by establishing the superior cheap ness of free labour. He admitted that there was no hope of restoring the prosperity of the West Indies, unless we could enable their planters to compete successfully with the planters in Cuba and in the Brazils; and at the risk of being lectured by Mr. Ellice as Lord J. Russell had been for alluding to the extravagance of the West Indies, he would repeat, that one mode of enabling them to meet that competition was the diminution of their expenses, and especially of the cost of managing their estates. After showing that protection had operated very injuriously in the West Indies by increasing the rate of wages, which was an essential ingredient in the price of production, he argued at great length that Government would defeat its own object if it were to restore the high protection which formerly existed, and that the best plan for renewing the prosperity of the West Indies and for suppressing the slave trade would be the plan of the Government,which gave at once a free supply of labour to those colonies which wanted it, and an extension for three years longer of the moderate protection now in force. He then travelled over much of the same ground as on Friday last, defending the Government resolutions in all their details, and contending that whilst they were beneficial to the West Indies, they were not injurious to the consumers in this country. He also maintained that no injury would accrue to the revenue from the changes now proposed, as they were calculated to produce an increased consumption of sugar.

Mr. Seymer supported the amendment, in the hope that if

it were carried it would compel the Government to reconsider the whole of this subject. After a strong attack on the political economists, whom he characterized as dull deceivers, who were sometimes right in their decimals but always wrong in their millions, he expressed himself unable to conceive how the country, which had so nobly abolished slavery in 1807, could have passed the Act of 1846, which not only encouraged slavery but also renewed the slave trade, or how it could accede to a proposition like the present. It was true that the Act of 1846 had rendered sugar cheap; but did the House never hear of parties selling their wares at a tremendous sacrifice? Many of our planters were already ruined, and those who were not were declining business; and the result would be that the supply of sugar would diminish, and before long the price would again increase. He should have gladly given his vote in favour of a 10s. discriminating duty against all foreign sugar; but, as that question was not at present before the House, he should vote in favour of Sir J. Pakington's amendment.

Mr. Hume rose as a free trader to show that free trade had nothing to do with the question then before the House. Free trade could only operate where the parties were in like circumstances, and where both could apply the same objects to the same ends. Now, it was the opinion of Mr. Deacon Hume that if the British West Indies could be placed on a footing of equality with Cuba or Porto Rico, they would be able to compete with them successfully; and that gentleman entertained that opinion with great confidence, because, up to a recent period, this country had

been the great mart for the sugar, coffee, and rum of the West Indies. "But," said he, "when you abolished slavery you deprived the British planter of the labour which he enjoyed before in common with the Spanish colonist; and until you have again placed him on a level with his rivals in that respect, you cannot call upon him to meet the competition of free trade." The British planter therefore had a claim to a discriminating duty, not as a matter of favour, but as a matter of right. And why? Because every arrangement into which Great Britain had entered with him at the period of emancipation had been grossly violated. He had, therefore, not had the requisite means for the cultivation of his estates, and hence his present distress. He believed that free labour was the only mode by which you could put down slave labour; but his complaint was, that the colonists had never had an opportunity of giving free labour a fair trial. The Colonial Office had prevented that -the Colonial Office, which from first to last had always been a nuisance. Fortunate would it have been for the Colonies if that Office had been locked up, for, if we had allowed them to manage their own affairs, they would have known nothing of this distress. As we had not allowed them the labour which they wanted, and as the loss of that labour had occasioned high wages, we ought to consider whether we could not restore the confidence which we had destroyed by giving them a supply of labour, and that protection which we had promised but had subsequently withdrawn. He was of opinion that the measure of Government would have no effect in restoring their prosperity, and that it would

be better to let them die quickly than to keep them in a lingering and painful existence. For his own part, he was of opinion that if we were to withdraw our squadron from the coast of Africa, and apply the expense of it to the relief of the distress in the West Indies, in ten years their prosperity would be restored, and all their distress would vanish.

The debate after Mr. Hume's speech was adjourned, and on the following night was resumed; Mr. P. Miles and Lord George Bentinck opposing the Government plan, and Mr. Hawes defending it. The discussion now assumed a very personal shape, Lord G. Bentinck accusing the Colonial Office in round terms of suppressing important information, in order to keep the House and the public in the dark as to the real predicament of the Colonies. Mr. Hawes warmly repelled the imputation, and Lord John Russell coming to the assistance of his colleagues, especially of Earl Grey, attacked Lord G. Bentinck with great warmth and personality. The following passage will exhibit a specimen of the tone of this unusually acrimonious discussion. said::

Lord John Russell

"In general, with regard to those matters, it is quite evident that these mean frauds-these extremely disgraceful tricks-which the noble Lord imputes to my noble friend-are not the faults and the characteristics of men high in office in this country. They are the characteristics of men who are engaged in pursuits which the noble Lord long followed. (Loud cries of

Oh, oh!' and great uproar.) Some time ago, the noble Lord very greatly distinguished himself by detecting a fraud of this nature

(loud cheers and counter-cheers)— with respect to the name and age of a horse; a transaction in which he showed very great quickness of ap prehension." (Great confusion.)

Lord John continued his remarks in the same tone, interrupted by renewed bursts of angry interruption, and applause from his own side.

Mr. Disraeli took up the quarrel. He suggested that charges of this nature were not to be disposed of by appeals to high station or pedigree. Lord George Bentinck's indefatigable spirit of investigation and courage were not to be cowed by any bravo, whatever his position -not to be bullied either in the ring or on the Treasury bench. In the matter of the horse, Lord George had been thanked by a meeting at Newmarket, the chairman of which meeting was the Duke of Bedford. This was not the first time that despatches had been treated unsatisfactorily by an Administration. The House might remember the suppressions in the despatches of Sir Alexander Burnes. Several other members took part in the contention, and warm recriminations were interchanged, until Mr. Hawes was called to order by the Speaker. Lord Palmerston interposed with an ingenious and good-humoured speech, endeavouring to heal the breach by explaining the affair to have originated in a misconception between Mr. Goulburn and Mr. Hawes. The debate was again adjourned, and on its resumption the personal imputations affecting the Colonial Administration again became the subject of discussion. Mr. Hawes entered into a lengthened explanation of the facts affecting the despatches alleged to have been suppressed, but Lord George Ben

VOL. XC.

tinck declined to make any distinct retractation of his former charges, and after much fruitless altercation the debate on the main question was resumed. Mr. Bernal began by laying before the House some personal knowledge of the depreciation and ruin that was overspreading planters' estates in Jamaica. He, however, announced his intention of giving his vote in favour of Lord John Russell's proposition, although he was not a warm admirer either of that plan or of any other that had been proposed.

1

He

Sir James Graham rapidly reviewed the circumstances of the first infringement of the policy of excluding from this country the sugar of slave-labour countries; and he defended the Act of 1845 on the whole case as it then stood. admitted, however, as an imperfection of that Act, that prominency had not been given in it to the question of encouragement or nonencouragement of the slave-trade. The steps following that Act were a necessary sequel to the first steps taken in the new course: the subject was one of great difficulty, but the balance was in favour of the course taken. The Act of 1846 received Sir James's unwilling support, on the grounds stated by Sir Robert Peel. He now opposed a ten-shilling protective duty for six years, as inexpedient for the colonies themselves, from its probable effects in exaggerating the competition for labour, and raising wages. He had also a more general ground of objection. On the first night of this session Mr. Disraeli had referred to a prophecy made by him two years ago, that there would be a reaction in our commercial policy; and he now triumphed in what he believed to be the near accomplishment of that prophecy—he believed [C]

that the time had arrived when that reaction would commence. Nor was that all: Lord Stanley had the other night, in another place, asked for a prolongation of the time during which the existing Corn Law was to continue; and Mr. Herries had deliberately given it as his opinion that nothing would be really effectual for the relief of the West Indies except a discriminating duty approaching in its character to a prohibition. Why, if we were to revert to a system of prohibitory duties on foreign sugar, and if, under the terms lately issued by the Protection Society and signed by the Duke of Richmond, the idea of cheapness was to be made the subject of ridicule and scorn, then he would at once say, to any such reaction he was opposed. In passing, he would advert to what had been said with respect to cheap sugar, and the connexion which the noble Lord said there existed between cheap production and low wages. He did not shrink from that declaration. His official experience

Lord George Bentinck-" You have stated it both ways."

Sir James Graham-"That taunt falls upon me harmlessly. No taunt can now drive me from office, to make way for others. I have no power which the noble Lord or others may desire to deprive me of, to bestow it elsewhere. I desire nothing but to speak the plain truth. I was formerly of opinion that low prices made low wages; but my official experience seems to justify the conclusion that high prices make low wages; and that the effects of low wages fall most heavily on the working classes at a time when they are least able to bear that evil, because then they are in a condition the least able to purchase

the prime necessaries of life. I am satisfied you must be most cautious not to let anything enhance the prices of articles of the first necessity. Cheap sugar is not to be laughed at, notwithstanding the anathema of the Duke of Richmond. Sugar enters into the comforts of every family; it is the only little luxury that many families can enjoy; it renders palatable their rice, their gruel, their crout, their indifferent tea and coffee. It is our duty, as far as possible, to cheapen everything. When it be comes a question of reaction and of prohibitory duties, I oppose myself to reaction; for I believe that in the present state of the country that policy is impracticable - if practicable, most dangerous; and if carried into effect I should tremble for the consequences. I most sincerely intend to give my vote against the amendment."

The debate again adjourned was continued at great length. The Government plan was opposed on Anti-Slavery grounds by Sir Robert Inglis, on Protectionist grounds by the Marquis of Granby and Mr. Urquhart. Mr. Muntz objected to re-open the settlement of 1845. Mr. Labouchere defended the Ministerial scheme, but without novelty of argument.

Mr. Barkly defended the planters from exploded charges which had been renewed by Mr. Hawes, and corrected that gentleman's statement in several details; giving his own personal experience gathered on the spot. He showed that the unremunerative condition of sugar-planting does not arise from absenteeism or careless cultivation. He described the exertions of a planter who had spent 6,000l. or 7,000l. and great personal exertion without success. In Berbice, he

saw a person who had lived on his own estate for fifty years; two years before Mr. Barkly's visit, he had refused for his property 60,000l., offered by a nobleman now in the House of Peers; when Mr. Barkly saw him, that person had sold his estate for 1000 dollars, and was then living on an allowance granted to him by his former manager: the manager had crossed over to the Dutch slave-holding colony, and there soon amassed a fortune.

Mr. Goulburn took a view similar to Mr. Gladstone's; but, although he disclaimed a recurrence to protection, leaning more to that side; and also differing in his practical conclusions as to the vote which he

came

should give. He observed that the gentlemen opposite into office on the 6th of July, 1846; and on the 20th of July, after fourteen days' consideration, cutting short the experiment then in progress, they came down to the House and proposed a total change in the system that had been for some time previous in operation. They called for the assent of Parliament to the measure which they proposed, and pledged upon it the existence of the Government. He for one gave his assent to the scheme brought forward in these circumstances, not that he approved of the measure itself, but because he thought there was a possibility that the Colonies might escape the destruction that many persons foretold was certain to ensue; and because at that particular moment there was, as it appeared to him, danger to the general interests of the empire from another change of Administration, which, in his mind, outweighed those chances of misfortune that were likely to fall on the Colonies.

Sir Robert Peel commenced by

expressing his deep sympathy with the distress of our Colonies in the West Indies-Colonies which had stood by us unflinchingly during the American and the French revolutions, and had been the conductors by which the tempest of war had on both occasions been averted from our own shores. There were, however, social relations connected with those Colonies of even still higher value than political relations. The smaller the white population was in them, the more important was it for the purposes of civilization, humanity, and religion, that we should come forward to protect them. Their distress was now admitted on all hands, and there was a general desire to remedy it. On this occasion he would not say anything of the interests of the consumer, but would apply himself to those of the colonists alone. Her Majesty's Government had made proposals for their relief, and Sir John Pakington had called on the House to refuse consideration of those proposals, and on the Government to bring forward a better plan, or else to leave others the introduction of one. The West Indies were looking to this country for a remedy, and if the proposals of Government were condemned as unworthy of consideration, the news would be wafted in great triumph to them, and the next day would bring back a demand for new remedies. He then discussed the merits of Lord G. Bentinck's plan, and took a rapid review of the present position of the West Indies. Having done that, he asked whether, if he agreed to the amendment, he could go back to the measure of 1844, and re-establish the distinction between slave-labour and free-labour sugar? He thought that he could not.

In