Commons Sitting of 22 June 1843

MINUTES.
BILLS.Public.—1° Appeals (Privy Council).
Reported.—Grand Jury Presentments (Ireland).
3°. and passed:—Chelsea Hospital.
Lords'Amendments agreed to.—Millbank Prison.
Private—Reported.—Inehbelly (Glasgow) Road; Monk-land and kirkintilloch Railway.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Bernard, from Greenwich, in favour of the Scientific Societies Bill.—By Messrs. F. Mauler, T. Duncombe, and Cobden, from it great number of places, against the Factories Bilk—By Mr. Ward, from the Medical Association, for Medical Reform.—By Mr. Bramston, from two Unions, against the Poor-laws.— By Mr. Mackinnon, from Metropolitan Bodies, in favour of the Health of Towns Bill. — From Edinburgh, for carrying out Rowland Hills Plan of Post-Office Reform.—From Frome, against the Union of the Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor. — From the Clergy of Sussex, against the Parochial Assessments Act.— From Southwark, against the Turnpike Roads Bill.—From Llandovery, in favour of the Small Debts Bill—From Lieut. Burslem, against Appeals (Privy Council) Bill.

POOR-LAW (SCOTLAND) THE CHURCH.
Mr. Fox Maulewished to ask the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Home Department whether it were intended on the part of the Government, to introduce any bill to vary the provisions of the Poor-law Act with respect to Scotch and Irish surgeons attending in prisons and unions? Another question which he had to propose to the right hon. Gentleman was, whether he intended to introduce a bill to provide for the endowment of parishes for quoad sacra ministers? It was understood that her Majesty's Government intended to appropriate certain property or fees in Scotland for the endowment of those ministers.
Sir James Grahamsaid, that, with reference to the first question, a draft of a bill had been prepared by the governors of prisons in Scotland, which was now in his possession. He had taken the opinion of the law advisers of the Crown opal the subject, and he hoped in a few days to be able to introduce a bill on the subject. With regard to medical practitioners, members of Scotch universities, not being allowed to be engaged in England under the Poor-law Amendment Act, he had already stated his opinion that it was a grievance both with regard to them and Irish medical practitioners; but that arose from the Apothecaries Act. He was anxious to remove the grievances under which Irish and Scotch practitioners laboured; but he was not disposed to introduce any clause into the Poor-law Amendment Act to remedy it, because, as he stated, it involved of necessity the whole question of medical reform. With regard to the third point, which was the most important, the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood what fell from him on a former occasion. He did not undertake to introduce any measure for the continuance of quoad sacra ministers in Scotland, much less for their endowments. It was not the intention of her Majesty's Government to propose any means of endowment for those ministers.

THE ARMY—IRELAND.
Mr. Wysebegged to ask a question of the Secretary at War. It was stated, that a circular had been addressed from the Horse-guards to the commanding officer of every regiment in the army, directing him to make a return of Irishmen in his regiment, without delay, the object being understood to be to enable the Commander-in-Chief to determine which regiments might be the most safely or prudently stationed in Ireland to provide for the contingency of any repeal outbreak. Now, though he (Mr. Wyse) attached no credit to this rumour, others were affected differently, and he thought it right that the Government should take the first opportunity of formally stating whether it were or were not correct, as if uncontradicted it might lead, indeed had led, to angry impressions in Ireland.
Sir H. Hardingesaid, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that no such order had been issued. The usual notices from
204
the regiments always specified the birthplaces of the different soldiers.

THE TOWNSHEND PEERAGE.
On the motion for reading the Order of the Day for going into committee on the Sugar Duties Bill,
The Earl of Leicestersaid, he hoped he was not out of order in the course he was about to take, or if he was, he trusted the House would extend its indulgence to him while he made some reference to what had fallen from an hon. Member on this subject, and which had also been stated by a noble and learned Lord in another place, namely, that from the silence of the Marchioness of Townshend on the subject, she might be taken as giving her consent to the bill now pending. He (the Earl of Leicester) rejoiced in having an opportunity of giving a contradiction to that statement. He must also state, that he disapproved not of the manner in which the hon. Member (Mr. J. Stuart Wortley) had introduced the bill, but of the extraordinary way in which a certain noble and learned Lord in another place had, from the materials in his possession, made reference to what might be supposed, from the noble and learned Lord's observations, to be a communication from the Marchioness. The noble and learned Lord had said that the Marchioness had made a communication of a certain nature, and, from reading the account in the newspapers, one would suppose that that communication bad been made by the Marchioness. That was utterly untrue. The communication was made by an interested agent—an honest man, he believed, but still an agent interested for the Marquess. Before the noble and learned Lord made that statement, and attached so much importance to it, it behoved the noble and learned Lord to have considered whether this authority was a proper one or not. As it was stated the other evening that there was not any property involved in this matter, he begged to assure the House that there was a great deal of property involved in it. If the bill should pass, he should be deprived of all the property belonging to the Marquess's family, and he would thus be materially affected in a pecuniary point of view. With respect to the evidence, he must say that a great deal of it was founded upon mere hearsay. In making this statement, he thought he was doing no more than what was just to himself. He did

205
not like to say anything injurious of the individuals who had appeared against him; but he believed, on his honour, that many of the parties knew nothing about the circumstances of which they spoke. He would not enter into the subject any further upon the present occasion, but would reserve any thing in addition he had to say until the bill came before a committee, when he should certainly avail himself of every lawful and legitimate means for the purpose of throwing out the bill.

EXPENSE OF COLONIES—COLONIAL TRADE.
Order of the Day read for the House to resolve itself into a committee upon the Sugar Duties Bill.
On the question that the Speaker do leave the Chair,
Mr. Cobdensaid, that he believed the subject upon which they were about to legislate was, with one exception only, the most vital, in connexion with the commerce of the country, which could occupy their consideration. It was proposed that they should go into committee on the present Sugar Bill, which was about the very worst bill that was ever devised for this country. He begged to call the attention of hon. Gentlemen opposite to the system upon which our colonial affairs were now administered, for he believed that on that subject great misapprehension prevailed amongst them. He did not wish to be misunderstood as to the course he was going to take. He was not opposed to the retention of colonies any more than hon. Gentlemen opposite. He was as anxious as any one that the English race should spread itself over the earth; and he believed that colonization, under a proper system of management, might be made as conducive to the interests of the mother country as to the emigrants themselves. But he also believed that the system upon which our colonial affairs were now conducted was one of unmixed evil, injustice, and loss to the people of this country. He was about to mention a few facts in support of this proposition, and if they should be disputed he was prepared to give proofs of their truth. What was the first thing we should require of our colonies in the present condition of the people of this country, in order to make them profitable to us? Why, it was that they should help us to maintain our existing burthens.
206
But did the colonies contribute towards the revenue of this country? He believed there was a great deal of misapprehension upon this point—not in the House, but out of doors—and his present object was to have that point at once answered. Did the British colonies contribute towards the taxation of this country? Why, this question was met at the very threshold by the act of the 18th of Geo. 3rd, which expressly declared that we had not any right to tax the colonies for the benefit of the mother country. The British Parliament passed that law after trying to tax our American colonies, and they all knew the result of that trial. But having passed that law repudiating the right of taxing our colonies, it led them next to inquire, did the colonies pay their own expenses? In looking into that question, he found that the mother country furnished her colonies with an army and a navy, and maintained every description of military defence all over the world; that in some cases this country supplied the colonies with schoolmasters, with bishops, with magistrates; that she built them lighthouses, constructed their canals, and, in fact, the mother country not only did not derive any revenue from her colonies, but that, besides maintaining for them large fleets and armies, she paid almost everything that constituted the governmental expenses of the colonies. Now, if these were facts, hon. Gentlemen opposite would see that they were important facts, and that they bore importantly upon the question they were now going to decide; that was to say, the question whether the Legislature ought to give to the colonies a monopoly for supplying articles of subsistence to the people of this country. Those persons took a very inadequate view of the expenses of our colonies who confined themselves to the direct money votes made on account of the colonies. It was forgotten that a large proportion of the army was devoted to the service of the colonies. The distribution of the British forces on the 1st of January this year he found to be thus: out of 88,510 rank and file, there were stationed abroad (exclusively of India) 44,529 rank and file, the number left at home being 43,981. Thus, it appeared that more than half of our army was stationed in the colonies. But it had been stated by the authorities at the Horse Guards, and it was also stated by the noble Lord the Member for Tiver-

207
ton, when Secretary at War, that for every 10,000 men in the colonies, 5,000 were wanted in England for the purposes of making the necessary exchanges, and for recruiting the regiments abroad; therefore, not merely half, but three-fourths of our army were devoted to the colonies. The army estimates this year amounted to 6 225,000 l.; the proportion of that sum, which might be put down as being expended on account of the colonies, was at least 4,500,000 l. But the colonies also have a navy; wherever there were colonies, there did the mother country station ships to guard and serve those colonies. Yet these ships were not paid for by the colonies, but were supported out of the taxes of England. The estimates put down for the navy this year amounted to 6,382,000 l. He had no means of ascertaining what proportion of those estimates was allotted to the colonies, but it was quite certain that a very large proportion was so applied, and thus another large additional charge must be put down to the debit of the colonies on account of their naval force. He now came to the ordnance, the amount of which bore a proportion always to the extent. of the army and navy, and the sum Voted for which department was 1,849,000 l., of which he put down a large share to the account of the colonies. In short, it would he found according to the lowest estimate, that five or six millions sterling were every year applied to the maintenance of the colonial army and navy. This, however, was only a part, and other charges in direct votes of the House were to be taken into consideration; in the present year, these direct votes under the head of Colonial Estimates amounted to no less a sum than 241,000 l.He did not intend to enter into the question how far those votes had been right or wrong; he did not mean to invite his hon. Friend, the Member for Coventry, to discuss the estimates again. It was sufficient for his purpose that the House had thought fit to pass the votes, and he asked the House, with him, to take these charges into consideration, on going into the question as to whether the colonies should be protected, as it was termed, in the supply of their productions to the mother country. Let the facts he had stated, and was about to state, he disputed, or let them go with him in the argument which he deduced from them. He would furnish the House with a few
208
items. Governors' establishments in the West Indies cost this country 18,667 l., and to these were to be added the clergy of North America, to the amount of 11,500 1. The stipendiary magistrates in the West Indies and at the Cape of Good Hope occasioned a charge of 49,700 1., all taken out of the taxes paid by the people of this country. Lighthouses in the Bahamas had cost 1,920 l., besides which, there were permanent charges for the garrisons and colonies of which many persons had no idea. Thus the citadel of Halifax cost 175,863 l.; the new works at Gibraltar, 225,000 1.; the fortifications at Kingston, 220,000 1.; the completion of the works at Corfu were charged at 100,500 1.; the new barracks at the Bahamas at 17,000 1., and the permanent barracks in Jamaica at 30,000 1. These amounts were all paid out of the taxes of this country. He had only quoted a few of the items, but they embraced all kinds of services, civil, military, naval, and ecclesiastical. Among other small charges, he found a verger's salary and the rent of a Protestant burial ground at Quebec. What he had already advanced, however, had no application to lately-invented colonies, if he might so call them. He believed that some hon. Gentleman near him had been much engaged in promoting the establishment of colonies on a self-supporting plan. He would take one of them, New Zealand, which had been brought under the notice of the House on a distinct pledge that it was to support itself, and some hon. Friends near him had stood godfathers to the enterprise. He believed that the population of New Zealand was now about 10,000 or 12,000 souls, and for them no less a sum than 61,000 1. had this year been voted out of the taxes of this country. Among the charges, he found 600 1. for a bishop—a bishop of New Zealand! —besides 590 1. for chaplains and schools. It had been said that South Australia was to be self-supported; the hon. Member for Lambeth reminded him that such was the fact. It was established about eight years ago, and it had now no more than 20,000 inhabitants, if so many, yet he believed he was within the mark when he said that it had already cost the people of these kingdoms more than 400,000 1., and he had been told that we did not know the worst of it yet. There was a still smaller colony recently sprung up, the Falkland Islands. Somebody had, dis-

209
covered that it was important to make them a British colony; yet they produced no timber, not a stick. They had scarcely even wholesome grass on which animals could subsist; they grew no corn, yet they had been taken possession of, and a flaming acccunt of the advantages to be derived from them had been promulgated. He was in a condition to prove the degree of advantage they were to this country at present, for this year 4,350 1. had been Voted for the Falkland Islands. The returns on the Table stated that the population consisted of seventy-eight souls, including the governor's establishment, so that the cost to this country was about 55 1. a head; the governor received 600 1., a magistrate 400 1., a chaplain 300 1., and a surgeon 300 1. He was not now discussing the propriety of any of these grants; but he asked how it was expected that this country would be reimbursed for the outlay? The colonies, as he had shown, contributed nothing to our taxation, but we were taught to believe that we were compensated by our trade for the expenses to which we were subjected by our dependencies. He now came to the mode in which he wished to apply these facts as arguments, and to show in what way the colonial trade did reimburse the country for the expenses of the colonies. What was our colonial trade? Certain persons, whom, perhaps, he might call "young England," were fond of the words, "ships, colonies, and commerce," and they were constantly throwing in the teeth of others the advantage of the colonies. Had these Gentlemen ever considered the extent of the colonial trade? In 1840, the whole amount of exports, according to the returns before the House, was 51,000,000 1.; and out of that fifty one millions, sixteen millions of exports were to the colonies, including the East Indies. Thus, not one-third of our export trade was to our colonies, and from the sixteen millions, six millions were to be deducted for the East Indies, (which, as he had stated, were self-supporting, and they were the only part of our colonies which did pay their own expenses,) leaving only ten millions as the amount of trade to be set against the five or six millions of money annually taken out of the pockets of the people of this country. Ten millions in round numbers was the amount of the trade with our colonies, exclusive of the East Indies, and upon
210
this ten millions of exports we incurred an expense of from five to six millions a year. Then, what sort of trade was this? It was precisely as if a shop-keeper should give, with every pound's worth of goods, half a sovereign to his customer. The notion to which currency was given, was that this trade was extremely profitable, not that it was so large, but that it was so especially advantageous. A greater delusion had never been circulated; it was not in the nature of things that an extra price should be paid by the colonies for commodities, which all the rest of the world could obtain at a cheaper rate. Two-thirds of our trade was to neutral countries, and it was impossible to derive greater profit from goods sent to our colonies, than from those sent to North America, Brazil, or Russia. He asked, then, whether this was exactly a trade which was to warrant the claim of a monopoly? Whether in addition to all other expenses, the people of Great Britain ought to be called upon to pay double its value for every article obtained from the colonies? Such was the exact condition of affairs; not only did this country pay five or six millions annually for the expenses of the colonies, but three or four millions extra as an additional price for articles supplied by the colonies. This was the process which had been annually sanctioned by Parliament. Some Gentlemen had felt offended with him for saying out of doors that business was conducted in the House of Commons with less wisdom than was required for the successful management of a chandler's shop. He would ask what retail trade could be carried on, on such a plan, unless the conductor of it found his way into the Gazette, and he would perhaps meet with no little difficulty in obtaining his certificate afterwards. Now what, he would ask, became of the arguments by which hon. Members on the other side usually defended another monopoly maintained at home? When complaint was made of the monopoly in corn, the other side exclaimed, "Look at our taxation, at the excessive and exclusive burthens we bear;" but here he brought before the House a case where monopoly was maintained, although there were not only no exclusive burthens, but the people enjoying the monopoly were exempted from the contribution of taxes which the inhabitants of other countries were compelled to pay. The landowners

211
in England insisted that they could not compete with foreigners in the production of corn, on account of heavy taxation; but what was to prevent the West Indies from competing with other countries, seeing that they had not only no extra taxation, but that they were exempted from many charges which in other countries were required for the support of the Government? The noble Lord the Member for London had laid down a very sound doctrine, as far as it went, on the subject of corn. He said,
" I repudiate protecting duties on the score of general taxation, but I support a fixed duty on the score of specific taxation."
He asked that noble Lord to go with him in abolishing the monopoly in the West Indies, upon his own principle. There could be no ground for maintaining that monopoly. The only ground the noble Lord had taken failed him, and in defence of the monopoly in the West Indies he bad not left himself an argument to rest upon. Many hon. Members seemed to think that colonies were the main, if not the sole, support of our shipping. He had stated the small proportion which the trade with our colonies bore to the whole trade of the country, and in shipping only one-third were employed in the colonial trade; two-thirds, or nearly two-thirds, was employed in foreign, independent, and neutral markets, where there could be no protection and where all were subject to competition. He should like therefore exceedingly to understand on what ground the Chancellor of the Exchequer was about to propose that the people of this country should pay for sugar double the price it bore in other countries. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would carry with him into the discussion the facts he had broadly laid down as to the expense of the colonies to Great Britain; and he wished him to consider well how, in the present condition of the people, he could continue to lay upon them these most unjust burthens. He would boldly ask whether, in the case of the West Indies, there was even a shadow of that pretence which it was asserted existed in other cases. The extent of the colonies, as regarded population, had been monstrously misrepresented: the whole population, with the exception of the East Indies, at this moment, did not amount to five millions. If he took merely the British race, we had not a population
212
of two millions and a half in all our colonies in Europe, Asia, Africa, and America, including the East Indies. He made no reference to extent of territory; it was with people we had to deal, and not with barren wastes. Of what use was it, in the present condition of this kingdom, to point to a boundless extent of territory in America when people were wanted as customers and consumers? The system of trade in this country shut it out from the populous and civilized nations of the world, in order to maintain a monopoly for the sake of two millions and a half of the British race, independently of negroes and natives. Looking at the subject as a matter of policy, he would ask whether, in the present state of this country, it was fit that such a line of policy should be persevered in? Looking at Brazil alone, let it be remembered that one of its rivers would hold in its mouth the whole of the West India Islands without obstructing its navigation. Here, indeed, was a boundless field for the operations of commerce. He did not admit that the West Indies had any right to this monopoly, even if he had not shown what an enormous amount of taxation was borne for them by this country; but he contended that the very argument used on the other side, in defence of the Corn-laws, was cut from under the feet of those who advocated the sugar monopoly by the facts he had adduced. If the facts were disputed, some difference might be made in the conclusions; but if they were not denied, and all knew that they were undeniable, the deductions he had drawn from them were inevitable, Therefore he wished to stop this proceeding at the outset; but at the same time he reserved to himself the right of opposing the resolutions should the House resolve itself into a committee. He opposed the motion that the Speaker leave the Chair, and begged to submit the following resolution as an amendment:—
" That in tile opinion of this House it is not expedient that, in addition to the great expense to which the people of this country are subjected for the civil, military, and naval establishments of the colonies, they should be compelled to pay a higher price for the productions of those colonies than that at which similar commodities could be procured from other countries, and that therefore all protective duties in favour of colonial produce ought to be abolished."
Mr. G. Berkeleyspoke to order. He

213
apprehended that the amendment was irregular.
The Speakerapprehended that the amendment could not be put in its present shape. All amendments, except on motions for going into Committee of Supply and ways and means, ought to be essentially analogous to the subject. The amendment of the hon. Member for Stockport related to Colonial duties generally, and went far beyond the Sugar duties and could not, therefore, be put.
Mr. Cobdensaid, that as his amendment was out of order, he would be content to divide on the amendment of the hon. Member for Dumfries.

SUGAR DUTIES.
House in committee on the Sugar Duties Bill. On clause I,
" Duties imposed by 6th and 7th Will. 4th chap 26th and 3rd and 4th Vic. chap 17. be continued till 5th July 1844."
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the grounds upon which he moved, the sugar duties mainly rested on those which he had laid down on the last occasion when he addressed the House on this subject. He had then stated to the House distinctly, that he felt as strongly as any man in the House the importance to this country of selling to the consumer the commodity of sugar at as cheap a rate as was compatible with the general interests of the empire. It would have afforded him the highest possible satisfaction to have proposed and made such a general reduction in the duties on sugar, whether imported from our own colonies or from other countries in connection with this country, as should effect a material reduction of price, and a freer admission and use of the article, and extend its consumption to those classes of the community who were now deprived of it. He still remained of the opinion which he had then expressed; and if the state of the revenue at the present moment was such as to admit of a great experiment being made with respect to the reduction of those duties he should have been most anxious to carry a measure into effect which should secure such a desirable object as that which he and hon. Gentlemen opposite wished to carry out. But he was sure he need not use any argument to the House to prove that any experiment on the revenue which should run the hazard of loss would be one which, under present circumstances, no one could expect to receive the concurrence of the,
214
reasoning portion of the public. The question, then, came before them whether it was desirable to make a change in the sugar duties in the manner proposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, by a reduction of the duties on foreign sugars to the same amount as those on colonial sugars. He passed over what the hon. Member for Dumfries meant to propose, because it had already been decided that, as long as protection was given on principle to the subjects of her Majesty, the colonies were fairly entitled to a share of it. That argument was maintained in the year 1841, during the discussion on the sugar question; it had since been affirmed by decisions of the House, and he did not think that the hon. Member for Dumfries would find many Gentlemen disposed to support him in his proposition to remove all distinctive duties. Then he came to the amendment of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Hawes) and he must express his doubts whether by a reduction of the duty on foreign sugar to the amount specified by him (34 s.), any advantage would be gained with a view to the main object which they proposed to effect. In considering the question, hon. Gentlemen must bear in mind, not merely the advantage arising from a reduction of the duty, but the disadvantages which might attend that alteration. The proposal which was to be made by the hon. Gentleman opposite was, that there should be a distinctive duty of 10s. between colonial sugar and sugar of foreign growth; that the duty on British or colonial sugar should be 24 s, and 5 per cent., and on foreign sugars 34 s. and 5 per cent. Now, he thought he could show the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lambeth, that such a reduction was not likely to produce the effect which he anticipated. It might be laid down as a general principle that, in order to extend the consumption of sugar, the reduction of price of the article must be such as to produce a sensible effect on the retail price of the article to the consumers of sugar in small quantities. If they had to consider only the case of the wholesale dealer, he would admit that, though from a small reduction, the profit on each hundred weight would be small, it might still amount to a large sum in large transactions, and would be a great advantage to those persons. He understood, and he believed the feeling of the House to be that, in order to make a reduction effective, it should be to such an extent as

215
should be sensibly felt by the lower classes of the community, who bought in small quantities. If the hon. Gentleman would allow him to call attention to the relative prices of sugar in the market, he thought he would be satisfied that the reduction to be effected by his plan would be so small as to produce no effect whatever on the general consumption of the article. It might be assumed that the price at the present moment of British sugars was about 35 s. 8d. —the average price he meant, being a reduction of rather more than 3s. since the House had this subject under discussion last year. In addition there was the duty of 25 s., which the hon. Gentleman proposed to be levied on colonial produce, so that the selling price of British sugar would be 60 s. 8d. in the present state of the market. Now, the hon. Gentleman proposed, that upon Brazil and Cuba sugars they should impose upon them a duty of 35 s. 8d. He found by recent sales which had taken place of average qualities of these sugars in the market, that at the present average rate of sales, Brazil sugar under that duty could not be sold at less than 58 s. 8d. In fixing this price, he assumed even that there would be no rise in the price of that sugar in consequence of its admission into the English market, which was an assumption not to be believed. He took the price of Brazil sugar not from an imaginary average, but as that at which two separate cargoes had recently been sold in the market. He spoke of Brazil sugars at 23 s. admitted at a duty of 35 s. 8d., making the cost together 58 s. 8d., independent of any rise of price on the admission of this foreign sugar. It thus appeared that there would be reduction of price from 60 s. 8d. to 58 s. 8d.; for it was obvious that the immediate effect of this introduction of foreign sugar would be to bring down the colonial sugar in price to that of the sugar in competition with it; our colonists must take any price they could get in the market. Assuming then that there would be no rise in the price of foreign sugars in consequence of the admission of them into our markets, the hon. Gentleman's proposition would produce a reduction of 2s. per cwt. Now, to suppose that that 2s. per cwt. would produce any sensible effect on the retail price or on the consumption of the article, was, what no man, who understood the nature of the trade, would for a moment think of. If the hon. Gentleman would look to the returns which he had
216
moved for some time since, he would find that a large reduction of price was essential to any considerable increase of consumption; the only effect of the hon. Gentleman's arrangements would be to transfer from the pockets of the British planter these 2s. into the pockets of the growers of foreign sugar. At the same time the reduction of price would be so small that the wholesale dealer would make no reduction. If the hon. Gentleman proposed a reduction of 9s. or 10 s, a cwt. so as to make an alteration of one penny or one half-penny per lb., that might be felt by those persons who consumed this particular commodity; but when the reduction which the hon. Gentleman anticipated did not exceed 2s. per cwt., it was impossible he could so distribute it in retailing the sugar to the community as to confer any boon on the poorer class of consumers. But let hon. Gentlemen look to the other side of the question. Undoubtedly, as to Brazil sugar, this reduction of duty on the produce of Brazil would be an additional stimulant to the growers of that country, while the 2s. in the reduction of the price of colonial produce would be an additional burthen to our own colonists at a moment when they were borne down by those which already existed—it would be a practical transfer of the power of producing the commodity from the colonial producer working by free labour, to the foreign producer working by slave labour. He had therefore stated before, that presuming the supply of sugar to be adequate for the consumption of the country, it was not under those circumstances consistent with the interest, or the honourable character of this country, to give an advantage to the produce of slave-grown sugar at the expense of those colonies and traders who had expressed their earnest desire to promote the extension of freedom not merely to our own colonies, but to all the countries of the world. The best mode of doing this was, by endeavouring to show to foreign countries that the experiment which had been made of raising sugar by free labour was likely to prove more successful than they were at present disposed to consider it. It was notorious that the complaint made in Brazils was, that in consequence of our sugar duties the native growers were compelled to raise coffee instead of cultivating sugar. Was not this change of cultivation a great advantage gained to the slave? Why, therefore, should we not strive to

217
continue this benefit to those unfortunate individuals who were now slaves? And with respect to the slave-trade, it was impossible for any one who had witnessed the illicit trade in slaves not to have observed that trade was more or less vigorously prosecuted, according to the ideas which were from time to time entertained in the Brazils of the probability of the introduction of Brazil sugar into this country. No man could have attended to the accounts of trade without having been forcibly struck at the enormity of its evils. He contended that those who directly or indirectly gave encouragement to the slave-trade were the active instruments of those who sought to protract this infamous traffic. The reduction proposed in the duties on Brazil sugar would give that encouragement, and it was, therefore, that he was induced to recommend for a limited period the continuance of the existing duties on sugar. He did not do it under the idea that the duties, as at present arranged, were perfect in themselves, or under the idea that it would not be of great advantage to the people of this country to have a supply of sugar at the cheapest possible rate; but as there was every prospect this year, as there was in the last, of an adequate supply from our own colonies, the produce of free labour, he thought it was not politic nor wise, till we could procure some advantage for those unfortunate beings who were about to be taken into slavery from the coast of Africa, or had been imported into the Brazils, to make a change which would give facilities to slave-employing states, or afford encouragement to a new cultivation, which could be carried on only by a new supply of slaves. If he took the quantity of sugar up to the 5th of April last, he found that the supply last year exceeded that of many antecedent years [Mr. Ewart : "Not per head.] The hon. Gentleman said, "not per head." But it nevertheless is so. It was not merely by the quantity brought into the country in particular years that the supply could be judged; the only fair mode to judge of the consumption of articles was, to take the average of a certain number of years. He had seen it stated, that the consumption of sugar in France had increased in a greater proportion than in England; but they must recollect that the consumption per head had previously been infinitely less in France than in England, and that here we consumed more per head than any other country in Europe.
218
If he referred to the year 1831, he found that the consumption was 3,781,000 cwts., and in the next year it was 3,600,000 cwts.; and if he took the addition to the population from that period till 1841, he found that the consumption in the last year in Great Britain had gone on in proportion to the population. The last year had proved one of the greatest consumption, under circumstances which were likely to have greatly diminished it; for the difficulties of the country were admitted by all; and the price when he last year addressed the House on this subject, had been 38 s. 8d. He found by the return made up to 5th April of this year, that there was then a larger amount of sugar in the warehouses than at the corresponding period of last year, by 200,000 cwts. The supply from the West Indies this year was expected to be larger than last year. The supply from the Mauritius, he admitted, would be shorter, but the East Indies would supply 60,000 tons; and from what he had learnt, he believed that, including the quantity in store, not less than 256,000 tons of sugar might be anticipated to be brought into this country this year. And when he recollected that in the year ending April, 1843, there had been only 196,000 tons imported, he saw no necessity for any steps on the part of the House to promote an adequate supply of sugar, still less to give encouragement to slave labour, the great object of the House to avoid. As far as regarded the state of the sugar market at the present moment, he must say that nothing could be more satisfactory than it had been during the five months of the present year which had elapsed. Sugar had been imported to the extent of 24,000 tons more than in the former year. The price of sugar, compared with former years, was moderate, and he had therefore every reason to be confident that the benefit of the consumer of sugar would be to a certain degree extended, without inflicting any loss on those engaged in the cultivation of sugar in our own colonies; and, above all, that they need not give additional encouragement to those parties who employed slaves in the cultivation of sugar, or to the growth of sugar in countries where it would strengthen the desire to carry on an illicit slave-trade, which had ever prevailed. He felt very strongly that, under the circumstances in which this country was now placed, the Government measure was, upon the whole,

219
most consistent with the national feelings and the national character, and with that idea he proposed it to the House.
Mr. Ewartsaid, he should not have expected at the beginning of the Session to have heard such a statement as had now proceeded from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He talked of the danger of extending slavery by the adoption of his (Mr. Ewart's) proposal. Yet had not her Majesty's Government been endeavouring themselves to negociate a treaty with Brazil? and that having failed, the Members of that Government had now had the assurance (for he could not use a more qualified term), to come down and talk against the admission of the slave-grown produce of Brazil. The right hon. Gentleman admitted, that the existing duty was to be only for a limited time. The right hon. Gentleman himself, therefore, contemplated that within a "limited time," there must he an admission of slave-grown sugar. The right hon. Gentleman's next argument said, that the consumption of sugar had not diminished. The people of this country would not be satisfied with that statement, even if it were proved; for the people of this country did not complain that they had less sugar than their ancestors, but simply that they had "not enough sugar." It was not in the power of the right hon. Gentleman to satisfy the country by these petty apologies when they required substantial good. That substantial good was to extend the commerce of the country, and to facilitate the subsistence of the people. His amendment attacked the principle of differential duties altogether. That he held to be the sound doctrine, and on that the right hon. Gentleman had not condescended to dwell. By his (Mr. Ewart's) proposition, he would admit the sugar of foreign countries, whether free or slave produce, at the same amount of duty as they laid on colonial sugar, and he was disappointed that on this subject her Majesty's Government had no proposition to lay before Parliament. During the last year, the right hon. Baronet had made a solemn annunciation of the principles of free-trade, "To sell in the dearest, and buy in the cheapest market," was the text he then adopted, but this year there was no practical commentary on that text. He (Mr. Ewart) felt, in the first place, that he was justified in saying that the reduction of the duty on foreign sugar would produce a large amount of revenue; and in the next, that
220
the demand would increase with the increase of population. Sugar was more and more entering, not only into the consumption of the people, but even more and more becoming an article of manufacture. The consumption of sugar for the homely, but useful purpose of preserving fruit, had a constant tendency to increase; and sugar to extend more and more largely every year into use for the curing of meat. But the sugar duties, presented a moral as well as commercial object for the consideration of the legislation of the country. The changed and more temperate habits of the people of England as well as of Ireland, led them to use more sugar; the Government, however, did not assist the people in these good movements, and they were left to advance, unassisted in the cause of temperance and of Virtue. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to recent proofs of undiminished consumption. It was not, however, over a limited period that the right hon. Gentleman should extend his view. He ought to have shewn that the consumption had kept pace with the population. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, since 1831, the consumption had increased in that proportion? As the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) eloquently said on one occasion, he "paused for a reply." The right hon. Gentleman was silent. He (Mr. Ewart) therefore would supply what the right hon. Gentleman had omitted, and offer a short retrospective view of the comparative supply of sugar, and of the increase of the population in 1831, the total amount of sugar and molasses imported was 245,900 tons, and that in 1841, it was only 212,000 tons. The supply, therefore, had considerably diminished during that time. The consumption had also decreased. In 1831, it was 215,200 tons, in the next two years it was less; it was larger in 1835, which was known to have been a good year; it diminished in 183G; it slightly increased in 1837; it was smaller in 1838, still smaller in 1839, and in 1840 it fell to the minimum of 87,000 tons from 215,000 tons; in 1841, it was 210,000 tons; and it was even then less, therefore, than in 1831. During this time, the population had increased from 24,000,000 to 27,000,000. It might safely be said, therefore, that the consumption had not increased in proportion to the population. He contended, that even if they had given the people more sugar in 1831, they would have consumed it; and therefore if the right hon. Gentleman had

221
shown that he had given them more than in 1831, he would not have shown that he had given enough. The right hon. Gentleman should not content himself with giving an idle reference to figures in the years 1831 and 1841. He (Mr. Ewart) would now give the consumption to each individual of the population. In 1831, it was about 20 lbs. to each person, and it had gradually fallen, till in 1841, it was only between 17 and 18 lbs. to each. In 1840 the price was at its maximum, and the consumption fell to the lowest point in the consuming scale. If the right hon. Gentleman wished for a confirmation of his statement, he would only refer him to a publication just issued by an hon. Gentleman who formed a component part of the Board of Trade. There had been also a decrease in the refining. Formerly, 29,000 tons of West India sugar were refined for exportation; in 1840, that quantity had fallen to the small amount of 300 tons; and between that period and the present year, the quantity had become nothing. The evils of diminished supply fell most materially on the poorer part of the population. The Members of that House felt very little (if any) increase in price; but the poorer classes, in 1840, could not consume more than 6 lbs. or 7 lbs. a-head. The House ought to pay great attention to this, because it was the first duty of the Legislature to assist the voluntary efforts of the people at improvement. If the poor had proper facilities, they would cause a large consumption of molasses. The duty on foreign molasses was 23 s. 9d. per cwt.; it was well known that molasses were produced during the refining of foreign sugar in bond, and the law provided that these molasses should be exported: whereas if they were allowed to be consumed here, the people would be materially benefitted. Mr. Moore, who had been summoned before the Import Duties committee by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, had given very clear evidence upon the subject.
" What becomes of the molasses produced in refining foreign sugar in bond in this country?—They are exported.
" Are they admitted to be consumed in this country upon any duty whatever?—Not at all.
"What is the duty upon molasses imported into this country, the produce of British possessions?—Nine shillings a cwt.
"Are molasses admitted to be imported from any other country, and at what duty? Twenty-three shillings and ninepence from Holland or Belgium.
222
" You may import molasses from the continent of Europe at 23 s 9d. a cwt., but you are prohibited from consuming in this country, even at that duty, the molasses produced by refining foreign sugar in bond in London and at Liverpool?—Yes, if the molasses were permitted to be consumed in this country, treble or quadruple the quantity of sugar would be refined in bond that they are able to refine now, because by allowing the molasses to be consumed here, they could dispose of them in this country, and now they do not know what to do with them; they are obliged to export them.
" The export is attended with considerable loss?—lt is.
" In your opinion, would a greater supply of molasses be a relief to the poorer classes of people in this country, under the present high price of sugars?—Undoubtedly, it is an article of food of very great consumption, particularly in Lancashire and Yorkshire."
The poor suffered in another way. If sugar were not subject to such heavy duties it would enter largely into distillation and brewing. Hon. Members would recollect the inquiries of the committee, moved for by Mr. Warburton, then Member for Bridport, upon this point. The right hon. Gentleman dwelt much on the loss that he supposed would accrue to the revenue. Did he maintain that the reduction of the duties on foreign sugar to 30 s. would involve a loss to the revenue? [The Chancellor of the Exchequer, "the reduction would be on colonial."] Then the right hon. Gentleman admitted that it would be of advantage to the revenue to reduce the duty on foreign sugar to 30 s.; and indeed all the evidence convinced him that there would be a benefit to the revenue by a reduction to 24 s. Mr. Porter showed that in 1840 the country lost 4,000,000 1. by the maintenance of these duties; and the loss to the revenue, taken year by year during the last seven years, amounted very nearly to 10,000,000 1. But what was the loss to the consumer, because that must be added to the loss to the revenue? The loss to the consumer had been nearly 15,000,000 1.; or a total loss to the revenue and consumer, during seven years, of 25,000,000 1. And to this they were to answer only that the people of France consumed less per head than the English. What had been done, in reference to the sugar duties, to promote the trade abroad? Had we made a treaty with Java or with Holland? He had no right to ask what terms had been offered to the Brazils, but it was notorious that the Brazilian trade was not opened. It was in evidence before

223
the import duties committee, that the principal article they took was our calico. The exports amounted to five millions, and the Brazils took those articles into which the greatest quantity of labour entered. The proportion of articles in which labour was most largely employed was ninety-two per cent., whilst the small labour articles, as they were called, was only seven per cent. The Brazils, therefore, were the most beneficial consumers, for they took the articles in the highest manufactured state, which gave the most profit, and furnished the largest employment to the labouring population of this country. He observed from late commercial information, that there had been a great increase in the quantity of manufactured cotton imported into the Brazils from the United States. Had hon. Members seen the speech of a Brazilian legislator, in which he said, that the English were the slaves of the landlords? So that the English could not wear their chains without their being seen by others. Great advantages would follow if we could obtain more imports. The reduction of the sugar duties would open to us the trade of the East. The great difficulty we should find in China would be to obtain returns for our goods. If the Government failed to reduce the duties on tea, fair grounds existed why they should take that step with regard to sugar. When this proposition had been hitherto made, they had been invariably met with the old and reiterated observation, that by the adoption of such a law, we should destroy our West Indian colonies. When, he asked, would those colonies be in such a state that we should not run that risk? They had been in a condition of the greatest instability so long, that he believed that if we were to put off the proposed change, until they were ready for it, the postponement must be for ever. But, for his own part, he did not think that our West Indian colonies would be destroyed by the granting of the boon to the people of this country which they demanded. We had already given them compensation to a large amount —we had given them emigration, and he now proposed that we should give them a third and most important advantage—that of competition. Until this was done their energies would never be fully developed, and he called upon the House to give to the people of this country at once that benefit which had been so long withheld from them. He maintained, that if they
224
called into operation all those superior advantages which, our colonies possessed, they would be enabled to compete successfully with the slave and free labour sugar of foreign countries, and that those colonies would be revived and not destroyed. Then they were met with the argument that the adoption of this proposition would encourage slavery, and the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had most unworthily taken refuge behind this argument. Slavery, he believed, would by such a course be extinguished; free labour had been proved to be cheaper, and he believed with Mr. Cropper, the late eminent merchant and philanthropist of Liverpool, that if this step had been taken long ago, the question would now have been settled. That the exportation of slaves from the coast of Africa would be increased, he also denied; and he was prepared to contend that a contrary result would be produced by the extension of our commerce with that quarter. He had no belief in the efficacy of restrictive laws and gun-boats. Commerce was the great Emancipator. Let them look at the changes which had taken place during the last few years. Formerly the produce of the African coast was confined to gold dust, and ivory in its rudest form, and beads and other useless and trifling articles were received in exchange. But the trade was now changed; palm oil was an article of extensive exportation, and the more useful of our manufactured articles were looked for in return. The ancient demand for extravagant trifles—or rather caricatures of commerce—cocked hats, leather breeches, and lawyers' wigs, which had so long existed, was giving way. An intelligent chief had recently suggested the introduction of the growth of coffee and cotton. In one recent instance within his knowledge, one of the African chiefs had had a horse and carriage sent to him, while to another had been transmitted the materials for erecting a house in the European style. But there was another point of view in which he called upon the House to take this step; by doing so they would make this country, as Mr. Huskisson had said, the great depôt for the sugar as it ought (by our general policy) to be—for the commerce of the world. He called upon the House therefore at once not merely to make a small reduction in the duty, but to abandon the false principle of a differential duty—to do justice to their mercantile and manufacturing interests, and most of

225
all, to the interests of the whole consuming population. The hon. Member concluded by moving an amendment to effect the reduction of the duty on foreign sugar from 63 s. to 24 s. 6d., proposing as a subsitute for the existing duties the following scale of duties, on all sugar whatsoever, Viz. on brown or Muscovado clayed sugar, not being refined the cwt. 1l. 4s., on molasses the cwt. 9s., refined sugar the cwt. 81. 8s., candy brown the cwt. 5l. 12 s., white 8l. 8s.
Mr. Jamesbelieved, that the proposition of the hon. Member was one which the House could not entertain without stultifying itself in the eyes of the country, and of civilised Europe. After expending 20,000,000 of money in order to emancipate the slaves in our own colonies—after all the blood which has been spilled, and the vast sums of money which had been already expended, and were in the course of expenditure, with a view to put down the slave-trade—after all the efforts made by former Governments, and which, he presumed, would still be made by the Government for the abolition of slavery, and for inducing other countries to imitate our noble example, it appeared to him remarkable that any Gentleman should have come forward with such a proposition as that now made; and he thought it would be still more extraordinary if any distinguished Statesman in that House, or any man aspiring to the character of a Statesman, should support a measure like that which was proposed, and which was calculated to aggravate in a tenfold degree the cruelties and horrors to which our black fellow-creatures had been subjected. Then it was said that there was no reason why we should not encourage slave-grown sugar, when we encouraged the growth of other articles of the same character, by their consumption. There might exist Very good reasons indeed why we should abstain from using all slave-grown produce, but he could not understand how the commission of one error could justify that of others. He contended that the question of the consumption of slave-grown sugars was one which should be deemed an exception to the general principles of free-trade, and he had the authority of the late Mr. Deacon Hume in his favour on this point. That gentleman said, in his evidence before the committee on import duties, in 1840,
" I cannot conceive, that having thirty years ago abolished the slave-trade, and now
226
abolished slavery itself, any question of free-trade can arise between Jamaica and Cuba. Cuba, with abundance of rich and fresh soil, not only having the advantage of employing slaves, whatever that may be, but notoriously importing the enormous amount of forty or fifty thousand every year—they have, in fact, the slave trade and slavery; and as the laws in this country have deprived the planter in Jamaica of that means of raising his produce, I conceive that it is a question like several others which are to be taken quite out of the category of free-trade."
He was as ready as any man to admit that the people of England should have a plentiful supply of cheap sugar, but contended that the only just mode of providing it, was by the introduction into our own colonies, of free labour from Africa or elsewhere; he could state to the House that those already imported into Jamaica were doing extremely well, but there was as yet a very inadequate supply of them, and the want of labour was such, that the cost of cultivation in that island far exceeded the value of the produce when sold in this country. He would state to the House the result of his own case. He was possessed of a plantation of about 1,000 acres of fertile land—one of those valuable monopolies about which so much was said, and which had for many years past produced a net return of 3,000 1. per annum. In the last year the cost of cultivation of this estate had been 3,191 1. 4s. 2½d.; the produce of the sales had been 2,530 1. 8s. 1d., leaving an absolute loss of 660 1. 16 s.1½d., and he feared that his return was not very likely to be any better in the present year. He would, with the permission of the House, read a part of a letter from Mr. Alexander Barclay, a gentleman who had imported a number of free labourers from Africa to Jamaica. He said:—
" As a Jamaica proprietor, you will be glad to hear of my success at Sierra Leone. It will be further satisfactory to you to be assured that the Africans brought over, and mostly located in this vicinity, are doing remarkably well, I may say, indeed, every thing that could be wished or expected of them, working well, easily managed, quite healthy, and delighted with the change from sterile Sierra Leone, to fertile Jamaica. It is to Africa we must look for an increase of people the best suited for our climate, and who will feel at once at home among their own race. The commencement made in this is cheering, from its success in every point of view, and I do hope it will have from Government that countenance which it so well merits, viewed as a

227
measure eminently calculated to promote the best interests of Africa and its people, as well as to benefit the colony."
The hon. Member for Dumfries looked for an extension of our commerce, even though it were with slave-growing countries For his own part he said, only let the West-Indian planters have fair play, furnish them with sufficient free labour from Africa, and there would be an ample supply of cheap sugar, without removing or altering the present prohibitory duties on slave-grown produce. and thus encouraging that system of cruelty, oppression, and horror, which the moral sense of the people of this country had determined to abolish.
Mr. Brothertoncould not let this occasion pass without protesting against depriving the poor of their comforts. Keeping up the differential duties he thought by no means calculated to abolish slavery. To slavery he had been all his life opposed, and would be very unwilling to support any plan calculated to encourage slavery, but, notwithstanding the arguments of the hon. Member who spoke last, he must state his opinion that these differential duties ought to be removed. The hon. Member for Stockport had explained what were the expenses of the colonies. Why should the country give the colonies, in addition to all these, the means of keeping up prices? Having attended to the subject a good deal, he would mention a few facts relating to this enormous monopoly. What was the state of the importation of sugar? In the years 1830, 1831, 1832, he quantity was 12,825,323 cwt.; in 1840, 1841, 1842, the quantity was only 11,849,499 cwt. Notwithstanding, therefore, the intermediate increase of population, the consumption was 1,000,000 cwt. less in the last three years than in the three ending 1832. But what was the price? The price paid for the first quantity was 16,512,574 1.; the price of the last and smaller quantity was 24,439,590 1. Thus for 1,000,000 cwt. less sugar the people were made to pay upwards of 8,000,000 1. sterling more price. Again, the duty on West-India sugar was 24 s. a cwt., on foreign 63 s. a cwt. The consequence was, that on two samples of sugar of the same quality, West Indian and foreign, the West Indian proprietor got, on an average, 20 s. more on our exchange than the foreigners. Hence he calculated that we paid on the
228
average 4,000,000 1. sterling a year to the West Indians more than we ought to do. Could any man, with a sense of justice, support that system? See how it operated to diminish the comforts of the people. In the years 1830, 1831, 1832, the average consumption of sugar per head throughout England was 19¾lb.; in 1840, 1841, 1842, the average consumption was 16¼lb. Thus they saw how injurious the system was. The consumption was diminished, not only by limiting the quantity introduced into the country, but by increasing the price. The country had paid 20,000,000 l. for the emancipation of the negroes, and he calculated that since then they had paid upwards of 25,000,000 1. to the West Indians on the score of their monopoly. This was the enormous injustice he complained of. To keep up the price of sugar they did that which was injurious to the whole community. Many of the poorer classes were deprived of that which was a necessary of life. Look at the change of habits among the people; instead of adopting intoxicating drinks, they had taken to coffee and tea. In 1831 the coffee consumed was 21,000,000lb.; in 1842 it was 31,000,000lbs. With that increase in the consumption of coffee, they ought to have had a corresponding increase in the consumption of sugar; but the consumption of sugar per head had decreased. See, then, what oppression the high price of sugar wrought on a large proportion of the population. It was well known that in many parts of the country the cottagers paid their rent from the produce of their gardens. But if there was no sugar, the richer classes were deprived of the means of preserving fruits, and would not buy them, and the poor were consequently ousted of this means of making up their rents. With regard to slavery, as he had said, he did not believe that the abolition of the differential duties would encourage slavery. They must endeavour to put down slavery by means off moral influence.
Strangers were excluded for a division, which, however, did not take place.
On being re-admitted to the House—
Mr. Villierscomplained of the manner in which the motion of the hon. Member for Dumfries was treated. He would not suffer it to be concluded in that way. Neither he nor his friends had risen, after three persons had spoken on their side, from not believing it possible that the

229
Ministers intended to treat a question so important and so interesting to the people at large with so much contempt. He never remembered seeing a Member or a motion so treated. It was insulting to every body who complained of this mischievous monopoly. The Chancellor of the Exchequer directed his attention to the motion of the Member for Lambeth, and seemed to think his Friend, the Member for Dumfries, unworthy of a word. The reason was obvious. The one was a motion which would be of real advantage to the people, and was therefore to be despised, the other was what the right hon. Gentleman described it, of no real service to the consumer, and therefore it was deemed worthy of respect; if that was its character, he wondered how his hon. Friend, representing such a constituency as he did, and formerly so liberal, could propose it. He presumed be did so in despair; and fearing that this motion would be rejected, he proposed what was next best. But after the able speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Stockport on the general policy of favouring colonial interests, at the expense of the community, and the application of those Views to the subject of sugar by his hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries, why was no answer offered which might attempt to satisfy the public? His hon. Friend spoke on behalf of the community, and desired to learn why this country was to be taxed by a few proprietors without the plea used for monopoly at home, and no answer was given probably because no answer could be given. The only allusion to the subject by the right hon. Gentleman was in what he said, with reference to protection. He said they had decided to retain the general system of protection last year, and it was, therefore, right that it should be retained in the colonies, which meant that because we did evil last year, therefore we will persevere this year. The right hon. Gentleman did not seem to think it necessary to care what he said, or, considering the purpose of this motion, he would not have said, that in the present state of the revenue no sane man would think of dealing with the sugar duties. Why, the revenue was one of the striking features of the case against the differential duties. These duties occasioned a waste of income which nobody disputed. He never heard it denied or questioned, that to reduce these differential duties was a means of instantly increasing the revenue. Why, the right hon Baronet had in his hearing, in that House, said that he had no doubt
230
that a very large sum might be brought into the Treasury, if the duties on foreign sugar were reduced. Why, how could it be otherwise? What was it both sides agreed upon? Why, that foreign sugar is much lower in price in bond than plantation sugar; that if the differential duty was lowered, more sugar would be imported, because the price being lower more would be consumed; then it is obvious that the same duty collected upon a large quantity must yield a large revenue; let any body who wanted to know how much the consumer lost in quantity, consider what quantity of foreign sugar might be purchased with the sum paid for colonial sugar. And yet it was for thus endeavouring to increase the revenue and improve the condition of the consumer, that the mover was treated with contempt by the Government, and by the liberal Members connected with monopoly as stultifying himself. He really, at first, was astonished to hear the lecture of the hon. Member for Cumberland, denying to any man common reason who supported such a motion; but before the hon. Member finished he produced a document, that made his anger intelligible, for it was the particulars of his own Jamaica estate, by which it appeared that it was not in the most flourishing condition, because it had not recovered the loss of those glorious times, when it yielded 3,000 1. a-year, the result of that hideous system of slavery which the hon. Member had the assurance of charging his hon. Friend with wishing to perpetuate. He should never have alluded to the hon. Member's affair, had he not brought them before the House. But really, when the hon. Member referred to days past, when this estate was so profitable, he could not help suspecting that the hon. Member was amongst those who were not allowed to suffer for the humanity of this country, but who received ample compensation for relinquishing his right to keep his fellow man in bonds. He had been hardly used if he had not touched a large slice of 20,000,000 l. given by this country, not upon proof but upon the chance of loss by the proprietors from the change. It was surely hard, then, for the depressed and suffering people of this country to be told they were stultifying themselves when they said they had paid enough, and that they did not deem themselves bound to pay annually so many millions more to guard the properties of Jamaica from loss. He doubted much whether, the loss they sustained by the change from the slavery to the free-

231
dom of their labourers, entitled them to a sixpence. He believed the change was an advantage to them; and when they were told that there was some experiment making that they must not expose to hazard, he must contend that the experiment had been made, and found to answer, which was no other than whether the people of the negro race in the British West Indies would work for wages, whether they had any taste or aspiration for the comforts of civilised life, or whether they would wander on the waste land, living savagely, and toiling simply for food easily acquired. That was the experiment, and it had been made, and it was the universal testimony—in fact, it was never denied—that freedom sat upon a black man as it did upon a white one, and that he was operated upon precisely by the same circumstances. Where the proportion of his number was small as regarded the capital and the most fertile land, he exacted higher wages, which was to a certain extent the case in Jamaica and Trinidad. Where the proportion was the other way, as in Barbadoes and Antigua, there labour was cheap, and the black man laboured hard for his living. But whoever thought of legislating with reference to the economical condition of these particular islands, and calling it a great experiment? There was no reluctance or incapacity on the part of the black man to work, as was abundantly testified by Mr. Gurney and others who have visited the West Indies since the emancipation. Mr. Gurney says that the negro, even in Jamaica, will do about three-fourths of the labour of a good Norfolk labourer paid in wages; and if kindly treated, will do as much as any English labourer, while others say that free labour is more productive and a greater number of the working population are actually operatives than under the slave system. So that it comes to protecting the proprietor in a monopoly after ail, and he begged to say that favouring a few families in a colony was not the same thing as benefiting the colony, any more than it is in the mother country. He saw abundant sympathy with the proprietor, but mighty little with the great majority who were the working classes, who were our fellow subjects, and as much entitled to our regard as any other class. For instance, one plan adopted is to make the people here pay double for their sugar for fear of lessening the incomes of the proprietors, but another plan adopted is to introduce foreign labour into the colo-
232
nies to bring down the wages of the free labourers, because, forsooth, they are too high. He would not go into the question how far this was necessary for sugar cultivation, but it marked the Very different feeling for the proprietor and the labourer: and, indeed, he could hardly speak with temper of the pretence put forth on another ground, by men, too, who always resisted emancipation, namely, that they are alarmed lest the import of slave produce in this country might tend to encourage slavery elsewhere. He did verily believe that, under the circumstances in which this was said, it did more to deprive us of all influence with other States in suppressing slavery than anything else—more to tarnish the glory and credit of the great measure of freedom—more to impress men with our insincerity in the cause, from beginning to end, than any one other thing. They viewed us from a distance, and they saw the inconsistency of our conduct in all its nakedness. They saw us importing every other article the produce of slave labour—they saw us stipulating for the reduction of duties on goods exported to slave countries, which could only be paid for in slave produce—they saw us courting the alliance of slave states—they saw us importing this very excepted article of sugar into our warehouses, manufacturing it, feeding our colonies with it, trading with it in other countries, in short, doing everything with it but allowing the unfortunate working people of this country to use it; and then they saw us with pious face, lament the necessity of maintaining a differential duty, in order to prevent slavery in foreign countries. No wonder that other people called us hypocrites. Why, throughout the United States it is believed, that a sort of missionary of that government came here last year, and had an interview with some of the leading Ministers of the Cabinet, and it was intimated to him that, on such articles as tobacco, rice, and maize, it would be possible and desirable to reduce the duties here; in short, upon everything but that which was the produce of free labour, namely, wheat; for those other articles were the fruit of slave labour, and yet we imported them, and this Government were ready to reduce the duties on them. He really hoped, if any of the Ministers could be induced to speak, that they would seriously say, whether they intended to rely on this pretext of slavery any more; for the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke so carelessly on the matter, he could hardly be considered

233
an organ of the Government. Would any Minister dare say to-morrow, if slavery was abolished in Cuba and Brazil, that the differential duties would cease? No! they would not dare, for fear of offending their monopolist supporters. It was protection, it was favouritism, that was the purpose of this law, and it would endure as long as the people would allow it. This, they think, no doubt, will be for ever; but let them take heed how long they persevere in disregarding and despising every claim which the people put forth to this House. Every measure based on general good, when conflicting with monopoly, is treated with contempt, and scornfully rejected. But let them not mistake the quietude of the people. He was not sure that these things were not treasured up, and that they might not hear of them when it would be least convenient. He saw nothing in the world at present that should make them independent of the goodwill and opinion of the masses of the people here. They might have to call upon them again, as they had done before, and they might have to answer, for they would be asked, what the people were to sacrifice their blood and their treasure for? And if they could only tell them of Corn-laws, and Sugar-laws, and other monopolies, they would find some difficulty in inducing them to rally round their institutions as they had done before. He observed that the Member for Cork, in his late address to the people of Ireland, in pointing to some of the advantages of governing themselves, alluded to the monopolies to favour a few proprietors that existed on the produce of the tropics. He said they could have tea, and coffee, and sugar within their reach, and they would have no duties to favour a class. Let the House remember that the people, if they are spurned and despised in this House, may be compelled to obtain justice in a way not more convenient than is resorted to in Ireland. He trusted sincerely that timely consideration would be given to their just claims; the motion to-night puts forth a grievance of which they had great reason to complain, and it ought to be treated surely with every respect. There should be shown some public or national ground why they are to be deprived of a comfort which you all enjoy and they all desire; of which, from the quantity imported, and the quantity consumed by the upper and middling class, must eave at least ten or eleven millions without. He had seen a calculation by which it appeared
234
that not more than ten millions did habitually consume sugar. Why should this be? The people were ready to work to obtain it. Why did the Legislature prevent them? The more they consumed, the more revenue would be obtained. Why then was this national evil to be inflicted on them? Not only did it subject the people to the privation of the article, but it deprived many of the business who would be engaged in the trade; while by maintaining the price high, the fund for maintaining labour was diminished. In every way it was injurious to the community. Surely the government of the country would think it decent to assign some excuse for its continuance. Believing that the proposition of his hon. Friend was not only wise, just, and humane, but also well-timed, he should give it his cordial support.
Mr. Jamesin explanation, said, that it was very far from his intention to show anything like angry feeling in debating this question. As for the ample compensation which his hon. Friend said that no doubt he received for the slaves on his property, he would only say, that although twenty millions was a very large sum, yet, when it came to be divided and apportioned, it afforded Very inadequate compensation. The amount paid for each slave might be very good in Demerara, but this was not the case with regard to Jamaica. He had received 4,700 l or 19 1. a-head for the negroes on his property. This was about two years Value of the produce of his estate. Now in Demerara, he believed the compensation paid for each slave was 34 l. Since the emancipation his estate had produced no income; how, then, he could be said to have received ample compensation, he was quite at a loss to conceive.
Mr. Wardsaid, that the only parties that seemed to be left out of consideration or neglected by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was the great body of the consumers of sugar, who were not represented in that House. No one could deny, that they were in a state of the greatest distress, and they were not in a condition to pay twice as much as as they ought for such a necessary of life as sugar. He rose, however, not with the intention of detaining the House, but merely to say one or two words in reply to what he must consider the strange views expressed with regard to another

235
subject by the hon Member for Stockport. His hon. Friend said, that he and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liskeard stood as godfathers for a newly-invented system of colonization, which he also intimated it would be necessary to maintain by means of some exclusive privileges. Now he distinctly denied, that the system of colonization which he supported would entail any monopoly or protection on the mother country; the adoption of any such principle had nothing to do with the system of colonization and emigration, which would support itself. He firmly believed, that, if that system of emigration had been fairly carried out in Australia, that it would have supported itself. It was thought necessary, however, by the Government, to provide for a small body of men at the expence of the whole of the emigrants; and he agreed, that, if such proceedings were to be allowed, it must end in preventing the success of the undertaking. He was far from approving of all that had taken place in South Australia and New Zealand; on the contrary, he believed that the proceedings of the governors of those colonies had been attended with great mischief. The proceedings of Captain Hobson in New Zealand were of the most singular nature; he formed a large staff and establishment of police to prevent smuggling, and resorted to other measures which were necessarily entailed with enormous expence, and this country was now paying 60,000 1. a year for such extravagances and which could not at present produce any return to this country. He believed, that if colonies were properly managed that they not only would not be attended with great expence, nor with the excuse that it was necessary to maintain certain monopolies or protective duties on their account, but that they would be productive of the greatest advantages to this country. Indeed the advantages of colonies were virtually admitted by the hon. Member for Stockport, who in the course of his anti-corn-law crusade was in the habit of dwelling on the great advantages that would result from the establishment of a free trade with the United States, which he must be fully aware had grown up to their present state of importance, after being established as British colonies. He should vote for the motion of his honourable Friend, and on the failure of that he should vote for the motion of
236
his honourable Friend the Member for Lambeth.
Mr. Bernalcould not help feeling that the proceedings of that debate were of rather a singular character, for it partook Very much of a discussion de omnibus rebus et quibusdam aliis, for all sorts of topics had been introduced into it. The hon. Member who opened the discussion, proposed that all differential duties should be got rid of as regarded sugar; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied, not to this, but to a proposition which was hereafter to be made by the hon. Member for Lambeth. Now, looking to the scanty attendance in the House, it was clear that the great body of Members felt but little interest in the discussion of this question. It might be thought very unwise on his part to enter into the discussion of the subject; and he was in hopes that this would have been rendered unnecessary by some right hon. Member opposite rising to address the House; but after some allusions that had been made to our colonies, he felt called upon to make a few observations. He thought that there had been something that was like a provocation or challenge to the Government, in the audible whispers that had been heard, that although the Government did not intend to do anything with respect to a change in the differential duties during the present year, yet they should see what would take place in 1844 or 1845, when the commercial treaty with the Brazils would come to a termination, and when it would be necessary to enter upon a new one. He thought that such constant repetition of these rumours would have made the Government less loth to enter into some further explanation. He confessed that he was sorry to have heard the observations, and to have been a witness to the tone and temper of the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton. No doubt the hon. Member was induced to regard it as a matter of provocation that no answer had been given by any Members of the Government to the arguments that had been urged in support of this proposition. He must say, however, that although the arguments of his hon. Friend were on most occasions well founded, he could not help feeling that many which had been used by his hon. Friend to-night were not only not well founded, but were mere assumptions. Indeed, he doubted whether his hon. Friend was not

237
so much occupied by other pursuits, the he had not had time to inquire into the whole case, and had, therefore, fallen into several inconsistencies and mistakes. Among other things, his hon. Friend had said that so far from the negro population being unwilling to work, that it was found by experience that a black labourer in Jamaica would do nearly as much work in a day as a Norfolk agricultural labourer; but almost immediately afterwards he observed that the population of Jamaica was not sufficiently dense to afford a due supply of labour. Now, this was altogether inconsistent. But could the hon. Gentleman make out the case that the labourers that were in that colony worked to the fullest extent? The argument of his hon. Friend, and those who adopted the same views as himself, was, that the chief thing to look to was that all that was requisite for the maintenance of life should be obtained as cheaply as possible, and he therefore contended that we should get sugar for our consumption from those places where it was produced at the cheapest rate. The hon. Gentleman then came forward with what he considered a thundering knock down argument, namely, that the English colonists had received compensation for their slaves. If the hon. Gentleman would regard the matter with the impartiality of the statesman, instead of the zeal of the partizan, he would see that this doctrine of compensation was all delusion. If the hon. Member examined the matter fully, he would find that those persons who invested their property in the West-Indian colonies, on the faith of the Government, did not receive one-tenth for the produce of their estates, as compared with what they obtained previous to emancipation. Under such circumstances, it was a monstrous absurdity to say, that, considering the amount paid, the colonists received anything approaching to an equivalent. No doubt the grant of twenty millions in the circumstances of the country, with the enormous debt which was pressing so heavily on it, was a great sacrifice to make for the obtainment of a benevolent object; but to speak of this sum being anything like a compensation for the property affected by the measure, speaking equitably and legally, he denied that it was anything of the kind. He did not wish to enter at length into the history of the question of slavery and its abolition. It must, however, be well known to those
238
who had paid any attention to the subject, that years ago, when Mr. Wilberforce, and those who acted with him, first took up the subject, they confined themselves entirely to endeavouring to mitigate the horrors of the slave trade, and they constantly declared, that all that they had in view was to obtain the abolition of the slave trade, and that they had no wish whatever to interfere with the state of labour in the colonies. This declaration was repeatedly made by Mr. Wilberforce and his friends. Some years afterwards their sphere of action became extended, and they declared that their object was not merely confined to putting down the enormities of the slave trade, but that they wished to destroy the existence of slavery itself in our colonies. At length, in the time of the late Government, the Legislature determined that servitude itself should cease, and there was made what had been called compensation, though, as compensation, the sums received were mere delusion and absurdity. If he had had influence with the West-Indian body, he should have endeavoured to induce them to refuse the proffered compensation altogether, for he foresaw at the time, and predicted that before any very long period had elapsed, the so-called compensation would be made use of against the West-Indian proprietors on every occasion. Now, he would ask, would a sum of ten thousand or eleven thousand pounds reimburse a man who was in receipt of an income of seven or eight thousand a year. He trusted the House would believe him when he stated on his own knowledge that there were many West India proprietors who possessed property of from 4,000 1. to 8,000 1. or 9,000 1. a year, who within a few years back had been deprived of every shilling of their incomes. It was said, that the West-India planters had enjoyed a monopoly. He knew very well how easy it was to use language of that kind in a popular assembly, and he knew the effect such language was calculated to produce. His hon. Friend talked of the repeal of the Corn-laws, and put the repeal of the sugar duties on the same ground; but he (Mr. Bernal) denied that the West Indian planer stood on the same footing as the landed proprietor. The landed proprietor had not the same competition to contend against, and he was differently circumstanced with respect to labour. In most of the districts,

239
in the West Indies the agricultural peasant had no occasion for the supply of his wants, to labour more than three or four days in the week, for in a tropical country the wants of the peasant were few. Now, he contended that the peasant in the West Indies was better off than the peasant in this country, for would any hon. Member tell him that there was any county in England where the agricultural labourer was so circumstanced as that he could determine to work only a certain number of days in the week and no more. Again, the length of a day's labour in the West Indies was nine hours, and anything beyond that was considered extra, and even that day's labour was not always given with that completeness which would be expected and exacted from an English labourer. He would now come to the question of the reduction of the duty. The existing duty on Muscovado sugar was 25 s. 3d.; but supposing the duty was 28 s. per cwt., that would bring it within a fraction of 3d. per lb.; so that they must always start with this charge of 3d. per lb. Now the price of Brazilian sugar ranged from 20 s. to 23 s. per cwt., and he believed that Cuba was lower, and was from 18 s. to 20 s. per cwt. Now supposing that they introduced sugar at this low price, and at a low rate of duty, that they would be able to maintain a low price for sugar, other sugar-growing countries would send in their sugar. For the first year or so they would have a reduction in the price of sugar, but year after year, as the demand increased, the price of sugar would rise. The price of Muscovado sugar at present, with the duty paid, was about 61 s. per cwt., or little more than from 6d.to 7d. per lb, of which 3d. per lb. was collected by the Government as duty. Now, did they think that they would be able to get sugar down to 4d. per lb.? He thought the notion preposterous. He now came to the argument that was urged against the West-India planters that they did not use machinery or attempt to diminish expense by the adoption of improvements. Now, he could undertake to say that for years back they had introduced steam engines, ploughs, and harrows of an improved description, small railways with cars to run on them, and he believed that there were few improvements suited to that colony which they had not adopted. He knew that in many parts of the island of Jamaica they had ploughing matches, and
240
prizes were offered for the best agricultural productions. The hon. Member for Stockport had said that our colonies were of no use to the country—that they were an incubus. But he must remind the hon. Member that the question should be viewed as one great whole, and that these colonies must be considered as part of a great empire. Could it be denied that Great Britain flourished by her colonial acquisitions, and acquired commercial prosperity by her colonial connections? In a state of peace with the continental nations, the importance of these colonies might not be so greatly felt by some hon. Members; but if our friendly relations with the continent were interrupted, we should then feel the vast national utility and importance of our colonial connections. The hon. Member had alluded to the vast increase of our commerce that would be produced by an increase of our commerce in the Havannah and Brazil, and other countries, from which foreign sugar might be admitted. But he need not remind the House of the failure of similar expectations in former years, when, in consequence of calculations of a profitable return, vast quantities of the manufactured goods of this country were exported, and an excess of speculation was indulged in, which in most instances ended in the ruin of the speculators. The West-India planters had been called the aristocracy of the sugar hogsheads. Now, he (Mr. Bernal) would never be ashamed to avow that he was a West-India planter, and one of the aristocracy of the sugar hogsheads, and he was sorry to be obliged to add, one of an aristocracy, which soon must be considered a beggarly aristocracy. He was sorry to be obliged to say this, but he was compelled to do so when he saw himself and others declining from a state of prosperity which they had a few years ago enjoyed, and when he saw that, with all their personal knowledge—with all their personal experience—and with all the industry they could exercise, the West-India planters saw themselves on the Verge of a gulf from which they saw no means of extricating themselves. They abolished the tenure which prevailed in Jamaica, when they converted the slave into a freeman. He did not reproach the noble Lord opposite, for the measure by which slavery was abolished, and he rejoiced that slavery had been put an end to, but what he complained of was, that

241
due care had not been taken and due precautions used to provide for the state of things that must arise from the carrying into effect of that measure in the West-Indies. Even at the present moment, when a proposition was made to procure fresh labour from the west coast of Africa, an outcry was raised against it, and it was declared to be a plan for the renewal of all the abominations of slavery under a plausible name. The West-Indies wanted labour and capital. Would they reduce the land to a state of barbarism and desolation? Many proprietors had been for some years going on cultivating, from a commendable spirit of pride, down to the expenditure of their last shilling. He (Mr. Bernal) had himself been cultivating for the last four or five years without getting a shilling return. He would say nothing of interest on his capital, but within that period he had actually lost 4,000 l. or 5,000 l. This was on estates that owed no debt, and he was at no particular expense any way. If this was the case with him, whose position was so facile for cultivation, what would become of those who were burthened with debts and other disadvantages if protection were removed? (The smaller properties would first go out of cultivation, and the larger ones would follow. If our West-India colonies were placed on the same footing with the planters of Java and the Havannah, it might precipitate the crisis which his hon. Friend seemed anxious to bring about, but a contingency would follow this. Could they depend on foreign countries to fill up the Vacuum that would be created by the abandonment of the colonies? and would such a step bring them Muscovado sugar at 4d. a pound as promised by those who advocated the removal of protection? With respect to their manufacturing interest, was it likely that their manufactures would be taken by these foreign countries to such an extent as to make up for the inability of the West Indies to purchase? His hon. Friend said, they ought to have a feeling, not for the proprietary, but for the working people of the West-Indies. Now, he would ask his hon. Friend where were there working men in Devonshire, or in any part of this country, who could ride his pony, drink his bottled porter, and purchase muslins for his wife, by working three or four days a week? He was not saying, that the West-India labourers were too well paid,
242
nor was he saying their wages ought to be lower. But he did say, that owners of properties ought to be allowed to obtain labourers that would cultivate the land, and do a fair day's work. In a pamphlet lately published, it was stated that a sum of 40,000 1. or 50,000 l. had been raised amongst these labourers to build chapels, connected with the Baptist form of worship. Could any such thing take place in England? That showed what was the condition of the labourers of Jamaica, and he sincerely wished that the agricultural population of England was as well off. He asked, then, whether his hon. Friends would risk the happiness of these labourers, expose the colonies to certain immediate losses, and run the risk of a great contingent danger for the sake of lowering the price of sugar to 5d or 6d. per lb.? His hon. Friend asked him how long he expected the present protecting duties to be continued. The Government must answer that question. He would say, however, that it must be continued so long as the West-India colonies continued in their present state of destitution and suffering. Suppose that labour could be freely supplied—suppose that capital could be made to flow into the islands—though he did not ask the Government to send labourers or to lend capital; and suppose that the West-Indies were relieved from some of the disadvantages under which they now laboured—for he must remind the House that no particle of sugar could be used in our distilleries or breweries—they might, perhaps, reduce the differential duties. His hon. Friend said, that the corn growers kept the sugar out of the distilleries for their advantage; and if their turn was served, they would let the West-Indian go to the wall. Whatever might be the cause, he looked at the effect, and so long as that continued, so long the West-Indians had not fair play, and were sufferers from our legislation. Why should they not be allowed to help themselves? They were not allowed, and were denied the labourers they required. They were denied the privilege of importing labourers from the west coast of Africa by the friends of the abolition of slavery. So long as they were kept in that situation, and were not allowed to use their own exertions; so long as they were not placed on a fair footing with the rest of the subjects of the empire, so long would they require protection; and if the protecting duties were

243
withdrawn, it would prove their destruction.
Dr. Bowringadmitted that his hon. Friend who had just sat down, had made an ingenious speech, as the representative of the West-India interest, and by that interest it had been properly cheered; but his hon. Friend's observations were wholly beside the question before the House. That was—by what right did the House prevent the people from obtaining sugar on the cheapest terms? Why were they not allowed to go to the cheapest market, why were they not in the purchase of one of the most important and necessary articles of consumption, permitted to apply the principles which the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had advocated? Why was this to be an exception to that general and beneficial rule? This country had paid the West-Indian proprietors 20,000,000 1. for the abolition of slavery, and it had since paid many millions for the continuance of their monopoly. Why did the House, after having granted that compensation, continue to levy a sum for the advantage of the West-Indian proprietors, on the labourers of this country in the price of their sugar? Why should they pay an increased price for their sugar? The reason was, that the tax was levied by a class which used the power of legislating to obtain privileges, and they made the labouring classes pay. The tax on sugar was imposed by the same lips—advocated with the same arguments—carried on with the same objects—and producing the same evil effects, as the tax on corn; and if the proposition of his hon. Friend were rejected, it would be by the same interest which had rejected other propositions to relieve the consumer. It was said by the West Indians, when it was proposed to abolish slavery, give us as a compensation 20,000,000 1. and we shall not fear the competition of either free or slave labour. They had the compensation, and why did they not now struggle honestly and meet that competition fairly? It was admitted by his hon. Friend that the competition would raise the price of foreign sugar; well, then, would not that remove one of the weightiest arguments against its introduction—the argument that its low price would be ruinous to the colonial produce? It showed that the foreign sugars would come here under less advantages than they at present offer while excluded from the British consumer. The West Indies had
244
a great advantage in their situation, they were comparatively near to England, and the freight of their sugar was much less then the freight from Manilla, and from most of the rival sugar-producing countries. His hon. Friend had alluded to the impediments thrown in the way of the West-India islands, but he must remind his hon. Friend that they were not the work of the free-traders, and the free-traders would willingly aid his hon. Friend in removing them. The free-traders were anxious to extend their principles to all our colonies, to all governments, and to all communities; and they only wanted the power, while they believed that from the universal recognition of those principles, there was nothing to fear. The enormous taxation on food and the enormous taxation on sugar would not take place were the interest of the consumers not unrepresented. Every sinister interest had advocates in that House, and his hon. Friend was one of a privileged few. His hon. Friend said, that the distress amongst our labourers was great, and that the weavers of Bolton would be delighted to exchange situations with the negroes. That proved that the changes which had been effected in the West Indies had done good to the people; great advantages had flowed from their emancipation, and why should not the people of England be emancipated too? But the Legislature did nothing for the people of England, it attended only to the interests of the few and neglected the many. The country was now in consequence filled with commotion and discontent. He confessed he did not entertain any hope that they would obtain redress, but he should support his hon. Friend's motion by his vote.
Mr. Scarlettsaid, that both sugar and rum paid heavy taxes to the State. Suppose they were divided into fifteen parts, thirteen of them were taken by the Government. The West Indies had contributed largely to the resources of this country through a long series of years. At the same time the mother country had taxed all the foreign produce entering the colonies. The colonies were taxed for the advantage of the trade of the mother country. He believed, that no country ever taxed its colonies so highly, and the colonies yielded between 4,000,000 1. and 5,000,000 1. It was said, that the consumer paid this tax, that he denied. If they were to take off the tax, the consumer would not benefit.

245
If the duty were taken off sugar to-morrow, the consumer would not buy it for one farthing a pound less. He agreed with the hon. Member for Weymouth, that if they were to destroy the West. India interest, by allowing the free importation of foreign sugar, they would not obtain sugar from the Brazils on the same terms as now. Our manufactures paid no duties on entering our colonies, and they formed a considerable outlet for our produce; and the decay of the West Indies was one cause of the want of employment in our manufacturing districts. He denied, that if we placed the Brazils on the same footing as our West-India colonies, that it would necessarily follow, that the Brazils would continue to supply us with sugar, and we might run the hazard of an export duty being levied on sugar there, when it was required here. Neither was it probable, that if we admitted the Brazilian sugar, the Brazils would admit our manufactures on the same terms as our colonies. When they considered the great interest involved in this question, and considered that a colonial trade which they could command was always better than a foreign trade, which was not under their control, he thought they would not consent to injure our own colonies by adopting the measure. He relied on her Majesty's Government to relieve the people of this country from taxation when it was in their power, and he recommended the House to leave the decision of this and similar questions to her Majesty's Government.
Mr. Milner Gibsonsaid, his hon. Friend, the Member for Weymouth, had complained that sugar was not allowed to be used in our distilleries and breweries, and the hon. Member who had just sat down had complained of the heavy duties on rum; but both those effects were caused by those who wished to keep up the price of corn, and both the hon. Member and his hon. Friend must see that the West-India interest was sacrificed, as well as the people of England, to the landed proprietors; and though they continued to assist the landed proprietors, they were ready to exclaim against the evils of their situation. The power that prohibited the use of sugar in distilleries, and subjected rums to a heavy duty, was the same power which enacted the Corn-laws. The landed proprietors would not admit sugar into distilleries nor breweries, nor admit rum, because they would come into com-
246
petition with British spirits, or with the corn from which spirits were made. All the several monopolists so dove-tailed their arguments one with another in support of their separate monopolies, that they were likely to produce a great confusion. He must express his surprise, that no Member of her Majesty's Government had risen to answer the arguments of the hon. Member for Dumfries. Respect for the House and respect for his hon. Friend, should have made some Member of the Government state the reasons why it was necessary to continue these duties. His hon. Friend, the Member for Weymouth, had denied that the sum of 20,000,000 1. had compensated the West-Indian proprietors. The House knew that evils and derangements would ensue from emancipation—it knew, and had calculated, that 20,000,000 1. would be a compensation for those losses; and he conceived, that giving that 20,000,000 1. was a bargain and contract, which left the Parliament at liberty to deal with the question of the duties on sugar as if nothing had happened to cause those pecuniary derangements. His hon. Friend said, that the 20,000,000 1. was not, in fact, a compensation. Suppose he admitted, that it was no compensation; suppose he admitted that they required some further compensation, that was not admitting the proposition, that this compensation should he made by imposing a restriction on trade. This mode of compensation might cause a greater loss than its amount, and be, indeed, the most expensive to the people which could be devised. He asked his hon. Friend, the Member for Weymouth, when the time was likely to come, that the West-India proprietors would say that they were no longer impoverished, that the compensation was sufficient, and that the trade might be opened? That time, he was afraid, would never come, and the West Indian would never admit, that compensation had been sufficient. He, however, denied that it ever formed part of the proposition for emancipating the slaves that the produce of foreign countries was to be taxed, and trade impeded. The hon. Member for Horsham said, that those who brought forward a motion for the reduction of duties attacked the West-India proprietors; but it was riot they who made the attack—it was the Gentlemen who proposed restrictions on trade. The right hon. Baronet

247
(Sir Robert Peel) said, that he had done away with prohibition, but he had continued prohibitory duties which was the same thing. What was the difference between an absolute prohibition, and such a high tax, that the article taxed could not be imported? It was those, then, who proposed these duties who made the attacks on the people, and interfered with manufacture and trade. In fact, the manufacturers say, that they might have a good trade with the Brazils, and you will not allow them to follow it; they saw it was a restriction not called for on account of the public revenue, and yet the Government which imposes these restrictions, now refuses to assign any reason for them. The Government showed no ground for the reduction, and every man had a priori right to free-trade; the principles of free-trade were, as the right hon. Baronet had said, the principles of common sense, and, therefore, it behoved those who impeded it, to show the reason for the restriction. The onus of proving its necessity lay on them. They were bound to satisfy the people, who suffered from it, that it could not be dispensed with; for the people would be glad that all the sugar duties should be suffered to expire. The hon. Member for Weymouth had asked, that the colonies should be released from the restriction on their trade. The President of the Board of Trade, he remembered, had brought forward a measure, which he believed was supported by all the free-traders, to reduce the duties on foreign productions from 20 and 15 per cent. to 7 per cent., when imported into the colonies. That reduction had, not been opposed by the manufacturers, though, compared to the duties imposed on the raw materials here, and taking other things into consideration, it operated as a bonus to the foreign manufacturer to a considerable extent. It was admitted that the West Indies, under the protective system, were very much distressed, and that was, in his opinion, a good reason why that system should be given up, and a free-trade system tried. The hon. Member for Weymouth said, that the proposition of his hon. Friend, the Member for Dumfries, to equalise the duties, would precipitate the crisis which was inevitable. Some persons said, if an existing state of things were to be brought to a termination, that it was better to be at once put out of their misery, and if the
248
effect were inevitable, the sooner it was brought about the better, and the sooner we should have the advantage of competition, and the benefits of free-trade. The right hon. Gentleman had said, in answer to a question he had put to him, that Mr. Ellis, when he was sent to the Brazils, was empowered to make his offers to the Brazilian government, contingent on that government putting down slavery. That was a most odd proposition on which to found a treaty; for we proposed to Brazil to admit our manufactures, contingent on the abolition of slavery, which manufactures were made of materials the growth of slavery. Cotton was the produce of slave-labour. The right hon. Baronet then asked the Brazilian government to admit slave-grown produce at lower duties from this country, and at the same time asked it to put down slavery in the Brazils. Such a proceeding as this would make them appear in a most inconsistent position. It must be replied to them by the Brazilian minister, that the English had no hesitation in sending to Brazil slave-grown produce; and what hesitation, then, could England have to take slave-grown produce from Brazil? It was, he thought, very fortunate for the credit of this country, that their neighbours had not gone to that point, when Mr. Ellis should have to make such a proposal to the Brazilian government. They were all anxious that slavery should be put down, and all felt that this country was pledged in consistency to continue the exertions it hitherto had made, to put down the slave-trade and slavery. He asked them this question, How was slavery put down in the West-India colonies? How was that country induced to consent to the emancipation of the slaves belonging to the country? It was by the formation of a strong public opinion in this country, that the slave-trade and slavery were inhuman, immoral, and at variance with the law of God. It was the same system that put down slavery in the British dominions, that would also put down slavery in Brazil. If the same opinion were formed as to slavery there, it would be abolished there as well as it was here. But what had this to do with the putting of a high duty on British produce coming into this country? What would be the advantage of isolating themselves from Brazil? They had come to a certain opinion upon the slave-trade as regarded themselves. They

249
discountenanced slavery because of its immorality, and not from pecuniary considerations. And now isolating themselves from Brazil would be tantamount to their declaring that they could not trust free labour competing with slave labour, and it would, too, be preventing themselves from obtaining those advantages which otherwise they might possess.
Mr. Grantley Berkeleyobserved that the outlay upon a hogshead of West-India sugar was so great that there was no profit from it. There was loss upon every hogshead. The hon. Member for Stockport asked what prevented the colonies from maintaining themselves, and competing with foreigners. The colonies did not fear competition if they had a full share of free labour, but until that was given, let not protection be taken from them.
The committee divided on the question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:—Ayes 135; Noes 50: Majority 85.

List of the AYES.

Ackers, J.

Escott, B.

Acton, Col.

Fellowes, E.

Ainsworth, P.

Flower, Sir J.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Fox, C. R.

Arkwright, G.

Fuller, A. E.

Attwood, M.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Baillie, Col.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Baird, W.

Godson, R.

Barclay, D.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Gore, W. 0.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Grimston, Visct.

Bell, M.

Grogan, E.

Berkeley, hon. G.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Bernal, R.

Hale, R. B.

Blackburne, J. I.

Halford, H.

Blakemore, R.

Hampden, R.

Botfield, B.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Boyd, J.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Byng, G.

Hardy, J.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Hastie, A.

Chapman, A.

Hawes, B.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Chute, W. L. W.

Henley, J. W.

Clerk, Sir G.

Henninker, Lord

Codrington, Sir W.

Hill, Lord M.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Hodgson, R.

Copeland, Mr. Ald.

Holmes, hon. W. A.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Hope, hon. C.

Creswell, B.

Hope, G. W.

Darby, G.

Hussey, A.

Denison, J. E.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Dickinson, F. H.

James, W.

Douglas, Sir H.

Jones, Capt.

Duffield, T.

Kemble, H.

Dugdale, W. S.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. SirE

Dungannon, Visct.

Knightly, Sir C.

Eliot, Lord

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

250

Lopes, Sir R.

Round, J.

Lowther, J. H.

Rous, hon. Capt

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Russell, C.

Mackenzie, T.

Sanderson, R.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Scarlett, hon. R. C.

McGeachy, F. A.

Seymour, Lord

McTaggart, Sir J.

Smith, A.

Masterman, J.

Smith, rt. hn. R. V.

Meynell, Capt.

Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.

Mildmay, H. St. J.

Smollett, A.

Miles, P. W. S.

Somerset, Lord G.

Morgan, O.

Stanley, Lord

Muntz, G. F.

Stewart, J.

Neville, R.

Stuart, H.

O'Brien, A. S.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Pakington, J. S.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Palmer, G.

Tennent, J. E.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Tollemache, hn. F. J.

Peel, J.

Tollemache, J.

Pigot, Sir R.

Towneley, J.

Plumptre, J. P.

Trollop, Sir J.

Polhill, F.

Turnors, C.

Praed, W. T.

Vivian, J. E.

Pringle, A.

Welby, G. E.

Pusey, P.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Reid, Sir J. L.

Whitmore, T. C.

Rice, E. R.

Wortley, hn. J. S.

Richards, R.

Young, J.

Rolleston, Col.

TELLERS.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Round, C. G.

Baring, H.

List of the NOES.

Aldam, W.

Mitcalfe, H.

Archbold, R.

Morison, Gen.

Barnard, E. G.

O'Brien, J.

Blewitt, R. J.

Ord, W.

Bowring, Dr.

Pechell, Capt.

Browne, hon. W.

Plumridge, Capt.

Busfeild, W.

Protheroe, E.

Chapman, B.

Ricardo, J. L.

Cobden, R.

Roche, Sir D

Collett, J.

Scholefield, J.

Currie, R.

Scott, R.

Dalmeny, Lord

Seale, Sir J. H.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Duncan, G.

Strutt, E.

Ellis, W.

Thornely, T.

Elphinstone, H.

Trelawny, J. S.

Fielden, J.

Turner, E.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Villiers, hon. C.

Gibson, T. M.

Wakley, T.

Granger, T. C.

Ward, H. G.

Hatton, Capt. V.

Wawn, J. T.

Hindley, C.

Williams, W.

Horseman, E.

Wood, B.

Langston, J. H.

Yorke, H. R.

Lord Mayor of London

TELLERS.

Ewart, W.

Marshall, W.

Brotherton, J.

Amendment rejected.
Main question again put.
Mr. Hawesrose to move an amendment. The question which they had just decided, he said, was practically against the abolition at once of differential duties. He

251
was not himself prepared to come to that conclusion. He rather preferred, by a reduction of duty on foreign sugars, gradually to bring them into competition with sugars the produce of the West Indies. An argument was pressed into the consideration of this subject, by those opposed to such propositions as this. It was always more or less connected with the encouragement of slavery and slave-trade. It was now stated, and bad been stated before, that the reduction would encourage slavery. It was also said that the revenue would be affected. He thought he could show, that the reduction on foreign sugar only, to the extent that he proposed, would not be inconsistent with the advocacy of an abolition of slavery, nor practically encourage the slave-trade. Those who formerly advocated the abolition of slavery, always maintained, that free labour was cheaper than slave labour; and that whenever negro emancipation took place, the produce of free labour would come successfully in competition with the produce of slavery. He referred to the works put forward by the Anti. slavery Society itself. At that late hour he did not mean to refer to more than this —that their pamphlets stated distinctly that this was the opinion of men who had long been most eminent in advocating the abolition of slavery; men, for instance, like Mr. Macauley, Mr. Cropper, and Sir Fowell Buxton. He referred, however, particularly to the opinion of Mr. Bealdon on this subject, that gentleman said:—
"A main defect of slavery, in an economical point of view, is its incompatibility with the highest degree of agricultural improvement, owing to the necessary debasement of the human agent, and its inability to employ, in the most efficacious manner, the various appliances of science and of art. A grand advantage of freedom is its capability of receiving the full benefit of all those invaluable accompaniments of human labour, neutralising, in a great degree the disparity of numbers, securing the greater continuity, economy, and perfection in the process, and approximating to an astonishing extent the productive powers of widely-differing soils."
He was asked when was this written? He replied that it had been written last year. and after the sugar debate of last year In the same pamphlet Mr. Bealdon laid down this position, that free labour was more economical in its production than slave labour. He thought it right to lay
252
down this foundation before he proceeded further. It was then a serious question whether the result of a reduction of the duty could effect an extension of slavery. If it could be shown that it did, then his argument must fail; but it rested upon the highest and most disinterested authority to prove that an opposite result would be attained. The reduction of the duty to the extent he proposed, could not be injurious to the anti-slavery principle. He had to refer to a document which ought to be looked to by those who were so zealous on this subject. The document had been laid upon the Table of that House, and was moved for by his hon. Friend the Member for Paisley. It showed the enormous extent of the trade carried on between Great Britain and Brazil. They had recently endeavoured to enter into a treaty with Brazil, and it went off only on the question of duty. This showed that the Government was anxious to extend the trade with Brazil. All that entered into our trade with the Brazils was more or less the produce of slave-labour and therefore every argument of those who opposed the alteration of the sugar duties, on the ground of discouraging slave produce, fell to the ground. But the real question was between protection and prohibition. The hon. Member for Dumfries had boldly grappled with the question of protection, and had put an end to all claims on that score. He, however, could not consent to a sudden change of this kind; he thought that all changes of this description should be made gradually to operate safely, and he thought that the proposition which he now made was of a character to be adopted without any danger on this score. Supposing the price of West India sugar to be 36 s., and the duty 24 s., this would give a total selling price of 60 s. per cwt. Putting the foreign sugar at 20 s., and the duty at 34 s., a total selling price would be 54 s. per cwt., making a difference of only 6s. between the British and foreign sugars. But as they could not have two prices in the market at the same time, he would suppose that the general price of sugars became 54 s. per cwt. Now, recollecting the compensation money which the colonists had received on the abolition of slavery, and the alterations in legislation which had led to the more economical introduction of articles used in the West Indies, he put it whether this

253
might not be a fair remunerating price. With all respect for the hon. Member for Weymouth, to whose speech he had listened with great attention, he firmly believed that they could never arrive at the most economical mode of production until there was some degree of competition introduced. The noble Lord opposite had, on a motion of his (Mr. Hawes), laid on the Table of the House a copy of a despatch which he had addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Jamaica. The West Indians said that they could not compete with foreigners, and called upon the Legislature to protect their property; but whilst they did this, they should take care not to do that which would be at once hostile to the labourers of those colonies, whilst at the same time it diminished the amount of the production of sugar, on which this country had to depend; for the committee should recollect that if they increased the price of articles of living, they increased also the cost of production. Another point which he wished the committee to consider, was, that they should endeavour to increase the range of the class of consumers. But, even taking things as they were, he had a right to suppose that a reduction in the duties would considerably increase the consumption of sugar, and the revenues derived there from. The consumption of sugar varied Very much. In 1831, when the price of sugar was 23 s. 8d., the consumption, molasses included, was 218,000 tons? in 1841, when the price was 38 s. 3d., the consumption was 210,000 tons; and in 1842, the price being 36 s. 11 d., the consumption was 200,000 tons. Assuming 200,000 tons to be a fair average of the actual consumption of the kingdom, it fell very far short of what it ought to be; judging even from the allowance to aged paupers in the workhouses. The allowance to aged paupers was a day, or 22¾lbs. per annum, which, upon the present population of 26,707,000 would make a total consumption for the kingdom of 270,000 tons; an amount of consumption which the people ought to enjoy, if they could command it. But this was an amount of sugar which we could not expect to receive from our colonies.
"The recent accounts from the Wrest Indies fully confirm those previously received; and it may now be stated with much confidence, in contradiction to original expectation, that the
254
supplies from that quarter will not exceed those of last year; whilst a falling-off in the receipts from the Mauritius is certain, and probably less will be obtained from India. The imports to this date (June, 1843), of East and West India, and Mauritius, amount to 83,500 tons, against 78,000 in 1842, and 83,000 tons in 1841."
The produce of our colonies was not equal to what it ought to be, and our consumption was not what it ought to be. Another point was, that the duty which he now proposed, calculated upon 240,000 tons of sugar, would yield a very considerable revenue. Now, was the country, in its present condition, in a state to reject any proposition from which an increase of revenue could be derived; and particularly if that increase of revenue went hand-in. hand with an increase of comforts to the people. Looking at the state of the finances of the country, he thought there was no great chance of a reduction in taxation being effected. The proposition which he offered to the committee would increase the consumption of one of the necessaries of life, whilst it also benefited the revenue. The House had as yet done nothing in the present Session for the people. He asked them now to grant them this one boon. The proposition he offered would increase the comforts of the people and improve the revenue, whilst it did nothing hostile to the great principle of slave-emancipation. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving to add the following words to the clause, "except so far as regards the duty on foreign brown or Muscovado sugar, not being refined, which shall be hereafter charged at the rate of 34 s. the cwt.
Mr. Gladstonesaid, that apprehending it to be the desire of the House that this discussion should close to-night, he could promise them that he should not do anything to stand in the way of so desirable a consummation. He should endeavour to be extremely brief in what he had to say, in reply to the proposition which had been so very temperately and fairly made by the hon. Member for Lambeth. For his own part, he would admit, that he was very far from congratulating the House, upon commercial grounds, on the exemption of sugar from the beneficial principles of the tariff of last year. He thought it would have been advantageous to the commerce of the country if, without sacrificing the higher interests and feelings to which the House and the country were

255
pledged, they could have applied the same principle to sugar as to other articles in the tariff. The hon. Gentleman recommended his proposition as regarded its effect on the revenue, and the consumption at home. As regarded the revenue, he did not think such a change would have any deterimental or injurious effect; but lie thought it would be extremely difficult for the hon. Gentleman to show that the proposition was likely to have any such effect on the revenue, as materially to increase the sugar duties. The hon. Member spoke of the displacement of colonial sugar, and of the 10 s. extra to be obtained from the duty on foreign sugar imported. But it was most unlikely that any sugar would be displaced by this measure. The colonist would sell in the protected market rather than go abroad; and every pound of his sugar would be sold here so long as the protection remained. But would the hon. Gentleman's proposition have such an effect in the reduction of the price of sugar, as materially to stimulate consumption. That appeared to him to be the practical question, and he was bound to answer it in the negative. He could not see that it would have any material effect on the price. He would not, at that late hour, trouble the committee with figures, but calculations bad, on former and more convenient occasions, been produced to shew that there was no reason to anticipate any reduction in price beyond 2s. a cwt. under a proposition nearly similar when it was brought forward two years ago. If that were the whole reduction, there was no reason to anticipate any material benefit to the consumer. As regarded the colonists, the benefits could not be very great. They had heard the connection between the West-Indian colonies and Great Britain spoken of as if the conduct of this country towards the West Indies were one of unmixed favour; as if preference and protection were in every case extended towards their productions, while very great burthens were borne by this country for the benefit of the West Indies, and the maintenance of the colonial establishments. Now, on the other hand, it was to be said that the West Indians contributed very largely to the general wealth and greatness of the empire; the great bulk of their productions were sent to this country, and swelled the amount of its riches. There were also restrictions imposed on the agriculture and traffic of the West Indians. Their sugar was not al-
256
lowed to be used in the distilleries of this country, nor their molasses in the breweries. How, then, could hon. Gentlemen contend for the application of the principles of free trade towards the producers of the West Indies, when they would not allow to them the freedom which other producers enjoyed, that of hiring labour wherever they could find it cheapest on the face of the globe. The West Indians were prevented from refining sugar in the form most convenient to them. They might not refine it in the colony; at least, if they did so, and if it were sent here in the refined shape, it was liable to pay the prohibitory duty of 8l. 8s. a cwt. They were compelled to bring the article to this country, not in the refined form, in which the duty would bear the smallest proportion to the value, but in the gross crude shape, in order to afford employment to British shipping and British manufactories. These were the disadvantages under which the producer in the West Indies was placed with respect to the British market. On the whole he considered it manifest that the hon. Gentleman's proposition would only produce a very small reduction in price, which would be altogether insufficient to give a stimulus to consumption. It was a capital object, in dealing with a question of this kind, to avoid unsettling great interests having an immediate bearing on the comforts of the people as well as the interests of the revenue, without the prospect of corresponding benefit. When your duties were altered, they ought to be so altered as to give the greatest possible relief to the consumer, and at the same time to secure the greatest possible amount to the revenue. On that ground he said, that the proposition of the hon. Gentleman, though not objectionable or mischievous, was insufficient for its purpose. The House, when it approached a question like the present, ought to determine to make such a diminution of duty as to effect a material reduction in the price of the article, and therefore a great saving to the consumer. He did not think there was reason to apprehend anything like a permanent rise in prices, which had been falling for the last two years. There was a great fallacy in comparing the augumented prices of the present year, with the prices, in name equally augmented, of former years, because it was well known to those acquainted with the course of trade that there had been a progressive tendency to

257
improve the quality of the sugar imported. Improved machinery had been brought into use, better methods of cultivation adopted, and the article bad been Dent; home in a much better state. Sugar at 35 s. per cwt. in the present day, did not represent the 35 s. sugar of several years ago, but an article better in price by several shillings a cwt. Notwithstanding what had fallen from some Gentlemen, he saw no ground for retreating from the arguments made use of in 1841, with respect to the tendency which an indiscriminate reduction of duty on foreign sugar would have under present circumstances in giving a great stimulus to the slave-trade. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton had said that persons abroad looked on our conduct in this respect as a mere piece of hypocrisy. He did not know with what persons abroad the hon. Member communicated; but for his part he believed the contrary to be the case. It was admitted in this country, that it would be beneficial, in a commercial view, to have those duties reduced; but surely the mind of man could not be so besotted, nor foreigners so blinded by prejudice, as not to see that this country had made great sacrifices for the abolition of slavery, and at this moment was making still greater sacrifices for the same end, in retaining the prohibitory duties on foreign sugar. He did not know by what party or class it had been made matter of reprobation or charge against England that she admitted the existence of those duties. If this proposition were to have the effect of admitting any great quantity of Brazilian sugar into the market, it could not be denied that it would practically give a stimulus to the slaves trade. The hon. Member for Lambeth argued this part of the question merely from reference to authorities; he quoted a passage from Mr. Baildon's book to show that free labour was cheaper than slave labour, which merely laid down this as an axiom. That might be very true as a general proposition, but what was the course taken on this question by all those who had taken the warmest interest in the abolition of slavery, and done most to promote the cause? Sir F. Buxton had strongly opposed the measure submitted to Parliament by the late Government; Dr. Lushington, who was then a most strenuous and efficient supporter of the administration, rose in his place in that House to resist the proposal; and Mr. Sturge, whom he believed he might name
258
as a third person who had the greatest share in accelerating the final measure for the abolition of slavery, had only yesterday in a public assembly in the metropolis, declared that in his opinion no produce raised by slave labour ought to be admitted into this country. He did not speak of the possibility of acting on that opinion, but he was meeting the argument of the hon. Member for Lambeth, who had appealed to authorities alone, while he admitted that if it could be shown that the effect of his proposition would be to encourage the slave-trade, it must fall to the ground. If this measure were to do any good to our trade with Brazil, or to bring more of its produce into the British market, it must give the greatest encouragement to the Brazilian slave-trade. A greater demand would lead to a better price being paid to the Brazilian planter; a higher price must turn his mind towards the better organization of his capabilities for production. What were the instruments of which he made use in raising his crops? Slaves. The hon. Member said that an opinion had lately begun to be entertained in Brazil that free-labour was cheaper than slave-labour. He should rejoice if this were the case; but he was sorry to say such an opinion did not yet sway the councils of the nation, nor had it made any great way in overcoming the prejudices which had so much influence in that country. Slaves, not capital invested in labour, were the instruments by which cultivation was carried on; and a higher price for produce meant a higher price for slaves. A higher price for slaves, meant an increased inducement to bring slaves from Africa, and that meant extension and encouragement of the slave-trade. The whole virtue and value of this measure, in a commercial sense, went to establish the certainty of adding a powerful stimulus to the slave-trade. The policy adopted in 1841, and sanctioned by a not inconsiderable majority of a Parliament favourable I to the Ministry of that day, although, he admitted, in a commercial sense open to objections, had yet, he believed not been ineffective for the greater purposes for which it had been pursued. The slave-trade was in course of progressive and regular diminution up to the end of 1842. The importation of slaves into the Brazils had fallen from about 60,000, at which it stood ten years ago, to 12,000 or 13,000, in 1842. Into Cuba eight years ago, 30,000 had been imported; in 1842 there

259
was not more than 3,000. How had that result been obtained? Partly, no doubt, by the activity and gallantry of our cruisers, and the noble liberality with which the means of this country had been exerted for the purpose of checking the slave-trade. That had been one part of our policy; but another part had been to withhold from the purchasers of slaves that encouragement which a reduction of duties would have given, furnishing a stimulus far more powerful and certain than any measures of repression which were at our command would have been in checking the trade. These were, then, proofs of the practical effect of the policy of Great Britain. On some estates in the Brazils the cultivation of sugar had been abandoned, and that of coffee substituted. Hon. Members opposite were fond of pressing the argument that Brazilian sugar ought not to be excluded while Brazilian coffee was admitted, but, although there might be some inconsistency in admitting the one article and excluding the other, when considered logically and philosophically, yet practically it was not. The article of sugar from the continuous and comparatively severe labour which it required, had a special connection with the slave-trade, while coffee had no such connection, as it might be raised by the labour of women and children. It might be a question how far our proceedings had been consistent with respect to the coffee of Brazil, but he said that, by receiving the coffee of Brazil we did not give a stimulus to the slave-trade. This was not a mere question as to slave-labour, but as to the slave-trade. This opposition to the motion referred rather to its details than its principle, and rather to its insufficiency for the purpose it had in view, than to any essential vice in its nature. Those grounds of humanity which had induced the House to come to an adverse decision in a former year remained still in full force, and would, he had no doubt, lead the House now to a similiar conclusion.
Mr. Labouchereassured the House he would occupy their time very briefly. and, avoiding all details and figures, would state only on general principles why he was prepared to vote with his hon. Friend. The question on which they were about to vote was, whether sugar should continue to be excepted from the general rule which had been laid down with regard to all other articles of trade and consumption in the country; whether it should be protected
260
by a differential duty or by a complete monopoly and prohibition; or whether the time had not come when, looking to the interest of the consumers, the interest of trade, and of a revenue, sugar should not come under the same regulations which had been declared just and expedient with regard to every other article of trade and consumption? What prospect had this country of being freed from a burthen which every year was becoming more intolerable, and to which the attention of the people was more and more directed? He never listened to the expression of the opinions of any Government with less satisfaction than he had listened to-night. Nothing could be more vague, uncertain, and indefinite than the grounds on which the Government proposed to defer the settlement of the sugar duties in the manner proposed. He did not argue on the immense advantages which would arise to trade and commerce from applying to sugar the principles that had been applied to other articles of trade and consumption. He could appeal to the high authority of the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) himself, who declared last Session that there was no step which the House could take that would give such a stimulus to trade, and be so important to the interests of the consumer, as the application to sugar of the same principles which had been applied to other articles. Why, then, should they any longer delay applying those principles which came to them recommended by such high authority? The right hon. President of the Board of Trade had placed his defence of the sugar duties on a single ground. He allowed that, commercially and financially considered, it was most desirable that they should assent to the proposition of his hon. Friend, but this was not the time to carry it into effect. Why, if the Government would announce their intention to deal with the sugar duties on just and liberal principles, he was sure his hon. Friend and the House would leave the matter in their own hands. All he asked was, that the prohibition which had been abolished on every other article should no longer be continued on sugar; but, finding an interest which had been long established, they would not do away with all protection at once, but apply to it a moderate differential duty. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade said, that so long as the slave-trade existed we should not take sugar from countries where slaves would continue to

261
be imported for its production. Why, when Lord Glenelg brought forward a modification of the sugar duties before negro emancipation had taken place, surely the question of the slave-trade applied as much to the proposal of Mr. Huskisson and Mr. Grant as to that of his hon. Friend. Yet the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was then in office, and said that he agreed in principle with Mr. Huskisson and Lord Glenelg, and that he considered it only a question of time. The question of the slave-trade, and of the reception of slave produce was then raised, and it was disposed of triumphantly by Mr. Huskisson and Lord Glenelg. They said,
" As long as you have an extensive export trade to Brazil, you must be aware that trade cannot be continued unless yon receive in return the produce of slave labour; and, if you act consistently, you must declare that you will not export a single bale of goods to that country."
But he conceived that the reasons for which Parliament and the late Government resisted for several years any alteration in these sugar duties were of a totally different nature. They felt, and he thought justly, that after the great experiment which had been tried in the West Indies, it was right that time should be afforded to ascertain the result of that experiment before any alteration was made which might have a tendency to shake confidence in the system then established. He believed that was the ground, and he considered it a sufficient one, on which the Legislature and the Government had resisted for some time after the passing of the Slave Emancipation Act, any alteration in the duties on the great staple article of colonial produce. But he had always felt, and had always said, that this must have an end; and it was clearly indicated to the West-India proprietors that the time was approaching when the Government would feel it their duty to propose that the same principles which had been applied to other articles of commerce should be applied to that of sugar. Now, he would put it to the House, what was to he gained by delay? If they believed that them present system could not last, that it ought to be changed, had not the period now arrived for making an alteration? Ample time had been allowed the colonies to recover from the affects of the new system which had been establisher. Ten years had elapsed since the act for the emancipation of the negroes was adopted; a general reform of the system
262
of duties had been announced, and, to a considerable extent, had been carried into effect; and when they had thus dealt with all other interests, he thought it was the height of injustice and impolicy to except the sugar duties from the application of the principle which had been laid down with respect to other articles. The measure which was proposed last Session by the President of the Board of Trade, and which was adopted by the House, had modified very considerably those colonial duties of which such general, and he thought just complaints, were made; and he therefore considered this a most favourable opportunity for adopting the course now recommended to the House. It was his honest conviction that the time had arrived when it was most desirable, for the interests of the colonists themselves, that this step should be taken. They must not regards merely the case of the West Indies, they must look also to the East Indies, and to the Mauritius, where of late years, a large quantity of sugar had been produced. He had, last year, expressed his opinion that the maintenance of monopoly would have the effect of stimulating production in the colonies to which he had just alluded; and his expectations had been strikingly verified, especially in the case of the Mauritius. In consequence of the high price of sugar in this country, most extensive speculations had been entered into in that colony, which had produced most ruinous results; and collapse and diminished production had been the consequence. The right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that there would be a sufficient supply of sugar for the next year. He did not understand What was meant by a sufficient supply. He would say on this subject, as he did with regard to the article of corn, "Put your law upon a proper rational footing, and then leave the people to get their supplies on the best terms on which they can obtain them." For a Chancellor of the Exchequer to say, "I can get so much sugar from one place, and so much from another, and therefore I propose to uphold the monopoly for another year," seemed to him a most dangerous and unjustifiable course of proceeding. The supply of sugar which had been received last year had been referred to by the hon. Gentlemen opposite in support of their arguments; but he wished to call the attention of the House to three facts in connexion with the circumstances of the sugar trade last year, The price of sugar

263
in 1842 was moderate compared with what it had been during the preceding year. The supply was good, and the price of corn was low; but, notwithstanding this favourable combination of circumstances, the quantity of sugar entered for consumption in 1842 was considerably less than the supply entered for consumption in 1841. When the price of corn was high, the people were rather disposed to spend their money in the purchase of bread than of sugar, but though last year the prices of bread and of sugar were low, the consumption of sugar exhibited a falling-off as compared with that of the preceding year. He thought this was a decisive proof of a diminished power of consumption in the country. He could not sit down without expressing a hope that some more distinct declaration would be made than they had yet had the good fortune to hear from any member of her Majesty's Government Os to what were the prospects of this country, either as to the treaty with the Brazils, or with respect to any other treaties with sugar-producing countries, which might afford a hope that the time was approaching when rational principles of trade would be applied to this article, and when Great Britain might derive the advantages of the admission of foreign sugar into competition with that produced in her colonial possessions.
Sir R. Peelsaid, the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, expressed a hope that some explanation would be given by her Majesty's Government as to the course of negotiations on this subject past or future —but the right hon. Gentleman must be aware, that great embarrassment might result to the public service if any Member of her Majesty's Government entered into details with respect to matters of this nature. I may say, generally, that her Majesty's Government have, within the last year, submitted propositions to the Government of Brazil for the purpose of placing our commercial relations with that country, which will terminate in November, 1844, upon a basis which appears to her Majesty's Government more satisfactory than that which at present exists, These propositions so made by her Majesty's Government to the government of Brazil, had reference to the article of sugar. We proposed to the government of Brazil to treat for the freer admission of Brazilian sugar into the markets of this country, On the condition that the government of Brazil should adopt some measures for the purpose
264
of ameliorating the condition of the slave population of that empire, and leading, not immediately, but gradually and ultimately, to the extinction of slavery in its dominions. It was unnecessary to enter into any discussion with the government of Brazil upon that basis, because the government of Brazil intimated to her Majesty's Government, in the first instance, that they would not consent to treat upon any other basis than that contended for by the hon. Member for Dumfries—namely, that the agricultural produce of Brazil should be admitted into this country, not only upon as favourable a footing as that on which the produce of any foreign country was admitted, but upon the same footing as that on which we admitted the produce of our own colonies. Subsequently, a modification of that proposal was submitted, permitting an advantage of 10 per cent to the produce of our colonies; but that was understood to be the ultimatum of the Brazilian government, and the negotiation with that Government then terminated. Our treaty with the government of Brazil expires, as I have before stated, in November, 1844. The hon. Member for Dumfries has frequently said,
" If you object to make a treaty with Brazil, why don't you treat for the admission of Java sugar into this country, or for the admission of sugar produced in the islands of the Indian Archipelago or in China into our markets? These are sources from which you may admit the competition of foreign sugar free from the objection that that sugar is the produce of slave-labour."
The hon. Gentleman says,
"Here you may obtain sugar the produce of free labour. Show a disposition to break up the West-India monopoly. Remove your prohibitive duties in favour of sugar which is produced by free labour."
But the answer to the hon. Gentleman, at present, at least, is this, that by our treaties with Brazil and other countries producing sugar by slave-labour, we are not at liberty, during the existence of those treaties, to permit the importation into this country of sugar, the produce of free labour. You cannot permit the introduction of China or Java sugar into this country, while your present treaty with Brazil continues in force; because that treaty gives to Brazil the right of insisting upon the admission of its sugar, though it may be the produce of slave labour, to the exclusion of other sugar, although it may be the produce of free labour. There is no stipulation in the treaty, I presume, that the

265
conditions must be the same. You are not at liberty, I apprehend, to say to Brazil, it is true we admit Java sugar, but it is the produce of free labour; yours is the produce of slave-labour. Brazil, I apprehend, has under the existing treaty a right to call upon us to admit her sugar on the most favourable footing. That is an answer to the argument of the hon. Member for Dumfries as to the introduction of Java sugar. Well, then, Sir, I must still contend, notwithstanding that I admit, as I have before admitted, the benefits to be derived from a supply of cheap sugar, that in the existing feeling of the people of Brazil with respect to the slave trade, it cannot be expected that this country, after our sacrifices for the abolition of the slave trade and of slavery, and after the professions we have made in the face of the world, could admit, without fixing a stain on the character of the nation, Brazilian sugar to the British market, unless we obtained at the same time further concessions from them in favour of the suppression of the slave trade. Sir, I am much afraid that the history of the slave-trade in Brazil will be found to reflect anything but honour on that country, anything but honour on their legislation, anything but honour on their executive. Sir, when some time ago it became necessary to remove our fleet, which was stationed on the Brazilian coasts for the prevention of the slave-trade, to protect British interests in the river Plate, the Brazilians took advantage of its absence, and the slave-trade immediately rose again with a vigour never before known. I state this with confidence, for I have here a list of the ships that introduced slaves, with accounts of the artifices that were made use of, and the manner in which the slaves were conveyed. Representations I need not say were made by our Minister to the Brazilian authorities, and the most earnest remonstrances addressed to them. But look at the extent of Brazil, and the vast tracts of Virgin land in that country fit for the cultivation of sugar. Public feeling there (it is impossible to deny it) is in favour of the free admission of slaves for the purpose of cultivating those tracts and raising sugar on them; and therefore, although, as the right hon. Gentleman says—and the argument has some plausibility—we encourage slave-labour and the slave-trade by becoming the carriers of their produce in the way we do at present, and therefore we cannot consistently refuse to take their sugar yet depend upon it, if you open the British
266
market to their sugar, although there is some analogy to our present proceedings, the practical consequence would be, that you would give an immediate stimulus to the slave-trade. You would discourage the growth of that spirit which you have been fostering for years; you would be taking a different course; you would give rise to new exertions on the part of the slave-traders. There cannot be a doubt I apprehend, that such would be the practical result of opening the British market to Brazilian sugar. It has been said by some hon. Gentlemen that her Majesty's Ministers are afraid to deal with monopoly, that we are afraid to come into collision with the West-India interest. Now, if we were to put aside considerations of justice, and looked only for popularity and support in this House, I do believe that the Very best thing we could do would be to sacrifice the West-Indian interest. [An hon. Member " No."] The hon. Member only heard the last part of my sentence, that the best thing we could do would be to sacrifice the West-Indian interest. What I did say, was, that if the Government, casting aside other considerations, were to look only for Parliamentary support, if they disregarded considerations of justice and sought only popularity, then their best course would be to admit to the British market the produce of Brazil and Cuba, That was what I said; but then it is said we have purchased the right by the grant of 20,000,000 l. of compensation money, of dealing as we like with the West-Indian proprietors. Now, if I take an individual proprietor, and say I purchased your slaves and I have a right to deal with you as may appear expedient, if I take the case of a single proprietor, perhaps in strict justice I might have a right to say so. But still, I very much doubt whether on the whole a compensation in full has been given him for so great a change as has taken place. I have made anxious inquiries into this question, and in order to test the truth, instead of a Vague statement, I asked for an account of the estate of an individual. On an average of years previous to the commencement of the apprenticeship system that estate was yielding about 10,000 1. a-year. During the apprenticeship system the average was about 6,400 1. a-year. But I wished to ascertain what were the returns now of payments made and profits received, and this is the account, the accuracy of which I have every reason to confide in. From the 15th of January to the

267
31st of December, 1840, the payments for the wages of labour, the island taxes, the repairs of machinery and other things amounted to 10,681 l.; the receipts for the same period were 7,028 l. This was in 1840. For the same period in 1841 the payments were 9,889 l., the receipts 7,042 l. In the last year, when, as it was said, a sufficient interval—or, as the right hon. Gentleman called it, breathing time—had been given, when the experiment had been tried, what were the results? From the 1st of January to the 31st of December last year the payments were 9,795 l., the receipts 7,230 l. So that for the last three years, an estate from which the average returns were 10,000 1. a-year, averaged a net loss on the three crops of 3,081 l. [Mr. Hawes: The estate belongs to a resident proprietor.] No, the proprietor is not resident; and I admit that his being resident might possibly make a difference; but I was comparing the present with the former produce of the estate. Probably in former years also the residence of the proprietor would have increased the profits. I was only showing, and 1 think conclusively, from this account, that though, perhaps, more than 10,000 l. or 14,000 l. might have been received in such a case from the slave-compensation fund, still, noble as the gift was as respects us, it cannot be considered that the proprietor has received complete compensation for the change which has arisen from the abolition of slavery. However, I am not complaining of that abolition or of the amount of the sum received; I am only dealing with the argument that we have paid you the 20,000,000 l., and therefore, have a right to deal with you as we like. I say again, that if I take the case of an individual proprietor it may be that he has in strict justice no reason to complain, but when I come to legislate on such a subject I must look at the actual condition of the colonies and the nature of the connexion which exists between them and the mother country. [An hon. Member: "Divide, divide."] I am always ready to accede to the wishes of the House, and the more so on the present occasion, the subject being one which has so frequently been discussed nothing new can be said upon it. I rose with pain, and should not have done so, were it not that hon. Gentlemen opposite taunted Government with being silent. I had been asked what had been done with respect to the negotiations with Brazil? I have stated as distinctly as I can the course which has been pursued, and I now hope
268
that the House will consent to the proposition of the Government.
The Committee divided on the question, "that the words moved by Mr. Hawes be added: Ayes 122; Noes 203; Majoiity 81.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Howard, Sir R.

Ainsworth, P.

Howick, Visct.

Aldam, W.

Hutt, W.

Anson, hon. Col.

Jervis, J.

Archbold, R.

Johnson, Gen.

Bannerman, A.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Langston, J. H.

Barnard, E. G.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Lemon, Sir C.

Blewitt, L. J.

Leveson, Lerd

Bowring, Dr.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.

Brotherton, J.

Mc'Taggart, Sir J.

Bulkeley, Sir R. B. W.

Mangles, R. D.

Buller, E.

Marshall, W.

Busfeild, W.

Mitcalfe, H

Byng, G.

Morris, D.

Cavendish, hn. G. H.

Morison, Gen.

Clive, E. B.

Morrison, J.

Collett, J.

Muntz, G. F.

Craig, W. G.

O'Brien, J.

Crawford, W. S.

O'Brien, W. S.

Currie, R.

O'Connell, M. J.

Curteis, H. B.

Oswald, J.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Paget, Col.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Parker, J.

Denison, J. E.

Pechell, Capt.

Dennistoun, J.

Philips, G. R.

Divett, E.

Pigot, rt. hon. D.

Duke, Sir J.

Plumridge, Capt.

Duncan, Visct.

Ponsonby, hon. J. G.

Duncan, G.

Protheroe, E.

Dundas, Adm.

Redington, T. N.

Easthope, Sir J.

Rice, E. R.

Ebrington, Visct.

Ross, D. R.

Ellice, E.

Russell, Lord J.

Ellis, W.

Russell, Lord E.

Esmonde, Sir T.

Scholefield, J.

Etwall, R.

Scott, R.

Evans, W.

Scale, Sir J. H.

Ewart, W.

Seymour, Lord

Forster, M.

Smith, J. A.

Fox, C. R.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Gibson, T. M.

Stanley, hon. W. 0.

Gill, T.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Gore, hon. R.

Stanton, W. H.

Granger, T. C.

Stuart, Lord J.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Strutt, E.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Tancred, H. W.

Hall, Sir B.

Thorneley, T.

Hallyburton, Ld. J. G.

Towneley, J.

Hastie, A.

Trelawny, J. S.

Hatton, Capt. V.

Tufnell, H

Hayter, W. G.

Turner, E.

Heathcoat, J.

Vane, Lord H.

Hindley, C.

Wakley, T.

Horsman, E.

Watson, W. H.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Wawn, J. T.

Howard, hon. J. K.

Wilshere, W.

Howard, Lord

Winnington, Sir T. E.

269

Wood, B.

Yorke, H. L.

Wood, C.

TELLERS.

Wood, G. W.

Hawes, B.

Worsley, Lord

Hill, Lord M.

List of the NOES.

Ackers, J.

Eliot, Lord

Acland, Sir T. D.

Emlyn, Visct.

A'Court, Capt.

Escott, B.

Acton, Col.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Adare, Visct.

Farnham, E. B.

Adderley, C. B.

Fellowes, E.

Alford, Visct.

Flower, Sir J.

Antrobus, E

Follett, Sir W. W.

Arkwright, G.

Forbes, W.

Astell, W.

Forester, hon. G. C. W.

Attwood, M.

Fox, S. L.

Bailey, J. jun.

Fuller, A. E.

Baillie, Col.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Baillie, H. J.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Baird, W.

Gladstone, Capt.

Barclay, D.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Godson, R.

Barrington, Visct.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Gore, W. 0.

Beckett, W.

Goring, C.

Bell, M.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Berkeley, hon. G. F.

Gimsditch, T.

Bernard, Visct.

Grogan, E.

Blackburne, J. I.

Halford, H.

Blakemore, R.

Hamilton, J. H.

Boldero, H. G.

Hamilton, G. A.

Botfield, B.

Hamilton, W. J.

Bradshaw, J.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Broadley, H.

Hampden, R.

Bruce, Lord E.

Harcourt, G. G.

Buller, Sir. J. Y.

Hardinge, rt. hon. sirH

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Hardy, J.

Cardwell, E.

Hayes, Sir E.

Charteris, hon. F.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Henley, J. W.

Cholmondeley, hn. H.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Christopher, R. A.

Herbert, hon. S.

Chute, W. L. W.

Hervey, Lord A.

Clayton, R. R.

Hodgson, R.

Clerk, Sir G.

Holmes, n. W. A'Ct.

Clive, Visct.

Hope, hon. C.

Codrington, Sir W.

Hope, A.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Hope, G. W.

Colvile, C. R.

Hornby, J.

Connolly, Col.

Hughes, W. B.

Copeland, Mr. Aid.

Ingestre, Visct.

Corry, rt. hon. H

James, W.

Courtenay, Lord

Jermyn, Earl

Cresswell, B.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Cripps, W.

Jones, Capt.

Darby, G.

Kemble, H.

Denison, E. B.

Knatchbull, rt, hn. SirE.

Dickinson, F. H.

Knightley, Sir C.

Douro, Marq. of

Lennox, Lord A.

Duffield, T.

Lincoln, Earl of

Dugdale, W. S.

Lockhart, W.

Dungannon, Visct.

Lowther, J. H.

East, J. B.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Egerton, W. T.

Mackenzie, T.

Egerton, Sir P.

Mackenzie, W. F.

270

Mc Geachy, F. A.

Round, C. G.

Mahon, Visct.

Round, J.

Mainwaring, T.

Rous, hon. Capt.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Manners, Lord J,

Russell, C.

Marsham, Visct.

Russell, J. D. W.

Martin, C. W.

Sanderson, R.

Martin, T. B.

Sandon, Visct.

Master, T. W. C.

Scarlett, hon. R. C.

Masterman, J.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Smith, A.

Meynell, Capt.

Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.

Mildmay, H- St. J.

Smollett, A.

Miles, P. W. S.

Somerset, Lord G.

Miles, W.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Morgan, 0.

Stanley, Lord

Mundy, E. M.

Stewart, J.

Neeld, J.

Stuart, H.

Neville, R

Sturt, H. C.

Newdigate, C. N.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Newry, Visct.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Nichol, rt. hon. J.

Tennent, J. E.

Norreys, Lord

Tollemache, J.

Owen, Sir J.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Packe, C. W.

Turnor, C.

Pakington, J. S.

Verner, Col.

Palmer, R.

Vernon, G. H.

Patten, J. W.

Vesey, hon. T.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Waddington,

Peel, J.

Walsh, Sir J. B

Pennant, hon. Col.

Welby, G. E.

Pigot, Sir R.

Wellesley Lord C.

Plumptre, J. P.

Whitmore, T. C.

Pollock, Sir F.

Wilbraham, hn. R. B.

Praed, W. T.

Williams, T. P.

Pringle, A.

Wood, Col.

Pusey, p

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Rashleigh, W.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Young, J.

Repton, G. W. J.

TELLERS

Rolleston, Col.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Baring, H.

The different clauses having been gone through, the House resumed.
Report to be received.
The House adjourned at 1 o'clock.