sugar, a less portion remained to be divided among the poorer classes, and that too at a higher price. It therefore followed, that the monopoly diminished the consumption of sugar, and by diminishing the consumption also diminished the amount of customs' duties paid upon it into the revenue. But if the import of sugar had diminished, perhaps the loss had been made up by our exports to the West Indies. Quite the reverse; the exports to the West Indies, in 1794, were as great as they were now, and during the last twenty years they had not increased. He, therefore, contended that this protection was not for revenue, for it defrauded revenue that it was not for the protection of the producer, for his produce had not increased-that it was not for the benefit of the exporter at home, for his exports to those colonies were stationary and that it was not to be defended on the score of consistency, for Sir R. Peel was now going to admit cotton, the produce of the East Indies, and cotton, the produce of the United States of America, on the same terms. It was also at variance with the principles of the greatest practical political philosophers, and as it was a mere arbitrary exaction carried by the force of numbers in that House, for the benefit of a class, for which no adequate explanation had been offered, he trusted that they would desist in future from this unwise legislation, and would no longer sanction the principle once avowed in that House, that free was not able to compete with slave labour.

Mr. Ewart seconded the amend ment, on the ground that the imposition of these discriminating duties checked the legitimate oper

VOL. LXXXVII.

ations of commerce in China and in South America, where there was a great field at present open for the introduction of our manufactures.

Mr. James thanked the Government for the protection given to the West Indies. He said that the cost of cultivating sugar in Jamaica was twice as much as in Cuba and Brazil. The equalizing of the duties would ruin the West Indies, and take away all hope of extinguishing the slave trade. He considered Mr. Gibson's proposition an iniquitous one.

Mr. Ricardo supported the amendment. He said that the Government resolution contained nineteen different rates of duty to be levied upon sugar. It contained distinctions for which there was no real ground of difference, and it made an immense sacrifice of revenue without the least compensating advantage. Brokers and wholesale grocers had publicly declared, that they could not comprehend the distinction which Sir R. Peel had drawn between the different kinds of brown muscovadoes and of clayed sugars, nor tell where muscovadoes ended or clayed sugars begun. He calculated the sacrifice made by the English consumers of sugar under the present system to be 3,079,000l. more than under the old; and this was paid to the West Indian proprietors exclusively. To this might be added 1,300,000l. more, which would be lost, according to Sir R. Peel, to the Exchequer; so that 5,000,000l., or the amount of the income-tax, was sacrificed by the country for these discriminating duties. He thought that it would be much better for Sir R. Peel to equalize the sugar duties in order to get rid of the income tax, than [E]

to propose the continuance of the income tax in order to make his present reductions in the sugar duties.

Sir George Clerk said, that in our commercial system the protective duties might in some cases be carried too far, but considering the heavy burden of our national debt, it was a very serious matter to say that we were to remove all protection from native industry. He contended that the depression to which the West India interest had been subject for some time past, owing to the abolition of the slave trade and of slavery itself, afforded a fair claim to legislative protection. When it was just commencing to recover from that depression, was it wise for the House to interfere, and assert that the West India planters were not entitled to any protection at all? If the West India proprietors had not applied to the cultivation of sugar all the modern inventions of science and machinery, it was owing to their want of capital, occasioned by the immense depreciation of their properties; but he

denied that such was the fact to anything like the extent predicated by Mr. Gibson. Instead of there not being a single steam engine in the West Indian islands, he knew that there were many; for he had himself seen some years ago, a whole batch of them ready for exportation to those islands, in a steam-engine establishment near Westminster Bridge. Believing that the plan of Sir R. Peel would secure to the people of England sugar at a cheaper price than that at which they had ever been able to purchase it during the last thirty years, without doing any injury to the producer; and believing also that the increased consumption of

sugar, which would be a consequence of the reduction of the price, would give increased energy to the West India proprietors, and restore them to their former prosperity, when they not only supplied the whole demand of the English market, but also exported a large quantity of sugar to the Continent; he should certainly give his vote in support of it, and against an amendment which, if the premises on which Mr. M. Gibson based it were correct, ought to be changed into a resolution calling for the repeal of all the existing duties.

Mr. Villiers, professing sincere personal respect for Sir G. Clerk, characterized his speech as a collection of vague assertions and trite commonplaces, which were at the present day scarcely worth the trouble of refuting. The assertion that the West India interest had suffered by the abolition of the slave trade, was quite contrary to the fact; the reverse had been admitted by Lord Ripon, twelve years ago. As to the argument that the colonial proprietors required protection, it lay on Sir G. Clerk to show that these protected interests had ever prospered, or that this was the first time they had ever been depressed. These duties cost the country 4,0007. per week in the metropolis, and 50,000l. per week in the rest of the kingdom, and all for the benefit of the West India proprietors. The people of England ought not to be mulcted of such a sum without a better reason than had been given by Sir G. Clerk or his colleagues.

Mr. Miles supported the resolution, but wished that the duties should be passed for three years, and not annually.

Lord Howick said he could not

call such a duty, as Sir G. Clerk had done, a protection to British industry; on the contrary, he denounced it as an unjustifiable impost on the hard earned wages of the British labourer. He proved this by showing that Brazilian sugar was now selling in bond at 18s. 6d. a cwt., and that colonial sugar of the same quality was selling at 26s. a cwt. Now, twentysix tons of Brazilian sugar at 18s. 6d. a cwt., and eighteen tons and a half of colonial sugar at 26s. acwt., would cost each 4817. Therefore, the produce of British labour to the amount of 4811. would exchange for sugar of Brazil, in bond, to the amount of twenty-six tons; but for sugar of the West Indies, in bond, to the amount of only eighteen tons and a half. Seven tons and a half of sugar was, then, the amount of spoliation from the British labourer, taken by the West India proprietor on so comparatively insignificant a sum as 4811. He then proceeded to point out the advantages which would be derived to the country from abolishing these discriminating duties in our increased trade with South America, and especially with the Brazils. When the Brazilian treaty, which admitted all British produce and manufactures for consumption into Brazil at a duty of 15 per cent., expired last year, the Government of Brazil informed our Government that they would exclude our produce from their dominions, unless we admitted their produce at reduced duties into ours; but that they would admit it on the old terms, if we would relax the sternness of our tariff. The equalization of these duties would therefore immediately restore us to a state of commercial harmony with the Brazils, and so open

to us a market which already took annually five millions of our exports, and which, it was calculated, might in a few years take double that amount. He then entered

into a long statement to prove that the retention of these discriminating duties, so far from being a benefit, was absolutely a detriment to the West Indies themselves. He defended himself, and those who acted with him, from the charge that, in proposing this equalization of duties, they were indifferent to the horrors of slavery. He would not say that such an equalization of duties might not give a temporary stimulus to slavery and the slave trade; but he was persuaded that in the end it would enable the friends of humanity to gain a great triumph, for it would show that on a clear stage and without any favour, free labour was more than able to compete with slave labour.

Mr. Gladstone admitted that the supporters of the resolution were bound to show cause for maintaining the existing protection; but it had been the policy of Parliament for some time past to maintain protection, where capital and skill were invested in certain forms, perhaps defective, but still adopted under its sanction. The records of Parliament showed that it had not been its custom to draw down ruin on those who relied on its faith, but that it had always taken into its view the claims which parties so situated had to its regard. Mr. Villiers had asked what claims had the West India proprietors to this discriminating duty? He (Mr. Gladstone) wished heartily that equalization of duties could be adopted on native and on foreign productions;

to propose the continuance of the income tax in order to make his present reductions in the sugar duties.

Sir George Clerk said, that in our commercial system the protective duties might in some cases be carried too far, but considering the heavy burden of our national debt, it was a very serious matter to say that we were to remove all protection from native industry. He contended that the depression to which the West India interest had been subject for some time past, owing to the abolition of the slave trade and of slavery itself, afforded a fair claim to legislative protection. When it was just commencing to recover from that depression, was it wise for the House to interfere, and assert that the West India planters were not entitled to any protection at all? If the West India proprietors had not applied to the cultivation of sugar all the modern inventions of science and machinery, it was owing to their want of capital, occasioned by the immense depreciation of their properties; but he denied that such was the fact to anything like the extent predicated by Mr. Gibson. Instead of there not being a single steam engine in the West Indian islands, he knew that there were many; for he had himself seen some years ago, a whole batch of them ready for exportation to those islands, in a steam-engine establishment near Westminster Bridge. Believing that the plan of Sir R. Peel would secure to the people of England sugar at a cheaper price than that at which they had ever been able to purchase it during the last thirty years, without doing any injury to the producer; and believing also that the increased consumption of

sugar, which would be a consequence of the reduction of the price, would give increased energy to the West India proprietors, and restore them to their former prosperity, when they not only supplied the whole demand of the English market, but also exported a large quantity of sugar to the Continent; he should certainly give his vote in support of it, and against an amendment which, if the premises on which Mr. M. Gibson based it were correct, ought to be changed into a resolution calling for the repeal of all the existing duties.

Mr. Villiers, professing sincere personal respect for Sir G. Clerk, characterized his speech as a collection of vague assertions and trite commonplaces, which were at the present day scarcely worth the trouble of refuting. The assertion that the West India interest had suffered by the abolition of the slave trade, was quite contrary to the fact; the reverse had been admitted by Lord Ripon, twelve years ago. As to the argument that the colonial proprietors required protection, it lay on Sir G. Clerk to show that these protected interests had ever prospered, or that this was the first time they had ever been depressed. These duties cost the country 4,000l. per week in the metropolis, and 50,000l. per week in the rest of the kingdom, and all for the benefit of the West India proprietors. The people of England ought not to be mulcted of such a sum without a better reason than had been given by Sir G. Clerk or his colleagues.

Mr. Miles supported the resolntion, but wished that the duties should be passed for three years. and not annually.

Lord Howick said he cor