HC Deb 03 June 1825 vol 13 cc1039-43

On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,

Mr. Bernal

said, it was proposed by this bill, to place the Mauritius sugar on the same footing with that of the growth of the West-India colonies. It was contended, that this measure would not injure the West-India planters; first, because the distance of the West Indies from this country was so much less than that of the Mauritius; and next, because the quantity of sugar grown in the latter colony was so inconsiderable. Now, it appeared from the papers laid on the table, that though at that moment the inhabitants of the Mauritius did not carry on an illicit trade in slaves, yet that they had done so up to the year 1821. This being an admitted fact, he could see no reason for granting the benefit at present proposed to those who, long after the legislature had prohibited the traffic, thought proper to indulge in it. Such a measure was very hard towards the colonists of the West-India islands, who had done their utmost to discourage the slave-trade. The island of Mauritius had, in the first instance, requested to be considered as a port within the limits of the East-India Company's charter. For five or six years they enjoyed the advantages of a free port; they then turned round, and stated, that they no longer desired to be entitled to the advantages of a free port, but that they wished to be placed on the same footing as the West-India islands. The fact was, however, that the trade of the Mauritius stood on an entirely different footing from that of the West-India colonies. He could not conceive on what principle the sugars of the Mauritius were to be admitted on the same footing as those of the West-India colonies, while the sugars of the East-Indies were in effect prohibited.

Mr. W. Horton

said, that at the time the Mauritius was captured, it was stipulated that they should be placed in the same situation as our other colonies. It was a mere accident that it was contained within the limits of the East-India Company's charter, and that could not take away its right to enjoy the same privileges as the West-India colonies. As to the alleged inconsistency of the inhabitants having at one time claimed freedom of trade, and subsequently requested relief with respect to their sugars, cogent reasons might be found for their conduct. In consequence of the order in council of 1816, connected with several local circumstances, the inhabitants found it necessary to abandon the free port, and adopt the alternative which was embodied in the measure now before the House. The hon. gentleman had stated, that slaves had been introduced into the Mauritius, and that it would be unjust to show favour to men who supported it. This assertion must be decided by facts; and the hon. gentleman would find, that for years, the trade had not existed; and that even prior to 1821, it was not carried on to any great extent. The quantity of sugar was not so extensive as to give the West Indies any very serious grounds for alarm. Under all the circumstances, he could not see any just reasons for refusing to place the Mauritius on an equality with the West Indies as to the duty on sugars.

Mr. G. R. Ellis

contended, that the condition of this island was regulated at the period of the peace, and ought not to be altered, unless special grounds for doing it could be shewn. He contended, on the authority of the African institution, that the slave-trade had been carried on in the Mauritius, and that the inhabitants had taken an active part in it. He gave great credit to sir R. Farquhar, for his meritorious exertions in suppressing that trade; but he attributed his success to his treaties with the native princes, and not to the co-operation of the inhabitants. What, he asked, would be the effect of this measure on the minds of the inhabitants of the West-India islands, when they saw the inhabitants of the Mauritius, who had carried on this trade in spite of the laws, rewarded for it by the government, to the ruin of the West-lndia islands? The moral effect could not be other than injurious.

Mr. Huskisson

said, that in the last session it had been proposed to reduce the duty on Mauritius sugar; but the answer of the West-India interest: had then been, that the Mauritius enjoyed commercial advantages in which the West-India islands did not participate. That plea was now taken away; the restrictions which had operated upon the West-India islands, and which did not affect the Mauritius, had been removed; and both interests being now, as regarded commercial ad- vantage, on a footing, a new ground of objection was taken to the reduction of the Mauritius duty. Accordingly, it was now alleged, that the colony of the Mauritius had. carried on, and did still carry on, an illicit commerce in slaves. This allegation was not supported by fact. Prior to 1820, some smuggling of slaves had taken place; but that practice continued no longer. The Mauritius, then, must be judged, not according to what it had been, but according to what it was. If it was to be laid down as a general principle, that every colony possessing slaves, and not entirely adapting itself to the wishes of parliament with respect to them, was to be visited with a heavier tax, let that principle be applied universally. He decidedly supported the present measure, and thought that the West-India interest was wrong in opposing it. The whole question as affecting the West-India interest, amounted to this—that some 10,000 or 12,000 hhds. of sugar might come into the English market; but if they did not come here, they would find their way into the European market, and would have the effect of determining the general price of the market. He might be allowed to tell those West-India proprietors, that whenever the consumption of this country should equal the supply from the West-Indies, and should verge towards exceeding it, they would no longer be able to maintain their monopoly.

Mr. Bright

contended, that, at the period of the capture of that colony, it was entirely commercial; now, it had become essentially agricultural; and, in a tropical climate, this great change could only have been effected by an increase of slaves. The produce of the island had, within the last five years, increased three fold; so that there must have been a slave-trade since 1820 to have produced this increase. For the assurances as to the cessation of the practice, we had the same assurances in 1816.

Sir Robert Farquhar

said, that the House would excuse his intruding himself on its attention, as he naturally felt a strong interest in the prosperity of a colony whose affairs he had so long administered. In 1810, he proceeded with the expedition to the capture of the Isle of Bourbon, accompanied by that meritorious officer, captain Willoughby, who had shed his blood so often in the service of the country, who distributed the proclamations which held out to the inhabit- ants, not only the advantages they had enjoyed under the protection of France, but the pre-eminent advantages of British colonies. The prospects held out were free trade, and the fullest protection to the produce of the colony in the markets of Great Britain. How did the facts stand? They had lost the extensive trade they formerly possessed, and they were met with the severest restrictions in the ports of this country. The order of council issued in 1816, giving to those colonies a free trade, was accompanied with so many restrictions, that., coupled with prohibitions in the ports of France, it was a mere nullity. The fluctuations which followed alterations in the British markets, had destroyed all confidence in the commercial body of the Mauritius as to that system. Being thus frustrated in their speculations as to the free trade, they naturally became an agricultural colony, and in consequence of the successive hurricanes which destroyed the cotton and clove plantations, sugar was the only produce which enabled them to provide for their own subsistence, or to pay their taxes. Bourbon being severed, by the treaty of Paris, from Mauritius, enjoyed all her ancient advantages; and the contrast of such prosperity with the depression of the Mauritius, naturally tended to excite the discontent, and alienate the feelings of the inhabitants of the latter. The consequence was, that Mauritius was placed in this anomalous situation, since her connexion with England, that she was sacrificed to European policy; and, as to her trade, depressed, under some reference to our India system, with which she had no other connexion than her position within some visionary boundary some few degrees east of the Cape of Good Hope. There was France on one side encouraging and protecting the prosperity of Bourbon; with the Netherlands on the other, most assiduous in developing the resources of Java; while the Mauritius was permitted to dwell upon her losses, and such a galling contrast. If hereafter any Anti-English European power should arise in India, what co-operation or attachment could we expect from a people, to whom such pledges were given, and by whom such treatment was received? Its importance was best exemplified in the recollection of those effects which it had already accomplished. It assisted, when under the. government of France, in endangering the security of India, and had at one time captured Madras. Since its accession to Great Britain, those local resources had been applied to great advantage in the Nepaul war; and, perhaps, were at this moment found to afford effective assistance against the Burmese. Mauritius was surely entitled to share in the benefits extended to other colonies. There was no other ground that he could see for refusing the present grant, except what consisted in the peremptory assertion, "sic volo, sic jubeo." His own experience, corroborated as it was by the despatches of sir Lowry Cole, justified him in pronouncing it as his decided opinion, that at the present moment there was no slave-trade carried on in the island of Mauritius. He would allow that four or five years ago a slave-trade was carried on, not by the respectable inhabitants, but by a set of French renegadoes, concerned in privateering. Every step, however, had been taken by the British government to put an end to the traffic, by treaty and otherwise. Radama, prince of Madagascar, and the Imaum of Muscat, had observed the treaty most religiously by which they had bound themselves; and there was every reason to hope, that through the efficacy of the slave laws, and the vigilance of the police, the benevolent intentions of parliament would continue to acquire strength in that part of the world. The House should also be cautious not to confound the slave-trade of the Mauritius with that of the Isle of Bourbon. In his opinion, the whole of the trade was now confined to the French in the latter island.

Mr. Gordon

would vote for the bill, if it were postponed until 1828.

Mr. Plummer

opposed the bill, and moved, as an amendment, that it be read a second time that day six months.

Mr. Hume

was favourable to the taking off the restrictions from the trade of the Mauritius, but thought that the state of the West-India colonies should be considered also, and the duties unfavourable to those interests remitted.

The House divided: For the second reading 37; Against it 14. Majority 23.