The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-04 00:00:00

in favour of colonial was only 6s. 6d. Ho contended that
no case had been made out for treating this duty apart from
the general question of finance. Reference had been made
to the reductions that would take place in 1860, but it was
most objectionable to fetter the hands of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer a year beforehand. (Hear.)
Mr. WILSON said that Sir R. Peel and Mr. Gladstone
had long urged the impolicy of these duties, but he would
never be a party to repealing a duty until he saw his way to
the revenue being, made up. The hon. baronet opposite had
resisted the motion, on the ground that the duty was paid
by the foreign producer ; but he (Mr. Wilson) contended that
the price of colonial timber was regulated b 4 that of foreign,
not the foreign by the colonial. Such arguments were new
to his ears for the last ten years. He should resist the mo-
tion, believing it impolitic to deal with fiscal questions in an
isolated form. As our expenditure was increasing, and the
income from certain taxes diminishing, he thought the re-
solution ought not to be entertained by the house.
Mr. HUDSON bore testimony to the strong confidence
felt by the shipowners in the present Government. They
knew well that Ministers were disposed to do something for
their relief, though they might not be able to do so. He
had heard gentlemen on the other side express their convic-
tion that the shipping interest ought to be relieved as far as
possible, but after the five years they had been in office, the
shipowners might well have lost all confidence in them.
(Hear.) It was said that the repeal of this duty would not
benefit the consumer. If so, why not impose taxes on raw
cotton, silk, and wool ? A friend of his at Sunderland, most
extensively engaged in the glass trade, had paid £1,400 for
timber for packages alone for glass, the duty being £3OO.
The glass manufacturers of France and Belgium had their
timber for this purpose duty free—a decided disadvantage
to the British glass manufacturer. He regretted that Go-
vernment did not support this measure. The paper duty
did not press so heavily on the people of this country as the
timber duties. He should support the motion of the hon.
gentleman because he believed it to be just.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said that he could never have
made any promise that the timber duties should be repealed,
because it was not in his power to perform any such promise.
What he said was that the duty was objectionable, and that
he hoped the time would soon arrive when it could be re-
pealed. He must express his surprise at the doctrines which
had been enunciated by the hon. gentleman the Secretary
to the Treasury. He regarded the duty on timber as one of
a most mischievous character. With regard to the shipping
interest there was no fear that British ship-builders would
not be able to compete with those of foreign countries. So
far was it from being true that the ship-building trade was
being transferred to other countries in consequence of the
withdrawal of protection that precisely the contrary took
place. He thought the earliest opportunity should be taken
to repeal the tax, but he would not vote for an abstract pro-
position for the repeal of any tax till he heard the financial
statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Hear.)
Lord H. VANE expressed surprise at the doctrine pro-
pounded by the financial secretary of the Treasury. The
hon. gentleman remarked that there had been a rise in the
price of timber when the duty was reduced, from which he
argued that the consumer did not receive the benefit of the
reduction. But it was natural to suppose that an increased
demand for timber followed on the reduction of the duty,
which would account for the rise of price. (Hear, hear.)
The tax was most objectionable, and pressed heavily on the
shipowner. He would suggest to the hon. member for Brid-
port that he should add to his motion the words, " as soon
as the state of the revenue admitted." (Hear, hear.) .
Mr. MITCHELL said he should respond to the appeal
of the noble lord by agreeing to the addition of the words
suggested.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER considered
that the addition made the motion much more objectionable
than before, for it pledged the house to the repeal of the
duty as soon as the state of the revenue admitted it. He
could not agree to the statement that this was the only
mode in which a tax, supposed to be injurious to the public
interest, could be brought before the house for considera-
tion, and that unless the house sanctioned a resolution of
this character, it was impossible that the grievances of any
class of the community could be brought before the house
for consideration. There were means, such as by moving
for papers, of bringing the whole merits of any fiscal ar-
rangement before the house, and if the house expressed an
opinion on the subject, it would no doubt influencethe finan-
cial minister, if he had the means of giving it effect. But
he could assure the house that at present the position of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer was of that nature that there
need not be any scramble amongst the different interests of
the community for the surplus he had in hand. (Laughter.)
He therefore asked the house not to sanction motions of
this kind, which had an injurious effect on the public mind,
and led to a feverish anxiety amongst the different branches
of trade affected by them. He thought his hon. friend had
been misunderstood. He did not say that this tax on tim-
ber was not a bad tax, even though it was of a protectionist
character ; but that there were many taxes on raw materials
which were worse. He should be very glad to be able to
repeal the duty on timber, but it was not in his power to
hold out any expectation of that kind. In a short time—
probably in a month—he should call the attention of the
house to the financial condition of the country, and if any
gentleman did not approve of the proposal then made, it
would then be open to those who represented the timber
trade or called for the remission of other taxes to bring their
cases before the house, when they would no doubt receive
impartial consideration.
The motion, with the addition suggested by Lord H. Vane,
was then put, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it

tourer lives under British law and has at all times access

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MARCH 4, 1859,

colonies, aro almost entirely ruined. But, with the excep-
tion of Jamaica, there is as much sugar produced and ex-
ported from the rest of the islands as there was in 1831,
before the Emancipation Act. I say, with the exception of
Jamaica, and I cannot attribute the falling off in agricul-
tural prosperity of that island to the causes assigned by the
right hon. gentleman. I believe the great, if not the sole
cause, has been the unfortunate mismanagement of her own
self-government, by which her finances have been ruined
and her affairs confused. A wretched constitution has in-
duced jobbing and confusion, and resulted in most disas-
trous consequences. (Hear.) lam glad to find that the
foundation has been laid, by the improvement of her con-
stitution, for a better state of things, and I trust that Ja-
maica will ere long resume her natural position at the head
of the West India islands. Jamaica used to send to this
country 1,500,000 cwt. of sugar ; now she sends not quite
500,000. But the void in her exportation has been filled
up from another source. The Mauritius has taken the
place of Jamaica, and now sends us about 1,500,000 cwt. In
fact, wherever you find an adequate supply of labour, whe-
ther it be in the Mauritius, in Trinidad, Demerara, or Bar-
badoes, there you find the cultivation of sugar successfully,
conducted, and the whole community in a state of pros-
perity. The lesson taught by this—and I hope it
will be borne in mind not by us alone, but by the
whole world—is, that the question whether free
labour can compete in a tropical climate with slave labour
depends upon the sufficiency with which that free labour
is supplied ; and happily in our own colonies the experi-
ment has worked satisfactorily. My belief is, that by en-
couraging by all legitimate means the introduction of free
labourers into your own sugar-producing possessions, you
are doing far more to put down the slave trade and slavery
than can be accomplished by all the squadrons you may fit
out and all the treaties you can devise. I should look with
the utmost alarm at the carrying out of the views of the
well-intentioned but mistaken men who ask as a boon for
the coloured races, above all people in the world, that you
should check the supply of free labour for your own colonies.
Successive Governments have carefully watched the whole
system under which this immigration has been conducted,
in order that the interests of humanity might not be neg-
lected, and that, as far as could be done under a highly
artificial and complicated set of arrangements, the claims of
the planter upon the coolie should be reconciled with the
right of the latter to protection in his comparatively de-
fenceless position. One other point of great moment is
whether free labourers can be taken from the coast of Africa
and carried to our colonies. My own opinion is that any
attempt to effect this on the part of England or any other
country will only end in a revival of the slave trade in
another form. (Hear, hear.) Another question of great
importance is whether a supply of labour is obtainable from
China. No doubt, if a system of Chinese immigration
could be established under proper safeguards, it would
be of great advantage to the West India islands. But
there are difficulties in the way. One of them is the
alleged impossibility of insuring by fair means the intro-
duction into our colonies of a due proportion of Chinese
women. The attention of the late Government, and doubt-
less that of their successors, was turned to this point ; and
Lord Elgin had special directions to make inquiries into it
as far as his other and more pressing duties would permit.
When one of the West India islands had expressed a wish
to send out an agent to China to assist in promoting the same
object, every facility was offered on the part of the British
Government to the mission of that officer. I will only add,
that if the hon. member who has made this motion will
follow the advice of the Secretary of State for the Colonies,
and confine the proposed inquiry to the subjects to which I
have referred, I have little doubt that it will be attended
with useful results. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. F. CROSSLEY expressed the satisfaction that he
felt at the speech of the Secretary for the Colonies. He had
visited the slave states of South America and the plantations
there. The planters were anxious to get his opinion on
their "domestic institution," and they asked him if he did
not think it was attended with advantage to themselves and
their slaves. He endeavoured to show them it would be
more to their advantage if they paid their labourers wages,
instead of having to give large sums for them, and then have
to hold the whip over them to make them work. He advised
his hon. friend the member for Newport to accept the offer
of the Government.
Mr. C. FORTE SCUE, who rose amid cries of "divide,"
said he only wished to appeal to the hon. member for New-
port to take the advice tendered to him by the Secretary for
the Colonies. He did not think that the public opinion of
the country demanded this inquiry, and that the facts did
not require it.
Mr. C. EWING was sure that if there was sufficient
labour in Jamaica they could beat Cuba out of the market.
He did not think that differential duties would do them any
good.
Mr. BUXTON said he would accept the first proposition
of the Secretary for the Colonies, and if he did not get the
information he required he should bring the subject on again.
The motion was then withdrawn.
COUNTY COURTS ACT.
Sir S. NORTHCOTE obtained leave to bring in a bill to
repeal the 32d section of the County Courts Act, 9 and 10
Viet., chap. 95. The object of the bill, he said, was to
abolish the offices of High Bailiff of Westminster and South-
wark.
MARRIAGE LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill,
Mr. B. HOPE said he was bound to enter his protest
against this bill, and to give it an undying and undeviating
opposition. cLaughter.) All the women of England were
opposed to this bill. (More laughter.) It was said, when
this bill was before the house on the last occasion, that the
clergy of London were in favour of it. He had no answer
to make to that statement at the time, but to-night he had
an answer. He had presented apetition against it from the
Dean and Chapter of Westminster, and another from Sion
College, and he had also presented one from the clergy of the
important manufacturing town of Leeds. He was satisfied
that, though the bill might pass that house, it would not
become law. He moved that the bill be read a third time
that day six months.
The house divided—
For the third reading
Against it B9