ssed through
committee. A discussion of considerable length was renewed on the 10th
of March, by Mr. Charles Duller, but the bill was read a third time and
passed.

In the house of lords the principal discussion on the income-tax took
place on the 4th of April, when the third reading of the bill was moved
by the Earl of Ripon. The bill was read a third time and passed.

THE SUGAR-DUTIES QUESTION.

On the 24th of February, the house of commons having resolved itself
into a committee of ways and means, Mr. Gibson, with a view of obtaining
a permanent arrangement of the sugar-duties, moved, as an amendment
upon the resolution of Sir Robert Peel, a resolution stating that no
arrangement of these duties would be satisfactory and permanent, which
did not involve an equalization of duty on foreign and colonial sugar.
In support of this resolution Mr. Gibson called the attention of the
house to a plain matter of justice in taxation, and asserted that it was
not consistent with the fair performance of their functions, when
they were resolving themselves into a committee of ways and means to
consider of a supply to her majesty, in order to enable her to meet
the expenditure of the country, to levy another tax, which was not paid
either to the crown or to the exchequer, but to a class of men who had
not made good their claim to any compensation fora grievance inflicted
on them. The protection afforded to the West India proprietors, he said,
was not for revenue, for it defrauded revenue; not for the protection
of the producer, for his produce had not been increased; not for the
benefit of the exporter at home, for the export to those colonies were
stationary; and not to be defended on the score of consistency, since
Sir Robert Peel was going to admit cotton, the produce of the East
Indies and the United States of America, on the same terms. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Ewart, and supported by Lord Howick, and Messrs.
Ricardo, Cobden, Villiers, Miles, and Bright. On the other hand, it was
opposed by Sir George Clerk, and Messrs. James, Gladstone, Labouchere,
and Goulburn. On a division it was rejected by a majority of two hundred
and seventeen against eighty-four. Subsequently several amendments were
moved, but without success, with the exception of one proposed by Mr.
Hawes; namely, to the effect--"that provision be made in the bill for
the drawback of the amount of the duty reduced on such duty-paid sugar
as now remains