The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-17 00:00:00

we passed an Act enforcing additional penalties
against the application of British capital in
countries where the slave trade was carried on.
By that Act the House conferred very considerable
powers upon the Executive to visit with heavy penal-
ties all persons subject to the control of the British
Crown, who might use their capital for the purpose
of giving encouragement to the slave trade. We
have, indeed, for years, by the whale tenor of our
policy, given conclusive proof of our intention of go-
verning by different principles that branch of
our trade in which slave labour is by other countries
employed to those which generally prevail over
and guide the general commerce of this country.
When, in opposition, we supported those who were
then in power—l refer to the year 1839—in resist-
ing a proposal which was made by the Honourable
Member for Dumfries, the effect of which would
have been to reduce the protective duties,
upon foreign sugar, as compared with British colonial
sugar, to an amount of twelve shillings. That pro-
posal was resisted by the Noble Lord opposite (Lord
J. Russell) and his colleagues, upon grounds on
which he will do me the justice to say I
have never mentioned with anything. approach-
ing to a taunt—which I have never considered
as imposing any impediment to a reconsideration of
the sugar duties, and which I have never referred to
excepting for this purpose—to show that a very high
and respected authority did entertain the opinions I
have now expressed, that, upon the sugar question,
Parliament should be guided by different principles
than those which generally governed it in dealing with
the other great commercial questions. When the
Right Hon. Gentleman, I refer to (Mr. Labouchere)
was met with the argument as to cotton and coffee,
his reply was that he was not prepared to say that the
course of legislation he suggested was consistent with
the broad principle which usually governed
our commercial transactions, that it should
be borne in mind that the ten articles
referred to did not come into competition with the
free labour of our own colonies—and that it would
not then do to interfere with the success of the great
experiment then in operation, by opening the flood-
gates to a supply of foreign sugar which might
inundate the British markets, and materially
interfere with the prospect of success to
the great cause of emancipation of the slaves.
We considered these views to be well founded, and
we acted upon them when opposed to the Right Hon.
Gentlemen opposite. These views appear to have
received the sanction of a very high authority—of
a gentleman, whose name I have never mentioned
in this House, without accompanying it with my
expressions of respect for his authority —I
mean the late Mr. Deacon Hume.—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. Hume, the advocate of the complete removal of
all restrictions—the decided opponent of the protec-
tive system—the authority who, of all others, had ex-
pressed his positive opinion in favour of unrestricted
commerce, and of the abolition of all protection—Mr.
Hume had excepted articles the produce of slavery
and the slave trade, as not coming properly under
the consideration of our commercial legislation.
"It is now thirty years ago," said Mr. Hume,
that you abolished the slave trade—you have now
abolished slavery. I cannot therefore believe that
any question of free trade can arise between Jamaica
and Cuba. Cuba has not only an abundant and
fruitful soil, it has not only the advantage, if it can
be called an advantage, of slavery, but it is notorious
that from 40,000 to 50,000 slaves are imported
into that island every year. It is, therefore,
impossible that the question of trade between
Cuba and the British plantations can ever come in
the category of free trade." Such were the opinions
of Mr. Deacon Hume in 1840, and I think that it
would be unjust to expose the British planter, who
has neither the advantage of slavery or the
slave trade, to the competition of Brazil and Cuba—
countries possessing a virgin soil more fitted by
nature for the production of sugar than any other
country. Ido not think that it would be proper
to expose the British planter to the competition of
those countries. We have had most convincing proofs
that hitherto all our efforts for the suppression of the
.slave trade to Cuba and the Brazils have proved inef-
fectual. The public mind in those countries is not
awakened to the frightful horrors of that traffic ;
and although the competition with Manilla and
China, where sugar is raised by free labour,
might be a fair competition, yet to expose him
to a competition with Brazil and Cuba would
be most unjust to the British planter. It was
but very recently that the House of Commons
came to an unanimous decision, declaring that expense
was to be a subordinate consideration to the suppres-
sion of the slave trade. We are of opinion that the
opening of the British market to sugar the produce of
Cuba and Brazil would give an increased encourage.
ment to the slave trade, as carried on between those
countries and the coast of Africa. We therefore en-
tertain an opinion that, after the decision of the House
of Commons, it would be inconsistent to give that en-
couragement. lam not insensible to the arguments
—at least, I attach their due weight to them—which
attempt to show that the opening of the markets of
England to sugar, the produce of free labour, would
indirectly give encouragement to sugar, the produce
of slave labour, 'in Cuba and Brazil. Buti I cannot
help entertaining the conviction that the encourage-
ment of free-labour sugar will ultimately tend to
prove that free-labour sugar can compete favourably
with that grown by slaves, and thus, indirectly,
if not directly, it will act against slavery.
These are the general grounds upon which
we still entertain the opinion that, although
it may be said with referen se to the West Indian
interests, to admit a limited and qualified competition
with free-labourlsugar, yet we think it dangerous to
admit, as my Hon. Friend proposes, this sugar at a
differential duty of 10s. We think that admission
would be inconsistent with the course this country
had taken, and the declarations the House had made
on the subject of the slave trade. With these opinions
the question upon which we had to decide at the
commencement of the present year was this—
what course shall we pursue with respect
to the admission of free-labour sugar ? Now,
of course, Sir, I do not mean to ask any gen-
tleman to give up the opinions which he has formed
as to the policy of pursuing a different course. I
only assumed that our opinions were correct, and on
that assumption it is I argued that there ought to be
a discriminating or distinctive amount of duty. I
ask, Sir, what course consistent with that opi-
nion, and with the admission of foreign sugar,
can we pursue ? As bearing on this question
an important event will shortly occur. On the
10th of Nov., 1844, the existing treaty with Brazil will
cease. Previous to that day it would be most diffi-
cult for that Government to do away with the discri-
minating duties. Entertaining the opinions which I
have avowed, I have thought it right to adopt a dif-
ferent course, for Brazil is entitled to have her pro-
duce admitted into her Majesty's dominions on the
footing of the most favoured nations nor could the
:title of Brazil to that equality ;be affected by
any alteration in our relations with other countries ;
she has a clear right that her produce shall be in-
troduced on the same footing as that of Java, Ma-
nilla, and Siam, but on the 10th of November that
state of things will cease. Therefore, at the com-
mencement of the year, in considering what course it
was our duty to pursue, we came to the conclusion,
that the alteration which we have proposed
was the only one which we could adopt.
It had been said that instead of post-
poning the consideration of the great questions
which must be considered before the expiration of the
treaty, we should have declared our general financial
and commercial policy in the present session, and
that we should have declared our intentions as to the
renewal or continuance of the income-tax, and the
reduction of the duties on the importation of foreign
produce, but we thought that before we asked
the House to take into consideration the important
question of the renewal and continuance of the in-
come-tax, we should be possessed of the fullest ex-
perience as to the effects of those alterations in the
Customs' duties, which took place in 1842,
at the time the income-tax was proposed.
Many of those were not to have effect till a recent
period, and before the question for the renewal of
the income tax it would be advantageous that the
House should know what had been the result of those
reductions of the Customs duties. In the case of the
important alteration of the timber duties, the total
amount of reduction did not take place till October
last. There was, therefore, but a limited period in
which to determine the effect of the reduction on
timber. There have been also for months past de.
cisive indications of increased demand for in.

dustry ; of greater employment amongst
the manufacturing and working classes gene-
rally ; indications, I think, that cannot be ques-
tioned, of returning prosperity as far as trade and
manufactures are concerned. I expressed an earnest
wish to the House that those indications of returning
prosperity might be significant of their permanence;
but at the same time, we have on former occa-
sions been deceived by appearances of prosperity,
so that they cannot be perfectly relied on. That
constituted a decisive reason why, before we
took a revision of the whole commercial policy
of the country, with a view of abandoning the income-
tax, or whatever else we might think advisable, we
thought it advantageous that time should elapse to
decide upon the effect of the measures we have passed.
Another and more conclusive reason for postponing till
next year the consideration of the tariff was, that we
had every reason to believe that in the present session
we should call the attention of the House to two other ,

great financial questions, which. would probably
press for immediate consideration. The one was a
reduction of the interest on Three-and-a-Half-per
Cent. Stock, by far the greatest operation effected in
modern times, the failure of which would be to every
interest the most unfortunate. The other was a pro-
position of great importance, which I, as the organ
of the Croverupg;t, muted to the klousa..tl2e ,

renewal of the Bank Charter, the regulation of
joint-stock -banks, and the regulation of the paper
circulation. At the commencement of 'the
session we foresaw that there was every prospect
that both of these must undergo alterations,
and we thought it was not desirable, seeing also the
mass of legislation which was left undisposed in the
course of last session, and which was pressed forward
on the present, that it was necessary to impose a re-
duction on the 3} per cent. stock, and that it was also
Becessary to propose a measure for the regulation of
the Bank Charter to call the attention of the House
to other measures of great commercial importance,
and the question of the renewal of the Income tax.
There was a third reason also for posponing the mea-
sure, which to our minds was conclusive. How
were we to deal with this question of the admission
of foreign sugar. To propose the continuance of the
income-tax, and to make no proposal on the subject of
sugar would probably not have conciliated the
support of tho House of Commons. It would,
I think, have been expected that on pro-
posing the renewal of the income-tax, some proposal
by her. Majesty's Government, in respect to the sugar
dutiekinust be made. I doubt whether the House of
Commons would not almost have considered a pro-
posal with respect to the sugar duties a necessary
condition of the renewal of the income-tax. It was
impossible for us, pending the treaty with Brazil, to
make 'that proposal. Supposing, in the month of
March, we had brought on the questions of the in-
come-tax and the sugar-duties, and had not, at
the same time, proposed any considerable reduction
of the duties on sugar, Brazil would have been enti-
tled, until the month of November 1844, to share in
all the advantages of the renewal, and
would have made a plausible claim to admit
her sugar into the market of this country, with
the advantage of whatever reduction might have
been made. Now, from the combined operation of
those three reasons, I think any Gentleman
who permits me to assume that we are right in
making a distinction between free-labour sugar and
slave=Molir sugar, will ;lama that we had no alter-
native tut to postpone the consideration of any very
extenstve measure in respect to the sugar duties
until our discretion was unfettered, so far as Brazil
was concerned, by the termination of the treaty. We
therefore did resolve deliberately not to ask the House
to pronounce an opinion in the course of this session,
in respect to the continuance of the sugar duties.
At the same time, we felt it to be eur duty to make a
proposition to the House upon the subject of the sugar
duties. We saw indications of a rise in price. The
price of sugar at the commencement of the spring
was about 2s. higher than the average of the last two
years. • There were, then, reasons to apprehend
that there might be a deficient supply. In the
month of November,
,1844, the period would arrive
when. we should be at liberty to deal with the ques-
tion of free-labour sugar. The only monopoly that
remains, almost, is that of sugar.—(Suppressed
laughter, and cries of "Corn, corn.") Ido not wish
to provoke a discussion. I wish studiously to avoid
saying anything which is capable of contradiction in
the way of argument, and, still more, anything which
can provoke angry feeling.—(Hear.) But, certainly,
of the great articles of consumption in this country,
the only one with respect to which there is almost
unqualified monopoly, is the article of sugar. On
the article of foreign sugar there is a duty of
three guineas, which operates as an exclusion.
We thought, therefore, it was our duty to avail ourselves
of the earliest opportunity of proposing a measure
which, without being detrimental to the interests of
Brazil, might be of advantage to the community
at large, without injury to the revenue, and
which would have the effect of breaking
down monopoly, by admitting sugar, the
produce of free labour, at a duty something
above that on which colonial sugar was in-
troduced, and we thought that such a measure
should not be delayed past the 10th of Novem-
ber. We thought that if, at this period of
the year, there is an increased demand for
sugar, and, there should be a deficiennt sup-
ply—Nyo thOught if prices should rise, in eon-
sequence 'of increased demand, the West Indian
interests could not be benefited by any such rise in
price, and we thought, therefore, that it would be
better for the interests of all parties to take security
against such an event as that of a scarcity of sugar,
by admitting sugar the produce of free labour at the
duty we proposed. We had another reason for dealing
with this question in the present session. He wished
the producers of free labour sugar to know what the
intentions of Parliament were—whether it intended
to confine the competition with Colonial and free la-
bour sugar, or between Colonial sugar and that pro-
duced by slave labour. It was also our anxious wish to
take security against increased prices, notwithstanding
the discussion that has taken place we adhered to the
opinions we have hitherto
_expressed, believing that
the measure we proposed will not be injurious to the
revenue, will be advantageous to the consumer,
and likely to be productive of the best inte•
rests of the West Indian proprietors themselves.
On submitting, however, to the consideration of the
House, the measure on sugar duties determined upon
by the Government, the Noble Lord opposite (Lord
John Russell) assuming our distinctive sums as
between colonial sugar and foreign sugar not the
produc of slave labour proposed, that the
duty of 345. should be applied indiscriminately
without reference to the source whence the sugar
might come. The Noble Lord took a division upon
that proposition, and our measure was affirmed by a
considerable majority. At a subsequent state of the
proceedings we were met by a counter proposition
on the part of the West India party. It
was proposed by an Honourable Friend of mine,
the Member for Bristol (Mr. Miles,) that there
should be a departure from the scheme of the Go-
vernment—that instead of the relative amount of
w e
a e.;
proposed,
should duties bbeein
and that with respect to a
certain clayed sugar, there should be a discriminating
duty to the extent of 48. We had proposed
g2O as
s. and 0
that the discriminating duty should upon all
sugars be 10s. ; he proposed a protection to
the amount of 14s.—(Hear, hear.) Her Majesty's
Government have considered the proposal of my Hon.
Friend—acting, I shall say, not under the influence
of temper caused by being in a minority—but upon a
careful and dispassionate view of the whole subject—
they have considered it one to which they cannot
give in 'their adhesion.—(Expressions of surprise.)
That proposal of my Hon. Friend—supported accord-
ing to some understanding by—(Cries of " No,"
" no," and expressions of surprise)—l don't say Hon.
Members were under any obligation to vote—(Hear,
hear)—but I certainly was given to understand that
that proposal of my Hon. Friend (Mr. Miles) was to
receive the support of the other side of the House.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman is under no such
obligation; he expressed his opposition. I do not
say that on the other side there is any general obliga-
tion to-support the proposition of my Hon. Friend—
(Hear, hear)—but I say that many Hon. Gentlemen
opposite preferred supporting the motion of my Hon.
Friend to supporting the proposition of her Ma-
jesty's Government.—(Hear, hear.) I do not say
that there was any general disposition on the part of
all Hon. Gentlemen opposite, but certainly there was
a disposition on the part of many to support that
motion.—(Hear, hear.) Her Majesty's Government,
after a serious' consideration of the subject, notwith-
standing that vote, have not changed their former
opinion, and are not prepared to adopt
the motion of my Hon. Friend. We are not prepared
to acquiesce in that motion ; for, on addditional and
more mature consideration of that proposition, we
think that our original proposition is preferable to it.
—(Hear, hear.) My Hon. Friend proposes that after
the 20th of November next a, prospective reduction
of the duty shall take place. 1,-think the proposition
for the reduction of the duty to take place at a
distant day is most objectionable. The consumer
will derive no advantage whatever from it, and the
West India interests will not be benefited by the
increase of price. The period between this and the
10th of November is a most critical time in
the sugar trade, on account of the increased
demand for sugar for the preservation of
fruit. This will, I think, give rise to an in-
oreased price, on account of the unwillingness of
the retailers to take out a supply of that article at the
present duty, when they know that in the month
of November a reduction will take place I do
not think that the West Indian interests will be
benefited by it, because the retailers of sugar will
refuse to increase the supply so as to meet the
demands of the public. The only effect pro-
duced by the proposition of my Hon. Friend would
be to increase the profits of the growers and retail
dealers of sugar, who had stock on hand. I wish
shortly to draw the attention of the House
to what took place in 1842, when we pro-
posed a reduction in the timber duties. We

were induced, in consequence of the representa-
tions of the parties interested, to forego our
first proposition, which was. for an immediate
reduction of those duties; and, in order to give the
holders time to dispose of their stocks on hand,
to postpone the reduction until October, 1843, when
it was certainly known that there would be a great
reduction in the duties on timber. The measure of
reduction was to receive completion, and the per-
manent duty to take effect on that day, the sth of
October, 1843. I have compared the effect of this
change on the timber duty, on the demand, and on
the public revenue. I have compared the amount of
duty received in the quarter ending the sth of
January, 1842, with the corresponding quarter,
between the 10th of October, 1843, and the sth of
January, 1844. I omit the quarter of 1842.
because the duties were then in & ?state of change,
and I conssdered the fairest period with which to
make a comparison was tai ''quarters
of 1841 and
1843. In the quarter ending the 10th of October,
1841, the total amount of timber duty received by
the Exchequer was 646,000 t. Ver the flung