HC Deb 07 March 1844 vol 73 cc606-87
Mr. Labouchere

had undertaken to invite the consideration of the House to the present state and the future prospects of the Commercial Relations with the Brazils. Although he was deeply sensible how little able he was to do justice to such a subject, yet he was sure that there was no Member of that House who was either aware of the magnitude of the interests that were involved, or of the immense anxiety of the manufacturing and mercantile classes that was directed towards it, who would say that this was an improper subject for the consideration and deliberation of that House. Into many questions connected with this subject he was relieved from the necessity of entering at any length, because he did not conceive that there was any difference of opinion respecting them among any considerable number of the Members of that House. It was not necessary for him to prove at any length, bow great was the importance of the commercial relations of this country with the Empire of the Brazils. If there were a country in the world that seemed formed by nature to cultivate with this country advantageous and extensive commercial relations, that country was the Brazils. Its great extent, inferior to no empire on the globe—its almost unrivalled fertility—its admirable climate—the mighty rivers by which it was watered —its population, which amounted to upwards of 7,000,000—together with the condition and habits of the population, producing an abundance of articles which could not be produced in this country—possessing no manufactures arid hardly any shipping—all these circumstances showed that England and Brazil were two countries formed by nature to have extensive and advantageous commercial relations with each other. He would begin by stating to the House what was the present state of our trade with the Brazils. Our trade with the Brazils was at present regulated by a commercial treaty, concluded between the two countries in 1827. That treaty was one eminently favourable to this country. Brazil engaged to take our manufactures and produce under this treaty at a maximum duty of 15 per cent. ad valorem, and we were free, on the other hand, to impose any duties we pleased on the produce of the Brazils. He would state to the House what were the duties we imposed on the great staple articles of Brazilian commerce, in return for the very favourable terms on which that empire agreed to receive our manufactures. So far as he could collect from the best statistical accounts he had been able to obtain, and on which he could place most reliance, the exports from Brazil amounted annually in value to about 7,200,000l. They might be divided into three classes. Coffee, which was the article of the greatest importance, exported annually from Brazil, represented the value of about 3,000,000l.; the article of sugar, the next in importance, about 1,200,000l. per annum; the remaining 3,000,000l. being made up of cotton-wool, tobacco, hides, gold, and a variety of other articles. The three most important articles of Brazilian produce were coffee, sugar, and cotton-wool. With regard to sugar, we placed on it a duty which, in point of fact, was prohibitory, and it was intended to be prohibitory. With reference to this important product of a country which placed a maximum duty of only 15 per cent. ad valorem on articles of British commerce, we imposed a duty of 300 per cent. ad valorem on the price of sugar when landed on our shores. On coffee we placed a duty not quite prohibitory, but still a very heavy and onerous duty—not less than 200 per cent. ad valorem. In truth, the only important article of Brazilian produce that we allowed to come into our markets on reasonable terms was cotton wool. We admitted cotton wool at a moderate duty, but this was the only article we treated in that manner. This state of things had produced a result which could not be astonishing to any one who had done him the honour of listening to the statement he had made. The result was, that while we exported directly to Brazil a very great amount of British produce and manufactures, we imported directly and introduced into consumption a very small amount in value of the produce of Brazil in return. The value of our export trade to Brazil might be said in common years to average about 2,500,000l. It had varied a little during the last few years, last year it rallied a little; but he was sorry to say it was, on the whole, rather a struggling and declining, than a prosperous trade, for reasons to which he would presently advert; but still it was a very important trade. It attained its maximum in 1836, when we exported to Brazil no less than 3,000,000l. in value of British manufactures. Since that it had averaged rather above than under 2,500,000l.; in 1842 it dropped to 1,766,000l., but rallied a little last year, when it was about 2,140.000l. This was the extent of our exports to Brazil. The quantity of Brazilian produce imported directly into this country for consumption amounted to a very small sum in comparison with what we exported. Our annual imports that we introduced into the consumption of this country could not be reckoned in value at much more than between 400,000l. and 500,000l. This was a very anomalous and unnatural state of things, and must obviously expose our merchants and manufacturers to very great inconvenience and disadvantage when compared with their rivals in the Brazilian markets, because the British merchants were not able in return for their goods to procure Brazilian freights for introduction into this country. The consequence was, that we were driven to an indirect course of trade. A British ship carrying out from Liverpool or London a cargo of British manufactures to a port in the Brazils could not find a cargo to be brought back to be consumed in England, and was obliged therefore to take its cargo, sugar or coffee, to some third country, and had to compete on the voyage to that country with ships returning home direct, and able to navigate cheaper than the British ship could do. But the evil did not stop here. The British ship being obliged to return from that foreign country in ballast, lost not only all the extra time, but the wages of the seamen, and thus the shipping interest incurred, both directly and indirectly, the most serious injury. The effects of this state of things were so obvious that he did not think it necessary to prove them by documentary evidence at any length. There were, however, one or two statements which he was desirous of reading to the House. The first occurred in the evidence of Mr. Moore, a respectable Brazilian merchant, before the Import Duties Committee, Can you state what number of vessels go direct from this country to Brazil with manufactures in the course of the year?—I can state the number of vessels and tonnage from Liverpool to the three principal ports of Rio, Pernambuco, and Bahia. In 1839, to Rio Janeiro fifty-two vessels, tonnage 13,965; to Bahia twenty-eight vessels, tonnage 7,203; to Pernambuco thirty vessels, 7,023 tons. Of those vessels, going there with British manufactures, how many returned to this country?—In 1838, out of forty-eight vessels to Rio Janeiro, not one returned to Liverpool. In loading from Brazil to the Continent of Europe, are your ships in competition with foreign ships to any extent, as to the rate of freight?—Yes; the foreign vessels which navigate at less expense, are going home, and, consequently, they can carry at a lower freight than British vessels can. A British vessel going to the Channel for orders, and then proceeding to the Continent, has to return home in ballast before she can reload to go back to Brazil. The foreign vessels go to their own ports, and navigate at much less expense. It was stated that, in 1838, not one vessel returned to this country from Brazil which was not in ballast. He would also take the liberty of reading an extract from a petition lately presented to the House from the shipowners and merchants of Liverpool, which put the point in a very striking and forcible light. They said: That, in proof of their allegation, that the interest of the British shipowner is very prejudicially affected by the prohibitory duty on foreign sugar, your petitioners further state, that from a return of the export trade of Rio de Janeiro, it appears that, out of 114 British vessels cleared from that port in 1842, laden with sugar and coffee, only twenty-one were enabled to return to the United Kingdom direct, the remaining ninety-three vessels being destined for Hamburg, Trieste, Antwerp, and elsewhere, in direct competition with the ships of all nations, and at considerable disadvantage, having in most cases to return home from the continental ports in ballast, or otherwise unprofitably employed. That petition was signed by some of the noble Lord's (Viscount Sandon) most influential supporters. He hoped that those hon. Gentlemen who were in the habit of defending the shipping interest of the country would take these facts into their serious consideration. Of this he was, however, perfectly satisfied, that no interest in the country would be more benefited by a liberal system of commercial policy than the shipping interest. He was satisfied, too, that that interest, although they had heretofore goosed a liberal commercial intercourse with other nations, were now becoming alive to this trim, that there was no safety fur them except in adoption of such a course of policy as he had endeavoured to describe. He might also advert to the effect which the present system had upon the rate of exchange between the Brazils and this country. He would not do so at any length, for it was a dry subject, but any person connected with the trade must see that taking out cargoes on one side, and returning empty on the other, must have a most prejudicial and injurious effect on the rate of exchange between the two countries, and upon our merchants standing in the relation of debtor and creditor with parties in Brazil, who suffered a great loss from a want of direct returns to this country. But, notwithstanding the disadvantages under which this country laboured, from the cheapness of our goods, and the intelligence of our merchants and manufacturers—from a circumstance also which he really believed gave this country a greater advantage than any other in conducting trade, especially with an empire circumstanced like Brazil,—he meant the high character of our great commercial firms and the respect which the British name and character carried with them throughout the world,—from these circumstances our Brazilian trade had gallantly struggled with all these difficulties. It was still very large and important. But we were closely pressed upon by our foreign rivals. We had to encounter the rivalry of the United States of America, of France, of Switzerland, and Germany. He was unwilling to trouble the House with long statistical details, but he had no doubt of the fact, that foreign countries were gradually gaining ground upon us in the Brazilian markets. With respect to all those countries he had not accurate statistical returns; but with regard to France he had access to documents published by the French Government, which did prove that while our commerce had not been increasing with Brazil, French commerce with that empire had within the last few years been growing in a very extended ratio. In 1837 the exports from France to Brazil were 12,504,000 francs; in 1840 the trade had grown to 16,098,000 francs; and in 1841, the last year for which he could obtain any returns, it had reached 20,308,000 francs. Let them compare this with the diminished, or stationary state of our commerce with Brazil during the same period. He had already stated how limited were our imports from Brazil. He had a return of the imports from Brazil into France, which he would read to the House. In 1837, the value in round numbers was 6,381,000 francs; in 1840 it had fallen a little and was 5,900,000 francs; but in 1841 it had grown to 7,993,000 francs. If they wished to support our merchants and manufacturers who were engaged in an honourable competition with other nations in a trade so important as this, they must take care what they were about, and see that they did nothing to subject them to greater disadvantages than those their rivals had to encounter. There was one point connected with this part of the subject on which he would venture to say a word. Having already stated to the House the very onerous duties we placed on Brazilian produce when imported into this country for consumption, he would contrast with these the duties imposed on the same produce by other countries. He held in his hand returns which he believed to be correct, having taken the greatest pains to ascertain their accuracy, (for part of which he must acknowledge the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, and he was also indebted to the Economist, which contained some valuable statistical information on this subject). Those papers showed the terms on which other nations, our rivals in the Brazilian trade, received Brazilian produce into their markets. On muscovado sugar England put a duty of 63s. per cwt.; France, on the same cwt. of sugar, put a duty of 26s. 6d.; Austria a duty of 13s. 8d.; the Zollverein (our great competitor, with which Brazil was now in treaty), a duty of 15s. 4d. The United States laid a duty of 2½ cents en Muscovado sugar, and of 4 cents per pound upon the others. [Mr. Gladstone intimated his dissent.] He could not be answerable for the perfect accuracy of these figures, but the fact could not be disputed that no country dealing with the Brazils had received the produce of that country upon more disadvantageous terms than England, and if that were the case that was all he desired to establish. He had now endeavoured to lay before the House the present state of our commercial relations with Brazil. We had still a great trade with that country, not indeed, he regretted to say, an increasing and a thriving trade, but yet an important one, and, with the exception of the United States, it was our best market for our cottons, taking, as it did, upon an average, a million aril a half of British manufactures; and there could be no difference of opinion upon the point that we were bound by every consideration of interest to protect our merchants en- gaged in the honourable and useful traffic with the Brazils, and to promote their interests by every possible and just means. Every hon. Member of that House must agree with him that the Brazilian trade was of the highest importance, and that it ought by no means to be placed in jeopardy. But he now came to a still more important branch of the subject. What were the prospects of the Brazilian trade? A great crisis had come. The treaty of 1827 under which we enjoy such advantages was about to expire—in November it ceased—and it would be for the Brazilians to renew it or not as they might choose, or to impose, if they thought fit, discriminating duties upon our manufactures, adverse to us and favourable to foreign nations who took their produce on more reasonable terms than we thought proper to impose. That would be the power of the Brazilian Government. Such being the existing state of things, it was not surprising that great anxiety should be expressed by the great manufacturing interest of this country, the cotton, the linen, and the woollen manufacturers, and by the merchants engaged in the Brazilian trade, to know what course would be pursued by Her Majesty's Government; and he therefore hoped that they would receive some information upon the subject. This state of our relations with the Brazils must be his apology for bringing the question before the House. Last year he had been unwilling, knowing that a treaty was in process of negotiation with Brazil, to interfere, although he had heard principles propounded in that House by the Ministers which made him fear the result. But in what state did the question now rest? Mr. Ellis had been sent out to Brazil to renew our commercial treaty, but without success. Since then, Signor Ribeiro, the Brazilian Minister, had come to this country, but it was notorious that he had failed, and it was reported that he had left this country not with a commercial treaty in his pocket, but with a draft of one which he had gone to Paris to offer to the French Government, with better prospects of success. ["No, no."] Whether that, however, were so or not, he hoped at least that the result of his Motion would be the receipt of some information from the Government which might have the effect of allaying the apprehensions which existed upon this subject. He would not undertake to predict the course the Brazilian Government might take. He believed that in that country there was a struggle between parties, and a diversity of opinion upon the point. Anybody who had become at all acquainted with the discussions in that country knew that there were not wanting there enlightened statesmen not disposed, even if this country adhered to a course hostile to the commerce of Brazil, to punish herself by retaliatory measures and discriminating duties disadvantageous to British interests. He hoped that the Brazilian Legislature would not attend to the doctrines he heard from the other side as to free trade being only a good thing when there was "reciprocity." He hoped that they would not adopt the opinion of Colonel Torrens (which, to his astonishment, he had heard quoted with approbation by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government), that if a nation could not induce another to take its goods on reasonable terms, the best course was to shut its ports against that of other country's commodities. But he did not feel quite sure that the Brazilians would adopt a more enlightened course. There were passions, and prejudices, and sinister interests in that country, as in this; and it was not impossible that Brazil might be induced, by the persuasion of foreign countries and other motives, to legislate adversely to this country. Whether that were so or not, it was to be hoped we should set that nation a wise and liberal example. He desired to see no endeavours to induce Brazil to make what was called a "Tariff Treaty." There were two sorts of Commercial Treaties, by confounding which some erroneous ideas were created. One sort was that of which Mr. Huskisson had been a great promoter, stipulating for the equal treatment of the shipping of the two countries (an arrangement, no doubt, which it was very desirable to see established between this and every other country, and containing what was termed the "most favoured nation clause;" which he was always glad to see introduced (especially with countries like Brazil), stipulating, as it did, that neither state should treat the goods of the other more disadvantageously than those of any other country. He had little fear that there would be much endeavour to effect the other—the Tariff Treaty, with Brazil. Such treaties were now at a discount. He had no right to blame those who had attempted to form them. When he was last at the Board of Trade he had found them commenced with France, will, Naples, and with Portugal, and other countries; and he had done his best to advance them, but he could not say he had reason to congratulate himself on his success. He supposed the right hon. Gentleman when he took office fancied that his predecessors had been too belligerent, and that a Minister more peaceful, and whose language was more courteous and captivating, would succeed better. The result had shown, that if such expectations had ever been entertained, they were doomed to be disappointed. Of that Treaty, especially, which had been negotiated with France, and which had been going on for these ten veers, he was happy to hear from the right hon. Baronet that they would hear no more. Certainly he wondered not that the right hon. Baronet should have been very loth to abandon that Treaty. It had been a most delusive, tantalizing thing. Continually had they been within, as it appeared, the merest point of completing it; yet after all it had never been accomplished; reminding one of those lines which mathematicians mentioned, which were always approaching but which never came in contact. The fact was, that manufacturing interests were far too strong in France to allow of any Ministers completing such a Treaty. He was glad, therefore, to hear that at last there was an end of it. And there was as little expectation of such a Treaty being proposed in Brazil; an important disclaimer, indeed, had just arrived in this country of any intention to pursue such a policy—a report of some Committee which had been appointed to inquire into the subject, and of which, as he possessed a translation (from the Portuguese), accurate, if not elegant, he would read an extract, conveying a great deal of sound good sense upon the subject:— A country which hat important productions to export, and which draws its principle revenues from duties on imports, gains greatly by giving to the latter the greatest possible extension. For this purpose we should give stability to our commercial relations with foreign nations, to render Commercial Treaties with them the more conducive to the end; not by making Treaties regulating Customs" Tariffs, but by guaranteeing the safety of the persons and the property of the subjects of foreign nations, securing equality and freedom towards all powers, and requiring from them the same guarantees. Commerce needs these guarantees alone to disinvolve herself. These opinions were truly admirable for their sense. But there was another part of the subject to which he attached greater importance, There was one point upon which he was anxious not to be misunderstood. He felt satisfied that the only means by which the commercial relations between the two countries could be put upon a satisfactory footing, was by reducing the duties upon the great articles of Brazilian commerce; so that the produce of that country could be admitted here upon fair and reasonable terms. He had no hesitation in saying, if this were done, even if there were no Commercial Treaty, that our trade with Brazil would extend and flourish. Above all, the present opportunity ought to be taken. It was a late opportunity, it was true; but this was the time that should be embraced to put an end to the Sugar monopoly. When he used the term "monopoly," he begged to remind the House that he did not use it in the vague sense he had sometimes heard it applied, but in the strictest manner. He had heard of the Corn monopoly and other monopolies, but the Sugar was a real monopoly—a system by which the ports of this country were closed against foreign Sugar altogether. It was a principle that had been equally denounced by both sides of the House, and he did not believe that a single Member of the House would defend it upon principle. The opinions he was expressing in regard to the Sugar Duties was no new opinion on his part, or on the part of those with whom he had acted. The late Government thought that, after the great experiment regarding the negro population in the West Indies, as breathing time should be allowed before any further alteration was made, in order to give the colonies time to settle. But the late Government had never contended, that the present system should go on for ever: and in confirmation of that he would take the liberty of reading a declaration made by a leading Member of that Government, which exhibited the views of himself and his Colleagues upon the point. In 1838, the late lamented Lord Sydenham, while opposing the reduction of the Sugar Duties, declared distinctly that opinion:— He admitted that it was a matter of very great importance, and one which would be forced upon the attention of Parliament and the country within a very short period. In the first place this was a matter which would force itself upon the attention of the Government as connected with the Treaty with the Brazils. The present Treaty was only of a temporary character, and would expire in 1842, and if we entered into fresh relations with that important State this subject must necessarily be considered. The exports to that country were upwards of 4,000,000l. a-year of British manufactures. This was the most important trade that we carried on with the exception of the United States of North America. The produce of the Brazils was almost entirely confined to sugar and coffee, and when we come to the period when the Treaty was about to expire, this subject must force itself upon the attention of the House. The other branch of the subject was also become a matter of deep importance and ought to receive great consideration; namely, the short supply of colonial sugar. He concluded by saying:— He was satisfied that it must be forced on the attention of the Government and the Legislature, if not by the wants of the people of this country, at any rate by the Treaty with the Brazils, and he trusted it would be met fairly, and the difficulty dealt with in the way that a matter of such importance deserved, when it was ripe for consideration. He had thought it right to read that extract to show what were really the views upon this important subject of the late Government, of which he (Mr. Labouchere) was a Member. It was incumbent upon the Government at once to put the Sugar Duties upon a proper footing. He believed that in the state of our commercial relations with Brazil, it would have been better if this had been done some time previous to the expiration of the Treaty. That was one of the reasons which had induced the Government of 1841 to bring forward their proposal with respect to sugar. Now, the last moment was come, and what he asked the House to affirm was, that they would not allow the Brazilian Treaty to expire, at the same time permitting that country to enter upon new commercial relations with other nations, without, at least, taking some steps to allow Brazilian produce to be brought into this country. To the other branches of this most important subject he should refer but briefly, for there would be an opportunity shortly, if the Government should take the course it was supposed they would, of fully discussing them; still he felt it necessary now to call the attention of the House to one question. The Motion of his right hon. Friend, the Member for Portsmouth, in 1841, was resisted by hon. Gentlemen opposite; and they were not contented with simply opposing, but they put upon record their reasons, of which the first was the encouragement that would be given to slavery and the slave-trade; and the second, the prospects held out of an adequate supply from our own Colonies. The Amendment to the Motion of his right hon. Friend was placed in most worthy hands—in those of a noble Lord whose opinions would have much weight—his noble Friend the Member for Liverpool (Lord Sandon). His noble Friend had not only made a general statement, but had come down to the House with an estimate of the supply of sugar which might be expected from our Colonies. And an estimate of that nature, coming from such a quarter, excited much attention at the time. He thought it advisable now to call the attention of the House to that estimate for the purpose of testing how far it had been borne out, and how far the promises then held out had been fulfilled. The estimate of his noble Friend was this, and the figures containing the actual supply received would show the error. The right hon. Gentleman read the following statements:—

Lord Sandon's Estimate in Supply in 1841. Supply in 1842. Supply in 1843.
cwts. cwts. cwts.
West India Sugar 2,300,000 2,508,910 2,503,577
Mauritius 800,000 689,335 477,124
East Indies. 1,400,000 940,452 1,101,751
4,500,000 4,138,697 4,082,452
Deficiency, 417,000 cwts.
He was bound, in fairness to his noble Friend, to say that in one instance—the West Indies—the supply had exceeded the estimate of his noble Friend; but the deficiency of the supply last year under the estimate of his noble Friend (Lord Sandon) had been no less than 417,000 cwts., and that without taking into account the increase in population during those three years. And was he not, then, right in saying that the population of this country was suffering from a stinted supply of sugar, and that the expectations held out by Her Majesty's Ministers and their supporters, upon the faith of which the House had been induced to refuse its acquiescence in the proposal of the late Government to reduce the Sugar Duties in 1841, were fallacious? It might be urged by hon. Gentlemen opposite that the price of sugar had not been excessive, but the price of sugar was a relative term, and it would be found that the difference between British plantation sugar and foreign sugar in bond was greater now than it was in 1841. He need scarcely say that in referring to the estimates which had been made by his noble Friend, nothing was further from his thoughts than any intention of casting upon him the imputation of wishing to mislead the House. He was confident that his noble Friend believed in the correctness of those estimates when he stated them to the House, and that he had consulted persons of high authority and experience in Liverpool upon the subject; and he also was aware that the great merchants and East-India speculators, who assisted in preparing those Estimates, were themselves convinced that they were not fallacious. They had been disappointed in this way—they had calculated on being able to invest their capital in sugar plantations in the East Indies and the Mauritius, and they thought they could embark in the cultivation of sugar with advantage. But what had been the case?—what had been the language of the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government on each occasion since then on which the question of the Sugar Duties had been discussed? Had he ever held out any encouragement to those parties to make such investments? Not at all. The right hon. Baronet had said to them, "I will not alter the Sugar Duties this year," and the natural impression produced in men's minds by such a statement was—for aught we know the Minister will make an alteration next year. People, therefore, refused to invest their capital in raising sugar in the East Indies under such circumstances—when it was a matter of doubt whether the law would be altered or not. This was, he knew, the opinion of many persons who would otherwise have invested their capital in this way. And his belief was, that if the Members of the Government, and those who supported them, had, conscious of a majority, made up their minds to maintain the Sugar Monopoly, they had better say so at once. The right hon. Baronet had better do the same, with regard to the Sugar Duties, as he had done in reference to the Corn Laws, and by giving a stout sugar pledge at once, give confidence to the East-India and Mauritius sugar speculators. The capabilities of our own possessions would then be fairly tried, and we should see whether they could produce sufficient sugar to supply this country. But to put off the question from year to year, as the Government had done, was the very worst course they could take—whether they considered the great interests concerned or the British consumer. And with the knowledge which the Government now had of the fallacy of the opinions and expectations in which they had indulged, he could not understand how they could reconcile it with their duty to go on another year in the same miserable course they had hitherto pursued. While upon this part of the subject he wished to draw attention to another point. He had already stated that the consumption of sugar from the years 1841 to 1843 (the last year of which they had any account) had decreased. And he would now state what the amount of colonial sugar taken out of bond into actual consumption in this country had been in 1841 and last year. For 1841, 4,101,350 cwts.; for 1843, 4,082,452 cwts.; diminution, 18,906 cwts. Now, to show how completely this falling-off was occasioned by stinted supply, and not the want of capability in this country to consume sugar, he would ask the House to permit him to advert to the consumption of other articles which were consumed generally in conjunction with sugar. He would take the supply of tea and coffee for the same years, 1841 and 1843:—
f 1841, lbs. 1843, lbs.
Tea 36,684,797 40,302,981
Coffee 28,428,466 30,031,606
And yet, notwithstanding this increase in tea and coffee, the House would perceive, that so far from there having been a corresponding increase in the consumption of sugar, there had been a considerable decrease. He might, while on the subject of the import of sugar, remark, that the only branch of the sugar trade in which any increase had taken place was that which consisted in bringing foreign slave-grown sugar into this country for the purpose of refining, and re-exporting to all the nations of the world, and to our own West-Indian colonies for their consumption, and this branch of the trade was swelling to an enormous magnitude. Of foreign slave-grown sugar we imported for refining and re-exportation—in 1842, 617,314 cwts.; in 1843, 939,896 cwts., or almost 1,000,000 cwts. [Mr. Gladstone: What were the returns from which the right hon. Gentleman was quoting?] From the trade and navigation returns, which had been recently laid on the Table of the House. [Mr. Gladstone: The whole of the amount of sugar has not been re-exported.] But it has been imported into this country for the purpose of being refined in bond for re-exportation, and, as he had said, it had increased in one year from 600,000 to upwards of 900,000 cwts. But he now came to what was, after all, the only real point on which the difference of opinion between the two sides of the House in reference to this question rested. He did not believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite would deny the importance at this juncture of treating fairly and of placing upon a sound footing the commerce of this great Empire. He did not believe they would deny the great advantage of admitting foreign sugar for home consumption, if it could be admitted fairly, and under proper regulations; or that in dealing with the sugar trade especially, to follow a just and true principle of political economy was indispensable. To the finances of the country a satisfactory settlement of this question would be most beneficial; and with the exception of placing the Corn Laws on a proper and sound footing, there was perhaps no other question, the settlement of which would be so advantageous to the people in reference to their comforts and habits. But he believed they would find but one point of difference between the two sides of the House. The great objection on the other side was, that by admitting foreign sugar into the consumption of this country we should give encouragement to slavery in the Brazils and other foreign slave-owning countries. He hoped he was not disposed to treat with disregard any really conscientious scruples which might be held by any portion of the people of this Empire, but the more they examined this case, the greater must be their astonishment that any man at all acquainted with the subject could make his stand on that objection. They had been told by the right hon. Gentleman opposite that he was not willing to renew the negotiations with the Brazils, unless the Brazilian government would stipulate for certain conditions with regard to slaves—not stipulations to check the Slave Trade, but affecting the domestic and municipal institutions of the Brazils. He could not suppose the right hon. Baronet could have meant stipulations for the Suppression of the Slave Trade, for, so far as treaties and stipulations upon paper went there was hardly anything for us to require. We had already a most stringent Slave Trade Treaty—the Right of Search both above and below the Line—a mixed Commission to adjudicate—all we could expect, all we could demand, for checking the traffic in slaves had already been given. He had a right, then, to assume, that the meaning of the right hon. Baronet was, that Government recommended to Parliament and the country not to renew the negotiations with the Brazils—above all, not to reduce the duty on Brazilian produce, and to deal with the question in that way in which alone they could hope to place the commercial relations between the two countries on a firm and satisfactory footing—unless the Brazilian government would undertake to make certain laws for the regulation of slavery within their own dominions. Now, he would ask the House to consider, on that the last opportunity, perhaps, they would have of considering before a heavy blow would be struck at our commerce and navigation, whether they could he would not say, as wise and prudent men, but as consistent and conscientious men, take up that ground? He knew how strong was the detestation of slavery in this country, and he trusted England would at all times hold high language to foreign nations in regard to slavery: but to enable her to do so effectually we must take care that foreign nations shall not have the opportunity Of saying to us in return, "it is impossible for us to believe that you are sincere in your denunciations of slavery; it is manifest that your argument is pretext and not reason, for we see that you can get over your scruples when it suits your own interests, or when you wish to give support to certain powerful interests in your own country, which you are either unable or unwilling to grapple with. It is easy to make us the victims of your pretended scruples, and to tell us that it is a question of humanity that prevents your dealing fairly with us, when we see that the question with you really is one of protection to class interests." He appealed to the House and the country to consider how the question stood. Sugar was the only article of slave-grown produce upon which we had any scruples at all. Cotton, coffee, and other articles produced by slave-labour were admitted. Under the Tariff of 1842 the Government had given facilities for the introduction of foreign coffee, cultivated by slave-labour, into the consumption of this country to the extent of three millions of pounds. With regard to the Slave Trade question, the bringing the slaves across the Atlantic, it mattered not whether it were for the purpose of cultivating sugar or coffee, except so far as sugar was produced by a more laborious and painful system of cultivation and was more cruel to the slaves engaged in it, and that, therefore, we ought not to encourage it by admitting slave-grown sugar into this country. This, he imagined, must have been the language of Mr. Ellis to the Brazilian government, and this must have been the language which the Members of the Government opposite addressed to the Chevalier Ribeiro, the Brazilian minister in this country. But was this country in the condition to hold such language to the Brazils? Was it in our power to do so? It was well known that if' there was one mode of employing slave-labour more cruel and disgusting than another, it was in mining operations. This had been admitted in all countries and at all times. The Roman slave "Damnatus ad metalla " was considered to be in the worst position of servile existence. But what had been done by the right hon. Gentlemen opposite in their Tariff of 1842 in regard to this matter? He would say nothing about gold, which was admitted freely. He was aware they could not shut out gold— —perrumpere amat saxa, potentius Ictu ludmineo. Any attempt to shut out gold was absurd because it must be ineffectual. But he would come to the article of copper ore, and he was curious to hear the answer which the right hon. Gentleman opposite would make upon this point. Down to the year 1842 the question of copper ore stood thus:—Foreign copper ore stood, previous to the Tariff, precisely in the same position as foreign Sugar stood in now; it was admitted into this country for the purpose of being smelted in bond, as foreign Sugar now was of being refined in bond for re-exportation to other countries, but the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had made a very important and a very proper alteration in reference to English interests in regard to the import of,foreign copper ore, by which it was allowed to come in and be consumed here, subject to a light duty. That was a change which he (Mr. Labouchere) had hailed with pleasure, and what had been the result? These were the returns of the effects of that alteration.
Foreign Copper Ore Imported—the quantity on which duty was paid—and the amount of Revenue received thereon in each year, 1837 to 1843:——
Imported Entered for Consumption and Duty paid. Amount of Revenue.
cwts. cwts. £
1837 389,331 67 40
1838 541,266 15 6
1839 603,902 15 9
1810 838,904 112 21
1841 971,935 1,020 56
1842. 997,120 314,180 15,689
1843 1,111,960 1,085,420 64,343
*After the Alteration
He did not mean to say that, to the whole of this extent, or anything like it, the alteration in the law had stimulated the import of copper ore into this country, for at the same time the right hon. Baronet had abolished the smelting of copper ore in bond. But the analogy of the case was apparent. Yet they had departed, in the case of foreign copper ore produced by slave-labour, from the system which they still adhered to in regard to foreign sugar, for no other reason than that slave-labour was employed in its cultivation. The question was a large and important one, if considered in reference to our trade with the Brazils alone; but there was good reason for supposing that it was not the Brazilian trade alone that was in jeopardy. There was reason to suppose that our trade with the Spanish West-Indies, Cuba, and Porto Rico, was equally in danger, and that those islands would follow the example of the Brazils, if we did not make arrangements for admitting their produce; and in deciding the question, it was important to look to the interests of those branches of trade which were connected with the Spanish West India Islands, to which we now exported British produce to the extent of one million. These considerations had led him to the conclusion, that the subject was far too serious to be shuffled off to the end of the Session. If they waited till then, they would see the Sugar Duties Bill passed in the usual course, and the Session close without the expression of any opinion by that House; they would find in November that our treaty with the Brazils had expired, and the Brazilian Government had taken hostile measures, and with fatal effect, against our commerce. If the House of Commons sat by and allowed this, they would be amenable to just complaints from those upon whose interest this fatal blow would have been inflicted. He would appeal, therefore, to those hon. Members who represented the mercantile and manufacturing interests of the country, to join him in urging upon the Government to take the only course which could save those interests from the ruin with which they were threatened—he especially alluded to the representatives of the manufacturing and mercantile interests, hut he did not appeal to them only—his conscientious conviction was, that to those hon. Members who represented the agricultural interest, the question was one of equal importance. He had frequently heard those lion. Gentlemen declare, that agriculture, trade and manufactures, must wax and wane together, and he trusted that they would now act upon that feeling, and not support the Government in a course which, if pursued, must inflict a fatal blow on some of the most important branches of the trade and commerce of the country. He confessed, however, that he had heard the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) ask, what interest could the Government have in supporting the British West-India interest against the general interest; and if he did not know that there was some freemasonry carried on amongst certain interests for their own purposes, as opposed to the general interests, he should be disposed to agree with the right hon. Baronet, that they had none. But he found there was, on the part of a large party, who supported the right hon. Baronet's Government, very great jealousy of any advance towards a liberal system of commercial policy. They had heard denunciations proceeding from powerful quarters recently against such a policy, and the determination of that party not to allow any inroad on the good old system of protection and monopoly had been announced. He feared that these denunciations applied to questions of this kind, as well as to the Corn Laws, and that many persons who felt that the present Corn Laws was not defensible in argument were not sorry to see other interests enjoying a smilar protection. The Sugar Duties were looked upon as the buttress and bulwark of the Corn Laws, it was felt that the landed interest and the West-India interest were exactly alike in regard to protection, and must support each other. He should listen with considerable anxiety to what might fall from the Government in the course of the Debate—if they should be able to give satisfactory assurance to the House and the country on the subject—if they could allay the apprehensions which existed so widely and extensively amongst the mercantile and manufacturing classes; and should tell him that his Motion would interfere with the prosecution of such a course, it would not be his duty as it could not be his wish, or that of his hon. Friend, to throw any impediment in the way of the consummation of that which they so much desired. But if they did not receive any such satisfactory assurance from the Government upon a subject which had been already too long postponed, and which could not remain longer in its present state without injury and injustice to the country, he should, in that case, call upon the House to come to the rescue, and he thought they would not discharge the duty they owed to the important interests involved, if they did not, by affirming the resolution he was about to place in the hands of the Chair, convey to the Government and the people their confident belief that the time had arrived when those great interests could no longer be trifled with, and when they must place the great commercial interests of the country on a more satisfactory footing, by renewing the commercial relations upon fair and equal terms, if they could now do so, with the Brazils, and, above all, by altering our customs duties on the chief articles of Brazilian produce, more especially on the great article of sugar, in such a manner as to prove to the Brazils our desire to extend and continue those commercial relations which now existed between the two countries, and which were so essential to the prosperity of both. He would now move, That an humble address he presented to Her Majesty, representing to Her Majesty the great importance to this country of the trade with the Empire of the Brazils, and humbly praying Her Majesty to adopt such measures as may appear best calculated to maintain and improve the commercial relations between the United Kingdom and the Brazils.

Mr. Ewarl

seconded the Motion. The country had a right to complain that no satisfactory result had been obtained from the recent negotiations between this country and the Brazils on the subject of the Commercial Treaty. The Government made no progress in their attempts to put down slavery in the Brazils by negotiation, while they had placed our commercial relations with that country in the greatest danger. This question of the Sugar Duties was important to every consumer in this country. The great burthen of those duties fell upon the poorer classes, who were compelled to consume an adulterated article. The onus probandi was with the Members of the Government opposite, to inform the House what result, if any, had attended their negotiations—what their intentions were with regard to West-India interests, and what they proposed to do in regard to the interests of the consumer in this country. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would give effect to those sound principles of free-trade which he had already enunciated in a certain periodical publication. As for the right hon. Baronet near him, he knew that he was restrained from acting as his own sense of what was right would prompt him to do by the powerful combination behind him. There were the West and East India interests united, forming a vast "duopoly," which prevented the right hon. Baronet from carrying into effect his own sounder principles.

Mr. Gladstone

Mr. Speaker, I trust that nothing will fall from me in the course of the remarks which I am about to make in reply to the observations which have fallen from the right hon. Gentleman who has brought forward this Motion, and the hon. Gentleman who has immediately preceded me, which can justly give rise to the inference that Her Majesty's Government is in any manner indifferent to the importance of the trade which exists between this country and the Brazils. Neither do I desire it to be inferred, from anything I may think it necessary to say, that Her Majesty's Government are perfectly satisfied with the present state of the Customs law with respect to sugar, if it be simply viewed as a commercial or a mercantile subject of consideration. Sir, I am bound to add that I trust nothing will fall from me which could have the effect of conveying to the hon. Gentlemen opposite, or to the people out of doors, the slightest intimation of the course which Her Majesty's Government may think proper to pursue during this Session of Parliament with respect to any one item of the Import Duties. It is with some regret I state this, because both the hon. Gentlemen who have preceded me have signified it as their intention to draw from the Government some intimation as to their intentions in reference to the law affecting sugar, coffee, and copper. Sir, I am convinced that the good sense of hon. Members will convince them that no person holding office in the Government of this country, who had learned so much as the A B C of his duties, can allow himself, by a discussion which has been promoted at the instance of a single individual, to be led into a declaration of the financial intentions of Her Majesty's Government at an earlier period of the Session than was necessary. If hon. Gentlemen opposite draw any such conclusion from what I may think it necessary to say, I can only tell them that they will draw them upon their own responsibility, and I should wish them to recollect that the chances are decidedly in favour of their being in the wrong. Sir, in adverting to the terms of this address, I must solicit the House to negative the Motion of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The language of it raises, and is intended to raise the argument that measures might have been properly taken by Her Majesty's Government for the extension of our commercial relations with Brazil which have not been taken; and likewise on another ground do I ask the House to negative the Motion, namely, the language of the address appears to me to lay down the principle that we are to adopt such measures as may give extension to our commercial relations with the Brazils, absolutely and irrespectively of other considerations, and without reference to the effects which must naturally be produced by such a course. Sir, we have also contended that this subject could not be properly considered on a commercial ground solely, but as one which materially affects the happiness of the whole human race. It is impossible, therefore, for us to assent to the adoption of an address, which—by implication at all events—asserts the very contrary. With regard to the position in which Government have stood in respect to our commercial interests with Brazil, what has already occurred is, I think, enough to show that we are by no means indifferent to the most important interests of the public. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has taunted us to-night because indeed, in the Customs law of 1842, we proposed a change in the law affecting the importation of Coffee from the Brazils, the tendency of which law was to facilitate considerably the introduction of coffee into this country. Sir, it is true that at the time of such alteration in the law relating to coffee, it was announced that another change in that law might possibly furnish matter for consideration at another time. It is true that so far as that change went, it tended to bring Brazilian coffee into this country, but I do not think that a sufficient change was made in that law, to form the foundation of a taunt from the right hon. Gentleman that we had been thus guilty of encouraging an article of slave-produce. If it, however, offers such a ground for comment from the right hon. Gentleman, it also affords a ground for showing, that the Government is not indifferent to the interests of commerce. Sir, there were many other articles of Brazilian production not unimportant in which changes were made in the year of 1842, and it was but just and fair that such alterations should be made. Considering the facilities which we have enjoyed in our trade with Brazil; considering the heavy duties we have maintained on some of the principal articles of Brazilian production, it was thought both just and fair that a reduction should be made in the duties of certain of those articles. The duties on hides, rosewood, and cocoa, with a variety of other articles, secondary articles no doubt, but still not unimportant, were much reduced in 1842. It was also intimated in this House at that period, and it has since been intimated, that the great article of coffee, which constitutes the two-fifths or the one-half of the whole exports of the Brazils, is an article with which the Government was prepared to deal, without making the changes in the law affecting it essentially dependent upon the law affecting slavery or the Slave Trade. I am now only arguing the commercial part of the question. With respect to cotton, it is notorious that the duty upon it is very moderate, when we consider it without any reference to the country from which it is imported. Our manufacturers make their claim to relief from the duty upon this article on the ground of diminished ability to compete with their rivals abroad. I do not mean to say one word here, either for or against this duty. So far, however, as the duty being moderate, and other circumstances attending it being considered, this article of cotton from the Brazils stands in the same situation as cotton from the United States. It has been treated avowedly as a simple question of revenue, and thus it will continue. As to coffee, a slight change has taken place in Brazilian coffee. In the year 1842, a readiness was expressed, with the intention of making it part of our commercial arrangements, to introduce further and very considerable changes in favour of Brazilian coffee. With respect to cotton, the present state of the law is favourable to its introduction; and therefore, although I grant that what I am now urging is no ground for refusing to give further extension to our commercial relations with Brazil if it can be legitimately given, yet it is material to observe that as to a large proportion of the products of that country, no less than four-fifths of the whole exportable products, Her Majesty's Government have given advantages to the produce of the Brazils, and have expressed their readiness to give further advantages. In point of fact, the great difficulty which attaches to this question, is, as is well known, connected with the question of Sugar; but it is not equally well known that the Sugar exported from Brazil at the present period constitutes only one-fifth part of the whole exports of that country. The right hon. Gentleman very fairly and candidly apologised for the defects of his statistics; I should wish to make a similar apology, because the statistics of Brazil are as defective as can well be conceived; but I have taken pains to obtain the reports of the French Consul, which afford the best evidence to be had on that important subject. This paper is a statement of tile produce of Brazil, and it appears that on an average of five years, from 1837 to 1841, the total annual ex ports of Brazil amounted in value to 5,500,000l. sterling. Of that 5,500,000l., 2,000,000l. was in coffee, 1,540,000l. was in cotton, 1,100,000l. was in Sugar, and the remaining 1,500,000l. in other articles. So that, in point of fact, the article with regard to which we have so much protection is the article of Sugar, constituting one-fifth of the exportable produce of the country. At the present moment, I believe, it is even less than that proportion; but, at the same time, I argue that if a change in our law were to be made, favourable to the introduction of Brazilian Sugar, it would appear, in the table of Brazilian exports, in a larger proportion than it appears at present. As respects the arguments which Her Majesty's Government have always produced with regard to Sugar, it is not necessary, perhaps that I should go at any length into the grounds of those arguments. They were stated very much in detail in the year 1841; and in that year we could not claim altogether the merit of originality as to those arguments, because we took them, in some degree, from the right hon. Gentleman the late President of the Board of Trade, who had used those arguments with his usual force in 1840, although he did not use them so strongly as others had done. We took them also from a high authority of the late Government, Lord Monteagle, who, in 1839, used very strong expressions on the subject; and when my hon. Friend the Seconder of the present Motion proposed a reduction of the Sugar Duties in that year, Lord Monteagle emphatically said that, in the first place, there was the claim of the colonies of this country to a preference, on which he did not think it necessary to give any opinion; and, in the second place, he withheld his assent from the proposal from the peculiar state of Brazil with respect to the Slave Trade, because, when it was known that the Brazils furnished a great market for slaves, and gave encouragement to the Slave Trade, it behoved the House to pause before they gave encouragement to the trade, by creating an additional market. I must confess—although the right hon. Gentleman expressed his astonishment that any man can look into this question, and after looking into it, resist it on grounds connected with the Slave Trade—that I never was made acquainted with a chain of reasoning which appears more clear and insuperable, than that which goes to prove that the effect of the propositions which have been made for the admission of Brazilian Sugar into this country, if worth anything, if not utter trash, will be to enhance the value of Brazilian Sugar, to encourage and extend the production of Brazilian sugar, to give to the planter of the Brazils the inducement to seek the augmentation of the means of cultivation; and we all know that there is but one quarter in which, for the purpose of raising sugar, he can seek the means of extended cultivation, viz., the unhappy land of Africa. The right hon. Gentleman did not attempt to grapple with that proposition; no man has attempted to grapple with it. He taunted this party, or this House, or the country, with its inconsistency; what has that to do with the matter? Does it prove, because you cannot give complete freedom, you are to disregard practical effects? Does it prove, because you may not do some things, you are to refrain from doing others? Does it prove that it is ridiculous, as the right hon. Gentleman seems to suppose, to entertain objections to the admission of Brazilian sugar, on the ground that the admission, however desirable on every commercial ground, must, and would necessarily, at the same time, have a most powerful effect in stimulating the Slave-trade between Africa and the Brazils? The right hon. Gentleman described the opposition, if intentionally I know not, but he described the opposition given to this proposition from considerations con-fleeted with slavery, in terms far, very far indeed, from accurate. He stated that it was opposed on the ground that it was not desirable to give encouragement to slavery. I contend, on the contrary, that slavery is but a secondary element in the matter. If slavery stood alone, it would be a very different question from what it now is, considering the course which has been taken. It is not simply a question of slavery, but of slavery fed by the Slave-trade, and by the Slave-trade alone. That makes the greatest possible difference. You taunt us with admitting the cotton of America; but there is no question of the Slave-trade in connection with America. There is no Slave-trade to the United States, there is a traffic in Slaves between man and man in the United States and between State and State, but there is nothing at all analogous to the African Slave-trade; and if you taunt me by showing that in theory there is a traffic in Slaves in America, I say I do not stand on theory but I stand on the question whether an enormous practical evil—an evil of vast extent to humanity—is or is not connected with the proposition? Then my hon. Friend, who has just sat down, said that amongst the questions which he wished to put to the Government, one was as to the course it was intended to pursue as to duties (upon which I am sorry to say I cannot give him the smallest satisfaction), and whether we had diminished Slavery in the Brazils? a question to which I am incapable of giving a conclusive answer. Certainly we have not abolished Slavery in the Brazils; neither have we succeeded in procuring what the Brazilian government would be more inclined to grant if they were less encouraged in resisting—the recognition and adoption of any plan by the Government for the gradual abolition of Slavery in Brazil: but I do say that we have diminished Slavery in the Brazils; I do say that, as compared with the state of things which must inevitably have followed if the proposition of my hon. Friend had been adopted in 1840, or if the proposition of the late Government had been adopted in 1841, we have greatly reduced the extent of Slavery in the Brazils, and we have greatly narrowed the extent of misery connected with the transport of slaves from Africa to the Brazils. There can be no doubt—the figures which show the facts have, I think, repeatedly been brought before the House and the world—that the vigilance of our cruisers has had an enormous effect in narrowing the extent of the Slave-trade with Brazil. In the year 1838 the number of slaves carried into the port of Rio only, amounted to more than 30,000; in the years 1841 and 1842 that enormous number was reduced to 8000 and 9000. And whilst I am on this subject, let me say that in the annals of the British Parliament that man ought to be honourably recollected, he meant General Valdez, who, as Governor General of Cuba, in spite of local prejudices, in spite of inveterate personal interest, in a country where we know not how difficult it is to oppose such obstacles, manfully set his face against the continuance of the illicit Slave-trade in that Island, and through whose means and combinations the Slave-trade between Africa and Cuba is, not indeed altogether, but almost annihilated. It has been an unfortunate consequence of late events that that man, so honourable for his course with respect to the Slave-trade, has been removed from that Island, and another Governor has been substituted, much more likely, I understand, to commit himself to the prejudices and feelings which there prevail. This must be considered a great misfortune. But, although by the vigilance of our cruisers the Slave-trade has been greatly reduced, it is equally notorious that the vigilance of our cruisers has been powerfully and effectually aided by the commercial policy which this country has chosen to pursue—I grant with some commercial disadvantages. There is no doubt that of late years there has been in the Brazils a considerable transfer of estates from the cultivation of sugar to the cultivation of coffee. I say that that of itself is a most important event; not because there is much difference between the cultivation of sugar and the cultivation of coffee, as far as regards the happiness of those employed, but because the cultivation of sugar is mainly labour for adults, and the cultivation of coffee may be carried on by women and children. The transfer of estates from one cultivation to the other is therefore most important as connected with the repression of slavery; and a Committee of this House, appointed in the year 1842 to examine the state of affairs on the coast of Western Africa, says, that not only our exertions in the improved quality and system of our cruisers, but the deteriorated condition of the sugar planters of Cuba and Brazil, is to be reckoned among the causes tending to lessen the Slave Trade. But the Slave Trade, although contracted, unhappily retains its existence, and the smallest relaxation of vigilance on the part of our cruisers, or, as I believe, any favourable change in the commercial policy of Europe, and especially in the commercial policy of this country, tending to encourage sugar cultivation in the Brazils, would revive the Slave Trade on its largest scale. We ought unfortunately, to recollect that we are speaking of a trade, with respect to which it ought to be plainly stated and understood that it is patronised and supported, at all events, by the local and provincial authorities of Brazil. We are speaking of a trade with respect to which it is manifest that those amongst the subordinate officers of Brazil who might chance, from motives of humanity, or from respect to the laws, to set themselves against it are discouraged and dismissed; and the usual course which their immediate superiors, the local and provincial authorities, adopt is to favour it in a most glaring and unfeeling manner. The Slave Trade has, to some extent, revived on the coast of Brazil, in consequence of its becoming necessary, on account of political circumstances further south, to remove or slacken, for a short period, the vigilance exercised in guarding the coast. I do not mean to say, nor have I learnt, that the trade has been extended in consequence of that partial withdrawal to any great extent, but that an increase has taken place even upon a slight change of that description. The slave interest is very much alive and upon the watch for opportunities, and if those opportunities are granted we must expect to see the revival, upon their former scale, of all the atrocities that have disgraced that traffic in Brazil. It is known that Her Majesty's Government, in attempting to negociate with Brazil, did endeavour to connect with the subject of the admission of sugar into this country on more favourable terms, what the Brazilian Government have never, at any time, been inclined to concede—a stipulation, on the part of Brazil, with regard to Slavery. I thought the right hon. Gentleman seemed inclined to admit, that as far as the Slave Trade was concerned, it was a legitimate object of interference. To seek from the Brazils additional guarantees for the suppression of the Slave Trade would have been a reasonable course; but, with regard to any guarantees affecting slavery, I did not understand the right hon. Gentleman to suppose that they were possible. How do we stand with respect to this matter? Is it not the fact that the stipulations into which the Brazils have already entered with regard to the Slave Trade, if faithfully acted upon, are adequate for every purpose?—that it is almost impossible, I believe, for human wit to devise any stipulations relating to slavery and the Slave Trade, which would increase the efficiency of those which now exist? But I remember to have been struck by hearing the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton inquire in this House whether Her Majesty's Government were seeking to obtain new stipulations from Brazil for the suppression of the Slave Trade, or whether they were seeking to obtain new guarantees for the fulfilment of existing stipulations? A more important distinction cannot be drawn, and although I admit the stipulations which exist to be sufficient, and more than sufficient; on the contrary the guarantees are utterly worthless. What are the guarantees which the nature of the case admits of? In my opinion, two only, until a total change of feeling has taken place, are worth having for the suppression of the Slave Trade. One guarantee would be the stoppage of the Slave Trade by extrinsic force—if possible, a blockade force of those coasts on which slavery is carried on. If the slavers could not escape through your guard, that would be a guarantee for the extinction of slavery independent of the Brazils, and not the less satisfactory on that account. I fully admit that if such a thing could be done, it would have a most material bearing on the commercial policy of this country as to sugars. I have not the smallest hesitation in saying, that if it were possible to render the guard on the coast of Africa entirely effective, to seal the coast, and stop the traffic in defiance of the connivance of the Brazils, I do not hesitate to admit that the case of sugar would then be analogous to the case of cotton; it would be a matter of secondary importance; it would become a subject of very great doubt indeed, whether it was any longer reasonable to stand on the mere distinction between slavery and the Slave Trade under such circumstances as these, especially when it is considered that slavery in the Brazils either must be modified in its nature or must be mitigated with a view to freedom, or else it will destroy itself by the waste of life. That is one guarantee, for the suspension of the Slave Trade by extrinsic force; but the only other guarantee that I am aware of, connects itself with measures for the mitigation of slavery within Brazil. If it be not possible to stop the Slave Trade from without, then I do not believe you will get rid of Slave-trade without getting rid of slavery in the Brazils. I do not believe, that as long as there is a state of slavery, and as long as the local authorities connive in carrying it on, it is possible for the wit of man to devise a means of getting rid of the Slave-trade. Therefore, it is not from a curious and factious desire to intermeddle with domestic institutions, that Her Majesty's Government are led to take the broad distinction, and to include not only the Slave-trade and slavery, but it was because the slavery of Brazil is essentially and indissolubly connected with the Slave Trade. If the slavery of the Brazils be so managed and worked as to be in effect a means of maintaining the Slave Trade of the Brazils, then, I say, that the Slave Trade of the Brazils connects itself at once with the question, which is no domestic or national question, but a question almost taking the rank of a question of international law—a question of humanity at large—a question on which every nation in Europe has acquired a title to speak and to be heard, and on which Great Britain has, above all, a title to speak, because she has made the greatest efforts. Having endeavoured to explain that it was from no desire to interfere with the internal institutions of Brazil, simply considered, that Her Majesty's Government did make demands, undoubtedly of a national nature, in deference to unusual and peculiar circumstances, I then go to notice the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, as brought against Government in regard to their inconsistency. He said, that something was done in the case of coffee, and that a willingness was expressed to do more; and that although it might be true, that the cultivation of sugar was a more useful labour, than the cultivation of coffee, yet it mattered very little to the unhappy slave, in the middle passages, whether he were to be carried to the Brazils to cultivate sugar or coffee, as far as the horrors of the Slave Trade were concerned. I grant you that if the cultivation of coffee was likely to have the same effect on the Slave Trade as the cultivation of sugar, the argument would be valid, but the difference is this, that to cultivate sugar, slaves will be carried across the Atlantic; to cultivate coffee they will not, because the cultivation of coffee can be carried on more economically by freemen than by slaves. The cultivation of coffee adapts itself to the capabilities of the family, it is a cultivation in which not only men, but women, boys and girls, can find a place. It does not carry women slaves across the Atlantic—the proportion is only one-fourth; but the cultivation of sugar carries young men, the great mass under twenty years of age, valuable for hard labour, out of whom a few years labour can be got before they sink into the grave. If you look to the increase of coffee, you will find it is perfectly easy, in the western hemisphere, for coffee, the produce of free labour, to compete with slave-grown coffee. St. Domingo exports 5,000,000 lbs. of coffee. I never heard that there was more difficulty in raising coffee in St. Domingo than in the Brazils, bat St. Domingo exports no sugar. If we are to take experience for our guide, I say it does appear it is perfectly easy and practicable to raise coffee by free labour; and it is my firm belief, that if the duty on coffee in this country or anywhere else were to be so altered to-morrow as to stimulate the cultivation of coffee in the Brazils, it would lead to an increased cultivation; but it would be the interest of the Brazils to endeavour to supply the means of that increase by free labour, and not by sending to Africa. He did not dwell mainly on that; he stated the conduct of the present Government as to copper ore in 1842, and made an argument on that subject to which I shall presently advert. But I will say this, if it be true that the present Government had been guilty of the grossest injustice, I care not how gross, in their measure as to copper, would it follow that it befitted the House of Commons to overlook practical questions in connection with the sugar duties? But I deny the inconsistency. The right hon. Gentleman said, that he had an accumulation of facts which rendered his case most triumphant. He said, that if one description of labour was more weary and wasting than another, it was the labour of the slave in mines; he showed that the present Government had so reduced the duties on the admission of foreign copper ore, that whereas formerly there was scarcely any copper ore entered for consumption, yet, that since that period a considerable quantity had been so entered; he said, that we had encouraged the labour of slaves in mines, in order to get that ore; having shown that, he said, "This is exactly parallel to the case of Brazilian sugar; only do for sugar what you have done for copper ore." His argument would be very strong if it were true, but it is altogether wanting in resemblance in the main part of the case. The right hon. Gentleman appears to labour under the delusion that the measure taken in 1842 was a measure passed in favour of the importer of copper ore, to increase the facilities of bringing copper ore to this country. [Mr. Labouchere.—It has done so.] I say, that neither was it the object of that alteration to do that, nor has it been the effect. You show me that considerable quantities have been introduced; you have not shown the quantities now entered for consumption. You stand upon that distinction—you will not take into your consideration commercial results—you will not condescend to ask whether it was a favour to the importer of copper ore, hut because the form happened to be technically the same as that in which a favour might be granted, you come forward and demand that a similar favour should be granted as to sugar. No doubt the whole quantity imported may have increased, but if the right hon. Gentleman will call for a specification of the countries from which it has come, he will find that there has been no increase upon that imported which is raised by the labour of slaves; on the contrary he will find, that in the imports of ore raised by slave-labour there has been actually a diminution, the fact being that the large quantity came from Chile, where slavery does not prevail. But, Sir, I stand upon the practical effect of the change we effected. The change we made in respect of copper ore in 1842, was not intended to be a favour to the producers of copper ore in foreign countries. Our object was to protect the smelting power of this country by a reduction in the duty, to allow them to compete with the rival manufacturers on the Continent. Still it was not for the purposes of protection alone; it was intended to benefit the Treasury of this country, and in our Treasury the difference has been placed. A great distinction exists between copper ore and sugar. It must be borne in mind, that in regard to sugar we do not grow enough for our own consumption, but that in regard to copper ore we are an exporting country. I will give the right hon. Gentleman the very best authority upon the subject. I hold in my hand a number of letters which I have received from divers places. The right hon. Gentleman has taunted us with doing that for copper ore which we refuse to do for sugar—that we gave great additional facilities to the importation of copper ore; and says he, do the same for sugar. Sir, I hold in my hand a letter from New York, in which the writer states that copper ore is now largely sent to that country for the purpose of being smelted, in place of being sent to England. [Mr. Labouchere: Because you have done away with the privilege of smelting in bond.] Undoubtedly; but that is only one disad- vantage, and the advantage we have gained is infinitely greater. The intention of the change which we made was to improve the condition of the smelter, or at least that he should be enabled to maintain his position. I believe that he is now in a worse position than he was in 1842, but I also believe it is not on account of the change we made, but is to be fairly attributed to the very depressed state of the markets for his produce. But, Sir, can anything be more vague or unsatisfactory than to say, because you have made a change in the law regulating the importation of copper ore, therefore it is our bounden duty to make a corresponding change in the laws which regulate the importation of sugar, taking no notice of the fact, that by so doing we would give the greatest encouragement to slave-labour, and by a natural consequence to the Slave Trade. Then, Sir, with regard to the amount of inconvenience that this country has suffered, I do not mean to take my stand upon the fact, that the price of sugar has been moderate. The right hon. Gentleman commented strongly on the statements made by my noble Friend; the Member for Liverpool, as to the price. I can only answer for my own estimate, and I leave my noble Friend to reply for himself. In passing I may mention that my estimate—that upon which I founded my calculations—was, that there would be an importation of 207,000 cwts. Now, Sir, that anticipation was exactly verified—the importation was 207,000 cwts. I must admit, that in 1843, the importation was but 204,000 cwts., and I give the right hon. Gentleman the benefit of the difference. But I maintain, that, as on the one hand, if the Government can show that no great inconvenience results from the law in its present shape that is not a sufficient reason for abiding by it, so, on the other hand the infliction of some inconvenience, and the possibility of placing things on a better footing in a commercial point of view, do not justify us in overlooking all other circumstances. Sir, I will not trouble the House with going into the question of prices; but if we take a period of three years since the propositions of the late Government were made, it is no doubt true, that the prices of that period were the most moderate prices of any which have prevailed in this country since the time slavery was abolished—there can be no doubt of the truth of that proposition; but it must also be admitted, that the halcyon days for low prices were in the time of slavery—those were the days for cheap sugar; and the question now raised by the right hon. Gentleman is whether we will again go back to those days, and have cheap sugar from Brazil, and thereby afford every encouragement to slavery and the Slave Trade, which it has been the policy of this country to attempt to exterminate. The right hon. Gentleman wished it to be understood, that the cause of the failure of the mission of Mr. Ellis was to be attributed not to any want of temper or good faith on the part of the Brazilians, but to the dogged resolution of Her Majesty's Government to introduce considerations of humanity, and insist on I introducing stipulations concerning slavery, into what was a strictly commercial negociation. Now, Sir, that was not at all the case. It is very true, that Mr. Ellis failed in effecting the object for which he was dispatched. It is true that, among other things, Mr. Ellis was empowered to deal with the Brazilian Government on terms of mutual advantage, and to tell them that they would be admitted to send Sugar to England upon modified terms, on condition that they made concessions respecting the Slave Trade. But, Sir, it was not on that proposition that the negociation was broken off—it was upon a demand made by Brazil. And I consider it due to Mr. Ellis to say that there is but one opinion, both on the part of the British public, as well as on that of the Brazilian Government, that there was nothing in that Gentleman's conduct, or in the ability with which he conducted the negotiation, to justify any one in coming to the conclusion that the want of success was attributable to him. The honour, straightforwardness and ability of the hon. Gentleman was acknowledged on both sides. The demand made by the Brazilian Government was this—they said, "We will enter into a commercial treaty with you if you will admit our staple production into the markets of Great Britain at a differential duty"—not of one tenth of the value; "but at a differential duty of one-tenth more than the duty you levy upon Sugar, the produce of your own colonies." The first demand was for an absolute equality—that their Sugar, the produce of African slaves, should be admitted on the payment of the same duty as the Sugar produced by the free labour of Jamaica or Demerara. Remember, not one-tenth of the value, but at one-tenth of the duty. Suppose, Sir, that the duty levied upon Sugar, the produce of Bri- tish colonies, to be 25s., the demand made by the Brazilian Government was, that the maximum of duty to be levied upon the slave Sugar of Brazil should be 27s. 6d. Sir, if my recollection serves me right, it was upon that demand being made and persisted in, that it was considered utterly hopeless to pursue the negociation any further. Now, Sir, although the hon. Gentleman who seconded this Motion (Mr. Ewart) has declared that he is in favour of an absolute equality on the duties on sugar, either from our own possessions or those of other countries, still I think it is the almost universal opinion of this House and of the country, that so long as differential duties are recognised, there is a very strong claim for protection on the part of the sugar-growers of our colonial possessions. Not on behalf of the East Indies, or on behalf of the Mauritius, where the supply of labour is now comparatively abundant, but on behalf of the West India colonies, where the scarcity of labour has been produced by our legislation. I call for protection, and surely that Legislature which caused the deficiency of labour, will not altogether abolish that protection which they now enjoy, and which I think is their due? I may as well state to the House, because it will be made known in the Brazils, what where the terms which were offered by, and the demands made on behalf of the Brazilian Government. And, Sir, I must say that, whether owing to discussions in this House, wherein our trade with Brazil has been treated as the only one which was worth a moment's consideration, or from whatever other cause I do not know, but the Gentlemen who are charged with the Government of that country are labouring under very false impressions upon that head. They would not allow, for a moment, that a Treaty of reciprocity was a fair and equal Treaty between the two nations. Equality of duties on ships, and equality in respect of duties on goods, placing us on a similar footing with other countries, they conceived and maintained was conferring a great boon upon this country, and they demanded an equivalent for that imaginary boon. Now, Sir, it must be admitted, that with regard to Tariff Treaties, there are always very great difficulties in the way. Whether it arise from ignorance or selfishness—or from our always taking a personal in place of a national view of any question, still there are always extreme difficulties in the way of entering into those Treaties; but that any country should deliberately take up the notion that a perfect equality was granting a great boon to the other party is certainly astonishing; however, that was the case with the Brazilians, and the difficulty appeared to us so great, that we considered it hopeless to proceed with the negotiations until a very great change has taken place in the temper and feelings of the Brazilian Government. When the Chevalier Ribeiro arrived in this country, he made the demand which I have detailed to the House, and as a compensation he offered to negotiate with respect to two articles of commerce, certainly of very considerable importance—viz., cottons and woollen goods. The terms he offered were such as to show the spirit in which his Government were determined to act. On the part of the Brazils, he engaged not to tax our woollen goods at a higher rate than 20 per cent.—and upon the cottons of England, which constitutes nearly three-fifths of our trade, he would consent that they should not be taxed over 40 per cent., while he offered us the wide margin of 2s. 6d. on the respective sugars of our West Indian possessions; on the other hand, he generously offered that upon our coarse cottons—for our exports of that article to the Brazils are all for the slaves, and are therefore, coarse—he consents that they shall not be taxed at more than the moderate impost of 40 per cent., and by the same Treaty, every other privilege which we now enjoy was to be given up into the bargain. And, further, Sir, this Treaty which was to confer such a boon upon us, was to come into operation instanter, and abolish the present Treaty, under which we pay only 15 per cent. and are under no restrictions whatever. Now, I have no doubt hon. Gentlemen opposite may suppose that these high duties were to be imposed for the purposes of revenue, and that the 2s. 6d. differential duty was one of protection. But not even that consolation remains to us, because it appears that under the influence of the wild dreams in which they indulge respecting their power and the importance of their trade, a deliberate determination has been taken to raise a commercial marine in the Brazils, and establish manufactures all over the country. Those duties of 30 and 40 per cent. were not to be raised as a revenue and to meet any financial difficulties—no, they were to be levied for the purpose of protecting the manufactures they were about to establish. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to a statement made by some gentleman holding a situation in Brazil similar to one of our directors to the Board of Customs. I will answer this authority by the dictum of one who may be looked on as the Chairman of the Board. In the month of May, 1843, the report was published, which the right hon. Gentleman lauded as being the production of a rational man. To that report was appended a decree under which the commission was constituted. After the constitution of the commission, however, a law was passed, the object of which was, to create a protective system, and under colour of that to raise a cotton manufacture. And what does the House suppose the standard of protection to be?—60 per cent.! And not only that, but those wise and provident legislators, apprehensive that 60 per cent. might not prove effective, thought it right to provide that in case more was necessary more should be granted? Owing to such demands—to such principles being assumed—looking to what was offered in return for our slight of our own colonies, and to the avowed object of raising up a protective system on the most unequal terms, I maintain the Government was justified—setting aside every consideration of Slavery and the Slave Trade—in regarding as perfectly hopeless negotiations on such a commercial basis. I do not, Sir, mean to say for a moment that there was anything offensive in the conduct of the Chevalier Ribeiro—quite the contrary, but he was fettered; and upon commercial grounds alone, leaving out of sight all those connected with humanity, the terms offered were such that no Minister could entertain them. At the same time, when the right hon. Gentleman expressed an opinion that, while a general Treaty of imports and Exports was broken off, the two countries should continue their commercial confidence and equality of dealing, he fully assented to it as that on which the Government was prepared to act. Now, Sir, with respect to the future, considering the period of the year at which we are, it is my duty to be silent. But before I sit down, allow me for a moment to allude to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman respecting the Chevalier's visit to France. The right hon. Gentleman said, that Chevalier Ribeiro, failing in the object of his mission to this country, had gone to Paris to conclude a treaty with France. Of course it is very difficult for us to speak positively of anything which is not within our own knowledge; but I have high authority for believing that, no treaty has been entered into. Let the right hon. Gentleman, as he talks about the probabilities of the case, let him look at America. America has no scruples on the subject of slavery, therefore, whatever duties America retains must be for the purposes of protection alone. Now America puts on a protective duty of 13s. a cwt., and, considering that she grew her own sugar, it was evident she took care of her own subjects. [Mr. Thornely: Coffee is admitted free.] Undoubtedly; but I do not think that our proceeding, in respect of the duties on coffee, can ever become the subject of complaint on the part of the Brazilian Government. Let us look again to Germany. The right hon. Gentleman said, he had taken the greatest pains to investigate the subject. It would be unfair to take advantage of any special source of information, which, as a member of the Government, I might possess, against the right hon. Gentleman. But my source of information is that which is open to all the Members of the House, the Library of the House of Commons. If the right hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to look into Mr. M'Gregor's compilation of tariffs, he would have found in page 47 of the duties of the Germanic Union, that the duty which is levied in Germany on foreign sugar, and which I apprehend is a protective duty, is no less than 27s, a cwt. [An hon. Member: No; 15s.] No; it is 27s., and not only that, but the course of events there of late years has been adverse to the Brazils; for about three years ago the duty was only 15s., but within the last two years the Germanic Union have raised it to 27s. Thus there is levied in Germany a protective duty of 27s. a cwt. [An hon. Member: Not a protective, but a revenue duty.] You may call a rose by any other name, but it will smell just as sweet. However, whether it be a revenue duty or not, what encouragement is it to the trade of the Brazils? I never heard any advocate for protection on this or the other side of the House say that 27s. a cwt. would not be an adequate protective duty for Colonial Sugar. In the case of France, the right hon. Gentleman has fallen into a strange and singular error. From the principles of classification on which the French tariff is formed it is extremely difficult to understand it, and I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman has lost his way amidst the multiform distinctions with which it abounds. The French have to protect their own beet-root Sugar against their own colonial Sugar and then they have to pro- tect both against foreign Sugar; and they do both pretty effectually. On the beetroot Sugar they levy a duty for the purposes of revenue from 25f. to 46½f. per two cwt., according to quality; and on their own colonial Sugar they levy a differential duty of 20f. to protect the beet-root Sugar, so that there is on French colonial Sugar a duty of from 45f. to 66½f. per two cwt., according to quality. And what is the duty on foreign Sugar? The duty on foreign Sugar is, at the lowest, about 65f. per two cwt. for the lowest quality, to 85f. if imported in a French ship, and 105f. if imported in a foreign ship—so that there is a differential duty against foreign Sugar varying from 21f. to nearly 40f. There is, therefore, not the facility for the introduction of foreign Sugar into France which the right hon. Gentleman would lead the House to believe there is. The French seem to feel the pressure of the system, and passed a law in July which is to begin to take effect on the 1st of August, 1844, to alter it. By that law the duty on beetroot Sugar will he raised 5f. a-year till it reaches 45f., the lowest point at which colonial Sugar can be now entered, and, therefore, about the year 1848 the French will be in a condition to deal with the question as one of simple protection. An effort was made to alter the law about twelve months ago, but it failed, except so far as regards a very modified change. Again, if the right hon. Gentleman refers to the state of the trade between the Brazils and France, he will find, that that trade is as unfavourable to the Brazils as the trade between this country and the Brazils. It is true the Brazils receive advantages from the indirect trade with France, but those advantages are not now much greater than those which she receives from this country, and are not likely to become greater, as the French ships are not so suited to that trade as ours are. The returns show this. The imports of England to the Brazils are to the exports from the Brazils to England as five is to two; while the imports of France to the Brazils are to the exports from the Brazils to France little more than as five is to two. I recal these matters merely because I wish to point out, that as far as respects the duties and the law of France as to Sugar, the Brazils has little more to expect from her than she has from England. The right hon. Gentleman said, that the Chevalier Riheiro, after the failure of the negotiations here, went to Paris to negoci- ate a treaty there, and then returned to Brazil. It is rash to infer from Signor Ribeiro's going to Paris, that he went there for the purpose of negotiating a treaty; for the fact was, that he had been for many years in Paris as the resident minister for his Government, and was only withdrawn from his ordinary duties to conic over here, and when the negotiation failed he returned to resume those duties. It would be a great misfortune if exaggerated apprehensions went forth through this country with regard to the danger of losing the trade with the Brazils. I do not share in any such apprehension; for considering that the commerce of the Brazils depends mainly on British capital, that every important branch of trade there, is carried on chiefly by British skill and experience—(there may be an exception on this article or that)—considering that the Brazils finds the manufactures of this country cheaper and better than those of any other country, I do not entertain the belief that that country will adopt the suicidal policy of excluding British manufactures from her markets. As to raising up a protective system, nothing can be more ominous or extravagant than the report of the Minister of Finance; but I do not doubt but that the good sense displayed by the Commission instituted for carrying out that plan may tend to modify the views propounded in it. The right hon. Gentleman ought to do Her Majesty's Government the justice to state, that the decree and report which went to establish this new protective system, through the medium of an average duty of 60 per cent. bore date in May last, and were adopted as the ground of the Chevalier Ribeiro's mission, so that they could not be ascribed to the failure of that mission. I do not wish to trouble the House further. I hope that I have not done injustice to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, or to the manner in which he urged it. In that manner I find nothing to complain of; but as to the general grounds of the Motion, I must say, that while I deeply regret the reservations which the Government is compelled to make with regard to the admission of foreign sugar—reservations, however, which are not made, as the right hon. Gentleman said, for the purpose of making of the Sugar Duties a bulwark for the Corn Laws;—for I feel them to be more invidious every year since so many concessions have been made on other points, while as regards the trade of Brazil I admit its importance, but deprecate exaggerated statements of that importance, for I have seen the mischief which such statements produce when they reach places where arguments are not canvassed with the same accuracy as within the walls of the British House of Commons,—while I say I admit the importance of that trade, and will be amongst the first to embrace any legislative means to extend it, yet I am not prepared, mid I trust the House is not prepared—whatever may be the taunts of inconsistency thrown out as to the doctrines which particular individuals may have heretofore avowed—to pursue at all hazards and to all extremities a commercial object, and to throw into utter disregard for, I admit, considerations of great practical weight and moment, questions connected with the interests and happiness of mankind.

Mr. M. Gibon

thought the House, after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, would feel that his right hon. Friend had a kill justification for interference. Indeed, it appeared to him that great part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, had very little connection with the question now before them. The question they had before them was this:—How were they to deal at the present time with the state of their commercial relations with the Brazils? It was not denied that those relations were now in a precarious position, that they were important, arid that there was a deficiency of commercial returns from the Brazils; while the exchanges were affected by the difficulty of a direct interchange with that country. These things were not denied; and he imagined his right hon. Friend simply asked Her Majesty's Government now to take them into their consideration, and to pledge themselves that they would immediately and forthwith adopt sonic measure to bring this state of things to a satisfactory termination. The right hon. Gentleman said, the good sense of Members must inform them that it was impossible that a Minister should state what reduction of duties he meant to make. He could not understand why, if a Minister meant to make a reduction of the duties on Sugar, or any other important commodity, he should not say so. He could understand why a Minister should not be able to make up his mind to a reduction of duties, but he could not understand why, if Ministers had made up their minds, they should not tall the House so forthwith. They had also been told by the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his speech, a great deal of what France and America were doing, and a great deal of what the Brazils were doing. The defects in the commercial systems of other countries had been dilated upon, but he contended, if the Brazilian commercial system was bad, our own was worse. Although the right hon. Gentleman might disapprove of their having recommended the imposition of 60 per cent. protection on certain interests of that country, he must not forget that our own protection on colonial sugars was something like 300 per cent. Bad as the protective system of the Brazils was, our own was infinitely worse. Bad statesmen and political economists as they were, we had proved ourselves much more faulty. Though they had put on 15 per cent. on our manufactured goods, the Brazilians did not raise up protective systems as we did. Ministers perceived that the Brazilians were not disposed to be so liberal as they ought to be, and therefore they said they would not do justice to the consumers of sugar in this country. Was ever argument heard of so ridiculous or so unjust? As the right hon. Gentleman had thought fit to attack the policy of that country, it would have been more fair in him to have read the whole of the financial report to which he had referred, instead of quoting one passage here and another there, to suit the views of particular individuals. If the right hon. Gentleman had done so, he would have found that the Brazilian Commission actually went the length of recommending that differential duties, as between particular countries, should not be adopted. They did not recommend that the produce of any particular country should be placed at a disadvantage in the Brazilian market, and it was therefore entirely beside the question for them to be concerning themselves with what might be going on in France, Austria, and Russia, or any other country, for the Brazilians had themselves determined they would admit the goods of all countries on the same footing, though they might recommend a general raising of duties. They had heard a great deal of Slavery and the Slave Trade; but he must be permitted to remark that the course taken by Her Majesty's Government, in reference to this question, somewhat resembled the course which the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, said the late Government took on most questions of public policy—like the game of thimblerig. He thought the present was a case exactly in point. Sometimes they were told it was Slavery, sometimes it was the Slave Trade, so that they never knew under what thimble the pea was. When they urged that Ministers had got all the Treaties against the Slave Trade they could expect to get, that they had obtained all the stipulations which could be offered to them in negotiations, then it was replied that it was not the Slave Trade, it was Slavery they were anxious to put down; but now, when Ministers were charged with making a pretext of the question of Slavery, they went back and told their opponents that it was the Slave Trade against which they directed their efforts. Now, he ventured to say, if they were to look back to the proposition of the noble Lord, the Member for London, they would find that it was Slavery on which the present Ministers had grounded their opposition to that plan. They said they could not admit the Sugar of Brazil and Cuba until they had made some attempt to induce those Governments to put down Slavery, that they must have some preliminary Treaty. He was sorry the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had left his place, because he wished to ask him ho he proposed to treat with the Brazilian Government, in reference to the question of Slavery, and with whom he would have treated? Could the President of the Board of Trade tell him that there was anybody or any potentate in Brazil that had the power to put down Slavery and the Slave Trade if they were so willing? Unless the right hon. Gentleman could assure them that there was somebody who possessed that power, with whom did he propose to treat? The right hon. Gentleman could not propose to treat with parties who had no power—he could not have meant to raise expectations that could never be realised and hopes that could never be fulfilled. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, as he was an advocate for putting down Slavery by coercion and the interference of foreign countries—what put down Slavery and the Slave Trade in this country? Was it hostile tariffs? Was it the visits of foreign cruisers on our coasts? Was it menacing negotiations? Nothing of this means was used to put down Slavery in the British dominions. He said it was the formation of an enlightened public opinion in this country, the conviction that Slavery was contrary to every law, moral or divine, arid to the principles of religion, that caused the suppression of Slavery, and not those external influences to which the right hon. Gentleman seemed disposed to trust. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel), now that he had returned to his place, to what authority he intended to appeal in Brazil to aid him in putting down Slavery in that country? Did the right hon. Gentleman think that the Brazilian Government or any party in that country could abolish a system which was so interwoven with all the feelings, prejudices, and pecuniary interests of the great proprietary classes in that empire? The right hon. Gentleman surely would not have offered a condition which he knew could not be fulfilled; either he must have known that there was such a power with which it was right and fit to treat, which could put down Slavery, or he laid himself open to the charge of having proposed the reduction of the Sugar Duties on a pretext, and having given rise to expectations which there was no chance of realizing. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman how that public opinion was to be formed in Brazil, which he contended was the only power in that or any other country which could effectually put down Slavery? He (Mr. Gibson) said that a system of coercion, of intimidation, of hostile tariffs, would retard and prevent the formation of such a public opinion. And why? Because it would enlist on the side of Slavery the spirit of nationality, it would induce the Brazilians to forget the iniquity of Slavery, and look at it only as an institution which they must vindicate in order to assert their national independence. But did not every reasonable man in this country know perfectly well it was not Slavery that prevented Government from altering the Sugar Duties? There was not a man, woman, or child in the British dominions who gave them credit for sincerity in this allegation. Why, who were we, to be talking about Slavery? Was it so long since we were slave-owners ourselves? These duties were imposed at a time when we were slave-owners, and were, therefore, clearly not imposed for the purpose of preventing the import of sugar, which was the produce of slave-labour, to come into competition then with the produce of free labour. Perhaps Ministers would tell the House that they would have taken them off, but for their wish to prevent slave-labour from competition with free. He (Mr. Gibson) did not believe they would; he believed their object at first was monopoly, and that it was still monopoly. If they really meant to prohibit foreign Sugars by a duty, why not say so? why not call the duty a prohibitory duty? Why delude us with the idea that some foreign Sugar might come in under particular circumstances, when we know perfectly well that their object was to exclude entirely the Sugar of all foreign countries from coming into competition with the produce of our own Colonies? The right hon. Gentleman did go the length of saying that all the Colonies must be protected. There was another reason, therefore, besides their unwillingness to encourage Slavery. The Colonies must be protected. And why protect them? He wanted to know why the West-Indian colonies were to be protected at the expense of the consumers of this country. He wanted to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, who was a West-India or East-India proprietor himself. If the right hon. Gentleman were to go to Manchester to buy a bale of cotton goods, would he give more than a Brazilian buyer? [No.] Well, then, he contended that a Manchester cotton manufacturer should not be obliged to give more for a hogshead of Sugar to a West Indian than he would give to a Brazilian planter. Was his hon. Friend, the Member for Weymouth, prepared that a system should be arranged, so that the West-India buyers should give half as much again for a bale of cotton goods as the Brazilian buyer? If he was not prepared to agree to this arrangement, what justice was there in making the Manchester manufacturer pay half as much more for his Sugar to the West Indians than he would to the Brazilians? If you protected the colonial grower, why not protect the Manchester manufacturer, who was obliged to produce cheap cottons or hardwares, and send to all the colonial markets in the world to compete with foreign producers? You could not protect him; therefore, he demanded solely that he should not be obliged to give the West-India proprietor more for his hogshead than he could get it for from the Brazilian proprietor. The protection they now gave was that of particular favoured classes; they could not make it general, and, therefore, they must give it up entirely. Ike thought the system on which they were now acting was of all protective systems the most unjust and indefensible. His right hon. Friend had mentioned, that 114 English ships came from the Brazils with the produce of that country, of which only twenty-one came to England, while the remaining ninety-three visited the ports of all the rest of the world, competing with foreign ships in foreign markets. Why not protect the ninety-three which competed with foreign shipping, and could get no more freight than the foreign shipowner? The next question that arose was whether this protection did the West Indies any good? It was said the West Indians were in great difficulty and distress. Now, he was prepared to contend, that protection would never extricate them from those difficulties. It had been proved to demonstration, that it was this very protective system, which, by forcing capital into unnatural channels, was the cause of the great difficulties under which they were now labouring. They pretended indeed, that it was the emancipation of the slaves which had embarrassed these Gentlemen, and made it impossible for them to procure a sufficient and continuous supply of labour, and therefere claimed protection for a time until they should be enabled to recover from their embarrassments. He believed it was very generally understood that Emancipation had been paid for. We had given 20,000,000l. to liberate the slaves; that account was closed, and could not be re-opened. They said, in addition to that, they must have time. The hon. Member for Dumfries very judiciously asked what time they would be content with? Would they he satisfied with twelve years, with twenty-four years, or with any definite period? No, they would have nothing short of eternity. They would not part with the monopoly as long as they could maintain it. He pitied most sincerely the difficulties under which these proprietors were now labouring, because he believed it was the protective system which had been the means of bringing them into their present difficulties. He would ask his hon. Friend (Mr. Bernal) if he complained of the emancipation of the slaves, whether he would be prepared to go back to Slavery, even as a profitable mode of production? He (Mr. Gibson) would say, that great as the difficulties of the West Indians were, they would be still greater if they went back to Slavery. They would get their labour now more cheaply, and with greater facility, if there were proper arrangements for supplying free labour to the Colonies, than they did under the old system. In support of the view he took of the effects of the protective system in the West-Indies, he would take the liberty of quoting from the Colonial Magazine, just published, a passage written by a Gentleman who was a supporter of the right hon. Gentleman's Government, and favourable to protection and restrictive duties, and all the policy on which Government had taken their stand; he referred to Dr. Binns, who had practised for many years as a physician in the West-Indies. This writer said, having previously remarked that several profitable modes of husbandry had been abandoned, in order to cultivate Sugar,— The cultivation of cotton was never unprofitable in Jamaica; but it, unfortunately, was seldom carefully prepared for the market, and, what was still more unfortunate, even when well prepared, it was less profitable than sugar; for colonial Sugar enjoying a monopoly to the exclusion of French, Spanish, and even Portuguese adventurers and capitalists who flocked in hundreds to the West-Indies as the arena of Plutus, in which they were to struggle for a few brief years, and then return to their native land laden with the largest of fortunes, turned all their attention to the sugar cane—perhaps the most unlucky, as it has been to its cultivators the most fatal, of all the products of the tropics. This I consider to have been induced by the monopoly—that very monopoly for which the West Indians so long contended. But in endeavouring to accomplish this desirable end, a great principle was overlooked, viz., that it is not only hazardous, but positively baneful, to attempt to establish new manufactures by bounties and monopolies, so that, by the greater prospect of gain which the latter present, to induce capitalists to remove capital from one investment to another. Now this false step has never been retraced in the instances of indigo and cotton, and but for a most providential alteration in the duties on coffee, that valuable necessary of life would have shared the same fate had this monopoly not been granted to the planter, and had they not adhered to the undue cultivation of the sugar cane, to the exclusion of nearly all other tropical products, without calling the discoveries of modern chemistry in the value of manures to their aid, and without availing themselves of the assistance of the scanty knowledge and clumsy practice of the worst agriculturists in Britain, where, even at the present day, agriculture scarcely attains the eminence of an art, much less a science, they would not now have been so painfully—I may almost add, hopelessly—in the power of their enemies. Here was the testimony of a Gentleman who had no desire to promote free-trade opinions, and who was well qualified to speak on the subject, from his experience of the industrial condition of the Colonies—and he thought that they had been reduced to their present state by the operation of monopoly. They neglected the cultivation of a great many articles, for the benefits they were to derive from sugar, and now the day of retribution was come, and they were called on to suffer from the past follies of legislation. But former bad legislation was no excuse for present wrongs inflicted on the manufacturers of this country. They asked what they had done that their rights should be sacrificed to perpetuate a system of monopoly which had been productive of nothing but evil. At the time the laws establishing this system were passed, the manufacturing interest was not represented in the House. It was no answer to tell him that the Legislature had committed a great blunder in giving the West Indians protection, and therefore that the labouring classes must be forced to pay a high price for their sugar, and to find employment scarce. If this monopoly was bad, he would call on Government to state why the present time was not as good for abolishing it as any other. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would not go the length of saying that he would maintain it to all time, or that, as a Minister of the Crown, he would stand by the monopoly. If not, he must be prepared to say, that a time would come when he would do away with it. Then, what time better than the present? Was there anything in the relations of British trade which made it unfit. But they pay so little attention to the complaints of the trading interests. That day he had presented a petition from the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, signed by the President, which stated that "the petitioners had had the conviction of the impolicy of the differential duties on sugar strengthened by observing the disasters that had resulted to our commerce generally, and had seen with increasing alarm the precarious and tottering condition of the important trade in which this country is at present engaged with the Brazils, and which is at present threatened almost with annihilation. The petitioners begged to inform the House that the merchants engaged in this trade had felt the necessity of diminishing their transactions from the impossibility of receiving adequate returns, as by the enormous duty sugar was almost prevented from being brought into the United Kingdom. They stated that the Brazils only laid 15 per cent. duty on the goods imported from Great Britain, while we taxed their produce 300 per cent. They also submitted to the House that the sum paid by the people of this country in excessive duties on coffee was more than the value of all our exports to the British West Indies together, while the remission of these exorbitant imposts would furnish the means of giving increased employment to the labouring classes, as well as greatly add to the comforts of the labouring classes. The petitioners, therefore, feeling the vital importance of our trade with the Brazils, prayed that immediate measures might be taken to restore it to prosperity by an equalisation of duty on foreign and colonial sugars and coffees." He thought no reason could be assigned why obstacles should be thrown in the way of our trade with the Brazils, unless there was some cause of State necessity, which could not exist in the present case. A differential duty diminished revenue, and shackled commerce. He thought his right hon. Friend was entitled to the gratitude of the country for having called the attention of the House to this important Question, and elicited some declaration as to what the views of the Government were on this important Question. Whether the attempt to abolish the monopoly was immediately followed by success or not, he believed that what had passed to-night would lead the country to see the impolicy of the monopoly, and raise such an expression of public opinion against it as no Minister of the Crown would long be able to resist. He begged to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the position in which he stood with respect to the Sugar Duties. These were about to expire, and a new Bill must be brought in; but if the monopoly was to be persevered in, and the Bill framed on the principle of exclusion, there were those in that House who would offer it the strongest possible opposition. It was perfectly intolerable that any proposition should be made for the exclusion of foreign sugar from consumption at the present time, This country, with all its increased population and vastly greater number of purchasers, did not now consume more sugar than it had done forty years ago, and the laborious poor were not able to obtain so much as was allowed to a pauper in the workhouse. On every occasion, then, in which the forms of tile House would justify opposition, he trusted that it would be offered, and he should be prepared to divide on every clause, aye, and on every word of the Bill. If Ministers should come forward in the teeth of justice, and persist in the maintenance of a monopoly which every principle of justice condemned, and which he knew was working the greatest amount of misery in the manufacturing districts, and depriving the labourers and manufacturers of the full reward of their industry and enterprise. They would not be satisfied, therefore, with a simple division on the amounts of duty in committee, but in every stage, on the first, second, and third readings, on the passing of the Bill, the going into Committee, and on every clause, there were Gentlemen who would take the sense of the House against the Bill, with the view of opening their eyes to the enormity of excluding supplies of foreign Sugar from the country. The slavery delusion had been discovered to be a hypocritical pretext; the Anti-Slavery Society itself would not support it; they were against the system of having war cruisers on the coast of Brazil, and they would rather see their doctrines spread by the spirit of religion than at the point of the bayonet—by commercial intercourse than by hostile negotiations. There was no support any longer to be looked for in the country on this ground; Liverpool would give none. He challenged the noble Lord to go to Liverpool and tell his constituency that his real reason for opposing the admission of foreign Sugars was, that he did not like to encourage slavery in Brazil. The noble Lord (Lord Sandon) must know that his constituents had given their opinion that this was a transparent and hypocritical pretext, and that he could no longer be considered, in that House, the representative of the opinions of the merchants, bankers, or manufacturers of Liverpool. If they were to analyze the poll books of the borough of Liverpool, they would find that the noble Lord and his Colleague are not the representatives of the majority of the shopkeepers, and traders, and manufacturers of that place; but of a class of men who did not adhere very steadily to any line of opinion, and whose ruling principle was that of voting for that party which paid the best. He did not accuse any body of excessive bribery and corruption; but he told the noble Lord that the value of his opinion upon this subject was very much lessened by the fact, which he (Mr. M. Gibson) believed to be the case, that the sentiments of the majority of the Liverpool people were very much changed in regard to this question. He believed that free trade doctrines had made very great progress in this country, and the noble Lord would probably find that he would have occasion yet to make some very great modification in his opinions upon this subject, to meet the views of his constituents. He begged to remind the noble Lord, now that the Sugar duties were again about to come under consideration, that he would be expected to take a very active part in the discussion upon that question. He would be called upon to express a decided opinion as to whether or not he would be a party to laying a duty upon an article of very great luxury, almost amounting to a necessary for the working classes, which should exclude it from their use, and at the same time shut out the produce of British manufactures from markets which would otherwise be open to them. On the other hand, he challenged the noble Lord to show that the restrictive system had had the effect of keeping the West India proprietors out of embarrassment; he challenged him to show that it had been of any service in the cause of humanity, as related to the matter of slavery; he challenged him to show that this system did not operate as an injustice and a hardship to the great body of the working classes of this country. The ready answer upon all questions of this kind, whether the Corn-laws or the Sugar duties, was always employing emigration or immigration. When the population was said to be out of employ and starving, the answer was, let them emigrate. When the Sugar market was inadequately supplied, the answer was, let an immigration of free labour take place into the West Indies, and the produce will be greater. Thus these political economists must alter the distribution of the whole human race, before they could arrive at the accomplishment of their peculiar views. They would do anything rather than follow the doctrine which had been enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite himself, of buying in the cheapest, and selling in the dearest market. In fact, the protective system, the pet doctrine of the party opposite, was at the root of all the commercial evils of the country. In the matter of Sugar, he denied that immigration could do anything to remedy the deficiency which existed in the market at the present moment. The only chance which remained was to excite a spirit of competition in the minds of the West India proprietors, by throwing open the market. It was the interest of the growers not to produce largely, but rather to obtain increased prices by keeping down the supply. Lord Elgin, the Governor of Jamaica, had said in one of his reports that he considered that if the proprietors were to put forth increased exertions they might produce half as much again as they did at present. This was, he thought, a fair statement of the case of the West India proprietors; but he hoped that the noble Lord, who expressed a hope that West India proprietors should go out and live upon their estates, did not mean to say that they should wait for any amelioration in this matter till those Gentlemen thought proper to do so. This was a question of right; and whether amendment in the supply was eventually to be obtained by means of immigration, or by the residence of proprietors upon their estates, he could see no reason why they should wait for an act of justice, namely, the equalization of the duties upon Sugar. He gave notice that he should endeavour by all means to obtain this measure of justice, and that he should give every possible opposition to a continuation of the present system of wrong and monopoly.

Viscount Sandon

regretted that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down should have thought it necessary to mix up with the discussion of a question of importance like the present, the little petty politics connected with the representation of Liverpool. He thought the hon. Gentleman might have spoken upon this great commercial question without raking up all the petty tattle, to be heard only in the worst society of Liverpool upon this subject, which was one almost of a personal nature. The charges which the hon. Gentleman now made he had made more than once before, and they had been more than once contradicted. The hon. Gentleman had charged him with having been elected by what the hon. Gentleman was pleased to call the venal portion of the population of Liverpool; and he had more than once informed the hon. Gentleman that he had been elected by a majority of the whole population of that town, and with that he was content. He was once told by the hon. Gentleman that he was not elected by the majority of the merchants of Liverpool: in answer to which he would appeal to the names of all the great mercantile firms connected with the Exchange and the Commercial Rooms, and who were ranked amongst his supporters. He had thus very briefly noticed these accusations—he trusted it would be for the last time, and that the hon. Gentleman would not again force before the House personal questions of this kind. Be believed, how- ever, on the present occasion, that the hon. Gentleman had been forced upon this line of debate, by the impossibility in which he found himself of answering the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, for a speech more satisfactory and more exhausting upon every branch of the question it would be impossible to conceive. It embraced the whole question, both in its commercial relations, and as it affected the question of humanity. The hon. Member for Manchester alleged that the alteration of the Sugar Duties would throw open an extensive market for our manufactures. On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade showed that even if they were to go so low as to leave a balance of only 2s. 6d. in favour of our colonial sugars, the cottons of Manchester would only be admitted into Brazil at a duty of 40 per cent. Nor was this a boon so great and so important to the manufacturers of Manchester that it was worth scrambling for, in opposition to a great principle of policy which had been adopted with the general consent of the nation. The hon. Gentleman challenged him (Viscount Sandon) to go down to his constituents at Liverpool, and tell them that he advocated the continuance of the present duties upon principles of humanity. Now he believed, that were be to do so, the result would prove that the opinions of the people of Liverpool were unchanged upon this question, and that they had a strong horror of the encouragement of the practice of slavery, in common with the majority of the community. The fact was, he believed, that the hon. Gentleman was in the habit of mixing in society of a peculiar character, and that he was led at last to believe that the noise and the buzzing which went on around him was the voice of truth. He believed, that the feeling of the great body of the people of this country was unchanged as to slavery, and that if they were appealed to on that subject at another general election they would unequivocally declare it; and he believed that that feeling was so deep-rooted, that mere considerations of pounds, shillings, and pence, would not induce them to sacrifice it. The proposition made by the noble Lord the Member for London, some two or three years ago, would have actually brought the price of sugar to within two or three shillings of what it was at present. Now, he asked, was it worth while to commit a great act of iniquity for the sake of so small a consideration? As to the present state of the market, the case was not so strong for an alteration of those duties as it was at the time when the right hon. Gentleman himself (Mr. F. T. Baring), as one of the Government thought it his duty to impose these very duties. The right hon. Member for Taunton had taunted him with the inaccuracy of his estimates upon this subject. But the fact was, that the right hon. Gentleman had attached much more importance to them than he had ever thought of doing. All that he had pledged himself to was, that the price should never become a starvation price; and he was fully borne out in this, for ever since the period when he spoke the price had been falling. He admitted, that the importations from the West Indies had exceeded his estimate, and he was glad to find it was so; and with proper management the importation might be still further increased. The fact was, that they had the choice between the immigration of free labourers into the West-India colonies or the importation of Sugars the produce of slave-labour into our markets, and he trusted that the feeling of the country would make no hesitation as to which to accept. He admitted, that the state of the Sugar-market was by no means satisfactory. He thought the price of 63s. an extravagant one; but still it was defensible at present upon the score of the abolition of slavery. Hon. Gentlemen might laugh at motives of humanity, but this was not the fashion some years ago. The question was, whether the admission of Brazilian Sugar would not be a boon and encouragement to the employers of slave-labour. He maintained, that it would be, and upon that ground alone he should be prepared to oppose this proposition.

Mr. Bright

said, that throughout the evening he had not heard any discussion of this question on its real merits, namely, the effect which it had upon the great body of the consumers of this country. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had tried to put the House upon a false scent, and had talked of the discouragement of Slavery, as if that was the great cause nearest their hearts. But it was somewhat a drawback to the force of these arguments, that the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, who had used them, was of a family which in former times had been connected extensively with the practice of Slavery. He meant to make no charge against any individual, nor as to any particular acts. He believed that nothing had been done by any of the Gentlemen of that family but what any person who had slaves was necessitated to do; but still the right hon. Gentleman and his family notoriously belonged to a party which had always supported the principle of Slavery, and had kept slaves as long as public opinion in this country allowed them. The noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, had spoken of the strong opinions entertained by his constituents in regard to this question. Now he recollected that the hon. Member for Evesham, who was sitting beside the noble Lord, had some time back delivered some lectures in Liverpool in support of the cause of Slavery, and that the only parties who supported him in that enterprise were those who supported the noble Lord at his election. He was aware that the Anti-Slavery Committee had sent some kind of memorial or report to the Government against the reduction of the duties on foreign sugars, but he knew also that in this course they had not been supported by many of the Anti-Slavery Societies in the provinces. The Hibernian Society, as well as the Societies of Glasgow, Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, Hitchin, Devizes, and many others, had dissented from the Central Society on that very ground, and the Society in consequence of this fatal error had fallen into complete helplessness. From his own experience, he (Mr. Bright), having visited almost every borough in England during the last few months, could safely say that anti-slavery notions would not be a bin. derance in the way of any Gentleman who came forward in favour of Free-trade opinions. He declared that he could only express disgust and amazement at the manner in which noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen spoke of the Africans in the Brazils, while entirely overlooking the famishing population in their own manufacturing counties and agricultural districts. Who were they who had scruples about the introduction of Brazilian Sugar into this country? Not the poor, but the rich; and yet the rich were amply fed out of the short supply of that article before the poor could obtain a share. If the President of the Board of Trade, or the noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, had no scruple to use other productions of slave-labour, how came it that they had a right, by reason of their conscientious scruples, to deny to five out of six of the population a supply of sugar, though coming from the Brazils? Treaties had been spoken of as between this country and the Brazils? Suppose the Brazilians would allow British goods to go into their country without any duty, what effect would that have upon the Government, or upon the Sugar question? They had already almost an open market with the Brazils. The Brazilian Government had done for this country almost everything they could do; they had placed only a duty of 15 or 18 per cent. upon British goods, and yet our trade with that country for many years past had been diminishing. The benefit of the existing Treaty had been destroyed by sacrificing the national good to class and selfish interests. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to the fact that the East Indies and the Mauritius would not long require protection, but that the West Indies would require it, because labour, from its scarcity, was so very dear. But the planters of Jamaica were themselves to blame for any scarcity of labour there. The climate of Jamaica was favourable to Negro population, and yet their numbers had, instead of increasing, greatly diminished. It had been stated, on good authority, that if negro emancipation had been postponed for fifty, years, under the treatment of the planters of Jamaica, not a single negro would now be in existence. The cruelty practised was so great, the fixed so bad, the labour so long and heavy and barbarous, and their sufferings so appalling—that the whole negro race would have been exterminated. Therefore he thought it was a bad argument, that because the negro population of the West Indies was diminished, the people of this country should be robbed of between four and five millions annually to support the sugar monopoly for the benefit of those Colonies—a monopoly that worked injuriously, not only to the consumers but to the trade of the country at large. But it was useless to argue this question. There could be no two opinions upon it that the West-India planters derived the same advantage from this monopoly which the landed proprietors of this country sought from the Corn Laws. Of this the right hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial Benches were as well convinced as he was. They knew that this was merely a question of self-interest, and the country knew it too. However the monopolists might have hitherto succeeded in deluding the people, yet the fact having at length been found out, they might depend upon it there was intelligence and virtue enough in the country to put an end, not only to this, but to every other monopoly by which the people were suffering. He remembered that in the debate on the late Irish State Trials, an argument was put forth by a right hon. Gentleman in justification of the manner in which the Jury was constituted, in this form:—The right hon. Gentleman said, that if he were to bring an action of trespass against a sportsman for galloping over his estate, could it be considered fair that the Jury should be composed of fox-hunters. Now, "You," said Mr. Bright, "have galloped over my estate—you have galloped over not only my interests, but over the interests of 500 or 600 persons I employ, and who are deeply concerned in the prosperity of the Brazilian trade; you have disregarded the vital interests of several hundreds of working men, by whose suffrages I am permitted to speak in this House. I am here, it is true, on my own account. I do not dispute it; but I am here also on their account, and I am pleading before you, not a fox-hunting Jury, but a monopolist Jury; and I am endeavouring to show you that myself, that my workmen, that my neighbours, and my constituents are oppressed by the system you support." Who denied this? The right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, did not say a word about it. He knew a great deal better. The right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) must have envied, proficient as he was in the art, the dexterous manner in which his right hon. Colleague evaded the real question at issue. I never heard so many words put together with so much smoothness, at the same time entirely avoiding the only question in discussion. What did it concern the people whether the Whigs or the Tories were the more culpable? It was not enough for the country that the present Ministers could prove that the Whig Ministry was as bad as themselves. The country did not return Members to that House merely for the purpose of ascertaining that the Whigs were no better than the Tories. No; they were returned for the purpose of discussing these great questions, and for the purpose of settling them without favour or regard to any partial faction or interest whatsoever. Now, you monopolists all hang together. You are discussing the question of Sugar tonight, but it is the same interest, whether it be Corn, Sugar, or Timber. [Colonel Sibtkorp: "Oh, oh."] I believe that sound came from the gallant Member for Lincoln. I met a large number of farmers at Lin- coln, and I asked one of them, who objected to the repeal of the Corn Law, what he would do with the Sugar Duties, supposing the Corn Law should be repealed? "Why," said he, "I would repeal it to-morrow." What! total and immediate? ""Certainly," said he, "total and immediate." I asked a sugar planter on the Ministerial side of the House, who was only a sugar planter, what he would do with the Corn Law if the Sugar monopoly were to be abolished? "Why," said he "sweep it away immediately." "What! total and immediate repeal?" "Yes; certainly." Thus it appears that neither of these interests really cares one straw for the rest, any longer than they all work together, and, therefore, I charge all the monopolists—whether of Corn, Sugar, Coffee, or Timber—with combining to uphold a most iniquitous system, regardless of the duties they owe to their constituents and to their country. And what—continued the hon. Member—was the condition of the country now? Was it a matter of indifference to the Government that our trade with Brazil should be any longer sacrificed? had they so soon forgotten that two years ago 200,000 working men came out of their houses in Lancashire asking this question of the Government, "What do you mean to do with us?" He (Mr. Bright) lived among them, and knew them well. He knew that it was by reason of their industry that the rents of the landholders had been doubled. Whenever distress existed in the manufacturing districts the revenue of the country declined. No state of agricultural prosperity ever yet maintained the revenue of the Kingdom, and unless the Government regarded those districts with a more favourable feeling, he could tell them that consequences would some day come, for which they would have received but a small compensation from the Corn Law or the Sugar Law. In addition to this there was Ireland. Could a great question like this, affecting as it did an extended and extending population, be discussed without taking into consideration the condition of Ireland? No doubt hon. Gentlemen would gladly forget that subject, but circumstances would not permit them. They must have the fact pointed out to them that there existed in Ireland two millions of people who were in the condition of absolute pauperism. This possibly was a matter of indifference to hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial Benches. He (Mr. Bright) could make great allowances, considering how they had engaged themselves during the recess, for their not being aware that two millions and a quarter of the people of Ireland were paupers. Now, the Brazilian trade was capable of employing a vast number of the population of Lancashire, and that population was very greatly increased by the people of Ireland, who were driven from their home by the brutality of the landlords of Ireland. He had at this moment many families in his employment, who could give horrible and appalling accounts of the circumstances under which they were driven from their country. With all that pauperism in Ireland—with a million of paupers in England and Wales—and with an enormous mass of poverty in Scotland—it was astonishing that a Government who professed to feel for the sufferings of the people would aggravate, instead of seeking to alleviate, those sufferings by still further depressing that trade which alone could afford them employment. The average wages of the agricultural labourers in many places did not amount to more than Gs. a week. Let the hon. Member for Dorsetshire get up and quote the statement from the pamphlet of the hon. and Rev. Godolphin Osborne upon that point. He (Mr. Bright) did not give them the authority of a Leaguer. The Rev. gentleman was no member of the League. He wrote "honourable" before his name, and therefore, it might be supposed that he was connected with the aristocracy; and he bore the title of "reverend," which showed that he was connected with an Establishment which was not particularly democratic in its tendencies, arid yet that gentleman thought himself justified in making public a most appalling state of things, existing amongst the agricultural poor of Dorsetshire. ["Question."] Question! Yes it would become a question indeed some day, if it was not already a question. It might be even now important that some steps might be taken to ascertain the cause of the deep-seated discontent in the agricultural districts. This discontent, this poverty, this lowness of wages, and the crime and outrage upon property dint existed in those districts were so great that the farmers were nearly all obliged to keep private watchmen on their farms and estates. Was it denied? Look at the newspapers. Did not almost every newspaper from the agricultural districts give appalling accounts of incendiarism, and did they not state that Mr. So-and-so was obliged to appoint persons to watch his property. Now, he maintained, that this terrible calamity of pauperism, want of employment, and destitution, existing in Ireland, and spreading through the agricultural and manufacturing districts of England, was chiefly owing to a want of trade arising from that system of monopoly which the House appeared to be determined to keep up. And for what? To protect class interests. But it was the business of that House to disregard those class interests, whether they were those of West-India planters or of landed proprietors: and if the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues had any sort of wish to be called Statesmen, and not the mere Ministers of a class—they would feel it to be their bounden duty to see why the great mass of the population of this country were so suffering and so injured, and if there were power and intelligence in the Representatives of the people to devise some measure by which a remedy for those evils might be adopted. Neither he nor the people had any interest in dear corn or dear sugar, neither had they any interest in dear cotton goods, for dearness is not necessary to good profits and wages. He was fully persuaded that those who maintained the existing system of monopoly wholly mistook their own interests as well as the interests of the country; and it was because he thought so that he should support the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere), and although a majority might now be against it, yet the Ministers of the Crown must not think that they were, therefore, in any way removed from the terrible and awful responsibility which rested upon them when they used to perpetuate a policy so injurious and unjust.

Mr. F. T. Baring

began by adverting to what had fallen from the noble Member for Liverpool (Lord Sandon) on the subject of a proposition made while he (Mr. Baring) filled the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer. With any remarks upon that proposition he should not trouble the House farther than to say that it was founded upon joint considerations of revenue and trade; he had been told at the time that it would be ineffective, from not making a sufficient reduction in the price of sugars to the consumer, but whether it would have been so or not, the Government had now the means of affording a reduction of duty on all Sugars, which the then state of the public, finances would not have allowed. There was, however, one point to which the House would give him leave to advert. It had been used as a taunt against the late Government that the Members of it had changed their opinion on the fitness of protecting colonial Sugar. To this he would reply, that the continuance of the Sugar Duties in 1840 was only a continuance of them for one year; and such was not only the intention of Ministers, but it was distinctly stated to parties representing the West-Indian interest—so much so, that he recollected that it excited a great deal of dissatisfaction, inasmuch as it was asserted that this short renewal indicated that the Government meant ultimately to deal with the question in the way of permanently reducing the protection. The noble Lord (Lord Sandon) had said that he had listened to the speech of the right hon. President of the Board of Trade with great satisfaction. He (Mr. Baring) had heard it with much pleasure from its fluency, its clearness, and the entire absence of irritating topics; but he looked back with anything but satisfaction to one part of the address. From the narration of the right hon. Gentleman he was grieved to learn that the result of the late negotiations had made the case hopeless for the future. The right hon. Gentleman had stated the proposition on the part of the Brazilian Government, and he (Mr. Baring) should probably have concurred in the opinion, that it could not have been accepted by Great Britain. What had been said, however, had left the impression on his mind, that the question had been dealt with at too late an hour. Some years ago, by dealing liberally with the great staple articles of Sugar and Coffee, a better feeling might have been produced in the Brazilian Government towards this country. He now saw, with the sincerest regret, that the Government of the Brazils was about to attempt that course of protection for rising manufactures which he was convinced it would not have pursued if a more liberal policy had been earlier adopted by this country. Never were two Empires better adapted for friendly commercial relations than Great Britain and the Brazils. He was not inclined to overrate the trade of the Brazils; but whatever might be its amount in the present state of our manufacturing interest, it ought not to have been neglected. The opportunity had been lost, and let the offers hereafter be what they might, he apprehended they would come too late. He had heard with satisfaction that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) entirely gave up the question of Sugar, in a commercial point of view, for he admitted that nothing could be more unsatisfactory than our position with regard to that commodity; but he (Mr. Baring) could not help recollecting, that in the resolution formerly brought forward by the noble Lord (Lord Sandon) the question of the supply of Sugar was also introduced. The question whether this country was sufficiently supplied with sugar, was one of great importance, and to it the right hon. Gentleman would, perhaps, have done well to address some part of his speech. He had watched the Estimates of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of the supply of Sugar, and although he would not go through the figures, which would be rather a dull process, he might be allowed to advert to some few of the results. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had favoured the House with a calculation applicable to several years, but as to the years 1841 and 1842 it was to be observed that the right hon. Gentleman had been mistaken to the extent of some 1,160,000 cwt., or above three months' consumption. This was no slight error; but with regard to the last year there was apparently some confusion in the report of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer but it seemed that on the whole three years, 1841,1842, and 1843, there was a deficiency of the promised supply to the extent of above 2,000,000 cwt. or full six months' consumption. It might, however, be urged, that it was of little consequence whether the Estimate were right or wrong, as long as the supply was adequate to the demand; but no man who had attended to the figures could doubt that the consumption of Sugar had been stinted by the smallness of the supply. He would take the average supply of the last five years; the quantity of colonial Sugar imported annually beyond the quantity consumed was only about two days' consumption; this fact of itself seemed clearly to establish that the demand was stinted by the shortness of the supply. That was not all—for the consumption must be compared with the amount of population. Would the right hon. Gentleman contend that the consumption of Sugar had kept pace with the increase of population? Would any roan acquainted with the habits of the people of Great Britain and Ireland, assert that the national consumption of Sugar at this moment ought not to have increased in comparison with 1831? When Mr. Huskisson brought forward his proposal on the Sugar Duties, he stated that there was a large mass of the poorer population of the three Kingdoms, which did not use Sugar at all, and such was evidently the case now, when it appeared from the returns, that while the consumption of tea and coffee had increased, the consumption of Sugar had not augmented in anything like the same proportion. The consumption of tea and coffee had each increased about 33 per cent. since 1831, while the increase in the consumption of Sugar in the same period was only 7 per cent. He would take an illustration from tobacco, in which trade there were loud complaints of smuggling and adulteration, and yet what was the result! In spite of smuggling and adulteration the increase in the consumption had been 17 per cent., while as he had before stated, the increase in the consumption of Sugar was only 7 per cent. In fact, every man who allowed himself to view the subject impartially must be convinced that the consumption of Sugar had been stinted by short supply, which short supply had been occasioned by monopoly. The topic of Slavery had been so constantly introduced into this question that it was hardly possible to avoid it; but he would ask, if, on the grounds urged by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) in relation to Sugar, it was possible to defend all the anomalies belonging to our system of trade? The importation of Copper, for instance, had been mentioned, and the right hon. Gentleman with his usual acuteness, had drawn a distinction in favour of Copper as compared with Sugar. The same ingenuity might, hereafter perhaps, establish some distinction between Brazilian and United States Sugar; but who would say that it was possible fairly and honestly to carry out the principles laid down as to Slavery and Sugar? He had listened to the right hon. Gentleman's case as regarded Copper with great attention, but how could the right hon. Gentleman maintain his own principles; for who would now say, when smelted copper was notoriously imported, that no copper from Cuba entered into the consumption of the country. In truth, it was impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to carry out his own principles; and the question, how far foreign countries would give Great Britain credit for perfect honesty of purpose, he had no great difficulty in solving, when he recollected how they universally held that in her proceedings regarding the Slave Trade she had been governed mainly by regard to her own interests. It would be imposible for the right hon. Gentleman to negociate with effect any commercial arrangements if the question of Slavery was to be a bar—how could the hon. Gentleman deal with any article, the produce of the United States, if it were necessary to make similar proposals as in the case of the Brazils. Almost the only commercial treaty the right hon. Gentleman had entered into was with Russia, and though slavery, strictly speaking, did not exist in that empire, still the system of serfs in Russia seemed almost to render it necessary upon his own principles, that the right hon. Gentleman should require of the Czar certain regulations to ameliorate the condition of the serfs. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he particularly objected to slavery in the Brazils, because it encouraged the Slave Trade, and be knew of no possible means of getting rid of the Slave Trade but by the abolition of slavery. According to the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) last year some immediate measures were required for the amelioration of the condition of the slaves, with a view to the ultimate abolition of slavery. He did not mean to speak with the slightest disrespect of those who, in this country, entertained a strong feeling on the subject of slavery. On the contrary, he entertained the highest admiration for the motives which influenced them; and it was the duty of every man to do his utmost to get rid of such a scourge to human nature. But was the proposed condition likely to produce the slightest effect? Supposing the Brazils had accepted the offer of Great Britain; suppose it had undertaken to introduce immediate measures for the amelioration of the state of the slaves with a view to the ultimate abolition of slavery, how would it be possible for this country to take care that the measures were carried into effect? It might be well to obtain treaties, and to procure the insertion in them of articles in themselves adequate to the end, but how could Great Britain make sure that the articles would be observed? Were they to leave it to the Brazilian government to take measures for the amelioration and ultimate abolition of slavery. Had we not an example? Our Treaties for the Abolition of the Slave Trade were perfectly adequate, why were they not effective? Because the slave-trade was encouraged by the authorities of the Brazils—we could not put it down without the honest co-operation of the Brazils? Did they suppose that a mere treaty with the Brazilian government would carry into effect a new arrangement, while we could not enforce stipulations already existing with all our exertions, with our armed steamers, with our cruisers, and with all our means? How, then, could they enforce any stipulation as proposed to the Brazils, were we to interfere? Was there seriously any intention of such a proceeding? Would they propose to send protectors of slaves to be established throughout the Brazils? Were there to be a minister and consul for the purpose of constantly bearing complaints in the Brazils on the subject of slavery, and carrying them to the government of Brazil? Would they propose to adopt a system so much calculated as that must be to promote quarrels, and hostility, and bad feeling towards England? Would that course, he asked, be called one that was at all likely to lead to an increase of the popularity of England in Brazil? But he would put a case to illustrate that. When we had in operation the system of slavery in the West Indies, would it be permitted that a foreign country should become the protector of that population, and by treaty give them a right to do so? Would it be permitted that they should have such privilege secured by treaty, and that they could constantly make representations to their Government, and complain of us that we had broken faith when we refused to do as they should ask? So strongly did he feel on the subject, that he believed if such a treaty were entered into on our parts as gave such a right of interference when slavery existed in our West-India colonies, it would have had the effect of uniting one of the most powerful feelings, namely, national pride, with slavery, and postpone for a considerable time, instead of advancing its total abotition. At that late hour, and seeing the hon. Member for Dover opposite apparently so anxious to express his opinions on the subject, he should not trespass longer on the attention of the House. He could not, in conclusion, refrain from expressing a hope that the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they saw that the Sugar Duties must be altered, would be wise in time, and that they would not in such case refuse a measure which might have been with more success introduced two or three years ago—that they would not postpone till too late adopting a course calculated to preserve and strengthen the relations between England and a most important country.

Sir R. Peel

Sir, I promise the House to make no observations not immediately bearing upon the question before the House, and I also promise the House to imitate the general tone and temper employed by the right hon. Gentleman who last discussed the subject. I will not even follow him in his criticism upon the failure of the Estimates of Chancellors of the Exchequer, which has become, by the way, rather a favorite subject of late with the right hon. Gentleman. Nor will I stop to inquire whether he be himself at all open to any recrimination. I hope all future Chancellors of the Exchequer may be as free as my right hon. Friend; for, indeed, I know no one to whom the right hon. Gentleman's strictures may more aptly be applied than to himself. Nay, don't challenge me to the proof, because I really do wish to imitate the general tone which this debate has taken. One word also, with respect to the observation of the right hon. Gentleman—that it was particularly unfortunate that we did not, some time since, adopt a more liberal policy with regard to the West Indies. The right hon. Gentleman repeated this statement three or four times. At first he dealt quite in generalities; but towards the close of his speech; when he began to warm, he became more definite, and fixed the period as "the last two or three years." If the right hon. Gentleman had given a little more space, and had said three or four years, so as just to have included 1840, it would have been much better. That was the year in which two right hon. Gentlemen opposite, offered a most strenuous opposition to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, and it might have been fairer to have included that year. With respect to the criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman upon the Estimates of the Supply, I would say, upon the whole, that I think he is hardly war- ranted in the statements which he made with respect to the diminished consumption of sugar. With the permission of the House, I will refer to the statistics; for if we were to determine without reference to figures in these matters of a financial and commercial nature, and were to indulge altogether solely in that which might excite the largest share of interest, I fear we should never come to a satisfactory result upon the question. Just let us look at what has been the consumption of sugar in this country. Take the quantity of sugar taken out and retained for home consumption, for that is the fairest way of judging. From the year 1837 the quantity was—

In the year 1837 3,954,767
In the year 1838 3,909,600
In the year 1840 3,592,518
In 1841, certainly, the quantity was increased to –4,065,724 cwt., but that was on account of the deficient consumption of the preceding year—a great impetus was given to the consumption of 1841 by the falling off in 1840. In 1842 the quantity was 3,876,343 cwt., and last year it increased to 4,045,105 cwt.; being a greater consumption than was ever known in this country at any former period, with the single exception of the year 1841, and the increase in that year is to be accounted for, as I have already said, by the deficient supply of the year preceding. But even in that year the consumption was only 20,000 cwt. more than it was last year. Therefore we have this fact before us, that in the year ending January, 1844, the consumption of sugar in this country was greater with one exception than in any year of any former period. At the same time particular estimates may have failed. We may have been wrong as to the supply from the Mauritius or the East Indies; yet, upon the whole, we have the fact of the greatly increased consumption of last year. Did that increased consumption equally increase the price? On the contrary, we find that
Per cwt.
In the year 1839 the price was 39s. 2d.
In the year 1840 the price was 49s. 1d
In the year 1841 the price was 38s. 3d.
In the year 1842 the price was 37s. 3d.
And 1843, the year of the greatest consumption, also coincided with the lowest price, for in 1843 the average price of sugar was only 34s. 1d. per cwt. In an- swer to the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman, then, we have these two ascertained facts—that in the last year we have the greatest consumption of sugar, and at the same time the lowest price. Now, I am bound at the same time to say that I do not think this at all conclusive against your increase of the consumption of sugar in this country. I am bound to admit that I think scarcely an article can be named the reduction of the price of which could add more to the material comforts of the population. I am bound to say, though as the consumption has increased, the price diminished, that forms no conclusive argument against a still greater increase of the consumption, in consequence of a still greater diminution of the price. At the same time I must ask hon. Gentlemen not to press as an argument against us that the supply has diminished and the price has increased, whereas the fact is, that the supply has increased and the price diminished. My statement is borne out by a comparison between the year 1842 and 1843. Of course, there has been a slight increase of population, but I have not taken remote periods. The right hon. Gentleman asks the House of Commons to vote an Address to Her Majesty, "representing to Her Majesty the great importance to this country of the trade with the Empire of the Brazils, and humbly praying Her Majesty to adopt such measures as may appear best calculated to maintain and improve the commercial relations between the United Kingdom and the Brazils." It is very extraordinary that the House of Commons should say, that one in particular of all the countries of the civilised world should be represented to Her Majesty as of great importance in respect to trade. I do not undervalue the importance of trade with the Brazils, though I think it is rather exaggerated. But why should the House of Commons select that of all countries in the world for the purpose of making an Address to Her Majesty? Has it any reference to recent negotiations? If it has, I decidedly object to it, because it appears to imply an approbation of the course Brazil has taken. What are the facts? The manufactures of England being introduced at a duty of 15 per cent the Brazils make this proposition:—"You shall not impose a duty upon our sugar when imported into England which shall exceed by one-tenth the amount of duty you levy upon colonial Sugar; that s to say, if you levy a duty of 10s. upon colonial Sugar, we protest against your levying more than 11s. upon Brazilian produce. But at the same time we demand that you permit us to raise the duties which are now levied upon British manufactures from 15 per cent. to 40 per cent." That is the proposal of the Brazils, and that proposal we have rejected. But if the House of Commons does not intend to take the Brazils abstractedly as a country most important, but to affirm that what the Brazils has proposed to us is reasonable and just, then I hope that the House will pause before it does anything that will sanction such a proposition. If there be an opportunity for negotiation between this country and Brazil, I should be sorry to say a word offensive to the Government of Brazil. I trust that better and more liberal feelings may exist; and I will not say a word which could by possibility check or counteract that feeling. But if you want to make Brazil unreasonable, if you want to induce Brazil in her negotiations to insist upon all that she has hitherto insisted upon, then you will pass a resolution which must have that practical bearing. But in what a position will you then place the Executive Government? I presume that the House is not going to take that step. But if the House of Commons thinks it wise to fetter the Executive Government with a resolution, with an Address to the Crown, which, if it means anything, implies an approbation of the course persisted in by one party, and that the adverse party, in what position shall we be placed? Will not the Brazils tell us, "You are fettered by a resolution of the House of Commons. Here is a resolution, not expressly stating, but certainly implying approbation of our course"? I earnestly advise the House to leave this matter in the hands of the Executive Government, and not to encourage the Brazils to persist in unreasonable propositions, and tie up the Government from acting freely according to circumstances. The House of Commons is invited to affirm this resolution upon various arguments, some of which have, I think, been effectively answered by my right hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman opposite warned the House in a solemn awl emphatic address, and drew a sad contrast between the conduct of Ger- many and England. He said, "See what a course the Zollverein has taken. There is your great competitor. Contrast the facility which the Zollverein gives for importations from Brazil with your system!" The right hon. Gentleman invited the House of Commons to vote for this Address upon the assumption that the Zollverein imposed a duty of only 15s. per cwt. upon Sugar imported from the Brazils. The answer of my right hon. Friend was —"You are wrong. The duty is not 15s. but 27s." The right hon. Gentleman talked of the Treaty recently concluded between France and Brazil. I know that a statement to that effect has been made, probably for the purpose of creating an effect in this debate this night; and the contradiction will perhaps have as little effect to-morrow. I can only state that, as the Minister of England, I cannot positively deny that such a Treaty has been signed in Paris; but this I know, that no notification of any such Treaty has reached this country, and that it is wholly unknown to the French Ambassador here. Those who recollect the difficulties of France on this question will be able to form an opinion upon this point. I must say that a bolder statement was never made by man than that of the Member for Manchester. He said—"I give you warning that the manufacturing and commercial classes will decide against you in imposing any discriminating duties on Sugar the produce of slavery and free labour. The Anti-Slavery Society is decidedly adverse to you. They condemn the whole system of intervention by force for the suppression of the Slave-Trade. Your armed steamers are odious; and we do not want to encourage morality by war." I had an idea that I should hear that argument brought forward; and if I had been asked to name the man who would adduce it I should have named the hon. Gentleman. Now, here is a document which I myself received from the Anti-Slavery Society within the last month—and I hope the hon. Gentleman will permit the Anti-Slavery Society to speak for itself. It runs thus:— The Committee of the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society deem it their duty at the present moment to lay before you their sentiments in relation to a subject intimately connected with the great object of their pursuit—the extinction of Slavery, and tile consequent cessation of the Slave Trade throughout the world. I am perfectly ready to admit, that a part of this communication confirms the statement of the hon. Gentleman, that the Society is not in favour of armed means to suppress Slavery, and I will read the passage which bears upon it:— As for armed intervention and treaty stipulations, all experience shows that without having effected, and without holding forth any promise of effecting, the abolition of the Slave Trade, they have immeasurably aggravated the ferocity and destructiveness of it." "Under the influence of these considerations," (it goes on), "the Committee present their definite and earnest request to you, Sir Robert, as the head of Her Majesty's Government, that a measure may be prepared for admitting free-grown produce from all parts of the world into the British market, on the same terms as the produce of British possessions. It concludes by saying— In any event, however, the Committee cannot but desire that no relaxation of existing duties on the produce of slave-labour shall be allowed. It is enough, the Committee think—it is far too much—that Great Britain now does by her unparalleled commerce to sustain and foster this gigantic evil, and it is time that her course was in the opposite direction; but, at all events, it may be hoped that this country will be spared the dishonour, and the world the misery, of any further aggravation of this horrible system by our means. This is a communication from the Anti-Slavery Society, which, the hon. Gentleman told the House of Commons, was much too wise to seek to inculcate morality by means of discriminating duties between the produce of free labour and that of slave labour. [Mr. Gibson: I do not admit that that Committee represents the sentiments of the Anti-Slavery Society.] I thought the hon. Gentleman left an impression on the House that the Anti-Slavery Society objected to discriminating duties. Well, all I will state further upon this document is, that it bears the venerable name of Thomas Clarkson. I very much doubt whether the Anti-Slavery Society would disclaim the sentiments expressed by him, and, I apprehend, expressed on behalf of the Anti-Slavery Society. I do not say that those opinions ought to be binding on the Legislature. I do not mean to attach more weight to them than they deserve. But I protest against the hon. Gentleman quoting the authority of the Anti-Slavery Society in support of his views, when I prove upon the authority of the Anti-Slavery Society that their views are entirely opposed to his. The right hon. Gentleman who brought forward the present Motion, says, it is an indication to us to make a declaration on the subject of the Sugar Duties. If that was his object, why did he not express it? If his object was to recommend a reduction of the Sugar Duties, why did he not speak out? why had he not resolution enough to say so? Had he done so, I admit that I should not have considered myself entitled to accept of the invitation. I should not have considered it my duty to enter into a detailed consideration of our relations with Brazil, or anticipated a discussion which may properly take place when the subject comes again before the House; the right hon. Gentleman having given notice, that unless we consent to place the duties on Brazilian Sugar and Sugar the production of Cuba on precisely the same footing as that on colonial Sugar, he will offer opposition to every stage, to every line, to every word of the Sugar Duties Bill. I do not apprehend that in that course he will receive the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite, for in their last proposition they established a discriminating duty between Brazil and colonial Sugar. The right hon. Gentleman thought that prohibition ought to be avoided. He thought the prohibition much too high; but I did not hear him contend then, or since, that there ought to be no distinction between Sugar the produce of our colonial possessions and Brazilian Sugar. I ask what could be more injudicious than to propose the same rate of duty on the produce of foreign countries, where the Slave Trade is practically and notoriously carried on, as on the produce of our own possessions where we have abolished slavery? As for the Government wishing to protect a monopoly, I fully admit that the Government and the Legislature, so far as individual interests are concerned, have a perfect right to deal with this question of Sugar; but where we have a Colonial Empire I don't think we ought to be called upon to disregard all the social considerations which are connected with the subject. The hon. Member may say that there is only one question to be decided, namely, the interest of the consumers, or whatever will tend most to cheapen the price of Sugar; but I doubt whether that is the most economical view of the subject. I doubt whether, disregarding all considerations, being reckless of all consequences, and supposing your course to involve nor Colo- nies in distress and anarchy—I doubt whether you can release yourself from the moral obligation imposed upon you, or whether by the adoption of that course you would be consulting a true economy. To say that the interest of the consumer is to be alone attended to, opens a very grave question; and I will say to the hon. Member for Durham that if his principle be good, we should have made no effort whatever for the extinction of slavery; because if you revive slavery in your own possessions you will have Sugar cheaper. If cheapness be the only object, why do we go to an immense expense for the purpose of enforcing the observance of Slave Treaties? or why do we not allow our own Colonies to import slaves? When they did so, Sugar was cheaper than at present, and you were not only enabled to supply this country, but had a surplus. To say then that the consideration of cheapness and the interest of the consumer is alone to be attended to is an impeachment of every act you have hitherto attempted with a view to extinguish the horrors of slavery and of every shilling you have expended in the prosecution of that object. We are now about to adopt a different plan for the extinction of the Slave Trade. We admit to the Anti-Slavery Society that our efforts have hitherto been in a great measure unavailing, and that whatever force you may station on the coast of the Brazils, even though it should remain there, it is nevertheless difficult to prevent the landing of slaves by thousands and tens of thousands: for the authorities connive at it, self-interests are too powerful, and the Treaties are not fairly executed. It has been suggested to us by Captain Denman, whose exertions are entitled to universal thanks, and whose suggestion is founded upon his own local experience of the coast of Africa—that without increasing our force we may act much more efficaciously for the suppression of the Slave Trade than we are doing at present. What he proposes is to establish a blockade of the whole of that part of the Western Coast of Africa from which slaves can be taken, in order that a constant guard be kept upon that coast. He as well as some local authorities gives it as his opinion that by withdrawing from the coast of the Brazils and the West Indies, a considerable portion of the force now employed there, and stationing it on the coast of Africa, by having steamer at the months of rivers, and by visiting every part of the 600 miles of coast—their opinion, and my confident belief is, that by this course we shall be more successful in suppressing the Slave Trade and preventing the evils and horrors of the passage, than by any course that has hitherto been tried. That experiment we are about to try, and God grant it may succeed. I trust the House of Commons will be influenced by higher and more honourable feelings than those expressed by the hon. Member for Durham. Looking to the course which we have pursued, at the sacrifice we have made in taxing this country with 20,000,000l. for abolishing slavery in our own dominions, I do trust that this House is not prepared to follow in the wake of that hon. Gentleman, and to admit the proposition, that every shilling that has been expended in mitigating this great moral evil, has been unjustifiably expended, or that we ought to look at no other consideration than what the price of Sugar is to the consumer. There was a time when persons of that hon. Gentleman's persuasion —for the honour of the persuasion I say it—when the members of that persuasion would not have uttered such sentiments. Nay, I am perfectly certain, that there was a time when they would, to a man, have disclaimed such a doctrine. Last year we passed an Act prohibiting the employment of British capital for the production of articles in which slave-labour was concerned, and to prevent a British subject so employing capital from recovering any debt that might be due to him. We are now about to try a great experiment to prevent the spread of slavery in Africa; but if you are prepared to admit Brazilian Sugar into consumption in this country, pass what laws you please respecting British capital, you will at once have a great aggravation of the evils both of slavery and the Slave Trade. The hon. Gentleman says, that we cannot guarantee that the Brazils will act upon our regulations; but I think I can suggest a mode by which much may be done towards the ultimate extinction of slavery. Suppose the Brazils consented that after a certain day all children of African negroes born in that country, should be free—suppose they consented that some means should be taken, by a mixed commission, for instance, for the purpose of insuring the enjoyment of that privilege to those actually so born, or suppose the commercial privileges granted by us depended on their adherence to this regulation—supposing these things, it is surely not impossible to conceive modes which might lead to the extinction of slavery, without that constant, perpetual, and vexatious interference with the domestic legislation of another country, which I fully admit is open to great objection. Sir, I shall forbear troubling the House any further at present. Opportunities will arise for a further discussion of the subject, not merely on the Sugar Duties, but I am bound to say, it may be discused when the time arrives for a general view of the financial state of the country, without waiting for the expiration of the Treaty or its renewal. When my right hon. Friend brings forward the Budget, he will declare to the House his intentions with regard to the Sugar Duties. I shall at present abstain from all reference to that point, wishing, with my right hon. Friend, that no inference may be drawn from my present silence, reserving to the Government entirely the power of taking its course with respect to those duties as with regard to any other duties; but this I will say, that, as the existing treaty with Brazil will expire in the course of November next, I do hope the House of Commons will by a large majority, negative a proposition which can have no other effect than to encourage the Brazils to demand from us concessions which we believe to be unreasonable, and to prevent us from exercising that unfettered control which the Executive Government ought to have in negotiations with other nations.

Viscount Palmerston

said, it was not his intention to detain the House long in discussing the question, which, he thought, had been brought by hon. Gentlemen on the other side within a very narrow compass. But he must, in the first place, vindicate his hon. Friend, the Member for Durham, from the unjust attack of the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Baronet imputed to the hon. Member for Durham, that the line of argument he had used proved that he was insensible to the cause of humanity in reference to the Slave Trade—that he dwelt only on the economical advantages which would be conferred on the country by abating the price of Sugar 1d. per pound, and that he no longer entertained those sentiments which he and those belonging to the Society of Friends had heretofore professed on the subject of slavery. He (Viscount Palmerston) appealed to the House whether anything which his hon. Friend had uttered could justify that imputation. If the Government were as sincere in their desire to suppress the Slave Trade, as he was persuaded the hon. Member for Durham was, its extinction would be effected sooner than was at present probable. The right hon. Baronet had been pleased to pay an ironical compliment to his right hon. Friend, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, upon his ability in framing Estimates; but the compliment might be well returned by his right hon. Friend, because his right hon. Friend could not attempt to compete in this respect with the right hon. Baronet; but to return to the question. As he had before said, it had been put on very narrow ground, because all those hon. Members who had spoken from the Treasury Benches had abandoned the financial argument. The right hon. Baronet said, that the consumption of Sugar might be greater in one year than in another; but even the right hon. Baronet had not contended that the supply from our Colonies was as great as the consumption of the country demanded, or that our consumption was as great as it would be if more facility were given for the exchange of foreign Sugar for British commodities, by which the trade of the country on the one hand, and the comforts of the lower classes on the other, would be greatly extended This was the position advanced by his hon. Friends, and he was not going to add anything to the conclusive arguments which had been advanced by them. But the question had been reduced by the Government to a question of negotiation. He stated on a former evening, that in the Speech from the Throne, in the beginning of 1842, the Government departing from the usual custom by which negotiations are seldom adverted to unless they are terminated by treaties, had announced, that they were negotiating with several Powers, and that they trusted those negotiations would end in arrangements that would tend to increase the commerce of the country. He stated on that occasion, that they had never heard with what Powers those negotiations had been carried on, nor what had been the result thereof; but it now appeared that the negotiation with the Brazils was one of them; and he should certainly like to hear, on a fitting opportunity, what the others were. This negotiation with Brazil, to be sure, had not been conducted either with great success or dexterity. The right hon. Gentleman who had answered his right hon. Friend at once, as it appeared to him, threw over as advantageous, those treaties which were termed tariff conventions. He seemed to aquiesce in the opinion of his right hon. Friend that such arrangements were difficult of accomplishment, and that it was better to confine ouselves to more general treaties. Stipulating fur reciprocal equality in regard to duties on navigation, and placing the contracting parties respectively on the footing of the most favoured nation. But the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had throughout the whole of his speech argued the matter as if the object of the Government had been to obtain with Brazil, a Tariff Treaty and a Tariff Treaty alone; upon this material question, therefore, the Members of the Government seemed to entertain very different opinions. It was stated that the government of the Brazils had made some very unreasonable proposals. He thought the proposals stated by the right hon. Gentleman as having been made by Brazil, were unreasonable terms, and such as the Government were right not to accept; but if the late Government had been allowed to go into a negotiation with the Brazils in 1841, upon the footing on which the Government of that day meant to negociate and proposed to the House to enable them to negociate, it was not assuming too much to say, that they could have negotiated on much better terms, and they would have found the Brazilian government in a better temper for entering into a Treaty than it was now, after so long a delay. At that time, the existing Treaty had three years to run; but the Brazilian government knew now that it would expire in November next, and it is obvious, that on that account, they were more likely to have negotiated on reasonable terms then than now. He could only say, that although the late Government were not furnished by Parliament with the means of going into any detailed negotiation with the Brazilian minister in this country, yet judging from the language of that minister, he thought that if the British Government had then been able to hold out a fair prospect diet the prohibitory Duties on Brazilian produce would have been reduced, the Government of Brazil was not indisposed to enter into just arrangements, as between the two countries. But when last this question was discussed, between the present Government and the Brazilian Envoy, the British Government appears to have made the commercial arrangements depend upon the prospective abolition of the condition of slavery in Brazil. It was argued last year by the Government, that it would be improper to admit Sugar, the produce of slave-labour; but now they shifted their ground, and it was not the Abolition of Slavery, but the suppression of the Slave Trade, at which they aimed. He was willing to meet them on that ground. What this change of position might indicate as to their future measures he would not inquire; if it was to be a step towards the relaxation of the restrictions on trade, he should be glad; they did not state what their intentions were, but perhaps those who had heard them might be able to form some shrewd guess on the subject. But the course pursued by them in their late negotiation was not consistent with their present argument. Their object is now stated to be to make the admission of Foreign Sugar conducive—not to the abolition of slavery, but to the suppression of the Slave Trade, and yet the proposition which they made to Brazil did not touch the Slave Trade; but was intended to effect an ultimate abolition of slavery—for they proposed that the government of Brazil should enact some municipal law, which should improve the present condition of the slave, and should also lay the foundation for his future emancipation. Still they said, that this proposal was consistent with their present argument, because they asserted that any Measure which laid the foundation for the future abolition of slavery, must tend to diminish the Slave Trade. This would be true, whenever, by such means the condition of slavery would be abolished, but in the intervening time the effect would be just the reverse. For let the House suppose for argument sake, that the Brazilian government had agreed to those terms—what would be the effect of this upon the Slave Trade? Their reason for refusing to admit Brazilian Sugar was, that if Brazilian grown Sugar was imported into this country the increased demand would give encouragement to extended cultivation, which could only be carried on by a greater importation of slaves, and thus a stimulus would be given to the Slave Trade. Now, this consequence would equally have followed even if the Brazilian government had agreed to the terms demanded by the present government. He would admit, that if they could abolish the condition of slavery, the Slave Trade would necessarily cease; but supposing the Brazilian government had agreed to the perspective measures proposed by the British Government—within what period does any man imagine that slavery would have ceased to exist in Brazil? Why the youngest person now breathing would probably not have lived to see the day. And what during that interval would have been the effect produced on the Slave Trade? Why necessarily to increase it. For within the whole interval between that time and some remote period when slavery should be abolished in the Brazils, would there not have been annually an enormous increase in the importation of slaves for the extension of Sugar cultivation? Therefore, he said, on their own showing the proposition of the Government was absurd. He was supposing that the Brazilians had not only agreed to the proposal, but had executed it bonâ fide; but what right had they to suppose that? What was their arguments about the Slave Trade? They said they had by Treaty from the Brazilian government, with regard to the Slave Trade, almost every condition that they could ask for its suppression. The first article of the Treaty of 1826 between this country and the Brazilian government for the suppression of the Slave Trade, said that from that time it should not be lawful for any Brazilian subject to engage in the Slave Trade, and that any Brazilian subject having so engaged should be deemed and treated as guilty of piracy. If the Brazilian government had performed the engagements they had entered into with this country, could any reasonable man believe that the Brazilian Slave Trade would not long ago have ceased. If the Brazilian government had dealt with the Brazilian Slave Trade as piracy, it was childish to suppose that it would not long since have been put down. But if the Brazilian government violated their Treaty engagements in this way, could there be any reliance placed on any local arrangements for the administration of Brazilian law for the gradual abolition of the condition of Slavery, from which the right hon. Baronet seemed to suppose such advantages would result. One of the conditions of the Treaty which he had just referred to was, that slaves captured on board slave-ships, and taken into Rio Janeiro, and con- demned by the mixed Commission, should be free. Had this condition been fulfilled? Quite the contrary. It was notorious to all the world, that thousands of slaves thus emancipated by the mixed Commission at Rio Janeiro, and whom the Brazilian government was bound by Treaty to protect and maintain in a state of freedom, were as much slaves as those furtively introduced into the Brazils. Therefore, when the Government stated as an objection to letting in Brazilian Sugar, that by doing so it would be lending encouragement to the Slave Trade, and yet asserted that they would have let it in if the Brazilian Government had promised to enact some internal regulations with respect to the treatment of slaves in Brazil, he said, that such a line of argument was utterly valueless, and was a mere pretence set up for refusing to let Brazilian Sugar come into the markets of this country, and was one which any reasonable man should treat with scorn and ridicule. The fact was, that with all this apparent zeal against the Slave Trade and slavery, the real reason and ground of objection was a desire to favour those who were the active supporters of the Government; it was a wish to obtain and secure the support of the West-India interest, which was the real ground of objection to the extension of trade which this admission of foreign Sugar would produce. But they had been told, that, having colonies, this country should not deal with them with too rough a hand, by the enactment of measures which might be good in themselves, but which might have an injurious effect on the social condition of the colonies. This was an argument which was urged over and over again against the propositions here made for the abolition of the Slave Trade, and afterwards was repeated on the question for the Abolition of Slavery. In the latter case this argument was urged with a stronger appearance of reason than it could be in the present case, for it was contended, that by the Abolition of Slavery, a large population of uneducated persons was to be let loose on society who were not prepared for freedom, and who, by their unruly turbulence, might disturb the internal tranquillity of the colonies. But Parliament did not listen to such an argument; and was the House now to admit the principle that foreign sugar should not be admitted to the markets of this country, because the competition that would arise therefrom might be disadvantageous to our colonies? Why, surely after this country had paid such an enormous sum for the emancipation of the slaves in the British West-Indian islands, it was entitled to all the advantages which would result from the trade which would be created front the abolition of the prohibitive duties on foreign sugar. He, therefore, said that the question could not stand on the ground on which the Government wished to place it, and that the conditions which had been demanded from the Brazilian government were perfectly nugatory on the showing of the right hon. Baronet and his Colleagues. The only ground on which they proceeded was, the perpetuating the Sugar monopoly; for the line of argument which they used to justify them in refusing to let in foreign Sugar, was no more than declaring that this monopoly should be everlasting. If they were to wait until they could induce the Brazilians to abolish slavery, and the Slave Trade, he would venture to say that no person who was then a Member of that House would live to see the day when foreign Sugar would be admitted into the home markets of this country. The fact was, that the Government was very liberal in their speeches and in the enunciation of principles, but when they were called upon to put their professions to the test, they fell back on their old prejudices. They told the House that the principles of free-trade were the principles of common sense—that the only sound principle of commerce was to buy in the cheapest market, and to sell in the dearest; but when they were urged to apply this principle, even in a modified degree, to corn and sugar, they fell back on the prejudices of the monopolists, upon whose shoulders they came into office, and on whose support they depend for a continuance of that power which they employ so little for the welfare of the country, and they refuse to adhere to the principles which they had so ostentatiously put forth. The right hon. Baronet had made one objection to the Motion of his right hon. Friend, with respect to which he had no doubt but that on consideration his right hon. Friend would be willing to accommodate himself to the wishes of the right hon. Baronet. The Motion of his right hon. Friend was, "That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, representing to Her Majesty the great import- ance to this country of the trade with the Empire of the Brazils, and humbly praying Her Majesty to adopt such measures as may appear best calculated to maintain and improve the commercial relations between the United Kingdom and the Brazils." Why, asked the right hon. Baronet, pick out the Brazils for this purpose? Why do you by making such a selection, encourage the Government of that country to resist a Tariff Treaty which the Government intended to propose to them. Now, he was sure that his right hon. Friend would meet the right hon. Baronet half way on this point, and if it would remove the objection of the right hon. Baronet to this Motion, he had no doubt that his right hon. Friend would generalise his proposition, and would thus remove this ground of complaint. The Motion of his right hon. Friend would then be "That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty representing to Her Majesty the great importance to this country of the trade with 'all foreign states,' and humbly praying Her Majesty to adopt such measures as may appear best calculated to maintain and improve the commercial relations between the United Kingdom and all other countries in the world." He was sure, that if this alteration of the Motion would be satisfactory to the right hon. Baronet, his right hon. Friend would cheerfully agree to such an Amendment, and would receive it with pleasure, as coming from the Treasury Bench.

The House then divided on Mr. Labouchere's Motion: Ayes 132; Noes 205: Majority 73.

List of theAYES.
Acheson, Visct. Carew, hon. R. S.
Aglionhy, H. A. Cave, hon. R. O.
Ainsworth, P. Chapman, B.
Aldam, W. Clay, Sir W.
Arundel and Surrey, Earl of Colborne, hn. W.N.R.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E.
Bannerman, A. Collett, J.
Barclay, D. Craig, W. G.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T. Dalrymple, Capt.
Barron, Sir H. W. Dennistoun, J.
Bellew, R. M. Divett, E.
Berkeley, hon. C. Duff, J.
Blake, M. J. Duncan, Visct.
Blake, Sir V. Duncan, G.
Blewitt, R. J. Duncannon, Visct.
Bowring, Dr. Duncombe, T.
Bright, J. Dundas, Adm.
Brocklehurst, J. Easthope, Sir J.
Brotherton, J. Ebrington, Visct.
Browne, hon. W. Ellis, W.
Busfield, W. Elphinstone, H.
Butler, P. S. Evans, W.
Ewart, W. Pechell, Capt.
Fitzroy, Lord C. Philips, G. R.
Forster, M. Protheroe, E.
Fox, C. R. Pulsford, R.
Gibson, T. M. Rawdon, Col.
Gisborne, T. Ricardo, J. L.
Gore, hon. R. Rice, E. R.
Greenaway, C. Roche, E. B.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. Ross, D. R.
Grosvenor, Lord R. Scholefield, J.
Guest, Sir J. Scott, R.
Hastie, A. Scrope, G. P.
Hatton, Capt. V. Smith, B.
Hawes, B. Smith, J. B.
Heyter, W. G. Standish, C.
Heathcoat, J. Stanley, hon. W. A.
Hindley, C. Stanton, W. H.
Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J. Stewart, P. M.
Holland, R. Stuart, Lord J.
Horsman, E. Stuart, W. V.
Howard, hn. C. W. G. Stock, Mr. Sej.
Howard, Lord Strickland, Sir G.
Howard, P. H. Strutt, E.
Howick, Visct. Tancred, H. W.
Hutt, W. Thornely, T.
Labouchere, rt. hn. H. Towneley, J.
Langston, J. H. Trelawny, J. S.
Lascelles, hon. W. S. Tuite, H. M.
Layard, Capt. Turner, E.
Lemon, Sir C. Vane, Lord H.
Leveson, Lord Villiers, hon. C.
Macaulay, rt. hn. T.B. Vivian, J. H.
Mangles, R. D. Wakley, T.
Majoribanks, S. Wall, C. B.
Marshall, W. Wallace, R.
Mitchell, T. A. Warburton, H.
Morris, D. Ward, H. G.
Morison, Gen. Wawn, J. T.
Muntz, G. F. Wilshere, W.
Napier, Sir C. Worsley, Lord
Norreys, Sir D. J. Wrightson, W. B.
O'Connell, M. J. Wyse, T.
O'Ferrall, R M. Yorke, H. R.
Palmerston, Visct. Hill, Lord M.
Parker, J. Tufnell,
List of the NOES.
Acland, Sir T. D. Boldero, H. G.
Acland, T. D. Borthwick, P.
A'Court, Capt. Botfield, B.
Adderley, C. B. Bradshaw, J.
Allix, J. P. Bramston, T. W.
Antrobus, E. Broadley,
Arbuthnott, hon. H. Bruce, Lord E.
Arkwright, G. Bruges, W. H. L.
Bailey, J. Buck, L. W.
Bailey, J. jun. Buller, Sir J. Y.
Baillie, Col. Burrell, Sir C. M.
Baillie, H. J. Cardwell, E.
Bankes, G. Castlereagh, Visct.
Baring, hon. W. B. Charteris, hon. F.
Barrington, Visct. Chetwode, Sir J.
Bell, M. Chute, W. L. W.
Bentinck, Lord G. Clayton, R. R.
Beresford, Major Clive, hon. R. H.
Berkeley, hon. G. E. Codrington, Sir W.
Blackstone, W, S. Collett, W. R.
Crompton, H. C. Inglis, Sir R. H.
Copeland, Mr. Ald. Jermyn, Earl
Cresswell, B. Jocelyn, Visct.
Cripps, W. Johnstone, H.
Darner, hon. Col. Jones, Capt.
Darby, G. Kemble, H.
Denison, E. B. Knatchbull, rt.hn.SirE.
Dickinson, F. H. Knight, H. G.
Dodd, G. Law, hon. C. E.
Douglas, Sir H. Lawson, A.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Lefroy, A.
Douglas, J. D. S. Legh, G. C.
Douro, Marquis of Lincoln, Earl of
Duffield, T. Lindsay, H. H.
Dugdale, W. S. Lockhart, W.
Duncombe, hon. A. Lowther, hon. Col.
Duncombe, hon. O. Mc Geachy, F. A.
Du Pre, C. G. Mackenzie, T.
Eaton, R. J. Mackenzie, W. F.
Egerton, W. T. M'Neil, D.
Eliot, Lord Mahon, Visct.
Emlyn, Visct. Mainwaring, T.
Escott, B. Manners, Lord J.
Estcourt, T. G. B. Marsham, Visct.
Fellowes, E. Martin, C.
Filmer, Sir E. Marterman, J.
Fitzmaurice, hon. W. Maunsell, T. P.
Flower, Sir J. Maxwell, hon. J. P.
Follett, Sir W. W. Meynell, Capt.
Fox, S. L. Mildmay, H. St. J.
Fuller, A. E. Miles, P. W. S.
Gardner, J. D. Miles, W.
Gaskell, J. Milnes Milnes, R. M.
Gladstone, rt.hn.W.E. Mundy, E. M.
Gladstone, Capt. Neeld, J.
Glynne, Sir S. R. Neville, R.
Gordon, hon. Capt. Nicholl, rt. hon. J.
Gore, M. Norreys, Lord
Goulburn, rt. hn. H. O'Brien, A. S.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J. Ossulston, Lord
Granby, Marquis of Pakington, J. S.
Greenall, P. Patten, J. W.
Greene, T. Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Gregory, W. H. Peel, J.
Grimston, Visct. Pennant, hon. Col.
Grogan, E. Plumptre, J. P.
Hale, R. B. Polhill, F.
Halford, H. Pollington, Visct.
Hamilton, G. A. Pollock, Sir F.
Hamilton, W. J. Praed, W. T.
Hampden, R. Pringle, A.
Hanmer, Sir J. Pusey, P.
Harcourt, G. G. Rashleigh, W.
Hardinge, rt.hon.Sir H. Reid, Sir J. R.
Hayes, Sir E. Rendlesham, Lord
Heathcote, Sir W. Repton, G. W. J.
Herbert, hon. S. Richards, R.
Hervey, Lord A. Round, C. G.
Hinde, J. H. Round, J.
Hodgson, F. Rous, hon. Capt.
Hodgson, R. Rushbrooke, Col.
Holmes, hn. W. A'C. Russell, J. D. W.
Hope, hon. C. Ryder, hon. G. D.
Hope, A. Sanderson, R.
Hope, G. W. Sandon, Visct.
Hornby, J. Scarlett, hon. R. C.
Hughes, W. B. Scott, hon. F.
Hussey, T. Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Shirley, E. J. Trotter, T.
Sibthorp, Col. Vivian, J. E.
Smith, A. Waddington, H. S.
Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C. Walsh, Sir J. B.
Smollett, A. Wellesley, Lord C.
Somerset, Lord G. Wilbraham, hn. R. B.
Stanley, Lord Williams, T. P.
Stewart, J. Wodehouse, E.
Stuart, H. Wood, Col.
Sutton, hon. H. M. Wood, Col. T.
Tennent, J. E. Wortley, hon. J. S.
Thesiger, F. Yorke, hon. E. T.
Thompson, Mr. Ald. Young, J.
Tollemache, J. TELLERS.
Trench, Sir F. Clerk, Sir G.
Trevor, hon. G. R. Baring, H.

House adjourned.