The Sun.
London, England, 1821-05-05 00:00:00

DUTY ON SUGAR.

Lord STANLEY presented a petition from the Directors of
the Chambers of Commerce and Manufactures in Manchester,
• against the increased duty on East India Sugars.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER vindicate-1
the policy of laying a higher duty on East India sugars than on
those made in the West 'lndia colonies.
After a few observations from Mr. BERNAL, the petition
was brought up and read.
Lord STANLEY, in reply to the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, supported the prayer of the petition.
Mr. RICARDO objected altogether to the principle of this
tax, which recognised the policy of giving the produce of one
country a preference to that of another.
Mr. G. BE should like to know why the consumer
in this country should pay one shilling more for sugar to the
West India colonies than he could purchase it for in any other
market.—(Hear, hear.)—lt was intolerable that the people of
Great Britain should be called upon to pay an additional price
to persons who had invested their capital in a traffic in human
flesh.—(Hear, hear !)—He wos equally inclined to stand up
for the people of England against the land-holder, who claimed
a pretesting price for grain against the ship-owner and lumber-
man, who wished to supply the . consumer with timber of in-
ferior quality and higher price, in order to give employment to
their chips—and against the West India trader, who wished to
exclude from the British markets all sugars but those of the
West India colonies.
• Mr. GORDON observed, that the principles contained in his
Hon. Friend's Lecture on Political Economy, might be very
well suited to a Utopian system of Government, but the appli-
cation of them would be found altogether impracticable in the
H circumstances of this country. e complained of the terms
dealers in human flesh" which his Hon. Friend had applied
to the West India Merchants.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained.
Mr. BARHAM observed, that if many severe restrictions
had been imposed on the West India Colonies, in order to fa-
y= other ports of the Empire, it was but fair that such re-
strictions should be made in favour of these Colonies as would
allow them to exist'. He defended the West India Merchants
With warmth from the imputation which his Hon. Friend (Mr.
Bennet) had thrown out against them,
_and expressed his be-
lief, that when his Hon. Friend reflected on the cruel injustice
of the language he had used, he would be disposed to re-
tract it.
Mr. BERNAL, with all the respect he had for the humae
nity of his Hon. Friend, wondered that he should allow the
• heat of the moment to delude his understanding. He was con-
-vinced that if his Hon. Friend inquired into the system of slave
:management, he would find it to be one of humanity, His
lion. Friend must know that the language he had used would
go abroad, and operate to the prejudice of the West India
-traders ; and therefore lie trusted he would retract the asperity
4.)f the. expression which he had applied to them.
Mr. BENNET did not believe, from all the inquiries he had
made, that the system of the slave management was one of hu-
manity. To many individuals who were concerned in the West
India trade his observations were not intended to apply : for
instance, of his Hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Barham), whose
feelings seemed to be the most hurt, he could have no hesitation
to say that he believed nothing could be more humane than his
. tondutt in every respect.--(Hear, hear !)—But he would main-
tain to the last moment of his existence, that the system of em-
ploying slaves was founded on a principle that could not be re-
conciled to humanity.
Mr. GORDON said that since his Honourable Friend would
rot retract, he should not speak on subjects which he did not
understand.
Si: R. WILSON had been in countries where slavery ex-
isted. ; and his conviction was that the system was cruel in the
extreme, and the sooner it was abolished the better,
. Dr. LUSHINGTON observed, that where slavery was tole-
rated it was, impossible that the principles of humanity should
roe 'he occasionally violated. Against individuals connected
with the West India trade his Honourable Friend (Mr. Ben.
net) had thrown out no charge, but against the principles of the
slave system, which must ever be productive of human misery ;
a td tnat opinion he (Dr. Lushington) should ever express
when an opportunity occurred.
The petition was then ordered to be printed.
• BULL BAITING.
Lord STANLEY presented another petition from the Ma-
gistrates and Inhabitants of the town of Rochdale, against the
pradtice of Bull Baiting.
Mr. WILBRAIIAM supported the prayer of the petition,
and_ mentioned several accidents which had been caused by the
practice complained of.—The petition was ordered to be printed.
CRIMINAL LAW.
After a short conversation between Mr. F. BUXTON' and
the Marquess of LONDONDERRY, and an understanding that
the delay was not to be urged as an argument against the mea-
sure; the second reading of the Forgery Punishment Mitigation
Bill, the Dwelling House Robbery Bill, and the Navigable
Rivers Robbery Bill, was postponed to the 16th inst.
On the motion of Dr. LUSHINGTON, an Address was or-
derisi to be presented to his Majesty, for various Papers, spe-
cifying the sums paid by his Majesty's Government to the
Governments and the subjects of Spain and Portugal, as con-
nected with the abolition of the Slave Trade by those coun-
tries, &c.