The Sun.
London, England, 1848-06-20 00:00:00

IRELAND.

Lord FARNHAM, in putting a question of which he
had given notice, on the subject of the discontinuance of
the drainage of certain works in the county of Cavan,
and the dismissal by the Board of Works of the labourers
employed thereon, said that 4,500 persons had been dis-
missed at a moment's notice, and this at a time of the
year—between the sowing season and the hay harvest—
when employment was very difficult to obtain. Since
the 20th of December last no less than 85. 4d. in the
pound, by two rates, one of ss. and the other of 3s. 4d.,
had been levied on the parish, which was in a most im-
poverished district. Another rate, therefore, for the re-
lief of those unhappy people could not be made, and he
did not see huw it was possible that they could be sup-
ported. He had that day received a memorial from 600
of these poor men, accompanied by a certificate from the
Archbishop of the diocese and ihe magistrates of the lo-
cality, setting forth their lamentable condition. And he
might himself state, as a constant resident in the district,
that during the whole of the time in which the men had
been employed on the public works, not one of them had
been charged with theft, and their conduct had been
most exemplary since their dismissal. He hoped, there-
fore, the Government would raise the money to continue
the works.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE (who was all but
inaudible in the gallery) was understood to say that the
Government had received information of the stoppage of
the drainage. The subject was most interesting to the
Government, and not the less so on account of the good
conduct of the men who had been dismissed. The
works in question were not, however, carried on by the
Government grants, but by the Board of Works on the
application of particular individuals--either public
bodies or private individuals; and there had been in this
case, unfortunately, a default of payment on the part of
those persons. Out of 52,0001., which the works were
to cost, only 4,5001. had bee❑ raised by private loans,
and, therefore, it ' had become necessary to stop the
works. It was much to be regretted that they should
have been stopped at this particular season; but the
board could not have proceeded with these particular
works without abstracting the funds from other works
in other parts of the country.—(Hear.)
Earl FITZ WILLIAM read the terms of the motion
of which he had given notice for Friday next, expres-
sing the thanks of the House to the Executive in Ireland
for past measures of relief, and calling on the Govern-
ment for further legislation for that country.
Lord BROUGHAM doubted the propriety of a vote
of panegyric before the Earl of Clarendon's adminis-
tration had terminated; but he did not wish to be con-
sidered adverse to any such vote when it could with pro-
priety be brought on.
IRISH POOR-LAW.

Lord MONTEAGLE moved resolutions. to the fol-
lowing effect:—That the circular letters of the Irish
Poor-lawchCanogaleminisspi practice
daattevdatrhi
variance
en2e3ed
withof
May,
the di
rect
provisions ) 1848,
direct
provisions of the Ist and 2d Vict., c. 56, sect. 53, 54, and
the 10th Vict., c. 81, sect. 8, 10; that such a change in
the administration of the law, if shown to be necessary
and expedient, can only be carried into effect by the
authority of the Legislature; that any orders issued, or
authority claimed or exercised by any administrative
department, to alter or set aside the law of the land, is
of dangerous precedent, and demands the immediate at-
tention of the House, more especially when such orders
are issued during the session, when the sense of Parlia-
ment might have been taken on the question." The
quarter-acre clause introduced into the last plor-law
was not a pnculiar hardship on Ireland, for it was
nothing more than what had been the practice in
England for a long time past. Even the owner of a
cottage in this country: was not entitled to relief.
The quarter-acre clause, combined with that
clause which prohibited relief to the families of per-
sons not entitled, completely prohibited relief to the
families of persons holding mdre than a quarter of an
acre of lend. But the Commissioners, by their circular
of the 23d of May, had absolutely done away with this
restriction, thereby offering a bounty on the retention
of land, and placing those who persisted in holding it
in a better position than those who had given up their
holdings. It was a direct inducement to the poor to
neglect their natural duties and set the law at defiance.
If the quarter-acre clause was wrong, let it be repealed,
but not set aside by the authority of the Commissioners.
There was the case of a man who held twelve acres of
land, and who, nevertheless, sought parochial relief, and
had been declared entitled to it by the Commissioners.
While the relief works were going on, the strongest
ground of complaint was that occupiers of land were so
employed, and an order was made to strike such par-
ties off the lists. How was this principle to be re-
conciled with the recent acts of the Poor-law Com-
missioners ? It seemed their first circular had been
construed as a general order applicable to all cases ;
but in a second circular they explained that it referred
only to particular cases ; and this was equally an in-
fraction of the principle of the law. If the circular was
equally applicable to all unions it was in the character
of a general order, and ought only to have been issued
by the authority of the Irish Government, counter-
signed by the chief secretary. By assuming the power
of granting relief to persons holding any quantity of
land the Commissioners had struck the most fatal blow at
the administration of the poor-law in Ireland ; and the
communications ho had received from that; country con-
firmed the worst anticipations that had been entertained
as to the effect of this circular. In some unions the
applications for relief had doubled. Lord Carew, Lord-
Lieutenant of the county of Wexford—a county which
was least burdened by puor-rate—in a letter which be
had 'addressed to the Commissioners, expressed his be-
lief that all the abuses of the relief works would be
re-introduced, and the occupiers of land might continue
OR their holdings, after sending their wives and familes
to the workhouse.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said he was not at
all surprised that this subject should have attracted the
attention of his Noble Friend, and Irish landlords (sew-
rally. Agreeing as he did in much that had fallen from
the Noble Lord, and in the importance of the subject,
he hoped to be able to induce the Noble Lord to with •
draw his motion. To adopt it would be for that House
to pronounce an opinion that the Commissioners, who
were acting under the direction of the law officers of the
Crown, had acted illegally. The only explanation he
had to give of the circular, which had been hastily is •
sued, and applied generally instead of being made to
apply to particular cases, was, that it was done on an

emergency, and with the humane view of preventing a
great amount of suffering, and perhaps loss of life. lie
admitted, as fully as his Noble Friend, that no order
of the Commissioners ought to contravene or sot aside
a principle of law; also that every occupier of land ought
to be made responsible for the support of his family.
It was the intention of the Commissioners to issue an-
other order, guarding against the possibility of the cir-
cular referred to being drawn into any kind of abuse, by
limiting its application to the very extreme cases. Where
a person holding land refused to give it up, and allowed
his family to starve, he ought to be punished, and it was
the duty of the Commissioners to see that he was pu-
nished; but all they were enabled to do by law was to
take possession of any property he might have, either on
the land or in his house. No time whatever would be
lost in issuing a general order stating that relief was not
to be given except in particular cases, the circumstances
of which were to be speedily considered; and this being
so, he hoped his Noble Friend would suspend his motion
for the present.
Lord BROUGHAM had not fully considered the effect
of the law, but was inclined to think that the Irish law-
officers were borne out in the view they had taken. But
whether a new law were required or not, something
must be done to break through one of the most crying
abuses that ever existed, sufficient almost to break up
the very framework of society—that of a man holding
12, or, it might be, 1,200 acres of land, releasing himself'
from the obligation to support his family by throwing
them upon the parish.—(Hear, hear.) Even if he
differed with the Irish law officers, he could not support
the first resolution of his Noble riend ; for any reso-
lution of that House, professing to declare what was the
law, was absolutely worthless ; for the other House
might pass a resolution directly contrary. He was glad
the attention of the House had been called to the matter
on account of the explanation it had elicited from the
Noble Marquis.
The Duke of RICHMOND thought it would be bet-
ter to introduce ' a short declaratory Act, making the
receipt of parochial relief by any member of the family
of a person holding land tantamount to the forfeiture of
his occupation. Such persons could not bo too severely
punished.

Lord REDESDALE said if the principle was once ad-
mitted of giving relief to occupiers of land, it was im-
possible to say to what it might lead.
Lord CAMPBELL said that a person neglecting to
maintain his family was clearly punishable, whether in
England or Ireland; and the refusal to give up land was
prima facie evidence that a man was not destitute. The
circular of the Commissioners certainly led to the infer-
ence that relief might be generally given in such cases,
and, in so far, went to s©t aside the quarter-acre clause.

But that clause was not a positive prohibition of relief
to the wife or family; it was never the intention of the
Legislature that any persons should perish of hunger.
Had the circular been a little more explicit the objection
to it would not have arisen. In Ireland the clause had
been construed as a positive prohibition. Cases of
great hardship had arisen in consequence, and hence
the issuing of the circular. He hoped the motion
would be withdrawn, as its effect would, doubtless, be
attained.

The Earl of ST. GERMANS was glad to hear that an
amended order was about to be issued, authorising relief
extreme cases without compelling a man to give up
his land.

Lord BEAUMONT considered that the assistance of
Parliament was necessary to relieve those who had the
administration of the law from the difficulty in which the
law placed them, and carry out the original intention of
the Legislature to assimilate the law in Ireland to that of
England.
Lord STANLEY observed that the Noble Lord
(Monteagle) had assumed throughout his statement that
the Poor•law Commissioners, first by their notice, and
subsequently by their order, had taken upon themselves
to set aside the law, and act in direct defiance of the Act
of Parliament, whereas it appeared that they had acted
according to the best interpretation the legal advisers of
the Crown had given of that Act. The Noble Lord's
resolution, therefore, would not be in accordance with
the fact. With regard to the interpretation of the law
officers of the Crown he was not competent to give an
opinion, but with regard to the intention of the Legis-
lature, he did not see how it was possible that it could
be more clearly expressed than it was in the Act itself.
But he looked with great alarm at the opinion given by
Mr. Henn, and sanctioned by the Attorney-General,
that the possession of land should not exclude the plea
of destitution, but that the possessor might, notwith-
standing, actually go before the board of guardians and
claim relief. It was for the express purpose of exclud-
ing such persons that the enactment was passed, and if
Mr. Henn 's and the Attorney-General's interpretation
of the law be sound, that enactment was entirely set aside
and superseded. If they did not adhere to the " test"
against the dictum of the Poor-law Commissioners, they
would destroy the whole Bill, and let in a flood of
pauperism, by enabling persons to hold land which it
was impossible they could cultivate, and thus involve
landlord and tenant, and the paupers themselves, in one
common ruin, and subject the country to one common
state of destitution, misery, and death, from which even
the resources of this great empire would not suffice to
rescue Ireland.

Lord MONTEAGLE made a few remarks in reply,
and concluded by withdrawing the motion.
Their Lordships (at Eight o'clock) adjourned to
Thursday next.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 19.
The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four
o'Clock.

Mr. CORNWALL LEIGH took the oaths and his seat
for North Cheshire, in the rocm of Mr. E. J. Stanley,
who has been elevated to the Peerage.
LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
The Lords' amendments to the following Bills were
agreed to:—

Battle-bridge and Holloway-road Act Repeal Bill.
Liverpool Gas Light Company and Liverpool New Gas
and Coke Company Amalgamation Bill.
Patent Galvanizd Iron Company Bill.
THIRD READINGS.
The following Bills were read a third time:—
Caledonian Railway (Branches connecting the Clydes-
dale Junction and Wishaw and Coltness Railways, &c.)
Dundee and Arbroath Railway (Dundee Junction).
Dundee and Perth Railway (Dundee Junction).
Dundee and Perth Railway (Lease of the Dundee and
Arbroath Railway).
Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway, and Glasgow, Airdrie,
and Monklands Junction Railway (Lmendment of
Acts).
Whitehaven Junction Railway (Extension, Alteration,
and Branches, &c.)
Windsor, Staines, and South-Western Railway Act
(No. 1) 1847 (Slough Extension and Deviations) (No.
2).
Wishaw and Coltness Railway (Deviation Connecting
Branch and Improvement).
York, Newcastle, and Berwick Railway (Great North of
England, Clarence and Hartlepool Junction Railway,
and Hartlepool Dock and Railway Leasing).
ABERDEEN RAILWAY (ADDITIONAL CAPI-
_ _ _ _

TAL) BILL.
On the motion that this Bill be read a third time,
Mr. HINDLEY opposed the motion on the ground
that although the company had been authorised to raise
an immense sum of money from which the original
shareholders could never expect to derive any adequate
return, they now sought by this Bill to raise an addi-
tional sum by the creation of new shares, seeking power
at the samo time to guarantee interest at the rate of
ten per cent. to those who should take up
the new shares thus to be created. Why, Manchester,
Liverpool, and Leeds had been drained by railway com-
panies, and it was monstrous for this company to endea-
vour to obtain powers like those they sought, which
would have the effect of draining the resources of the
country, if similar posers were granted to other com-
panies, to an extent which would be most injurious to
its commerce. He wished to know if it was competent
for him to move that the clause in the Bill be altered
from 10 to 6 per cent.
The SPEAKER said it was not competent for the
lion. Gentleman to do so as he had not given notice of
his intention, in which case his amendment should have
been printed in the votes.

Mr.- BERNAL said us the Bill had emanated from
his small tribunal up stairs, it was incumbent upon him
to explain the grounds upon which he had passed it.
The Hon, Gentleman then stated that the Bill was abso-
lutely necessary to enable the company to proceed with
its undertaking, and that if it was not acceded to the
original shareholders, whom the Hon. Gentleman seemed
to commiserate, would be unfairly dealt with.
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
ESDAILE'S CHARITY ESTATE BILL.
This Bill was read a second time and ordered to be
committed.

REPORTS.
The following reports were considered and agreed
;o:

Burntisland Harbour Improvement Bill.
Dover Harbour Bill.
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
Mr. M‘GREGOR presented a petition agreed to
at a meeting held at Glasgow on the 6th of Juno,
stating that the taxation of the country was oppressive,
and praying for an extension of the suffrage, vote by
ballot, electoral districts, and triennial Parliaments.
He also presented a number of similar petitions from
workmen and others at Glasgow, and from other places
in Scotland.
Mr. G. DUNCAN presented several petitions from
places in Scotltind to the same effect.
An HoN. MEMBER presented a petition to the same
effect from Oldham.
LUNATICS ASYLUM BILL.
Mr. GEORGE DUNCAN presented a petition from
Scotland against the Lunatics Asylum Bill.
SPIRITUOUS LIQUORS.
The Hort. MEMBER also presented a petition against
the system now adopted throughout the country in
granting licenses for the sale of spirituous liquors.
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
Mr. C. LUSHINGTON presented petitions from
Westminster in favour of Parliamentary reform.
Petitions to the same effect were presented by Mr.
Glyn, Mr. G. Thompson (one of which was in favour of
the Charter) ; Dr. Bowring, from Saffron Walden ; Mr.
Mowatt, from a place in Cornwall ; and Col. Thomp-
son, from Manchester and Prr,*tOn.
THE EXCISE.
Mr. G. THOMPSON presented a petition from St.
Ives in favour of the reduction of the duty upon tea,
coffee, windows, and paper.

STALEYBRIDGE.
Mr. HINDLEY presented a petition from Staley-
bridge, setting forth the value of the property of the
town, and the capital invested in its trade; and praying
that the town might be permitted to return a Member to
represent its interests in Parliament.
MERCHANT SEAMEN'S FUND.
Mr. BAINES presented a petition from Hull against
this Bill, and complained that the central management
was placed in the Trinity House.
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
Colonel SALWEY presented petitions from Ludlow
and Shropshire in favour of Parliamentary reform.
Captain BERKELEY presented a petition from the
inhabitants of Chelsea, and 111 from Bristol to the same
effect.
Colonel REID presented 22 petitions in favour of the
extension of the franchise.
Sir G. STRICKLAND presented 51 petitions, pray-
ing for a reduction in the national expenditure.
Mr. SCHOLEFIELD presenfed a petition from Bir-
mingham in favour of Parliamentary reform.
Mr. BANNERMAN presented a petition from the
merchants and shipowners of Hartlepool against any al-
teration in the navigation laws.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD presented a petition
from Rochdale in favour of Parliamentary reform.
Mr. HODGES and Mr. JOHN EVANS presented petitions
to the same effect.
Mr. HUDSON presented a petition from Sunderlalnd
against the sale of intoxicating liquors on the Sabbath.
Mr. FORBES presented a petition in favour of votei
by ballot.
numer-
ously signed petitions praying for Parliament
Mr. COBDEN presented a large number of
reform.
petMitriOnisi,UaAllUp3rapresentedpraying
r apsetrillilemmoereetheerxytiernetsbiavreier!b; batch of
ofof
them Eas from the city of Edinburg
person', all of whom gave their addresses.
by 14,600
Sir J. PAKINGTON said, as
itw-sas desirable to
at as. early a
SUSPENDEDu,WarRdIuTuSes.
bring on the question of the
possible,
it was not his inten-
tion which stood in
tpieorniodtoof bring the eveningforward as
the
paper, with regard to the
Derby and other places.
issuing ui ng name
of
f new on
writs
eefer
SUGAR DUTIE4S.—
WFST INDIES.
The Hole.
MEanma said he would also avail himself
of that opportunity of stating that it was not his inten-
tion to bring forward the motion of which he had
given notice respecting the sugar duties. Upon
further consideration ho had found that the
plan proposed by her Majesty's Government had created
so much dissatisfaction that it was 113. s intention to sub-
stitute a resolution amounting to a direct negative to
that proposed by the Government.
Mr. CARDWELL said, considering that the plan
of the Government involved an alteration of the Bill
of 1846, and made changes not only in the
rate of the duties, but also in the mode of levying them,
and affected the law with respect to the position in which
this country stood as regarded the slave trade, and
also the magnitude of the interests involved, he
thought that the time for the consideration of
this question by the House ought to be extended. L
The question he wished to put was, whether it was not

due to the House and the country that more time sb°l/0
be given for the consideration of this question, which:o.
one of so complicated a nature, and whether the Goc, ,t
ment did not think they ought to follow the Preci.er;
of 1846, when temporary Bills were passed condo°
for a month the existing duties. do
Mr. E. ELLICE was satisfied that nothing Iv", -sot
so much injury to the West India interest as all'tte
the matter to remain in suspense. In his opipicrlA to
people in the colonies ought to know what they had
de
The penon. cOD
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUEII
curred with the observations that had just been r'lato
by the Right Hon. Gentleman. He thought it ve.,°,,
be much more satisfactory to all parties that some dpi,
sion should be come to upon the subject. lb, the
and substantial question for the decision ,fifbt
House was stated on Friday night, and he tmilbe
the sooner the House carne to a decisionllloi, a
question whether further protection should he g e
than was proposed by the Government, the better. ,he
Sir J. PAKINGTON presented a petition fr°llltlOg
bankers and citizens of London, agreed to at oeeog,
held that morning, convened for the purpose °f tb
dering the proposal of her Majesty's Government
5;10
respect to pro West Indies, and praying the ilht-the
reject the pposal. The Hon. Baronet moved °table.
at the
petition be read at length by the clerk
On coming to a passage which referred to a recent 3°
ment by the Noble Lord in the matter, Oa
The SPEAKER interrupted the Clerk, on-050,19e,
that the reference to the recent debate in that ester
and the statement of the Noble Lord, the first .04

of the Crown, was inf Oral--- e§elr
Mr. GLADSTONE said the parties, as the r 0 tbe
Lions had not been laid on the table, were driven lobo
alternative of referring to the observations of the jor
Lord.—( Hear.) They had no doubt committed nee ob.
gularity, but he could not see how they could bal
viated it. rioted
-Sir R. H. INGLIS said the resolutions were P hell'
that morning, and might have been purchased forn Ileg
penny, so that the parties, as the Meeting was
°
until mid-day, might have easily procured coPies'i froo
Sir J. PAKINUTON then presented a petitiod red
the Mauritius Association, stating that they Ildeisais
the proposition of the Government with greet - ttud
that it would provide no remedy to the colon
io;
praying the House to reject it. to t"
Mr. CARDWELL presented a petition Oho the
West India Association of Liverpool, stating e'
proposition of the Government would be totally
quate to meet the great distress in the colonl.
IRELAND. to tlO/
Sir B. HALL moved for a return simile!
which had been presented to the House of Pe
~ford
which a Member of the other House of Parliameirelseu'
de Fre)ne, and three other gentlemen resident m
oues
were charged with misappropriating the edgeA;l Ile
trusted to them under the Land Improvement 4—'
000 0
should call the attention of the House and 1--„r00011„
ment to the matter on Friday next, as the 13'; Ole'
question had violated the 29th section of the kta tb
provided that the wages of persons employe° ha,
public works should be paid in the coin of 00°2000
The return will, therefore, be procured froth
th
of Lords. iol4'
DISMISSAL OF JUDGES IN VAN DIE

LAND.
In reply to Mr. C. ANSTEY, f d
Mr. HAWES stated that the Colonial-ofi 111
ceived no further information on this subject' PPP'
Mr. ANSTEY gave notice that on the firg t
he coo'
night he should bring the whole subject under
o$
sideration of the House. no he
Mr. HUME wished to know whether soil, ip IP
had been made for the administration of jus'
colony ?H ..swer
Mr. AWES said he was not able to "--
question.

WEST INDIA QUESTION.. gse°s
00- hie
Mr. HAWES then proceeded to address the ,SPel
the West India question. He understood th,at th-cCO5e,
Lord the Member for King's Lynn on Frivaf
his Noble Friend the Secretary for the Coloeies Ocerfaili
ing withheld from the West India Conareittec 100.0 r
dispatch, and he had taken the trouble w berk
original dispatch to show the Noble Lord the '''ne-105 cldir
King's- Lynn that he was mistaken. Now,,°rieU -
patch there was a memorandum in his I`l°':',,e, tbolAthe
e
handwriting, representing it to be his opin,L::
dispatch ought to be laid before the Cororell'—dreer,t`;,-°
was not aware until Saturda that the -lbetfrh;
of his Noble Friend to forward the dispatch to t get,d
mittee had been neglected. The omission, 111,-0, of
had ascertained occurred in the hurry bus.--,:o0
when the House considered theinittleantaeAsa %Pro:
business carried on at the Colonial-offieot,.% 01.1;er
that the House would admit that the ouit's-h-.llAleia,-,ot
so highly reprehensible as the Noble Lord the "elf
for Kings' Lynn represented it to be. bialys
the intention of his Noble Friend fry
to withold any information of any importance
House or the Committee. tys
MR. HUME'S MOTIOIC A tjtt.,.;
Mr. FREWEN said, as it had been report's-close Pihtf
debate on the West India colonies would tia°,,ti- $llO4
evening, he wished to know whether the '-`.„lich
(Mr. 'Juni() intended to press his mod°
on the paper for to-morrow.
Mr. HUME replied that it was certai°lllll9eillet;66;
to proceed with the motion of which he bill toll sof I°
and that nothing on his part would I°'
ponement.

pSrpoepaok:ord
od
no
llnV,orEsivdSaTy leavel laNs
tt,llh:eiAct.
with
respect
eiDrs
pI
neSneTdtlit ;S:
01:w t:7s, t
0,0,
On the motion of Lord JOHN lft,llll use r„erite
itself into a Committee upon the resoitt- ess is
distr
,bolf
West Indies, 1.„ ebsl3,,dio
Mr. E. ELLICE rose and said, the deePu tlivlest ,L; 1)e
colonies
st
weaysithviewwheidehthtrhoeughaffoialitrstheofeotuhnteto;
hwieslob,ieo
some apology for his opposing the motion e
to obte id
Friend, iu order that they might eudea"ur e%Ph'tlel
from her Majesty's Government some farther 4 to
tion of the views they entertained with resPe' ter
present state of those colonies. biet/101i
Sir J. PAKINGTON interrupted the ael°ll't be 04,
for the purpose of asking him whether or 0° tartP
give him permission, before he proceeded 3°Yeotire,e,
to move the amendment of which he had givea,,, to f'lo
Mr. ELLICE said his particular object *lo3'ent. 030
vent the Hon. Gentleman moving his amenaheiere
his (Mr. Eilice's) opinion the question new wooidere,
House had been ;graverh narrowed, and be eepsietib,
that there were g and more serioug c,O 13 of,
tions which must yet be brought under ' coed di.
lie view before the question could be tlisP coap,
There could be no doubt of the ruincal,ea
lion and distressed state of the West 111,°101 bo
nies at the present moment.tetwdi
eyhAhawetnaaldsv
neaolcsaft ettiiiesevApseoricoierie,:3;:;:
tress and ruin existedLrdvisNndronewinth,em
proposedmh
es
ntotr?y oTtb.
hyaen
the
country.eobl
Noble
Lo unparallelv"rero7ll
wHoeup
dr proposed
eto t
olend y stohoa,to
50
00/0.,
oto o
otih ewcaoslonneivees.r_ rorde.hoti6da,-
to be lent for a more useless purpose, or o
stable security.—(Hear, hear.) But what °Web Abe
n
them to regard was, the probable temper ill
project of the Government would be receive .?
fs'e,
%vest Indies. What feelings would it not exeitieeOsto
blishments in Jamaica, in British Guiana, and e geifaelti
could, of course, no longer be maintained after to olio,
arrivel They would be thrown up. The "13h oireLiee
didt d
hiso? NI f
obsuleehFwrireenred tphreopc
be enguiphed in a common ruin. Under stte-t preCosl
stances, let him ask what did the Govertgaq a',
stood, what was the position of public affairs colt/„Is,
affect
tt
o° fd
rara? The Council there had appealed to the Pop,
Government for a reduction of 95 per eeut• la ress.e,
ries of the officials of the colony, un the Yeirleot Ono
able plea that with reduced means they coulordallot
tain their former expenditure. Earl Grel ace? beit
listen to this appeal. What was the consealle until tool
the colony had refused any further supPhesois 14000
As thing; peeol
grievances were redressed.—(Hear, hear.) flea' Itiodo
toh?ese resolutie. ;woe
Friend might rely upon it that a similar asl;iest es,
very speedily be presented by all our otherl7e3 tl3
colonies.—(Hear, hear.) For the last two i..e,,ete
penses of Jamaica had come out of the poi_Teer,
merchants, but this could not continue.—e airs, P4OOl
The total expAise of the government of Juir,l,oool.
peared, was 300,001. per annum, of which
.3u beg Viii
in the collection of the revenue alone—(Esce2r3.,oo,!'eble,
while 55,000/. was spent in civil salariesya his l'_,oolo
judicial, and 30,000/. in ecclesiastical. MAituee
Friend imagine that this enormous exPen,molanis:id
be
be much longer borne by the impoverisbehaioo,o_,f 0t
t colorY,,,e)
(Hear, hear)—and if he did not suppose
intend to keep up the establishments of Ssr, b„Lie` 1.;
did he intend to keep the colony at all?-kf
.500,u00011
He wholly objected to the proposed granie
the Pio tk:
even supposing the colonists would tak
regoecle eel
which he did not believe they would, be roe
principle involved as altogether unsouni.i„ skoilf
moment, numbers of the less favouriVre ere
estates in our West India colonies '..„01 twoOf
abandoned, and the cultivation of a great ee, ft . 0
el an) oy 0
was on the point of being given up.—(",e et de fib"
just possible that by the application wititareeet late
some judicious remedy, by the better adjust, poi, tlie
demand and supply of labour, the estates 11°.' atwoot
given up might yet be retained in cultivatit je hei
coloured population be saved from involveuieviabatorPir,
ruin which kid fallen upon the white, but d(t)0 a.:rie°,!,
might, the present proprietors were almcstsebte fre
retrievably ruined.—(Hear, hear.) Ilia aloPti,,%ial.:
in the course of his speech on Friday had, 'bete frwer
theory prevalent at the Colonial-office. viotterocsbitit
pression seemed to be that the West India, P. of eetit;
a reckless improvident race, who knew net' epee, bet
business, which the Colonial-office itself vv,eieatiti-131
petent to conduct—(Hear, hear
echoed the cry that the West India planters_ll,oo6lfr:
ruin upon upon their own heads by their. e" eofieel
The investigations of the recent Commtt,4 eel°. ire
had at once shown that the nostrums of es to
office were wholly inapplicable, and that ;less
dians, so far from being chargeable witharr/eooolifietrt
fulness, had applied the utmost care,
_la °foie°
management to the attempted preservaLiroprav
estjf
)—his Noble. fie' vole,
• had be e° ift
property.—(Hear, hear.) Every new ear tbils
in cultivation, every new machine
co shavi
adopted, but to no effect, and the eviden _ deep
bei
many of these unfortunate men, drive" ;°__.,„.seorKti
our own colonies, had transferred their
00.:.`:,p ;‘,`;,
skill, and their machines, to Cuba and
_trs„eetr.,,,i,
colonies, which held out to them some:et-rue titifoiswtieer
existence.—(Hear, hear.) Already weroured P3Pillre
the proportion of the white to the c e ~.ced to log
in our West India colonies had been a" r_ e
vglisv
cent., and this small number was b et-E.
were ar
families. Unless some very decided step eo
ere lottg,_ beer) 40
smaller, by the withdrawal, in utter deep
were tsViiite
the way of relief, there would, ek"
population at all left in the colonies „a then
whole of the little trade that w.01.4:.,„Qu1d
there, falling into its natural Cll9llllel "

itself into an exchange of respective products between
the black population of the West ladies and the
northern States of America.—(l.lear, hear.) What dial
11.1 Noble Friend mean to do about the heavy salaries
that were now paid to official personages in these colt).
Ines? Did he think that they would long continue to
Pay their governors 7,0001. a year a piece?—(Hear,
near.) Depend upon it the whole system must be
eharee , e
, or the whole thing given up.—'Jles.r, hear.)
Much and deservedly as many, he might say all, of these
governors were respected, valuable as were the ser-
vices—to mention particular instances—of Lord Harris
and of Sir Charles Grey, his Noble Friend might rely
Upon it that if their present salaries were to be con-
tinued they must be paid at the table of that. House.
(deer, hear.) And not only as to salaries must the sys-
tem undergo a thorough change. There must be a ces•
cation of that eternal interference en the part of the
home Government in every petty detail of local admi-
nistration which had so long oppressed and annoyed the
' eolonists.—(Hear, hear.) The colonists must be per-
. Milted to naanaae their own local affairs, by their own
‘' local representatives fairly 'elected, under the direction
of their own governors, elected by themselves, and re-
munerated by such. salaries as might be agreed upon be-
tween them.—(Hear.) He agreed with his Noble Friend
that the days of protection—as protection—were gone
; but he thought at the same time that—peculiarly in
such a period of general crisis as this—somewhat of a
• more conciliatory policy was required towards towards our
West India colonies. He entreated his Noble Friend to
give some explanation of his further views with regard
' to these colonies, for, as to himself; he would say that,
Nvbile disposed wherever possible to support his Noble
Priend, he would not sanction these resolutions until he
had heard a much more satisfactory account of his
Noble Friend's further policy on the subject.—(dear.)
_ Lord J. RUSSELL.—I beg to assure the Hon.
Baronet opposite (Sir J. l'akington) that I shall not
detain the House many minutes from the consideration
' of the resolution he means to propose. It appears to me
that the more regular course to have been taken would
ave been that the House should have gone into Coin-
Mittee, and there to have heard such explanations and
defence of the resolutions to be proposed by the Govern-
ment as . we should have been prepared to offer. The
lion. Baronet opposite, however, has not thought fit to
allow that course to be taken ; but has given notice of a
resolution as an amendment on the motion that the
‘
Speaker leave the chair. That being the course taken
by the Hon. Baronet, it seems to me that the only course
the Government can pursue is, to hear the motion of the
n on• Gentleman, and then to enter upon a defence of
lne course of policy we propose to adopt. What the
Right. Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ellice) asks us to do is,
to enter into a discussion and general explanation of our
!evirs now, before the Hon. Baronet shall make his mo-
tion. But that is a course which I am not prepared to
adopt. I am the less inclined to adopt that course, be-
. cause my Right Hon. Friend, while he declared at the
IMittnencement of his speech that he blamed no one,
while he threw out objections to every course that has
been proposed—and I should say, to every course that
can be proposed—does not seem, with all his sagacity,
- knowledge, and experience upon the subject, to have
blade up his mind as to the course which he feels ought
• ' to be pursued. My Right lion. Friend seems to think
that we should not propose the course of giving any more
'
Protection and that we ought not to have pursued the
course of advancing money to assist the immigration of
labourers into the West Indies. Now, it does appear
to me, not only from all we know ourselves, but from
411 the evidence and suggestions laid before us by others,
'that either one of these courses or the other, or
' both, are desirable,—that either we ought to
give them a longer term of protective duties, to
enable the planters of the West Indies to make
Preparations for competition, or that we ought to give
them
greater facilities for the introduction of labourers,
thereby reducing the rate of wages; that one or both of
these 'courses was necessary to remedy the distress which
I regret to think exists in these colonies. But my Right
110 n, Friend says it would be better to give them
• 500,000/. in the shape of diminished duties on their pro-
duce. But, supposing we were to guarantee this
500,000/. and look upon it as wholly lost to this country,
'the interest of that sum at 4 per cent. would be 20,0001.,
and the reduction of duties that would give that amount
would not be much more than what is proposed by the
'Ron. Baronet; for no ono supposes that the reduction of
the present duty from 14s. to 10s. would produce a re-
duction of the revenue of much less than 20,000/. I do
not mean to follow my Right Hon. Friend into his va-
rious objections, because it would be, in fact, to enter
4 into the whole debate which the Hon. Baronet proposes
to raise; but let me say, that with regard to the motion
of the Hon. Baronet, he seems to me to have made a
Change in it, which, if ,his motion be supported by the
Rouse, will piece the West Indies, as well as Parlia-
ment, in a most embarrassing situation. As the motion
stood on Friday night it was a very intelligible proposi-
tion—it was to give an increase of the protection, which
is now 65., and to make it los.; and that was to he done
by keeping foreign sugar at 20s. and reducing colonial
sugar to los. I do not say whether that was or was not
a wise proposition. I have no doubt that the Noble Lord
the Member for Lynn would have defended it with great
ability, and with all that extensive knowledge of the
subject which his attention to the Committee must have
given him; but at all events that proposition was Intelli-
gible.
But the Right Honourable Baronet now proposes
that the proposition of the Government should be con-
, deemed by the House, and therefore leaves the present
law to come into operation in July next. It does not
follow that, supposing the proposition of the Government
is condemned, the next day, or within the next 12 hours,
any proposal for increased protection may not be con-
demned also; and therefore the present Act, which in July
Willchange theduty of 20s. to 18s. 6d., and thereby reduce
the protection from 6s. to 4s. 6d., will at once come into
operation. In 1841 the present Lord Harrowby made a
• 'similar proposition, the object of which was very clear,
and it was carried into effect; but the Hon. Baronet will
hardly gain his object by a mere resolution condemna-
tory'of the present proposition. I, for my part, do not
' believe that the House would adopt the proposition
which the Hon. Baronet made on Friday night ; and I
suppose that he himself despaired of carrying it. He
thought there was no hope whatever of raising the pro-
tection to 10s. and therefore proposed his present mo-
tion for the purpose of embarrassment and rendering
the plan of the Government ineffective. I will only
refer to an allusion made by my Right Hon. Friend to
the speech I made on Friday night. He says that I
commented on the • extravagance of the colonial pro-
prietors, and that I have taken my notions
from the prevailing idea of the Colonial-office.
',
'ln says I have founded the two or three
words I said with respect to extravagance solely on
that idea. I beg to inform my Right Hon. Friend I have
Ttaken my notion from reading the evidence of a West
'units proprietor himself. That proprietor said that he
himself went out to the West Indies, and made a reduc.
lion of 1,0001. a year.—(Hear, hear.) That was no
under-secretary, no clerk in the Colonial-office, but the
gentleman himself possessing the property; and when
he. was asked how he reduced the I,OOOL, he said it was
done by perquisites, and when asked what was the
itinount of those perquisites, he said, " I do not believe
that the merchants in this country, intelligent as they
are, unless they go out themselves, know much of what
toldoing on in the West Indies. My own merchants
me that they believed my estates were economically
`conducted. When I went out, however, I found they
were not so. The attorneys are the head agents of the
estate; the merchants simply see the plantation
.accounts. In the plantation accounts there is always
tillvery large item, namely, labourers' wages; and I
tell the Committee some of the charges which I
.found were included in that item. There is
an estate groom, fur instance; then there is
attorney's J cook and r attorney's groom, attorney'.
servant,tt attorney's washer, attorney's maid,
orney's pigs, minding manager's minding
pigs, picking grass
for attorneys; besides which, there are manager's ser-
, • vants and overseer's servants. As far as I and the
merchant could
see, all those came under the head of
labourers' wages."—(
Hear, hear.) That is practical
testimony—it is
no prejudice of the Colonial-office, but
practical n testimo
oetin rvrlind, __y, and it certainly made an impression
and which I had on my mina when I spoke
proarYs.night of the extravagance ok some of the
proprietors,
And now I am to be told I am making an
• unfounded imputation and maligning the characters of
those gentlemen who are not guilty in any way of ex-
travagance in managing their estates.—(ilear, hear.) I
rhlieve it is not the extravagance of those gentlemen
-einselveg; I believe it is the consequence of that sys-
temof management—(Hear, hear)—and I believe there
are many instances of a similar character. But I do not
"'se to prevent the Hon. Gentleman from making his
rl'uPosition. He will have an opportunity of again stat-
-11g his objections to our scheme, and we shall endeavour
as far as we can to explain the views which we hold
'With .regard to the West Indies. I do not, how-
ever, think my Right Hon. Friend has considered
f
„..ee4llY all the consequences that might follow from the
.4gCl•sti• ons he threw out of things that might possibly
f done. I have always been very favourable to giving
-3e colonists, as far as possible, the management of their
...,e,d
r3vtl affairs ; but when we speak of giving to the West
_lane
teen the management of their own affairs, we touch
• -- Some very nice questions of practice, representation
t_ald rights of voters, as difficult as those may be which
e shall have to consider to-morrow cm the motion of
41e Hon. Member for Montrose, or still more difficult, or
t
?ectnpanied with more peril, when we have to consider
hem as applied to the West Indies. If you are to intro-
:lice a very low suffrage in Trinidad ; if you all'iw every
lave
of the imported negroes into Trinidad who may
been there a year, and is a maleilof full age, to have
v?te,l think the representative chosen by those persons
dill not tend to assist Lord Harris in his government of
,t,ritldati, and that it would introduce a very difficult
problem in the government of the West Indian colonies.
hear.) My Right Hon. Friend has not consi-
ioerceed all the difficulties that would arise if we should at
n
• introduce a system of representation in Trinidad
the
duo deliberation. I am for increasing the power
„,"LPeople of the colonies have over their own affairs and
ovnerneeent ; but I am for increasing it with considers-
,.r.t
and deliberation from time to time, and not at once
granting them an assembly chosen from the blacks
,forr
the government of these colonies.—(Hear, hear.)
~hz; ELLICE said he had made use of no expression
S01:1 could at all justify the last observation of his
Sir j.
Noble Friend.(Hear, hear.)
eniec PAKINGTON then rose to move, pursuant to
e
-
takenl-hat this House, considering the evidence
mitte during the present session before a Select Com-
Maiese;
.t,3 of opinion that the remedies proposed by her
s government for the great distress of the sugar-
ruiteellg possessions of the crown, and which that corn-
retie as said will require the immediate application of
„ow r will neither effect that object nor check the sti-
us to theslave •
of
cultivation trade which the diminution the
easienss7 of sugar in those colonies has inevitably oc-
Meet I';' He denied that, in proposing this amend-
he desi
e was actuated, by any party feeling whatever.
red
'ooa the d to save our West Indian colonies
ealruction with which they were threatened,

He had merely altered the form of his motion because,
entertaining a decided objection to the government
measure himself, he had upon conside!ation, deemed it
expedient to seek from the House a distinct expressior
of its opinion on the subject.-(Hear, hear.) This wa,
no question between protection and free trade ; it was e
question standingon considerations peculiar to itself, and
he looked for support alike to the flee trader and to th,
Protectionist.-(Hear, hear.) There aas no one who
more decidedly approved of the measure of 1834 than hr
did. What he sought to counteract, as far as possible,
was the legislation which had subsequently taken place
with reference to our West India interests, as well under
the present Government as under its predecessors.-
(Hear, hear.) He did not complain of emancipation,
but he complained that all the pledges to the West In-
dians which had accompanied emancipation had been
violated.-(Hear, hear.) The whole series of legislation
for the West Indies, up to the coup de grace inflicted in
1846, had been utterly monstrous. The Noble Lord op-
posite, however, had repeatedly declared his firm reso.
lotion to abide by the Act of 1846. He had made tha.
declaration emphatically when the Noble Member for
Lynn moved for his Committee, and he repeated it, at-
emphatically, so recently as the 29th of May, distinctly
stating that whereas the West India Committee recom
mended that the differential duty should be continued
for a certain period beyond that fixed by the Act of
1846, the Government did not intend to propose any
change in the Act of 1846, with the view either of in-
creasing the amount of differential duties, or of con-
tinuing them for a longer period than that fixed by thr
Act in question. This was so recently as the 29th Ma)
last; yet on Friday last the Noble Lord came down to
the House and proposed a plan which, whatever might
be thought by various parties of its merits, every one
must admit to be a material deviation from the Act of
1846.-(Hear, hear.) While deeming it right to ask the
Noble Lord why this deviation had been made, he could
not but congratulate the friends of our West Indian colo-
nies on the obvious fapt that Government had found it
absolutely necessary to make the change.-(Hear, hear.)
He himself could attribute the change to no ether consi-
deration than that the evidence before the Committee
was of such a nature, so conclusive as to the fearful dis-
tress which was weighing down the colonists, that
Government found it wholly impossible to adhere to
the Act of 1846. Then came the question whether
the change proposed by the Government would meet
the case of the colonists-whether it would even
mitigate the distresses which afflicted them. H,
would not then detain the House by enquiring
why it was that Government had thought fit to pro.
tract the period of closing the duties to 1854 instead of
to 1851. Nor would he stop to inquire what reason had
induced them to think it better that the duties should
close at 10s. per cwt., rather than, as in the Act of 1846,
at 14s. per cwt. Every one must feel that this change,
irrespective of its bearing on the present distress, un-
doubtedly involved very important financial considera-
tions, and therein reflected upon the Right Hen. the
Chancellor of the Exchequer quite as much blame as he
bad sought to cast upon the Noble Member for Lynn for
proposing an immediate reduction of the duties on our
colonial sugars. The Right Hon. Gentleman, however,
possibly thought that he might not be in office in 1854,
and that he should only be bequeathing to a successor
the large defect in the sugar duties which must inevita-
bly result from his plan.-(Hear, and a laugh.) He was
driven to the conclusion that the proposal of the Govern-
ment was wholly unequal to enable the West Indies to
struggle with their increasing distresses or to compete
with the slave colonies; and he was enabled to prove the
latter half of his assertion by comparing the present con-
dition of the British West Indies with the Brazils and
other slave-labour settlements. Ho. would refer to the
evidence of Mr. Tollemache, than whom no gentleman
had spoken more fairly before the West Indian Com-
mittee: and what was the statement of that witness? He
says that he entertained hopes at some future day, by
persevering in the course the colonists were pursuing,
that the cost of producing sugar would be reduced to
15s 6d a cwt. But Mr. Tollemache stated further, that
even at that reduced cost of production the freight and
charges would prevent him from laying down a cargo of
sugar in London at less than 225. old. per cwt. Look-
ing at that statement, and taking into consideration the
prices that had ruled of late in the sugar market, the
minimum of which was 225. per cwt., how was it possible
for a planter who, under the most favourable circum-
stances, could not bring his sugar to market under 225.
a cwt. to compete with a Brazilian planter, who can
offer his produce in the London warehouse at 19s. a
cwt.? In fact, says Mr, Tollemache, it is impossible
for the free-labour planter, under his present circum-
stances, to compete with slave-labour sugar growers.
There were also other witnesses who spoke to the ques-
tion of cost of production before the Committee, the re-
sult of whose testimony he would shortly recapitulate.
In Jamaica the average cost of producing sugar, ascer-
tained from an examination of 138 estates, was 225. 7d.
a cwt. ; another witness, Mr. Green, stated it to be
225. 9d. ; Mr. Higginson rated it at 295. 2d. ; and a
fourth witness, Mr. Miles, considered the cost of produc-
tion in that island to average 235. a cwt. The mean
cost of the production of sugar, taking the various state-
ments into consideration, was 1/. ss. OZd. ; and Sir C.
Grey, in the important dispatch which was alluded to
the other night-(A laugh)-stated it to be his opinion
that the permanent cost of producing a cwt. of sugar in
Jamaica was 305., and unless the planter could
reckon upon that the cultivation of sugar would
cease in that colony. Such was the deliberate opinion
of Sir C. Grey, himself a free-trader.-(Cries of
" Hear, hear.") Lord Harris, writing from Trinidad,
states the cost of producing a cwt. of, sugar at 20s. Bd.
Another witness, at 325. 6d.; and a third, at 28'., the
average cost being for Trinidad 275. 10d. In British
Guiana the average cost was 255. Bd. And the general
average of all the British West India colonies, including
Jamaica, St. Vincent's, Trinidad, Barbadoes, St. Kitt's,
and Guiana, gave the amount of 225. Bd. as the mean
cost of producing a cwt. of sugar. Now, what on the
other hand did they find, from evidence brought before
the West India Committee, was the cost of producing a
cwt. of sugar in the slave colonies? In Cuba the cost
of production was 6s. W.; in Porto Rico, es. 2d.; and
in Bahia, Bs. 9d. a cwt., giving a mean for these three
slave colonies of 6s. 102 d. per cwt. This sum, as com-
pared with 225. Bd., the cost of production in the Bri-
tish West Indies, left the amount of 15s. 9d. as the
differences between the cost of sugar in the
two countries respectively. The calculations into
which he had entered were so essential towards
establishing the case of the British planters, that he
must call the particular attention of the Government to
them. His argument was, that so long as there existed
a difference of 15s. 9101. between the cost of producing
sugar by free labour and by slave labour, so long would
it be impossible for the British West Indies to compete,
under a differential duty of 7s. only, with Cuba, the
Brazils, or other slave sugar-growing colonies.. He had
therefore a right to assert that it was impossible, by
means of the Government proposition, to afford an
adequate protection to the British West Indian colonies.
Another thing the planters had a right to complain of
was the manner in which the Act of 1846 had been
carried into operation. The Government had stated
that it was a great experiment, but if so, why not at the
same time take measures to give the experiment fair
play? Why not have afforded the planters the means of
apbrole iecuereinndgitabnunadtatanecbeeodf labour?to
the s
taTcheae
st
iwf
uais the
cultivationind is p n
os
stirrer in the British colonies. The negro and the planter
had changed positions during the last ten years in those
colonies. 'The negro was the easy man; the planter the
oppressed and ruined man. Why had not the Govern-
ment taken precautions against vagrancy and squatting
in the West Indian Islands ? Nothing had been done
by way of assisting the British planters to compete with
the Brizilian and Cuban slave-holders. He admitted
that recently Earl Grey had proposed some regulations,
whereby free labourers were to be sent to the West In-
dies, consisting of the captured Africans-a system which
was liable to great abases. But this was not the ques-
tion which was before the House. He would not at that
moment enter into any detail of the losses experienced
by the sugar planters in the British colonies. All the
witnesses examined before the Committee concurred in
the opinion that it was impossible for them to carry on
the cultivation of sugar as present prices. One witness
stated a fact which was quite startling, as to the depre-
ciation of property in the West Indiei, The estate
of Mulgrave sold for 25,0001. in the year 1843. The
sum of 10,000/. was spent upon it after it was sold,
and in April of the present year the same estate
was put up again to sale, and the prices it realised was
2,800/. Looking, therefore, at the facts which had been
stated before the West India Committee, he had a right.
to assert that these losses were principally due to the
Act of 1846. Since that Act had passed, eighteen of the
principal merchants connected with the West Indies had
become bankrupts, and if the present state of things
continued, other houses must fall victims to the same
melancholy fate. Would. the House permit him to call
their attention to the state of affairs in the Mauritius ?
Sir George Larpent, in his evidence before the Com-
mittee, stated that, acting in the full belief that the
legislature sanctioned the course they adopted, the mer-
chants connected with the Mauritius suddenly found them-
selves deprived of protection ; and thus, at the moment
when they were recovering from former losses,
they found themselves subjected to a fresh blow, which
they could not survive. The same witness stated
that the cost of producing sugar in the Maufitius was
203. 10d. a cwt.; how could the planters there com-
pete with the slave colonies of Brazil and Cuba ?
The consequences of these changes had been
to bring ruin upon seven great mercantile houses,
whose principals were men of the highest integrity
and honour. Amongst those gentlemen were their late
colleagues, Sir John Rae Reid, Sir George Larpent, and
Mr. Barclay, all Members of that House, 'and holding a
high position In it. He could not refrain from express-
ing the pain which he felt in seeing men such as these
involved in ruin by the melancholy state of things caused
by the changes introduced into the sugar duties by the
East LegLeg i autdui
er esLet hpirmedrueefer to
t ie
netfh e
sugarstat of e
had
been things
girna
grade
he
u
awlhlyengtohienciguaonntitamounted
to s e
Tnt that afe tr
coat
om scountrytthence
n ;33 re
oto from
producing
England
5
to 1,520,114 cwtsyi.n sugar was, in
Bengal, 205., and at Madras 23e. per cwt.; and how,
when the cost of transport was added, could these sugars
compete at such prices with Brazilian and Cuban sugars
in the English market ? All the authorities, including
the Governors of the West Indian colonies, agreed in
opinion that it was impossible at the present cost of
labour there for free labour sugar to compete with the
sugar sent from Brazil and Cuba. The Hon. Member
here quoted the opinions expressed in the dispatches of
Lord Harris, Governor Reid Sir C. Grey, Governor
Higginson, and Governor Lig,ht, all of whom coincided
in representing the state of the planters in the British
West Indian colonies as most pitiable. In looking at
the question it was also' advisable to take into consi-
deration what the relative proportion of exports to the
British West Indian colonies was in the years preceding
and subsequent to the alteration of the sugar duties in
1846. Burne, the editor of the Commercial Glance, says
that the value of the exports of manufactured goods