The Sun.
London, England, 1841-05-15 00:00:00

pr any other Hon. Gentleman as an attack upon the
chcracter of those with whom he was connected, he
would not fail to have communicated his intentions before-
hand. With that he (Mr. Gladstone) was contented at
the time, and he did not expect after the lapse of eight
years that the Noble Lord would have repeated
precisely the same imputation on the character
of his (Mr. Gladstone's) father in his absence,
and without givint, him notice.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
At the same time he did not mean to accuse the Noble
Lord of having violated his pledge. He was perk:,!ctly
convinced he had entirely forgotten that pledge, no less
than the feelings of those who were interested in the
matter. He should say that a more absurd and irrele-
vant attack than the one in question was never made in
that House. What did the Noble Lord do ? The.
Noble Lord said that the Hon. Member for Newark had
no riA-lit to speak upon the subject, because his father
had possessed a certain estate on which according to the
Noble Lord, abuses had taken place. But what if those
abuses had taken place ? Would it follow that
he (Mr. Gladstone) should be responsib:e for
them ? And did the Noble Lord think that
his liberty of speech should be abridged, because
another had been guilty of abuses over which he had
no more control than the Noble Lord himself? He there-
fore contended that the attack of the Noble Lord was
totally irrelevant and unjust. He did not, however,
mean to say, that the misconduct of any
man was to be safe from investigation. On the contrary,
he admitted that that House was the grand inquest of
the nation, and he should say, when there was a subject
of complaint, let it,. by all means, be brought forward
there—let it be sifted to the bottom—but let it not be
merely used as a weapon of debate—let not that kind of
attack be made with which the worst of men might amuse
themselves, and against which it was inipossible for the
best to make a defence. He was aware that he had no
right to claim a freedom from animadversion in that
House—he did not mean to set himself up as a model on
which discussion should be conducted—and he knew that
some had found fault with the remarks he had ad-
dressed to his Right Hon. Friend the Al ember for Edin-
burgh with reference to one who had preceded him:
But what he did was this :—lf he made an attack he
made it, not by assailing the memory Of those in whom his
Right Hon. Mend felt deeply interested, but by pro-
nouncing on the memory of the dead a eulogy which if
it was feeble, was at least sincere—(Cheers)—and then
calling on his Right Hon: Friend to vindicate his consis-
tency, which he did in a manner worthy of himself,—
(Hear, hear.) But if he was to be punished for his.
Parliamentary delinquencies, or if, other lion, Gentle-
men were 'to 'be punished for excesses in debate by at-
tacks, having no reference whatever to themselves or their
own conduct, but merely aiming, through the son,
at the absent and the innocent—then he would tell
the Noble Lord that such a description of warfare
was of a nature of which he would much rather
be the object than the agent.—(Hear, hear.) He
would next refer to a statement made by his Honour-
able Friend, the trunder-Secretary for the Colonies,
on the debate on Tuesday, with respect to the Hill Coolies.
He had never heard that there was any mortality among
the Coolies beyond what was natural. He had
never heard that there was any extraordinary mor-
tality amongst them, and he had never heard any complaint
except by one Cooly against another. He held in his hand
a document which was in the possession of the Noble
Lord, which he had most courteously supplied, showing
that the Coolies were satisfied with the treatment they re-
ceived, and that they had declared themselves that they
should prefer continuing in the employment in which
they were. He had now only to thank the House for
the patience with which they had listened to what he said.
Lord lIOWICK was convinced that the House would
think it imperative on him to answer the statements of
the Hon. ..i.:ember, and in doing so, in the first place, he
would state to the House what it was he did say.—
(Hear.) On a former evening on which he had.
made the statement, he thought and he appealed
to the Gentlemen who were in the House at the
time—he thought the Honourable Member for New-
ark in the course of his speech did bring this heavy
charge, not only against the Government but against
those who supported them, that, for some mere
party purpose, or at least with a view to over-
come some financial difficulty, they were prepared
wilfully and deliberately to incur all the evils and all the
horror of increasing the slave-trade.—(Hear, hear.)
When he (Lord Howick) said he imputed low and de-
grading motives, what he meant was this, that
lie thought the Hon. Member for Newark did impute
to the Government and to those who supported them
an indifference to the vast amount of human suffering
which the encouragement of the slave trade involved.
The Hon. Gentleman might view this question dif-
ferently from him (Lord Howick), but he could assure
the House that there was no imputation of
motives which he felt more deeply, and sensi-
bly than that. He thought that to suppose a
Member capable, for patty purposes, of overlooking all
the sufferings of the slave-trade—he thought that would
indeed show that that man had an extremely black heart.
What he said expressly was this, " That he would not
impute such motives to his opponents." His object
was to show that the Hon. Member for Newark ought
to have the same charity for others, which himself, and
those connected with him, required for their own
persons.—(Cheers.) He (Lord Howick) did not impute
to Mr. Gladstone, the owner of the Braden-hoop estate,
the horrors which he recited.—(Hear, hear.) He had not
attributed to that gentleman that he had wilfully and
frightfully sacrificed human life for the purpose of in-
creasing his own wealth.—(Hear.) What he wanted to show
was that it was important for men to put a charitable
construction upon the actions and motives of others
who differed from them. He had asserted before, and
he repeated the assertion, that Mr. Gladstone could
not be supposed to approve of the treatment of his slaves,
but it was the tendency of the system itself. He wished to
show how important it was for Mr. Gladstone and his son
(the Hon. Member for Newark) that they should make
allowances for the motives of others, and not put the
harsher and more uncharitable interpreta-
tion upon their conduct. He would repeat the statement
which he had made as to this fact, that where
there was a large production of sugar, there was
also a large mortality.—(Hear, hear.) In 1833, when he
argued this question with the Hon. Member for Newark,
that Hon. Gentleman did not dispute his facts, although
he drew a different conclusion from them. The mop,'
tality upon the sugar estates was vastly greater than upon
the cotton plantations. In both classes of cultivation the
proportion of births to numbers was the same, the dif-'
ference was in the great mortality upon the sugar estates.
And that was a mortality which fell not upon the old
and infirm, but upon those on whom all the burden of
the sugar cultivation devolved. That was the statement
which he (Lord Howick) made in 1833—that was the
statement which he had then with him. It was a very long
paper containing a list of deaths, and it was hardly possi-
ble he could make it intelligible to the House. But it the
Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) wished, he would re-
peat the motion which he (Lord H.) made in 1833 ; and,
let him state, that Hon. Gentleman's account of what had
taken place on that occasion was not strictly correct,
On the occasion referred to, he (Lord H.) moved for re-
turns, showing the number of deaths which had taken
place on that estate. The. Hon. Gentleman objected to
the motion, because he said the House could not come
to a fair conclusion from the return, because sufficient
means of information did not exist in the colony for that
purpose. He (Lord H.) did not withdraw his motion. He
still conceived that the return would elicit all the informa-
tion which he thought necessary, and he only abstained
from pressing his motion to a division, because Earl Spencer,
then at the head of her Majesty's Government, stated
his intention of not granting the return, and
he (Lord Howick) was then aware, accord-
ing to the usages of the House, that there
was no possible object in requiring the information. But
to say, as the lion. Gentleman now said, that he (Lord H.)
had withdrawn his motion, because he had departed from
the statement which he had made—(" No. no," from Mr.
Gladstone.) He (Lord Howick) would appeal to the recol-
lection of the House whether the Hon. Member had
not ten minutes ago, in stating that he (Lord Howick)
had, in withdrawing his motion, said„ " And by
so doing he in fact gave up the • case." He
(Lord Howick) totally denied that he gave up
the case. He gave up the inquiry, because he was not
allowed to proceed with it ; that was the explanation
which he (Lord Howick) wished to make, and he begged
to say that he did not mean anything offensive to him,
but he wanted to show that it was the Hon. Member and
those with whom he was connected, that required the in-
dulgent consideration of the House for their conduct, as
much so at least as lion. Members on that side of the House,
who supported the -proposition of her Majesty's Govern-
ment. That was the explanation which he had to offer. He
could sincerely assure the Hon. Gentleman that he was
sorry to have given him pain, but he had thought that it
was not unimportant he should, when so great an at-
tempt had been made to excite a cry in the country
of inhumanity against those with whom he was connected,
that others should suffer not less than themselves for the

practice of imputing the worst motives to men's conduct.
Mr. GLADSTONE said that the Noble Lord's state-
ment, as he understood it, was very different from that
which he made the other night. If he meant to argue
that the cultivation of sugar was more destructive to hu-
man life than the cultivation of cotton, that was a general
proposition which he was ready to admit. But he could
not agree with the conclusion which was drawn from it.
Lord HOWICK said the -Hon. Gentleman had just
reminded him that he had omitted one point, which he
intended to mention. He would repeat what had been
asserted, that the produce upon that estate was consider-
ably above the average produce in the colony. The ave-
rage produce for every negro employed was greater than
usual. The documents showed that there were .some
where about 2,000 lbs. of sugar produced for every negro
employed on that estate ; and that upon another estate,
on which there had been no decrease of population, the
production had not been e than a half.
Mr. GLADSTONE, taking into consideration the im-
provement of machinery, unequivocally, distinctly-, and
broadly denied that statement of the Noble Lord.
Mr. VERNON SMITH said the mismanagement of
the Hill Coolies in British Guiana was the cause of the
objection to their introduction into she Mauritius. As
explanations were the order of the day, he wished to
correct a misstatement of his argument by the Noble
Lord the Member for North Lancaster. The Noble '
Lord would lead the House to infer that his (Mr. V.'
Smith's) argument was, that the main object of 'eman-
cipation was to put an end to slavery in other coun-
tries ; now, what he really meant to state was, that the
object Pr emancipation was to put an end to slavery in
their own colonies.

• The Order of the Day having been read,
Mr. P. HOWARD rose and said, that after the
lengthened discussion the subject had already under-
genet, he would not trespass for any time on the atten-
tion of the House. Some Hon. Gentlemen opposite had
seemed to treat the question as if it merely regarded the
introduction of sugar into this country t but
his opinion it euibrac4 In:►:ui' other. -
tions of a higher nature. With' K41:41. however,'
even to the question of sugar he believed.. it was errone-
neously supposed. that the supply of sugar_froin the: west