The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-22 00:00:00

SUGAR DUTIES.

Mr. GREENE brought up the report on the sugar
duties.

Mr. EWART said that, in the absence of the Hon.
Member for Montrose, who, not being able to attend
himself, had requested him to embody the motion of
which he had given notice, he begged to move that slave
and free labour sugar might be admitted into this country
on the payment of equal duty. He (Mr. Ewart)
objected to the Bill of the Government, because it
was uncertain, and the merchants of tho country would
not know how to act under it. He also ob-
jected to the Bill, because it left a discre-
tionary power in the hands of the Government.
They had in vain endeavoured to put down the slave-
trade, by means of gun-boats and of treaties with
foreign States. Sir Thomas Fowell Buxton, and, in fact,
nearly all persons who had written on the subject,
acknowleged the inefficiency of such proceedings.
With whatever object the Bill might have been
framed, it was based on false principles. Such, briefly,
were the reasons which led him to bring this subject
before the House. He called on the Government to
adopt one of two alternatives—either to define on what
terms they intended to admit foreign free-labour sugar,
or at once to admit foreign slave-labour sugar. The ques-
tion was not one of party, but strictly one of principle,
and as such he entreated the House to consider it.
He begged leave, therefore, to move—" That slave and
free labour sugar be admitted upon the payment of equal
duties."

Mr. JAMES said he deeply regretted that the Hon.
Member for Montrose, who had put this notice upon the
paper, was prevented by domestic affairs from attending in
his place that evening. The present motion wasneither more
nor less than the motion which had been brought for-
ward on a former occasion and had been then disposed
of. And how did the Hon. Member for Montrose speak
and vote upon that occasion ? Why he spoke against it,
and he voted against it. He said it was impossible
for the West India colonies to compete with the
foreign growers of sugar, tied up as they were. If any-
thing, then, could astonish him (Mr. James) at his time
of life, and after all he had seen, it was to find that
Hon. Member putting on the paper such a notice as this.
He recommended the adopting measures that should
insure a supply of free labour to the West India colo-
nies, and suggested that the Government should afford
the planters a supply of convict labour. Many parts of
the colonies were healthy; the expense of the transport
would be less while the punishment would be greater.
He stated that convict labour was thus employed in
Bermuda. He could not support the motion, and de-
nounced it as unjust.
Mr. BARCLAY said it was impossible for the colony
to prosper till this question was finally settled, and he
hoped the present arrangemeht would be definitive for a
great number of years. As long as they were exposed
to these harrassing discussions, capital would be prevented
from going into the colonies.
The House then divided, and the numbers were—
For receiving the report
For Mr. Ewart's amendment
Majority fur Ministers —llB
Lord J. RUSSELL wished to know when the Right
Hon. Baronet intended to proceed with the Bill.
Sir R. PEEL said, in case there should be a disposi-
tion to enter into a lengthened discussion upon the Bill on
Monday, he proposed that the Bank Charter Bill should
have precedence on that day, and that the further con-
sideration of the sugar duties should be postponed till
Thursday. He would name Monday for the third read-
ing of the Bill with that understanding.
The report was then received, and the Bill was or-
dered to be engrossed, and read a third time on Monday.