The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-08 00:00:00

country, measures to ameliorate the condition of the slaves
with a view to their ultimate emancipation ?—( Hear, hear.)
When they could not carry into effect a treaty with cruisers,
steam-vessels, and cannon, would they leave it to the Brazilian
Government to carry out their object'?—( Hear, hear.) Did
they mean to establish in the Brazils protectors of the slaves ?
Was the Consul to be constantly receiving complaints and car-
rying them to the Government ? Could they, as the result of
such a state of things, expect anything but perpetual com-
plaints on the one side, and perpetual dislike and hostility on
the other ? When slavery existed in their West India colo-
nies, would they have permitted any foreign country to act as
the protector to the slave population 7—( Hear, hear.) lie
sincerely believed that if any foreign Power had had a right to
interfere and to make complaints to the British Government,
the effect would have been to unite one of the most powerful
of all feelings—the feeling of national pride, with the worst of
causes—the cause of slavery, while the abolition of slavery
would rather have been postponed than accelerated by such
interference.—( Hear.) At that hour he would not trespass
any longer on the attention of the House. He could not but
again express a hope that if Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite
conceived that the coffee and sugar duties must eventually be
altered, they should be wise in time, and not postpone till it
was:too late to attempt to restore the commercial relations of
this country with one of the most important countries in the
world.—( Cheers. )

Sir R. 'PEEL Said he promised the House that he would
make no observation which had not an immediate bearing on
the question under consideration ; and also that he would imi-
tate the general tone and temper in which the Right Hoe. Gen-
tleman who had just addressed them had discussed this subject.
He would not even follow him in his criticisms on the failure
in the estimates of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He
would not stop to inquire whether he himself was open to re-
crimination, though he did not know any one who should exer-
cise more tolerance in reference to erroneous estimates.—
( Hear, hear, and laughter.) The Right Hon. Gentleman said
it was particularly unfortunate that the Government had not,
some short time since, adopted a more liberal policy towards
the Brazils; and, to illustrate his meaning, he fixed upon a
period of two or three years. If the Right Hon. Gentleman
had mentioned three or four years, so as just to include the
year 1840—(Laughter)—that year, in which he had offered a
strenuous opposition to the proposal of the Hon. Gentleman
who had seconded the motion that evening, the House would
be equally able to form an opinion in reference to the delay.
—(Laughter.) Having thus dismissed any reference of a
personal nature, he must say that he thought the Right Hon.
Gentleman was hardly warranted in the statements which he
had made with reference to the diminished consumption in
sugar. It was impossible to come to a right conclusion in
reference to a question of this nature if they dismissed all re-
ference to figures. He begged to refer the House to the quan-
tity of sugar taken out for home consumption for several years
past. In 1837 the amount was 3,954,000 cwt. ; in 1838,
3,825,000 cwt. ; in 1839, 3,590,000 cwt. ; in 1840, 4,065,000
cwt. ; in 1842, 3,876,000 cwt. ; and in last year 4,045,000
cwt., being a greater consumption than had been known in
any former year, with the single exception of 1841, and
the increased consumption in that year was accounted
for by the deficient supply of the preceding one.
They had therefore this fact before them that in the year
ending the Ist January, 1844, the consumption of sugar in
this country was greater with one exception than in any pre-
ceeding year.—( Hear, hear.) Now did that increased con-
sumption lead to an increased price ?—( Hear, hear.) In
1837, the price of sugar was 395. 2d. per cwt. ; in 1840, 49:.;
in 1841, 38s. 3d. ; in 1842, 375. 3d. ; in 1843, 345. Id. ; so
that the year of the greatest consumption was coincident
with that of the lowest price. Therefore, in answer to the
criticisms of the Right Hon. Gentleman he had these two
facts, that in the last year there had been the greatest con-
sumption, and in the last vear there had also been the lowest
price.—( Hear, hear.) At the same time he was bound to
confess that he did not think these facts at all conclusive
against the probability of an increase in the consumption of
sugar was in consequence of the reduction of'duty. He thought
there was scarcely an article could be named the reduction of
the price of which would not add materially to the comforts of
the people.—( Hear, hear.) But Hon. Gentlemen should not
press into their service as an argument against the Govern-
ment, that the supply had diminished while the price had in-
creased, when the fact was, that the supply had increased and
the price diminished.
Mr. HAWES—Not quite.
Sir R. PEEL said he compared 1842 with 1813. Of course
there had been a slight increase in the population ; but he had
not taken a remote period. Now what was the Right Hon.
Gentleman's motion ?—( The Right Hen. Baronet here read
the words of the motion at length.) It would be an extra-
ordinary course for the House of Commons to select one
country, of all the countries in the civilized world, and present
an address to her Majesty on the importance of our trade with
that country.—( Hear, hear.) He did not wish to undervalue
the trade of Brazil, though he thought its importance had been
rather exaggerated. But why, he would ask, should the
House of Commons select Brazil in particular as the subject of
an address to her Majesty? Had it reference to recent nego-
tiations ? If it had, then he decidedly objected to the motion,
because it implied approbation of the course Brazil had pur-
sued. Brazil had made an offer to England. Now the manu-
factures of England were introduced into Brazil at a duty of
fifteen per cent. The proposition made by Brazil to this
country was—" You shall not impose a duty upon our sugar
when imported in England, when it shall exceed one-tenth of
the amount of duty levied on colonial sugar." That was to
say—" If you levy a duty of 105. on colonial sugar, we shall
protest against your imposing more than 1 Is. upon Brazilian
sugar—( Hear, hear)—but at the same time we demand this
from you, that you will permit us to raise the duty now
levied on British manufactures from 15s. to 40s."—( Cheers
and laughter.) That was the proposal made to this country
by Brazil, and that proposal this country rejected.—( Cheers. )
He hoped the House of Commons would not sanction a reso-
lution which implied that the proposition which lie had just
alluded to was a just and reasonable one. He should be sorry
to say one word that could be considered offensive to the Go-
vernment of Brazil—but more especially if negotiations should
be on the point of being entered into between this country and
the empire of Brazil. He should be sorry to say anything
which might imply that he believed that the Government of
Brazil were actuated by anything but friendly feelings to-
wards this country, and he hoped he had said no word which
could possibly be construed into an attempt to check the opera-
tion of that feeling. If they wanted to make Brazil unreason-
able—if they wanted to induce Brazil, in future negotiations,
to insist on all she had hitherto insisted upon, then would they
pass this resolution of the House of Commons, which would
have that particular bearing, if it had any meaning at all. In
what a position would they place the Government ! He pre-
sumed the House of Commons was not going to undertake ne-
gotiations? No ; the House of Commons was going to leave
to the Executive Government the duty of undertaking
and continuing the negotiations. By this resolution the House
of Commons would fetter the Executive Government, for this
address to the Crown, if it meant anything, implied approba-
tion of the course one party had taken, and that party adverse
to the propositions of the Government of this country. Would
not the Brazils say to the Government of this country, " You
are fettered—this is implied by the proceedings of the House of
Commons ; we insist on all we ask and have asked, for we have
before us a resolution of the House of Commons, which, by im-
plicatiun, conveys approbation of our proposals." He (Sir R.
Peel) earnestly advised the House of Commons to leave this mat-
ter in the hands of the Executive Government, and not encourage
the Brazils to persevere in unreasonable propositions. He
called upon them not tie up the hands of the Government.
The House of Commons had been invited to affirm this reso-
lution upon various arguments, and he thought that most of
those arguments had been effectively destroyed by his Right
Hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone). The Right Hon. Gentleman
who brought forward this motion, had appealed to the House
in the most solemn and emphatic manner, and he contrasted
the conduct of Germany with the conduct of England. The
Right Honourable Gentleman pointed to the course
adopted by the Zollverein. " There," he said, " are
your great manufacturing rivals your competitors,
in the markets of Brazil. Now the greatest facility is given by
the Zollverein for the importation of Brazilian produce, and
what is the system you have pursued ?" The Right Hon.
Gentleman invited the House of Commons to vote for this
address upon that statement, and upon the assumption that the
Zollverein imposed only a duty of 15s. per cent. upon sugar
imported from Brazil. Now his ( Sir R. Peel's) Right Hon.
Friend's answer to that was, that it was an entirely wrong
statement. The duty imposed by the Zollverein upon Brazilian
sugar was not 15s. per cent., but 275. per cent. The Right Hon.
Gentleman ( Mr. Labouchere ) then referred to some friendly trea-
ties which had been lately entered into, he said, between France
and Brazil, by which the manufactures of France were to be
admitted into Brazil at a low duty. He (Sir R. Peel) knew
the effect that was sought to be created by that statement, for
its contradiction would have little effect to-morrow. He could
only say, as the Minister of England, if such a treaty had been
signed at Paris, that no information of such a fact had reached
the Government of this country ; and if it had been signed, the
fact was wholly unknown to the French Ambassador residing
in this country.—( Cheers on the Ministerial side of the
House.) He ( Sir Robert Peel) must sa', when he recol-
lected the difficulties in which the Drench Government
were placed with respect to sugar, that he did not
think it probable that any treaties could have been signed for
admitting Brazilian sugar into France at a very low duty.
Now the Hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson) had
made some of the boldest statements he (Sir R. Peel) had ever
heard. The Hon. Gentleman said, " I give you warning ; the
commercial classes are all decidedly against you on this ques-
tion of imposing discriminating duties between sugar the pro-
duce of free labour and the produce of slave labour." He then
said, "I tell you that the Anti-Slavery Association are de-
cidedly averse to your view." He said, " They condemn the
whole system of armed intervention for the purpose of suppress-
ing the slave trade. Your armed steamers are odious to them,
for they do not want to inculcate morality by means
of discriminating duties." Now he (Sir Robert Peel)
expected that this argument would be used, and if he had been
told to name the man who would use it he would have named
the Hon. Member for Manchester.—(Cheers and laughter.)
He (Sir R. Peel) had, therefore, provided himself against this
statement. He happened fortunately to have a document in
his possession, recessed by himself from the Anti-Slavery So-
ciety within the last month. He hoped, therefore, that the
Hon. Gentleman would permit the Anti-Slavery Society to
speak for themselves. This document was addressed to him,
and was dated Feb. 9, 1844 :—" Sir,—The Committee of the
British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society deem it their duty
to lay before you their views in selation to a subject so inti-
mately connected with the great object of their proceedings--
the extension of the slave trade." He (Sir Robert
Peel) was perfectly willing to admit that part
of this communication confirmed the statement of
the Honourable Gentleman that the Anti-Slavery So.
ciety were not favourable to armed intervention as a means
of suppressing the slave trade. He would put this document
into his hand, and then the Hon. Gentleman could see whether
there was any passage in it he could find favourable to his own
views. The document went on to state that all experience
showed that the armed intervention only aggravated the evil of
slavery. Under the influence of that consideration they went
on—" The Committee present their earnest request to you, Sir
Robert, and her Majesty's Government, that a measure may be
prepared for admitting the free grown produce of all parts of
the world on the same terms as the produce of our colonies.
And the Committee desire and trust that no relaxation of the
existing duty on the produce of slave-labour will be allowed."
—(Cheers.) These were the opinions expressed by that Anti-
Slavery Society, which the Hon. Gentleman had told the
House of Commons were men who did not wish to inculcate
morality by means of discriminating duties between sugar the
produce of free-labour, and sugar the produce of slave-labour.
' Mr. M. GIBSON—I do not admit that that Committee re-
represents the Anti-Slavery Society.
Sir R. PEEL—But the Hon. Member wished to leave an
impression on the House that the Anti-Slavery Society were
opposed to all discriminating duties as a means of suppressing
slavery and the slave trade. Now, by whom was this letter
signed ? The Hon. Member said he did not admit the autho-
rity, but all he (Sir Robert Peel) could say, was that the com-
munication bore the venerable name of Thomas Clarkson.—
( Hear, hear.) He (Sir R. Peel) very much doubted whether
the Anti-Slavery Society would disclaim sentiments expressed
by such a person, and professed by every one connected with
the Anti-Slavery Society. Now, he did not say that all those
opinions which he had read ought to be binding on the Legis-
ture, and he did not mean to attach more weight to them than
they deserved, but he did protest against Hon. Gentle-
men invoking the authority of the Anti-Slavery Society
for the snpport of their own views, when it was
proved on the authority of the Anti-Slavery Society itself, that
their views were decidedly opposed to them. The Right Hon.
Gentleman who had brought forward this motion had intimated
that his object was to obtain a declaration from the Govern-
ment on the subject of the sugar duties. If his object VW to