Sitting of 9 December 1852

THE WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE ELECTION.
MR. HUMEpresented a petition from Mr. Grantley Berkeley, setting forth the violations of the law which had taken place at the last election for West Gloucestershire. The petitioner prayed the House to institute a full inquiry in the matter complained of. He (Mr. Hume) presumed that the House would not refuse to entertain the petition, as it did not contain any allusion whatever to the sitting Members, and could not, therefore, be said to come within the limits of an election petition.
MR. GRENVILLE BERKELEYmoved that the petition be read by the Clerk at the table.
The Clerk having read the petition,
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the present petition was open to the same objection as the one which had been previously offered and withdrawn—that was, that it was a petition complaining of an undue return, in consequence of bribery and corruption having been employed to influence the return of an hon. Member of that House. That being the case, and the petition not having been presented within the time prescribed for the presentation of election petitions, it could not be received.
MR. HUMEsaid, he wished to know if it was to be understood that the door was henceforth to be closed against all inquiry in such cases, when the complaining parties were not in a position to bear the expense of prosecuting an election petition. The object of the Bill of the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord J.

1153
Russell) it was generally supposed, was to meet cases of this kind. The petition was worded, as far as possible, so that it should not be regarded as an election petition, nor was there any thing in it, as far as he saw, that could affect the seat of the sitting Member. There could be a Commission issued to inquire into the facts, and place them before the country, exposing the violence and contravention of the law which had taken place.
MR. HILDYARDbegged to remind the House of a petition presented in the last Parliament of a similar nature, in which precisely the same question was raised. That petition, which had reference to the then recent election for the Falkirk burghs, alleged that treating had been carried on to an alarming extent, and prayed for inquiry; but the then Attorney! General (Sir A. Cockburn) held that the allegations of the petitioner were such as, if proved, would amount to those of an I election petition; and that as no election petition had been presented within the prescribed time, it was not competent for the House to deal with the question; and: according to that view the House decided. Now, with this decision before them, it was impossible, he thought, for the House to entertain the present petition.
MR. HUMEwould ask if he was to understand that complaints of infractions of the election law, were not in future to be inquired into by that House, except when brought before them by means of the costly process of an election Committee? If any mode was pointed out by which an inquiry could be obtained, he was ready to adopt it.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, that the; question before them was, whether this petition referred to matters that could be inquired into in the ordinary way before an election Committee, or under the Corrupt Practices at Elections Act? It appeared to him that the complaint was against certain individuals who had spent their money at the election in favour of a particular candidate, and not generally against a constituency. If the petition charged the constituency in general with corruption, then no doubt, under the Act he had referred to, it would have been open for his hon. Friend to move an Address to the Crown to institute an inquiry; but, as far as he understood it, it did not.
MR. HUMEsaid, he was only anxious that some investigation should take place,
1154
and was willing to be guided by the authority of the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER: Then my opinion is that the petition should be withdrawn.

THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT—THE BUDGET.
MR. HUMEsaid, he begged to inquire whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would detail the course which he intended to pursue with regard to the public business of tomorrow? By the paper which he held in his hand, he saw that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to bring forward—first, the question of the Inhabited House Duties; second, that of the Tea Duties; third, that of the reduction of the duty upon Malt; and, lastly, the Property and Income Tax. The House must vote separately upon all these propositions, and he wished to know whether one vote was to decide the fate of all.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he desired that the decision of the House should be taken upon the whole of the financial scheme. He understood that to be the wish of the House, and it was certainly the wish of the Government. It was for that reason he had placed all the Resolutions upon the table. It would of course be necessary formally to take the decision of the House upon the first Resolution, but he would look upon that decision as conclusive of the general policy they had recommended.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYbegged to give notice that he would move, as an Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman's Resolutions, that the whole subject should be postponed until after the Christmas recess.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERbegged to state that with respect to the Committee which he should move the House to resolve itself into, it had been a question whether it should be a Committee of Ways and Means, or one upon the Bill. He had consulted the highest authority upon that subject, who was of opinion that it might be either. It was his intention, therefore, to propose with respect to the first Resolution, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Ways and Means, and upon the Tea duties he should move that the House go into Committee upon the Bill.
MR. FREWENsaid, he would now give notice that he should move, as an Amendment upon the Malt Resolution, that the Duty on Hops be repealed altogether.
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, as he observed a difference between the Financial Statement and the Resolutions which were laid upon the table of the House, he should wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had abandoned his original intentions?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that in Resolutions of this nature it was not customary to explain the reason of any alterations. But it was not his intention to alter in any important point the general statement which he had the honour of salmitting to the House on a previous occasion.
Subject dropped.

THE AUCKLAND ISLANDS—MR. ENDERBY.
MR. MILLERsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies whether Mr. Enderby had been recalled from the Auckland Islands; if so, the circumstances under which his recall had taken place; and whether the right hon. Baronet had any objection to place upon the table of the House the Correspondence relating thereto, together with a Copy of any grant, lease, or charter made in relation to the Auckland Islands, either to Mr. Enderby or any other person or persons; also whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to appoint any other Governor in the place of Mr. Enderby, or to take any steps with a view to the colonisation of the said Islands?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, in the first place Mr. Enderby had not been recalled from the Governorship of the Auckland Islands, therefore, he could not state the circumstances under which that recall took place. He would beg to remind the hon. Member of the circumstances under which Mr. Enderby came to the appointment of Lieutenant Governor of these. Islands. In 1848 a lease was granted by the Crown to a Company for the purposes of the whale fishery, and Mr. Enderby was sent out by that Company as their Commissioner, and it was in compliance with the Company's request that Mr. Enderby received from the Crown the Commission as Lieutenant Governor that he might preserve order in the Islands. At a subsequent period the Company became dissatisfied, and sent out other Commissioners, who prevailed on Mr. Enderby to send in his resignation. The whole of the circumstances had been brought to the notice of the Governor of New Zealand, and a report
1156
was expected from Sir George Grey, under whose jurisdiction the Auckland Islands were, and, pending the Report, Mr. En-derby's resignation had not been accepted. Under these circumstances his answer must be, that the Government had no intention of sending out any Governor in place of Mr. Enderby, or of taking steps to colonise these Islands.

THE SUGAR DUTIES.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House to the effects of the Sugar Acts of 1846 and 1848 upon the British Sugar Colonies, and upon the Sugar Trade of the United Kingdom. It might, perhaps, be objected that, after the speech made the other night by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he ought not to persevere with this Motion; but he felt it his duty to draw the attention of the House to this subject, not for the purpose of placing the Government in an unpleasant position, but in order that the anxieties of the Colonists might be put an end to upon this most important subject. On Friday last the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated what he intended to do with regard to the Colonists, and if he had confined himself to that statement, he (Mr. Wilson) should have been satisfied to have let the question rest where it was. But the right hon. Gentleman, not merely content with stating what he intended to do, thought proper to impugn the acts of that House, on this question during the last four or five years, as acts of injustice and harshness towards the West Indian Colonies. Now, he thought that if these acts thus stigmatised were capable of vindication, they should be vindicated, and if they were not, that justice should be afforded to the Colonists; and it was because he took the former view of the question, that he determined to persevere with this Motion. The exact position in which the question now stood was this. It might be recollected that about a year ago they had information that the great battle to be fought between the two great parties in that House would be upon the question of the Sugar Duties. And they were aware that a very extensively organised system—he did not say that the right hon. Gentleman was connected with that organisation —had been established throughout tbff whole of the Sugar Colonies, by petitions to Parliament and otherwise, for the purpose of repealing or arresting the descend-

1157
ing scale of the Sugar Duties. When Parliament met on the 3rd of February, the result of this agitation manifested itself. On the first night of the Session, the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Colonies came down to the House and prut a notice upon the books, asking the House to go into a Committee upon the Sugar Duties. A change of Government took place, and the notice was changed from the 21st of February to the 27th of the same month, and it was ultimately allowed to drop. Soon after the new Ministry was formed, he (Mr. Wilson) put a question to the right hon. Gentleman— then become Secretary for the Colonies— whether he intended to persevere with the Motion of which he had given notice? The right hon. Gentleman's reply was this:—
"Sir, I felt it to be my duty, as a member of the Opposition, to press upon Her Majesty's Ministers What I believed to be the disastrous effects of their own acts. I refer to the Act of 1846, modified by the subsequent Act of 1848, regulating the duties on sugar. Sir, as a member of Her Majesty's present Government, which is in an acknowledged minority in this House, I conceive it to be no less my duty to take whatever course I may think best for the promotion of the object we have in view; and we do not think that it would tend to the relief of West Indian distress if we were, during the present Session, to press forward views and plans against which there are recorded majorities on several occasions during the present Parliament. Sir, we further think that there is nothing in the question of the Sugar Duties sufficiently special or sufficiently exceptionable to justify us in making it an exception to that intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government, which has been announced in another place by my noble Friend the Prime Minister, that intention being not unnecessarily to press upon Parliament during the present Session those controverted questions of policy which we think it best to reserve for the judgment of another Parliament. Sir, for these reasons it is not my intention to bring forward during the present Session the Motion to which the hon. Member for West-bury has alluded. But, Sir, I must beg leave to add one word more. The opinions which I have repeatedly expressed in this House upon the Acts of Parliament regulating the duties on sugar, whether in relation to their effects upon the British Colonies, or in relation to their effects on the great question of slavery and the slave trade, have undergone no change whatever. On the contrary, I am now receiving, almost daily, the most painful proofs of the distress which has existed in the British Colonies; but, without being at all indifferent to that distress, we have determined that those questions, like others of the same nature, ought to be kept for the consideration of a future Parliament, reserving distinctly to ourselves the right hereafter to deal with this question, if we shall be in a position so to do—to deal with this question in such a manner as we shall consider to be required by the justice of the case, and by a due regard to the interests of all
1158
classes of Her Majesty's subjects."[3 Hansard, cxix. 1036.]
At the same time the noble Lord at the head of the Government said in the other House on the 10th of June—
"Whatever other alleviation might be afforded to the distress of the planters, they could only be enabled effectually and permanently to meet the competition of foreign countries by some measure which should have the effect, if not of establishing the old differential duties, at least of preventing the further reduction of those which now subsisted between British and slave-grown sugar."
As a matter of course, all persons interested in colonial matters were greatly anxious to know what the views of the Government might be after the general election. It was quite true that petitions had come in from all our Sugar-growing Colonies, signed by all classes of persons, portraying distresses of an unexampled character, and that there had been no cessation of anxious effort on the part of the Colonists, and of those who represented them in this country, to press on the House, and on the country, the distress of the Colonies, and the claims they conceived themselves to have on the Government and on the Legislature of the home country, in consequence of what they deemed—supported by the opinions of the present Government while in opposition and since—the harsh and unjust legislation of recent years. That very evening the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies had presented a petition in this sense from the merchants of Liverpool—the second presented by the right hon. Baronet from that place on that subject within the last few days. It was therefore highly expedient, the Government having virtually given up this question, which they had so long sustained, that the Government should state to the House, and to the public, and to the colonists, why it was that, upon further reflection, they had changed their views, and given thus, so far, a vindication of the course which the Legislature had lately pursued on this subject, lie would, in the first place, call the attention of the House to the circumstances in which the sugar trade stood in 1845, when the law was first altered. It might appear a very remarkable fact, but nevertheless it was a fact, and a fact of great significance, that for thirty-five years preceding that time the consumption of sugar in this country might be said to be entirely stationary. In 1810, according to a Parliamentary paper which he held in his hand, the consumption of sugar in the United

1159
Kingdom was 196,000 tons. From 1810 to 1830, during which period the planters had the advantage of slavery, so far as labour was concerned, and of an exclusive monpoly of the markets of this country, the consumption never reached the amount it Was in 1810. In 1830 it was 202,000 tons, and from that period to 1844 it remained almost stationary, being, in 1844, only 206,000 tons. It was impossible for the Government of the day to look at that simple fact—that the supply of so necessary an article as sugar remained stationary whilst the population was rapidly increasing—without being convinced there was something extremely wrong in the laws which regulated that supply. Such being the state of things from 1810 to 1844, he would next direct the attention of the House to what had occurred from 1846 to the present time. An objection had been taken to the statement of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer the other night on this subject. He (Mr. Wilson) could see, that while the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, some of his supporters behind him were discussing the subject among themselves, and seemed to think that the year to which the right hon. Gentlemen had referred was an exceptional year, and that it was unfair to take a single year's importation of an article so fluctuating in regard to quantity and subject to such exigencies in regard to its crop as the tropical article of sugar. His (Mr. Wilson's) attention had been drawn to that point by the West India Association of Glasgow, marking the following passage in a pamphlet they had sent him:—
"With reference to the year 1851 [the year to which the right hon. Gentleman referred], the above comparison shows moreover most clearly that any inference unfavourable to the claims of the West Indies founded on 1851, must be untenable, and that in such a complicated question no safe conclusion can be based on the returns of any single year."
He admitted the force of that argument, and, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman's reference to 1851 might be open to that remark. But he would take the consumption of sugar during the three years preceding the alteration of the law in 1846, and the consumption during the last three years since that alteration. They would then have a fair average, to which that objection could not possibly apply. The consumption of sugar during the three years ending 1844, was 207,000 tons; during
1160
the three years ending 1852, it was 382,000 tons. But he might be told by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley), that although there had been that large increase in the consumption of sugar, yet it was a poor consolation to the West Indies if it happened that the largest portion of the increase was in foreign slave-grown sugar. So far, however, from that being the case, during those three years preceding the alteration of the law, the importation of sugar from the West Indies was 127,000 tons, and in the last three years, under the Act of 1846, 147,000 tons. From the Mauritius, during the first three years to which he had referred, the quantity was 30,000 tons; during the last three years, 48,000 tons. From the East Indies, during the first three years the quantity was 49,000 tons; during the last three years, 68,000 tons. Taking the aggregate of the British possessions, the total importation during the three years preceding the Act was 209,000 tons; and during the last three years, under the Act, 264,000 tons. So that, taking the sugar productions of the British possessions, exclusive of foreign, there had been an increase of 50,000 tons in the average of the last three years, compared with the three years preceding the Act of 1846. And if they took the first and last year, they would find a much more striking result. In the first of those years, the consumption of British Colonial sugar amounted to 216,000 tons, and the last year of all it amounted to 309,000 tons. That was a conclusive proof that the consumption of sugar in this country had increased nearly fifty per cent during the last six years, and had remained stationary during the preceding thirty-five years. By the Act of 1846, an immense amount of sugar had been released for the benefit of the consumers, which had been excluded before, and the British possessions had shared a portion of that advantage larger than that of Foreign Colonies. The noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs published last year a pamphlet on this subject, and deserved infinite credit for the industry and trouble with which he had collected facts with regard to the West Indies; but on those facts he could not so completely rely as on official returns made to that House. He would not for a moment impute—on the contrary, he knew it was not the case—that the noble Lord had been careless or indifferent as to the sources from which he had

1161
derived his information; nor would he impute to the gentlemen from whom he derived that information the slightest wish to exaggerate the true state of the Colonies in which they lived; hut he thought it was hardly safe to rely altogether on the views of particular persons, who perhaps from circumstances independent of the law were in a state of suffering and distress. The noble Lord in that pamphlet put forward this argument, that although the consumption had increased, yet we were indebted to the East Indies and the Mauritius for the increased production and supply, and that we had been obliged to resort there to make up the deficiency in the supply from Jamaica. The whole tenor of the noble Lord's remarks, indeed, went to show that, so far as regarded the West Indies and the more important of our Colonial possessions, the produce of sugar was rapidly declining, and the state of those Colonies altogether degenerating. Now, here again he was most desirous to treat the subject fairly, and, in order to do so, he should avoid the fault of selecting particular years for the purpose of making comparisons. The Sugar Act was passed in 1846, and it might well be supposed all its effects would be visible in the five years succeeding. The fair way was to take an average of the result during those five years as compared with the five years immediately preceding the passing of that Act. He was referring to Parliamentary Paper No. 53 of the last Session, which gave the production of sugar for a series of years, from 1831 upwards, for each of the British Colonies separately and for the whole in the aggregate. From that Paper he collected the following facts, which were exceedingly interesting, and calculated to reconcile the West Indies to the Act which that House had thought right to pass, and which Her Majesty's Government most rightly and wisely intended to uphold. In the five years preceding the Act of 1846, the average importation of sugar from the British possessions was 216,000 tons; in the last five years, beginning with 1847, the average had risen to 266,000 tons; the average production of the British possessions had therefore risen 50,000 tons during these latter five years as compared with the five years preceding. But the noble Lord would perhaps tell him, as he had told the public, that this increase was attributable to the supply which had been obtained from the Best Indies and the Mauritius. Now, it was quite true that these colonies had had
1162
their share of the increase. The production of the East Indies during the five years under protection, was 58,000 tons, and in the first five years of free trade 71,000. In the Mauritius in the first five years, it was 32,000 tons; in the last five years 50,000 tons. Those two facts were consistent with the noble Lord's argument; but taking the West Indies, he thought the House would perceive the conclusion of the noble Lord was not consistent with fact. In British Guiana the average production of the five years under protection was 24,000 tons; in the five years under free trade it had risen to 30,000 tons. In Trinidad the average production of the five years under protection was 16,000 tons, and the average production of the five years under free trade was no less than 20,000 tons. In Jamaica, the most important Colony of all, which was the only colony in the West Indies in which the production had been stationary, the average in the five years under protection was 32,800 tons, and in the five years under free trade, 32,100 tons. When they considered the extraordinary afflictions which had visited that island; when they considered that they had lost in one year 40,000 labourers by cholera alone, and a large number by smallpox, which succeeded; when they considered they had been called on to send back the Coolie immigrant labourers; it could not be a matter of surprise that in the five years under a system approximating to unrestricted competition, the planters of Jamaica had only been able to keep the ground which they enjoyed under absolute protection. In Barbadoes, in the last five years of protection the average was 16,500 tons; in the first five years of free trade it was 24,600 tons; being an increase of nearly 50 per cent in that single Colony. If they took the West Indies, as an aggregate, being the particular part of the British Empire said to be the most suffering, they would find in the five years preceding the Act of 1846, the average production was 124,000, and in the last five years under free trade, it was 144,000 tons, so that in that portion of the British Empire said to be most hardly treated, there had been a larger production under free trade by 20,000 tons annually, than under a restricted monopoly. He could even go a step further. It was not necessary to his argument, but it was necessary as reconciling those who thought themselves hardly dealt with by that House to

1163
a fate to Which the present Government had decided they should be submitted. He would go to the time of slavery, when they had the advantage of the slave trade and the advantage of an absolute monopoly of this market, and he would show them that the average production was considerably larger now than during the last five years of slavery and protection combined. From 1831 to 1835 the average production of the whole British possessions was 221,000 tons, while the average production of the whole British possessions in the last five years of free trade was 266,000 tons. So that, whether they viewed the sugar possessions belonging to this country as Subsisting under a state of slavery, with the advantage of protection and absolute monopoly, or whether they viewed them under a state of free labour, with the advantage of the monopoly prior to 1846, they found that in either case the production of those Colonies had enormously increased, and that during the last five years, under unrestricted competition and free labour, that increase had been greater than at any former period under slavery and strict monopoly. It was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies, that the Act of 1846 had had a prejudicial effect in encouraging the slave trade. He would do the right hon. Gentleman the credit to say that among numerous arguments, such was the reason which he urged for the line he took, and he was quite willing to admit that the view the right hon. Gentleman adopted was sympathised in by this country, and had for its object motives much larger and more defensible than ever were connected with commercial restriction. They were told, that although the production of sugar had increased in the British possessions, yet they had given a great impetus to production in the Slave Colonies, and thereby contributed, most inconsistently with their professions, to the encouragement of the slave trade. But what were the facts? It was true that while in 1846 the production of sugar in Cuba, Porto Rico, and Brazil, amounted to 342,000 tons, it had increased in 1852 to 406,000 tons, or 18 per cent. But this increased production was not the result of any increase in the slave trade, because there was reason to believe, from a paper which was laid before the House at his (Mr. Wilson's) request in March last, that no increase of the slave trade took place during the period to which he had referred, at least to such an extent as
1164
would account for the increased production of sugar. It appeared that in 1846 the importation of slaves into the Brazils was 50,324. It was not pretended that the importation of slaves in 1846 could in any way have been the consequence of the Act passed towards the close of that year; but the importation of slaves had dwindled down in the year 1851 to 3,287. It must be a most consolatory reflection to the right hon. Gentleman to think that, notwithstanding the Act of 1846, which at the first blush might be supposed to give encouragement to the slave trade by encouraging the production of slave sugar, the number of slaves imported into the Brazils had during the last five years sunk from 50,324 to 3,287. He did not find either that there had been any reduction in the quantity of sugar produced; on the contrary, the production in the Brazils had increased. In Cuba, he had reason to believe, down to a recent period, there had been a sincere anxiety to put an end to the slave trade, and it appeared that in 1851 only 5,000 slaves were imported into that island. It was not his duty to show that the Act of 1846 had had any effect whatever in reducing the slave trade. He did not pretend it. All that he wanted to show was that it had had no effect in increasing the slave trade. He said the slave trade had diminished, but he did not say it was in consequence of the Act of 1846. At the same time that he moved for the paper to which he had just referred, he moved for another paper which threw some light on the subject. It was a return of the quantity of machinery of various descriptions which had been shipped from this country at two periods, namely, in 1845 and 1851, to those slave-producing countries, for facilitating the production of sugar. In 1845 the official value of the machinery, the wood, iron, and copper, exported to Cuba and the Brazils, was 50,700 l.; and in 1851, instead of 50.755 l., it was 158,771 l. All that he wanted to show was, that although there had been a considerable increase in the production of sugar, it was not owing to an increase of slaves, but to the more legimate influence of an increase of machinery from this country. Then it was said that the planters of the West Indies had not had the same advantages as the planters of Cuba and Brazil with regard to capital; but the reverse was the fact, because any one who looked at the Reports, In 1848, of the Committee on which he and the

1165
right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies had the honour of serving, would see that the whole evidence of that Committee went to show that in Cuba and those countries where slave labour prevailed, the interest of capital was about 12 per cent; and while those planters were increasing their production by the employment of capital on which they paid 12 per cent, our planters were charged by their agents in this country not more than 5 per cent. Turning to the quantity of machinery shipped to the British possessions, be found the official value in 1845 was 225,000 l., and in 1850 only 138,000 l. He thought that return would have given a very different result if the British planters had made up their mind to the change in the law, if they had not been deluded by fallacious hopes, by Motions made continually, year after year, in that House, which led them to believe they would recover some part of that protection which they had lost. He thought if they had, like the people of Porto Rico and Cuba, applied more machinery they would have improved the quality and increased the quantity of sugar more than they had done. These few facts demonstrated that the increased production of the slave colonies was not by the bone and sinews of the slaves, but by the encouragement of English artisans making machinery in which they invested capital, and were enabled to improve the quality and increase the quantity of their production. Although the advantage of machinery was on the side of foreign countries, he was prepared to show the increased production of the British possessions was even larger than theirs. He found, as he had already stated, that in 1846, the production of Cuba, Porto Rico, and the Brazils, was 342,000 tons, and in 1851, 406,000 tons. The production of the British Colonies was, in 1846, 220,000 tons, and by the last Report, 305,000 tons. So that, while the increase in those five years in those foreign countries was 18 per cent, in the British possessions it was 38 per cent. Therefore, notwithstanding the disadvantage of an unsettled state of the law by continual agitation out of the House, and by continual Motions in the House, under all the difficulties with which they had been surrounded—and he did not deny those difficulties, but he was ready to trace them to their right cause, if be thought he was justified in inflicting such a statement on the House—it was highly to the credit of those men, and highly char-
1166
acteristic of that energy which marked the British people, that while the slave-producing colonies bad increased their production 18 per cent, the British possessions had increased their production 38 per cent. It was quite obvious from the first, when they embarked in this controversy, most interesting and hardly fought as it had been, that it was impossible not to put in the van of consideration the interests of the consumer at home. He had shown that for years they had pursued a policy which confined the consumption of so necessary and common an article of food as sugar to the same quantity for thirty-five years. It would have been quite impossible, and if possible unfair and impolitic, to have allowed such a state of things to exist. What had been the effect on the consumer of the alteration of the law in 1846? In 1845, the amount consumed was 207,000 tons a year, which at 60?. a ton, would represent 12,420,000 l. expended in the article of sugar. Supposing the duties to have remained the same, and the supply the same, what would have been the difference to the consumer? Taking the 382,000 tons purchased this year at the same price, it would be no less than 22,920,000 l., so that the consumer was at the present time enjoying an absolute advantage equal to 10,000,000 l. a year by the alteration of the Sugar Duties. But then they were told, perhaps, the revenue had suffered. When duties were reduced, the inference was that the revenue would suffer; but he would here call attention to a fact which must afford a great encouragement to Her Majesty's Ministers to pursue the policy which, he thought wisely, they had marked out for themselves. In 1846 the duties paid on sugar were at the rate of 25 s. on colonial, and 63 s. on foreign, and 5,000,000 l. was the amount of revenue produced. The duty on rum wa3 9s. 10 d., and it produced 981,000 l., making a total of 5,981,000 l. After reducing the duties from 25s. to 10s., and from 63 s. to 15 s., the revenue for the present year, on the 5th of July last, stood thus: Sugar, 4,346,000 l.; rum, 1,100,000 l.; making a total of 5,446,000 l., as compared with 5,981,000 l. before the duties were altered. So that during this short period, excepting 500,000 l., the whole revenue had recovered, whilst they had conferred on the consumers of the country the real advantage of 10,000,000 l. annually. Taking into account the increased supply from the plantations, the planter

1167
found his receipts larger at the present diminished price than at the former higher prices. A fair average price previous to the introduction of slave-grown sugar was 35 l. a ton, at which rate 207,000 tons would amount to the gross value of 7,245,000 l. The present price might he taken at 252. per ton, and the present production, 309,000 tons, would amount to the gross value of 7,725,000 l. So that, as far as the planter was concerned, the gross price he received for his sugar was larger by more than 500.000 l. than what he received with the higher price and smaller production. But then it was said he did this at a much greater cost. He believed, as the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) pointed out in his pamphlet, that the planter had not only the advantage of a reduction in the price of labour, from a more continuous supply of labour, but a reduction in the prices of a number of articles with which he supplied his estate. He (Mr. Wilson) met the other day with a paper, with which the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary was doubtless conversant, containing the evidence taken in the island of the Mauritius, upon a question relating to the currency of that island, which had disturbed the equanimity of the people there, and was not easy of solution at home. He found in that evidence which, was laid before Parliament about two years or eighteen months ago, a very singular admission, which was so extremely pertinent and apt, as showing those advantages of reduction in the price of general articles, that, being very short, he would read it to the House. Mr. Robinson, a large planter in the Mauritius, and a merchant of great eminence, whose opinion was very valuable, talking of the currency of the island, and adjusting the exchanges, said—
"I conceive that the balance of trade is 600,000 l, and we are realising 50,000 l. in paper. The cost of raising sugar is at least 16 l. or 17 l. per ton. The cost of all articles imported from England is now so low, that if we require only the same quantity of goods, then the balance is in our favour."
In rice alone he estimates the saving at 800,000 l. last year and this year, as compared with preceding years. Now, here was an article, a first necessary of life, with which the planter had to feed his labourers; 800,000 dollars, upon a crop of 60,000 tons, gave a saving of about 18 per cent upon the value of the whole crop of the island in rice alone. There was a great deal of evidence offered before the
1168
Committee of 1848 as to the cost of producing sugar, and it was stated at about 20 s. per cwt, or 20 l. per ton, in the Mauritius. He (Mr. Wilson) had been informed lately by, he believed, the largest planter in Trinidad, that the cost of producing sugar there, had been reduced to 13 s. per cwt. now; and with regard to the Mauritius, he had been informed, within the last month, by a gentleman who believed, in 1848, that without protection Mauritius was doomed; that he believed the whole crop this year would not average more than 10 s. a cwt. But sugar was not the only article in which the West Indians were interested; there were other productions, if not equally important, yet very important to them. Now, during the five years preceding the adoption, in 1846, of "that fatal policy which was to ruin the Colonies," the production of coffee in the British possessions was not quite 27,000,000 lb s.; in the last five years it was above 38,000,000 lb s. No doubt, if the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) took the case of the West Indies alone, he would find a large falling-off, and a proportion of this increased production was from Ceylon; but the question must be viewed as a whole, and you could not separate one Colony from the rest, or exclude any part of our possessions from all fair advantages. Of cocoa the production in the five years preceding 1846 was 2,400,000lb s., while in the five years following that date, there had been an augmentation of production to the extent of 3,028,0001b s. In rum, also, the increase had been very large. In the five years preceding 1846, the production amounted to 3,859,000 gallons, while in the last five years it had reached 5,324,000 gallons; and all this had occurred under the "fatal" system of free trade. Whatever view, therefore, was taken of the facts— whether the enormous increase in the production of sugar or rum was looked to—or whether hon. Members looked to the great diminution which he had shown to have taken place in the cost of production, it was to his mind a plain and clear fact that these Colonies, if they were not now prosperous, were at least more prosperous than they were before. Whatever ground, therefore, there might be for the allegation that the West Indies were in a state of distress, that distress could not be traced to the Act of 1846, or to the consequences of that Act. The three great complaints made against that Act were, in

1169
the first place, that it would increase the slave trade; and he thought he had satisfactorily proved that this was not the case. Secondly, it was predicted that the Colonies would be ruined by it; and he believed he had shown that the Act of 1846 was not responsible for their ruin. The next complaint was that dearness and not cheapness would be the result of that piece legislation, and he believed he had satisfactorily shown that this anticipation was unfounded. It was said, that ultimately, through the ruin of the West Indian Colonies, there would be a greater scarcity; but the community found themselves supplied with a cheaper article than before, and more abundantly. There was just one subject more to which he would ask the House to allow him to refer, and it was a matter of immediate interest, because it was connected with the plan announced by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on Friday last. When the right hon. Gentleman had concluded his statement on that occasion, he (Mr. Wilson) felt it his duty to ask him whether he intended refining in bond to be optional or compulsory upon all refiners. The distinction, as he should show, was a very important one. It was by no means a new question, for it was mooted in 1848. He believed that great advantages might be derived from refining in bond, but he wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman and the House the position in which the question stood in 1849, and how it stood at the present moment. It was asserted that foreign sugars contained a greater proportion of saccharine matter than British sugars, and it was said that if the system of refining in bond were practicable, it would bring the sugar duties as nearly as possible to a system of ad valorem duties. If refining in bond had been practicable, he thought there was no doubt that the system would have accomplished that end. There were deputations from the refiners, and the subject was much considered; he remembered sitting in Downing-street with the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and a deputation, from 11 in the morning till 6, discussing the question. But all agreed at last that to make it at all fair you must make it compulsory. It was also found that if the sugar refiners were permitted to refine in bond it would be necessary to place them under Excise restrictions; and the question with the refiners was, whether the evil would not be greater to be subjected to
1170
those restrictions, than the advantage they would derive from being allowed to refine in bond. That question having been raised, the Government of that day was asked to defer the measure for a short period, and it was suggested that an Excise officer should be sent to the larger refining houses in London to ascertain what restrictions would be necessary for the protection of the revenue on the one hand, and the interest of the trader on the other. They did so, and at the end of three or four months the Government received a report from the Excise officer, which convinced the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revonue that it was perfectly possible for the revenue laws to be evaded unless the refining system were placed under the surveillance of the Excise. When the refiners were informed of this, they came to a unanimous decision that it would be unwise, under such circumstances, to accept the proffered boon; the proposition was therefore abandoned. Early in 1851 another agitation was got up upon the subject during a temporary depression of the refining trade, and applications of a similar character were again made to the Government. The sugar refiners of London were asked to join the refiners of Scotland, and a meeting was called in London upon the subject. At that meeting, out of thirty persons summoned twenty-two attended, and out of those twenty-two two only voted against the Resolution then proposed to be adopted, which Resolution was in these terms: —
"That on referring to the report made by the officers of Excise when the subject of refining in bond was investigated by them in 1849, wherein it was stated that in order to protect the revenue from fraud it was necessary to impose inconvenient restrictions on the working of the sugar houses, and having fully considered the present state of the sugar trade, it does not appear to this meeting to be for the interest of the trade to press upon the Government at the present time the introduction of a law for altering the system of working the refineries."
The House should be aware that until the year 1854 the Government would have two kinds of duty to deal with—one on Colonial sugar, and the other on Foreign sugar; and if they admitted both kinds into the refinery how would they be able to apportion the duty on the two in a refined state? Upon the whole, when they considered the great complaints which were made by every trade that was subjected to the restrictions of the Excise; and when they considered that the spirit dealers, in fixing the relative duties between Home and Colonial

1171
spirits, actually claimed a difference of 1½d. a gallon duty because of the Excise restrictions to which they were exposed, he, for one, thought, if there were any justice in that claim, the sugar interest would do well to pause before they submitted to a system of restrictions which might add to the amount of duty they now paid to the Government. He had only made these remarks with a view to show the House that the subject was not neglected by the late Government; that every attempt was made to extend to the Colonies the advantage of refining sugar in bond, if advantage it were; and what were the difficulties the Government met with in that respect. If, however, right hon. Gentlemen opposite could satisfy themselves that they could introduce a system of refining sugar in bond which would impose no sort of difficulties either upon the Government or the parties themselves, while it would be the means of introducing a system of ad valorem duties on all kinds of sugar, he had no hesitation in saying that it would not only be an advantage to the refiners, but also to the Government itself. That, however, was more a question for the Inland Revenue Department than for legislation. In moving for these Returns he had only to apologise to the House for making a lengthened statement, and he should not have done so had he not thought that in the particular position in which this question now stood, it was the duty of that House to vindicate the conduct of the Parliament of Great Britain in dealing with the interests of our Colonial possessions in every part of the world. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for the Returns mentioned at the commencement of his speech.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That copies of Reports made by the Board of Inland Revenue in 1848 and 1849, in reference to the refining of Sugar in bond, be laid on the Table of the House:
"And also a Return of the quantities of Sugar, Molasses, and Rum, and the amount of Duties received thereon, in the year ending the 5th day of July, 1852; also, of the average price per cwt. of Muscovado Sugar, exclusive of Duty, from the London Gazette; and the average prices per cwt. of Havannah Sugar (ordinary Yellow), exclusive of Duty, from the London Mercantile Prices Current for that year (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 296, of Session 1852)."
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wilson) had addressed the House in an able speech, which evinced the extensive knowledge and accurate details he brought to bear, and had
1172
so often brought to bear, on the question; and as the hon. Gentleman had alluded to him so pointedly, as having taken a prominent part in the question on previous occasions, he trusted he should not appeal in vain to that House for their indulgence in granting him a patient hearing while he answered the speech of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman had stated that he felt it to be his duty to vindicate the policy of the last five years: that, he thought, was a very natural desire on the part of the hon. Gentleman, and considering the active part he had taken in the question during the same period, it was no less natural he (Sir J. Pakington) should also desire to vindicate the part he had taken. The hon. Gentleman, when addressing the House on the present occasion, in a manner which he could not make the slightest objection to, proceeded throughout to take advantage of the remarkable and unexpected oircumstances which the sugar trade presented this year. The hon. Gentleman availed himself of these remarkable circumstances to give to the policy of the years 1846 and 1848 the most favourable aspect of which that policy was susceptible. He could assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that so far as he was concerned, and as far as the party he represented were concerned, that with respect to the present or the future state of the question he should approach the subject in a spirit of perfect candour and unreservedness. So little was he disposed to shrink from the avowal of any change of opinion which he might have undergone, from a feeling of shame, he thought that a person ought to be always most ready to come forward and make the circumstance known when he had arrived, upon any great question of public policy, at a different conclusion from that which he had previously conscientiously entertained. In justice to himself he must premise that in reviewing the whole of this question and its details, which involved considerations of most enormous importance, not only to the vast body of consumers in England, but to those important dependencies of the Crown which send sugar to this country—that considering the important interests involved in the question, he was desirous of approaching the subject in a spirit of candour and unreserve. The hon. Gentleman had adverted to what he had done, and he must say, in reviewing all he had ever said or done on the question, he was not now dis-

1173
posed to retract anything he remembered to hay said or to have done connected? with this subject. The hon. Gentleman's figures for 1852 were figures which even the hon. Gentleman himself could hardly hare expected to have seen. He was willing to admit that he had never expected to see, at least so soon, the figures which the hon. Gentleman had adverted to. He would even go a step further, and would ask the hon. Gentleman himself whether he, twelve months ago, nay, at a more recent period, in February or March last, could have anticipated that the year 1852 would afford figures such as the hon. Gentleman had described as having shown themselves within the last fortnight. It was his belief he would not have had the slightest anticipation of the kind. The hon. Gentleman stated truly, that the objections he (Sir J. Pakington) took to the policy of the noble Lord the Member for London in the years 1846 and 1848 were divided into three branches: that he objected to the policy as tending to increase the slave trade; secondly, as giving a stimulus to slave-grown products; and, thirdly, as being likely to prove deeply injurious to the sugar-producing colonies. The hon. Gentleman had stated that night, that in every one of the three objections these predictions had proved false. He was prepared to join issue with the hon. Gentleman on those points, and to show, so far from being disapproved by results, that in every one of the three cases in all respects had the predictions been verified and fulfilled. The first of these objections adverted to the question of the slave trade. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the circumstances in which the slave trade was in 1846, and he then, in a tone of triumph, contrasted them with the great, the gratifying diminution the slave trade had displayed during the last half-year. But the hon. Gentleman in his statement had neglected two important points—he did not advert to the condition of the slave trade previous to the year 1846, and he made no mention of the slave trade during the years between 1846, when the Act was introduced, and 1851. He (Sir J. Pakington) considered that it was hardly fair to take 1846 into calculation, because it was impossible that any improvement which might nave taken place in the slave trade could he considered to be the legitimate consequences of the legislation of that year. Let him be permitted to call the attention of
1174
the House to the amount of the slave trade previous to the year 1846.

In 1842 the importation to Brazil was

17,435

1843

19,095

1844

22,849

1845

19,453

That was four years previous to the legislation of 1846. He would pass over the year 1846 for the reason he had stated. He came to the year 1847, when the number was 56,170, and in 1848 it had risen to 60,000. He could not pass the year 1848 by without remark. He was quoting from Parliamentary Returns. The hon. Gentleman, no doubt, remembered the Committee appointed on the Motion of Lord George Bentinck in 1848, and no doubt recollected the evidence given before that Committee by a person who well understood the whole subject, and who, on being asked his opinion as to the number of slaves imported into Brazil, stated that the number was much higher than the returns stated them to be, and that he had reason to believe that the number in that year amounted to 70,000, if not 80,000. In the year 1849 the number landed in Brazil was 54,000, and in 1850 it was 23,000. He had not cast up the amount for these four years subsequent to 1846, but the House would see that the difference was prodigiously large; and he thought, looking at the nature of our legislation in 1846, it was impossible fairly to resist the conclusion that the Act of 1846 did give an enormous stimulus to the slave trade, and was, in fact, the cause of the very great increase which the figures he had quoted showed. He now came to the year 1851, and he spoke of the fact with unqualified pleasure—the number of slaves landed in Brazil in that year had dropped down to 3,287; and he believed that in the present year the slave trade with Brazil had almost fallen to nil. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not think him (Sir J. Pakington) very unfair if he stated his suspicion that the low amount of the slave trade of 1851 and the almost cessation of it in 1852 were circumstances not wholly unconnected with the enormous introduction of slaves in the four previous years. He believed that the immense importation of slaves during these four years caused a glut, and that the Brazilian Government became alarmed in consequence of so large a number being introduced. The introduction of slaves into Cuba during the four years preceding 1846 was, in 1842, 3,630;

1175
in 1843, 8,000; in 1844, 10,000; and in 1845, 1,300. In the four years subsequent to 1846 the numbers introduced were, in 1847, 1,450; in 1848, 1,500; in 1849, 8,700; in 1850, 3,500. The number introduced last year was 5,000. But the hon. Gentleman was no doubt aware of the fact, the notorious fact, that in the last year the slave trade of Cuba was increasing. The present Captain General, he feared, was not disposed to put an end to the trade, and it was therefore notorious the slave trade was increasing in that quarter, though not to any great extent. On the first point he had shown that he was borne out in his prediction, and that the legislation of 1846 did give a great stimulus to the slave trade. He now came to the second point of objection, which was, that a stimulus would be given to slave produce. And here he thought he had some reason to complain of the manner in which the hon. Gentleman had treated this part of the subject. No doubt the hon. Gentleman used figures which best suited his own view of the case; but he (Sir J. Pakington) was prepared to show, so far as he was allowed to draw an inference from facts, that the Act of 1846 did give an enormous stimulus not only to the slave trade, but also to the produce of sugar by slave labour; and that, while this country had been making prodigious efforts to abolish that disgraceful trade, and to put an end to slavery, the unhappy legislation, as he must call it, of 1846 had had the effect of that which he had anticipated—the forcing of the produce of sugar by slave labour. The hon. Gentleman was, no doubt, aware that the information obtained in this country as to the amount of the trade of Brazil in sugar was rendered rather difficult to be understood, because it was imported in boxes and cases; he had, therefore, had the mean contents reduced to cwts. The hon. Gentleman, it should be observed, did not touch upon the state of the sugar market prior to 1846; he only admitted an increase since 1846. He begged the attention of the hon. Member and the House to the figures he should read. The average exports from Cuba for the four years before 1846—for the four years ending 1845—were 3,191,706 cwt.; the average exports for four years ending 1850, passing over 1846, were 4,945,814 cwt.; showing that in four years after the Act of 1846, the exports of Cuba had increased by 1,754,108 cwt.
1176
With regard to the Brazils, the average exports for the year ending 1845 was 1,099,234 cwt.; the average exports for four years after, excluding 1846, was 1,320,956 cwt.; showing that in the four years after the Act of 1846 the exports from Brazil had increased 221,722 cwt. over those of the four years ending 1845. He held in his hand a return showing the increased importation of sugar from the two principal slaveholding countries, and it appeared that for four years previous to 1846 the amount was 4,290,940 cwt., and for the four years ending 1850, 6,266,770 cwt., showing an increase of 1,975,830 cwt. He thought he might appeal with some confidence to these figures, to show that our legislation of 1846 had greatly stimulated the production of sugar in slave-holding countries. He now came to the third of the points on which he joined issue with the hon. Gentleman—namely, the effect which our legislation had had on our sugar-producing Colonies. The hon. Gentleman had dealt with this part of the subject with a boldness which had astonished him. That the consumer in this Country had derived great benefit, he.(Sir J. Pakington) was perfectly and willingly prepared to admit. That sugar—the imports of which to this country had from 2,400,000 cwt. at the beginning of this century increased under the system of slavery to 4,000,000 cwt., and had now-swollen to upwards of 6,000,000 cwt.— had been cheapened enormously by recent legislation, he perfectly admitted, as he did also that the comfort of the British consumer had in consequence been greatly promoted, the revenue had not from the great decrease of duties greatly or in any considerable degree fallen. The statement of the hon., Member with reference to the condition of the West Indian Colonies was one for which he (Sir J. Pakington) was not prepared, and from which he entirely disagreed. He hoped the House would forgive him if he brought forward some new proofs of the tremendous suffering inflicted on the Colonies—a degree of suffering which he could not approach without the most painful feelings, and which was greater than in the history of the world any country had ever inflicted on any part of itself. His difficulty had been to make a selection out of the mass of proofs which had accumulated on his table during the last few years on this point. He might begin by referring to the pamphlet of his

1177
noble Friend the Member for Lynn (Lord Stanley), to which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wilson) had paid a tribute that was justly due. What did his noble Friend say of the state of British Guiana?—
"I was prepared for desolation, but not for what I saw. The whole land was strewn with ruins of houses and mills, and those not old, but new buildings."
That statement was not made at a distant period; and it was a statement made from the noble Lord's own personal observation in 1850. The noble Lord said, with reference to an important Report presented by certain Commissioners, that—
"Out of a total of about 600 estates, now or formerly existing in British Guiana, the Commissioners report 26 as having been placed under sequestration between 1847 and 1849. I have it on private authority, that in the latter year 19 more have been added to this list, while 33 have been disposed of by execution sale. In the single month of May, 1850, seven estates were sold in the above manner. Their collective value was at one time upwards of 170,000 l.; their price last year was 71,400 dollars, or between 14,000 l. and 15.000 l."
The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wilson) had referred to increased imports of sugar into this country; but Lord Harris, the Governor of Trinidad, in a very important despatch, had warned the Government against trusting to the fact of increased imports. The hon. Gentleman had talked of increased imports, but he had said nothing of diminished price. Lord Harris, in alluding to the effect of diminished prices, stated that for many years not only had there been no profit from estates, but, on the contrary, a loss of British capital to the extent of at least 1,000,000 l. sterling. He should not dwell on the frightful events that had occurred in the Mauritius in 1848, and which had brought the island almost to a state of ruin, but which, he was happy now to say, had in a great measure passed away. He wished to speak of the state of Jamaica, and with the permission of the House would refer to a private letter which he had received on the subject, the writer of which he would not at present name. He was perfectly willing, however, to communicate the name of the writer to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wilson). The writer was a most competent witness: his letter was dated in June, 1852:—
"So utterly do I despair of this island rising readily from the load of distress under which she has suffered, and still suffers, that I am now offering, quite voluntarily on my part, to give up my estate—a good one—for a debt less than one-fifth of the sum it cost me since freedom, due to
1178
the same individual to whom I have paid for it nearly 25,000 l sterling, while my paternal estate in this island, once worth as much more, is valueless and abandoned, though still in my own hands."
Turning to another letter he found that the writer, whose name also he should not mention, said—
"In 1819 these estates netted the proprietor 22,000 l. Both are now abandoned, and give no income whatever. This is the case of thousands."
That very morning he received a letter from a gentleman with whom he had no acquaintance, but who, he presumed, must be a very large proprietor. That gentleman said that he had thirty-two properties belonging to him in Jamaica, and that if a change did not speedily take place, it was his intention to send instructions for the abandonment of all those estates. Was the hon. Gentleman justified in taking such a view as he had of the effects of the legislation which had taken place? Whether that legislation was just or unjust, beneficial at home, or injurious, the hon. Gentleman was not justified in attempting to hold out that it had not produced most ruinous effects. In a letter dated September, received by a gentleman of great intelligence, who left Jamaica six months ago, the writer, the brother of that gentleman, said—
"You can form no conception of the depression day by day going on here. You have not yet been away six months, and the change you would perceive would alarm you. Our lower orders are becoming daily more reckless, putting aside all decency, and vice and crime are now walking in daylight along our streets. The better class of men appear to have lost all hope, and the aspect of things is truly distressing."
That was an extract from the letter of a person of unquestionable authority, and of local knowledge, sent home from Jamaica only on the 27th of September last. The last document with which he should trouble the House was one to which the hon. Gentleman might have access. It was a return of the parochial taxation, rates, and dues for the year 1852, levied in Jamaica generally. The first column showed the value on which the property had been assessed; it gave a return for every county, every parish in the island, and the result was, that for 1851 the rateable value of property in Jamaica was 9,499,790 l, while in the preceding year, 1850, it was 11,556,379 l. Was it possible for him to adduce a more painful or a more pungent proof of the dreadful distress which our legislation had brought upon Jamaica than

1179
that Which was afforded by this paper? It showed that in one year, from 1850 to 1851, property had fallen in value upwards of 2,000,000 l. or two-elevenths of its amount one twelvemonths previous. The hon. Gentleman opposite had stated that he thought the effects of our legislation of 1846 should be seen in the five years that followed. He (Sir J. Pakington) thought he had shown what its effects had been in the course of the five years in one of our most important Colonies. The hon. Gentleman had talked of these five years as five years of unrestricted competition. He (Sir J. Pakington) was astonished at such a momentary forgetfulness of the fact. Instead of being five years of unrestricted competition, those five years had been years in which, though slave produce had been admitted to an injurious if not a fatal extent, the British grower had notwithstanding been protected by a high, though a gradually descending protective duty; and at this moment, when the hon. Gentleman spoke of unrestricted competition, there existed, in fact, a differential duty in favour of the Colonial grower, amounting to upwards of 30 per cent. During the present year British muscovado was admitted at an import duty of 10 s. [Mr. WILSON made an observation across the table.] Whether the hon. Member spoke of five years or not, it did not affect the fact. He (Sir J. Pakington) was dealing with facts, and one which he meant to bring to bear on the aspect of the question was, that there was not unrestricted competition. British sugar was muscovado. Foreign sugar was not so, but brown clayed, and not equal to white clayed. The nominal difference must not be taken, but the difference between British sugar and foreign brown clayed. While British muscovado paid 10 s. per cwt., foreign sugar paid previous to the 5th of July 15 s. 6d., and at this moment it paid 14 s. 6d. The British producer was protected by a duty of more than 30 per cent. The hon. Gentleman had boasted of the Act of 1846, and had spoken of adopting the policy of that Act once and for ever. He must, however, say that if there was any one thing more than another which he had learned in that House it was to distrust—if not to treat with ridicule—any idea of final settlements by Parliament of great fiscal and commercial questions. Upon matters of immutable principle, and upon great questions of public law and public right, they might come to a final
1180
settlement; but when they were dealing with matters that concerned the comfort of the people, and with fiscal regulations and commercial arrangements, to talk of a final settlement Was absurd; and Parliament, if it dealt with such questions on the principle of a final settlement, would be abandoning one of its foremost functions of legislation. It was at all times the paramount duty of Parliament to consider the demands of the people; and in their fiscal and commercal questions to consider what the interests' of the country really required. He was not speaking with reference to any particular question, but was merely stating the rule upon which he conceived every statesman should act. Their duty was to shape their legislation from time to time, according to the necessities of the country, and to the comforts and rights of the people. There was enough in the proceedings of Parliament upon this very question to make them cautious of embarking in what were called final settlements. The noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord John Russell), when he introduced the measure of 1846, spoke of it as a final settlement. But this final settlement lasted only two years, for it was—if a new word might be coined for the occasion—nnfinal-ised in 1848. In that year the legislation of 1846 was found to be no longer tenable, and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer was obliged to come down and propose a most important modification of the Act of that year. That alteration of the law had not been without its effect, though the previous distress did not wholly pass away. In 1848 the price of sugar had fallen so low as 23 s. 8d. a cwt., and the quantity of foreign sugar entered for home consumption: had risen under the new Act to the enormous amount of 1,120,783 cwt., while the consumption of home-grown sugar had fallen so low as 3,571,581 cwt. The result of the change of the law in 1848 was to check this great import of foreign sugar, and to encourage the consumption of homegrown sugar. In 1849 the figures were materially reversed, for the foreign sugar entered for consumption was only 496,475 cwt., while the Colonial sugar entered for home consumption had risen to 4,054,981 cwt. In 1850 this state of things was again changed. The foreign sugar entered' for home consumption had risen to 890,967 cwt., while the colonial sugar had fallen to 3,786,002 cwt.; the result was, great distress in the Colonies. It was in that year

1181
that his noble Friend near him (Lord Stanlay) had personally visited the Colonies, and had commenced that political career which was destined, he doubted not, to be one of no ordinary distinction. In that year he (Sir J. Pakington) had joined with another hon. Member (Sir E. Buxton) in pressing the matter on the consideration of the Government. They were defeated; but he saw no reason to regret the course which they took. The year 1851 passed without any Motion; but at the very close of the Session he has pressed on the House, in the strongest terms, the absolute necessity —if they wished to do justice to the Colonies—of adopting the plan which his right hon Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer now proposed—that of allowing the British grower to refine colonial sugar in bond. That was the only move made on the subject in that Session. He hoped the House would give him its attention while he referred to that which had been pointedly commented upon in very unjust terms—he alluded to the notice which he himself bad given at the close of the Session of 1851, that at the commencement of the Session of 1852 he should draw the attention of the House to this question, as there appeared to him to be a necessity for modifying the law of 1848. The hon. Gentleman had stated with perfect truth that at the commencement of last Session he had renewed that notice, and that at the time the present Government came into office the notice was standing in the Order-book in his name. After he came into office he gave an explanation—to which the hon. Gentleman had adverted—why it was not his intention to persevere with the notice of the previous Session; and he was now prepared to tell the House, without in the least shrinking from the avowal, why he had given that notice then, and why he had concurred in the announcement made by the Government now. He might be wrong in the conclusion which he had arrived at, but he felt confident he was right, and he hesitated not to avow the reasons. The state of things on which he had founded his notice of last Session was, that foreign sugar entered for home consumption, in 1851, had risen to the unprecedented amount of 1,227,041 cwt., while the consumption of British sugar had fallen to 3,593,858 cwt. He found, therefore, an immense increase in the consumption of slave-grown produce in this country, with a simultaneous fall in the amount of colonial sugar consumed in this country. But
1182
that was not all. Not only had foreign sugar increased and colonial sugar diminished; but the price of sugar, towards the end of 1851, had fallen unprecedentedly low, far lower than the prices which had excited such panic and caused such distress in 1848, at the time when the late Lord George Bentinck moved for a Committee of Inquiry. In November and December of last year the highest price during those two months, upon an average taken week by week, was 1l. 4s. 10 d., and the lowest price 19 s. 7d, at that time the lowest price that sugar in this country had ever reached. What took place at the commencement of 1852? Prices commenced falling. In January they were 1l. 2s.; in February, 1l. 1s.; in the first week of March, 1l. 1s. 7d.; in the second week of that month, 19 s. 10½d.; and in the last week, 1l. 0s. 4d.; in the first week of April, 18 s. 5d., the lowest price which sugar had ever been known to reach in this country. The year 1851 had been distinguished by three circumstances—the greatest amount of sugar ever imported into this country—an immense increase in the consumption of foreign slave sugar, following a decrease in the consumption of colonial sugar—and a depreciation in price wholly unparalleled in the history of the sugar trade. It was in such a state of things that he was prepared to appeal to Parliament; and had it not been for the change of Government, which wholly deranged his proceedings on this subject, he should undoubtedly have applied to Parliament to afford redress for such a state of tilings. But what was now the state of things? He believed the hon. Gentleman himself had not, in 1'850, anticipated the present state of things. Most cordially did he wish—as cordially as the hon. Gentleman himself could wish—that the present state of things might continue. But what wore they? For the ten months ending October, 1852, he found that the British sugar entered for home consumption amounted to 3,088,252 cwt., while in 1851 it was only 2,250,168 cwt., showing an enormous increase in the amount of Colonial sugar imported in 1852 over the amount imported in 1851. Then, with regard to foreign sugar, how did the case stand? In 1851 the importation was 1,297,041 cwt., while for the ten months ending October, 1852, the amount had fallen to little more than half—namely, 580,540 cwt. Thus the figures were completely reversed. Foreign sugar had de-

1183
creased, British, sugar had increased; and, simultaneously with this reversal of the figures, there had also taken place a very considerable improvement in price. The price of sugar in the home-market, instead of 18 s. 5d., as it was in the beginning of April, had risen in the last week of November, to 1l. 5s. l¼d. He had no hesitation in avowing, whatever his views of the policy of 1848 might be, that, looking to the solemn and repeated decision of Parliament upon this subject, looking to the extent to which the home consumer was undoubtedly concerned in this question, he certainly could not be a party to asking the House of Commons—and whether he was out of office or in office would not have made the slightest difference—looking at the great change in the aspect of the question, he repeated that he could be no party at this moment, and under these circumstances, to asking this House for a reimposition of the differential duty. But he would not conceal from the hon. Gentleman and from the House, that, much as he wished otherwise, he was not over-sanguine with regard to the continuation of this state of things. In his opinion there were three causes to which the present state of things might be attributed. One cause was, that in Cuba and Porto Rico the crops of sugar had, to a considerable extent, failed. Another cause was, that the ruinously low prices which had ruled in the home market had driven away the foreign sugar from our markets to the United States. Those causes would, in his opinion, account to a great degree for the decrease of foreign sugar imported this year. The hon. Gentleman might perhaps tell him that that would not account for the increase of British Colonial sugar. He believed that that was very much to be attributed to the fact that while the crops in Cuba and Porto Rico had been unfavourable, the crops in the West Indies had been rather good. On the other hand, he was willing to admit—and he was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman express a similar opinion—that part might be attributed to the energy and good spirit which under the most adverse circumstances had distinguished the British Colonist. They certainly had made very great efforts. He held in his hand returns of all the exports from our sugar-producing Colonies —returns which were very valuable, and for which he was indebted to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashburton (Mr. Moffatt). Those returns showed the ex-
1184
tent of the exports from. 1831. to 1851. The exports from Jamaica amounted in the former year to upwards of l, 429,093 cwt., while in the latter they had fallen to 627,768 cwt. But, on the other hand, Barbadoes and Trinidad were exporting more sugar in the present year than in the days of slavery. British Guiana, although still exporting much less of that article than she did during the existence of slavery, yet had made great efforts to overcome the difficulties of her position; and he (Sir J. Pakington) was inclined to take a most favourable view of the prospects of that colony. British Guiana, Trinidad, Barbadoes, and the Mauritius should be taken as four out of the five of our principal sugar colonies, and he thought that the state of things in those islands tended to show that this was very much a labour question. The abundant supply of labour in Barbadoes had very much contributed to the production of an increased amount of sugar; and he very much doubted whether that article was not produced there at nearly as cheap a rate as in any other country in the world. He was not disposed to dispute the correctness of the hon. Gentleman's figures with regard to the Mauritius, and he had no doubt that the production of sugar was very much on the increase in that island also. But he would venture to trouble the House with some remarks of the very able and excellent Governor of the Mauritius, showing the very doubtful prospects which still awaited that colony. Governor Higginson, writing from the Mauritius in the present year, said—
"In this combination of fortuitous and favouring circumstances, it may be affirmed that Mauritius stands unsurpassed, if not unrivalled, among the sugar-producing possessions of the Crown; and, when added to these highly-valuable Conditions, there is manifested a growing self-reliance and increasing confidence in local resources, united with the severe lessons of previous, experience, so legible and distinct that 'those who run may read,' and, above all, a manly resolution to overcome the remaining obstacles opposed to the profitable cultivation of the soil, I do hot believe that I am either deceiving myself or misleading Her Majesty's Government in expressing a conviction that our earnest hopes and aspirations for the restoration and enduring prosperity of this most important dependency of the Crown are in course of fulfilment, and will at no very distant day be realised."
And he goes on to add—
"I do not venture to submit this opinion without hesitation and diffidence, seeing that a very different tone pervades the petitions for relief to the agricultural interest which have been put forth both here and in the mother country; nor

1185
do I for a moment doubt, that if compliance with their prayer can be accorded, it will be conferring a well-merited boon upon the colony. I do not over look,the severity of the competition to which our Staple product is exposed, nor do I fail to recognise the obligation imposed upon the Government, both imperial and local, to support to the utmost of its ability at this crisis the struggling sugar grower, by having recourse to every legitimate means within its competency, to aid the efforts now making to diminish the cost of production; for in this, after all, lies the solution of the problem."
But it must be remembered that upon that all-important point of labour the inhabitants of the Mauritius enjoyed the greatest advantages from their proximity to the J Bast Indies. They had imported large supplies of Coolies, and had manifested great energy in meeting their difficulties, and he was certainly not without hope that they would triumph over those difficulties. With regard to British Guiana, it was well known that British Guiana bad taken up no less than 250.000 l of the loan of 500,000 l. guaranteed by the late Government in 1848; and, aided by the increased labour which that loan had produced, British Guiana was struggling vigorously to surmount the obstacles to a return of her prosperity. Barbadoes, as he bad stated before, was exporting far more than in the days of slavery; and with respect to Trinidad, the loan which had been advanced by the late Government, had, he must say, been a great boon to that colony. Lord Harris had written to him to the following effect:—
"He had at one time doubted whether emigration would be of any use, but he at present saw the enormous advantage of it, and he believed that to emigration, under God, the safety of the colony which he governed must be owing."
He (Sir J. Pakington) believed, and he had the authority of Lord Harris for saying so, that in Trinidad they had lowered the cost of production fully one-third, and they had also lowered the rate of wages. He found that in Jamaica the average rate of wages—he gave the figures with some caution and with some doubt, and those who were conversant with West India affairs were well aware how very difficult it was to procure correct statements. He found, from the returns of stipendiary magistrates quartered in Jamaica, that the rate of wages in that island had fallen from 1s. 6d. a day to 1s,; in British Guiana, from 2s. 5d. to 1s. 4d.; in Barbadoes, from 1s. 1½d. down to 10 d.; and in Trinidad, from 2s. 1d. to 1s. 5d. These of
1186
course were very important facts. The spirited manner in which many of the planters had constructed tram-roads and introduced machinery, and carried into effect other laudable improvements, had, no doubt, to a very large extent reduced the cost of production, and had contributed very considerably to enable them to compete with the difficulties under which they laboured. He had not shrunk from the mention of those favourable circumstances, and combining those circumstances with the facts to which he had adverted, connected with the extraordinary improvement in the Returns of the present year as compared with the last, he did not think that that was a moment in which any Government could advocate a return to differential duties. He was convinced, however, that those colonies still required all the care and assistance which the Government could give, and it was quite clear that one of the first requisites for ensuring their prosperity was an abundant supply of labour. The first duty, then, of the Imperial Government was to aid them in obtaining that labour. He had said before, that he gave all honour to the late Government for the loan which had been granted in 1848—a loan which had at first been undervalued by the colonies, but of which they now fully appreciated the advantages. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had explained a few nights before, that there still remained on hand a considerable portion of that fund. But the important colonies of Trinidad and British Guiana, and at present Jamaica also, were using their best exertions to obtain the indispensable requisite of labour by means of that loan; and he (Sir J. Pakington) believed that they were entitled to every assistance that the Government could give them. He felt also that they were bound to do them an act of justice, and it was but an act of mere justice to enable them to refine their produce in bond in this country. With regard to the mode of carrying out that relief, he should observe that that was a question for his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider, as a point of detail, when the proper time should come. His right hon. Friend would then lay before the House the course which he intended to pursue. But the principle was a principle of justice. It was well known that between the several varieties of sugar there existed a very considerable difference in quality, and

1187
if an equal duty of 10s. per cwt. were to be levied upon them all, that would be, as his right hon. Friend had stated the other night, in effect to give a differential duty to the foreigner. That would manifestly be unjust; but he should add, that in extending to our own sugar-producing colonies that boon, he thought they were doing as much for them as they were at liberty to do in the present state of the sugar market. He had spoken with much frankness with respect to the position of those important colonies, and he was sorry to be obliged to add that he could not quit that important subject without adverting to the depressed and almost ruined state of Jamaica. Nothing could be more deplorable than the condition of that colony. He held in his hand a despatch which the Governor, Sir Charles Grey, had forwarded during the present year. Alluding to the proceedings of the Legislature of that colony during the last few years, of which he could not approve, Sir Charles Grey spoke of the planters as being half maddened by the losses they were sustaining, and by the sense of approaching ruin which they entertained. When the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westbury (Mr. Wilson) spoke of the British Colonists not having suffered, he (Sir J. Pakington) would ask him to what he attributed the statements made by the Governor of the island of Jamaica— a Governor not lately gone out there, but one of long experience. Sir Charles Grey said—
"But the depression also of the planting interest from the altered policy of the Parent State in its colonial relations has continued; and it seems now to be assuming a steadier and more pregnant form, and the finances of the colony have gone on, and are still going on, from bad to worse. The supplies granted for the year have in no instance been equal to the authorised expenditure, although that expenditure has been materially and largely curtailed; and the public debt and liabilities, which, in official returns, are stated to have not exceeded 580.000 l in October, 1847, are now not much less than 750,000 l."
Jamaica had of late years been visited to a most serious extent by one of the most dreadful visitations of Providence from which any country had ever suffered. The cholera had attacked that island with a severity almost without precedent. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Westbury had estimated the loss of life occasioned by cholera in that island at 40,000 persons. He (Sir J. Pakington) believed it was extremely difficult to ascertain what
1188
the actual loss of life had been; but from the accounts which he had been able to obtain, he was inclined to estimate the loss at a number ranging from 30,000 to 50,000 persons. That number, of course, included men, women, and children. The actual loss of labourers had been, he believed, from about 15,000 to 20,000 persons. The depression and alarm in the colony at that serious loss of labour had been most severely felt. But there were other questions connected with that island which made its case a most peculiar one, and entitled it to the most serious consideration. The financial position of Jamaica was one of a most deplorable character; it was as bad as it possibly could be. He would not then trouble the House with details upon that point. He would not go into the financial condition of Jamaica, but would merely state a few general facts. The debts of Jamaica had increased from 580,000 l. in 1847, to 750.000 l. in the present year. For several years its revenue had been less than its expenditure, and for several years the interest of the loan which had been given by this country had not been paid. That island was, he feared, financially in a state of national insolvency. That state of things was so seriously connected with the dreadful depression of the planting interest, that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to send a Commissioner to that Colony to take into consideration and to report upon the whole state of its affairs. He did not know whether the House was aware of one serious defect in its political institutions—he meant the mode in which, money grants were brought forward in the Legislature. In last August Sir Charles Grey wrote—
"That the Session of the local Legislature brought to a close on the 26th of February had been chiefly remarkable, first, for the renewed pertinacity with which the Government here is entirely excluded, not only from those functions in the body of the Legislature which the Crown exercises through its Ministers in both Houses of the English Parliament, but from all guidance, even by advice, of the proceedings of the Assembly."
He did not read that with any intention of censure on men "who were half maddened by the losses they were sustaining and by the apprehension of ruin;" but to show what really was the condition of things in the colony. It was well known to hon. Gentlemen, and all who bad studied the question, that money grants were moved

1189
by any Member who chose to bring them forward, and it was manifest that each Member who had a grant to support would endeavour to gain the other Members to aid him by promising to support any grants they might demand, and that without any reference to the Estimates or to the ability of the revenue to bear them. Hence also had arisen that most alarming state of things which they beheld. He could not conceive, indeed, any country in a condition more seriously depressed, socially and financially, than Jamaica; and he had to repeat that Her Majesty's Government felt, whatever course might be pursued with respect to differential duties, that the state of Jamaica was different from that of any other colony, though they could not enact any duty which would not fall on all other Colonies alike. Therefore Her Majesty's Government, as the government of Sir Charles Grey, was nearly approaching its conclusion, proposed to send out a Commissioner without any power of government, but who should inquire and report on what reforms and changes could be effected in the financial and social condition of the island, in the hope of restoring prosperity there. He could not conclude what he had to say with respect to Jamaica, without adding, that after having taken considerable pains with reference to the unfortunate position of that colony, and looking upon its present state as one the most calamitous, he still could not regard it with despair. He believed, on the contrary, that by judicious alterations, and by judicious arrangements in its finances, and by other reforms which were so evidently and so imperatively necessary, there was every reason to hope that Jamaica might yet be saved from the J calamities which nearly overwhelmed her; and he could most sincerely say that he felt the deepest sympathy for the colonies. He deemed it to be the duty of the Government to afford them every possible assistance. If that assistance were freely and fairly extended to them, he had little doubt but that the difficulties by which they were at present overshadowed would be removed. He should, however, state, in answer to the hon. Member for Westbury, that he could not retract the censure be had so often expressed with regard to the legislation of 1846. He still was of opinion that that legislation had been adopted too precipitately. He had said, on a recent occasion, that he could not justify an attempt to
1190
benefit one class of the community at the expense of every other. He had said that in reference to the landed interest of this country; and he felt the truth of that doctrine with tenfold force as applied to those distant colonies. They had legislated for the men around them—for the men who gave them their political power. They had legislated for their prosperity and their welfare at the expense of those remote and defenceless communities. The colonies had not been, it was true, altogether without champions in that House to urge their claims; but they unfortunately had not that power of asserting their rights which other interests possessed. They had no doubt benefited the consumer at home, but they had done it by inflicting an amount of suffering upon those colonies which no country could be justified in inflicting upon any class of its fellow subjects. He had to thank the House for the great patience with which they had listened to him at such an unexpected length, and he could only say, in conclusion, as he said when he began, that he had no connexion with the West Indies—that he had no interest in them—but that he had been solely influenced from a feeling of his duty as a public man to advocate their cause. He was not disposed to deviate from anything he had ever said with respect to giving full justice to the West India colonies. He hoped that the prosperous state of affairs which marked the colonies in the present year would be prolonged and permanent, and that their vigorous efforts to save themselves would be crowned with success. He would say in conclusion, that no man could derive more pleasure from their prosperity than himself. He had not the least objection to give the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westbury the papers for which he moved.
MR. EWARTsaid, these colonies were suffering on account of the false position which they occupied. They were no doubt suffering from the recent sugar laws, but whilst these laws had occasioned cases of individual suffering, they had contributed to the comfort of the great body of the Empire. He rejoiced to hear that it was the intention of the Government to send out a Commissioner to Jamaica, to inquire into her financial condition. He remembered that when Malta had been long suffering from financial embarrassment, a Commissioner was sent out to that Island, and from the time that the reforms he

1191
suggested were carried into effect, Malta became prosperous, and had so continued to be. He (Mr. Ewart) thought he had a right to complain that the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington) did not during his address quote as much as he could have done from the despatches of colonial governors as to the state of our colonies. The right hon. Baronet did not refer to the favourable view which Governor Barkly took of the future state of British Guiana, nor had he alluded to the hopes held out by the Governor of St. Vincent. He cordially approved of the conduct of the Government in dislaiming all intention either to prolong the differential duties now about to expire, or to revert in any respect to the exploded protective system; and as for the West Indian colonies, however distressing their condition might be just at the present moment, he was not without hope that in the lapse of time they would be restored to prosperity by the introduction of British capital, the application of machinery, and the increased energy of the planters themselves, who would yet acknowledge that they had been benefited, rather than injured, by the principle of unrestricted competition.
MR. HUMEsaid, he also participated in the gratification which the renunciation, on the part of the Government, to revert to the protective system, had manifestly created in the House. The Colonies had suffered from nothing so grievously as from the continual upsetting of their affairs; and he, for one, would never give his assent to any further tampering with a settlement which was offered and accepted as final. He hoped that the differential duties would be allowed to wear out tranquilly, and that the colonies would be taught to depend as much as possible upon their own resources. He would not give to the planters one shilling from the public purse, but he would legislate for them in a fair and impartial spirit, and there was no assistance which could be given to them without injury to other interests which he would not be most happy to offer. He would reduce as much as possible the expense of cultivation, and would afford them increased facilities for procuring labour, confident that by this means he would promote their welfare more effectively a thousand times than if he were to perpetuate the differential duties. He approved of the Government's intention to send a Commissioner to Jamaica, and strongly urged the propriety of directing
1192
that official to visit British Guiana as well. He was also disposed to think that some good would result from the permission to refine sugar in bond.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONbegged in explanation to give his assurance that there was no intention on the part of the Government to propose the prolongation of the differential duties.
MR. MOFFATTsaid, that it was very desirable that the Government should state whether the right to refine in bond was to be considered as compulsory or optional. Was the exercise of the right to be optional, or was the system to be uniform?
LORD STANLEYsaid, that the hon. Member for Ashburton (Mr. Moffatt) was quite right in calling their attention to the points to which he had just alluded. They were very important, and it was desirable that the House and the country should receive information with respect to them at the earliest possible moment. But at the same time they belonged rather to the department of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, than to any other; and he believed he might say, on behalf of his right hon. Friend, who was not now present, that he would be prepared to answer those inquiries whenever they should come directly before the House. As regarded the general question at issue, he (Lord Stanley) had no desire to prolong the debate, which appeared to him to be rapidly verging towards a natural death; but he must say that, in his opinion, there was some little discrepancy in the language of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Wilson), addressing them in a very long and a very eloquent and instructive speech, had professed his object to be to prove that the West India colonies had not suffered in reality by the passing of the Act of 1846. His object seemed to be to comfort those colonies by showing them that they had not suffered from the legislation of recent years. But immediately after that hon. Gentleman the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart) rose on the same side of the House, and told them it was quite true that the great financial and commercial changes which had taken place must have inflicted severe injury on individuals, however they might have benefited the British community at large. The hon. Member for Dumfries admitted the suffering, which the hon. Member for Westbury denied, but said it was owing to an inevitable necessity;

1193
and to crown the whole of these discrepancies, the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) attempted to administer consolation to the West India colonies by predicting, as he (Lord Stanley) understood him, that the existing planters must all be swept away, and be replaced by a new race of planters. That might or might not be so; but coming, as the statement did, from an hon. Member well versed in these matters, it was entitled to some consideration, while it was in entire contradiction of the views of the hon. Member for Westbury. There was one other remark which be should make upon that occasion. It seemed to him that as far as any real and practical point was concerned—as far as anything was actually to be done—there was at present nothing for them to discuss, and they were all pretty much of one mind; because his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had asserted very distinctly— although he (Lord Stanley) doubted whether such an assertion were necessary after the measures submitted to the House the other evening by his right hon. Friend—his right hon. Friend distinctly and positively asserted that which might be very well inferred from the general policy of the Government, that they looked on the settlement—not indeed of the year 1846—but the settlement of the year 1846 as modified in the year 1848, as a final settlement; and that they had no intention whatever at present or hereafter of renewing that differential duty which was shortly about to expire. With respect to the language of his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies on the point of finality, he should say that he clearly understood the meaning of his right hon. Friend to be, that no human power ever had bound, or ever could bind, the Legislature of a free country to a particular system of commercial policy for all times and under all circumstances. That was a perfectly just and intelligible theory. But, at the same time, his right hon. Friend had repeated, in terms which it was impossible to misconstrue, the declaration made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that no new scale of duties on sugar was about to be proposed. He could not, therefore, look on the Motion of the hon. Member for Westbury—although that Motion had been the means of procuring from him a very able and clear exposition of his views of the state of our West India colonies—he could not look upon that Motion, or on the discussion to which it had
1194
given rise, as having a practical bearing on any system of policy which was at present to be adopted. That Motion, he believed, was neither more nor less than a challenge thrown out—a fair challenge he (Lord Stanley) admitted—to hon. Members on his side of the House, for the purpose of showing that they had been wrong in the view they had taken of the Act of 1846, and of the effects of that Act. The hon. Gentleman seemed to call upon them to admit that they had formerly been in error; and further, the hon. Gentleman accused them of having materially contributed to aggravate rather than remedy the distress existing in the colonies, by holding out false hopes to the colonial planters, and leading them to believe that the Acts of 1846 and 1848 were likely to undergo fresh and more extensive modification. Now, if it were made a charge against him (Lord Stanley) and his hon. Friends, that they had not from the first moment of the passing of the Act of 1846 treated that Act as a final settlement, or even treated it as an Act conducive to the prosperity of the colonists, he thought that was an imputation under which they might very well afford to lie; because, whatever degree of censure attached to the holders of such opinions, attached not only to them—not only to his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies—not only to himself (Lord Stanley)—not only to those with whom he had habitually voted on that question upon former occasions, but attached equally to that great statesman—-for so he should call him—whom it was impossible not to recognise as the real, although not the ostensible, author of the Act of 1846. He did not suppose it would be disputed that the late Sir Robert Peel had practically carried that Act through the House. It was pretty well understood that if that right hon. Baronet, and those who usually voted with him, had not come forward and supported upon that occasion the Government of the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell), that Government would not have been able to have carried that measure. He would not trouble the House by reading the passage from Hansard which bore out the truth of what he was now stating; he would merely say that he was referring to the remarkable speech made by the late Sir Robert Peel on the 27th of July, 1846, at the time when the Sugar Duties were under discussion, and when it was believed

1195
that the fate of the Ministry was dependent on the result of that debate. It would be in the recollection of the House that Sir Robert Peel, in supporting that measure, distinctly declared that he entertained serious apprehensions as to what the consequence might be with regard to the slave trade, and with regard to the West Indian colonies; and that the only reason why he gave his assent to its passing was a political consideration wholly independent of the merits of the Bill—the consideration how its passing or its rejection would affect the state of parties in that House. Now, he should not venture to say one word for the purpose of questioning the wisdom or the justice of the course which had been pursued on that occasion by the late Sir Robert Peel, who felt, as he had stated, that he had at the time only to adopt what he believed to be the less prejudicial of two courses. But this he (Lord Stanley) might say—that if he or any of his hon. Friends had expressed doubts as to the working of the Act—if they had expressed doubts whether it would not have been productive of injury both as regarded the condition of our sugar-producing colonies, and also as regarded its influence on the slave trade, they had expressed no doubts and put forward no opinons for which they had not had the sanction of the high name and authority of the late Sir Robert Peel. He would not travel over those arguments upon that question which years of discussion had already made familiar to every Member of the House. He certainly had not met with any Gentleman—and he did not think the hon. Member for Westbury himself would be an exception to the rule—he had not met with any Gentleman who looked to their legislation as regarded our sugar-producing Colonies, as a whole, that would be ready to contend that that legislation had been other than what he (Lord Stanley) and his Friends had characterised it—that was to say, harsh and unjust. He did not consider the Act of 1846 separately. He took it as part of a great whole. He looked at the Act of 1834, at the Act of 1838, and at the Act of 1846. He took those measures collectively—he took the general policy of the mother country towards her sugar-producing colonies; and he said that he must be a bold man who should rise in that House and assert that that policy had been other than unjust. But then the hon. Member for Westbury
1196
raised another controversy as to What had been the result of the Act of 1846. Now it seemed to him (Lord Stanley) that his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies had said with perfect justice, that if any public man had formed an erroneous opinion as to what would be the result of any particular measure, it was his duty not to conceal his change of opinion, but to state it openly. He (Lord Stanley) was not one to deny that he—and he dared say many of those who coincided with him in his general political views—had entertained apprehensions regarding the amount of injury which the Act of 1846 would inflict on our sugar-growing colonies that had not been realised to their full extent. His right hon. Friend had entered so fully into that subject that he (Lord Stanley) did not think he need trouble the House with any details respecting it. But he said that, looking at the measure, not as they saw it at present, by the light of subsequent experience, but looking at it as it was seen in the year 1846, he did think it was a harsh and a hazardous measure. He also thought that it had been productive of, or, at least, that it had been accompanied by, much greater and more general distress in the West India colonies than had at any previous period prevailed for any length of time together in those colonies. That was a fact on which he thought evidence could hardly be required. The hon. Member for Westbury had made rather light of the alleged distress of some of the West India colonies. Now he (Lord Stanley) was not going to quote the evidence of planters or of any interested parties upon that subject; but he would quote from official documents evidence which Would prove the existence of severe distress in many of those colonies since the passing of the Act of 1846. He supposed that the hon. Member for Westbury would admit that the Report of local colonial Commissioners appointed by the Governor of a colony was an official document, and as such was worthy of credence. Now he held in his hand a statement from the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of British Guiana, and in that Report he found it stated that—
"It would be a melancholy task to dwell on the misery and ruin which so alarming a change as the Act of 1846 had occasioned."
And the Commissioners went on to say, that—

1197
"They felt themselves called upon to notice the effect which the wholesale abandonment of property had produced in the Colony—an abandonment under which it was not to be wondered at that the most ordinary marks of civilisation were rapidly disappearing, while in many districts all travelling communication by land would soon be utterly impracticable."
He called that a state of distress, and that state had existed no longer ago than 1850. There was another test of distress furnished by the Commissioners, which was perhaps even of a still more conclusive character. It appeared from the same Report that the whole population of British Guiana consisted of about 82,000 persons, and of these 42,000, or more than one-half, were supposed to be utterly unproductive as regarded the only staple article of export from the colony, namely, sugar, while of the remaining 40,000 not less than 20,000 were immigrants mostly from the East Indies. It appeared, therefore, that out of the whole native population there were only 20,000 productively employed. He would not, however, weary the House with any further proofs of distress, of which he hoped and believed that the worst was now passed. He readily admitted that during the last twelve or fourteen months there had been a considerable improvement in the condition of the West India colonies generally. But he should deny even at the present moment the accuracy of the proposition which the hon. Member for Westbury had broadly laid down—that there was no such thing as general distress still existing in any of these colonies. When he found a statement like that which his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Pakington) had read from a despatch of the Governor of Jamaica no longer ago than at the beginning of the present year, he thought it was impossible not to see that that statement proved conclusively the existence of considerable distress in the island of Jamaica. But that despatch did not stand alone, because in a despatch, dated the 23rd August in the present year, Sir Charles Grey stated, that
"he proceeded to review the state of the Colony with a feeling of great regret—that the Colony still remained in a very struggling condition;"
and he added that
"the revenue of the Colony did not fully meet the authorised public expenditure, although that expenditure had been already reduced fully one-third."
Now he (Lord Stanley) said, that with such statements before them, and similar
1198
statements would apply in a diminished degree to British Guiana also—he thought it was too much to ask them to admit that no general distress had existed in those colonies since 1846. He did not, however, deny that in the smaller colonies, especially in Barbadoes and Antigua—wherever the land was limited in extent—so that squatting became impossible, and wages were not exorbitant, so that labour could be obtained — the present condition of such colonies was not only prosperous, but was more so than it had been for many years past. He, therefore, frankly admitted that even if there were no other difficulty in the way of imposing a differential duty between foreign and colonial sugar, arising out of the state of parties in Parliament, and out of the general feeling of the country, an obstacle would exist in the impossibility of making any distinction between one colony and another; while if a genera] differential duty were levied in favour of all the colonies, the advantage accruing therefrom would be derived, mainly, if not exclusively, by those colonies which were already in a flourishing condition. He thought that was an objection which could hardly be surmounted, and that it was conclusive against any further attempt to modify the Acts of 1846 and 1848, with a view of affording relief to the West Indies. With regard to the bearing of the Act of 1846, on the slave trade, he thought they would admit that within the last few days there had been laid before the House most satisfactory evidence of the decrease of that trade. But they should not be led away by a consideration of the present state of that question to forget that only two years ago that House and the country had been so far from anticipating the suppression of the Brazilian slave trade, that a discussion had been raised among them as to the expediency of discontinuing their efforts to obtain that object, and of withdrawing their African squadron. And not only had that point been discussed in that House, but it had been referred to a Select Committee. Now, he admitted, that in that respect a most gratifying change had since taken place, and he believed they might consider that the Brazilian slave trade was at the present moment utterly extinguished. The same thing, however, could not he said of the Cuban slave trade. But, although there was no improvement at present in Cuba in that respect, yet he thought that there was a prospect of im-

1199
provement, because they knew that arrangements were being made for a very extensive Chinese immigration to Cuba; and therefore there was reason to hope that free labour might soon be employed to compete, and to compete successfully, with slave labour in that island. If that hope should be realised, and if the Cuban slave trade should cease, the West India colonies would then be no longer exposed to what he could not but look upon as an unfair competition. As he had said before, he did not think that there was now any practical difference of opinion on either side of the House as to anything they had to do. He believed that the question which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wilson) had raised was one purely critical and retrospective, and he was glad to think that that was the last time they should ever have to discuss in that House the question of the sugar duties.
Motion agreed to.

THE YARMOUTH PETITION—ELECTION PETITION RECOGNISANCES.
MR. MILNER GIBSON,on presenting a petition from the gentlemen who had signed the recognisances in the petition of Mr. Torrens M'Cullagh against the sitting Members for Great Yarmouth, said that they believed they had bound themselves by the recognisances they had signed, regretting that the sureties had been declared insufficient, and praying the House to redress the grievance under which they laboured, and to take means for preventing that recurrence in future. He wished to call the attention of the House to the petition presented by Mr. M'Cullagh, who claimed to have been elected for Great Yarmouth, and who disputed the return. He did not ask the House to review the decision of the examiner of recognisances, or to pass any opinion of its validity, or in any way to sit as a court of appeal. He was well aware that the decision of the examiner in these matters was final and conclusive. His object was to show that, on the face of these proceedings, circumstances had arisen which rendered it necessary for Parliament to consider whether it might not be necessary to amend the Act itself under which proceedings were taken in reference to the trial of election petitions. The reason of the decision was, that the words "sitting Members" were used instead of "sitting Member." On the same day the examiner had reported that a similar recognisance in
1200
the case of the Bridgenorth election petition, in which the words "sitting Members" were also used, was unobjectionable. But, the objection being taken in the case of Great Yarmouth, he decided that that objection was valid, and therefore fatal to any further proceedings with the petition. He did not mean to reflect, in the sightest degree, upon the examiner of recognisances; no doubt he had endeavoured to discharge his duty conscientiously, in reference to what he believed to be the requirements of the Act of Parliament. But lie (Mr. Gibson) found fault with the Act itself, and asked that it should be amended. Petitioners would be placed in a great difficulty if there was no power of amending technical objections to recognisances. In this case the petitioner had found his sureties; nobody contended for a moment that they were not good and substantial sureties, and capable of undertaking all the liabilities required by the Act. The fifth clause of the Act gave the form of the recognisance, and added, "With such alterations as may be necessary to adapt such form to the circumstances of each case," clearly showing that the Act contemplated necessary alterations. There ought to have been a power in the Act to enable the examiner to amend, and to call on the sureties to sign the amended form, so that they might still be liable for costs, if the decision were against them. The Motion he had to submit was in the following terms:—
"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the operation of the Act 11 & 12 Vic, cap. 98, as regards Recognisances, and to report their opinion whether it is expedient to amend that Act."
The fourteen days having expired, it was out of Mr. M'Cullagh's power to present a new petition. Another circumstance in this case was, that the hearing of the objection was taken at an earlier period than the stipulated three days after notice of the objection. He (Mr. Gibson) brought forward this matter solely on. public grounds, in order that technicalities might not be allowed to stand in the way of justice.
MR. HUMEseconded the Motion.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman had made a Motion in conformity with the prayer of the petition, it would have had the effect of doing away with a rule that the House had expressly

1201
established, with regard to election recognisances. But that question had not been raised. Four years ago a question arising out of election recognisances had come before that House. A discussion then took place respecting the propriety of considering whether those recognisances should be amended. and the petition allowed to go on or not. It was contended, on the one hand, that the petitioner ought not to be deprived of his right to petition against the sitting Member, and, on the other hand, that the sitting Member had a right to take advantage of every legal objection. A Committee was appointed, and soon after an Act was passed consolidating and amending the laws relating to election petitions and recognisances, which provided that the decision of the examiner with reference to recognisances should be final and conclusive. Such being the law, it seemed clear that the last thing the House ought to do would be to repeal what it had taken such pains to establish, that these matters should be settled out of the House, and not give rise to party discussions in the House. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the cases of the Bridgenorth election petition, but there was a distinction between those two cases. In the Bridgenorth case, the question which was raised was not brought before the examiner, and he had not an opportunity of giving an opinion one way or the other with regard to the recognisances. But when the Great Yarmouth case was brought before the examiner, the agents of the sitting Member specifically brought this objection to his notice; it was his duty to decide upon it, and he held that it was fatal. With regard to the point of the three days, the right hon. Gentleman would find that the Act did not give three clear days; and as the notice was given on the 23rd, and the objection entertained on the 26th, it could not be said that the examiner had exceeded his duty. The proposition the right hon. Gentleman now made was, that a Committee should be appointed to see whether any amendments could be introduced into the Act, giving the examiner power to amend recognisances by correcting technical and clerical errors. He (Mr. Walpole) had no objection to such a Committee being appointed, but he wished to make two observations upon it. The first was, that as there were several election petitions then depending, he thought it would be undesirable that a Committee
1202
should be appointed on this subject, till all those petitions had been reported upon to the House. The second observation he wished to make, was to guard himself against the infringement of an important rule. The great object of throwing upon the sitting Member the duty of entering into recognisances, was, that he should not take advantage of any default or neglect of his own, in having imperfect recognisances, and to ensure the payment of costs which could not be recovered, unless the recognisances were valid in form and law. There was another object: not only to provide against the default or neglect of the petitioner in not making his recognisances perfect, but also to prevent frauds which might otherwise be practised in putting the recognisance in a defective form, so that the sitting Member, in consequence of such defects, would not be entitled to recover the costs to which he was entitled. The right hon. Gentleman would have to consider these points, and also whether he ought not to draw a line between technical and substantial errors. He (Mr. Walpole) should not object to the appointment of a Committee; but he ought to add, that the appointment of the Committee must not be considered as having any effect on existing petitions.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYbegged to ask if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson) intended his Committee to have a retrospective operation?
MR. MILNER GIBSONdid not contemplate anything more than was contained in the order of reference. It might be necessary to inquire into particular cases to discover the abuses that existed, and their remedy; but he could not foresee what course the Committee would decide upon.
Motion agreed to.

RAILWAY AMALGAMATION.
MR. HENLEYmoved the appointment of the Members of the Select Committee on Railway and Canal Bills.
MR. JAMES MACGREGORsaid, he had no objection to any Gentleman nominated upon the Committee, but he thought that, in addition to those already named, there should be some Members specially identified with the railway interest. If the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had no objection to this, he would move that certain Gentlemen connected with that interest should be added.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Gentleman could not then make such a Motion; he must give notice of it.
MR. JAMES MACGREGORsaid, he should be sorry to have to give such a notice without the assent of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. If, however, he could obtain that assent, he would on Monday next move that the names of Mr. Robert Stephenson, Lord Barrington, and General Anson should be added to the Committee.
MR. FREWENsaid, that the Committee, as nominated by the right hon. President of the Board of Trade, only consisted of twelve Members; and if the three names suggested by the hon. Member for Sandwich (Mr. M'Gregor) were added, there would not be more than fifteen Members; the number which the House had fixed as the limit for a Select Committee.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that if the House and the railway interest wished that the additional names proposed should be placed upon the Committee, he should offer no objection to it. The only reason he did not place on the Committee some Gentlemen connected with the railway interest was, because there were so many directors in that House, that he was afraid to offend by making a selection.
MR. HINDLEYsaid, he did not at all agree with the hon. Member for Sandwich. He thought that the Committee should be wholly independent of the railway interest. He was quite sure that the Gentlemen named for the Committee would do perfect justice to it; and, if they did not, the railway companies had sufficient influence in that House to protect themselves. If they placed on the Committee General Anson, the chairman of the London and North-Western Company, they would have a demand that the Chairman of the Great Northern should also be on the Committee, and in like manner the chairmen of other railways.
MR. GEACHsaid, he thought it desirable that when questions connected with a particular interest were to be investigated, that interest should be represented on the Committee, whose deliberations would, he believed, be materially assisted by the presence of Gentlemen more particularly acquainted with railway matters.
MR. MUNTZbegged to remark that if the Committee desired any information from the chairmen of railways, they could be examined as witnesses. If the Members of the House generally did not themselves
1204
understand railway matters, they mu stbe wanting in common sense.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz). He thought that none of these railway magnates should be admitted upon the Committee; they would be more useful in the character of witnesses than of members.
The Committee, as nominated, agreed to.
The House adjourned at Nine o' clock.

MINUTES.
Took the OatfAs.—Several Lords.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1ª Commons Inclosure.
3ª Oaths in Chancery, &c.; Bank Notes.
The House met; and having gone through the business on the paper, House adjourned till To-morrow.