The Manchester Examiner. — 1848-03-28 (Manchester, Greater Manchester, England)

SLAVE TRADE. Mr. BAILLIE refused compliance with this request, for his motion, which was for an address praying that the country might be relieved from the necessity of maintaining the African squadron, was one .which, as it affected a very wasteful expenditure of the public money, ought to have precedence of any vote in supply. He then, in a very able speech, enforced the arguments, with which the readers of this journal are familiar, against the persistence in a system in which blood and treasure had for forty years been most wantonly expended, which had increased tenfold the sufferings of the slaves, without affording any effectual check whatever upon the supply of labour to Cuba and the Brazils. The people of England were taxed to maintain a fleet to increase the cost of sugar which they were themselves to purchase, and he called upon the government either to abandon altogether the attempt to suppress the slave trade, or to render our efforts successful by a close blockade of the ports of Cuba and Brazil.  Mr. HUME seconded Mr. Baillie, and called upon the government not to allow Lord Palmerston to ride his hobby on the principle of humanity, when cruelty and murder tracked every step of his path. He objected, however, to the proposed blockade, lest it should involve us in war, relying confidently that, with an ample supply of free labour, our own colonies could undersell the slave raised produce of Cuba or Brazil. Mr. G. THOMPSON supported, and Lord W. PAULE TT opposed, Mr. Bailie's amendment; and, after speeches from Mr. Urquhart and Capt. Pechell, Mr. Hutt and Mr. Mowatt, Lord PALMERSTON urged that Mr. Baillie ought to have proved the case he had stated to the house before the committee to which the consideration of this subject had been confided. The system which had been attacked was no new one but had been undertaken in compliance with the voice of one, whole nation, and had been acted upon by every government since 1815. He denied that it had failed, for, if it had not prevented, it had diminished, the traffic in slaves, and by our constant perseverance we had induced France, Holland, Spain, and Portugal to abandon it. Mr. DISRAELI disapproved of the growing practice of delegating all the functions of the house to committees, and objected to an anti-slave-trade system, not only on the grounds which had been suggested by Db.. Baillie, but as being inconsistent with the harmonious intercourse of nations, as preventing successful commercial negociation, and as leading to national misconceptions of a dangerous character. He warned the house of the responsibility it would incur if, in a time of great financial and commercial difficulty, it did not give weight to such considerations. After a few words from Sir T. Acland against the amendment, Lord J. RUSSELL urged that, however plausible the case that Mr. Baillie had made out, the house ought not by a hasty vote to abandon without inquiry a system which we had carried on for more than 30 years, and at an expense of more than 80 millions. He trusted that they would wait for the report of Mr. Hutes committee, and not, from a mistaken zeal for economy, vote the miscellaneous and reject the humanity estimates. Sir R. PEEL defended the alterations which had been made in the right of search treaties with France, and, after going over nearly the same ground as Lord John Russell, recommended the house to leave the matter in the hands of the executive government. After a short speech from Mr. BOUVERIE in support of the proposed address, the house divided, when the numbers were—For Mr. Baillie's amendment—ayes, 80; noes, 216; majority against it, 136.