appeared at the bar, and said: I have had the honour of presenting to Her Majesty the Address of this honourable House, with respect to the completion of the new Palace of Westminster, which Her Majesty has most graciously received, and to which Her Majesty has returned the following Answer:—

"I have received your Address respecting the New House of Commons, and the Buildings connected therewith. It is My anxious wish that there should not be any unnecessary delay in the completion of the Buildings for the permanent use and occupation of the Members of the House, and I will give directions accordingly.

said: Sir, there are appearances in the political horizon which betoken that it is not likely I shall be able to obtain a Select Committee in the present Session. That being the case, it will be my intention at the earliest possible period of the next Session, should I have the honour of a seat in this House, to ask for a Select Committee to inquire into the state of the colonies of the West Indies, as regards their present power to compete with those countries which have still the advantage of the enforced labour of the slaves. If ever there was a doubt in the mind of any man that it would not be possible with the free labour of the negroes for our West Indian colonists to compete with those who have the advantage of slave labour, that doubt must he set at rest by a return which has been just laid upon the Table of the House. From that return it appears that in 1831, at the time it was proposed to emancipate the slaves, the produce of the West Indian colonies and British. Guiana was 4,103,800 cwts. of sugar; and that in 1846 it was only 2,152,155 cwts. There was, however, still a greater falling off in the production of rum. Rum, of which the produce in 1831 was 7,844,159 gallons, had fallen to 2,826,455 gallons in 1846. In coffees, also, an equal falling off had occurred, as in 1831 the produce was 20,030,802 lb., and in 1846 only 6,257,764. So that of sugar the production had been reduced one-half; of rum, it had been reduced nearly to one-fourth; and of coffee, nearly to one-fourth. This is proof irrefragable, that since the emancipation of the slaves in the West Indies, the planters have not been able to produce the same quantity that they could before; and when we consider what this difference is, it will be seen that if I estimated the reduced produce at 2,000,000l. a year, I should be far below the mark; and when I say that 20,000,000l.was no sufficient compensation, no man, I think, can charge me with at all exaggerating the claims of the planters. Last year you passed an Act—an Act of bad faith as they allege—an Act which, after spending 20,000,000l. to do away with the mitigated slavery of the West Indies, was an Act to give encouragement and a stimulus to the employment of slaves in foreign colonies. It was alleged by these West Indians then that it would not be possible for them to compete with slave labour. That proposition was disputed in this House; but we have already a sufficient proof that the West Indies will be overwhelmed by that competition. By the returns to which I have alluded, it appears that while the importation of foreign sugar has increased from 237,197 cwts. in 1845, to 849,590 cwts. in 1847, that the quantity entered for home consumption has increased from 30,495 cwts. in 1845, to 570,680 cwts. in 1847. I am speaking of the first five months of the years 1845, 1846, and 1847. While the imports have increased in 1847 as compared with 1845 from 1,926,320 cwts. to 3,020,851 cwts.; and, as compared with 1846, from 2,131,168 cwts.; showing an increase in the imports of this country in the first five months of the present year of 1,094,531 cwts. as compared with 1845, and of 889,683 cwts. as compared with last year. The home consumption of foreign sugar has increased from 30,495 cwts. to 570,680 cwts., a difference of 554,625 cwts., while the consumption of sugar from the British possessions has fallen off to the extent of 138,978 cwts. as compared with last year, and of 68,062 cwts. as compared with 1845. Thus, while of British colonial sugar the importation in 1847 has increased 482,138 cwts. as compared with 1845, the falling off of the home consumption of that sugar has been 68,062 cwts. in face of an increase in the consumption of slave-grown sugar of 554,603 cwts. The conclusion to be drawn from these comparisons is, that the planters of the West Indies are not in a condition to enter into competition with slave-grown sugar. And when we look at the enormous increase which has taken place in the consumption of slave-grown sugar in the face of 7s. per cwt. differential duty, what must it be next year when that duty is to be reduced to 6s., or in the following years, in each of which 1s. 6d. is to be taken off until it is admitted, not as last year at a duty 50 per cent higher than the produce of our colonies; but on terms of full equality? It seems perfectly clear that the effect of repealing these laws must be the ruin of the West India colonists. In a Select Committee—as I intend to move for a Select Committee to inquire into these subjects—I propose not only to inquire whether it would not be wiser to maintain the present differential duty; but I propose to enter into another consideration. I propose to inquire whether, instead of spending 1,000,000 sterling a year, as it is estimated by the hon. Member for Montrose, to put down the slave trade by force of arms, it would not be better to expend some portion of that sum to put down slavery by assisting the West Indian colonists to obtain free labour. As it is, this million a year, expended in trying to suppress slavery by force, has failed; and as, on the contrary, it has afforded a stimulus to the exertions of those who carry on this inhuman traffic to obtain slaves, it appears to me that the more reasonable mode to repress slavery is by increasing the cheapness of labour, and by encouraging and assisting the importation of free labourers into the West Indies, and thus beating down the slave-owner in his own market. I say we have stimulated the slave trade by our measures, and greatly enhanced the sufferings of the slaves in the Brazilian and Spanish States. I have been informed on indisputable authority, that the value of slaves has been greatly increased in Cuba during the last year, and that a hundred pounds a head is the price now obtained for every male slave, and three pounds each hush money to the Governor of Havannah. The slaves, too (imported in the proportions of 100 males to eight females), are forced now to labour eighteen out of the twenty-four hours under the fear of the whip; and the suicides that occur are beyond the reach of the imagination to conceive, while the average duration of life of the slaves in Cuba is only five years, and in the Brazils six years. The statements are made to me on authority that I can trust; and I hope the attention of the country may be drawn to the subject at the coming election. I hope, also, that the ensuing Parliament will consider whether at a less cost than half of the million now expended, it will not be possible to defeat this inhuman traffic by depriving it of its profit, and by encouraging on lower terms the introduction of free labour into the West Indian colonies. If this be done, I trust also that the West Indian colonists will be able to carry on, by their free labourers, the cultivation of their sugar and coffee as cheaply as those who employ slaves. Having made these few observations, I will conclude by stating that it is my intention, at an early period next Session, to ask for a Select Committee to inquire into the subject. The noble Lord concluded by moving—

"That a Select Committee be appointed to take into consideration the Petition from the Island of Jamaica, presented 21st July."

bad no doubt that this topic would attract some attention during the ensuing general election, and he hoped that this would be the case. He hoped that the country would clearly understand that the policy of this Parliament having been to reduce the prices of all the great necessaries of life, the object and aim of the noble Lord was to prevent the public from having the fullest supply of sugar at the lowest possible prices which unrestricted competition in our markets was likely to produce. The object of the noble Lord, as it had now been palpably confessed, was to revive the old principle of protection in favour of sugar; to enhance the price of that necessary article, and so diminish the comforts and happiness of the poorer portion of our own population. If the noble Lord meant that the planters should have assistance from the public Exchequer to secure labour for the colonies, he would only say that a principle more objectionable or more unjust could hardly be propounded. The noble Lord had confined his attention to the West India Islands; but let him turn to the Mauritius, and he would find that there the greatest prosperity was manifest, and that the production of sugar had immensely increased. He would ask, if it was for a moment to be supposed, that these petitioners could be favoured by the admission of their produce free of duty. [Lord G. BENTINCK had not made any proposition of that kind, but simply that an inquiry should be entered into.] He was drawing the attention of the House to the petition, and he found that one of its prayers was, that the petitioners should be permitted to have their sugar imported duty free. But, at all events, the noble Lord was in favour of at least 50 per cent being imposed as a protection to the West India planters. Now, if they were to refer to the entire history of the West India colonies, they would find that more complaints were made in that House on the part of the planters during the most palmy days of protection, than had been heard of late years; and the noble Lord might rest satisfied that a system of free trade and open competition would be most beneficial for all parties concerned; that it would lead to greater economy of production, be the means of embarking more capital in the growth and manufacture of sugar, and tend to the general prosperity of the whole population. When the noble Lord made his Motion next Session, it would then be time enough to enter fully upon this question; but in the mean time, he must say, that nothing could be more injurious than to interfere with the arrangements which had been already resolved upon. He did not deny that the subject was one of difficulty; but he hoped that the House would never again submit to the establishment of the old system of protection.

considered the speech of the noble Lord (Lord G. Bentinck) as not so much a speech in favour of protection as usually understood in that House, but for protection to human life and human freedom. He hoped that next Session of Parliament the noble Lord would not fail to bring the whole subject before the House, and that it would receive that attention which its great importance demanded.

, pursuant to notice, rose to bring under the consideration of the House the petition of the Rev. Harry Farr Yeatman, relative to the sale of bread. The petitioner was a magistrate in the county of Dorset for upwards of thirty years; and he complained that there existed no legal protection for the poor in respect to the sale of bread. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General would inform the House whether the state of the law, as detailed at length in the petition, were not as described, and whether it were right the poor should be left exposed to the liability of becoming the victims of unprincipled men following the trade of bakers. He did not mean that bakers generally were more unprincipled than the followers of other trades and professions, including the profession of the law itself; but what he wanted was that a system of protection should be instituted in favour of the poor and of the honest tradesman, against the acts of dishonest traders. The petitioner stated that—

"In proof of the extent to which the fraudulent sale of bread 'deficient in its due weight' might be carried, and (as a consequence) of the extent to which the consumer and the labouring classes might be robbed and cheated of their just rights and dues, your petitioner would beg permission to declare that no less than eighty loaves all 'deficient in due weight,' and some to the extent of five ounces each loaf, were at one and the same time, under the provisions of 59th George III., cap. 36, produced before your petitioner for adjudication, and proved on oath to have been sold and delivered by a single baker; for which offence the full penalty of five shillings per ounce with costs was inflicted by your petitioner in his judicial capacity; whilst your petitioner would remark, and would earnestly direct the attention of your hon. House to the fact, that, at this present precise and exact time and period, and week after week, and in every week, loaves are now sold and delivered by the bakers in this part of the county of Dorset, and delivered to the paupers who 'receive relief in kind,' under the existing poor law, which loaves have recently been weighed and proved to be deficient to the extent of five and even six ounces each loaf, thus causing serious loss to the consumers in general, to the ratepayers of parishes in unions, and in many instances to the extent of fifty or sixty ounces of bread; that is to say, to the extent of three loaves and twelve-sixteenths per week to the labouring man with a large family, and this too with perfect impunity to the persevering and guilty offender under the existing law."

It appeared there was no mode of punishing a baker who had loaves under the nominal weight for which they were sold, except by an action for fraud, which of course was beyond the means of a poor man. The petitioner, alluding to this matter, said that the

—"provision and regulations of the statute are entirely inoperative, and lead to no useful result whatever; for, although by the 4th section of the 6th and 7th William IV., cap. 37, it is enacted 'That from and after the commencement of this Act, all bread sold beyond the limits aforesaid, namely, the city of London, shall be sold by the several bakers or sellers of bread respectively, beyond the said limits, by weight; and in case any baker or seller of bread shall sell, or cause to be sold, bread in any other manner than by weight, then, and in such ease, every baker or seller of bread, shall for every such offence forfeit and pay any sum not exceeding forty shillings;' yet your petitioner would humbly complain that no penalty is imposed by this statute on the baker or seller of bread, who sells, or causes to be sold, bread, which is of a less specific weight than that which the loaf offered for sale purports, or is represented to be, or which shall be delivered ' deficient in its due weight' to the public consumer (as it was enacted and directed by the wholesome statute of 59th George III., cap. 3C, sec. 11, a statute which has been repealed by 6th and 7th William IV., cap. 37, aforesaid); it being therefore certain, and of daily occurrence, that the baker and seller of bread can defraud the consumer, and the poor man especially, to any extent with perfect impunity, and thus derive great gain from dishonest trading in this department; it being also certain that the essential value of bread, as an article of consumption, depends as much upon the intrinsic weight of the loaf which is delivered, as upon the money price which is demanded or received for the loaf thus sold."

He should beg, in conclusion, to move, that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the allegations contained in the petition.

said, the hon. Member did not complain so much of a want of legal enactments as of the want of the means to enforce them. What the hon. Gentleman wished to see restored, was the old system of summary jurisdiction in magistrates; but there was no reason why such a system of law should be enforced against bakers more than against other persons. He begged to deny that any combination existed among the bakers of the metropolis; and the best proof of the fact was, that there often was as much as 4d. difference in the price of the same weight of bread in different parts of the metropolis at the same time. The hon. Member might as well call for a law to prevent a Stultz from charging more for a suit of clothes than any other tailor, as to oblige the bakers of the west end to sell bread at the same price as the bakers at White-chapel.

said, he would only make the single remark, that he did not think Parliament could better employ the last moments of its existence than by directing its attention to a subject of so much practical importance to the poor.

said, he did not believe the frauds of the bakers were so general as the hon. Member, who brought forward the Motion, supposed. If the poor were generally defrauded in the manner mentioned in the petition, he thought the House would have heard some allusion to the matter from persons connected with the administration of the poor law, and from hon. Members during the recent poor-law debates.

said, at the close, not only of the Session, but of the Parliament, it would not be seemly, but would cast, he thought, ridicule upon this House, if his hon. Friend (Mr. Bankes) persisted in pressing his Motion to a division. His hon. Friend proposed to appoint a Committee to inquire into a complicated subject of political economy, connected with the ordinary transactions of life. It was exceedingly well for his hon. Friend to make such a Motion, and to deliver a speech with a view of expressing his opinion upon the subject of political economy to which the Motion related; but it would be acting like a set of schoolboys, if, when the Black Rod appeared, they were in the lobby instead of being ready to attend the Speaker to the other House he hoped, therefore, that his hon. Friend would not put his Motion to the test of a division. They had heard indeed of a combination amongst a certain body, and a Committee was asked for to inquire into that subject, and not one argument had been urged that would justify such a Motion. Situated as we are (continued the noble Lord), instead of following you, Sir, to another place, if we go to a division, we should, when summoned, be occupied with tellers counting us in the lobby and in the House —a situation in which the House would not, at such a moment, like to find itself placed. Sir, I will not trouble the House by reading through the whole of this petition; but the last paragraph is of great importance—