The Sun.
London, England, 1848-06-17 00:00:00

protection altogether—(Hear, hear)—to prevent the
introduction of any foreign sugars, only under
such a differential duty as would render it difficult for
the people of this country to obtain them—to give to the
colonies, in fact, a permanent protection of a certain
amount, and in that way only, we have been told, can
the prosperity of the colonies be secured.—(Hear, hear.)
I am not sorry to hear this, because at least• it shows
what is the measure which is to be discussed. Now
what are the two propositions then between which the
House will have to decide? They are, first, the propo-
sition of the Government modifying the Act of 1846. on
the one hand, and the proposition on the other hand that
there should be a permanent differential duty of 103. per
cwt., levying thereby a very considerable tax upon the
people of this country. My Hon. Friend, the Member
for the University of Oxford. expressed great indigna-
tion that I had not touched upon the question of the
slave. trade. I really thought that the whole of my
speech was an attempt to show that the measure which
I bad the honour of proposing would enable colonies of
this country with their free labour to compete with the
sugar of the slave colonies of other countries; and that
if we did that, if we were successful in that object, we so
far encouraged free labour sugar and discouraged slave-
labour sugar. It is not for me now to say whether that
measure will be efficient for that object; but I will repeat
that the object I had in view was to encourage free-
labour sugar, and to discourage slave-grown sugar.—
(Hear, hear.) No one could doubt either that your pro-
position, as I had before understood it, of continuing the
103. duty for six years only, would, at least so I sup •
posed, have had a similar object in view. That would
not have been a permanent protection ; but it would
have had the same object of enabling our colonies by
a sufficiency of free labour to supply free sugar cheaply,
and to compete with advantage with slave-holding
colonies. But I must confess—and after all I have
heard I almost feel humbled in confessing it—l
must confess I thought there were two parties whose in-
terests I was to keep in view in framing any measure
upon this subject—one was, the great mass of the la-
bouring population in our colonies, amounting to at least
nine-tenths of the whole people, and the greater part of
whom had formerly been our negro slaves ; while the
other body, whose interests were concerned, and whose
interests I ought to consult, were some 99-100ths of the
people of this country, who were deeply interested in
the price of an article for which they paid twelve
millions sterling a year, and of which they consumed
300,000 tons or 6,000,000 cwt.—(Cheers.) I thought
this question was a difficult one, and though I
did not pretend to frame a measure which should please
all parties, yet that I had not been altogether unsuc-
cessful as regarded those two interests.—(Hear, hear.)
The labourers in the West Indies, it was acknowledged,
have been in the best condition, the best fed, the best
clothed of any peasantry in the world. There was a
resolution in the Committee of 1842 that the measure
of emancipation had completely succeeded so far as the
welfare of the negro was concerned. I believe the Noble
Lord the Member for King's Lynn moved a similar re-
solution. We have it amongst the evidence that at first
after their emancipation the degree in which they car-
ried their luxury in dress was most vain and extra-
vagant. We have heard of a woman wearing a dress
worth fifty pounds, and such like things, showing how
well they were able to afford the luxuries in which
they indulged. I believe, then, that even if this
measure were to discourage the cultivation of sugar,
if even the greater part of those persons were not
to be employed in the cultivation of sugar, yet that
there are in the West Indies means now for their
support, that the whole effect of the Act of 1834 would
be, that from the wretched state of slavery which they
suffered under the command and lash of their masters,
they had been converted into an independent, happy, and
comfortable peasantry.—(Hear, hear.) Well, then, I
say, that in that respect, therefore,: there is no-
thing in my measure which militates against their
welfare. With regard to the other part, I propose that
sugar which now pays 14s. duty should have that duty
diminished to 10s. per cwt., and that foreign labour
sugar should also pay 10s., and that the whole tax upon
the whole of the sugar that comes into this country
should scarcely exceed ld. per pound. There is a pro-
vision for the welfare of that class. Now, it seems, from
the course of this debate, that the welfare of 9-10ths of
the population of the West Indies is not one for which
we are to care; that the welfare of 99-100ths of the
population of the United Kingdom is not one which
we should take into any reasonable account; but
that the owners of West Indian property, those
who have inherited or purchased their pro-
perty five or six years ago, as many have done,
chat those are the persons for whose welfare this
House is to show any concern.—(Hear.) Now, I con-
fess myself somewhat humbled by that discovery. Either
I must be exceedingly wrong in having wished to pro-
vide for the welfare of the great mass of the people of
this country, or else the greater portion of those who
have taken part in this debate have an extremely mis-
taken view of the duty of this House to the millions for
whom they legislate.—(Hear, hear.) But there is one
great authority upon this subject—the Hon. Member for
Leominster (Mr. Barkly), whom, I confess, I was much
surprised to find arrayed against this measure. The
proposal of the Committee was a duty of 10s., to con-
tinue for six years. Many other persons who have ex-
pressed their opinion to me have wished for the 10s. duty
for a much longer period. Now I have consulted the
evidence of the Hon. Member for Leominster. and I find
he said that any longer period of protection to the
amount of 10s. would tend to injure both the labourers
:Ind the proprietors, and that if the protection of 10s.
were continued for two years, it would be useful in re-
viving industry, but if continued king it would have the
worst effect.

Mr. BARICLY—I said 105. for ten years.
Lord J. RUSSELL—Yes; the Honourable Gentleman
says—" With respect to the amount of protection which
it would be desirable to reimpose, the opinion of my
friends both at home and abroad is, that the sugar
cultivation will not be maintained generally in the co-
lonies, unless at least a protection of lOs. a cwt., to
continue for a period of something like ten years, were
conceded. That is what they consider, both in London
and in the colonies, as their minimum. That opinion
of course has great weight with me, as coming from
men who are more extensively connected with the West
Indies than myself; but lam not quite sure that such an
amount of protection, for so long a period, would be for
the real advantage of the West Indies, if it were imposed
with the view of bringing them into competition with
slave labour at the end of that period. Ido not think
that it would put us in a better position at the end
of that time than we are in now." I know that some-
where the Honourable Gentleman says that if it were
imposed for only two years, the competition for la-
bour would be less intense than if imposed for ten
years. Then the Lion. Gentleman is asked—" The
effect of giving 10s. protection would be to give you a
better price for your sugar?—lt would raise the price of
sugar 4s. a cwt. in this market." That is a very clear
answer. The Hon. Gentleman admits very fairly that
the effect of that protection would be to raise the price
of sugar 4s. a cwt.; and of course the effect of giving
that protection is just the same as having a 4s. tax, only
that in the one case it is expended in the colony, and in
the other it comes into the Imperial Exchequer. The
next question he is asked is—" The effect of giving you
a better price for your sugar, you think, would be that
the labourers in the colonies would demand an increase
of wages up to that point?—Not only would they de-
mand it, but the planters themselves would be dispoled
to give it. The planters are not free agents exactly—
they are men with encumbrances, which they have to
provide the means of diminishing if they can,
therefore their great object is to make sugar
at any cost, and that has been one of the great causes
of the high wages. If all the proprietors had been
on the spot, wages would not have been so high. But if
the protection were to continue for a very limited period,
Ido not think that would have the effect of impeding a
reduction of wages." The Honourable Gentleman hav-
ing given that evidence, I confess I did not think that
the proposition which I have now made would have met
with the reproach from him which he has cast upon
it. But then the question which the House will have to
decide is with respect to this proposition of a 10,:. pro-
tective duty. A 10s. protective duty, as I con-
ceive, whilst it would be a very serious tax
upon the people of this country, would lead, as the
Honourable Gentleman says, to the giving of those
very high and extravagant wages, and instead of putting
the proprietors in a good position in the end, the whole
of what should otherwise be their profits would be con-
sumed by that competition for labour which is the re-
sult of high wages. I believe, therefore, that a 10s.
protective duty, while it would obviously be a very
serious tax upon the people of this country, would con-
fer no real benefit upon the labourer—that it would be
injurious to that very class for whose benefit it was
proposed, and who were the only persons whom it was
thought would benefit by that tax. The Honourable
Gentleman the Member for Montrose has declared like-
wise against the proposition of the Government, and if
I understand him, he is not content with suspending the
protection which at present exists, but would propose a
still higher rate of protection, for the purpose of saving
the colonies. Now, I think amongst other objections to
such a scheme, the evidence given by Mr. Jones, one of
the gentlemen to whom I referred in my opening state-
ment, affirds a conclusive reason against such a propo-
sition. Mr. Jones said he should be sorry to see pro-
tection re-enacted in this country, because the colonists
would have no certainty that the law would not be
changed in a year or two—there would be constantly
struggles, and no security for capital laid out—there
would be a continued strife to maintain, on the one
hand, protection; and, on the other to overthrow it,
and the effect of this would be most injurious. Now
I think that the opinion of Mr. Jones is a most sen-
sible one, and I believe, if this House should agree
to raise the protection on sugar, to make it 10s. in-
stead
thatld ba ea e
bewou
a
eodf
str whatu weg.gie
_ptrhoupto sten, e
rt
eh awt
otohled enffoetc t
rceensseivul reaction to which the Hon. Member for Bucking
hamshire looks, but that all those who had supported a
free trade in corn and the diminution of the import
again fur the diminution of that
duties would struggle
,on
duty, would struggle again to free the people of this
country from a tax which would be so onerous upon
and so grievous to the people.—(Hear, hear.) The
immense increase in the consumption of sugar, no
less
than 80,000 tons in three years, is owing to the diml-
nution in the price alone; but if, on the contrary, you
re-establish p r rotection and make sugar dear, you would
find that the consumption would immediately .all off.
It is astonishing how sensitive the market is in this
respect, and how much a small addition in price makes
a considerable difference in the consumption of articles
—not only ld. but even id. and id. in the price of the
article cause a difference. Sir, I have felt bound to
make these remarks by reason of the length to which
this debate has extended. I shall be ready on
Monday to defend the plan which we have
proposed, as a plan which I believe will give
greater advantages to the West India proprietors than
they at present possess, whilst at the same time it will
. not be injurious to the revenue, I am aware that