Debates anbr Wroceebings in Vartiament.
THE SUGAR-DUTIES.
The House of Commons, on Monday, went into Committee on the Sugar-duties; and the Chairman read the Government resolution, that the duty on British Colonial Muscovado sugar, or any other sugar not equal in quality to White Clayed, shall, after the 5th July 1848 until the 5th July 1849, be 13s. per hundredweight. Sir JOHN PAKINGTON moved an amendment, that the duty on British Colonial sugar be 10s. instead of 13s.; the Foreign duty remaining at 20a., thus forming a differential duty of 10s. in favour of the British Colonies. In preceding discussions, Sir John had endeavoured to establish the positions that our Sugar Colonies are in a ruinous state of depression; and that the act of 1846 has given a great impulse to the slave-trade. He had further endeavoured to show that a differential duty of 10s. on foreign sugar would revive the prosperity of the Colonies, and check the increase of the slave-trade. But it had been objected that his scheme would endanger the revenue to some extent. Now he contended that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not justified in deriving revenue from sources inconsistent with the general welfare of the country. But the probable effect of the differential duty had been exaggerated. The consumption in 1847 will most probably be 225,000 tons of Colonial and 100,000 tons of Foreign sugar; and on these quantities the duties Sir John proposed to levy would yield a revenue of 4,250,0001. This sum, instead of falling short of the Last year's revenue by 960,0001., as was alleged, would fall short of it by only 132,4691., and would exceed, the revenue of 1846 by 366,7951. But the question would be asked, how long he proposed to continue the differential duty of 10s. ? What did he propose to do at the end of the period for *which he proposed this duty? did he propose at once to equalize the duties, or to have a descending scale P—He must at once say, that he could express no very decided opinion on those points, and must refuse to give any answer or explanation at all. After the frequent disturbances of final legislation which Parliament had made in the past four years, he thought it impossible for any man to say now what would be prudent in 1854. [Later in the discussion, Sir John stated Ins *e spore defipttely. Although the Committee had recommended the con,oP,tI& th. Slnty for six years, he hoped that it might not be necessary t that if it were retained for three years, a descending "err might be adopted for the other three years.] MT. HENRT DRUMMOND seconded the amendment. Both sides of the House seemed to be in perplexity, fearingeelecanty out their own principles. If the Free-trade system. were the trite one, ft Zhou] d be followed with nnineeselity mut equality; end 'the Walt hulks should be content with nothing less than: the telmlarion of every one of their products to this country without duty. CrteaLits WOOD opposed the amendment, ehiefly on the ground of
its imperilling the revenue. .
The estimate of 325,000 tons for next year's consumption implies an increase on -that of the past year of 35,000 tons. The only year in which so large an in crease ever took place was the extraordinary one of 1845: the greatest increase of any other year has been but 23,000 tons; and it is unlikely that the increase of the present year will be more than 20,000 tons. With these quantities, by the Government plan the revenue may lose 240,0001., or it may gain some 40,0001, according as the distribution of increase shall be in favour of Colonial sugar or of Foreign. The loss by Sir John Pakington's scale might possibly be as great as 960,0001.; though it might on the other hand be as small as 240,000L, But the risk attending his plan is plainly 720,000/. more than the risk attending the plait of Government; and Sir Charles Wood did not consider that the probabilities of making up so large a loss as the latter was great enough to jilStify the experi_ ment. Sir Charles made even the Ministerial reduction with unwillingness; but he hoped upon the whole that the revenue would not seriously suftir by it. The amendment was supported by Mr. BAILLIE Cocinterns, and Mr. GODSON, on West Indian grounds; by Mr. SPOONER, on Protectionist and Anti-Slavery grounds; and by Mr. ROBINSON, on grounds of compact and justice. Mr. MANGLES and Mr. OSWALD also opposed the Ministerial reso]ution as a dereliction from the Free-trade principle of the act of 1846, and also on the ground of reparative justice to the Colonies. The speakers in favour of the Ministerial resolution were Mr. VERNON SMITH, on revenue grounds; and Mr. M'Cum.Aon, as a Free-trader, and in behalf of the poor consumer.
Mr. MILNER Gniscar spoke at considerable length against the Ministerial proposition, as a departure from the law of 1846; which he had hoped was a final settlement of the Sugar question on all grounds except the one of revenue.
Mr. CHARLES VILLIERS impeached the constitution of the West India Committee, and vouched for a fact— 'No doubt, Lord George Bentinck intended to nominate the Committee impartially; but still the noble Lord was allowed to have his own way entirely, and in fact the Committee consisted of ten Protectionists and five Free-traders. ("Name, name!") The ten were either Protectionists avowedly on principle, or notoriously Protectionists on the subject of sugar. Was the proposition made by the honourable Member for Droitwich carried by a majority of the Committee? Mr. Villiers would venture to say, that if there was one thing on which the Committee could not be induced to agree, it was this proposition of a log. discriminating duty," Lord GEORGE BENTINCK vindicated the impartiality of the Committee. Three only of its members had previously voted against, five in favour of the act of 1846: six were Free-traders, whose opinions on that act were unknown. The resolution eventually carried was proposed by Sir Thomas Birch, the Free-trade Member for Liverpool. Sir Thomas was placed on the Committee at the urgent desire of Ministers, expressed through the Secretary of the Treasury. The other member was Lord George Manners, whose opinions were also quite unknown.
Mr. THOMAS BARING felt that this question stood on special grounds, and called for a special treatment.
He agreed with the Chancellor -af the Exchequer, that it was difficult to afford relief here without danger to the revenue; but he thought, on the whole, that the sacrifice should be made by the revenue rather than by the producer or the consumer. The propositions of the Government were insufficient to revivify the in4 dnstry and restore the confidence of the Colonies. It was his opinion, that even with a 10s. protection the Colonies would undergo a severe struggle, and that a large portion of territory would cease to be cultivated; but still, under that protection cultivation would be confifited to a great extent, and the price of sugar would not be enhanced to the consumer. It is impossible that the Colonies should consider the Government proposals a final settlementThey will look at the measure as only a Ministerial salvo and a party move. It will be said, that the proposal of the Government was not to benefit the colonists, but to save what was called the principle of the bill of 1846: it was not for the good of the Colonies, but to save the consistency of the Government. The Government saw that something must be done, and they sent for an honourable gentleman who was very learned in figures, and who had great readiness in either elucidating or mystifying facts' they sent to bins and said—" We must do something, but let us do as little as we can; let us throw dust in their eyes," as the honourable gentleman the Member for Manchester had called it. It was intended to do little harm or good to anybody. The Government said—" We know of the distress in the Colonies, for our own Governors have pointed it out to us. Our Governors write to say that something must be done: they see things as they are in the Colonies, while we See them in the Colonial Office as we wish them to be, and as we know they will be. We will not change our opinion either for the report or the evidence of the Committee. We will not grant any change on account of public meetings and demonstrations of feelings; because our experience has shown us that public meetings, unless backed by an organized, well' trained, and monied league, are impotent; ankthe colonists have no money to agitate. But some of our friends think the of 1846 has not worked well. Many of our stanchest supporters think this is an exceptional case. Many think that the Colonies are in the road to destruction. We must do something. We must shuffle the scales, so as to get the honourable Member for Rochester [Mr. Bernal] and the right honourable Member for Coventry [Mr. Ellice] to join us; and we must do something that will satisfy the late Government and those who acted with them. There were two distinguished Members in the Committee [Messrs Goulbum and Gladstone] who voted neither one way nor the other; and if we give a measure that does neither one thing nor another, we shall have their support. At any rate, the two great leaders [Sir Robert Peel and Sir James Graham] whilst they give their sympathies to the Colonies, will give their votes to us Irons dread of reaction." (Cheers.) Lord JOHN RUSSELL admitted that Mr. Baring might succeed, by his great personal influence and power of address, in suggesting to the minds of colonists what unfavourable motives to impute to Government: but he would suppose another case—that of a real attempt made for the good of the Colonies, without any party object. What would be its course? "I should say that the way would be, to introduce into the House such a measure as the proposition of the Government; and not to collect together, by a motion framed for the purpose, anybody who bad any objection to make in one way, and any one who had objections to make in any other—some saying that the revenue would lose too much, and others that we have not cut enough into the revenue—some declaring that we ought to have maintained the act of 1846, and others that we did not go far enough from it; and then, collecting all these votes together, while the only common quality of these discordant opinions is that they differ still more from one another than from the proposition of the Govanment,—I say that if our motives are to be impugned, it is because it is not veil easy to resort to arguments against the measure of the Government." Lord John's objections to the amended resolution were two,—the one founded Upon considerations of revenue, a risk of 950,0001. a year; the other founded Urn
the state in which you would leave the Colonies at the end of three years—a state of utter uncertainty; or, if you take six years, the disadvantage that would thereby accrue to the consumer.
Mr. Disoasu criticized the preceding speeches, and ended with a recurrence to his own topic of "reaction," recently alluded to by Sir James Graham " The right honourable gentleman lately gave some peculiar reasons for suplasting the proposition of the Government. He acknowledged that he supported it against his conviction, and he informed us that it passed the power of argument. Bat he also said that he supported the Government proposition because I had, in some observations which I made two years ago, when I supported my noble friend in his opposition to the fatal measure of 1846, aaid that the time valid come when you would have to repeal and rescind that measure, as the spirit of reaction would oblige you to do so. The right honourable gentleman, accordingly, would not vote for the proposition of the honourable Member for Droitwith, because in that case he thought that he would rather assist the fulfilment d ray prediction. But I must beg to inform the right honourable gentleman, that the fulfilment of my prediction does not depend on carrying the amendment of my honourable friend. Her Majesty's Ministers have fulfilled my prediction. ("Hear, hear! ) My prediction was not in favour of any particular duty—I said, you would have to change the course of your legislation, and to go back; and you have gone back. Whether the duty you propose is 10a. protection or 78., the reaction is complete: and I will tell the right honourable gentleman, that reaction is not 8, thing that is made by acts of Parliament, any more than it can be controlled by the opinions of Ministers of State. The course of reaction is inevitable. Reaction is the ebb and flow of opinion incident to fallible beings. It is the consequence of hope deferred, of false representations, of expectations baulked; it is the consequence of a nation awaking from a delusion." It is very easy for a gentleman of the great position, eminent ability, and varied experience of the right honourable Member for Ripon, to cry out, No reaction!' Why, I knew gentlemen who used to cry out No surrender!' and yet after that they laid down their arms. It is not a bravado exclamation of this kind that can arrest the course of public opinion, or the inevitable progress of human affairs. Continue that course which you opened with so much hope and with so much courage, and which you are now quitting with so much hesitation and with so much timidity; pursue that course, and the honourable gentleman may cry out 'No reaction!' but if the principles of the honourable Member for Manchester be acted on in the interval, before another couple of years is passed the right hoaourable gentleman will cry out No reaction ' amid a dissolving empire and a despairing people."
On a division, the Committee negatived Sir John Pakington's amendment, by 231 to 169.
Lord JOEIN RUSSELL proposed to continue the discussion of the measure on Friday.
As the House could not settle this question of the duties before the 5th of July, be would propose that the Chairman do now report progress, and sit again on Friday next, to proceed with-the resolutions. Mr. GLADS1'ONE, who had expressed some disapprobation of the practice of levying duties under a resolution of the House, inquired what course was to be taken in the mean time with the foreign merchants and all those who had sugar on the way to this country ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, the practice of continuingduties by a resolution of the House was not unusual. This was the course taken in 1831 in the case of wines, when the higher duty was levied on one description of wines and the lowest on another. The consequence of the resolution not being reported would be, that whatever Foreign sugar came in before that was done would be subjected to the diminished duty under the:act of 1846, whichoomes into operation in the mean time. The House resumed; progress was reported, and leave obtained to sit again on Friday.
Previous page
