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

produce had over that of our free-labour colo flies.—
(Hear, hear.) Again, as this country reduced th, a duty
on the sugar of the Brazils or Cuba, those con ntries
would increase the tax on its export in the same pn3por-
tion, and the result would be that the consumer here
would be paying the taxes for maintaining the g overn-
raent 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 might 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 loss to the revenue, that
was a matter very little cared for -in 1846 ; and
when it was said that the increased consumption head in
a great part made up any loss that was anticipated, he
must take leave to remind them that the amount a calm-
ing to the revenue for such increased consumption bad
been paid out of the remaining capital, and not oat of
the profits, of the West India proprietors--(Hear, h ear)
—who had been compelled by the legislation of
Parlia-
ment to enter into a ruinous competition with the slsa-ve-
owner. Government having found that they at-ere in is-
taken in the course they took in 1846, now proposed to
go back far enough just to admit the wrong, but n l'ar
enough to put themselves and Parliament right.—(Hoat .)
By keeping up the differential duty the revenue woillt
be kept up, and with this advantage—that it would t'e
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'CULLAGH 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 colonies, 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
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 negeected 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 An ignite.
proved that there was nothing in that argument. In ,`b.it
island slaves were at once emancipated; and after tlia".
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 profitably, 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 him (Mr..
M'Cullagh) that the arguments advanced by the Hon..
, M'mber 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 im
this country were such as not to admit of additional
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 influent az:
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 off
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
his 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, bear.)
It was his conviction that this country had been guilty
of continued and systematic injustice to our West
Indian colonies, and that we 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 paid for
emancipation, and it must be remembered that slavery
had been previously forced on the West Indies, 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 could 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 competition
of the labour of .the world. But instead of facilitating
the attainment of free labour by the West Indian 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 Noble 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 had been too much influenced
by considerations which no longer prevailed. The
Noble Lord would doubtless remember the stoppage put
to the admission of free labour into the Mauritius, con-
temporaneously with the abolition of apprenticeship,
causing as it did great ruin. The Government prevented
the planters !from going to Bombay, Madras, and Cal-
cutta, for the labour they required; while no less 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 colonists 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 demaaded.
The following year they represented their great want
of labour, and asked for 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 condition—that
many of them returned with full purses, and that only
those complained who came back without money or
character. As for the mortality referred to by the
Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Thompson)
he had only to observe that it was not greater than that
which took place In European regiments in India. 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 strongest
claims upon that House. He must add, that the
Anti-Slavery Society were also greatly to blame
for 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 statement
that it was impossibe for free-labour to compete with
slave-labour. Now, on that point, he believed that
British India, which had been referred to, was not a fair
test. He believed that the slave-trade could only be put
down by tree labour, and by enabling it to compete
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 labour.
He thought that for 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. He 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 1851. 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 more likely, by such a course, to
transfer the trade altogether from our possessions to Cuba
and Brazil, and by giving them a monopoly to raise the
price of sugar to a price quite as high, if not higher, thaa
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 Hon. Mr. Gor•