produced from the refining of fo reign sugars in bond, were so modified as to permit the comsump tion of them at home. He urged the importance of concluding a commercial treaty with Brazil-a country which, while it could furnish England with the cheapest sugar, would take the largest proportion of English commodities. He could pay no regard to the plea that the West Indies would be destroyed; he believed that the ef fect of free consumption would be rather to revive than to depress their trade. The foreign slave trade was pressed as an argument; but he believed that free-trade was the surest course for the final extinction of slavery itself. If you would civilize Africa, you should spread commerce there. Come

merce was the great emancipator. He concluded with a Motion for levying an uniform duty on foreign and colonial sugar.

Mr. James said, that England would stultify herself in the eyes of all the world, if, after the payment of 20,000,000l. to abolish slavery in her own colonies, and after her great and continued efforts to repress the slave trade, she should accede to a policy, which went to undo all that had been done, and aggravate the worst horrors of the slave system, in Cuba and Brazil. Free-trade was all very well; but sugar ought to be an exception. To this effect, he quoted the late Mr. Deacon Hume, who had observed, that while the slave trade was carried on by Cuba and Brazil, and prohibited to our own colonies, the principle of free-trade did not come into real operation.

Mr. Brotherton was for the removal of all difference in the duties.

England millions a year, in order to maintain the monopoly of the West Indians. The temperance of the people had greatly extended the consumption of coffee, and it might be supposed that the consumption of sugar ought to have increased in proportion; but the contrary was the fact. It was by our moral influence that we must hope to put down slavery, and not by our differential duties, which naturally led foreigners to regard us as hypocrites, seeking only our own profit.

Mr. Villiers complained that Ministers had not answered either Mr. Cobden or Mr. Ewärt, which was really to treat them with contempt. He was at a loss to discover why Mr. James, who was generally liberal with respect to other men's property, was so narrow in his view on this particular subject; but his surprise ceased when he found that the hon. Member was one of the West India proprietors a class, however, who, in his opinion, had received a great deal more than was due to them in the shape of compensation. Mr. Goulburn's argument that the revenue would suffer was quite untenable; the increase of consumption would quite compensate the reduction of duty. The interest of the colonies was insisted on; but it was not the welfare of the labourers that was really regarded, for measures were in progress to lower their wages, by im porting an addition to their num bers; the parties really favoured were the proprietors. Another plea was that of slavery and the slave trade; but the great impediment to the cure of these evils was the general opinion of our insincerity upon this subject. Indeed,

if slavery should be abolished in Cuba and Brazil to-morrow, the British Government would not consent to equalize the duty. We had been negotiating with the United States about the admission of various articles, most of them the produce of that very kind of labour of which, on the subject of sugar, we professed so much hor ror. If these duties were not reduced, the people would consider the colonies, which prevent their reduction, as a curse to the country. How could we expect the people to fight for our institutions, when they were burdened with sugar duties and corn duties? The contempt thrown upon the people was evinced not only by the silence of the Ministers, but by the absence of so many of the representatives of large constituencies from the House.

Mr. James observed, that the compensation, though a large one for the people of England to pay, had been but a small one for the owners of West India estates to receive. His own compensation had been less than two years' income of the estate.

Mr. Ward, in a few words, supported the motion of Mr. Ewart.

Mr. Bernal reproved the asperity of Mr. Villiers's tone; and exposed the unfairness of treating the compensation for the slaves as an equivalent for the estates. He insisted on the guarantee of the British Parliament implied, if not expressed, to every West India proprietor; and explained the principle of the slave compensation, saying that if his advice could have prevailed with the West India body, that compensation would have been rejected. He contended, that though the reduction of duty

make that article cheap, yet the increase in its consumption would follow, which would soon lead to an increase of price. He insisted on the injustice of suddenly withdrawing from any class of proprie tors the protection which they had been long accustomed to enjoy. He protested against invidious allegations of monopoly, and appealed to the sympathy of the House on behalf of men once possessed of wealth or competency, and now brought to the verge of ruin. For himself, he would confess, that not only had he derived no profit from his West India estates, but he had actually sustained, for several years past, a considerable loss. Now, this could not last much longer; and if the West India proprietors were dri ven out of cultivation, who would guarantee an adequate supply from new sources? He could not consent to ruin a large body of persons, and incur a long series of dangers, for the mere chance of enabling the English consumers to get their sugar a little cheaper.

Dr. Bowring asserted the right of the British people to obtain sugar in the cheapest market. But the people were the unrepresented class in the House of Commons, where every privilege and monopoly had its defenders. Let the House give to the labourers at home the emancipation which it had given to the blacks.

Mr. Scarlett dwelt on the large révenue derived by the mother country from the sugar colonies.

Mr. Gibson complained of the continued silence of the Ministers. He argued that the West Indians had been adequately compensated; but, even if they had not, he could not agree to go on compensating

wished, as all must wish, to put down slavery; but the way to put it down was by public opinion, not by prohibiting commerce with the Brazils, and proclaiming that you could not trust to the efficacy of free labour against the labour of slaves.

Mr. G. Berkeley stated it to be impossible that, at the present high wages of colonial labour, the estates could continue to be worked. Let immigration be fairly allowed, and the West Indians would not fear their competitors: but until that should be given, let not the subsisting protection be withdrawn.

The Committee then dividedFor the equalization of duties, 50; Against it, 135: Majority against it, 85.

Mr. Hawes then rose. He said he should not have been content to at once abolish all difference between colonial and foreign duties; but he would propose that, at least, the House should cease to maintain an impost which was equivalent to total prohibition, and should lower the duty to 34s. He did not believe that such a reduction would at all encourage slavery, or the slave trade. It was a measure not sudden or extreme, but one which would prepare the colonists for further steps in the same direction. It would cause some increase both in consumption and in revenue.

Mr. Gladstone did not object, upon general grounds, to the principle of this Motion-nay, but for the peculiar circumstances of the sugar trade, he should gladly have included sugar in the tariff of last year. But he was not prepared to concur in Mr. Hawes's proposal. He did not think it likely to add

being too small to induce an abatement upon the retail price. If, then, no sensible relief would be given to the consumer, it was not desirable to disturb the scale of duties in so important a matter. The sugars of the present day, from the employment of machinery, and from other improvements, were of much better quality than the sugars of the same denomination and price had been a few years ago. He denied that foreigners were so besotted in prejudice as not to see that England, far from being a hypocrite upon the slavery question, had made great sacrifices of her own interests for the sake of abolition. He demonstrated that the reduction of duty on Brazilian sugar must have the effect of encouraging slavery, by stimulating production.

Mr. Labouchere thought the time was come, when sugar ought to be put upon the same footing with other articles of commerce. Mr. Gladstone had not argued that this proposal would be objectionable on commercial or on financial grounds; he had rested his opposition to it solely on its tendency to encourage slavery; the answer to that argument was, that England had already a large trade with the Brazils, consisting mainly in the produce of this very labour. The step now proposed would be beneficial to our own colonists, by substituting for monopoly, with its gambling consequences, a free and wholesome competition. He intimated a wish to know the turn of the negotiations between England and Brazil.

Sir Robert Peel said, that it had been proposed to the government of Brazil to treat for the ad

condition that the Brazilian government would take measures for gradually ameliorating the condition of the slaves in that country, with a view to the final abolition of slavery there; but the Brazilian government had made demands, which precluded such a negotiation; and he lamented to say, that the disposition of that government, and of its people, was not such as to leave much hope of any present advance on the side of emancipation. He denied that the compensation for the slaves had been an equivalent for the whole deterioration of the West Indian properties. He exemplified the He exemplified the general loss from facts relating to particular estates. The silence of the Ministers on Mr. Ewart's Motion had been owing only to a belief on their part, that it would be more convenient for them to make their explanations on the Motion of Mr. Hawes, which involved much the same considerations.

The Committee then divided: for the 34s. duty, 122; against it, 203 majority against it, 81.

The subject of the duties upon another important article of traffic, wool, was brought under discussion on the 17th July, when Mr. Charles Wood moved as an Amend ment on the Motion for going into a Committee of Supply-" That the House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to consider so much of the Act 5th and 6th Victoria, c. 47 (Customs Act), as relates to the duties on the importation of foreign sheep and lamb's wool." The trade has been declining for a number of years, going back even before 1819. While the export of British wool has increased from 278,000 pounds in 1827, to 8,578,000 pounds in

yarns (made of a wool not subject to duty) has increased from 2,300,000 pounds in 1835, to 5,700,000 pounds in 1842, the export of woollen cloths of all sorts has fallen from 392,000 in 1839, to 166,000 in 1842. He believed that the country could not be mentioned to which our exports of woollen goods had not decreased. The import of wool at the high duty of 1d. the pound has fallen from 32,000,000 pounds in 1838, to 17,000,000 pounds in 1842. The trade of countries competing with us has increased nearly in the same proportion. The import of colonial wool, not subjected to duty, has increased from 10,000,000 pounds in 1838, to 18,360,000 pounds in 1842. The produce of theld.duty has fallen from 135,000l. in 1838, to 76,000l. in 1842. The depressed state of Leeds is illustrated by the facts, that of 665 gigs, machines used in finishing cloth, last year, 381 were absolutely standing still, and 254 were working short time; and that the amount of wages paid last year in the woollen trade was less than usual by 434,000/.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer opposed the Motion. He disputed the value of the statistics quoted by Mr. Wood, alleging that in no other trade was the importation so uncertain. The diminished import of foreign wool was balanced by the importation of colonial wool; and the diminished export of woollen goods, by the increased export of mixed woollen and cotton fabrics.

Sir Robert Peel admitted the force of the argument for reducing the duty; but contended, that the financial state of the country made it impossible to give up

The Amendment was supported by Mr. William Williams, Mr. G. W. Wood, Mr. B. Denison, and Mr. W. R. Stansfield. On a division, it was rejected by 142 to 70.

Among the steps in the direetion of commercial relaxation, to which the present Session gave rise, may be enumerated the repeal, at the instance of Government, of the restrictions on the exportation of machinery, imposed by an Act of King William the Fourth. The President of the Board of Trade brought in a Bill for this purpose, the objects of which he explained, on moving the second reading in the House of Commons. The prohibition to export machinery originated in the belief, that if machinery were detained at home, the goods to be made by it would be produced in this country, and thus trade would be increased. But, in fact, the law is nugatory; and the authorities of the Customs, ever since 1824, have pronounced such a law to be impracticable; so easy is it to export machinery in parts, or under cover of the coasting trade. The effect of the law has been simply to enhance the cost of British machinery to the foreign purchaser; and the consequence is that, to a great extent, the trade has passed from us to Belgium, where there is an increasing trade. It is one almost indigenous with us, meriting as much encouragement as other manufactures; and its export is opposed by no arguments that will not equally apply, for instance, to the export of yarns. Mr. Gladstone quoted authorities in favour of removing the pro. hibition; and mentioned the case

it had deprived of extensive orders for Sardinia, which had been transferred to Belgium. Another effect of the present law is, to drive the inventor-and the Americans have obtained a name for invention-from resorting to this countey, where they could get their work best executed.

Mr. Hindley professed his assent to the free-trade principle of the Bill; but, with some sarcastic remarks upon the Ministers who had proposed it, after turning their predecessors out of office, for their adherence to similar principles. He objected also to obliging the British manufacturer, with the millstone of the Corn-laws round his neck, to contend against the unfettered foreigner. He moved as an Amendment, that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the laws relating to the exportation of machinery.

Mr. Stuart Wortley expressed some suspicion of the Bill, but ended by saying, he should vote for it, as gradual relaxations of the law had left very little protection to fight for. Mr. Labouchere rejoiced in assisting at the removal of the last prohibition that disfigured the Statute Book, Mr. Cobden supported the Bill, on the broad ground that it did away with one of the monopolies. It received a similar support from Mr. Brotherton, Mr. Ross, Mr. Hume, Mr. Duncan, and Dr. Bowring, Mr. W. Williams doubted its policy; and Sir Robert Ferguson opposed it altogether.

Sir Robert Peel read some extracts from a letter of Mr. Hirdman, of Belfast, showing that the new French tariff had driven France from competition in foreign markets with our linens,