Sitting of 13 August 1846

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1°. Sunday Trading; Income Tax Deduction.
Reported. Public Works and Fisheries; British Possessions; Turnpike Roads (Ireland); Ejectments, &c. (Ireland).
3°. and passed. Drainage of Lands; Religious Opinions Relief.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Wakley, from Parochial Authorities of the Parish of Saint Luke, Middlesex, for the Adoption of Measures for promoting the Due Observance of the Sabbath.—By Mr. Entwisle, from Owners of Houses and Cottages in the Township of Everton, in the Borough of Liverpool, against the Rating of Tenements Bill.—By several hon. Members, from various places, for the Abolition of Naval and Military Flogging.—By Mr. Hume, from Herman Eugene Falk, for Inquiry respecting the Hull Trinity House.—By Mr. Hollond, from Paul Thomas Lemaitre, Hammersmith, complaining of Sufferings and Hardships from Imprisoment under the Habeas Corpus Act, and praying for Redress.—By Mr. Wakley, from Samuel Millard, Medical Resident Proprietor of a Licensed House at Whitchurch, near Ross, in the County of Hereford, for Alteration of Law respecting Lunatics.—By Mr. Wakley, from several Physicians and Surgeons, in favour of the Medical Practitioners Bill.—By Mr. Wakley, from Inhabitants of Stoke Newington and its Vicinity, against the Enrolment of the Militia.—Mr. Hume, from Inhabitants of Winterton, in the County of Norfolk, for Alteration of the Poor Law.—By Mr. John Henry Vivian, from Guardians of the Poor of the Swansea Poor Law Union, in the County of Glamorgan, for a Superannuation Fund for Poor Law Officers.—By
678
Mr. Smythe, from Manufacturers of Gunpowder, respecting the Interference of Railways with Gunpowder Works.—By Mr. Hume, from James Sedgwick, Esquire, Barrister at Law, for Inquiry.

BRITISH POSSESSIONS BILL.
On the Motion that the House resolve itself into Committee on the British Possessions Bill,
MR. GOULBURNsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House to the principle which was involved in the Bill before them. Hitherto the trade of our Colonics had been always regulated by the British Parliament; but in this Bill there was a departure from that principle. Before the House passed such a Bill, they ought to know why the usual course of proceeding was departed from. According to the present mode of proceeding there was an uniform rate of duty passed on all articles coming from foreign countries. Not only had the British Parliament hitherto retained the right of which he had spoken; but it also retained the right of appointing the places where foreign ships should trade with them—that was, it appointed certain ports for that purpose, which were called free ports. This Bill proposed, instead of having the duty imposed by a British Act of Parliament, to give to certain Colonics the power of imposing a duty on foreign goods coming from foreign countries. This was, as he conceived, a very inconvenient course. No one, after what had passed that Session, could refuse to admit the necessity of lowering the duties in those Colonies; but the question for the House was, whether that was to be done by the provisions of a British Act of Parliament extending to all the Colonics; or whether the Colonies should have a discretionary power to do so in their colonial assemblies with the consent of the Crown, and superseding the authority of a British Act of Parliament; or whether in giving them that power they would act wisely in regard to the future regulations of their colonial system? In his own opinion, many inconveniences would arise from the course now proposed to be adopted. They wished to give relief to these Colonies; but he did not think they would effect the desired remedy as well by the proposed Bill as they could by a British Act of Parliament. For instance, the Government here might decide that the Colonial Assembly had not taken that view of the subject which was for their own advantage and for the benefit of the Empire at large, while the Colonial Assembly might take another view of the matter,

679
and there would be by this no power to alter their determination. All that the Crown could do was to say yes or no to the decision of the colonial legislature. Thus, then, he inferred there did exist some necessity for further consideration of this subject; for great delay—not only delay in the imposition of those duties, but delay in sending back measures to the Colonics, and of having the colonial legislatures to reconsider the determination at which they had originally arrived — would certainly arise, and thus the relief which they desired to afford the Colonics must be delayed for a very long period. Let them suppose that a colonial legislature proposed one duty on goods from America, and another duty on goods from other places, they would soon find themselves involved in dissensions with foreign countries, and that too under the most disadvantageous circumstances. The Foreign Office must be placed in the very embarrassing position of being obliged to defend different duties imposed by different Colonics on the goods of the same foreign country. And how were they to avoid it? He was sure they ought to have kept in their own hands all that related to the intercourse of the Colonies with foreign countries. He was convinced the course they were about to pursue would be the means of deferring that relief which the Colonies required, and which they, he believed, intended should be immediate; and he was also afraid that it would involve them in serious discussions with foreign countries with respect to colonial trade, and even with the Colonies themselves. This, he did say, was a point to which the attention of the House should be directed. They were here called upon to give up the great imperial principle that the trade of the Colonies ought to be regulated by the Legislature of the mother country. If they passed this, the Colonics might have a claim as to the retention of the jurisdiction of this country on other matters, when once we had abandoned this. The House would find, in deciding on this question, that it was closely connected with our navigation laws. The Colonies might hereafter make a claim that these laws should not be dealt with by the British Parliament alone, but that they should also be enacted by the colonial legislatures. He feared the time might come when the colonial assemblies would lay claim to the right of interfering with our navigation laws, and of not allowing these laws to act in a manner which
680
they conceived to be injurious to their interests. They might find it difficult to make distinctions as to the duties to be imposed, and the ships which brought articles on which duties were to be imposed. The House, as he thought, was entitled to an explanation from Government, why it was they departed from the course which had been hitherto adopted—a departure which would, he feared, he attended by great inconvenience hereafter.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERcould assure the right hon. Gentleman, that he was not insensible to the inconvenience that might result from the operation of the Bill before the House; but the right hon. Gentleman must bear in mind the circumstances under which the Bill was introduced. He believed it might be better on the whole to regulate the trade of the Colonics in the same way as it had been done before; but it was impossible to have any communication with the Colonies with a view to the alteration of the import duties; and thus they would have been depriving them of a portion of their revenues without any notice being given them, taking away those ways and means on which they had a right to calculate, without preparing them for it by any intimation. It was thought better, therefore, to leave this matter in their own hands, especially as the Queen's consent was necessary to the carrying of any Acts which they might pass. There could not, however, be the least doubt that it would be desirable in all cases that the regulations of those duties should lie with the Colonies themselves. There were at the same time many obnoxious regulations affecting the trade of one Colony with another which ought to be abandoned. They had differential duties among themselves which were highly objectionable. Nothing, for example, could be more inconvenient than that the Colony of New South Wales should have differential duties on articles of produce between that Colony and Van Diemen's Land. It might be desirable in the course of the next Session to introduce a Bill to put matters of this kind on a sound and proper footing, though he did not think it was possible to do so during the present Session. In the mean time the Colonies ought, without delay, to be relieved from the import duties to which they were exposed. They should not be exposed to protection against them, while protection in their favour was taken away. He thought, in reference to any inconvenience

681
that might arise from the present course, that it would be in the power of this country to take care that no undue consequences should spring from it.
MR. WARBURTONsaid, he objected to this Bill because it was not a temporary measure, but a measure to enable the Colonies to impose duties which would last permanently. He did say that the House ought not to part with the important power which the Imperial Legislature was supposed to possess; and he thought the British Parliament could certainly make better regulations on these subjects than small local legislatures.
MR. HENLEYobserved, that the present was a very instructive discussion. They had here the principal mover in the cause of free trade, whose principles had been carried by the aid of those hon. Gentlemen opposite, expressing very great alarm about the navigation laws. He believed the right hon. Gentleman was quite right in that alarm—those laws were in imminent danger. The Colonies might not think it right to employ British shipping, when they could have foreign shipping to carry their goods; and if this Bill passed, they would be very likely to impose a countervailing duty on British shipping, and to send home their sugars and other articles in Russian ships. It was, in his opinion, of great importance to this country that the House should not give up its control over the acts of the colonial legislatures.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that there might arise under this Bill certain regulations between the Colonies with respect to trade which would become of a permanent character. Those regulations might assume a permanent form, and come at length to assume the character of vested interests, not that the colonial body could hope for much consideration under the present system. Still, in his opinion, they would be giving up a great advantage if they allowed their Colonies to deal with foreign countries, as if each were a separate State, and that too without the knowledge of or taking into consideration its relations with other Colonies attached to the British Crown.
MR. HUMEwished that the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government would consider how far the Bill before the House interfered with the rules laid down as to the regulation of our Colonies. The principle of legislation in the Imperial Parliament, as to the Colonies, ought to be
682
uniform. He objected to see the power of that House interfered with by any other authority. He wished them to observe that various custom-house officers whose services might be dispensed with, were now kept up by means of the various Colonial Acts. There was no less than 575,000 l. levied under the heads of those duties at present. That money was all spent in the Colonies; and in addition to it, this country had to pay 24,000 l. to support the establishment necessary to impose such duties. Thus the whole of this large sum of money went to the Colonies. He really wished the noble Lord would postpone the Bill until Monday next, in order that he (Lord John Russell) might look to the evidence taken by the Committee on Colonial Expenditure, in reference to this subject.
LORD J. RUSSELL: The hon. Member for Montrose seemed to differ from the hon. Member for Kendal. The hon. Member for Kendal said it would be very inconvenient to have legislative power in the hands of different colonial legislatures; while the hon. Member for Montrose wished to have that power given to the Colonies. He wished to describe what he conceived to be the state of the law to which the hon. Member had adverted, if it were attempted to make one colonial possession contribute to the expenses of the mother country—to contribute to our army, navy, and fortifications, by duties to be levied on the Colonies. It was that which led to the resistance of the United States of America; and Parliament, in consequence, passed an Act after that event, by which it declared that all duties which might be levied in future in the Colonies, should be applied, not to any purposes of the mother country, but to the purposes of the Colonies themselves. That was as he understood it, and the observations of his right hon. Friend. The question next occurred, whether, having given up that right, Parliament should interfere with respect to the trade of the Colonies. He differed very much from the hon. Member for Kendal, who said we ought not to allow any considerable power to the Colonies to regulate their trade with respect to their own washes; while the right hon. Member for Cambridge thought the House ought, as hitherto, to regulate those matters by an Imperial Act. With respect to that subject, he should feel very great difficulty in legislating that Session. The Parliament had adopted a general principle, that they should not enact differential duties,

683
that they should not impose duties on foreign productions more than on colonial productions, nor on colonial more than on home productions; but, in doing so, they were not altogether consistent, inasmuch as they did, for the sake of revenue, make certain alterations in duties on various articles. The hon. Member for Kendal ably and warmly, as he usually did, supported the proposition that there should be a duty of 15 s. charged on foreign timber, instead of the existing of 25 s. That approached a protective duty in favour of home-grown timber over foreign-grown timber, and in favour of colonial timber also. Again, with respect to silk. The House imposed an ad valorem duty of 15 l. per cent on the productions of the manufactures of foreign countries. He thought they were perfectly right in doing so. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Kendal as regarded the timber duties, and he agreed with the House in the Resolution they had come to respecting the silk duty; but he thought that having taken the liberty of establishing free trade as a general principle, and of making certain exemptions in the application of this principle for the sake of revenue, we ought to treat our Colonies as we would wish to be treated ourselves — that we should, in the first place, not keep up any protective duty which the Colonics may think unnecessary and injurious; and that we should not, on the other hand, deprive them of those duties which they may think necessary to keep up for the purposes of their revenue. He had before him a list of the articles the duties on which it was proposed to allow the Colonies to repeal or retain; and here he might observe that the whole power which they gave the Colonies was to repeal duties already existing; they did not give them any power of enacting differential duties, or of imposing duties on British goods which they did not at present possess. Here were the articles to which he had alluded:—Glass manufactures, silk, and spermaceti, 15 per cent; cotton manufactures, linen manufactures, woollen manufactures, leather, 7 per cent; oil and gums, 15 per cent; articles not enumerated, 4 per cent. Now, he had stated in reply to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, that with respect to the duty on provisions, there would be no difficulty in taking it away altogether. At the same time, he did not feel that it was a question of any urgency; for by all accounts there was plenty of provisions in the Indian Colonies.
684
But as to the other duties, he avowed that if the House had now to reconsider or to re-enact their old established protective duties, he thought much difficulty would be found to exist in certain cases. He might say—"Here is a protective duty on British goods; do not retain it, take it away." But the Legislature of the Colonies might say, "True, this is a kind of protective duty; but it adds to our revenue; and we cannot allow it to be removed." Not knowing the sentiments of the Colonics on those matters, he, therefore, thought it fair to give those Colonies the power of dealing with these duties as they thought fit, with a reservation to the Crown of a controlling power, by which means a multiplicity of duties would be avoided, while it was also in the power of the Government at home, through the Colonial Secretary, to direct the Governor of the Colony to explain to the Colonial Assembly what were the views and principles of that Government. He thought, as regarded the present occasion, that the best way was to give our Colonies as much power as possible—to treat them as ourselves; and if there were any uniform system of duties, to let it be established by the Colonics. But he did not say, as the hon. Member for Kendal did, that all our Colonies were ignorant of the principles of trade, and that, therefore, we ought not to let these foolish notions as to their own interests have any influence over us; and he was willing, in general, to allow the Colonial Government to manage their own affairs, under these general regulations of trade on which Her Majesty's Government wished them to proceed.
House went into Committee. Bill passed through Committee.
House resumed. Bill to be read a third time.

IRON WAR STEAMERS.
MR. WAWNasked the Secretary to the Admiralty "how many iron war steamers are being built? Also, whether any experiments have been tried as to the effects of cannon shot upon iron vessels; and if those experiments have been satisfactory or not? And whether the Government intend to persevere in the building of iron war steamers?"
MR. WARDreplied, that there were now sixteen iron steamers in commission, including the Dover mail packets; four iron steamers were built, but not in commission, including the Birkenhead of 1400

685
tons and 556 horse power; and seven more iron steamers, including the Simoom of 1953 tons and 780 horse power, were now building by contract. With regard to the second question of the hon. Member, "Whether any experiments have been tried as to the effects of cannon shot upon iron vessels, and if those experiments have been satisfactory or not?" he begged to state that one experiment, and one only, having been tried, it would be highly improper in him to pronounce an opinion at present as to the effects or the probable effects of that experiment on the employment of iron steamers for purposes of war. What had been done, however, was quite sufficient to make the Government cautious in giving any fresh orders as to the building of new iron steamers; and he could assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing had yet been resolved upon with regard to persevering in their construction.

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN THE ARMY.
MR. ESCOTTrose to move—
"That there be laid before this House a Return of Persons flogged in the Army in Great Britain and Ireland, in the years 1845 and 1846 to the end of July; specifying the offence; the regiment, the place of station, the time; the sentence; the order for its execution; whether the trials were open to the public, or only open to the regiment, or with closed doors; the number of lashes inflicted, and the day; how soon after punishment the man was able to return to his duty, and at what place he was then quartered; whether death has fallowed within twelve months of the fogging, and the date of such death; whether the punishment was inflicted, if in cavalry regiments, by the trumpeter or farriers; if in infantry regiments, by the privates or drummers, and with what instrument; together with Copies of the surgeon's minutes of all such punishments, and any subsequent observations on their consequences."
The hon. Gentleman observed, that it had been stated that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War (Mr. F. Maule) had objections to granting the returns in their present shape. What those objections were he (Mr. Escott) was not aware; and he should like to hear them stated, in order that he might decide on the course he ought to adopt. He was inclined to pay all due consideration to any objections of the right hon. Gentleman, if they were well founded, and would be the last to press upon their attention any subject in opposition to objections well founded on the part of the Government. It might be thought, perhaps, that the investigations that had recently taken place, and the modification of corporal punishment
686
which, had just been introduced, might render such returns unnecessary; but these circumstances induced him to suppose that the information he asked for was more than ever necessary. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman would tell him publicly what his objections to the Motion were, he would take them into consideration, and if he deemed them sufficient he would withdraw it; but without such a statement he should feel it to be his duty to act upon his own opinion, which was, that the information contained in these returns was absolutely necessary.
MR. F. MAULEhad hoped that after the debate which had recently taken place on this disagreeable subject, it would not have been again referred to during the present Session of Parliament. He thought that the House might place full reliance on the statements which had been made by his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) and himself, that corporal punishment in the army should not only undergo considerable diminution, but that such punishments would be very rarely inflicted, and that they would be very closely watched by the medical and other authorities. He (Mr. F. Maule) would have no objection to consent to a return of the number of cases in which corporal punishment had been inflicted in the army during the years 1845 and 1846; the names of the persons punished, the number of lashes to which the offenders were sentenced, and the number actually inflicted. The hon. and learned Member asked, however, for the order for the execution of the sentence. Why, every order for the execution of a military punishment proceeded from a court martial, the sentence was passed by a court martial, and the punishment was inflicted under the direction of the officer whose duty it was to carry that sentence into effect. The hon. and learned Gentleman also wished to ascertain whether the trials were open to the public. He (Mr. F. Maule) believed a court martial was as much an open court as any other court of justice. He had been informed, upon competent authority, that a court martial was an open court; and, therefore, he presumed parties wishing to be present at any trial by court martial would not be excluded therefrom. The court was an open court, and would, of course, be conducted with open doors. The hon. Member also asked for a return of the number of lashes inflicted, and the day. He (Mr. F. Maule) did not see how a return of that kind, de-

687
scending to such minute particulars, could be of any use to the House. The hon. Member also wished to ascertain "how soon after punishment the man was able to return to his duty, and at what place he was then quartered?" He (Mr. F. Maule) did not precisely understand the meaning of this clause of the Motion. He could understand the meaning of the words, "how soon after punishment the man was able to return to his duty;" but he did not precisely know what to understand by the words, "at what place he was then quartered." Did they refer to the place where the punishment was inflicted, or the place where the regiment or detachment was quartered when the man returned to his duty? The hon. and learned Member also wished to ascertain whether death had followed within twelve months of the flogging, and the date of such death. He (Mr. F. Maule) confessed he did not think that a fair requirement. Suppose a man who had received corporal punishment in January, died in December, was it meant to be inferred, though he might have died from some disease with which his punishment had no connexion, and though the case had not been investigated by a coroner's jury, that he had been put to death in the army—that his death had been occasioned by corporal punishment? He (Mr. F. Maule) knew there was a notion abroad that corporal punishment might occasion death even after the lapse of twelve months; but he believed that was an erroneous impression. The hon. and learned Member for Winchester also wished to know whether the punishment had been inflicted in cavalry regiments by the trumpeters or farriers, and in infantry by the privates or drummers, and with what instrument. He (Mr. F. Maule) believed the practice in infantry regiments was, that the punishment should be inflicted by the drummers, and in cavalry regiments by the farriers. With regard to the instrument, they all knew what the instrument was. If there had been any irregularity in the army on this subject—if the instruments had not been made with particular care, and upon the same pattern, that irregularity could be most easily remedied. The hon. and learned Member also asked for copies of the surgeons' minutes of punishments, and any subsequent observations on their consequences. Now, he (Mr. F. Maule) considered, that if such surgical observations and details were not particularly demanded in courts of justice, they ought
688
to be regarded as confidential communications with the commanding officers of the regiments. He believed it would be almost impossible to lay these details before the House; he thought their production would interfere to a great extent with the maintenance of discipline in the army; and, so far as he was at present advised, be could not consent to produce them. He must repeat that he did not consider the whole of these returns necessary for the information of the House. He thought the House could repose confidence enough in the Commander-in-Chief of the army, and in the Government, to feel assured that every possible care would be taken that the infliction of corporal punishment, so long as it might be requisite to retain it in the British army, did not go further than it was intended it should go, namely, that it should be a simple infliction of punishment, leading to no future consequences, care being taken to guard against any permanent injury to the health of the individuals upon whom it was inflicted. He (Mr. F. Maule) felt it his duty to oppose the Motion, with the exception of the three clauses to which he had referred; and he begged to move the omission of the words; after the word "sentence" to the words "the number."
MR. HUMEhad in his possession a circular, stating for what offences corporal punishment might be resorted to; and he therefore considered that the House ought to have full information on the subject, or they would not be in a situation to judge whether the punishment had been justly inflicted.
DR. NICHOLLbegged to submit to the House, whether it was necessary to call for such an invidious return as a statement of the regiments, the place of station, and the time when these punishments were inflicted. He thought if the House had before them a return of the total number of lashes inflicted, and the sentences of the courts, that was all that was necessary to enable them to form an opinion as to the manner in which the discipline of the army was carried on. He thought that a return of the regiments in which this punishment had been inflicted, would throw an invidious stigma on particular officers, who would not have the means of affording any explanation to the House or to the country.
SIR HOWARD DOUGLASconsidered that a return of the regiments in which corporal punishments had been inflicted, would be exceedingly odious, and disadvan-

689
tageous to the service. He had entertained the hope, that, after the satisfaction evinced by the House the other night at the termination of the debate on this subject, and after the declaration which had since been made by a noble and illustrious individual in another place, the hon. and learned Member for Winchester would not have brought forward his Motion. He thought the House must see that the odious system of corporal punishment was fast falling into disuse in the army. He had before stated in the House that in proportion as we succeeded in elevating the moral condition of the soldier, and promoting his comfort, corporal punishment, without being absolutely abolished, would be less frequently inflicted. He believed, however, that in active service this punishment could not altogether be dispensed with. Having been for a quarter of a century a general officer, and entrusted with the command of a regiment for twelve years, he could state that corporal punishment was never resorted to when it was not absolutely necessary; never on a first conviction, nor till all minor punishments had failed; and he could assure the House that its infliction gave a degree of pain to the officers of the army, which was the best guarantee that it was not recklessly or unnecessarily awarded. He was glad to perceive so liberal a spirit pervade the House, for improving the comforts and the condition of the soldier; and to make the service more attractive, many measures were now under consideration of the military authorities, and had been recommended by them to this effect, but which had not been carried into effect on account of expense. He could not avoid specifying one, which required to be remedied, and that was the severity of colonial service. Our army consisted of one hundred and twelve battalions, of which seventy-five were at present on foreign service; and such had been the calls of those, that it had been found impracticable, for some years past, to observe the arrangement proposed by the military authorities, either as to the duration of foreign service, or the period fixed for home service of at least five years. In consideration of these exigencies the strength of the army was increased last year; but since then, fresh and unexpected demands from abroad had been made; and the strength of the army was more inadequate than ever to the services it had to perform. With respect to the Motion of the hon. and learned Member, he thought
690
that specifying the names of regiments and other details called for in his Motion, would occasion invidious comparisons, and other impressions prejudicial to the service; he should, therefore, vote against the Motion, and hoped the hon. and learned Member would not press it to a division.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, there was no objection to a return of the number of lashes inflicted; but he thought, if the regiments in which corporal punishment had been inflicted were particularized, invidious comparisons might be made. Such comparisons would be very unjust; for no one who had looked into the reports on this subject could have failed to perceive, that though a regiment might at one time be kept in very good order without corporal punishment, yet that under other circumstances punishment might be necessary for the maintenance of discipline. Colonel Macgregor had stated, that for a number of years he commanded a regiment in which scarcely any corporal punishment was inflicted; but, when the regiment was joined by a number of recruits from the worst parts of some towns in Scotland, it was necessary to make some very severe examples. Now, if a return of the regiments were agreed to, cases of this kind might lead persons to entertain a very unfavourable opinion of particular officers. If it was the opinion of the House that that portion of the return would lead to invidious comparisons, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would consent to omit the clause.
MR. WAKLEYconsidered that these returns, in the altered form suggested by the right hon. Secretary at War, would be useless; and he regretted that the Government should refuse to accede to the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Winchester. That refusal, however, spoke even more eloquently than the returns themselves could do, for it was not a refusal without a motive; and in his opinion it would be found extremely inconvenient to grant the returns moved for by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He believed that if those returns were granted, they would exhibit facts which would, more than anything that had been stated, satisfy the House and the country that the odious, disgusting, and brutal practice of flogging ought at once and for over to be completely abolished. He inferred from the tone of the hon. and gallant Officer who had addressed the House, that he (Sir H. Douglas) believed that the practice of flogging

691
had nearly approached its termination. The hon. and gallant Officer evidently considered that it was a very disgusting practice, and that it ought not to be continued without the most paramount and uncontrollable necessity. But that gallant Officer considered that they ought to retain the power of inflicting fifty lashes. Why, when the power of inflicting 1,500 lashes existed, the officers of the army did not admit that it would be safe to diminish the number. When the number was reduced to 1,000, although the officers rejoiced at the reduction, they still did not admit that it could be carried further. When the number of lashes to be inflicted by a general court martial was reduced to 200, the officers of the army rejoiced that the state of the troops permitted such a diminution of punishment; but they yet retained the opinion that the number could not be further reduced. The Government, much to their credit—and in spite, he believed, of great opposition and strong feeling in certain quarters—had announced that the Commander-in-Chief had reduced the maximum number of lashes to be inflicted to fifty; but he (Mr. Wakley) had heard it intimated that it would be necessary, if not to inflict those fifty lashes, at least to retain the power of doing so; and he had heard it said that—except in very rare instances—that punishment would be fully inflicted. Now, leaving out of view the physical danger which arose from the infliction of that amount of punishment, and the physical torture it must cause, he would ask, if there was not just as much moral degradation, and debasement, and brutality, in the infliction of fifty as of 1,500 lashes? His opinion was, that the soul-breaking, the spirit-destroying effect of the punishment was exactly the same. Had hon. Gentlemen ever seen the outstretched limbs of a man about to undergo this punishment extended on a ladder—resembling a rack? Had they seen human beings standing over such a man while his limbs were restrained, so that he was scarcely able to exhibit the horrible torture he was enduring, and inflicting a punishment which hon. Gentlemen would not inflict on the lowest brute in their service? Why, the degradation of receiving fifty lashes was just as deep, and might be just as permanent, as soul-destroying, and as spirit-breaking, as if they inflicted 1,000 lashes on the man. He (Mr. Wakley) hoped the next announcement the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) made to the House
692
would be, that this punishment was abolished, and abolished for ever. Indeed he was satisfied from the manner in which the noble Lord and the Secretary at War had spoken on this subject, that they were both opposed to the practice of flogging, and that they only consented to its retention under the conviction, which was entertained by persons of great experience and of high authority, that it was a practice of undoubted necessity. He had no objection to give to the Secretary at War the name of a surgeon, who, having resided at Hounslow for many years, was prepared to state it as his deliberate conviction, from what he had seen and heard, that no man had lived one year who had received, with full force and effect, 150 lashes. Fifty lashes with a cat o' nine tails, containing nine knots in each thong, and consequently giving eighty-one inflictions on the skin at every stroke, could not be administered without danger to life; and whatever the penetration, sagacity, or skill of a surgeon might be, it was utterly impossible for him, with any degree of certainty, to state what amount of corporal punishment might not be attended with danger to life. This punishment was inflicted under an Act of Parliament which passed that House annually, and therefore the House was competent to deal with the subject. He was willing to admit that there might be inconvenience in discussing the subject; but the discussion was forced on the House by the continuance of the practice. There appeared to be a feeling in the House that the particular regiments should not be specified in the return; but he thought that to be absolutely necessary. If it appeared that one regiment was frequently flogged, while in another there was no flogging, it was the bounden duty of the House to inquire into the cause of the difference. He was informed that, in one regiment, there had been no flogging for twenty years. It was due, then, to the commanding officer of that regiment, and to the privates (for the fact was creditable to both), that that regiment should be known, and therefore he thought that the particular regiments should be specified in the return. In reference to that part of the return which required a statement of the fact whether a party had survived the flogging for twelve months, he admitted that the mode of expression was objectionable, because it seemed to lead to the inference, supposing the party died, that there was a connexion between the death and the flog-

693
ging. Such an inference ought not to appear on the face of the return; but all that the hon. Gentleman required was, that the fact might be correctly stated, though no medical man would deny that a man might die one year after an injury inflicted on the skin, and the death be traceable to that injury. He believed that the practice of corporal punishments might be dispensed with by adopting a different system in the army—by giving higher pay to the soldiers, which he should be most willing to vote for, and by making the soldier feel that he was also a citizen. Under these circumstances he felt bound to vote for the return.
MR. WARBURTONsaid, it appeared to him that no part of the return was half so important as No. 8, which required a statement "whether death had followed within twelve months of the flogging, and the date of such death." When they inquired respecting the health of a colony, they required a report of the number of deaths in it; and so in respect to the practice of flogging, he trusted that the Government would grant the information required by that part of the return he had referred to.
MR. C. BULLERsaid, that there was no wish to withhold information; but the Government objected to grant a return calculated to mislead the public. Parts of the return moved for were so worded that they would lead palpably to the most erroneous inferences. With respect to No. 5 in the return moved for, he could state that it was a general rule of law that courts martial, whether general, district, or regimental, were open to the public, except during the period of deliberation. He agreed that there ought to be some general rule regulating this system of punishment, and he believed that measures were taken by authority to the effect that the instrument inflicting the punishment, should be in accordance with some fixed regulation.
MR. C. BERKELEYconcurred with those who thought that if the whole return were granted, erroneous inferences would be produced; and he denied the assertion of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wakley), that when the number of lashes allowed to be inflicted was 1,500, the officers of the army declared against a less amount. The officers of the army never maintained such a doctrine; but their doctrine was—and it was a correct doctrine—that the discipline of the army never could be carried on
694
without occasionally resorting to corporal punishment.
MR. M. GOREsaid, that reference having been made on a former occasion to the opinion of that distinguished officer Sir C. Napier, he wished to state that that opinion had not been correctly explained. It was true that in one part of his work Sir C. Napier admitted that in time of peace it might be possible to abolish flogging, though it must then be done gradually, and with extreme caution; but in another part he stated that it was necessary in time of war. He (Mr. M. Gore) thought the great point was to educate the soldier and improve his character by rewards for good conduct and other means, and then, possibly, this species of punishment might be abolished.
MR. ESCOTTsaid, that if it was the law that courts martial should be open to the public, all that he wanted to know by one part of his return was that the law was properly carried into execution. As to that part of the return which was to state whether death had followed within twelve months, the very cause of all this stir was the verdict of a jury that in one case death had so followed, and that a man had suffered capitally who was only sentenced to be whipped; the information asked for related to a most important point, and there was no necessity that any unwarrantable inferences should be drawn from such a return. Then as to the copies of the surgeon's minutes, it was said they were confidential communications; but the surgeon was under no oath or imperative call of duty to withhold the information if the House of Commons called for it. However, he would not divide the House, but take as much as he could get, and hope for the rest next Session. He begged to say, with regard to the suggestion that the House ought to put confidence in the Government as to this matter, that he was disposed to put confidence in them; but in withholding this information, as well as in some other courses to which they scorned addicted, they were destroying the confidence of the House and of the country; he told them so in no unfriendly spirit, and they would hear more of it before long.
CAPTAIN POLHILLwas of opinion that the power of inflicting this punishment must be retained; in case of mutiny or insubordination on a march, for instance, it could not be dispensed with. He begged to deny the position that it degraded a man, and rendered him unfit for service;

695
he had known an instance where it turned one of the worst and most drunken soldiers, one of the latest on parade, into one of the host men in the regiment. The illustrious Duke, the Commander-in-Chief, had said he hoped to live to see the day when this punishment should be altogether discontinued; he (Captain Polhill) could express no better wish for the noble Duke than that he might really live till then.
The Motion, as amended, by leaving out the words in italics, was agreed to.
House adjourned at Seven o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a. Commons Inclosure (No. 3); Drainage of Lands; Wreck and Salvage.
2a. Deodands Abolition (No. 2); Sugar Duties (No. 3); Court of Common Pleas; Militia Pay; Patent Commission; Forms (Assessed Taxes).
Reported. Mandamus (Ireland); Adverse Claims (Ireland); Highway Rates; Loan Societies; Turnpike Acts Continuance; Stock in Trade; Copyhold Commission.
3a. and passed. Grand Jury Cess Bonds (Ireland); Prisons (Ireland); Books and Engravings.
Received the Royal Assent. Consolidated Fund; Art Unions.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Guardians of the Cambridge Poor Law Union, for Repeal of Lunatics Act and Lunatic Asylums and Pauper Lunatics Act.—From Guardians of the Milford Union, for Relief from the Outlay connected with the Erection of Workhouses.—From Hunstanton, against the Sugar Duties Bill (No. 3).—From Titchmarsh, against the Poor Removal Bill.

LAW OF ARREST.
LORD DENMANhaving presented several petitions for the abolition of judicial oaths,
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he wished to call the attention of their Lordships to the grievances to which foreigners were now exposed by the state of the law, and the manner in which oaths were allowed to be taken in this country. He would simply state the facts of the case to which he was about to refer, and then beg their Lordships to provide some remedy for the necessity. A gentleman of great respectability, a foreigner, Mr. Ouvrard, with whom he had the honour of being intimate, and who was also an intimate friend of his noble Friend the gallant Duke who now generally sat on the cross benches, and also of his noble Friend Lord Ashburton, and of his noble Friend the Earl of Lonsdale, on his journey from Strathfieldsaye, where he
646
had been on a visit to the noble Duke, to the seat of his noble Friend the Earl of Lonsdale, was arrested a few days ago by a person in the situation of a pewterer, a maker of pewter pots; but who pretended that he was a civil engineer. Now Mr. Ouvrard had been, as many noble Lords were aware, connected with transactions to the amount of between 30,000,000 l. and 40,000,000 l., and without his aid we could not have effected the subsidies with France, nor completed the last peace in the years 1817 and 1818; but the person who arrested him stated that he (Mr. Ouvrard) owed him 1,000 guineas—a round sum of 1,000 guineas—for work and labour as an engineer; and that he had sworn that he was about to quit the country. The fact, however, was that Mr. Ouvrard had taken the lease of a house for six or eight months, and part of the work and labour charged against him was for surveying those same premises. The pewterer had the audacity to swear that Mr. Ouvrard owed him 1,000 guineas for the work he had surveyed. The affidavit was laid before the Lord Chief Baron, who thought fit, without any further inquiry, to issue an authority for a warrant, under which Mr. Ouvrard was, on Wednesday week, arrested and taken to a lock-up house in Chancery-lane, where he (Lord Brougham) saw him. The Lord Chief Baron endorsed the writ for the full amount of 1,000 guineas, without the least inquiry, beyond the affidavit, as to that sum being due, and it might as well have been endorsed for 10,000 l. Indeed, a capias was once issued against his friend Mr. Mondizabel for 150,000 l., and as bail would have been required for three times that amount, he must have gone to prison had he not avoided the writ by flight. Mr. Ouvrard remained in custody at the sponging-house from the Wednesday to the next Monday, when he filed an affidavit peremptorily denying that he was going abroad, or that his niece had so stated, and declaring that he was going to Westmoreland. Application was made to the Judge at chambers; and he (Lord Brougham) would have thought that, as a matter of course, Mr. Ouvrard would have been discharged from custody at once; but the Chief Baron declared that the other side ought to have an opportunity of filing affidavits in reply. Of that he especially complained, because if that were allowed them, of course Mr. Ouvrard would be permitted to file affidavits by way of rejoinder, and so the matter might go on for a year, whilst

647
the party was still in custody. He complained, then, of the law which enabled a Judge to allow such a proceeding. The result was, that this gentleman was remanded from the Monday till Wednesday, having been for seven days and eight nights locked up in a sponging-house, when the moment the Judge applied his mind to the case he was dismissed as a matter of course; and yet the learned Chief Baron did not give him his costs. He (Lord Brougham) had a direct interest in this case in common with their Lordships; for, as they were aware, the French law, whether right or wrong, declared that whatever law was applied to French subjects in other countries, should be applied in France towards the subjects of those other countries, as a kind of reciprocity; so that if he happened to have a dispute with an agent, he might, the moment he got to the French territory, be arrested, not for any certain debt, but for any sum any agent might fancy; and, as he had no privilege of Parliament there, he would be forced into prison. He knew the manner in which other Judges acted with respect to the noble and learned Lord's Bill (Lord Campbell's); they inquired before they endorsed the writ, to see that there was some show of probability in the intended going abroad; and Mr. Justice Wightman, when a man swore that another was going abroad, asked, "Have you searched the Passport Office?" and that not having been done, he would not give the writ as a matter of course. Now his noble Friend (the Marquess of Norman-by) was in the eye of the law in meditatione fugœ, as he was about to go as ambassador in Paris; and if he had not the privilege of Parliament, he might be arrested for any amount any one chose to swear owing by the noble Marquess to him. If this were the state of the law, it was absolutely necessary that it should receive some explanation.
LORD CAMPBELL, having had a considerable hand in the framing of the law, sincerely lamented the misfortune that had befallen Mr. Ouvrard, who was a gentleman of great respectability and wealth; but he believed that the law had been placed on a just, equitable, and satisfactory basis. Formerly any person could arrest another on swearing that a debt was due: he regarded that law as a reproach; but it would be wrong if it had been left in the power of a debtor fraudulently to escape from the country to avoid his debts. This was done in imitation of the Scotch
648
law; but the Judge must be satisfied that the party was about to fly the country to avoid his creditors: till he was about to do that he was not liable to arrest. It was absolutely necessary that such a power to prevent fraud should exist somewhere; and he knew no hands in which it could be so safely lodged as those of the Judges. No doubt the Chief Baron had been misled by the affidavits of the person claiming the money, because it must be clearly proved to the Judge that there were reasons for the belief that a party intended to leave the country before he would endorse the writ.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that the principle was taken from the Scotch law, but not the details.
LORD DENMANapprehended that there was no alteration made by the late law as to the form of application for an arrest. He apprehended that if any one swore that another was indebted to him in the sum of 500 l. for work and labour, it would be difficult or impossible for the Judge to make any preliminary inquiry whether the affidavit was right as to the amount. As to the circumstances from which the Judge was to infer that the party was about to leave the country, they must be set out fully in the affidavit; and he did not think the Judges allowed any party to file affidavits in reply, in the manner stated; and, in justice to the Lord Chief Baron, he must say he believed that in this case he appeared to have acted according to the usual practice in allowing the writ to issue.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that allowing affidavits in reply was the grievance of his charge; but here there was no inquiry as to the amount claimed being really due.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that a party claiming a debt went before a Judge, swearing to the amount. What opportunity was there from this ex parte statement for the Judge to see whether the amount was really due?
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that every one knew that the parties never got the full amount of the damages laid in the declaration.

THE POOR LAW COMMISSIONERS.
LORD BROUGHAMrose to move that the Returns ordered to be made by the Poor Law Commissioners by that House be made forthwith. One was an important Return relative to communications that had passed with them. It had been proved in another place that one of the Commission-

649
ers had interposed, and the Secretary had not made the Returns. He had moved for them three times, and a fortnight since had moved that they he made forthwith, and yet they were not made. The Poor Law Commissioners were bound to make the Return; to speak gently, it was a grievous neglect of duty in the Commissioners setting themselves against the Orders of that House. The other Return was of the number of times the Commissioners had met as a board since 1840; he understood the Return would be "nil;" and if so, they had not acted in a legal manner; for the Act gave power that they, or any two of them, "acting as such board," should put the Act in force. It was necessary that they should hold a board; and yet it appeared in evidence elsewhere, that they had not done so. He deeply regretted this, because it increased the clamour out of doors against the law, which people, for reasons of their own, made against it. After a short pause, the noble and learned Lord again rose and said, that it was suggested to him that he was wrong in moving for the Returns forthwith, as he had already moved for them three times, and a fortnight since had moved that they he presented forthwith, and that he ought not to move a fourth time. He therefore gave notice that, if the Order were not complied with, and the Returns made by five o'clock to-morrow, he would move that the Commissioners and their Secretary he called to the bar.

SUGAR DUTIES (No. 3) BILL.
The EARL of CLARENDONmoved the Second Reading of the Sugar Duties Bill (No. 3).
The BISHOP of OXFORDsaid: I assure your Lordships that it is not without feelings of the greatest diffidence that I rise for the purpose of opposing the present Motion. The cause in which I am called upon to address you is one, the character of which is, in my eyes, peculiarly sacred; yet I feel the greatest difficulty in opposing myself to any proposal proceeding from Her Majesty's Government. It would give me great pain at any time to oppose a Government measure; and I conceive it to be highly inconvenient that opposition to any measure introduced by the Administration for the time being should proceed from any one sitting on this bench; but the pain necessarily occasioned by opposition of any kind, is much increased by the duty of opposing the present Govern-
650
ment upon this question. I beg further to assure your Lordships, that if the Bill now before you was one which related merely to matters of revenue or finance, I should so distrust my own judgment, that I should not be found in opposition to the proposal of the Government, and upon other grounds I should abstain from troubling your Lordships this evening. But the Bill now before the House is not a matter of revenue or finance—it is one which affects, most deeply affects, the moral character, the justice, and the integrity of this country; and however influenced I may be by every one of the restraining feelings to which I have referred, I still am bound by a sense of duty to take the course which I am now about to pursue, and to obtrude myself on the attention of your Lordships upon this occasion. I repeat that it is peculiarly painful to me to oppose the present Government, because I cannot forget that those who preceded some Members of the Queen's Ministry in the hereditary honours and titles which they enjoy, were men distinguished for a long, persevering, and uniform support of that side of the present question which I humbly and feebly endeavour to advocate; they were friends of the cause in the old days when the cause was in disrespect; they were no summer friends to the cause they advocated. The noble Marquess, now President of Her Majesty's Council, I have long been taught to regard with honour and admiration on account of his opposition to slavery and the Slave Trade. I also cannot forget that a noble Earl, the second who possesses the title now borne by the Colonial Secretary, made a Motion in the House of Commons against the Slave Trade, and with a view to its total abolition. Therefore do I feel the greater pain in thus addressing the House; but the claims of duty frequently force us to do that which is the most repugnant to our feelings; and I can truly say, that if I did not feel bound by a strong tie of duty, I should on the present occasion have given a silent vote. But let me say at once, that I mean by no covert insinuation to suggest that noble Lords who support this measure, are one whit less humane, one whit less sincere and earnest in their desire to prevent slavery and the Slave Trade, than I am myself. I shall of course not trouble your Lordships with the metaphysical argument, in which I think we are right. It is what we know and see every day, that much is taken for granted; but that only makes it more the

651
duty of those who consider they perceive, and in those noble Lords who desire to maintain, the right in this case, though an error in judgment if wrong, to come forward and to endeavour to clear away those misconceptions which have led others to a wrong conclusion. I think, after giving to it the best consideration, that the question, in the view that they take of it, may be stated in the fewest possible words. The argument which has been brought forward to induce your Lordships to pass this Bill is this—the people of England are now supplied with an insufficient quantity of an article, if not entirely essential to their well-being, essential certainly to their comfort, essential in a high degree even to their well-being; the quantity therefore which is now supplied must be increased; the increase can only come from facilitating the trade in that article with Cuba and Brazil; and therefore you must facilitate the admission of Cuba and Brazil sugar, in order, first, to supply the people at home with a sufficient quantity of this article, which is so necessary; and, secondly, to provide a vent for your manufactures, the production of which is the main livelihood of your home population. This, I think, is the argument put before us. Now, this argument implies this, that a larger quantity of sugar must be exported from Cuba and Brazil, to be imported into this country. And it necessarily implies this, for this reason, that the deficiency of the supply in the English market is not because the English market is not able to command this article in preference to other markets, but because the entire production of sugar, in all sugar-producing countries, is so limited that you cannot increase, as you wish, the supply to the English market, without increasing the production in the sugar-producing countries. I have it from a far higher authority than myself, from a declaration made in another place by a Gentleman who is well acquainted with the particular subject and the particular countries—from Sir J. Hogg—that there has not been up to this time, in all sugar-producing countries, such a sufficient supply of sugar as is required to be supplied. He went on to say, that only in regard to this great article of consumption does there occur the fact that, if you take the trade of a year, there is not at the end of the year three months' supply left on hand, so closely—even in a year—does the consumption of the produced material tread on the power of pro-
652
duction. Therefore, does it seem that there must be an increased, and a greatly increased, power of production in Cuba and Brazil, in order to supply that increased demand which it is your purpose to create in England. Now, how is that to be increased? Not—and here I may quote the authority of the noble Earl (the Earl of Clarendon) upon the Treasury bench at this moment—by the introduction of machinery into Cuba and Brazil, because, as it was most truly said by the noble Earl, the powers of machinery imply a certain amount of knowledge, of civilization; the Slave Trade implies no amount of civilization, and therefore you cannot bring, you cannot compare, the two things together. The Slave Trade implies the production of sugar by the sinews, the muscles, and the thews of men—the mere effort of a man's strength; but by machinery are implied very different forces and agents. And it is not, therefore, that you will bring in machinery to do the work and to effect the end, but it is that you must, in some way or other, obtain from the manual labour of Cuban and Brazilian workmen, that greater amount of labour you require. Now, again, how is this to be obtained? Not by a greater amount of labour exacted from existing labourers: no; it is admitted on all hands that a greater amount of labour from that source cannot be obtained; that every effort has been tried, and that every effort has failed; that the lash has done its utmost; that physical suffering of every kind has done its utmost; and that the exertions under the influence of the lash which already have been made, are not to be exceeded. Therefore it is impossible thus to do it. At this moment we know by the accounts we have obtained, that the slaves of Cuba and Brazil are calculated to perish at the rate of 10 per cent per annum—that always at the end of ten years the whole existing amount of labour is killed off, and a new stock has to be brought in. It is therefore impossible out of the existing stock to obtain a greater amount of labour than is already obtained. How, then again, I ask, is it to be obtained? The only way to increase the production is to increase the number of producing labourers, that is to say, to extend the Slave Trade, which brings those labourers from Africa. And this is capable of being reduced so much to a numerical calculation, that, finding as we do in Cuba that the labour of one negro is equal to 19 cwts. of sugar, we may say that for

653
every additional ton of sugar purposed by this Bill to be introduced into England, directly and by necessity—not by the remote chance of circumstances and causes—not by a mere entangled chain and connexion of causes, but directly and immediately—foreknowing and with our own eyes open—we render necessary the importation of one fresh negro labourer from Africa into Cuba and Brazil. But this is not all. Multiply that labourer who is to labour there by all the loss of human life which attends the collecting of negro slaves in Africa. Even this is not the worst part of the business; for these slaves, before being made slaves were free, and their capture is the occasion of rapine, war, violence, and bloodshed on the coast of and in Africa; and, therefore, we are carrying back into the heart of Africa itself all this mischief. It is not solely and alone the single man that is represented by this significant 19 cwts.; it represents likewise all the fearful amount of iniquity, cruelty and injustice in Africa, which is previously to be perpetrated before this one man is to be bought on the coast, and put in the hold of a vessel to be transported across the middle passage. Then, there is to be considered also the waste of life in the middle passage and in the seasoning, and you are to take all this into account in making an accurate calculation. For every 19 cwt. or 20 cwt. of sugar you are going in this way to introduce into England, you will have to consider the loss of life in collecting the labourers in Africa, then the loss of life in the middle passage, and the seasoning on reaching those shores which to him are so cruel and inhospitable. Therefore, it is clear that the direct and necessary effect of this act of yours must be to produce a great, an immediate, and therefore, I say, a most iniquitous increase in that great crime—in that greatest of crimes—the Slave Trade; the capturing of man by violence, and violently and cruelly transferring him from the condition of a free man to the condition of a slave. Now, my Lords, this argument appears to me to be incontrovertible; at least, I will say thus much, that as yet it has been uncontroverted; there has been no direct answer to it whatever, and I speak after having studied with great attention the recent debates on this subject both in your Lordships' and in the other House. This plain, and as I think convincing argument, remains as yet untouched. It certainly has been met in this way, by a series of object-
654
tions which, have been urged to take off the force of the argument, the argument itself being left without an answer. One objection urged—urged, I think, in your Lordships' House, and undoubtedly elsewhere—is this, that the whole of our argument falls to the ground, inasmuch as it is capable of proof that the increased production of sugar in Cuba and Brazil has not been kept pace with by an increased number of the imported negroes. Such was the argument addressed on a recent occasion to your Lordships' House by the noble Earl. It was urged by the noble Earl, that whatever may be the weight of the abstract argument, experience, which has greater weight, has proved this—that Cuba and Brazil could go on increasing the production of sugar, without increasing the number of the negroes by whom it is produced. But what is that, my Lords, really worth? I deny utterly the truth and verity of those figures on which the objection is based. A statement was produced by the noble Earl, giving the number of tons and cwts. of sugar produced from a time, beginning in 1844, and going five or six years backwards, and showing on one side the increased quantity of sugar produced, and on the other the diminution in the number of negroes imported. Why, we have no data—no real, reliable data of either the one or the other. We have no data for the quantity of sugar produced; because the only measure, the only approximation to a measure of any such which we have, is the quantity exported, not the quantity produced. We know only what was exported; how can we know what was produced? We hear the greatest conceivable complaints at this time, that there is a perfect glut of sugar in the markets of Cuba and Brazil—that it has no exit: this may have been the case in one of the years mentioned; and we have, therefore, only the quantity of sugar which was exported, and know nothing of the actual production. Then, on the other hand, what do we accurately know of the number of actually imported slaves? Why, we know nothing. In the returns brought forward by the noble Lord, and in those given to us by consular authority, we have certain statements; but what are they worth? What can the consul at Havannah tell of the number of slaves imported along that coast, when it is a fact that the trade in these slaves is declared to be and dealt with by that consul as illicit and contraband? I

655
ask, how is it possible he can furnish any true returns of the trade or of the number of slaves landed along that wide seaboard? The thing when it comes to be examined is absolutely fallacious, and unsound from beginning to end. We know then, as I have proved, nothing of the quality of sugar produced; we know nothing of the number of slaves imported; we cannot compare them; and therefore an argument so insecure in its numbers, and depending for its validity, if it have any validity at all, on its numbers, cannot be accepted; and it is not a necessary sequence that the sugar is not produced without additional labour, and that the labour is not furnished by an importation of negroes. But there is another very important consideration—so important that I wonder it did not strike the acute mind of the noble Earl, that the introduction of negro labour into sugar-producing Colonics does not create in that year, or in the year following this introduction, any great increase in the sugar produced. The great necessity in those Colonies is, first, to keep up the existing supply, there being something of a regular demand; and, secondly, it is requisite to break up, calculating upon an increased after demand, the virgin soil, to build houses, to plant canes on the new lands, and to construct sugar-houses; and there is called for an immense addition to the number of labourers to bring these lands to the stage in which sugar is produced. It is five or six years before there is obtained that sugar which is the result of the toil in breaking up these lands, and of bringing them into cultivation; and therefore, provided that in the year 1840 or 1838, or in the year before that, there was an immense importation of negroes, the effect extended over the five or six years referred to—to 1844. You have, during those five years, a lull in the importation from Africa, and in the last year an increase in the production of sugar; for, in the preceding year, you had not to break up new lands. Thus, without an annual increase in succeeding years in the number of labourers, you have an increase in the quantity of sugar produced. But it is no mere speculation—in the very year preceding that to which the noble Earl pointed, there was one of those vast importations of negroes. In the one port of Rio alone, in the year preceding that referred to, no less than 30,000 slaves are stated to have been landed to break up the virgin soil; and the result of that importation,
656
with the production year after year, has given you the state of things which the noble Earl has shown to have existed. This is the objection of the noble Earl to our argument; but while a negative argument is worth nothing, a positive argument is worth everything; and so far as this objection, on which great weight was laid by the noble Earl and by the noble Marquess, goes, the original position which I venture to lay down stands unshaken, and is to be received by your Lordships as untouched. It is so far true that the direct effect of this Act will be as a stimulus, as a bonus on that great crime, the Slave Trade. Another argument against us, which seems to me to be looked upon as the greatest of all, and which I find urged in all companies by persons of honour and integrity on that side, is what I would call the moral argument. It is said, at all events it is not possible for you who object to this measure to hold your objection, because you permit and sanction the importation of other articles, the production likewise of slave labour. You are receiving Carolina cotton; and how can you show a conscientious objection to taking Cuba sugar? The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) will do me this justice, not to include me among those who, as he supposes, are hypocritically using this argument, for the purpose of covering altogether a different ground—that, at any rate, he will not think I am a disguised protectionist. I have been ready before now to sustain all the obloquy I may meet with in proclaiming myself, on all proper subjects of free trade, as much a free-trader as the noble Marquess can be; and therefore I anticipate the noble Marquess will give that weight to what I say which the argument per se deserves, and without thinking he is dealing with a man who puts it on the ground of humanity, secretly intending to cover the ground of protection and personal interest. What is this, the moral argument, worth? It takes, if developed, this form; but you cannot, you are not bold enough to say—you do not stop the introduction of cotton from America, and therefore you have no right to refuse to admit sugar from Cuba: you cannot say this. Is it, in a grave assembly of reasoning men, to be told to us, as a convincing argument, that because I cannot undo one evil, therefore I must consent to another? Am I to be told it is argument to bring forward to your Lordships in such an assembly as this, that because

657
I cannot prevent housebreaking, therefore I am to legalize murder? Am I to be told, because it is impossible for me to prevent my people dealing in the cotton which the cotton slaves produce—which dealing, be it remembered, begun before this country announced it would have nothing to do with the Slave Trade or slavery; which trading we then found established; which trading from that day to this, this country has never been called upon to avow as a new principle—that, therefore, because this evil cannot be redressed, I would be a hypocrite not to join in inflicting another evil? When this argument comes to be weighed, it is utterly untenable, and will, I hope, he abandoned by your Lordships, and even by those who allowed themselves in extreme stress to use it; and it is an extreme and wonderful stress they are in to find arguments to meet that overwhelming case against them. But this is not all; we are told that we do not alone take cotton from America, but from Cuba itself there are goods admitted—as copper, coffee, indigo, and even sugar. That argument I answer at once by saying—I, for one, am perfectly ready to join with Her Majesty's Government in forbidding the introduction of Cuba copper. Let the noble Lords who occupy the places of the Government produce a measure which shall make it illegal to import copper the produce of labour of a most horrible description in the copper mines of Cuba and Brazil, and they will meet with the most unbounded support from me and from those who think with me upon this question. So far we would be quite free from the charge of hypocrisy, for we are as ready to join in repealing that as we are joined in opposing this. There has not, however, been a very fair statement of the case. It is stated that in the year 1842 the duty was taken off, and the introduction of copper from the mines of Cuba and Brazil was for the first time permitted. But that is not the fact: as the law stood before that, copper from Cuba and Brazil was admitted, not to be sold, indeed, in England, but to be smelted under bond; and all that we did in 1842 was to make a variation in the previously existing license—not to grant a new license altogether, It was a measure expedient on the ground of public revenue; not on which to introduce more Cuba copper into this country, but for a peculiar purpose—to be smelted and then exported. [Earl GREY: Hear, hear.] Mark how the noble Earl cheers: he thinks the argument unsound;
658
but I use it only so far—we have taken no new step in introducing slave-produced copper within the last few years. I desert that argument; I say exclude this copper altogether, and that is my answer. And in arguing in this way the noble Lord will remember that there is this great distinction—this is not a sugar-producing country for our own necessity; we are not only a copper-producing country for our own necessity, but we are a copper-exporting country, and that, therefore, this copper does not find its way into the English market, and is only smelted for foreign importation when under bond. This, then, is our reply to the main argument, that I and others opposing this measure are ready at once to make illegal the importation of copper produced by that amount of wrong, ruin, and misery, involved in slave labour. Then the question of coffee comes; and I beg the attention of your Lordships to this point, for it is one of great importance, and one concerning which there has been much mis-statement. Some few years ago the coffee imported from Brazil and Cuba, was coffee imported only for re-exportation. There was a custom then universal in those places of drying the coffee on hides; this process imparted to the coffee a flavour which rendered it unsaleable in the English market; but the more northern nations, esteeming that particular flavour, were great purchasers from us of that coffee. The producers in time discovered this fact; they dried the coffee afterwards in a very different manner, and it then came direct into the English market. Here, however, the noble Lord will observe, that my objection, and that of many others, is not an abstract objection to articles produced in a country the internal institutions of which admit of slavery. I for one hold that with such a case as that we have nothing to do. My objection is, that this Act is a direct bonus on that which we, as a nation, have declared to be so great a crime that we brand it as piracy on the high seas. We have pledged ourselves, and have the concurrence of other nations, so to deal with it; and it would be a contradiction to an instituted national principle of this country to do anything to encourage that which, as a nation, we have so branded. Now, the production of coffee in Cuba and Brazil does nothing to encourage slavery. I maintain it on this ground—and I think I can prove it—that the growth of coffee affords abundance of employment, especially, not for the full-grown negroes, but for the

659
women and children; and that the labour of the women and children in this is of more value than that of the full-grown slave. His strength is wasted in the coffee plantation; it is valuable in the sugar plantation; and thus an encouragement to the trade in coffee has an influence to make it the interests of the Brazilian planter to foster the growth at home of a native race of negroes, in place of importing them from the other side of the Atlantic. Those coffee plantations are the cheapest and best which are attended to and laboured in by women and children; these will have to be procured, and can only, if their growth be not encouraged at home, be procured from Africa; and just so far as you, in these countries, throw difficulties in the way of sugar, and facilities in the way of the importation of coffee, do you tend to make the planter in Cuba and Brazil depend for his profit upon the production of coffee, and not upon the production of sugar—just so far do you throw a hindrance in the way of the Slave Trade, and offer a bonus to the nurturing of a native race of negroes, growing up amid all the amenities of family life—and just so far, also, do you sow the way, in time—be that nearer or distant—for extirpating slavery itself; substituting free labour, obtained from the country itself, for the unhappy negro slaves carried across the Atlantic. Thus, though the coffee imported into this country be an article produced in a certain degree by the Slave Trade, yet the encouragement to that importation is inimical to the Slave Trade, and has the greatest direct effect in supplanting the profits of that trade in the very country from which we import the coffee. I think your Lordships will now admit that the second objection as well as the first, has been answered on a twofold ground. It has been shown that it is absurd to say, because you have done wrong in this case, and cannot get out of the wrong, therefore do wrong in another case. Why, my Lords, this is the argument that has been handed down to us as illustrating the history of temptation. What is the history of the temptation of every man in crime but this: he has taken one step, therefore take another; he has injured his character, and contracted evil connexions; it is too late to amend, and he goes on, on, down that dread descent which leads to reprobation and ruin? And, then, my Lords, think what that argument is; we may have done wrong of old in polluting
660
ourselves with the horrors of the Slave Trade; we were mixed with slave-trading and slave-labour employing countries; late in the day we severed ourselves from an open participation in those enormities, but the remains of that former iniquity hang-about you; and because I can point out to you those, therefore be consistent, and join us to the full amount in those unholy profits of which once you, with other nations, were the unquestionable partakers. I think that that second objection is despatched. I will now proceed to say a few words on the third objection raised against us opposing this measure, and I will put it in the plainest form. It is said that the people of England must have an increase in their supply of sugar; that is the mode in which it is generally put; but I have heard it urged in an influential quarter in a more objectionable way; it was stated in language like this—it is quite true that you have abolished the Slave Trade as a matter of justice; but now there is another injustice done; the English people must have everything they want, and you must consider how much that claim of the English people qualifies your former principle of the necessity of abolishing the Slave Trade, and the principle of not introducing any measure that may tend to encourage slavery. Now, my Lords, I deny in the most emphatic terms that the people of England have any right to have any want supplied at the cost of injustice, robbery, and rapine; the English people have a right to expect at your hands, that you will enact laws lightening their burdens, and facilitating their obtaining from every part of the earth what may conduce to that end, provided it comes in by lawful channels of commerce; but the people have no right, and what is more, I do not believe if they were appealed to that they would be found to demand, that they should be supplied with luxuries, or even the necessaries of life, where they are earned by the blood of those who, if Christianity be not a fable, are their very brothers. I say, therefore, my Lords, that this argument of the necessity of an increased supply of sugar for the people falls utterly through. But then it has been attempted to be supported, as weak arguments often are, by a second weak one, as if two weak positions joined together would make a strong one; and it is a common fallacy for reasons of this kind to be supported in this way: it is said, though the argument as to the supply of the people

661
may not be maintainable, yet, after all, we believe that in the long run, as a commonly admitted principle, free trade will do away with the Slave Trade and slavery. The proof is attempted in this way—it is stated that slave labour is dearer than free, and that if the countries cultivated by slave labour are brought into competition with those where free labour is used, they will, by the necessity of that competition, be forced to adopt the free system. This argument is produced with something like force, for it has the appearance of a weapon taken from our own camp. You say the emancipationists and abolitionists were always telling us free labour is cheaper than that of slaves: but what is really the argument? It is this, that free labour, cæteris paribus, is cheaper than slave labour; that if put together, the lash on the one band, and the inducements to work furnished by a domestic and family existence on the other, then the free man will do more work than the slave. This is undoubtedly true; but this argument is altogether inapplicable when a new condition is introduced, and is therefore altogether annihilated when it is permitted to the slaveholder to introduce an unlimited number of full-grown slave labourers to replace those who may be killed off by the work, or rendered valueless. It is not true then that free labour is cheaper than that of slaves, in the sense of a more immediate production of wealth. It is altogether untrue. I do not for a moment mean to say that the great Governor of this world has so ordered things that the larger reward will be to the unjust man who uses his fellow being as a slave, above the man who justly uses his hired labourer; but there is a more immediate return of wealth in one case than in the other; because wealth alone is not to be the measure of the blessing given by Providence upon one sort of labour compared with the other. Wealth may be obtained by slavery, but obtained in that evil way it brings a curse, not alone on the individual, but on the nation that so obtains it; and thus we see that slave labour, while it produces more immediate riches, produces also evils which are the sure witness of God against it. It introduces miseries and evils of every kind; every uncertainty as to the rights of property, every uncertainty of the tenure of life, not to the oppressed only, but to the oppressor; while it poisons all the relations of family life with regard to
662
both. The history of all slave communities shows this to be so. It is true, indeed, that men may gain great riches by the system; but with it comes a curse that poisons the wealth, and makes it valueless to its possessors; men tremble in their very houses lest the instruments by which they have amassed the treasure, may at any moment become the avengers of the crimes by which they were made the instruments of obtaining it. As it is, slave labour, with an unlimited supply to replace those killed off, is undoubtedly cheaper than the labour of the free man, than the labour of those free men raised patiently through the years in which they can do no work, and maintained at the end of their lives through the years in which they can do but little. But it is said that in Cuba and Brazil this increase of slave labour, without stint or limit, is acting wholesomely in checking the importation by creating a fear of the slaves themselves. An abundant answer to this is, that the fear and the love of gain do not possess the same parties. The fear dwells principally upon the wealthy planter; the desire of gain rests upon the indigent, needy, and adventurous planter, and on the unscrupulous and greedy slavetrader who has no stake in the country. Whilst the greatest terror possesses the large capitalist, cupidity inspires the other; and the two elements, instead of checking one another, co-exist together. There may be a perfect dread in one portion of society of the continued importation of slaves; but there is a perfect thirst for gold in the other; and the conflict only serves to produce intestine discord, and to aggravate the condition of the negroes so introduced. What I say is, that with this power of an unlimited supply of slaves to cultivate the virgin soils, slave labour is absolutely cheaper than free; and by this measure you will stimulate the transference of the negro from Africa to these sugar-producing countries in the exact degree to which you introduce their sugar into your own market. There is one more objection, my Lords: it is the last I shall trouble the House with, and I must apologize for troubling it even at this length—it is said that, after all, the system of abolition upon which this country has hitherto been acting has proved a total failure; and that, therefore, we ought to make an alteration in it. It is said we have tried covering the coast of Africa with our vessels of war—we have tried the exclusion from our market of the produce of Cuba and Brazil;

663
and yet all has failed—that at the present time the Slave Trade is four times as great as it was in 1807, when we passed the Abolition Bill; the system having thus proved a total failure, it is high time to try another course. But in this objection, again, I deny altogether the first position—I deny altogether that a greater number of slaves are now introduced into these countries than when we began our efforts. There is a barefaced fallacy in this statement, by which your Lordships must not be led away. The question is not whether there is a greater number of slaves introduced than in 1807, but whether that number is as great as it would have been had the Abolition Bill never been passed. Is this maintainable for a moment? To continue the stock of slaves in your own West India islands and in the Colonies you took from the Dutch and the French, upon the lowest computation, even if a single acre of virgin soil had not been broken up, 15,000 or 20,000 negroes would have been required annually. The transport of that number of slaves has been entirely stopped; so much for one part of the failure. And why has there been an increase in the importation to Cuba and the Spanish and Portuguese settlements? Was it in consequence of your measures? No; it was in spite of them; it has been caused by the increased riches of the Continent of Europe, making it a greater sugar market than before; and that increased demand for sugar in the market of Europe has increased the importation of slaves to supply the demand, in spite of all your efforts; it has overpowered all your exertions. But will any man bring this forward as an argument for throwing open to the produce of those slave countries the richest and greatest market on the face of the earth? If, in spite of everything you can do, by shutting them out of the richest market in the world, the demand for their produce has increased to this extent, surely it follows, as a demonstration, that if you open to them that richer and more powerful market, you will do more to stimulate the Slave Trade than ever you have done hitherto. There is one other part of the subject to which I wish to allude. Although there has been a great exportation of negroes from Africa, yet we have recently had abundant evidence that we were on the very margin of effecting the greatest possible abatement of the evil. This evidence comes from both sides the Atlantic. The noble and learned Lord (Lord
664
Brougham) read a letter from a Government correspondent in Brazil, showing that there was spreading among the population there a feeling of great dissatisfaction at being excluded, on account of the Slave Trade, from the market of England, especially among those who wanted an immediate return of profits. There was a great disposition in that part of the community to admit that, given the exclusion from the English market, they were losers in many respects, instead of gainers, by the continuation of the horrible traffic. The Governments of Cuba and Brazil have long agreed with us to put down the Slave Trade, and to deal with it as piracy; but they have been overborne by their subjects. The people themselves are beginning to feel what exclusion from the markets of England is, and would be ready to join, not in treaties, for we have had treaties enough, but in giving effectual means for carrying those treaties into execution, and preventing the introduction of slaves. This is what is going on on that side of the Atlantic; on the other side, we have had, with the exception of an interval during the alarm of the Chinese war, a greatly increased and more efficient force on the coast of Africa, which has driven the Slave Trade out of its most favoured haunts, and limited it to comparatively a few spots, well known and more easily watched. We have been able to contract with the native chiefs new treaties for the extension of wholesome and lawful commerce; ports have been given up to us, which have been turned into outworks against the Slave Trade, instead of being its strongholds; missionaries having been appointed there along many miles of coast who are using all their means to civilize and convert the natives. Portugal is more disposed to co-operate with us than she has ever yet been. I have been told to-day by Dr. Lushington—an undoubted authority on this question—that, within the last few weeks, the Portuguese Government sent word to a near relation of his, that a vessel, built for the Slave Trade, was fitting out in a Portuguese port, and inviting him to come in and seize her, and prevent her engaging in this infernal traffic. France is joining heartily with us in the suppression of the Slave Trade; and those best acquainted with the subject have stated their opinion, that the combined fleets of France and England, acting heartily together, will be able to blockade and seal up the coast of Africa. In that

665
opinion the late Secretary for Foreign Affairs coincided; that opinion is also held by the noble Lord who now holds that office. In the course of five years, eleven treaties and four conventions have been concluded for putting down the Slave Trade. If the present Powers act together heartily and honestly, they will be able to seal the coast of Africa against the exportation of slaves. But what you are now called on to do, my Lords, is to make all you have already done valueless and of none effect, and to reopen the Slave Trade along this immense seaboard; therefore, just at the very moment when there is the most reasonable expectation of reaching the goal we have so long thirsted for—just at the moment we were beginning to be repaid the outlay of life, treasure, energy, and principle, all freely spent in this great cause—just at that moment you are asked to give up all, by making it impossible to continue the blockade on the coast of Africa—by making it impossible for the Brazilian people to join with the Brazilian rulers—and by making it impossible for the nations of Europe to believe that we can have been in earnest, or could have had our hearts in a matter which we are so ready to give up for a consideration of mere fiscal advantage. My Lords, when it is said that the abolition of the Slave Trade has been a failure, I certainly feel some sensation approaching to indignation in my mind. It has been, my Lords, no failure at all. To those men, those honoured men, our common ancestors, who fought the battle, and to those still living who have taken part in it, the object to be gained was not the Quixotic idea of putting down slavery at once all over the face of the earth, by putting an end to it in their own country, or in lands subject to its control. It was that which they unflinchingly proclaimed before their fellow countrymen, and that at least has been no failure. Who can say how much, in the inscrutable decrees of Providence, the faithfulness of England to the truth in this point may have been the redeeming part of her character among a multitude of failings, and been the means of drawing down those blessings of Heaven of which all have been partakers, and with which all are at this moment enriched? The arguments used against us now were equally used against our forerunners. They were told, as we are, "what is the use of abolishing the Slave Trade? It will only be taken up
666
by other nations, by the Dutch, the Spaniards, or the Portuguese." It was not denied; the answer was, "We trust in the long run we shall bring them over; but granting we fail—their own iniquity be upon them. Because others commit robbery and murder, shall we commit murder and robbery in a gentler manner, and with less of suffering to our victims?" We are told we do not and cannot stop the Slave Trade by our efforts: I reply, we keep ourselves free from it, and if you pass this Bill, you will no longer do so. I think it is done ignorantly. I shall earnestly repudiate it myself; but I am convinced if Her Majesty's Government believed, as I believe, that this measure will give a direct sanction to the Slave Trade, and a great stimulus to slave labour, they would not propose it. But, at the same time, though done ignorantly, it is done directly. You want cheap sugar, and you are going to say—import abundantly the slave labour that produces the cheap sugar we want. You say we give way upon principle; we have struggled long enough; we have been beaten; we will be untruthful to our principle; we are determined to enjoy the advantages we have lost by adherence to it; we will share them with you. This, my Lords, is the fearful step you are called on to take. I can only say, in conclusion, I have a fervent belief that if you take that step, it will be one more adverse to the opinion, the principles, and the convictions of the mass of this people of England than any step taken within my memory. I believe the history of the whole abolition cause has been this—slavery was shown to be contrary to the will of Providence, the happiness of man, and the revealed word of God, and therefore must be a blot and injury to the country. The announcement of the great truth enlisted on its side the strong religious feeling of the country, and the battle was won by the Christian principle of Christian England. I believe the antislavery cause, from various reasons, has rather fallen to an argument of a different kind, and that it has become something of a political and sectional question. But let there be an announcement that, directly or indirectly, you are going to plunge this country again into the guilt of this great crime, and I believe the people will rise again and pronounce against it with the same feelings of indignation with which they put it down when it before existed. And I would urge it on your notice, that the only respect in which the contest upon

667
this question differs now from that by which it was formerly put down, is, that the advocates of truth and justice fought at a disadvantage in pulling down an existing evil; those who resisted them only maintained things as they were. But, we are called upon, for the first time, to make a direet step on the opposite path. We are for the first time called on to commit an act of retrogression, and to declare that the idea then written on the minds of the English people—the principle which, in spite of all the difficulties and hindrances it met with at a time when every free opinion were the semblance of Jacobinism, and was thought to threaten the institutions of the land, enthroned itself into the hearts of the English nation—must be abandoned; that we must take a step in the opposite direction; that we must reopen what our predecessors closed; renew what, upon conviction, they abolished, believing that this great political crime can be, in this world of God, nothing but a political error. We are called on to declare that we may improve our revenues, amend our finances, and increase and make abundant the supplies the people need, by doing a wrong, encouraging injustice, and giving occasion to the perpetration of the cruellest wickedness and the darkest evils that this earth ever groaned under. Believing this, feeble as I am, I should think myself unworthy of a place in this House if I did not express that opinion by moving that this Bill be read a second time this day three months.
The BISHOP of LONDONsaid, it was not his intention to trespass at the present moment at any length upon their Lordships' time; feeling, as he did, that any lengthened remarks were wholly unnecessary after the eloquent, the able, and the convincing address just delivered by his right reverend Friend. But occupying the position which he filled, he felt that it would be neither justice to that position, nor to his own feelings, if he did not state what his convictions were on this most important project. He had been at first inclined to complain of the arrangement of which he, in common with others, had not been made aware, by which Her Majesty's Ministers, and others in that House, had agreed to take the discussion on this measure on Monday evening last; but he had since then rather congratulated himself on that arrangement than otherwise, for it had afforded him an opportunity of considering with great care all the arguments both for
668
and against the measure that had been used by the speakers on both sides of the question; and the result was a deep and heartfelt conviction on his part, that their Lordships would, if they passed this measure, sanction a direct encouragement of the Slave Trade, the abolition of which was one of the brightest features in the history of this country, and one which he thought might well be considered to be a set-off against the offences which they had for a long series of years committed against justice and humanity. It seemed to him that they were clearly taking a step in the wrong; that they were calling on the public to retrograde in that course, by bringing themselves to which they had made a considerable, and a noble, though he might add a somewhat tardy, compensation for the long course of crimes committed—he would not say by their Lordships—but by their ancestors, and that they were now undoing, as far as they could without a direct legislative declaration, the good—the great good—which was wrought by those eminent men who so ably struggled against slavery, and particularly by one (Mr. Wilberforce) whose son had that night shown himself to have inherited, in more respects than one, the mantle of his honoured sire. It was unnecessary for him to refer to the arguments used on a former night by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham), and enforced and illustrated that evening by his right rev. Friend, and to which in his opinion no answer had as yet been given. That argument indeed amounted to a demonstration that if they were to have a large increase in the quantity of sugar received from slave States, they must have also a large increase in the slaves to cultivate it, which increase could only be effected by a large increase in the Slave Trade itself. The importation of slaves to Brazil and Cuba was at least 150,000 per annum. Now, if they were to have an increase of 30,000 or 40,000 additional tons of sugar from these countries, they could only have that increase by the labour of 30,000 or 40,000 additional slaves. This in itself seemed to be a conclusive argument against the measure. When the circumstances which attended the transport of slaves were considered, the argument acquired great additional force; and when it was recollected that the number of slaves imported into a slave-owning country was by no means the extent of the injustice which the Slave Trade perpetrated. It was, he believed, calcu-

669
lated, and nobody had questioned the calculation, that for every slave imported, at least two perished, either in the process of capture and detention, or in the middle passage. Therefore, if they were to have 30,000 or 40,000 additional slaves imported into Cuba and Brazil, it must be by an additional expense, not only of the liberty of these 30,000 or 40,000 human beings, but of the lives of some 60,000 or 80,000 who would be hurried into eternity, or exposed to the most cruel torture. Now, he did not hesitate to say, that if this increased supply of sugar for the labouring classes of England was only to be provided for at such a cost—if, in order to supply the people of this country with what they were supposed to need—he would not say 30,000 or 40,000 or 60,000 or 80,000 human beings were to be sacrificed as part of the process by which the importation of that additional supply of sugar was to be effected; but if the object could only be attained at the cost of the liberty of ten men; nay, if it were to cost the liberty or the life of but one man, he would consider it to be purchased at too dear a rate. There were no secular or economical benefits which could be cheaply purchased at the expense of the commission of crime. The interest of the nations themselves would, he was pursuaded, be best consulted by honestly, frankly, and fearlessly repudiating all that savoured of crime and injustice. Such a course would ultimately be found most advantageous, whatever might be the present temporal consequences. It was impossible, feeling as he felt, and as he had taken every opportunity of telling their Lordships, that the real prosperity and honour of this country depended on this great principle being adhered to—feeling that the wealth, and authority, and influence which this country possessed in so superlative a degree, were bound up with this question, he for one could not give a tacit acquiescence to the passing of a measure which he believed from the bottom of his heart would fix a stain upon the legislation of this country, which he doubted whether the efforts of future years could ever effectually remove. He considered this subject apart from the question of protection; he regarded it as altogether distinct from any question of political economy, except, indeed, of the highest kind, such as had been already brought under their Lordships' notice. He looked upon it as altogether separate from a question of protection, except that protection which, as
670
a Christian Legislature, and in accordance with the precedents of previous years, they were bound to extend to those unhappy beings so long the victims of their cupidity and injustice, who for a number of years had rejoiced under the shield of their protection, but who were now to be handed over to those who had been neither deterred by the measures this country had taken for the suppression of the Slave Trade, nor moved by the sacrifices which it had made of interest to principle, from attempting to perpetuate that great crime. And now, he feared, the measures of Government would increase and exaggerate the horrors of what Mr. Pitt had described as the greatest practical evil of modern times. He felt that be would only weaken what had been said by his right reverend Friend if he entered further upon the subject, though at the same time, he could not remain altogether silent when such a question came before their Lordships. He would, therefore, conclude by giving his most cordial support to the Amendment of his right reverend Friend.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: My Lords, unlike the two right rev. Prelates who have just spoken, I have already had an opportunity of addressing your Lordships, and I therefore think it quite inexpedient to seize this opportunity of which the right rev. Prelates had so just a right to avail themselves, for the purpose of entering again on the discussion of this subject. But I feel that it would be almost disrespectful to the right rev. Prelates, or disrespectful more particularly to the right rev. Prelate who made the Motion, were I allow it to be put to the vote without a single observation upon what has fallen from them; and also because I feel that the right rev. Prelate who first addressed the House, addressed it with peculiar claims to its attention—claims which I should, on all occasions, be happy to acknowledge, on account of those talents and abilities in debate which he has more than once had occasion to display before your Lordships; but, most of all, this has been an occasion when he addressed your Lordships with peculiar advantages, the greatest of which, perhaps, was, that he bears the name of one whose reputation, whose fame, whose life, and whose glory are imperishably connected with that monument which he raised to himself in procuring the abolition of the Slave Trade; in regard to which the right rev. Prelate has done me no more than

671
justice in stating that to me it must ever he a matter of gratulation and pleasing rejection that I was one of the labourers when that monument was raised. The right rev. Prelate had also another advantage in addressing the House; because he undoubtedly, from the circumstances of his position, recently called by that position into the Councils of his country, had no inconsistencies to explain, has borne no part in that series of measures which, notwithstanding what has fallen from him to-night—and I have heard similar remarks from others in the course of these debates—would, if allowed to remain on your Statute-book, present the most glaring of all inconsistencies in legislation if you do not adopt the measure before your Lordships: and when the right rev. Prelate states that you have been most moral in your legislation on this subject, not once, or twice, or thrice, but incessantly and advisedly, in the course of the last ten or twelve years, let me remind him that it is not only essential that you should be in your own estimation consistent (which cannot be said if you retain that patchwork of legislation which now exists, and encourages slavery in one place, while it professes to depress it in others), but if you can persuade yourselves that you are doing your duty to God and to yourselves by so imperfectly continuing to carry into effect that system he recommends, you are not answering your purpose, you are not accomplishing your object, unless you persuade other countries that you are consistent in it. My Lords, it was from the effect produced by your example on other countries, that you are to hope to carry the abolition of the Slave Trade into effect. And I beg to state that if the right rev. Prelate who spoke first has heard in any quarter the opinion expressed that the great measure of the abolition of the Slave Trade has been a failure, I am sure it is not from me or from any of my noble Friends that he could have heard such a sentiment. But, looking forward with hope and confidence, and in reliance on the protection of Providence in a design so holy, I do expect that the time will come when full effect will be given to that abolition. It is by the moral effect of your example upon other countries that the object is to be accomplished; and if to those countries you cannot exhibit a plain, intelligible system of policy, totus teres atque rotundus, you cannot expect that they will follow you into those sophistical arguments which draw a distinction
672
between what it is allowable to do for interest, and what interest will not permit you to do; and which involve questions as to what is the precise amount of the claims your manufacturers may have upon you to dispense with the claims of morality and justice, or how far you can concede to the claims of morality and justice without doing yourselves and the public finances a great amount of injury. It is not by supporting such a system that you can expect to reconcile to your doctrines the other countries of the world. When the right rev. Prelate makes use of the authority of a noble Friend and Colleague of mine (Lord Palmerston), for the opinion that the trade on the coast of Africa might still be repressed by the diligence of Her Majesty's navy, and by the measures of those in Hoi-Majesty's Councils, I trust he will give me leave to state to him that it is the most confident opinion of my noble Friend that to the ultimate repression, and even to any further success in the repression of that traffic, what is most essential is to establish free commercial intercourse with other countries, especially the Brazils, which by that means, and by that means only, may be made to unite with us in making a general and efficacious attempt to put down the trade which it has been so long the object of our policy to suppress. In that very country, let me assure the right rev. Prelate, there is, to a much greater degree than he supposes, a free-labour cultivation of sugar and coffee. It is the opinion of those who are conversant with the subject, that free labour will gain to quite as great an extent, and probably in a greater proportion than slave labour can, by establishing free intercourse with those parts of the world with which it is the object of this country to establish such free intercourse. I therefore again say, that I indulge the greatest hope of the most beneficial results from the adoption of this more liberal and more generous system of policy so far as commerce is concerned. So far as commerce is concerned, the right rev. Prelate does not deny it. But those benefits will not stop there; the principles associated with our policy will work into men's feelings and opinions through the medium of commerce, and will lead to the production of a higher tone both of moral and of religious principle. I therefore will say I cannot consider this as a measure of retrogression. I do believe it is consistent with all the hopes we can permit ourselves to entertain on the subject. Knowing

673
what I do of the religious feelings, the moral feelings, the high tone of sentiment, which prevail among the people of this country, I must say that with all their intelligence, with all their means of practical information in all commercial towns, with the active agency which we know is employed, and justly employed, where the interests of religion and morality are supposed by a large class of the community to be at stake, I cannot but consider it as a most decisive proof that it is not the opinion of the country that this is a measure of retrogression, when this measure has been for weeks before the public, when the call upon the people to oppose has been loudly sounded, and yet no echo has been returned except in the shape of some half-dozen petitions presented within the last few days; so that, if in the opinion of the country the measure be objectionable, whether viewed as a matter of interest, or of humanity, or of policy, not a week would have elapsed but your tables would have been covered with petitions against passing it into a law. I hail it as a proof that concurring with Her Majesty's Ministers, they see no violation of principle involved in the Bill, and no encouragement to the Slave Trade, and that they are prepared to join in the fervent hope, not only that the people of this country will be assisted as consumers, that their interests will be promoted, that commerce will be extended and enlarged, but that the moral feelings of mankind, from the extended intercourse among nations, will yet lead to the final euthanasy of this question. In conclusion, I have only to express the hope that your Lordships will be induced not to accede to the Motion of the right rev. Prelate, however powerfully it may have been recommended to your notice.
On Question, that the word "now" stand part of the Motion, House divided:—Contents 28; Non-contents 10: Majority 18.

List of the CONTENTS.

Lord Chancellor.

Kingston

DUKES.

Wicklow

Norfolk

Grey

Bedford.

EARLS.

MARQUESSES.

Morley

Lansdowne

St. Germans

Clanricarde

Ducie

Normanby.

Auckland.

EARLS.

Suffolk

VISCOUNT.

Scarborough

Hawarden.

Radnor

BISHOP.

Fortescue.

Durham.

EARLS.

LORDS.

Clarendon

Camoys

674

LORDS.

Lilford

Beaumont

Dinorben

Calthorpe

Strafford

Carrington

Campbell

Bill read 2a.
House adjourned.
The following Protests against the Second Reading of the Sugar Duties Bill were entered on the Journals:—
DISSENTIENT—
1. Because, after the Legislature had nearly half a century, and the country above half a century ago, condemned the African Slave Trade as the worst of human crimes, comprising almost all others, and as the greatest practical evil that ever afflicted the world, we cover ourselves with a disgrace never to be effaced by adopting a measure whose avowed object is immediately and largely to increase the mass of sugar grown in the slave-trading countries, and which can only be grown by an immediate and large importation of Africans. Consequently, the avowed object of the measure is the encouragement of the African Slave Trade, as much as murder, and not robbery alone, is the avowed object of the felon who destroys his neighbour in order that he may possess his property, by removing him out of his way.
2. Because it is in vain to disguise from ourselves and cover over the guilt of slave-trading thus incurred, by pretending that we do not directly offer any premium for its encouragement. We as directly partake of that enormous crime by knowingly and wilfully augmenting the amount of the traffic which lays waste the villages of Africa, and desolates her coasts, as those do whom we brand with the name of felons, and visit with the pains of felony, for only letting to hire the ships employed in the traffic, although they have no more direct participation in the African voyage.
3. Because nothing can be more futile than the defence of our conduct drawn from a reference to the importation which is allowed of cotton and other articles, the growth of slave-dealing countries. If that importation be an encouragement of slave-trading, it was criminal to permit it, and the fact of our having once been guilty is no excuse for extending and multiplying our offences. But the great bulk of such commerce is notoriously carried on with countries in which slave-trading has long ceased to be practised. Moreover, the chief branch of the importation, that of cotton, was established nearly a quarter of a century before we ourselves abolished the Slave Trade; and there is the greatest possible difference between refusing to give up a trade or a practice of any kind already adopted, and entering for the first time into a novel career of crimes not yet begun to be perpetrated.
4. Because the question now under the consideration of Parliament differs from every other part of the discussions so long carried on respecting the Slave Trade and slavery. In all former cases our offence was, that we delayed to abolish a criminal system already, and for ages, established; we only refused to do that which was clearly right. But now we are doing that which is clearly wrong; and are for the first time beginning, not continuing, a Slave Trade. We are actively creating a Slave Trade which does not now exist, and

675
not passively suffering an existing traffic to go on.
5. Because it is in vain to expect that other nations will shut their eyes to the garb of hypocrisy in which this conduct of ours clothes all our professions of zeal for the abolition. When we urge them to join in putting down the execrable traffic, they will point to our Act encouraging it; and, required by us to abandon the gains which they derive from conniving at the traffic, they will marvel at our boldness in expecting such sacrifices from them when we all the while are encouraging it ourselves for the avowed purposes of cheapening a luxury that we relish, and adding a small sum to the mass of our revenue.
6. Because it is altogether preposterous to cite in such a debate the principles of political philosophy, and to call this a sacrifice to the doctrine of free trade. The highest authorities have long ago proclaimed that in this measure there are involved no considerations of commercial or financial policy; but, as one of the late Ministers said, "the honour of this country," as another asserted, "the credit and reputation of this country," and as all impartial men who considered the subject have said, the creating or the preventing an amount of suffering among peaceful and unoffending nations, so frightful to contemplate, that no calculator of profit and loss can be hard-hearted enough to weigh against it the largest amount of gain, whether commercial or financial, which could be conceived to result from our legislation.
7. Because, finally, the hurrying through Parliament at the very close of a long and laborious Session, and in the absence of nearly all its Members, a measure of so desperate a character, and which is connected with other measures seriously affecting our whole colonial policy, as well as the trading interests of the mother country, betokens on the part of its authors an impatience of delay and of full discussion, only to be explained by the supposition that the extraordinary state of parties at the present moment offers them the only chance of carrying their measures, which would assuredly have been rejected, as they were five years ago, as soon as those parties had resumed their wonted position. BROUGHAM.
DISSENTIENT—
Because, beside all the other reasons of justice, humanity, and sound policy, which prohibit a measure so directly, so inevitably tending to the encouragement of the Slave Trade, it is wholly in-intolerable, as it is altogether unprecedented, to hurry through Parliament, at the very close of the Session, and after almost all its Members have left town, such important measures, without the possibility of full discussion, and without giving the mother country, or the Colonies, any notice of them—measures which at one blow alter the whole commercial system of the country, and affect in the most serious mariner, and to the greatest extent, the manufacturing and trading community of the Empire.
ASHBURTON.
BROUGHAM.
DENMAN.
S. OXON. (Wilberforce.)

LORD BEXLEY'S PROTEST.
DISSENTIENT—
1. Because the theories by which this Bill is defended, if true, ought to have been long ago laid
676
before the public, in order to their being fully and impartially considered; whereas this Bill, which assumes their truth without adequate dicussion, has been passed with such baste and in such a crisis of affairs as to preclude inquiry.
2. Because the Slave Trade carried on from the coasts of Africa has long been acknowledged by the Legislature of this country, and by the general consent of civilized nations, to be the greatest practical and moral evil now existing upon earth; and this country has, under this conviction, for many years attempted to suppress it at a great expenditure, not only of money, but of the lives of her people.
3. Because this trade is now almost wholly confined to the export of slaves from Africa to Brazil, and to the Spanish Colonies in the West Indies, for the purpose of the cultivation of sugar; and on that account the consumption of sugar produced in those countries has been subjected to heavy discriminating duties.
4. Because this Bill, by opening the British market to sugar the production of Brazil and the Spanish Colonies on equal terms with that of countries in which no Slave Trade has been carried on for many years, and even with the Colonies and dominions of Britain, must give a great and immediate encouragement to that unchristian and inhuman traffic.
5. Because to give any encouragement to such a traffic for the sake of any expected fiscal or commercial advantages, would cover this country with indelible disgrace, as an infamous barter of our religious and moral duties for mere lucre.
6. Because this Bill inflicts a grievous injury on the British colonists by exposing their produce to the unrestricted competition of foreign countries, which continue to be supplied with the labour of African slaves.
BEXLEY.
S. OXON, for reasons 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.
DENMAN.
August 13, 1846.

LORD ELLENBOROUGH'S PROTEST.
DISSENTIENT—
1. Because the Bill, by increasing the consumption of sugar the produce of Brazil and Cuba, will increase the demand for the slave labour by which that sugar is produced, and thus tend to stimulate the Slave Trade, through which that labour is supplied.
2. Because the Government of this country has been engaged for more than thirty years in endeavouring to induce all foreign States to prohibit and prevent the Slave Trade; and has recently concluded a Treaty with France for the conjoint application of a large naval force to its suppression, while Parliament has passed enactments of an unusual and stringent character to facilitate the accomplishment of that object.
3. Because to establish fiscal regulations which tend, by encouraging the Slave Trade, to counteract the measures so adopted for its suppression, is inconsistent with good faith towards France, our ally, and disparaging to the policy and to the reputation of this country.
4. Because the immediate reduction of the discriminating duties on British and foreign sugar, in the manner proposed, and the gradual assimilation of those duties as it is to be effected by the Bill, are measures for which India and the Colonies are

677
in their present condition not sufficiently prepared, the West Indian Colonies especially still suffering under the effect of the various conflicting enactments which Parliament—first, in its unscrupulous cupidity, and since in its late repentant morality—has passed with respect to them, and India having been only recently enabled, by a tardy act of common justice, to compete on equal terms with the other sugar-producing dominions of the Crown.
5. Because the projected scheme for facilitating the introduction of labourers from Africa into the West India Colonies is not yet in detail before Parliament, although proposed as a means of enabling those Colonies to meet on more favourable terms the foreign competition to be created by the Bill; and there is but too much reason to apprehend (the condition of Africa being considered) that this projected scheme of relief cannot be effectual without practically reviving the Slave Trade in British vessels, under the specious disguise of immigration.
6. Because the whole measure is of a nature to convey the impression that the people of this country are become tired of the honourable but costly character they had assumed, of the moral instructors of nations; that they are now resolved to seek compensation for the charge they are bound by treaty to incur, in endeavouring to suppress the Slave Trade, from the increased revenue to be derived from regulations tending to its encouragement; and that they no longer acknowledge the claim of India and the Colonies to have their interests equally considered, although unrepresented in Parliament.
ELLENBOROUGH.
S. OXON, for the 1st, 2d, 3d, and 6th reasons.
BEXLEY.
BROUGHAM.
August, 13, 1846.