given rise, as having a practical bearing on any system of policy which was at present to be adopted. That Motion, he believed, was neither more nor less than a challenge thrown out-a fair challenge he (Lord Stanley) admitted—to hon. Members on his side of the House, for the purpose of showing that they had been wrong in the view they had taken of the Act of 1846, and of the effects of that Act. The hon. Gentleman seemed to call upon them to admit that they had formerly been in error; and further, the hon. Gentleman accused them of having materially contributed to aggravate rather than remedy the distress existing in the colonies, by holding out false hopes to the colonial planters, and leading them to believe that the Acts of 1846 and 1848 were likely to undergo fresh and more extensive modification. Now, if it were made a charge against him (Lord Stanley) and his hon. Friends, that they had not from the first moment of the passing of the Act of 1846 treated that Act as a final settlement, or even treat

and to crown the whole of these discrepancics, the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) attempted to administer consolation to the West India colonies by predicting, as he (Lord Stanley) understood him, that the existing planters must all be swept away, and be replaced by a new race of planters. That might or might not be so; but coming, as the statement did, from an hon. Member well versed in these matters, it was entitled to some consideration, while it was in entire contradiction of the views of the hon. Member for Westbury. There was one other remark which he should make upon that occasion. It seemed to him that as far as any real and practical point was concerned-as far as anything was actually to be done-there was at present nothing for them to discuss, and they were all pretty much of one mind; because his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had asserted very distinctly although he (Lord Stanley) doubted whether such an assertion were necessary after the measures submitted to the House the other evening by his right hon. Friend-his righted it as an Act conducive to the prosperity hon. Friend distinctly and positively assert ed that which might be very well inferred from the general policy of the Government, that they looked on the settlement-not indeed of the year 1846-but the settlement of the year 1846 as modified in the year 1848, as a final settlement; and that they had no intention whatever at present or hereafter of renewing that differential duty which was shortly about to expire. With respect to the language of his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies on the point of finality, he should say that he clearly understood the meaning of his right hon. Friend to be, that no human power ever had bound, or ever could bind, the Legislature of a free country to a particular system of commercial policy for all times and under all circumstances. That was a perfectly just and intelligible theory. But, at the same time, his right hon. Friend had repeated, in terms which it was impossible to misconstrue, the declaration made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that no new scale of duties on sugar was about to be proposed. He could not, therefore, look on the Motion of the hon. Member for Westbury-although that Motion had been the means of procuring from him a very able and clear exposition of his views of the state of our West India colonies he could not look upon that Motion, or on the discussion to which it had

of the colonists, he thought that was an imputation under which they might very well afford to lie; because, whatever degree of censure attached to the holders of such opinions, attached not only to them-not only to his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies-not only to himself (Lord Stanley)-not only to those with whom he had habitually voted on that question upon former occasions, but attached equally to that great statesman-for so he should call him-whom it was impossible not to recognise as the real, although not the ostensible, author of tho Act of 1846. He did not suppose it would be disputed that the late Sir Robert Peel had practically carried that Act through the House. It was pretty well understood that if that right hon. Baronet, and those who usually voted with him, had not come forward and supported upon that occasion the Government of the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell), that Government would not have been able to have carried that measure. He would not trouble the House by reading the passage from Hansard which bore out the truth of what he was now stating; he would merely say that he was referring to the remarkable speech made by the late Sir Robert Peel on the 27th of July, 1846, at the time when the Sugar Duties were under discussion, and when it was believed

it seemed to him (Lord Stanley) that his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies had said with perfect justice, that if any public man had formed an erroneous opinion as to what would be the result of any particular measure, it was his duty not to conceal his change of opinion, but to

not one to deny that he-and he dared say many of those who coincided with him in his general political views-had entertained apprehensions regarding the amount of injury which the Act of 1846 would inflict on our sugar-growing colonies that had not been realised to their full extent. His right hon. Friend had entered so fully into that subject that he (Lord Stanley) did not think he need trouble the House with any details respecting it. But he said that, looking at the measure, not as they saw it at present, by the light of subsequent experience, but looking at it as it was seen in the year 1846, he did think it was a harsh and a hazardous measure. He also thought that it had been productive of, or, at least, that it had been accompanied by, much greater and more general distress in the West India colonies than had at any pre

that the fate of the Ministry was dependent | raised another controversy as to what had on the result of that debate. It would be been the result of the Act of 1846. Now in the recollection of the House that Sir Robert Peel, in supporting that measure, distinctly declared that he entertained serious apprehensions as to what the consequence might be with regard to the slave trade, and with regard to the West Indian colonies; and that the only reason why he gave his assent to its passing was a politi-state it openly. He (Lord Stanley) was cal consideration wholly independent of the merits of the Bill-the consideration how its passing or its rejection would affect the state of parties in that House. Now, he should not venture to say one word for the purpose of questioning the wisdom or the justice of the course which had been pursued on that occasion by the late Sir Robert Peel, who felt, as he had stated, that he had at the time only to adopt what he believed to be the less prejudicial of two courses. But this he (Lord Stanley) might say that if he or any of his hon. Friends had expressed doubts as to the working of the Act-if they had expressed doubts whether it would not have been productive of injury both as regarded the condition of our sugar-producing colonies, and also as regarded its influence on the slave trade, they had expressed no doubts and put forward no opin-vious period prevailed for any length ons for which they had not had the sanction of the high name and authority of the late Sir Robert Peel. He would not travel over those arguments upon that question which years of discussion had already made familiar to every Member of the House. He certainly had not met with any Gentleman and he did not think the hon. Member for Westbury himself would be an exception to the rule-he had not met with any Gentleman who looked to their legislation as regarded our sugar-producing Colonies, as a whole, that would be ready to contend that that legislation had been other than what he (Lord Stanley) and his Friends had characterised it-that was to say, harsh and unjust. He did not consider the Act of 1846 separately. He took it as part of a great whole. He looked at the Act of 1834, at the Act of 1838, and at the Act of 1846. He took those measures collectively-he took the general policy of the mother country towards her sugar-producing colonies; and he said that he must be a bold man who should rise in that House and assert that that policy had been other than unjust. But then the hon. Member for Westbury

of time together in those colonies. That was a fact on which he thought evidence could hardly be required. The hon. Member for Westbury had made rather light of the alleged distress of some of the West India colonies. Now he (Lord Stanley) was not going to quote the evidence of planters or of any interested parties upon that subject; but he would quote from official documents evidence which would prove the existence of severe distress in many of those colonies since the passing of the Act of 1846. He supposed that the hon. Member for Westbury would admit that the Report of local colonial Commissioners appointed by the Governor of a colony was an official document, and as such was worthy of credence. Now he held in his hand a statement from the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of British Guiana, and in that Report he found it stated that—

'It would be a melancholy task to dwell on the misery and ruin which so alarming a change as the Act of 1846 had occasioned."

And the Commissioners went on to say, that

"They felt themselves called upon to notice the effect which the wholesale abandonment of property had produced in the Colony-an abandonment under which it was not to be wondered at that the most ordinary marks of civilisation were rapidly disappearing, while in many districts all travelling communication by land would soon be utterly impracticable."

He called that a state of distress, and that state had existed no longer ago than 1850. There was another test of distress furnished by the Commissioners, which was perhaps even of a still more conclusive character. It appeared from the same Report that the whole population of British Guiana consisted of about 82,000 persons, and of these 42,000, or more than one-half, were supposed to be utterly unproductive as regarded the only staple article of export from the colony, namely, sugar, while of the remaining 40,000 not less than 20,000 were immigrants mostly from the East Indies. It appeared, therefore, that out of the whole native population there were only 20,000 productively employed. He would not, however, weary the House with any further proofs of distress, of which he hoped and believed that the worst was now passed. He readily admitted that during the last twelve or fourteen months there had been a considerable improvement in the condition of the West India colonies generally. But he should deny even at the present moment the accuracy of the proposition which the hon. Member for Westbury had broadly laid down-that there was no such thing as general distress still existing in any of these colonies. When he found a statement like that which his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Pakington) had read from a despatch of the Governor of Jamaica no longer ago than at the beginning of the present year, he thought it was impossible not to see that that statement proved conclusively the existence of considerable distress in the island of Jamaica. But that despatch did not stand alone, because in a despatch, dated the 23rd August in the present year, Sir Charles Grey stated, that

"he proceeded to review the state of the Colony with a feeling of great regret that the Colony still remained in a very struggling condition ;" and he added that

"the revenue of the Colony did not fully meet the authorised public expenditure, although that expenditure had been already reduced fully one

third."

Now he (Lord Stanley) said, that with such statements before them, and similar

statements would apply in a diminished degree to British Guiana also-he thought it was too much to ask them to admit that no general distress had existed in those colonies since 1846. He did not, however, deny that in the smaller colonies, especially in Barbadoes and Antigua-wherever the land was limited in extent-so that squatting became impossible, and wages were not exorbitant, so that labour could be obtained the present condition of such colonies was not only prosperous, but was more so than it had been for many years past. He, therefore, frankly admitted that even if there were no other difficulty in the way of imposing a differential duty between foreign and colonial sugar, arising out of the state of parties in Parliament, and out of the general feeling of the country, an obstacle would exist in the impossibility of making any distinction between one colony and another; while if a general differential duty were levied in favour of all the colonies, the advantage accruing therefrom would be derived, mainly, if not exclusively, by those colonies which were already in a flourishing condition. He thought that was an objection which could hardly be surmounted, and that it was conclusive against any further attempt to modify the Acts of 1846 and 1848, with a view of affording relief to the West Indies. With regard to the bearing of the Act of 1846, on the slave trade, he thought they would admit that within the last few days there had been laid before the House most satisfactory evidence of the decrease of that trade. But they should not be led away by a consideration of the present state of that question to forget that only two years ago that House and the country had been so far from anticipating the suppression of the Brazilian slave trade, that a discussion had been raised among them as to the expediency of discontinuing their efforts to obtain that object, and of withdrawing their African squadron. And not only had that point been discussed in that House, but it had been referred to a Select Committee. in that respect a most gratifying change Now, he admitted, that had since taken place, and he believed they might consider that the Brazilian slave trade was at the present moment utterly extinguished. The same thing, however, could not be said of the Cuban slave trade. But, although there was no improvement at present in Cuba in that respect, yet he thought that there was a prospect of im

into recognisances, was, that he should not take advantage of any default or neglect of his own, in having imperfect recognisances, and to ensure the payment of costs which could not be recovered, unless the recognisances were valid in form and law. There was another object: not only to provide against the default or neglect of the petitioner in not making his recognisances perfect, but also to prevent frauds which might otherwise be practised in putting the recognisance in a defective form, so that the sitting Member, in consequence of such defects, would not be entitled to recover the costs to which he was entitled. The right hon. Gentleman would have to consider these points, and also whether he ought not to draw a line between technical and substantial errors. He (Mr. Walpole) should not object to the appointment of a Committee; but he ought to add, that the appointment of the Committee_must not be considered as having any effect on existing petitions.

Amalgamation. 1202 established, with regard to election recog- should be appointed on this subject, till all nisances. But that question had not been those petitions had been reported upon to raised. Four years ago a question arising the House. The second observation he out of election recognisances had come wished to make, was to guard himself before that House. A discussion then against the infringement of an important took place respecting the propriety of rule. The great object of throwing upon considering whether those recognisances the sitting Member the duty of entering should be amended. and the petition allowed to go on or not. It was contended, on the one hand, that the petitioner ought not to be deprived of his right to petition against the sitting Member, and, on the other hand, that the sitting Member had a right to take advantage of every legal objection. A Committee was appointed, and soon after an Act was passed consolidating and amending the laws relating to election petitions and recognisances, which provided that the decision of the examiner with reference to recognisances should be final and conclusive. Such being the law, it seemed clear that the last thing the House ought to do would be to repeal what it had taken such pains to establish, that these matters should be settled out of the House, and not give rise to party discussions in the House. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the cases of the Bridgenorth election petition, but there was a distinction between those two cases. In the Bridgenorth case, the question which was raised was not brought before the examiner, and he had not an opportunity of giving an opinion one way or the other with regard to the recognisances. But when the Great Yarmouth case was brought before the examiner, the agents of the sitting Member specifically brought this objection to his notice; it was his duty to decide upon it, and he held that it was fatal. With regard to the point of the three days, the right hon. Gentleman would find that the Act did not give three clear days; and as the notice was given on the 23rd, and the objection entertained on the 26th, it could not be said that the examiner had exceeded his duty. The proposition the right hon. Gentleman now made was, that a Committee should be appointed to see whether any amendments could be introduced into the Act, giving the examiner power to amend recognisances by correcting technical and clerical errors. He (Mr. Walpole) had no objection to such a Committee being appointed, but he wished to make two observations upon it. The first was, that as there were several election petitions then depending, he thought it would be undesirable that a Committee

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY begged to ask if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson) intended his Committee to have a retrospective operation?

MR. MILNER GIBSON did not contemplate anything more than was contained in the order of reference. It might be necessary to inquire into particular cases to discover the abuses that existed, and their remedy; but he could not foresee what course the Committee would decide upon.

Motion agreed to.

RAILWAY AMALGAMATION. MR. HENLEY moved the appointment of the Members of the Select Committee on Railway and Canal Bills.

MR. JAMES MACGREGOR said, he had no objection to any Gentleman nominated upon the Committee, but he thought that, in addition to those already named, there should be some Members specially identified with the railway interest. If the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had no objection to this, he would move that certain Gentlemen connected with that interest should be added.