The Sun.
London, England, 1848-06-20 00:00:00

thirdly, it was probable, from the state of the continent
that a great portion of the sugar in the foreign ware-
houses would be brought to this country in the first in-
stance,. The stock its hand in the five chief ports of the
continent and this country in the present year, as com-
pared with the quantity held last year, was 143,000 tons
against 103,000 tons, being a difference of 40,000 tons
in favour of the present year. He did not, for these
reasons, expect any enhancement of price during the
present or following year. The Hon. Gentleman said
that the production of the colonies was equal to the con-
sumption in this country, and could be even more ; but
did not the Hon. Gentleman see that if the colonies pro-
duced more than we consumed in this country, the sur-
plus must go into foreign markets, and therefore that
the price must depend on the price iu those markets?
But if, on the other hand, the colonies only pro-
duced for this country, and that at a high price, it
was quite clear that the consumers would not stand
that high price, and that they would demand an
adherence to the principles of the Acts of 1844 and
1846. With regard to the effect of this measure on the
revenue, which it was said this proposal would endanger,
he could only ask, if their proposition was likely to have
any such effect, what would be the effect of the recom-
mendation of the Committee? The loss by their pro-
posal would be is. per cwt., or 1/. per ton, on colonial
sugar ; and as their consumption of colonial sugar,
—w(r, hear.) taking it at what it was last year, was 240,000 tons, the
therepera t
loss would be 240,000/. But if the recommendation of
questionhatea way permanentar.)
aonewieasneoefescsaorlo
ynfi
sugar, 96
was, 0,000
in 960,0001.
—(Hear,
arl
H
the Committee were adopted, the loss would be 4s. a cwt.,
or 4/. w
s anyo n,
other on
point the
inton whole
hh consumption
it
was
lle
bdidenneofittlttonotwhethat
him to afford further information to the House. The
co-
lonies could be promoted ? He believed
that could only
be by a great consumption of sugar, and that that
con-
sumption must take place iu consequence of reduction
in price.
Mr. K. SEYMER said his object was to force upon
the Government a reconsideration of this imp
question. The Right Hon. Baronet at the head oorfta the
te
late Government always appeared to him to entertain
sound and statesmanlike views on this question. eie
viewed the question as one of justice. The state of the
colonies was awful. People were every day falling into
a lower grade. It was time for free-traders to retrace
their steps. Right as they might be in their decimals,
they were proved to be wrong in their millions. Their
policy had involved the West Indies in ruin. He con-
tended that we could naturally enough only rely upon
the loyalty of our West Indian population so long as
that population considered itself more prosperous and
consequently happier under our rule than it would be un-
der any other. It we systematicallyoppressed our colonies
our colonies would ultimately reject our rule, and either
seek a connexion with some other country or set up for
themselves. As to the slave trade, it was a mere farce to
suppose that while it continued to be so profitable a
commerce as it now was it would be given up. Cheap
sugar might, no doubt, be an excellent thing; but once
throw our colonial sugar estates oat of cultivation and
cheap sugar would no longer be attainable, for we should
be wholly at the mercy of the foreigner, and have to pay
a high price for slave-grown sugar. There was no
question that all our exertions and all our sacrifices to
put down the slave trade had only made matters in-
finitely worse than they were before. He was not pre-
pared to assent to the proposition that sugar was so
very wholesome an article of consumption. Sugar was
extensively used in the United States, especially by the
ladies, and it was notorious that no lady's teeth there,
after the age of thirty, would bear inspection. He
should give his decided support to the amendment of the
Hon. Baronet.
Mr. HUME concurred in the opinion that this was not
a question within the category of free trade, which sup-
posed that the parties acting upon it should be upon equal
terms. Mr. Deacon Hume, in his: evidence before the
Committee, had given his decided judgment that while
the West Indies were placed upen as good terms, in re-
spect to free trade, as Cuba, Porto Rico, and other
foreign colonies, they could compete with the whole
world in the sale of their commodities; but that since
the emancipation, which had placed them upon an in-
equality with the slave labour sugar countries, they were
nut in a position to compete, without something in the
shape of protection, until they had secured an ample '
supply of cheap labour. The whole annals of legisla- '
tion did not present an example of such monstrous in-
justice as that which the Parliament of Great Britain '
hail inflicted upon the West Indies. Every engagement
we had made with them we had utterly violated, and an
intelligent witness before the Committee, Mr. Jones, had
distinctly stated that so gross had been the bad faith
of the Imperial Legislature towards the West Indies,
that the colonies had lost all faith and confidence in that
Legislature.—(tlear, hear.) As to slavery, there were
no means of putting it down but by rendering free labour
cheaper than slave labour; and this was the object '
which the free-traders had always in view when
they advocated emancipation, fully convinced that free
labour, if it had a fair trial, would beat slave labour '
in cheapness as in every other quality. His com-
plaint was that free labour had not had a fair trial.—
(Hear, hear.) He considered that all the distress of the
West Indies had resulted from our policy since 1834,
well-intentioned, no doubt, but wholly erroneous. He
denied that the engagement of 1834 had been fulfilled.
The full price had not been paid; for the captured slaves
under the treaty of search had been valued by arbitration
at a much higher sum; and had the West Indian slaves
been valued at that rate, they would have amounted to
101,919,000/. Besides paying below the value, the ap-
prenticeship bad been curtailed—another instance in
which the engagement with the colonists had not been
carried out. Instead of offering a round sum of twenty
millions, the colonists ought to have been heard as to the
measures which were necessary for giving due effect to
emancipation. The colonists were unable to act; they
were deprived of labour, one-third of that extracted
from the slaves being taken away. Proper regulations
were also needed, which were never made. So early
as 1836 Lord Glenelg had written a dispatch, urging the
importance of making provisions against squatting and
idleness, before the apprenticeship expired; thus show-
ing that it was then thought most important to keep up
the supply of labour. The want of that single article
had produced all the mischief to the colonists; they had
even been forbidden, by orders in Council, to bring la-
bourers from Africa, America, or anywhere else.—
(Hear.) They were not even allowed to get labourers
from Europe, could they have done so. The restric-
tions had been one by one relaxed, but without restoring
the supply of labour which had been cut off by these
orders in Council, secretly issued from the Colonial-office
without the authority of Parliament.—(Hear, hear.)
Had they possessed due facilities for obtaining labour, no
doubt they might have competed with other places. The
blame was wholly attributable to the Colonial-office,
which had been a nuisance from first to last.—(Leughter.)
Had the Colonial-office been locked up, and the colonies
allowed to manage their own affairs, without the potty
meddling and interference of ignorant men (for how
could Lord Grey or Mr. Hawes, though they might be
as clear-headed and sharp-sighted as anybody, know
intuitively what was requisite for the colonies?) they
would now have been in a very different state.—(Flear,
hear.) Why, every two years almost there had been a
fresh Colonial Minister, so that the colonists never knew
what they had to expect for two months together.—
(Hear, hear.) In one case rules had been drawn up, and
sent out for the regulation of the coolies, of
vshichLord
Harris observed that they were not wholly
faultless.
Thereupon Earl Grey sent out an order ' 'lmmediately to
cancel the rules ; and the consequence was that the
coolies were seen dying in the highways
with hunger.—
(Hear, hear.) The intentions of the Legislature in
passing the Emancipation Act were
clear, from the
statements of Lord Stanley, the Duke of Wellington,
and others, all of whom contemplated the passing of
proper vagrancy Acts and other measures to secure a
duo supply of labour.
Notwithstanding all this, almost
as soon as the Act was passed difficulties had been
thrown in the way, which had since been increased, till
things had now come to the worst. It had been said
the high wages in the colonies were not the result of
the want of labour, but of the competition between the
colonies ; but it was clear the high wages
could only arise from a want of labour. As it was, the
negroea were the masters, and the masters had become
the servants; it was said the negroes went to their work
in cabs, and with silk umbrellas.—(Great laughter.) He
regretted that in the case of Guiana, Lord Grey had ,
stopped the supply of labourers, because the taxes were I
not voted—a very paltry pretext, in his opinion. Let
the colonies be placed in the situation in which it was
meant to place them in 1846. The Act of that year had
not produced, though it had much aggravated, their diffi-
culties. Why not allow the colonists now to go to Africa,
and obtain their own labour without the intervention of
Government? Now that the colonies were almost
ruined, was it not high time that something was done
for them? The plan of Government would have no
effect; it would be much better to let the colonists die
out at once. Let them have protection for a period
sufficiently long to restore their confidence, and to
enable them in the meantime to prepare themselves
to compete with other sugar-growing countries, and
-thus give a fair chance to free labour. He believed
that no shorter period than ten years of protection
would suffice to place the colonies in a fair position.
But the Right Hon. Baronet asked how he was to mike
up the loss in the revenue by adopting the proposal of the
Noble Lord. He would tell him how. Let the squa-
dron be withdrawn from fhe coast of Africa, and the
amount lost by the sugar duty would be saved in the
naval estimates. If something were not done soon the
colonies would relapse into a savage state, and this would
be a sad resullt for the sacrifices England had made. He
was satisfied the Government proposal would never
answer, and he therefore counselled the Noble Lord, if ho
was not prepared to do more, to take the course pointed
out, and to leave the colonies to their fate. For these
reasons he was opposed to the resolutions of the Noble
Lord, taking it for granted that the Hon. Baronet would
follow up his amendment if carried by a definite propo-
sition.
Mr. MOFFATT moved that the debate be adjourned.
—(Go on.)
Mr. ROBINSON seconded the motion.
Mr. CARDWELL, before the motion was put from
the chair, begged to point out that the number of stages
of the Bill, being a money Bill, required that no time
should be lost in carrying it forward before the sth of
July, otherwise the measure could not become law in
time to supersede the sugar duties, which would come
into operation on that day.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER agreed
that there was a difficulty in point of time; but the
course pursued by the Hon. Baronet opposite was in
some respects unprecedented, and calculated to impede
the fair progress of public business.
Sir J. PAKINGTON protested against such an im-
putation being cast upon him as that just made by the
Right Hon. Baronet.
Mr. BARICLY also eindicat.d the proceeding of the
Lion. Member for Droitwich.
The.debate was they atijourned 0 Thursday next.