in a spirit of wise conservation, the great moral bulwark which you find in those affections-which does not form an item in your estimates, which is so cheap that it costs nothing but justice, and which, as long as you shall retain, so long, against every evil that may befal you, your empire will be impregnably secure.

THE SUGAR DUTIES.

SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, MAY 18, 1841.

THE department with which I have the honour to be connected (the Board of Trade) will afford me a justification for interfering in this debate; it has been protracted beyond the ordinary period of the duration of our debates, but not to a period incommensurate with the importance the incalculable importance, of a subject upon which, in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction, the people of England must ultimately decide. I shall not trespass upon the indulgence of those who surround me, or upon the forbearance of those to whom I am opposed, at any inappropriate length. I shall confine myself to the resolution of the noble lord, and do my best to avoid the example of those who have wandered far away from it, and who have indulged in dissertations not more mysterious to their auditors than to themselves. I shall, Sir, in the first instance, address myself to that branch of the question in reference to which, the people of England, the virtuous and humane people of England, feel a deep and a most honourable concern. If, Sir, to the progress of the slave-trade, by an exorbitant differential duty between colonial and foreign sugar, any effectual impediment were interposed-if, notwithstanding that exorbitant differential duty, the slave-trade were not successful to an extent which has been stated, with too much justice, in the course of this debate, to cast a stain upon Christian Europe-if to slave-grown sugar every port upon the Continent were not thrown widely and indiscriminately open-if with the produce of slave-labour in many forms, coffee, cotton, tobacco, our own markets were not glutted— if we were not ourselves the importers, the refiners, and the re-exporters of slave-grown sugar to the Continent, ay, and to our own colonial possessions, to an enormous annual amount, I am free to confess that with regard to the propriety of making a reduction of a differential duty, thus supposed for a moment, for the purposes of humanity as well as of monopoly, to be effectual, I should be disposed to entertain a doubt But, Sir, when I consider that in checking the progress of the slave

trade, the safeguard of monopoly is utterly without avail--when I consider that the differential duty, which keeps the price of sugar up, does not keep the price of human beings down-when I consider that with cut casting upon a barbarous traffic any, the slightest impediment, the differential duty has the effect of impairing the public revenue, and, by enhancing the cost of one of the necessaries of life, of imposing upon the humbler classes of the community, a grievous charge-when I consider that the differential duty confers no substantial benefit upon any class of the community, excepting upon those benevolent monopolists whose sensibilities are not unprompted by their profits, and who, to the emotions of a lucrative philanthropy, find it as easy, as it is convenient, whenever a purpose, personal or political is to be promoted, to give way -I am at a loss, I own, to discover any just motive for giving sustain ment to a monopoly fraught with so much multifarious evil, or for sup porting the resolution of the noble lord. That resolution is conceived in a spirit of such obvious partisanship that I cannot withhold the expression of my surprise that my right honourable and most distinguished friend, the member for the Tower Hamlets, should have considered it to be consistent with his unaffected abhorrence of slavery (for his abhorrence of slavery is unaffected) to give it his support. It does not require his sagacity, forensic, judicial, and senatorial, to perceive that this resolution is little else than a sort of previous question in disguise; it contains no pledge against the future introduction of slavegrown sugar-it is transitory and ephemeral; it provides a ready retreat from the high ground which the new, I should rather say, the novel associates of my right honourable friend in the cause of freedom, have so vauntingly taken up, and while it states, that the House of Commons is not prepared (no-not yet prepared) to recognise the introduction of slave-grown sugar, it intimates that under happier auspices, through that preparatory process, the House of Commons may be prevailed upon to pass. How little does this resolution, dexterous, adroit, and almost crafty, accord with the frank, the ingenuous, and, in the cause of virtue, the ardent and impassioned character of my right honourable friend. If any doubt could be entertained regarding the object and the effect of such a resolution, it would be removed by the speech of the noble lord, the member for North Lancashire, who declared again and again, that for the present a great experiment ought not to be disturbed. Surely this ought to convince my right honourable friend, who will forgive me, I feel convinced, if I am bold enough to tell him that in supporting a resolution, couched in such phraseology as this is, he is almost as incon sistent as those incongruous sentimentalists by whom, provided it be not presented in a saccharine form, the produce of slave-labour is unscrupulously consumed. But from personal and innocuous inconsistencies, let me pass to the anomalies, which are incidental to our fiscal system. Last year we imported upwards of twenty-eight million pounds of slave coffee, of which upwards of fourteen millions were slave-grown. The noble lord the member for Lancashire, struggling with this over. coming fact, suggested that to the supply of the coffee market our colo nies were not adequate. The noble lord seems to think that the encom

P

ragement of the slave-trade is matter of mercantile expediency, and that on the price-current our philanthropy ought to depend, and our markets should be opened or shut to slave-grown produce as they rose or fell It is quite true that when the duty upon coffee was high-was 1s. 7d. per pound-the consumption was so inconsiderable that the colonies suplied us with all the coffee which we required; but when the duty was lowered, the consumption increased to an extent which, without exag geration, may be designated as enormous. It is worth while to look with some minuteness into the effect which the diminution of duty produced upon the importation of coffee. The following table is remark

able.

From this table it is manifest, that by the reduction of duty an enormous augmentation in the importation of coffee was produced. In 1807, when the duty was 1s. 7d. no more than 1,170,164 pounds of coffee were imported, the revenue was no more than £161,245; and when the duty was reduced, the importation of coffee rose to the vast amount of 28,723,735 pounds of coffee, and the revenue produced was £922,862. I repeat, that of this vast mass of coffee, more than 14 million pounds were slave-grown. But this anomaly, great as it is, is little when compared with the monstrous incongruity of receiving slave-grown sugar in bord, of refining and exporting it, and at the same time, of excluding it from the home market, where, upon its consumption, a duty might be raised. In 1840 we imported upwards of eight hundred thousand hundred-weight of slave-grown sugar--it was refined and exported. What revenue was raised upon it? Not a single shilling, while all the expenses incidental to the bonding system were incurred in its regard. By no one could such a system be sustained, except by the noble lord the member for North Lancashire, by whom an elaborate vindication of these anomalies was fearlessly undertaken. I shall not attempt to follow the noble lord through the various and exceedingly irrelevant topics with which his speech was made up, but I think it right to disabuse the country of any erroneous impressions which, in reference to the opinions of Mr. Huskisson, the noble lord laboured to produce. The noble lord told us that he was a disciple of Mr. Huskisson, and took upon himself to set his opinions forth. Never was there a more egregious misrepresenta

tion. After hearing the noble lord, I turned to a more authorised source of information-the speeches of Mr. Huskisson-and I found that, in the account given of the sentiments of that illustrious man, his disciple was most singularly mistaken. In the year 1830, in the month of March, Mr. Huskisson made two speeches; one was delivered by him on the 16th of March, in a debate on the state of the country; the other on the 25th of March, upon a motion of Mr. Poulett Thompson. On the 16th of March, Mr. Huskisson said :—

"Our Corn-laws, however expedient to prevent other evils in the present state of the country, are in themselves a burden and a restraint upon its manufacturing and commercial industry. Whilst the products of that industry must descend to a level of the general market of the world, the producers, so far as food is concerned, are debarred from that 'evel."

But, Sir, in a subsequent but proximate debate, Mr. Huskisson expressed himself in a manner still more unequivocal. I shall read his exact words, They are to be found in page 555 of the third volume of his speeches. Those words are these:

"It was (he said) his unalterable conviction that we could not uphold the Corn-laws now in existence, together with the present system of Saxation, and at the same time, increase the national prosperity and preserve public contentment. That those laws might be repealed without affecting the landed interest, whilst, at the same time, the distress of the people might be relieved, he never had any doubt whatever. A general feeling prevailed, that some change must be effected, and that speedily. Nor were there any individuals more thoroughly persuaded of it than those who moved in the humbler walks of life."

""*

Such was the language of Mr. Huskisson in 1830, language expressive of opinions very different from those which the noble lord, who told us that he was his disciple (who could have conjectured it?) had ascribed to him. In 1830 Mr. Huskisson had been liberated from the trammels of the Tory party; he had abandoned that party to which the noble lord is united now, and had thrown off the shackles which the noble lord has now put on. Sir, I pass from the noble lord to the monopoly which he sustains. I support what is commonly called, the West-India interest. There are West-Indians, I rejoice to say, who, of the mode of promoting the prosperity of our colonies, entertain a just appreciation. On the 11th of February last, a meeting was held in Trinidad of the chief proprietors and agriculturists. Mr. Burnley was in the chair. He spoke as follows (I quote from a Trinidad paper) :—

"I shall hail with pleasure the day when every monopoly and restriction can, advantageously for the rest of the empire, be done away with. Thank God! we are now emancipated as well as our labourers; and we can walk abroad, bold and erect, and claim the benefit of the freest principles; and if we are honestly and fairly allowed to trade with all the world without restriction, we fear no competition from any quarter in the colonial market of the mother-country; and when that is effected,

See also IIansard, vol. 23. New Series, pp. 602, 816.

the agriculture of Trinidad will successfully compete with that of every other country depending upon slave-labour."

These are wise and liberal opinions, but in these opinions, it is but just to say, that West-Indians, in this country at least, do not generally coincide. For my own part, I should be much disposed to make allowance for the feelings of the West-Indian proprietors, if they did not affect sentiment, if they did not talk of slavery and of its horrors (what right have they to talk of it?) and if they contented themselves with stating the circumstances which constitute the alleged hardship of their case. Their case is this-their slaves were emancipated in 1833, and for the loss which they sustained, they consider themselves to be entitled, in the shape of exclusive privileges, to compensation. This is a plain statement, and the answer is also plain-England paid a ransom, which almost dazzles the imagination, and she is entitled to a receipt in full. No, answers the member for Newark, whose motion is insatiable, and who cries out, like the horse-leech's daughter, "More, more.' The member for Newark insists that the West-India planters were entitled not only to twenty millions, but to countless millions beyond that sum. He acknowledged, that since 1833, in addition to the twenty millions, the West-Indians had received, at least, ten millions, in the form of a protective duty. This admission is most important. But the member for Newark is mistaken in supposing the sum paid to the West-Indies, in the form of protection, to be so small as ten millions, in addition` to the twenty which was paid them. I inquired of my friend Mr. M'Gregor, the Secretary of the Board of Trade, how far the member for Newark was correct, and he, who is distinguished for accuracy as well as for surpassing talent, told me that the West-Indies had received upwards of nineteen millions, in addition to the twenty millions already paid them. He gave me the following table:

The house hates vulgarities of all kinds, and of all vulgar things, hates vulgar arithmetic the most; but on this occasion some indulgence