The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-06-07 00:00:00

1111 162
29
84 , 63
53

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-FRIDAY

Sir J. GRAHAM, in reply to a question from Mr. Cobden,
admitted that great distress prevailed throughout the country,
but he was gratified to find that it had been greatly alleviated
by the contributions of the charitable.
Mr. FERRAND complained of a placard which he said was
issued in Manchester by the Anti-corn-law League, headed
in large characters with the word " murder !" and asked if
the government had taken auy steps in consequence of its
publication ?
Sir J. GRAHAM said he had seen the placard, which was
very inflammatory in its language; but the conduct of the
labouring classes was so exemplary in the midst of their dis-
tress, that he thought the government was justified in taking
no notice of the placard.
Mr. Homo I, fired the authority upon which the hou.
member had attributed the placard to the Anti-corn-law
League ; but

Mr. FERRAND declined to give the name of the party, who
was, he said, a gentleman of great respectability.
The house then resolved itself into a committee of ways
and means.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in moving the
continuance of the present sugar duties for another year,
said, he should have been gratified to have been in a position
to propose a reduction of those duties, but it was impossible,
under the circumstances, for the government to risk any
further loss to the revenue at the present moment. It was
also necessary that they should have further time to ascertain
whether foreign sugar-growing countries could furnish such
a supply as to make up for any loss that might accrue from
a reduction of the duties. It was likewise necessary to pave
the way by commercial treaties for the suppression of the
slave trade, which might be encouraged if the British markets
were thrown open to the slave-grown sugar upon the pay-
ment of such duties as would enable slave states to enter into
successful competion with the free-grown sugar of the British
colonies. _ .

Mr. ROEBUCK then moved thaa the duty on foreign sugar
should be reduced to the same level as that imposed on our
colonial produce. The hon. gentleman entered into some
calculations to show that the people of this country paid no
less than four millions annually, in the shape of duties on
sugar, more than they would have had to pay had our mar-
kets been thrown open to foreign sugars ; and it was to he
remembered that this amount of duty was levied upon an
article which had become one of the necessaries of life. The
hon. member treated the attempt to put down the slave trade
in this way as Quixotic, and quoted the authority of Sir F.
Buxton to show that it had increased with an aggravation of
its worst characteristics. The country should be made
aware, that it was only for the purpose of maintaining the
interests of the West Indian proprietors that they were called
upon to pay this enormous amount of duty.
Mr. GODSON said that such a reduction as that proposed
by Mr. ROEBUCK would be injurious to the free black popu-
lation of our colonies.
Mr. GLADSTONE said that most important interests had
grown up under those protective duties, and those interests
should not be wantonly injured by such sudden alterations
as that proposed.
Mr. COBDEN thought that the existing system of slavery
was as much encouraged at present as it would be if the du-
ties were equalized. The only difference was that at present
our commerce with that country was carried on by a more
circuitous route, and at a far greater expense than it would
be if the proposed alteration were acquiesced in. We could
not import sugar for sale in our markets, but we might bring
it home, refine it in bond, and afterwards sell it to other
countries who had not the same objection to its admission as
we had.
On a division, the motion of Mr. Roebuck was negatived
by a majority of 59 to 18.
Mr. LABoucuEnE then moved that the duty on foreign
sugar be reduced to 30s. per cwt., and on colonial sugar 20s.
per cwt. lie was unable, he sai, to support the motion of
Mr. Roebuck, for he could not consent, at a single blow, to
annihilate interests which had grown up under a system of
protection. He was opposed to monopolies of all kinds, and
would reduce all protective duties if he could do so without
material damage to the interests necessarily affected by the
change. He was surprised, after the principles which Sir
R. Peel had taken for his guide in arranging the new tariff,
that he should have left the important article of sugar un-
touched. The right hon. gentleman entered into a great va-
riety of statistical calculations to show that the duties he
proposed would not prove injurious to our colonies—would
not act as an encouragement to slavery, while they would be
a great boon to the labouring classes in this country.
Mr. GLADSTONE adduced a variety of calculations to show
that, in a financial point of view, the proposed reduction
would be productive of very great loss to the revenue, and
contended that for a very doubtful advantage they should not
interfere with the present satisfactory progress of slave eman-
cipation, by throwing open to slave produce the markets of
Great Britain. He hoped that the present Parliament, by a
majority greater than even that of the last Parliament, would
reject the policy which the right hon. gentleman then, as
now, had so strongly advocated.
Mr. IlumE said, as soon as prohibitive duties were placed
upon slave-grown tobacco and cotton, he should give some
credit for sincerity to the arguments used respecting encou-
ragement of slavery, but not until then. We were doing an
injustice to the British labourer in imposing upon him a
heavy duty for the benefit of the blacks in those West Indies
any one of whom could earn in seven hours in the islands,
as much as three Englishmen could in sixteen hours in this

country.
Mr. P. M. STEWART said that no man who was alive to
our colonial interests could have voted for Mr. Roebuck's
motion ; nor could he support a reduction so extensive as
that proposed by Mr. Labouchere. He was, however. op-
posed to all monopolies, and he thought that those West
Indian proprietors who could not foresee that an early change
of those duties was inevitable must he more than usually
short-sighted. There were, however, strong reasons for the
temporary retention of the existing duties. It would, in fact,
be unfair to call upon them to compete with other countries
while their commerce was so restricted—that would be in
fact to call upon them to enter the arena of competition with
one hand tied.
Lord J. RUSSE LI, said, it was admitted on all hands that
it was a great object to have articles of consumption as cheap
as possible ; but when an attempt was made to cheapen any
great article of consumption it was found impossible to do so,
owing to the interests which interfered to prevent their doing
so. Such was the case with bread, sugar, butter, cheese, and
cattle. The latter indeed had been assented to, but not until
the house was assured that the people could profit but very
little by the change. The noble lord then commented on the
inconsistency of the government, in arguing that to reduce
the duty on sugar would be to encourage slavery, while they
reduced the duty on slave-grown coffee to 8d from is 3d ;
and the duty on -copper, also, although it was notorious that
the copper mines in the Brazils were all worked by slaves.
It would he a great disappointment to the people, after hav-
ing an income-tax imposed upon them, to find out at last
that the promises of relief held out to them terminated in
nothing substantial, for where the reductions were material
they were sure to be upon articles which entered but little
into the consumption of the poorer classes of the people.
Mr. ROEBUCK said that Mr. P. M. Stewart wanted a resto-
ration of slavery, for otherwise he could not tell what he
meant by calling upon the house to untie their hands, and
they would then compete. with the world. Sir R. Peel, it
was clear, had many difficulties to contend with in bringing
forward the tariff, for as the right hon. baronet had well re-

marked on o fOrinar Oight, "every Man hod hi. herring,'
end colonial produce woo now the herring of Mr. Stewart, a
oorn was of the late government, This hen, gentleman thei

contracted his own proposition with that of Mr, Labouehere
in order to show the superiority of his own, and condemned
the whole colonial system which caused them to tax the peo.

ple for the benefit of a very few parties interested in the co-
lonies. He had no hesitation in saying, that if it was for the
benefit of the people of England, he would sacrifice the West
India interests, and he challenged any hon. member to show
any benefit that had ever accrued to this country from the
possession of those barren islands. What benefit had the
poor weavers of Yorkshire or Lancashire from our possession
of these colonies to compensate them for the high price they
paid for their sugar? '
Mr. P. M. STEWART said, in explanation, that what he
had said was that he was opposed to all monopolies except
those for maintaining which there were special reasons. So
far from saying that he wished•to see slavery revived, he had
argded directly the other way.
Mr. BERNAL said he had no arguments to advance which
he could hope would alter the destructive opinions of his hon.
friend (Mr. Roebuck), but he should remember that all
great empires, as a whole, depended for their existence upon
preserving the integrity of their various parts. The lion.
gentleman then contended that the 'West Indian proprietors
were not placed on the same footing as the agricultural pro-
prietors in this country.
Sir R. PEEL said, that in order to pour oitupon the dis-
sensions in the opposition, he would recommend the house
to vote for the proposition of the government. If the colo-
nies were to be abandoned, as recommended by Mr. Roe-
buck, this country would give a fatal blow to its honour, its
greatness, and even to its safety as an empire. It would be
madness for a government to adopt any measure whatever,
with a view to obtaining the support of the West India in-
terests ; for, as respected political influence, they were the
wealthiest party in the number of their votes in that house.
The noble lord had said that he (Sir R. Peel) had stated that
the reduction of the duty on meat would confer but little
benefit on the people ; but the noble lord had himself been
ten years in office, and had never proposed any alteration in,
the duties on foreign provisions. It might be that the sav-
ing in meat, in consequence of these alterations of duty,
might be very small; but it was not the less important on
that account, for it was to an accumulation of small savings,
as the result of the tariff, that he looked for material benefit
to the people. With respect to sugar, this country was in a
peculiar position. France had refused to ratify a treaty for
the suppression of slavery, and had thrown imputations upon
the disinterestedness of Great Britain. Under such circum-
stances, it behoved them to be cautious, in any step they
took, not to give room to the world to infer that there could
he the slightest foundation for those imputations,
Lord J. RUSSELL said he had no reason to be ashamed of
the ten years during which he was in office ; for during those
ten years the government to which he belonged had brought
forward many of the mostimportant measures that had ever
been submitted to parliament. If they had brought forward
the tariff of the right hon. baronet while they were in power,
they would have been defeated, whereas now, as an opposi-
tion, they had the satisfaction of enabling the right hon. ba-
ronet to carry it, notwithstanding the desertion of a great
portion of his usual supporters,
On a division, the motion of Mr. Labouchere was defeated
by 245 to 164. _ _ _

The original resolution was then agreed to, and the house
resumed. _ _

The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
house adjourned.