so stringently had been violated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite in 1842, in respect to the wine trade. If no drawback were to be allowed in any case, then, although it might be a hardship upon individuals, it would be equal upon all parties; but what the right hon. Gentleman did on that occasion with respect to wine, was a sufficient answer to the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the speech of the hon. Secretary for the Treasury. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. Gentleman said, as they could not give relief to every body, they would give it to no one; but the right hon. Gentleman acted differently in 1842, for he granted a drawback on wine bottled by the great merchants, though he refused to give it to the small dealers. And upon that occasion the right hon. Gentleman justified the course he took by urging that if he had inflicted a hardship upon one party, that was no reason why he should inflict it on another, and declining to be bound by any general rule in particular cases. But, if a drawback was to be given to wine, why should it be refused to sugar? The next question to be considered was, whether the case was a special case or not? That it was a special case he contended; for there was no other which had such an Act of Parliament to govern it as sugar. The hon. Gentleman had asserted that the parties in the trade had received sufficient notice; but his reply to that assertion was, the Act which imposed the duties remained in force until the 5th of July. But it had been said that a memorial from the trade had been addressed to the Government, praying that the question might be dealt with as soon as possible. But were all other parties to be held as bound by that memorial—those parties who had not petitioned on the subject? What was the fact with respect to that memorial? In the course of years it so happened that the trade was in a state of great uncertainty, and they were anxious that the Government should relieve them from that uncertainty, and they accordingly addressed that memorial to the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues. He must say he thought the right hon. Gentleman attached too much importance to the words of that memorial. Those parties had already a hardship to complain of, and that hardship was now made use of to justify the infliction of a still greater hardship. That should serve as a warning to parties against coming in the character of memorialists to the Treasury. If their arguments were to be used against them in that way, it would put an end to merchants addressing memorials to the Treasury. But in this case it should be remembered that there was this difference to distinguish it from other cases of the kind, that there was a total absence of any chance of fraud. They allowed the drawback to the wine trade, and why not also allow it to the sugar trade, when there was no ground to apprehend fraud? He had no wish that the parties who had paid the duty should absolutely receive it back again, but should be allowed such a portion of it as it might appear they were fairly entitled to. It was a case in which the Government ought to soften the hardships peculiar to it, as far as they possibly could. They had infringed the general rule respecting Customs'duties in the case of glass and wine; and he could not see on what principle of justice they now refused to extend the same indulgence to those parties.

said, that hon. Members were too fond of putting forward cases of individual hardship; but, if the right hon. Gentleman opposite had been still Chancellor of the Exchequer, he believed that he would have acted in the same manner as his right hon. Friend, not alone by resisting the Motion, but by using the same arguments against it. The case of the wine trade, as adduced by the right hon. Gentleman as one in point, was a fact totally different from the case of sugar. In consequence of a treaty being on foot with Portugal, there had been a complete stagnation in the trade in wine, and it became necessary to take out a large portion of the stock in bond for bottling for immediate use. To effect that, the trade was put under an excise survey, and every person in the country holding a ten-guinea license was allowed to bottle wine, receiving at the same time a debenture, with the proviso that a drawback was to be allowed on the stock in trade in case the treaty was concluded. That was only placing the trade on the fooling of 1825 and 1831. The uniform practice with regard to the Excise and Customs' duties was this;—When an Excise duty was agreed to, the duty was taken on the whole stock on the very day it was imposed. It was only just, therefore, that any relief should be given on the same principle. The course was different with respect to customable articles. Not one of those who had stocks—of sugar for instance—in the Queen's warehouses at the time of the imposition of the duty, would be charged 1s. beyond what they would have previously paid. It was, therefore, only fair that they should have no drawback allowed them on such stock. It was admitted that there would be the greater danger of fraud if the drawback were given on articles taken out of bond; and, consequently, he should not enter into that branch of the question. But as a general proposition, it was the duty of the Government to apply an equal rule of justice in all cases; and not to exempt one to the injury of another when there was a hardship. It was not true, as the right hon. Gentleman had suggested, that the Government had created an anomalous condition of things, by their conduct last year with respect to the Sugar Duties. That there was a further settlement contemplated, was obvious to every one in the trade; and the course of a clever trader would be to reduce his stock to a minimum. He (Sir George Clerk) had been informed that this had been done in most instances; and consequently, even if the Sugar Duties were not repealed until the 5th of July, the dealers would be in no better condition than they were at present. There was nothing therefore in the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth, that the change at this period of the year was a greater hardship than it would be at any other period. Under these circumstances he (Sir George Clerk) hoped the House would concur with the view of his hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and decide that any departure from the practice as laid down by law in such cases would be to establish a dangerous precedent.

hoped the House would not support the Chancellor of the Exchequer in resisting the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth. The mode of proceeding which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed in this respect was against law, against all precedent, and against common justice. Why did he say it was against law? Because the law which was now in operation was to have continued in operation until the 5th of July, 1845. The holders of sugar in bonded warehouses, to which the Motion applied, had therefore been taken by surprise by the introduction of this measure so much earlier in the year than they had anticipated. Then, to show it was against precedent, he should merely refer to the rule which had been invariably acted on of allowing relief from loss to those who were affected by changes in duties, when such relief could be afforded without the possibility of encouraging or facilitating fraud. He asked whether the sugar for which a drawback was now requested was not in the same situation as all excise stock? If that were the case, why should not the same justice be done to the holders of that sugar? He had never before to-night heard the doctrine, so little creditable to those who held it, that the Government were not prepared to give such redress in cases where injustice was proved to have been done. The sugar was left in the Queen's warehouse because the purchaser refused to have anything to do with the duty; and the duty was consequently paid by the seller before the sugar was taken out. For the Government to take advantage of that, was sharp practice, creditable neither to the Government, nor the individual Minister. The right hon. Baronet said that it was the duty of the Government, when changes of this kind were made, to make the losses as light as possible. Here was an opportunity of carrying that principle into practice, and he called upon the Government to take advantage of it.

Sir, I am sure the House will believe that it was the anxious wish of Her Majesty's Government to effect the necessary commercial changes with as little inconvenience and as little prejudice to the interests of individuals as possible. In effecting such changes all the feelings of the Government naturally incline towards making concessions to those interested in commercial pursuits, if such concessions can be made with a due regard to the public interests. I have received several deputations for the purpose of hearing from them statements having reference to the measure now under the consideration of the House; and I am sure it must have been manifest to the gentlemen who composed those deputations that it was the anxious desire of Her Majesty's Government to effect a great public advantage with the least possible loss to individuals. Every one must regret that any individual should suffer any great pecuniary loss by the carrying out of a great commercial change. The hon. Member for Montrose considered that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in proposing this measure, has been guilty of "sharp practice." Now, however justified the hon. Member might be in applying such language to pettifogging attorneys, or to parties who tried to cheat their customers, I think such language ought not to be applied to Her Majesty's Government. We are public men, acting on our sense of public duty, and defending as far as we can the measure which, as Her Majesty's Government, we have thought it our duty to submit to Parliament. And we certainly thought that in not proposing to make the return of duty suggested by the hon. Member for Lambeth, we were acting on a general rule, which it was the duty of the Executive Government to maintain. That general rule was laid down in the letter written on the subject by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of the Treasury. The hon. Member for Montrose was wrong in stating that if there had been an increase in the duty, instead of a decrease, that increase would have been charged upon the stock in hand. I do not think that the stock in hand would in such a case have been subjected to an increase of duty, having paid the lower duty. [Mr. Humphery: In the case of tea it is so.] In reference to the particular case before us, I cannot deny that it does appear to be the general feeling of the House that in this case, at least, a certain amount of drawback ought to take place. And I must also add, that I believe the late Chancellor of the Exchequer and the late President of the Board of Trade would not have given their support to this proposition except upon the conscientious conviction that this was a special case. When sitting on the other side of the House, I frequently supported the right hon. Gentlemen in their resistance to claims which they did not think consistent with the public interests; and, on the other hand, they have supported me when placed in similar circumstances. And whenever it is found that claims made upon the Government are founded on justice, they receive consideration at our hands. The right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer made a proposal to this effect,—not that the total amount of the drawback should be returned to the parties—but, supposing there had been, in consequence of the reduction of duty, a rise in the price of sugar, that circumstance should be taken into consideration, and a drawback allowed to the amount of the loss sustained. I consider that we have done our duty as the Executive Government in bringing forward the measure in the manner in which it was introduced to the House. But I understand it to be the opinion of the House of Commons, who are the guardians of the public money, but not so strict guardians of it as those who occupy the Treasury Bench: I understand it to be the opinion of the House of Commons that this is a special case, and that it does not necessarily lead to any other demand. I clearly understand it to be admitted on all hands that this concession does not involve any principle of further relief. I perceive that the House clearly sees the distinction between the cases of those sugars which were in bond, and the case of those which the general dealer took out of the Queen's warehouses for the purposes of sale. I understand that in this case, also, clear precautionary measures against fraud may be taken. Notwithstanding that there prevails generally a wide distinction between Customs and Excise, yet I cannot but think that the duty now under consideration partakes more of the character of an Excise than it does of a Customs' duty; and so, I think, it should be treated. Upon the whole, then, I am prepared to say, that the Executive Government are disposed to acquiesce in the proposed arrangement, for this amongst other reasons—that it implies no concession to further demands to be made either by the wholesale grocer or the retail dealer, or any other parties who may have placed themselves in circumstances different from those which are contemplated by the present proposition. Seeing the prevailing opinion of the House of Commons, I cannot but think it would be unwise in the Executive Government to oppose themselves to that opinion. But this I wish distinctly to state that what I propose to agree to is, that there should be some provision introduced by which the Treasury would be enabled, not to restore the whole amount of duty that had been paid, but to make such compensation as would be equivalent to the bonâ fide loss sustained by the parties concerned. I need not now point out the mode by which that object is to be accomplished; but if the hon. Member for Lambeth agrees to that which I now propose, care shall be taken to introduce a clause sufficient for the purpose. Further, I trust that, acting on the opinion of the House of Commons in making a concession such as this, and in thus doing the utmost justice to individuals, and carrying that principle as far as a due regard to the public interest will permit, I do hope that the House will support us in a resistance to those cases where concession would be unjust to the public.

I am very glad to hear the declaration which has just been made by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government. When the Government proposed their arrangement as to stocks on hand, I did not believe they were actuated by any motive whatever that might bear the character of hardship to individuals or to interests. I believed them actuated by no other motive than that stated by the right hon. Gentleman himself (Sir R. Peel)—a sense of public duty. I think the case which has been stated by my right hon. Friend near me (Mr. F. T. Baring) is the case which the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel) has taken into his consideration; that it is, in fact, an exception to the general rule. And I think it is to be understood as a case worthy of relief, provided, firstly, that it stands solely upon its own peculiar circumstances; and secondly, that in the giving of that relief fraud cannot be committed. Such, then, being the case, I think my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth cannot do better than at once to leave the matter in the hands of the Government.

said, there had been a time when, although duties had been paid and were in the King's coffers, they were stopped there, and new duties levied. That had been the case with tea. He was content with the arrangement proposed, if an equitable remuneration was given for losses sustained.

was willing to leave the matter in the hands of the Government, and he did so with entire and perfect confidence. He accepted the arrangement proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, and would, with the permission of the House, withdraw his Motion. He distinctly recognised the principle which the right hon. Gentleman laid down, and unless any other case came within the same special distinction, and unless fraud were quite impossible, he would join the right hon. Baronet in resisting any demand of the kind.

said, he did not see the justice of the distinction made between parties who had sugars under the Government lock and those who had removed them to their own warehouses, both having equally paid the duty. He hoped an equitable compensation would be made in every case where loss could be proved to have been sustained.

said, that after the decision of the House, he doubted whether the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets would act prudently in pressing the Motion for compensation to sugar refiners. It would be difficult to ascertain the particulars with respect to sugars which had been taken out, and were in process of manufacture; and the principle which applied to sugars in the Queen's warehouse did not apply to the former class.

expressed his readiness to yield to the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the understanding that it did not close the case of the refiners. They considered their case one of as great pressure as that which had induced the Government to yield to the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth. The sugar refiners were obliged to take out a large quantity, in no case less than five weeks' whole consumption; for their process of manufacture, and the peculiarities of that process, obliged them to continue constantly supplying their stock. Nor had any large exportation taken place, to enable them to save themselves from loss. The Government had yielded in the former case on the ground of the impossibility of fraud; and he could convince them that, in the case of the sugar refiners, there was no posbility of anything of the kind. The proposition which he wished to make was, that the duty should be remitted, not upon an estimate of the stock in the houses of the refiners, but of the sugar upon which they had actually paid duty for a given number of weeks previous to the 14th of March.

said, he would announce on Monday the course which the Government proposed to pursue. The case of the refiners was in many respects essentially different from that of the purchasers of duty-paid sugar in the Queen's warehouse, and he could assure the hon. Gentleman that there had been a large exportation, with great advantage to the refiners.

wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what objection he had to allow the Colonies the privilege of refining and sending their sugar into this country at the same rate of duty as clayed sugars were chargeable with? There was a protective duty of 2s. 4d. against the Colonies. He did not see why, considering that there were no excise regulations, and no additional charges on the refiners of this country, that a premium or protection duty of 2s. 4d. should be conceded them. They should give their Colonies every fair chance of finding a market. What he would propose was this—that after the 14th of March, at the end of two years therefrom, the duty on refined sugar should be the same as the duty on clayed. Not only was it on behalf of the Colonies that he contended that they should have this advantage, but also on behalf of the English public. He then moved, that after the words "eighteen and eight-pence" be inserted, "that from and after the 14th of March, 1847, the duty on refined sugar be then reduced to the amount of duty taken on clayed sugar."

said, that he had one objection to it, which was, that the hon. Gentleman had proposed, to a Bill which would expire in 1846, an Amendment which was not to come into operation until 1847. He thought it advisable not to stop the progress of the Bill by pressing the Amendment, and trusted the hon. Gentleman would suffer it to drop.

said, that he thought Her Majesty's Government had not sufficiently inquired into the difficulties which would attend the establishment of the principle of classification. The right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) stated the other night the grounds on which he adhered to the principle of classification. In referring to that statement, he was perfectly certain that if he addressed an impartial audience they would record a verdict in his favour, in seeking to expunge from the Bill the words "establishing the system of classification." He would ask the House to consider all the difficulties which would attend the practical operation of these words in the Bill, and he would take the sense of the House upon them. The right hon. Gentleman stated, that he had made extensive inquiries upon the subject. He stated that there had been a meeting of merchants, brokers, and others connected with the trade, to take the matter into consideration. But he did not tell them that they were unanimous, or that the great majority of them had decided in favour of classification. They were far from being unanimous. It was but by a small majority that the parties alluded to had come to a decision on this great question, and had decided in favour of what he was sure would involve the sugar trade in great confusion and difficulty. It was not, therefore, a clear and unmistakeable matter. It was a question on which the most skilful, intelligent, and the most experienced of men, might and would differ. He would again ask the right hon. Gentleman, and press for an answer, how it was that he was to establish the uniformity of which he was so sanguine. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that samples of sugar might be sent by railroad from London, with facility to the various ports into which sugar was introduced; and that the possession of these samples by the various officers at the different ports would enable them to act uniformly one with the other. But would that apply to Cork, or to any other place to reach which it was necessary that the sea should be crossed? But even if it did so apply, was that the mode in which they intended to test the quality of sugars?—a matter in which, it was admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, that public officers would probably differ. He had letters in his possession which he had received from various parties extensively engaged in the sugar trade, and which were condemnatory of the Government plan of classification. He could not regard the system of classification without suspecting that there were some motives at the bottom of it. He suspected that the motive was this—that there was a class of sugars—he meant Foreign free-labour sugars—which were of a higher quality than our Colonial produce—and which were therefore to be kept out of the market, and prevented from entering into competition with East and West Indian sugars. The effect of this would certainly be to continue the bad manufacture of sugar. The very foundation and essence of an ad valorem duty was, to make the superior article pay more than the inferior, and to keep, in fact, the superior out of the market. He would not let it be said that this was in favour of the poorer class of consumers; because what they gained in cheapness by such a system, they lost in the quality of the article. This was altogether a subject on which the House should have more information. The Bill proposed to reestablish an exploded system of classification—a system which had already, to a certain extent, been proved to be both defective and injurious. The Government spoke of their standard samples. These, as shown on a former occasion, would be liable to alteration by time, and from various causes operating upon them. The hon. Gentleman then moved the insertion of words into the Resolution, abrogating the classification proposed to be established by it.

said, it was the hon. Gentleman's good fortune, although it was, perhaps, his misfortune, that the hon. Gentleman did not hear what had fallen from him on this point on a former and very recent occasion. The whole matter was then fully stated on both sides. He had never pretended to deny that in the institution of a system of classification, there was, and must necessarily be, great difficulty. Since it had been announced that it was the determination of the Government to adhere to the distinctive duties, the number of persons who concurred in the possibility and propriety of such an arrangement, increased from day to day. They had found it possible to make and carry out such an arrangement both in France and America; and he thought that what was possible in reference to this matter in these two countries, would not be found impossible in a country like Great Britain, where the intelligence of public officers was as great as anywhere else, and where the means of assisting them were as near at hand and as available as elsewhere. He was confirmed in his original opinion that the system was a practicable one, by statements since received from various quarters; and he was sure that after the first difficulties occasioned by the immediate rush into the market of the quantity of sugar now in the warehouses, the great difficulties of the measure would be surmounted. The hon. Gentleman said that he had received letters condemnatory of the Government plan. He had received letters, on the other hand, both condemnatory and in approval of the plan, and it was only by balancing these conflicting opinions that a correct judgment was to be arrived at. He would not repeat the arguments which he had already made use of in reference to this matter; but if the hon. Gentleman divided the House upon his Amendment, he should divide against him.

had had some conversation with a number of wholesale grocers who had attended at the first sale of Manilla sugar. From the circumstances which then took place, it appeared that the trade was quite of opinion that great difficulties would arise from the new classification proposed by the Government. Heretofore it had been the custom of merchants to sell sugar, duty-paid; but in this particular case the merchant gave orders to the broker that the sugar should be sold in bond; and when it was put up for sale there were no purchasers who offered to buy, and the reason they assigned was, that they would not take it upon themselves to buy sugar in bond, because it was impossible for them to tell what might be the amount of duty to which they would be liable under the new classification to which the Government had expressed itself resolved to adhere. Those wholesale grocers to whom he referred, were persons competent to form an opinion on this matter; and the opinion expressed by them was, that the classification would be a source of endless difficulty to the trade. He thought it was but proper that he should state the case he had mentioned to the House. He was entirely opposed to the new classification, and if the hon. Member for Lambeth divided the House, he would certainly divide with him.

said, that he wished for an explanation of this clause. It was exceedingly important that such explanation should be given, as the clause seemed to him to be in direct contradiction to the Warehousing Act. If they were about to repeal the Warehousing Act, he was sure they would all agree with him that such a step should not be taken by the Government without furnishing the strongest reasons to the House for adopting it. He referred to the Warehousing Act, 3rd and 4th Will. IV., c. 57, Clause 17, and said he was sure the House was not aware that the Government was about to deal with the most important clause of that Act. He wished for explanation, and if one satisfactory were not given, he should move that the clause be expunged.

considered that there was not such a departure from the Warehousing Act as to prevent the House from adopting the clause. When the duty was high, an opportunity was given for reweighing the article. By omitting to do that for the future, a saving of 8,000l. a year would be effected. Sugars placed in the warehouses in July, and taken out in October, were subject sometimes to a loss of 14lbs. a hogshead. All that results from this would be a small loss to the importers.

asked, why should the importer suffer any loss at all. The Government ought to receive a duty on all that came into consumption, and no more. The Government ought not to get more than they were entitled to.

was sorry to hear that for the saving of a few thousands a-year, it was proposed to impose a tax upon individuals. It was not to be supposed that the merchant would pay for the quantity as imported into the warehouse. He would have it reweighed again, whether they charged duty or not, and as to the public they would not be the gainers by one farthing.

observed, the right hon. Gentleman defended the clause on the ground of the duty being lowered. There were many articles on which a low duty was charged, that were reweighed.

was most anxious that the preamble should set forth, as fully as possible, the whole policy of the measure. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel) had told the House, that in addition to imposing certain duties on sugar, it was intended by the Bill to give protection to the West India planters, and to discourage the Slave Trade. He (Mr. Gibson) thought those objects should be distinctly stated in the preamble.

said, the hon. Gentleman had had full opportunity of urging that point in the discussion on the Motion of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets; it was a little too late to bring it forward now.

observed, that the West India proprietors must not look upon this Bill as anything like a final settlement of the sugar question. It would be brought forward again next year; and he could assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that he, and those who acted with him, would then make more determined opposition than they had done on the present occasion to the principle upon which this measure proceeded; and he hoped, in so doing, they would have more of public opinion to back them. He must enter his protest against the Bill, as unjust to the consumer, and as one that would afford no practical benefit to the planters.

contended that the protection to the West Indies, of which hon. Gentlemen opposite complained so much, was rendered necessary by the legislation of that House. He contended that it was not to the operations of the Government, but to those of the League, that they owed the necessity of taxing the people, in order to maintain the rights of West Indian proprietors.

said, that there was a subject intimately connected with the measures under discussion, relative to which he had addressed the House upon a former occasion, and with respect to which he thought that Parliament ought to have the fullest possible information. He alluded to the means used, or to be used, to enable proprietors in the West Indies and the Mauritius to command an increased supply of labour. He considered this an especially important question to this country, which had done so much for the destruction of slavery and the improvement of the condition of the labouring population in our West India Colonies. The country had a right to know all the steps which had been taken on the subject. Now, he had received letters in reference to this matter from many parties who slated that they had relations acting as missionaries in the West Indies and Mauritius, and that these gentlemen were much afraid of the effect upon the present Colonial population which the character of the proposed labourers would probably produce. When he spoke upon the subject before, he particularly adverted to Jamaica, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer told him that there existed no loan for the purposes of immigration into Jamaica. He believed that this statement was quite correct; but then, with respect to Guiana and Trinidad, he believed that there were ordinances sanctioning loans for immigration, which had passed the Legislatures of those Colonies. He thought, therefore, that it was of importance that the House should have before them any measures for this purpose, and also full information as to the nature of the instructions which had been given by the Secretary for the Colonies, stating how far Government had approved of what had been done in this respect. It was stated that the noble Lord the Colonial Secretary had proposed, or rather had it in contemplation to propose, some guarantee to Parliament for the payment of the loans in question. He did not know how far this statement was correct; but considering how closely the Sugar Bill was connected with the subject, he took the opportunity of expressing his opinion that Parliament should have as much information relative to it as Government could give it.

hoped he might be allowed to say one word in explanation, even although it interfered for a moment with the hon. Gentleman's reply. With reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Durham, he could tell him that when he became Chancellor of the Exchequer—which God forbid!—if he attempted to take off a protective duty on West India produce, that the planters could not continue to cultivate their properties, and that our market would be supplied by slave sugar. Not a farthing of the reduction of duties would go into the pockets of the planters; every sixpence of reduction would benefit the consumers.

, in answer to the questions of the noble Lord, begged leave, in the first place, to say, that the alarm expressed by the noble Lord in reference to the possible demoralization of the population in the West Indies and Mauritius, in consequence of the intended immigration, was quite unfounded. The fact was, that from the Papers which he proposed to produce to the House, it was quite apparent that no such apprehension could reasonably be entertained, the number of labourers which could be drawn from Africa being so very limited. With respect to immigration, a statement had gone abroad that in the Mauritius there was not work to be found for the labourers introduced. This was, however, quite a mistake. There was an ample demand for labour there; but there had been some labourers carelessly introduced by the persons at onetime charged with the management of the immigration system, who had not been found well fitted for the purposes of cultivation: but since the system had been conducted by the Government all the immigrants had found ample employment. Another question of the noble Lord referred to the immigration ordinances. There would not be the slightest difficulty in producing the Papers relative to all these ordinances. Ordinances had been certainly passed in Trinidad and Demerara, but no portion of the loans had been raised; and, from the difficulties in the way, he did not think that any progress would soon be made in the matter.

thought that the hon. Gentleman had not answered one of the questions put to him by his noble Friend; he alluded to the intentions of Government in reference to any guarantee for those loans. He objected to the principle of raising loans, saddling future periods with their payment. Present expenses should be paid from presently provided revenues.

should have stated that as to the guarantee no decision had yet been come to by the Government.

remarked that difficulties existed in the way of introducing labourers into our Colonies. Some respectable mercantile houses in the city had obtained licenses from Singapore and Penang; but it was found that instructions had been contemporaneously issued from the Colonial Office to the effect that these licenses should not be allowed to be acted upon. Now, as numbers of willing labourers existed at Singapore and Penang, it was of great importance to know how they could be made available. The great point for the West India proprietors was to obtain labour, and that end accomplished they might do what they liked with the protective duties.

could state with confidence that it was quite a misunderstanding that any such instructions as those alluded to by the hon. Gentleman had been issued by the Colonial Office. The instructions which had been sent out were laid before Parliament. He had, however, before heard the statement made by the hon. Gentleman. He had made inquiries, and he had ascertained that any difficulties which might have existed in the way of procuring labourers had been originated with the Indian Government, and had not arisen from the nature of the instructions sent out. The real obstacle seemed to have been, that the persons obtaining licenses had not sent out ships from this country to convey the labourers; but had written to agents at Singapore and Penang to hire suitable vessels, and that these persons, not understanding the system, did not choose to enter into a venture, of the result of which they had little knowledge.

was understood to intimate, in postponing the Order of the Day for the House to go into a Committee, that the Customs' Acts Bill would be taken the first thing on Monday.

objected to any delay in considering the repeal of the cotton duties. There was an enormous quantity of cotton in bond; and he understood that the Resolution for the abolition of the import duties would not come on till Wednesday.

said, that any delays which might occur were not his fault. He had no objection to go on with the Customs' Duties Bill that night. He intended to take the articles of Customs in the order in which they stood, and to make as much expedition as possible.

wished to know whether he was to understand that the Customs' Duties Bill would not come on till Monday. He was most anxious that the subject should be brought forward with as little delay as possible. He found that all kinds of aspersions and taunts had been flung upon him and the Gentlemen with whom he acted. They had been accused of enacting a sham fight. At any rate, he wished to show that there might be one or two of them who really wanted a fair stand-up fight.

wished to know what the fight was all about.

I will tell the hon. Member for Montrose what it is all about. A few nights ago the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary stated that the agricultural labourers were in a state of poverty and distress, which could no longer be neglected. My hon. Friend the Member for Somersetshire means to call the attention of the House, not only to the poverty of the agricultural labourer, but to that of the tenant-farmer. And I tell the House and the Government that hundreds of farmers have become insolvent from the effects of the measures introduced by the one, and sanctioned by the other. ["Oh, oh."] Yes, there is no denying. If you can deny it, why not meet the charge of the hon. Members opposite, and repel it? You were told last night that the agricultural distress was frightful. I believe that such is the case; but the reason why I did not vote for the Motion last night brought forward, was, that I believe that any measures which Gentlemen opposite are desirous of introducing, are intended not so much for the protection of the farmer as the destruction of the landlord. I call on my hon. Friend to stand firm on the ground which he now occupies, and not to allow any Minister at a future time to charge him with coming whining into that House. Let my hon. Friend show a bold front, and he will not only deserve, but obtain, the approbation of the agricultural interest. Ministers have forfeited the confidence of the agriculturist. [Laughter from the Opposition.] Yes! they obtained power by making the agriculturists believe they were their best friends; and ever since they came into power they have betrayed their interests — they have betrayed the party that sits behind them. And my firm conviction is, that if there were a dissolution to-morrow, instead of having a majority of ninety, they would be left in a minority of twice ninety.

My hon. Friend the Member for Knaresborough rose to answer the question of the hon. Member for Montrose, and did so in a manner which the hon. Member did not expect. My hon. Friend answered the question when he spoke of another dissolution. In 1842, when the right hon. Baronet brought forward his Corn Bill, so humble an individual as myself was the only person who opposed him. By whom was I opposed? Why, by the very men who now cry out for agricultural protection—by those who now come forward and tell the country and farmers to look to them for protection. Now, in the present state of things, I shall not certainly attempt to purchase popularity by voting against the Government. We are a day behind the fair. What is the proposal of my hon. Friend Mr. Miles? You might as well say that two and two make four, as that "in any remission of taxation, due regard should be paid to the agricultural interest." Why, the hon. Member for Stockport may affirm that proposition! So may the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury. What, then, does my hon. Friend mean? Has his Motion any practical purpose whatever? Nobody will accuse me of being a "whiner" to any Government; but I must ask my hon. Friend for something definite in what he submits. Let me look at the Ministerial part of the House. There are some who sit there who possess my profound sympathy. Some eloquent speakers of that section maintain that free trade is a Tory doctrine. The same eloquent lips have taunted the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government with not being a Tory. According to him, the Member for Stockport is a high Tory. How is it that such a Motion as my hon. Friend's seems to have attracted the support of those who sit on that part of the House? I suppose it is because they are "the farmers' friends." Alas for the poor farmers! they are befriended on all sides. The Member for Stockport is their "friend"—the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government is their "friend;" but cruelly are the farmers suffering from the proceedings of their "friends." But of all the sufferings which they endure—of all the mockeries they could be exposed to—the most bitter is that which would be conveyed by a Resolution of the House of Commons, in the terms proposed by my hon. Friend.

As the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Miles) has given notice of a Motion, which I am rather inclined to think, with the hon. Member for Stockport, will be a sham one, I wish to ask whether there is any measure which he wishes to propose? There is a vote about to be taken on cotton wool, which will remit 700,000l., and other duties are to be taken off, which will raise the amount to be given up to about a million, Now, will the hon. Gentleman propose other measures and other remissions of duties than those proposed by the right hon. Gentleman? For it is really necessary to know what are those measures before we come to the discussion of them. I must own, if we are to have the Property Tax, that I am satisfied with the remission of duties proposed by the Government; but if the hon. Gentleman can show me, in the first place, that he is really in earnest, and in the second place, that he has something to propose better than the proposition of the Government, he shall have my vote. I think, however, we should have a timely notice of what the proposition would be, and what the taxes are which it is proposed to remit. Before I sit down, I wish to recur to a statement of the right hon. Gentleman, to which I am not prepared to give my assent. I understood him to say, that he should propose such Votes of Supply before Easter as would enable him to pass the Mutiny Bill. That cannot be done without taking Votes as to the Navy and Army, which must lead to considerable discussion; in fact, raise the question of the defence of the country by sea and land. We shall have sufficient time for such a discussion when the House meets after Easter. I shall be very glad if the duty on cotton wool could be remitted, but I don't think the Government fairly chargeable with the delay.

would not ask for any Votes but those which were necessary for the Public Service. Some of the Votes were necessary for the Public Service to be passed—as the Votes for the Half-pay. It would be very inconvenient for the Public Service if these Votes were not passed. He only wanted such Votes for the men as would enable him to pass the Mutiny Bill. He thought some arrangement could be made to take these Votes, and have the discussion afterwards. With respect to the Motion of which his hon. Friend (Mr. Miles) had given notice, he begged to say, that he did not mean to put the same construction on it as the hon. Member (Mr. Borthwick) who sat behind him. The Motion might be considered as conveying a truism in which he could concur, and in which any persons might concur who thought that "due regard should be paid to the necessities of the agricultural interest." The construction to be put on a Vote of that kind depended on the position of public affairs. It would be impossible for the House to affirm that Resolution without implying an opinion that the measures of Her Majesty's Government ought not to be carried into effect. Although the Motion might be abstractedly true, the inference to be drawn from acceding to it would be, that there ought to be some remission of taxation immediately bearing on the agricultural interest. If they voted that Resolution without following it up by measures of that nature, it appeared to him that it would be practising a delusion on the agricultural interest. Now, he must say that the Government meant to adhere to the measures which they had proposed: they meant to remit the duties on cotton wool, and on glass, and those Customs duties which had been specified. It was, therefore, totally impossible for him, whether that Resolution were abstractedly true or not, to affirm it.

said, if the noble Lord (Russell) would look at the Resolution, he would find that it clearly stated—"That in the application of surplus revenue towards relieving the burdens of the country, due regard should be had to the necessity of affording relief to the agricultural interest." It was not his intention at all to interfere with the remission of certain taxes; but it was his duty, as he conceived, to lay before the House, previously to its agreeing to any further reduction of taxes, the state of the agricultural interest. He conceived it to be likewise his duty to point out to the Government, that though it was impossible for them directly to remit taxes, yet there were indirect means by which they could relieve the agricultural interest from a taxation which peculiarly pressed upon it—he alluded particularly to the county rates. He should ask the House to consent to remit this rate; and that remission would amount to about 400,000l.

wished to ask whether there was any objection to allow the cotton duty to be repealed at once, and to take it out of the list where it now stood? It was placed unfairly with the "w's," although it began with a "c." There would be no difficulty in coming to a decision upon it, as they were all agreed about the remission of the duty; and, considering that there was at this moment an enormous amount of cotton bound up in consequence of the non-repeal of the duty, and that the quantity in the market was limited, and no regularity in the trade, he hoped the duty would be at once taken off. He had letters from Lancashire, making serious complaints on the subject. It seemed to him to be one of those simple things which an omnipotent Government could do in five minutes. It would cause great satisfaction if the Government would allow it to be done on Monday night.

We have never been able to get into Committee.

I will move that the House do go into Committee now, if the right hon. Baronet chooses.

The House would surely not go into Committee at that hour. He would much rather take the article in the order in which it was placed. It was no mistake of his that it was put among the "w's."

rose to move, according to his Notice, for a Select Committee to inquire into the merits of the Atmospheric System of Railway. He could have wished, at an earlier hour, to have dwelt upon the nature of the system, the progress it had made, and the great acquisition which he believed the discovery would prove in the science of railway locomotion; but at that period of the night, he would not trespass longer on the House than very briefly to state the grounds and refer to the Parliamentary documents upon which he hoped to gain the assent of the House to the inquiry which he sought. In the petition which he had presented to the House, and upon which he then moved, the patentees complained that they were prejudiced by the Report of the Railway Department of the Board of Trade on the Kentish and South-Eastern Railway; but he (Mr. Shaw) would greatly prefer to rest the case upon the public advantage to be derived from a preliminary inquiry being made upon a point of such vital importance, before the House became engaged in the unusually large amount of railway business they would have to discharge during the present Session. He should have liked to go through the various Reports of the Board of Trade relating to the subject; but as he fully appreciated the time of the House at that advanced hour, he should content himself by quoting from one Report, which, he thought, would sufficiently establish his case for a Committee—it was the Report upon the Newcastle and Berwick Railways. In that Report, the Board admitted that the result of the atmospheric system was likely to be "an acceleration of speed in travelling, combined with the general introduction of a system of very frequent trains and low fares," and that the experiment at Dalkey might be considered to a great extent conclusive as regarded the success of the system, considered as a mechanical problem; that it demonstrated that trains might be propelled by means of it at high velocities, with safety and convenience to the public; and that the same result might be attained, although the separate consecutive portions of the line should be multiplied indefinitely. But then they said, that in forming their judgment upon competing schemes, they could not assume the complete success of the atmospheric system "in a practical and commercial point of view"—meaning that of expense; and that therefore, in comparing two rival projects, they had thought themselves bound to regard them "apart from all considerations as to the atmospheric system." Now, he was not there to throw any imputation upon the Railway Department of the Board of Trade; on the contrary, he thought they had, on the whole, performed the very difficult functions that had been entrusted to them with great ability and impartiality; but still, in the instance of the atmospheric railway, he considered the conclusion they had come to was erroneous, and detrimental as well to the patentees, as to the public. While they acknowledged its merits, and that in a mechanical point of view its success had been proved, they excluded it from their consideration, because they were not yet satisfied of its success in regard of expense; and yet they had refused to examine witnesses upon that point. What he then wanted was, to supply evidence upon the question of expense, and to have an inquiry before a Select Committee of that House, instead of several before the various Railway Committees, which would have to consider competing lines, when any one of them was proposed to be constructed on the atmospheric principle. The proof that he understood would be offered was the practical experience of the working of the Dalkey and Kingstown line for the last eighteen months; and he might say that, as an Irishman, he had great pleasure in referring to that line, and stating that it was in Ireland the experiment of the atmospheric system had received its first practical trial. There could be also given in evidence the completion of contracts for the Drogheda line of eighteen miles in length, and the South Devon of fifty-two miles—both to be worked on the atmospheric plan, under the eminent engineers, Mr. Cubit and Mr. Brunel, and the contractors—such houses as Sir John Rennie, Maudsley and Feild, Boulton and Watt, and Grissell and Peto—who would prove not only that they had completed the contracts for the engines and air pumps at a cost not greater per mile than would be required for an establishment of locomotive engines; but that they would further engage to keep them in repair at an annual charge of about 5 per cent. on the first cost—whereas the wear and tear in the locomotive system was nearer 50 per cent. He did not want that those statements should be taken for granted, but merely inquired into, and that in a manner to prevent the great expenditure of public time and money—which otherwise it would cost to investigate them before separate Committees on Railway Bills. If it were said that the best test would be the experiment that was about being tried on the Croydon and South Devon lines, the answer was, that that could not take place before the month of July—that time was the very essence of the present question—and that in the intermediate period would occur that which might fairly be called the crisis of railway speculation. Considering then, that there were for that Session alone, 248 Railway Bills to be brought before the House—seeing that the House had conferred a new power on the Board of Trade—had appointed a Select Committee, on which he (Mr. Shaw) had sat, for the purpose of constituting particular tribunals—for disposing of the immense mass of railway business then pressing upon them—that they had adopted Committees of classification and selection, and a small number of selected Members, subject to compulsory attendance, and laid aside all private convenience, in order to meet the present emergency in respect of Railway Bills, he did hope that the House would not refuse a Committee to inquire into so important a branch of the subject as that which he had that night ventured to bring to their attention.

said, he should not allow the Motion to pass without dividing the House upon it. If mechanical improvements had taken place in the construction of railways, they afforded no more ground for a Committee of Inquiry than would be furnished by an improvement in watchmaking, shipbuilding, or engineering. The whole question resolved itself into this, whether railways constructed on the atmospheric principle could be worked more cheaply than other railways. This was a question which he thought could only be decided by experience.

agreed with a great portion of what had been stated by the hon. Member opposite. He had no objection to a preliminary inquiry. However, he believed that under the motives of his hon. Friend there lurked a desire to delay General Railway Bills. The Board of Trade had reported in favour of those railways in every sense; but in a mercantile point of view, the witnesses who had been examined did not go the length of the Board of Trade in the opinions which they had expressed with respect to the disadvantage of this railway in a mercantile point of view. If this were merely a matter of philosophic inquiry, it might be a proper subject to refer to the inquiry of a Select Committee.

did not think that his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Warburton) had exercised his usual acuteness in the objections which he had urged to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. He (Viscount Howick) had been a Member of the Select Committee which had inquired into this subject, and he thought that it was an object of interest to the public to know whether this system should be adopted or not. He thought that this Motion ought to be adopted. He thought that the inquiry was called for under circumstances that would in every way justify the House in granting the inquiry. In the present year, a great number of Railway Bills would be before the House. In two or three cases there was a competition between the atmospheric railway and the locomotive system. It was the great advantage of the atmospheric system, that it was able to overcome gradients, to produce a great advantage in reducing the amount of construction. The Board of Trade had admitted that this system was greatly superior in point of speed, in point of safety; but they doubted its success on the ground of its mercantile advantage. Now, that was a question with which he (Viscount Howick) did not think that the Board of Trade had any right to interfere. These were transactions which were proposed to be carried on by private speculation, and he did not see why the Board of Trade should interpose. As a Member of the Committee which had inquired into the subject, he thought that it was proved that the atmospheric system possessed great superiority, in point of safety and speed; and in a mercantile point of view, under every disadvantage, with the worst possible gradients, and with many difficulties to contend against, it appeared that the advantage in point of expense was, as a comparison between both, 9d. per mile for the atmospheric, and 14½d. per mile for the locomotive. The Committees appointed upon these subjects would have to investigate those matters; and he thought that it would be a great saving of time to Committees if an investigation took place on this subject. He thought that it was very desirable that those Committees should have the benefit of any experience that might have been acquired on the subject. It would be a great advantage when the question of competing lines came before those Committees, to have the benefit which this inquiry would produce. He was sure that any want of sufficient information on the subject might have the effect of delaying to a distant day the application of the atmospheric system. Whatever might have been said to the contrary, he thought that the best course would be to have an inquiry at once, before a Select Committee, into the merits of that system. He thought that it would be better to have a Committee at once, to inquire into this subject. The effect would be to save time, as these questions must necessarily come to be considered before Railway Committees. Now with respect to any delay which this Committee could produce, he believed that it was not likely that any of the Railway Bills would be referred to a Committee before Easter. Now he thought that if this question was referred to a Select Committee, that Committee would be able to give its Report in time so as to assist those Committees. For these reasons he supported the Motion.

felt obliged to object to the Motion of his right hon. Friend. The noble Lord had stated that he had been last year a Member of a Committee to inquire into this subject, and that the evidence had justified him as to the merits of the atmospheric system alone; that was in itself an argument why the Committee should not be granted. With respect to the merits of this system, it was quite easy to conceive that in the neighbourhood of a large city like Dublin, with a neighbourhood like Kingston, it was likely to be successful. But how could they say that it would be equally successful where the traffic would not be so much in its favour? He thought that the Board of Trade was quite right in reporting in favour of the locomotive system. The advantage of the locomotive system was, that it would always apply, however it might be adopted, and if it was found inapplicable, it would be very easy to lay down tubes and apply the atmospheric system. To show that he had no hostility to the atmospheric system, he begged to remind the House that, last Session, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Kildare, he had, when connected with the Treasury, granted those parties facilities for trying their principle on a larger scale than they could have been disposed to do out of their private means. He thought that the decision to which the Board of Trade had come was a perfectly sound and just one, and for these reasons he should feel obliged to oppose the Motion of his right hon. Friend.

said, that he was disposed to vote in favour of this Committee. He thought that the House ought not to be deprived of any experience that existed on this subject, which was one of importance to the public at large. He thought that the public had a right to expect a fair examination into the principle of the atmospheric railway.

said, he was sensible of the difficulty of getting a Committee impartially constituted; but if there were any possibility of good arising out of it, he hoped the Government would not oppose the Motion.

supported the appointment of the Committee. The question was a national one, for it involved the expenditure of a large amount of capital. Before two years had passed, either the atmospheric or the locomotive principle would be established; and whichever was successful, all the capital expended in the opposite direction would be completely wasted. Let, then, a Committee be appointed, in order to enable the House to judge which principle they would adopt.

said, he thought, if there were doubts upon this subject, considering the particular position of the House with regard to railways, those doubts ought to be solved in favour of the appointment of a Committee. The weight which the Committee would carry with it would depend very much upon its constitution being without the least suspicion of its being formed with the view of favouring any particular system. He confessed, that upon the whole, considering the number of Railway Bills before the House, considering also the possibility that the appointment of one Committee might save some time in others, he was inclined to try the experiment; but, at the same time, he could not anticipate any very good effect from it. He did not, for instance, believe, that if the right hon. Gentleman obtained the Committee, it would determine any speculative point, for example, whether the Archimedean screw or the paddle-wheel was the best. Those points could only be determined after a vast number of experiments by practical men had been brought before the public, which would form its opinion, not upon the Report of any Select Committee, but upon the test of practical operations. If the Committee were appointed, he had also some doubts whether the object in view would be effected, although, let it be understood, that his impressions were strongly in favour of the atmospheric system; nor did he think the Report would be made in sufficient time to influence the decision of any other Committee; but he did think that a Committee appointed now, and proceeding to the consideration of evidence, might be able to suggest to individual Committees several important points. For instance, they could get exact and useful information concerning the Dalkey line, and upon the application of the system upon the Continent, imperfect as that system must be at present. They might collect a body of evidence which might be valuable in saving time; but the question still would remain, whether the system would succeed commercially. It was possible the Committee might clear up all doubts upon the mechanical part of the question—they might ascertain the exact expense of working; but the commercial success of the system depended upon a thousand considerations which no Committee of the House of Commons could decide upon. But upon the whole he should vote for the Committee, although there might be great difficulty in constituting it so as to save the labour of other Committees; and seeing the amount of capital involved—though not foreseeing the probability of any great benefit being derived from it, he advised his right hon. Friend to constitute the Committee of men not prejudiced in favour of any particular system.

rejoiced exceedingly that the right hon. Baronet had consented to the appointment of this Committee.

said, the expense of a railway formed on the atmospheric principle was less than that of a locomotive line. In many parts of the Continent in which the atmospheric principle had been established, a locomotive line could not be introduced; and even in many parts of England, though not so mountainous, it would be beneficial to introduce the atmospheric in preference to the locomotive principle.

, in reply, thanked the House for the attention which, at that late hour, they had given to the subject, and expressed his obligation to the Government for having granted the Committee. He would not then, as the Committee was conceded, detain them longer by replying to some of the objections, to which he thought he could have given an easy answer—he would only express his entire concurrence in the sentiment of his right hon. Friend (Sir Robert Peel), that the value of the Committee would depend upon its being constituted with the most perfect impartiality—and in that spirit he would, on Monday, propose to nominate it.

said, that after the speech which had been made by the right hon. Baronet at the head of Her Majesty's Government, he would not divide the House upon the question.