SUGAR DUTIES.

HC Deb 03 June 1844 vol 75 cc154-219

House in a Committee of Ways and Means.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

Although, Sir, I am addressing a Committee of Ways and Means, the object of which is essentially to provide the means necessary to raise the supplies to be granted to Her Majesty, I am well assured that there is not an hon. Member who hears me who does not feel that the question which I am about to submit to them, is one involving something more than mere revenue considerations; of vast importance to all classes of people of this country, and to those who are interested in our possessions abroad. It involves, moreover, a great principle of policy which this country-has steadily and firmly maintained for a long period of years, in its relations with other countries, and from which I trust, after the repeated declarations which have been made by Parliament, this House will not be induced to depart. The object which I have in view is to reconcile very conflicting points which arise out of a consideration of the question of the Sugar Duties. It will be my endeavour and my object, in proposing the resolutions of which I have given notice, to secure to the people of this country an ample supply of sugar; to make that supply consistent with a continued resistance to the Slave Trade, and with the encouragement of the abolition of slavery, and to reconcile both with a due consideration to the interests of those who have vested their property in our Colonial possessions. There is one point, at least, in which, I believe, I may expect the unanimous acquiescence of the House, and that is the importance of keeping up in this country a sufficient supply of an article which is not merely one for enjoyment or convenience of the people, but which, having been a luxury, has now almost become one of necessary consumption, and conducive to the health as well as comfort of the community at large; upon this point, in all the discussions which have taken place on this question, the House has expressed a general concurrence of opinion. There may be a difference as to the means of obtaining the object in view. This, object has heretofore been under the consideration of the Legislature, and various enactments have been adopted from time to time. In an earlier period, previous to the emancipation of the negro labourers of the West Indies, the produce of those Colonies afforded more than an amply sufficient supply—affording the means of export of not less than one-third of the whole produce: and as the price of the exported sugar regulated the prices at which sugar was sold in the markets of this country, our own people were then ensured a full supply with a limitation of price determined by the price obtained in the other markets of Europe. When the Act of Emancipation of the negroes in the West Indies gave reason to expect that the supply from that quarter would be materially diminished, Parliament interposed, and by an equalization of the duties on East and West India sugars brought into the markets of this country large additional supplies of free labour sugar from a part of our own dominions in the East, having a soil of unbounded fertility, of cheapness of labour and great facility of communication with this country. By the employment of British capital, India had the means of affording an ample supply; and there was a just expectation of keeping within reasonable limits the prices at which sugar would be sold in this country. This has hitherto been sufficient for the exigencies of the country. Increasing demands have been met by increasing production to a considerable extent. Nor do I apprehend that the immediate consequence of adhering to the present system would be a great dearth of sugar to this country, or produce any great inconvenience by restricting the supply; but when I consider that, from the improved condition of the people of this country within the last year, from the extension of employment, and from the improvement of wages and the consequent increased demand which will arise for the article, now become little short of a necessary of life—when I compare the present demand with the augmented demand of last year from similar causes, and when I view the increase in the price of Sugar amounting as compared to the corresponding period of last year, immediately after the day I made my announcement to 2s. per cwt., I cannot but think it my duty to submit to the Committee a measure which will certainly provide not only what is necessary for immediate consumption, but a surplus, on which to some extent, speculation may operate When I consider how increased are the facilities of supply, to which no objection can be offered, I am the more certain of this result. In consequence of our altered relations with China, we have the productions of that empire open to satisfy our demands, and it is clear that in order to extend our trade with that country which has been limited hitherto, and with which country a much larger trade may be carried on, encouragement ought to be given to the import of other commodities than those which we have heretofore taken. It is equally certain that it is possible to obtain supplies from other quarters of the world, where sugar is grown by free labour, by States which have never entered into the Slave Trade. Under these circumstances, I have felt it my duty to submit a proposition, for the admission of free-labour sugar into this country upon the terms stated in my Resolutions. The proposal of admitting to this country, or of giving preference to the admission to this country, of sugar, the produce of free-labour, is one which is not now for the first time submitted to the consideration of the House; on looking back to the occasions on which that measure has been under consideration, I cannot find that there has been, on the part of any hon. Gentleman in this House, a disposition to offer objection to the principle of such an arrangement. When brought forward on previous occasions it has been met by an argument of a different nature applicable to the circumstances of the times under which the proposition was made; I am sure the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Taunton, who, on one occasion, resisted a measure which was proposed with this object, will acknowledge that in the argument which he then used he raised no obstacle to the introduction of free-grown sugar as a substantive measure, but grounded his resistance on the particular circumstances in which we then were in consequence of our commercial Treaties with the United States of America, and with Brazil, which rendered it impossible for us to draw a distinction as related to duty between sugar the produce of free labour, and sugar the produce of slave labour, or to admit the former without giving an indiscriminate admission to the latter, and thereby encouraging the Slave Trade. But we now know the day upon which will terminate that Treaty with Brazil, which at present gives her the right of introducing her sugar into this country on the terms of the most favoured nation, and considering the increase of prices of sugar in the British market—the prospect of some additional supply being required—the facilities which we have for the introduction of free sugar—I avail myself of the earliest opportunity of submitting to the House a measure which shall give effect to that arrangement, which, under other circumstances, would, I believe, have been adopted by the House at an earlier period. In regulating the mode in which the free-labour sugar of the world is to be introduced, I feel it essentially necessary that two points should be fully borne in mind — first, that we should effectually guard against the evasion of the principle upon which the measure proceeds, by providing that the introduction of free-labour sugar shall not be made a cloak for the introduction of slave-grown sugar; it is also necessary that it should be admitted at a rate of duty which will secure it a fair chance of competition with the sugar of our own Colonies. With respect to the mode in which precaution is to be taken against the introduction of other sugar than that the produce of free labour, I conceive little difficulty can arise. We have before had occasions on which it had been considered essentially necessary to the commercial interests of the country that a distinction should be drawn as to the produce of different countries subjected to different duties; and in these cases we have found that certificates of origin, coupled with the certificates of the shipper, have been sufficient, and as I intend the certificates in this case to be backed by the British authority at the port of shipment, I think there will be no difficulty in preventing evasion of the law. It is unnecessary to refer to particular instances in which arrangements of this kind have been effected, or I might remind the House of the arrangement made with respect to coffee, which was subjected to different rates of duty according to the countries from which it came. I do not believe that any Gentleman who has considered the subject will suppose that a protecting duty of 10s. per cwt. is more than is necessary for the protection of the interests of those with whose produce this sugar will come into competition, nor on the other hand is such as unduly to enhance its price to the consumer. From the countries specified in the Resolution, and from those to which a similar privilege will be extended by Her Majesty on sufficient proof of the absence of slavery, the quantity of sugar to be derived is sufficient to meet the exigencies which are expected to arise in this country. We know that the island of Java alone furnishes large supplies of sugar greatly beyond the quantity required for the countries which are now supplied from that quarter, and that the quantity produced in that Colony is capable of considerable extension. With respect to Manilla, also, sugar is raised in great abundance, and the supply is also capable of still further extension. We can make no estimate of the probable quantity likely to be received from China, because our commercial relations with that country with respect to sugar have been very trifling, and our knowledge is confined to the fact that China does export to different parts of the world. I find from the notices which have been placed on the paper that the measure which I am now about to submit to the House is likely to meet with opposition from various quarters, and on conflicting grounds. In the first place, I find the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart) is prepared to argue that there ought to be no distinctive duty what- ever between sugar the produce of any foreign country and the sugar which is produced in British possessions. In the next place, I find the noble Lord, the Member for the City of London, ready to contend, not with the hon. Member for Dumfries, that there should be no distinctive duty between British and foreign sugar, but that there should be no distinction between foreign sugar the produce of free labour and foreign sugar produced by the labour of slaves. And lastly, my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Miles) will argue that the protection which it is proposed to give to colonial sugar against sugar produced by free labour is insufficient, and will require a greater amount of protection than that which it is my intention to propose. I will first notice the objection of the hon. Member for Dumfries. I need not occupy the attention of the House in discussing the hon. Member's proposition at any length, because it has been on former occasions repeatedly submitted to the House by the hon. Member without his having had the good fortune to obtain the concurrence of the House. It was brought under discussion in the year 1842, when the whole question of the Tariff was before the House, and it was then argued that all distinction between colonial produce and the produce of foreign countries ought to be done away. To that general proposition the assent of Parliament was not given. The hon. Gentleman himself, in the course of the present Session, revived the same question on the discussion of the coffee duties, when the House adhered to its former opinion, thinking it then as they did before due to the colonial possessions of the Empire to give them a fair protection against the produce of foreign countries. After that decision, I feel it necessary to detain the House by going into a discussion of the arguments used on that occasion, and which have been now repeated by the hon. Gentleman. I will now address myself to the proposition of my hon. Friend, the Member for Bristol; and I can assure ray hon. Friend, and those who are connected with him in the West Indian possessions of this country, that if I have brought forward this measure on the present occasion they must not impute to me any want of sympathy with their interests — nay, with their feelings, in which I participate as strongly as any man amongst them. I know the difficulties under which that interest has laboured—I know the difficulties under which it labours at present—and I can make great allowance for their alarm at the danger which they fancy to exist, and which they fear will ultimately [be greater; but I cannot persuade myself that there exists such ground for their apprehension. I believe on the contrary, that the measure which I am about to propose will ultimately prove the best calculated to ensure their permanent prosperity, although they may now view it with some alarm. I do not deny that the effect of the measure which I propose will be to produce a certain immediate reduction in the price of sugar, or that it will prevent a rise of price, which, without some measure of this kind, would infallibly take place. I am quite confident, however, that of all the dangers which may affect those who are interested in West Indian produce there is none which they ought more to dread than any great and continued increase of the price of their staple commodity, which, inflicting serious injury upon the population of this country, should create, with respect to them, a general feeling of hostility. I believe it would be most dangerous to their permanent interests, if by an adherence to the law as it now stands we were to run the risk of bringing the price of sugar in the market up to what it was in 1840, when it reached 49s. the cwt., independent of the duty. If by conduct on the part of the Government that result should arrive, it might be for the moment acceptable, but I firmly believe that it would be to them the most injurious thing that could happen. I think, also, with respect to the amount of duty, that it is essentially necessary at the earliest moment to intimate to them the amount of protection which, upon a review of the whole circumstances of the case, they are entitled to receive against the admission of sugar the produce of free labour. These Colonies stand at present in this peculiar position. They are likely to have at an early period a great additional facility of employing labour derived from other countries. In order to obtain this advantage they will probably be called upon for the investment of capital necessary for the transport of the emigrants who are disposed to go to the West Indies; and I think, therefore, that before we call upon them to embark in this expenditure, or to undertake these extensive transactions, they ought to be told distinctly that as against sugar the produce of other countries where there is free labour, the protection now afforded is that which, upon the whole, it appears just and expedient to maintain. My hon. Friend behind me would, by a corresponding reduction on British sugar, give Colonial sugar the benefit of a protecting duty of 14s. instead of 10s.; but I ask him if he believes that 14s. can be permanently maintained, and if not, whether it will not be more advisable at the present moment to state distinctly to those who are concerned in the manufacture in our Colonies, that as against free-labour sugar we give you that duty which we say is sufficient, and, from being moderate, is likely to be enduring. The third notice which appears on the Paper is that of the noble Lord, the Member for London, who is prepared to extend to all foreign sugar that advantage which, by this resolution, I propose to confine to sugar the produce of free labour. This is no new battle field between the noble Lord and those who sit on this side of the House. The question was argued in 1841 with great energy. Parliament at that time decided against the proposition of the noble Lord. They felt, and they recorded their feeling, that after all the efforts and sacrifices which this country had made for the abolition of the Slave Trade, and for the improvement of the condition of the slaves, it would be inconsistent with the duty and honour of Parliament to adopt a measure calculated to give direct encouragement to slavery and the Slave Trade. In that argument and in those views I entirely concur at the present moment. I shall be surprised indeed if Parliament having so often at earlier periods re. corded its opinions upon these subjects, having expended the treasure and blood of the country in giving effect to them, and having so recently repeated their declaration that it was expedient to abide by them—I shall indeed be surprised if the House of Commons adopts a course which is entirely at variance with those principles. If I were to make any comment on the Resolution of which the noble Lord has given notice, it would be to express my surprise that so far from showing any deference to the past opinions of Parliament, and so far from showing any deference to what I believe to be the feelings of the country, the noble Lord has aggravated the objections which existed to the course which he formerly recommended, by giving an additional encouragement to the introduction of sugar from that parti- cular country, where he knows the Slave Trade to be most perseveringly carried on under a system revolting to every feeling of humanity. When the noble Lord in the year 1841 supported the Sugar Duties, he maintained that the sugar of Cuba, being of a purer quality than other sugar, required to be subjected to a higher duty in comparison with other duties than was imposed on the inferior sugar of other parts of the world. He proposed then a discriminating duty of 20s. per cwt. upon the sugars of Cuba, with a view to guard against their unlimited introduction, and now in the notice which he has given to the House he is prepared to recommend that that very sugar which he then thought ought not to be introduced into this country at less than 42s. duty should now be introduced at 34s. giving a benefit of 8s. per cwt. to the sugar of that particular Colony, where we know the Slave Trade has been, carried on, and with the growth of sugar in which the carrying on of the Slave Trade is indissolubly connected. What may be the motive which has induced the noble Lord to look so favourably upon one of the worst instances of the Slave Trade which is to be found—what are the reasons which have induced him to extend his indulgence to sugar not merely the produce of slavery, but which has acquired its extent by the extension of slavery alone, it will be for the noble Lord to explain. For myself, I am satisfied, that if you wish to extend that trade you can find no more effectual mode of doing it than by giving it that encouragement which must be the result of throwing this market open to it, because it is only from the continuance of that trade that the sugar cultivation in these Colonies can be maintained and extended. And what would be the inconsistency of such a proceeding? We have very recently been making great additional exertions with a view of interrupting the Slave Trade, which in spite of all our energies had been on the increase. We have increased the expenditure to which we were liable by additions to our naval force on the coast of Africa; and what an inconsistency would it be, if while we pretend to be anxious to put an end to the evil on one side of the Atlantic, we were to make our legislation here conducive in the greatest degree to the extension of that traffic on the other, and afford every possible incitement to the inhabitants of that quarter of the globe to continue the trade in which they have been so long embarked. The hon. Member for Montrose on a preceding evening, in a discussion on the Estimates, said that we could not put down the Slave Trade by any force which we might employ in opposition to it, but that it must be done by diminishing the profits of those who are embarked in the trade, I agree with him, that that is the only way to get rid of that enormous evil, and it is for that reason that I recommend this measure to the House. By excluding the sugar of those countries from this market, or at least, by giving a preference to sugar, the produce of free labour over slave labour, you do most effectually impose a check upon the value of the produce of that country where the Slave Trade is pursued, and doing so, you employ the best means at the disposal of any country for the purpose of forwarding an object which it is the sincere desire of this country to see carried out, namely, the abolition of the Slave Trade. I do not know on what ground the noble Lord will recommend the adoption of his resolutions. I have heard it stated, and perhaps the noble Lord may be inclined to state, too, that by taking out of the general market of the world a proportion of free-labour sugar, for the use of this country, you thereby create a vacuum in other countries which will necessarily be supplied by the produce of Brazil. Now, if that be the view of the noble Lord, I beg to differ from him. The natural consequence of encouraging the import of a particular class of sugar is a considerable extension of the production of that article to which encouragement is given, and that increase of production will not be limited merely to that particular market into which the produce is to be introduced, but will extend beyond it, and encourage its production and introduction into other markets of the world; and if, at the same time, operating in conjunction with this principle, the difficulties which we impose in the way of the Slave Trade in these countries and Africa are increased, the two circumstances combined will necessarily tend to enhance the price of slave-grown sugar as contrasted with the other, and hence I contend that our admission of free-labour sugar will not necessarily have the effect of introducing into the markets of Europe a greater quantity of slave-grown sugar. But even suppose the result were otherwise; suppose that, while we refuse to take sugar the produce of slave-labour, other nations should seek it with greater avidity, and make greater exertions to obtain it, would that be an argument with us for departing from our proposition? What was the argument used by this country when the abolition of the Slave Trade was in question? We were told, "Give up the Slave Trade by Great Britain; you aggravate the evil, because you throw it into the hands of those who, carrying it on without any regard, or with less regard, to the interests of the slave, will inflict more misery upon mankind than could be inflicted by a continuance of the trade under British regulation." But Parliament said, that guilt attached to the Slave Trade, and that it was no excuse for crime to say that we committed it more leniently than others, and Parliament determined, that it was right to put away from us the opprobrium and reproach of continuing the Slave Trade. Similar arguments were used when the question of emancipation was under discussion in this House. We were told that it would be better to continue slave-labour in the West Indies, because, if it were not continued, other countries not controlled by our beneficial legislation with respect to it, would continue slavery with aggravated severity. But did that motive influence Parliament? No. Our answer on this point was the same as that which we gave before with respect to the Slave Trade; as regards the question of slave-sugar and slave-labour, I believe that our proceedings will not lead to any increase of slavery. But if I should be disappointed and an increase should take place, our consciences will at least be free. I will now advert to that part of this subject which is referred to in the second resolution which I am about to submit to the Committee. It relates to those countries which have commercial treaties with us, founded on the principle that their produce shall be admitted to this country on the same footing as that of the most favoured nations. As I said before, Brazil is a country which had this particular privilege, and which was in a situation to use it with effect. We have similar treaties with other countries—with the United States, Sweden, Mexico, Buenos Ayres, Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia. There is not one of those countries, however, which carries on the Slave Trade, and there is not one of them, which has not declared, by legislative enactment, against the continuance of the Slave Trade. With respect to slavery, the greater number of them—namely, all those republics in South America with which we have those reciprocal treaties—have from their very foundation taken measures for the suppression of slavery within their territories. No doubt, in some of them, slavery, in a mitigated form, exists—the remnant of a former state of slavery—but in them either there is no sugar the produce of slave-labour raised for exportation, or the slavery may be said to be so nearly extinguished that they may be taken out of the category of countries in which slavery exists. In some of the most considerable, there is no pretence for saying that slavery exists. In Mexico and Colombia, for instance, slavery has been put an end to by legislative enactment, and the Slave Trade has been by them declared to be piracy. With respect, then, to these States, no apprehensions need be entertained, either as to the amount of sugar which they can furnish to the markets of this country, or as to any encouragement which the admitting the produce of these States may give to slavery. There are only two other countries to which I shall refer — the possessions of Sweden in the West Indies, and the United States of America. With respect to Sweden, I believe it is well known that its only possession is one small island, St. Bartholomew, and that its produce is sent directly to Sweden. The amount of its produce is so small, that even were Sweden disposed to interfere in the markets of Europe, it could have little or no effect as regards the question of slavery. With respect to the United States, I admit that they do produce a very considerable quantity of sugar, though it is small as compared to their own consumption. I believe that it varies very much in different years, owing to the sugar grounds suffering more from frost in one year than another, but taking the average I believe the produce of the United States amounts to about 50,000 tons a year; and the United States actually import the largest portion of the sugar they consume from other sugar-growing countries. I think it is capable of distinct proof that it would not be for the interest of the United States (and this is the point to which it is necessary to look) that sugar, the produce of those States, should be brought to this country. Sugar is of too high a price in New York to justify such an anticipation. The first question which regulates the proceedings of a nation in any trade, is the price which the article which they wish to export will fetch in the foreign market, and when it is recollected that the price of sugar at New York is higher than the price of sugar at Liverpool or in London, can it be by any possibility supposed that the Americans will send their sugar out of a protected market to the extent of from 11s. to 18s. the cwt to London or Liverpool in order that it might enter into competition on equal terms with the free-grown sugar which might be brought into these markets. When you consider these circumstances, when you see the high price of sugar at New York, as compared to London or Liverpool, and when you reflect that the people of the United States, whatever faults may be attributed to them, are never supposed to be particularly careless of their own interests; how can you suppose that the United States will be desirous to encourage the export of sugar to compete with the free-grown sugar in our markets? We have, indeed, been told by some that the Americans are so desirous of encouraging the export of their produce to British markets, that they will willingly give a bounty of 11s. to 15s. per cwt. in order to encourage the introduction of sugar. It cannot be for the advancement of the interests of the United States to encourage that export of sugar, the produce of those States; and if any American statesman were to offer a bounty of 11s. per hundred weight in order to encourage its introduction to our markets, I doubt much if he would meet the approbation of his own countrymen, opposed as they are known to be to the system of bounties, in consequence of having seen how little they were calculated to effect the purposes for which they had been established. I do not anticipate any such competition from American sugar, and therefore, under all the circumstances which I have stated to the Committee, I have no hesitation in recommending the measure contained in the resolutions I am about to move, firmly convinced that the great objects which I stated in the outset of my speech will be accomplished by it; namely, that we shall secure an adequate supply of sugar to meet not only the existing wants of the population of this country, but that increased consumption which is essential to their enjoyments and their comforts; that we shall show the world that we have not forgotten the principles on which this country has always acted, and that we are still determined to uphold the various declarations which we have made from time to time with respect to the Slave Trade, and that while the measure which I am about to propose for the adoption of the House, answers the purposes which I have described, it will be also found to consult the real interests of those, who having embarked their property in Colonial possessions, and having been subjected to many difficulties, will at length know the extent of protection on which they may permanently rely, and will find in the limited competition which it introduces a security against that pressure upon the comforts and enjoyments of the people of Great Britain, which would create a general indisposition towards the Colonial proprietors. With these expectations I beg to propose,—

1. 1. That towards raising the supply granted to her Majesty, the several duties now payable on sugar be further continued for a time to be limited, save and except that from and after the 10th day of November next there shall be charged on brown, muscovado, or clayed sugar certified to be the growth of China, Java, or Manilla, or of any other foreign country, the sugar of which her Majesty in Council shall have declared to be admissible, as not being the produce of slave labour, the cwt. 1l.. 14s.; together with an additional duty of 5l. per cent. on the aforementioned rate.
2. 2. That from and after the 10th day of November next, her Majesty be authorised, by order in Council, to give effect to the provisions of any treaty now in force which binds her Majesty to admit sugar the produce of a foreign country at the same duties as are imposed on sugar the produce of the most favoured nation.

The question was put on the first Resolution.

Lord John Russell

said, the right hon. Gentleman who had just proposed those resolutions to the House, referred to a former contest: he said that it was an old battle field, and that it occasioned him some surprise that he (Lord J. Russell) appeared so soon again in a field where he had been already defeated. His surprise was quite as great to hear the right hon. Gentleman sound a note of retreat so early, signifying to his former comrades that he had already given up the part of the field which he formerly had most warmly contested. He (Lord John Russell) therefore came forward with more confidence than on a former occasion, for he now saw the right hon. Gentleman abandoning those weapons which he had formerly wielded with such great effect, and deserting the ranks of those who had looked on him as a protector, so that they might now expect the question to be decided on the real grounds of facts and arguments. The right hon. Gentleman, who was usually well capable of bringing forward arguments in support of his view, had made several valiant assertions during his speech, but he never before heard the right hon. Gentleman so much lack arguments as on this occasion. The right hon. Gentleman in the commencement of his speech had stated, that at present there was not a sufficient supply of sugar, and the right hon. Gentleman assigned that and the present, price of sugar as reasons for effecting a change in the existing duties. When the House recollected the former battles which had taken place with respect to this question, and when they recollected that these very arguments were then brought forward, and were so strongly urged in favour of a change in the Sugar Duties—and when the House recollected how they were repelled by the Gentlemen on the other side, they could hardly have anticipated that the right hon. Gentleman would so soon assign the high price and limited supply of sugar as reasons for introducing the alteration which he had just proposed. The right hon. Gentleman said the price of sugar was very high. It appeared from the last Gazette, that the price of brown sugar, the growth of the British possessions in the west, is 36s. 9¾d., and that the average price of all descriptions of sugar was 37s. 8d. Now, he had before him the exact price of sugar at the time when he proposed a reduction of the duty, and he found that the average price of sugar in 1841 was 38s. 3°d. The price in 1840 was no less than 48s., and yet the right hon. Gentleman now comes forward to propose his reduction when the price is 37s., only 2s. more than last year, and adduces this as a conclusive argument for an alteration of the duties on sugar. He remembered on a former occasion, when the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool stated that 240,000 tons would be available for consumption, and the hon. Member for Beverley stated, that the amount would be 260,000 tons, and on that occasion the right hon. Gentleman did not think that state of the supply would justify a change in the system of duties. What, then, according to the statement made the other day at a meeting of West India proprietors, was the quantity of sugar that would be available for consumption this year? We might expect it would be—

	Tons.
From the West Indies	128,000
From the East Indies	70,000
From the Mauritius	32,000
Making a total of	230,000 tons.

And there were 40,000 tons on hand at the beginning of the year, while the total consumption for last year was only 202,000 tons. Now, if the argument from the small supply of sugar was a forcible one, with a supply of 230,000 tons and a price of 37s., in 1844, was it not as forcible in 1841 when the supply was 240,000 tons, and the price had been in 1840, 48s., and yet the right hon. Gentleman then stoutly resisted all change. There were many reasons which he thought ought to be sufficient to induce the House to reconsider the determination which it had formerly come to, and to agree to the adoption of the means for securing an additional supply of sugar; but if the increase were to be obtained by the consent of the Government, let the measure be framed and brought forward in a straightforward manner, and in accordance with the principles of trade. If they thought fit to give a certain amount of protection to the Colonies (in consequence of a great change with regard to labour) over other countries, let them place the difference between the Colonies and foreign countries on distinct and intelligible grounds. But let them not introduce for the first time a differential duty on a new principle, and adopt a course in opposition to all the well known principles and maxims on which the commerce of the country bad been hitherto based, and generate confusion from which they would find it impossible to escape. The right bon. Gentleman said, that the principle of introducing sugar, the produce of free labour, was not new; that it had been discussed and decided upon in that House; but the righthon. Gentleman might as well say, if he brought in a Bill to establish Universal Suffrage, it would not be a new principle, because the hon. Member for Rochdale had on a former occasion brought forward the subject, and his proposition had been decided upon by the House. The proposition of the right hon. Gentleman went to establish a new principle. If the right hon. Gentleman said that our tariff was to be framed on grounds of morality, and that we were to erect a pulpit in every custom-house, and make our landing-waiters enforce anti-slavery doctrines—if the right hon. Gentleman said, that this was to be adopted, it was introducing a new principle into our commercial regulations. He objected to that principle, because he thought it would lead to nothing but mischief, and that it would be impossible to act consistently upon it. We dealt with many nations in very different stages of civilization; in some, barbarous chiefs had a despotic power of life and death over their subjects—in others we might see millions of people who were in the condition of serfs —in others horrible cruelties were practised upon the people, and barbarous superstitions prevailed; but when goods came from those countries we did not ask questions at the custom-house as to the social condition of the people—we did not make objections to the imports on moral grounds on account of the constitution of the countries from which they came. We treated the matter only as a commercial transaction. We bought their goods and sold them goods in return. There were other occasions on which to devote attention to the social happiness of the world, and there were other means of endeavouring to advance it; but the best way in which to encourage social happiness, and to spread Christianity and advance morality, was to let commerce take its own course, to let it find its own way, to trust to that civilising influence which all commerce must have, and be careful not to interfere violently and by fiscal regulations with the feelings of others. They must offend by adopting this new principle, all those against whom it was directed. By these resolutions they must offend the empire of Brazil and the kingdom of Spain; and these nations being offended, would be naturally disposed to retort by similar resolutions, and hostile Tariffs would be enacted to meet the hostile proceedings directed against them. On that ground they should not, without some paramount reason, introduce such a principle, and why the Committee should not confirm resolutions calculated to produce such an effect. But how, he would ask, did we know the exact situation of those countries with respect to which we were called on to legislate by these resolutions? They proposed to legislate for Java. Now the accounts of Java tell us that sugar is cultivated compulsorily there, and that persons holding a certain quantity of land in Java are obliged to cultivate a certain proportion of it with sugar, and sell the produce at a certain price. [Mr. Gladstone: No.] The right hon. Gentleman opposite might perhaps contradict that account—he might tell them, that it was different in Java, but he would ask, was that not a sufficient argument to convince them that they were not in a condition to legislate satisfactorily with reference to the state of that country? It was enough for that House to know the condition of our own country and Colonies and legislate for them without endeavouring to adapt our laws to the condition of other countries. He believed the inhabitants of Java and Manilla were in a low state of civilization. With respect to Porto Rico, he had received information that, with the exception of a certain portion—a small part of the island—slavery did not exist there. Yet if one cwt. of sugar was sent from Porto Rico to this country, it would be refused, whilst Java sugar, to any extent, would be admitted; and the officer at the Custom-house would say, that he considered the state of society of Java was such as to justify him in admitting Java sugar; but with respect to Porto Rico sugar, he would say, he was quite shocked at the enslaved condition of its population and must refuse all trade with Porto Rico. But it was not true to say, that we must refuse all trade with Porto Rico; for he would show that all trade with countries in which there was slavery was not refused. What was the state of our trade with these countries? Why did Cuba and Brazil employ slave labour in the production of more sugar than they required for their own consumption? Because they wanted to obtain manufactures in exchange for sugar—they wanted cottons from Lancashire and woollens from Yorkshire, and it was in order to obtain them, that they employed slave-labour in producing so much more sugar than they required themselves. It was the want of our manufactures that induced the cultivation of sugar with which to buy them, and the manufacturers of Lancashire and Yorkshire therefore encouraged slave produce in Brazil and Cuba, as much as if they were consumers of slave-grown sugar. What was our conduct with respect to that sugar? We said, we are not consumers of slave grown sugar—that would be criminal and sinful. There was, however, a way of disposing of the slave-grown sugar, it was sent to Russia, and exchanged for tallow and hemp, the produce of Russia. We had no other means of paying for these products than by manufactures, and therefore we first exchanged our manufactures for the slave-grown sugar of Cuba and Brazil, and as that was not allowed to be consumed here, it was sent to Russia, in exchange for her productions. With regard to the question of slavery, what difference, he would ask, did it make, whether we sent our manufactures to Cuba, and obtained in return for them the sugar of Cuba, or whether we sent our manufactures to Cuba, and obtained in payment the hemp and tallow of Russia? The right hon. Gentleman opposite, however, stated that those who proposed the resolutions, had the consolation that their consciences were free. He should say, that the right hon. Gentleman appeared to find it very easy to reconcile his conscience to strange things, if his conscience would not admit slave-labour sugar direct, and would not object to the advantage of the traffic in slave-labour productions if carried through Germany or Russia. If the right hon. Gentleman had no objection to have slave-grown sugar refined in this country and sent afterwards to buy the produce of Russia or Germany, to refuse to consume that sugar was indeed a flimsy veil for his conscience. If the right hon. Gentleman, instead of being as he is, a stout Protestant, had been a Roman Catholic, he doubted whether the right hon. Gentleman's confessor would deem that a sufficient excuse for a departure from his own principles. Let them see the amount of the trade to which he had adverted—look at the Return for several successive years. The noble Lord quoted the following Table:—

Declared Value of British Manufactures exported to the United States, Cuba, Porto Rico, and Brazil, during the Years 1837 to 1842, inclusive:—
Years.	United States.	Cuba and Porto Rico.	Brazil.	Total.
1837	£4,695,225	£892,713	£1,824,082	£7,545,325
		†133,285
1833	7,585,760	1,025,392	2,606,604	11,325,962
		†108,206
1839	8,839,204	891,826	2,650,713	10,506,064
		†124,321
1840	5,283,090	863,520	2,625,853	3,867,789
		†95,326
1841	7,098,642	895,441	2,556,554	10,650,617
		‡100,000
1842*	3,528,807	711,938	1,756,805	6,097,540
		‡100,000
*Panic and discredit.
†By way of Jamaica,
‡ Estimated in absence Of returns.

Thus it appeared, that in 1840 we sent to Cuba to the value of 863,520l. of manufactured goods; in the year 1841 we sent there to the value of 895,000l. of manufactured goods; and in the year 1842 the value of our exports of manufactures to that country was 711,938l. in addition to the exports sent through Jamaica. In the year 1840 we exported to the Brazils manufactures of the value of 2,625,000l.; in the year 1841 we sent there manufactures of the value of 2,556,554l.; and in the year 1842 we sent there manufactures of the value of 1,756,000l. The effect, then, by excluding the sugars of Brazil and Cuba, by our high duties on the agricultural products of the United States, was, to limit our markets in those countries, from which we still import the cotton wool used in our factories, and tobacco, from which we derive more than three millions of revenue the product of slave-labour; while with the sugar and coffee, and cotton, received for our manufactures, we pay the great balance against us in the direct trade between England and Russia. Now, the greater part of our manufactures exported to those countries went actually to those persons who were encouraging, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, slavery and the Slave-trade. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to another argument which was used when this subject was formerly before the House, and which argument the right hon. Gentleman had not, as it appeared to him, effectually met. The argument was this—that although the law says we shall not ourselves use slave-grown sugar, yet, if we admit, 90,000 tons which are supposed to be the produce of free-labour, those 90,000 tons must be subtracted from the consumption of the continent of Europe, and will there be replaced by sugar the produce of slave labour; and thereby the Slave-trade will be indirectly encouraged. The right hon. Gentleman had said nothing that could in the least diminish the force of that argument. He said, that the sugar of Cuba was remarkably good—a subject to which he (Lord John Russell) would advert presently—and the right hon. Gentleman admitted that the means of carrying the Slave Trade into effect in that country were very extensive. What then would be the consequence? Why, as certainly as you take from Java, the Manillas, Siam, and other quarters, 90,000 tons of free-labour sugar which are now available for the markets of Europe, so certainly would you give to an equal extent, encouragement to the produce of slave labour. Then was it not much better, if that was the case, that you should not depart from your usual principles of trade—and not put forward an argument which, he must say, savoured very much of hypocrisy, which verbally was a proclamation against slavery, and which in practice would be an encouragement for the increase of sugar by slave-labour? He would suppose, for the sake of argument, that some very great practical benefit was to be obtained by the course which it was proposed to pursue—that some very great and essential good would be conferred on the world by this distinction—and he must then admit that that might be a reason for making a distinction hitherto unknown. But when we saw so plainly that this course could be attended with no practical benefit—that this was merely a distinction in words—then he could not conceive why a government, and especially a government of this great commercial country, should attempt by introducing a new principle to attain so valueless an object. The right hon. Gentleman had then proceeded to consider the trade with America and other countries, which were placed on the footing of the most favoured nations; but there was one supposition which the right hon. Gentleman had referred to, which he had not shown to be unfounded, namely, that supposition that the Americans, instead of sending their sugar to New York, would admit the sugar of Cuba and Brazil into the United States, and would send their sugar to this country. The quantity of sugar produced in the United States last year was not less than 50,000 tons, and of that amount 40,000 tons were sent to New York. He believed it would be as cheap to send that sugar to Liverpool as to New York. If it were sent with cotton—the weighty article sugar with the light article cotton—that would reduce the freight to a very small sum, and it seemed to him that it would be a natural source of profit to the Americans to say, "We will admit the sugar of Cuba and of Brazil at a small rate of duty, in order to have the benefit of the market of England for our own produce. The right hon. Gentleman said, that would not be the case, and told the House the price at New York, but that price he (Lord John Russell) thought included the duty, and it had been stated, the statement might be an error, if so, the right hon. Gentleman would correct it—that persons importing foreign sugar were entitled to export an equal quantity of the produce of the United States. At all events, they would be able to make an arrangement by which Cuba and Brazil sugar would be put on the same footing as their own sugar, which did not pay duty, and they would obtain the trade with this country. But the right hon. Gentleman assumed that there was no doubt that a certificate of origin at New Orleans, countersigned by the British Consul, was a sufficient security that no sugar could be sent out but that which was certified. He doubted that—considering New Orleans, and Louisiana, and the six other States with which we had treaties— considering Columbia, Mexico, and other States; he thought there would be more than one case in which the sugar of Cuba and Brazil would be introduced under false certificates of origin, as sugar of the United States, and of countries which we were bound to treat as the most favoured nations. False certificates were not altogether a novelty in trade. Towards the end of the war such certificates were very frequent, and it was a common thing to introduce our manufactures into other countries, and foreign produce into this country by means of false certificates of origin. Those who were best acquainted with the sugar trade did not participate in the confidence and security which the right hon. Gentleman expressed on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman said there was no fear of transactions of this kind taking place, and that ultimately the measure would benefit the West Indies and other British possessions. Those who were best acquainted with our Colonies did not feel the same satisfaction, and they had little less apprehension in 1844 than they had in 1841, when the differential duty of 12s. instead of 10s. was proposed by the Government of the day. It was understood at that time by a great many parties that the chief objection to the change of duties was, that the great experiment of the abolition of slavery had not yet had a fair trial; that it was necessary to see whether free-labour, instead of slave-labour, would be available with effect; that there were various questions connected with immigration and cultivation, which had not received sufficient attention, and that further time was necessary to enable us to judge whether the change was practicable or not. Were we able to pronounce that judgment in 1844? Were the West India planters who held that language in 1841 now convinced sufficient time had been allowed, and sufficient progress made in immigration; had the experiment of free-labour in Jamaica, and our other Colonies, been so successful as to remove all apprehension of change? He believed persons connected with the Colonies would say nothing of the kind. He was about to propose that the same differential duty which the Government thought sufficient for Java and Manilla and the United States should be assigned to the sugars of Cuba and Brazil. It was a differential duty, because he thought it right under existing circumstances, and for a time, that a differential duty should be maintained for the advantage of our own possessions; but the prohibitory duty of 63s., which ought to have been abolished in 1841, ought, he considered, to be abolished now. He should state some reasons from the papers to show why he thought a change of this kind ought to take place. It appeared that the supply of sugar from 1831 to the present time had not been such as to enable the people of this country to continue the consumption of that article at the same rate as in 1831. At that period the consumption per head was about nineteen or twenty pounds; and from that time it had fallen to seventeen pounds, and in the year 1842, to between seventeen and sixteen pounds. He thought this was a reason, and a very great reason, why we should reconsider the present Sugar Duties. The noble Lord referred to the statement which will be found below,^* and deduced from it another rea-

* Statement showing the population, of the United Kingdom, the quantity of Sugar (and Molasses equivalent to Sugar), entered for consumption, and the proportion per head consumed in each year from 1830 to 1844:—
Years.	Population.	Quantity entered for consumption.	Proportion per head consumed.
	Number.	cwts.	lbs. pts of 100
1830	23,995,393	4,273,945	19.96
1831	24,306,719	4,364,243	20.11
1832	24,547,216	4,187,135	19.10
1833	24,787,714	4,021,595	18.17
1834	25,028,211	4,154,411	18.59
1835	25,268,709	4,421,145	19.59
1836	25,509,206	3,922,901	17.22
1837	25,749,704	4,349,053	18.92
1838	25,990,202	4,418,334	19.04
1839	26,230,699	4,171,938	17.81
1840	26,471,197	3,764,710	15.93
1841	26,711,694	4,208,324	17.64
1842	26,952,192	4,068,331	16.90
1843	27,192,689	4,215,595	17.36
1844	27,433,187

The above is corrected as regards population and proportionate consumption.
Consumption of 1844, at the rate of 1831, viz., 27,433,187 persons=4,925,998 cwts.:—	£
Revenue at 24s., and 5 per cent.	6,106,756
Revenue from present consumption	5,311,649

	£
Difference of revenue, presuming the consumption per individual to be limited to that of 1831	795,107

	£
Supposing that, in addition to the rate of consumption in 1831, viz., 4,925,998 cwts., revenue	6,106,756

Foreign sugars were consumed of	1,074,002	cwts. at 30s.
		duty	1,611,649
or total consumption	6,000,000	cwts.

	£
Total Revenue	7,718,405
Present Revenue	5,311,649
Probable increase	2,406,756

son for supposing that the supply of sugar was now inadequate. There was the very great increase in the consumption of tea and coffee since the commencement of this century, while the consumption of sugar had decreased in proportion to the population. The tendency of the consuming classes of this country was, to diminish the consumption of spirits, beer, and articles of that kind, in proportion to the increase of population, but to increase the consumption of tea and sugar. It had been stated by Mr. Huskisson, that two-thirds of the persons using coffee were in the habit of using it without sugar; and to those who consumed those articles, it would be a great advantage if they had a supply of sugar in proportion. The comparative consumption of coffee, tea, and sugar in 1801 and 1841, was as follows:—

	GREAT BRITAIN.	UNITED KINGDOM:
	Coffee.	Tea.	Sugar.
	lbs.	lbs.	cwt.
1801	750,861	20,237,753	3,639,565
1841	27,298,322	36,675,667	4,057,628

Coffee and Tea.
	20,237,753		36,675,667
1801	750,861	1841	27,298,322
	20,988,614		63,973,989

Thus the consumption of coffee and tea had reached three times the quantity consumed in 1801, while sugar had increased only one-eighth, the increase of population being nearly from eight to fourteen. This, then, was a sufficient proof that heavy duties and differential duties prevented the natural increase of the consumption of sugar, and therefore that it was necessary there should be a change in the Sugar Duties. Let. him now consider what that change should be. Even taking the views of the Government, he thought it would have been wise if they had said, "We will afford every means to the West Indies of increasing immigration." Some experiments had been tried. After the experiment of the introduction of Indian labour into the Mauritius, which was allowed to take place a few years ago, there was no longer the same opposition which had existed to the introduction of Indian labourers into the West Indies. He himself knew one person who was considered to have been very much opposed to it, and who was a very high authority — namely, the late Governor General of India, Lord Auckland, who now thought, that with proper precautions and a sufficient quantity of tonnage al- lowed to each individual, there was no objection to the introduction of Indian labour to the West Indies. The noble Lord opposite had made a relaxation in favour of African labour, which he did not think he could carry any further in that direction. It was proposed, also, that Chinese labour should be brought into operation. Well, he wished that with these measures, there should be combined a reduction of the Sugar Duties; but let it be made on the common and usual principles which are always acknowledged by commercial nations, and let not the Government, for the mere sake of bolstering up the consistency of the Members of their Cabinet, depart from that which was the long settled policy in matters of commerce of this and every other trading nation of Europe. His hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Ewart), might say, that they should not only do this, but he would call on them to go farther, to reduce all the duties on sugar to one level, and place the sugar of all foreign nations upon the same footing as that of our own Colonies. He admitted, that if the question were an entirely new one—if that House had to consider whether a duty should now be imposed, none having before existed, it might be extremely doubtful whether a higher duty should be placed upon foreign sugar than upon our own; or whether the general principle of equality and freedom, which was applicable to all other commodities, should not be equally applied to sugar? But it was quite another question, when we had encouraged so large an outlay of capital in the West Indies, and our other colonial possessions, when we had abolished that compulsory labour, which, under the odious name of slavery, was so justly reprobated in this country— when we had compelled the proprietors of the West Indies — notwithstanding the munificent gift of twenty millions, to go shares with us in the sacrifices attending that great measure—it then became another question, whether perfect equality could be carried out, and whether discriminating duties should not be preserved. He said, that he would, under these circumstances, preserve a discriminating duty. The right hon. Gentleman said, that he did not now propose a greater duty than 34s. on the sugar of Cuba. But he had been compelled to wait for the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman. According to what he had proposed in 1841, he meant to have proposed a duty of 34s. on all Muscovado sugars, and a higher duty on other sugars, because the Manilla sugar, and some of the Cuba sugar, were refined to a great extent, and if 34s. was the duty for the one, there should be a higher duty for the other. It was not until Friday that he had any notice of the right hon. Gentleman's proposition, and then he had but that evening to give notice of his intention, which was not sufficient time. Therefore, all he could do was to limit his proposition to this effect, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty, instead of the several duties now payable on sugar, there shall be levied on brown Muscovado sugar, the produce of foreign countries, a duty of 34s. per cwt. Supposing this to be carried, it would then be for the House to consider whether the 6s. proposed by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere), was a proposition which should be adopted as equivalent for the manufacture which their sugars underwent, because, in all questions of this nature, he proposed to let the raw produce compete with raw produce and manufactured commodities with manufactured. He did not propose to put the manufactured sugar of other countries on the same footing as the raw sugar of our Colonies. Therefore it was the deficiency of the notice which he had received of the intentions of the Government that was to blame, and not he for the incompleteness of his proposition. With the confidence of that House which the Government possessed, he did not suppose that such propositions as those of which he was talking would be carried to-night, but he thought it of importance to state, and even to divide the House upon the point, whether we were to have a new system of policy, or were to proceed upon established maxims. He conceived that if the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman were adopted, the East Indians and the West Indians would find that the distinctive line between free labour and slave labour was for them wholly delusive, and that instead of 90,000 tons of sugar imported, great quantities of the produce would be smuggled, as the consumption required and the price would bear avowedly, and every one would be convinced that we had needlessly thrown away the good will of the Brazils and Cuba, without securing an advantage for our own Colonies. Certainly the way having been facilitated by the right hon. Gentleman, a necessity would hereafter be felt to adopt the straightforward and clear proposition which he now made to the House. With respect to all these subjects, he should quote the words of a very remarkable person, who was once at the head of the Government of this country, and who, long ago, stated what he (Lord J. Russell) thought should be the general principles applied to all these questions of trade. It was not unimportant to state, over and over again, although the House had the authority of the First Lord of the Treasury for the abstract theory, that the principle of free competition was the straight and simple line of wisdom to which they should endeavour continually to adhere, whether in respect to coffee, sugar, or other articles— whether the House made a short or a wide step, they should endeavour to adhere to the true principle of Government in these matters—that being not, by legislation, to restrain commerce in any way. If the Government wanted duties for revenue they should levy them for revenue; but the people themselves knew best where to buy cheapest and best. Imposing heavy duties, under the idea that they would promote the wealth and interest of the country was an entirely fallacious theory; and the House ought, wherever it could, to depart from it and to return to the true principle. He said this not needlessly, because at present, by a great party which supported the Administration, prizes were offered for the best essay upon the advantages of protection to agriculture, protection to manufactures, and various other branches of industry. He wondered the Society did not add one more prize essay to the series and offer a reward for the best refutation of the works of Adam Smith. In support of the principles to which a large portion of the people adhered, he would quote the words of Lord Shelbourne, spoken on the 17th of February, 1783:— Monopolies, some way or other, are ever justly punished. They forbid rivalry, and rivalry is the very essence of the well-being of trade. [This seems to be the era of protestantism in trade.] All Europe appears enlightened and eager to throw off the vile shackles of oppressive ignorant monopoly; that unmanly and illiberal principle, which is at once ungenerous and deceitful. A few interested Canadian merchants might complain; for merchants would always have monopoly, 'without taking a moment's time to think whether it was for their interest or not. I avow that monopoly is always unwise; but if there is any nation under heaven who ought to be the first to reject monopoly, it is the English. Situated as we are between the old world and the new, and between southern and northern Europe, all that we ought to covet upon earth was free-trade and fair equality. With more industry, with more enterprise, with more capital than any trading nation upon earth, it ought to be our constant cry, let every market be open, let us meet our own rivals fairly, and we ask no more. That was the opinion of a Minister more than sixty years ago. He was sorry to say we had advanced little since in the direction there pointed out, and now there was a proposition creating a monopoly of a new kind, a singular and hitherto unknown monopoly—declaring to the nations of the world that with them we could not trade because we condemned the institutions which existed amongst them. He trusted that we were coming to better principles and better maxims. He trusted we should recollect that of all nations it was most incumbent upon us to establish maxims of free-trade. That this was not hopeless he was convinced by the fact that only the other day the improvement proposed in the United States Tariff was negatived only by a few votes, and he was sure that if that House and the country declared that they would set the example it would have an immense effect upon other nations. At present he must say, that we could not with the best possible face lecture other nations on their illiberal commercial policy, and he owned that he had read with great astonishment a letter said to be written by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in a discussion concerning the German Customs' Union. He had not seen the answer to that letter, which he supposed was equally public; but it seemed to him that while we were sedulously studying by prohibitory and differential duties to shut out the corn and timber of the north of Europe, it was impossible for us to lecture other nations on such subjects as free-trade. Let us adopt true principles ourselves, and if they made the nation flourish, although our maxims might have no effect on other nations, they would see that our measures had promoted our welfare, and we had adapted them to our own interests. It might then be expected that they would adopt similar measures and similarly thrive. This would be best for the world, and then, instead of having pamphlets written, propounding new schemes for making war more destructive—melancholy exhibitions of the character of the authors—we should have plans for diffusing trade, for rendering peace more beneficial, and uniting in one brotherhood the nations of the world. The noble Lord concluded by moving,— That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, instead of the Duties of Customs now payable on sugar, there shall be charged on brown or Muscovado sugar, the produce of any foreign country, the sum of 34s. the hundred weight.

Mr. Gladstone

would not imitate the noble Lord's example by allowing himself to be drawn, on a debate on the Sugar Duties, into a discussion on the duties levied in the German Customs Union. He was surprised at the noble Lord's conduct, considering that the noble Lord had a Motion on the Paper for tomorrow night relating to this very subject; and he could not help regarding this circumstance as a very strong symptom of the weakness and poverty of the noble Lord's case. The noble Lord said, that he had seen a letter purporting to be written by his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, which appeared in the newspapers, but that he had not seen the answer from the Prussian Government; but he had no doubt that the noble Lord had read an article in the Edinburgh Review on the subject of Customs Duties, a very few months ago, and if the noble Lord had read that article, he must have read the pith of the letter to which the noble Lord referred, because it mainly consisted of matter quoted from that article and other documents of a similar kind. The noble Lord stated, and in the spirit of that remark he had heartily concurred, that he hoped the Government would not be induced by any weak desire to support their consistency to propose a measure adverse to the general commercial interests of the country. In this he entirely concurred; but he thought that a heavy responsibility would rest upon them—they would be guilty of a serious offence, for which they would be justly visited with public reprobation—if they should be induced, by the circumstance of their having adopted a particular policy in 1841, to adhere to it, after they had found it untenable on commercial grounds; but it; was rather hard that the noble Lord should indulge in a sarcastic congratulation, founded upon the assumption that the Government had yielded one-half of the battle-field which they held in 1841. He challenged the noble Lord to prove that. The objection then made to the proposition of the noble Lord was twofold. It was argued that, as a commercial proposition, it was hasty and premature, and that too short a time had elapsed to allow the experiment which had been made in the West Indies a fair trial. At that time only two years had elapsed since the establishment of entire freedom. Five years had now expired, and, although it was perfectly true that there were difficulties which had not yet been surmounted, yet the Government felt, and the noble Lord felt this in common with them, for he totally disavowed the supposition that, for an indefinite period, such peculiar duties as the Sugar Duties should be continued, that a time must come when the duties should be revised. He should not debate that part of the subject, because it was not at present a matter of dispute. A notice had been given of a Motion, upon which there would be an opportunity of considering it. He would only now refer to one remark of the noble Lord, to the effect that as his right hon. Friend intended to propose 10s. a hundred on Muscovado sugar of foreign countries, he had been led to expect that a higher differential duty would be levied against the clay sugars of foreign countries. He supposed the noble Lord calculated upon this idea. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer had made important alterations in the project brought forward by him. After having announced a duty of 12s. on foreign sugars generally, he proposed a duty of 12s. upon one kind and 18s. on another kind of unrefined sugar; but for that be had a special reason, which did not now exist to justify his right hon. Friend. The noble Lord was aware, that at present there was no distinctive duty on clayed and Muscovado sugar, but that both were admitted at a duty of 24s. per cwt. There was a very good reason in 1841 for adopting such a course, because the great bulk of the sugars of Cuba, although they cannot technically be called refined, are yet much more so than the British sugars, and, coming in at a duty rated by weight, would enjoy a great relative advantage. This does not hold good of Java and Manilla sugars, in which the refined sort forms a very small and almost imperceptible portion of the quantity produced. There may be particular parcels of a high degree of fineness, but these parcels are not admissible at a low duty, and the distinction is therefore uncalled for. He did not therefore mean to impeach the course taken by the noble Lord's Government in 1841 in this respect. He now begged to say that he denied, so far as the commercial part of the question was affected, that there was any ground for the noble Lord taunting the Government with inconsistency, or that they were maintaining the principle of commercial monopoly in 1841. If it were really worth while to enter into this argument, which, after all, was a personal one, he could show what had been stated by the hon. Member for Antrim—a great authority on this subject, and who, in 1841, entered his protest against what was proposed, and said that the arguments advanced rested upon false and erroneous principles—he said that it was not enough for them to argue this question on the ground of the Slave Trade, but that they must look to what would be the effects, in a commercial point of view, of the proposition then made. He was quite sure that the noble Lord was the very last man in that House who ought to taunt the Government on the ground of inconsistency; for, if their opinions had undergone a change, it was not to be forgotten, that the opinions of the noble Lord on this very subject had undergone a most extraordinary revolution between July, 1840, and the early part of the year 1841. The change in the noble Lord's opinions surely was a more extraordinary change, than if the opinions of the present Government had undergone a change within a lapse of three years. A modification of opinion on the part of the Government assuredly might be pardoned by the noble Lord, that is, if there had been a modification, which he disavowed; but even if such were the case, surely the noble Lord, did not mean to make that a Parliamentary objection to their present proposition. His right hon. Friend had, as it was affirmed by the noble Lord, grounded his Motion on the high price of sugar in the market. His right hon. Friend had not said that the high price which ruled the market at present was the inducement to the change he made, but he had said that the price was 2s. higher than it had been last year. He had said undoubtedly that the price had been considerably raised, and that that might form a sufficient reason for proposing an alteration in the law; and yet as to the rise of price, it must be plain that the price would have risen much higher if there had not been generally prevailing throughout the country the impression that some alteration would take place. This was manifest, for it had been some time since intimated by his right hon. Friend that some change would take place. The sugar market, therefore, had been slackened by the expectation of such a change; whereas, if there had been the certain knowledge that there would be no change in the law, the price of sugar would have been considerably higher—nothing certainly to resemble what it was in 1841, but still considerably higher than it was at present. He assured them, as far as the interests of those connected with the British Colonies were concerned, that no charge could be made against the Government that they were unreasonable in their proposed change of the present law, or that the objection could be made against them that they did not provide sufficient security for the maintenance of the same relative proportion between the supply and the demand which had prevailed for the last two or three years. As to the merits of the noble Lords's propositions, and the objections of the noble Lord to the propositions of his right hon. Friend, he must say a few words. The noble Lord had protested against the new principle of distinctive duties. Now, it was not for the purpose of taunting the noble Lord, but it was for the purpose of supporting his right hon. Friend that he must call the noble Lord's recollection to what had occurred in 1840; and when the right hon. Gentleman opposite laid down a principle which would have caused the introduction of sugars the produce of free-labour, and would have imposed duties on sugars the production of which was connected with the Slave Trade, the right hon. Gentleman then did not approach the consideration of the question on the consideration of commercial principles alone. The right hon. Gentleman then said that he knew there was a distinction to be made in free-trade and slave-trade sugar, and that he intended to introduce a new principle, and for saying that, he was now taunted by the noble Lord who sat beside him, But the real question was, whether, as a question of public policy, as a question of humanity, as a question of how they were to obtain the greatest good, what course they ought to take, and whether this principle ought or ought not to be introduced. But then the noble Lord had said, and he had been pleased to be witty on the point, "Do not place your character for morality on the sugar trade; do not erect a pulpit in your long room; do not turn your tide-waiters into preachers of anti-slavery doctrine." Perhaps the noble Lord, according to ordinary rules of policy, would not base his naval operations upon morality; perhaps the noble Lord would not deem it right to erect a pulpit upon the deck of a man-of-war, nor to convert our naval captains into preachers of anti-slavery doctrines; and still the noble Lord, aided by his noble Colleague near him, (Lord Palmerston) had done all this; he had erected pulpits upon the decks of war cruisers, as he said the present Government had placed them in the long room—he had preached morality by the lips of naval officers who were employed in the suppression of the slave trade; and the question now was this—not whether the course at present taken was one of commercial policy alone, but the question was one that regarded that great policy of suppressing slavery, which the country had pursued. The noble Lord said, at one and the same time, "You ought to use your best endeavours to suppress slavery— you ought to admit Brazilian sugar, you ought to encourage the production of sugar for which the Slave Trade is carried on, and you ought to have your cruisers on the coast of Africa, to entrap those ships which are bringing over the slaves to cultivate the sugar, the production of which you encourage." That was the paradox of the noble Lord on the subject of slavery. He did not mean to say, that the principles applied here should be applied in ordinary cases. There were few theories that, however sound and good in themselves, could be applied in the mixed variety of human affairs without modification. It was not to satisfy any theory on this subject, that the Government proposed the present measure, or that he gave it his support, it was not because no evil might attend it, but he anticipated a balance of good, and objected to the course suggested by the noble Lord, because national dishonour must be the consequence attending it, and therefore some modification must be adopted, such as the Government proposed. The noble Lord had begun by alluding to Germany and Russia, and the noble Lord said that they could have no adequate security that the sugar they were to receive was the produce of free or slave-labour. The noble Lord had endeavoured to confound the distinction between slavery and free labour, and had resorted to that which he must call something akin to sophistry, when he said, in reference to Java, that, after all, they had nothing to warrant them in assuming that sugar, the produce of that country, was the produce of free labour. They had not the certain means of information as to every thing that concerned the stale of Java; but with regard to its laws and the condition of its labourers, they had ample means of information; and the noble Lord might perhaps recollect, that in arguing for the admission of foreign sugars into our market, it was said that it might be fair to exclude all foreign sugars that were the produce of slave-labour; but they ought to make an exception in favour of the sugar of Java, as that was the produce of free-labour. He believed labour in Java was free. He believed that the system in Java was, for the rent to be paid in proportion to the produce, and in some cases, such for instance as regarded the cultivation of rice, the rent was calculated by a certain number of days of statute labour. Now, the payment of rent in produce, or in proportion to produce, was growing much into favour, in this country. It was thought that it would be a great improvement in agriculture, if payment of rent in kind were more commonly introduced into this country. So far as regarded the occupation of land in Java, no man was compelled to hold land there against his will; but if he did hold land, he was bound to make it yield a certain portion of produce. It was the same in this country; if a man held land he was bound to pay rent. He believed that this was the state of things in Java. No person need hold land if he did not choose, and he was free to quit it, just as the farmer here was free to quit his land. In both cases certain obligations were to be fulfilled. He had not been successful in obtaining a perfect copy of the code of laws in Java, and there would be he less surprise for his want of success in this respect, when it was known that he was not able to obtain a perfect copy of the code of laws of any one of their own Colonies. He believed that it was incumbent on those who took land, to take with it a certain number of families located on the land. There was beyond that nothing compulsory in the system at Java. Beyond that adscription to the soil, there was nothing compulsory in labour in Java. In Java, however, there was domestic slavery. This was not the result of any new importations. These slaves were the remainder of persons who had once belonged to Sumatra and some neighbouring Islands; but they were not employed in agriculture; they were used solely for house purposes, therefore he called it domestic slavery, and even that system of slavery was on the point of death, whilst it had no connection with the agricultural labour of Java. Knowing these facts, he could not see that there was any difficulty as to the proper mode of dealing with Java. As to Siam, it was not included in these Resolutions, and the reason was, that they had not the means of assuring Parliament, upon such evidence as Parliament ought to he satisfied with, that slave-labour did not prevail in the kingdom of Siam. Whatever trade there was with Siam in sugar was not carried on by merchants with the sugar growers of Siam; those who dealt in the article had the high honour of carrying on their trade with the Monarch of the country, not a sugar grower himself but a sugar dealer, and a sugar broker. He was the only person with whom they could deal, and as they had not sufficient means of obtaining information as to the internal state of the country, from the jealousy that was observed towards foreigners, they had, therefore, to reserve for future consideration the sugars of Siam. They might expect then to obtain a supply of sugar, first from Java, with respect to which his own mind was perfectly satisfied, though the noble Lord cavilled on the point, that the sugar was raised by free-labour. They had next Manilla, and then they had the great empire of China. As to the last, they had not such a commercial knowledge of the interior, as to be able to say whether it would give them a great supply of sugar. He had, however, seen the sugar of China quoted in the London Price Current. [An hon. Gentleman said it was "sugar candy," and that was so much the better.] Setting aside then all ambiguity, and giving to the noble Lord the advantage of the doubt, as to whether certain states produced free or slave sugar, there were here three countries, of which it might be confidently asserted that the sugar wag produced by free-labour. From these three countries the supply yielded would not be an insignificant one. It was estimated that the supply from Java annually was 65,000 tons; Manilla, perhaps, might give from 20,000 to 25,000; making about 90,000. To this was to be added what might be expected to come from China, and also from Siam, if the sugar produced there fell within the conditions of the law they were about to propose. He did say, then, that they might calculate upon 100,000 tons of free-labour sugar as likely to be brought into the markets of the world. The noble Lord had assumed that 90,000 tons would come into the London market from Java; but we must begin by cutting off one-half from that amount. Under the peculiar relations that exist between Java and the Netherlands, half of the amount of the produce in sugar of Java was sure to go from Java to Holland. The consequence was that from 40,000 to 50,000 tons must go direct from Java to the mother country, and the noble Lord must know as a fact, that which others who undertook to discuss this question did not appear to be acquainted with, that no portion of that sugar could under our Navigation Laws, come into the consumption of this country. If they, then, were to say that from forty to fifty thousand tons could be introduced into the British market, they would say that which would be about the correct state of the trade. The noble Lord had also spoken of the trade between Brazil and Russia, of bringing the produce of Brazil to Russia, and then bringing the produce of Russia here, and be asked why not bring the produce of Brazil direct here? Why that very same thing had been said in 1840. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ewart) near the noble Lord had then proposed it, and yet the argument was then thought by the noble Lord to have very little weight. It might be right, or it might be wrong, this system. He was not now going to argue whether it were or not; but then he had to observe that the trade was one which they could not prevent. He apprehended that they could not prevent it; nor did he think there could be found a person bold enough to affirm that he could prevent a particular trade between Russia and Brazil, nor that be could so conduct the trade between Russia and this country as to put a stop to a trade like that. If he then were to grant that to be an evil, he said, let them show an evil that was remediable, and he would apply himself to that evil for the purpose of curing it. The noble Lord said that he never knew a greater example of inconsistency than this. He was however, not now going back to 1840, to show to the noble Lord his own inconsistency, but to the short period of only one month. The noble Lord said, you cannot stop the trade as respects the revenue of the sugar in bond, and therefore you ought not to attempt to deal with the question as you propose. The noble Lord had treated a similar argument that was made a few weeks ago with much disrespect in reference to a most important subject as affecting the labour of this country. He alluded to the legislation on the Factory Question. It was then shown that there were other labourers in a much worse condition than those employed in the factories, and yet we did not attempt to touch them. What was the answer of the noble Lord? He was not now saying whether the noble Lord were right or wrong in making such a reply; but in taking the same line of conduct in respect to this subject, he did not think that the noble Lord could fairly make use of the same argument against us that he had replied to in this manner when it was made against himself. "It is true," said the noble Lord, "I will apply this remedy when I can. I am not at all moved by your argument of inconsistency in dealing with this class exclusively; for if I can show you the practical advantage of applying a remedy to this particular evil, then I say it is no answer to me to say, 'There are twenty other cases to which you cannot apply the principle.'" In the same way, he said, that you may contend as you like on the alleged inconsistency of the proposition of the Government; but if the Government cannot apply a remedy so as to meet the entire evil, was it to be stopped from applying it where the application was practical. A great deal had been said in reference to tobacco, cotton, and coffee. He did not impeach those who used this argument, for he admitted that it was a debateable question, but surely there was a great distinction in the articles; tobacco, for in-instance, was not brought in competition with the produce of free-labour; and surely, too, there was a great difference between the establishing of a trade, and after a trade had been established, resolving to destroy it. No man would say that it was exactly the same thing to uproot an existing system of commerce and to establish a new system of commerce, though both were on the same principle. But then he was again told of tobacco, and cotton, and coffee, and other articles which it was said were the produce of slave-labour, should be admitted or prohibited the same as sugar. There was however, a very important distinction with respect to them. There was not one of those articles that could be said, like sugar, to cause the perpetuation of the Slave Trade. Coffee did not cause it. There was St. Domingo, which had a great sugar trade so long as slavery subsisted. Slavery was abolished, and the exportation of sugar was done away with as well as slavery, and coffee was substituted as its trade, and now was a very large one. The Slave Trade was not carried on for the purpose of transplanting families, but for the purpose of having adult labour, and chiefly adult male labour. Now, in the produce of sugar there was very little employment for any other than adult male labour, females had but little to do with it, and children nothing at all. It was not so with coffee. A great many persons of different ages were employed about it. Thus it was more suitable, and so was cotton, for the employment of families. There was, then, an advantage in the cultivation of coffee, where there was free-labour, which sugar had not. The noble Lord had then used an argument on which he laid very great stress. It was the one most in the mouths of those out of doors who undertook to discuss this question, and as it was a very fair and proper argument, he did not wonder to see it taken up by an adroit debater like the noble Lord. The noble Lord said that whatever free-grown sugar England might take out of the general market would be replaced by slave-grown sugar, and we should give as much encouragement in that way to slave sugar as if we directly purchased it. The noble Lord relied much upon that argument, but even if the noble Lord could show that such would be the result, he should deny that they could be chargeable with it. He contended that if they adopted a policy in favour of free-labour, they were not to be chargeable with the employment of slaves, or the use of the produce of slave-labour in other parts of the world. When they abolished slavery in the British dominions, they were told that the consequence of that abolition of slavery in their own dominions would be to encourage the production of a larger quantity of slave sugar for other markets, as the void they were about to make must be filled up. There were 240,000 tons produced in the latter years of the system of slavery in the British possessions. It was notorious at the time that after emancipation the produce in their possessions would not be so large, and though it was clear that the vacancy created must be filled up with slave-labour, still they said, making the same answer as he made, whether others followed their example or not, they at least would relieve themselves from the guilt and the responsibility of employing slaves. They set the example and left it to others to follow it. The Danes had abolished slavery, and the example of England had led to a movement in France, which it was to be hoped, for the honour of that great country, would meet with success. They were not, he said, to be held responsible for that which was done by other nations. They gave to other nations a good example, and then left other nations to adopt that course "which they thought best. The noble Lord said that they would give the same encouragement to the slave-grown sugar of Brazil and Cuba, under the present regulation, as if they had a direct trade with those countries. He denied this; for if they adopted the proposition of the noble Lord, the consequence would be the introduction of the capital of this country into Cuba and in the Brazils, which would be made available in the production of slave-grown sugar. Now, what had been the effect of the policy of this country of late on the slave cultivation of sugar in the Brazils. Many estates there that were used to cultivate sugar, had in the last five years gone out of cultivation. The exclusion of their sugar from the British market made the cultivation no longer profitable. According to the language of the noble Lord, it might be supposed that there was some charm in the British market—that persons thought it so high an honour to deal here that they came here in preference to other places. But it was the price which determined the trade, and what, he would ask, was the price in the British market? It was by 10s. 6d. higher than the price in the other markets of the world. He supposed that the charge must be met either by a fall of the British market to the general price of the markets of the world, or by a rise in the price of particular sugars on being admitted here. Taking the whole case into consideration, he did not think that the disparity between the British market and foreign markets would be more than 2s. after the change. He thought that Java and Manilla sugar, on account of being admitted in to our markets, would bear a higher price—a shade higher, probably, than that of Cuba and Brazil. This difference, which he admitted, would not be very great, would still operate, as far as it went, as a positive premium upon the extension of sugar cultivation, not in Cuba and the Brazils, but in Java and Manilla. It could not be denied that the first effect of this would be to give encouragement to free-labour sugar over sugar of slave produce. This, it was said, would produce a void in the stock of free-labour sugar in the markets of the world; and how was it to be filled up? It was answered by slave-labour sugar. But how did this appear? The noble Lord spoke as if the production of sugar in Java and Manilla was carried on upon such principles that it was not susceptible of increase. He contended, on the contrary, that this was not the case, and that the effect of this measure must, in the first instance, be to give an increased value to free-labour sugar, and permanently to raise the value of free-labour. He did not mean to say that there would not be a tendency to keep down the price of Java sugar in this country to that which it bore in foreign markets. He knew the doctrines of political economy, that there could not be two prices; and which, in general, was a true one. But still he would venture to assert that there were some articles which, from the peculiar circumstances connected with them, formed an exception to that rule, and obtained a different price in different markets. The next question which would have to be considered as an element in this matter was, the quantity of foreign sugar which this country would be likely to require. It was difficult to say what might be the case some two or three years hence, when the productive powers of the East Indies had been called into full oper- ation; and upon this point he agreed in the observation which had fallen in a late debate from an hon. Gentleman opposite, that our Eastern possessions had laboured under great disadvantages from the uncertainty which attended all the regulations of their commercial interests with this country; and he argued that it would be better in regard to those possessions if they could pass the Sugar Duties for five years instead of one, the effect of which would be to give a great development to the productive power of India. But still, looking at all the circumstances, he did not for the present, at least, expect to see a demand for more than 20,000 tons of foreign sugar upon the passing of this measure, and such a demand as this, he thought could not produce any very sensible effect upon the market of slave-grown sugar throughout the world. If he could believe that it would greatly tend to the encouragement of the sugar of Brazil, he should regret the result; but believing, as he did, that the direct encouragement to the free sugars of Java and Manilla would be much greater than any indirect encouragement which it would afford to the slave-grown sugars of Cuba and Brazil, he could only congratulate himself upon the change, as one likely to give a premium to free-labour over slave-labour. The noble Lord had alluded, at some length, to the possibilities for the fraudulent introduction of slave-grown sugar which this measure would afford, calling into use all the powers of illustration and invention with which he was so pre-eminently gifted. The noble Lord had alluded to a supposed Custom-house regulation in America, whereby any quantity of an article of foreign produce might be admitted free of duty, provided a similar quantity of the same article were exported. Now, such a regulation as this, he (Mr. Gladstone) had never heard of. [Mr. Hume: Grinding corn in bond.] The hon. Gentleman referred to the Grinding Act; but this was a very different case from the present one. By this Act parties were allowed to import a certain quantity of corn—the raw material, duty free—provided they exported an equivalent quantity of corn or biscuits, being a manufactured article. This Act was, therefore, nothing else than an encouragement to a particular branch of manufacture. The introduction and exportation of a certain quantity of the one and the same article in the same state, was a very different matter. But he would not speak positively whether, in the constructions which might be put upon the customs laws in America, some such regulations might or might not exist; all he could say was, that he had searched all the records within his reach, and he had inquired of practical men interested in the commercial laws of America, and he had not succeeded in finding any trace of such a regulation as the noble Lord described, nor did he understand by what process it could be the interest of America to adopt any such course of proceeding against this country as the noble Lord contemplated. Commercial conventions existed between this country and America, and it was as competent to this country as to America, by notice to interrupt the continuance of that state of things. The noble Lord had contended that the prices of bringing sugar to this country, would be less than to carry them from the southern to the northern parts of America, on account of the heavy call for stowage to accompany the freights of cotton; but cotton was exported from the southern to the northern parts of America, as well as to Liverpool, and therefore afforded an equal opportunity for the conveyance of sugar. He thought, therefore, that sugar and cotton were respectively in about the same predicament as regarded the northern ports of America, and as regarded the ports of England. But it was remarkable also that one of the great complaints of the British manufacturers was the great cost of carriage to this country of the raw material, and this same disadvantage he expected would apply to the consumption of sugars exported from America into this country. He thought, therefore, that as a general principle it would be against the Americans to send sugar from New Orleans to this country, in preference to sending it to their own ports. He had examined the prices of sugar in the New York market for the last eleven or twelve years, taking those descriptions of sugars which most nearly corresponded with those consumed in this country, and he found that the general average of their prices was 35s. Now the price in England last year was only 33s., and the price now was only 35s. or 36s.; and he thought he would be a very bold man who anticipated that the prices would, on the average, continue as high or higher than at New York. Let us consider what prices the American would get. He would get a price about 1s. better than the price he would get at Rotterdam, or any other open market. But in his own country he gets 12s. more, for the American pays no duty in his own country; whilst the foreigner in New York and Boston and other towns, pays 11s. and 12s. duty; and yet the supposition of the noble Lord was, that the American grower would come here to pay duty. Then the noble Lord said, that the duty may be reduced or taken away. He differed from the noble Lord most widely. The protection of 25 per cent. was regarded as a kind of general right. There is no class in America that does not clamour for protection; in this country there are many who are indifferent to it, and some who are opposed to it. And the noble Lord will also observe, that this is a political question. The integrity of the Union is not secured by bonds so indissoluble as to render it a slight matter to make commercial changes, which may bear on one state more than another. Louisiana and some of the neighbouring States raise a great deal more sugar than other countries of the Union; and nothing can be more improbable than that America, whilst she recognises the principle of a high protective system for her own manufactures, will consent, in reference to the produce of a particular State, to introduce the principles of free trade. The improbability is raised to the highest degree, because, the argument was, that America will reduce or take off the duty for the interest of her own sugar-growers. When it is stated in that form, does not the noble Lord see that a more untenable argument could not be advanced? The effect of the present duty is to secure to her own grower a price 40 or 50 per cent. higher than the general market of the world, and that duty, forsooth, is to be reduced or taken off, for the sake of securing the high privilege of annoying the English Government, and selling their own sugar 9s. or 10s. a cwt. less than they now do. Then it was suggested, that the charge now proposed to be made in the Sugar Duties should be suspended until time had been given to ascertain the effect of the introduction of additional labour into the West Indies. He could not bring himself to expect that any material change could take place on this account for at least two or three years to come; and this being the case, he did not think it would be just to tax the consumers of this article, by inflicting upon them a high price, when it was possible to reduce it. He did not pretend to deny that the West Indians were already oppressed with an. accumulation of disadvantages, and that the present measure would operate in some respect against them. He believed, indeed, that for many years a great number of the West Indian proprietors had been losers by the cultivation of their estates. He knew, indeed, of some estates, which were considered to be as good as any in the West Indian islands, which in 1840, although the public were then paying what was called a famine price for sugar, did not pay their expenses. But this was a question which should be approached and discussed upon a consideration of the balance of interests between parties, and the State in general. With respect to the West Indian Colonies, he did not believe that it would be in the power of the Legislature to bring them into a sound and healthy state of cultivation, even if the present duties were continued for twenty years. Many things were wanting before these Colonies would be restored to a healthy and profitable state of culture. New labour must be introduced—a new system of management must be adopted, substituting a resident for an absentee proprietary. This was a point which could only be obtained gradually, but at the same time, it was a more important element than any other in the consideration of this question. The West Indian Colonies had no doubt a crisis before them, which they would have to pass through, and they had a right to expect from the Government of the country all the assistance which could be granted them, consistently with what was due to the rest of the community. [Mr. Bernel: Hear.] The hon. Member cried "hear," but not as he thought quite in the spirit of fairness with which a question of this sort should be met. He proposed to levy a duty of 10s. 6d. upon foreign sugar, which was equivalent to 50 per cent. of the price, and he would ask was this nothing? As far as the protection of a Customs' Duty went, he thought that the Government had done their part by the West Indians in this matter. But, as he said before, the Government, besides the interest of the West India producers, had to consider the interests of the consumers in this country, and the influence of their measures upon the Slave Trade. The noble Lord was pleased to condemn the present proposition, on the ground of inconsistency. But he thought that if there was any inconsistency in this measure as regarded the question of the suppression of the Slave Trade, there was much more inconsistency in the measure which the noble Lord proposed. Considering the expense of treasure and blood which had been incurred in order to carry into effect the suppression of the traffic in slaves; considering that our cruisers were stationed on the African coast, for the purpose of intercepting the conveyance of slaves to America, he thought that it would be in the highest degree inconsistent and incapable of any tolerable explanation in us, if we should give, by a measure such as the noble Lord proposed, an additional stimulus to the production of sugar made by the hands of those slaves whose importation into America we made such vast sacrifices to prevent. Whilst upon this point he must be allowed to say, that he hoped the noble Lord would not again revert to his charges of hypocrisy against Her Majesty's Government in framing this measure. He thought, to say the least, that these were extreme charges, which should not lightly be made. He considered that to accuse a man of hypocrisy, was to accuse him, not of a mere infirmity or error of judgment, but of one of the basest and most execrable vices which it was possible for a man to possess; and, considering that he did not think it was in the power of the noble Lord to show that any personal interests were promulgated by this measure, he thought it was going somewhat beyond the latitude of ordinary parliamentary discussion to charge the supporters of it with hypocrisy. However, he did not think that such a charge, if true, could be the less believed, from the simple fact of its being denied, or that if unfounded, it would be the more likely to be credited, because it was not denied. He should, therefore, leave the charge upon the present occasion entirely to the consideration of the House and of the country. But if hypocrisy existed any where in this matter, it was worthy of observation that it was participated in by some of the best and wisest men of both hemispheres—by men who had sacrificed their personal friendships and political connections to the great cause of slave trade abolition—by such men as Dr. Lushington, Sir Thomas Buxton; he believed, Mr. Clarkson, and Mr. Sturge. [Mr. Baring: There is a difference of opinion amongst the members of the Anti-Slavery Society.] He did not deny it, but the Anti-Slavery Society, by a deputation with which he had an interview some little time back, declared their approval of this measure, and they said that the cultivation of sugar had a connection with the Slave Trade which was not traceable in the same degree of guilt in the production of other articles. So that the authority of those who were undoubtedly the most competent to form a correct opinion on the subject, was in favour of the course which the Government proposed to pursue, and advocated, not because it was perfectly consistent with our former policy, but as the course more calculated to effect the greatest amount of good with the least practicable amount of evil than any other. He (Mr. Gladstone) recommended the proposal to the Committee, therefore, with the greatest confidence as to its results, and until it could be shown on the other side that the adoption of that proposal would have the same effect in encouraging the Slave Trade by increasing the facilities for the admission of sugar cultivated by slave-labour in Cuba, or elsewhere, as would the adoption of the course proposed by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), they were bound to adhere to it, as being conducive to the interests of trade, and at the same time vindicating the consistency of the country, and promoting those great objects which, in reference to the Slave Trade, it had so long pursued.

Mr. Labouchere

observed, that there was one part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, in regard to which he should offer but a very few words—that was, as to the consistency or inconsistency of any party in that House in reference to the present question. He did not by any means undervalue consistency in public men, and he had endeavoured on more than one occasion to defend himself, and those who acted with him, when the charge had been made; but on the present occasion so strongly did he feel the importance of the question under consideration, that he should content himself upon the point of consistency with repeating that which he had at former times stated, when particular passages from particular speeches, made when the late Government were opposing the change proposed by the hon. Member for Dumfries, were quoted to prove the charge of inconsistency against them, viz., reminding the House that a distinct and specific announcement had then been made by his lamented Friend the late Lord Sydenham, who was at the time President of the Board of Trade, that it was his opinion, that either at or before the termination of the Brazilian Treaty, it would become the duty of the House of Commons to consider the whole question of the Sugar Duties, foreign and domestic. The reference to that statement of Lord Sydenham was, he thought, so complete an answer to the charge of inconsistency, that it was necessary to do no more than to allude to it, to dispose at once of the charge of inconsistency, in regard to the Government of which he had been a Member; and as far as his own personal conduct was concerned, he would merely remind the House that the very first year he (Mr. Labouchere) held the office of President of the Board of Trade, he was at Liverpool, and a deputation of gentlemen connected with the West-India interest waited upon him there, and referred to that declaration of Lord Sydenham's, stating that it occasioned great alarm, and wished him to say that that declaration was merely the expression of Lord Sydenham's opinion as Member for Manchester, and that on the part of the Government and of himself, he would be prepared to disavow it. To that request he most unhesitatingly and distinctly replied that he was not prepared, as a Member of the Government, or on the part of the Government, to contradict, disavow, or qualify that declaration. So much for the inconsistency of the late Ministry, and those with whom he acted; but as to the consistency of the Government opposite, if he had ever cherished resentment against them, on account of the handle they had made of the West-India interest and the Slave Trade question to turn out the late Ministry, he should feel that he was now fully revenged in seeing the conduct they had pursued on that occasion had compelled them, the Ministers of a great commercial country, to come forward, and in the face of that country, and the world, make such a proposal as they now submitted to Parliament, and defend it upon such arguments as they had heard from the two right hon. Gentlemen, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade. That the course proposed was of a novel and unprecedented description no one could deny, and the arguments by which it was supported, as applying to the question itself, were of a totally novel and unprecedented description. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman who had last spoken, that a question of such magnitude as the Sugar Duties, involving important considerations in regard to the commerce of the country and trade of our colonial possessions, should rest upon grounds and be settled upon principles that could be permanently maintained, and stand the test of reason and experience. He agreed that such a settlement was a point of almost paramount importance; and it was because the Government had not in his opinion fulfilled those conditions in the settlement they proposed, but that, on the contrary, their scheme was uncertain, fraught with change, and unsound in principle, that he opposed it. In the first place, if there were no other objections, it was quite clear that the plan proposed could not be a final settlement of the question. He would begin by taking it for granted, for the sake of argument, that which the Government had asserted, that no frauds would be committed, and that none but bonâ fide free-labour sugar would come in; admitting this, he contended that they were incurring great, positive, and certain evils, for the sake of benefits, to say the least of them, visionary and unsubstantial. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite might say, "we are right in doing this, for the sake of the great moral object we, in common with the whole country, have in view; but he apprehended no one would contend that to denounce by commercial legislation such a country as the Brazils, or the Spanish Colonies of South America, consuming, as they did, some millions yearly of our manufactures, was any slight hazard, or an evil which ought to be incurred, except upon certain and substantial grounds. No one would dispute the existence of the difficulties of which the merchants trading with these countries now complained, viz., that they could not procure a direct return from the Brazils for our manufactures exported thither. This state of things, which, in itself, was a great evil, was not only continued by the plan proposed, but the Government did more; they raised up a hostile feeling in the minds of the people of those countries against this country, which might be attended with the most fatal consequences to our trade, by leading them to hostile commercial legislation against us. If men would consult reason and their own inter- ests, he was aware they would not legislate in such a spirit; but, unfortunately, mankind were not so constituted as to be always amenable to reason, and the Legislatures of the countries to which he had referred were just as likely (and more so) to be influenced by passion, and a desire to retaliate, as by reason and sound sense. In dealing with such a question he feared that they would feel acutely the affront that was thus put upon them by the measure of the British Parliament, and that it would affect their course of legislation in regard to their commercial relations with us. And he believed further that Government, by their non-intercourse doctrine, with regard to sugar, were doing more to prevent the natural effects of that influence which he hoped this country would always continue to exercise in every country with which she had relations in behalf of the negro population—that that would do more evil in that direction than this paltry measure of excluding slave-grown sugar could possibly do good by stimulating free labour. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that we must not over-rate the probable commercial effects of the proposed change; and the right hon. Gentleman admitted that no enormous influx of foreign sugar could be expected to come in. The right hon. Gentleman had estimated the quantity at 20,000 tons; the right hon. Gentleman's estimate, however, was extremely vague; he should perhaps be inclined to put the amount somewhat higher, but he believed nobody calculated so high as 40,000 tons. There would not, therefore, be any immense influx of foreign sugar from this measure of any sort. That was an important matter, when they considered the question mooted by the right hon. Gentleman as to how far the measure was to be looked upon as a discouragement to the consumption of sugar, the produce of slave-labour, and consequently the Slave Trade, in respect to those countries in which that sugar was produced. The discouragement amounted then, as had been said, to a mere shade—he (Mr. Labouchere) would say rather to the shadow of a shade. According to the right hon. Gentleman, we should receive some 20,000 tons of foreign free-labour sugar under this new rate of duties, but the right hon. Gentleman admitted that the amount of free-labour sugar produced in the East was considerably more than 20,000 tons—in fact, about 50,000 tons, which were available, and if the Dutch commercial regulations should be so altered as to admit the Java sugar, it would amount to 90,000 tons. But a part of this only would come here—20,000 tons might come to England, and the surplus be exported to Germany and the Continent. There could not however be two prices, for the price of sugar in the markets of London and Liverpool would always be governed by the price of sugar in Germany and other places on the Continent. This he thought was self-evident. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that this was true in the main, but not to the full extent, and that there would still be a shade of advantage in favour of free-labour sugar. But was it for a shade of advantage, and the stimulus to production by free-labour which that would afford that they were to incur this great risk? For his own part he thought the word shade was too strong an expression; and he believed that a ton of Cuba sugar and a ton of Manilla sugar would, under the proposed law, be of precisely the same value. With regard to the Slave Trade, the moment this free-labour sugar was withdrawn from the general markets of the world by the consumption of this country, the vacuum would be filled up by sugar the produce of slave labour, so that, in fact, within a shade they would be encouraging the cultivation of slave-grown sugar in the Brazils and Cuba as effectually as though it were admitted directly into our own ports. He denied, therefore, the advantage and the inference of the right hon. Gentleman. If they took the whole, or nearly so, of the sugar produced by free-labour throughout the world, there would be something in the argument; but as they could only take a very small part of it, the rest would be necessarily exported in the competition with slave-labour sugar. He denied therefore, that they, in point of fact, by the proposed plan gave any discouragement to slave-labour sugar, but, on the contrary, they encouraged it. And when the Government proposed such a measure as that now under consideration so fraught with danger to the commerce of the country, he held they were at least bound to show that it would interpose some practical discouragement to the Slave Trade. Hitherto he had discussed the question as though the measure without reference to its opening a door for fraud. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had discussed the question of fraud in a very summary way, and seemed to have the most implicit faith in the virtue of the required certificate of origin, and was sur- prised that any one should doubt that there could be any fraud in the case. He was sorry to say, he could not share in that confidence, nor did the mercantile community or the West India interest. [Sir J. R. Reid: "Hear."] The hon. Member for Dover, who was connected with the mercantile and West India interest, cheered that observation, and he was glad to have that hon. Gentleman's confirmation of his opinion. He did not believe that the experience of the past tended to prove that the certificates of our own Custom House officers were to be depended upon with entire confidence in all cases; but when they talked to him of the certificates of a foreign country—a certificate of the origin of sugar from New Orleans for instance, with no other security than the signature of the British Consul—he said, that to place any reliance upon such a document would be absurd. He apprehended that Mississippi certificates would be of about the same value as Mississippi bonds, and that the air of that country would be found equally prejudicial to both descriptions of securities. He saw with alarm under these circumstances—locking at the little prospect of the Government effecting even that small amount of advantage which they anticipated—the probability of the injury which would be inflicted upon our trade, not with America alone, for the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had read a long list of places, as Mexico, Venezuela, Buenos Ayres, and other countries, with respect to which this country was bound, under treaties, to admit their produce upon the most favourable terms. How then would they refuse admission to a cargo of sugar coming from either of these countries accompanied with the required certificate? This was the difficulty they would be placed in by adopting vicious and paltry principles in legislating upon commercial subjects. No man could tell where the difficulties consequent upon that legislation would stop. He defied any man to tell what would be the effect of the measure. Founded as it was upon false and untenable principles, it must produce mischief and confusion and nothing else, and its evil results would soon become so obvious that they would be obliged to alter it. But what would be the consequences in the meantime? He argued that it was of the utmost importance that the character of the country should stand clear on the subject of the Slave Trade. He had never spoken with disrespect of the solemn and religious feeling of the country, as to the long continued injuries and suffering of the negro race, and he was satisfied, that the emancipation of that race was the brightest page in our history. We might have been sometimes mistaken, and suffered disappointment, but it was that conduct regulated by moral and religious feelings which was the source of England's greatness. But the more he felt this, the stronger was his conviction of the importance of at all times showing to the world that our policy was unconnected with hypocrisy or with folly. And when a scheme was thus propounded, denounced as he believed it had been every where, especially in the mercantile world, as at once absurd and impracticable—and he challenged contradiction from any Gentleman on the other side who knew anything of the opinion of the merchants of the country—he was very much afraid that foreigners would be inclined to form the same opinion as our own merchants, and that we should not stand higher with the world than we had done, or be able to promote so effectually the objects the House and the country had at heart, in reference to slavery and the Slave Trade. He would not now go into the question as to what would be the result with regard to the United States. It was difficult at present to predict what course that country might adopt. He was disposed to agree with the right hon Gentleman in doubting whether the inducement to supply England with sugar at the scale of duties proposed, would be any temptation to the American Government to alter the recent modification of her duties which they had thought it right to adopt. But he had received a letter, which he felt deserved some attention, from a Mr. Innes, a gentleman of great experience upon this point, who stated that the southern states were more calculated from their circumstances to facilitate the introduction of slove-grown sugar into this country than the northern, and that this country would be a better market for American sugar than New York itself. Then with regard to the effect on our own Colonies, and especially our West India Colonies, he had never contended and never would contend, that the House or the country, by the large and magnificent sum of 20,000,000l. which had been given as the price of emancipation, was altogether absolved from the duty of attending to the circumstances of these Colonies. He had always felt that that was not a mere liberal and generous but a just view of the case. He therefore, was rejoiced to hear on a former evening from the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, that Government were prepared to take active measures for facilitating the immigration of labourers into the West India Colonies. And he must also say, that it would have been more satisfactory to him, if Government had felt themselves justified in proposing at the same time with the present measure a reduction of the duty on Colonial sugar. He begged he might not be mistaken upon this point. He could not he felt, vote for the amendment to be proposed by the hon. Member for Bristol, which went to impose a larger differential duty on the people of this country than was proposed by the Government; for he was convinced that every shilling so imposed would not be for the benefit of the country or the cause of emancipation, but for the benefit of the West-India Colonies, at the expense of the Revenue. If, however, Government had proposed to reduce the duty on foreign sugar to 30s., and of colonial sugar to 20s., he should have rejoiced at it, and have been glad to have given his support to such a proposition. He believed, also, he was correct in saying, that his noble Friend, the Member for London, would have also supported such a motion if it were made. And, although he was afraid in the present state of parties in the House, such a motion would have but little chance of success, he at the same time regretted that the Government had not considered it compatible with their duty to make such a proposal. He had always thought that when the Sugar Duties were to be altered, and the state of the Revenue admitted that the experiment would be tried, whether the evils which the reduction of the duty might inflict, might not be met in the increased consumption; and seeing that they had now the Income Tax to fall back upon in case of failure, he thought the experiment might safely have been tried. He wished only that he could express as strongly as he felt the consequences he anticipated from the Government proposition. He had heard with regret the observation of the right hon. Gentleman, that Government was in a manner pledged to the West-India interest. He was aware that upon this subject Government were deeply committed by their conduct when in opposition; but he had hoped when they same to the point, and the right hon. Baronet had, as Minister of the Crown, to make a proposal to the House and the country, and saw how great were the evils to be apprehended from its adoption in the hostile feeling it would raise up in a large part of the world, and the practical impediments it would impose to our commerce generally, and especially with the Brazils and the Spanish American Colonies—and, on the other hand, when he saw how incalculably small and visionary were the benefits to be expected from it in restraining the Slave Trade, and discouraging the cultivation of slave-labour sugar, as compared with free-labour sugar—he had hoped that his sense of duty, as a Minister and a public man, would have induced him to cast to the winds mere consistency as a politician; and that he should have had the pleasure of giving the right hon. Gentleman a hearty and cordial support in those great commercial reforms, which he believed to be for the advantage of the country and the world.

Mr. P. M. Stewart

had always understood, when the West Indies escaped from the slavery agitation by the Act of Emancipation, they were to be treated as integral parts of the British empire, and their people be dealt with as citizens of the country. If there were any proof wanted of the cruelty, hardship, and impolicy of the principle of monopoly, it was to be found in the present condition of those Colonies, which should operate as a warning against the adoption of any motion of monopoly for the future. If the proposition of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) were based on fair and equitable principles as regarded the West Indies, if it were likely to be a final settlement of the question at issue, he would not object to support it, because, in his conscience, he believed the Government measure did that which the noble Lord's measure did more decidedly, and therefore more honestly. There was much ignorance on the part of the Government in connection with this subject. That ignorance had been admitted in some degree by the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade. He thought, under these circumstances, it would be better to do that which was by no means unusual in similar cases, refer the question to the consideration of a Select Committee. He thought they were not quite aware of what they were doing, and was quite sure from what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, that they were ignorant of that with which they were working. It would sound like a dream to all the colonists, to hear, as it did, he believed, to many hon. Gentlemen near him, when they heard the proposition of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had laid the foundation stone of this proposition upon that which would not stand firm under him. He said that they were induced to depart from their declaration in 1841 from the circumstances in which this country was placed as to the supply of sugar, and he stated what was not the fact, that the price of sugar now was higher than at the same period last year, and that the prospective supply of sugar was so low as to create alarm that the price would he higher. Now, the average price at the present time —that was on the 21st of May—was 36s. 8¾d.; and on the 3rd of June last year it was 36s. 10d.; so that, in fact, the price now was declining. There were speeches delivered on former occasions by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, and the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, which would answer their present proposition much more effectually than he could pretend to answer it. In the great debate upon the Sugar Duties, in May, 1841, the right hon. Baronet spoke as follows:— Do not believe that I vote for the resolution of my noble Friend with the intention of deviating from my present course in a future year. I will be frank and explicit with you. My deliberate opinion is, that the great experiment which has cost this country so much—the great experiment for the extinction of slavery—should be fairly and perfectly tried; and that to this effect we ought to encourage sugar, the production of free labour, by giving it the preference in the market of the United Kingdom. If our West India Colonies and our possessions in the East can supply the consumption of this country, can ensure us a supply of sugar at reasonable prices—at such prices as shall permit the accustomed use of sugar—I would continue to them, on the special and peculiar grounds which I have referred to, the preference in the home market. The price of sugar is falling; it was 56s. 10d. in July, 1840—it is now only 37s. 7d.; and you have recently given, by equalizing the duties on East India and West India rum, increased encouragement for the production of sugar in India. I confidently hope, therefore, that we may look for an adequate supply of sugar the produce of free labour. At the present time, he repeated, the price was falling, and the supply was larger than it was in 1841. They had a prospective supply of sugar for 1844 of 218,000 tons, besides 40,000 tons in store. It was calculated that the supply of last year would leave 43,000 tons in store, and the actual quantity turned out to be 40,000 tons; he therefore, maintained that the circumstances of 1841, which induced the present Ministers to oppose the proposition of the then Government, a proposition, too, which was much more fair towards the West Indies than the present one—that these circumstances existed quite as strongly with respect to the proposition just submitted by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had asked him whether, if the West Indies were properly supplied with labour, he would he content with a differential duty of 10s.? This was a most tantalising question. The West India proprietors had been knocking at the door of Government for the last ten years, applying for a supply of free labour. This supply had been refused to them, and now, at the eleventh hour, and not until then, when they were all but ruined, Government stepped in, and said that they should have the labour they required. Now, this was not fair treatment. Was it fair treatment to cripple a man, to reduce him by starvation, and then to throw him into the arena of competition, there to struggle with powerful competitors? But he would answer the question of the right hon. Gentleman. If the Government had at a proper time, three years ago, or five years ago, if they had supplied the West India possessions with labourers, as they now proposed to do, that would of itself have settled the differentia] duties. The produce of the West Indies would have been increased by the amount of free-labour introduced—that produce would have been surplus produce, and that surplus would at once have settled the prices and the question. But as to the difficulty of excluding slave while they admitted free-labour sugar, let the Committee listen to the words of the noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire, spoken in May, 1841:— Sir," said the noble Lord, "I listened with some surprise when the hon. and learned Member gave notice the other night of a resolution to carry into effect that which he knows to be impossible, namely, to limit the operation of the measure relating to foreign sugar, in such a way as to exclude any article which is slave-grown… Let not the hon. Gentleman go to the division with the plea, or under the idea, that he can, in Committee, separate the free-grown from the slave-grown sugar. Whether such a resolution could in point of form be moved in Committee I doubt, and the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, will tell him that neither in Committee nor elsewhere could it be carried, nor, if carried, acted upon, inasmuch as solemn treaties compel us to admit the produce of Brazil upon the some footing, and with the same advantages, as that of the most favoured country. The distinction is one he cannot maintain, and if he vote for the proposition of the Government he will be substantially giving a vote for the introduction into this country of foreign slave-grown sugar. That was then the opinion of the noble Lord, who, in illustration of his remarks, took the case of a favoured nation, of Brazil, which might now be considered out of the market. [Lord Stanley: "Not just yet."] At all events, it soon would be; for the proposal of the Government, if it took effect at all, was to come into operation in November, when our Treaty with the Brazils expired. He mentioned this to relieve the noble Lord. He was no stickler for consistency where deviation was necessary; but he thought that deviation ought to be justified by the public benefit. His right hon. Friend opposite was in error when he stated that the average amount of sugar produced in the West Indies, under the slave system, was 240,000 tons. The average production of the five years preceding 1833, was 201,777 tons. The production of the third year after free-labour had been entirely established was 107,000 tons. That was the amount of production in 1841, when the House refused to make any alteration in the Sugar Duties, because it was declared that an ample supply would be obtained from our own Colonies. But what would be the effect of the measure now proposed by Her Majesty's Ministers? It was argued, that America would not send her sugars to the British market, but America had a perfect right to send them, and he did not by any means think that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had made out his proposition that the market of New York was a better one for the American sugars, than Liverpool or London. His right hon. Friend opposite had expressed great sympathy for the West India proprietors, and in so doing, he had continued the lament of Mr. Huskisson, who said that no measure was adopted with regard to the West Indies which did not lead to pecuniary loss on the part of the proprietors. He (Mr. P. M. Stewart) would ask the House to look at the effect which had been produced upon the West India proprietors by the Act of Emancipation; that measure had inflicted upon them a heavy blow in a pecuniary point of view. He held in his hand returns relative to an estate in Grenada, and one, too, which suffered less from the change than any other in the island. In 1832, the expenses of its management were 6,500l.; in 1833, 4,600l.; in 1834, 5,036l.; giving an average of 5,405l. of expenses. The produce for the same period was as follows: —In 1832, 362 tons; in 1833, 380 tons; in 1834, 359 tons; giving an average of 367 tons per annum. The cost of production per ton was 14l. 14s. Now, take the three years ending 1843. Without going into particulars, the average amount of the expense of these years was 5,500l.; while the average quantity of produce was only 264 tons, giving an expense of 24l. 12s. per ton. This great difference was caused by the payment of high wages for a reduced and inadequate supply of labour. It was upon facts of this description that the West India proprietors grounded the hardship of their case. When the measure of Emancipation took place, a promise was made to the proprietors that they should have a supply of free-labour: but that promise had never been fulfilled. On the contrary, every possible obstruction had been thrown in their way. But it was now said, "You shall have a supply of free-labour; the promises before made to you shall be fulfilled." There was a well-known proverb, "Better late than never;" but he begged to inform the House that many of the estates in the West Indies had already been abandoned, and that, in consequence of the circumstances to which he had just adverted many persons were plunged into the deepest suffering. More estates would be, he was afraid, abandoned, and more persons would be exposed to suffer from the extraordinary step which the Government now proposed to adopt. He could inform the right hon. Gentleman, that at this time, estates were being abandoned almost daily in the West Indies, because labourers could not be obtained to secure the crops; and that if an interval of two or three years had been allowed to elapse before the proposition of this measure, an ample supply of labourers being also afforded, the proposal would have been received by the West India proprietors in a very different manner. There had been one proposition of the noble Lord, the Member for London, relative to the introduction of Hill Coolies, which had been very much discussed, and, as he believed, rejected. Now they had Hill Coolies, and they were to have Africans and Chinamen; but he put it to anybody whether it was fair that the Government, simultaneously with the discovery that they had been in error in denying a supply of free-labour to the West India Colonies, should come down upon them with this alteration of duties, and say "go into the field of competition, and struggle against foreign-grown sugar." Such treatment was not fair—it was un- English. They did not even wait until the measure for introducing labour took proper effect. At present there were not enough labourers in the West-India Colonies to secure the crop now on the ground. If they had some warning—an interval of two or three years, to provide a supply of labour, they would be inclined to treat the measure very differently from the manner in which they were now compelled to view it. The noble Lord, the Member for the City of London, quoting an admirable opinion of Lord Shelbourne, had said, "Let us meet our rivals fairly." He, as a Colonist, would say, "Let us meet our rivals fairly, but you are throwing us into a competition for which we have neither strength nor means." It was one for which they had no strength or means, in consequence of the vicious legislation of the mother country. He maintained that the supply of colonial sugar would be greater this, than it had been for some years, and the price of the article was progressively falling. Yet in face of this, the present alteration was proposed. The right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, had tried to console the West-Indians, by stating that there would be only about one-half of the free-grown sugar of the world introduced into our markets, less, indeed, than that quantity. He stated that the total quantity produced was only about 90,000 tons, and that, of that quantity, only about 20,000 tons would be imported here. He, however, would remind the Committee, that in the Mauritius alone there were upwards of 40,000 tons produced, and there was nothing to prevent Java bringing her sugars into our markets. He asked the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government seriously to reflect on the consequences of his measure to the West-India Colonies. Why were the Colonists not put upon the same footing as other British subjects? The West-India planter was, to all intents and purposes, a landed proprietor; but they debarred his productions from general use. The West-Indians laboured under many restrictions. Rum was virtually excluded from consumption in Scotland and Ireland. The duty laid on it in these countries was 9s. 4d. per gallon. In England the consumption of rum was one-third of the whole amount of spirits drunk. In Scotland it was 1–112th of the whole quantity, and in Ireland l–600th of the whole quantity. He contended that these restrictions were not warranted by justice. Then, again, sugar and molasses were prohibited from being used in breweries and distilleries when foreign barley was admitted. He did not see why this restriction should be placed upon productions reared in British Colonies. Had the proposition of Government been anything like a fair one towards the Colonies, or beneficial to the community at large, he would, with the qualifications of the noble Lord, the Member for London, have supported, or at least not opposed it; for as it was, it would virtually let in sugar in a roundabout way, which the noble Lord proposed to admit directly. When the hon. Member for Bristol proposed his amendment, he would support it, both on the ground that it would benefit the Colonies, and minister to the comfort of the general body of the community, by lowering the prices of West-India produce. But as to the Government proposition, if they adopted it without any modification, they would very soon read the consequences of their error in the injured interests of the Colonies of this country.

Mr. Hume

agreed with the hon. Member for Renfrewshire that the interests of the Colonies had been in a great degree sacrificed, by the supply of free-labour now offered to them not having been tendered in proper time. The public had long borne with great patience the high prices of West India productions, but now it had become quite necessary for Government to take the matter up. The way, however, in which it had been handled was not worthy of a statesman, nor that which the country and foreign nations had expected. It would give satisfaction in no quarter. If they had used one half of the money spent in vain attempts to put down the Slave Trade on the coast of Africa by force, in providing a supply of labour for the West Indies, they would have acted much wiser. He was sorry to see that all this debate had turned upon whether slave-grown, or only free-grown sugar should be admitted. But the great question was, how the general consumer could best be benefited? He believed that this could be well effected by reducing the Colonial duty to 15s., and leaving a differential duty of 10s. Were such a measure carried, the increasing consumption of tea and coffee effected by a reduction of the Sugar Duties, would produce an equal revenue to that which these three sources at present supplied. The present measure, he maintained, would excite hostility towards Great Britain in various quarters, where it was most important that it should not exist. Feelings of ill-will were rapidly springing up between Britain and foreign countries on account of our intermeddling with their institutions. It was said that we wished to dragoon them into acquiescence with our demands. The Government then was about to sacrifice some of the most important branches of trade without any advantage. It was about to destroy the Brazilian trade as it had destroyed other branches of trade. At present British vessels carried out manufactures to slave sugar-growing countries, and carried their produce to continental ports, thus supporting the Slave Trade as effectually as if they brought the sugar directly into our own ports. In whatever way he looked upon the measure now proposed he foresaw its ruinous tendencies. The world would laugh at its pretended religion and morality, and give them credit for neither quality. If they did not take slave-grown sugar other countries would, and they would thus, without doing anything to put down slavery and the Slave Trade, forfeit all those advantages which they might otherwise possess. He was sorry to see a measure introduced which could not last twelve months, and on that as well as other grounds he would support the Amendment of the noble Lord.

Mr. Thomas Baring

said, it was apprehended that if the law could be evaded, the use and consumption of free-labour sugar would only tend to encourage the evils of slavery, and he admitted that if such were to be the case, there would be strong ground for the objection with respect to making any difference between free and slave-grown sugar. Feeling this objection, he had looked anxiously to see how frauds in the entries of slave-grown sugar could be prevented, and he thought that bona fide protection against such frauds existed. Java, Manilla, and China, it should be recollected were distant countries, and there was no probability that Brazilian or Cuba sugar would be sent there merely for the purpose of being re-exported. There was also another check against fraud, and that was that the British Consuls at those ports from whence sugar was to be allowed to come into our markets would be bound to ascertain whether in fact it was the produce of free or of slave-labour. He did not believe that much sugar would be exported from China. In the islands in the neighbourhood of our East India possessions sugar was produced in some quantities; and this led him to hope that Calcutta and Madras would be placed on the same footing with respect to sugar as Canada in reference to flour. He did not anticipate that there would be any exportation of sugar from the United States, except in times of great scarcity, and for the simple reason that the home market there would be more profitable for Louisiana sugar than the markets of this country. The noble Lord the Member for London had expressed an apprehension that evasions of the law would take place by means of fraudulent certificates as to the origin of the sugar; but that opposition as regarded the United States was unfounded. There the duty was paid by bond, and the bond was never cancelled without proof that the goods were identical with the goods in respect of which the bond had been given. Thus was a guarantee against fraud. It was said, that even though they might succeed in preventing the entry of slave-grown sugar as free-labour sugar, still there would remain a vacuum to be supplied by our consumption, which would be filled with slave-grown sugar; and he admitted that if this country took any portion of the free-labour sugar out of the markets of other countries that it would operate as a stimulus to the production of slave-grown sugar; but then that stimulus would apply equally to all sugar whether the result of free or of slave-labour. Free-labour sugar had, however, an advantage which slave-produced sugar did not possess, and that was, that the one had access to a variety of markets—the markets of Europe, America, and England, while the markets to which the other had access were limited. The choice of markets, as they must all know, was a great stimulus to increased production, and he could therefore see no reason why Java and Manilla should not increase their production. But it was said that Holland might change her regulations. He did not apprehend any such change; but, supposing such a change should take place, it would only prove that it would be good policy to insure the prosperity of our own Colonies by enabling them to obtain the labour which they required for increasing their production of sugar. If Holland were stimulated to increase the production of free-labour sugar in Java, in Manilla, the same principle would operate in China, in the islands in the Indian Archipelago, and in South Australia, and therefore there would be no occasion to go either to the Brazils or to Cuba for supplies of slave-grown sugar, when free-labour sugar could be obtained elsewhere, and on terms equally advantageous. He fully agreed that it was not advisable to dictate to other countries, or to interfere with their internal arrangements or institutions, nor did he think that such a course was calculated, in those countries where slavery existed, to benefit the African race. He had heard much stress laid on the advantage to this country of the markets of Brazil and Cuba, but he thought that advantage could not be compared with the advantage which we derived from our colonial markets. The exports from this country to the West Indies were 2,500,000l., and to the East Indies 5,500,000l., while the exports to Brazil were only 2,500,000l., and to Cuba 500,000l. If they were to contrast the Brazils with the United States, he thought it must be admitted that they could not admit the goods of the two countries on equal terms, and for this reason, that a country where from one-half to two-thirds of the population were slaves could not possibly be as good a customer as that in which the people were free. But whilst he approved of the measure of the Government he must, at the same time, acknowledge that it was not well-timed, and that it dealt hardly with existing interests. This, however, was not the fitting occasion for discussing the matter, and therefore all he would say was, that when prices were high, stock low, and imports slow, did not appear to him the proper moment for effecting such a change as was now proposed. He thought, that such a change ought to be involved in the consideration of the reduction of the whole of the duties on colonial sugar, and that it would have been better if the subject had been deferred until it was seen whether they were to have, as at present, direct instead of indirect taxation, until the doubts respecting Siam and the United States had been cleared up. He knew that many believed too much protection had been given to the West Indies; at the same time, it was not right to deprive these Colonies of protection until they were provided with a sufficient supply of labourers. He was glad to find that the Government had not imposed any improper or vexatious regulations in reference to the immigration of labourers to the West Indies; and he did not believe that such a means of providing a sufficient supply of labour in these Colonies could ever assume the character of a Slave Trade. The circumstances of those Colonies and the Mauritius were essentially different; but all the protection which he advocated for the West Indies was, that which necessity, good faith, and the general interests of the country required. He feared, however, that before the remedy could be applied the patient would die; and that an injury had been inflicted on the West Indies which these Colonies could not overcome. The right hon. Gentleman had said it was wise on the part of the Government to observe secrecy with respect to the nature of their measures, but he feared this implied a desire on their part to listen to the representations of parties interested in the changes about to take place. It had been shown that even with the present protection many estates were worked at a loss, while others returned no profit for the capital employed in this cultivation. There was, in short, an indisposition to embark capital in the cultivation of West India estates, and the result was a diminution of the quantity of sugar produced to the extent of 20,000 tons, and which had to be obtained from other parts. He was unconnected with the West Indies, and only interested in this subject as a British merchant and an Englishman; and, he could only say, that he could not give a vote with more sincerity than the vote which he meant to give against the proposition of the noble Lord the Member for London.

Dr. Bowring

thought the hon. Gentleman was in error with respect to the ex- istence of a system in America which would afford protection against fraud. He believed, that the bond and credit system had been abolished in America, and that the present change would lead to every species of fraud.

Sir J. Hanmer

wished to ask a question of the Government. He had seen it asserted, that by the laws of America, a merchant who exported sugar, the growth of Louisiana, from New Orleans to Liverpool, would be entitled to receive free of duty (which amounted to 11s. 6d. a cwt.), an equal quantity of foreign sugar; and that according to the price he would derive an advantage from importing American sugar to England. Although there might be an apparent loss of 5s. there would be an actual gain of 6s. 6d. the cwt. on the transaction. If that account were true, where would be the difficulty of making a similar profit by the exportation of Cuba or Brazilian sugar? He hoped some Members of the Government would be able satisfactorily to explain this, because if the statement were true, it would go to show that any endeavour on the part of the Government to discriminate between sugar the result of free and slave-labour must fall to the ground.

Mr. Gladstone

said, it was evident that the hon. Gentleman had been absent during the early part of the debate. He had dealt with this very question in the observations which he had made, and all he would say now was, that having seen the statement referred to by the hon. Gentleman, he had caused the laws of America to be searched, and had consulted partirs well acquainted with such matters, but could find no foundation for the statement. He totally disbelieved it.

The Committee divided on the Amendment:—Ayes 128; Noes 197: Majority

List of the AYES.
Acheson, Visct.	Bowes, J.
Ainsworth, P.	Bowring, Dr.
Aldam W.	Brotherton, J.
Anson, hon. Col.	Browne, hon. W.
Arundel and Surrey,	Buller, C.
Earl of	Buller, E.
Bannerman, A.	Busfeild, W.
Baring, rt. hn. F. T.	Butler, P. S.
Barnard, E. G.	Chapman, B.
Bell, J.	Clive, E. B.
Berkeley, hon. C.	Colborne, hn. W. N. R.
Berkeley, hon. Capt.	Colebrooke, Sir T. E.
Blewitt, R. J.	Collett, J.
Bouverie, hon. E.	Craig, W. G.

Currie, R.	Mitchell, T. A.
Curteis, H. B.	Morison, Gen.
Dalmeny, Lord	Muntz, G. F.
Dalrymple, Capt.	Murray, A.
Dashwood, G. H.	Napier, Sir C.
Dawson, hon. T. V.	O'Connell, M.
Denison, W. J.	Ord, W.
Denison, J. E.	Paget, Lord A.
Dennistoun, J.	Palmerston, Vist.
Duncan, G.	Parker, J.
Dundas, Admiral	Pendarves, E. W. W.
Dundas, D.	Philips, M.
Ebrington, Visct.	Phillpotts, J.
Ellice, rt. hon. E.	Plumridge, Capt.
Ellice, E.	Protheroe, E.
Ellis, W.	Rawdon, Col.
Elphinstone, H.	Rice, E. R.
Evans, W.	Russell, Lord J.
Ewart, W.	Scholefield, J.
Ferguson, Col.	Scale, Sir J. H.
Forster, M.	Seymour, Lord
Fox, C. R.	Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.
French, F.	Shelburne, Earl of
Gibson, T. M.	Smith, J. A.
Gore, hon. R.	Smith, rt. hon. R. V.
Granger, T. C.	Stansfield, W. R. C.
Grey, rt. hn. Sir. G.	Stanton, W. H.
Grosvenor, Lord R.	Staunton, Sir G. T.
Guest, Sir J.	Stuart, W. V.
Hastie, A.	Stock, Mr. Serj.
Hawes, B.	Strutt, E.
Heneage, E.	Talbot, C. R. M.
Heron, Sir R.	Tancred, H. W.
Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.	Thornely, T.
Howard, hn. C.W. G.	Trelawny, J. S.
Howard, hon. J. K.	Villiers, hon. C.
Howard, hon. H.	Vivian, J. H.
Howard, Sir R.	Walker, R.
Howick, Visct.	Wall, C. B.
Hume, J.	Wallace, R.
Hutt, W.	Warburton, H.
Jervis, J.	Ward, H. G.
Labouchere, rt. hn. H.	Watson, W. H.
Langston, J. H.	Wemyss, Capt.
Lascelles, hon. W. S.	Williams, W.
Layard, Capt.	Wilshere, W.
Lemon, Sir C.	Wood, C.
Maher, N.	Wrightson, W. B.
Mangles, R. D.	Yorke, H. R.
Marjoribanks, S.	TELLERS.
Maule, rt. hon. F.	Tufnell, H.
Mitcalfe, H.	Hill, Lord M.

List of the NOES.
Acland, T. D.	Baring, rt. hon. W. B.
A'Court, Capt.	Baring, T.
Adare, Visct.	Barrington, Visct.
Adderley, C. B.	Baskerville, T. B. M.
Allix, J. P.	Blackburne, J.
Antrobus, E.	Boldero, H. G.
Arbuthnott, hon. H.	Borthwick, P.
Archall, Capt. M.	Bowles, Adm.
Arkwright, G.	Bradshawe, J.
Ashley, Lord	Bramston, T. W.
Bagge, W.	Brisco, M.
Baillie, Col.	Broadley, H.
Baird	Brownrigg, J. S.

Bruce, Lord E.	Heathcote, Sir W.
Buller, Sir J. Y.	Heneage, G. H. W.
Campbell, Sir H.	Henley, J. W.
Campbell, J. H.	Hepburn, Sir T. B,
Cardwell, E.	Herbert, hon. S.
Carnegie, hon. Capt.	Hinde, J. H.
Chapman, A.	Hodgson, R.
Charteris, hon. F.	Hogg, J. W.
Chelsea, Visct.	Holmes, hon. W.A'C.
Chetwode, Sir J.	Hope, hon. C.
Chute, W. L. W.	Hope, hon. A.
Clayton, R. R.	Hope, G. W.
Clerk, Sir G.	Hornby, J.
Clive, hon. R. H.	Hughes, W. B.
Cochrane, A.	Hurst, R. H.
Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.	Ingestre, Visct.
Codrington, Sir. W.	Inglis, Sir R. H.
Colquhoun, J. C.	Irving, J.
Copeland, Ald.	Johnstone, Sir J.
Cripps, W.	Johnstone, H.
Darby, G.	Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Davies, D. A. S.	Jones, Capt.
Dawnay, hon. W.H.	Kemble, H,
Denison, E. B.	Ker, D. S.
Dickinson, F. H.	Kirk, P.
Disraeli, B.	Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E
Douglas, Sir H.	Lawson, A.
Douglas, J. D. S.	Legh, G. C.
Dowdeswell, W.	Lennox, Lord A.
Drax, J. S. W. S. E.	Liddell, hon. H. T.
Drummond, H. H.	Lincoln, Earl of
Dugdale, W. S.	Long, W.
Duncombe, hon. O.	Lopes, Sir R.
Du Pre, C. G.	Lowther, hon. C.
East, J. B.	Lygon, hon. Gen.
Eliot, Lord	McGeachy, F. A.
Emlyn, Visct.	Mackenzie, W. F.
Entwisle, W.	McNeill, D.
Escott, B.	Mahon, Visct.
Estcourt, T. G. B.	Manners, Lord J.
Fellowes, E.	Martin, C. W.
Flower, Sir J.	Marton, G.
Forbes, W.	Master, T. W. C.
Forman, T, S.	Masterman, J.
Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.	Maunsell, T. P.
Fuller, A. E.	Meynell, Capt.
Gardner, J. D.	Mildmay, H. St. J.
Gaskell, J. Milnes	Miles, P. W. S.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.	Miles, W.
Gladstone, Capt.	Milnes, R. M.
Glynne, Sir S. R.	Mordaunt, Sir J.
Godson, R.	Morgan, O.
Gordon, hon. Capt.	Morris, D.
Gore, M.	Murray, C. R. S.
Gore, W. O.	Newdegate, C. N.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H.	Nicholl, rt. hon. J.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.	Norreys, Lord
Greenall, P.	Northland, Visct.
Grimstone, Visct.	O'Brien, A. S.
Hale, R. B.	Oswald, A.
Halford, Sir H.	Owen, Sir J.
Hamilton, Lord C.	Packe, C. W.
Hampden, R.	Palmer, G.
Hanmer, Sir J.	Patten, J. W.
Harcourt, G. G.	Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.
Hardy, J.	Peel, J,
Harris, hon. Capt.	Pigot, Sir R.

Plumptre, J. P.	Stewart, J.
Powell, Col.	Stuart, H.
Praed, W. T.	Sutton, hon. H. M.
Pusey, P.	Tennent, J. E.
Reid, Sir J. R.	Thesiger, Sir F.
Repton, G. W. J.	Thompson, Mr. Ald.
Richards, R.	Thornhill, G.
Round, C. J.	Tollemache, J.
Round, J.	Trevor, hon. G. R.
Rous, hon. Capt.	Trotter, J.
Russell, J. D. W.	Vesey, hon. T.
Ryder, hon. G. D.	Welby, G. E.
Sanderson, R.	Wodehouse, E.
Sandon, Visct.	Wood, Col.
Sheppard, T.	Wood, Col. T.
Shirley, E. J.	Wyndham, Col. C.
Shirley, E. P.	Yorke, hon. E. T.
Smyth, Sir H.	TELLERS.
Somerset, Lord G.	Young, J.
Stanley, Lord	Baring, H.

Original resolution agreed to.

On the question being put on the second resolution, and in answer to Viscount Sandon,

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, his right hon. Friend had already staled the reasons which, in the opinion of the Government, had rendered it inexpedient to make any distinction between clay and Muscovado sugars. The differences between Java, Manilla, and other foreign sugars, were as great as those between the different kinds of British sugar, but the duty was taken generally in the one case, and therefore should be so in the other also. If sugar however were introduced in an advanced state of refinement, it would of course become subject to an increased rate of duty.

Resolution agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported.

House resumed.