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

LIEUTENAN F-GENERAL SHRAPNELL.

The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from
Captain Shrapnell, son of ' the Lieutenant-General of
that name, who invented the shell known as the " Shrap-
nell Shell," complaining that his father had not been
sufficiently remunerated by the Government for his in-
vention. He (the Noble Duke) thought that a subject
of this kind was particularly deserving of their Lord-
ships' consideration, and he hoped that the subject
would receive the attention to which it was entitled.

Earl GREY said that in 1842 or 1843 this subject
had been taken into consideration, and that it was then
the opinion of the Master-General of the Board of Ord-
nance that the gallant officer had received sufficient re-
muneration for his invention.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

ROUSE OF COMMONS, July 3.
SUGAR DUTIES.
(Continued from our Third Edition of Last Night.)
Mr. V. SMITH denied the justice of the statement o
the Hon. Member for East Surrey as to the inadequate
compensation granted for the slaves in the West Indies.
He would remind Hon. Members who were so clamarous
about the claims of the West Indians, and the small
amount of compensation, that the original suggestion with
that view was a loan of 15,000,0001.; and that the change
from that to a grant 'of 20,000,000/. was the greatest ad-
vance upon record. He denied that there ever had been any
contract entered into by the mother country with reference
to giving the colonies a monopoly of the home market,
or guaranteeing to them a supply of free labour. As
to the apprenticeship, it was a matter of history that the
conduct of the planters in some of the islands to their
apprentices bad caused the loudest remonstrances in
England, and that the system was at last abolished by
the colonial legislatures. Then as to the supply of free
labour, he denied that there had been any contract on
that point. The whole tone of the debate on emancipa-
tion went to prove that free labour could compete with
slave labour. He was sorry to admit that in his opinion
that doctrine was nothing more than a philanthropic
fallacy. He believed that free labour could not compete
with slave—(Hear, hear)—but nevertheless that was
the understanding and belief during the debates
on emancipation. There was only one pressure,
that of starvation, which could get out of free
labourers in the West Indies as much work as
in foreign colonies the lash obtained from slaves.—
(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member who had moved the
amendment had on the present occasion thrown asido
the veil under which he had on a former evening sought
to obtain a few stray votes, but that was only another
instance of what he (Mr. Smith) had always deemed to
be the great misfortune of the West Indies, namely—
that questions affecting their interests were always in
that House made the subject of party struggle. (Hear,
hear.)—lt had been so in 1840, when the Hon. Baronet
himself and the Hon. Member for Inverness voted
against the introduction of coolies.—(Hear, hear.) The
Hon. Baronet had recommended his amendment by say-
ing that it would relieve the producer without inflicting
any loss on the consumer, but he had not proved that it
could be carried out without inflicting a serious loss on
the revenue. It was admitted that there would be risk
of loss to the amount of 182,0001., and he (Mr. Smith)
was not prepared to risk that amount in the present state
of the national finances.—(Hear.) If the West Indians
had a claim for compensation on account of reduction of
price, why might not the growers of corn in this country
put forward a similar claim? The great question was,
what was ultimately to become of those colonies? His
belief was, that those which survived the present distress
would ultimatelY flourish, but that those which could
not would grow out of cultivation altogether. When
was the protection now asked for to end? The Hon.
Baronet had come down from six years (the recommen-
dation of the Committee) to three; but it made little
difference, as at the end of either period the colonists
would infallibly come to that House for a renewal.—
(Hear, hear.) The Right Honourable Member for
Coventry recommended a closer attention to colonial
expense, as one remedy for West Indian distress. He
concurred in most of the Right Honourable Member's
suggestions, but certainly not in that portion which
went to give to the colonists the election of their
governors. That would be virtually yielding up
sovereignty; and certainly, if it were done, he saw
no reason why we should any longer send out
troops to maintain the governor's authority. As to
the discriminating duty now proposed, he did not see
how it could be carried out without loss both to the re-
venue and consumer. Besides, it was not what the
planters asked for themselves. lie held in his hand a
petition from the agents of Barbadocs, Antigua, Mont-
serrat, St. Kitt's, and the Virgin Islands, the prayer of
which was that there should be a protection of 10s. per
cwt. as against foreign free-labour sugar, and a practical
exclusion against foreign slave-grown sugar, or else 153.
per cwt. against all foreign sugar without distinction.—
(Hear, hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer had
thrown fresh bleed into the discussion by his announce-
ment of a former evening. lie congratulated the Right
Hon. Gentleman on the prosperous state of affairs which
he understood had greatly improved confidence in the
City, and he conceived that the West India question
should be settled without any reference to such conside-
rations. As he had said before, he did not think that
the Right Hon. Baronet's amendment could be carried
out without loss to the revenue, and therefore he should
decidedly give his vote against it.
Mr. B. COCHRANE was of opinion that this country
was bound in good faith and common honesty to grant to
the West Indies the relief asked for by his Hoe. Friend
the Member for Droitwich. He would remind the House
that up to 1807 this House had not only sanctioned, but
positively enacted, the slave trade, and that in the reign
of Charles 11. the monopoly of that trade was granted to
the Queen Dowager and the Duke of York. Their re-
cent legislation had injured the West Indies, while it
had encouraged slavery, and ultimately it would not
cheapen sugar, because when our colonies were thrown
completely out of cultivation,' the slave-holders having a
monopoly could dictate their own price. From a wish to
protect our colonial empire, and to preserve the national
faith, he should certainly give his vote for the amend-
ment of his Hon. Friend.
Mr. SPOONER said he bad voted for the Govern-
ment proposition of 1846 because he had thought that
when the protection on corn was removed, the consumers
in this country would be relieved from the protection on
sugar. He should, however, on the present occasion,
vote for his Hon. Friend's amendment, because he be-
lieved that the Government proposition had been uni-
versally condemned by the House of Commons.—(Hear,
hear.) Party alone had given them their miserable ma-
jority, but never, on a majority so composed, had any
previous Government pressed an important measure
upon Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) He must confess also
that he should never have voted for the measure of
1846 bad he thought that it would give so great
a stimulus to the slave trade. They were then
told, as an inducement to pass the Bill, that anti-
slave treaties were in active- progress with Brazil,
whereas the fact was, that at this moment we were fur-
ther from accord with Brazil on the subject than ever.—
(Hear, hear.) Any encouragement of the slave trade he
looked upon as a national sin, and this reason strongly
urged him to vote for the amendment. With respect to
the loan, he should deal with it as a grant, because he
knew it would never be paid, and he protested against
any such grant to enable West Indians to import labour
while thousands of labourers were out of employment in
this country. Let the Government look to the state of
Staffordshire, where one establishment had during the
previous week stopped work, thus throwing upwards of
2,000 hands out of employment. He asked, would
those men hear with satisfaction that they .were to be
taxed to enable Government to grant 500,0001. to the
West Indians in aid of the importation of labour ?
(Hear, hear.) But this was only the beginnihg. At a
meeting of the iron masters, pieparatory to the quarterly
meeting, it was determined to reduce the price to 6L 10s.
per ton, it being well known that it could not be manufac-
tured at less than 8/. The consequence of this must be
that all the workmen would be dismissed unless they
submitted to an enormous reduction of wages. In fact,
never during the whole of his experience were the great
staples of the country in such a state of depression as at
the present moment. Having the opinion he had stated
of the Government proposition, and at the same time
wishing to discourage slavery and the slave trade, he
felt bound to support the amendment of his Hon.
Friend the Member for Droitwich.
Mr. GODSON contended that while the West India
colonies had strictly adhered to their part of the contract
entered into at the period of emancipation, this country
had broken faith with them, first in opening the British
market to slave-grown produce; secondly, in putting
.an
end to the state of apprenticeship before the expiration
of the time stipulated; and thirdly, in neglecting to pro-
vide means for the introduction of free labour into the
colonies. It was complained that the Government plan
involved an advance of 500,0001. for the purpose of faci-
litating the immigration of labourersi but those who
made that complaint should remember that the
20,000,0001. of which they had heard so much had never
been paid in full. The amount which had been paid was
only 18,669,4021.; and it was rather too much, with a
balance of 1,330,5981. due to tho colonies, to object to
a temporary advance of 500,0001. to assist in carrying
out that which was one of the conditions undertaken by
this country when it passed the Emancipation
Act. All that was asked by the proposition of his
Hon. Friend was, that the House should come back
to what ought to have been the arrangement of
1846. The Noble Lord had told the House that the
difference of value between foreign and colonial sugar
was 6s. in favour of the former; and the evidence before
the Committee showed that it could not be less than
4s. 6d. If the Noble Lord's statement was correct the
difference of duty from July, 1847, to July, 1848, viz ,
20s. and 145., was just sufficient to place the two articles
on equal terms, and in point of fact, there had been
free trade in sugar during the last year—(Hear, hear).—
and the effect of the Act, if continued, would be in 1851,
when it reduced the duty of foreign sugar to 145., leav-
ing that on colonial sugar at the same rate, to give a
bounty to the foreign slave-grown as against the colonial
free-labour produce of not less than 4e. 6d. a cwt., jok-
ing the lower estimate, or 41. 103. a ton.—(Cheers.) The
price current of Drake, Brothers, and Co., of the
Havannah, for 1844, stated that there was no
expectation of improvement in the price of
Cuba sugar unless the markets of England
should be thrown open to it—and if this could
be effected at 50s. per cwt. their produce would double in
value. And in the price current of 1847 it was stated
that that sugar had been kept up at its present high rate,
notwithstanding the abundant crops, by the extensive
shipments to the United States and Great Britain.—
(Hear, hear.) Here then was the evidence of the Cuba
houses themselves as to the advantlige their slave-grown

produce had over that u our free.lahour
(Hear, hear.) ..t7,xin, as this country reduced the duty
on the sugar of the Brazils or Cuba, those countries
would increase the tax on its export in the same propor-
tion, and the result would be that the consumer here
would be paying the taxes for maintaining the govern-
ment 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 anzend•-
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 ; ant
when it was said that the increased consumption had if

a great part made up any loss that was anticipated, ht
must take leave to remind them that the amountaacru-

ing to the revenue for such increased consumption had
been paid out of the remaining capital, and not out of
the profits, of the West India proprietors—(Hear, hear)
—who had been compelled by the legislation of Parlitt-

meat to enter into a ruinous competition with the slave-
owner. Government having found that they were mis-
taken in the course they took in 1846, now proposed to
go back far enough just to admit the wrong, but not far
enough to put themselves and Parliament right.—(Hear.)
By keeping up the differential duty the revenue would
be kept up, and with this advantage—that it would be
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 neglected 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 Antigua
proved that there was nothing in that argument. In that
island slaves were at once emancipated; and after six
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 Fa Colebrook, the Governor,
had confirmed that statement. It appeared to him (Mr
i'M'Cullagh) that the arguments -advanced by the Hon.
Member 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 in
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 ld. 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 influence
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 of
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 Lore,
he regretted that be was compelled to vote against him.
The question was not between the consumer of this
country and the labourer in the West Indies, as tke 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, wail
to be regarded not so much as compensation as is
fine for a national sin. But the nation having forced eman-
cipation on the colonies afterwards broke its engage.
tnent 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 it
confined to the emancipated negro would be cheaper
or as cheap as slave labour; wheri he end others con'
tended for the superior cheapness of free over slave Ise
hour, 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'
dance before the Committee, admitted the same when he
said that the Legislature had been too much influenced
by considerations which no longer prevailed. Ths
Noble Lord would doubtless remember the stoppage pug
to the admission of free labour into the Mauritius, cone
temporaneously with the abolition of apprenticeship.
causing as it did great ruin. The Government prevented
the plasters [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 alloy,
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 cooliese
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 demaaeed-
The following year they represented their great wano
of labour, and asked for 15,006, 'and the Governmenc
sent them 7,085, being less than one-half.—(Hear.)
Now, these he only gave as specimens of the weer
inivbich 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—they
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 dues
which took place In European regiments in India. '
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 strongesC
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 Wes'.
Indies from getting a proper supply of labour. Theo
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 fait.
test. He believed that the slave-trade could only be pow
down by free 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 tbs'
West Indies the advantage proposed by the amendmeo6
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 beie
immediately adopted for reducing the expenditure al
administration, which was in some instances most mote
strous. He had no interest in the question, and nothil4
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 twofoldi
to adhere to the Bill of 1846, and to afford the people 0'•
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 1651. No ol)e
in that House was more convinced than was he (Mr. B 0
binson) that it was the duty of Parliament by ever)/
means in its power to cheapen the necessaries of life t
the consumer, particularly at the present moment, wbe°
with an increasing population there was a diminution i°
the demand for labour. And he admitted that the iN
mediate effect of the Noble Lord's measure would be tee
cheapen sugar. But by depriving the 'West Indies 0`
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 thue
effect? Was he not more likely, by such a course, tv_.
transfer the trade altogether from our possessions to Cub':
and Brazil, and by giving them a monopoly to iraise the
price of sugar to a price quite as high, if not higher, th"'
it was at present? Now, it had been said that the pr
°
prietors of estates in the West Indies ought to be resident'
and that if they were much of the evil would be ren'e'
died. In answer to that, and to show that resident pr°,,
prietors had just as much reason to complain as the nu
sentees, let him quote the opinion of the lion. Mr. Go"