The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-11 00:00:00

DON CARLOS-SPAIN.

Mr. BORTHWICIC said he wished to put a question
of which he had given notice to the Right Hon. Gentle-
man (Sir Robert Peel). The matter to which it had
reference had been recently very strongly discussed
both in the French and English newspapers. He wished
to know whether any proposition had been made
by Don Carlos in reference to the marriage of the Queen
of Spain, whether such proposition had been submitted
to the English Government, and what had been their
answer upon the subject.
Sir R. PEEL said, in answer to the question which
had been put to him, he begged to state that a com-
munication had certainly been made to the British
Government of the proposition made by Don Carlos, in
reference to the marriage of the Queen of Spain. The
communication was of an indirect and informal charac
ter ; but it was to the effect that the son of Don Carlos
should be united to the Queen of Spain. The Hon. Gen-
tleman (Mr. Borthwick) asked if the object of the propo-
sition was not the tranquillisation of Spain ? That certainly
was stated as a chief object by Don Carlos, but her
Majesty's Government did not think the effect of
those propositions would be such as were anticipated by
the parties making them. The propositions had not
been very distinctly put, but Don Carlos, in making
them, did not relinquish for himself and for his son
a claim to the throne of Spain. The course the
English Government had taken was to make the
Government of Spain acquainted with the proposals of
Don Carlos, and this on the principle that that Government
alone was competent to decide the question.— (Hear,
hear.) He (Sir R. Peel) might at the same time be al-
lowed to state his opinion that the question was not a
mere question of personal claims, but rather one of great
constitutional principle. The propositions of Don Car-
los had been referred to the proper and competent
authority—the Government of Spain.
Lord PALMERSTON understood that the opinion
of her Majesty's Government was, that the arrangement
proposed by Don Carlos would not accomplish the object
at which it professed;to aim, namely, the tranquillisation
of Spain. He wished to ask if, in communicating that
proposition to the Spanish Government, the British
Government had expressed its own opinion as to the
effect of the proposal, or if it had simply made the com-
munication to the Spanish Government?
Sir ROBERT PEEL replied that the main object
of the proposal was to bring about a marriage be-
tween the eldest son of I)on Carlos and the Queen
of Spain. It was also stated that in case of that
proposition being entertained, Don Carlos would
state the concessions which he was willing to make to
accomplish that marriage. What those concessions were
to be was not stated. He had not stated whether he
proposed to waive, on behalf of himself and his
son, every claim to the throne of Spain. It
had been made, perhaps, necessarily in an in-
direct manner—he did not complain of that, be-
cause Don Carlos having no representative at our
Court, the proposition could not have been made in any
other manner. The British Government had contented
itself with making the communication to the Govern
ment of Spain, but had not expressed any opinion in
favour of the acceptance of the proposal, because they
did not think that its acceptance would tend to the
tranquillisation of Spain. The differences existing
in Spain were not differences with regard to questions
of succession, but differences with regard to different
modes of government. The British Government had
not concealed that opinion from the Court of Spain, but
it had used no influence in favour of the proposition,
neither had it thrown any obstacles in the way of its
acceptance.
Lord PALMERSTON agreed in the views of the
Right Hon. Baronet as to the fact that the proposition
would not lead to the tranquillisation of Spain, but the
mere fact of the British Court having transmitted the pro-
position to-the Court of Spain would seem to give a weight
to it to which it was not entitled, and would induce the
Spanish Government to believe that the British Govern-
ment was in favour of the proposition. He wished to know
whether the British Government in treating the proposi-
tion had given the Spanish Government to understand
that it did not approve of it.
Sir R. PEEL had transmitted the proposition to the
Spanish Government, merely because he considered it
was the duty of the Government not to withhold
such a proposition from the knowledge of the
Spanish Government ; but he could under-
take to say that it was impossible for the
Spanish Government to think that the British Govern-
ment approved of that proposition, or entertained the
least idea that it would conduce to the tranquillisation of
Spain.
Lord J. MANNERS understood there was no ambi-
guity in the proposition of Don Carlos.
Sir R. PEEL said there was no direct statement of the
willingness of Don Carlos to waive his personal claims
to the throne of Spain ; but if he was to waive his per-
sonal claims, and insist on those of his eldest son, that he
apprehended would be no waiver of his claim of hereditary
right to the throne.
Mr. BORTIIWICK thought that all he had heard
rendered it expedient that he should continue the notice
of motion which he had given.
CUSTOM-HOUSE FRAUDS.
In answer to an Hon. Member,

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, stated
he intended to make a selection of the evidence taken
by the Custom House Commission Inquiry, and to have
it printed.
Mr. lIUME thought the whole of the evidence ought
to be printed.

SUGAR DUTIES.
The order of the day was then read.
On the motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair,

Mr. JAMES rose, and said that he hoped he might be ! 1
permitted to make a few observations on this ques-
tion ; first, because he did not often trouble the House ;
secondly, because there had not been a full discussion on
the second reading ; and, thirdly, because he was one
of those unfortunate beings called a West India planter,
not through any fault of his own, but because, some cen-
turies
ago, an ancestor of his was encouraged by the Go-
vernment of that day to invest money in the purchase
of a West India estate in the island of Jamaica, and who
expected that future Governments would not legislate to
injure, much less to destroy the value of, their property.
He proposed, in the first place, to take the opportunity
of expressing his conviction that few Members of the
House were really acquainted with the exact facts of
the case, or with the unfortunate condition in which
the West Indian interests were now placed. He
thought he could best illustrate their condition by
his own situation, and that was peculiarly favour-
able as regarded the cultivation of West Indian
property, for he was not exactly in the light of an
absentee proprietor, having a son residing in the country
who was acquainted with the business, and also an over-
seer, who had resided there several years, and was
thoroughly acquainted with the mode of cultivating
sugar. There were no mortgages on the property, and
he had no occasion, as many had, to employ merchants
and pay them two-and-a-half per cent. He had only
to pay a commission broker. Now what was his
case ? Every pound of sugar he imported from Jamaica,
taking an average of three years, cost him 4d. in the
production and transport. What happened when it
arrived in this country? The Chancellor of the Exchequer
immediately put a tax of 3d. per lb. on it, thus making
the price 7d. A great deal had been said about
the clearness of sugar, but all he had been able to
get for his sugar was 6i-d. per lb., thus losing lb.
Or 500/. on every 100 hogsheads of sugar. This was not
a very pleasant
_position to be in, with regard to pro-
perty which, during the existence of slavery, was
worth 3,000 L a year, and, during the apprentice-
ship system, half that sum, and he had clone
everything to diminish the cost of cultivation.
What was the cause of this mischievous state of things?
Was it not the existence of a tax of 3d. upon their staple
commodity, sugar ; and nearly a prohibitory tax
upon rum ? Let it not be forgotten that these
taxes were proposed by Mr. Pitt expressly as war
taxes. Any gentleman who would refer to the debates
of that day, would find that Mr. Pitt promised when
the sugar duties were imposed that they
should be the very first to be taken off
whenever peace was established ; and yet there
they were, nearly thirty years after the commencement
of the peace, and the taxes remained precisely the same.
They had heard a great deal about the 20,000,0001.
He had more than once said, that although
a very munificent gift, it was but a small compensation
to the West Indian planters fur the loss which they sus •
tained. He would like to know how gentlemen in that
House would feel, if after their property had been ruined
by the repeal of the corn-laws, the Hon. Member for
Stockport should rise and propose to give them
2s. 6d. in the pound as compensation ? They
took from them their slaves, and up to that time
they threw every possible impediment in the
way of their availing themselves of free labour.
They had been asked, why, if they lost by their estates,
they did not abandon their cultivation ? They
had not abandoned the cultivation up to
that time, because they relied upon the justice and
the sympathy of the Members of that House, and
he would fain hope that they did not altogether rely
upon a broken reed. He did not hesitate to say that
many of the proprietors in Jamaica had been treated
more cruelly than the slaves had ever been treated.
The slaves had always had a supply of good and
wholesome food, whilst, by the legislation of that House,
proprietors were rendered destitute. Did any one believe
that if they were as powerful as the landed interest such
measures would be proposed as were then under conside-
ration ? He was sorry to see the great discouragement,
which had been given to their interest by the change of,
opinion on the part of the Right Hon. Baronet at the 1
head of the Government. As to the opposition of
the Honoirable Member for Dumfries, he did not con-
sider it very formidable • for he brought forward
such wild, extravagant, and ultra views on all sorts
of subjects, that he really did not think any
rational person could coincide in his views.—(Hear,
hear.) He regretted the course pursued by his Noble
Friend the Member for the City of London. What he
chiefly complained of in his Noble Friend was, that he
did not come forward at the same time to propose the
repeal of the Emancipation Act. If they were to
have slave labour sugar admitted into this
country, let that Act be repealed. To give an advantage
to slave countries which was not possessed by their own
colonies, did appear to him to be a course of
legislation which was calculated to make them the
laughing-stock of every nation in the world.
If they really wished to benefit the people of England,
it could only be effected justly in one- way,
that was by diminishing the costs of production in
their own colonies, and gradually reducing the tax.
Let them only have plenty of free labour, reduce the
tax on colonial sugar from 245. to 12s. ; by that means
they would do ample justice to the West Indians, and confer
an important benefit on the people of England, whilst
at the same time they would suffer noloss, but would ob-
tain a gain on the revenue by the largely increased
consumption that would take place. He would not say
anything more, for he had almost given up the case as
hopeless.
Mr. EWART said his Hon. Friend had charged him
with asserting rash propositions; he thought his Hon.
Friend ought to recollect that these propositions had been
made year after year. He maintained that the commerce
and manufactures of the people of this country were
affected by the discriminating defies which his Hon.
Friend had attempted to defend. His Hon. Friend there-
fore came into court not as plaintiff, but as defendant.
He (Mr. Ewart) certainly could not understand the
conduct of those Hon. Members whom he considered to
be represented by the Hon. Gentleman who had last
addressed the House (Mr. James). Were they, then,
actually coming down to that House to protect and
uphold the system of monopoly ? There was, however,
a want of skill as well as a degree of partiality in the
conduct of this class of Members who now came down
to make common cause with the monopolists. The Hon.
Gentleman (Mr. James) had made an attack on the
Right Hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Peel), which it
would have been better to refrain from. It was easy to
rake up speeches delivered over a course of many years,
and to cavil at them ; but for his (Mr. Ewart's)
part, he thought it the duty of a Prime Minister
to watch opinion as it advanced, and to endeavour to
keep pace with it, and glad was he to find that,
however slowly, the Right Honourable Baronet
was disposed to move onwards. The question how-
ever, now before the House was, whether
one part of our colonies was to be benefited at the
expense of the general well-being of the country. Such
a system would be, in fact, ultimately injurious to the
planters themselves. No worse policy could be pursued than
that of retaining those differential duties. Throw open the
sugar trade, and the general commerce of the country
would be increased to an almost illimitable extent.
No measure, except that of the repeal of the corn-laws,
would do so much good, as placing the sugar trade
on a proper foundation. What he (Mr. Ewart) wished
to see done was this—to reduce the duty to what it was
before the war; to what it was, for example, in the year
1790. Then the duty levied on sugar was 12s. 4d. per cwt.
Unless they reduced the duties upon sugar so low as to
increase the consumption among the labouring classes,
they would do nothing. The real consumers of all
commodities were the labouring classes. He would re-
mind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it had been
shown before the Select Committee that nineteen-
twentieths of the tobacco consumed in the country
was. consumed by the labouring classes—(Hear,
hear)—and he would venture to say, that the
consumption of tea and coffee was in the same propor-
tion. Unless they could bring the price of sugar down
to fourpence per pound, they would do nothing.
The rich consumed from 601 b. to 701 b. of sugar per head
per annum, and the poor only 71b. The rich amounted
to 5,000,000, the poor to 23,000,000 ; thus, the
power of consumption of 23,000,000 persons re-
mained undeveloped. A great quantity of sugar
was formerly consumed in Ireland, but at present,
owing to the high duty, the consumption in Ireland had
diminished to an average of 71b. per head per annum, in-
stead of an average of 211 b. per head per annum, as was
the case in England. In consequence of the
high duty, adulteration took place to a very great
extent, and the paor man, who consumed the muscovado
sugar, suffered exclusively from those adulterations, for
the rich man consumed only refined sugar. With regard
to the West Indian interests, the more honest course
would be to let them know the worst at once.—(Hear.)'
The false support on which they had heretofore leant
could not last more than a few years, and his Hon.
Friend would find that out. It would be better
for the West India interest to come to a
wise compromise in time, for it was beyond all
doubt that the present false system could not last,
and his Hon. Friend had proved it was injurious
to the West India interest itself. They were in a false
position, out of which it was their wish to extricate
them. It was a remarkable circumstance, that
the foreign trade had increased in a much
greater proportion than the colonial trade. Let them
look to the case of Bristol and Liverpool. The former
was dependent on a colonial trade, and had not ad-
vanced, while Liverpool, which had extended its trade to
all parts of the world, had made rapid advances. It
was the same with regard to Havre and Bordeaux, the
latter of which depended on the old colonial system.
He had certainly once introduced to the House a pro-
posal for extending the cultivation of free labour sugar,
but it was rather to agitate the question than
with any idea of its adoption. For his own part,
he regarded commerce as the great emancipator.
He maintained that the real 'way to bring this question
to an issue, was to throw open the markets to the pro-
duce of the world, and allow free labour and slave
labour produce to come at once boldly into conflict in
the market of this country. This would be the conclu-
sion to which they would have to come at last. He be-
lieved, too, that the planters themselves would be bene-
fited by this. He admitted that they had been injured
by_the legislation of this country, which had restricted
their commerce, and he wished to see that system of legis-
lation abolished. If the colonies were to be an integral
portion of this country, the colonists ought to be treated
as the inhabitants of this country were treated. His Hon.
Friend had complained of a deficiency of labour in the
West Indies. Why, let the trade be thrown open to the
world, and this evil would soon remedy itself. The
energies of our colonies would never be developed, un-
less they were subjected to full and fair competition.
He wished to bring this subject to some definite point, and
to ascertain, by a division, whether the House was will-
ing to equalise the duty on foreign and colonial sugar,
or not. If he did not succeed in inducing the House to
abolish the differential duty, then he would propose, as
an amendment to the motion of the Hon. Member for
Bristol, that these differential duties should expire at the
end of a year, By equalising the duties they might