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

those feelings of reciprocity which seemed to he anticipated.
It had been said that it would tend to increase the trade and
commerce of the country. Such high and heavy duties had
been placed upon many articles of our manufactures by the
Brazilian authorities as acted completely as protective
duties. As much as 60 per cent. had been announced
on sonic articles, and this would be most surely
a light protective duty on those goods, but the
Brazilian Government had taken care not to pledge them-
selves to abide by this high rate. Such were the protec-
tive views of the Brazils, and even if her Majesty's Govern-
ment were prepared to set aside every consideration of sluts:cry,
it would be perfectly hopeless to adopt the system suggee-ed ;
and that it would, in a commercial point of view, be injurious
to this country. There was another point alluded to by also
Right Hon. Gentleman. He had spoken to the liberal manner
in which Brazil was treated, in a trading point of view, by
other countries, and more particularly by America. Now he
( Mr. Gladstone) could not concur in the view of the case taken
by that Right Hon. Gentleman. He could not admit that
anything which had been done by the English Government
was a ground of complaint, on the part of the Brazilians, either
as regarded sugar or coffee. With respect to Germany, it was
an error to say that the Zollverein was favourable to the free
n y
had
theOn
b een increased.—(contrary, t h dutiesH earu p)
on
Inugthaer
imported importation
case of France there was a great difficulty—there were two
into ofG sugar.erma
difficulties. France had to protect the home production of
• ers.
sugar from the beet-root against the colonial sugar,and protect
the colonial sugar against the competition of foreign
( Hear, hear.) The duty fluctuated from 35 to 65 franc..
'The trade of France with Brazil was upon as unfavourable a
footing as that of Brazil with England. The commerce of
Brazil depended altogether upon British trade, and was carried
on almost exclusively by British capital.
Whilst he disap-
proved of the protective duties, he thought that this justice
ought to be done to her Majesty's Government, thet whilst
they did not attempt to interfere with the Brazilisut Go-
vernment in the managemeet of their own financial ,affairs,
they had not neglected the interests of this country whet' they
could legitimately promote them.—( Hear, hear.) He hoped
that the House was not prepared to support a motion which
had regard merely to commercial advantages, but that they
would look more liberally to the interests of mankind.
Mr. M. GIBSON said that this question had not been fairly
met. The Right Hon. Gentleman opposite had shown that
the trade with Brazil was of great importance to this country.
It was complained of the Brazilians that they put a duty upon
British colonial sugar. But it was not stated that we put
on a duty of three hundred per cent. upon foreign
sugar.—( Hear, and cheers.) The fault was much more
with us than with them. The Brazilians had declared that
they would admit the productions of all countries upon equal
terms. We heard a great deal about slavery and the slaste
trade. A Noble Lord opposite had taunted his colleagues with
being thimble-riggers--( Hear, and laughter)—but the rig that
was practised by the present Government partook much more
than anything done by their predecessors of the character of
thimble-rigging. They talked one day of slavery, and the
next the slave trade, until it became difficult to know under
what thimble the pea was. He said the Right Hon. Gentle.
man the First Lord of the Treasury spoke of putting down
slavery in the Brazils. Was he aware of any power in Brazil
to put it down ? If he was not aware of such a power, he was
misleading the public and the House by professing to have
the intention of putting down slavery in South America.
But, did not every reasonable man in that House, and in the
country, know perfectly well that it was not slavery and the
slave.trade that prevented Hon. Gentlemen opposite from
equalising the duties on foreign and colonial sugar ? There
was not a man, woman, or child that gave them credit for any
such motive. Why, who were they that talked so authorita-
tively, and in such deprecating terms, of slavery ? It was but
the other day when they thnmselves were slave-owners—when
they stood by slavery as firmly and as fast as they did by
colonial sugar now. Their real object was seen through.
Their object, from the first, was monopoly, and monopoly
was their object now. If they meant to prohibit foreign
sugar altogether, why did they not do so openly? and, above
all, why delude them with the idea that the time might come
when these differential duties could be equalised ? If the time
was really to come with them, what better time could there be
than the present? But the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
Gladstone) went the length, plainly and openly, of saying that
we must protect our own colonies. Protect out of their own
means, if they liked ; but he (Mr: Gibson) protested against
protecting the colonies at the expense of the industrious
consumers and ever-toiling manufacturers of this country.—
( Hear, hear.) Now, he would ask that Right Hon. Gentle.
man, who, be believed, was himself a West Indian proprietor
—he would ask him, if he went to Manchester to buy a bale
of goods, would he like to give more for that bale of goods
than a Brazilian ?
Mr. GLADSTONE—No.
Mr. M. GIBSON—Very well. Then why should the Man-
chester manufacturer be called upon to give to the West India
manufacturer, or producer of sugar, half as much more for his
hogshead of sugar than he would have to give the Brazilian
proucer ? But, he asked, did protection do the West India
colonies any good? Had it ever done them any good? The
West India planters pretended they were in great distress, and
so he (Mr. Gibson) contended they ever would be whilst they
relied upon protection. They said that the emancipation of
the slaves had greatly distressed them, and that from that period
and that circumstance they were not able to get a proper
supply of labour. Now, he (Mr. Gibson) believed it was ge-
nerally understood, that with regard to that branch of the slave
subject the question was settled. That emancipation was paid
for, and that the account was closed.—( Hear, hear.) And he
believed, teo, it was so closed that they could not
open it again. The matter was thoroughly looked
into, well weighed, fully discussed—a balance of twenty
millions was struck against the country ; the country paid the
twenty millions, and he repeated, that account could never
again be epened.—( Hear, hear.) How long, however, did
they propose to maintain these duties? Would twenty year.
satisfy them, or thirty years, or forty years—would eternity
itself satisfy them? No—it would not. So long as they had
the power—( Hear, hear)—so long as they could maintain
them, no excuse would be wanting. That they would be ever
ready with, on the other side of the House.—( Hear, hear.)
But they had another excuse—systems could not be easily
altered. Why the bad legislation of former days was no war•
rant for them to do wrong to the manufacturers of this country
now. It was no answer to their just complaints and remon.
strances, to say there was bad legislation in former times.
They asked that House what they had done, that their rights,
their capital, and their industry should be sacrificed as they
were now sacrificed ? What crime had they committed—what
wrong done—that they should be treated in this way ? This
was essentially a question of justice ; but in that House they
seemed to take it for granted that persons were to make mighty
sacrifices at the shrine of monopoly, and to ferego the fair and
just reward of their own industry, that those who toiled not
should live in luxury and sloth.—( Hear, hear.) Let it be
recollected that at the period when these laws were passed, the
people were not represented in that House—it was a mere
boroughmongering House, and all the laws passed by it were
passed by a particular class, in favour of a particular class. And
it was no answer to the industrious people of this country, who
had committed no crime, and done no wrong—it was no an-
swer—at least no proper answer—to their murmurs to say that,
because a great blunder and a great injustice bad been com-
mitted by the Legislature years ago, they must be its con-
tented victims now. There was no better time for remedying
this injustice than the present, as was proved by the petition he
had, in the earlier part of the evening, presented to that House,
from the Chamber of Commerce at Manchester. This pe-
tition distinctly stated that the manufacturers and met.•
chants of the country had been compelled greatly to di.
minish their exports to Brazil, because they could not
get a fair return, on account of the differential duties on sugar
and coffee. Hitherto Brazil had put a duty of fifteen per
cent. only on the cotton goods of this country, whilst thin
country put a duty of three hundred per cent. on the sugars of
Brazil. For this state of things :there was but one remedy,
and that was the equalisation of duties on foreign and colonial
• sugars. He (Mr. Gibson) considered that the Right Hon.
• Gentleman (Mr. Labours was entitled to the gratitude
of the country for having brought this subject before the
• House. His interference was clearly justified, and, in his

opinion, whether followed with success or not, this debate
would, with others, make the country see the impolicy of
these monopolies, and create a feeling in all classes of the corn.
munity which it would be impossible for the Minister
ultimately to resist.—( Hear, hear.) To show again that the
present was the proper time to correct the blunders of the past
he begged to call the Right Hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Glad-
stone's) attention to the state of the question as it now stood.
The sugar duties were about to expire—they would expire of
themselves. They were about to die, and could only be re•
suscitated by a new Bill to be brought into that House, and
carried into an Act. He now told them plainly, that if they
attempted in their new Bill to put their sugar duties on their
present principle—the principle of exclusion—the Government
would be met with the most strenuous opposition. It was per-
fectly intolerable that the poor and industrious of this
country were to be excluded from the use of foreign
sugar. At the present moment in England they
did not consume more sugar than they consumed forty
years ago. Rapidly as the population had increased—
greatly as our wealth, nationally speaking, had been augmented
—the people did not use per head one ounce more sugar than
they did forty years ago; the artisan and the labourer con-
sumed no more, no, nor yet so much, as was allowed to the
pauper in the workhouse. And, therefore, he gave fair notice
that the Bill for renewing the sugar duties, which must be
brought in, would be opposed, not clause by clause, but almost
word by word. It was right to do this, and those opposite
could not, in their hearts, blame them for it; it was the only
way they had of battling with a monopoly which they had
themselves in principle condemned. They would be opposed
upon it on every stage ; not merely en the first reading but on
the second reading ; on the question that they do go into
Committee, on every clause and almost every word in Com-
mittee; on the third reading, and on the question that the
Bill do pass.—( Hear.) Their slavery delusion would avail them
no longer in the country. Its utter hypocrisy had been seen
through. Even the Anti-Slavery Society had found them out,
and would countenance them no longer. They were now opposed
to the paltry pretences which were used merely to delude them
and the country, and they were opposed to making the people
moral and religious at the point of the bayonet, and at the ex-
pense of the commerce and the industry of the country. He
told the Government no longer to look for support from the
advocates for the abolition of slavery.—( Hear, hear.) He
could tell the Noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool (Lord
Sandon) that he must never again look for that support from his
constituents on this question that ho had heretofore met
with. His constituents had given up that ground of opposition
to an equalisation of the sugar duties as a most transparent
deceit.—( Hear, hear.) Be could tell the Noble Lord he
must not consider he now represented the merchants,
tradesmen, and manufacturers of Liverpool.—( Hear, hear. )
He felt convinced if they were to analyse the poll-books of the
town-clerk they would find that the Noble Lord and his
colleagues did not represent the majority of the shopkeepers,
manufacturers, and traders of Liverpool, but that they repre.
sented a class of men who stood forward in support of the party
who paid them best.—(Hear, hear.) He did not mean to ac-
cuse the electors of Liverpool or the Members for that
borough of being guilty of bribery and corruption, but
there was that feeling existing in the town of Liverpool
It would appear from the Members that Liverpool returned to
that House that they were in favour of monopoly. Such, how.
ever, was not the case, and he believed that the day would
come—indeed that it was not far distant—when the Noble Lord
would have to modify his opinions with respect to free trade,
to meet the wishes of his constituents, and he would be ex-
pected, on the sugar duties coming under discussion, to take a
prominent part in the matter. He would be called
on to say whether he was or not in favour of keeping out of the
markets of this country foreign sugar, and whether he was
favourable to commercial relations between this country and
• Brazils. The law, as it at [present stood, prevented the manu-
facturers in this country from exchanging their manufactures
for the sugars of the Brazil and other countries. In short, the
protective system was the root and cause of all the difficulties
that had taken place, and the only chance they had was to
enable the West Indian proprietors to call out a spirit of in-
creased production. Lord Elgin commented most strongly
upon the manner in which the agriculture of the West Indian
islands had been carried on, and had stated that if parties in the
country had exerted themselves as they ought have done,
they might have produced twice as muchas they did at pre.
sent. The Hon. Member concluded amid much cheering.
Lord SANDON regretted that the Hon. Member for Man-
chester had thought it worth his while to introduce into this im-
nortant debate the petty politics he had alluded to. He (Lord
iSandon thought he might have argued this great question
without making the assertions he had done, because these
assertions were perfectly unfounded. The Hon. Member for
Manchester had, more than once, made the same charge
in that House, and it bad failed. He had more than