The Sun.
London, England, 1845-02-27 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TIITTRSD AY MORNING, FEBR r'ARY 27, 1815.

duty that which is the produce of slave labour. And
with regard to cotton, you are going to take off the
whole duty this year, and you do not propose to make
any distinction between that which is raised by
the labour of slaves in foreign possessions and
that which is raised in the East Indies, and else-
where, by free labour.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, I find, ac-
cording to those who are the greatest opponents of
slavery—philanthropists who take this view—that we
ought to discourage all productions of slave labour.
These persons admit that we cannot exclude alto-
gether the products of slave labour, yet still some
of them regard with dissatisfaction the encourage-
ment which is given to slave-grown coffee and cotton.
But, in point of fact, you cannot discourage slave labour,
for although you profess to limit yourselves only to the
produce of free labour, yet, if the distinction could be
kept up—if your Custom-house regulations could
be so maintained that none but free-labour
produce should be admitted—still the free-labour
sugar, kept from the market of the world for
your supply, would be replaced in the market of the
world by the slave-grown sugar which you excluded.
The reply to this was of a very refined nature, and I
own I think not a very successful one. It was, that you
would in fact make a difference of price in the markets
of the world between free and slave-labour sugar ;
that the free-labour sugar of Java and
other countries would command a better price
than slave labour sugar, in consequence of your
restriction. I do not think that this will be the case, for
supposing the whole consumption of sugar to be 670,000
tons,lifyou takeaway 20,000 tons for the consumption of the
continent, as there is no difference made on the continent
between free-labour and slave-grown sugar,the probability
is that the greater part of the want thus created will be
supplied by the sugar of Cuba and Brazil, which admits
of great extension, and that this 20,000 tons additional
will be the produce of slave labour. But in the next
place there was this difficulty in the project
you proposed, that you could not in point
of fact, confine your consumption to the free-
labour sugar of foreign countries. You had certain
treaties with foreign Powers by which you bad agreed
to admit their articles on the same terms as those of the
most favoured nations ; therefore, you could not exclude
the produce of those countries consistently with
the maintenance of those treaties. There ars, se-
veral countries which come into this catalogue ;
and the fact as accorded with the argument then ad-
vanced, that you would not effectually exclude slave-
labour sugar, for the only sugar, and that but a small
quantity, which has been imported under the Act of
last year, was said to be the sugar of Venezuela, and
was, in fact, sugar produced by slave labour. I have
heard various statements with regard to this slave-grown
sugar. Some say it has been recognised as the sugar of
Porto Rico, others say it is the sugar of Surinam or Bra-
zil. But those I have seen on this subject generally agree
thatit was not the sagar of Venezuela, but sugar
which by some fraud or other was passed as Venezuelan
into this country.—(Hear.) This is but a single in-
stance, but it has happened very early in the course of
your experiment. It has happened to early, that it has
preceded any of those importations for the sake of
which you altered the law. Now, if this
is the case already, what may you expect from
the whole of the next ten years, for instance, if you
preserve this distinction ? What can you expect but
this—that ingenious persons will contrive schemes by
which they may more effectually evade your regulations,
and that the sugars of Brazil and Cuba will be sent
to the ports of Venezuela and other ports, where
they may find a eonsul who is not suspicious)
or Custom house authorities, who are open to a bribe,
and by this means constantly evade the provisions you
have made for the exclusion of any sugar that is not
the produce of free labour. If this be the case,
then I submit that it is impracticable to keep
up this distinction. You are attempting that
which is contrary to the nature of things—
you are attempting that which you cannot follow out in
practice. I will not say that there has been any hy-
pocrisy in this proposal, as I do not wish to use any ar-
gument of that sort ; but admitting and giving every
credit for good intentions, as much as was claimed, it is
not a proposal that can be carried into effect, and it is
impossible that your regulations can actually exclude that
slave-grown sugar which you propose to exclude.
It is hardly worth arguing this question again. It
quite clear that the manufacturers of sugar in Brazil and
in Cuba, so long as you send value for their sugar, are
indifferent whether you yourselves consume the sugar or
not. All that they ask for is, a market for their pro
duce, and when they ob!ain that they are satisfied
with the resut. such, Sir, is one of the obvious defects
of the measure, defects which I think will, from
year to year become more and more obvious
and striking. I proceed next to what I consider
another fault in the measure, and that is, that I con-
sider it rather aggravates than otherwise the protec-
tion given at present to the colonies. I was
happy to hear, the other night, the principles of
free trade admitted by all who spoke on the question,
except by the Vice-President of the Board of Trade.
The Right lion. Gentleman the Member f it Newark,
who so lately quitted the office of President of the
Board of Trade, made a most remarkable declara-
tion on this subject. He admitted that the East
Indies had no claim for protection—he admitted that
nothing but the scarcity of labour in the West India co-
lonies, resulting from the Emancipation Act, could form
a ground for protection respecting sugar. This is a most
important admission.—(Hear, hear.) It is most im-
portant, because it evidently admits this, that it was no
reason because the produce was the produce of our colo-
nies, that any protection whatever should be extended.
Mr. GLAI)STONE—I did not say that these colo-
nies had no claim for protection. What I said was,
that they had no claim for greater protection than 10s.
per cwt.
Lord J. RUSSEIZ—Then I misunderstood the Right
Hon. Gentleman. I thought lie said the colonies had
no claim for protection. However, this admission of
only 10s. per cwt. protection narrows the question of
protection very considerably, because a protection
of 10s. or lOs. 6d. per cwt., according to the proposal
of the Right Honourable Gentleman, is not required
by justice with respect to 70,000 tons which
come from the West Indies. With respect to
the Mauritius, there; is a sufficiency of labour for
the Mauritius. Newspapers even tell us that
the labourers cannot get sufficient employment.
This demand of protection to the amount of 10s. 6d.
does not apply either to Barbadoes or Antigua, because
those colonies have likewise a sufficiency of labour.
Then the demand of protection made on behalf of the
West Indies amounts only to a claim of protection
for that amount for Jamaica, Trinidad, and De-
merara. Now this, I must say, makes a great
difference in the case ; because you are proposing an
equal protection of 10s. 6d. both for those who may in
justice demand it, and for a great many others who have
no such claim. Now, Sir, let us examiae the protection
which is thus proposed. My Honourable Friend the
Member for Manchester, in bringing forward his
motion the other night—and I ficd it impossible not
to refer to that debate, because it raised what
was a' part of the present question—(Hear, hear)—my
Hon. Friend stated on that occasion that the protection
given amounted to a tax of about 2,300,0001. on the
people of the United Kingdom. My Noble Friend the
Member for Sunderland stated that it was a protection
to that amount, aad at the same time he said that there
had been a difference of above 7s. 6d. in the price of colo-
nial and foreign sugar. The Right Hon. Gentleman the
Member for Newark, to whom I must again allude, said
that there was an evident inconsistency in these argu-
ments—that if the difference was no more than that, it
was impossible that the protection could be more than
14s. Now, certainly, when I heard that declaration, I
felt impressed with the importance of it as
coming from the Right Honourable Gentleman,
but, at the same time, I could not agree in its
justice; and I will state my reasons why I think it is not
correct. What the Right Hon. Gentleman proposes is,
not to continue the present importation and the present
duty, but a new importation and new rates of duty. If
the present importation were to continue, and the differ-
ence of price, which was 20s. and 275., we might say that
there was only that difference of price, and that with
the present rate of duty there was no greater
protection. But let it be observed, that the protection
proposed to be given is on a consumption of 250,000
tons of sugar. What is assumed by the Right Hon.
Gentleman opposite is, that the consumption of sugar
will increase from 207,000 to 250,000 tons ; and the
consequence must be, that until this foreign sugar which
is proposed to be admitted, comes into the market, the
West India sugar will continue to rise in price,
Therefore supposing, Sir, that the price of sugar now
was 205., it appears on the admission of the Right lion.
Gentleman, the imposition on the 15,000 tons of foreign
sugar would make it 285., and make the price at which
foreign sugar will be brought in the market not less
than 48s. Now, supposing that the price of West India
sugar is now, as it was a few weeks ago, 285., it will
then, by the addition of al4s. duty, be raised to the price
of 425., and iS will not be until it has risen to
485., that foreign sugar can be brought into the market
to compete with West India sugar. If sugar be, there-
fore, at the price which it was a few weeks ago, the
price at which it will be sold will give a protection of
14s. a cwt. to West India sugar. If this be the
case, the measure of the Government will not give
to the consumer the benefit which will be lost to the
revenue. This competition, therefore, Sir, does not
seem to me to give any benefit to the country.
By the calculation of the Right Hon. ,Gentleman, if
the price of sugar has risen fro 30s. or 325., the consump-
tion will be decreased, and foreign sugar cannot come
into the market. The price of West India sugar will,
in that case, rise, and there will not then be the con-
sumption of 260,000 tons, which has been calculated as
as the consumption of the country; and of the 250,000
tons, 15,000 tons being subject to the foreign duty,
it will be a natural consequence that the price
will rise to 345. Now, Sir, what is the
effect of this rate of 148. ? The rate, I am aware, is
actually lls. 2d. ; but the rate being 255. 2d., and that
255. 2d. being reduced to Ils. 2d., there is a difference of
14s. But this will be enough to prevent any benefit to
the consumer. The fact will be, that there will be in
this a remission of ss. to the consumer, and 6s. to the
West Indian planter. Other calculations have been made,
and these give 6s. to the consumer and ss. to the West
Indian planter. But, supposing all the duties equal, arid
these not more than Bs., the benefit given to
the West Indian planters will not be less
than 1,100,0001., and this tax will be imposed simply for
the
the Exchequer,
sake of the benefit of the West India planters
and
te
`hest forlnd the tax
planters will
a nbde equallyth
E Exchequer.
divided
between h
It is a tax divided
n betweene the Exchequer eandxteheelq\ureesrt.
)
India colonies —one jetnoeffitit going to the revenue, the
other being for the
Sir, it is said that you must give the planter. But then,
this protec-
tion on account of the state ortvhee
Member for Man_
the abolition of slavery. Sir, I could not end
for my Honourable Friend the
chester the other night, because the West Indies
have s very considerable claim upon us, owing to

the recent abolition of slavery. Let us observe what is
the state of the West Indies in consequence of the
very great advantage given to them. The West
India labourers have had the advantage of a great
state of prosperity ever since the passing of the
Aet of emancipation. During the last year that state of
prosperity had diminished, in so far as the amount raised
from labour had decreased, and the wages of the labourer
had not been more than 7s. per week. Now, under this
state of affairs, what has taken place in the West In
dies has been this :—There has been a great stimulus to
immigration—there has been a great number of labourers
attracted to the West Indies, in order that there might
be a sufficiency of labour to supply the sugar of this
country. But, Sir, the way in which that scheme has
operated has been this : a tax has been imposed under
these circumstances, which has borne with great severity
on the labourer. In proof of this, I hold in my hand a
letter from a person, who was a remarkable man during
the anti-slavery agitation, and who now has a most ex-
traordinary influence over the minds of a great part of
the population of Jamaica. The person to whom I al-
lude is Mr. Knibb, the Baptist missionary. and this letter
was written by him in 1844. Mr. Knibb says, " I do
not believe there is another labouring population on
the face of the earth who would so patiently
have borne this reduction in their wages. It was made,
too, at a time when a tax was imposed upon the country
which had no other effect than to increase the price of
provisions, and, of course, as this tax pressed more upon
the articles of food which they consumed, it
must have tended still further to reduce their wages."
Now, Sir, this proves that the plans you propose, though
they may have the effect of giving so large an amount
as a million or upwards to the planters, will not have
the effect of increasing the comforts or happiness of the
peasantry of the West Indies. I believe that the admis-
sion of labourers from Africa to the West Indies, if
conducted under regulations, and allowed to take:
place in small numbers, would be for the ad-
vantage both of the West Indies and of Africa.
I have recorded that opinion, and I still believe both that
the civilisation of Africa would be promoted by persons
going from Africa to the West Indies, and that the ge-
neral prosperity of the West Indies would be improved
by that plan. But I did not like to hazard the
scheme of proposing to carry large numbers of
persons from Africa to the West Indies. In
the first place, I should beg the House to
look back—and seeing the Right Honourable Gentle-
man the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment, with whom I acted in the Committee that
preceded that Act, in his place, I would ask of him
what made the Act of Emancipation so successful, as it
was universally allowed to be, so far as the peace and
happiness of the people of the West Indies was con-
cerned? Why, because, much to the credit of the
masters of slaves of that day, the slaves were
so far brought into a state of civilisation,
that when the Act of Emancipation took place, society
fell into its natural order, and no outbreaks or riots
were committed, as might have been expected from the
sudden change from slavery to freedom. But be it re-
collected that the change had taken place nearly thirty
years after the slave trade had ceased ; thereby the
people of the West Indies had become to a great
degree civilised, and this great revolution was made
without convulsion.—(Hear, hear.) I am stating what
is to the credit of the owners of the slaves in the West
Indies. But if you were now to introduce vast numbers
of Africans from the shores of Africa—if you were to
take them from places which were still in a state of
barbarism—if you were to transplant them into
the West Indies, and turn them at once to
labour, I cannot but foresee that, in no long course of
time, you would have a population whom it would be
difficult to bring into that state of civilization which your
present negro population of the West Indies are in.
And et that is the attempt you are now making. I
hardly think it will su.ceed, because I think the very
great cost of carrying labourers from Africa to the West
Indies is very much against it. But still the attempt is
making in this way, by makinglarge loans in Trinidad and
Demerara, and taxing the people and especially
taxing the admission of their food—for the pur-
pose of raising means to bring great num-
bers of people from Africa to the West Indies.
Any law which you may pass in this country which
has a great tendency to give a monopoly, as far as this
country is concerned, to sugar, the produce of the West
Indian colonies, will produce a disadvantageous effect
upon the labourers in the West Indies. In the first
place, it will tend to the oppression and disadvantage
of the labeuring population of the West Indies. I
state this upon the authority of Mr. Knibb.—
(Ironical cheers from the Ministerial Beaches, answered
by counter-cheering from the Opposition.) Mr. Knibb
is a man who possesses great authority among the
labouring population of the West Indies—a man of most
remarkable talent, and of great influence and authority.
In the next place I think it would endanger the future
condition of the West India colonies, making it doubtful
twenty years hence—when we consider the immense
numerical superiority of the black population over the
white—whether the colonies may not be the scene of some
most frightful convulsion. And all this is done to Ice ep up
a system which is contrary to your own professed prin-
ciples, and is proposed to-be brought about in the most
artificial manner. I am free to confess that it appears
to me that this attempt to produce an artificial price of
sugar in this country, as you say, for the purpose of giving
an advantage to the West India colonies, must result in
producing effects which must be very dangerous, and
may be quite fatal to the interests of those whom you
are anxious to protect.—(Hear.) But when gentlemen
speak of the additional advantage which 'this system of
protection is to confer on the labourers in the West Indies,
let them not entirely forget that there are also labourers
in this country.—(Cheers.) That there are labourers
employed in agriculture—(Cheers)—and that there are
artisans employed in manufactures who also require
some little consideration.—(Cheers.) I can readily
conceive that a sudden and immediate reduction of all
duties on for, ign produce, as compared with the produce of
the West Indies, to 14s. or to 285., might produce such
an immediate disadvantage to the West India proprietor
as to cause a great shock ; but, on the other hand, if
you attrnapt to give an additional advantage to
the planters you will put off to a still further period the
time which we all hope to see arrive, when the principles
of free trade shall be universally adopted.—(Hear, hear.)
I heard the other night an Hon. Gentleman, who has re-
cently become a member of the Government, state that
the principles of free trade were true in the abstract. That
principle I believe is universally admitted ; but I wish
to see the practical application of those principles with
regard to such great articles of consumption as that
which we are now called on to consider.—(Cheers.)
I now come to the results which the Right
Honourable Baronet stated would ensue from
his proposition, as far as the finances of the
country were concerned. Ile stated that the result
would be an increase in the consumption, from
207,000 hens to 250,000 tons, with a consequent
increase to the revenue of 1,300,0001. Now it ap-
pears to me, without any injury whatever to the
West Indies, you might remit the whole of that—if
you were to have, for instance, 20s. or 28s. ; or it re-
ducing the duty very largely, you were to have a similar
duty to that proposed by the Right Hon. Baronet of 10s.
or 125., and of 18s. or 20s. on foreign produce—you
might not make any difference in the present prices
between the colonist and the foreign producer, but you
might preserve a very great part of your income, and
you might have the means of making this experi-
ment. The Right Honourable Gentleman has pro-
posed this experiment with regard to sugar. He
might make that experiment with regard to sugar,
and he might preserve the whole of the revenue, if he
would but admit all foreign sugar, and decrease the pro-
tection he proposes to give. Suppose the price of foreign
sugar to be 20s„ if he were to add a duty of 205., he
cannot have a less price titan 40s. If you were to have
a very much less duty, it is evident that the consumer
would obtain a great benefit, and you would very much
increase the consumption of sugar. It is very doubtful.
as you now stand, whether the loss of 1,300,0001. will
be the total loss the revenue will sustain ? Unless
consumption increase at the rate the Right Hon. Gen.
tlernan anticipates, the loss to the revenue will be
1,800,000/. or 1,900,000/. Now if you could but save
that revenue, I think I have shown that there need be no
additional price to the consumer. You need not make
the consumer pay a single farthing more for sugar, and
at the same time you might preserve the whole of the
revenue. Now, when I consider the various duties there
are which press heavily on the consumer, which might be
lightened if you had but that sum you could spare as
part of the surplus, I cannot think this great sacrifice to
the West Indian planter at all desirable or advisable.
There are various duties with regard to which
the Right Honourable Gentleman has declared
his disapprobation. There were duties which
were mentioned when the tariff was discussed—
I will take a small instance, cheese and butter.—(Hear,
hear.) When these duties were mentioned, it was said
that the duty was thirty per cent., and in some inferior
descriptions of cheese 100 per cent., and the Right Hon.
Gentleman the late President of the Board of Trade
said, it was impossible to look to maintaining that
duty. That dnty was absurdly high. But he said it was
then impossible to make experiments in the revenue
There are other duties that press heavily on silk and
other things, which ought to be removed ; and if the
Hon. Gentleman has a surplus of 1,300,0001., I think
the experiment ought to be tried whether or not
some reduction might not be made in the duties on those
articles without affecting the revenue.—(Hear, hear.)
When there is no surplus, of course the experiment
cannot be made, but when the Ministry have one,
it is their duty to try how far they can i educe
taxation. It is proposed by the Government to impose
a duty of 14s. on sugar the produce of our own colonies,
while in colonies where the slave trade exists, it is pro- ,
posed to exact a duty of 28s. The consequence of that
is a great burthen upon the consumer.—(Hear, hear.)
It may be said that the subject is one for a Com-
mittee, that is, whether or not it would be wise to
take away all duties on sugar, or make a gradual
reduction, but, in my opinion, the plan proposed
by the Government does not give adequate benefit to
the consumer, while it keeps up a distinction between
free and slave labour.' It risks the revenue,
not for the sake of the Queen's revenue,
or the army cr navy, but for the sake
of a particular class, which forms only a small portion of
the population of the country. The Noble Lord concluded
by moving the following resoluticn:—" That it is the
opinion of this House, that the plan proposed by
her Majesty's Government in reference to the sugar
duties, professes to keep up a distinction between foreign
free-labour and foreign slave-labour sugar, which is im-
practicable and illusory ; and, without adequate benefit
to the consumer, tends so greatly to impair the revenue as
to render the removal of the income and property-tax, at
the end of three years, extremely uncertain and impro-
bable."
The SPEAKER having put the question,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose
and said, that when the Noble Lord who had just sat
down had first given notice of his motion, he (the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer) was induced to hope that it

would be found the more convenient course for himself
and the House to introduce this discussion after the
Speaker had left the chair. He (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) was, however, prepared, with confidence, to
advocate the measure proposed by Government. and
he was quite ready to meet the Noble Lord on the
ground he bad himself laid down. He could
assure the House that he met the Noble Lord on
that ground with perfect confidence, and he hoped
that he should emulate the Noble Lord in the tone
and temper with which he had conducted that discussion,
for he considered that a question of the greatest inte-
rest to the consumer should be discussed as far as pos-
sible without any of that acrimony which was too often
exhibited on the floor of that House.—(Cries of
" Hear, hear.") The Noble Lord objected to the
proposition of the Government, and he (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) therefore forbore to make
any comment on the peculiar terms of the resolution
submitted to the House. The Noble Lord did nut say
one word on that objection to the proposition of Govern-
ment, because they attempted to draw a distinc-
tion between the sugars the product of free-
labour, and those imported from what were
termed slave-holding countries. The Noble Lord dis-
claimed on this occasion all imputation: as to the views
of Government, and he (the Chancellor of the
Fxeh- quer) would not refer to any such. The
Noble Lord repeated most of the arguments used on
preceding occasions, and he said that he could see no
distinction between the admission of sugar produced
by slave labour, and the admission of cotton and
other materials produced in the same manner. He
admitted that there was one common principle involved
in the admission of those articles, the produce of
slave labour ; but the Noble Lord bad not ad-
vanced any new view—he had only repeated over
and over again the arguments which had been
so often urged in that House, not only in the previous
debates on this question during the present session,
but on occasions antecedent even to those ; but he
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) maintained that
there was a very great distinction between the encourage-
ment given to the slave trade in the admission
of that commodity and those others to which the
Neil:oe Lord had referred. It had often been announced
in that House that there was a great waste of
human life in the cultivation of sugar as com-
pared with the growing of coffee.---(Hear, hear.)
The great importation of slaves from the coast of Africa
to Cuba and other foreign countries was carried on, not
for the purpose of the cultivation of cotton, but of
sugar, by the aid of slave labour. There could
not be a stronger proof of this than the testi-
mony of those who were on the spot, and wit-
nessed it. He had now before him the report of the
Brazilian consul on this part of the subject, and
he would take the liberty of reading an extract frcm it.
The Right Hon. Gentleman then read the extract, th-
substance of which was to the effect that the slaves em-
ployed in that country in the cultivation of sugar, ave
rage about one-third of the whole number of slaves em-
ployed ; while the proportion of those employed in the
production of cotton and of coffee averaged about four-
fifths ; so that it appeared that of the Creole population
of that country four-fifths were employed in producing
coffee and cotton, while the remaining one-fifth were
slaves that had been imported into the country prior to
the year 1831. Indeed, on nearly all the sugar estates
in the interior of the country, such a thing as a recently-
imported slave was very rare to be met with ; while
upon those estates along the coasts of the country the
slaves employed upon them were slaves imported from
Africa, because they afforded greater facilities for that
trade than the interior, and received more profitable
employment. The report went on to state, that at pre-
sent the sugar estates in that country were in a state of
very little better than half cultivation, for want of slaves,
and therefore that a reduction of duty would have the
effect of increasing the profits to such an extent as to
enable the grower to import slaves, in spite of all that
the British Government could do to prevent it. The
Right Hon. Gentleman having concluded reading the
extract, resumed by saying that by that report the
House would see that in Brazil an extensive importation
of slaves would be the result of keeping up a high price
for sugar, and that therefore when the price could be
reduced to a moderate standard, by a certain reduction
of duty, the same inducements to slave importation were
not created. The Noble Lord had told them that the
soil of Brazil admitted of greater cultivation, and
that the cultivation must be extended only by importa-
tion of labour from Africa, and therefore it was that he
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would adhere to the
principle recognised by Parliament, that they should
use every endeavour in their power to put down the
slave-trade, by whomsoever it might be conducted. But
the Noble Lord said that, if they did so, they would
draw away from the foreign markets an amount of free-
labour sugar at a higher price, which would be replaced
by the chi eper slave-grown sugar, but that in the mean-
time slave•grown sugar would b fraudulently introduced
through the medium of other countries with whom we
had treaties, and he referred to Venezuela. It was true
we had treaties with Venezuela, by which that country
was to import sugar into this country on a footing with
the most favoured nations. Very great ingenuity indeed
must have been exercised by those who fraudulently in-
troduced sugar from the slave-grown countries under the
name of Venezuela, when they imported one single hogs •
head only, as if for the purpose of a basis for the Noble
Lord's argurnent.—(Laughter.) When he was told that
Venezuela encouraged slavery, he admitted that in the
case of that country and all others with which we had
treaties, and which used slave labour, we could not ex-
clude their sugar. But if our market were large enough
to consume their produce, there were circumstances con-
nected with them, and with the United States, which se-
parated our receiving their produce from the charge of
encouraging s!avery. In the first place they did not
continue the slave-trade, and in 1822 Venezuela passed
a law that every person born subsequent to that year
should be a freeman, so that every individual under the
age of 23 years was at the present moment free, and each
succeeding year was advancing towards the term of
human slavery. Whatever part, therefore, Venezuela
might have taken in introducing slave-labour sugar into
this country, to encourage the cultivation of sugar in that
republic was not to encourage slavery, but the contrary.
The Noble Lord had told them that the exclusion of
the sugar of Cuba and Brazil tended to aggravate the
burden of the protection on colonial sugar on the people
of this country. He confessed himself unable to under-
stand the proposition the Noble Lord had intended to
enunciate. If there was any truth in the argument of
the Honourable Member for Manchester, which
he addressed to the House on a preceding
evening, his argument went to this, that whatever
was the amount of the protective duty, to the
extent of that duty a burden was imposed on the con-
sumers of this country. He made no distinction what-
ever between the protective duty applied to free-labour
sugar or slave-labour sugar. He said, whatever that
duty was, it was a burden on the consumers of this
couutry. Whether the protective duty of 10s. was given
to the free-labour sugar of Java, or the slave-labour
sugar of Brazil, there could be no difference in this re-
spect. Therefore, there was no ground whatever for
assuming that the burden which this protective duty
might impose on the population of this country, had any
connexion with the distinction attempted to be drawn
between slave and free-labour sugar. But when he talked
of the burdens this protective duty imposed on the
consumers here, he must beg leave to differ from the
argument of the Hon. Member for Manchester, and
which the Noble Lord had repeated on the present occa-
sion. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was not
content to assume that the burden on the consumer of
this country depended on the differential duty alone,
which was imposed on the commodity introduced from
foreign countries. He believed, and he thought it could
not be denied, that the price of the commodity here must
depend on the extent of the supply, compared with the
demand—(Hear, hear)—and they could show that by
the admission of free-labour sugar from other countries,
in conjunction with the sugar of their own colonies, they
should secure such an amount of supply as would be
snore than ample for the consumption, even with the
great increase of population, the West Indies would come
again to the position in which they stood previously to
the abolition' of slavery, and there would be a consider-
able surplus, which, coming into competition with
foreign sugars in the foreign markets, and so regulate
the price here, that it would not greatly exceed that
which sugar obtained on the continent. Who ever, at
that period, thought of arguing that, because there was
a great protection in favour of West Indian produce, the
public were taxed to an amount equal to that differential
duty? What would have been thought then, had such a
statement as this been made to the House, that when
there was a differential duty of 245. on colonial sugar,
and 635. on foreign, that the consumer had to pay an
additional tax of 295. as a consequence?
Mr. GIBSON—It was put as a supposition.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said if
the Right Hon. Gentleman would allow him to finish
than the supplyt
he
demand. then
his argument he would find this was no argument at
all. Who would then have thought of urging such an
argument? And why not? Because
obtained in this country was greater
It then necessarily followed that the difference between
the protective duty was no measure of the extent of the
burden on the consumers.—(Hear, hear.) And if, there-
fore, we admitted our own sugar from the colonies, and
free-labour sugar from the Continent, such an excess of
supply would be created in this country as would be
quite beyond the demand. We could not, under these
circumstances, in the view of relative cheapness, impose
such conditions without their being, in the end, injurious
to the consumers as well as to the producers. That
some burdens were imposed by those differential
duties no man • would pretend to deny ; bat had
not the people of England always expressed
their willingness to sacrifice someaing to the abolition
of slavery ? Had not the people of England besought
the Parliament to make those sacrifices?—(Hear, hear.)
The Noble Lord's views had undergone much alteration
since last year, but he still admitted that the colonies
were entitled to some protection. The immediate in-
lteraodducttnionimomf
eßdriaatzeiliaenhesaupgnaerss,
into this country would
to be followed by a
gradual and excessive rise of price. They knew that
at the present moment a great number of the estates in
d iced one half. If by the
introduction of Brazilian sugar they
and that the produce was re
were to create a
the West India colonies were thrown out of cultivation,
vacuum by causing the abandonment of the cultivation of
sugar in particular islands, the effect must be a rise of
price in this country, causing a seveie pressure on the
community. The whole produce of the world, the
Noble Lord told them, amounted to only 670,000
tons, independent of what the sugar-growing parts con-
sumed themselves ; and one-thirel of that amount was
grown in the free British possessions. If 50,000 or
60,000 of that amount were withdrawn, the effect would
inevitably be a great rise in price. In 1792, the island
island, and the decrees
of St. Domingo produced 40,000 or 50,000 tons of sugar
per annum, for the consumption of the world ; when, by
the repeated insurrections in that
of the National Convention, its whole sugar production
was swept away, the consequence was, that the price
of sugar in this country rose from 50s. to 565. ,625., 715.,

and even 755. This was the effect of this event on the
slave-trade ; and was he speaking without authority in
this matter ? Undoubtedly not. He would refer Hon.
Gentlemen to the returns on the books of the House.
By those returns it appeared that the vacuum which
the proceedings in St. Domingo had created had been
supplied by importations into our own islands,
and they enjoyed the benefits of those pro-
ceedings. The planters in the West India islands
had been blamed for entering so extensively into this
trade; but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was
not one of those who imputed that blame. It appeared
by the returns, that after the discontinuance of the cul-
tivation of sugar in St Domingo, the number of ships
chartered in Liverpool for the West Indies was not 88 in
one year, and 92 ships in another year ; but the number
had risen to 122 in one year, and 150 in another. From
those returns it also appeared, that the number of slaves
who had been 'entrapped and deported was not ac-
tually, as it had been, 9,000, 10,000, and rising to
12,000 slaves in one year ; but the number had risen to
30,000 in one year, 32,000 in another, and as high as
36,000 in another. Such had been the effect when the
increase of sugar in our own islands had given an im-
p -tus to the slave trade. And what had been done in
our own islands, the motion of the Noble Lord would
effect in Brazil. The same impetus would be given to
the introduction of slaves into Brazil. The slave trade
would be revived in full force, but it would be revived
with tenfold horrors, for it would be conducted without
any of those humane regulations which had been intro-
duced into our own vessels. He (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) must also be pardoned if he presumed to
doubt the assertion of the Noble Lord:that the success
of his motion would produce any permanent benefit to
the consumer; fur he did not believe in a certain
calculation into which the Noble Lord went to
show what would be the high price of sugar after
the new rates of duty had come into effect. The Noble
Lord objected to a protective duty, and yet be was de-
sirous of imposing some duty, and could not vote for
the amendment of the Hon. Member for Manchester.
According to the Noble Lord's calculation, the sugar
of Java and. Manilla could not be brought into the
market under 485., when the price of West Indian sugar
was 425. If this were the case, there would certainly
be a protection of Gs. on West Indian sugar. Now, he
believed the Noble Lord to be wrong in this calculation,
for he believed sugar, whether from our own possessions
or from abroad, would be subject to the same rule as
every other mercantile article. When two articles came
into competition, under similar circumstances as colonial
and foreign sugar, the natural result was, that one would
be a little raised and the other a little depressed. He
did think the Noble Lord had been wrong in his figures.
Now, Java sugar was quoted the other day at 225.; the
best at 245. 6d.; and he believed that ordinary Java
sugar might be bought at 235.; the average quality
might generally be bought at 20s. Now, to take the
average of these prices at 235. 4d., and to impose the
duty upon it, the long price would be about 425. The
average of West India sugar was 295. 7d. ; add
to that 14s. for the duty, and West India
sugar would only be about 3d. dearer than Java sugar.
He had taken the average upon the whole, and of course
to the higher class of Java sugar they would have
to add 16s. 4d. This would make a difference in the
results ; but upon the whole he thought the calculations
he had made might be relied on. The Noble Lord next
entered upon the subject which had more connexion
with the state of the colonies than the immediate ques-
tion before the House. The Noble Lord had entered
into a description of the happy state of those who were
formerly slaves in the West Indies, but who were now
enjoying the blessings of freedom, with occasional re-
laxations from labour, and receiving wages quite ade-
quate to their respective merits. The Noble Lord had
said that a loan had been effected in the island of Ja-
maica to ensure emigration ; and, to provide for the in-
terest of this loan, a tax had been imposed upon the
labouring population. Now in this the Noble Lord was
entirely wrong. No loan whatever had been effected,
and of course they could not impose a tax on the working
man to enable them to pay the interest. With
respect to Demerara and Trinidad, in those places
the Government had sanctioned no duty whatever which
pressed upon the labouring community. Still the Noble
Lord had spoken of loans being raised there also, but it
would be gratifying for the House to know that such
was not the case.—(Hear, hear.) The taxes imposed on
those colonies were limited to a tax on the exportation of
sugar, and of course this bore upon the proprietor of the
produce, for whom the immigration was intended. The
Noble Lord had said the House should have considera•
tion for the ar:izans and mechanics employed in the colo-
nies, as well as for the proprietor. The ar:izans, whe-
ther in the West Indies or at home, were, he admitted,
entitled to every indulgence, and every remission of
taxation that could safely be made. But what he con-
tended for was, that those classes were not willing to
purchase exemptions from burdens by the sacrifice of
principles for which they had been all their lives con
tending ; and he thought he could produce to the House
evidence to show that, if they would nut consider imme-
diate but permanent interests, the course recommended
by Hon. Members opposite, of overwhelming the
planters, would only give temporary relief, and would
not in the end answer the view s for which it had been in-
troduced. With respect to the financial part of the sub-
ject, the Noble Lord objected to the reduction of the duty
on sugar, as one of those articles which should not—
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—What I said was, that the
reduction you effected went partly to the planter and
partly to the revenue, and would not much benefit the
consumer.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ad-
mitted that the burden arose from the protective duty,
but the Noble Lord had agreed with him that there
should be some protection. He believed it was gene-
rally admitted upon both sides of the House that some
reduction in the article of sugar was desirable.—(Hear,
hear.) That was the sentiment which had been gene-
rally expressed, and if he had formerly resisted the re-
duction then proposed, it was only upon the ground
that as the supply of sugar on which we relied was ne-
cessarily drawn from a great distance, it could not arrive
contemporaneously with the reduction then effected. He
wished to make a preparation for the period when they
would be able to make the reduction in sugar, and
so as that reduction might not operate upon
a limited supply.—(Hear, hear.) When the in-
come-tax came under the consideration of Government
this year, he thought it necessary to review this part of.
the subject, and whilst he would propose some protec-
tion, he would nevertheless afford a material reduction
to the consumer, and so contribute to the general good.
They might either have retained the existing law, made
without classification, or adopted the proposition now
submitted to the House, reeking a division into two
classes, and imposing a lower duty on one class than on
the other. And this scheme appeared to have this ad-
vantage, that it enabled them to lower the protective
duty on the cheaper class of sugar, and thus contribute
to the comfort of the lower orders of the community.—
(Hear, hear.) The reduction of duty, whether right or
wrong, under the present proposition, would admit of
the sale of the article to the consumer at lid. per lb.
cheaper than at present. They were prepared to sink
the amount of revenue, that the change might be felt
universally among the lower classes. The Noble Lord
talked of a gradual reduction. He would propose to
take off 3s. this year, and 3s. next year, and so on. Now
ho confessed he did not expect to hear such
opinions from the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord ended
his resolution by rather a captivating announcement to
the country, that no portion of the income-tax would be
remitted at the end of three years. No v he (the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer) did not believe that any man,
whatever his latent ingenuity or experience might be,
couli possibly speak with certainty of the changes
which would take place either in politics, commerce, or
finance, at the end of three years. But this he would
say, that upon reference to former periods during which
taxation had been remitted, that the pressure which had
thus been taken from the springs of industry, had been
attended with the best effects, not only to the consumer
but the revenue itself. Events might occur which might
defeat the best considered arrangements ; but if they
looked to the past, he found that in three years, after a
judicious remission of taxes had taken place, the revenue
had not only recovered itself, but was placed in a better
position. He had looked for many years back,
and found that the resources of the country had
exhibited the same elasticity. In 1816 the
income of the country was 51,500,0001. ,and in
that year taxation to the amount of 3,250,0001.
of positive taxation had been remitted. Now, upon ordi-
nary calculation, the revenue should have been reduced to
little better than 48,000,000/ But what was the fact ?
Three years after its repeal, in 1819 the revenue, instead
of being 48,000,000/., amounted to 52.000,000/.. ; thus
surpassing the revenue previous to the reduction of the
taxation. Take again the year 1822. The revenue in
that year was 55,000,000/. It was then thought expe-
dient to make a large reduction of taxation. A reduc-
tion of 2,400,000thad then been made. Now the effect should
be the reduction of the income to 53,000,0001. But in the
very next year the revenue exceeded the original
amount. In the year 1823 the revenue was 53,100,0001,
in 1823, 1824, 1825, and 1826 taxation had been repealed
to the amount of 11,000,0001. The ordinary effect of
this reduction would be that the revenue would stand
at 42,000,000/. ; but in 1829 the revenue amounted
to 51,000,0001..—(Hear, hear.) The same thing followed
in 1830, when a large reduction was made in
the malt duty, and in 1834, when the Right
Hon. Gentleman opposite proposed a reduction
of 1,000,0001. Thus the remission of taxation had in
all these cases been attended with advantage. What
occurred before might occur again; an& if so, there was a
fair prospect that the income-tax might be, if not alto-
gether remitted, at least the duty upon other articles
which came into general consumption might he lowered
without any loss to the revenue. Was the House pre-
pared to abandon the object for which it had so long
contended ? Were they prepared to give up those prin-
ciples which they had so long cherished ? Were they to
cease exerting themselves in making treaties with Spain
and Portugal for the suppression of this odious traffic ?
If they did so, they might he sure to find some tem-
porary relief, but they would tarnish the high character
of Englishmen, who had, at much expense, and
with such zeal for so long a period contended
for the abolition of the slave-trade. He believed
that if Honourable Gentlemen would consent to
abandon the slave to his fate, the horrors which those
creatures suffered in their passage,when they came to the
knowledge of the people of this country would excite
the sympathies of the benevolent, and create such sensa-
tions and such a feeling that it would be impossible to
withstand.—{Hear, hear.) There was no doubt but a
great impetus would be given to slavery by sanctionieg
the free importation of all foreign sugar, for this n as
the article on which slave labour was chiefly expended.
Upon the whole, therefore, he was strongly opposed to
the proposition of the Noble Lord as impolitic, and in-
expedient, and above all, because it was subversive of
those principles for which they had been so long con-
tending.—(Cheers.)
Lord J. RUSSELL explained—He did not contem-
plate any such gradual reduction as that mentioned by
the Right Hon. Gentleman. What he meant, was, a

moderate protective duty, which was not to be of a tem-
porary character.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. LABOLICHERE gave credit to the right Hon.
Gentleman for his sincerity, but dirt not think the pre-
sent measure based on sound principles. He thought
the attempt to draw a distinction between foreign and
slave-labour sugar, a most unsuccessful one, and it was
generally so considered by the mercantile classes. He
did not think it had been conducive to the interests
of the colonists themselves. Ile thought that there
never was a more untenable supposition than that of
the Right Hon. Gentleman, that the proposition of his
Noble Friend would promote slavery. But what was
the statement of Hon. Gentlemen opposite ? They
computed that 60,000 tons of free-labour sugar would
be produced in Java, Manilla, and other places ; and
they calculated, that while this country took 20,000
tons, the remaining 40,000 would be sold in the
general markets of the world. If that were the case,
the price of 20,000 tons sent to this country
would be Bove: ned by the price of the
40,000 tons sent abroad, and their legislation on these
20,000 would affect the sugar sent into Germany and
elsewhere. The present measure would clearly affect
the 'sugar of Cuba and the Brazils, and as far as the pro-
position therefore went, they were not giving to free
labour sugar the advantages they pretended to give. He
would, for the sake of argument, suppose that they
were enabled by the measure to exclude slave-labour
sugar (he doubted greatly the possibility of so doing,
however) from the markets of this country, did they
imagine that frauds upon a very large scale would not
be attempted ? He had it from a person intimately con-
versant with the sugar trade, that the very first cargo of
Manilla sugar which had arrived in their ports, was sur-
mised to be the production of Surinam or Porto Rico.
Now his first objection to the proposition of the Govern-
ment was one which, if well-founded, was of the greatest
importance, as proving that this was not likely to be
a permanent measure. He perfectly agreed with the
Chancellor of the Exchequer in some of the remarks he
had made, but he (Mr. Labouchere) must say also, that
when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was so severe
upon the advocates of a gradual reduction of the sugar
dnties, he was astonished at the conduct of the Right
Hon. Gentleman in thus pronouncing a censure upon the
Government, and upon those who supported it.—(Laugh-
ter.) Never was so unfortunate a course as that pursued
by the Government upon this question. They last year
made such an alteration in the sugar duties, that
they left no doubt of a further alteration
this year, and now he hoped that, ;after the oracular
warnings of the Lord Chancellor, they would not lightly
peril the other branches of the trade of the country in a
similar manner.—(Laughter fled Hear, hear.) Their
trade with the Brazils was interfered with by the mea-
sure which was now proposed. There was also an ele-
ment introduced into it which could not add to its per-
manency, and that was the encouragement to frauds
upon the revenue.—(Hear, hear.) He would venture to
say, notwithstanding the smile of incredulity he ob
served on the faces of some Hon. Members opposite,
that the West India cultivators themselves, for whose
benefit they were asked to sanction that anomalous course
of legislation, were alarmed at the course the Go-
vernment were pursuing. His eye was caught on look-
ing over a newspaper of that morning, by a statement
copied from a respectable organ of public opinion in
the West Indies. It stated that the project for
ttes admission of Venezuelan sugar to Great Bri-
tain had caused the utmost excitement among
the agricultural interests of those colonies; that a
meeting had been held to memorialise her Majesty's Go-
vernment upon the subject, and the writer supposed that
those meetings would be held in every part of the island.
He (Mr. Labouchere) greatly feared, therefore, that per-
manence did not attach to the sugar duties which the
present proposition of Government was intended to enact.
It proposed to draw a distinction between free and slave-
labour sugar which would be useless and inoperative,
and yet nevertheless irritating to the feelings of the come-
try.—(Hear, hear.) In that way they entailed the most
unfortunate consequences on the commerce and industry
of their colonies and of the country. He objected that
this measure was not likely to increase in foreign na-
tions a belief in their sincerity, and in their desire to do
away with the slave trade and with slavery. With regard
to the other points, he could not understand that they
were discouraging the slave trade by excluding
slave-grown sugar from this country. Could any one
say, that when they admitted free labour sugar, it would
not raise the price of slave grown sugar just as much as
if in the first instance they had given the benefit to
them? Ile agreed with the other portions of the Noble
Lord's resolution, that this plan, without any adequate
benefit to the consumer, tended so greatly to impair the
revenue as to render the removal of the income and
property-tax, at the end of three years, extremely un-
certain and improbable. Without entering into any more
calculations on this question, and taking the plan on its
mere financial merits, he was afraid that it would not
aaswer the expectations of the Right Hon. Baronet, and
under these circumstances he could not help charac-
terising it as trifling with one of the greatest sources
of revenue. He believed that they might have given the
consumers of sugar the same advantages, and that; too
by a more moderate protection to the colonists.—(Hear,'
bear.) But by this important distinction between the
sugars of free and of slave countries, he much doubted
whether they would receive in amount of consumption,
at the end of three years, the sum at present lost to the
revenue of the country At the end of three years they
would find it still necessary to continue the income-tax es
a part of the permanent revenue of the country. He would
not enter into the details of the Right Hon. Baronet's
measure. His own view was, that that measure did
not discourage the cultivation of slave-labour sugar in
foreign countries further than to the amount and degree
that they in England consumed of free-labour sugar from
those countries; and exactly to that amount, and that
only, would they encourage the production of slave-
labour sugar i❑ foreign countries. He would support the
first part of the resolution of the Noble Lord upon these
grounds, and he would also support the second part, be-
cause he was convinced that while they made great re-
ductions in the duties on sugar, they could at the same
time place their differential duties on a footing that,
though diminishing the cost of sugar to the consumers
in this country, they would at the same time keep up the
revenue in such a manner as to prevent the necessity for
any continuance of the income-tax.
Mr. GLADSTONE said that he might be permitted
by the House to speak on the amendment of the Noble
Lord, both on account of the share ho had had in the
decision to which Government had come upon that ques-
tion, and as he WAS most anxious, although out of offiste,
to claim his share of the responsibility which had been
incurred. He thanked both the Noble Lord and the
gentleman who had just sat down, for the tone and tem-
per they hail manifested on that occasion. He hoped
that the Noble Lord and his supporters would, while ad-
vocating their own opinions, yet give credit to the Go-
vernment, for not perhaps very high or very honourable
motives, but at least for having acted in such a mariner
as to render the charge of lukewaramess to the cause of
the oppressed inapplicable to them. With regard to the
motion of the Noble Lord, he had to thank him again
for submitting it in such a form. If the Hon. Gentleman
who had just sat down had no difficulty in affirming each
and all of the propositions of the Noble Lord, he (Mr.
Gladstone) had equally little difficulty in denying each
and all of them.—(Laughter and cheers.) He objected
first, that the distinction sought to be preserved
between free-labour and slave sugar, was illu
sory and impracticable ; that it gave no benefit
to the consumer; and that the income tax by its opera-
tion was likely to be continued a burden upon the
country. With regard to the income-tax he should say
very little; but lie could not help expressing his asto-
nishment that the Noble Lord should at that time
exhibit so strong an opinion on the income•tax. Did
the Noble Lord expect a revolution in the wheel of
fortune ? Did he consider what parties might hold the
reins of Government, tied that that tax might facilitate
their doings three years hence ?—(Cheer;.) The Noble
Lord said that the distinction kept up between
free labour sugar and slave sugar was impracticable. He
granted that the real and practical question was, whether
they should exclude sugar from certain countries which
at present carried on an African slave trade. The ques-
tion of the exclusion of sugar from certain countries
might be principally confined to Cuba and the Brazils;
and one of the grounds on which the Hon. Gentleman
founded his arguments against the measure was that it
gave scope to the perpetration of frauds upon the revenue.
He was prepared to contend against that statement.
The Hon. Gentleman quoted the opinion of some gen-
tlemen, that sugars from Surinam and Porto Rico might
enter the country as the produce of Venezuela or Ma-
nilla. Now it was impossible to meet an opinion ex-
pressed in those general terms, and he would, therefore,
request the Hon. Gentleman to give the ground of his
opinion, in order that it might be understood and met.
Ile would not ask the House to decide on the value
of an opinion given in this loose and general manner.
He last session went into the particulars of this portion
of the subject, and he (Mr. Gladstone) perfectly remem-
bered that the Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the
House had expressed their full conviction of the truth
of those assertions. During the discussion last session
those Hon. Gentlemen made use of very strong language
in speaking of some law of America—a most extraordi-
nary law—such a law as was never before heard of. A
law by which, through some strange manipulations, by a
payment made by one hand to the other, the sugar of
America was introduced into this country without the
payment of any duty whatever. That was a most
popular, a most telling argument, an argument to catch
the public mind, and serve the purpose of a party. Yet
that was a mere tabrication, a figment of the imagination,
palmed on the credulity of the public and Hon. Gentle-
men opposite, by some person, with a view to impose
upon them and serve a purpose which he believed would
not be of any avail now.
The Hon. Baronet was here interrupted by Hon.
Members opposite, who deprecated his application of a
common report.
Mr. GLADSTONE—He could not certainly say by
whom the report was propagated, or from whom it
originated, but he had certainly heard it in that House,
and he had read it in the Economist newspaper. But, at
any rate, it was one of those arguments which the Hon.
Gentlemen opposite had used for proving their case.
But this was not, in his opinion, the question to which
they should turn to in this matter. It was of little con
sequence from whence the sugar was introduced, for
he (Mr. Gladstone) believed that sugar from foreign
countries would be readily introduced, for under the
duties imposed last session he did not believe that the in-
troduction of sugar from Cuba and Brasil could ever be
a paying transaction. lie (Mr. Gladstone) did not he-
sitate to express a conviction that if the differen-
tial duties were repealed that it would be
found to give a stimulus to slavery by increasing
the produce of those countries where slave labour was
employed for its production. The Noble Lord must be
aware that common feeling and opinion were against
him ; there was in this country a decided feeling against
every thing that promoted the advantages of slavery or
the slave trade. Lion. Gentlemen opposite took up a
political] dogma, and expected to work out by it some
great national principle. But they ',could never carry