The Sun.
London, England, 1848-07-04 00:00:00

SLIGO ELECTION.

Mr. ORMSBY GORE moved that the petition of
John Delany, which was presented on the 18th of May
last, complaining of certain proceedings for effecting a
compromise in the case of the Sligo election petition,
be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
Mr. HUME wished to ask what the views of Govern-
ment were upon this matter.
Sir GEORGE GREY said Government were clearly
of opinion that it ought to be inquired into.
Mr. BRIGHT wanted to know what the con-
stitution of the Committee of Privileges was. It ap-
peared to him to be a tribunal more disposed to conceal
than disclose any matter of abuse. The Committee of
Privileges ought to be open like the Election Committees.
The motion was then agreed to.
Mr. V. SMITH moved that the order for printing the
evidence taken before the Sligo Committee be discharged,
and the evidence referred to the Committee of Privileges.
Agreed to.
POOR-LAW.

Lord MORPETH presented a petition against the
present Poor-law ; and also one from several officers of
poor-law unions, praying that they might be entitled to
superannuated allowance.
GUERNSEY.

Mr. OSBORNE moved for a return of all notes fur
nished by the Governor of Guernsey, Major-General
Sir W. Napier, to the Commissioners appointed to in-
quire into the institutions of the Channel Islands, con-
taining Sir W. Napier's observations and suggestions on
the powers of the Royal Court of Guernsey, and its ad-
ministration of the criminal law, dated September 19,
1846.—Agreed to.
MEDALS TO SURVIVORS ENGAGED AT THE

SIEGE OF ST. SEBASTIAN.
In answer to a question from Colonel DUNNE,
Mr. FOX MAULE said that a principle was laid
down by the Government with regard to the distribution
of medals, that suck should only be given to individuals
positively engaged, or to the survivors of such persons
where medals had not been granted in the first instance.
In the case of St. Sebastian no medals had been granted,
but it was proposed to give such to the parties actually
engaged in the trenches, or who had been of the storm-
ing party.
SUGAR DUTIES.

The House then went into Committee on the Sugar
Duties. A preliminary discussion arose as to whether a
motion of Mr. Bagshaw or that of Sir John Pakingtoa
should have precedence, and it was ultimately decided
that Sir John Pakington should move his amendment first.

ir J. PAKINGTON then rose to move the amend-
ment of which he had given notice, which was to the
effect that from the present time there should be a dif-
ferential duty of 10s. in favour of the produce of the
British colonies ; and he proposed to effect this, not by
raising the duty on foreign sugar, but by lowering it on
British. In making this motion, he thought he had
a right to complain of the statements that had been
made by the Noble Lord at the head of the Govern-
meut, who had stated that the course he (Sir J. Paking-
ton) was pursuing had caused embarrassment and delay.
—(Hear, hear.) He admitted that there had been
some embarrassment, but ho thought the delay rested
with the Noble Lord himself.—( Hear, hear.)
The Noble Lord ought to have seen and known that it
would be impossible to discuss a subject like the pre-
sent without some considerable delay ; and as to the em-
barrassments, he believed them to have arisen from
the vacillation of the Government.—(Hear, hear.)
His plan would not increase the price to the consumer,
nor would it endanger the revenue, and he thought, as
it was essential to the welfare and prosperity of the
colonies, it ought to be readily adopted. But considera-
tions of revenue ought not to influence their minds upon
this subject, when it was borne in mind, that by in-
creasing the consumption of colonial sugar in this country
they were practically checking the horrors of the slave
trade, and he hoped the exaggerated accounts of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the loss the adoption
of this plan would inflict upon the revenue, would not
deter Hon. Members from giving it their support.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
adoption of the plan would involve a loss of 960,0001.
Sir J. PAKINGTON contended that the loss would
fall very far short of that sum, but when they were
legislating for purposes of humanity, they ought not to be
influenced by revenue considerations. He maintained
however, that the loss to the revenue which would result
from the adoption of the plan would be 182,0001., as com-
pared with the year 1847, instead of 960,0001., as esti-
mated by the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite. With
regard to what he proposed to do when his plan expired,
he must refuse to give any answer whatever. He can-
didly confessed that he was not prepared to do so.
No man could pretend to predict as to what the duties on
sugar ought to be in the year 1854. He could assure
the Government that if they persevered in their line of
polisy, they would ultimately drive the estates in the
colonies out of cultivation, and so give the producer of
slave-grown sugar an almost exclusive monopoly of the
British market. It was on those grounds that ho
proposed the motion, and. if it were the pleasure
of the House to reject it, would be some satis-
faction to him to have put on record the
just and reasonable demands of the colonies, and all ,

responsibility, therefore, woul.i devolie upon the Govern-
ment who had introduced the rneaqire. The Hen.
Baronet concluded by proposing the motion substituting
10s. for 135.1% the duty on Muscovado sugar.
_ _

Mr. DRUNIMOND-said some Members had treated
this subject as a free-trade question, others as a
slave-trade question, and others had treated it solely
with reference to the West Indian planters; but no
one yet had given the slightest clue by which
they could unravel that great complexity. The West
Indian interest had in the present debate, a great
advantage, because they bad received the aid
of the consummate abilities, the great exertions of
the Noble Lord the Member for Lynn.—(Hear, hear.)
The House was in this perplexity upon this question,
that the Members on each side of it were afraid to
carry out their own principles.—(Hear, hear.) The
people of this country had broke❑ three distinct bargains
with the West Indian proprietors. The West
Indians had a right to bring their whole produce to this
country duty free, and they ought to be satisfied with
nothing less.
Sir J. PAKINGTON here observed that if his amend-
ment was adopted by the Committee he should next
propose, as a consequence, that the duty on foreign sugars
be continued at 20s.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had so
understood the Hon. Baronet.

Mr. V. SMITH denied the justice of the statement of
the Hon. Member for East Surrey as to the inadequate
compensation granted for the slaves in the West Indies.
He would remind Hon. Members who were so clamarous
about the claims of the West Indians, and the small
amount of compensation, that the original suggestion with
that view was a loan of 15,000,000/.; and that the change
from that to a grant of 20,000,000/. was the greatest ad-
vance upon record. He denied that there ever had been any
contract entered into by the mother country with reference
to giving the colonies a monopoly of the home market,
or guaranteeing to them a supply of free labour. As
to the apprenticeship, it was a matter of history that the
conduct of the planters in some of the islands to their,
apprentices had caused the loudest renadnstrances in
England, and that the system was at bast,abolisshed by
the colonial legislatures. Then as to th 9 supply pf free
labour, he denied that there had been any contract on
that point. The whole tone of the debate on emancipa-
tion went to prove that free labour could compete with
slave labour. He was sorry to admit that in his opinion
that doctrine was nothing more than a philanthropic
fallacy. He believed that free labour could not compete
with slave—(Hear, hear)—but nevertheless that was
the understanding and belief during the debates
on emancipation. There was only one pressure,
that of starvation, which could get out of free
labourers in the West Indies as much work as
in foreign colonies the lash obtained from slaves.—
(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member who bad moved the
amendment had on the present occasion thrown asido
the veil under which he had on a former evening sought
to obtain a few stray votes, but that was only another
instance of what he (Mr. Smith) had always deemed to
be the great misfortune of the West Indies, namely—
that questions affecting their interests were always in
that House made the subject of party struggle. (Hear,
hear.)—lt had been so in 1840, when the Hon. Baronet
himself and the Hon. Member for Inverness voted
against the introduction of coolies.—(Hear, hear.) The
Hon. Baronet had recommended his amendment by say-
ing that it would relieve the producer without inflicting
any loss on the consumer, but he had not prayed that it
could be carried out without inflicting a serious loss on
the revenue. It was admitted that there would be risk
of loss to the amount of 182,0001., and he (Mr. Smith)
was not prepared to risk that amount in the present state
of the national finances.—(Hear.) If the West Indians
had a claim for compensation on account of reduction of
price, why might not the growers of corn in this country
put forward a similar claim? The great question was,
what was ultimately to become of those colonies? His
belief was, that those which survived the present distress
would ultimately flourish, but that those which could
not would grow out of cultivation altogether. When
was the protection now asked for to end? The lion.
Baronet had come down from six year 3 (the recommen-
dation of the Committee) to three; but it made little
difference, as at the end of either period the colonists
would infallibly come to that House for a renewal.—
(Hear, hear.) The Right Honourable Member for
Coventry recommended a closer attention to colonial
expense, as, one remedy for West Indian distress. He
concurred in most of the Right Honourable Member's
suggestions, but certainly not in that portion which
went to give to the colonists the election of their
governors. That would be virtually yielding up
sovereignty; and certainly, if it wero done, he saw
no reason why we should any longer send out
troops to maintain the governor's authority. As to
the discriminating duty now proposed, he did not see
how it could be carried out without loss both to the re-
venue and consumer. Besides, it was not what the
planters asked for themselves. He held in his hand a
petition from the agents of Barbadoes, Antigua, Mont-
serrat, St. Kitt's, and the Virgin Islands, the prayer of
which was that there should he a protection of 105. per
cwt. as against foreign free-labour sugar, and a practical
exclusion against foreign slave-grown sugar, or else 15s.
per cwt. against all foreign sugar without distinction.—
(Hear, hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer had
thrown fresh blood into the discussion by his announce-
ment of a former evening. He congratulated the Right
Hon. Gentleman on the prosperous state of affairs which
he understood had greatly improved confidence in the
City, and he conceived that the West India question
should be settled without any reference to such conside-
rations. As he had said before, he did not think that
the Right Hon. Baronet's amendment could be carried
out without loss to the revenue, and therefore he should
decidedly give his vote against it.
Mr. B. COCHRANE was of opinion that this country
was bound in good faith and common honesty to grant to
the West Indies the relief asked for by his Hon. Friend
the Member for Droitwich. He would remind the House
that up to 1807 this House had not only sanctioned, but
positively enacted, the slave trade, and that in the reign
of Charles 11. the monopoly of that trade was granted to
the Queen Dowager and the Duke of York. Their re-
cent legislation had injured the West Indies, while it
had encouraged slavery, and ultimately it would not
cheapen sugar, because when our colonies were thrown
completely out of cultivation, the slave-holders having a
monopoly could dictate their own price. From a wish to
protect our colonial empire, and to preserve the national
faith, he should certainly give his vote for the amend-
ment of his Hon. Friend.
Mr. SPOONER said be had voted for the Govern-
ment proposition of 1846 because he had thought that
when the protection on corn was removed, the consumers
in this country would be relieved from the protection on
sugar. He should, however, on the present occasion,
vote for his Hon. Friend's amendment, because he be-
lieved that the Government proposition had been uni-
versally condemned by the House of Commons.—(Hear,
hear.) Party alone had given them their miserable ma-
jority, but never, on a majority so composed, had any
previous Government pressed an important measure
upon Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) He must confess also
that he should never have voted for the measure of
1846 had he thought that it would give so great
a stimulus to the slave trade. They were then
told, as' an inducement to pass the Bill, that anti-
slave treaties were in active progress with Brazil,
whereas the fact was, that at this moment we were fur-
ther from accord with Brazil on the subject than ever.—
(Hear, hear.) Any encouragement of the slave trade he
looked upon as a national sin, and this reason strongly
urged him to vote for the amendment. With respect to
the loan, he should deal with it as a grant, because he
knew it would never be paid, and he protested against
any such grant to enable West Indians to import labour
while thousands of labourers were out of employment in
this country.. Let the Government look to the state of
Staffordshire, where one establishment had during the
previous week stopped work, thus throwing upwards of
2,000 hands out of employment. He asked, would
those men hear with satisfaction that they were to be
taxed to enable Government to grant 500,000/. to the
West Indians in aid of the importation of labour 2
(Hear, hear.) But this was only the beginning. At a
' meeting of the iron masters, preparatory to the quarterly
meeting, it was determined to reduce the price to 6/. 10s.
per ton, it being well known that it could not be manufac-
tured at less than Si. The consequence of this must be
that all the workmen would be dismissed unless they
submitted to an enormous reduction of wages. In fact,
never during the whole of his experience were the groat
staples of the country in such a state of depression as at
the present moment. Having the opinion he had stated
of the Government proposition, and at the same time
wishing to discourage slavery and the slave trade, he
felt bound to support the amendment of his Hon.
Friend the Member for Droitwich.
Mr. GODSON contended that while the West India
colonies had strictly adhered to their part of the contract
entered into at the period of emancipation, this country
had broken faith with them, first in opening the British
market to slave-grown produce; secondly, in putting an
end to the state of apprenticeship before the expiration
of the time stipulated; and thirdly, in neglecting to pro-
vide means for the introduction of free labour into the
colonies. It was complained that the Government plan
involved an advance of 500,000/. for the purpose of faci-
litating the immigration of labourers; but those who
made that complaint should remember that the
20,000,0001. of which they had heard so much had never
been paid in full. The amount which had been paid was
only 18,669,402/.; and it was rather too much, with a
balance of 1,330,598/. due to the colonies, to object to
a temporary advance of 500,000/. to assist in carrying
out that which was one of the conditions undertaken by
this country when it paSsed the Emancipation
Act. All that was asked by the proposition of his
Hon. Friend was, that the House should come back
to what ought to have been the arrangement of
1846. The Noble Lord had told the House that the
difference of value between foreign and colonial sugar
was 6s. in favour of the former; and the evidence before
the Committee showed that it could not be less than
4s. 6d. If the Noble Lord's statement was correct the
difference of duty from July, 1847, to July, 1848, viz ,
20s. and 145., was just sufficient to place the two articles
on equal terms, and in point of fact, there had been
free trade in sugar during the last year—(Hear, bear)—
and the effect of the Act, if continued, would be in 1851,
when it reduced the duty of foreign sugar to 145., leav-
ing that on colonial sugar at the same rate, to give a
bounty to the foreign slave-grown as against the colonial
free-labour produce of not less than 4a. 6d. a cwt., tak-
ing the lower estimate, or 4/. 10s. a ton.—(Cheers.) The
price current of Drake, Brothers, and Co., of the
Havannah, for 1844, stated that there was no
expectation of improvement in the price of
Cuba sugar unless • the markets of England
should be thrown open to it—and if this could
be effected at 50s. per cwt. their produce would double in
value. And in the price current of 1847 it was stated
that that sugar had been kept up at its present high rate,
notwithstanding the abundant crops, by the extensive
shipments to the United States and Great Britain.—
(Hear, hear.) Here then was the evidence of the Cuba
houses themselves as to the advantage their slave-grown

produce had over that of our free-labour colonies.—
(Hear, hear.) Again, as this country reduced the duty
on the sugar of the Brazils or Cuba, those countries
would increase the tax on its export in the same propor-
tion, and the result would be that the consumer here
would be paying the taxes for maintaining the govern-
ment of foreign countries. He believed sugar might be
raised in the Brazils or Cuba at a cost of 10s. a cwt.,
while the cost in our West Indian colonies alight be
taken at 20s. If that was the case, a duty of 10s. on the
one and 20s. on the other, as proposed by the amend-
ment of his Hon. Friend, would place both on equal
terms. With regard to any Joss to the revenue, that
was a matter very little cared for in 1846 ; and
when it was said that tha increased' consumption had in
a great part made up any loss that was anticipated, he
must take leave to remind them that the amount aceru-

ing to the revenue for such increased consumption had
been paid out of the remaining capital, and not out of
the profits, of the West India proprietors—(Hear, hear)
—who had been compelled by the legislation of Parlia-

meat to enter into a ruinous competition with the slave-

owner. Government having found that they were mis-
taken in the course they took in 1846, now proposed to
go back far enough just to admit the wrong, but not far
enough to put themselves and Parliament right.—(Hear.)
By keeping up the differential duty the revenue would
be kept up, and with this advantage—that it would be
paid by the foreigner ; and he had very little doubt that,
in 1851, whoever was Chancellor of the Exchequer,
would come down to the House and propose to stop the
running down of the differential scale upon the best of all
principles—that of taxing the foreigner rather than our
own people.
Mr. M'CULLAGII referred to the frequent com-
plaints of distress put forward by the West India in-
terest as arising from competition, and observed that the
evidence before the late Committee, if it proved any-
thing, proved that our West India colonic t, notwith-
standing the advantages they had in machinery ex-
ported from England, were undersold, not by slave-la-
•bour states only, but by foreign free-labour countries,
:and even by our own East India possessions. They were
, undersold by Java, and in fact by every sugar-growing
country where there was free labour and improved cul-
tivation. It was the fault of the proprietors themselves
I that the negroes were not in a condition for free in-

dustry when emancipation was granted as they alleged
in their memorial, inasmuch as they had neglected to
attend to the repeated appeals of Parliament to
ameliorate the condition of their slaves ; and
with regard to the breaking off of the period
of apprenticeship, what had occurred in Antigua
proved that there was nothing in that argument. In that
island slaves were at once emancipated; and after six
years' experiment, it was stated by the late Mr.
Gurney, when he visited the island in 1840, that the
free negroes were working steadily and profite.bly, and
that he was told by the planters that the money they
received for emancipation was a gratuity put into •their
pockets, for that their land was worth as much without
slavery as with it. Sir E. Colebrook, the Governor,
had confirmed that statement. It appeared to laim (Mr.
M'Cullagh) that the arguments advanced by t! ie Hon.
Member for Warwick were reasons against the propo-
sition which he stated he intended to vote for. He told
the House that the state of wages and employment in
this country were such as not to admit of a iditional
taxation.—(Hear.) If so, why attempt to levy an ad-
ditional tax on an article which had now become a
necessary of life?—(Hear, hear.) To say that Id. or
2d. a pound in the price of sugar was a matter of no im-
portance argued an ignorance and disregard of the wants
and comforts of the labouring classes which he could
not understand. Those who could command the luxu-
ries of life at will should bear in mind that it was a
matter of great importance to the poor whether they
were deprived of the means of obtaining one of their few
comforts, much less that which was now to them an
article of necessity or not.—(Hear, hear.) The influence
of cheap sugar in diminishing the use of ardent spirits,
and promoting habits of temperance both in this country
and Ireland, was a matter not to be overlooked. As free
labour was the labour of civilisation, it must drive out of
the field slavery, which was the appliance of barbarism.
Mr. SPOONER explained that he was no advocate

for raising the price of sugar. It was the duty of Par-
liament to give sugar to the consumer at the lowest price
consistent with what was due to other great interests.
But the proposition before the Committee did not go to
increase the price of sugar, but to lower the duty on
colonial sugar; and the whole argument of his Hon.
Friend (Sir J. Pakington) went to show that the effect of '
hie proposition would be to lower the price.
Mr. MANGLES, as one who had voted for the Bill
of 1846, and who was a sincere believer in the sound-
ness of the doctrine of free-trade, wished to explain why
he thought this question was an exception from that
doctrine, and why, therefore, he felt compelled to sup-
port the claims of the West India colonies. He had no
interest in or connexion with the West Indies, and
having a bias in favour of the policy of the Noble Lord,
he regretted that he was compelled to vote against him.
The question was not between the consumer of this
country and the labourer in the West Indies, as the Noble
Lord had put it, but between the consumer here and the
employer of labour in the West Indies.—(Hear, ;hear.)
It was his conviction that this country had beer guilty
of continued and systematic injustice to our; West
Indian colonies, and that wo were bound now, at what-
ever expense to ourselves, to render them justice. The
appeals to the interest of the consumer, therefore., were
not fair in discussing this question. What was pa id for
emancipation, and it must be remembered that s lavery
had been previously forced on the West Indices, was
to be regarded not so much as compensation as a
fine for a national sin. But the nation having forced eman-
cipation on the colonies afterwards broke its engage-
ment with them by suddenly and prematurely putting an
end to the period of apprenticeship.—(Hear.) Then, as
to immigration, this country was bound from the mo-
ment slavery was abolished to provide the colonies with
a supply of free labour.—(Hear.) No one coudd have
supposed—he and many others who had advocated,
emancipation had never expected—that free labour if
confined to the emancipated negro would be cheaper
or as cheap as slave labour; when he end others con-
tended for the superior cheapness of free over slave la-
bour, they meant: free labour as open to the cony petition
of the labour of the world. But instead of faealitating
the attainment of free labour by the West India n colo-
nies, the Colonial-office had been systematic in their at-
tempts to evade the obligation by which this country
was bound.—(Hear.) He believed the Nadu Lord
himself had admitted that the Anti-Slavery Association
had had its weight in this respect with the Colonial-
office, and with the Legislature ; and the Under-
Secretary of State for the Colonies, in his evi-
dence before the Committee, admitted the same when he
said that the Legislature bad been too much it lfluenced
by considerations which no longer prevailed. The
Noble Lord would doubtless remember the stop page put
to the admission of free labour into the Mauriti us, con-
temporaneously with the abolition of apprenticeship,
causing as it did great ruin. The Government p nevented
the planters !from going to Bombay, Madras, :and Cal-
cutta, for the labour they required; while no let's; than
17,000 coolies walked a whole district up to Calcutta, in
order to go to the Mauritius. It was, besides, the
greatest injustice to the people of India not to allow
them to take their labour to the market which was
ready for them. In 1844 the West Indian color lists pre-
sented a requisition to the Government for 9,500 coolies,
and the Government, such was their machinery and
such their zeal, only supplied the colonists with 1,026,
being less than one-ninth of the number dttmaaded.
The following year they represented their gr.:at want '
of labour, and asked fur 15,000, and the Government
sent them 7,085, being less than one-half.--(Hear.)
Now, these he only gave as specimens of -the way
in which the West Indies had been treated in regard to
the supply of labour. The Hon. Gentleman next quoted
some evidence to show that the labourers returning from
the Mauritius were greatly improved in conditic ,n—that
many of them returned with full purses, and that only
those complained who came back without re oney or
character. As for the mortality referred to by the
Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Thumpson)
he had only to observe that it was not greater tl :an that
which took place In European regiments in Ind ia. He
thought these facts were sufficient to show that the
Government had done what they ought not, and left
undone what it was their duty to do. They had thrown
every obstacle in the way of free emigration, and
the West Indies had in consequence the Xtrongest
claims upon that House. He must add, 'that the
Anti-Slavery Society wore also greatly to blame
fur the manner in which they aided the Go-
vernment in their struggle to prevent the West
Indies from getting a proper supply of labour . That
society had done all in its power to verify the at atement
that it was impossibe for free-labour to corare•te with
slave-labour. Now, on that point, he belie, ed that
British India, which had been referred to, was snot a fair
test. He believed that the slave-trade could onl'i be put
down by free labour, and by enabling it to c ompeto
fairly with slave-labour. But the Anti-Slavery society
had done their utmost to prevent that result, by -throw-
ing every obstacle in the way of obtaining free htbour.
He thought that fur a time it was necessary to give the
West Indies the advantage proposed by the amendment
of the Hon. Member for Droitwich; but he thought also,
that with a view to ameliorate their condition., steps
should be taken to improve their mode of cultivation,
particularly by irrigation, and that measures should be
immediately adopted for reducing the expenditure of
administration, which was in some instances most mon-
strous. Ile had no interest in the question, and nothing
but a strong sense of public duty induced him to oppose
on the present occasion the Noble Lord, whom. he al-
most invariably supported.
Mr. ROBINSON had voted against the' Government
on the last division, and was prepared to do so on this-
The Noble Lord had said that his object was twofold—
to adhere to the Bill of 1846, and to afford the people of
this country a cheap supply of sugar; but the, Noble
Lord in his anxiety to effect the latter quite lost ;sight of
the former object, having altogether abandoned the prin-
ciple of the Bill of 1846 by extending the period 'of pro-
tection for three years longer—namely, to ISSI. No one
in that House was more convinced than was he (Mr. Ro-
binson) that it was the duty of Parliament by every
means in its power to cheapen the necessaries of life to
the consumer, particularly at the present moment, when
with an increasing population there was a diminution in
the demand for labour. And he admitted that the im-
mediate effect of the Noble Lord's measure would be to
cheapen sugar. But by depriving the West Indies of
protection, and exposing them hereafter to the compe-
tition of slave as well as free labour produce, was the
Noble Lord sure that such eventually would be the
effect? Was he not mere likely, by such a course, to
transfer the trade altogether from our possessions to Cubs
and Brazil, and by giving them a monopoly to raise the
price of sugar to a price quite as high, if not higher, thus
it was at present? Now, it had been said that the pro-
prietors of estates in the West Indies ought to be resident,
and that if they were much of the evil would be reme-
died. In answer to that, and to show that resident pro-
prietors had just as much reason to complain as the ab-
sentees, let him quote the opinion of the lion. Mr. Gor-

les.—
, duty
❑tries
•opor-
hore

sed to
tot far
Elear.)
would
ild be
t that,
equer,
op the
t of all
cm our

corn-
Ca in-
iat the
d any-
awith-
ry eX-
Ive- la-

tntries,
y wero

rowing
ed cul-
nselvcs

e wants

e could

e luxu-

was a
,er they
ieir few
hem an

ifluence
spirits,
country
As free
e out of
.barisin.

dvocate
of Par-
St price
iterests.
)t go to
duty on

is lion.
effect of

the Bill
sound-

ain why
.om that
to sup-
had no
es, and
le Lord,
nst him.
of this
to Noble
and the
, ;hear.)
*guilty
r West
it what-
a. The
re., were
pa id for
s laiery
WAS
ri as a

d eman-
et
an
then, as
the mo-
tes with
dd have
avocated
abour if
cheaper
tors con-

)st mon-
nothing
3 oppose
a. he al-

4ernment
on this.
iv,ofold—
x ople of
ie Noble
t ;sight of
the prin-
t ,of pro.

INo.one
Mr. Ro-
sy every
)t life to
it, when
ution ►n
the itn-
ild be to
ndies of
compe-
was the
be the
curse, to
to Cuba,
raise the
ier, tht►a
the pro-
resider t,
be reme-
ent pro•-
the an-
Ur. Gor-