POSTSCRIPT.
SATURDAY NIGHT.
Contrary to general expectation, no division took place last night on the Sugar-duties motion ; but the debate was again adjourned, on the sixth mght..
Before the discussion was resumed, Mr. Wriaaara GLADSTONE made and called for an explanation on a personal matter. In his speech on Thursday, Lord Howick had twitted Mr. Gladstone, the new Anti- Slavery advocate, with a mortality which had occurred some years back among the Negroes on his father's estate, Vried-en-hoep, in Demerara. Mr. Gladstone said that there bad been a general mortality in the colony, owing to the expiration of the last generation of unmixed males who had been introduced under the slave-trade ; but that there had been any over-production of sugar on the estate in question, according to Lord Howick's implication, he denied. Lord Howick had withdrawn the charge eight years ago.
Lord HOWICK said, that he had not then pressed the charge, because lord Althorp would not give the papers on which it was to be founded. He meant nothing personally offensive to Mr. Gladstone or his father : he only regarded the case as prima facie suspicions; and he mentioned it now, in reply to some imputation of indifference to the sufferings of slaves which Mr. Gladstone had made against Ministers, to teach him charity to others. Lord Howick repeated, that the production on Vried- en-hoep estate exceeded the average. And Mr. GLADSTONE repeated his unqualified and peremptory denial.
Mr. Paulo HOWARD then carried on the debate ; expressing his sa- tisfaction with the measures of Ministers, and hoping that they would not resign without an appeal to the country. Alderman COPELAND opposed the scheme ; and declared that the principal East India mer- chants were opposed to it. Sir HUSSEY VIVIAN advocated the cause of his colleagues : if Sir Robert Peel changed place with Ministers, he would be obliged to support some similar measures. Sir CHARLES DOUGLAS, while he admitted the value of the evidence given before the Import- duties Committee, denied that it was altogether impartial : the Com- mittee was composed of nine Ministerial Members and six of the Op- position, two of whom were unable to attend ; and the Free-traders were so taken up with marshalling their own evidence, that they left no time for other testimony to be adduced. Sir HENRY PARNELL set off the relief which had just been afforded to the British dependencies in the alteration of duties pressing upon them, against every injury which this Budget might inflict : he advocated the removal of all restrictions on trade. Sir EARDLEY WILMOT would vote against Ministers, injustice to the West Indies. Mr. Hume had said that now was the time to bring forward such measures : the English of that was, that Ministers were threatened with mutiny among their supporters, and they were obliged to reconcile the contumacious by concessions. Mr. H. F. BERKELEY ap- plauded the Ministerial project generally ; but he thought that the time had not arrived for breaking in upon the great experiment now in progress In the West Indies ; so he should vote with Lord Sandon. Mr. JOHN PARKER preferred the interest of his distressed constituents (of Sheffield) to that of the West Indians or the Negroes. Mr. BENJAMIN DISRAELI likened the Ministerial project to a quack medicine, meant to cure any diseases. He urged extension of our commerce in Mexico and Peru, on the Indus, the Danube, and the Niger, rather than in the slave- countries Brazil and Cuba; and he looked to the increasing trade with Spain, France, India, and Australasia, for relief of commercial distress. Sir HARRY VERNEY, who has travelled in Brazil, had seen its capacities, aided by its vast rivers and its German colonists, for receiving an im- mense increase of the English trade. Mr. Kzitime reminded the House that the country had not yet been called upon to pay the 20,000,0001. of slave-compensation : it had been raised by loan; and now, in making up the deficiency which had occurred in the revenue by admitting slave-grown sugar at a lower duty, Ministers seemed to him to be undoing all that they had done for the West Indies. They boasted themselves disciples of Mr. Huskisson; but they had not fol- lowed his maxim of keeping a surplus in the revenue of from 3,000,0001. to 5,000,0001. over the expenditure.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER contended that the Whigs had found the country in a worse state when the Tories left office, both in respect of tranquillity and revenue, than it now exhibits : no man could sleep in quiet in the agricultural districts ; the King of England could not pass through his own city of London ; Mr. Kemble might re- member the state of the Funds at that time ; and a noble relation of Mr. Kemble defied the Foreign Minister to preserve peace for six months. Mr. Baring then entered into several calculations to show that he should derive more than the expected 700,0001. from the proposed alteration of duties. The argument that the measure would ruin the West Indies could only stand good upon an increased importation of foreign sugar ; or the supply from the West Indies might be as great as some promised ; and in either case the revenue would benefit. Cal- culating by the average consumption of several past years and the pro- posed scale of duties, Mr. Baring t-howed that he might expect an in- crease of more than a million. He had sought the welfare of both the colonial producers and the home consumers— It was proved by the evidence before the Import Committee, that when the price rose beyond 60s. per hogshead, the consumption was checked; but that at 58s. or 59s. the consumption was interminable ; and by this measure the Government took security cm behalf of the poorer clatses that the price should not rise beyond this consumption-level. If the colonists and the East Indians could supply the sugar at this moderate price, the foreigner would not get in; but if they were unable to furnish the requisite amount at the reasonable rate, the foreigner would eater and restore the balance. It was true that the supplies of Colonial sugar were now plentiful : but that was the very reason for selecting this as the time to introduce ibe change. because in such a state of the stock it would fall with no sudden hardship on the colonists. Mr. Ilushisson had pro- posed a plan of this kind to the Cabinet of his time, and the Tories had then acceded to its principle; though, from collateral circumstances, the measure was nut then brought forward. There was no truer principle than that of Mr. Huskisson, that if you wish to improve a trade, you must subject it to some competition.
Mr. Baring taunted the Opposition with having produced no scheme of their own—except perhaps Sir George Clerk's plan, of letting things alone—instead of the measures which they now opposed. He had tried the experiment of increased taxation : would they repeat it ? Sir EDWARD KNATCIIIICLL rose amid cries of " Divide!" " Adjourn!" The latter prevailed ; and the debate was adjourned till Monday.
[It might have been expected, that rather than run the debate into a third week, Sir ROBERT PEEL'S and the closing Ministerial speeches would have been staid for, though the division had not taken place tilt three or four o'clock in the morning. Members adjourned before twelve: there was a ball at the Palace last night ; and we observe that the Queen led the way to the supper-room at one—just an hour for dressing.]
In the House of Lords, Earl FITZWILLIAN gave notice that on Mon- day next he should present a petition from the Corporation of Man- chester upon the subject of a total repeal of the Corn-laws, and should then enter fully upon the question ; and particularly upon that part of it relating to our foreign trade.
a. Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented a number of petitions from some of the principal provincial towns, praying that the late act respecting mar- riages within certain degrees of affinity might be modified so as to le- galize the union of persons who are not connected by the ties of con- sanguinity. He argued in support of the petitions. The case of mar- riages with the sister of a deceased wife was one which especially called for an alteration of the law. Such marriages were universally tolerated in society. The Bishop of LONDON observed, that those marriages had taken place chiefly among Dissenters ; which ought to make the House hesitate before they interfered. He cited authorities to show that the marriage of a man with his brother's widow is contrary both to the Levitical and the Roman law. He hoped the House would not consent to repeal a law resting on Divine authority. The petitions were laid on the table.
Previous page
