Commons Sitting of 18 March 1825

JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES.
Mr. T. Wilsonpresented a petition from certain Cow-keepers and Milk Venders, complaining of the Milk Company.
Mr. Grenfellfelt surprised, when the law on Joint-Stock Companies was in such uncertainty, that the lord chancellor had not brought forward his intended measure.
Mr. John Smithtook occasion to observe, that there had not been a single day, for some time past, without some new joint-stock scheme being brought before the public. He could not help joining, therefore, in the lamentation of the hon. member, as to the uncertainty of the law on the subject.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, that, as far as any remedy was wanted to check wild and unreasonable speculation, no one could be more willing than he should be, to devise and concert one. With respect to the law, however, it must be recollected that there was one existing, by which these companies were bound, and for any violation of which they were liable. It was, no doubt, the duty of the House to watch attentively any bill coming before them, for the purpose of giving to any of those companies extraordinary privileges. If such a bill came before them, it would be the duty of the House to reject it. But, whatever might be their opinion as to the nature of many of the recent speculations, the law which referred to partnerships was well known; and, with the exception of bankers, he did not see that there was any thing in the law to limit the number of persons who might choose to associate, for the purpose of carrying on any particular trade. He would admit that the rage and folly of the day led to speculations for carrying on ordinary trades in the way of extensive partnerships. They had milk companies, and brick companies, and fish companies, and several others of that kind which he could not enumerate; but, when any of them came before the House with a bill, and asked for no new or exclusive privilege or power, he did not see how the House could turn them away. By refusing the power which they asked, of suing and being sued in the name of one of their officers, he did not see that they could be prevented from acting as a partnership; but, the getting such a power would not of itself be the means of enabling them to continue long in those extensive associations. He was sure that the good sense and industry of those who carried on trades, for the more extensive exercise of which some of the companies had been formed, would in the end prevail, and that those trades would return to their natural channel. Many of the owners of shares, who might be considered as sleeping partners in trades of which they knew nothing but the name, but who expected to reap large profits
1076
without any care, activity, or exertion on their parts, would, he feared, find, in the end, their expectations disappointed, and that they could not compete with effect against individuals, who devoted their whole time and attention to the promotion of their respective trades. The high-raised hopes of many who embarked in such speculations would, in the end, vanish into thin air, and leave those who entertained them nothing but regret and disappointment. At the same time that he gave this as his opinion of many of the speculations afloat, he did not see how the parliament could at present interfere. If, in any of the measures which came before them, any thing illegal could be shown—if any particular evil could be pointed out—he should be willing to afford every remedy in his power; but unless that was done, it would be better to let these companies alone.
Mr. Alderman Bridgesdefended the milk company, which he said had been established these eighteen months, and had already been productive of much public advantage, by giving to the community a cheap supply of pure milk.
Mr. J. P. Grantsaid, that though his majesty's government might not feel disposed to alter the law with respect to extended partnerships, yet he thought it was their duty so to regulate it, as to prevent the present practices of the transfer of shares.
Ordered to lie on the table.

IRISH MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES.
The House resolved itself into a committee of Supply. On the resolution, "That 1,600 l. be granted, to defray the expense of the Hibernian Marine Society for the year 1825,"
Mr. Humeobjected to the principle of voting away large sums to charitable institutions in Ireland. The whole sum to which these eleemosynary grants amounted was 342,000 l. He admitted that in this was included grants for the purposes of education, to the principle of which, if properly applied, he did not object; but many of the other grants ought not to be sanctioned. We had no institutions similar to some of those now before the committee; and he did not see why the public should be taxed to support, them in Ireland. Many of them ought to be reduced altogether, and others put upon a proper footing.;.
Mr. Grattandenied that the whole

1077
amount of the grants was for charitable purposes. A great portion of them was for education, to which no objection had been made.
Sir T. Lethbridgethought that it would be niggardly in the extreme to withhold these grants. Nothing was so important, in the present state of Ireland, as to provide permanent establishments for the education of the lower orders.
Mr. Monckcontended, that the support given by government to charitable institutions generated more mischief than it relieved. If they were to give 100,000 l. for instance to the Foundling Hospital, they would do nothing more than give a bonus to incontinency, and to the propagation of illegitimate children. He was convinced that the House was proceeding in a wrong course, and that the best thing it could do would he to abandon it.
Mr. Curteishoped that these charitable votes, instead of being permanently fixed at their present rate, would be annually reduced.
Mr. Lockhartobjected to the principle of these charities. By increasing the number of paupers, they increased the quantum of misery already existing.
Mr. Humeasked, if it was intended to reduce these eleemosynary grants? Within a few years, they had increased from 79,000 l. to 342,000 l. He protested against such an increase, without some satisfactory reason being given for it.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, he would not pledge himself to any annual reduction of these grants. Sums roust of course be voted, commensurate with the necessity of the case.
Mr. C. Grantwas of opinion, that though the principle of some of these grants was objectionable, the reduction of them ought to be gradual. Amongst the grants which he considered objectionable, was that to the Protestant Charter-schools. Though they might be valuable in particular instances, in teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic, he believed that, upon the whole, they had utterly failed in training up good men, good citizens, or even good Christians. He therefore wished to see the management of them corrected, as it gave education to one class only of the king's subjects, and excluded every other. He was afraid that too many of the grants were partially and not generally applied. If the House thought proper to interfere with the cha-
1078
ritable institutions of Ireland, he trusted it would take care, first of ail, that its bounty was equally divided amongst men of all religious persuasions in Ireland; and next, that it did not collect in Dublin all the pauperism and profligacy of Ireland.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that, before hon. members condemned these grants to the different schools and hospitals in Dublin so loudly, they ought to consider of what avail they were to that metropolis. They were most of them established before the Union, and were supported by the various noblemen and gentry who at that time were in the habit of residing part of the year in Dublin. As the Union had withdrawn from them great part of that support, the government thought themselves bound, in a certain degree, to supply it. In London these institutions abounded, but were so well supported by voluntary contributions, that it was unnecessary for government to give them any assistance. As far as any evil might arise from such a mode of expending money, it was the same whether the money came from the purse of the public, or from that of individuals. He would not withdraw these grants upon any abstract objections; because he knew that, by doing so, he should leave many persons in a state of absolute destitution.
Mr. S. Ricecontended, that the efforts made by individuals to relieve private distress in Ireland were equal to those made by any individuals in any European country. Though Ireland had no poor rates,—and long might she continue without them! —her poor were supported by dispensations of charity, which did honour to the country which bestowed them.
Mr. Grattansupported these grants, and contended that the charities to which they were given were, in the main, excellently conducted.
Mr. Humecomplained, that the gradual reduction of these charities which had been introduced, had not been adhered to. He was convinced that these grants did more harm than good.
The resolution was agreed to.

IRISH LINEN BOARD.
On the resolution, "That 19,938 l be granted to defray the expense of the Linen Board of Ireland for the year 1825,"
Mr. Humeprotested against the continuance of this grant. If there had not

1079
been the clumsiest mismanagement of the affairs of the linen trade in Ireland, machinery such as this board would never have been continued in the present advanced and enlightened age of science. He called upon ministers, who were abolishing shackles upon the freedom of trade, to do away with this. Why should the linen be more protected than the woollen, the cutlery, or any other trade in Ireland. These establishments might have been necessary in the infancy of the trade, but were not necessary now. Upon general principles, therefore, he objected to this board.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that if the question were now raised for the first time, whether or not, under the present circumstances of the linen trade of Ireland, a board ought to be appointed, he should be slow in voting for it. But, there was a great difference between originating a public body of this nature, and not continuing one which had been a considerable time in existence, and which had worked the greatest benefits for that most important trade in Ireland. It had been the object with the Irish government to foster the linen trade, and their labours had been greatly assisted by the linen board. Many frauds in the trade were prevented by it. It was, in fact, essential to the prosperity of Ireland.
Mr. T. Wilsondid not entirely agree in what had been said of the necessity of this board by the Irish Secretary, but still it was difficult to interfere with a body from whose labours considerable benefit was said to have accrued to Ireland. As a general principle, he was decidedly opposed to all shackles upon trade; and he thought that ministers were bound, by their own professions, to be of the same opinion. It was, however, important to consider, whether this general rule ought to be applied in every particular case.
Mr. Trantdenounced the linen board as utterly incompetent to the task which it had undertaken. He had himself conversed with some of what were called Inspectors, who knew nothing whatever of linen. He agreed with those who were for removing all restrictions upon trade. At the same time he admitted, that it might not be safe, suddenly to withdraw the apparatus by which the linen trade had been hitherto carried on.
Sir G. Hilldefended the linen board, on account of its utility to the staple trade of Ireland.
Lord Althorpwas hostile to the vote, upon general principles.
Mr. Hume Mr. Hume moved, that the grant be reduced to 9,938 l.
Colonel Bagwellbore testimony to the services of the board, in promoting the linen trade in the south of Ireland. It was but latterly that this manufacture had been there introduced; but since its introduction, it had given employment to a great number of poor persons, who would otherwise be reduced to a state of destitution
Mr. Peelsaid, that the grant had been made to Ireland, partly in consideration of the discouragement of her woollen manufactures. It was therefore connected with feelings existing in that country, and ought not to be considered as an abstract question. He hoped that this short discussion would be taken as a notice in Ireland, that parliament had turned its attention to the subject.
Mr. Grattanopposed the vote, and contended, that the situations were given away upon a system of favouritism.
Dr. Lushingtonargued, that the effect of the vote would rather be to retard the improvement of the trade than to accelerate it. It would create a factitious trade, and finally leave many hands out of employment. At the same time, he did not wish the vote to be withheld without notice; and if he did not press a division, it would be on the understanding that next year a clear and distinct case should be made out, by the supply of due information.
Mr. Goulburnwas in favour of the grant, because it employed the poor of Ireland; at the present moment, an object of the highest importance.
Mr. R. Gordonresisted the resolution, and complained that a large part of the money voted for the linen board went to retainers of ministers.
The Chancellor of the Exchequeradverted to the report of the committee two years ago, recommending a variety of alterations in the linen trade, which had been carried into effect, especially regarding the bounties, which changes had not been accomplished without difficulty. Ministers had, therefore, not been asleep on their posts. Ireland was in such a state, that it was not possible yet to apply to her the ordinary doctrines of political economy. It might have been wrong to grant the assistance to Ireland in the first instance, but it would be most injurious

1081
to plunge at once into an entire new system.
Sir G. Hillstated the particular reasons for continuing the grant for the board. The linen trade was not one requiring a large capital. Hence it was necessary to have a board to protect the interests of the small manufacturers. The linen board had already produced the greatest advantages, by augmenting the trade from a few hundred thousand pounds to five millions annually.
Mr. Humewas convinced, that the linen trade would have been six millions a-year, instead of five, if this board had never existed. Out of 72 individuals connected with the board, there was not a single Catholic. It was, therefore, an insult to the feelings of the people of Ireland to continue it. They were not all paid, but possessed extensive influence; which they always exerted in favour of ministers.
Mr. J. Smithagreed, that the true principles of political economy could not be applied to Ireland in her present unsettled condition. By means of the grants to Ireland, many thousands had been employed in productive and reproductive labour. Though, in some respects, it might not be well managed, he should be very sorry to see this grant withheld.
The House divided: For the Amendment 17. Against it 76. Majority 59.

EAST-INDIA SUGARS.
On the order of the day, for reading the Annual Duties bill a third time,
Mr. Sykessaid, that, before this bill was read a third time, he wished to make a few observations respecting the Sugar trade. He did not know on what principles ministers were acting. It seemed to be the policy of this country to prohibit the importation of sugar, unless it came from the West Indies. Now, on what good principle such a policy could be founded he knew not. If it should be said, that East-India sugars might be imported, he admitted the assertion; but only to a very small extent, for it was notorious, that the immense duty laid on sugar imported from the East Indies, amounted almost to a prohibition of that article. This appeared to him to be totally at variance with sound policy, which would rather induce ministers to favour the importation of the products of a country that took so many of our manufactures in return. He called upon gentlemen on
1082
the other side of the House to state why, and on what grounds, such a duty had been laid upon a most important produce of our Indian empire which contained a population of 80,000,000 of souls, who were ready to take our manufactures to a very large amount, provided they could find in our markets a vent for that native produce? If he was told, that the object of the government had been to protect the West-India interest, he must contend, that the only effect of such a system was, to keep up and sustain an accursed and detestable system of slavery, the existence of which every man must join with him in sincerely deploring. When he stated, that the duty on West-India sugars was 27 s., while that upon East India was about 37 s., the House must immediately perceive that such a difference as 10 s. between the two duties, was calculated to keep one of these sugars almost entirely out of the market; and, by consequence, greatly to diminish the supply that would otherwise be poured into it. Now, it was pretty generally allowed, that abundance of produce was the very sinews of commercial prosperity. It was true, there was a drawback allowed on the exportation of sugars, amounting to 6s. per cwt.; but it could be easily shown, that that drawback, without effecting any benefit for this country generally, by increasing the supply and diminishing its price, served only to put upwards of a million of money into the pockets of the West-Indians. It was with pain that he felt himself bound, on this occasion, strongly to object to the course which ministers seemed disposed to take. He had with pleasure supported them in the principal measures of what he conceived to be their improved policy. He had had the gratification to see them reduce the duties on wool, timber, iron, hemp, and wine itself; and in all the principles upon which right hon. gentlemen over the way had suggested those reductions, he had most cordially concurred. Even upon questions, perhaps of more doubtful expediency, he had gone with ministers, because he conceived that trade could only flourish by being entirely free. But, to retain the duty upon East-India sugars did appear to him calculated materially to injure our commerce. Why was that duty to be continued, if it was so contrary to those principles of free trade which ministers themselves had advocated in other cases? He called upon the government to set

1083
open the sugar trade, as it had done others. As for the West-Indians, all the benefit which the present regulations might procure to them was lost to us. At present, the produce was so much greater than the consumption, that the drawback in question was not so great a bonus to the West-India grower, as, under other circumstances, it might be. But, what would be the case, whenever the consumption should equal the supply? Why, whenever we happened to grow no more sugar in the West-Indies than was equal to the consumption, or demand of the market, the West-India interest would have a complete monopoly of that market. The East-India trade, in the mean time, was suffering severely from the inequality of duties, and the public were left without the benefit of a fair competition. No other heavy goods were called for in the East-India trade, except rice, saltpetre, and sugar; but sugar alone offered that permanent and advantageous article of commerce, which it was the duty of the government to encourage by a more equal apportionment of the duties. The keeping up this prohibitory system, not only encouraged slavery in the West Indies, but had, in a considerable degree, cramped the productive energies of India. To prove that the West-Indians themselves considered that they derived no very material benefit from the drawback allowed on the exportation of sugars, he should cite the authority of a gentleman who was allowed to possess the most extensive information on these subjects, and who was himself the agent for the island of Jamaica. He meant Mr. Hibbert. A letter signed by Mr. George Hibbert, and published in the Royal Gazette of Jamaica, contained an admission on the part of the writer, that the drawback allowed on refined sugars was little short of a gratuitous bounty of about 6s. per cwt. on the exportation of all West-India sugars. The House would observe, that this drawback of 6s. per cwt. would amount, upon the sugars imported from the West Indies into this country, which was perhaps 190,000 tons, to about 1,140,000 l. Now, these facts were admitted by Mr. Hibbert himself. He allowed that the bonus afforded by this drawback on bounty would be to such an extent; and yet that, large as this bonus was, it would not answer the necessities of the West-Indians. It would be observed that, year after year, the West-Indians came to that House,
1084
asking for further relief; and yet that, to whatever extent that assistance might be afforded, it never proved sufficient. He had a further objection, however, to bounties of any kind; upon this principle —that they never, or rarely, were serviceable to the country. A free, unfettered trade, left to its own energies, was that which mainly enriched the country. If a bounty was allowed on sugar, or any other article, the only effect was, that the foreign consumer would buy it so much cheaper; and in that case it must be allowed, that we ourselves made a present of so much to the foreign consumer. It had been said, that a rise of prices in colonial produce was rather beneficial than otherwise; and thus it was often argued, that such a rise of prices improved the condition of the West-India slaves. But, he denied this. He had reason to believe, that the only effect of such an advance in prices was, that the slave was compelled to work the harder during all the time the improved market was likely to last. The free labourer might benefit under such circumstances; but not the slave. And this would appear from a slight review of one or two important facts. In the Bahama Islands, where the slaves were generally better treated than in many parts of the West Indies, and sugar was not cultivated, the average increase of slave population, with reference to other of the islands, was about three per cent. In Barbadoes, where very little sugar was raised, the increase was about one-and-a-half per cent. In the larger island of Jamaica, where the cultivation of this produce was carried on to a much larger extent, the decrease of human life was about one per cent; but, in Demerara, in Guiana, the great mart for sugars, and where the most considerable number of slaves were employed in its cultivation, the decrease of human life was about three per cent. The hon. gentleman, after again calling on government to remedy such a defective inequality of duties as that which he had pointed out, sat down, protesting that he should never cease to advocate the cause of free trade all over the world.
Mr. R. Gordonthrew back the insinuation, that the rise in the price of sugar was beneficial only to the West-India planter or proprietor. When the question came under discussion in a more regular form, he should be ready to give a direct and positive contradiction to the state-

1085
ments which had been advanced by the hon. member.
Mr. Robertsonsuggested, that the most effectual relief to be afforded to our colonies, was to be derived from a total emancipation of the slaves. Unless the owners of colonial property did this, they would do nothing which would afford them permanent relief.
Captain Maberlyobserved, that the protecting duty on West-India sugar had been defended, on the ground that the legislature, by its enactments, had induced individuals to embark their property in the West-India colonies; but that he held to be no sufficing reason for keeping up the price of an article which might be denominated a necessary of life. In his opinion, it would tend greatly to the interest of this country, if we were not at all connected with the West-India Islands. From the time of Adam Smith, down to the present day, every intelligent writer on political economy had condemned our colonial connexions. The trade to the West-India Islands was, to all intents and purposes, a losing trade to this country; and the sooner England got rid of those colonies, and of the heavy expense which they incurred, the better would it be for her interests. Sugar could be procured at a comparatively moderate price from the East Indies; and by importing it from that part of the globe a double advantage would be gained; on the one hand, the article would be cheaper; and, on the other, the country would be relieved from those heavy military and civil establishments, which she, and not the colonies, now supported.
Mr. Blairsupported the West-India interest. The country, he contended, was not prepared to adopt the sweeping proposition of the hon. member who had just spoken.
Mr. Charles Ellissaid, that a solemn compact had been entered into between the mother country and her colonies; the former having stipulated to grant every protection to the latter. That compact ought never to be lost sight of. Upon that ground, he objected to the course proposed to be adopted by the hon. member with whom the debate had originated, and, generally, to the arguments of those individuals who advocated the introduction of East-India sugar, and who would fain force West-India sugar out of the market. He conceived it to be most unjust to attempt to deprive the colonies of
1086
the protection which they now enjoyed in the markets of this country. Every species of British manufacture was protected against competition. The same might be said of the linen of Ireland, and of the salt-fish of North America; and why should not the same protection be afforded to our colonial produce? Did those who wished to have the sugar of the East Indies imported into this country, mean to grant to the persons who cultivated it, all the rights and privileges which they themselves enjoyed—all those rights and privileges which were possessed by the West-India proprietors? He believed they did not; and if that were the case, then he came to this conclusion—that the same protection which was afforded to the West-India planters ought to be conceded to them. The advocates for East-India sugar argued, that it ought to be imported, because it was produced by free labour; but, if this argument relative to free labour were carried to its full extent, it would be very unfavourable for many of those who adopted it. Gentlemen would recollect, that the greater part of the cotton which was manufactured in this country, was brought in its raw state from the southern provinces of America (Georgia for instance) and Brazil. Did they not know that a great portion of those who cultivated cotton in Georgia were slaves, and that the whole of the cultivators of cotton in Brazil were also slaves? Were they not apprized of the fact, that the numbers were kept up by constant draughts of negroes from Africa? Now, he would ask, did not those persons who purchased cotton thus raised encourage, nay, aggravate slavery? Why, if they held slavery in such abhorrence, should they encourage it by using the slave-labour of another country? Yet, if they did not, they would be obliged to break up their intercourse with a great part of America, and altogether with Brazil—a sacrifice, which his right hon. friend, the president of the Board of Trade, would not, he apprehended, be very ready to make. Neither did he think, even if the matter were explained to the manufacturers of this country, that they would be ready to accede to a proposition for refraining from the use of cotton the produce of slave-labour. He contended, that the bounty on the exportation of refined sugar, the produce of the West Indies, was perfectly just. He wished that his right hon. friend could bring forward some equtitable ar-

1087
rangement, by which the interests of the two parties connected with this question would be preserved, while each of them received a certain benefit. As to the proposition of his right hon. friend, with reference to rum and brown sugar, he feared, if it were not considerably modified, that it would prove an injury, instead of a benefit, to the colonies.
Mr. Fowell Buxtonsaid, he should not have trespassed on the House at that time, had he not thought it his imperious duty. The question was one which was foreign to his studies, and on which he felt in general little disposed to address the House. A dry question of duties was not one which he usually liked to speak on; and, before he said any thing further, he could assure the House, that though he warmly opposed slavery, he had not the smallest particle of hostility towards the West-India proprietors. A good deal had been said about the bounty afforded to the West-India proprietors. One gentleman had said it was 3s.; another that it was really nothing; and a third had told them it was something, but he did not state what. It was, therefore, he conceived, a fair subject of inquiry. He hoped ministers would grant a committee, before which the facts would be stated; and then he had no doubt that what his hon. friend who introduced the subject had said, would be found to be correct. It was asserted that a rise in the price of sugar was good for the slave, and that a depreciation of price was prejudicial to him. Now, he denied this. A reduction of the price of sugar must of necessity occasion a reduced growth of sugar; and how, he asked, was that to injure the negro? A reduction in the price must produce one of two effects—either the proprietor would cultivate less land, or that if he did continue to cultivate it, he would substitute some other article of growth. In either case, this must be beneficial to the negro. If the proprietor ceased from cultivating his estate, the negro would, of course, be exempted from labour; but if, on the other hand, he continued to cultivate, the negro must be employed in raising provisions. He was sure, that the custom of not growing provisions was one of the greatest evils in the colonial system; and he believed that many persons thought the growth of provisions in the colonies should be attended to almost exclusively. The custom of keeping up high prices by giving arti-
1088
ficial bounties, caused the neglect of this branch of cultivation. The removal of a system which had such injurious effects would be extremely beneficial. Take it either way, it must do good: if the cultivator ceased to employ the negroes, there would be a diminution of labour but if he still chose to employ them, there would be an increase of provisions. It was quite clear, that where the least quantity of sugar was grown, the slave was better off than where the cultivation of sugar was carried to a great extent. In Barbadoes, each slave was calculated to cultivate annually five cwt. of sugar; in Jamaica, two and a half; and in Demerara, seven cwt. In the first island, there was a small decrease in the population; in the second a small increase; and, in the third, the diminution was as great as could be occasioned by war, famine or pestilence. This, he thought, was a satisfactory evidence how injurious to the slaves was the cultivation of sugar, and how much they would be benefitted by the necessity of cultivating it being diminished.
Mr. Trantfeared that the effect of discussions like that which had arisen on the present question would be highly injurious to the interests which were involved in it. He was sure that if similar measures were adopted with respect to the East-India interests, the consequences would be such as must be universally deplored. Whatever might be the opinion of the House as to the principles on which the privileges enjoyed by the West-India proprietors was founded, it would, in his opinion, be equally unwise and unfeeling to take from them at this time those advantages.
Mr. Brightsaid, he should not have been induced, at so late an hour, to have addressed the House, but for the silence which his majesty's ministers had thought fit to observe upon this occasion. He did so now, chiefly for the purpose of expressing his hope, that those persons who professed themselves the friends to the principles of free trade would take care that the West-India interests were not the only exception to the general application of those principles. Those interests had already suffered materially from the effects of a system opposed to that liberal one which was now so warmly praised. The exports from the West Indies to North America had been reduced to almost nothing. He could not sit down without observing on one of the statements which

1089
had been made, in the course of the discussion. It was said, that the mortality among the slaves was proportioned to the great or small production of sugar, in the various places where it was cultivated. In support of this assertion, a comparison was drawn between the slaves in Demerara and Jamaica, and those of the Bahama Islands. Nothing could be less satisfactory than such a comparison; because, the occupation and the habits of the slaves in those places were wholly distinct, and the fertility of the soil was not less different. It would be as just to compare the slaves of Jamaica with those who were employed to work the Mexican mines. It had been said, too, that the condition of the slaves was more to be deplored in those colonies where the production of sugar was ample, than where it was scanty. This was opposed to the concurrent testimony of every man who had written upon, or who knew any thing of, the subject. It was the interest of the planter to take care that his slaves were well fed and clothed; and it was obvious that he was better able to provide for them, when a large supply and better prices were the consequences of their labours. It had been proved, beyond all question, that the condition of the slaves was, in all respects, better in times and places where the general interest was flourishing, than where it was depressed. He would not now enter further upon the subject, but he called upon hon. gentlemen, and upon the ministers in particular, to take such measures with respect to the West-India interests, as were consistent with the principles of free trade; to do justice to those interests; and not to leave them in the lurch, while they professed to extend the benefit of such principles universally.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he wished to explain why he had refrained from taking any part in the present discussion. The bill had passed through all its stages up to the third reading, without any objection, or the show of any opposition, having been offered on the subject of the duties. He had, indeed, been given to understand by the hon. member for Weymouth, that it was his intention, and that of some of his, friends, to avail themselves of the opportunity which the third reading would give them, of expressing their opinion on a part of the question. He had suggested to the hon. gentleman that such a course would be inconvenient; but still it was preferred,
1090
and had now been followed. No opposition had, however, been offered, nor had any alteration been suggested, with respect to the duties. He conceived, therefore, that he was fully justified in remaining silent, and that it could not be thought he had done so from any feeling of disrespect to the gentlemen who had thought fit to express their sentiments on other parts of the measure. What his opinion was, the bill he had brought in sufficiently explained. The duties for the year to come would be the same as they had been for the year past. He felt that, whatever might be the theoretical principles belonging to this measure, it was one of so much difficulty and delicacy, that it would at present be highly inexpedient to act upon them in their rigid extent. Whether future circumstances would occasion a change in the measure he had submitted or not, was what he would not now speculate upon; but, he should have thought it unreasonable if he had proposed any scale of duties different from those contained in the bill.
The bill was then read a third time.