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

the reduction now expected in the prico of labour was
known. If they had asked for 16s. they would have
been subsequently told," You forget that labour will be
25 per cent. cheaper. You forget the alteration of the
rum duty, and the proposed immigration of labourers."
The Committee hart anticipated all these objections, and
in proposing 10s. had given credit for these items.
Well, then, the colonies being in the position which had
been universally acknowledged, and the sum proposed
being conceded to be a just and moderate protection,
he thought that the Government were bound to concede
it on their own admission. With regard to the gene-
ral scope of the Government measures, he admitted
that they were of a remedial character, but only to
such an extent as to qualify the blunders of 1846.
(Hear, hear.) If it were of advantage that free negroes
should be conveyed to the colonies instead of to Sierra
Leone, why had that not been done in 1646 ? He said
then that immigration was only a remedy for previous
blunders.—(Hear, hear.) It was said then that great
benefits were to be derived from a new mode of classifi-
cation as to claved and muscovado sugar. Why had
not that been done in 1846? These were blunders
again.—(Hear, hear.) Again, half a million was to be
given; but it was only two months since it had been
calculated that 170,0001. would be sufficient. _ _

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Only
for two colonies.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. DISRAELI—Oh, it was said that the others did
not require it But now it seemed it was necessary to
grant 670,0001. Could that grant be looked upon as
otherv, ise than a remedy for the blunders of 1846 ?
(Hear, hear.) Something had been said as to the en-
gagements which had been entered into with our colo-
nies at the time of emancipation. He had never alleged
that a contract in the vulgar sense had been entered into.
He was willing to admit that no such contract existed..—

(Hear, hear.)' But would anyOn;rissert that if the
West Indians had not expected a continuance of their
market they would so quietly have accepted the terms
they were offered ? It was the principle of protection
to the colonies that destroyed the Government in 1841—
the principle which then went to the country, and which
it was thought was then decided. And were they now
to turn round and tell the colonists that this was all a
delusion—that the phrases and solemn pledges then
made, and the words sugar and free trade, were
merely cries as evanescent as the mottoes on their
election banners ?—(liear.) The Right lion. Gen-
tleman (Mr. Gibson) opposed the proposition because it
went to support the interests of the colonies and was ad-
verse to the foreign trade. No one knew the import-
ance of the trade of the Brazils—no one had urged on
the House the necessity for a treaty of commerce with
the Brazils—more than the Right Hon. Gentleman.
But he would not ask the Right Hon. Gentleman for a
treaty of commerce with the Brazils. That was a new
subject, and he intended ere long to bring it before the
House—(Hear)—but he would ask, where was the Bra-
zilian trade which we were told over and over again was
worth more than that of all our colonies together ? It
had been said, if you assist the colonies, why not assist
the manufacturers of Manchester and Bolton ? The
reason was that they had had the monopoly of legisla-
tion, and though he believed they were in as disastrous
a state as the colonies, it was because they had departed
from the sound principles of commercial legislation
themselves that they were in their present position ; but
in the case of the colonies they had, without any fault
of their own, been made the victims of our legislation.
But after the course which had been taken, after the adop-
Lion of free-trade principle, he was surprised to hear the
Right Hon. Gentleman, as one of the advocates of this
principle, now come forward and say that our own ma-
nufactures had as much right to be protected as the
colonies.—(" Oh, oh," and "Divide, divide.") With
regard to the Mauritius, as showing the effect of our
legislation in that colony, he had a statement from the
books of Messrs. Reid and Irving, which, in justice to
those gentlemen, he would read. It appeared that in
August, 1843, the balance of account against their prin-
cipal agent for their estates in the Mauritius was 78,0001.
after an immense, a lavish, but a justifiable expenditure
in the improvement of their property. In the same
month in 1845, a year after the Act of 1844, for ad-
mitting foreign free-labour sugar, the balance rose against
them to 183,0001., and in the same month in 1847, twelve
months after the Act of 1846, which admitted slave-
labour sugar into the home market, it was 410,0001.
This was the position of a house that never bought a
single ton of sugar, all the money having been advanced
in cultivating their own estates on the faith of Acts of
Parliament, the violation of which entailed upon them
a loss of from 400,0001. to 500,0001. Then, with regard
to the argument of the too great increase of our colonial
empire, the Mauritius was the key to India. If we had
possessed the Mauritius fifty years before we did, we
should have conquered India with less difficulty, and re-
tained it with far less cost.—(Hear, hear.) And suppose
that colony were now in the hands of the French, what
would be our position in regard to oar Indian posses-
sions? It was the same as to many of our other colo-
nies; and he contended that imperial as well as com-
mercial considerations were consequently involved in the
consideration of this question. Let America possess
Canada, the West India islands, and the Gulf of
Mexico, and what security should we have for retain-
ing the commercial advantages which we now en-
joyed? The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon
(Sir J. Graham), who admitted that he supported the
Government proposition against his conviction, said that
he did so because he (Mr. Disraeli), in opposing the
measure of 1846, had said the time would soon come
when a spirit of reaction would arise, which would com •
pel the rescinding of that measure, and the Hon. Baronet
would not vote with the Hon. Member for Droitwich,
because he would not assist in fulfilling that prediction.
But the Government had themselves fulfilled the predic-
tion. His prediction was not in favour of any particular
duty. What he said was that the House would have be-
fore long to change its course of legislation—(liear,
hear)—that it would have to go back, and they had
gone back.—(Protectionist cheers.) And whether the
protective duty proposed was 75. or 10s., the reaction was
the same. Reaction was not a thing which could be regu-
lated by Act of Parliament—the course of reaction, which
was the ebb and flow of public opinion, was inevitable
—it was the courage of hope deferred—of false repre-
sentation, and of the awakening of the nation out of the
delusion into which it had been lulled. And when they
found the capital of the country wasting away—the
mills standing 'still—the labourers idle--it was not sur-
prising that there should be distrust in the theories the
adoption of which had produced those results.—(Hear,
hear.) It might be well for the Right
Hon. Baronet
(Sir J. Graham) to say there was no reaction : he re-
membered gentlemen who used to adopt
the cry of " no
surrender,' and then laid down their arais---(Hee.r, hear)
—but such bravado would not arrest the progress of
public opinion on the inevitable course of human affairs.
Let them continue the course they were now quitting
with so much hesitation and so much timidity, and let
the principles of the Right Hon. Member for Manchester
be pursued, and within an interval of two years the
Right Hon. Baronet would have to raise the cry of " no
reaction " amid a dissolving empire and a despairing
people.—(Cheers, and cries of " Divide.")
Mr. C. .2. VILLIERS denied that the majority of the
Sugar and Coffee Planting Committee were Free-traders,
or that they were in favour of reaction. There were
ten Protectionists and only five Free-traders on that
Committee.—(Cries of " No, no," and " Name.") He
repeated there were ten Protectionists either in principle
or for the occasion on the article sugar on that Commit-
tee.—(Name.) Then, as to the question whether the
proposition of the Hon. Member for Droitwich was car-
ried by a majority. The nroposition to which the Com-
mittee could not be brought to agree was that of a 10s.
protection duty ; and the Hon. Member for Liverpool
was only able to carry it by two Members leaving the
Committee, who, had they remained, would have voted
against it. There was no evidence taken before the
Committee which showed that protection was necessary
for the prosperity of the West India colonies ; the effect
of the evidence was rather to show that what was re-
quired was a forced introduction a labour, and the ex-
clusive possession of the British market.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON—What he had said was, that
the Committee did recommend a duty of ten shillings.
But he was disposed to hope that it would not be neces-
sary to keep up that amount of duty longer than three
years, and after that there should be a descending scale.

Lod G. BENTINCK rose raerely to answer the

question he had WeenTchailenged to answer respecting
the constitution of the Committee. Of the 15, whose
names were settled between the Secretary of the Trea-
sury and himself, only three had voted against the bill
of 1846—(hear, hear)—Sir J. Pakiogton, Mr. P. Miles,
and himself. Five had voted in favour of that Act, Mr.
Labouchere, Mr. Goulburn, Mr. M. Gibson, Mr. C.
Villiers, and Mr. Ewart.—(Cheers.)—There were of-
avowed Free-traders, whose opinions on the subject
were not known, Mr. Cardwell, who did net vote
for or against the Act of 1845; Sir T. Birch, Mr. H.
Hope, Mr. J. Wilson, Mr. J. Matheson, and Sir E.
Buxton. The resolution of the Committee, which was
eventually carried was proposed by Sir T. Birch, the
Member for Liverpool, and it was by the special desire
of the Secretary to the Treasury acting for the Govern-
ment that Sir T. Birch had been put upon the Cora-
rnittee.—(Hear.) Lord G. Manners was the only other
Member, and he was supposed to favour the opinion of
Member
nfavofou of the reso-
lution Droitwich was
not entitled to respect as the opinion of a Committeer
the chairman. He had fairly stated the competition of
the Committee, and he appealed to that House—(Hear,
lhoetairo)n—mwohveedthebry
theits Hen. n
fairly and impartially framed and constituted? If there
was any bias it was certainly against the
planters' interest, and in favour of of the opinions of the
Noble Lord.—(Hear.),He had. muchl to say in justifica-
tion of his Hon. Friend's resolution, but at that late hour
he would not enter upon the subject, but reserve himself
for another occasion.—(lronical cheers.)
Mr. CARDWELL having said a few words explain-
ing the course taken by him and Mr. Goulburn on the
Committee.
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority ............. .
Mr. BARKLY, who said he had also an amend-
ment to propose, moved that the Chairman should re-
port progress.
Lord J. RUSSELL requested that the Committee
might be allowed to proceed with the resolutions.
The CHAIRMAN having put the question that
" thirteen shillings" should stand part of the preamble,
Mr. GLADSTONE said he thought the resolutions
were of so much importance and intricacy that it would
he impossible to get them through before Wednesday.
He would not say whether blame might not attach
to the Government for not bringing the question on
earlier. He thought it objectionable that duties should
be thus levied on a simple resolution of the House; at
all events, no advantage would be gained by commenc-
ing a consideration of the resolutions now. He would
recommend the Noble Lord, now that the House was in
Committee on the sugar duties, to take a temporary re-
solution continuing. the duties of 1846.
Mr. COBDEN saw no great object to be gained