the increase of slavery and the slave-trade, and maintained that it was expedient to get rid of the present system of levying the Sugar Duties, inasmuch as it prevented the benefits which the Colonies would otherwise derive from the employment of free labour. He was sorry to hear from Sir J. R. Reid, that some gentlemen, forgetful that monopoly always prevented exertion and neutralized the skill and labour of all engaged in manufactures or agriculture, had determined not to send out supplies to the Colonies, and to give up the cultivation of their estates. He hoped that other capitalists would take them, and with increased skill he had no doubt that they would find it a profitable speculation.

Adverting then to the speech of Mr. Disraeli, Lord John Russell denied that he had ever called the Colonies a vicious system. He had stated, that they were the strength of this country, and had expressed a hope that they would flourish; but he had said, that the old system of commerce between our Colonies and the mother country was a vicious system; and to that opinion he still adhered. He then proceeded to controvert Mr. Disraeli's doctrine, that on all great questions this country always retraced its steps. To return to errors that had been exploded was not the characteristic of our times.

Ever

since we had been in the enjoyment of a regular Government, nothing was more beautiful to the reader of history than to see the progress which this country had constitutionally made, and the determination with which it had adhered to the conquests of truth and

the Bill of Rights-the abolition of the censorship of the press-the Toleration Act, the Act for the Abolition of the Slave-Trade, the Emancipation Act-who had ever wished to repeal them or to restore the oppression, disabilities, and disqualifications which they abolished? The triumphs of liberty, of reason, and of truth, had, in this country, always been permanent, and had always remained without any risk of subsequent defeat. Defending the propriety of his conduct in having taken office in the present emergency, and maintaining that no Ministry could carry on the Government, either foreign or domestic, of this great empire, unless it commanded the support and respect of the House of Commons, he expressed his conviction, that if he were to acquiesce in such a resolution as that which Lord George Bentinck had proposed, and were to allow his policy to be set aside, and that of his noble friend to be substituted in its place, he should be exposing his Administration to contempt should be impairing the dignity of the Crown, whose servant he was-should be damaging the reputation of the Ministry of which he was the head, and should be causing some diminution of the glory of the great nation to which they all belonged. He therefore told his noble friend distinctly that he (Lord John Russell) should not be able to carry on his Government if the amendment were carried. In that case Her Majesty would do well to place power in the hands of the successful majority, for he was sure that for him to continue in office under such circumstances would be a permanent injury to the constitution of his country.

Little more discussion took place on this subject in the House of Commons. A few nights after the above debate the resolutions were put seriatim, and agreed to without a division. Several amendments, however, were moved, but were eventually withdrawn, viz.: by Mr. Moffatt, for the repeal of the differential duties on white clayed sugar and Muscovado; by Mr. James, for the admission of Colonial sugar, for the next three years, at a duty of 10s.; by Mr. Barkly, for the substitution of 11. 10s. for 11. 11s. 6d. on candy and other kinds of refined sugar, after July 1848.

In the course of the discussion some interesting topics were referred to.

Mr. Goulburn recommended the West Indian interest not to press the Government on the subject of the Sugar Duties, but to persist till they had gained a perfect equality of duty in other commodities, and such assistance in the way of labour as could be given without violating any principle that had been laid down with respect to the slave-trade. His own interests were deeply involved; but, so far from abandoning those exertions by which alone impending ruin could be avoided, he intended, and he advised others to do the same, to redouble his efforts, knowing that there were those in Parliament who would urge the Government to do justice to the West India interest.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer wished the West Indians not to confine themselves to the expression of a general principle, but to give him the details of the restrictions which they complained of. The duties levied upon rum and other West Indian productions were not for the purposes of protection but of revenue, and arranged to obtain practical equality with home produce; and if the Colonists could show that in anything their interests were not equitably dealt with, the Government had every disposition to take their reasons into consideration.

Lord J. Russell expressed similar sentiments. The Ministers were anxious to look into the minutest details of their scheme, but he was sure the House would be ready to admit that time was required for that purpose. At present he was convinced, that in arranging the details the right course had been pursued.

In the House of Lords the subject was debated with much earnestness and vigour, and illustrated by several very able speeches. The principal discussion took place somewhat unexpectedly upon the first reading of the Bill, which was moved by the Earl of Clarendon, who began by stating that it had been considered that it would suit the convenience of their lordships, and it would be likewise convenient to the public, that the discussion of this measure should take place upon its earliest stage. He observed, that Parliament had already recorded its deliberate judgment, that the protective system was an erroneous one, and that legislation should not be for the benefit of particular classes. Protection had been withdrawn from British agriculture, and this

measure was a corollary of that which had been adopted a few weeks ago. The people of this country understood that, when the question of the Corn Laws was settled, the principle of free trade should abolish the distinction between Colonial and foreign sugar, and the Colonists could expect no more protection than was enjoyed by the British agriculturists. The people of this country had been paying an annual tax of three millions for the purpose of a short allowance of one of the necessaries of life. The noble earl showed the impediment which the differential duties offered to the consumption of sugar in this country, which was at the rate of little more than 16 lbs. a head per annum, whereas the affluent consumed 60 lbs. The duties were not only inimical to the interests of the consumer, but to the revenue; and Lord Clarendon showed that the consumption of sugar, and consequently the amount of duties received upon that article, had not kept pace with those of coffee and tea. He was convinced that the protective duties were prejudicial to the producers of sugar themselves, who, under that system, relied almost entirely upon manual labour. The object and intention of the Government were to remove all the restrictions which retarded the progress of the Colonies and checked their improvement; to encourage the immigration of free labourers thither; and, if the Colonists were thrown more upon their own resources, they would better compete with their rivals. With respect to the slave-trade, if he thought that the existing system would put a stop to that inhuman traffic, he would be no party to this measure; but, notwithstanding the sacrifices

we had made, and the international dangers we had exposed ourselves

to,

our efforts for thirty years had accomplished little or nothing; and he now called upon their lordships to deal with that traffic as they dealt with any contraband trade-endeavour to make it unprofitable. Many persons were prepared to go out to the West Indies, and invest their capital in sugar cultivation under the proposed system; and the noble earl read an extract from a speech of Mr. Burnley, of Trinidad, at a meeting of planters, declaring that, if monopoly were abolished, and they were allowed to trade with all the world without restriction, they feared no competition from any quarter. We professed to abstain from all slave-grown articles, but we did not reject slave-grown coffee, slave- grown maize, and slave-grown tobacco, and we imported Cuba copper without repugnance. Nay, we traded with Cuba and the Brazils, and with their returns of slavegrown sugar purchased the products of other countries. All our morality upon this question stood upon a mere fraction, the narrow edge of a principle; whilst the great rule of commerce, our relations with foreign states, the claims of our revenue, and the demands of the people for a necessary of life, called for an abandonment of our present system.

Lord Stanley expressed his concurrence in the observations of the Earl of Clarendon as to the convenience of discussing this measure at the first reading of the Bill, and said he should have felt himself justified in entering his protest at the earliest period against this change in our legislation. He stated his deep and insuperable

objections, first to the details of the Bill; secondly, to the principles of the measure; and, above all, to the circumstances under which and the period of the Session at which this Bill had been introduced. He agreed with the noble earl that on constitutional principles there was no objection to making the duties upon sugar permanent, sufficient means remaining to the House of Commons to control the supplies to the Crown. But this was a new principle; and could their lordships say that the question had been brought forward with full warning, and at a time when the state of their lordships' House was such that the subject could be properly discussed? After exposing the inconsistency of those who had adhered to the principle of protecting the Colonial sugar trade against the competition with slave-grown sugar so late as 1844, and who now took an active part in undoing their own work, the noble lord met the argument founded upon the principle of free trade. Free trade, he observed, was now all in all; cheap sugar must be had, and, compared with the benefit of free trade, slavery and the slave-trade were as nothing. But anything less like free trade it had never been his fortune to see. The noble lord then proceeded to show that this principle of free trade had not been applied to the tea trade, and that in the present position of the East and West Indies a competition between them and slave Colonies could not be carried on upon equal terms. When our Colonies had not the command of labour, to talk of their competing with slave Colonies was a mere mockery, and a cruel one. He objected to the Bill on the grounds of expediency, policy, and

humanity. With respect to its expediency and policy, he showed that the prices of sugar had decreased, under a system of protection, from 48s. a cwt. in 1840 to 32s. 11d. in 1845, whilst the supply had augmented from 163,000 to 245,000 tons. This was his answer to the argument founded upon the plea of a sugar famine, and there was the prospect of an increased supply in future years. Lord Stanley then contended that this measure would tend to encourage the slave-trade, and would add 5l. per ton to the profit of the slave proprietors and slave importers of Cuba and the Brazils. If so, could it be expected that the West Indies could contend against an additional premium of 51. per ton to the producer of slave-grown sugar? Her Majesty's Government should say whether they intended to keep up the establishments on the coast of Africa to put down the slave-trade. they did, they would be doing with one hand and undoing with the other; and did they believe they would not become the laughing-stock of the world if, for the sake of an abatement of one halfpenny a pound upon our sugar, and of a temporary augmentation of our revenue, we undid all the work we had been doing for years past?

If

He asserted that the West Indian colonies might compete with foreign sugar-growing countries, if they had a dense population; and he wished to know what was the amount of free immigration which Her Majesty's Government proposed to authorize in the West Indies. Did they mean that the West Indians should be allowed to go to the coast of Africa, and import free negroes from thence? If not, what were the restrictions they in

tended to take off? If there were no other, it was a mockery to talk of removing restrictions from free immigration, which did not exist. He was assured that the country would hesitate long before it would accept a diminution of the price of sugar at such an expense as that of rendering nugatory all its efforts for the last twelve years, made at so great a sacrifice of money and of blood. He should move that this Bill be read a first time that day three months; but in the present state of the House, and at this period of the Session, he should not trouble their lordships to divide upon the question.

Lord Denman addressed the House against the measure. He declared his irreconcilable hostility to the principles upon which the Bill was founded. He agreed with Lord Stanley in thinking that its natural consequence must be to perpetuate slavery and stimulate the slave-trade. Unless the number of slaves were very greatly increased, he was at a loss to understand how the increased production of sugar, at present anticipated, was to be obtained. He had always felt that the West Indian planters had been ill-used; the State had placed them in an unfortunate position, and the State owed them indemnity. He disputed the assertion of the Liverpool Anti-Slavery Society, that the proposed measure would not stimulate slavery, and that all the efforts hitherto employed by Government to suppress the slavetrade had failed. He admitted there had been no extinction of the traffic; it had proceeded, but it had proceeded in a very diminished ratio. No fewer than seventy-five ships, engaged in the conveyance of slaves, had been cap

He must object

tured last year. to the adoption of any measure which might promote the odious traffic in slaves, by placing this country in a position to become the principal customer of a nation by which that traffic was extensively carried on. He could not help thinking that, before this great innovation was introduced, it might have been desirable that the resources of Jamaica, the Mauritius, and other places, with regard to free labour, should have been better considered; but now he found that they were driven to this that free trade was that which must prevail, that it would make its way, that it was irresistible, and that, like Napoleon with regard to commerce, they had no means of repressing it, if it took any particular course. That, however, was a most alarming doctrine; and he would ask the Government, whether they were prepared to uphold free trade at the cost of bloodshed, murder, and rapine? When he was asked why should they not have free trade in sugar they were to have in corn, his answer was, that corn was grown without the sacrifice of human victims.

as

The Marquis of Lansdowne, after stating that he would be contented to rest the case in support of the Bill upon the able arguments of Lord Clarendon, applied himself to the objections of Lord Stanley with reference to the principle of free trade, observing, that under the existing system we did not diminish the growth of slave-grown sugar, but, on the contrary, we fed and maintained slave cultivation. We supplied the slave Colonies with articles they needed, and took their sugar,