SUGAR DUTIES.

HC Deb 03 June 1842 vol 63 cc1155-233

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

rose to call upon the House to make the usual provision for the supply of the year, which was derived from the sugar duties. To those Members of the House who had the advantage of hearing the financial statement made at the commencement of the Session by his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, it could not be a matter of doubt as to the course which he was about to pursue. He need hardly say, that he intended to propose that the present sugar duties should be continued for another year. It would have been most gratifying to him if he could have adopted another course, and could have consistently with his duty recommended to the House in the present circumstances of the country, a measure which would combine a considerable reduction of the duty on sugar from British possessions, and at the same time have allowed the admission of sugar from foreign possessions at a lower duty. By such a course, he believed that they would have given an additional advantage to the consumer, and at the same time, a fresh impulse to our foreign trade. But the circumstances, which a sense of duty induced his right hon. Friend to state to the House on the occasion, which he had just alluded to, led him, and those with whom he acted, to resist the proposition of the right hon. Member for Portsmouth. On the present occasion, that was a proposition which the Government could not recommend to the House, and were it recommended, he did not think that the House and the country would be prepared to adopt it. His own opinion was, that whatever alteration might be made in the sugar duties, with a view to the general interests, must be in the form of a measure which would combine a considerable reduction in the duty on sugar, and also to facilitate the admission of foreign sugar. He did not think that they could thus effectually deal with the sugar duties unless the House would risk, for a certain time, a considerable portion of the revenue derived from them. They, at present, were not prepared to risk this amount of revenue, for the reasons stated by his right hon. Friend when he proposed the reduction of so many other duties. He thought that under all the circumstances of the case, the House would be satisfied, that without an abandonment of those other measures for the reduction of duties on other articles of general consumption, it would be impossible to make this further large sacrifice of revenue for the purpose of reducing the sugar duties. It might be suggested that it might be the pleasure of the House, with a view to the interests of the consumer, to make a reduction in the duty on colonial sugar alone, but he was of opinion that under existing circumstances, there were considerable objections to the adoption of such a course. Although he believed, that the supply of sugar from our own possessions for this year would be fully adequate to the demand of the country, and that to the consumer, the price would be moderate; yet, until they had had longer experience of the capabilities of our colonies to supply the ordinary, or rather the increased demand of sugar at a moderate price to the consumer, he thought the reduction of the duty on colonial sugar alone could not be attended with any considerable benefit to the consumers. We should only sacrifice a part of our revenue without having an equivalent reduction in the price of the article. This was, in his mind, an insuperable objection to the reduction of the duty on colonial sugar alone under present circumstances. He thought that it would be equally objectionable at present to make a reduction of the duty on sugar from foreign possessions, and thus bring it within the general consumption of the country. On this point, he adhered to the opinions which he expressed last year, when the measure of the last Government was under consideration, namely, that there were strong political and moral objections to the proposal. He could not, therefore, recommend to the House the reduction of the duties on foreign sugar, while those foreign countries refused to make us any concession with regard to the slave-trade and slavery. He considered it would be most unadvisable for us in this way to sacrifice what seemed one of the most likely means for enabling us to effect the great object we bad been so long endeavouring to effect, and which, he thought, we had reason to hope, was much nearer being effected than it was when he last spoke on the subject. The House could not be ignorant of the immense importance which was attached to admission to the British market on the part of those foreign possessions which made use of slave-labour. The British market was, perhaps, of all the markets in the world, the one most desirable to the slave-holding and slave-dealing foreign possessions of other countries; the one in which there was the greatest chance of considerable advantages from immediate admission, and in which there was the greatest chance that the supply required would be continually on the increase. It was, therefore, obviously, a very important object with those foreign states, to obtain admission into the sugar markets of England; and this had become, within a recent period, a still greater object than ever; for if hon. Gentlemen looked at the countries that were supplied by the slave-holding colonies, they would find in these countries, not only that of late years additional restrictions had been imposed on the introduction of raw sugar, but that there was little probability, from the known sentiments of those who governed those countries, and from the opposing interests of those who had procured the restrictions, that the opening hitherto existing in those countries for the admission of this sugar would be as extensive in future as it had been in times past. Under these circumstances, he could not but feel that here was afforded an additional inducement to foreign slave-holding, estates to endeavour, by making some concessions to us in reference to slavery, to obtain admission into our market. In France, the duty on the admission of these foreign sugars was nearly as prohibitory as our own. In Russia, the system of duties, in respect to this and other commodities, was extremely prohibitory also; and, in the case of the German League, within a short period past, the interest of the domestic sugar growers, in parts of that league, had induced the respective Governments to impose duties on the admission of foreign sugar, which nearly, he believed, if, indeed, they did not quite double the duty hitherto placed on the article. Shut out, therefore, from these important markets in Europe, and shut out too, with a view to give protection to articles of domestic growth, shut out from a deference to interests which must necessarily go on operating in the countries in question, it was now, more than ever, matter for reasonable expectation, that the sugar growing colonies would henceforward display a greater willingness than at antecedent periods to make some supposed sacrifices, in order to effect an extension of their trade to the British market. But it was not to this consideration alone that he looked for a favourable result of the efforts which this country had been so long engaged in for effecting the great object to which he had referred. He could state, and he stated it with much gratification, that on the part of those foreign possessions, from which we were likely to derive supplies of sugar, there had been of late in the disposition and feeling manifested by them, a very decided improvement. In the island of Cuba, more especially a public opinion, had for some time past been springing up adverse to the continuance of the slave-trade. It was impossible to read the public documents issued in that colony, or the papers and opinions disseminated by the press, and not feel astonished at the change which had manifestly of late taken place in the public feeling of that colony on this subject. In that colony, where but a short time back slavery was considered a subject on which no man dared even to breathe a doubting opinion, you now found public discussions and disquisitions going on, as to the advantage which would result to that colony from the extinction or sup- pression of the slave-trade, and from an improved treatment of those slaves who were already in the colony. And whatever might be the motives of those who advocated these changes, whether they were to be attributed to selfish interests, or to be assigned to higher considerations, the fact was, that there was a growing public opinion making its way rapidly among the public bodies in the slave colonies, and in Cuba in particular, in connection with the strong feeling entertained on the subject by the present governor, which had a direct tendency to make the people of Cuba desirous of modifying slavery, more especially if, by so doing, in addition to the moral and social advantages thence derivable, they could attain great pecuniary and commercial benefits. He was extremely unwilling to detain the committee by reading any documents on a subject of this character, but, at the same time, it would be gratifying to those who had taken a direct interest in the suppression of the slave-trade, and the mitigation of the evils of slavery, to find, that in those countries where the view had hitherto been darkest, there had latterly been a gleam of light which was now brightening, and which promised hereafter to grow into a noonday blaze. It appeared from the best information that was attainable, that in the year 1814, the number of slave vessels that arrived at Cuba was less by one-third, than in any former year; and in the despatch addressed to the British Secretary of State by an officer in that island, that Gentleman said, Your Lordship will be gratified to learn that a spirit, decidedly hostile to the slave-trade, has arisen here, and has made such progress as to have induced many of the planters to seek the use of free labourers in preference to slave labour. The right hon. Gentleman then quoted a still more recent despatch, in which it was stated, that the anti-slave-trade spirit was making great way in Cuba; in proof of which, the writer added that the Spanish authorities had lately liberated several negroes who had been fraudulently introduced into the island as slaves; and it was further mentioned, that the present Captain-general Geronymo Valdez was using the best exertions towards this great object. He had just stated these facts to the committee, as confirmatory of the views which he had taken on a former occasion, and which he was acting upon now; and he considered, that there being this improved feeling awakened on the part of these fo- reign possessions, whence we might expect to derive supplies of foreign sugar, it could not be the policy of this country, without some concessions as to the slave-trade and slavery from those possessions, to admit their produce to the benefit of the British market. It was not merely that in doing otherwise, we should be throwing away an instrument which might prove most effectual in carrying out the great object we had so many years been labouring to accomplish; but we might also be even checking this growing feeling in the colonies, by raising up an interest against the suppression of the slave-trade, in those planters who, if the duty were reduced now, would resort extensively to slave labour for the purpose of putting under sugar cultivation those large tracts of country which were at present not made use of for that purpose. For these reasons, he would repeat, he could not recommend to the House during the present year, to reduce the duties on foreign sugar. He had already stated the reason why he did not think it expedient, without reducing the duties on foreign sugar, to make a reduction of the duties on our colonial sugar; and the only alternative, therefore, which remained was, to recommend to the committee the proposition which he should conclude with placing in the chairman's hand, the continuation of the present duties for another year. In making this proposal he had, however, the satisfaction of believing that he was not taking a step which would be injurious to the consumer of sugar in this country. His right hon. Friend had stated, on a former occasion, that from every account he could obtain of the prospects of the production of sugar in our own possessions, there was every reason to believe that that production would, during the current year, be amply sufficient to afford more than a large supply for all the demands of this country. To this statement, made by his right hon. Friend on that occasion, he might, from subsequent information, add his confirmation; and he believed, from all the accounts he had received, whether from India, on the one hand, where the growth of sugar had increased, and where there had been a productive season; or from the Mauritius, where, annually, the quantity for some years past had been increasing, and where the growers had means of labour not enjoyed by the former slave colonies; or whether they looked at the West Indies, where there had been a most fortunate season, and where the droughts, which had ruined the prospects of former years, had been replaced by the most genial weather; he believed, he said, that taking theesources of supply together, we might rest assured of having 230,000 or 240,000 tons of sugar for the supply of the year. The quantity consumed last year was 4,058,431 cwt., or rather more than 200,000 tons, and this was the greatest consumption that had taken place in this country of late years; so that for the current year, we had before us the prospect not only of an abundant supply for the demand at the present rate, but, moreover, an abundant supply for a considerable extension of that demand. Now, with respect to the prices; could it be maintained that at the present period the price of the article was excessive? It was well known, that at the same period last year, the price of sugar was the same as it now was, 36s. In May, 1841, the price was 36s., and in May, 1842, the price was also 36s.; but the committee would form an erroneous opinion if it took the average of this year to be the same as the average of last year, merely from the circumstance of the price being the same at both these periods. With respect to last year, it was well known to those who were concerned with sugar, that there was then in the market a large proportion of inferior sugar brought into this country from India, in consequence of the high price of former years; and consequently 36s. for such an article represented a far higher rate of charge than 36s. for an article like that now occupying the market, which was of a much better quality. But it had been found, that great as was the consumption of last year, the consumption of the corresponding period of this year was greater than before; and therefore, with the prospect of ample supply before us, and under the circumstances he had stated, he saw no reasonable ground to apprehend that prices could attain such a point as would interfere with consumption, or prevent the enjoyment of this article by the lower classes of the community. It must be gratifying, then, to all men to think that we could provide amply for the wants of our own community, and even for the extension of the consumption among us of this necessary of life, without infringing on the principle for which this country had so long struggled—without infringing on the principle of lending our whole efforts to the abolition of the slave-trade, and the improvement of slavery. It was for these reasons that he hoped the committee would concur in the resolution with which he should now conclude. He was quite aware, that on this occasion he was to be met by two distinct and opposing propositions, the one emanating from the hon. Member for Bath, the other from the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Into these propositions, before hearing the grounds or details on which they were founded, he could not, of course, enter. He had stated the reasons which appeared to him to make it desirable to continue the duties as at present. He did not conceive we were in a position to run further risks of the revenue in the course of the present year; and he did not think we should be justified in throwing away a chance of having concessions made us in return for advantages we might give foreign possessions in respect of sugar. He therefore thought the committee would act wisely in agreeing to the resolution which he would now conclude with proposing, That towards raising the supply granted to her Majesty, the several duties on sugar and molasses now payable, shall be further continued.

Mr. Roebuck

said, the right hon. Gentleman, in the proposition which he now made, had adduced certain arguments as reasons to show why he and the Government with which he was connected considered that the principles which they asserted with respect to commerce in general should be deviated from in respect to one article of general and necessary consumption. In dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's arguments, he had got to consider the consumer as one party, the colonial possessions as another; and next, he had to deal with a sort of Quixotic argument which was pressed into the matter fur the purpose of the moment—the subject of slavery. Every one must admit, that sugar was one of the greatest necessaries of life in the present state of society in this country. If he wanted any proof of that it was contained in a paper which he held in his hand, and by which he found that above 4,000,000 cwts. of sugar were consumed in this country, in the year ending January, 1841; and that quantity cost, exclusive of duty, something like, in round numbers, between seven and eight millions of money. In addition to that, there was levied on that sugar four millions of money in the shape of duty. Now, if they considered the enormous amount of capital expended in this one article, putting it at the smallest rate, he needed nothing more to show, that it was of the utmost importance as an article of primary necessity. He held in his hand a return moved for on the 2nd of March, by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Portsmouth (Mr. F.B. Baring, as we understood) which stated that the total quantity of sugar consumed in the year 1841, in the United Kingdom, was 4,058,431 cwts. He would not enter at any length into the moral question involved; but it was a matter of very great importance. It was a consumption, the increase of which, tended to give the people habits of sobriety, habits which were altogether opposed to those habits which were fostered by another class of enactments — namely, those connected with the consumption of spirits. He also desired to raise the wants of the people; he meant by that to raise the class of anxieties, and if he could make the people want immediately, a great expenditure would be required; and if he made that want common to the whole community, rich as well as poor, he went far to raise them in the scale of being, and to make them more comfortable citizens. Therefore, looking at it in its real moral point of view, as separated from fiscal considerations, he took it to be one of the most important questions that had been brought before this House. That being the case, let the committee look at the prices, and the loss which was sustained by the people of England, in consequence of the present rate of duty. In a paper moved for by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer last year, there was a list of the various prices of sugar imported from foreign countries as compared with the prices of sugar from our own colonies; and he found, that in the year 1841, the average price of colonial sugar was 49s. the cwt., whilst the price of foreign sugar (from Brazil and Cuba) was 21s. He would not, however, take the difference at the highest point. He would not take it as a loss of 28s. the cwt., but only 20s. That was reducing the distinction between the two sugars to 1l., so that it was clear the people of this country paid 4,000,000l. in the year 1841 more than they ought to have paid, for the purpose of obtaining the sugar they then consumed. He wanted that argu- ment to be met by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, because it was a mere matter of figures. There were imported 4,058,000 cwts. of sugar, costing on an average 49s. the cwt. [Mr. Gladstone: No, no; 45s.] The price was 49s. in the year 1840. Going to 1841, he found the average 45s., perhaps lower; and his argument was this—that in 1841 there was a difference between the prices of colonial and foreign sugar of 1l. If that were the case, he reflected that the people of England paid 4,000,000 of money more than was necessary for their sugar; and what benefit had been derived in return for that expenditure? He should like right hon. Gentlemen opposite to show what they considered to be the real difference in price between the sugar brought from our own possessions and the sugar brought from Brazil and Cuba. He would take the amount of loss however at only one-half, and say, that 2,000,000l. more than was necessary had been expended; and he turned round and asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the whole Government, this committee, and all persons in authority, what it was that should induce them at this time to impose on the poor of this country, for it was on the poor this chiefly fell, a tax of 2,000,000l. per annum? What was the advantage?" Oh," said the right hon. Gentleman, and those who spoke on that side of the question, "first, there is the inter-colonial principle to be supported," which being reduced into ordinary phraseology, meant that there were persons possessing West-India property who were to have 2,000,000l. per annum given them. Well, then, he wanted to know if they were prepared to tax the people of England 2,000,000l. or 4,000,000l. for the benefit of the West-Indian proprietors? "Oh no," said the right hon. Gentleman, "not for the proprietors, but for the benefit of those who were slaves, and the inhabitants of the West-India islands." He denied that altogether. He said there was no benefit conferred on those who were a slave population by the imposition of this tax. It went entirely, wholly, and completely into the pockets of the proprietors of West-India estates. It was maintained for the sole purpose of giving the money to those parties. And now he came to that shadow of an argument which had been pressed into the service of the right hon. Gentle- man for the purpose of bolstering up this tax. Whenever there was a tax concerned hon. Gentlemen opposite stated some plausible argument which should chime in with the prejudices of the people. When cheap timber was wanted, there was instantly an outcry raised about the navy, and the maintenance of our mercantile marine; and when a reason was wanted for the imposition of a large tax on sugar there was a loud cry about the slave-trade. He would take that question at once, and state it fairly to the committee; and he would ask right hon. Gentlemen in what iota or particular they were prepared to answer his assertion? He now said broadly, from the statements of those who were most conversant with this question, and took the greatest part in opposing the slave-trade, that all our Quixotic legislation on that subject had tended to produce mischief and not benefit. He found by Sir Thos. Buxton's book, that, after all the extraordinary efforts we had made, there was the same population of slaves in South America; that there was a large importation into that part of the world, and a larger exportation from the coast of Africa. Putting these two things side by side, he learned that we had not prevented the mischief of an importation of slaves, but had actually enhanced the miseries of the "middle passage;" That, in fact, we had killed the people by our ill-timed legislation. On referring to history, he found that in 1793 the French people fancied they had got hold of a great truth, and had a great desire to propagate that truth. They wanted to alter the social and political relations of society, and attempted the propaganda. What was the consequence? Throughout the whole of this country one universal cry was raised, that they had no business to interfere with the proceedings of other nations; that it was not the business of one country to propagate in any form, as a nation, any particular opinions in another; and that they were not to be the Quixotes of the earth to extend their own particular views. It might be very well for people to say it was a bad thing to propagate those opinions; but there were others who believed it to be a good idea, and at the same time believed that a nation ought not in that manner to propagate its opinions. That was what England had done. A certain number of people in this country had formed an opinion that the slave-trade was mischievous; he agreed with them to the uttermost, and there was nothing he would not do, consistent with what he believed true morality and sound policy, to put down the slave-trade: no man was more opposed to slavery than he was; but there was another division, he maintained, in common with those who were opposed to the propaganda of France, and he was prepared to say with them, that it was no part of the business, it was no part of the duty of a nation, to propagate any opinions of this description as a nation. If they once adopted this principle, there was no line of distinction to be drawn. Today they might choose to say, "we will prevent the slave-trade," and to-morrow interfere with the United States of America and endeavour to put down slavery itself. Where was the distinction? Why should we say we will not permit other nations to traverse the seas and import slaves, and not also say they shall not have slavery in their dominions? When we assumed the power to say "we will put down the slave-trade," we were acting just as wildly and foolishly, as politicians, as if we were to say to the American people, "we intend to put down slavery in your country." Therefore, he said, first as a matter of mere downright common-sense policy we could not do it. And even if we could, it was a principle we ought not to foster by such means as these. It was opposed to all sound policy and morality for this country to interfere in respect to the internal social relations of other countries. He knew that by stating these opinions he subjected himself to much imputation. But that was a matter to which he was so much accustomed that he was not to be frightened by it from the performance of his duty. He knew full well that a certain cry which had been raised had been used for special purposes; and after the speech delivered some time since by an hon. Member in this House, respecting the mode of proceeding on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite as to the Corn-law, he thought he was not at all uncharitable in believing that this cry was laid hold of as exceedingly convenient for the purpose of exciting the people of England against the then Government, and taking advantage of a very noble and benevolent feeling which pervaded their bosoms for the purpose of furthering the objects of a peculiar and particular party. The reason that the duties on sugar were to be maintained was, not on account of the Government feeling that they were not mischievous, impolitic, and in every respect cruel and grinding to the poor, but that they were bound as a party, for the purposes of party, and for saving, apparently, their own consistency on the question, to maintain them one year longer. That was a stalking-horse and cover for what he believed would be a most beneficial treaty, and was intended to be made by the present Government, if they continued, as he thought they would, longer than that period in office. He would now go back to his original question, and ask the right hon. Gentleman to point out how it was that the benefit he had in prospect— namely, to induce the governments of South America to join him in putting down the slave-trade, was any justification to this country for taxing the poor to the amount of 4,000,000l. per annum? The right hon. Gentleman said,— It cannot be the interest of this country to admit foreign sugar until we have obtained some guarantee for the suppression of the slave-trade by the countries from which we are to derive the sugar. And then the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the feelings of the people of those countries upon the question of slavery. But had we not a right to assume, that those feelings would go on changing if communication were maintained between them and ourselves? He believed, in fact, that if we had in reality a constant intercourse with these people by an extended trade we should have a much more potent influence upon their opinions. Let them be once united with any trade, unite them in bonds of interest with Great Britain, and then how potent would be our voices. But now we were causing a separation of interests, and said, we will not give you a prospective benefit, because you do not enter into a treaty with us to put down the slave-trade. The right hon. Gentleman did not dwell on anything, from the beginning to the end of his speech, but the advantage to be derived from with-holding any commercial intercourse with these people, and the advantage to accrue from putting down the slave-trade. He never told the committee of any other. He did indeed say there would be a large supply of sugar; but he never told the House, that the price of colonial would be the same as the price of foreign sugar; and he was quite sure the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared to make this asseveration, that if we were to open our ports to South American sugar, the price of sugar in this country would not fall very materially. This was proved by the right hon. Gentleman not proposing to alter the duty. The difference was between 63s. and 24s. the cwt., and that the right hon. Gentleman believed to be necessary for what he called protection. "If I were to alter the difference," said the right hon. Gentleman," I should let in foreign sugar; and if that were the case, how much cheaper would foreign sugar be than colonial? Taking the duty at 63s. and 24s., in 1840, if foreign sugar had been admitted here at 84s. our colonial sugar would have been 73s., because there was a great difference between 63s. and 24s. duty, whereas the difference in the actual cost price was 21s. and 49s." So that the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged that the price would materially fall, and produce great benefit to the people. He reiterated the statement ad nauseam to the right hon. Gentleman, and it was a thing to be reiterated to the people, that they were paying, in a matter chiefly connected with their social and commercial relations, two millions of money, taking it at the lowest possible point, for the sole purpose of maintaining a body of West-India and East-India proprietors; and that there had been drafted into the service of hon. Gentlemen opposite a new-fangled argument, which had only within the last two or three years rushed into their minds as a breath of offence against this (the Opposition) side of the House. They never recollected it in times past, when they were proprietors of slaves; they never talked of the horrors and mischiefs of slavery then; and it was reserved for his side of the House to put it down. Why did the right hon. Gentleman, he asked, allow the importation of coffee, rice, and cotton—and he did not know how many other things—all the produce of slave-labour? But the right hon. Gentleman said, here is one article, sugar, the most important to the people of all that can be mentioned; and the only reason that I do not admit that as I do the others is, that I believe there would be a great increase in the slave-trade if we permitted it to be imported. That was his sole argument, and he now appealed to the people of England upon one of the finest feelings that any nation had ever exhibited. But though this magnificent benevolence, as he must call it, was in itself a great spectacle, still he would say it had been employed for mischievous purposes, and however great and beneficial might be that feeling in the people who entertained it, they who had used it as a means of putting an end to the slave-trade had used a mighty principle of good for mischievous ends. They had not succeeded —that was admitted; but had enhanced all the miseries they attempted to put down, and only shown that misplaced benevolence was often as mischievous as malevolence itself. Looking then at the whole of the bearings of the question, he was prepared, on the general argument he had advanced, to rest the proposition which he now made—namely, that the duty on foreign and colonial sugars should be equalised.

Mr. Godson

should confine himself to the two propositions put forward by his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Bath, that we ought to go to the cheapest market for our sugars; and secondly, as to what would be the effect of this proposal on labour in the West-India islands. But would it be the cheapest market? That was the question. The sugar of the West Indies could not be raised for 21s. the cwt.; and the measure of his hon. and learned Friend would therefore destroy the whole of the plantations in the West-India colonies and our East-India possessions. The hon. and learned Gentleman, no doubt, would not dislike to see such a result. Perhaps he would prefer, that no sugar should be grown either in the East Indies or in the West Indies. But the effect of an equalisation of the duties with respect to price, whether for good or for evil, would be, that not another sugar cane would be planted in the colonies. And in the event of carrying out this state of things would not the governments of Spain and of the Brazils immediately tax to a large extent the sugar which they would import into this country? Take from the market 4,000,000 cwt. which was now supplied by our colonies, and he would ask, would any man believe that the sugar growers of Cuba and of Brazil would still import to us without levying some additional imposts? It would be to give to Brazil, to Spain, and to Cuba, the opportunity of raising a revenue so large as to prevent the people of this country from deriving any advantages whatever. This would be the effect the moment they should take away the competition which now existed; and therefore, he contended, that they were not to go to the cheapest market, in the real sense of the word, if, as a consequence of such a measure as that of his hon. and learned Friend, they thereby destroyed the competition which now existed, as between the East Indies and the West Indies. The second part of the argument of his hon. and learned Friend was, that by carrying out his principle, it would have no effect on the happy condition of the negro population. Here the hon. and learned Gentleman was mistaken as to the facts. For if they took away the growth of the sugar cane, they took away the very wages; and they would promote a state of society in which the negro might, perhaps, still live in comfort, but he would not be enabled, out of his wages, to do that which, much to the credit of the negro population, they had done, aided by means which reflected honour on this country, and on the missionaries of her church,—namely, to maintain the churches and schools in the colonies. He therefore thought that the shortest and plainest answer to the proposition, that we should go to the cheapest markets for our supplies, was this,—that that market would not continue to be the cheapest if they took away all competition, and with that the wages of the West-India labourer; and, moreover, that a state of society would ensue in which the negro would not remain in the condition in which he now happily was.

Mr. Gladstone

thought it was the general feeling of the committee that it would be more convenient to go into the motion which was expected to be brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, before they discussed the present question. He did not mean to say this in any discourtesy towards the hon. and learned Gentleman, or what had fallen from him; but the fact was, that the motion was one of a peculiar nature, and one which he must go into at a length which he thought few hon. Members would be disposed to accompany him. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to lay the onus on his right hon. Friend to show why he made this exception to the general rules of trade in the article of sugar. What were the "general rules of trade," which the hon. and learned Gentleman found operating in the world in respect to differential duties? If the hon. and learned Gentleman looked to general rules of trade, he would find that when there was a producing interest, it was protected by a duty abroad in competing with foreign countries. There the same rule applied, but in an increased degree. The hon. and learned Member was aware that in the principal consuming countries this was the case,— a heavy duty was imposed on the importation of foreign sugar; as in France and Germany; and the committee of the American Congress had likewise recommended a considerably increased protecting duty. He was not there to question the right of the hon. and learned Member to bring this question forward, but he realty spoke of this differential duty as if it were an exception to a general rule. He did not think, in the present state of the country, in respect to the tariff of this or foreign countries, that the hon. and learned Gentleman would find those general rules to which he had referred. He thought, however, that without going now into detail as to the propriety of a vast interest being placed under the shelter of a protecting duly, and setting aside for the time a discussion on the probable effects of carrying the hon. and learned Gentleman's motion,—it would be inconsistent with the principles upon which the House had always proceeded, namely, that of protection, suddenly to withdraw that protection on a proposition to equalize the duties, where, in our case, up to the present moment, they were almost absolutely prohibitory. He did not think the hon. and learned Member would find a dozen Gentlemen to go such a length. The House was about to carry into effect vast alterations in respect to the protecting duties which bore upon our foreign and our home interests, and he was sure the case of sugar would be dealt with on the same principle. It was not necessary to discuss what should be the extent of the protection, but the case was at least as strong in that of sugar as anything else. The hon. and learned Gentleman has gone at length into his own views upon the interference of this country in respect to the slave-trade, and had expressed opinions which he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman would be almost solitary in holding in that House; but that part of the subject would be better reserved for a future and more extended discussion, if that House were inclined to entertain the question for changing a system which was absolutely prohibitory for one of equality and perfect freedom of trade. But as it was, he did not think that House would make such an exception to all general rules, and to all the principles on which the tariff was proceeding; and therefore he could not consent to make a change so sudden and so vast as that proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Bath.

Mr. Cobden

said, that the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, rested his case on totally different ground from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would like to hear the real ground of opposition to this motion. His hon. and learned Friend had proposed that the duties on foreign and colonial sugar should be equalised. He was met by the argument of the slave-trade. His hon. and learned Friend had satisfactorily disposed of that argument; but there was another point to which he had addressed himself, and on which he would take the liberty of remarking. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side claimed for this country the merit of doing what, strictly speaking, it was not doing. Our principle was said to be to refuse the admission of slave-grown sugar, lest we might encourage slavery, but we sent out to the Brazils and brought back sugar, which we then took to the continent and sold for a bill of exchange, or a few bales of wool or some other commodity. Could the right hon. Gentleman deny, that this was as strong an encouragement to slavery as if the sugar came into England, and sweetened his own tea? Our policy, indeed, compelled our merchants to make a circuitous route, and to pay brokerage and other burdens, all of which ultimately fell on the working class; but the nature of the process so far as the encouragement of slavery went, was exactly the same. We did, by exchange, encourage and increase the cultivation of sugar by slaves in Brazil; but we did it in a way to increase the burdens of our own people. There was another point. We admitted foreign sugar to be refined in bond, while we were excluding it from home consumption, upon the monstrous pretext of discouraging slavery. We were letting it into Liverpool and London to be refined in bond, and then exported it to all parts of the world. In 1840 we exported slave-grown sugar refined in bond to almost every country in Europe— to Spain, to Germany, to Russia, and elsewhere. We were even supplying the West Indies, so that the free negroes there were eating slave-grown sugar, refined in bond, at the same price which our labourers at home were paying for common brown sugar. It was monstrous to think, that while opposing the reduction of slave-grown sugar into the English market, we had sent such sugar, refined in bond, in the last half of 1840 to countries containing a population of 600,000,000. The noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, who had opposed the change in the sugar duties last autumn, and joined in turning out the late Government on the question, went down to Liverpool with the same plea of slave-grown sugar, and some of his leading supporters were refining slave-grown sugar in bond, and sending it to all quarters of the globe. In legislating on this subject they were actually compelling the people to give a much larger share of the produce of their labour for sugar than they would with equal duties. During the six years from 1834 to 1840 inclusive, the people of this country paid 20,000,000l. more for sugar, than they would have done if they had bought it from foreign countries. He had heard shrewd intelligent merchants, trading with the West Indies, say, that if we had made a present of the goods sold to the West Indies, in return for a free-trade with Brazils and Cuba, we should have been actually gainers. We compelled our own people to give twice as much as was necessary for sugar, but we did not compel the people of the West Indies to pay double price for our commodities. Could this state of things continue? The right hon. Gentleman, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, quoted precedent as a justification, and made use of no other argument. No doubt, high protecting duties had existed heretofore, but could the trade continue in its present state? What were the fruits of the present system? Look at the condition of the working population. Did it not require some great and comprehensive measure to relieve them? No miserable expedient, no wretched peddling alteration of the tariff could have the effect of resuscitating the country from the depth of misery into which it had fallen. Did not the present state of the country call for a large and comprehensive measure, and was not his hon. and learned Friend justified in proposing his amendment? His hon. and learned Friend did not stand alone. The Manchester Chamber of Commerce had every year petitioned for an equalisation of the duties on foreign and colonial sugar. In presenting that petition, they knew, that previous legislation on the subject had done grievous injury to the population of that district. They knew that Parliament could not protect manufactures, if they would, and that, in giving a monopoly of sugar to the West Indies, it was done at their expence. That monopoly might be very convenient for hon. Members, either there or elsewhere, who owned land in the West Indies, but it was obtained at the expence of the sinews and blood of the people of this country. What was the pretension for these differential duties, as they were called? Why not stick to the old term, "monopoly," or, if they liked it, protecting duties? But what was the pretension on which this monopoly of the colonies was grounded? The noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, on a former occasion, had indulged in a great deal of declamation upon the advantages of colonies. He was not going to contend, that it was not an advantage to have people of our own race spread over the earth but, was that a reason for giving them protection and a monopoly, when the dry at home was to be relieved from the monopoly of the landlords? It might be pleaded in favour of the landowners, that they had special burdens, and paid taxes to the State. But could the colonies set up such a plea? We paid for their governors, and even for their education — we paid for the bishops of their ecclesiastical establishments—we paid for lighthouses, and we paid 100,000l. for militia uniforms in Canada, at the same time that we were keeping 15,000 regular troops there. It might be very well for the noble Lord to talk of the advantage of these colonies, but men of business would calculate the cost of all this, and they could not be expected to be satisfied if they found themselves paying half as much in expenses as the whole return of the trade with the colonies. The manufacturing interest readily offered to give up all their own protection. He had protested against the 7 per cent. in the colonies as a fraud, as being intended to deceive, and to be quoted as an authority hereafter. If they would abolish the colo- nial monopoly, he would undertake to bring the whole manufacturing interest to abandon their protection, and to thank the House for the arrangement. The present scheme was founded on selfishness, and looking at the present condition of the people, he warned the House that it could not continue, and he hoped they would not persevere in trying to maintain it too long.

[A short discussion took place as to the form of putting the question, which ended in an understanding that the sense of the House, should be taken on the general proposition, that the duty on all sugar not being refined be 24s. per. cwt.]

Mr. Roebuck

in reply, said, he wished for no discriminating duties, but both the present Government and the late Government supported them, though they differed as to the amount. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Taunton, was about to propose that there should be a differential duty of 10s. That either would or would not admit foreign sugar. If it did admit it, it would lower the price of sugar, and, therefore, drive colonial sugar out of the market; and, therefore, be no protection. If it did not admit foreign sugar and low prices, it would give no relief. This was the canker in all systems supported by the Members of the late Government. They did not carry out the principle which they desired to maintain. If they wished to protect the colonies they should do as the hon. Gentleman opposite did. If, not they should adopt the principle of free-trade. He was for free-trade and fair competition. The Vice-President of the Board of Trade said, that he would find no example of the principle which he maintained. He knew, that Government had not acted on the principles which economical science had established; but it was not on that account less certain, that the principle on which all sound commercial relations were founded was to buy in the cheapest market. Any man who, in legislating, acted against that principle, was bound to give the reasons why he acted against it.

The committee divided on the question, that the duty on all unrefined sugar be 24s.:—Ayes 18; Noes 59; Majority 41.

List of the AYES.
Bowring, Dr.	Gibson, T. M.
Brotherton, J.	Hawes, B.
Busfeild, W.	Marsland, H.
Christie, W. D.	Morison, G.

Philips, M.	Williams, W.
Ricardo, J. L.	Wood, B.
Somers, J. P.	Yorke, H. R.
Tancred, H. W.
Thornely, T.	TELLERS.
Villiers, hon. C.	Roebuck, J. A.
Ward, H. G.	Cobden, J.

List of the NOES..
Acland, T, D.	Herbert, hon. S.
Arbuthnott, hon. H.	Hope, hon. C.
Baillie, Col,	Hughes, W. B.
Baird, W.	Hussey, T.
Baldwin, B.	Jermyn, Earl
Barclay, D.	Kemble, Henry
Baring, rt. hn. F. T.	Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.
Barnard, E. G.	Labouchere, rt. hn. H.
Blakemore, R.	Lascelles, hon. W. S.
Buckley, E.	Lockhart, W.
Buller, E.	Mackenzie, T.
Campbell, A.	M'Geachy, F. A.
Chapman, A.	Manners, Lord J.
Chetwode, Sir J.	Palmerston, Visct.
Chute, W. L. W.	Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.
Clive, hon. R. H.	Plumptre, J. P.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E.	Price, R.
Coote, Sir C. H.	Reade. W. M.
Dickinson, F. H.	Round, J.
Escott, B.	Russell, Lord J.
Esmonde, Sir T.	Sandon, Visct.
Flower, Sir J.	Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.	Stanley, Lord
Godson, R.	Stewart, P. M.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H.	Stewart, J.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.	Vane, Lord H.
Grant, Sir A. C.	Vernon, G. H.
Greenaway, C.	Wemyss, Capt.
Hampden, R.	TELLERS.
Hardy, J.	Douglas, Sir C.
Hepburn, Sir T. B.	Fremantle, Sir T.

Original question again put.

Mr. Labouchere

stated, that he had not been able to concur in the motion made by the hon. and learned Member for Bath; and that hon. Gentleman had truly said, that in resisting that motion, his noble Friend, and those who acted with him, had only acted in accordance with the principles that they had uniformly avowed. He confessed, himself, that he could not reconcile it either to justice or sound policy, after this country had, for a long series of years, raised, by high protecting duties, any interest that relied upon these protecting duties, suddenly, and at once, to prostrate that interest by a single blow, regardless of the ruin and confusion this must cause, to the classes dependent upon it. Whatever reproaches this opinion might subject him to, he should never hesitate to avow it in that House. He did not believe, that the humblest person in the community—he did not believe, that there was any class in the community who could clearly have an interest in any measure that could injuriously affect other classes. He believed this was the true and proper time for opposing the principle of high and protective duties at home; and though he was desirous of putting protection on a footing more consonant with the general interests of the community at large, yet he considered, that it would be an injustice not to do it with tenderness and care. If he held this to be true as regarded the mother country, he held it to be not less true with regard to the colonial interest, especially when they remembered, that these colonies had no representative in that House, who might call their attention to any injury which they might be about to inflict upon them. The principle which he always had avowed was, that high and exaggerated protective duties should be put an end to. Monopoly he believed to be injurious to the community, and not advantageous to the interest it was intended to secure. That was the principle he was prepared to apply to various important interests at home; that was the principle which he rose in his place that night to apply to one of the most important interests of their colonies. The motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to continue the present duties on sugar; 3l. 3s. the cwt. on foreign sugar, and 24s. the cwt. on colonial sugar, on sugar the produce of British possessions. He, on the contrary, proposed, that the amount should be reduced to 30s the cwt. on foreign sugar, and on sugar the produce of British colonies, 20s. the cwt. He never was more confident of anything in his life, than he was of this—that whatever might be the fate of the proposal that he made that night, and however successful might be the opposition which he regretted to find, it was to meet from her Majesty's Government, yet he felt perfectly confident, after the avowal of policy made by the First Minister of the Crown, and the principles acted on upon other subjects, he felt perfect confidence in saying that at no distant period, the true principles of commerce would be applied to sugar, as well as they had been to other articles in the course of the present Session. He had now to call the attention of the committee to the true circumstances in which they were placed at the present moment. They now heard from the Minister of the Crown the remarkable avowal, that he considered this country to be in such a state, that it was of the ut- most importance to reduce the price of the great articles of subsistence to the great body of the community. Valuable as that declaration had been, yet he must say that the remedies proposed to cope with the great and admitted evil were lamentably inadequate. He did not mean to refer to the Corn-laws, otherwise than incidentally. He must remind the House that corn was the chief article of the subsistence of the people. At the recommendation of the Government they had passed a bill which legislated with regard to that article, and whatever might be its other merits, it was not framed on the principle of giving food cheaper to the great body of consumers in this country. Nay, the right hon. Gentleman, in introducing his bill, had declared that he did not believe that its effect would be in any material degree to reduce the price of corn to the people of this country. They had now made some progress with the tariff, and with regard to the principal articles of food, such as cheese and butter, though the right hon. Gentleman admitted that the duties were unquestionably high, and only defended them on temporary ground, yet added, that considering the state of the revenue, he could not consent to reduce them. He did not mean to say nothing had been done to reduce the price of some articles of subsistence, yet he might state, that what had been done was lamentably small and inadequate. They had now then to come to the sugar question. He did not mean to deny, that much good would be done by the tariff, but then the good would chiefly be through the slow increase of trade, rather than reduce the price upon articles of subsistence on any particular article. In the discussions in former years upon these subjects, he found that measures were rather recommended for the sake of increasing, than from any expectation that they would reduce the price of articles of subsistence; now, it appeared to him, that the right hon. Gentleman laid more stress upon the importance and practicability of lessening the price of articles of subsistence. He was, however, astonished to find, when such a stress was laid on that point in the face of the country, that very little would be accomplished in the way of reducing the price of articles of subsistence, while it was shown that considerable benefit would be done to trade. The article under discussion in importance, was next to corn—and by an alteration in the duties, they could immediately add to the comforts of the people. In this point of view he could hardly except corn, as to its importance, and he said it for this reason, that any alteration in the duty on corn could not at once and immediately effect a very great reduction in the price of food, caused by a supply of the article from other countries; but with regard to sugar the case was obviously of a different description. On this occasion he meant to avoid figures as much as he could. It was, however, notorious the difference of the price of sugar in England and in the continental nations near it, and that the difference was caused by high protecting and prohibitory duties. If the House was desirous, earnestly and anxiously, to grapple with that evil, which the right hon. Gentleman had admitted; if they wished to look at sugar as an article of subsistence, and were to find a practicable remedy for the present distress, he said that there was no one subject in the whole range of their commercial system to which the House could address itself, with the certainty of producing more immediate benefit, than by putting the sugar trade upon a rational and proper footing. It was clearly the duty of the House to make such alterations in the sugar duties as would insure to the people of this country the enjoyment of an article, not of mere comfort but of necessity, at a moderate and reasonable cost. Before he approached the other parts of this subject, he meant shortly to advert to the history of the sugar question for the last few years. Until within about ten years ago, though then our colonial possessions had nominally a monopoly, yet, from the circumstance of their producing more sugar than this country consumed, that monopoly did not produce those evils which generally followed from the existence of monopoly. There were not, in consequence of this state of things, two prices of the article— one upon that which was exported, and the other on that retained for use at home. The country suffered theoretically but not practically from the existence of the evil. During the last ten years, however, the case had been materially altered. The supply from our colonies had fallen off, and the cultivation of sugar in foreign countries had been greatly extended. So far, then, from our colonies having sugar to spare for foreigners, they had but a scanty supply for our own population. The cost of the article rose here, while foreign nations obtained it at a more reasonable price. He found, then, that in 1829 the question of the sugar duties had been brought before that House by a person eminently calculated, from his official situation and by his own high character, to give the greatest weight to his opinions. A proposal was then made by Lord Glenelg, then Mr. C. Grant, which was brought forward in conjunction with Mr. Huskisson, whose name had been so frequently quoted with respect by hon. Gentlemen opposite. And now he begged the attention of the committee to what that proposal was. Mr. Grant proposed that the duty on foreign sugar should be 28s. the cwt., on East-India sugar 25s. the cwt., and on West-India sugar 20s. the cwt. Since then they had very properly equalized the duties on East and West-Indian sugar; but then the House would perceive that the only difference between the foreign sugar was 28s. the cwt., and 20s. the cwt. upon British colonial sugar. Mr. Grant, in bringing forward this motion, made this very remarkable disclosure. He said that Mr. Huskisson and himself, as Members of the Cabinet of the Duke of Wellington, had submitted this proposal to their Colleagues in the Cabinet, and that no objections had been made to it in point of principle The only objection was on point of revenue, and they felt assured that their plan was postponed for a year, only on account of the condition of the revenue. Mr. Grant went on to say, that great had been his disappointment to find it otherwise. Mr. Huskisson and Mr. Grant had, at this time, left the Cabinet, and they declared that they felt greatly disappointed when the present Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed, not the lower rate of duties, but the present duties, which it was still proposed to continue. He held Mr. Grant's speech in his hand, but did not mean to read it, unless the accuracy of what he then stated was disputed. When that proposal was made, a discussion took place which was well worthy of the attention of the House. The whole question was fully considered, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in opposing the proposition, did not object to the principle but to the loss of revenue. The right hon. Gentleman agreed as to the principles, and on the ground of revenue alone offered his opposition to it. He did not mean to disguise from the House, that a great change had taken place after that. He called the at- tention of the House to this circumstance, because now the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer rested his opposition to the present proposal, on the ground that it would be for the encouragement of the slave-trade. As far as that circumstance was concerned, the objection might have been urged against Mr. Grant's motion in 1829. Then in 1834 they came to a revolution in the situation of their West-Indian colonies, caused by the great measure of negro emancipation. It was felt, he believed, in that House, and generally fell in the country, that there ought to be an unwillingness on their part, considering the social and commercial situation of their West-Indian colonies, to resort to any measure which might disturb the new system that had just been adopted. This was the ground for their conduct. It was not from the necessity of discouraging the slave-trade, but to allow a breathing time to their colonies, after the immense change forced upon them by the Legislature of the mother country. This constituted the sole, but still he thought this a sufficient, reason for Parliament not hastily introducing further changes. It was on this ground that he had two years ago resisted the motion of the hon. Member for Wigan, stating, however, at the same time, that he rested his opposition not on a question of principle, but of time. He had heard occasionally Gentlemen opposite declare that the conduct of the late Government on that occasion was such that it was a matter of great surprise to the West-India interest when they came forward last year, with the change that they proposed to make in these duties. No man, who had looked to the conduct of the Government, would, he was sure, make that assertion. He begged to remind those who made the assertion, that Lord Sydenham had, four years ago, distinctly announced his opinion that they should consider the sugar duties, with a view to their alteration; at any rate when the question of the Brazilian treaty should come to be considered, if not before. He knew the impression that declaration had made upon the planters, connected with this matter; and although Gentlemen in that House might have been taken by surprise, neither the colonial nor the commercial interests were taken by surprise. He remembered that when he was at Liverpool three years ago, a deputation of West-India merchants had waited upon him, on account of this speech of Lord Sydenham, and expressed to him the hope, that his opinions were not those of his predecessor, and they then gave expression to their fears and apprehensions in the matter. He was not able to give them such an assurance, and he was afraid they had left him a good deal dissatisfied with the opinions he expressed. He remembered that when the right hon. Member for Portsmouth brought forward his motion, with respect to the sugar duties, and the right hon. Gentleman, the now Chancellor of the Exchequer, after stating his suspicion at such a proposition, produced petitions from various parishes in Jamaica, in which they, in the strongest language complained that Government was about to take a step that would be ruinous to them. He had always thought that it was just and proper that they should give a breathing time to their West-Indian Colonies, after the great experiment of negro emancipation; he had also felt that the time must come, and was fast approaching, when, in justice to the people of this country, and injustice to those particular interests themselves, it would be right and fitting in Parliament to deal with the sugar question. It was in accordance with that, that the Government, of which he had the honour to be a Member, made the proposal last year, which was not so fortunate as to obtain the support of the Legislature; and he must say, that the reasons that then existed for Parliament making a change in the sugar duties were at least in as full force now. They must recollect that as they were now considering the question, it was not disconnected with the other commercial interests of the country. They were now engaged in a Session in which it was proposed by the Government itself, that the whole of their commercial system should be put upon a sound and intelligible footing. They had, at the instance of the Government, made alterations which were held to be necessary and just for the interests of the community at large. He could not disguise from himself that certain protected interests had been deprived of the protection they had heretofore enjoyed, and he held that those principles of justice ought to be applied to other protected interests. The mining interests of Cornwall, and other interests likewise, would have a right to complain, if having dealt with them, the Government refused to deal with other interests also, for instance, those interests which were affected I by the sugar duties. On these grounds, he had complained of the conduct of the Government with respect to the Corn-laws, but these objections applied with increased force to the course they proposed to take with respect to the sugar duties. But they were told by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that the present state of the sugar trade, and the present prices of sugar were so satisfactory, that they might be perfectly content to leave things as they were, for the present year; that the people would have sugar at a moderate price, and that they would sufler no inconvenience from leaving the sugar duties as they are for the present year. He confessed, that when he looked at the figures they would not bear out the statement of the right hon. Gentleman on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them, that sugar was now at a low price in this country. He must say, that it appeared to him, that the right hon. Gentleman spoke rather in his character as a West-India proprietor than of Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he said, that the present price of sugar was such as ought to satisfy the House, or was one which ought to he satisfactory to the people of this country, as the price of an article of subsistence. One would suppose, from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that within the last few days, a great fall must have taken place in the price of sugar. He found, by the Gazette of the 25th May, that the average price of Muscovado sugar in bond was 39s. 5½.d per cwt. At the same period last year, the price was 38s. 2½.d. per cwt. This was a rise of rather more than 1s per cwt., as compared to last year. [Mr. Gladstone: Take the prices of other years.] Perhaps it would be the better way that he should take a wider range of price. He would take the prices of the first months of 1841. The prices in the beginning of 1841 were as follow. In January, 48s. 10d. per cwt.; in February, 37s.; in March, 39s. 2½d in April, 38s. 11½d; and in May, in the first week of that month, 41s. 1¼d per cwt. All that he meant to infer from this was, that of late the price had been ranging high in the sugar market of this country, and he certainly did not think, that it could be safely asserted, that the price of sugar in this country was satisfactory. He also thought, that it was quite clear, that violent alterations of price were the result of the mode in which the sugar market was supplied. If the Sugar market was supplied from other countries, a steadiness of price would be produced; they would not have those alternations of price from week to week, of from 2s. to 3s. per cwt. But what was still more important, was the comparative price of sugar abroad, as compared with the price of sugar in this country, at the present moment. This would show the disadvantage which the people of this country laboured under with respect to the consumption of sugar. He believed, that the species of sugar which could be most favourably compared with the Muscovado sugar of the West Indies was the sugar of Porto Rico. Now, he believed, that the price of Porto Rico sugar at this moment was about 19s. or 20s. per cwt., being as nearly as possible about half the price of West-India sugar. Of course, the difference between 39s. and 19s. was caused by the additional cost which our prohibitory system imposed on the people of this country, in respect to the consumption of sugar. The next point adverted to by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was the probable supply of sugar for the present year. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that they should have an ample supply—that more would come than they had last year—and that there was no fear of a want of the article being felt by the people of this country. They were assured by the right hon. Gentleman of an abundant supply. He had not such means of access to information as the right hon. Gentleman enjoyed: however, from the information that he had access to, that he could not come to the same conclusion on this question with the right hon. Gentleman. It depended very much upon the prices in this country what would be the quantity sent from India. It was only sent from thence when attracted by a high price here. The supply, then, from that country depended upon the sugar market here. He was inclined to think, from what he had heard, that the expectations of the right hon. Gentleman would not be fulfilled, in the manner he had stated. As far as the supply had hitherto gone on, the falling off in the quantity of sugar imported during the first four months of the present year, as compared with that received during the same period of the previous year, was very considerable. He held in his hand a statement of the importations of sugar from the West Indies, during the four months from the 5th of January to the 5th of May, in the years 1841 and 1842. In 1841, the amount imported during the four months, ending May 5, was 314,000 cwt.; in 1842, it amounted only to 240,000 cwt. The supply of Mauritius sugar during the same period was, in 1841, 303,000 cwt.; in 1842, it was 244,000 cwt. In the supply from British India, the falling off was still more remarkable, during the same period. In 1841, it amounted to 483,000 cwt.; in 1842, it was only 296,000 cwt. In 1842, the quantity of foreign sugar taken out of bond for consumption was greater than the amount taken out in the previous year, so that we must have been drawing largely on our stock, and that stock must have been diminished by upwards of 320,000 cwt. since last year. He found this opinion confirmed by a document entitled to every credit— the circular of Messrs. True-man and Cooke, which was dated the 1st of June, and was intended to be despatched per the overland mail, to their correspondents in India. That document stated that:— The actual circumstances affecting the sugar trade did not warrant the fall in prices which has taken place. The dealers, both in town and country, held very diminished stocks. The imports to this date are short of those for the corresponding period of 1841, having been of the three sorts, 76,000 tons, against 80,000; and the deliveries for home consumption show an increase of 4,000 tons, amounting to 64,500, against 60,500: whilst the stock is less by 12,000 tons, say 36,000 against 48,000. In this authority, then, it appeared that the stock of sugar at present in the country was less than it had been in the corresponding period of last year by upwards of 12,000 tons. He was relieved from the necessity of addressing the House upon many points of the subject, because he could not but refer to the altered tone and state of argument of Gentlemen opposite during the present year from that which was apparent in their opposition to the alteration in the sugar duties proposed during last year. Then they pressed arguments of every sort into the service. For instance, such arguments as the necessity of attending to the interests of the East Indies were then much insisted upon; and he was told, when he spoke of the Brazils, and of the importance of the trade with Brazil—he was told that he seemed to be more careful of the interests of those on the banks of the Amazon, than of those of the hundreds of millions of our subjects upon the banks of the Ganges and the Indus. This was the case last year; but such arguments would not serve at present; they would be inconsistent with the language which he had heard from hon. Gentlemen opposite. They had now avowed their opinion that monopoly was not even advantageous for the interests which were said to be protected, and, therefore, if he was to be told that a great interest was growing up in the East Indies under the operation of protecting duties, if he was to he told of the supply to be received from chance, he felt entitled to appeal to the newly-formed opinions of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and to ask them to reflect whether there was no danger in allowing that great interest to grow up, under a system which they avowed it was impossible permanently to preserve and maintain. There was another reason why he thought that the present occasion was one in which the House could with peculiar propriety take the opportunity of revising the sugar duties. A bill had been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, which would considerably alter the situation of our West-Indian colonies with regard to the cultivation of sugar—he meant the Colonial Customs Duties Bill. That bill bore a close resemblance to a measure of his own, which he had the honour of introducing last year, and was a measure which he felt should be a necessary concomitant of any alterations in the sugar duties. He had felt that it would be wrong in them to maintain a restrictive system in the West Indies, and at the same time to subject those colonies to foreign competition with regard to the great staple articles of the country and, therefore, on that account, and on general principles of justice and equity, he had felt it to be his duty to introduce a measure of that nature to the House, and he rejoiced that a similar one had been brought forward at the present time. But in agreeing to that measure they were giving a great boon to the West Indies. The West-Indian proprietors had fully estimated the amount of evils which the restrictive system had imposed upon them, and the additional cost in the production of sugar consequent upon it. The subject attracted the attention of a committee which sat on the subject of the West-Indian colonies in 1831, and reported as follows:— The commercial restrictions are said to impose an annual charge upon the West-India colonies of no less than 1,392,353l. This sum being apportioned to the several articles of "West-India produce, the charge upon sugar is stated at 1,101,000l., and as the sugar imported is 3,972,387 cwt., the burden upon each cwt., by this mode of calculation, is 5s. 6¾d. This was perhaps a somewhat exaggerated statement, but it was impossible to deny that a serious burden was imposed on the West Indies by these restrictions. If hon. Gentlemen had the curiosity to look at the prices in the market of Kingston, Jamaica, for the last few years, they would find that the prices of the necessaries of life there were nearly 200 per cent. higher than in London. In fact, they had made Jamaica one of the dearest countries in the world; every article of subsistence, such as flour, fish, &c, and those articles which entered into the manufacture of sugar, were immoderately dear in Jamaica. There was no natural cause for this, for Jamaica was situated at no great distance from the mouth of the Missisippi, from the Chesapeake, and from the Spanish Main, all countries able to supply her, and he was glad to believe that when the measure referred to had been carried, Jamaica would not only cease to be the dearest, but become one of the cheapest countries in the world as respected the prices of articles necessary to subsistence. He had thought it right to advert to this circumstance because he thought that the passing of this measure was a fit opportunity for the House to cease to delay longer measures of justice to the people of this country, and which could now be carried into effect without hurt to the West Indies. He had now come to the main objection of hon. Gentlemen opposite to his proposition, and that was the alleged encouragement that would thereby be given to slavery and the slave-trade. He hoped that he was not insensible to the force of this objection; but if he believed that it was really substantial—however great he might feel that the importance of placing the sugar duties on a fair and equitable footing was—he would not press his proposition. He certainly could not agree with those who thought that this country should abandon what he believed to he a principle so honourable, so highly creditable to it in attempting to use its great influence in restricting and abolishing a system so detestable as that of slavery. But he could not believe that they were called on to make such a sacrifice in order to arrive at the object which he wished to see attained. He supposed that when hon. Gentlemen talked of making commercial treaties with foreign nations which would enable them to relax, they meant, amongst other countries, the Brazils. He would, therefore, call the attention of the House to the situation in which they stood with reference to the Brazils. They had bad now for some years in operation a very advantageous treaty with that country; it was a treaty too advantageous to one party. It was a one-sided and unfair treaty. It was concluded when the Brazils were struggling for independence, and this country had no interest in pressing treaties of such a description. The treaty was this—the Brazilians were obliged not to impose any duty on articles of British manufacture higher than 15 per cent. ad valorem; but there was no corresponding stipulation on our part with respect to Brazilian produce; and all we agreed to was, to place their produce on as favourable terms as that of other foreign nations. This treaty had caused great irritation in the Brazils. It interfered with their financial arrangements. Like the people of all new countries the Brazilians were not fond of direct taxation, and they raised their revenue by means of import duties. But they found that this treaty stood in the way of every financial scheme they could construct, and the consequence was a feeling of great soreness upon their part. This treaty expires in 1845, as we said, but in 1842 as the Brazils insisted; and it was of great importance, for they would recollect the extent of the trade with the Brazils, that before the treaty expired, some new commercial arrangements should be made. The danger they had to fear was this—the Brazilians were irritated with this country on account of a restriction to a duty not exceeding 15 per cent. which they were accustomed to lay on our manufactures. They were also irritated by observing the different manner in which we treated Brazilian produce on its importation into this country. They said that it was very hard that, whilst they admitted English manufactured goods, their sugars were excluded from our markets. In fact, great irritation existed upon this subject, and what was to be observed was this, that they would refuse to have another commercial treaty, and would impose discriminating duties favourable to the manufactures of foreign nations, and unfavourable to those of ours. Such were the measures which the state of public feeling in, the Brazils was likely to produce. He believed that it would not be desirable to put off negotiations with the Brazils until the last moment. He himself had felt this so strongly, that in conjunction with his noble Friend, the late Secretary of State for the Foreign Department, he had come to the conclusion that it would be desirable to remit something in point of time with regard to the duration of the treaty, if by doing so we could obtain an arrangement by which the commercial relations of the country could be put on a permanent and equitable footing But hon. Gentlemen opposite said, that this was a reason for delaying to make any alterations in the sugar duties. He met the objection by saying, that he believed they would be in amore favourable position to negotiate with the Brazils on matters of commerce and matters relating to slavery and the slave trade, after they had made these alterations in the sugar duties, than before. He was not contending as to whether this was or was not the proper course to be pursued. It might be said, they would not be bound by any treaty if they delayed. They would then be free to act as they pleased. Nothing could prevent them from making distinctions in duties with regard to countries keeping up the slave-trade. He was not saying whether or not such a course would be advisable; there was much to be said and to be considered before it or any other should be adopted; but if they wanted to make use of the sugar duties as a means of obtaining commercial advantages, or advantages in stipulation with respect to the slave-trade with foreign countries, he believed that they would be in at least as advantageous a position after making the proposed altertions as before, for then the Brazilians would have felt the advantages and tasted the benefits of regular commerce, and we should have raised up interests in the Brazils which would sensibly feel any interruption of commercial relations. But if hon. Gentlemen should doubt the propriety of this opinion, he thought that that doubt should be very strong indeed, and the views on which it was founded equally clear, before they would refuse what was a boon to the Brazils, and an act of justice to the people of this country, upon mere speculative views with regard to the possible effect of treaties with foreign nations. With reference to the West Indies, if he should be told that the delay was made with reference to their interests, he would take the liberty of quoting the opinion of one whose authority would not be suspected in that House. He held in his hand a pamphlet written by a gentleman whom he had often seen before committees of the House in matters connected with the West Indies, where he always appeared as one of the most ardent opposers of slavery in all its forms. He meant Mr. Joseph Gurney. That gentleman stated, with reference to the subject of reducing duties on sugar:— It seems clear that the tendency of such a measure would be to bestow universal benefit, with ultimate injury to none. It would concentrate labour and capital upon the most productive soils, compel the general introduction of more economical systems of management and cultivation, reconcile masters and servants by a common perception of mutual interests, and a speedier settlement of rights and duties on a permanent basis, and it would restrain the passion for monopoly prices, in the only way in which, apparently, it can be corrected, by refusing, under any cloak or colour, to pay them. So far, in short, from such a measure interfering with the real experiment, or checking the permanent prosperity of the colonies, it appears to be the natural sequel to past efforts, and eminently calculated to render them completely successful. Although the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had mainly rested his opposition to the proposed alterations in the sugar duties on the encouragement which he alleged such alteration would give to slavery, he had also alluded to the question of revenue. Now, he was not prepared to deny that if the reduction which he proposed should be adopted, some loss to the revenue might for a year or two be expected, but he believed that there was no article on which you could make the experiment of reduction with greater certainty that the revenue would speedily recover from its effects than sugar. There was no article of more extensive consumption, none of which the consumption was more checked by the present restrictive duties; and such being the case, there was no article in which an experiment could be made with greater safety; and therefore, he thought the right hon. Gentlemen the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not right in laying so must stress on considerations connected with the revenue. The motion which he should make differed from the proposition of the late Government in this particular. The duties he proposed were 30s. upon foreign and 20s. on colonial sugars. Last year, the Government intended to let the duties on colonial sugar at 24s., and on foreign at 36s. per cwt. Their object was, then, to secure an increase to the revenue. The budget, as it is called, was based on the ground that they must have a certain amount of revenue from sugar, and they did not say that they should not derive additional revenue from colonial sugar, but they thought it right by reducing the duties on foreign sugar to insure an increase of the revenue. They would not have been justified in trying a bolder experiment, and they were not, therefore, able to adjust the sugar duties as on principle they should have been desirous of adjusting them. But now circumstances were different. They had an Income-tax imposed on them, and if the country was obliged to bear the evils of such a tax, let them take from other sources what benefit they would derive from that tax being imposed. That the Income-tax would be more productive in its results than the estimates of the right hon. Baronet, who brought it forward, was very generally believed; and under all the circumstances of the present position of the country, he believed that no time could be more favourable for trying the experiment with the sugar duties. He would only add, that there was another reason why they came to the consideration of the question under favourable circumstances. An hon. Friend of his, who did not appear to be in the House, and he was sorry for it—the hon. Member for Nottinghamshire (Mr. Gaily Knight) had lately stated what were the grounds on which he and hon. Members of his party had voted against the psoposed reductions on the sugar duties, that hon. Gentleman had said—"Don't suppose that we are such narrow-minded, contracted people, as to object to the alterations in themselves in sugar, or in coffee or timber. That was all very well for last year, but now we are expressing opinions which we have always really entertained." Our vote against the reduction of the sugar duties was a vote against revolution. And so the hon. Member went on, in a highly dramatic style— timber meant Popery, and sugar revolution; and we were really opposing a Government, compounded, as some believed, of Radicalism and Popery. Now, he hoped that the hon. Gentleman in question would come into the House before the close of the evening, because he thought that he had a right to his vote: how, indeed, after his speech, could he think otherwise. And if there were any other Gentleman who voted on the same principle as the hon. Member for Nottinghamshire, he trusted they, too, would act as he hoped that the hon. Member would. He would conclude by reminding the House, that they were called on to determine this question at a period which was admitted to be one of great public distress. The Government had advised her Majesty to issue a letter, in which her Majesty had called upon the more wealthy to contribute to the necessities of their poorer fellow-countrymen. He had no doubt but that that appeal would be responded to with that liberality which the wealth and property of this country had always treated such appeals; but he would venture to say, that the House had now an opportunity of conferring a boon, and affording a relief immeasurably greater than could be effected by chance contributions, if it would accede to his motion. By doing so, they would be opening new channels for trade; they would at once reduce the price of one of the greatest necessaries of life, and which entered into the consumption of every family removed above absolute poverty. It was with great disappointment that he had heard the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government announce, that in the revisal of our commercial system, he intended to exclude from change the sugar duties. He feared that this had been done rather from the necessity of adhering to the system supported by the party last year, than from the conviction of the soundness of the reasons alleged to-night. Sure was he that the course which Government had adopted was inconsistent with the principle announced by the right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Treasury, in the discussion upon the tariff, and inconsistent with the desire which the right hon. Baronet professed, and for which he gave the right hon. Baronet full credit of cheapening the price of the primary articles of subsistence. But if the Government turned a deaf ear to the arguments which he had addressed to them, he must turn to the House and ask them, whether they would be doing their duty to their constituents, in refusing to accede to an alteration in the sugar duties —whether they could refuse to follow that course which was in accordance with principles of trade, now acknowledged to be sound and reasonable, and which would confer an incalculable boon on the commerce of the country and on the entire population? The right hon. Gentleman concluded by proposing, as an amendment, that the duty on foreign sugar be reduced to 30s. per cwt., and on colonial sugar to 20s. per cwt.

Mr. Gladstone

observed, that the right hon. Gentleman had in his speech tonight congratulated himself upon the circumstance, that those who concurred in opinion with the Government must abandon those arguments with which they had combatted the proposition of the late Ministry last year upon the sugar duties; he confessed he could not see any reason the right hon. Gentleman had for congratulation upon that head, although he saw reason to congratulate the House upon the propriety of the curtailment of those arguments. When he recollected that they had last year extended three debates upon this subject over a period of ten nights, he was induced to hope, that in his reply to the right hon. Gentleman he might be permitted to shorten the review he proposed to take of those arguments, without its being inferred that he either abandoned or modified the arguments themselves which had been made use of last year upon a similar proposition by the Ministry, of which the right hon. Gentleman then formed a part. He begged to remark there was no question raised upon the commercial principle involved in this discussion. That bad been left untouched by his right hon. Friend, who had contended that the case was from peculiar considerations taken out of and an exception to the general principle; that its connection, in fact, with the continuance and promotion of the slave-trade in foreign sugar-growing countries prevented its being made a mere matter of commercial regulation. It was upon that ground his right hon. Friend had resisted the proposition of the noble Lord last year, and it was upon that ground that he himself should resist the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman to-night. The question for the consideration of the committee was, whether the arguments made use of upon this part of the question had lost, from any alteration in circumstances, that force which had then been given to them by the House of Commons; whether there were not reasons connected with morality and humanity which ought to operate with the Legislature, so as to make this case of slave-grown sugar a temporary exception to the principles which had actuated his right hon. Friend in the revision of the tariff. The right hon. Gentleman had mentioned that he saw reason to regret that the alterations in the tariff bore so little upon articles of actual subsistence. Here they should not lose sight of what was in the power of the Government to give; and certainly he thought, that the best exercise of discretion in what they had to give was to relieve from taxation and to lessen the price of imported articles connected with the industry of the country. It was of great and paramount importance, in his right hon. Friend's view of the subject, to lower the prices of the materials of our national industry, and set trade in motion by this means. He would recall their attention to the course Parliament had pursued in the year 1829 upon the motion of Mr. Grant proposing a reduction of the duty on foreign sugar to 28s. and of that on our West. Indian sugar to 20s., which would have left a protective duty to our colonists of only 8s. per cwt. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer opposed the proposition of Mr. Grant upon the ground of the loss it would occasion to the revenue. The right hon. Gentleman, taking this into his view, had to-night charged the Government with inconsistency in resisting his proposition for reducing the duty to 30s., which gave our colonial interest a protecting duty to the extent of 10s. per cwt. Now, he conceived, that there could be nothing more dissimilar than the two cases, the one being intended as a protective, the other as a prohibitory duty. The argument then used was, that there was a greater difference in the price of our colonial sugar above that of the foreigners' produce than amounted to the 8s. duty which Mr. Grant would have imposed. If it had been proposed to alter the duty on foreign sugar, that answer would have been sufficient; but the answer was, if we lower the duty we shall lose in the revenue. The argument, therefore, which the right hon. Gentleman had adduced to show the inconsistency of the Government, proved that there was no inconsistency whatever. Another point touched upon by the right hon. Gentleman (incidentally, he believed, for it was not connected with the general argument) was the Colonial Customs Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said, that as they were about to remove or remit duties on the imports into the western colonies, that circumstance added importance to his motion, and that the change should be made in respect to sugar at the present time. But if the argument of the right hon. Gentleman was that the change in the sugar duties should be contemporaneous with the changes to be effected by the Colonial Customs Duties Bill, he should have reserved the question for next year, because that bill would not take effect until that time. He would not dwell upon this point, but pass on to the other matters referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think that no general stand would be made in resisting this motion upon considerations of revenue. Now, on the contrary, he would state at once to the right hon. Gentleman, that there was a conclusive objection upon the part of her Majesty's Ministers to the adoption of this motion upon the ground of revenue alone, independent of all other considerations. If it were safe for his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government to adopt those smiling assurances of the right hon. Gentleman, and to assume, that he would obtain a larger amount of revenue from his Income-tax than had been calculated upon; and if he had framed his financial estimate, not on his own responsibility, but on the responsibility of individuals not connected with the Government, he admitted, that in that case no such argument could be raised; but if they took the estimate of the finances for the ensuing year, which had been laid before the House as a bonâ fide estimate, the proposition then submitted by the right hon. Gentleman was, he contended, in admissable, even upon financial grounds alone. The right hon. Gentlemen had carefully avoided entering into these important considerations with any degree of minuteness; and had not produced any calculations to justify the opinion he had formed. The right hon. Gentleman had assumed, that upon financial grounds no opposition would be taken to the plan he had submitted. He had endeavoured to consider the effect which the plan of the right hon. Gentleman, if carried into immediate effect, would have upon the finances of the country, and he would venture to say, that it was his intention to slate the grounds upon which that opinion rested—that it was not an extravagant supposition, that the effect of the adoption of that plan would be to occasion a, defi- ciency in the estimated revenue for the ensuing year of 600,000l. At all events it would be a most liberal estimate if he took the deficiency at 400,000l., for which no provision whatever had been made. The net revenue obtained last year from the article sugar was 5,114,000l. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) commenced by saying, that the alteration he propoposed would, by lowering the price, cause a material increase in the consumption of sugar. No doubt there would be an increase, but if there were no increase in the consumption the loss would be 852,000l., and the whole amount of revenue from sugars would be only 4,262,000l. Then what was the increase in the consumption upon which they might safely calculate? To ascertain this they must look to what the consumption had been in former years as compared with the prices of those years, paying some sort of attention to the prices which the plan of the right hon. Gentleman might be expected to produce. The right hon. Gentleman had not ventured upon any estimate showing what the probable reduction in price under his plan would be. The elements of such a calculation, however, were not, he apprehended, very remote, but in making such a comparison, and endeavouring to ascertain the consumption of former periods of low prices, they must consider also the general prosperity of the country, and the state of trade and employment was not, he found, such as would warrant them in assuming that any very great increase would take place beyond the estimate of those years, allowing for the increase of population, but rather the reverse. On the other hand, the habits of the people had taken a direction which would, he thought, tend to make some increase on the consumption of former periods. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the brown and yellow sugar of Porto Rico might be had at 20s. a cwt. in bond. The alteration proposed by the right hon. Gentleman would of course, if carried, occasion some increase in that price, and he thought he should not estimate that increase too highly if he assumed that they could gel foreign sugar in this country, exclusive of the duty, at 23s. a cwt. The right hon. Gentleman then adds a duty of 31s. 6d., bringing the price of the foreign sugar in the British market to 54s. 6d., and the price would of course regulate the price of colonial sugar. Now there had been times when they had enjoyed a low price of sugar, and when that article had been cheaper than the right hon. Gentleman supposed it would be under his plan. From 1830 to 1832 the price of sugar, duty included, had been as follows:—

	s	d
1830	51	11	per cwt.
1831	47	8	—
1832	51	8	—

The average price of the three years being 50s. 5d. per cwt. The average price which might be expected to be produced by the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman was 54s. 6d. the cwt., or 4s. 1d. higher than the average price of the three years. He by no means deprecated such a reduction in the price of sugar; but lie was now anxious to form some judgment as to what would be the increase in the consumption to meet the deficiency in the revenue, which the plan would immediately occasion—a decrease of upwards of 850,000l.. He had shown them that the average price of the three years ending 1832 was 4s. lower than that which the right hon. Gentleman would give them; and it was certainly not unfavourable to the position of the right hon. Gentleman to say that under his plan the consumption would be as much per head as in those years of low prices which he had quoted. Was that an unfair basis for the calculation? The consumption of sugar in this country in the years he mentioned had been 25° pounds per head per year; and in 1841, when sugar was very much dearer, the consumption had fallen to 24° pounds per head per year. They must then add one pound per head on the population of 1842 upon the consumption of that year to get at the consumption of 1842. This would give an addition of 18,666,000 pounds, or rather more than 8,332 tons. This would be the increase which they might fairly expect for the first year under the plan of the right hon. Gentleman. Then what would be the amount of duty upon this increase? And here it must be remembered that that duty would not be obtained from foreign sugar exclusively; for while the British possessions produced sugar not more than sufficient for the consumption of this country, it would be sold in the British market let it bring what price it might; for the British producer would naturally prefer to sell here, with the advantage of the 5 or 10 per cent, protection, whatever it might be, rather than take his sugar abroad to an unprotected market. No very considerable quantity of foreign sugar, therefore, could be expected to come in so long as the British colonial possessions produced sufficient for the demand at home. But, assuming that one-half of this 8,300 tons to be British, and the other half foreign, they would thus have an addition of 4,100 tons brought in at the 20s. duty and the 5 per cent., producing to the revenue about 87,000l.: and 4,100 tons of foreign sugar at the 30s. duty and the 5 percent., producing to the revenue about 130,000lhe whole increase to the revenue would be something more than 229,000l against the 852,000l would be the loss were there no increase of consumption, making an actual deficiency of 623,000l year. What he was now endeavouring to show was that upon the score of revenue alone there was the most conclusive ground for the rejection of this motion; and if he were to allow that the consumption of sugar per head would be greater at the price of 54s/i>. 6i>d. per cwt. than it had been when the price was 50s. 6d., still the fact of the deficiency would remain; and even if they doubled the sum he had named they would have still to deduct 436,000l. from the 852,000l., and in the very outset there would be a clear deficiency of 416,000l. in the estimated revenue of the year. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, was clearly wrong in assuming that no objection would be taken to his plan upon financial grounds. He would now turn to the case of the consumer. The plan proposed by the right hon. Gentleman would give to the consumer a price of 54s. 6d.; the price he was now paying being 62s. 4d. The Gazelle average at the present time gave a price of 37s. 1d., the duty bringing it up to 62s. 4d. The right hon. Gentleman had quoted the averages of several weeks in the present year, as showing that the high prices of sugar to the consumer still continued. He had made calculations from the averages of the present day, and from those it would be seen that a considerable reduction had taken place. In 1841, the average price throughout the year, as shown by the Gazette, had been 39s. 7d., exclusive of duty, while the general average for the present year down to the 31st of May, was 38s. 2d., being a fall as compared with the prices of the former year. The right hon. Gentleman would then have by his plan a reduction in the price to the consumer from 62s. 4d. to 54s. 6d., a difference of 7s. 10d. Let it not be supposed, that he undervalued or failed to appreciate that reduction, but falling short, as it would, of 1d. per lb., it was not, he thought, a reduction from which the right hon. Gentleman could hope to obtain any very great increase in the consumption. Then came the question, what were the expectations which they might reasonably form of what would be the produce of the British possessions for the year? There had been much discussion upon this part of the subject last year, and it was admitted to be a most material item, for, considering that a high price of sugar was a cruel oppression to the poorer classes, it was of the highest importance to provide a sufficient supply at a moderate price. It was all very well to say, that the standard of comfort in this country was higher than in foreign countries, but when the habits of the people had arrived to that high standard, as compared with the people of other countries, there was still great suffering and distress, when from any cause that standard was reduced; and although after that reduction the standard of subsistence here might still be higher than in foreign countries, still it was vain to say, that much distress and suffering was not occasioned. It had been thought during the discussion of last year, that there was reason to anticipate (and they had still more reason to anticipate now), that there would be such an increase of production in the British possessions as would supply, or nearly so, the demands of the home market. Now, how had that anticipation been justified? The imports of last year, from the British colonies, had been 205,000 tons; the consumption for the same year was 202,000 tons. The estimates, therefore, which had been made, when the discussion took place, had been verified by the result. And here he might be permitted to say, without any desire to offend hon. Gentlemen opposite, that it was owing, in a great measure, to the late Government, that the supply from our colonies last year had not been much greater than it was. In the month of May, that Government raised the question of a great change in the sugar duties. The news of this intended alteration went out to India immediately. The supply from the West Indies would not, perhaps, be much affected by it, but in the East Indies the case was different. Very much of the sugar manufactured there would be consumed in that part of the world, and would only come to the British market, should the price in that market offer a better remuneration to the grower than he could obtain at home. In the month of June or July, the news of the intention of the Government arrived in India, and it was not until October or November that the growers there could hear of the issue of the elections in this country, or could calculate upon the postponement of the plans of the late Government; this circumstance must have reduced very considerably the exports to this country from the East Indies. There was now, however, every reason to believe that the imports from the British possessions this year would be considerably greater than they were during the last, and that the supply would be quite equal to the consumption. It was quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated, that there had been some deficiency in the quantity of sugar imported in the present year up to the present time. That deficiency, however, had been by no means great. The right hon. Gentleman in making his statement had taken the imports to the end of the month of April only, but if he had included May, he would have found, that the arrivals in that month went far to remove the deficiency, to what extent he could not say exactly, as he had not yet received all the accounts for May. He would state what had been the arrivals in the two great ports London and Liverpool. He would take the first five months of the year 1841, and the first five months of the present year. In 1841, during the first five months, the imports of sugar from the West Indies and the Mauritius, had been 703,500 cwts, and from the East Indies 537,000, or 62,000 tons in the whole. In the present year, during the same time, the imports had been, from

	Cwts.
The West Indies and the Mauritius.	734,000
And from the East Indies	377,000
	1,111,000

or 55,000 tons, being 6,500 tons less upon the five months than the imports of the preceding year, and not 12,000 tons (which was right up to the end of April), as the right hon. Gentleman had stated; and that deficiency of 6,500 tons would be more than made up by the recent arrivals, and the sugar now on its way to this country. He was now speaking from returns of the customs furnished to him that morning from the two great ports of Liverpool and London. They found from inquiries they had made, that the arrivals this year would exceed the last, both from the West Indies, the Mauritius, and the East Indies; but with regard to the latter, it was founded on the supposition that the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman should not be known to be on the carpet in England, except by the same mail that carried out the news of its rejection. Supposing their calculations were correct, to about the same degree as their calculation of last year had turned out, they might expect 218,000, or 220,000 tons; he thought therefore therefore there was no apprehension to be entertained of a rise in the price of sugar, but that they might, on the contrary, look forward rather to a diminution, independently of the fact that the money price of this month was lower than that of last year,—lower, independently of the difference occasioned by the improved quality of the sugar. He hoped he had made good that part of the argument, which shewed that however important it was to give to the people of England sugar at a lower price than that of late years, still there was no such urgency in the case as there would be if there was a rise, or any apprehension of a rise, resulting from a deficiency of the supply of British-grown sugar. He would now address himself to a material alteration in the plan now submitted by the right hon. Gentleman, as compared with that proposed last year, and which the right hon. Gentleman had failed to notice. The right hon. Gentleman would leave a protection on British sugar of 10s., but he had discarded altogether the plan of his right hon. Friend of last year, which proposed to give a protection of 12s. as against the inferior description of sugar but 18s. as against the superior sorts. Here was six additional shillings of protection which the right hon. Gentleman had not noticed. That was not consistent with the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, or with the position he had taken. For he applied the 30s. duty, uniformly and indiscriminately, upon all the qualities of foreign sugar which would come in; leaving the British producer altogether without protection in that respect, contrary to his own intentions. That difference of duty was more than counterbalanced by the quality of the sugar that came from Cuba, in the manufacture of which cheap labour was employed to an extent that the British producer could not compete with. If they were to place a uniform rate of duty, ad valorem, on sugar from the West Indies and from Cuba, that would not be more unfavourable to the British producer, so far as he was competing with Cuba, than the plan by which the right hon. Gentleman had now overlooked—he would not say overthrown—the discriminating duty proposed last year by the right hon. Gentleman the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, between the inferior and superior sorts of sugar. The right hon. Gentleman's plan would give a protection altogether nominal to the British-grown sugar as against the foreign slave-grown sugar, which would be more than counterbalanced by the difference in value. Then the right hon. Gentleman assumed—and he was right in that assumption, though not in his hope that no other argument fatal to his proposition would be advanced—he had assumed that great stress would be laid on the effect which his motion, if successful, would have in stimulating the production of slave-labour sugar, and consequently giving encouragement to the slave-trade. He had said with great sincerity, he admitted, that if he could believe such an effect could be produced, he would be the last man to advance such a proposition. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that if by his proposition a stimulus should be given to the slave-trade, he would at once abandon it. And, certainly, if it were true that the slave-trade would be stimulated by the proposition, the right hon. Gentleman could not press it with the view of giving relief to the consumer, because he admitted there lay, on the other hand, an evil in the extension of the operation of slavery; but could there really be any doubt on the subject as to the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's proposition? The hon. and learned Member for Bath (Mr. Roebuck) had contended in the course of the night that we now encouraged the slave-trade in the Brazils as much as if the proposition to equalize the duties was adopted. If so, what became of the proposition? for the whole argument was to open a new trade with the Brazils, and give encouragement to their productions. They were told that the average duty on sugar in the British market was 38s. and 39s., and on bonded sugar 18s. and 19s., and could it be a question of dispute whether the opening of the market at 39s. to the man accustomed to sell at 19s. was or was not a boon, and, whether it would not induce him to send in larger quantities than he had done previously? He apprehended the right hon. Gentleman would not deny that it would be a very great boon. Even Mr. Bevan did not deny there would be a great stimulus given to speculations on the slave-trade upon the adoption of this plan. But the right hon. Gentleman then adopted an argument that was certainly calculated to excite surprise; he said that we should do better to make our change in the sugar duties first and afterwards proceed to negotiate, than to reserve the change in the duties until after the negotiation had taken place. Why, how did the matter stand? Assuming, for the purposes of argument, that they were going to negotiate with parties who had always shown the utmost unwillingness and reluctance to enter into stipulations, or a desire to escape from them when framed. Suppose it was in our hands to offer to those parties one great and valuable consideration, in the shape of opening a market where the producer of of the principal commodity of the Brazils and Cuba might obtain a price 50 per cent. higher than he had hitherto been able to obtain, the right hon. Gentleman would say, "Give away your consideration, abandon your boon, without receiving a return, or a quid pro quo." They knew that they could not hope to operate upon the motives of the parties with whom they were dealing—they knew that they had little to expect from their good feeling and that they looked to nothing but their interests; yet the right hon. Gentleman said, "Give away your consideration; and after having given it away, ask them to give you that which you know them to be most unwilling to concede." He could not conceive that any practical good could arise if such a course were adopted. The right hon. Gentleman said, with respect to this trade, "form all the relations that belong to it, allow parties to make their engagements upon the faith of the change in the sugar duties, and after having created these new interests, opened these channels of trade, and directed commercial enterprise into them, then affix a condition as to slavery and the slave-trade, and threaten to destroy the conditions you have made unless the condition you have affixed is agreed to." It was a material question for the committee to consider, whether, in the present state, they were or were not doing anything to affect the operations of the slave-trade. The hon. and learned Member for Bath had stated that our interference was worse than useless—that we had no more right to interfere with the slave-trade, if other nations liked to carry it on, than we had to interfere with domestic slavery, or any other institution; and that our interference ought to be abandoned. But was that the case? Was this country, after all the sacrifices it had made, to be reduced to the miserable conclusion that they had been worse than useless? Or was it to go on under the belief that those struggles, which had been made to repress the slave-trade, must be greater than ever, and would be ultimately successful? There was every wish in that House to go on in the course it had pursued; and now to adopt the plan of the right hon. Gentleman would involve the abandonment of that course. The most effectual discouragement that could be given to slavery and the slave-trade was the low price of sugar, and that low price in the markets of Europe was now acting in discouraging the business in the slave-trade. And that low price had been produced not merely by the exclusion of slave sugar from the British market, but likewise by the measures pursued by foreign Governments, from the high duties they levied for the protection of their own colonial sugar, and by the strong measure pursued by the German unions of doubling the price of foreign sugar. But the committee would learn with satisfaction that there was a great decrease of slaves from Cuba and the Brazils; and if that was the case, was it not a reason for postponing the consideration of a proposition that would have the effect of substituting a stimulus for the discouragement and depression that now prevailed with relation to the slave-trade? In the valuable work recently published by Mr. Bandinel, who had devoted so much time and research in the inquiry, there was information of an important character on this subject. He would not now repeat what had been stated by his right hon. Friend in an early part of the evening with reference to the strong feeling that was growing up in the countries themselves where the slave-trade flourished. They entertained an hostility to the slave-trade, and were desirous to allow emancipation to the negroes. He would now state to the committee the results of the information given by Mr. Bandinel, and he imagined it would be allowed that the amount of insurance on slaves was a criterion by which to judge of the consequences of the measures that had been adopted to repress the slave-trade. Some persons thought that all the measures adopted by this country, the loss of life that had occurred, the sending cruising squadrons both to the Brazils, Cuba, and the coast of Africa, had produced no effect, but Mr. Bandinel said, "that the rate of insurance on slave-trade undertakings becomes higher in Cuba, so that now it amounts to 40 per cent." He also gave the amount of decrease in the importation of slaves to Cuba and the Brazils. It appeared that in 1817, and the following years, until the conclusion of the treaty in 1835, the importation of slaves to Cuba was estimated at 40,000 a year. In 1835 the treaty was established with Spain, which included the right of search, the equipment of vessels, and many other valuable things; and the consequence of it, and the severe measures taken in respect of the British markets, was, that in l838 the importation, which had been 40,000 a year, was reduced to 28,000; in 1839 to 25,000; and in 1840 it was further reduced to 14,470, or one-third of the number that had been imported at a period only six years before. The case of the Brazils was not immediately connected with Spain or the Spanish treaty, but was regulated by the low state of the foreign markets, and the low state of the produce of those foreign countries. The effect, however, in the Brazils was still more striking, in 1838, the importation of slaves into the port of Rio amounted to 47,000; and it was estimated that an equal number was imported into the other ports of Brazils, giving an importation in the year of 94,000 slaves. In 1839, the importation into Rio was 29,000; and the entire number in the year was reduced to 56,000. In 1840, only 7,000 were imported into Rio, and the total estimate, which in 1838 was 94,000, was reduced in the space of two years to 14,000, or nearly one-sixth of the former number. Now he asked whether those were not most important facts; and whether it was not most important that they should not, for any doubtful or limited advantages, interpose in a course of events so satisfactory, and so far beyond the hopes of Sir F. Buxton and others, who had written upon the subject of the slave-trade, by the adoption of a measure that would at once apply a stimulus of a powerful description to the pursuit of the slave-trade, by creating a price and even a high price in the markets of Great Britain, instead of a low price, that did not pay, in the markets of continental Europe. Therefore, he maintained, that the argument which was advanced last year and obtained the assent of an adverse Parliament was now much strengthened. There was a still better prospect than there was last year of an increased supply from our own possessions. The apprehensions that were entertained, and which the evidence proved, and were admitted by those who were apprised of the real state of the question, as to the stimulus that would be given to the slave-trade by the adoption of such a measure as that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, still maintained all their force; but there was this great difference; last year they were told, that the slave-trade was carried on on an increasing scale, they now know the contrary; and that the career which this country had embarked in with so much honour, had been in no inconsiderable degree successful. They were sure of still further success, from the fact of the decreased importation of slaves to Cuba and the Brazils in 1840, as compared with that of the preceding years; and the committee was now to determine whether, under these circumstances, this country should adopt a plan that would have the effect of checking a course of events so satisfactory as this, and withholding the produce and ultimate attainment of the great project for which it had made such sacrifices. He must say, if there was one thing more than another likely, as they might conjecture, to impede the success of any negotiation for the abandonment of slavery or the slave-trade, or to have a bad influence upon the parties in Spain and the Brazils, it must be the knowledge, that there were persons in that House disposed to open the British markets to the produce of Cuba and the Brazils. He was far from imput- ing to the right hon. Gentleman the remotest desire to interpose any such obstruction between the plan of the Government, and the attainment of their object. He knew the right hon. Gentleman desired as sincerely as any person on either side of the House, that that object should be carried out: but, at the same time, he was sure the right hon. Gentleman must agree with him, that it would have a most unfortunate effect upon the policy which had been pursued by his right hon. Friend in respect of this most important subject, if it were to be believed for a moment by those foreign powers with whom they had relations upon this matter, that there was any probability, that the British Legislature would adopt the measure of the right hon. Gentleman, and open its markets, give away its valuable consideration, and trust to succeed in its desires after that consideration was gone. He, however, thought, that upon commercial principles, the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman—he did not speak of its precise details—or some proposition that would admit of competition between British and foreign sugar, would be a fair and reasonable proposition; but, at the same time, keeping in view the higher considerations involved in this question, he looked back with great gratification to the fact, that a Parliament that gave its support to the policy of the late Government did, notwithstanding, withhold its support, even in the hour of extreme need, from the resolution on the sugar duties proposed by that Government, and he must look forward with still greater satisfaction, that the present Parliament, with a larger and more decisive majority, would show its determination not to pursue the course of policy which the right hon. Gentleman had marked out, but to endeavour, in approaching the commercial question of the sugar duties, to approach it in such a manner, as to have in view the good of the consumers in this country, in conjunction with the attainments of interests most important to humanity at large.

Mr. Hume

thought, that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of Trade had just found out that all Sir F. Buxton's statements on this subject were erroneous; but he had had experience enough to know, that in directing our efforts to matters beyond our control we had neglected matters within our control. They had done evil in the first place and evil in the second place, and had neglected their own population by adopting a most erroneous policy. They ought now to consider this question in a commercial point of view, and see how far they could afford relief by the proposed reduction of these duties. The right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government must admit that any protective duty was a tax upon the public at large. But they were now taxing an article of the first necessity, and giving a duty of 3d. per pound to the producer, and 3d. per pound more to the revenue. The right hon. Baronet had quite forgotten the estimate which was laid on the Table of the House last year, showing the difference in the price of Brazilian and English sugar, and in no year had the difference been greater than in last year. The increased price which the British consumer had to pay was not given to the proprietor, but laid out in labour in the West Indies. The high price which sugar bore in the British market enabled the black labourer in the West Indies to obtain high wages, and not one farthing went into the pockets of the proprietor. Indeed, the black labourer in the West Indies could gain as much in seven hours as three Englishmen gained here in sixteen hours. The people were deprived of the advantage of the wholesome beverage coffee by the high price of sugar. He was not one of those who wished to discard our colonies, but he was one who was anxious that the colonies should be made to defray their own expenses, and not to be as now a burden upon the mother country. Much difficulty had occurred in getting a sufficient number of labourers to work the plantations. This should have been taken into consideration before emancipation was granted. It ought to have been known beforehand that free labourers would not do so much work as slaves. At the time of discussing the Emancipation Bill the advocates of the measure refused to apply the ordinary principles which governed human nature to the blacks. The House was told that the produce would be greater, and at less expense, than under slavery. But the emancipated blacks could get larger wages per day than able Englishmen could. One day's work, of not more than seven hours, from the black man was equal in reward to three days of sixteen hours work of an Englishman. How then, could it have been expected that a man, who, in two days, earned enough to support him during the week, would work like an Englishman, who had to labour incessantly to procure a bare subsistence. He was of opinion that there ought to be a fair competition with foreign sugar in the colonial market. It was unjust, on the part of the House, to tax the people to preserve monopoly. He called on Government to agree to an imposition of 50 per cent. until the colonies could be freed from the shackles under which they laboured, and then this protection to be reduced, year by year, until it came to nothing. He considered that to keep up the enormous duty on sugar was only second in injustice to keeping up the Corn-laws. The putting forward the question of the slave-trade was a mere pretence, and ought not to be listened to for a moment. It was sheer humbug to talk of the fear of encouraging the slave-trade by admitting Brazil and Cuba sugar, when we allowed tobacco, rice, and other slave-grown articles to be imported. Instead of attending to the West-India slaves it would be better if the right hon. Gentleman attended to the slaves at home. The industrious classes could not get animal food, and it was but just they should have the means of getting a bit of sugar to sweeten their coffee. The right hon. Gentleman said he could not take off the duty because the loss to the revenue would be too great. Now, he was of opinion that if a reasonable reduction was made, that consumption would be not only increased by a million or a million and a half of cwts., but the revenue would also be much benefitted. If the right hon. Baronet admitted foreign sugar at 30s., such a result would take place. He was satisfied that Government with respect to the sugar duties was proceeding on an erroneous principle. He considered that the people of England were not fairly treated in the matter. He considered that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not come fairly to the question, because from his position he must be interested in supporting the present state of things. The right hon. Gentleman had large interests in the West Indies; and if so, he did not see how it was possible for parties so situated to divest themselves of bias in dealing with the question. Nothing, in his judgment, was calculated to afford a full regeneration to the country but a complete return to the principles of free-trade. He should certainly give his support to the motion of the right hon. Gentleman now before the House.

Mr. P. M. Stewart

said, there had been three propositions laid before the House. One from the Government, for the continuation of the not protective but prohibitory duties; the second, in the opposite extreme, came from the hon. Member for Bath, who, regardless of the value of our colonies, had brought forward a motion which had been disposed of in a way commensurate to its merits. And the third was that now before the House brought forward by the late President of the Board of Trade, who asked for such a modification of the duties as would admit of competition between British and foreign sugar. Whilst he agreed in the principle of the right hon. Gentleman's motion, he differed from the figures which the right hon. Gentleman had used. A good deal had been said on the subject of giving encouragement to slavery, and expressions had been used to the effect, that this was the mere cant of slavery; but it should be recollected, when speaking of the cheap sugars of Cuba and Brazil, that these sugars were produced in slave-importing and slave-growing colonies. There was this peculiarity connected with colonial sugar, that the planters had to compete with other countries who still carried on the horrible traffic in slaves. There was certainly some prospect, he was happy to think, that that peculiarity would yet be removed; and that the Government would be able to induce those other countries to abandon the traffic. That morning he had found on his table bills founded on treaties entered into, and he trusted, that in accordance with the sentiments expressed by his noble Friend the late Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Viscount Palmerston), they would succeed in forcing other states to follow the example we had set them. He would leave that part of the subject, and ask, as a West-India proprietor, was it treating the West-India proprietors fairly to force them into competition with those who continued the slave-trade, after having made the colonists give up their interests in slaves. He wanted no continuance of high fiscal prohibitions. He merely held, that the West-India proprietors were entitled to a differential duty to the extent of 15s., which had become necessary from their interference with their colonies. They should not drive the colonies into compe- tition with slave-trading countries. If they were to be driven into competition, all he asked was, that they should get into it on fair terms. With regard to colonial spirits, they would recollect, that colonial sugar was prohibited from being used in our breweries and distilleries, and that also colonial spirits were prohibited from the great duties imposed. The colonies were now looked upon as integral parts of the kingdom, and colonial spirits ought to be treated as British spirits. The effect of high differential duties on colonial spirits was observable in the quantities consumed in these kingdoms. In England, where the differential duty was 1s. 6d., the consumption was one-third of the whole spirits consumed. In Scotland it was only one six-hundredth part, and in Ireland one twelve-hundredth part; but in Scotland and Ireland the duty was 5s. 8d The West-India proprietors would enter into competition with the world on fair terms, but they protested against being thrown into the arena with those who possessed all the advantages derivable from slave traffic and free-trade. But for his own part, as regarded the present system of duties, which were entirely prohibitory, he differed from it completely.

Lord J. Russell hoped

he should be pardoned by his hon Friend who had just sat down if he observed, that his hon. Friend had great difficulty to reconcile the opinions he had expressed favourable to free-trade with those he had given to the House as a West-India proprietor. There were, perhaps, other parties in the House, whose sentiments on this subject were not more consistent. It appeared, that the present was an occasion upon which the House might well consider if an opportunity was not offered of proving that they sincerely wished to diminish the price of articles of great and general consumption. They had been told, that that was the object of the great change in contemplation. Yet, though that was the object which the Government had so nearly at heart—though that was the object which that House wished to accomplish, there was, somehow or other, the greatest difficulty in obtaining that object with respect to any great and primary article of consumption. With respect to some articles of great importance to the working classes, as forming part of their weekly and yearly expenditure, other Parliaments had granted relief. Upon the articles of salt, leather, coals, and candles, a reduction or abolition of taxes had taken place, either as proposed by the Government, or as suggested by the Opposition, and agreed to by the Government. With respect to those great articles of consumption which the House had now to consider, and which formed necessary articles of consumption among the labouring classes, they had begun with bread, and they had found they could not make any great reduction. They had found, that it was necessary to be independent of foreign nations—that, unfortunately, much as they wished to relieve the people in that first great article of food, they were not able to make a great and important alteration in the Corn-laws. They had then come to articles formerly part of the weekly expenditure, and daily food of the people, such as cheese and butter, but, unfortunately, they had found, that the interest of the revenue was so much concerned, that it was impossible to make any reduction in those duties. There was one article, indeed, in which they had been able to make an alteration —in the article of cattle and meat they had been able to exchange high and prohibitory duties for those which were lower; but with respect to cattle, they had, unfortunately, heard the assurance, that the people were not likely to derive present benefit in the reduced price of meat. Another article of great consumption was then before them, namely, sugar—an article most important, considering the improved habits of the people; habits which a Legislature undoubtedly ought to encourage. He was sorry to hear, that upon this article, the people must be contented with the good wishes of the Legislature, and the proclamation that had been made, of an anxious desire to reduce the price of subsistence. The duty on many articles, say some five or six hundred, had been reduced, which did not enter into the consumption of the poor in any way, and which, so far as they affected the real comforts of the working classes, were but of little importance. But this being an article of great consumption, they found a fresh difficulty in the way—the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, was unable to consent to any alteration of existing duties, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, proposed the continuance of what was a prohibitory duty—a duty which was admitted to be prohibitory, and which was contrary to all the principles professed by the Government. Was it not now time for the House and for those who were not connected with the West Indies, to consider the thing fairly, and whether there was not now an opportunity of doing that good which other opportunities had been lost of effecting. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of Trade had stated what was the price of sugar without duty during the latter end of the past year and the beginning of the present, that in the latter part of 1841 the price of Cuba sugar was 39s. per cwt., and during the first few months of the present year it was 38s. and some odd pence. The right hon. Gentleman had made out that the price of foreign sugar would be about 54s., and the difference between the two about 7s. 10d., or about three farthings per pound. Now, that sum of three farthings per pound which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to make so light of, was an important consideration in the weekly expenditure of a poor man. With respect to the great importation of sugar into this country from the East Indies, the Mauritius, and the West Indies, his argument of last year was, that it was impossible to ensure that those calculations would be correct; but that, at all events, an increase of price would be prevented. That argument was much ridiculed at that time; but this year he had had the happiness to hear it urged with respect to other articles. The First Lord of the Treasury had said, that if the price of meat were not diminished, it was a great thing to prevent it from rising higher. That was his (Lord John and yet it had been held at that time as utterly ridiculous. Then the right hon. Gentleman had put forth two grounds why he could not assent to the motion— one was the loss to the revenue of upwards of 600,000l., and according to another estimate of 400,000l. Let the House remember, that with respect to the tariff generally, they had to consider how, by sacrificing a portion of revenue, they might best benefit the people. The right hon two millions and a-half, and I propose to lay on taxes to the amount of four millions three hundred thousand pounds, and the difference between the two million and a half and the four millions odd will enable me to afford a great opening to the commerce of the country, and to reduce the price of subsistence." If that were the plan, was there an article in which it could be better or more advantageously followed than in sugar? It might, he thought, be fairly maintained, that nothing in the whole range of the customs duties that were proposed to be reduced would more benefit the people of this country, or more tend to encourage improvement in their habits than a reduction in the article of sugar. What was stated by the petition of last year proceeding from the coffee-house keepers of London? They stated that the use of coffee had of late years so much increased that whereas twenty-five years ago there were but ten coffee-houses in the metropolis, there was now about 1,800, and more than 180,000 persons per day now frequented those places—not only labouring men, but clerks and persons employed in merchant's houses. At such houses persons were enabled to procure necessary refreshment at a small charge, and at the same time avoid temptation to inebriation. Was it not of the greatest advantage to cultivate such habits? But then, to oppose the comfort and well-being of the community which might be thus promoted, they were met by the argument about the slave-trade. But was it said that the face of the people was so much set against that trade, that they would not admit any article produced by it? No, they did not say that. But was it said that they would not favour or countenance any new article the product of slave labour? By no means. There was the coffee of Brazils, which was now subjected to a duty of 15d and that duty, it was well known, was evaded. They did not try to put an end to that evasion, but they reduced the 5d. to 8d. on behalf of slave-grown coffee of Brazils. It was not shocking, it was not immoral, to favour the slave-trade with regard to coffee, but denunciations were thundered against it with respect to sugar. In regard to coffee it was harmless—in regard to sugar it was atrocious to do the same thing. There was another article to which he had adverted on a former occasion, and that was far from wishing to cast blame on the measures which had been taken with respect to that article; but at the same time the fact was not the less true, that it was the produce of slave labour, and came from a place where slavery existed in its most horrible form. What then became of the virtuous indignation manifested by the opposite side? It was, no doubt, very desirable to put an end to a very high restrictive duty, in order to facilitate the importation of that article; but he thought, that if a comparison were made between the two commodities — if the comforts of the people were to be consulted—it could not be denied, that a relaxation in favour of sugar would conduce far more to the interests of the community than any alteration which the Government could devise with respect to copper. He could not see why all the objections to the slave-trade should be confined to the single article of sugar. He might, perhaps, be able to understand their objections, if it had been alleged, that the slave-trade had increased to a great pitch, and that by this measure they had a prospect of putting an end to it immediately; but nothing of the kind was alleged. On the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman opposite had told them, quoting that most useful work of Mr. Bandinel, that the slave-trade had decreased. But why? From the efforts made by our navy on the coast of Africa; by treaties made with foreign powers with respect to the slave-trade; means far different from those by which hon. Gentlemen opposite sought now to carry out that object. There was no reason to suppose, that these efforts for the suppression of the slave-trade were likely to be diminished; on the contrary, there was every prospect that they would be increased. He entirely agreed with what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, that our efforts for the extinction of the slave-trade have not been unsuccessful. Whatever increase that trade might have met with at particular periods, yet the constant efforts of a power such as Great Britain endeavouring to combine with all the other powers in Europe, by the exertions of her navy on the coasts of Africa, Brazil, and Cuba, must tend in a great measure to limit and fetter, and he hoped ultimately to destroy that traffic. But while he avowed this opinion, he could not see why, admitting as we did other articles the produce of slave labour; nay, being about to give additional facilities to their introduction, measures should be taken to add to the miseries and oppressions of our own people by debarring them from the use of sugar. He trusted, that the House would, on this occasion, endeavour to carry into effect those principles to which they had already given their support. Let them reflect what a disappointment it would be to the people of this country, if, having to submit to the infliction of an Income-tax, besides additional taxes of another kind imposed in Ireland, and having a reduction in various articles proposed to them in compensation, they should find at last the promises which had been made to them utterly unavailing; if whilst they found the imposition of the burden certain, they should find the promises of relief which had been held out to them utterly disregarded.

Mr. Roebuck

said, the speech of the noble Lord was more than he had been prepared for; he now stood forward as the advocate of a large reduction in the duty upon one of the prime articles of consumption. The noble Lord was extremely anxious to lower the price of food, and at the same time maintain the revenue. The noble Lord threw out insinuations from which he wished to have inferences drawn that he was anxious to diminish the price of the food of the people. That was the first assumption of the noble Lord, and it was one that was unwarranted by anything that he had ever done. There was no question but the position of the right hon. Baronet was full of difficulties —every hon. Member had his herring upon the occasion. The hon. Member for Renfrew had his herring amongst others, and according to him they might touch everything except colonial produce. The hon. Member had spoken explicitly —he avowed that he wanted the revival of slavery. [" No, no."] Then he did not know the meaning of the English language. What did the hon. Member mean when he talked of loosening the arm of industry in the West-India colonies if he did not mean a revival of slavery? He could not understand anything from the speech of the hon. Gentleman, but that he wished for the re-establishment of slave labour in the West-Indies. ["Oh,oh!"] It was easy to cry "Oh, oh !" but were they to tax the labouring population of this country 2,000,000l. or 3,000,000l. for the benefit of the West India proprietors? It was all very well that each party in the House should have a stalking-horse—with some it might be the mystification of an 8s. fixed duty on corn, or a difference or discriminating duty of 10s. upon sugar, which he believed to be something like the 8s. duty upon corn. The present duties were 63s. and 24s., being a difference of 39s., and it was proposed to keep up that distinction between colonial and foreign sugar. This was the question he wanted to have answered. "Would the differential duty of 10s. keep out foreign sugar? If it would not do that, would it put out colonial sugar? [" No, no."] Here then was a hocus-pocus. ["Hear, hear."] He would show it. Foreign sugar, the noble Lord said, was at 24s., colonial at 39s., and on the plan of duties which he proposed there would be a difference between the price of foreign and colonial sugar in the English market of just 8s. Now, he wanted to know what was the meaning of this? Was it intended as a protection to the colonial interest? It could only be that by keeping out foreign sugar: if it let in foreign sugar, it could be no protection to the colonists. Surely then it was a fallacy to say, that the proposition of the noble Lord was to give the people of England cheap sugar and the colonist protection at the same time. He said the noble Lord could not make that out. Were they to have protection or no protection? If they were to have protection, then they could have no cheap sugar; if they had cheap sugar, they could have no protection. The existing system, as well as the system to be substituted for it, was a system by which the people of England were taxed for the benefit of a small body of the colonists; and he did say that the noble Lord, finding that this article was one of great importance, that it was next in importance after corn and meat—nay, he greatly inclined to think it was of greater importance even than meat itself —ought to have offered some proposition with respect to it by which the burdens of the people might have been lightened, the supply increased and the price reduced; and yet the noble Lord objected to the proposal which he made for supplying the people with sugar at a cheaper rate. He would now address himself to the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, who also had objected to his proposal. First, then, the right hon. Gentleman said, that he apprehended danger to the revenue from the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman; but how could the right hon. Gentleman apply the same objection to that which he made? It was clear he could not, because assuming what would not be denied, that no diminution, at least in the quantity brought in, would take place, whether they levied 24s. from the colonial or from the foreign sugar imported, made no difference as far as the revenue was concerned. If anything, on his plan there would be an increased revenue, because there would be an increased supply. The advantage, then, of the plan was, that it would confer a great benefit on the people, and would yield the same amount, if not more, to the revenue. But the right hon. Gentleman had expressed a doubt whether lowering the duty to 24s. would not hurt the revenue; he went so far as a doubt; but, further than that, he felt he was dealing with a delusion; the right hon. Gentleman felt that he could not answer the arguments in favour of his plan, and the right hon. Gentleman did not answer them. But the right hon. Gentleman chose to say, nevertheless, that he knew an answer to those arguments and could answer them; he should like to know how the right hon. Gentleman would excuse to the people his opposition to a proposal for lowering the price of this most necessary article? But then the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the interests of the West-India colonies. He was prepared to say, that if the benefit of the people of England demanded it, he would sacrifice the West India-colonies. [" Hear, hear."] Why not? How were those colonies of any benefit to the people of England? A set of barren islands, which we dearly maintained with the pith and sinews of the people of this country! Jamaica to the bottom of the sea, and all the Antilles after it, rather than the interests of the people should be sacrificed. [Laughter.] The noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, might laugh, but he wanted the noble Lord, or some hon. Member, to explain to him— he saw many hon. Gentlemen opposite who were connected with the West Riding of Yorkshire, with Staffordshire, and with Warwickshire, he asked them also to explain to him—what single benefit had ever been derived to the great manufacturing interests from our West-India colonies? What benefit was it to the manufacturers, that they should pay dear for their sugar, in order that they might have it to say that they had a colony called Jamaica? Since we had possessed these colonies, they had been a source of nothing but war and expenditure. He knew that we had fought for the colonies, and that we conquered them from the enemies of this country; but what was the benefit of them? That was what he wanted the right hon. Gentleman to tell the country and the House. He was not prepared to vote a single farthing for the benefit of these colonies at the expense of the labouring classes. Let no man go out to vote for the proposition of the Government, without reflecting that in doing so he was voting protection to the West-India colonies at the expense of the health and strength of the people of England; that he was making the workingman pay dearly (as the noble Lord aptly said) for his sugar in his weekly bill; that he was disabling him from obtaining this necessary article, though he laboured in the sweat of his brow from the rising of the sun until it set, and for many hours after it set. He wished he could see in his place the hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. Ferrand), who was usually so eloquent on the subject of the manufacturers, that he might tell the hon. Member to go to his constituents and ask them what advantages they, as manufacturers, had ever got, or could get, from the West-Indian gentry. He would ask the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) for something better in the way of argument than that flimsy thing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had put forth that evening, when he said that he was about to commence some new means of putting down the slave trade at an expense of 4,000,000l. per annum— an expense not to be borne by the rich, but by the poor; for to that amount were they taxed to support the monopoly of the West-India colonists. Yes, he said it was from the poor that the amount was taken, for if they subtracted from the whole amount derived to the revenue on the head of sugar that part which was due to the consumption of the rich, they would find it was but as a drop in that mighty ocean. And for what object was this to be done? For the sake of putting down the slave-trade—a pretence, as they well knew it was, that they were about to tax the poor in their very vitals.

Mr. P. M. Stewart

wished to explain, that the hon. and learned Member had said, that he had confessed himself a free-trader in everything but colonial produce. Now, he said directly the opposite, for he stated that he agreed to the principle of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere), and that if his figures had been different—proving what he wanted— he should have voted with him. Another misrepresentation of the hon. and learned Member, and a rather heavy one, was, that he had said, he was for the restoration of slavery by the British nation. Now, he had said directly to the contrary; he had expressed a hope that they would be able to get Cuba and Brazil to abolish slavery, and that so they would untie for the West-Indians the arm which they had tied up. There never was a more unfounded statement than the hon. and learned Member had made with respect to his arguments.

Mr. Bernal

said, it required a more than ordinary degree of patience to hear certain statements, and certain arguments, or rather attempts at argument, such as he sometimes was obliged to listen to; in fact, he felt that to bear all with patience would be much more like the stolidity of an animal than the spirit of a man. The hon. and learned Member for Bath was a philosopher—he was an enemy to circumlocution—he was the sworn foe of hocus-pocus. In that he would join with him; he wished to have this question put on the footing of fair argument, to deal in a straightforward way to meet the hon. and learned Gentleman on his own grounds. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to be imbued with one sentiment—perish Jamaica!—drown the Antilles!—sink the colonies ! Such was the hon. and learned Gentleman's wish; and to such a mode of treating such a subject, he confessed he scarcely knew any arguments to oppose. He said, however, prosper the Antilles! Flourish Jamaica ! Long live Great Britain ! Those were his sentiments. He held these sentiments, because he knew, and the right hon. and learned Members knew, that the well-being of the whole empire depended upon the prosperity of the parts. He looked not upon the dependencies of this country as something foreign and alien to it; he looked upon them all, whether it be Jamaica or Malta, or Gibraltar, in the light of frustra of a cone—as much component parts of Great Britain as the county of York itself. The whole of the hon. Gentleman's argument was built upon a fallacy. The hon. Gentleman talked of the expense of the Government of Jamaica. Was the hon. Member ignorant that Jamaica raised taxes of her own? Jamaica had her export duties, her poll taxes, her parochial taxes, and out of the general fund thus collected the soldiers were paid. He did not mean to deny, that now and then a regiment was sent to Jamaica, the expense of which fell upon the mother-country; but was not the same the case with regard to Scotland or any other part of the empire? [An hon. Member: Scotland pays her share of the taxes."] Scotland pays taxes? Of course she does, and so does Jamaica. Jamaica paid the salary of her governor, and, if he mistook not, the expense of her Customs officers, and also of her Excise officers. His hon. Friend behind him had been misguided by this fallacy. That Jamaica was a part of this country could not enter into his philosophical and geographical mind. If this was the doctrine of the year 1842, he looked upon it as wholly illusory. If he were asked what had been the use of Jamaica, he should be tempted to reply—Great Britain did arrive at a great and famous pitch of prosperity. To that prosperity trade and navigation had in his belief greatly, if not mainly, tended. He was one of those who considered that in that flourishing navigation, that commercial empire, and that wide spread and extensive marine, the vital energies of this country were bound up. And by all means support that navigation and that trade with the distant and widely-spread colonies of this empire. He might be mistaken in his views, but after the many years' experience he had had of the subject, at all events he did not believe that he could be mistaken on false grounds; and this he could say, that he was honestly mistaken, and that he was not arguing in insincerity. By the passing of that most important measure the Emancipation Act, our West-India colonies had been placed in a singular situation; they were not prepared for that sudden step, by which every thing was disturbed and changed, by which the system on which agricultural labour had been provided was completely overthrown. He repeated, that those colonies of the empire, Jamaica, Guiana, and others, which were affected by the Emancipation Act, were not prepared suddenly with labour sufficient for the culture of the hundreds of thousands of acres of land which were now, if he might use the ex- pression, lying in a state of spontaneous cultivation in those colonies. Would it be supposed, therefore, that he desired to maintain the system of slavery? No. But would it be attemptsd to be alleged that the colonists of Jamaica were on a footing with the agriculturists of Yorkshire, of Berkshire, of Suffolk, in regard to the means they possessed of acquiring labour? Had not the agriculturists in this country a means of acquiring labour which the Jamaica colonists had not? From what might perhaps be called the happy condition of the labourer in Jamaica, he might be said to be almost independent of the soil; he required little for his wants, and little labour therefore to provide for them, for two or three hours' work a day was, he had often told hon. Members, sufficient with the soil of the tropics to provide all the provisions which the Jamaica labourer required. Did hon. Members think that the Berkshire peasant or the Suffolk labourer would cultivate the soil were it not that the fear of starvation was before his eyes? Would he follow the plough for his own amusement, like some of the gentlemen farmers they had heard of? The case of the English farm labourer was very different from that of the black labourer in the colonies. He had land, which, if not his in fee-simple, was his by the right of custom. Do what you would, he would still consider that land as his own, and if you attempted to deprive him of it, he did not think he would be criminally an offender, but he certainly would not like to contemplate the consequences of any attempt at summary ejectment. This was really the state of the case as regarded the West-India interest. The poor devil of a West-Indian was not like (so to speak) the rich devil of an English agriculturist. The West-Indian formed one of a rope of sand. But touch but the toe of any one of the hon. Gentlemen who formed the landed interest here, and the whole body vibrated as if from an electric shock through the empire. The West-India interest was unfortunately a part of the community in a very different position. They might be trampled on. He could not understand the hon. and learned Member for Bath when he talked of this or that measure being adopted for the purpose of soothing or of captivating the West-India interest. The hon. Member well knew that the West-India interest was like a football, knocked from one side of the House, and from one part of the empire, to another. Unfortunately many discussions of late had been made to turn on the West-India interest. One time it was upon the Legislature of Jamaica, another time it was upon the sugar question; but certainly his hon. Friend had, in his philosophical view of the question, omitted many points that were material to its full comprehension. There were certain points of inequality of which every man at all acquainted with the subject was aware. For instance, the brewers and distillers of this country found themselves able to resort to the sugar market, it having been found that sugar was an excellent ingredient in the making of ale and porter and other drinks; and it was also found that spirits in a white state, and molasses, might ingeniously and advantageously be introduced into the making of spirits. But the moment such a subject was ventilated in that House—he repeated ventilated in the House; it was, he believed, a well-understood and perfectly legal term—the moment that subject was even whispered in the House, then came the electric shock to which he had alluded, and again were the poor West-Indians kicked about like a football, by Berkshire, by Suffolk, and by Norfolk —by the light soils and by the heavy soils, and all because it seemed likely that sugar was going to be admitted into the breweries and the distilleries. He did not pretend to know the law as it stood, but he knew that many persons well qualified to form an opinion maintained that those ingredients could not be legally introduced into our distilleries and our breweries. At this very moment this was among the reasons why the brewers and distillers did not assist the West-India interest to the extent which they might. He was sorry to say, too, that the price of sugar had been very much exaggerated. No man had more feeling of sympathy than he had for his fellow-citizens, but when he was told that a reduction of three farthings a pound in sugar would contribute to the relief of the poor artisan at Burnley or the weaver in Lancashire—to the actual relief of him who got 3s. a-week, while the black labourer in the West Indies could get 10s., he could scarcely repress a smile at a proposition so absurd. No relief could possibly be experienced under a reduction of 3d. or 4d. per pound; and he felt bound to tell hon. Members, that if they admitted all they could get from the Brazils, from the Floridas (for there, too, sugar was produced), or from Cuba, they would never arrive at their desired object of lowering the price by 3d. or 4d. per pound.

Sir R. Peel

said, it was quite evident, that if this debate were permitted to proceed there would be on the other side of the House a considerable degree of heat and asperity, quite inconsistent with the calmness of deliberation. He thought it was his duty to prevent that by rising to counsel moderation in the combined phalanx of his opponents, and pour oil on the troubled waters. He hoped the House would come to this practical conclusion, that by far the safest course they could pursue would be to vote for the proposition of her Majesty's Government, and leave the question in the hands in which it ought to be. It was perfectly evident, that to adopt any rival proposition would produce no satisfaction whatever. He did not speak against, but he voted against the motion of the hon. Member for Bath, for he felt, that calm reason was scarcely necessary to discuss the principles it embodied. The hon. Member for Montrose announced his wish to maintain our colonial dependencies, but said, that his object was to see each colony paying for itself. He apprehended that the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Bath to admit these colonies to an unlimited competition with slave-possessing colonies, was not the way to insure that object. The hon. Member said, that if the weavers of Lancashire were asked what benefit they derived from the duty on foreign sugar, they would assuredly say, "None." But he put it to the hon. Member, whether that was the test by which any great question affecting the country was to be decided? If he asked a Lancashire weaver what benefit he derived from Jamaica, and that his reply was "None," ought that to induce him to abandon Jamaica. Was the hon. Gentleman prepared to test the advantages derived from our connection with India in the same manner? Or should we abandon our colonial dependencies altogether upon the assurance of a distressed weaver of Lancashire, that he was not aware that any benefit was conferred upon this country by those dependencies? If that were the principle of the hon. and learned Gentleman, it was quite clear, that in order to conform to it, we must resolve our power into the narrow limits of our own resources, and try what England could do against the world, after having abandoned all those dependencies which she had established to her glory. It was not merely a material or pecuniary benefit that was to be regarded in the loss of our colonies. England was governed by higher considerations, and could never be guilty of such ingratitude, such a breach of faith, as to forsake those dependencies that she had fostered and protected. He asked whether the Government was not entitled to demand the confidence of the House upon the subject. The proposal was, that the existing duties should continue for one year longer. He was referring to the annual vote upon the sugar duties, which did not prevent, but compelled the consideration of the question in another year. The question, then, upon which the sense of the House would be taken was, whether or not the sugar duties should continue for another year? He asked, whether the Government had taken a course respecting the commercial tariff of the country which disentitled it to the support and confidence of the House. It was said, that all minor interests were sacrificed, but that where any great political interest intervened, there was deference and submission. He did not think that the Government was fairly chargeable with such partiality. Much had been said about the West-India interest, and it was said, that the Government supported a monopoly out of deference to it, but certainly nothing could equal the folly of a Government that could act improperly and unjustly for the purpose of conciliating the support of the West-Indian interest. In the unreformed Parliament the West-India interest may have been powerful, but the Reform Bill struck a great blow at that interest; and he believed that, in point of political influence, no interest at the present moment was weaker than that of the West Indies. The noble Lord had spoken of the tariff as if the consumer in this country would derive no advantage from it. The noble Lord said, that it did nothing material with respect to meat. He would only remind the noble Lord, that he had been ten years in office, and had never proposed any alteration in the tariff. The noble Lord did bring forward a sort of 8s. duty on corn; but during the whole ten years that he remained in office, did he ever intimate his intention of reducing the duty on foreign cattle or provisions? In reference to the measure which he had introduced he knew that the apprehensions entertained regarding it were greatly exaggerated; but he had held no equivocal language on the subject. The price of meat was high; but he had always said that there were physical difficulties which constituted a protection to the meat of this country, and which would prevent any great reduction in its price. When he heard that the apprehensions were so great, that the price of cattle had fallen 25 per cent., he thought it was time to interfere. He adverted to this, because the noble Lord had talked of his fearing to offend a powerful interest, and he wished to contrast the course which he had pursued with that of the late Government—a course in which he ran greater risk than any Minister ever ran, and he saw that nearly a hundred of those Members who had given him their confidence were on this particular point prepared to vote against him, and he thought that in adhering to his resolution he had given sufficient proof that he was prepared to incur the risk for the purpose of benefitting the people. He contrasted that course with the one pursued by the noble Lord. The noble Lord might say, that he had great reforms in contemplation. But when the noble Lord brought forward his proposal for a fixed duty in corn, there was not a whisper of any reduction of the duties on the other articles of provisions. The noble Lord now produced a proposition in reference to the sugar duties different from that produced last year, and the noble Lord surely would not blame those who attacked and negatived that proposition which now appeared not to be a perfect Minerva, sprung at once from the brain of Jupiter. The present proposition of the noble Lord would cause a loss to the revenue of from 500,000l. to 600,000l. The hon. Member for Weymouth seemed to think that a reduction of ¾d. in the price of sugar, would be a small matter; but if they argued against a reduction because it was small, they would never have any reductions in the tariff. But viewing the matter abstractedly, these small savings constituted great savings on the whole. Each small saving would tell upon another small saving, and therefore they would propagate themselves. The right hon. Gentleman said, that they ought to take off this tax, because it was a burden on the people. If they took that as a prin- ciple, he would venture to say that there would be a deficit even with the Income tax of 2,000,000l. He had no doubt, if he were asked the question, whether he would think it right to reduce the duty on wool, if he looked at the question abstractedly, he would say that he did. If he were asked the same question as to the duty on cotton wool, he would probably give the same answer. If they raised a duty of 600,000l. from sugar, which they ought to sacrifice, they would lose 800,000l. on wool and cotton wool. If he took the excise duty on glass, he would venture to say, that there was not one article, the reduction of duty on which would confer such great benefit on the people. So of every duty, if he looked at it simply and abstractedly, he must give way to the arguments for a reduction. But in the present instance, and with the uncertainty as to the produce of the Income-tax, be could not agree to the loss of 600,000l. in the revenue, to reduce the price of sugar ¾d. a-pound, although he admitted that the benefit of the reduction would be considerable. With respect to the West Indies, particularly, he thought, that no steps ought to be taken without considering attentively the state of the interests of the West Indies, and seeing how far they were affected by our fiscal regulations. He had grave doubts whether our West India colonies, in which we had suppressed slavery altogether, could compete with colonies in which slavery did exist. That was the opinion of Mr. Deacon Hume, who was for carrying the principles of free-trade as far as any man. Mr. Hume was of opinion that the principle of free-trade did not apply to this case. I cannot conceive," (said Mr. Hume) "that having thirty years ago abolished the slave-trade, and having now abolished slavery itself, that any question of free-trade can arise between Jamaica and Cuba. Cuba, with an abundance of fresh and rich soil, not only having the advantage of employing slaves— whatever it may be—but notoriously importing the enormous amount of 40,000 or 50,000 slaves every year having in fact the slave-trade and slavery, and as the laws of this country deprive the planter of Jamaica of that means of raising his produce, I consider the question as one taken out of the category of free-trade. Such was the evidence of Mr. D. Hume, given before the Import Duties committee. What, however, was the present state of the trade? In the year 1840, the average price of sugar was 49s. 1d. per cwt. In 1841, the average price was 39s. 7d. and in 1842, the average price was 38s. 2d. And what had been the price during the last month? 37s. 3d. Observe, there had been a continued reduction in the price of sugar. Then as to the consumption. Last year, notwithstanding the distress of the country, there had been the greatest consumption that had been ever known, not greater in reference to the population, but greater altogether. There were more than 4,000,000 cwt. of sugar consumed in this country last year. But the main ground on which he opposed the motion of the right hon. Gentleman was the same on which he opposed the motion of last year. He did not believe that the honour and character of this country would be maintained if they were to make a reduction in the duty on foreign sugar, without making any attempt to obtain an equivalent concession from the growers of that sugar. They were in a peculiar situation at the present moment as to slavery and the slave-trade. Their efforts on the coast of Africa had unfortunately failed, so far, at least, as the expedition of the two vessels sent out last year was concerned. They bad been told last year, "You may relax the duties on foreign sugar, in the expectation of other and more efficient means of putting an end to slavery." What were their hopes now? What was the state of our relations with that great country France, which had recently refused to ratify a treaty signed with its own consent? Imputations had been thrown out against France upon this point and we ought not lightly to take any step to abate the confidence of the world in our disinterested motives. If then, there were proof that last year the consumption of sugar was greater than in any preceding years, if for the purpose of mere pecuniary benefit, and after the sacrifices they had made, they now permitted the negroes of the Brazils and of Cuba to come into this country without making an attempt to put down the slave trade and slavery, their motives would not be attributed to that high principle which was now ascribed to them. He would say, make the attempt with those countries from which the supply was to be obtained. The sugar-growing countries were themselves in a peculiar situation at the present moment. There was a growing feeling that the con- tinuance of slavery was attended with great danger. In Cuba, in the American States, and in the Brazils, there was a great ferment in the public mind, not merely as to the slavery, but also as to the slave trade; some from benevolent motives, but some from interested fears. Let them look at the great example they had set, and let them see what must be the inference which would be drawn from their conduct. The example we had set as to the slavery trade had produced its effects. It was impossible that there should be this feeling existing in the North and South American States without seeing that slavery itself stood in a very precarious position. The same feeling had grown up in the Brazils, and the same feeling was now spreading in Cuba. He held in his hand a letter from a naval officer of Cuba, dated 6th April, 1842, in which he said that he could not hear of any vessels fitting out at the Havannah for the slave-trade; he understood that there was great anxiety as to the probability of a general emancipation, in which case it was evident that the greater the number of slaves imported, the more embarrassment there would be when the time came for the emancipation. That was the feeling in Cuba, and if the inhabitants of Cuba entertained such a feeling, was it not likely to prevail in the Brazils; and if it prevailed in the Brazils, was it not likely to prevail among the intelligent community of the United States? He said then that they ought to be doubly cautious how they acted. The right hon. Gentleman said that if we made this relaxation, we should be able to speak to other countries with greater authority: that is, if they admitted Brazilian sugar at a duty of 30s. instead of 63s., we should be able to speak with greater authority to other countries. What? after encouraging the embarking of great capital, did the right hon. Gentleman—as was well put by his right hon. Friend the Vice-President of the Board of Trade in his very able speech,—did the right hon. Gentleman think that in three years from the change we should be able to speak with greater authority to the sugar-growing or slave-holding countries? Did the right hon. Gentleman himself pursue that course with respect to Texas? Was it not his boast that they would not enter into a treaty without a stipulation as to the suppression of the slave-trade, and the legalization of a right of search? Texas wished to have a treaty of commerce, and we said, "We will not enter into the treaty with you unless you will abolish the slave-trade," and as a guarantee of their sincerity they assented to the right of search. The right hon. Gentleman did not establish his commercial relations by treaty in the first instance, and then ask them to assent to the right of search; no,—he said, "We are ready to enter into the treaty, but we exact as a condition that you should assent to the right of search." [Mr. Labouchere; That was a new country.] No doubt it was a new country; but the principle was the same, and if the principle were good let it be generally applied. The right hon. Gentleman said, "let this country take the advantages of our commercial relations, and you will be able to prove to Texas, that unless she gives the right of search these advantages will be lost. Now with respect to France, did the right. hon. Gentleman conduct his negotiations with that country upon the principles which he now advocated? Did he say to France, "We will reduce the duties on wine and brandy, and then we shall feel ourselves entitled to reductions of duties on our manufactures?" He had not taken that course, but he had said, "You have concessions to make which are of great importance to our manufactures; we have concessions to make of great importance to you in respect of your cultivation of the vine; we insist upon it that these reciprocal concessions shall be simultaneously made." And if the right hon. Gentleman took that course with regard to Texas and. France, did not the right hon. Gentleman think that he should be better able to negociate with slave-holding parties, and attach conditions favourable to abolition of the slave-trade, to concessions of duty on foreign sugar? The noble Lord had repeated the argument which had been used last year; that if tobacco and cotton were allowed to come in, sugar also ought to be permitted to be imported. Sugar was a new concession, hut surely the noble Lord would not deny that there was something in the cultivation of sugar which took it entirely out of the same category with those other articles to which he had referred. He had been very much struck with the opinion expressed by Sir Lionel Smith in reference to the introduction of labour into the Mauritius. Sir Lionel Smith said, that he was charged with a want of sympathy for those engaged in the cultivation of the sugar cane; but he declared that he had seen too much of the consequences entailed upon those engaged in that labour to view its cultivation with anything but horror. There was something, therefore, in the cultivation of the sugar-plant peculiarly destructive to human life, and he thought that to open the market of this country at the present time, to allow the introduction of the produce of the sugar-growers of Cuba and Brazils, without any stipulation for the advantage of the negro, would be to detract from the character of this country, and to lower it in the estimation of foreign nations. There were parties in all these countries, and contests were going on between them. There were parties in favour of slavery, and parties averse to it. Should we then show a desire to foster the present practice of slavery? Should we do anything to raise a presumption that our motives had not been disinterested? Should we do anything to excite a belief that in voting the sum of 20,000,000l. for extinguishing the curse of our colonial system, we had been actuated by any other than just principles and disinterested feelings, or should we allow it to be said that we were now actuated by no higher views than the procurement of a relaxation of these duties? His own opinion was, that if the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman was adopted, the present influence of this country would be materially abated, and that we should be unable to make any continued exertions in favour of any progress in this great cause—exertions on which the final abandonment of the slave-trade, and the extinction of slavery itself most materially depended.

Lord John Russell

said, that there was one observation of the right hon. Baronet which he could not permit to pass without some reply. He had said, that during the ten years during which he had been in office there had been no proposition made for the admission of live cattle into this country. He doubted much whether, during any ten years which had passed since the revolution, any acts so important as those which had been adopted during the period of his Administration had been carried out. Without referring to those matters which had arisen in reference to matters of free-trade, he begged to observe that he thought that it was always in the power of the Opposition in that House, even though it was not very strong, to de- fend the protective interests of the country from any attack or innovation attempted to be made upon them. Such, at least, had been found to be the case from the experience of hon. Gentlemen opposite. It was not very difficult to frame some motion by which, without giving up those principles of commercial policy to which the right hon. Baronet and the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of Trade adhered, the partial diminution of protection might be opposed. Lord Althorp had found that to be the case in 1831, where he had proposed a diminution in the differential duty on timber. Such was the result of his experience in that House, and he thought that the Government of which he had been a member, had been justified in having recourse to other public measures of great importance, which they had thought likely to be useful to the public and to which they had conceived that no good objection could be raised, rather than introduce questions upon which a doubt might arise with regard to the success of the measure brought forward. With respect to this very question of the admission of live cattle, on which an hon. Member had made a proposition that the duty should be charged by weight instead of at per head, he for his own part professed that he had no preference over one system rather than the other. But the proposal of the Government had been brought forward with a desire for the public advantage, and the proposition of the hon. Member, that the duty should be taken by weight, had been introduced with a view to raise the amount of duty, and therefore without any obligation resting upon him to vote against the motion of the hon. Gentleman, but because he, on the other hand, had seen that the right hon. Baronet was proceeding on the right principle, he had given him his support. If, however, he had taken the opposite course, and if those hon. Gentlemen who usually voted with him had assented to the proposition of the hon. Member, he did not think that the majority for the motion of the right hon. Baronet would have been very large; nay, he believed that the right hon. Baronet would have been left in a minority. He believed that if he, as the organ of the late Government in that House, had brought forward the proposition which had been advanced by the right hon. Baronet, that proposition would have been opposed, and perhaps defeated, by the right hon. Gentleman; whereas acting in the Opposition, he had now the pleasure of enabling the right hon. Baronet to carry that measure.

Colonel Sibthorp

said, that he should not have presumed to address the House after the speech of the right hon. Baronet, but that after the extraordinary degree of arrogance with which the noble Lord had addressed the House, and had talked of the measures which the late Government had brought forward, and the services which he had rendered the right hon. Baronet, he could not help saying, that he did not know one single act of the noble Lord which had met with the approbation of the country.

The Committee divided on Mr. Labouchere's motion to levy a duty of 30s. on foreign sugar:—Ayes 164; Noes 245: Majority 81.

List of theAYES.
Acheson, Visct.	Duncombe, T.
Aldam, W.	Easthope, Sir J.
Anson, hon. Col.	Ebrington, Visct.
Bannerman, A.	Ellice, right hon. E.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T.	Ellice, E.
Barnard, E. G.	Ellis, W.
Bell, J.	Elphinstone, H.
Bellew, R. M.	Esmonde, Sir T.
Berkeley, hon. C.	Ferguson, Sir R. A.
Berkeley, hon. Capt.	Fielden, J.
Bowes, J.	Fitzroy, Lord C.
Bowring, Dr.	Forster, M.
Brotherton, J.	Gibson, T. M.
Browne, R. D.	Gill, T.
Browne, hon. W.	Gordon, Lord F.
Buller, E.	Gore, hon. R.
Busfeild, W.	Granger, T. C.
Byng, G.	Greenaway, C.
Byng, right hon, G. S.	Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.
Callaghan, D.	Hall, Sir B.
Cavendish, hn. G. H.	Hanmer, Sir J.
Chapman, B.	Hastie, A.
Childers, J. W.	Hawes, B.
Christie, W. D.	Hayter, W. G.
Clay, Sir W.	Heneage, E.
Clements, Visct.	Heron, Sir R.
Cobden, R.	Hindley, C.
Colborne, hn. W.N.R.	Hollond, R.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E.	Horsman, E.
Cowper, hon. W. F.	Howard, hn. C. W. G.
Craig, W. G.	Howard, hn. J. K.
Crawford, W. S.	Howard, Lord
Curteis, H. B.	Howard, P. H.
Dalmeny, Lord	Howard, hon. H.
Dalrymple, Capt.	Howick, Visct.
Dashwood, G. H.	Hume, J.
Denison, J. E.	Humphery, Mr. Ald.
Dennistoun, J.	Hutt, W.
Divett, E.	Johnson, General
Duncan, Visct.	Johnstone, A.
Duncan, G.	Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Langston, J. H.	Russell, Lord E.
Lascelles, hon. W. S.	Scholefield, J.
Layard, Capt.	Scott, R.
Lemon, Sir C.	Scrope, G. P.
Leveson, Lord	Sheil, rt. hn. R. L.
Macaulay, rt. hn. T.B.	Shelborne, Earl of
M'Taggart, Sir J.	Smith, rt. hn. R. V.
Marjoribanks, S.	Somers, J. P.
Marsland, H.	Stanley, hon. W. O.
Maule, right hon. F.	Stansfield, W. R. C.
Mitcalfe, H.	Stuart, Lord J.
Mitchell, T. A.	Stuart, W. V.
Morris, D.	Strickland, Sir G.
Murphy, F. S.	Talbot, C. R. M.
Murray, A.	Tancred, H. W.
Napier Sir C.	Thornely, T.
Norreys, Sir D. J.	Towneley, J.
O'Brien, C.	Trail, G.
O'Brien, J.	Turner, E.
O'Brien, W. S.	Vane, Lord H.
O'Connell, D.	Villiers, hon. C.
O'Connell, M.	Vivian, J. H.
O'Connell, J.	Vivian, hon. Capt.
O'Conor, Don	Wakley, T.
Ogle, S. C. H.	Walker, R.
Ord, W.	Wall, C. B.
Paget, Col.	Wallace, R.
Palmerston, Visct.	Ward, H. G.
Parker, J.	Watson, W. H.
Pechell, Capt.	Wawn, J. T.
Pendarves, E. W. W.	Wemyss, Capt.
Philips, G. R.	Wilshere, W.
Philips, M.	Winnington, Sir T. E.
Plumridge, Capt.	Wood, B.
Ponsonby, hon. J.G.	Wood, C.
Pulsford, R.	Wood, G. W.
Redington, T. N.	Worsley, Lord
Rice, E. R.	Wrightson, W. B.
Ricardo, J. L.	Yorke, H. R:
Roche, E. B.
Roebuck, J. A.	TELLERS.
Rumbold, C. E.	Hill, Lord M.
Russell, Lord J.	Tufnell, H.

List of the NOES.
Acland, Sir T. D.	Barclay, D.
Acland, T. D.	Baring, hon. W. B.
A'Court, Capt.	Baskerville, T. B. M.
Ackers, J.	Bell, M.
Acton, Col.	Bentinck, Lord G.
Adare, Visct.	Beresford, Capt.
Adderley, C. B.	Berkeley, hon. G. F.
Allix, J. P.	Bernard, Visct.
Antrobus, E.	Blackburne, J. I.
Arbuthnott, hon. H.	Blakemore, R.
Arkwright, G.	Boldero, H. G.
Ashley, Lord	Botfield, B.
Attwood, M.	Bradshaw, J.
Bagge, W.	Bramston, T. W.
Bagot, hon. W.	Broadley, H.
Bailey, J.,	Broadwood, H.
Bailey, J., jun.	Brooke, Sir A. B.
Baillie, Col.	Bruce, Lord E.
Baillie, H. J.	Buck, L. W.
Baird, W.	Buckley, E.
Baldwin, B.	Buller, Sir J. Y.
Bankes, G.	Bunbury, T.

Burroughes, H. N.	Harcourt, G. G.
Campbell, A.	Hardinge, rt.hn.Sir H.
Cardwell, E.	Hardy, J.
Chelsea, Visct.	Hayes, Sir E.
Chetwode, Sir J.	Henley, J. W.
Cholmondeley, hon. H.	Hepburn, Sir T. B.
Chute, W. L. W.	Herbert, hon. S.
Clayton, R. R.	Hervey, Lord A.
Clerk, Sir G.	Hill, Sir R.
Clive, hon. R. H.	Hinde, J. H.
Cochrane, A.	Hodgson, F.
Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.	Hodgson, R.
Codrington, C. W.	Hogg, J. W.
Collett, W. R.	Houldsworth, T.
Colville, C. R.	Hope, hon. C.
Compton, H. C.	Hope, A.
Coote, Sir C. H.	Hornby, J.
Corry, rt. hn. H.	Hughes, W. B.
Courtenay, Lord	Hussey, T.
Cresswell, B.	Inglis, Sir R. H.
Cripps, W.	Jackson, J. D.
Damer, hon. Col.	James, Sir W.
Darby, G.	Jermyn, Earl
Denison, E. B.	Jocelyn, Visct.
Dickinson, F. H.	Johnstone, Sir J.
Dodd, G.	Johnstone, H.
Douglas, Sir H.	Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Douglas, Sir C. E.	Jones, Capt.
Douglas, J. D. S.	Kelburne, Visct.
Dugdale, W. S.	Kemble, H.
Duncombe, hon. A.	Knatchbull, rt, hn. Sir E.
East, J. B.	Knight, H. G.
Eaton, R. J.	Knight, F. W.
Eliot, Lord	Knightley, Sir C.
Emlyn, Visct.	Law, hon. C. E.
Escott, B.	Lawson, A.
Fellowes, E.	Lefroy, A.
Ferrand, W. B.	Legh, G. C.
Filmer, Sir E.	Leicester, Earl of
Fitzroy, hon. H.	Liddell, hon. H. T.
Flower, Sir J.	Lincoln, Earl of
Follett, Sir W. W.	Litton, E.
Ffolliott, J.	Lockhart, W.
Forbes, W.	Long, W.
Fuller, A. E.	Lopes, Sir R.
Gaskell, J. Milnes	Lowther, J. H.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.	Lowther, hon. Col.
Glynne, Sir S. R.	Lyall, G.
Godson, R.	Lygon, hon. General
Gordon, hon. Capt.	Mackenzie, T.
Gore, M.	Mackenzie, W. F.
Gore, W. O.	Maclean, D.
Goring, C.	M'Geachy, F. A.
Goulburn, rt. hn. H.	Mahon, Visct.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.	Mainwaring, T.
Granby, Marquess of	Manners, Lord C. S.
Grant, Sir A. C.	Manners, Lord J.
Greenall, P.	March, Earl of
Gregory, W. H.	Marsham, Visct.
Grimsditch, T.	Marton, G.
Grimston, Visct.	Master, T. W. C.
Grogan, E.	Masterman, J.
Hale, R. B.	Miles, P. W. S.
Halford, H.	Miles, W.
Hamilton, J. H.	Mines, R. M.
Hamilton, W. J,	Mordaunt, Sir J.
Hampden, R.	Morgan, O.

Munday, E. M.	Shirley, E. J.
Neville, R.	Shirley, E. P.
Newry, Visct.	Sibthorp, Col.
Nicholl, rt. hon. J.	Somerset, Lord G.
Norreys, Lord	Stanley, Lord
Northland, Visct.	Stanley, E.
O'Brien, A. S.	Stewart, J.
Owen, Sir J.	Stuart, H.
Packe, C. W.	Sturt, H. C.
Pakington, J. S.	Sutton, hon. H. M.
Palmer, R.	Taylor, T. E.
Patten, J. W.	Thesiger, F.
Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.	Thompson, Mr. Ald.
Peel, J.	Tollemache, hon. F. J.
Pemberton, T.	Tomline, G.
Pigot, Sir R.	Trench, Sir F. W.
Plumptre, J. P.	Trollope, Sir J.
Polhill, F.	Trotter, J.
Pollington, Visct.	Turnor, C.
Pollock, Sir F.	Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Pringle, A.	Vere, Sir C. B.
Pusey, P.	Verner, Col.
Rashleigh, W.	Vernon, G. H.
Reade, W. M.	Waddington, H. S.
Reid, Sir J. R.	Welby, G. E.
Repton, G. W. J.	Whitmore, T. C.
Richards, R.	Wilbraham, hn. R. B.
Rolleston, Col.	Wodehouse, E.
Rose, right hon. Sir G.	Wood, Col. T.
Round, J.	Wortley, hon. J. S.
Rous, hon. Capt.	Yorke, hon. E. T.
Rushbrooke, Col.	Young, J.
Sandon, Visct.	TELLERS.
Scott, hon. F.	Baring, H.
Sheppard, T.	Fremantle, Sir T.

Original motion agreed to. The House resumed, and the report of the resolution to be received.

House adjourned.