The Sun.
London, England, 1848-02-04 00:00:00

EVENING

FRI D A Y

their properties, and make use of their capital, and im-
prove them." He held in his hand a return respecting
the export of machinery to our colonies which had been
moved for by Mr. lactic in the last Parliament, and
from this return it appeared that the exports of mill-
work and machinery to the British West Indies and the
Mauritius, in the seven years ending 1846 inclusive,
amounted to 380,7331., and to the East Indies and
Ceylon, 482,2431., amounting altogether to 662,9761,
against exports for the same period to Brazil and
Cuba of 231,2031.—(Hear, hear.) There was, there-
fore, no ground for accusing the British planters
of being wanting in energy and spirit in the manage-
ment of their estates. But they were told of the
east sums which had been paid by this country for the
putting down of slavery arid the slave-trade. He
acknowledged at once that the cost of putting down
slavery and the slave trade had cost this country from
first to last more than 100,000,000/. 29,000,000/. had
been spent in putting down the slave trade by means of
blockading armaments, of head money, of loans to dif-
ferent nations, in making treaties which were never
fulfilled, and in maintaining a military establishment on
the coast of Africa. We had paid 20,000,000/. by way
of compensation to the planters, and 1,000,000/. more
for the cost of distribution. The friends of emancipa-
tion had prophesied that free labourers would do twice
the work that slaves did—and bad argued that planters
were entitled to no compensation, because they would be
benefited rather than otherwise by emancipation. He
remembered an argument which was often used, espe-
cially by the Hon. Member for Liverpool, that " the
day that made a man a slave took half his
work away"—and they applied this to tropical cli-
mates. Now what was the amount of the produce of the
British colonies at that time ? With the mitigated
slavery which then existed there was imported
into this country on an average (according to
the calculation of Lord Stanley) 50,000 tons
more sugar than we could consume.—(Hear.)
The consumption certainly had been kept down
by the war duties which were imposed on West
India sugar of 30s, and 28s. a cwt., for, notwith-
standing other war taxes, such as the property and
income•tax, the leather tax and some others, had
been taken off, no relief in this respect had been afforded
to the West Indies—and the change in the currency
that took place in 1819 certainly tended to depreciate
the prices of West India produce. But to return to the
subject of emancipation; let him again ask, what had
been the cost of that experiment? The advocates for
emancipation ureed that thn maxims of Fulitical eco-
nomy authorised them in predicting a greater produce
of sugar from free than from slave tabour, and yet the
very contrary had taken place. The planters had
gained nothing by the change, nor did he exaggerate
when he asserted that the abolition of the slave trade
and emancipation had together cost the country, during
the last forty years, more than 115,000,000/. ; and yet
after this enormous sacrifice had been completed, and
at a moment when some of the slave-holding colonies
were actually debating the question whether it would
not be advantageous for them to liberate their slaves
in order to enjoy the premium given to free-labour
sugar, the Government had chosen to knock down
all the country had achieved during forty years, and
by the expenditure of a hundred miPions, by admitting
all sugars to consumption. To enter more minutely into
the question, he would call the attention of the House
to the fact that the planters did not get the value of
their slaves when the emancipation Act was passed,
The value of the slaves in the British colonies was esti-
mated at 45,000,000/., and this estimate had been greatly
reduced as compared with the value of slaves in other
colonies. The Government then came forward and said
that 20,000,0001. must pay for 45,000,0001. worth of
slave property. That gave an average of about 121. 14s.
for each slave. During the war with the United States
there were captured about 3,800 slaves, and England
was bound to compensate their owners. The claim made
for 3,601 slaves was 380,0001., and the question was
subsequently settled by the arbitration of mixed Eng-
lish and American commissioners, who gave the price
as against England for slaves belonging to the
states of Kentucky, Virginia, Maryland, and other
non-sugar growing districts at 581. Gs. 4d. per
head. For slaves from the states of South Ca-
rolina, Columbia, Georgia, and Alabama, 872 in num-
ber, the price awarded was 811. 55. per head ; but for
slaves from Louisiana, a state which produced as much
sugar as the whole British West Indies, the average
value put on each slave was 1201. 16s. Bd. The whole
sum awarded was 266,1971., :giving an average of 731.
pet head for these American slaves, whilst the British
planter and citieen only got from his own Government
251. per head for property equally if not more valuable.
The Noble Lord here entered into some details respect-
tog the subject, the result of which he summed up to an
aggregate loss to the planters during the twelve years
that had elapsed since emancipation took place of
42,242,748/.—(Hear, hear.) 'Was it therefore surpris-
ing that the West Indians were grumblers? As to the
assertion that the bargain was closed with them when
the compensation money was granted in 1833, let him
ask whether part of that bargain was not the seven
years' apprenticeship, of some years of which the
planters were subsequently robbed? And was there
no other bargain than that referred to? Who could not
recal the times when a candidate who was not for
negro emancipation could not hold up his head on the
hustings—when uegroes bound in golden chains were
paraded in public, and if negroes were not to be had,
then chimney sweepers were substituted fur them? Who
that recollected those times but must have felt perfectly
certain that the British public never would change its
feeling on the subject of slavery, nor would ever admit
to consumption, at slight differential duties, sugars
grown by slave labour in colonies where the cruelties so
prominently put forth were hourly practised? Who could
hare believed that such a stimulus would be given to the
slave trade? When Sir F Buxton was examined on his
oath before the Committee of the Lords—not that Sir
F. 13uxton's oath was better than his word, in his (Lord
G. Bentinck's estimation—that ardent supporter of
emancipation was asked what security the planters had
for the numerous benefits in respect to increased prices
and produce. He answered, " Who ever supposes that,
whilst the people of England are emancipating their
slaves, they will hereafter admit slave sugar to con-
sumption in their country ?" It was only due to the
memory of Sir Fowell Buxton to state, that he opposed
granting freedom to the slaves without first paying for
them. Others were not so honest; and the Quakers
exemplified, in that instance, the truth of the poet's
observation, that
Saints themselves will sometimes be—
Of gifts that cost them nothing, free.
He recollected having been told that the first cargo of
slave-grown sugar that arrived after the duties were
reduced was consigned to a Quaker at Cowes, and the
union of sanctity and avarice was well exemplified in
the story of the grocer who called out to his shopboy,
" Have you sanded the sugar? Then come into prayers."
So likewise, in the case of the emancipation of the West
Indian slaves, the saintly class had made a great pre-
tence of religion, but they cared little about justice.
The Noble Lord then referred to a letter which
he had received from a naval officer, describ
ing the horrors of the slave-trade as carried on in
the swift-sailing vessels which are equipped ex-
pressly to escape the cruisers off the coast of
Africa. He (Lord G. Bentinck) agreed entirely with
the writer of the letter referred to in deeming it a
ruinous task for Eagland to have to blockade a coast of
2,650 miles in extent. He would, instead of pursuing
the blockade and preventive system, strike a blow at the
chief resort of the slavers, and would smother the hornets
in their nest at Cuba. He had recently seen in the
Times a paragraph taken from a New York paper,
wherein the views of England upon Cuba were very
broadly speculated upon, and the reasons which would
justify her in seizing that island in payment of the debt
due by Spain to her citizens set fully forth. Every
one knew that the slave trade could not be put down as
long as a market existed in Cuba. Destroy that mart
and you would at once be able to withdraw your block-
ading squadron, and further the ends of justice in liqui-
dating the claims of the Spanish bondholders. lie
would say take possession of Cubs, and settle the ques-
tion for ever.—(Hear, hear.) It:would be only distraining
for a just debt, and it would have the effect of completely
destroying the slave trade.
Mr. LABOUCHERE—WouId you also take Brazil ?
Lord G. BENTINCK—There was a material differ-
ence in the two cases—we have no just claim against
Brazil. In possessing Cuba, England would have the
key of the Gulf of Mexico, as she had in 1769, when
she took it with six sail of the line. Then we need have
no alarm for our American colonies, because wo could
cut the trade of the United States in two by destroying
the communication between New York and the Missis-
sippi. We should then hear no more boasting from
Uccle Sam about stretching his length from California
to the Pacific, and turning Caba into a kitchen garden.
He (Lord G. Bentinck) thanked the House for the
patience with which be had been listened to, and had
only to add, that in not making a more decided step for
the relief of the planters, he did not preclude himself
from supporting more decided resolutions, if proposed
by another. He would go into the Committee deter-
mined to see if anything could be done for the planters,
and he was willing to accept whatever relief might be
the result. He moved—" For a Select Committee to
inquire into the :present condition and prospects of the
interests connected with and dependent on sugar and
coffee planting in her Majesty's East and West Indian
possessions and the Mauritius ; and to consider whether
any and what measures caa be adopted by parliament fur
their relief."
Mr. ROBINSON seconded the motion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
he did not rise for the purpose of opposing the motion of
the Noble Lord. Early in November his Noble Friend
the First Lord of the Treasury had promised, that if a
Committee were moved for be would not oppose it. The
Noble Lord had stated several points of inquiry respect-
ing the West Indies, in which Government concurred
with him in thinking inquiry necessary ; but he should
deceive both the Noble Lord and the House, and also
the West India interest, if he led them to suppose that
in consenting to the appointment of a comaiittee, her
Majesty's Government me ant to imply the slightest
doubt as to the soundness of the policy of 1846, or the
slightest intention of departing from that policy.—
(Hear, hear.) lie thought that this statement should be
made as soon and as decidedly as possible, because he
considered that in matters of this kind uncertainty was
the worst of evils.—(Hear, hear.) lie proposed, at the
same time, to state fully what the views of the Govern-
ment were, as to the various points of minor importance
in which he believed relief might be afforded to the West
Indio interest. He would not follow the Noble
Lord through his various statements respecting
the general state of trade during the last twelve
months, because the peculiar co eumstances of the
time precluded the possibility of sound inference;
neither would he go into his proposition for foreclosing
our Spanish mortgage by seizing the island of Cuba—
(A laugh)—in other words, taking possession of the de-.
pendencies of our ally to secure the claims of the
I. Spanish bondholders.—(Hear, hear.) He would confine