The Sun.
London, England, 1848-01-29 00:00:00

S U

o'^es
but what I protest against is the remedy that bi-,- -
asked.—(Cheers.) We are asked to give to the Weiti,K4-IFeslit,
Indian body a protection duty of 101. per ton iiponeall"-A-F---;--2-
the colonial sugar imported into this country. Ttjek
haria.f.
the modest request that is made to the repress-vciskoN
tives of the people of this country-101. atoir., -
amounting to upwards of 2,000,0001. of taxation, to
be imposed annually upon the people of this country,
and that not for the purposes of the State, not to be
paid into the coffers of the Exchequer, but to be
transferred from the great body of the consuming
classes of England into the pockets of the West ltifiia
proprietors. Now I have no doubt it is very easy
for persons to say, " Why not grant this protection
to the 'West Indian body, it will make very little
addition to the price of sugar, it won't be felt by the
consumer, and you will prevent the ruin of many
respectable families, and, perhaps, insure the restora-
tion to prosperity of many West Indian mercantile
houses." Well, if I were asked to give my own pro-
perty for that relief, I might say, " Very well, I
have no objection to grant yen from my own funds
the amount which you ask, and I only hope it may
relieve you from your distress." But that is not the
position of a Member of Parliament. He is not deal-
ing with his own funds.—(Loud cheers.) He is a
trustee for the people, and he is bound to act upon
strict principles of justice between all classes of the
people.—(Cheers.) But can a more obvious or clear
right—a more inalienable title to anything be esta-
blished than that which the labouring man has to
the reward of his labour ? I never can understand
that any one has a better claim to that men's
wages than the man himself—(Loud cheers)—and
until a better title can be shown than that which tr.. 9
labouring man shows to his own wages, I must
decline, merely at the request of the West India
proprietors, and upon that show of distress, in my
capacity of trustee, to transfer any portion of the
poor man's earnings to the pockets of the West India
proprietors.
Mr. COBDEN, rising with great animation. Three
cheers for the sentiment.—(The cheers were 'given
with hearty good will.)
Mr. M. GIBSON continued : When the Sugar
Duties Bill passed through Parliament all the facts
were before the Legislature which are before theta
now—everything was taken into consideration, and
after a mature discussion of the question, the sugar
duties were placed on a permanent footing. The
measure of 1846 has conferred a great benefit on the
country—it has, as the free-traders pledged them-
selves it would do, added materially to the revenue of
the State, and at the same time increased the quantity
of sugar to the consumer and reduced the price.-.
(Cheers). I have some statistics upon this point
which I should wish you to bear in your mind. For
the twelvemonths ending August, 1845 (the year
preceding that in which the present Bill was passed),
the revenue derived from sugar amounted to
3,339,1821. For the twelve months ending August,
1847, being the first year of our Sugar Bill—..
the Free-trade Sugar Bill—the revenue from sugar
amounted to 4,652,4921., showing an increase of
1,313,0001. gained to the revenue, accompanied, as 'I
said before, with less taxation to the consumer, an.l
an increased quantity of sugar brought at a lower
price within the reach of all classes of her Majesty's
subjects.—(Loud cheers.) lam prepared, therefore,
_
to stand by the Bill of 1846.—(Hear, bear.) I think
it is a good measure—l think it answered the pur-
pose for which it was intended—l think it a just mea-
sure—l think it was a well-considered measure, and
I think the country will never regret that it was
passed into a law.—(Applause.) But after all, has
nothing been ever done for the West Indian body ?
Do we forget that when slavery was abolished the
people of England paid them in compensation the sunk
of 17,000,0001. out of 20,000,0001., which at 4 per
cent. adds to the taxation of the country something
like 680,0001. a year ? You are now paying out or
the taxation of this country for the emancipation of
the slaves no less a sum than 680,0001. per annum to
the West India body. Is that nothing ? But we
are told that they did not get the 17,0001., that they
were in debt, that their estates were mortgaged, sled
that their merchants and brokers got possession of it.
But you did not pay it any the less for that.
(Cheers.) The 680,000/. still remains a charge upcn
the tax-payers of this country, and they can't have
anything to do with the previous arrangements, whe-
ther wise or unwise, which existed between the West
India proprietors and their merchants and brokers.—
(Cheers.) The money was paid, and, as I always
understood, that closed the account, and it can no inure
be re-opened. The question of slavery is settled, and
let it be remembered that the abolition of slavery was
not a law merely applying to the proprietors of estates
in the West Indies. It was applied to all classes of
her Majesty's subjects, and at the present moment I
have nu doubt that in many other of her Majesty's
dominions—say at the Cape of Good Hope or in
Australia—the proprietors, if they were allowed to
employ slaves, might be enabled to make a good deal of
land profitable rhich now returns them nothing. I
was talking mysdi to a gentleman who has lately pur-
chased property in the Cape of Good Hope, and he
said, " Why you seem to talk as if no one was de-
prived of any advantage by the abolition of slavery
but the owners of slaves in the West Indies ;" and he
added, that if he might purchas.l slaves, much of the
land which now yielded him nothing might be made
profitable. Su they are riot the only parties ‘N h o can
claim to have been deprived of an advantage, if there
possibly can be any advantage, either. pre sent or ree
mote, resulting irons such a system.—(Cheers). Fur
my part, I hope to see slavery abolished in every
part of the world, and I believe, leaving free labour t',
compete without protection openly in the world's
markets with slave labour, that the day will cone
when it shall be proved that free labour is more pro-
fitable than slave labour, and when men's interests
will induce them to abandon for ever the horrible
traffic in human flesh.—(Loud cheers). We have
had so many proofs lately from the successful
operation in other countries, as well as England,
of the effect of reducing duties, and giving a freer
scope to industry and trade, that I will not dwell
longer on that branch of the subject ; but there is one
remarkable case in connexion with the trade of Eng-
land, to which I can't help calling a momentary atten-
tion—l allude to the trade with France. Now small
as that trade absolutely is in amount, there is no trade
which has relatively shown a more rapid increase.—
(Cheers.) The declared value of our exports to
France has amounted, within a very short period, to
something like 3,000,0001., and now amounts, I
believe, to 2,700,0001., whilst in 1815 they amounted
to not more than 300,0001. But of that great in
crease, be it remembered that the greater portion of
it has taken place within a comparatively recent
period, and it has taken place almost entirely in con--
sequence of the relaxation on our part, without any
reciprocity on the part of France. I mention this
tecause it affords a strong argument against what is
called the " reciprocity system," showing as it does
that 3ou have increased materially your trade with
France, by acting for yourselves, and reducing the
duties on your imports, even Francethough_ has not
reciprocated and materially reduced the duties on
imp into thwatitchountry France.— also,C country.—(Cheers.) 8
s. )h
w youßutl
men-
tionthat,
after all, the exports to France are as great as the
otrhtiss
exports to the British West Indies, so that those
dreadful Frenchmen, whom we are told to regard as
our natural enemies, are as good customers of ours
as the protected and much-cherished Wtst India
proprietors.—(Hear, hear.) France takes of your
exports 2,700,0001. The West Indians take
2,300,000/., and, more than that, want you to give
them a protective duty on their sugar equal in
amount to tie value of all the experts you send to
the West Indies. lam not over-stating these things
—I am mentioning merely those facts which parlia-
mentary documents place before us, and I ask you
now whether we can reflect upon this gradual increase
of commercial intercourse with France, without, at
the same time, feeling that it must have a weight
upon the ties of friendship and .of interest, which
it would be more difficult to break than if the
trade with France were only what it used to be in
1815—something like 800,0001. a year.—(Cheers.)
I think my excellent friend Colonel Thompson would
tell you that the two countries, with a trade of that
sort subsisting between them, were less in a fighting
condition than if there were no larger trade than
300,0001. a year. I, for one, believe from my con-
science—though I dare say diplomacy may
have done
much in the world—l believe from my conscience,
and I state it unhesitatingly here in this public as-
sembly, that the most potent of all human agency to
prevent war and maintain peace is the extension of
commercial interests.—(General applause.) But,
notwithstanding that growing trade, notwithstanding
that increased intercourse with France, we were told
in the south—and recollect that letter came from
Lancashire, from a great man in that district—that
we were frightened out of our propriety by a letter
from the north, telling us that we might expect an
invasion by the French people—that the French
people were actuated by feelings which I will net
mention towards the natives of this country, and that
we were lulling ourselves into a false security if
we did not prepare an adequate force to repel
that meditated invasion. Ido not mean to say—for
I should not be honest if I did say, and it has al-
ways been my habit in Manchester candidly and
fairly to state my opinions—I do not mean to say
that you can dispense with the use of an armament.
I do not say, and I do not believe my excellent
friend, Mr. Cobden, ever said that you are to abolish
all your military and naval preparations—there are
those who would, but I do not believe Mr. Cobden
has proposed that. We are all agreed, however
that it would be the greatest improvement the world
ever saw, if by international communication arma-
ments could be abolished altogether.—(Cheers.)
Now we have averaged something like 16,000,0001.
a year since 1815, for the maintenance of defences,
and I believe, therefore, we always have had ade-
quate means of defence, and as far as I am capable of
judging, no case has been made out which should