The Sun.
London, England, 1848-07-11 00:00:00

required, yet they would have received a measure
founded on them far preferable to that of the Govern-
ment. It might be said that the proposal of the Com-
mittee had not the sanction of the interests of the Mau-
ritius or West Indies, but while they, perhaps, had not
the direct sanction of those interest.,, yet the meeting of
merchants held in Liverpool. the largest held there for
some years past—since 1841, he believed—had decided
by a large majority in favour of a diffrrential duty of 10e.
—(llear.) So favourable was that meeting to the plan
of the Committee, that notwithstanding all the discussion
which had taken place, and the variety of opinions
which existed on the subject—notwithstanding the
efforts made by the tree-trade party, who
sent down the Honourable Member for Wolver-
hampton (Mr. Villiers) to represent them and ad-
vocate their interests at that meeting, so far as maintain-
ing the .A.ct of 1846 was concerned—notwithstanding all
these effects, the proposal of Sir Thomas Birch, which
was one of a differential duty of 10s., the same as/that
of the Committee, was agreed to almost unanimously,
only six hands being held up against it.—(Hear, hear.)
That was the statement made in the public papers.
Mr. THORNELY—That is a mis-statement. I know
it to be so.
Lord GEORGE BENTINCK—WeII, it was the one
he found in the papers which reported the proceedings
of the meeting.—(Hear, hear.) Then, again, the East
India Company, at the meeting they held upon the
subject, had decided, without one dissentient, in favour
of a ten shilling differential duty. They had also got
late—but better late than never—the opinion of Sir
Charles Grey, the Governor of Jamaica, who said that
he was of opinion, unless there was an additional duty
of 2d. per lb. imposed upon foreign, and of Id. per lb.
imposed upon colonial sugar, the colonists could not
carry on their operations; while they had presented to
the House the other night a memorial from the Mau-
ritius, where it was stated that the imposition of a duty
of 9s. 4d. on colonial, and 20s. on foreign sugar, was the
only measure of relief which would be of any use there.
All these, then, coincided with the Committee, and, look,
where he would, h% found the same unanimity as to the
plan the Committee had proposed, and he was surprised
that any Government attempting to legislate on the
affairs of Jamaica could reject such evidence, and pro-
pose a measure diametrically opposed to it. As regards
the opinions entertained in Jamaica, the Noble Lord
here referred to statements in the Jamaica Times of the
29th of May and the Ist of June last. In the first of
these statements a suspicion was thrown out that a 10e
differential duty would, if proposed by the Government,
be indignantly rejected by the Colonies; but in the one
of the Ist of June, three days after, some circumstances
had come to the knowledge of the conductors of that
paper which had induced them to change their minds;
and it was then stated that while the Bill of 1846 was
the cause of all the ruin which had befallen the planters
yet that from the rains which had of late fallen, and
which would be a means of insuring an abundant crop,
a differential duty of 10s., if adopted, would effect much
good, and under it Jamaica might have a chance of re-
gaining some of its former prosperity.—(Hear.) So that
they had not only the opinion of the Governor-General
of Jamaica, but also of a paper which was said to repre-
sent the interests of the planters, that the Committee
had fallen on the proper plan for the amelioration of
that colony. Such being the case, it was with regret he
had seen that Government had introduced such a mea-
sure as the present. It had been his intention to answer
some of the arguments which had been adduced in the
course of the discussion, and he should single out, in
the first place, that of the Right Hon. Gentleman the
Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson). That Right
Hon. Gentlemen used the argument—certainly a novel
one—that as the country had received but little benefit
from the colonies, they were not bound to aid them other
than they had done. lie said that the produce of the
colonies brought to this country did not give so much
profit to the trade of this country as would warrant a
further advance, and that taking the average value of
that produce sent to this country from them at three
millions a year, it was not equal, on a ten per cent.
profit, to compensate for the sum given to them of up-
wards of fifteen millions sterling at five per cent. in-
terest. In other words, that the five per cent. interest
on that sum was more than all the sums received in this
country of profit on these proceeds. Now, while Ire ad-
mitted that argument to be most ingenious, it was one
which he thought would not be held good in that House,
nor yet even by the Right Hon. Gentleman himself, for
no one engaged in trade would be willing to admit that
their property interested in it was not of more than ten
per cent. value. If tip Right Hon. Gentleman himself
had property employed in a mill to the amount of from
fifty to sixty thousand pounds, and considered the ex-
pense and the burdens of one kind or other attending it,
he doubted much whether the Right Hon. Gentleman
would consider an annual value of ten per cent. sufficient
remuneration. But they must show what the capital
employed in the West Indies was. Upon that subject
several Committees had sat, and some of them,
he believed, had estimated it as high as 130,000,000/.
sterling; but he should be able to show, from
documents he had in his possession, what the produce of
the West Indies actually were, and from that they
would be able to find out the profits arising from them.
The Noble Lord here referred to certain returns of Mr.
Marshall, which he said were worthy of all credit, as
that gentleman had been well rewarded for them by Go-
vernment.—(Hear, hear.) These referred to 1814, when
the cost of the production of sugar was 161. per ton, and
when the cost of the production of tho quantity sent to
this country would have amounted to 2.914,2401., and
from these he showed that the amount of profit realised
from the sugar imported into this country in that year
would amount to 6,770,0001., which, at twenty years'
purchase, would represent a capital of 135,411,430/. He
might, however, be told that 1814 was a period of protec-
tion; but so far from protection being the cause of that
prosperity, it was the fact that so long as they did not
meddle with Jamaica, so longas they allowed the colonies
to manage their own affairs, so long they flourished ;
and even at that time they not only supplied this country
with sugar, but they exported a considerable amount to
foreign markets. The returns did not show the duty on
foreign sugar in 1814, in which year the duty on colonial
sugar was 595. 10d. In 1815 it was on colonial sugar
735. 4d., and on Havana sugars 89s. 6d. In 1816, on co-
lonial sugar it was 61s. 10d., and on Havana 745. 2d.
That, therefore, showed that at that time protection was
a dead letter, and that it would still have continued 30
had the British West Indies been left to obtain the
slaves where they best could, and to treat with all other
States. He then referred to the years 1827, 28, and
29, when the average price of colonial sugar was
30s. 24d. per cwt., and that of Havana, 31s. 74d. But,
then, in 1830, they took from the British planter six
hours a day of labour, while the foreign grown sugar
was not subjected to the same diminution, and, in such
circumstances, how could the one compete with the
other ? Bat, even after all that, the British planter
weathered the storm ; and even up to 1833 the British
planter successfully competed and defied the foreigner
in the market. He also referred to those three years to
show, that from the state of matters then,
a sum of 5,506,5311. could be realised from
the produce of those islands, and which would
represent a capital of 111,210,620/. Then, in 1830, the
gross value of sugar imported into this country was four
millions eight hundred and ninety thousand seven hun-
dred and eighty-six pounds, and which, after the cost
of production, freight, insurance, and brokerage, would
have left an annual profit of 2,270,0002, which, at
twenty years' purchase, would represent a capital of
something better than forty millions sterling. He came
then to 1847. In that year the quantity of sugar im-
ported into this country was one hundred and fifty-nine
thousand five hundred and fifty-seven tons. The cost
of manufacture under free labour was raised to 21/, ss.
per ton, which would amount on the quantity imported
to 3,390,068/,, while the freight to England was
638,258/., and, including the amount allowed for in-
surance and brokerage, the whole cost of the manu-
facture of this quantity was 4,506,985/. ; of that sugar
129,131 tons was sold for 3,]44,3231. on the sth Janu-
ary last ; the balance of 30,427 tons was sold for 221.
155. per ton, and on the whole produce of the year
there was a loss of 290,2141., without any charge
for interest upon the capital employed in the manufac-
ture of the sugar, or any allowance for interest due to
mortgagees.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that state-
ment difficult to answer, and impossible to gainsay. He
could not understand how it could be maintained that
the British West Indies and the Mauritius had obtained
anything like compensation, and yet it was the inten-
tion of the British Parliament, that they were to obtain
compensation. That was in the very preamble of the
Bill, in which it was stated there shall be a reasonable
compensation to the owners of slaves, for being deprved
of their services.— (Hear, hear.) But the Hon. Member
for Manchester contended, that the sixteen millions
paid to them, and the protection of fifteen shillings a
cwt., which they had subsequently enjoyed for their
sugar for 14 years, was an ample compensation. But
the enhanced cost of producing sugar by free labour,
amounting to 3,390,000/., in one year completely ab-
sorbed all the protection which had been granted by Par-
liament. But he contended that it was an honourable un-
derstanding, that the British colonies should be allowed
the enjoyment of the British market. Why, was it
possible for a man who remembered the debates in that
House, or who recollected the feeling out of doors, to
doubt that fact? That was the very ground on which
Lord Stanley, who brought the measure in, mainly de-
fended it; and surely he was justified in taking the
words of the representative of the Government of that
day as the best interpretation of the views by which
they were actuated in introducing it.—(Hear, hear.)
Then, again, Lord Glenelg, the Secretary of State for
the Colonies, had, in a circular addressed to all the
colonies, and dated the 12th of October, 1835, most
indignantly repudiated the intention of withdrawing
protection, and, in effect, insinuated that the man who
made such a statement, or who doubted the good faith
of the British Parliament, was only fit for a lunatic
asylum.—(Hear, hear.) But, in despite of these state-
ments, changes had been made injurious to the colonies
immediately afterwards, and that, too, when it had been
shown by the Hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr.
Godson), that of the 20,000,000 Z to be distributed among
the various islands, there was still upwards of 3,600,000/.
owing to them. But the Hon. Member for Manchester
(Mr. Bright) who, he regretted, was not in his place,
had told the Committee that there was distress in other
places than the West Indies, and his Right Hon. Col-
league (Mr. M. Gibson) had added, that the loss of the
cotton trade alone last year equalled the value of the
whole of the produce of the West Indies, and that the
manufacturers were as well entitled to compensation as
the British colonists, though they did not come to that
House and ask it. Why, if Parliament had deprived
them of their machinery they would then have been en-
titled to come to that House, but as matters stood, he did
not know on what ground they could now come to Par-
liament and ask pecuniary compensation. He regretted
the state of the manufacturing districts as much as any
one, and he was in a position to show that it was the,
effect of the recoil from the injury inflicted by the Act of
1846 upon the trade of the British West Indies.—(Hear.)
That Act was passed under the influence of humane