SUGAR DUTIES—WAYS AND MEANS— ADJOURNED DEBATE (FOURTH DAY.)

HC Deb 12 May 1841 vol 58 cc259-333

The Adjourned Debate resumed.

Mr. Cholmondely

In rising to offer a few remarks upon the important subject now under consideration, I can assure the House, that it is not ray intention to trespass upon their patience for any length of time, or to enter into any of those commercial details, which have been already so fully and so well stated by those most conversant with the subject, but there is one point to which I could wish to draw the attention of the House, namely, that there has been a most unjust imputation thrown upon the West-India proprietors, and upon hon. Members on this side of the House, of being influenced in their opposition to this measure, solely by a wish to preserve their own monopoly, and to deprive the poorer classes of this country of the blessing of cheap sugar, which this measure of her Majesty's Government professes to extend to them, at the same time that it augments the revenue. To be sure, these great advantages are not to be obtained without some slight sacrifice, it is confessed even by those who introduce this measure, that it must, in some degree, affect the West Indian interests, and it is even admitted, that it may incidentally give some encouragement to the slave-trade, but what are these minor evils when compared with the immense good, that it is to effect. Now, Sir, I think it is a bad maxim, "to do a great good, do a little ill," but when the adage is reversed, and it is proposed "to do a little good, do a great ill." I think, there is nobody that will not agree with me, as to the badness of the maxim, and this is, I think, precisely the proposition that is made by her Majesty's Government, with the sole exception, that, I think, the good, small as it is, is most problematical. What is the ground taken by hon. Members opposite? We are told not to waste our sympathies upon the negroes, but to turn our compassion to our own suffering artisans at home, and the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, has drawn an affecting picture of the poor man obliged to turn away from the shop, because his scanty means were insufficient to purchase the slight luxury of sugar, possibly for a sick wife or child. God forbid, that I, or any Member of this House, should view with indifference the sufferings or privations of the poor, or treat with levity any proposition to alleviate those sufferings, or remove those privations; but, in this case, what is the amount of relief to be administered? By the noble Lord's own calculations, the utmost he expects is a reduction in the price of sugar of 1s. 6d. per cwt., or as was so well and clearly shown by the noble Lord, the Member for South Lancashire, a diminution per pound so small as not be measured by the smallest denomination of coin current in the realm. Can any hon. Member so far deceive himself as to fancy, that any great advantage can accrue to the poor man from this infinitesimal reduction. The only class, that would derive benefit from it was that which might be regarded as the intermediate class between the great importer and the poor consumer—he meant the retail trader; but as far as the poor man was concerned, it would only prove to be a second edition of the measure for taking the tax off leather, in which case, the retail dealer alone was benefited, and the poor man complained that he could get his shoes no cheaper. He had no objection to confer a benefit upon the retail trader, but not at the price at which it was proposed to be purchased. The twofold object of the measure was to afford a very small complement of relief to a very small section of the community, and to raise the sum of 700,000l. for the purposes of revenue, by means of which the House knew nothing, of the possibility of which there was no proof, no attempt at proof even, and for which they had nothing but assertion. To effect these two objects, the House was called upon to inflict a measure little short of ruin, upon the great West-India proprietors and sugar merchants, and to render nugatory the payment by this country of 20,000,000l. For such a boon, he certainly was not prepared to make so great a sacrifice. The noble Lord, in his speech on Friday, has stated, that the amendment of the noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, was "the most factious step, that could be resorted to," and has characterised it as "merely a party movement, brought forward to serve party purposes." Now, Sir, there never was a more unfounded accusation, or one, he really believed, which might be more justly retorted upon those who made it. When these debates, and those who have taken a part in them, shall have passed away, when all angry and contentious feelings shall have been long since laid at rest, and these eventful days have become matter of history, what would be the opinion of an unprejudiced observer, upon reviewing these transactions; to which of the great parties in that House would he apply the term "faction," and on which would he cast the imputation of having acted merely for party purposes? On one side, he would observe the Government of the country, placed in a situation of very considerable difficulty, at a critical juncture, having lately sustained a most signal defeat upon a most important measure, with a large majority of the House of Lords against them, with the feelings of the country (if they might judge from the results of recent elections), not very much in their favour—on the one side, he would see this Government hastily, and without notice, bringing forward three great measures, striking at and involving three of the largest interests in the empire; he would see them at once striking a triple blow at those interests—at the West-Indian interests, by an alteration of the sugar duties; at the Canadian interests, by a reduction of the timber duties; and though last not least, at the landed and agricultural interest, by the foolish theory of a fixed duty upon corn, which would vanish the very first year of a scarcity. On the opposite side, he would observe a body of men condemning these sweeping measures as precipitate, injurious, and as likely to produce more of evil than of good, and endeavouring to prevent the state from being shaken to its centre by the rash hand of an over-hasty innovation. Upon these grounds— objecting to the proposition of the noble Lord, as nearly ruinous to the West-India proprietors—as unnecessarily affording encouragement to the slave-trade, and as one of those three measures which, taken together, must inevitably damage our national prosperity, he would give it his most strenuous opposition; while he should cordially support the resolution of his noble Friend, the Member for Liverpool.

Viscount Howick

Sir, though this debate has already been protracted to so great a length, I hope that, in consideration of the interest I have long taken in the abolition of slavery, the House will excuse me if I am unwilling to give a silent vote in favor of a measure, which the hon. Gentleman, who has just sat down, like others who have preceded him, has asserted to have a direct tendency to encourage both slavery and the slave-trade. In reference to this objection, which has been urged against the measure proposed by her Majesty's Government, I must in the first place observe, that no hon. Gentleman, as far as I remember, has contended that the introduction into this country of produce raised by slave labour, ought not, under any circumstances, to be permitted. It is not asserted that, as in private life, a man who knowingly receives stolen goods, is justly considered an accomplice in the crime he thus encourages; so in the intercourse of nations, a country that consents to receive from another what is known to be the produce of slave labour, ought to be regarded as sharing in the crime of maintaining slavery. No hon. Gentleman has ventured to push the argument to this extent. If they had done so, if it could have been shown that a great fundamental principle of justice was involved in the question, and that to receive the produce of slave labour, was to violate the eternal rules of right, and justice; in that case the decision to which the House ought to come would be clear; there would be no room for considering the consequences of the course we should be bound to take; but whatever the sacrifice, we must do what justice required; but we must also, if this should be our view of the subject, proceed much further, and we must uniformly and in every case exclude the produce of slave labour of all descriptions. But as this is not maintained to be our duty, as the argument on the other side only goes to this, that the abolition of slavery and the slave trade having long been one of the great objects of the policy of this country, we ought not to adopt a measure of which the tendency is to encourage slavery; as this is the ground which is taken, though no one more heartily than myself concurs in thinking it ought to be our policy, by every means in our power, to discourage slavery; still I am at full liberty to exercise my judgment as to whether the tendency of the measure is that imputed to it, and whether, by adopting the measure of Her Majesty's Government, we should really give encouragement to the slave-trade, and promote the permanent continuance of slavery in the manner which has been asserted. Now, Sir, upon this point I am directly at issue with my right hon. and learned Friend, the Member for the Tower Hamlets. His argument, if I rightly understand it, is, that if sugar produced by slave-labour should be allowed to come into consumption in this the richest country in the world, the price of sugar would necessarily be raised, and its pro- duction in Cuba and the Brazils, where it is carried on by slaves and the slave-trade, would be encouraged; wherefore, my right hon. and learned Friend, contends, that such sugar should continue to be excluded, by a prohibitory duty, from our market. This argument is plausible, but it appears to me to be entirely unsound; and the policy recommended by my right hon. and learned Friend is, I think, erroneous. The argument, and the policy founded upon it, both proceed upon the assumption, that it is in vain to suppose that sugar can possibly be raised by free labour in our own dominions, so as to compete with the slave produce of Cuba and Brazil; and that, therefore, we must be content to exclude this produce from our own market, yielding up to it, without a struggle, the market of Europe, and of the world. If this assumption of my right hon. and learned Friend is correct, I must say it is a most mortifying conclusion to come to, a conclusion which I would not admit without the clearest evidence, and then certainly with the greatest pain and reluctance. But I totally deny that the assumption of my right hon. and learned Friend can be supported, either by reasoning or by experience. I remember well during the many debates upon the abolition of slavery, that my right hon. and learned Friend, and another hon. Friend of ours, no longer, unfortunately, a Member of this House, who took so distinguished and honourable a lead in the struggle for the abolition of slavery, I mean, of course, Sir Thomas F. Buxton; I say I remember well often to have listened to them when they were endeavouring to prove, by reasoning and by facts, that slavery was not only a crime but a mistake, and that the forced labour of the slave was not merely exacted by cruelty and injustice, but, in the end, the dearest and least productive labour that could be employed. That free labour, with fair play, and proper measures adapted to direct and stimulate it, would always be more than a match in open competition for the labour of slaves. My right hon. and learned Friend may now believe, that in using these arguments he was mistaken —he may now think that he was at that time in error—he may have changed his views upon the subject, and believe that free labour cannot successfully compete with slave labour; but if my right hon. and learned Friend has changed his opinion, I have not altered mine; on the contrary, the results already produced, by the great experiment which has been tried by the emancipation of the negro population of our colonies (mismanaged as in many respects I think this experiment to have been), seem to me to give no ground whatever for despairing that our own colonies, with free labour, may maintain a successful competition in the cultivation of sugar with those countries in which slavery is still maintained. But they will be little likely to do so if we teach them to lean upon the broken reed of protection and monopoly. A trade bolstered up by restrictions, and prohibitory duties, all experience teaches us, never attains a healthy and vigorous growth, while the removal of restrictions, and of what is misnamed protection, has often the best effect in giving strength and activity to a trade before languid and depressed. My noble Friend, the Secretary for the Colonies, has already alluded to a striking example of this in the extension and improvement of the silk trade, in consequence of the measures of Mr. Huskisson; and I see no reason whatever for believing that a similar result might not follow from similar measures with respect to the growth of sugar. What is there to prevent our West Indian colonies from carrying on this branch of industry with success? The fertility of Cuba and Brazil has been dwelt on, but in this respect they certainly have no superiority over some of our own colonies, for instance, Demerara and Trinidad. I believe that in no part of the world is there to be found a soil more productive than that which they possess; and even as regards our older colonies, I believe that it is not so much that they are deficient in natural fertility, as that the soil has been exhausted by the miserable system of cultivation which invariably prevails where slavery exists. Is there then more capital, greater intelligence, more enterprise and skill amongst the planters of Cuba and Brazil than amongst those of British race? This will hardly be asserted. What then is the difficulty? We are told that the great disadvantage under which the British colonies suffer, is that of the deficiency of labour. I do not deny that such a deficiency exists, but I must attribute it, in a great degree, to the mistaken measures which have been adopted in carrying into effect the abolition of slavery, partly by this country, but chiefly by the local authorities. The measures adopted since 1833 have been rather attempts to coerce than to induce the population to labour, and the fiscal regulations enacted in the colonies have been ill calculated to promote regular and continuous industry. There has been nothing like the adoption of measures founded on an enlarged and deliberate consideration of the altered circumstances of the colonies, with the view of securing an adequate supply of labour, and calling forth the energies of the population. The colonists have shown a reluctance to adapt the modes of cultivation and the treatment of their labourers to the altered condition of society, in consequence of the measure of 1833. Now, Sir, one great advantage which I anticipate from the measure proposed by her Majesty's Government, is, that by the stimulus of competition, it will enforce in the colonies more vigorous and better directed efforts to remove the difficulties which are now felt. It will compel all parties there, from the local legislatures down to the managers of estates, and the labourers themselves, to make greater exertions to meet the competition which they will have to encounter. I am persuaded the result will prove that the production of sugar may be successfully carried on in the West Indies; but when I say this, I do not mean to assert that it will be possible to carry it on in the manner which has heretofore prevailed, and so as to yield a profit to proprietors resident in this country, who cultivate sugar by means of hired agents in the colonies. I do not believe that, except by the closest monopoly, and by keeping up prices far beyond their reasonable rate, so unnatural a system as this can be made to yield a profit. Let me ask, hon. Gentlemen, what would be the result of a similar system in this country. I believe, Sir, that the owners of landed estates in this country do not often find that keeping their land in their own hands is a profitable speculation. You, Sir, may be an exception to the rule, owing to your great knowledge and skill in agriculture, but, in general, I think it will be admitted that the farming of gentlemen, however it may answer as an amusement, seldom does so in the way of profit, and this even when gentlemen are resident upon their estates, and can themselves superintend their cultivation. But, Sir, if an English landed proprietor were to reside in Jamaica, being as ignorant of the practical cultivation of estates in this country, as the majority of West Indian proprietors are of the details of sugar cultivation, and if he were then to attempt to keep a farm of the best land of England in his own hands, and to cultivate it by hired agents, does any man suppose that any profit could be thus obtained? But the production of sugar involves not merely farming, but a manufacturing process, in which, as in every manufacture, the profit depends upon the economy with which all the details are managed, and upon the skill with which the process is carried on, and I ask any of the Gentlemen in the House, acquainted with our own manufactures, whether a large manufactory can possibly be successfully conducted by any person but the owner; and whether, if the owner of such an establishment were to endeavour to carry on his business by means of agents, while he himself resided at the distance of two or three thousand miles, anything but ruin could follow from the attempt? I do not, therefore, expect that, if we admit the competition of foreign sugar, non-resident proprietors in our colonies will be able to derive a profit from the cultivation of their estates on their own account; but far from regarding this as an objection to the measure of her Majesty's Government, I consider it as one of its chief advantages. I believe that new arrangements will soon be effected, that the owners of colonial estates, instead of keeping them in their own hands, will let them to tenants, as farms are let in this country. In many cases, I have no doubt, the negroes themselves will undertake to cultivate, for their own benefit, the estates upon which they formerly laboured as slaves; already more than one instance has occurred in Demerara, of negroes joining together and purchasing estates at very high prices, with a view to the production of sugar. My noble Friend the other evening informed us that in Jamaica, also, the negroes were rapidly acquiring wealth; and he stated the number of those who had purchased cottages or land from their savings. As they thus accumulate property, they will be enabled to become the tenants of their former masters; and, in the same manner, the white inhabitants of the islands—those who have heretofore been book-keepers, overseers, and attornies—will find it advantageous to undertake the cultivation of sugar on their own account, instead of as the deputies and agents of others; already, if I am not misinformed, this change has taken place in some cases, and it will rapidly become general, if the competition of foreign sugar is allowed. As this altered system comes into action, I am persuaded that the cost of producing sugar in the British West Indies, will be reduced to a degree of which it would be difficult now to form a conception. Those who are acting on their own account can venture to make improvements, and engage in undertakings, which the mere agents of distant proprietors either do not think of, or cannot run the risk of attempting with the responsibility that rests upon them, and with the uncertainty whether their employers may approve of the immediate outlay which the adoption of their plans may require. But the energy and enterprise of men acting for their own benefit, will speedily lead to the adoption of various means for saving labour, and to improvements in the rotation of crops, and in the various processes of cultivation and manufacture, by which the soil will be rendered more productive, and the preparation of the produce for exportation more economical. At present it is notorious that any attempts at such improvements which have been made are still in their infancy; while slavery continued they were almost impracticable; the mode of cultivation which prevailed was the rudest and most barbarous to be found in the civilized world, and was carried on to a great extent by the mere application of brute force. Such continues to be the case in Cuba and Brazil, and it must continue while the accursed system of slavery is maintained; and I cannot for a moment believe that sugar thus produced, will be long able to compete with that which will be produced in our own colonies by free labour, under the guidance of men animated and stimulated by the feeling that they are acting for themselves, and that they are to reap the fruits of their own enterprise and activity. If we turn to the East Indies, we shall there find no deficiency either of labour, or of fertility in the soil; on the contrary, the soil is most productive, and labour cheaper perhaps than it is elsewhere to be found. Nothing is wanting for the production of sugar but British capital and intelligence, and the removal of fiscal obstructions to enterprise and industry. British capital and intelligence have already been directed to this quarter, and the first deficiency will soon be supplied. With respect to the remaining difficulty, here again the measure proposed by her Majesty's Government will prove of great advantage, as the necessity of maintaining a competition with foreign countries will compel the rulers of India, the British Parliament, and the public, to look into the condition of that country, with a view of removing the obstacles which, I fear, now stand in the way of the extension of its industry, and the full development of its resources. These considerations lead me to believe that both our East and West India possessions will be able to compete in the production of sugar with Cuba and Brazil; but if we can give them any further advantage and assistance in the race of free and honourable competition, it is our duty to do so. My right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, has already, in the course of the present Session, removed some of the restrictions which weighed upon the trade of our colonies; if more remains to be done in the same direction, let him confidently appeal to the House, and I am convinced that he will find it prepared to support any measures for that purpose which he may propose. Much may also be done for our own colonies by increased vigour in our measures for the suppression of the slave trade. I rejoice to see, by papers lately presented to the House, that an example has been set, which, I trust, will be followed. Captain Denman, instead of waiting to capture the slave ships after they have put to sea, has landed the force under his command, and destroyed the depots on shore where slaves were collected for exportation; and he has thus, on one part of the coast, given a blow to this detestable traffic, from which it is not likely speedily to recover. Let the same course be pursued on other parts of the coast of Africa. I think we should be perfectly justified in telling the native chiefs, that they are not to be permitted to carry on the trade. We have, I fear, made war for ligher causes and for more questionable objects; and, it seems to me, that we have a perfect right, if these chiefs persist in carrying on this inhuman trade, to land our forces and destroy the slave factories and vessels engaged in the trade which are lying in the rivers. Assisted by these measures, I am convinced that our own possessions will soon be enabled to undersell the slave-grown sugar of Cuba and Brazil, if the policy of her Majesty's Government is adopted; and I would earnestly entreat the House to consider how much higher, how much more important are the objects of this policy, than those of the timid, I should have said the cowardly policy of my right hon. and learned Friend, if such a word could properly be applied to anything recommended by him. All that my right hon. and learned Friend aims at, is merely to exclude slave grown sugar from our own market, leaving it in undisputed possession of the other markets of the world. What should we thus gain? The hon. Member for Nottingham, (Mr. Walter) told us on a former evening that we had already paid twenty millions for the abolition of slavery, that we had imposed upon the people of this country an annual charge far exceeding the interest of that large sum, in the increased price of sugar, and that we had expended immense sums of money and many lives in our attempts to put down the slave trade on the coast of Africa, and that, after all, the only result of all our efforts, and all our sacrifices, was that this inhuman trade was carried on more extensively than ever, and with even aggravated cruelty. Such was the statement of that hon. Member (and I fear it is not far from the truth), of the effects produced by the policy we have hitherto pursued. Can there be a stronger reason for changing our policy? That which her Majesty's Government now propose to adopt, aims, on the contrary, at the extirpation, not only of the slave trade, but of slavery; for the first pound of free grown sugar which shall successfully compete in the open market of Europe with the sugars of Cuba and Brazil, will be the certain forerunner of the abolition of slavery in those countries. A system based upon wickedness and in-justice is so inherently weak and rotten, that it must soon crumble away of itself, and cannot long contend with one which rests on the solid foundation of justice and humanity. But, Sir, I know the answer which my right hon. and learned Friend will make. He will tell me that he too proposes to do all in his power to encourage the production of sugar by free labour in the British possessions, that he too hopes ultimately to undersell the slave dealer, but that in the meantime, and till this is accomplished, he will exclude slave sugar from our own market. My right hon. Friend, if this is his view, is, I think, greatly mistaken. I am convinced that to stimulate production in our own dominions, to hasten the period of their being enabled to meet the slave owner on equal terms in foreign markets, we must subject them to competition; no other regulations, no other measures which it is in our power to adopt, will act so powerfully as the sharp spur of necessity in urging our own growers to the exertions by which alone they can produce sugar as cheaply as our rivals. While monopoly exists it is in vain to expect that the inhabitants of our West Indian colonies will make those great changes in long established habits, which the altered state of society has rendered indispensable. In this view I think the course pursued by her Majesty's Government has been a judicious one; they did not attempt to alter the duties upon foreign sugar at the first moment of emancipation, but three years will have elapsed since that measure was fully accomplished, before the proposed new scale of duties can take effect. The disturbance which so great a change in society could not fail, in the first instance, to produce, is gone by, the new order of things is becoming settled, and now, if ever, is the time for preventing another bad system from taking root, now is the time for making a change in our duties, if we would avoid creating new vested interests in monopoly. I say, therefore, that it is wise now to stimulate our own producers by competition, without depriving them of a fair protection, for let the House recollet that the proposition of her Majesty's Government is not (as might be supposed from the speeches of hon. Members opposite) to deprive our own possessions of all protection; on the contrary the high protecting duty of fifty per cent, is still intended to be imposed on foreign sugar, and if this should be not sufficient it may be increased by the House, if we go into the Committee of ways and means. The question now before us is not whether we shall adopt precisely the scale of duties which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recommended, but whether any competition at all between our own possessions and foreign countries shall be allowed, or an entirely prohibitory duty be continued. The hon. Member for Antrim (Mr. Irving) last night candidly told us what were the feelings of those whose interests he represents; he told us "you must not admit competition at all, we must have an absolutely prohibitory duty," and we are now called upon to decide between prohibition and competition with a fair protection. For the reasons I have endeavoured to state to the House, I believe that by admitting competition we shall produce a more healthy and vigorous action in this branch of industry in our own dominions, and thus promote the final extinction of slavery and the slave trade; but this is more than I am called upon to prove. Unless it can be shown on the other side that the tendency of the measure of her Majesty's Government will clearly be to give increased encouragement to the slave trade, and an encouragement which it is not in our power to counterbalance by the increased vigour of our direct endeavours to suppress it—unless this proposition can be established by our opponents, I contend that the House would not be justified in rejecting a measure which, undoubedly, would afford very great relief to our own population. I say it would undoubtedly afford great relief to our own population; for though an attempt has been made to deny this, the arguments which have been urged with that view have been so palpably fallacious and unsound, that I cannot believe that they will produce the slightest impression upon the House or upon the Country. The hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Gladstone), and the hon. Member who has just sat down (Mr. Cholmondeley), have asserted that a reduction in the price of sugar, of only 1s. 6d. per cwt. is the utmost to be expected from the proposed measure. So small a reduction, it is argued, could not possibly affect the retail trade, and therefore would be of no benefit to the consumer. I will admit to hon. Gentlemen that I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer might safely have carried farther the principle on which he proposes to act. I think upon the whole it would have been more judicious to have made a reduction of 7s. or 8s. per cwt. in the duty on colonial sugar, preserving the same proportion between the duties on foreign and colonial sugar which has been recommended by the Government, and trusting to the increased consumption which would thus have been created for the maintenance of the revenue. This, I say, I am inclined to believe would have been the best mode of dealing with the question, and this scale of duties, if we should go into Committee, it would be in the power of the House to adopt. But taking the measure even as recommended by the Government, I have no doubt that a very great boon would be afforded to the consumer. The calculations which have been made as to the supply of sugar which we may expect in the present year are quite beside the purpose. It is nothing to tell us that without admitting foreign sugar we shall have a supply of 200,000 tons, and that the annual consumption of the country has never exceeded that amount; I have no means of ascertaining what the consumption might be if we had a cheap and abundant supply, and I can have no doubt that the measure proposed by the Government must have the effect of extending the sources from which our supply is to be drawn. What are the plain facts of the case? We have now a duty on foreign sugar which is absolutely prohibitory, and for this her Majesty's Government proposes to substitute a duty of about 150 per cent. on the value of the article in bond, and exceeding by 50 per cent, the duty upon British sugar. Against even this moderate and cautious admission of foreign produce those interested in the present monopoly are in arms, and the very eagerness with which they defend that monopoly, the very earnestness with which they resist all competition, ought to convince us that the measure would be for the benefit of the public, by reducing the price of sugar. But, Sir, when my noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) the other evening so eloquently described to us the sufferings of the inhabitants of Bolton, when we read the authentic accounts which recent inquiries have placed before us of the low state to which a large proportion of our manufacturing population have been reduced,—when we speak of these things, and argue that to relieve this distress we ought to adopt the measure now under our consideration, do we mean to say that it is merely from the fall in the price of sugar that the benefit we anticipate will arise? Far from it; the advantage of a reduction in the price of sugar is by itself by no means unworthy of consideration, since the hon. Member for the city of London (Mr. Grote) has shown, that upon our present consumption, the reduction of a penny per pound in the price of sugar is equal to a reduction of taxation of 1,600,000l. But still this is but a small part of the advantage which we anticipate from the measure. We believe that for the relief of our suffering population we must endeavour to extend the field of employment, that we must strive to open a new career for industry, to make labour more productive, and that the only mode of doing this, is cautiously but effectually to remove the fetters and restrictions by which our commerce is now bound down and crippled, and to get rid of the impolitic and mischievous obstructions to the freedom of exchange between nation and nation, which our present legislation imposes. It is an essential and necessary part of such an attempt to improve our commercial policy that I regard this measure as most valuable. Amongst all the prohibitory duties which it is proposed to modify, there is none, taken by itself, more important than that upon foreign sugar. Brazil is one of our best customers, and it has been stated by her Majesty's Government, who are charged with the negociations with that country, that the regulations which it will adopt on the approaching termination of our commercial treaty will mainly depend upon the course which we may adopt with respect to the admission of its sugar. From any general measure for the improvement of our tariff, with a view to the extension of our trade, it would, therefore, be preposterous that the article of sugar should be excluded; and the question now before us is, whether a general and comprehensive revision of our import duties is to be attempted. The proposal we are now considering, forms only part of a larger and more extensive measure for the removal of monopolies, and the modification of excessive protecting duties. It is as such that it is really important, and it is as such that it has been attacked. My hon. Friend, the Member for Lincolnshire (Mr. Handley) has stated, with his usual frankness, that he opposes the measure of her Majesty's Government because he feels that if he concurs in diminishing the protection of the West India planter and of the ship-owner, he cannot, consistently, call upon the House to maintain unaltered the present Corn-laws. This is the ground upon which he has honestly and fairly stated that he rests his opposition to an alteration of the sugar duties, and the House and the country will well understand that it is the same feeling which really actuates the majority of those who urge only the plea of humanity, and their horror of the slave-trade. We well understand that these popular topics are taken up by most of those who have used them, merely to hide the ugly and repulsive features of monopoly, the cause they have really to defend. No doubt, Sir, many Gentlemen have been influenced only by their sincere and honest conviction that the admission of foreign sugar would give encouragement to the slave-trade. No man can doubt that this, and this only, has been the motive of my right hon. and learned Friend who has acted so distinguished a part in all that relates to the abolition of slavery. No doubt, also, the hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis), is entitled to the credit of being influenced by the same motives; but I confess it is impossible for me to see without feelings of disgust petitions laid upon the Table of the House calling upon us for the sake of humanity, to maintain the exclusion of foreign sugar, signed by the very same names which I remember were attached to every petition and remonstrance against all the measures adopted for the benefit of our own negro population. When I know what has been the past conduct of these persons—when I know also that the new cloak of philanthropy which they have assumed cannot conceal their strong interest in the existing monopoly—when I put these things together, I cannot admit that the opposition of these petitioners is entitled to the same respect as that of my right hon. and learned Friend (Dr. Lushington). I will not follow the example of the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Gladstone), in imputing the degrading motives to the opponents of this measure of which he has thought fit to accuse those by whom it has been brought forward and supported. But I must say, considering the position in which that hon. Member stands, it would have been more discreet in him not to have thrown such imputations upon others. He would have done well to remember the old proverb, that those who live in glass houses ought not to be the first to throw stones, and that we could hardly have forgot the part which he took in the debates of 1833, and who at that time was the owner of the Vreeden Hoop estate in Demerara. He should have remembered that even in that colony, where there too generally a high rate of produce for the number of slaves employed, and a high rate of mortality amongst the slaves by whose excessive labour this produce was raised, that even in that colony the Vreeden Hoop estate was remarkable both for the large produce of sugar, and for the rapid diminution in the number of the slaves, a diminution in three years of no less than eighty-one, or one-seventh of the whole number. Sir, I am persuaded that, notwithstanding all the attempts which have been made to represent this as a question of humanity, and of whether the slave-trade is to be encouraged, it will be understood by the country that the point really at issue is, whether an alliance of all those interested in various monopolies is to defeat the attempt of her Majesty's Government to effect a great and general improvement of our commercial policy. Is there any doubt that such an improvement is most urgently required? Is it not notorious that in every profession, in every trade and handicraft, in every mode of applying capital and industry, there is the same intense competition, the same extreme difficulty of finding the means of profitable employment? The complaint is universal, of the want of opportunities for men to exercise to advantage their talents and their industry. To what is this state of things to be attributed? How are these symptoms of something wrong in the condition of the country to be accounted for? The evil is caused by our unwise commercial policy, and by the mischievous restrictions which are imposed upon the exchange of produce between ourselves and other nations. Does any man doubt that there are many countries able and anxious to sell us articles of which we are in want? Does any man doubt that Baltic timber, Brazilian sugar, foreign corn, and a variety of other commodities, would find purchasers in this country if we would only consent to receive them; and, on the other hand, does any one doubt that if we received those commodities they must and would be paid for by our own manufactures; that those countries from which we took the produce of their industry and capital, would take in return from us the produce of ours, by which alone we could pay for what we received from them; and that thus every extension of the present restricted facilities for exchange with other countries, must directly tend to increase the means of employment for our own population. This proposition is so plain and clear, that I do not understand how it can for a moment be doubted, and I ask the House how can we then refuse to adopt such plain and simple means for relieving the wants and the distress so urgently felt in this country? But if we reject the general policy recommended by the Government, of endeavouring to increase the revenue by a relaxation of our protecting duties, the alternative is, not merely the refusal to the people of much-needed re- lief, but the imposition upon them of some new and heavy burthen. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, whoever he may be, must come down to the House and propose some new tax, which will fall heavily upon the people, which will lead to the shutting up of a still greater number of houses in Bolton and other places, to the conversion of a large proportion of the poorest order of rate-payers into rate receivers. Some tax must be imposed, which will still further bow down to the ground the already over-burthened industry of the country. I say this must be the effect of any new tax; for if it is a tax upon consumption, it will not raise the required revenue, unless it is imposed upon some article in general use amongst the lower orders of the community; and if a tax falling less directly upon them—if a property tax or a house tax be reimposed, while it presses heavily upon the middle classes, it will fall also severely upon the lowest, as it will necessarily still further diminish the already scanty means of employment under which they are suffering, by diminishing the means of the more wealthy portion of the nation. I am persuaded that if hon. Gentlemen will take the trouble of seriously looking into the subject, they will see the extreme injustice, in the present state of the country, of providing for the wants of the state by the imposition of a new tax, while they may be met in the manner which her Majesty's Government have proposed. I am convinced that even those most interested, as they think, in existing monopolies, would find that it is for their benefit, as well as for that of others, to adopt a more liberal commercial policy. The landowner would be compensated for having a lower rate of protection on corn by avoiding the burthen of new taxes, and by getting rid of the other monopolies which he consents to support for the sake of preserving his own. In the same manner, the timber merchant and the planter do not calculate how much they indirectly lose by maintaining the other monopolies upon which the fate of their own depends. I believe that all these classes, even if their expectations of gain from existing monopolies were realised (as I am convinced they never really are), would find that a general relaxation of the system of monopoly and protection would be advantageous to them; but if there can be any doubt as to them, there can be none as to the public at large, the great body of consumers, those who are neither landowners, nor shipowners, nor planters, who pay increased prices for bread, for timber, for sugar, for coffee for every description of protected goods, and who gain nothing in return; the poor distressed inhabitants of Bolton—the hand-loom weavers — the starving manufacturers — they clearly are sufferers by the present system —they clearly would be relieved by the change of policy which her Majesty's Government recommend. Sir, I know not what is the decision to which we are about to come; it may be that the House will reject the financial measures which her Majesty's Government have brought forward, but whatever may be the immediate result of their attempt to reform our commercial policy, of its ultimate triumph no man who has watched the signs of the times, and the progress of public opinion, can entertain the remotest doubt. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tam-worth, may indeed upon this subject follow the same line of conduct, which no less unfortunately for his own reputation than for the interests of the country, he followed with respect to Catholic emancipation. His opposition may for the present be the means of defeating a great and necessary reform, which must, in the end, be carried. At the price of great suffering to the people, at the risk of permanently forfeiting many of the advantages which a timely step in the right direction would secure, he may succeed in slaving of the day and the hour when a commercial reform must take place; but that it must ultimately be brought about, that in the end such a reform must be accomplished, is rendered inevitable by our financial necessities, even if there were no other causes in operation. The rapid progress of public opinion which must be perceptible to all who have observed what is going on in the country, points still more clearly to this as the certain issue of these discussions. Sir, if I wanted any proof of the immense advance which a liberal commercial policy has made in public estimation, I could find none more conclusive than that which has been furnished by this very debate. I can remember how little, but a few years ago, any Member of this House could venture broadly and fairly to argue in favour of the principles of commercial freedom. Even the great and liberal measures of Mr. Huskisson were carried in a great degree in disguise; in bringing them forward he was compelled to flatter the prejudices, and not unfrequently to profess the principles of men of whose real ignorance he was well aware, and thus, while all his practical measures were tending towards freedom of trade, his language was often of a very different character. Sir, I well remember, that when I first had the honour of a seat in this House, the prevailing opinion was entirely in favour of monopoly, and what is termed protection; the few Gentlemen who dared to lift up their voices against the received doctrines of the day, were treated as visionaries and enthusiasts, and scarcely received the slightest attention from the House. How different is the case now? How striking is the contrast between the discussions of former days and the present debate? Now even those who, in fact, come forward to defend the system of monopoly, are, for the most part, ashamed of their cause, and are obliged to disguise their real motives by some more decent pretext. If we were to judge of hon. Members by their language, and not by their acts, the whole House is in favour of free trade; there is scarcely a difference of opinion amongst us, and we are almost unanimously agreed in approving of the most complete commercial freedom. We hear nothing now of the old language about the country flourishing by means of protection, and of the necessity of keeping up an army of custom-house officers to protect the British soil from being polluted by the produce of the industry of foreign nations, which may in the remotest degree interfere with our own. Now our language is quite altered, we are all for commercial freedom, only, as Mr. Huskisson once happily observed, each interest considers it bad in its own particular case, and there is always some special reason for making an exception from the practical application of the rule which, as a general one, is admitted to be sound. As in the present instance, we are told of the encouragement we should give to the slave trade; when the corn laws are discussed, the danger of depending upon foreign countries for a supply of food is talked of; in every case some special plea of this kind is put forward, only serving to show how sensible are even the advocates of protection, of the inherent weakness of the arguments in its favour. When we see that in the course of only a few years, public opinion has made such advances, and that so complete a change has taken place in the tone of debates in this House, we cannot surely surely entertain a doubt that our commercial policy, founded upon restriction and monopoly, is not destined to endure for many years longer. I should rejoice if I thought that the House were now prepared to take the first step in the right direction; but even if the measure now proposed should be rejected, again I repeat, its ultimate success is certain. With this conviction, and with a firm persuasion that the course we are called upon to adopt is in accordance with sound policy and true wisdom, I shall give my vote with the greatest satisfaction in favour of the motion of my noble Friend.

Mr. Williams Wynn

should have been content to leave the question for decision, on the arguments that had been adduced, if the House saw fit to close the debate; but, it having been understood that it was the pleasure of the House that it should continue open another night, he hoped he might be excused for not giving a silent vote upon the subject. It had been repeatedly contended on the other side of the House that the question was argued on that (the Opposition) side, on distinct and separate grounds, some objecting generally to the whole financial plan opened by the Government; and others, to that particular part of it which was the subject of the present motion, but this remark held good as applied to those who made it as well as those against whom it was addressed. He blamed neither side for adopting that line of argument, because it was a natural and necessary consequence of bringing forward a part of a measure for discussion, while the whole was pending. Upon the narrower question immediately before the House, although he even might, he would suppose for the sake of argument, be inclined to accede to the proposition, without reference to the score of humanity, he did not think that the present was a moment in which it should be made. The consequence of it would be the renewal of an agitation in the West Indies which had only just begun to subside, and the disruption of a state of society which was beginning again to assume a placid and settled form in those islands. Looking at the question on broader grounds, it seemed to him that as a measure of finance the exposition of the budget was wholly of an indefinite character. Every one saw that there was a great and alarming deficiency in the revenue of the country, and that this deficiency was an increasing one. But what had been the cause of it? It was created very much by a measure similar in some degree to that proposed now—an experiment to increase the revenue by the reduction of taxation—an experiment undertaken, and carried out too, against the recommendation of some of the ablest officers of Government, namely, the Post-office experiment. The deficiency of the revenue caused by that experiment alone was nearly a million; and it was now proposed to supply that deficiency by a further reduction in the duty on Sugar and other articles. Speaking generally, he did not mean to state, that the experiment of reduction, with a view to the increase of consumption, and thereby of revenue, was not a fair and justifiable one. He had no objection to see it tried on a large scale under favourable circumstances; but in his opinion, the present circumstances were not favourable, and it was absolutely necessary to have a surplus revenue in hand, such as was possessed some two or three years since, and such as would, he entertained no doubt, be possessed again, before it was attempted. It was because the circumstances were similar to those now existing, that the Post-office experiment failed. What were the views of her Majesty's Government on the subject of the Corn-laws? He would refer to the words of the noble Lord at the head of the Treasury last year, when he stated that it would be "madness" to entertain a branch of the present proposition of the Government, and he would only advert generally to the repugnance of that noble Lord to bring it forward. On what grounds did the noble Lord oppose it then? On the ground of the agitation that it would produce in the country. Was there any reason to hope that the proposition would be carried this year more than the last, or, that the agitation on the subject would be less? None. On the contrary, there was quite as little hope of the one, and a much stronger ground to believe in an increase of the other. The noble Lord had said on this occasion that the advantage to be derived from carrying that proposition would be but ill purchased by the agitation which it would cause in the country, and yet the noble Lord and the Government must have well known, not alone that the same agitation would take place this year, and increase, but also that it was quite as impossible to carry it as in the last—that in short there was no such revulsion in the feeling of the public, as would give him the slightest chance of its success. What, then, could have been the object of the Government of the noble Lord in proposing it now, but needless agitation? He was much surprised to hear the noble Lord opposite talk of the insincerity of the newly-sprung zeal on the Opposition side of the House in favour of slaves. If any anxiety was ever thoroughly felt upon a point in this country by all parties it was upon the subject of slavery—and he (Mr. Wynn) entirely repudiated the insinuation thrown out, that it was less for the interest of the slaves than for the interest of the West-India planters, that this zeal arose. The noble Lord argued that to be consistent, with those who opposed the admission of slave-grown sugar, should also reject all other slave-grown produce, such as the cotton and tobacco of America. But the answer to that argument was plain. It was a different thing to continue to receive the benefits of a trade long existing, and to open a new trade to the injury not alone of the slaves, but of our own fellow-countrymen, the West-India planters. It was stated that the injury to the planters would be more apparent than real, inasmuch as competition with foreign growers would stimulate them to increased production; but would not the very thing which was relied on for that stimulus to the free sugar trade also prove a stimulus to the slave trade? It was all very well to say that the duty proposed would give a sufficient protection to our colonists; but the eagerness of commercial speculators was not capable of such nice calculations, and little doubt could be entertained, that if accounts went out that this measure had been favourably entertained, the sea would immediately be covered by fresh swarms of slave-traders from Cuba and Brazil, in addition to those now employed in that detestable traffic. To say, however, that the slave importation would be effectually met by increased activity on the part of free labour was absurd; for while the planter who employed the latter, was gradually habituating the enfranchised slaves to labour for wages, and the altered state of society, the slave-holder would import fresh, active vigorous negroes from Africa and "work them up" or kill them off without remorse, to avail himself of the advantages of the market before his competitor, our own fellow subject. It would therefore be a long time, if ever it took place at all, before free labour, under these circumstances, could compete with slave-grown produce, or withstand the movement about to he made by her Majesty's Government. But it was said relief should be given to the consumer, as much as protection to the planter. He had he objection to that; on the contrary, he was anxious that it should be afforded so far as the highest interests of humanity would allow; but, what was the relief proposed? The largest calculation of the noble Lord taken in what may be termed an extreme case, amounted to no more than one shilling and sixpence in the hundred weight. Where, then, was the relief to the consumer. It had been urged, that to depend on the West Indies would he to risk a short supply of sugar. But to this the answer was ready—there was the East Indies, which produced this year 60,000 tons, and which, it was calculated, would produce next year not less than 100,000 tons. If competition were necessary for the West Indies there was competition, fair competition; and then, what became of the assertion of a short supply, when it was known that the greatest annual consumption of sugar in this country was only 200,000 tons. India produced at present nearly half that whole amount. Was not that a sufficient protection against monopoly on the part of the West-India planter? But on other grounds he looked on this question, as far as it regarded India, as of the utmost importance to justice and humanity. The manufactures of India had been extinguished by English manufactures. England was therefore bound to replace them by others. It was a just debt she owed to India? and it was incumbent on her to supply the native population with the means of paying for the commodities which she supplied to them. What more advantageous means existed than the sugar trade? The present, therefore, was not the time to encourage foreign and slave-grown sugar to the detriment of this important nascent manufacture in India. He could not perceive the advantages suggested by the noble Lord, the Member for Northumberland, nor could he justify himself in hazarding the encouragement of slavery and the character of England with foreign nations for any reason whatever, still less for advantages only in prospect. A sufficient time had not yet elapsed to give slave emancipation in the West Indies a fair trial; and though there might be many arguments for laying an additional duty on foreign sugar, he (Mr. Wynn) confessed he could not see one for reducing it lower than it now was. The noble Lord had taken much credit to his party for their exertions in emancipating the slaves: but the House would, no doubt, remember that if there ever was a subject on which the differences of party were more completely sacrificed than another it was that subject; and he should, therefore, have paused before he attributed to any party in particular the whole merit of carrying it out. What carried that measure was not only the union of the leading men on both sides of the House, but the growing opinion of the country, the determination of the rising generation against that atrocious system. The noble Lord had said that the party of which he assumed himself to be the representative, had refused office in 1812, on account of the Catholic question; but he would remind him, that on the contrary it distinctly appeared, that Lord Moira had urged it as a plea for their taking office that they would have the means of carrying the Catholic question. The fact was, that they had refused office because they would not except the Royal Household from the interference of the Ministers of the country. That was the ground upon which Lord Grenville and Lord Grey then acted, though it was a ground which it might not be convenient now for the noble Lord to state. The noble Lord who had last sat down, had alluded to the great merit of Captain Denman in destroying the slave settlements on the coast of Africa. He might rejoice at this destruction, but he could not understand the consistency of those who called them bigots for refusing to receive slave-grown sugar, and for endeavouring to force the growth of free-labour sugar in our own colonies, and who, at the same time, praised the laudable exertions of Captain Denman in destroying the settlements of an independent country because a number of slaves happened to be collected there to be sold. He, for one, was willing to see stronger measures adopted for exterminating slavery —and he did not believe that the sugar consumer of this country would willingly take advantage of an increased impetus to that system of piracy, robbery, and oppression. Whether he looked at the general question, or at the question as it affected sugar merely, he was equally determined to give the plan of the Government his hearty opposition, and he was sure the great majority of the people participated in that feeling.

Mr. W. Evans

said, that he had always taken part against slavery and the slave- trade in that House, and out of it he had joined a small body of individuals who had endeavoured to raise in this country a sense of the enormity of that system; he believed he had on no occasion given a vote in opposition to his right hon. and learned Friend, the Member for the Tower Hamlets, and it was only because on that occasion he was obliged to come to a different conclusion, that he thought it necessary to offer any observations to the House. They had granted twenty millions in the hope and expectation of getting a peaceful and satisfactory settlement of the question, but that was a question of degree, and if they had been called upon to vote fifty millions, would any man have yielded to that claim? He had never considered, that he was bound at no time, and under no circumstances, to admit foreign sugar, be the price of sugar in this country what it might. The hon. Member for Newark had said, that already they had expended ten millions in the increased price of sugar. In the last year he found no less a sum than 2,600,000l. had been expended in that way, and under these circumstances, he thought the Government was bound to adopt some measures in order to prevent the recurrence of so heavy a pressure. He was not prepared to say, that for the next seven years he would consent to spend ten millions more upon that object, the state of the manufacturing interests of this country, and even of the labouring classes in the agricultural interest, would not warrant such a sacrifice. But it was said, that the larger quantities which were to come from the East and West Indies might relieve them from all fears of that kind. He was glad to hear it, he hoped the calculations were correct, but, from what he had heard, he was not convinced that that would be the ordinary state of things from year to year in a few years to come. But if that were the case, then what harm could the reduction of these duties do? There would then be no occasion to fear an increased stimulus to the slave-trade. Looking at the returns he found, that from 1823 to 1837 there was not one year in which reckoning the price of foreign and colonial sugar with the addition of the proposed duty, our own colonial sugar would not have been the cheaper of the two. In 1837 it would have been dearer by something less than 1s., and in 1838 it would have been cheaper again. Then in 1839 and 1840 the difference was considerable, from the great increase of price which had taken place in our colonial sugar. He would content himself with adding, that in the present state of this country they were bound not to impose on the population such heavy burdens, merely to prevent the probability— for it was no more than a probability at the most—of giving a stimulus to that detestable and wretched system of slavery and the slave-trade. We allowed our colonies to consume slave-grown sugar, and he believed, that we could not prevent them from doing it. If these had not been the conclusions to which he conscientiously came on this subject, he would not change his opinions to serve any Ministry, not even to serve any interests of his own, but he really did not think, that they ought to impose enormous increased taxes on the article of sugar to prevent the probability of the introduction of small quantities of foreign sugar. As to the other questions he would only express his conviction, that no Government had even proposed measures so likely to be beneficial to the great body of the people as were those now proposed, and he trusted that, every means would be taken to ensure their success.

Lord Worsley

said, that if he could have brought himself to believe, that the measures which her Majesty's Government had introduced were for the benefit of the country, he should have contented himself with a silent vote on this occasion, but, thinking that they were measures injurious to the best interests of the empire —thinking that there was no necessity for such a measure as the reduction of the sugar duties, thinking that the distress in the manufacturing districts was not the consequence of the existing Corn-laws, and that it would not be relieved even were those Corn laws to be altered, he felt it necessary to state the reasons why he must vote against that Government which he had hitherto supported. The hon. Member for Sheffield had declared, that there must be something in the air of Lincolnshire which induced all its Members to rise in arms against the Government as soon as the slightest attempt was made to meddle with the Corn-laws. He would tell the hon. Member for Sheffield, that the reason why he and his colleagues now voted against the Government was, that there were in Lincolnshire not only many rich landholders, but also many poor yeomen holders of small portions of land, who would be entirely ruined if sufficient protection was not given them while carrying on their trade as cultivators of the soil. Such a protecting duty as was now offered them was quite inadequate for any purposes of protection. Burdened as they were with taxation, it was impossible that they could compete with other countries in cheap production. From the evidence given before the last, committee on the Corn-laws by Mr. Saunders, an eminent merchant of Liverpool, who had been engaged for thirty years in the corn trade, relating to the policy of fixed duties, he was clearly of opinion that such a duty would not be maintained on corn. He concluded from it too, that if the present fluctuating duties were reduced to a fixed duty of 8s. a quarter, all our merchants would endeavour to get their corn from the ports of the Baltic. In the opinion of Mr. Saunders the present scale of fluctuating duties was the best, and more calculated than any fixed duty to preserve steady prices. This was Mr. Saunders's opinion, and to illustrate it he would state, that there was at present in some of our ports corn in bond which could be had at the rate of 38s. If that were let out at a low fixed duty what would become of the farmers of this country? or what chance would they have of competing with such corn? The same causes which forced a Government to alter the present system of substituting a duty of 8s. would at some future period oblige them to remove the duty altogether. He was borne out by the report of the committee on the state of agriculture of 1833, in asserting, that great danger which would result from interfering with the Corn-laws. In 1833 prices were so low that the farmers had gone on in the confidence that the Corn-laws would be continued. He was warranted in saying, that had the low prices continued for two or three years longer, many of the smaller farmers would have been ruined, and obliged to give up their farms; and the result would be to throw the agricultural labourers on the poor-rates. He did not think, that sufficient notice had been given of the Government measures, nor did he think the Ministers justified in bringing forward the question at the present time. The noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, had said, that he did not consider it fair or just to bring forward the question on the sugar duties, or of the timber duties, without at the same time bringing forward the question of the Corn-laws. He would like to ask the noble Lord, whether he had the slightest chance of getting the measure regarding the Corn-laws passed through that House. There was not the most remote chance of the noble Lord effecting that, and if the noble Lord had no chance of carrying the three questions, he ought to have abstained from bringing forward any one of them. He had heard it stated, in the course of the debate, that the manufacturers of Manchester wished a free trade in corn, and that they were willing to forego the protective duties on manufactured goods. It was all very well for them to hold that argument, because they were certain that the Legislature would never concede such a measure; or, if it was conceded, they knew that Government would, in lieu of it, impose a property tax. His own opinion was, that those persons who now clamoured for a repeal of the Corn-laws, would accept the measure of Government as an instalment only. They might remain satisfied, perhaps for three or four years, but whenever corn rose to 60s. they would raise an outcry against the duty of 8s. He was convinced that Government was not aware of the feeling which existed in the agricultural parts of the kingdom on this subject, otherwise he thought they would never have ventured to bring forward their present proposition. His reasons for objecting to it was, because he thought that a sufficient protective duty was necessary for the interests of the agriculturists, and he would not be doing his duty to his constituents, nor would he be acting honestly or consistently, if he did not oppose the proposal of the Government.

Sir A. Grant

heard with great satisfaction the speech of the noble Lord who had just addressed the House. For his own part, he would not have troubled the House on the present occasion, had he not been deeply interested in the question under discussion. To that question he meant to confine himself. In the first place, he begged to call the attention of the House to the fact, that all the evidence which had been brought before them—whether that on which the right hon. Member for Devonport, had relied, or the testimony of Mr. Joseph Gurney, which had been adduced by other hon. Members—all that evidence tended to show that the cultivation of sugar could not be carried on in the emancipated British colonies if the slave-grown sugar of Cuba and of Brazil, was to be admitted into competition with it. The hon. Member for Devonport had alluded to the compensation granted to the West-India planters. He was not going to deny that 20,000,000l. was a large compensation. But at the period when that sum was granted, the West-India proprietors, rightfully or wrongfully, were possessed of their slaves by the laws of the land—he had a freehold in them—they were subjected to the same laws as landed property, and they descended in the same way. He defied hon. Members to deny it. Such was the fact. They were subjected to the same laws which affected all other property. Nay, the right to them was transmitted in the same way, and they were made the subject of settlements and of mortgage. [Hear], He understood those cheers. He was not defending the system, but was only stating the ase. To these slaves and to their labour the planters possessed an undoubted right. If the Legislature interfered with private rights, it was bound to compensate the parties for any damage sustained. Take the case where, for the purpose of opening a thoroughfare, it was found necessary to destroy certain streets. They could not do so without granting the value of the property to private individuals, not the value which they might put on it, but the value appraised by an indifferent party. The value of the slaves in the West-Indies had been made by officers under the colonial government. Was that appraisement 20,000,000l,? No. If his memory did not deceive him it was three times twenty millions. Was it to be supposed that the West-India proprietors, would have acquiesced in the grant of 20,000,000l. had they foreseen that the consequences would have been the destruction altogether of the property they possessed? He had said, that the compensation of 20,000,000l. was only a third of the sum which they had been thought entitled to. Suppose he was correct in his statement, it would appear that the West-India proprietors were losers by their acceptance of partial compensation to the amount of 40,000,000l. Allowing that they had received 10,000,000l. in the shape of profit on the increased price of sugar, since the free labour system commenced, yet were they still losers to the extent of 30,000,000l. On a moderate calculation, West-India property of the value of not less than 150,000,000l. had been interfered with. Where, then, was the extraordinary munificence of the grant which had been so tauntingly alluded to by the noble Lord opposite, and by other speakers, in the course of the debate. If it was given in the idea that the people of this country would thereby acquire the right to interfere with the estates of the West-India proprietors, it was given with a fraudulent intention. The right hon. Member for Devonport, had characterised the language of the petition presented by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, from the West-India proprietors, as the language of gross hypocrisy. He had looked into the prayer of that petition, and he was at a loss to understand on what grounds the right hon. Gentleman had stigmatised the petitioners as hypocrites. They merely stated, that in the present condition of the West-Indies, they should be unable to compete with foreign slave-grown sugar. What limits did the hon. Gentleman intend to put on the charitable principle of visiting the sins of the father on the children of the third and fourth generation. He ought to be reminded that the sin of slavery was forced on the West-India proprietors by the mother country. In the original settlement of these possessions, the grants of land were made under condition of the planter importing a certain number of slaves from Africa. The sovereign, who then wielded the sceptre of the realm, took shares in the African adventures, and slavery was established under the authority of England. He thought it was always a bad sign of a case when the advocates of it had recourse to misrepresentations to sustain that case. The right hon. Member for Devonport had stated that the West-India proprietors had adapted their statements of the state of cultivation and their expectations of produce to the purposes of the occasion, and that they had given this country to understand that there would be an increase when, in fact, there turned out to be a deficiency in the supply. Now, the right hon. Gentleman was Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, from 1836 to 1839, and he knew that the right hon. Gentleman had paid very close attention to his official duties. From the communications which he must have received from the colonial governments, he must have known what would be the inevitable effect of the total determination of the apprenticeship of the negroes in August, 1838. That act was the act of the planters, no doubt, but the consequences were, that the negroes neglected the planting operations of that autumn, on which the increase of future crops totally depended. That explained the decrease in the crop of 1840, and it would not be until 1842 that they would begin to derive the benefits of the industry of free labour. After 1842, he was perfectly-satisfied, from the reports which he had received from his own property, that the statement of the right hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, as to an increased supply of sugar from the West Indies, was perfectly correct. From calculations on which he could place the most implicit reliance, he felt assured that for the future the supply of sugar from the East and West Indies would be fully equal to the wants of this country, and if they did not receive the supply expected from the West Indies, all he could say was that the experiment of emancipation, in which certain hon. Gentlemen so much exulted, would be nothing more nor less than a complete failure. It had been insinuated, in the course of the debate, that the West-India proprietors had been in the practice of sending the whole of their free-labour sugar to England, and importing slave grown sugar for their own use. The fact was otherwise; foreign slave grown refined sugar was exported from this country by speculators, who sent out cargoes, and no person inquired where it was sold or whence it came. The West-India proprietors would be very much obliged to the House to put an end to this traffic. It was not concurred in by them; they had petitioned against it; therefore, it was a little hard to turn upon them, and found an argument for enacting a law against them, on the ground that slave grown sugar was already imported into the West Indies. The many millions paid by this country to put down slavery and the slave trade—amounting, according to his own estimation, to not less than 130 millions sterling—no one put it at less than forty millions—would be entirely thrown away, if the present measure were carried, which would have the inevitable effect of giving direct encouragement to slavery and the slave trade. Where was the consistency of the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and his Colleagues, when he now put at nought in his consideration the encouragement of slavery and the slave trade when brought into competition with a slight reduction of the duty on sugar—where was his consistency in acting thus, when only last year he opposed the introduction of additional labourers into the West Indies upon the ground that, because the Hill-coolies were to be hired tinder deeds of apprenticeship, it would be giving a degree of encouragement to a species of slavery? For his part, he was satisfied with the argument as it now stood before the House, being convinced that, however much the debate might be protracted— and it appeared to him to have been prolonged too much already—no further argument could he urged in favour of the Ministerial measure, and that no additional argument was at all needful to justify its rejection.

Mr. John O'Connell

said, he trusted the hon. Baronet who had just spoken, would take his assurance of meaning him no personal offence in saying, that a part of what fell from him was calculated to excite feelings akin to disgust. He meant the allusion to a right of property in slaves. Laws of men recognised that right, but it was utterly denied by the laws of God. As for the 20,000,000l. grant, it ought to have been styled an act of charity, not a compensation. It was a question for the moralist, whether compensation were not rather due from the West Indians themselves, to the negroes whom they so long kept out of their rights as men. With regard to the question before the House, he (Mr. J. O'Connell) felt anxious, as one who had taken part, according to his very limited ability, in the anti-slavery agitation in Ireland, to explain to his constituents in that country why he should vote against the amendment of the noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool. He did so, because whatever might be the noble Lord's sincerity in bringing it forward, he believed his advisers and supporters were not acting bonâ fide. He could not put confidence in their very sudden conversion from the convictions that had led them formerly to oppose everything that was for the benefit of the negro. If this were a motion as the noble Lord said, simply against the en- couragement of slavery, why was it not confined to that, and why were words introduced from which the inference could be drawn, that under circumstances other than the present, hon. Gentlemen opposite might consent to admit slave sugar. They would have an opportunity, should the House go into committee, of proving their sincerity, as a motion would then be made to admit foreign sugar indeed, but only what shall be the product of free labour. Such sugar was to be had from Java, Siam, and other places; and if the English market were opened to the producers in those countries, the production would of course he much stimulated and enlarged. The Government measure would only apply in case of a deficiency of sugar from our own dependencies, therefore no very excessive amount of sugar might be required from any foreign country. The hon. Member for Newark told the House, that treaties stood in the way of our admitting foreign free grown sugar to the exclusion of foreign slave grown sugar—but he had not told the House whether those treaties were not likely soon to end, or whether they could not be in some way modified under the pressure of two such strong considerations as the necessity of giving the people cheap sugar, and at the same time taking care not to give encouragement to slave labour. He (Mr. J. O'Connell) had heard with much concern one statement of the hon. Member for Wigan, that it was impossible to draw a line of distinction between slave grown and free grown sugar coming from abroad. He had anxiously listened for the reasons of this, feeling that, if supported by argument, it would leave him no alternative but to vote for the amendment before the House. But the only reason given was, that international trade would go on, in spite of the opinions of individuals. Trade undoubtedly would go on, as it often has done before, between nations, no matter under what iniquitous system, but that surely could not be a reason for not amending what was iniquitous in the system. A trade that should give encouragement to slave labour, would be giving the sanction of this country to the worst species of robbery—that which deprived a man of his right over himself and his own labour. But the hon. Member had said, that commerce would put an end to slavery. He (Mr. J. O'Connell) considered, that on the contrary, slavery had been put an end to in the West Indies by the exertions of the anti slavery movement, which produced a direct legislative interference for the purpose; and not by commerce. Slavery was as rife as ever in America, notwithstanding our commerce with her. But it had been said, that our abstinence from slave grown sugar would not prevent other countries from using it—and that after all, our allowing it to enter, would give little practical encouragement to slavery. If others did wrong, it was no reason we should; and as to the last argument, one single case of additional suffering would involve the whole guilt. In thus arguing, he trusted he should not be considered as insensible to the wants of the people. An Irish Member had particular reason to wish for the cheapening of sugar if possible, as in Ireland it was only too true, that the average consumption of sugar by each person was not more than an ounce in the week. But far greater distress even than that, would be still no reason for encouraging the horrors of slavery. While he agreed on these points with the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the Tower Hamlets, he regretted to differ with him in anything. He could assure that right hon. Gentleman, that he (Mr. J. O'Connell) would consider himself fortunate, if, at any future period of his life, he ever could effect the one millionth part of what had been done for the negro by the learned civilian, but he could not imitate his example in voting for the amendment, as it went to exclude all foreign sugar, free as well as slave grown. The West Indians had no claim to a protection against the former. They had got a most munificent grant from this country, and had no right to further favour at the cost of the people at home. Such protection was not needed, either for the benefit of the newly emancipated negroes, as they ought to be able to bear competition, especially when the price of foreign free grown sugar would still be so high, owing to the high duty still to be kept up. With regard to the general question before the House, he would not enter at any length upon it. He would only say as an Irish Member, that he might be supposed hostile to any change in the Corn-laws. This was not the case. He had never seen any good they had done to Ireland. She had the command of the English market, and no manufactures of her own to suffer by being excluded from foreign markets in return for the exclusion of foreign corn. Those laws, therefore, had had the fullest and fairest experiment in Ireland, and yet had certainly been of no benefit to the labouring population or the farmers there, the former being in a state of the most utter misery, and the latter fast sinking down to the condition of the class below them. He was also much pleased with the reduction of the duties on the good timber to be had from the North of Europe. He would not detain the House longer than to say, that in Committee he would vote to exclude foreign slave sugar and admit that which was free grown, and in the meantime could not vote for the amendment, first, because it would exclude the latter description of sugar, and next, because it was designed under cover of a zeal for the African, to overthrow a liberal ministry, and to bring in one, that, to judge by their past history, would be more likely to add to the burthens of the people, than to give them relief.

Sir J. R. Reid,

after adverting to a letter which he had received from Mr. Horsley Palmer, explanatory of his views on the question before the House, stated, that he felt bound to admit that he had received the utmost courtesy from many of the Members of her Majesty's Government during the various official interviews he had had with them, but while he acknowledged this, he did not hesitate to add that a more reckless, a more inconsiderate, or, more injudicious Government he never heard of or saw. He merely wished to impress this upon their minds, as he believed that this would be the last time he should have the honour to address them in their official situations. A short period ago, he requested them to reconsider the decision they had come to. They paid no attention to his request. He conceived, from the experience he had had, and at his time of life, he was entitled to give that advice. He did not hesitate to add that their sun was setting, and that it would soon set to rise no more. It was not his intention to detain the House more than another minute. He would not go into details, they were so well known; but his anxious hope, wish, and request was, that with respect to the commercial interests of the country, the House would kindly decide upon this important question, because in the meantime trade was at a complete stand still. He said this as an old merchant, who had no object in stating what was not the fact. He did entreat the House to come to a decision. It was absolutely impossible for Gentlemen who were not, like himself, intimately acquainted with commercial affairs, to conceive the mischief which was occasioned by protracting this debate. The hon. Member for Halifax made use of an expression last night which very much astonished him. He said, that trade was in a state of despondency such as was never known before. Now, he never heard such a remark in his life. That there was langour in commerce he did not deny. That there was a want of purchasing and selling he did not deny also. But what was the reason? Why, that no man of any property, under existing circumstances, would embark a shilling in trade. Therefore, it was that he called for a decision of this question: and the sooner the better. In the city with which he was connected, it was the universal feeling among; all parties that this question ought not to be protracted. Having to thank the House for the kindness with which the House had heard him, he would sit down. The House would decide which was the greatest hypocrite of the two. He did not think he had shown much hypocrisy in stating his candid opinion of her Majesty's Ministers. He wanted nothing, he asked for nothing but the immediate and decided opinion of the House upon this great question.

Mr. Gisborne

did not think he should have troubled the House at this protracted period of the debate, but that he could not allow it to close without returning his thanks to the hon. Member for Newark. He had often heard it said, that a man's best friends were those who told him his faults. The hon. Member for Newark had been so kind as to perform that friendly office. He had said to hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House, "You are an infatuated set, and that infatuation arises from the laxity of your principles." That was pretty good in substance, and the manner was so bland ! There was no appearance of a bigotted religionist, dealing out his anathemas of religious rancour against all those who differed from him. It was quite evident from the mildness of his tone and the modesty of his deportment, that it was a gentleman addressing a liberal assembly, among whom he felt that there were many who were his equals, and not a few who were his superiors. The hon. Gentleman made some remarks with respect to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary-at-War (Mr. Macaulay). Last night when he had possession of the House he gave way, because he understood, that that right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Macaulay) wished to address the House. Being obliged to leave his seat he did not know what passed on that occasion; but he wished to make one remark with respect to the father of that right hon. Gentleman. It was the fate of the late Mr. Zachary Macaulay to be for many years of his life the victim of the most foul calumny, falsehood, and slander, heaped upon him by the West-Indian body and their supporters, and he thought that that eminent man would be much surprised if it were possible for him to know that, after his death, a person who was once, at least, connected with that body, had passed a studied eulogium upon him in Parliament—an eulogium, not greater, certainly, than his merits deserved, but an eulogium which he (Mr. Gisborne) was sure that excellent person would have rejected with all the scorn and disgust which his mild and gentle nature was capable of, if he could only have known that the object of it was to give point and venom to a stigma upon his son. By common consent the Chancellor of the Exchequer discarded the two usual modes of supplying the deficiency in the revenue —borrowing and direct taxation; and, in order to give time for the consideration of the subject, he had deferred the discussion for a week. At the end of that time the noble Member for Liverpool came down with a motion, not upon the merits, but in the nature of a demurrer, resting it mainly upon certain exaggerated calculations of the quantity of sugar to be received from the Mauritius, the East and West Indies. From the Mauritius it was asserted that 40,000 tons might be expected, when the average receipt of sugar from thence had been only about 28,000 tons. In a speech delivered by Sir R. Peel, in June, 1833, he had anticipated a great reduction in the import from the West Indies, the stimulus to labour arising from coercion having been lost by emancipation, and the stimulus to labour arising from the necessities of the negroes having little or no influence upon those whose wants were few in a country which supplied those wants almost spontaneously. As to the quantity of sugar to be expected from the East Indies, he could quote the opinion of a connection of his own well acquainted with the subject, that a considerable time must elapse before any large supply of cheap-grown sugar was procured from the East Indies. He, therefore, placed no reliance upon the estimates produced on the other side in opposition to the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. On the subject of slavery he was most firmly convinced that it must ere very long come to an end; the treaties with foreign powers tended to this result, and what had recently taken place in America, showed that there was a growing feeling against it there. In Cuba the whites were rather rejoiced at the measures of this country, to put an end to the importation of slaves, in consequence of the immense disproportion at present between the Europeans and the negroes. He would not detain the House farther than by reading a passage he had met with the other day, in a speech delivered in the House of Commons on the 31st July, 1833. It ran thus— There are many questions on which the declaration of the King's Government in their favour or otherwise is decisive of their fate; we find this to have been the case with respect to the question of reform. I believe it will also be found the case with respect to this question. The moment the Kings Government arrays itself against any restriction, its fate is sealed, for it is impossible to restore respect to authorities so treated. These were the words of Sir Robert Peel, and thus supported, he (Mr. Gisborne) was bold to say, that the fate of the Corn-laws and of the present duty on sugar was sealed.

Mr. Sydney Herbert

would promise not to detain the House long whilst he made a few observations on the question under discussion, and stated the reasons which would induce him to take the course which he intended to pursue. He had observed, on the part of Gentlemen at the other side of the House, a great disinclination to meet distinctly the resolution of his noble Friend. A great part of the evening had been occupied by hon. Members, at the other side of the House, in pouring out the vials of their wrath on the head of his hon. Friend, the Member for Newark, which he (Mr. S. Herbert) considered to be a just tribute, wrung from them in spite of themselves, to the pungency of his hon. Friend's remarks, as well as to the force of his reasoning. But the character and principles of his hon. Friend stood too high to give any reason to fear, that either could be endangered by any such attacks. He would not follow the example that had been set him by hon. Members opposite, in discussing the principles of free trade —principles ostentatiously enunciated by hon. Gentlemen opposite, as if they were the discoverers of them. These principles had been practically enunciated many years ago, by a Cabinet of which Mr. Huskisson and Mr. Peel, were prominent members. Nobody could dispute the theory. The only objection that existed was as to the mode of their application. Why, so simple was the theory of the principles of free trade, that a child might understand it, provided, that those principles were to be applied as an inflexible mathematical rule. It might be easy to apply those principles if they were not bound to consider the particular circumstances under which they were to be applied, and if men were to shut their eyes in the application of those principles, without reference to existing circumstances in a great commercial country like this. But, if those principles could be applied without wisdom and without caution, what was the use of the statesmanship, the knowledge of history, and of the Parliamentary history of this country, which was possessed by Gentlemen at both sides of the House. Why, if those principles were to be applied as a simple rule, requiring no knowledge for its application, in that case, there was not an accountant in the city who would not make as good a Chancellor of the Exchequer as the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Now, with respect to the period when this proposition was brought forward, all the means of information, that they possessed, went to show, that all might calculate on a most abundant supply of sugar next year from the East and West Indies; and they had the knowledge, that such were the capabilities of those places where free-grown sugar was produced, this country might be supplied with it to an indefinite extent. That was the evidence given before a Parliamentary Committee, by a highly respectable witness, and what was the opinion casually given by Mr. Larpent, before the same committee on this very question of the introduction of the sugar of Cuba and the Brazils? It was this, that if we were to permit the introduction, of slave-grown sugar, we should stultify all the exertions that we had made for the suppression of the slave trade. The noble Lord opposite had argued, that though an objection was raised to the introduction of slave-grown sugar, yet that we admitted the introduction of slave-grown cotton. But he did not think, that the argument against the introduction of slave-grown products was at all touched by this sort of reasoning. By the introduction of slave-grown sugar into this country, its consumption would be increased; its production would likewise be increased; and by opening new markets for those slave-grown products you would create a necessity for an additional supply of slave-labour. They should recollect the claims to their consideration which the West Indies possessed. They should recollect all the changes that had taken place with respect to those colonies since 1833—the emancipation of the negroes, the withdrawal of the drawback, the equalisation of the duties on East and West India sugar, and other measures all through the interference of our legislation, and under these circumstances it must be admitted, that it was only fair to allow them a moderate protection, to enable them to compete on fair terms with other countries. With all the disadvantages with which the West Indies had to struggle, if they now took away from them the small protection that they enjoyed, they would altogether destroy the production of sugar in these colonies. He knew, that hon. Gentlemen opposite, acting on their principles of free trade, might say, "If that colony is not able to grow sugar, so as to compete with other countries, why let it continue to be grown there?" Ay, but if we destroy the production of sugar in that colony, see the position we shall stand in with regard to our experiment for the abolition of slavery. They had contended for the principle that it was possible, that sugar could be successfully cultivated by free labour, and they had in this respect given an example to other nations in the suppression of slavery. But if we now show, that sugar cannot be so cultivated, we shall have only tried the experiment of abolition to demonstrate its failure. With what face shall we go to other countries to ask them to follow our example, and pursue a course which we shall have just shown them to be impossible. Instead of an example, we shall be a warning, and our abolition will only have served to rivet the chains of slavery by showing the impossibility of free labour to compete with it. If they expostulated with America upon the continuance of slavery in that country, they would be met with the doctrine of the noble Lord opposite, that they must not mix up humanity with trade. These were grave and important considerations, which, he was sure, must have been overlooked by the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, in his eagerness to advance the interests in his peculiar department. When they saw men like the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, and Members at his (Mr. S. Herbert's) side of the House, whose opinions were entitled to great respect, protesting against these measures, he thought, that there was sufficient to make them pause before they adopted them. The people of this country could not so easily estimate motives, and could only judge of men by their actions. He recollected, a few years ago, when great excitement prevailed in this country upon the slavery question. At that time, no person professed a more enthusiastic hostility to West-India slavery, than the noble Lord opposite, and no person was louder in the expression of his desire to put down that system, and sustain the national character. There was no person more ready than the noble Lord in professing sympathy for the slave, or more eager to second the national feeling. But now the noble Lord seemed to forget the principles which he then advocated. The people of this country would know how to estimate the difference between the conduct of those who at the risk of temporary unpopularity, resisted what they thought to be unjust and incompatible with humanity, and those who came forward to advocate those principles which they expected to gain them popular applause, but who so far forgot their former professions as to put a question of humanity in competition with a question of finance. He thought, that this measure had been brought forward in a way that led it to be supposed, that it had been brought forward less with regard to the exigencies of the people than to the exigencies of party. Having expressed the general grounds on which he opposed these measures, he would, without the least apprehension of the result, leave to the decision of the House a question in which the credit and reputation of this country were deeply involved.

Mr. Vernon Smith

could assure the House, that he should strictly follow the example of the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House, and would very briefly occupy their attention. He could not help remarking, that in the course of the debate, the resolution of the noble Lord opposite had received very little attention, and the hon. Member who had seconded the resolution, had not paid the noble Lord the compliment of confining himself to the particular subject of it. He was not surprised that the hon. Member who had just sat down, had declined discussing the question of free trade, for though he had declared himself an advocate of the principles of free trade, he had qualified his declaration by excluding all interests in this country from the operation of those principles. The hon. Member stated, that the general principles of free trade were so simple, that any child might understand them; and yet two hon. Members opposite (the hon. Member for the University of Oxford, and the hon. Member for Antrim) had declared last night, that they could not comprehend them. He admitted that the speeches of those hon. Members were most straight forward, the hon. Member for the University of Oxford said, that his noble Friend's resolution did not go so far as he wished, for that the resolution ought to have declared, that under no circumstances would this country admit for consumption sugar, the produce of slave-labour. The hon. Member for the University of Oxford seemed to take great credit to himself for his exertions in the cause of the abolition of slavery. In looking over the speeches of the hon. Member, he had been unable to find that he had played so prominent a part in the discussions upon the abolition of slavery as the House had been led to believe. When the proposition for slavery abolition was first brought forward, he did not find that he had once addressed the House, but when the question was brought forward, by the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, he once spoke, and then he used only these words:— He was of opinion that the right hon. Secretary would find himself as unfortunate in the use of the words ' immediate abolition,' as he had already found himself in the words ' extinction of tithes.' But, though he should be loath to impute any hypocritical pretext to the hon. Baronet, he must declare, that the straightforwardness of his speech last night, had not been followed out by the straight-forwardnesss of his declaration as to the vote which he intended to give; because, although he said the resolution did not go far enough, he stated his intention to support it by his vote. For his own part, his objection to the resolution was this, that it appeared to him to advance a position which was contrary to the true state of the facts. It assumed, that the people of England had made great sacrifices, not for the purpose of doing that which had been effected, but with some other object, which was now, for the first time, brought forward. He denied that the people of this country had done this with a view to set an example to other countries. They had paid the money which they had advanced for a valuable purpose, and with a view to the extinction of slavery in our colonies, which was an object which they had attained. The bargain was complete, for which the payment was made; and if any one doubted this, he might look at the present state of the West-India Islands, and compare it with the present condition of the people of this country. What was the condition of the labourers of our colonies? He feared that it had been described by Sir C. Metcalfe, so far as the colony of Jamaica was concerned, in terms worthy the observation of the House. He said, The real difficulty with regard to the prosperity of the proprietors appears to me to consist in the means possessed by the labourer of comfortable subsistence independent of labour for wages. He may have recourse to the latter for the sake of money, or handsome clothing, or luxury, but he is hardly ever reduced to it from absolute necessity. The social order of things prevailing in other countries is thereby severed in this, and it is here no favour to give employment, but an assumed and almost acknowledged favour to give labour. That was the condition of the people of Jamaica, and it was for that that the people of England had made the sacrifice which had been alluded to. They had intended to make the population of our colonies free and happy, but they had not intended to make them so independent as to be even above the middling classes of this country in position. The state of the labouring population in British Guiana had been described as being infinitely more prosperous:—Governor Light, in a despatch, dated in 1840, thus describes the condition of the labouring population there:— The negroes are all eager to buy land, and have comfortable cottages; most of them are better dressed on holidays, marriages, and funerals, than the generality of the peasantry of Europe; they will not wear coarse cloth. The generality sleep on as good beds as persons of a higher order in Europe; a sideboard, with a display of decanters and glasses, invariably decks the apartment of the head men. The negro is in everything an imitator, and his wants increase as he sees his own class advance in refinement. There is more champagne drunk by the negroes than by any other class in the colony. He likes salt fish, ham, and salt pork, better than fresh meat; but it is the prevailing taste of three-fourths of the white and coloured population: though he prefers plantain and "foo-foo" (a paste made by beating the plantain in a mortar)—he only follows the example of the white manager and overseer, who, in nine instances out of ten, consider such vegetable additions better adapted to the salt food than bread. The increasing importations of flour prove, however, that bread, though nearly double the price in England, is universally eaten. There is hardly an estate on which bread is not made for sale; it must be the purest white, or it will not be bought—brown or inferior bread is unknown. Men who could buy rum at half the price of gin, prefer the high price of the latter. Set them to celebrate a wedding, or a festal day, and they run into expenses, with ready money at command, which a substantial yeoman of England could not afford. Many of them keep horses, not a few gigs, and are seen, in the country districts, driving their families to church, with the female part of the family dressed in Sunday finery—parasols and umbrellas—which, but for the black hue of the wearers, would lead you to suppose yourself in England. People with such tastes cannot be said to have few wants. He should explain, that "foo-foo," was made by beating up plantains in a mortar, something better than the dinner of herbs which the right hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had said, that the people of England would rather eat, than that slavery should continue. That sentiment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been loudly cheered by the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge, who had shown a marvelous change of political opinion, in thus cheering sentiments which he had all his life dissented from. If this was the condition of the West Indian, how could any hon. Gentleman assert that the bargain had not been compleated? He rejoiced that such was the case; but when hon. Gentlemen opposite called on the country to submit to fresh burdens, for the sake of the negro, he contended that they went further than was ever contemplated by the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, or the hon. Members who supported him in carrying through the Emancipation Act. He contended, that the resolution now brought forward by his noble Friend, the Member for Liverpool, should be considered as strictly a commercial measure, because it was neither more nor less than a measure for the protection of West-India interests. It was true that the law for the protection of the West-India interest was made when the noble Lord's constituents dealt in slaves, but now he attempted to continue it by assuming a purpose which he hoped to be able to show was not his real purpose. It appeared to him that the noble Lord, in bringing forward his resolution, ought entirely to have omitted the mention of humanity, because all he had done was to array all the ancient prejudices against free trade under the guise of philanthropy. He had only contended for monopoly in trade under the flag of humanity. Under these circumstances, it was impossible that the noble Lord could confine his resolution to its present subject. He would not go into all the details of the cotton trade, in order to show that we were in the constant habit of receiving the produce of slave-labour, and that it was only in this particular instance, that we were preparing to lay down a maxim hitherto unacknowledged in the commercial legislation of this country. He quite agreed with the right hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, that this was not a fair question of free trade, but for a different reason. He considered that it was not a fair question of free trade, because the protection retained by his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was still most considerable. When hon. Gentlemen connected with the West-Indies talked of supporting the exertions of free labour, he begged to ask them what sacrifices they themselves had made for that purpose. He confessed he knew of none. On every occasion when they had appeared before the House, it had been to complain of invasions of their monopolies. In 1807 they cried out that the abolition of the slave trade would be their destruction. At a later period, when it was proposed to admit East-India and Mauritius sugar, they contended that it would be their ruin. Yet, what was the fact? At this moment they were more prosperous than before emancipation. The reason he had for asserting this was, that the noble Lord, the mover of the resolution now before the House, did, when the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire presented his plan for negro emancipation, propose, that a larger sum than 20,000,000l. should be given to the planters, on the ground that, during the twelve years which the apprenticeship would occupy, their annual loss would be 150,000l. He would ask now, whether there had been that amount of loss? If it should be so stated, it would be in defiance of every return which had been furnished from the West Indies. The planters had always preferred trusting to their party influence in that House, to exerting themselves in their own islands. The first thing they attempted after the emancipation was the introduction of the hill coolies. He did not mean to deny that that measure might have been made useful. Last year he had done all in his power for the introduction of hill coolies on a small scale, but the attempt of the planters had been made so suddenly, and with such bad management, that it had placed a check on immigration for many a year. When he, last year, had attempted the introduction of free labour, he was constantly taunted with the bad success which the experiment had met with on the estates of Messrs. Colvill and Gladstone. The experiment had failed then, but he trusted the failure would not be permanent. He was still of opinion, that great facilities ought to be given to the West-Indian Islands for the immigration of labourers, because the position in which those islands was placed was completely false. Because the returns before the House showed that the condition of the West-India labourers was higher than it had ever been before. He had already referred to some evidence on this point; and in the report of Mr. Strutt, a special magistrate in Berbice, dated 31st December, 1840, it was stated— I frequently saw in a labourer's hall, his neat little sideboard (with glasses &c, thereon), as also a table, chairs, benches, &c.; his bedroom usually contained a good hard wood turned post bedstead, with its proper supply of bedclothes, &c. I lately saw a labourer, when two of his acquaintances called upon him at noon, place upon table a roasted fowl and two bottles of London porter. We find the number of women and children occupied in agricultural employment to be considerably, I may add, alarmingly diminished. Again, we see that many labourers have purchased lands, built houses, and planted provision grounds; thus rendering themselves independent. These are circumstances at which the philanthropist will rejoice; but the planter must view them with dread and apprehension, for his chances of continuous labour are rendered less certain. In this country the labourer is protected by humane and wholesome laws, liberally paid for the work he performs, comfortably housed, and carefully attended in sickness, whilst his opportunities of acquiring religious and moral instruction are rarely equalled, and certainly not excelled, in any part of her Majesty's possessions. I may add, that hunger and famine are words unknown among us. What had been the consequence of the change they had effected? They could not induce the negroes to work. Did he wish to force them by the lash? By no means; but they ought to excite a free-trade in labour all over the world, and so induce them to lend their aid. The West-Indians had endeavoured to force labour by other modes, and they were establishing courts of reconciliation introduced from Norway, which would settle without litigation, questions relating to wages. All these advantages were placing the West-Indian labourers in an improved condition. He knew that he should be asked why, if the labourers were in such a good condition, he would strike at that condition, by importing foreign sugar. He wished not to strike at that condition, but he warned the West-Indian interest that the labourers there were gradually acquiring property for themselves, and that if we do not do something to rouse them to a sense of the value of labour, the country would be divided into small holdings without labourers, and they would soon have to meet one of the most vicious states of society. The negroes had displayed none of those bad qualities which had been ascribed to them; they had shown no disposition to revolt, they had borne with patience all their hardships, and they now bear that state which was still harder to sustain, they bear prosperity without exultation. The people of this country had a right to call upon the negroes to exert themselves on our behalf, as our people had exerted themselves for the sake of the negroes; the people of this country had a right to say, "Exert yourselves for us as we have done for you; cultivate the sugar which is necessary for us, as we have granted emancipation, which was necessary for you;" and he was sure that a people so enlightened as the negroes would not fail to comply with the request, and a competition with other countries would excite them to a compliance. It has been frequently said, that the effect of opening fresh markets must be to increase the work of the slaves in the Brazils and other slave countries, but they had to choose between the present distressed condition of our own population, and the chances of creating some distress among the negro population of other countries. Over the population in those countries we had no power, and we could have no power except by the influence of our amicable relations; and he would ask the House by what mode our efforts were likely to be attended with the greatest success? He would ask whether we would be most likely to gain the votes of the Brazilian Congress—to them we must appeal—by adopting a system of exclusive dealing, or by opening new sources of industry, and by offering them an opportunity of dealing with us on better terms than they had hitherto done? if we refused to deal with them, we should throw away the certainty of doing great good with the chance of doing no good at all. He agreed that they ought to do all in their power to suppress the slave-trade. The hon. Member for Northumberland had referred to the exertions of Captain Denham, and every day was bringing fresh information of more efficient means used to suppress that trade. Accounts had been received that very day stating that Mr. Capper, by the adoption of a new method of closing the exit from the mouths of rivers by the aid of boats, thought that he should have the power of stopping the slave-trade altogether. Whilst another mode of putting an end to that trade was, by the use of those exertions which had been referred to by the noble Lord the Member for South Lancashire, and repeated by the Member for Oxford —the attempt that had been recently made to promote the civilisation of that portion of Africa. [Laughter.] The noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire laughed, but it was not for hon. Gentlemen opposite, who now came forward as such great philanthropists, to laugh at the adoption of this or of any other mode for the prevention of the slave-trade. He would ask, what principle was laid down in the resolution of the noble Lord? It might be said the principle of humanity. That was a principle which Gentlemen opposite had very suddenly adopted. There was no principle, no statement, in the resolution which would prevent a future Government from acting on the principle to which it professed to be opposed. The only effect it would have, if successful, would be to prevent us at once entering into the question of the Sugar Duties. When he was told by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Beverley, that East-India sugars were coming in in much greater quantities, and therefore it was not necessary to introduce this plan, he would like to know, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had come down to the House and said, that there would be such an increase in the quantities of East-India and of West-India sugars, that he would propose no measure for meeting the existing deficiency, whether he would not have been upbraided as he ought to have been upbraided for leaving such an amount of deficiency unprovided for? He would not enter upon the general question of the principles of free trade, but he conceived that his hon. Friends near him were starting a great principle, which must be intimately involved in their discussions for many years to come. [Cheers.] He was glad of those cheers. He meant to elicit them. But he must confess, that anxious as he was to carry these measures at the present moment, that was a matter of comparative indifference to their being placed fairly before the country, that the people might know on which side to range themselves. He was prepared to support his hon. Friends, or any other Minister in bringing forward such measures, so eminently calculated to afford relief to the country. On that part of the question, however, he would not further dwell; but he would conclude by expressing his satisfaction at the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and by declaring that he would adhere to those principles under whatever Minister they might be brought forward; and that he should be as proud of recording his vote in their favour, even if he were voting with hon. Gentlemen opposite, as he would ever be in voting in the largest majority of his own Friends.

Lord Stanley

Sir, although I am aware that, at this period of the night, and after so many nights' debate, it is little likely that I, or any one, should add much either new or interesting to the discussion that has already taken place, yet, perhaps, in consideration of the part which some years ago it was my lot to take upon a subject with which the present is intimately connected, the House will bear with me whilst, as shortly as I can, I state the grounds on which I give my vote in support of the motion of my noble Friend, and in opposition to the plan brought forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I say, Sir, the plan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because I heard, with great surprise, from the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and also from my hon. Friend, the Member for Halifax, whom I do not now see in his place, that we are now discussing some new and perfectly unheard-of principles which have been brought forward for the first time, for the regulation of our commercial affairs, which are to create a revolution in our commercial code, and which the hon. Gentleman, not very sanguinely for his own views, has just informed the House are to be the subject of discussion between the conflicting parties for many years to come. Sir, the hon. Member for Carlow, who spoke early this evening, said, that, not venturing to meet the Government proposition in front, we met it by what lawyers call a demurrer; that, not venturing to go boldly to trial on the issue, we pleaded certain grounds for not accepting the issue submitted to us. With due respect to the hon. Member for Carlow, I think there could be no course more directly joining issue with her Majesty's Government than that which we have taken. Her Majesty's Ministers have propounded to us a scheme of policy forming altogether what they are pleased to call a budget, and on the first article of that budget (the chief novelty of which is that it purports to provide for the deficiency of revenue, with the small exception of 700,000l.)—on the question of going into committee for the discussion of the first article of that budget—on the first financial proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, by which he hopes to get 700,000l.—my noble Friend says— I will not go into committee—I refuse to discuss your plan in committee—I reject the motion for going into committee for the purpose of adopting it, and, declaring that I do reject it, I meet you in front, and tell you in the terms of the resolution which I have sub- mitted to the House the grounds and reasons on which I reject your proposition. But my hon. Friend, the Member for Halifax, tells us that the question now before the House is, on what principles the commercial code of this country is to be settled, and how the revenue is to be made equal to the expenditure. Sir, this is, of course, an unintentional, but it is a very gross, perversion of the issue before the House, either as relates to the question on which we are about to divide, or to the larger question on which a great portion of this debate has turned. Sir, the question for to-night is, will you or will you not assent to the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for lowering the duty on foreign sugar, in order to raise the sum of 700,000l. by that financial operation? I do not complain of hon. Gentlemen opposite for mixing up with this a discussion on a more extended question; I do not complain of the Attorney-general, who tells us that this is part of one great plan, and that we must consider together the financial scheme now proposed with regard to timber, sugar, and corn, as one great plan of her Majesty's Government, of which the various parts must stand or fall together. I do not complain of this, but what I do complain of is—that hon. Gentlemen should tell us that a great principle is involved, by which a line of demarcation is to be drawn between those who vote on the two sides of this question. Now, if that be the case, I should be much obliged to the hon. Member for Halifax, and to the noble Lord who cheers me, if they will go one step further in their revelations, and tell us what this new principle is. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down tells us it is the principle of free trade, and rejoices that upon that principle one and all in this House concur. Now, Sir, I have not heard one word on this side of the House, nor even from the other, except from the hon. Member for London, in support of the doctrines of free trade, if I understand what is meant by the doctrines of free trade, they are simply these —to buy in whatever market you can buy cheapest, to impose no protecting duties, to foster and encourage no one interest rather than another; that whatever duties you are compelled to levy for the purposes of revenue should be as lightly and as equally as possible imposed on all imports, but that, if any difference is to be made, if there is to be any discrimination, the lowest duties shall be levied upon those articles which are of the most general consumption, and of the most prime necessity. Now, have I fairly stated the principles of free trade? Well, then, if these be the doctrines of free trade, I ask which party in the House, on this occasion, has advocated these doctrines? What approach is made to them in practice by the proposition of her Majesty's Government? Sir, neither party, I am happy to say, has in this discussion been guilty of the absurdities which have been imputed to hon. Gentlemen opposite by their friends, and to us by our opponents. This is not a question between monopoly and competition. I repeat that, as between the principles advocated by the Government and the principles for which we contend, there is no question between monopoly and competition, no question of unrestricted free trade on the one side and prohibition on the other. The noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) has stated here, and, if I am correctly informed, the noble Lord at the head of the Government has, in another place, also stated, that his object was distinctly and plainly protection. Protection and not free trade is the principle of the Government—protection and not prohibition is the principle on which we on this side of the House are prepared to concur with the Government. But, Sir, if the principle of free trade be, as all appear to agree, inconsistent with the imposition of protecting duties, I ask the noble Lord opposite, and the other Members of her Majesty's Government, how they can put themselves forward to the country as advocates of free trade, and appeal to the country for support as though they had proposed a free trade in corn, in timber, and sugar? As to corn, the noble Lord tells us that he proposes a protecting duty of 8s. a quarter; and though we may question whether that is an adequate protection, or any protection at all, yet the noble Lord concurs with us in principle by distinctly announcing his proposed duty as a protecting duty. Then the noble Lord has announced himself as a free trader in timber. But what is he about to do? Not only does he keep up the duty between Baltic and Canadian timber (which discriminating duty may be too high or too low), but the noble Lord as a free trader goes one step further, and on an article of general consumption, and which by the laws of free trade ought to be especially exempted, the noble Lord imposes an additional duty of 100 per cent. ["Hear, hear," from the Chancellor of the Exche- quer.] Now, does the Chancellor of the Exchequer by that cheer mean to taunt me with the fact, that his measure is the same as that proposed by the Government of Lord Althorp, of which I was a Member? Sir, at the time when Lord Althorp proposed that budget to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, he was making a great and general alteration and reduction of taxes; and, a necessity arising of providing for the requisite amount of revenue, Lord Althorp did propose in the first instance to add 10s. to the existing duty on Canadian timber, though, upon subsequent consideration, he withdrew the proposition. Lord Althorp, when that course was no longer necessary for the purposes of revenue, ["Hear," from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.] came forward and said, "I will still diminish the discriminating duty between Baltic and Canadian timber, but I will do it by a larger reduction on the Baltic, and by making no addition to the duties on Canadian timber." Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who cheered me when I said, "for the purposes of revenue," admit that he sacrifices his principle of free trade for the purposes of revenue? I don't complain of him for doing so; I don't blame him for doing so; I express no opinion whether circumstances may justify him in doing so or not; but I say that he has no right to take such a step for the purpose of revenue; he has no right to impose such a heavy duty on an article entering so largely into consumption in this country, and of such prime necessity, and at the same time challenge for himself and the Government support on the ground of his advocacy of free-trade doctrines. Let me now take the other article of sugar, which is more immediately under the consideration of the House. What is the proposal which my noble Friend opposite has put forth to the country as grounded on the principles of free-trade; that free-trade which requires the abolition of all protecting duties, and the maxim of which is to diminish to the lowest amount all revenue duties on those articles which enter the most largely into general consumption? What is this proposition which the freetraders are required to laud so highly, and for which the consumer is to be so grateful? Why, merely this, the noble Lord proposes to relieve the distresses of the people by a reduction of the discriminating duty to the extent of about six-tenths of a farthing in the pound, while he not only leaves on a discriminating duty still, but also leaves untouched the whole of the duty levied alike on British and foreign sugar for the purposes of revenue, amounting to a tax, upon an article of universal consumption, of about 100 per cent. Again I say, the noble Lord may be right; again I say, the necessities of the revenue may compel him to take that course; but when he talks about upholding the principles of free-trade, which he is to carry out with a simplicity and a purity that are to be the wonder of all succeeding times, and an example to all future Governments — I say, that the continuance by him of such heavy import duties on articles of such general consumption, and of such prime necessity is in utter contradiction to his pretensions, and must deprive him of that character of the champion of free-trade, which he and others for him have been so anxious to assume. The right hon. the President of the Board of Trade, the other night stated, that he relied on the authority of Mr. Huskisson. Sir, I had for a short time, for too short a time, the honour of acting in confidential communication with Mr. Huskisson, and to his opinions and authority on commercial subjects I look with as sincere respect as can my right hon. Friend, or any Gentleman on the other side of the House. But, Sir, what were the doctrines of Mr. Huskisson? Were they the doctrines of free-trade on the one hand, or of monopoly on the other? They were neither. They were the doctrines of common sense. [Ministerial cheers re-echoed from the Opposition.] Yes, they were the doctrines of common sense, for they were the doctrines of competition, checked, limited, and regulated by protection. [Cheers from the Opposition and Ministerial Benches.] I am happy to receive those cheers from hon. Gentlemen opposite, because what I have especially endeavoured to establish is, that the plan we are now discussing does not involve a new principle which must draw a line of demarcation impossible to be passed by one side or the other. I say, that I adopt to the full extent Mr. Huskisson's principles; namely, that protection shall be substituted for prohibition; and I am ready to go further, and to state as a commercial axiom, that the amount of protection should be the minimum required to give a fair encouragement to the home producer, and which shall at the same time admit foreign competition as a check upon the evils and abuses of a monopoly in his hands. Well, then, we are agreed in our principle; but the difficulty is to ascertain the point at which protection becomes real instead of nominal; and where, on the other hand, it would cease to be protection, and become prohibition. This is a practical question. It is not a matter of principle; it is a matter of examination and calculation, to be judged of in every case according to the specific circumstances of the case, on which no certain rule can be laid down, to which no inflexible principle can be applied. It is, and it must be, a matter of practice only, to ascertain the point at which protection may merge into prohibition, or, on the other hand, dwindle down till it becomes no protection at all. There is no principle, therefore, to divide Gentlemen on one side of the House from the other, because each case must stand on its own peculiar merits, and the peculiar circumstances in which it is placed, in a very highly artificial state of society. Now, with regard to the protection that should be given to agricultural produce, as compared with the productions of manufacturing industry, it must be manifest that this question must be considered with reference to the very different circumstances of the two occupations. I admit the principle that the minimum amount of protection shall be given to the home producer, so that he shall not enjoy a monopoly, but simply a fair protection; and I will proceed to apply that principle to our manufacturing and agricultural industry. Now, consider the very different circumstances of the two cases. The manufacturer has the power of selecting his own locality, of employing his capital in that part of the country in which, from various circumstances, his trade can be most cheaply and advantageously conducted. Within that locality the manufacturer can extend his production to an amount limited, not by the space which he occupies, but only by the powers of consumption to absorb his produce; and, with respect to those manufactures into which machinery enters more largely than human labour, he can calculate with great precision what will be the prime cost of the article he produces, and on what terms he can meet the competition of his foreign rivals. With the agricultural producer the case is much more complicated and more difficult. Spread over the whole surface of the country, subject to the influence of various soils of different qualities, which he can neither forsake nor alter—depending altogether, or nearly altogether, on manual labour—after he has expended all his toil—after he has applied his best skill and art—after he has employed the best means for draining his land —adopted the most effectual rotation of crops—made the best selection of seed— conducted the business of his farm with the most unremitting diligence—the issue of his toil is not in his own hands, for it depends on a higher power. The sun and the rain, the wind and the storm, the various temperatures of the atmosphere (those temperatures which the manufacturer has the power to create for himself, and adapt to the peculiar fabric intended to be produced)—none of these are within the control of the agriculturist, who must of necessity endure greater uncertainty and meet with greater fluctuations in the amount and value of his production, whatever be the amount of capital, labour, and industry devoted to it. In applying, therefore, to the agriculturist the same principle which you apply to the manufacturer, you must make allowance for all these various alterations of seasons—you must make allowance for all the different circumstances under which he is called on to compete with the foreign producer— and you must do so in some mode which shall in some degree apportion the protection to the necessity for it arising out of these vicissitudes. Sir, this is a very complicated and abstruse question. I do not pretend to be very deeply skilled in its particular details, but I know enough of it to be aware of the magnitude of the difficulties which surround it, and of the extreme circumspection with which the House ought to approach a question of such awful and vital importance. But, Sir, I must go further; and, admitting the general principle laid down, on which there is no dispute between us and hon. Gentlemen opposite, I say there are certain manufactures which must be taken out of the range of, and must form an exception to, those general principles of commerce to which I have adverted. In the infancy of a manufacture which it is thought necessary to foster, you may only be able to do so by the imposition of higher protecting duties in its favour than you would permit if it were more matured, and better able to encounter competition. And I say, Sir, on the ground of this analogy, the sugar trade does require for its protection that it should be taken out of the range of the ordinary commercial rule, and that, for the present, prohibition should be substituted for protection. I will endeavour to lay before the House the grounds on which I have arrived at this conclusion. It is extremely difficult to analyse and unravel the various reasons alleged in favour of the proposition of her Majesty's Government by various Members of that Government and by hon. Gentlemen who have supported them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer tells you that he recommends it to your notice because it will enable him to raise a certain amount of revenue without injuring the colonial interest. The noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies said, it would effect a vast reduction of price in favour of the poor consumer, whose means were inadequate to the present high price of sugar, although in the very next breath the noble Lord said that this reduction, which was to place sugar within the reach of those who were before unable to obtain it, would amount only to 1s. 6d. per cwt., or somewhere about half a farthing a pound. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade says, the object of Government is to foster our commercial intercourse with Brazil, but not to encourage the Slave-trade. When we say that this commerce will conduce to the encouragement of slavery, he says that we now take away the sugar of that country, and by so doing encourage the Slave-trade, if fostering the commerce with Brazil will do so. If, then, Sir, we do now, by taking the sugar of that country, and disposing of it in other markets, encourage the production and commerce of Brazil to as great an extent as by the proposed measure, I want to know what becomes of the boon we are about to confer on Brazil? The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer calculates on producing an increase in the revenue, but I cannot help wishing the right hon. Gentleman had been a little more communicative as to the grounds on which he founded his estimate. His calculation must be made on one of two principles—either on the supposition of a large increase in the consumption of sugar beyond the possible supply from the British colonies, or, if the consumption remains the same, by the substitution of foreign sugar, at the higher rate of duty, for that which is the produce of our own colonies. The right hon. Gentleman has not let the House into the secret of his calculations, and my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax, suffering and distressed at his silence, said to us in his speech of last night, Oh, I will give you an easy solution of the matter. If sugar should fall as low as 58s. or 59s. per cwt., and if the consumption bears the same proportion to the population as it did in 1831, this will give an increase to the revenue of 900,000l., at the present duty of 24s. But, Sir, if that effect be produced, it is not owing to the plan announced by the right hon. Gentleman's budget. It will be produced by doing that for recommending which, in respect to sugar, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge was so unfairly taunted last night, namely, by sitting still and doing nothing. The effect will be produced by the natural lowering of the price, and the consequent increase of consumption and of the revenue—not by the plan of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but by the natural results of the increased productiveness of the East and West Indies. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman calculates on an increased consumption beyond the production of the East and West Indies. The right hon. Gentleman makes no sign, and therefore, though I am unwilling to trouble the House at this hour, I must recur to a small number of figures, in order to inquire into the probability of the right hon. Gentleman's expectations of increasing the revenue, according to either of the calculations on which he may choose to rely. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax stated, that if the price be 58s. it ought to produce an increase to the revenue, by increased consumption, of 900,000l. Now, the noble Lord opposite estimates the probable price for the year at 60s. or 61s. and that below this price Brazilian sugar will not come in. I look back, therefore, to former years, in which the price approached most nearly to the present estimate, and I find that in the four years beginning in 1821 the average consumption, the price being 59s. 2d. per cwt., was about 158,029 tons. In the four years commencing with 1826 the price was 58s. 8d., and the average consumption 175,700 tons. In the years succeeding 1831 the duty was 3s. lower, but the duty-paid price in these years was 51s. 1d., nearly 10s. lower than the present price, and the average consumption was 185,373 tons. In the years 1837 and 1838—and since those years I presume the right hon. Gentleman cannot estimate the population to have increased to any extent which can materially affect the consumption of sugar—in these two years the price was 58s. 1d. per cwt., more than 2s. lower than at present, and the average consumption in each of the two years was 196,611 tons. Now, Sir, I will assume a lower price than that which has been estimated by the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman. I shall suppose the price to be only 57s. or 58s.; and even at this calculation, I fearlessly ask the House, have they any reason to estimate a larger consumption during the next year than 195,000 or 200,000 tons? Have they any reason whatever for thinking that the sugar produced by our own possessions will not exceed this quantity? The only person whom I have heard express any doubt on this matter is the hon. Member for Carlow, whom I do not now see in his place. But that which the hon. Gentleman doubts is not matter of theory or calculation, but of fact and demonstration. The hon. Gentleman says, he cannot believe, that the Mauritius can supply more than 26,000 tons. The hon. Gentleman who so ably seconded the motion of my noble Friend the Member for Liverpool, has estimated the supply from that place for the next year at 30,000 tons; and my noble Friend himself (Lord Sandon) estimates it at 40,000 tons. And Sir, since the night when my noble Friend spoke, I have had placed in my hands a letter written at the Mauritius by the correspondent of a house well known, I believe, to her Majesty's Government, I mean Messrs. Aikin of Liverpool. This letter is dated the 13th of January, 1841. It states,— There are 20,000 tons of sugar exported up to this day, and we expect that there is about the same quantity yet to export. Sir, this is the last statement we have from the spot itself; and surely, looking at the facts which it tells, there can be no exaggeration in estimating the probable exports at the lowest at 30,000 tons. It is a statement which could not by possibility have had any contemplation of the measure now before the House—a statement made at a time when no human being in the Mauritius could have been aware of the intention of the Government, if, indeed, the Government were aware of it themselves. So much with respect to the produce of the Mauritius. But, Sir, the hon. Member for Carlow also throws doubt on the probability of the West Indies supplying 115,000 tons. He tells us it is impossible; and why? Because, he says, he was greatly struck, in the year 1833, with the judgment, sagacity, and foresight of a speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth, in which he said that the first effects of the emancipation of the negroes would be greatly to diminish the produce; and that the negroes, freed from their compulsory toil, would naturally at the first transition, betake themselves to the ease and indolence which would be placed within their reach. This, Sir, is the ground on which the hon Member for Carlow declares that 115,000 tons cannot come in from the West-Indies. But, Sir, 110,000 tons came in last year. This may appear incredible to the hon. Member, but it is a fact certified beyond the possibility of doubt; and no man acqu inted with the condition of the West-Indies entertains the least doubt that next year's crop will materially exceed the very deficient produce of the last. I beg pardon of the House for entering into these details, but it is of the very essence of our inquiry that we should ascertain whether we may fairly reckon on obtaining from our own colonies a supply of sugar sufficient to meet the consumption calculated on by the noble Lord. The hon. Member for Carlow goes on and says,— I have been reading a work on the subject, and I have had a conversation with a well informed gentleman regarding the valley of the Ganges, and the mode of sugar cultivation in India, and all I can say is, that we never have yet got more than 28,000 tons from that quarter. This is what the hon. Member says; but, Sir, I have in my hand a document, I believe of authority, Cook's Circular, and on referring to it I find it stated that, up to the 31st of January in the present year, 58,300 tons had actually been shipped from Calcutta, of which 50,000 have arrived; and that the total crop cannot be estimated at less than 60,000 tons. In estimating the amount of supply I exclude from my calculation an amount promised us from an unexpected quarter by the hon. Member for Athlone, which I must attribute to a geographical error on the part of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman informed the House that we were to receive 6,000 tons of sugar from China, and he then expatiated upon the great advantages which our trade and manufactures would derive from commercial intercourse with the vast population of that empire, so liberal and so free from restrictions in its dealings with other countries. The hon. Member dwelt on the opening which was given to our manufactures, as the first fruits of this instalment of 6,000 tons of sugar. The hon. Gentleman, I presume, confounded China with Cochin China; as from Siam, Manilla, Cochin China, and the adjoining districts, we shall probably have the supply which we usually have had. But, Sir, from the plain statements which I have submitted to the House, it is evident that we shall have from the West-Indies a supply of 115,000 tons; from the Mauritius, at least 30,000 tons: and a supply of from 60,000 to 70,000 tons from the East-Indies. This amounts to 205,000 or 210,000 tons, and (though perhaps it is not fair to calculate this here) we have 35,000 tons in bond; that is to say, taking all together, we have from British colonies a supply of from 240,000 to 260,000 tons of sugar, to meet a consumption which can by no possibility exceed 200,000 tons. To return to the calculations of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If, under these circumstances, he calculates on making up the deficiency in the revenue by the introduction of foreign sugar, he must make up the deficiency by substituting foreign slave-produced sugar for sugar produced by free labour in the British colonies. In other words, to make up his estimate, he must admit 1,100,000 cwt. of foreign slave-grown sugar to the exclusion of British. Sir, I have a right to ask the right hon. Gentleman, the country has a right to ask him, upon which of the two principles it is he founds his financial calculations? In either case he is in a dilemma. Either he inflicts no injury upon the British colonies, and then his financial project fails, or it succeeds, and he inflicts ruin on the British free produce, while he confers a benefit on the foreign slave-grown. He must either fail in the calculations of his budget, or inflict a deadly injury on the British colonies in favour of foreign slave produce. The noble Lord opposite estimates the price for the year at 60s. per cwt., and he says the Brazilian sugar will not come in at that price; but how if the noble Lord and the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have made some little miscalculations on this point? Some very ominous words fell from my hon. Friend the Judge Advocate, about 60s. being the minimum at which Brazilian sugar could come into the market. He seemed to think, it might come in, even if the price was only 56s. or 57s. Now, this difference between 60s. and 56s. or 57s. may make all the difference as to fairness of competition between the foreign and colonial sugar; and with this difference, too, that, come what may, the colonial article has no other market to go to, because, under any circumstances, it can be disposed of here at a less loss than in any other market in Europe. Here, then, it must be sold even though at a ruinous loss. Your protecting duties, then, not being sufficient, what will be the consequence? The effect must be, that the cultivation of sugar in the West Indies will be abandoned; that in the East it will be greatly diminished; those countries will be reduced to a state which will deprive you of the grand advantage of their immense market for your own manufactures. And the article which you could procure in abundance from your own colonies you supply with slave-grown foreign produce, with which that produced by free labour in the British colonies cannot long compete. Sir, I think that at such a time as this, at all events, the House is not prepared to take such a step. I say at such a time as this, because at the present period we are in the progress of a great and awful experiment, in which the fortunes and happiness of millions of our fellow-beings are involved. Other countries are looking on, not ready, perhaps, to follow your example if you succeed, but ready to scorn your folly and profit by your mistakes, if by your mismanagement you should fail. Sir, I confess, however highly I may regard the importance of the argument on this question as it may bear on slavery, I cannot place it so high as it has been placed, I am sure in all sincerity, by my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, or as it was placed last year by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. Sir, I have heard, but I can hardly believe the report, that that learned Gentleman intends, on this occasion, to support the proposition of her Majesty's Government. Sir, I listened with some surprise when the hon. and learned Member gave notice the other night of a resolution to carry into effect that which he knows to be impossible, namely, to limit the operation of the measure relating to foreign sugar in such a way as to exclude any article which is slave-grown. I am sorry the hon. and learned Gentleman is not in his place, and we seldom have the advantage of his presence in the course of debates; but he will doubtless hear of what I am about to say. Let not the hon. Gentleman go to the division with the plea, or under the idea, that he can, in committee, separate the free grown from the slave-grown sugar. Whether such a resolution could in point of form be moved in committee I doubt; and the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, will tell him, that neither in committee nor elsewhere could it be carried, nor, if carried, acted upon, inasmuch as solemn treaties compel us to admit the produce of Brazil upon the same footing, and with the same advantages, as that of the most favoured country. The distinction is one he cannot maintain, and if he vote for the proposition of the Government he will be substantially giving a vote for the introduction into this country of foreign slave-grown sugar. Sir, on the 25th of June in the last year, on a motion of the hon. Member for Wigan, which was identically the same proposition now introduced by the Government, but which was then opposed by them, and by him—on that occasion the hon. and learned Member, in opposing the motion of the hon. Member for Wigan, said, that He never gave a vote with a greater conviction of its propriety than the vote he should give against the motion of the hon. Member for Wigan. He thought the motion did not go far enough. The hon. Member ought to bring in a bill to repeal the Slavery Emancipation Act. They sent, at a great expense, a naval force to the coast of Africa to watch the transportation of slaves, and, if possible, to prevent it; but if the slavers unfortunately evaded the watchfulness of the cruisers, what was it proposed to do? They held out a bribe to the slavers the moment they arrived in the Brazils, by purchasing the sugar grown there by the labour of those very slaves. This was a most absurd outrage to common sense. The hon. and learned Member went on to say, that he did not care whether sugar was a halfpenny or a penny a pound cheaper or dearer; he would put it to the people of England whether or not they would have slavery with cheap sugar, and he had no fear what the answer would be. Sir, neither do I fear for the result. But what will England, and what will Ireland, think of the man who made that speech last year, and who now votes for the proposition of Government? Sir, I do not mean to dispute the financial statements which the Government have made; but this I must say, that upon any other ground than that of the financial difficulty into which they have plunged the country —and from which they know not how to extricate it—upon any other ground than this, I can see no excuse or palliation for their having adopted the course which they pursued last year, and this year taking the present course. What was the state of things, then, at the time the motion of the hon. Member for Wigan was negatived? What was the price of sugar at that period? What was the amount of the pressure on the consumers as compared with what it is at present? When the motion of the hon. Member for Wigan was negatived, the price of sugar was 56s. to 57s. the cwt. Since then, it has fallen upwards of 20s. the cwt., and it is now about 37s. I believe. [Cheers.] I see marks of dissent on the part of the noble Lord opposite; I refer, then, to the paper which has been furnished us by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, from which I find that the average prices of Muscovado sugar, as given in the "London Gazette," were, in January, 1840, 37s. 11¾d. From that period it rose to 39s. 6d., to 43s. 1d., to 46s. 5d., and so on, until, in July of the same year, it reached 56s. 10½d., then 57s. 3¾d., and finally, in September, attained its maximum of 58s. 3½d. At this quotation it was at a monopoly price, and the prohibitory duties on foreign sugar, I admit, were prohibitory no longer. It was in the end of June, or the beginning of July, that the hon. Member for Wigan made his motion on the subject of foreign sugar. The prices then fell, as gradually as they rose, to 57s.. 6d., 56s. 4d., 54s. 2d., 50s. 40s. and so on, until, in the April of the present year, they were quoted at 37s. 1½d. But they fell still further, for at the commencement of this discussion they stood at 36s. 1d. as the market price, and I have been told that since and during the debate, within the last few days, they have again risen to the amount of about 1s. Therefore, when I say that the pressure upon the consumer at the time the hon. Member for Wigan made his motion was the quotation price of 56s., with the prospect of a rise, and that a gradual decrease has since taken place equal to about 2d. in the pound, my argument is this—if the consumer in this country would not, when sugar was at more than 1d. per pound, consent to purchase it, at a reduced price, because of the facilities and encouragement the introduction of foreign sugar into the British market obviously gave to the slave-trade and slavery, how can it be expected that the people of England will now, when no pressure is felt, when no necessity exists, sacrifice the great cause of emancipation—a cause which was not that of Lord Grey's Government, or of any other Government or party, but which was the cause of the English nation, and of humanity? I have said, Sir, that I would not place the question of slavery on the same high ground as my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, or the hon. and learned Member for the city of Dublin; and I see great indignation has been manifested at the other side of the House, and much anger evinced, because my noble Friend (Lord Sandon) has brought forward a plain, practical view of the case in his amendment, wisely avoiding the assertion of vague and abstract opinions, which, as a man of sense and experience, he well knew he could not carry into effect. Hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House say, "Oh, you object to receive Brazilian sugar because it is slave-grown. Why, then, not pledge yourselves also not to consume any other product of slave-labour in any other country?" I answer freely—because by so doing we should insulate ourselves—because by so doing we should cease to be a commercial nation—because there is scarcely an article of general consumption which is not connected, directly or indirectly with the production of slave-labour. Sir, if we had adopted this suggestion—if we had laid down such a doctrine as this—if we had followed such a course, it would, without doubt, have been greatly for the advantage of hon. Gentlemen opposite, inasmuch as it would have given them an opportunity of pointing out the absurdity of our conduct, as well as the pernicious consequences that would accrue from it, and under cover of this argument they might have escaped from the discussion of the principle at issue. But I say this, that, while I pledge myself to no abstract principles—principles which, by reason of their abstract nature, no man of common sense could ever hope to carry into effect—I may be permitted to say, that I should view with extreme regret, and regard as a great national calamity, any determination which, needlessly, without the pressure of absolute vital necessity, overwhelming all considerations but those of national interest or national existence, should be taken by this country to follow out the principle propounded by the Under Secretary for the Colonies, who said, that as far as we were concerned, we had done with the question of slavery and the slave-trade, and that all our obligations on that score were at an end. Sir, I repudiate altogether this doctrine of the hon. Gentleman. We have performed our own part, it is true, at a sacrifice for which the people of England cannot be too highly honoured and estimated—a sacrifice which in furtherance of the will of the nation, it was my duty, as the organ of Lord Grey's Government, to call on them to make; and it would little become them, therefore, and least of all would it become me, to propose to them now, or even to assent to, any measure which has for its effect the destruction of that splendid experiment in favour of humanity, to prove to the world that it was a lamentable failure— to rivet still faster the chains of the suffering slave —or to encourage the perpetration anew, in their most aggravated features, of the horrors of the slave-trade. But you do all these things, you give all this encouragement in admitting the slave-grown sugar of Brazil. I will say nothing now of the sugar of Cuba, I will not press on the House that point at present, or argue, that by your present scale of duties you will be encouraging the produce, not of the milder slavery of Brazil, but of that country in which slavery and the slave-trade exist in their most atrocious and unmitigated form. But when we have a vast market in our own possession—a market where we are always sure of finding a sufficient supply raised by free labour, and our own colonists, at a reasonable price; I will not consent to patch up the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer by giving admission to the slave-grown sugar of Brazil, and thus giving a direct encouragement to slavery. "But," say hon. Gentlemen opposite, "you give encouragement to slavery already; your merchants have always purchased Brazilian and slave-grown sugar in other places, and sold it in the ports of the continent;" and they add, "You even export it from this country, because it is admitted free for refining, and in that state is transhipped to other countries." The right hon. Gentleman opposite said, that was encouragement enough in all conscience; and my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax was pleased to say, that he defied all my ingenuity, (so he termed it), to draw any distinction, or point out any difference between the admission of slave-grown sugar for the purpose of refining, and its admission, refined or unrefined, for home consumption. Now, this is my answer to that argument. I will ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer if we import a 1,000,000 cwt. of slave-grown sugar, and thereby displace a 1,000,000 cwt. of free-grown sugar, do we not give, by that amount, encourage- ment to slavery? He will not deny that fact. This admitted, I will ask him if, by refining the sugar of Brazil for exportation, keeping none of it for our own use, but merely manufacturing it for the use of others, we encourage the growth of a single pound weight of it? Again, as to the carrying trade, the case stands thus: we export our manufactures to the Brazils, and receive in exchange their sugars, which we carry to a third port, where we again exchange them for the produce of that country, to be imported into England. Now, suppose we did not go to Brazil for it at all, but, carrying on our commerce at the third port, receive their produce direct, while our goods were exchanged by them with Brazil for the sugar which they required. I ask what difference there is in the two cases, except that we lose the carrying trade? I ask in what way, in the one case more than in the other, do we encourage the production of slave-grown sugar? We are but carriers and refiners for other nations; how, then, can we be said to encourage it? If we did not carry it, the same sugar, to the same amount would be carried by other maritime nations: if we did not refine it, it would be refined in Holland. We furnish by carrying and refining Brazil sugar no new market for the product of slave-labour. We give by these operations no additional stimulus to the slave trade. Now, Sir, I say again, that the same argument, to a certain extent, applies to the production of coffee and cotton the produce of slave-labour. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have asked, why import slave-grown cotton and coffee more than slave-grown sugar? I will tell them frankly: because our own supply of these articles from free labour is insufficient. But I will tell you more,— I will tell you that, if by any fair means you cannot encourage the growth of both in slave-states, for every additional pound weight you are furnished with you give a cogent and effective check to slavery, and diminish in the same degree the slave-trade. Coffee and cotton do not require the same attention on the part of the planter, the severe, and, above all, the continuous exertion on the part of the slave, that sugar does; they are commodities raised with little care and with little capital; commodities, in short, in regard to which free labour may successfully compete with slave-labour. But free sugar can never, except under the most favourable circumstances, compete with slave-sugar; especially with the produce of such slave- labour as is exacted in Cuba. Therefore I say that, though coffee and cotton be the product of slave-labour, the greater encouragement you give to their cultivation— the wider you extend it—the larger is your demand for them, to the discouragement of the cultivation of slave-sugar; the greater is the impulse you give to the abolition of slavery and the slave-trade in slave countries. Sir, I have said, that at the present time, and under existing circumstances, it is especially undesirable to disturb the great experiment of emancipation at present going on; and the speech of the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, furnishes me with the most powerful argument on this head. What is the state of the negro population at present? It was impossible not to hear with the greatest satisfaction and delight, the glowing account given by the noble Lord of the condition of the coloured race in the West Indies—of the happiness of the negroes—of their increased and increasing prosperity. The experiment has succeeded, according to the statement of the noble Lord, even beyond the most sanguine expectation of its supporters. The noble Lord tells you that they have not only increased in comforts, but that they have purchased small freeholds in many cases—that they appreciate the great change that has taken place —that marriages are becoming more frequent; and (which is a most important feature in the elements of their prosperity, if you will only have a little patience) that their population is rapidly augmenting. He told us that in Jamaica alone there were 90,000 predial labourers employed in the cultivation of sugar, all free men, and that they divided among them, in the shape of wages, 1,750,000l. in the year. Is this, Sir, a state of things to meddle with?—is the House justified in breaking in upon this happiness and prosperity?—and for what? For the encouragement of slavery in other countries. To what do the negroes owe this state of things—a state of things to be envied by the labourers of any nation on earth as far as comfort, happiness, and independence are concerned? They owe it entirely to the encouragement given to the staple produce of the West Indies sugar by this country—they owe it to the home market, without which they would soon cease to be an exporting country. I say nothing, Sir, of the hundred millions of British capital invested in the cultivation of sugar in those islands, and in the machinery for preparing it. I say no- thing of the twenty millions paid directly by this country, or of the millions more which Hon. Gentlemen say have been indirectly paid for the abolition of colonial slavery. I say nothing of the ruin certain to be wrought to our fellow-countrymen, the colonists, by the admission of foreign slave-grown sugar; but I ask the House to put the question on this footing alone— to look at the condition of the negroes, as described by the noble Lord, their happiness and their prosperity; to bear in mind, then, that all these depend upon the wages they get; to remember, next, that their wages are only to be obtained by your exclusive market for their produce—and, having done this, to ask themselves whether the present is the moment you will choose to sacrifice that staple produce of the West Indies, and with it the producers, by admitting slave-grown sugar to the unequal competition with that raised from free labour, and depriving the negro of those wages which he had learned to value, and which, while they amply repay him for his labour, encourage and keep alive his new-born habits of voluntary exertion and honest industry? My right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, speaks of the mercantile distress of the country. Far be it from me, Sir, to undervalue his statements on that subject, or extenuate the impression he desired to make on the House—far be it from me, Sir, to attempt to interpose, by word or deed, between mercantile enterprise and any new channels which her Majesty's Government see fit to open to it. But I would beg the right hon. Gentleman to consider, before he proceeds any farther in his projects, whether, in what he proposes, he really confers a benefit upon commerce— whether, in opening one new channel, he does not dam up and choke many old channels—whether, in short, he does not, in pursuit of his phantom advantage, shut out from that interest sources of intercourse liable to no caprice of other nations—liable to no war—liable to no interruption of friendship—whether, in short, he does not shut out our own colonies and our own fellow-countrymen, in advancing whose prosperity we best advance the prosperity of the mother-country and its inhabitants? My right hon. Friend talked in glowing language of the rich plains and wide rivers of Brazil—of the boundless resources and the incalculable national wealth of that vast continent; but he seemed to forget that at the other side of the globe there was another continent peopled with millions of fellow-subjects of our own—he forgot that the Valley of the Ganges was the source of inexhaustible supplies—he forgot that India was a new market for our produce—he forgot her rivers, ample as those of any country in the world; her extent of sea-coast,—he forgot the entrance by the Indus, so recently explored, to the innumerable tribes of the north and northwest, to the inmost recesses of Central Asia—he forgot that there was a land teeming with population; a population which, even now, imports more produce from England than goes to Brazil; a population whose capacity to deal with us is only limited by the want of proper means of remittance, a means which is now furnished in the most commodious form by the establishment of the trade in sugar— he forgot all this; and at a moment when British capital is embarked in that trade to a very large amount, and when, if allowed to go on, the Judge Advocate admits that in future years you will have an inexhaustible supply, he proposes to sacrifice these inestimable advantages, and then boasts of the encouragement he has given to our manufactures, by opening new sources of commerce to our mercantile speculations. Will you take advantage of the present state of things in India, and, under the plea of benefiting industry, destroy the rising prosperity of that country, from which, remember, you may obtain a supply to an extent that is impossible to be calculated, by giving entrance to Brazilian sugar, slave-grown, in the market? I give my right hon. Friend credit for the ability with which he made his statement—I give him credit for much more; for the effect produced on the House by his candour, and the obvious sincerity that pervaded his statement—a sincerity which I believe was quite real, because I believe he was firmly convinced of his own facts, and because I know his honourable mind too well to suspect for a moment that he would propose anything to this House which he did not fully conceive was for the benefit of the country. But I must say, with every respect for him, that, however highly I may estimate the commerce of this country with Brazil, my right hon. Friend takes a one-sided view of the advantages to be derived to this country, if, for the sake of encouraging it, he consigns to destruction our trade with the West-Indies, and annihilates our trade with the East-Indies, in so far as sugar is concerned—a trade esta- blished under such favourable auspices, and so rapidly advancing in prosperity. The right hon. Gentleman talks of our financial and our commercial crises. I do not deny them; but I do deny, as he would seem to suggest, that the springs of our national prosperity are so far relaxed as to be incapable of recovering their elasticity. We have before us, in figures, an annually increasing revenue; no doubt, we have an annually increasing expenditure to exceed it. But, when the right hon. Gentleman talks despondingly of a commercial crisis, I ask the House and her Majesty's Government to look to the unsettled state of commerce in America for an explanation of it—to look to our recently disturbed relations with that country, I will not say now by whom caused, but which, so long as they continue, must cramp our commercial relations with our best customers—to look to the uncertain state of the East—to the unsettled condition of Syria, to the troubled state of our Indian empire, to the loss of three millions to our merchants in the shape of opium seized at Canton—to the far from amicable state of our relations with China. Under all these circumstances I ask them, or rather the House and the country, whether or not there has not been some reason for a falling-off in trading— for a decline in the activity of commerce— for a temporary commercial despondency? But I do not despair of our resources, nor that the finances of the country will recover—always under a due, prudent, and proper administration of them. When I look back, and see, in the course of the last six years, a revenue increased by some two millions—a constantly increasing revenue —and when I find in the first year a surplus of 1,600,000l., and in the last a deficit of 2,400,000l.—when I find that for five continuous years there has been an increasing deficiency on the whole of that period —a deficiency amounting, at the end of five years, in the whole, to seven millions, or thereabouts; when I see that a great portion of that deficiency in the present year is to be accounted for by the expenditure incurred on account of Canada—by the expenditure incurred on account of China; when I see that a moment of great financial difficulty was the time selected by her Majesty's Government for taking off a tax which produced, without injury or pressure on the people, a revenue amounting to 1,000,000l., when, I say, in these three items I can trace the whole amount of the deficiency of the present year, I may be excused if I entertain some doubts of the capacity of those who have involved us in these difficulties. My hon. Friend, the Member for Halifax, I think it was, who said, that whatever Government might succeed the present, whatever might be the result of the present proposal, or whatever the issue of these debates, the seed was sown which would produce its fruit in due time. Sir, I fear that the seed is sown which will produce a bitter fruit; and I deeply regret that at the moment when the Government feel themselves tottering to their fall, when the financial difficulties of the country, to say the least of them, are most serious; when, I will not say county by county, but borough by borough, they see their hold upon the country gradually slipping away from them; that at that moment, when the common consent of the country proclaims (whatever may be the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite) that they can no longer hold the reins of office, as they have long since ceased to hold the reins of power; I regret, I say, that this should be the time chosen by her Majesty's Government for throwing loose upon the country a crude and undigested scheme, involving the most extensive financial regulations, deeply affecting every interest in the country, paralysing for the time all speculations in trade and all activity of commerce; and this under the full conviction that it was impossible they would be able to carry the project into effect. The hon. Member for Carlow, produced the authority of another speech of my right hon. Friend's, also delivered in 1833, in which my right hon. Friend enunciated the proposition then, and till of late years, very true, that a great and important political measure, under the sanction of her Majesty's name, and with the responsibility of her Majesty's advisers, was all but carried in the very announcement, and in the end all but certain of success. That principle, as laid down by my right hon. Friend, was, as far as all Parliamentary experience then went, perfectly true. But we have profited much by experience since, and have learned that a proposition may be brought forward with all the weight and authority of her Majesty's Government —a proposition to which they may have tied themselves as a government, and on which they may have pledged their very existence, and we have learned to know that, even with that support, the ultimate adoption of the proposition was not so certain as it used to be in former years. And not this House alone, but the commercial, manufacturing, and agricultural community, have of late learned this lesson. I hold in my hand a paper wholly unconnected with politics, a plain matter-of-fact paper, the "Price Current" of Liverpool, dated Tuesday, the 11th of May, 1841, containing the following commercial view of this amazing scheme, this new principle, which is to be developed and carried into effect by her Majesty's Government. It is signed by two gentlemen, one a warm Conservative, the other a warm supporter of the Government;—so much for its impartiality—and at the end of it, under the head of "Corn," are these words:— Sir,—Since the development of the Ministerial plan, the bare allusion to which excited such a panic in the trade, the market has become much calmer. I have omitted a parenthesis after the word "market," assigning the reason for this sudden calm; and what does the House suppose it is? That, the Government having taken up the matter, all doubts of its success were removed, and mercantile men might safely regard he project as already carried? Far from it, Sir. The reason assigned is in these words: "from a conviction that no such project can be carried into effect." Now, was ever a Government placed in such a condition? Not only has this House no confidence in the ultimate adoption of this measure—not only has this House determined on its rejection, but the mercantile community of the country, the moment it is announced, decides that it is a mere piece of waste paper, and not worth speculating upon. The market was panic-struck and astonished, when told that a great financial alteration was going to take place; but the moment the Government announced what their plan was, it was treated by one and all as a mere delusion that never would, and never could, be carried into effect. Sir, the following words of this same paper apply to a somewhat different part of this subject; but it may perhaps be interesting to an hon. Gentleman who has this evening spoken about Irish interests, and expressed his intention of voting with the Government, not only upon this question, but also upon that of corn, to hear what is thought in Liverpool by persons competent to judge of the proposed fixed duty of 8s. It is this,— "Whatever difference of opinion there may be as to the degree of protection required for the agriculturists of England and Scot- land, there is no doubt in the minds of persons experienced in and acquainted with Irish trade, that the scheme proposed by Lord John Russell is virtually a free-trade as regards Ireland; it being notorious that the quality of foreign corn is better than Irish corn by the amount of the duty proposed to be levied." Sir, I repeat my deep regret, that at such a time, at such a crisis of the country, in such a state of our East and West Indian population, and in such a state of her Majesty's Administration, they should have brought forward and thrown before the country a plan like that which they now propose. I believe, that the seed is sown, and will produce its fruit; but I fear it will be the fruit of bitter animosity between contending classes; and that it will give rise to and inflame jealousies and rivalries between the agricultural and manufacturing interests, which every former Government has sought rather to soothe and to heal than to aggravate; I fear that her Majesty's Government, while seeking a popularity which they will not find, are endeavouring to inscribe upon their banners the fatal and revolutionary doctrine of "numbers against property;" I tell hon. Gentlemen opposite, that I can hardly conceive a responsibility deeper than that of a Government which, in the plenitude of their power, should aggravate dissensions of this kind, should introduce new matters of contention, and create sources of difference and division between great classes and bodies of her Majesty's subjects. But I must say, also, that even that responsibility is fearfully increased when the measure which is to produce these results is brought forward by an Administration already tottering to their fall, and when the hon. Gentleman, the Under Secretary for the Colonies, himself, tells us that the principle they are now introducing, the scheme they are now throwing before the country, must for many long years become the subject of angry, hostile, and I fear, of worse than fruitless contention.

Debate adjourned.