Before the Order of the Day is read, I am anxious to make a statement to the House, in accordance with the pledge I gave to the House on Friday night, in order to enable it to judge of the correctness or incorrectness of certain statements made by the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord G. Bentinck) in his place in the course of the debate on the sugar question. I wish to put myself, in the first place, entirely right with the House. I shall abstain from any word which may be calculated to provoke any angry debate, or to wound the feelings of any one. And if, in the course of Friday evening, under, I humbly think, somewhat justifiable provocation, I made use of language which to the House may have appeared objectionable, I wish the House to understand that I withdraw any such statement. But there were statements made and imputations cast on the department in which I have the honour to serve, and upon myself, which I cannot possibly allow to pass without a distinct reply. The noble Lord made, in point of fact, two charges. There were charges which he brought against the Colonial Office of withholding certain despatches, one from Sir H. Light, Governor of British Guiana, and one from Lord Harris, the Governor of Trinidad. I mention the former charge more especially because the noble Lord said the inclosure of the despatch had been sent to the Committee, but the despatch itself had been withheld. The other charge is entirely personal to myself, affecting my character and my personal conduct and honour as a Member of this House. I shall deal, first of all, with the charges which relate to the Colonial Department. I shall reserve the other charge for a distinct explanation. The noble Lord, as I understood, complained that a certain enclosure of a despatch from Governor Light, which he called Mr. Stipendiary Strutt's report, being the report of Mr. Strutt, who is a stipendiary magistrate in British Guiana, had been sent to the Committee, which was calculated to make some impression on the Committee more favourable to the views of my noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Office, than to those of the noble Lord. Now, the despatch of Sir H. Light was received on the 24th of April. The Committee, it was understood, were then deliberating on their report; and therefore that despatch was reserved for the papers which were to be laid on the table of the House for consideration preparatory to the debate. But I wish to call the attention of the House and of the noble Lord to the fact, that when Mr. Strutt's paper was communicated to the Committee, it was stated to be a copy of Mr. Stipendiary Strutt's report, dated December 31, 1847, which had been transmitted in Governor Light's despatch of March 12, 1848, and received on April 24, 1848, clearly showing, also, that the despatch was received at that time, and intimating to the Committee that there could, therefore, be no intention of concealing the fact that such a despatch had been received. That I find in the 8th report, page 12, of the papers and evidence published. As to the despatch, I have no hesitation in saying, I wish the despatch had been sent to the Committee with the report. But what operated with us in not sending it was, that it did not occur to any gentleman in the office that the despatch contained any new matter whatever. There was no portion of that report, except one I shall mention presently, which seemed to us to require any immediate transmission of that despatch, inasmuch as the papers were about to be printed for the use of Parliament. But we sent to the noble Lord Mr. Strutt's report, the enclosure. The despatch was omitted. If you refer to Governor Light's despatch, as printed in the papers laid before the House, it will be seen that there was a most important passage in the despatch which would have added tenfold to the weight of the statement of Mr. Strutt. And if there were any object to be gained, or any desire to make an impression on the Committee, it would have manifestly been gained by sending that despatch, in which Sir H. Light remarked, that "Mr. Strutt's remarks as to sugar are allowed generally to be correct." If we had wished to make any great impression with that report, we should have sent the despatch. The despatch, indeed, was not sent to the Committee; but there could have been no de-sire to conceal its contents, because, in point of fact, it was laid on the table, and was in circulation during the Whitsuntide recess. A statement of the facts must therefore put an end to all imputations whatsoever on the Colonial Department as to their intentions. With respect to the Trinidad despatch, the noble Lord also complained. That despatch was not received till the 5th of May. It passed in regular course from the department of the Secretary of State. After passing to my hands, it passed from my hands to my noble Friend Earl Grey); but it did not reach his hands till the 8th of May, the very day on which the noble Lord moved for papers. That despatch consequently was, in compliance with the Motion of the noble Lord, produced; and it is to be found in the papers before the House. So far I have endeavoured to meet the charges of suppression in the case of those papers. I would simply remind the House on that point, that as the despatches were published with their respective dates, and the dates of their reception also were published, that fact puts an end to all notion that there could be any intentional withholding of the despatches. Incidentally I wish to clear one point on which there is some doubt, having reference to a question which was put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn). If he refers to my examination before the Committee, I stated, that there was a despatch containing some account of the state of the island of Jamaica, but not of that general kind which I all along understood. I stated distinctly, that that despatch was preparing for the House. Some time afterwards I find, on referring to the papers, a right hon. Gentleman asked me a question soon after the arrival of the mail. I take the question and answer from the Times of the 16th of May:—

"Mr. Goulburn inquired, whether any advice had yet been received from Jamaica, giving an account of the state and prospects of that island?

"Mr. Hawes was sorry to say, that the Government had not yet received what was called the blue book, and had only general accounts from the island."

The same right hon. Gentleman put another question to me on the 6th of June; and in answer to that question, and in reference to that particular mail, I stated that "the Colonial Office had not received any account of any distress existing in Jamaica;" and the fact is, that what is called "the general account" has not arrived to this hour. In answering those questions, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I referred entirely to the general account, and I know I can rely upon the just and generous interpretation of the right hon. Gentleman of any statement I make to the House. I mention this matter only incidentally, but I wish to stand well with him and the House. I now come to the charge personal to myself. I can assure the noble Lord, that, in dealing with this charge, although I labour under very strong feeling, and although I find that my private and public character are entirely at stake, I shall not allow myself to use a hasty expression. So keen is my sense of the evil consequence of altercation in this House—so keen is my apprehension of the results likely to ensue elsewhere, that I shall not now be guilty of using a single expression—although I labour under very strong feelings—calculated to give the slightest offence. Now, I shall read to the House what I understand to be the charge of the noble Lord. The noble Lord said, that—

"If these minutes and memorandums were not got up subsequently to his examination of the 5th of April, he was troubled with the shortest memory since the days of green-bag notoriety, when Theodore Majocchi gave his answer of Non mi ricordo. That was the charge I made, and the hon. Gentleman may take his option whether or not, after these various discussions and various minutes to which he affixed his name, he, on the 5th of April, could not remember the receipt of any despatch of an important nature."

The noble Lord stopped there. The House will recollect that my answer was, that I was "not aware of any despatches of any importance that had been withheld from the Committee." The noble Lord, in continuation, said—

"That he (Mr. Hawes) could not on the 5th of April recollect, notwithstanding these separate discussions on the subject of that despatch, and its importance, that any important despatch, or that any despatch connected with the agricultural and social state of Jamaica, had been received. That is the charge I make against the hon. Gentleman; and I care nothing whether he makes his defence against the one or the other of the horns of the dilemma on which I place him, and from which he cannot escape."

Now, the first horn of the dilemma is that I declared I was not aware of any important despatch that had been received from the Governor of Jamaica. I will read precisely what I said. Mr. Goulburn put this question to me—

"Can you explain the reason why we have no accounts, in the papers laid before Parliament, of the character of those from other colonies?"

My answer was—

"I imagine you allude to the blue book, to the annual accounts from Jamaica."

The next question was—

"There is no account of the state of the island, as in the other cases?"

I replied—

"That is generally comprised in the annual report called the blue book, and that has not been received."

The next question was—

"Does not the Governor write despatches to the Colonial Office on the subject of the state of the island, besides that one particular paper in the course of the year?"

My answer was—

"Yes, certainly; but I am not aware of any despatches from him of any importance"—

I beg the House to recollect that here the noble Lord stopped short—I added, "which have been withheld from the Committee." You will see, therefore, that I spoke of despatches not having been withheld. I said—

"There are despatches, but I am not aware of any despatches from him of any importance which have been withheld from the Committee."

The next question was—

"We have received from other colonies very considerable details as to the state of those colonies and as to the progress of agriculture; but from Jamaica I can find nothing of the kind?"—"Until very recently" (I said) "I think there has been no such general despatch received; that despatch is now printing for this Committee, I ought to add that the Governor has been in the island but a very short time."

But that simply had reference to the annual report, to the blue book. The last part of the question refers entirely to the blue book, and the annual account of the island of Jamaica, which up to this hour has not been received. Then the noble Lord the Chairman of the Committee said—

"That is preparing, is it?"(and I answered)" There is a despatch, but still not of the nature to which the right hon. Gentleman alludes; however, whatever we have will be furnished."

Now I ask the House to say whether or not there is anything there to justify the statement of the noble Lord, that I declared that I was not aware that any important despatches had been received from Jamaica? I have shown to the House, by reference to my evidence, that my statement was as to despatches which had been received and "withheld." Now the despatch to which I was referring in my evidence was one which did not make that strong impression on my mind that it has on others; but it was one that I was acquainted with, and which I read with some attention on account of its contents, to which I will refer. It is said that this despatch was withheld from the Committee. That despatch, which I have now before me, occupies about a single page of the blue book. There are two important points in that despatch. The noble Lord attaches importance to that portion of it where the Governor says that a protective duty of 2d. in the pound should be laid upon foreign sugar as against colonial sugar, which he suggested should be a penny a pound; and where the Governor states his general opinion in favour of protection. That is the point to which the noble Lord attaches importance. I own that I do not attach importance to it; but what I did think of importance in the despatch was this, that in referring to the report of the Legislative Assembly, which accompanied this despatch, on the general state of agriculture, and the cost of production of sugar, the Governor says—

"With respect to the cost of cultivation, an examination of the tables will show that the stated general average of the cost per hundred weight rests upon a basis which makes it a very unsafe criterion in many respects, and in none more so than as the criterion of a general average rate for the wages of agricultural labour."

Looking at that part of the despatch, therefore, there could be no motive whatever in withholding it from the Committee. But now I come to the other horn of the dilemma, which I feel that I am equally relieved from; and when I have answered that, I shall call upon the noble Lord to withdraw the charge, he has made against me. Now, I hold the despatch in my hand; and I must again trouble the House with reading from it the exact minutes, and stating accurately the results of my inquiries as to the non-production of that despatch before the Committee at the time they were sitting. It was received on the 27th of March; and the first minute is made by a gentleman in the Colonial Office, Mr. Cox—a gentleman of high honour, of considerable ability, and in whom I have the most implicit reliance. He is known to many in this House, and I cannot speak more highly of any man than I can of Mr. Cox. Now, Mr. Cox states—

"This is a report (meaning the report of the Legislative Assembly) for a copy of which the West India Committee have asked. We had a copy in the Votes, which was to have been sent to the Committee to-day. Would it not be better to send instead a copy of this despatch, which is important, with the report and the evidence, which we have now got for the first time? There are two copies. And so it is desirable to send it to-day."

The next person who received that despatch was Mr. Elliot, the Assistant Under Secretary of State, and he says, addressing me—

"I conclude that you will agree with me that the despatch ought to be given in at the same time as the report which it enclosed."

That is dated the 27th of March. It came to me on the same day, and I attached my initials. It goes to my noble Friend, Earl Grey, I imagine on the 28th, because it often happens that I do not get despatches until I have returned from this House, and they then bear date at the latest moment of the day on which I receive them. My noble Friend receives this despatch, I believe, on the 28th; and his first minute on it is this:—

"This may be laid before the Committee as suggested; but it also requires to be answered with some care."

And then he proceeds to give the draft answer which he intends returning to it. It comes back from my noble Friend on the 30th of March. My noble Friend sees the head of the West India department, and verbally instructs him to draft the answer to go out by the mail on the 1st of April. The despatch, however, required more consideration than at first it seemed to demand; the answer could not be sent on the 1st of April, but remained for several days—until the 14th of April—in the hands of my noble Friend; and on the 14th goes back to the department with the instruction annexed to it, my noble Friend believing that the despatch was then sent to the Committee, as indeed I did. Why was it not sent to the Committee on the 14th of April, in time to answer the object of the noble Lord? I will state to the House, that, if blame could be fairly attributed to me or to my noble Friend, I would have taken that blame openly before the House, and would not allow it to be transferred to any other gentleman. But I took care to see my friend Mr. Cox before I came down to the House, and with his con-sent I now state, that he ought to have seen that the direction was executed, but that he omitted to do so. I ask the House then, whether under all the circumstances, I can give any fairer or more frank reply to the charge of the noble Lord? I hope I have given it also with perfect temper, and I now appeal to the House for protection against a very gross charge that has been made against me, because the noble Lord said, if my memory did not fail me, when I was examined that then those minutes must have been fraudulently concocted, in order to meet the case when it was first discovered. Now I ask the noble Lord, in all fairness, whether he means to adhere to that? I ask the noble Lord—a Gentleman holding a high position in this House and in the country—whether he can for one moment say that this charge can be justified by the facts? And, Sir, if the noble Lord adheres to that charge, I shall then call upon this House to institute a complete inquiry into all the facts of the case. I will not submit to a half acquittal in this matter. I will be convicted of the guilt which is imputed to me, or I will again stand fairly and honourably before the House. I am not aware that, during the long period I have had the honour of a seat in this House, I ever yet had such doubt and discredit cast upon me; and I think I have a right, having fully, fairly, and frankly explained this matter to the House, to appeal to the noble Lord, to ask him now to state whether he means to adhere to this charge, and if he does, to allow me to have it investigated? I will give him every name—I will conceal nothing—and I trust when that is done that the House will see that the declaration I now make, that I am entirely free from so groundless a charge, is one which will be sustained by evidence, and backed by the credit of Gentlemen of the highest character.

Sir, I am sure that everybody who has listened to the hon. Gentleman must be perfectly satisfied that his statement of the minutes upon that despatch is perfectly correct. But, Sir, the hon. Gentleman has not made out any case to show that the Colonial Office did not withhold the information from the Committee. I made two distinct charges: one was, that the Colonial Office had systematically kept back the information which Parliament ought to have been in possession of in February, and which the Committee of which I was the Chairman ought to have been put in possession of in the course of their inquiries. The other charge I made against the hon. Gentleman was this—that, in his evidence, on the 5th of April, he displayed a very short memory in all those memoranda and in all those discussions which had taken place with respect to this despatch. Well, Sir, I confess, for one, that I am still more surprised, even after the statement the hon. Gentleman has made to-day, that he should have given the answers which he did give before that Committee; because, though it is true that, in the course of his evidence, he said that he was not aware of any important despatch that had been withheld from the Committee, yet the inquiry of the right hon. Gentleman, a Member of that Committee (Mr. Goulburn), went distinctly to the character of this very despatch, which the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary, in answer to my last question, distinctly stated was not the character of the despatch which was then in preparation. But, Sir, let there be no mistake. Having reminded the House of the evi- dence before the Committee, I shall take leave to ask its attention whilst I show to it that there had been the greatest anxiety about these despatches from Jamaica, and that both before and after the 5th of April repeated inquiries were made regarding the information from Jamaica; and on every occasion the representative of the Government, be he who he might, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, in the absence of the Under Secretary for the Colonies, distinctly denied that there was any information from Jamaica. Now then, Sir, let us weigh well what was the spirit of the question, and what was the spirit of the answer made by the hon. Gentleman. Not one word was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman who was the querist about the blue book. The hon. Gentleman was asked to explain "why we have no accounts, in the papers laid before Parliament from Jamaica, of the character of those from other colonies?" Now, we had one blue book, at that time, from Trinidad; but I believe that that was the only blue book that had been laid before Parliament. Therefore, whilst the words, in their common and ordinary sense, did not direct any attention to a blue book, it was clear, by analogy, that, as the comparison was drawn between the other papers which had been laid before Parliament, and those which had been laid before the Committee, the blue book was not the only paper which the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind when he asked the question. Well, the hon. Gentleman says—

"I imagine you allude to the blue book—to the annual account from Jamaica."

The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) then says—

"There is no account of the state of the island, as in other cases?"

Clearly the right hon. Gentleman was going on to say that they had many blue-book despatches on the subject of the distressed people of the island. The hon. Gentleman still perseveres, however. In saying—

"That is generally comprised in the annual report called the 'blue book,' and the fact is, we have not received it."

But the right hon. Gentleman is not at all satisfied with that answer. The right hon. Member for Cambridge clearly considers this an evasion of his question, or if not an evasion, no answer at all to his question; and he says—

"Does not the Governor write despatches to the Colonial Office on the subject of the state of the island, besides that one particular paper in the close of the year?"

And the Under Secretary answers—

"Yes, certainly; but I am not aware of any despatches from him of any importance which have been withheld from the Committee."

I understand the hon. Gentleman now to mean to say that the despatch had, as he imagined, then been laid before the Committee. [Mr. HAWES: Ordered to be laid before them.] Yes, ordered to be laid before the Committee. And then, in answer to the next question—

"We have received from other colonies very considerable details as to the state of these colonies, and as to the prospects of agriculture; but from Jamaica I can find nothing of the kind;"

the hon. Gentleman replies—

"Until very recently I think there has been no such general despatch received; that despatch is now printed for this Committee. I ought to add, that the Governor has been in the island but a very short time."

That had reference to the blue book, following upon what I said about the annual account.

But the matter is put beyond all doubt by the answer to my question. I said, "That is preparing, is it?" The answer was in the affirmative—

"There is a despatch, but still it is not of the nature to which the right hon. Gentleman alludes; and whatever we have will be furnished."

"It is not of the nature to which the right hon. Gentleman alludes!" Why, the despatch, when forthcoming, is of that nature, and of nothing else. It is exclusively of that nature. It touches no other matter; and of all the despatches that had been laid before the House or the Committee, it was the most important that could have been laid before the Committee at that critical moment. But, Sir, I have shown you before that this intelligence had gone out to Jamaica, and that the effect in Jamaica was, that a general opinion prevailed that Sir Charles Grey, their Governor, had neglected, if he had not betrayed, his trust, and had given no account whatever of the distress of the island. This evidence of the hon. Gentleman was given on the 5th of April, in a crowded room, full of the agents of the West Indies, who, no doubt, wrote to their correspondents in Jamaica, who must have thought it extraordinary that up to the 5th of April the Governor of Jamaica had sent no important despatch relating to agricultural subjects, such as that for which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge had so often inquired. The consequence was, that this statement goes out to the West Indies, and six weeks afterwards, by the following packet, there comes back, on the 15th of May, that intelligence which I stated to the House from the Jamaica Dispatch, in which it is said—

"Whatever may be our opinion of the present Ministry, and however incapable we believe their representative here to be, we cannot bring ourselves to the supposition that any set of men entrusted with the government of the empire would dare to disregard the well-authenticated distresses of any portion of Her Majesty's subjects. In what light those distresses have been represented by Sir Charles Grey, or what his representations of the condition of the colony may have been, we are unfortunately ignorant."

And let me call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to what follows:—

"Mr. Labouchere officially declared, in the House of Commons, that the Government had received no despatches from Jamaica, explanatory of its political and social condition. The matter lies between the two official gentlemen. Either one has grievously misstated, or the other has withheld the only service that could be hoped for from him—namely, a true detail of facts. We have reason to know that steps have been taken to find out where the fault lies, and we have already ox-pressed our belief that important despatches were purposely kept back by Government. What those despatches may be the future alone can disclose."

Now, on the 8th of February, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge put this question to the right hon. Gentleman opposite; and the article from the Jamaica Dispatch has reference not to this particular despatch, of which I have treated before, but has reference to the answer of the right hon Gentleman:—

"Mr. Goulburn wished to know why Jamaica had been omitted in the statement of affairs of the several West India colonies, which had been laid before the House; and also if there would be any objection on the part of the Government to lay the last despatches before the Committee?"—Mr. Labouchere said, as the right hon. Gentleman had the kindness to give him notice of his intention to put this question, he had applied to the Colonial Office on the subject, and was enabled to state that the reason no blue book respecting Jamaica had been laid on the table of the House was that none had been received."

But he goes on to say—

"With respect to the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, he had to say that no despatch had been received giving any general account of the state of Jamaica; but as soon as such document was received it was the intention of his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies to communicate it without delay to the House."

Now, I will show to you that there had been a despatch received at that time. I am speaking of the 8th of February. On the 7th of February a debate took place in the other House of Parliament in which Earl Grey—and, no doubt, this provoked in some manner the inquiry of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn), who is here to answer for himself, and with whom I have had no communication—on that day Earl Grey stated in the other House of Parliament—' [Mr. SPEAKER: The noble Lord must not refer to the debates of the other House.] Well, the head of the Colonial Office stated in another place, that—

"With regard to the state of Jamaica, he stated, that among many documents that had passed through his hands connected with the state of the colonies, he was very much struck with one received the other day from a number of planters in the western part of Jamaica, in which they stated, that they had invested capital to the extent of not less than 142,000l. in plantations in the colony; and they added what was a most remarkable fact, that with one exception they had all purchased their plantations since the passing of the Emancipation Act. That showed what a change of system was in progress in that island, and he believed that in the course of a few years more of the soil of Jamaica would be cultivated by planters carrying on business for themselves, and forming resident owners and proprietors, than had ever been the case before. So far from believing that the prospects of Jamaica were bad, he was not aware of any part of the British dominions in which there was so favourable a prospect for the investment of capital at this moment as Jamaica. He believed that a man with capital would have a greater prospect of realising a fortune in Jamaica, than in any other field of investment."

No doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge was astonished, with his local knowledge of Jamaica, at that flourishing account of the colony, in which his own estate presented no such pleasing prospect; and, therefore, he put the question to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, which he answered on the authority of the Colonial Office in the way he had described. Now we shall see what was the fact elicited by the address moved for by the Committee of which I had the honour to be Chairman. You will see of what information the Colonial Office was in possession, and of what information Earl Grey was himself in possession at that very time. I shall read you an extract of what was done by him—it was a remarkable document, and the more so as it was brought forward to elucidate a principle laid down with great confidence by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The document states—

"The manufacture was one of the nicest kind, requiring all the skill of the fermer and of the manufacturer; and to suppose that it could be carried on across the Atlantic by a proprietor residing in this country, and ignorant himself, necessarily, in the majority of instances, of the details which his agent conducts, was, in his mind, the greatest delusion."

Now let me read the sequel of this same interesting document, which was read in another place to prove the prosperous state of the colony of Jamaica. It says—

"Now, we are resident proprietors, and all of us, with one exception, have purchased and leased our properties since the Emancipation Act. It will be evident from the facts stated, that we cannot cultivate for another year; indeed, we have not the means, unaided, of taking off the present crop, and the British West India merchants are now unable to assist us, and of course disinclined, where there is no hope of profit, or even of recovering their advances. If we, being proprietors and lessees, living on and managing our own properties, brought up to tropical agriculture, and availing ourselves of every practical improvement, have only such a result to exhibit as is set forth in the statement of these facts, the inference is conclusive that the position of the absentee proprietor or mortgagee, represented by paid agencies, is still more deplorable. It is evident, that unless some mode of suppressing slavery and the slave trade more effectual than that hitherto pursued be adopted, and without immediate aid, in the shape of money loans, sugar cultivation, upon which 300,000 of the emancipated negroes are wholly dependent, must cease in Jamaica. But our object in submitting these facts to your Lordship is to enable you to draw your own inferences, and suggest your own remedies, and we beg you will consider our desperate position as an excuse for troubling you with the statement."

"Our desperate condition!" and this, although embodied in the same document, is entirely withheld by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, from the knowledge of the Committee. But I come now specially to the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade on the authority of the Colonial Office, that there was no despatch—that none had been received from the colonies giving any general account of the state of the colony of Jamaica; but as soon as such a document was received it was the intention of the Secretary of State for the Colonies to communicate it without delay to the House. Now I will read you a despatch from Governor Grey, of the 22nd October, more than three weeks before the papers relating to Trinidad had been moved for, and before I had given notice of my Motion in this House, but a despatch which was not forthcoming till the 28th March. It is dated the 22nd September, 1847, and this is what Sir Charles Grey writes to Earl Grey, who paints the prospects of Jamaica in such florid colours:—

"I think it my duty to mention that the low price to which sugar has recently fallen in the London market, without any corresponding reduction of duty, really threatens with ruin many of the planters who have latterly been struggling hard to keep their heads above water; and that I perceive indications of a movement within the island to support, in the next Session of the Imperial Parliament, the party which asserts the principle of protection. It is not unlikely that, with this object in view, there may be an effort of the planters' party in the House of Assembly here to delay the annual revenue bills and the principal business of the Session of the island Legislature until after Christmas. My utmost efforts and most studious endeavours will be employed to persuade them to the most temperate and salutary course of action. But I cannot deny that, whilst corn and cotton are imported into the United Kingdom duty free, the duty of 14s. on the cwt. of muscovado sugar, which amounts to 66 per cent on the Kingston price, and which, having been about 42 per cent on the London price when the reduction of duty took place in March, 1845, is now about 56 per cent upon the latest London price, as given in the Gazette, is a very heavy tell to be paid by British consumers for admission into the home market; nor that there is a sincere apprehension amongst the persons most thoroughly acquainted with the subject, that with the present London prices of West India sugar, and the present rate of duties, it will be impossible to carry on here, without loss and ruin, the cultivation of sugar for exportation."

I do ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade and the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of the Colonies, and I ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government, how he reconciles with the statements made in another place, or with the statements made by that right hon. Gentleman, the possession and concealment of this despatch from the Governor of Jamaica. I ask whether it was fair to the Governor General of that colony to give the answer that the right hon. Gentleman gave on the 8th February in this House, following up the statement made by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies in another place, and that that answer should go forth to the colonies in opposition to the statement of the Governor, and against the declared sentiments of the representative of the Queen in Jamaica, degrading his dignity and injuring his authority. But I take leave to remind the House that this is not the only instance of concealment. I come now to the case of the Trinidad papers. On the 25th November I gave notice in this House that I should move the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the present state of distress and the prospects of the British colonies in the East and West Indies. My Motion was followed up next day by a Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose for papers relating to Trinidad. My Motion stood for the 9th December; but it was afterwards, in consequence of the application of the Government, arising from the illness of the noble Lord, postponed to the 23rd December; but it was cut short by the adjournment of the House on the 21st December. Well, were there any despatches from Trinidad? There were two despatches from Governor Lord Harris to that time, one dated the 4th September, and received the 4th October; and the other dated the 18th September, and received by the following mail, the 22nd October. Both these despatches had been received when the hon. Gentleman moved for these papers. Well, in the despatch of the 4th September, Lord Harris writes—

"With respect to the introduction of emigrants, 500 or 1,000 emigrants in each year can have no perceptible effect on the price of labour, and unless that is remedied, and that quickly, I do not see how the cultivation of sugar can be carried on with any prospect of success. I can assure your Lordship the is addressing Earl Grey), that I have it on the best authority, that even under the most favourable circumstances the price of sugar will not pay the cost of cultivation, and that the distress that consequently exists in this colony has never been equalled."

That was followed a fortnight afterwards by another despatch, in which he says—

"I have already mentioned to your Lordship the distress existing in this colony, and which is increasing daily, and amounts to an unprecedented stagnation of business, cases of which are brought to my notice constantly. For instance, an estate having a promise of a much larger crop than had ever previously been produced, being almost abandoned for want of the necessary labour, and those instances are frequently most distressing."

Again—

"I have also stated that the chief cause of this, although it may to a certain extent be attributed to the state of the money market, is, that the price of sugar will not repay the cost of production;"

and he finishes by stating—

"I do not hesitate to express to your Lordship my conviction that if this colony is not to be left to subside into a state of comparative barbarism, which would result from the ruin of its larger proprietors, some more than ordinary relief is necessary to support the contest which, in common with the other British colonies, it is engaged in; and, circumstanced as it is, I believe it is incapable of competing in the British market with the produce of slave-labour countries, unless the advantages of free trade are conceded to it as well as Its disadvantages, and I will add, that the relief must come speedily if it is to produce any good effect."

Now, when were these despatches moved for? They were moved for on the 26th November. The House having sat four weeks afterwards, when were they presented to Parliament? On the evening of the night in which the debate closed in this House. Statements were made, both in this and the other House of Parliament—I mean elsewhere—that never could have been made had this House and the country been in possession of the despatches I have now read. The fact was, that a great speech went out from the Minister of State to the country, creating a great prejudice against the West India colonies, proving that all the difficulties were from want of residence and want of energy, and stating that nothing was required but a little more stimulus, a little more capital, and a little more free trade, to make the West Indies one of the most desirable sites for the investment of capital. Well, then, if I show you the studied manner in which the information was kept back from both Houses of Parliament, particularly during the debate of the 3rd and 4th February in this House, and that of the 7th in the other House, and then if I show you that these important despatches were in some way kept back from the Committee of which I had the honour to be Chairman, do not I give you proof positive of that which I allege against the Colonial Office, that the West Indian colonies have not had fair play from the Colonial Office in this matter? Those who were set over them as their guardians and protectors, had acted entirely on the Committee as though they were prosecutors, and as though the suffering West Indians were culprits arraigned at the bar as public offenders. I will now go back again—having paved the way to show that this was part of a system—I will now go back to the month of April. Granted that all is right—that it was the honest intention of the Colonial Office on the 22d March to lay those important despatches before the Committee—granting for a moment that it was some extraordinary obliviousness of the understanding on the part of the hon. Gentleman opposite—granting that the hon. Gentleman could not understand the plain questions that were put to him by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University—and that the minds of the Committee were most unintentionally led to the belief that there was no such despatch at all received relating to the agricultural and social state of the island—I want to know how the hon. Gentleman will account for the after proceedings and the after answers which had been given to the earnest inquiries of the Committee? Sir, I beg pardon of the House for entering thus far into those nice details; but I must go into them to show the importance of those matters, and I will make it clear to you yet that there was a guilty holding hack of this despatch. Sir, the Committee closed its evidence on the 5th of April, and adjourned for the recess. The House met again after the Easter holidays, on, I think, Monday, the 1st of May. On Tuesday, the 2nd of May, I think, I summoned the Committee to receive the draft of the report which had been prepared on the last day we had sat. On Wednesday, the 3rd of May, I had forwarded to both the right hon. Gentlemen that had sat upon the Committee copies of the resolutions and the report. Well, we met at three o'clock on Thursday, the 4th of May. It was a pro formâ meeting, in order that the Chairman might present the report and the resolutions agreed to. Only six or seven Members were then present. The right hon. Gentleman opposite then expressed his regret that there should he so few Member present; and, speaking upon the part of the Government, he said that he had been very desirous to learn the impressions which the evidence taken before the Committee had made upon the minds of the Members; and the right hon. Gentleman gave us to understand, that though the Government would not be governed by the majority of the Committee in the course they might afterwards pursue, they would, nevertheless, think it their duty, knowing the great labour and the unremitting exertions with which the Committee had pursued this inquiry, to be much influenced by the opinions to which they had come upon the subject. Well, accordingly, it was by arrangement agreed upon, on Thursday, the 4th of May, that the Committee should be adjourned until the Tuesday following, in order that there might be a full attendance of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman had expressed his hope that we should meet in a friendly manner, and that the Government might learn of what opinion that Committee was. On the same Thursday, the 4th of May, as had been stated by the hon. Gentleman, we did receive a manuscript—and I here take the liberty of saying that a great portion of the despatches received from the Colonial Office were in manuscript—we did receive, I say, a manuscript extract from Mr. Stipendiary Magistrate Strutt. The hon. Gentleman had no doubt entered into an explanation upon this point; but why were those other despatches from Governor Light kept back? Why, I ask, were the despatches from Lord Harris kept back? I speak not of the one despatch that was received on the 5th of May—that is not the one which I alone referred to the other night. I referred to a despatch received simultaneously with the despatch received from Mr. Stipendiary Strutt on the 24th of April; and that there may be no mistake on the subject, let me read a portion of the despatch to which I refer. This is a despatch from Lord Harris, dated Trinidad, March 23rd. His Lordship said—

"I have thought it right to forward to your Lordship as early as possible a return, showing the probable state of the treasury of this colony on the 1st of April next. It has been made with as much accuracy as possible. It shows that at the end of the quarter there will be a defalcation of 6,253l., and this is the lowest probable estimate that can he made. Supposing that the diminution in the receipts should continue in the same ratio as at present, it is necessary for me to endeavour to show what the state of our finances will be on the 1st July, in order that if possible some means may be found of meeting the liabilities of the Government. From the almost entire cessation of imports, and the very low price of sugars, on which the amount of export duties depends, the receipts can hardly be calculated with prudence at more than 1,000l. per week, which, for thirteen weeks, is 13,000l. Against this there is default of previous quarter, 6,253l.; salaries for quarter, about 8,000l; liabilities for buildings undertaken and obliged to be carried on, but for which some delay would be granted by the contractors, 2,428l.; for sundries, averaging per quarter, 1,500l.; police, gaol, hospital, and leper asylum, averaging per month 1,300l., 3,900l.; total, 22,181l; deduct 13,000l.; probable deficit on the 1st of July, 9,181l."

And he concluded with some information, which would be most important to the subject under the inquiry of the Committee at the time with respect to the loan. Lord Harris goes on to say—

"It is absolute necessity which alone induces me to trouble your Lordship with that statement; but it is quite clear that either some assistance in aid of the revenue must be found, or else that a general reduction of salaries must at once be effected; for after the month of August the receipts begin to diminish, and continue to do so up to December. I am not aware whether any portion of the sum of 200,000l. granted as a loan could be applied to the immediate relief of the colony; but I can assure your Lordship that such assistance is of vital importance, and would prove an incalculably greater boon than any immigration at the present time. I receive daily the account of orders being received for no weeding or cultivation to be carried on, on estates, for the next year's crop; and these orders from large English merchants, to whom up to the present time the influx of money may be attributed, and who have worked their properties on the most liberal terms."

I did not like to trouble the House at half-past twelve o'clock on the former occasion when I spoke upon this subject, or I might have shown the House that there were other despatches kept back than those to which I then referred. In respect to those received upon the 5th of May, I take leave to Say we had laid before us from the Foreign Office all documents that had been received up to the one dated the 11th of May from the Marquess of Normanby, from Paris, and other despatches dated 10th March from Rio Janeiro. And, therefore, if we could have had all these despatches which had arrived up to the 11th and 12th of May at the Foreign Office, is there any excuse, the Committee having continued sitting, for not giving the despatches which had been received at the Colonial Office so late as the 5th of May? Now, let me call the attention of the House to the despatch which was received on the 5th of April from Governor Higginson, which was dated the 10th of March. Recollect that this was not received on the 5th of May, but the 5th of April, a month before the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hawes) came before the Committee for examination. Governor Higginson, writing to Earl Grey from St. John (Montserrat) on the l0th of March said—

"In my despatch, No. 72, of the 11th September last, I apprised your Lordships of the disastrous state to which adverse circumstances had reduced this one flourishing settlement; and I deeply regret to observe that Mr. Baynes's report, now submitted, is not calculated to convey a more favourable impression than I was myself led to form during my recent sojourn in the island."

Here is a blue book from Montserrat, communicated under the same cover, and yet withheld from the Committee, although it gave most important information upon the agricultural state of that island. It entered into details of the great depreciation of property there, stating that—

"The estates of the late Mr. Dudley Semper, which, estimated as all the properties were at the time of their valuation, at scarcely more than half of their value, are rated in the levy bill at 27,700l., were lately sold for 295l.; they were, it is true, bought by the mortgagee, whose claim amounted to 11,000l.; still the circumstance testifies to the great depreciation that has taken place. Mr. Trott's properties, valued at 18,100l., sold for the amount of taxes due on them, 181l.: this was by arrangement; but the absence of speculators on so favourable an occasion speaks either a total want of capital, or great distrust of the future prospects of the colony. There have been frequent sales of unencumbered freehold property, not much disproportionate: thus the house of Mr. Brinn, valued at 400l., was first sold in execution for taxes for 3l. 1s. 9d., and being redeemed by him, was soon after put up again for public sale for default under the Loan Act, and knocked down for 55l. Two houses in Plymouth, belonging to Mr. Venn, of the Council, valued each at 200l., sold together for 53l. A house in town, rated at 200l., the property of Mr. Dowdy, was sold three times within two years; on the first occasion for 23l.; on the second for 63l.; and finally for 6l. 8s. 5d."

I beg also to call attention to the prospects of agriculture as regarded labour in Montserrat. It was stated in that blue book that the wages were reduced so low that the ordinary rate was only fivepence and one-fifth of a penny per day, and notwithstanding that reduction, the report states that—

"Small as that sum is, there are only eight estates of the thirty-nine in the island on which the labourers are settled with punctually."

That—

"Not less than seventeen sugar estates have during the course of the last year been either thrown up, or the cultivation on them has been greatly reduced."

I see. Sir, that the House is tired of these small details; but looking at the important statements contained in this blue book of Montserrat, which had been received at the Colonial Office as far back as the 5th of April, and which had never been presented to the Committee at all, I think that the most resolute free-trader cannot wish to see wages reduced below fivepence and one-fifth per day. The summing up of the whole was this:—

"In this island, in which I believe wages have long been below the rates of other colonies, being only 5½d. a day or 2s. 2d. a week, of five days, that is 6l. 3s. per annum, together with the advantage of provision ground and medical attendance, we are still far from being in a condition, under existing practice and management, of being able to compete with slave colonies."

If we are proximi, it is still longo intervallo; and he says that they cannot compete—

"until, in fact, the wages of the free labourer shall be reduced to a par with the necessary subsistence of he slave."

Now, that is the evidence of the Governor of Montserrat. Well, I ask the House whether that is not a paper which we ought to have had before us? Yet that was kept back, and no explanation offered for withholding it. At the same time, as was admitted by the hon. Gentleman, the report of Mr. Stipendiary Strutt was laid before them because they were deliberating upon these resolutions. That is, Sir, my case. This was evidence which told not against mc, nor against those who voted with me. The hon. Gentleman seems to me to forget that we were called together to deliberate upon the condition of the West Indian colonies, the Mauritius, and the East Indies. He seems to think that the proceedings of the Committee were after all but a struggle between two political parties, each trying for mastery, and not caring what became of the wretched beings that are placed under our protection. Well, Sir, did the right hon. Gentleman say there was any factious spirit on the part of the Committee? Will he not do us the justice to say that we mot him frankly and fairly? Every Member of that Committee—the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford university, the hon. Member for Liverpool, my noble Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, and, above all, my hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich, who came, as well as Lord G. Manners, at a great sacrifice of personal feelings to attend the Committee upon that occasion—they all attended that Committee, and had no mental reservations with the right hon. Gentleman opposite, for they frankly entered upon the inquiry from a really anxious wish to learn what the impressions were that were made upon the minds of each individual Member. Well, then, I say we were not dealt fairly with in respect to these matters. I speak now not as a Committee-man, but I say the West Indian Colonies, the Mauritius, and those mighty interests connected with those places, were not dealt fairly with by this evidence being kept back. There was, too, ample time afforded for the preparation of those documents. We met, as I have before stated, on Thursday, the 4th of May, and we adjourned until the 9th of May following. On Tuesday, the 9th of May, we met again, when it was agreed upon that we should adjourn again for nine days until the 18th May. But what had happened in the interval? We had met on Thursday, the 4th May. On Friday, the 5th May, I came down here for the purpose of moving an address for more papers. The hon. Gentleman opposite will no doubt speak to the truth of this statement which I am how making. The hon. Gentleman was not in his place, when I came down as Chairman of the Committee to move this address, which I considered to be al-most a matter of form, for these papers were very much wanted. I spoke to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Indian Board, whom I do not now see in his place, respecting those documents. The time, however, went by when I could move for them as an unopposed return. The hon. Gentleman apologised to me for not being in his place, and he undertook to move the address himself. It was an address for copies of certain despatches received from the Governors of the West Indies and the Mauritius. I left the House and did not return. The hon. Gentleman forgot to move for the papers, as he had promised, on Friday, the 5th May. On Monday the 8th May, he apologised to me for his forgetfulness, but assured me that no time was lost, for he had instantly set about preparing an answer to the return. Well, upon the same day a question was asked the hon. Gentleman by Mr. P. Miles, who was a Member of the Committee. He wished to know whether the Government were prepared to lay upon the table of the House copies of the latest despatches received from all the Governors of the West Indian colonies before the report of the West Indian Committee came under discussion in the House. The hon. Gentleman then undertook to say that a very important despatch from those colonies should be laid upon the table of the House before the discussion referred to came on, and that papers connected with the subject were already in preparation. We were then deliberating upstairs. We afterwards adjourned to the 18th for the purpose of carrying our resolutions. I will admit that when Earl Grey, on the 14th of April, had answered the despatch received on the 27th March, from Sir Charles Grey, that though the document itself, was emblazoned by certain minutes and remarkable memoranda, it did not follow that it should occur to the noble Lord's mind that this despatch had never been laid before the Committee. But what answer has the Colonial Office to give me now? On the 8th of May I was assured that the address had been virtually moved for on Friday the 5th of May, which at last produced the return. Now, Sir, I want to know how Earl Grey acquits himself, or how the Under Secretary of the Colonies acquits himself, when, in pursuance of an order of this House, the notice of the address which had been voted was sent to the Colonial Office requiring all the papers connected with this subject to be laid before them? It was the duty of Earl Grey—a duty which he could not escape from—to decide what those despatches were of which copies were to be made, and what those were from which merely extracts were required. I want to know, when he saw that this despatch to which I have referred was so important, and that it had these four minutes on it—that it had been laid before him on the 9th of May, and was then to be sent back to him—when it was supposed to have been presented to the Committee on the 30th of March—how I ask, was it that he did not say, "Oh gracious! how is it that this despatch has never been sent before the Committee? Whose fault is this? What clerk has committed the error? Who has been guilty of this great negligence?" It might be expected that an English Minister, in particular, would have expressed deep regret for the negligence of the clerks in the Colonial Office—that he would say, "I know they are preparing the documents, and that they will be printed and laid before the Committee, I know that the Chairman has proposed a duty of 2d. per lb. on foreign sugar, and 2d. per lb. on colonial sugar; and I am aware also that Sir Charles Grey proposes a duty on colonial sugar of 9th. 4d. per cwt., and 18s. 8d. on foreign; whereas the Chairman of the Committee recommends a duty of 10s. on colonial sugar, and 20s. on foreign." But, no: when the hon. Gentleman was asked if there was any further important evidence to lay before the Committee, he was mute—he was dumb—not a word was said, not a whisper, with regard to Governor Grey's despatch, which was of the most vital importance, and the existence of which he must at the time have been aware of. The Committee met again on the 18th of May, and they again adjourned to the 23rd; and on that day, or thirteen days after, Earl Grey and the hon. Gentleman must, at all events, have been made acquainted with the errors of their underlings of the Colonial Office, in not having communicated the despatch containing the important opinions of Sir C. Grey: the Committee were still in ignorance of the arrival of any such despatch. The Committee adjourned for four days more, to consider their verdict; but I think, if I mistake not, more inquiries were made in this House for despatches from the West Indies, in the interim. The right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge, and the hon. Member for Liverpool, voted against the proposition for 10s. and 20s. duties, and also against the proposition of the hon. Gentleman behind me. Their own proposition had been rejected, but the question still remained open for another vote. A differential duty of 20s. on foreign sugar, and 10s. on colonial, for a period of six years, was then proposed by a free-trader, and one who had previously opposed my resolution. And what took place after that? Why, I find that on the 16th of May, the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge came down to the House, and asked the hon. Gentleman opposite if he had received any despatch recently from Jamaica, as he was very anxious to have some information with respect to the state of that colony. And what was the answer of the hon. Gentleman? Not, "Oh! good heavens, we have made a great mistake; we discovered seven days ago an omission had been made in supplying information to the Committee. Here is an important despatch from Sir Charles Grey, in which he says, if a greater differential duty on foreign and colonial sugars does not immediately take place, the greater part of the plantations in Jamaica must go out of cultivation. Nothing will do but a duty of 1d. on colonial, and 2d. per lb. on foreign." The hon. Gentleman said nothing of the kind; and I think he must really have the very shortest memory that can be conceived, if he did not at that time remember that Governor Grey's despatch had not been laid before us, and that the House, as well as the Committee, were ignorant of it. And, Sir, I must again repeat my question on this head. I want to know how does the hon. Member account for keeping the House and the Committee in that state of ignorance upon a matter of so much importance? There was still a last resource. The Committee, on the morning of the 25th of May, met for the last time, and they threw out the 10th Resolution proposed by the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge, and supported the Member for Liverpool; and then nothing, no alternative, remained for them but to agree to the proposition of Sir Thomas Birch, for a duty of 10s. per cwt. on colonial sugar for six years, or to retire and not vote. But the right hon. Gentleman again came down to the House and agitated the question, and poked the Members on the Treasury bench for further information. But the hon. Under Secretary still kept his prudent peace. In answer to questions, whether any later accounts had been received from the West Indies than those which had been laid before the Committee, and, if so, whether the Government were prepared to lay them before the House; the hon. Gentleman said, that he did not receive any information by the packet which arrived two or three days before, but he expected to receive further information by the next packet, which he would lay on the table. But, in point of fact, he did not keep back information which the right hon. Gentleman wanted to have; and did he not know that the decision of the Committee was very nicely weighed in the balance? Well then. Sir, I am here to show, and my purpose is to show, that these great possessions of the British Crown have not had a fair trial; and that the Government, whose business it is to guard and protect them, have acted towards them as if they were some hostile suitors or guilty criminals. If there has been a systematic suppression of the truth, with regard to the state of the West Indies, I feel bound to say that I do not think the hon. Gentleman, or the right hon. President of the Board of Trade, if he ever knew of the existence of the despatch before it came to light, were parties to such a systematic suppression of the truth; but what I complain of is, that the Members of the Colonial Office did not deal as frankly with those who were disposed to deal frankly with them. The hon. Member must have known that there was evidence in his office of a most vital and important character, and that he held it back from those men whose opinions he asked for on a subject with which that evidence was intimately connected. Sir, I feel that I am charged with a great duty in defending the interests of the West Indian colonies, but I will say nothing of that. When, however, it is said that I charged Earl Grey—whose high character has been so justly spoken of—with fraud, I deny that I ever did so. What I said was, that despatches containing most important information were withheld by the authorities of the Colonial Office for political purposes. I repeat that I did not impute fraud to the noble Lord; but. Sir, I conceive I have a right here in my place, defending the interests of ray country, as a private and independent Member of Parliament, to arraign the highest Ministers of the State; and I will ever do so when I think they forfeit their title to the confidence of those who placed the British colonies under their guardianship. Neither, Sir, do I impute fraud to the hon. Under Secretary; but I must dispute the hon. Member's title to possessing a good memory. He certainly lacks not sagacity; but it is most extraordinary, that when questioned on the subject, on the 5th of April, he should forget a despatch which was stated to have been minuted to be laid before the Committee by Mr. Cox and himself on the 27th of the previous month, and by Earl Grey on the 30th, with the same purpose. I made no use of the word "fraud;" but one who I believe has not been considered to sin against good taste in the way I have been considered to have sinned, made use, I believe, of these words. Mr. Burke, who made a great speech upon conciliation, with regard to the British American colonial question, said, in reference to trickery, policy, and statesmen, that—

"A refined policy ever has been the parent of confusion, and ever will be, so long as the world endures. Plain, honest intention, which may as easily be discovered as fraud will surely be detected at last, is, let me say, of no mean force in the government of mankind."

I cannot but think that my hon. Friend is entitled to an answer to the questions that he put to the noble Lord; and I rise for the purpose, not of inflicting a long speech on the subject of despatches of September and October last from Governor Higginson, but, if possible, to get the noble Lord to answer the questions that my hon. Friend has put to him. The noble Lord, as I understood him, originally said that a despatch had been kept back from the Committee of which he was Chairman; and the hon. Gentleman then came down and read certain minutes from the Colonial Office, directing that that despatch should be laid before the Committee on the 30th of March. On Friday night last the noble Lord said that those minutes must have been concocted; and he ended his speech with the words that he has just now again quoted from Mr. Burke, to the effect that fraud will always in the end be detected. My hon. Friend, in answering this charge, produced certain minutes; and the noble Lord, in reference to them, says that, "if these minutes and memorandums were not got up subsequently," that is, if they were not a forgery—if they were not a fraud—on the part of either Mr. Cox, Mr. Hawes, Mr. Elliot, or Lord Grey—

"If they were not got up subsequently to his examination of the 5th of April, he was troubled with the shortest memory since the days of green- bag notoriety, when Theodore Majocchi gave his answer of Non mi ricordo. That was the charge I made, and the hon. Gentleman may take his option whether or not, after these various discussions and various minutes to which he affixed his name, he, on the 5th of April, could not remember the receipt of any despatch of an important nature; that he could not on the 5th of April recollect, notwithstanding three separate discussions on the subject of that despatch and its importance, that any important despatch, or that any despatch connected with the agriculture and social state of Jamaica, had been received. That is the charge I make against the hon. Gentleman, and I care nothing whether he makes his defence against the one or the other of the horns of the dilemma on which I place him, and from which he cannot escape."

That was the charge of the noble Lord—the charge which he made and repeated on Friday night. Now, my hon. Friend makes his statement—his plain unadorned explanation with regard to the facts which have taken place; and he asks the noble Lord either to prove the charges which he then made, or withdraw them, or else to assent to the appointment of a Committee, in order that their truth may be sifted. Now, what does the noble Lord do? He has favoured us, as on many other occasions, with a long speech on a great number of things; but with regard to that question of my hon. Friend on a matter regarding his character and his honour, it is impossible for me at this moment to say what are the opinions of the noble Lord. With regard, indeed, to the minutes, the noble Lord said in the beginning of his speech, that the statement of my hon. Friend in reference to them was correct; but the noble Lord seemed to imply the contrary in other parts of his speech, and I want to know whether this charge of concocting the minutes—whether this charge which he has made against my hon. Friend and Lord Grey, and those other two Gentlemen, is withdrawn or not? The next question I wish to ask is, whether the noble Lord continues to make this charge, the purport of which is perfectly intelligible, that unless the minutes were concocted, that then Mr. Hawes was troubled with the shortest memory that was known "since the days of green bags and of Theodore Majocchi, of Non mi ricordo notoriety." Every body knows the character of that person to whom the noble Lord compares my hon. Friend—that he endeavoured by false answers to mislead those by whom he was examined. My hon. Friend made certain answers to the questions, as he understood them, of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cam- bridge. These answers were perfectly correct. He stated that an important despatch had been received, and that it was preparing for the Committee. He may have misunderstood the question of the right hon. Gentleman. That may be so, and on a subsequent day he applied to the right hon. Gentleman to know what his meaning in asking those questions was; and it then turned out that my hon. Friend had misunderstood the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman. But I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be the first to see the difference—as every one must see it—between mistaking the meaning of a question, and a voluntary intention to mislead the Committee by false answers. Now I want to know whether the noble Lord does withdraw these charges—first, that the minutes were concocted long after the date affixed to them; and, secondly, whether he maintains the charge implied by his assertion that the memory of my hon. Friend "is the shortest that has been known since the days of green bags and Theodore Majocchi, of Non mi ricordo notoriety;" in other words, that the answers of my hon. Friend were given with the intention directly of misleading the Committee. If the noble Lord perseveres in either of these charges, my hon. Friend wishes for a Committee to inquire into them; and I think that my hon. Friend is quite right in demanding an answer upon these points from the noble Lord. If the noble Lord says that he is convinced that he was in error when he made them, then the matter may rest; but to evade the questions, and to refuse to give my hon. Friend any answer at all, is, I think, hardly a fit course to take towards a Member of this House.

rose to address the House, but was met with loud cries of "Question!"

There is no question before the House upon which the hon. Member can address it.

Sir, I had hoped that my noble Friend (Lord G. Bentinck) had spoken long enough to convey to this House his meaning, and that it was unnecessary that he should rise again. If the noble Lord has not conveyed what he meant to convey to the House, he may despair of doing so in any future address. I wish to make an explanation in the first place with respect to the Under Secretary for the Colonies. When I said on a former occasion that it was not the intention of the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn, that his words should convey an offensive meaning to the hon. Gentleman, I said what was my own impression at the time. But the noble Lord the First Minister rose and said, that the important question before us was, that the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn had accused the Under Secretary, and his friends in the Colonial Office, of committing a political fraud. Now the hon. Gentleman, who on that occasion (Friday night) rose after the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn, in some excitement, never alluded to that point. He rose in consequence of what he said was the charge against Her Majesty's Ministers, of having suppressed important despatches. It was only subsequently, that the Under Secretary—he would not say by an afterthought—brought the matter to the present point. But now, to-night, the noble Lord puts that forward as the most important subject before us. Here is the dilemma quoted by the First Minister, either that the Colonial Office must have concocted this minute, or else that the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary must be troubled with one of the shortest memories in the world. Why, Sir, I certainly believe that the Under Secretary must at the time have been gifted with the shortest memory in the world. [Mr. HAWES: Prove it.] Well, if I am obliged to do it it is not very difficult, because the hon. Gentleman declared that he could not produce this despatch, not having received it. But I totally deny the conclusion of the noble Lord, and I deny that any specific charge of such a nature as the noble Lord has described has been brought against the hon. Gentleman. I take the objection which has been put forward so elaborately by the noble Lord the First Minister, of shortness of memory, not as a charge against the hon. Gentleman. In impressing upon the House the nature of the evidence given by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary, my noble Friend said, that if he was not gifted with the shortest memory in the world, he must have been cognisant of the despatch. My noble Friend does not wish to evade his charge against the hon. Gentleman and the Government. He does charge the Government with systematic suppression of information—suppression of information which they imagine tells in favour of the opinions of my noble Friend, and adverse to those which they profess. That is the charge. If that be an unparliamentary charge—if that be an unconstitutional charge—I want to know what is the use of a House of Commons? Why are you here to exercise criticism upon the administration of public affairs, if, under such circumstances as these, you are to be stopped from such a declaration? The noble Lord asks, if my noble Friend persists in the odious charge of forgery of the minutes upon the documents? To this I have to say, in the first place, that that charge never was made; but if it was it never could have been more completely withdrawn than it was in the first instance. My noble Friend said that the House could not doubt, after the statement they had heard, that the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary had correctly stated the circumstances. What more could be said or required? For myself, I am the last man to treat the hon. Gentleman with disrespect; and if I had used any words unintentionally which might be construed as having such a tendency, there is no apology I should not be happy to make. But I am sure that there was an entire misapprehension of the meaning of my noble Friend; and I am sure I am only expressing his opinion—although I have no authority to say so—when I state that there was a misapprehension of his meaning, and that he has to-night decidedly and publicly expressed that he does not doubt for a moment the history of the despatches told in the statement of the hon. Under Secretary, which statement no one could for a moment doubt. But I do not wish to evade the real question, which is not a personal question. It is a charge against the Administration of systematic suppression of information which told against the policy they upheld. Clearing the question, then, of all personal matter, let me remind this House of two or three very important circumstances. Let me put the case quietly before it. All this discussion arises because a most important despatch was not brought before the Committee on Sugar and Coffee Planting, that being a despatch from the Governor of one of the most important islands in the West Indies, who counselled in that despatch a protective duty of 10s. upon colonial sugar. What are the facts? Was that despatch put before the Committee? Or is it eon-tended that it ought not to have been produced before that Committee? On the contrary, the very defence of the Government is, that orders were given that it should be placed before that Committee. It never was put before the Committee. In the opinion of the Chairman of that Committee, that despatch was the most important document that could be submitted to their consideration; and when the Chairman, obtaining that document, but obtaining it too late, expresses his sense of the grievance, then the Government turn round and say that they are charged with fraud. If the case stood alone, as I have now set it forth, it would justify any Member of Parliament in bringing forward this question. But it does not stand alone. There was another despatch from an important colony—not only this from Jamaica, which the Government acknowledged was most important—but there was another despatch from Trinidad, which also, by some extraordinary circumstances, was never placed before that Committee. The case, then, of Jamaica was not an isolated case; it had that of Trinidad for a companion. But unfortunately there was still another colony besides these—besides Jamaica and Trinidad—and that was Berbice, which was implicated in this matter. So there were three important despatches containing matters highly essential in assisting the Committee in forming a report which was not placed before them. There are, then, three despatches acknowledged by the Government not to have been produced, but which ought to have been produced. That circumstance alone is a legitimate ground for any hon. Member to come forward, with a view of drawing attention to the subject. My noble Friend referred to another case of the utmost importance, and I must draw the attention of the hon. the Under Secretary to it, because my noble Friend tells you frankly that he thinks there is a systematic attempt to suppress or to pervert the truth; and he has given you some evidence why he thinks there has been a systematic attempt to suppress the truth. Here is a case which, I think, impugns the conduct of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and a case which I think, therefore, he ought to meet. It is a simple case; it requires no special pleading. I shall put it simply before the House, and I defy any man, whatever his political predilections, or on whatsoever side of the House he may sit, not to feel that it is a case which requires explanation. Be it observed, too, that all this was going on at the very same time when those despatches were withheld from the Committee. The matter refers to a debate which took place on February 7, in another place; and a noble Lord, speaking in that debate, wished to convey to the minds of that assembly, and through them to the minds of the people of this country, a very important impression, namely, that we were not to despair even of the state of Jamacia, for that new social circumstances had developed themselves in that colony; that resident proprietors, of a new race, were, since the Act of Emancipation, investing a vast amount of capital in those colonies; that these were the men and this was the system to which England must look for the regeneration of Jamaica; and the noble Lord, speaking upon the evidence to which I am about to refer, addressing that assembly, and through them addressing the country, did hold out these circumstances as an inducement to the further investment of capital in that colony. This is a most important subject. I will not misrepresent the noble Lord; I will read his words. The noble Lord said—

"A very great change was going on in the West Indies at the present moment. Among many documents which had passed through his hands connected with the state of these colonies, he was very much struck with one which he had received the other day from a number of planters in the western part of Jamaica, and who stated that they had invested capital to the extent of not less than 142,000l. in plantations in the colony; and they added, what was a most remarkable fact, that, with one exception, they had all purchased or leased their plantations since emancipation."

This extract from the speech of the noble Lord having been once read, I do not wish to read the whole of it again; but he went on to say, that these circumstances showed what a change of system was in progress in that island; and he then observed, that—

"So far from believing that the prospects of Jamaica were bad, he was not aware of any part of the British dominions in which there was so favourable a prospect for the investment of capital at this moment as in Jamaica."

I now come to the document which the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies quoted in his speech, which document the noble Lord described as most interesting and important, and which, on the 7th of February, he used to influence the opinions of the assembly he was addressing in another place—that Jamaica was not in a suffering position, but was to be saved by a new order of planters, who had invested money to a great amount since emancipation—and that, so great were the changes which had taken place, that investment of capital in Jamaica had become a profitable enterprise. Here is the document. It is a memorial to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and it runs thus:—

"My Lord—We pray your earnest attention to the following facts:—We, the undersigned, are the owners of 19, and the lessees of 13 sugar estates in the west end of the island of Jamaica, on which properties we employ daily an average of 2,898 labourers, who represent families numbering 14,490 people, lately redeemed from slavery. Our sugar estates, 32 in number, are expected to make this year 2,796 hogsheads of sugar, and 1,354 puncheons of rum, which will cost us, by accurate computation, 60,315s. 13s. 5d. We have no hope of realising more than 15l. per hogshead, and 14l. per puncheon (the maximum price of the market at present), at which rate our produce will bring 60,896l., leaving a balance over our expenditure of 580l. 6s. 7d. to go against 6 per cent, the common rate of interest which money bears in the colony, and which on 60,315l. 13s. 5d., would be 3,618l. 18s. 9s. Our capital invested on these 32 sugar estates in live stock and implements of husbandry, amounts, in live stock, to 32,094l.; in implements, to 14,630l., upon which wear and tear of capital we received no interest whatever. The 19 sugar estates that we own cost us 95,784l., and we pay a rental for the 13 other estates of 3,110l. per annum, which sunk capital is likewise wholly profitless,"

The memorialists go on to say, that they do not expect the British nation will abandon the principles of free trade for the sake of affording them protection. Now, the noble Lord, using this document to convince the country that a new race of men were investing capital in Jamaica, and calling this document most important and admirable, and one which ought to be read, entirely concealed the paragraph which I will now read, and which contains the object of the whole memorial:—

"It will be evident from the facts stated that we cannot cultivate for another year; indeed we have not the means, unaided, of taking off the present crop."

These, then, are the men who invested 142,000l. of capital in Jamaica since the Emancipation Act; and the noble Lord, in addressing the most august assembly in the world, induces them to suppose that the investment of money in Jamaica is profitable—so profitable, it appears that they had not "the means of taking off the present crop." The memorialists go on to say—

"And the British West India merchants are now unable to assist us, and of course disinclined, when there is no hope of profit, or even of recovering their advances."

Now mark this:—

"If we, being proprietors and lessees, living on and managing our own properties, brought up to tropical agriculture, and availing ourselves of every practical improvement, have only such a result to exhibit as is set forth in the statement of these facts, the inference is conclusive that the position of the absentee proprietor or mortgagee, represented by paid agencies, is still more deplorable."

I now ask this House, was Her Majesty's Secretary of State justified in using that memorial—which, by the way, he never produced—to show that there was a new investment of capital to a great amount in Jamaica by new colonists, new proprietors, who had invested 142,000l. already in that colony—had he a right, I say, to state these facts, and refer to them as a proof that the renovation of Jamaica was taking place, and that it now held out a desirable prospect for the employment of British skill and capital, when that very memorial which he held in his hand at the time, but which he did not show, proved the exact reverse? I would say more. I would ask how to describe that Minister who thus uses a document which comes into his hands in virtue of his high official position, who mutilates that document for his purpose, and who uses the statements it contains as corroborative of his views, when, in fact, they were intended to confute them? I ask them whether my noble Friend, having evidence of the fact that three important despatches were never laid before that Committee until after they had come to their conclusion—knowing this fact, being also cognisant that almost at the same time the Secretary of State for the Colonies was making these monstrous representations in another place as to the state of Jamaica—which representations, made at any other time than one of commercial depression and distress, might have been the means and the inducement for the investment of enormous sums on the faith of them—I ask, I say, was not my noble Friend justified in feeling that there was a systematic effort to suppress or to pervert the truth? There is a case to which I shall refer more slightly, but still it is illustrative of the system. Lord Grey, in another place, after reading certain statements, as coinciding with the views of the Government, which were contained in a despatch from Colonel Higginson, the Governor of Antigua, said that every line of that despatch was worthy the attention of the House. But he never showed it. He read every passage which supported the system of which he is a most able advocate; and it of course makes a great impression upon the Members of a popular assembly when a Minister reads despatches—which they don't see—as confirmatory of his opinions; and when he tells them that those despatches are able and admirable, and that there is not a line of them which is not worthy their attention, it is no wonder that they take it all in. Now, this is the passage which the noble Lord did not read:—

"It must be conceded that, for obvious reasons, free-grown sugar can never yield so lucrative a return as that produced by foreign slaves."

Now, why did not the noble Lord read that particular passage, if every line of the despatch from which he was quoting was worthy the special attention of his hearers? If this had been the single and solitary instance of the kind which had occurred, you might have talked of accident, and, though I do not think that a Minister of his rank ought to dress up a case, yet the matter might have passed over. But when we find that there is a Committee sitting, from which three most important despatches have been withheld—when we find on the 7th of February the same Minister making a statement-of a character to attract and induce the investment of British skill and capital in Jamaica—when the very document which he held in his hand, and waved before their eyes—but which they don't see, proves that Jamaica is in a state of bankruptcy—when we find the same Minister reading a despatch, every line of which he says is worthy of attention, and yet omitting the only line which tells against him, then I ask is it not conclusive of a fixed determination to prevent information, so far as the Government is concerned, from being circulated against that system of which they are the upholders? Is such a conclusion so uncharitable to arrive at, or so unworthy of the position and duties of a representative of the people in this House? I know of no case stronger than the despatch from Trinidad, moved for by the hon. Member for Montrose last Session. It was well known when Parliament met this year that that despatch had been moved for by the hon. Member in the October or November preceding. [Sir G. GREY: The Parliament did not meet until November.] I am speaking from memory; but the merits of the question do not depend upon whether it was in October or November. But when the new Parliament met in the autumn, this despatch was moved for, and was never produced until the end of February. [Mr. HAWES: It was laid on the table at the meeting of Parliament, as the hon. Gentleman would find if he re- ferred to the Votes.] At any rate, it was not laid on the table of the House until after the sugar debates of February were over. [Mr. HAWES dissented, and crossed the House with a paper, apparently to show the hon. Member the date when the despatch had been produced.] But this return speaks of law ordinances and rule, and what I am quoting from is not about law ordinances and rule. However, it is not of the slightest importance as far as the argument is concerned, because what I say is this—that those despatches were not brought in in time to influence the debate; and if the despatch was moved for in November, why was it not produced before? I believe that in that debate that despatch was not known to anybody but the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State, whom it might have influenced; but if it had been known to the great body of the House, would seven months have been allowed to write that famous despatch beginning "It is sad and painful to behold;" and which gives a description almost of the dissolution of society in the colony? It is all very well for the Government to take this tone, and for the noble Lord to say that the real question for the House to decide is, whether the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary has or has not been guilty of forging minutes. No one, I believe, intended to accuse him of it. But, the only speaker whom he could have intended to accuse cleared himself of the imputation an hour and a half ago. I want to know, can the noble Lord clear the Government from the charge of systematic suppression? The country must decide upon the broad facts. I say nothing of the blue books which were not produced; but here are three despatches which the Government acknowledge have not been produced—which were most important to be produced—which the Government themselves say were not only intended to be produced, but were elements of the greatest importance to assist the Committee in arriving at a just decision; and here is the fact, the head of a department of the Government is at the same time carrying on an apparently enormous perversion of the truth. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but these are matters of fact. Will the hon. Gentleman or any one else deny the statement that on the 7th of February the Secretary of State for the Colonies, referring to the memorial, which he held, I believe, in his hand, and which he said was a most interesting and important document he had received from proprietors in Jamaica, did convey to those he was addressing an impression directly the reverse of that which the memorialists themselves attempted to convey? Is that so or not? It is not an affair of opinion; it is a matter of fact. If he can tell me that we have been all dreaming—that Lord Grey never made that speech at all on the 7th of February—that he never said he had seen and was in possession of an interesting and important document or memorial from proprietors in Jamaica, showing that they had laid out great sums in the purchase of estates since emancipation, that they were a new race of men investing capital in that colony, that they were residents, that these were the elements of regeneration for Jamaica, that under these circumstances Jamaica held out for Englishmen a most desirable investment for capital, while at the same time the very memorial he held in his hand, and only partially quoted, proved these memorialists to be bankrupt—if you can prove that all these things never occurred, and all these statements were never made, then I grant that, by bringing about this discussion, you have done yourselves some good. We are the representatives of the people; and many of our constituents might, by that statement of Lord Grey, have been induced to invest their capital in Jamaica. I see a smile of derision on the Treasury bench at the idea, no doubt, of anybody investing capital in Jamaica! But nothing can be more monstrous than the fact that, on the 7th of February, the Secretary for the Colonies should recommend an investment of capital in Jamaica—a recommendation which might have been attended with still greater mischief than the suppression of documents, and which, if acted upon, might have involved the colony in still wider ruin. No doubt this was part of the system; and now the Government complains of unfounded charges of fraud being brought against them, because we, in the discharge of our duty, call the attention of the House to the fact that we believe there is an inclination, if not a determination, on the part of that Government, to suppress the truth for the purpose of bolstering up their system. If such be our conviction, are we not justified in making the charge in the face of the House? And I now ask, is that charge mere empty words? My noble Friend brings forward an important fact, and that fact, which is the foundation of all the noble Lord's suspicions, is admitted by yourselves. If you had said, "The noble Lord has had the bad taste to make a charge against the Government, accusing us of withholding a despatch from the Committee, though if he had only looked into the proceedings of the Committee he would have found that the despatch was produced at the right moment; but instead of that he has come down in a rough and inconsiderate way and accused us of a fraud, when, in reality, we lost no time in producing that despatch, which he might have seen under his own nose;" if you could say that, there might be some excuse for your indignation. But when you come forward pleading a fault—["No, no!"] Why, your only defence is this, that it is a blunder and not a crime. That is the defence of the Government. I dare say the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, who is a theorist of the most pronounced and determined character, may not be aware, so coloured is his mind by the abstract opinions that have so long-ruled him, of the bias which, unfortunately for the country, sways him upon these questions. I am never unwilling to believe, On occasions of this kind, that many things which look suspicious may be explained; and I would even be disposed to take the most courteous view of all the circumstances connected with the administration of an office where there is a great deal to do. But when I find Ministers, who are meeting charges brought forward against them, obliged to commence their defence by saying that they are guilty, and then going on to say that it is preposterous to make statements of this kind; that we ought to consider their bearing on the character of the House, and their effect upon the country, wholly independent of their own wounded feelings; then I think that they place themselves in such ridiculous position as Ministers never placed themselves in before. Of course nothing can be more natural to the Government than to deprecate discussion on such a subject as this. To a Ministry inquiry is always chargeable with bad taste. It is an outrage on the delicate sentiments of humanity for a Member to get up and ask a question which it is inconvenient to answer. But the question we ask must be answered. And I believe that the statement we make will produce an effect elsewhere. That mysterious but important part of the world "elsewhere," to which the hon. Gentleman opposite refers, will, I believe, meditate on what we have said. "Elsewhere" will say, that after all your statements and speeches and passionate ebullutions, there are some facts of a suspicious character that ought to be explained. "Elsewhere" will remember that three despatches of great importance were not produced before the Committee on the Sugar and Coffee Duties. "Elsewhere" will not forget that the Secretary of State for the Colonies, on the 7th of February, held out Jamaica as a most desirable investment for Her Majesty's lieges, on the authority of papers and evidence which he held in his hand. These are facts you may deny; but I have that opinion of the good sense and proper spirit of "elsewhere" as to believe that, whether right or wrong, they will never consider a Member of Parliament in error who attempts honestly to do his duty in order to discover the truth, and who is not afraid to impugn the conduct of a Minister, however influential his position, however high his honour, or however great his pedigree.

thought the House had some reason to complain that the hon. Gentleman who had just set down, and the noble Lord, should have deviated so much from the original discussion of the evening, viz., the personal charges brought against Members of Her Majesty's Government. He contended that the commencement of this debate was the statement made by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hawes) on a purely personal question; and it was solely because it was a personal question that he was permitted to proceed. But how had the noble Lord and the hon. Gentleman opposite met that personal question? It was of immense importance that that House should preserve the dignity of their debates; and if charges were brought against a Member, and especially against a Minister of the Crown, it was the duty of the House to institute inquiry into those charges—to acquit the individual charged if found innocent—or to take steps against him if the charges were borne out. The noble Lord (Lord G. Bentinck) had not denied the utterance of the words used by him when he charged Gentlemen in the Colonial Office with concocting a minute. If there was meaning in words, the noble Lord had charged Mr. Cox and Mr. Elliot, as well as Mr. Hawes and Lord Grey, with having concocted a minute; in plain words, the charge was one of forgery. The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire said the noble Lord had withdrawn that charge; but if he did so he certainly did it in a most unhandsome manner. His words were, "Nobody doubts that the hon. Gentleman has made that minute correctly." Indeed, he thought the noble Lord, by his manner, rather meant to bring a fresh charge, than to withdraw one. That charge was brought against men employed in the Colonial Office of as high character and honour as any in that House; and he hoped, therefore, that the noble Lord would withdraw the charge he had so rashly made. Then the next charge was, that he had placed the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary on the horns of a dilemma—that he had a very short memory—and that nothing like what he had said had occurred since the days of Theodore Majocchi. The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, in order to take off the point of the charge, said, he believed that his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies had a very short memory: that was a very different thing, however, from what was said by the noble Lord. It was a simple enough matter to accuse a person of want of memory. The hon. Member himself (Mr. Disraeli) had been twice in the course of the speech he had just delivered convicted of a bad memory with reference to the delivery of two despatches; but no one on that account ever dreamed of comparing the hon Member to Theodore Majocchi, who was the greatest liar that ever lived. Indeed, so notorious was that man in this respect that whenever it was wished to convey the idea of a great liar, the name of Theodore Majocchi was used. Now, he held that these were serious charges brought forward by the noble Lord, and that it was necessary for the dignity of the House that something more should be done regarding them, and that they should not be evaded as had been done by the hon. Gentleman and that noble Lord, who said he had brought a political and not a personal charge. Let the House hear whether the noble Lord would withdraw or support the charges he had made, and then they would enter upon the fresh questions raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Disraeli), viz., whether there had been any systematic suppression of information on the part of the Colonial Office.

thought the right hon. Gentleman who had just resumed his seat, and the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) who spoke earlier in the evening, were attempting to divert the House from that which seemed to him to be the real ques- tion, and the most important question at issue. A grave charge of misconduct had been brought against the Colonial Office; and he regretted, that when the noble Lord at the head of the Government rose, he did not rather address himself to this more serious charge, than to the imputation upon the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of having falsified the minutes on the despatch, which charge he believed had never been made, but what was put by the noble Lord the Member for Lynn as an alternative. That was his impression on Friday night; but he thought the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, had by no means done justice to what fell from his noble Friend at the commencement of his speech that evening, when he distinctly stated, that after what had fallen from the Under Secretary, that he could not make any imputation upon him with regard to the dates upon the despatch. He thought that night to have satisfied the hon. Gentleman; and, indeed, the hon. Gentleman took off his hat when the statement was made, which is the usual sign in this House of a Gentleman being satisfied. [Mr. HAWES: That was to the hon. Member for Buckingham—not to the noble Lord.] He alluded to that which he saw the hon. Gentleman do when the noble Lord sat down. So far as he had taken part in these matters, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that he had not the slightest hesitation in saying, that neither he nor the noble Lord who was at the head of the Colonial Office were capable of such a thing. He never entertained the suspicion, nor did he now believe, that the hon. Gentleman was capable of coming before the Committee and making any other statement in answer to a question than that which he believed to be true. But having stated that, he must revert to what he felt was the real question before the House, and to which the Members of the Government ought to address themselves—the charge, to use the mildest terms, of great neglect in the Colonial Office. The fact was, that an unfortunate despatch had been received on the 27th of March—that from the 27th to the 30th of March various entries were made upon this despatch, all of them to the same effect, that the despatch ought to be sent to the Committee, but up to that day this despatch never had been laid before the Committee. Here was the simple and important fact. The despatch was now in possession of the House; but how? In return to a Motion made on the 8th of May for copies of all despatches received from the colonial Governors, this despatch was only laid on the table of the House on the 9th of June. Now, he put to the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary this plain and distinct question, which seemed to him not unimportant in its bearing on these matters. Two months had elapsed between the entries made on the despatch, and its appearance before the House. He wanted to know when it was that this mistake was first discovered? They had not yet been told that. When did it come to light that these entries, made so far back as March, had been disregarded and neglected in the Colonial Office? He hoped the hon. Gentleman would give him this information; and he hoped also he would admit—if it was discovered antecedent to its actual production—that it ought then to have been laid before the Committee. On the other hand, if it was not discovered sooner, he thought he had good ground to complain that two months were allowed to pass without this neglect being discovered. He thought this was a serious charge resting upon the administration of the Colonial Office. Then there were other despatches from Governor Light and Governor Lord Harris, all of them of an important nature, and well calculated to have an effect upon the votes of the Members of the Committee. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would feel It incumbent upon himself, as representing the Colonial Office, to vindicate it from what appeared a very serious charge, either of attempt to suppress information, or else of several grave and important blunders.

It is with considerable surprise that I have heard my hon. Friend, who has just addressed the House, charge us who sit on this side with having attempted on this occasion to divert the attention of the House from that which is the real question before it. What is the real question? My hon. Friend, feeling that a charge had been brought against him by the noble Lord, deeply affecting his personal honour, called upon him either to prove or to withdraw it. The noble Lord seems astonished that my hon. Friend should consider the charge he made to affect his personal honour, because he now says the charge he alleged was political and not sordid fraud. As far as affected his honour, the result has proved that the charge of fraud was utterly unfounded, and I believe it was never entertained by any man; still the hon. Gentleman rose to defend himself against the Imputation, partly by a temperate, clear, and expressive Statement of facts, and partly also by putting it to the noble Lord to reassert the charge, and then either prove or openly withdraw it. What then did the noble Lord do? Did the noble Lord, except in the few words with which he prefaced his speech, ever lead the House to suppose he did not believe in the possibility of the charge being true—that he did not believe the minute had been fraudulently concocted by my noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Office. [Lord G. BENTINCK: I did not use the word fraudulently.] The noble Lord did not use the word "fraudulently." I give him credit for that. The charge was, that the minute was concocted—that the minute was thereby calculated to deceive the Committee, the House, and the public. I understand now that the noble Lord (though it was not my impression at the time)—though still abstaining from retracting the charge in the way that I think a man of honour ought to retract it—has assented to the retractation of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, and my hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich. I hope, therefore, that the charge is abandoned. But what does my hon. Friend opposite say? He says he docs not think the charge was made except as an alternative. Now, what is the alternative? The noble Lord says either the minute was concocted and antedated to deceive the House and the public, or my hon. Friend the Under Secretary, in his evidence, resembled Theodore Majocchi. What is that but saying that the minute was either concocted or antedated? Either the minute was concocted or antedated, or my hon. Friend's was as false as the evidence of Theodore Majocchi. Such is the alternative. The House, I say, has a right to know whether the noble Lord insists upon the alternative. I ask the noble Lord whether he equally withdraws this with the other charge, or whether he means to imply that the evidence of my hon. Friend ought to be characterised as he has described? The hon. Gentleman says it may be inconvenient to answer a plain question: the noble Lord found it extremely inconvenient to answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend. His answer related only to the first charge, whilst to the other he had not said a word. The hon. Gentleman refers to the Colonial Office, and alleges neglect and omissions; but that, I say, is not the question now before the House. Let a charge, if there is one, be distinctly brought forward, and it shall be as distinctly met. The hon. Gentleman exhausted the quiver of his evidence upon the occasion of his speech; and how has the noble Lord spent the interval between this debate and the night when he commenced this subject? In ransacking Hansard for speeches on subjects with which the House has nothing to do; and then the Government are called upon to answer, at once, speeches made elsewhere, from which scraps and extracts have been taken in order to support charges like many others which the noble Lord has not felt himself able to sustain. I repeat that the evidence of my hon. Friend gives a plain temperate statement in reply to the noble Lord. I admit the despatch of Sir C. Grey was not laid before the Committee; but I appeal to every man of honourable mind whether it is a matter of indifference to what circumstance it is attributed—whether to accidental omission or to wilful and fraudulent suppression. To that charge I give a distinct and plain denial. I am sure that those charges thus recklessly made by the noble Lord, and thus attempted to be bolstered up by evidence from other quarters, will not injure the character of my noble Friend in the eyes of this House, or of the other House of Parliament, or of the country. I have only one other observation to make. It is this: the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire spoke of the inconveniences of not having a regular Opposition. The inconveniences of not having an Opposition are certainly not the inconveniences of which we have now to complain, because what we have to complain of, or rather to lament, is, that there is not at the head of that Opposition a Gentleman of high feeling, of honourable mind, of great Parliamentary experience, capable of leading the party which looks up to him as its head—capable of healing their irregular excesses, and who at the same time has some regard to the character of this House, to the decency of our debates, and the character of the party who thus look up to him.

Sir, if I may be allowed to judge by the expression of feeling on the morning of Saturday last, I do not believe that the feeling in this country, more especially the feeling in this House was, that the character of the House was damaged so much by what proceeded from this side of the House as from what fell from the noble Lord at the head of the Government. Sir, having said thus much, I return to the subject of this night's discussion, and I repeat now, what I said upon the morning of Saturday last, and what I think every shorthand writer who heard me upon that occasion conceived me to have said, that I brought a charge not of concoction, but, if not of concoction, I said that the hon. Gentleman was troubled with a short memory. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. v. Smith) said that I went into the details of Mr. Cox and Mr. Elliot on Friday night. On the contrary, none of us ever heard of Mr. Cox or Mr. Elliot; therefore the right hon. Gentleman's memory also must be very short as well as that of other people, if he takes upon himself to say that I upon Friday night stated that I believed every minute of Mr. Cox and Mr. Elliot's as well as those of Earl Grey and the hon. Gentleman's to be forgeries. If I have not sooner answered the challenge of the noble Lord, it is because I cannot speak but from my conscience and from my heart; and I remain of the same opinion, that the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State is troubled with a very short memory; for, let any man in this House or out of it, take any twelve men out of the streets, or take the twelve Judges, and let them look at the evidence, and by their verdict I would be guided. Truly the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University must be the most obtuse of cross-examiners, or the hon. Gentleman must have the most obtuse of understandings, if neither the right hon. Gentleman, in three distinct cross-examinations, nor the Members of the Committee, found themselves able to make the hon. Gentleman understand that all our questions related to a despatch relative to the social and agricultural state of the island of Jamaica. Yet such we are told is the case; but I cannot bring myself to think that the hon. Gentleman so entirely misunderstood us, or that we altogether so misunderstood him; because this is true, and this I adhere to, and will not leave—that I charge the Government with a guilty suppression. And when the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department says that I think nothing of a charge of political suppression, did I not say at the very first that it was a grave offence, and that I was impeaching a high Minister of State? Sir, I can find no words strong enough to express my condemnation of the conduct of the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department, for the manner in which he suppressed evidence that ought to have been before that Committee, and which ought to have been before the other House of Parliament. Sir, I want to know now from the noble Lord at the head of the Government—I want to know from each and all the Ministers, how you account for Lord Grey and for the Under Secretary of State looking on in silence after the 9th of May? My hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich challenged you to say what the day was on which you discovered your mistake; but you could give no answer. [Mr. HAWES: I rose to give an answer.] Well, then, when was it? [Mr. HAWES: Will the noble Lord sit down?] Yes.

Then I beg the noble Lord's attention. The first time that I knew that the directions upon that despatch were not fulfilled, and that the despatch had not been laid before the Committee, was when the noble Lord mentioned it in this House, and I did not know it before.

Then I ask, when did the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Office know it? [Mr. HAWES: At the same time.] So when this House passes a unanimous resolution that the Colonial Office shall send copies and extracts of despatches from the colonies, does neither the Under Secretary nor the Chief Secretary of State condescend to pay any attention to the order of this House? The hon. Gentleman tells you that the first time he knew of this mistake was when I mentioned it in the House. Why, that was after the despatch was printed, and three weeks after it could have been of any use. How was it that the hon. Gentleman and the noble Earl did not know it? Why, there is but one answer to the question. Either he does not select the despatches, or else he must have known it if he did select the despatches, he cannot help having known it, for it is arranged the first despatch in order. There can be no doubt on the mind of any man who understands anything of evidence, that the first paper set apart was that very despatch on which it is noted in the margin that its enclosure was sent to the Committee, and which we are told, and all believe, was bedizened and emblazoned over with the minutes, first of Mr. Cox, who at once said that it was a most important despatch, and ought to be before the Committee; next with an endorsement by some other gentleman in the office to the same effect; thirdly, with an endorsement by Earl Grey himself; and finally, by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State. Therefore, when that despatch came before Lord Grey again, on the 15th of April, and he saw it, and was again brought before him on the 9th of May, he must have seen that a great omission had been committed; and if, he condescends to look at the proceedings of this House, he must have observed that all the questions asked, and all the answers given, related to that despatch; and the moment that he discovered, on the 9th May, that that despatch had not been sent to the Committee, it must have come across his mind that that was the despatch about which we were inquiring. I want to know how the noble Earl and the Government can excuse themselves before the country for remaining silent from the 9th May till the day when in this House I brought the subject forward? It is probable, if I had not mentioned it, nobody would ever have discovered it, nobody would have been the wiser. Even my hon. Friend, the Member for Bristol, never observed that the despatch ought to have been before us previous to the adjournment of the Committee. It would have escaped the notice of the House altogether, whilst the Government and the Colonial Office had all the advantage of keeping back that evidence of Sir Charles Grey from Jamaica, of Governor Higginson from Montserrat, of Lord Harris from Trinidad, and from Berbice. But you who complain of want of courtesy, you who complain that your honour is assailed, how do you account for sitting still in silence and seeing all this going on, and not coming forward, as you were bound to do, the moment you made the discovery, and expressing your regret and making your apology to the Committee, to the great interests depending on it, and to your country, for not having sent that despatch when it was wanted, and for the negligence of your own servant? But you did no such thing—that despatch might have been before the Committee upon the 9th of May. The Committee sat till the 29th. Not a whisper of its existence is breathed, and we hear nothing of it till it is presented to this House. When the right hon. Gentleman charges me that now, for the first time, I bring up debates from the other House of Parliament to aid my cause, I can only say that I adverted to them on the first day I alluded to this subject—on the very evening when the noble Lord introduced his measure. I have allowed all this time for those noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen to investigate this case; but will the noble Lord at the head of the Government tell me, though he has not been charged on exactly the same ground that I have taken, that he has never heard of any complaints upon this head before? Why, have not the newspapers teemed with charges against the Government? Hasn't a popular writer, under the name of "Jacob Omnium" addressed his letters to the noble Lord? Has the noble Lord never seen those letters? Doesn't he read "Jacob Omnium?" Hasn't he read those charges? Do you mean to say that after all this the Government is now to pretend to be taken by surprise, and to come here in formâ pauper is for arguments? Let not the right hon. Gentleman or any of his Colleagues fancy for a moment that I deem lightly of the offence of the Government. I charge them with a grave and serious offence, deeply injurious to the best interests of the transmarine possessions of the British Crown.

had come down to the House expecting to hear the charges which had been preferred by the noble Lord (Lord G. Bentinck) substantiated or retracted. He must understand, from the manner in which the noble Lord had expressed his concurrence in certain statements which had been made, that he had retracted the charges in so far as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hawes) was personally concerned; but he was sorry that the noble Lord should have made his retractations so unhandsomely. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hawes) came out of the ordeal without the slightest imputation upon his honour; but had he (Mr. Charteris) preferred a charge against any hon. Gentleman which he felt bound to retract, he would have done it in another manner than that adopted by the noble Lord. He was prepared to give the noble Lord credit for the industry and zeal with which he had sifted the question; but he regretted that that zeal and industry had not been displayed in a less offensive and less objectionable manner.

said, that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken seemed to labour under the impression that charges ought to be retracted which had never been made. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Grey) had expressed his regret that the Opposition side of the House was not headed by a man of great weight in the House, and whose influence with his party was such as to restrain any unseemly ebullition which might otherwise break forth. This was the strongest complaint which could be conceived to come from that right hon. Gentleman when his own experiences on that head were borne in mind. The fact was, that Her Majesty's Government wished to direct the attention of the House from the grave charge which had been preferred against it.

wished to ask the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs two questions of which he had given notice. The first was, whether there was any recognised channel in this country through which the Spanish Government could send its communications to the Foreign Office? And the second was, whether the noble Lord was prepared to advise the Crown to abide by the articles of the Quadruple Treaty as regarded Spain?

The relations between the two countries being suspended, there is only a consular organ remaining on each side as the channel of any communication. With regard to the question of the Quadruple Treaty, I am sure the hon. Member must feel that is a question which cannot be answered in one word. That treaty was made under peculiar circumstances and for peculiar purposes. It was made for the purpose of supporting, on the one hand, the rights of the Queen of Spain to the Crown of Spain; and, on the other hand, for the purpose of assisting the Spanish people in maintaining their independence and constitution against what was thought to be a party supported by the means and assistance of foreign States. All I can say is, that Her Majesty's Ministers will never be a party to proceedings, treaty or no treaty, which shall have for their object to enslave any nation whatever upon the face of the earth.

observed that this was not a question affecting alone one particular interest—the interests of the West Indian proprietors. It necessarily embraced those great principles of political economy which had been so frequently debated in that House, and which had been recognised as the soundest and safest basis for our future legislation in reference to matters of commerce. Upon our decision also of that question depended the condition—moral, social, and material—of those who constituted nine-tenths of all the dependencies from which we brought our sugar in the West Indies. If we owed compensation to the West India proprietors, we owed it in a double sense to the slaves, whose emancipation was an admission that a great wrong had been done them; and it must ever be one of the deepest stains upon the character of that House, that whilst so much was done on behalf of the proprietors, nothing was given to those 800,000 victims of the deepest wrong that could be perpetrated by man against man. He contended that there had been no breach of contract. The slaves were paid for at the rate of about 25l. per head; and, more than that, they were left in the islands, where for a time they remained apprentices; and estates had sold at a higher rate after 1833 than before. In 1843 this system of immigration from India commenced. He went on board the first vessel which went out of Calcutta under the Colonial Passengers' Act, and he saw nothing in that vessel which could convey the idea of discomfort, or any intention on the part of those who had charge of the Coolies, of subjecting them to any inconvenience beyond what was inevitable on the voyage; but so many were the abuses before the end of the year, of persons being put on board who were not the real individuals who had been passed by the protector of the Coolies—so many were the abuses that came to the knowledge of the Government of India, not only of malpractices on the spot, but of the treatment of the Coolies on their arrival at the Mauritius, that the Government were obliged in 1843 to suspend the operation of the Colonial Passengers' Act till they could frame a measure to put an end to the deception and cruelties practised on those unfortunate individuals. He need not remind the House that from that period to the present there had been but one opinion in the minds of all who had looked to the system of emigration—that it had been fraught with every kind of abuse, and subjected the Coolies generally to the most dreadful privations in the colonies to which they had been carried. He opposed this system of emigration on the ground that you could not introduce one of these persons without doing irreparable mischief to the cause of moral and social order in those colonies. Let us try this statement by the mortality which had taken place amongst these persons. Up to January, 1847, there had been imported into Jamaica 175,595 persons. What had been the mortality in the Mauritius? From 1843 to 1847 there had been imported into that colony 68,213, and the deaths amounted to 6,542, or about 1–9th of the whole number imported. What was the proportion of the sexes introduced into that one colony? There were introduced into the Mauritius 55,753 adult men, and 8,350 adult females, making a difference in the sexes of 47,403. There were a series of reports from managers of estates, every one of which spoke of the Coolies as amongst the most unfit persons to be introduced into the colony as agricultural labourers. How were they described? As indolent, mendicants, runaways, vagrants, thieves, vagabonds, filthy, diseased, dissolute, immoral, disgusting, covered with sores. Some were priests, some jugglers, some barbers, some tumblers, some cooks, some grooms, some buffoons, some herdsmen, some pedlars, some scullions, some bakers, tailors, confectioners, instead of agricultural labourers. Many undertook to shave the whole of the labourers, but refused to lift a hoe. The Africans were no better. Richard Hill, of Jamaica, described the Coolies as being the most costly of labourers. Governor Light, of Demerara, said that 13,369 Coolies had to be fed and lodged. It was precisely the same, as to the general features, with those introduced into British Guiana. It would be found wherever this system was scrutinised, whether in India, Africa, or Demerara, that these persons were a deeply demoralised class of human beings. There might be exceptions where there was power to coerce them; they might, under the influence of fear or reward, perform some beneficial amount of labour; but his opinion was that the system of emigration had been false, and to attempt to carry it out extensively, would only be to create a new slave trade under false colours, and of a modified description, so as to injure materially the interests of the colonies, as to their social and moral condition. What had been the conduct of the planters in the West Indies? As late as 1835 the House was inundated with reports of cruelties on the unfortunate apprentices. Government at first turned a deaf ear, but at last they were forced to admit the accuracy of those representations. On the 10th February a noble Lord introduced a series of resolutions in the other House, proposing that there should be stringent laws for the prevention of cruelty to ap- prentices in the West Indies, and then that apprenticeship should cease and determine on the 1st of the ensuing August. The noble Lord made a powerful and able speech, and narrated from the West Indian newspapers instances of cruelty of a most aggravated kind. He gave an account of the death of no less than eleven persons on the treadmill. The noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies did not deny the cruelties inflicted on the negro population, and gave instances in which not merely planters but the Colonial Assembly of Jamaica had violated the provisions of the Act for the emancipation of the slaves. There was no one in the other House who ventured to offer a word in refutation of what the noble Lord stated. There sat in that House a nobleman, since deceased, a West Indian proprietor, the Marquess of Sligo, who published a pamphlet giving the result of his own observations in the colony, and fully justifying all the representations that had previously been made by those who had been accused, in this House and elsewhere, of exaggerating the cruelties perpetrated on the negroes. More than that, after publishing his pamphlet anonymously, the noble Lord, in a letter addressed to a particular publication, said, that the object of the publication was to draw attention to the state of the island. He said, "the determination of the planters to defeat the humane provisions of the law, became evident before the completion of the first year of my residence in the colony." Sir Lionel Smith, in October, 1837, said that the island was subject to the reproach that the negroes in some respects were now in a worse condition than they were in slavery; and a gentleman interested in the West Indies, and defending the West Indian interest, had informed the House of what he believed was the universal impression previous to the passing of this Act for the abolition of slavery, that property would have been in the highest degree insecure, to say nothing of the probability of commotion and convulsion. As to the distress which now prevailed, his own conviction was that it did not grow out of the Act of emancipation—it did not grow out of any insubordination or slothfulness on the part of the negro population; still less did it grow out of any measure passed in this House in 1844 or 1846; it grew out of the mismanagement and extravagance combined of those who were interested in West Indian property. It was always so. The Under Secretary for the Colonies had shown that in 1804 the colonial interests declared themselves in a hopeless and bankrupt condition. Mr. Long, the historian, in 1750, described the planters as in a state of irretrievable distress and ruin. In 1792, 177 estates had been sold for payment of debts, or had been thrown up, and 92 were still in the hands of creditors. They were no better off than in 1807, for they recommended that means should be taken to raise the price of sugar in England. In 1812 they were in a similar condition, and asked for similar relief. In 1813 Mr. Marryatt, a Member of this House, declared in his place, that there were comparatively few estates that had not been sold or given up to creditors. When we heard of the West Indian interest, it was right to inquire who they were, and how many there were. Perhaps the total number of proprietors of estates was not more than 2,000, and there might be some hundred firms in this country whose intimate relations entitled them to be considered as part of the West Indian interests. Was all our sympathy to be bestowed on this portion of our fellow-subjects? He granted that they had every title to the consideration of their claims, and every title to relief, if they could prove that injury had been done to them; and if that relief were consistent with the principles laid down as the basis of commercial freedom, and with the rights, interests, and future prospects of the negro population in the colonies. The hon. Member for the University of Oxford, with a coolness that was painful, cast overboard these meritorious and wronged individuals. The noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn described them as despotic. He said they had changed places with their masters. It was nothing of the kind. He did not regret the change; he could not hear that they were becoming freeholders without rejoicing that they had proved themselves, by industry, economy, and a laudable ambition, worthy of the boon conferred upon them; and the House should guarantee them in the possession of their enjoyments, and in the prospect of future advantages for their children. Hon. Members wanted an importation of a large number of labourers. At whose expense? At the expense of those who were emancipated, for no other purpose than to beat down the wages of these people, and to coerce them into the acceptance of terms of which they would not now accept. In all the colonies where fair representation had been made to the negro population, and an appeal made to them as rational human beings, they had accepted lower wages, working in some islands for 5d., in others for 9d. a day. He believed that in all other colonies they would be found to be reasonable, if there was a disposition to be reasonable in those who required their labour. He said, then, that the House should be extremely careful how they gave their sanction to immigration, when conducted by private individuals out of their own resources, or how they sanctioned grants of money for the purpose of promoting that object. There was one class of men whose testimony should be received with respect, namely, the missionaries; on this subject they could have no interest to give a partial or exaggerated statement; and he held in his hand a copy of a petition which had been laid on the table of the House, signed by nine missionaries of the island of Jamaica. But then they were told that they could go to some other part of the world in order to obtain free labour. He had conversed with many captains and persons conversant with the coast of Africa, and he could not lay his finger upon any one spot upon the whole of that coast where it could be obtained. They heard much of the Kroomen and of the Fish nation, and that, too, from persons who he was convinced knew very little about the matter—as little as was known of the Coolies when they were first imported. He, however, did not believe that they could get any large number of Kroomen or of the Fish nation. You must, therefore, take the poor miserable wretches in the yard at Sierra Leone, and lift them over the side of the vessel, as was done in the case of the Growler, with the faint hope that you may carry them to the colonies. This West India interest is doomed; it cannot survive; it must die to live again. There is no other redemption for it; it is not in the power of this House to resuscitate it. Take them upon their own showing, and you will see that this is the case. What is the difference which they want to make up? Fifteen and ninepence per cwt. They have not told you how it is to be done. Is it by a ten shilling discriminating duty? Why, that would be leaving five shillings unpaid. But can you in any justice so charge the people of this country? Would the country for one instant consent to pay ten shillings or one shilling per cwt. for this sugar? He believed not. They were told that they ought to do it for the sake of consistency—that it was a matter of conscience. It may be so with a few men; but it was not generally so, and they had no right to impose it upon the country, which had not as yet spoken out upon the subject. He went the other day to an anti-slavery meeting composed of four thousand persons. He went unattended, save by one hon. Gentleman, maintaining the same opinion as he did. He submitted his views to the meeting, and although they were met for the purpose of protesting against slavery, they entirely agreed with him that there was no justification in taxing the entire community to the extent of some millions per annum for the sake of excluding slave-grown sugar. Let no man tell him it was a case of conscience; it made guilt depend upon a question of time. If it was wrong to consume Brazilian sugar now, it would be no less so in ten years. If it was wrong to consume slave-grown sugar, it was equally wrong to consume slave-grown cotton. If it was wrong to consume slave-grown tobacco, it was equally wrong to consume slave-made rum. He would take the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington) under the walls of the capital of the United States, and he would show him there scenes which he had himself witnessed, as revolting as any ever yet described. They were bound to be consistent; and if hon. Gentlemen came down to that House to recommend the prohibition of slave-grown produce altogether, he should know how to act. When hen. Gentlemen talked of consistency, they should endeavour to be consistent. But hon. Gentlemen never saw slavery until they saw sugar. Their observation was bounded by the circumference of a hogshead. They cannot see slavery in cotton, and your mills may make a continuity of brickwork from Manchester to London, without awakening a thought upon the subject; but touch sugar, and then they come down and try to persuade the House that all the great principles of humanity, justice, and religion, are bound up in the vote which you shall give. He thought it would be unwise to base their legislation upon such partial principles. He honoured the man who objected to slave-grown produce upon principle, lest he should become particeps criminis of the slavedealer. But let them show him, if they could, that the nation at large partook in such a feeling. Their objects were not to be effected by immigration, nor by the establishment of cruisers and tenders on the court of Africa. They had washed their hands of slavery. But while they had a British Ambassador at the Court of Brazil, and another at Washington—so long as they allowed their citizens a station amongst them of respectability and character, and so long as they had in their own minds a recollection of the recent period in which they first disavowed slavery—it was not for them to turn round and teach that the great doctrines of freedom and justice ought to be maintained by fiscal enactments. With these views, although opposed to slavery, he could not vote with those who called upon him to do so in his character of an abolitionist. The West India interest was in the predicament of a man involved head and ears in debt, who would go to a friend and say, "Lend me 500l." "What good will it do you?" "Oh, I can do this, and I can do that with it—in fact, I can do everything." He gets the 500l., he shakes off a temporary difficulty; but in a few days he is as deeply involved as ever, and the 500l. is lost into the bargain. This was precisely the situation of the West India colonies. Estates can change hands without being abandoned, and estates must change hands. The possession of these estates must go out of the hands of the present owners. Can no one cultivate sugar but those who at present hold estates? He trusted that he should see the day when there would be but very few absentee proprietors. What was formerly the fact? How was it that the West India interest was formerly so strong? Why, the younger members of titled families married rich West Indian heiresses, and dying bequeathed these coffee mountains and sugar plains to their children's children; and the time was when they were so strong in this House that they could make their own terms with the Minister, and they held every Government in thrall. That day was gone by since 1832. If this relief were granted, it would bring no permanent prosperity to the West Indian interest. Their fate was sealed, they could not compete with Cuba. No, they could not compete with Cuba, for it was a question of extent of country, of quality of soil, of cheapness of labour. Energy might do much, personal inspection might do more; but he thought that, under the present system, any money which they gave would only serve to ward off the evil day, and they would again be crowded with petitions of a similar nature to those lying on the table. He deeply regretted that Her Majesty's Government had made any concession whatever: while he could not vote for any larger measure of relief, neither could he support any departure from the principles laid down in 1846. There might be some recommendation for the scheme, if it was large and comprehensive—if it afforded a beneficial protection; but it did not possess even this recommendation, and to his mind it was without one single advantage. It was a retrograde step upon the part of the Government, without bestowing any considerable amount of benefit on those with whose distress they professed to sympathise. An extraordinary recommendation for the vote they were called upon to give was certainly that statement of the Under Secretary for the Colonies, in which he informed them that if the money was voted, and if it was placed at his disposal, he did not know to which colony to apply it. [Mr. HAWES: The hon. Gentleman misconceived my words.] The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) stated to the Coffee Committee that he could not point to any part of the coast of Africa where they could obtain labour, without the liability to great abuse in the manner of obtaining it, and without the liability in some sort of reviving the horrors of the slave trade. He could not consent to vote this money, because it was for the avowed object of diminishing the price of labour in the colonies, which he considered a piece of injustice; neither could he support protection, for it would be a gross injustice to the people of these countries. He was in this dilemma: he could neither support the Government nor the Protectionists, and he accordingly rejected both propositions for the reasons which he had stated.

was deeply impressed with the importance of this subject, and was only sorry that it should have become one that engaged the attention of the House almost periodically, he might say perennially. He was almost sick of thinking upon the subject, much more of expressing any opinion upon it. But they had it before them, and were bound to deal with it in a spirit of impartiality, honesty, and sincerity. There were several kinds of adversaries—there was the open adversary, the concealed adversary, and the dubious adversary. He could not class the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down under any other category or description than that of an open, and, he trusted, a sincere, adversary. He had known the hon. Gentle- man at different periods, and had encountered him at public meetings, and had always found him an undeviating, and, without intending offence, the rancorous adversary of the West Indian interest. He had hoped, that the bitterness of spirit which used to infuse itself into the debates on this question had been buried for ever. He did not expect that the cruelties inflicted during the state of slavery, or during the more mitigated state of apprenticeship, would have been brought forward to influence the feelings and opinions of the House upon this occasion. There were only two propositions before them—that of the Government, and the other which was indistinctly sketched out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford. The proposition of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) was to have, for six years, another scale of diminishing protecting duties, accompanied with a promise that sugar imported from the colonies might be refined in bond; and it was also coupled with a promise that the differential duty now existing between British colonial spirits and home-made spirits should be reduced to a uniform discriminating duty of 4d. To this was added, that a loan of 500,000l. should be advanced to the colonies for the purposes of immigration. Before he proceeded to deal with that matter, he thought it necessary to allude to certain doctrines advanced, and certain assertions made, by hon. Gentlemen who had taken part in what might be termed the continuous discussion on this question. He alluded more particularly to the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies, and the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Wilson). The House would remember the argument of his hon. Friend (Mr. Wilson) on a former occasion, when he spoke of the cultivation of beetroot sugar. He would ask his hon. Friend if he did not advance this singular doctrine—that the cultivation of beetroot sugar in the German States, within what was called the circle of the Zollverein League, was going on at an increasing ratio, although attended by considerable disadvantage. But would his hon. Friend deny, that hitherto a very small duty—and he believed, that up to 1834 or 1836 there was no duty at all—was imposed on muscovado sugar manufactured from beetroot, whilst a far higher duty was imposed on colonial sugar in the States of the Zollverein League; and was not that a manifest advantage and sufficient reason to account for the increased cultivation of beetroot sugar? Again, let him call the attention of his hon. Friend to certain statements he had advanced with respect to the prosperity of Porto Rico. His hon. Friend had spoken of the fine roads of that island; but he could tell his hon. Friend that in April last it was almost impossible to travel upon them except on horseback. Then the hon. Member for Westbury, in contrasting the situation of Cuba with that of the British West Indies, spoke of 800 miles of railway as having been constructed there. He was thunderstruck when he heard that sentence. There might be railways between the Havannah and Matanzas, between the principal shipping ports of the island; but where the magnificent double or broad-gauge lines existed, except in his hon. Friend's imagination, he did not know. He believed it was stated in a pamphlet that was accessible to all, that not more than 140 miles of railway had been constructed there. But to return to Porto Rico. Did not the hon. Member for Westbury know that that island was originally a penal settlement of Old Spain, and that it was within the last twenty years the sugar care had been so much cultivated there? And the reason why it was so much cultivated was, that the Spanish Government did all they could to make it a prosperous sugar-growing island, and had passed a law prohibiting the estate of any debtor who was a planter from being taken in execution for his debts. [A laugh.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but if such a law were introduced here it might not be unacceptable to some. However, as he had been informed, the consequence of that law in Porto Rico was, that often persons who were in debt in the adjoining island of St. Thomas clubbed together and invested all they could in Porto Rico, in the purchase of a sugar estate, in order to make better bargains with their creditors. There were also many free labourers there; but there were not many who would work in the boiling-houses, and the principal part of that labour was performed by the slave population. But, said his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies—"the truth must be told. Magna est Veritas et prœvalebit." He did not know what awful mysteries were to be disclosed; but after all came the old echo, which was taken up by his hon. Friend's Coryphæus, the Member for the Tower Hamlets, that, in 1840, the Assembly of Jamaica in the same manner grumbled, and sent home remonstrances about their distress; but what large interest was there that was not subject to vicissitudes from various causes? The agitation in this country had unsettled the minds of the black peasantry in the different colonies, and had occasioned a vast deal of that distress of which his hon. Friend complained. He thought the taunt of his hon. Friend was not indicative of the candid mind he had believed him to possess. His hon. Friend said, "Was the present distress honestly complained of?" Would his hon. Friend pretend that there was any parallel between the distress of former years, and that which existed now? He spoke of Jamaica as being an island with which he was connected, and more intimately acquainted, than with others; but he thought the taunt of his hon. Friend conveyed a plain and unmistakeable insinuation that the planters and persons connected with property in Jamaica were not honest in their complaints. There was a blue book—[said the hon. Member, slightly kicking a large volume that lay at his feet]—he had never read it—it was too sore and personal a subject for him to wade through it. He had not supported the appointment of the Committee, and was not even now convinced that much good was obtained from it, though he never should retract his opinion of the unwearied assiduity and pure and honourable motives of his noble Friend who presided over it; but if his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies would consult the despatch contained in the volume from Sir C. Grey in December, 1847, he would find a detailed return of the estates that had been abandoned in Jamaica since 1832. In that year there were about 640 sugar estates in that island, but 142 had been since abandoned, and the coffee plantations, also abandoned, were most numerous. What ground, then, was there for charging the proprietors with dishonesty? [Mr. HAWES: Their complaints reminded him of the old cry of the wolf.] It was too serious a subject to be dealt with by fables, and he would tell his hon. Friend, though he did not wish to make him the incarnation of the abuse that had been doled out against the unfortunate proprietors, that he had heard him say many things respecting those proprietors, to which he must strongly object. His hon. Friend had said, how could they expect at 4,000 miles' distance to conduct their estates with profit? The same argument had been repeated usque ad nauseam; but many parties, named in the report of that Committee, who had become proprietors since the Emancipation Act, and who had been constantly resident in Jamaica, devoting their whole time and attention to the personal superintendence of their estates, had declared they could not carry on the cultivation successfully, and would be ruined; and he believed that no man could get a loan of 5,000l. or 3,000l. on the security of any property in Jamaica. His hon. Friend said, "Let us have the truth." Now, what was the truth? He had heard that it had been stated at meetings about the country, and also in debates in that House, that the proprietors were reckless spendthrifts; and encumbered with mortgages; and how could it be expected that such men would rise from their difficulties? But he would tell his hon. Friend that many proprietors within his own knowledge had estates that were not encumbered, and never had been encumbered. His hon. Friend near him had estates which never had been embarrassed; and, although he did not wish to speak of himself, he could say, that he had not at that moment, and never had had one shilling on mortgage of any of his properties in Jamaica. Those properties were in a good situation, and had the advantage of being near the sea shore; but they had been, and continued to be, a losing concern. And let not the House suspect that he was a prejudiced bigot, and averse to the introduction of practical remedies. He knew he was not, for every demand made on him for the better cultivation of his property, by agricultural implements or otherwise, was attended to, and his estates were under the management of a free-trader, as free in heart and principle, and as energetic in action, as the hon. Member for Manchester, or the hon. Member for the West Biding of Yorkshire. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets was known to entertain peculiar views on this question, and he probably would not be sorry to see the Antilles altogether abandoned as sugar Colonies, in order that he might realise his favourite project of obtaining our supply of sugar from the East Indies. The hon. Member was quite right, however, in what he had said about the Coolies; they Were the worst description of immigrants that could be imported into the West Indies. The disadvantages arising from different habits, occasioned by the powerful laws of their religious creed, and of caste, as well as those springing from natural causes, were obstacles of immense importance. Then, as respected African immigrants, he, for one, was not convinced that there was an absolute deficiency of labour in the West Indies. It was well known that Barbadoes was over-populous, and in some parts of Jamaica there was abundance of labour, whilst in other parts it was deficient. What the planters wanted was security for a continuous and regular supply of labour. It was unjust to accuse the planters of a desire to reduce the wages of labour; all they wished—and they were entitled to it—was to obtain a sufficient amount of daily and efficient work for the wages which they were willing to pay. At present, five days a week constituted the utmost extent of labour; and some labourers would work only two, and others three days in the week. The planters, in many instances, wished to encourage taskwork; but it was quite out of the question to secure the proper performance of such taskwork generally. The planters asked not for favour—they simply demanded justice. When emancipation was passed, not the slightest intimation was given that the British colonists were to be exposed to competition with the slaveholders of Cuba and the Brazils. Mr. Wilberforce, and the other leaders of the antislavery party, always repudiated the notion. Lord Glenelg, in one of his despatches in 1838, stated in the plainest terms that faith would be kept with the planters. He had no complaint to make against the negro labourers as a body. They had, with few exceptions, been treated kindly by their owners previous to emancipation, and they were grateful for it afterwards; but their feelings had been worked upon by interested parties. Now, were the colonies worth preserving, or not? Considering the favour shown to the doctrine of "buying in the cheapest market, and selling in the dearest," it would not be surprising if it should be answered, that they were not. The House had heard of Mr. Stipendiary Strutt and the inertness of the proprietors in Guiana, and their neglect to adopt the vacuum-pan process, and so forth; he (Mr. Bernal) knew instances where the best processes had been tried, and every effort made, but in vain. At this moment, estates were being abandoned in Jamaica; estates were being forced to sale at prices so ruinously small that he should seem to draw largely upon the credulity of the House if he were to state them. He knew of one of 2,000 acres, with cattle and good works, and all the machinery proper for the cultivation of a sugar estate, offered for 1,800l to 2,000l. He knew of one, which it was reported was to be let for 100l. a year, if the stock could be got rid of, and which, in other times, had produced an income of some thousands a year. It might be said, "Why do you then, burden yourselves with the cultivation of such unprofitable estates?" Why, a great number of proprietors had nothing else to resort to—it was their last stake. Family settlements in many cases bound them strictly up, with covenants for the maintenance of the estates. They were entangled with these properties. They also lived in hopes of better times. He confessed that he, for one, was living in hope from day to day; but he was reminded of Dante's description of a place said to be "paved with good intentions;" there were sanguine and cheering prospects traced out by some parties, but the realisation of the prospects seemed to grow more distant day by day. Was the Jamaican less a subject of this realm than the Yorkshireman? Was he not entitled to the same privileges, and to an equal share of the protection and advantages, which the latter enjoyed? The Norfolk farmer had a protection as against the Pomeranian wheat grower by the amount of the freight and charges of shipping which are incurred on the importation of the produce of the latter; the West Indian had no such protection as against the Cuban; had he no right to a countervailing duty? He did not call it "protection;" he had never asked for protection. He never attended deputations at the Colonial Office—he liked to be free as the wind. He had trusted to the honour and good faith of the Government; not that he approved blindly of their schemes. To begin with the 500,000l., with respect to which the hon. Gentleman on the Treasury bench had said that he did not know where to lay his hand on a sufficient number of Kroomen, or other immigrants; he did not want these men to be imported to grind down the wages of the peasantry below their fair amount; all that he wanted was the moral effect of the knowledge that there was a fund of labour to resort to, if the negroes chose to be idle and neglect their work. With regard to the scale of duties, he knew it was far better for the West Indian interest to have a diminishing scale, as detailed on the part of the Government (confining himself to muscovado, and not referring to brown clayed sugar), than the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone.) The Government plan, in this particular, was infinitely the better. But with respect to the loan of 500,000l., surely it ought not to be limited to the importation of labourers. There were extensive works of a public nature, the construction of roads and railways, which might be carried on with great advantage. Jamaica, for instance, suffered in some of its districts greatly from drought; money expended for irrigation therein might be productive of the greatest benefit. He was acquainted with the case of a gentleman who had introduced the system of irrigration upon his properties in Porto Rico, and who at the end of four years had very considerably increased the production of sugar on his estate; in fact, he believed, such production had been made more than fourfold. [The hon. Gentleman here stated several numerical details in proof of this point.] This was no new system; it had been adopted in Spain, and also in the extensive empire of China. He must request the serious attention of hon. Gentlemen to this subject, for he considered that any grant of money that might be made to the West India proprietors would be equally advantageous, if applied to the furtherance of the public works to which he had referred, as to the promotion of immigration. Why, he would ask, should a West India proprietor be taunted with apathy, because he did not adopt the most expensive modern plans for the improvement of his West India property, when, although that property was subject to neither mortgage, jointure, dower, bond, or any other incumbrance, he would at this moment be unable to obtain an advance of 1,000l. upon it? The misfortune of the West India interest was, that it was constantly assailed with taunts and reproaches. It was well known to be weak, and the attacks made upon it bore the semblance of attempts to extirpate and destroy it. If he were disposed to enter into details, he thought he should be able to satisfy the House that the prosperity of this country had been intimately connected with, if not dependent upon, the maintenance of her colonies. He would ask the House whether, in the time of Rodney, and prior to that period, the safety of this country, and the security of the Throne, had not been mainly dependent upon the elongation, if he might use such a term, and the removal to a distance, of the scene of war; and whether, by these means, the calamities of war and rapine had not been averted from these happy shores? The old doctrine had been to preserve our colonies; but the modern doctrine seemed to be that it was vulgar and unfashionable to have any colonies at all. He would remind hon. Gentlemen that the Government of France, in order to promote the improvements of her colonial possessions, had formerly held out the promise of patents of nobility to those who engaged in the cultivation of the sugar care; and the Spaniards, proud as they were, had deemed it an honourable employment to engage in cultivating the rich districts of Cuba and St. Domingo. He should be sorry that at the present time this country should so far forget the dictates of prudence as to look upon her important colonial possessions as not worth keeping. He might observe that the island of Jamaica, with which he was more immediately connected, paid all her own local expenses. It was true the people of Jamaica did not pay their bishop, for, as the mitre and the prelatical robes were considered necessary for the colony by this country, the expense was borne by the mother country. The stipendiary magistrates and the commander of the forces were also paid by this country; but all other expenses connected with the Government were borne by the people of Jamaica. It might be said that Jamaica did not bear the charge of the West India regiments, and of the service companies of one or two regiments of the line that were stationed in the island; but he would remind the House that they had to send troops to Scotland to keep the peace of the country. ["No!" from an hon. Member from Scotland.] He (Mr. Bernal) was very glad to hear the Scotch were such a sedate set of men; but he begged to remind the hon. Gentleman that they occasionally heard of slight disturbances at Glasgow, or a little tendency to be noisy at Paisley. Donald was a very loyal man, but he thought Sandy, though perhaps equally loyal, was not always as quiet. He (Mr. Bernal) hoped that he would never be disposed to give a vote merely to further his own interest; but, finding that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been true to his engagement with respect to the differential duty upon rum—that he had re- sisted the seductive coquetry of the Irish Gentlemen in that matter, he intended to vote in favour of the proposition of his noble Friend the Member for the city of London. For the reasons he had given, although he was not a sanguine or warm admirer either of that plan or of any other that had been propounded, he would vote so. He had to choose between difficulties, and he accepted the proposal of his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) because no better plan had been brought forward.

Sir, although I have for some time wished to make a few observations on this subject, I was desirous not to obtrude my opinions upon the House; and I hope on that ground the House will exercise forbearance towards me, while I state very shortly my reasons for the vote I am about to give. I have listened with great attention to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I have listened to him on account of my great respect for his abilities, and also on account of his position as a distinguished Member of the West India body in this House. I can assure him that I did not join in that mirth which accompanied the statement of his vote; but I attempted in vain to discover what are the remedies which he, with his great knowledge and experience, would suggest to the House. I can also assure my hon. Friend that I entirely concur in the sentiments with which he commenced his speech. I think the subject we are now discussing is most important, that it is surrounded with many difficulties; and I agree with my hon. Friend, that, characterised as it is by its importance and its difficulty, it must be decided, if it be decided upon sound principle, with reference to the interests of the entire community. I agree also with my hon. Friend, in deprecating the introduction of bitterness into this discussion. I think that any feeling of that kind would most unworthily accompany anything which falls from me, and that anything like taunt and sarcasm from me would be peculiarly misplaced. For it is not denied that the West Indian interest are a suffering interest, and I agree with what has fallen from my hon. Friend that this commercial empire is under immense obligations to the West Indies with reference to its commercial and mercantile importance. I must again advert to the difficulty I have had in listening to the speech of my hon. Friend, to know what are the remedies which, from his judgment and experience, he considers practicable to be adopted. He declares that he is opposed to all importation of Coolies, which had been condemned by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, who had referred to printed evidence upon that subject. So also, if I mistake not, my hon. Friend objects to large importations of liberated Africans. ["No!"] It may, at all events, be doubted whether he thinks the importation of liberated Africans a boon to the colonies. Nor did my hon. Friend ask for protection, because he said that, considering the position of the West Indies with reference to the British farmer, as the farmer no longer enjoyed protection, the West Indian could no longer claim it. I confess that, after this disclaimer, I have great difficulty in knowing the precise views of my hon. Friend. I do not hold very different views from what my hon. Friend has expressed with respect to the legislation of this House, or rather of Parliament, with reference to the question of slavery and our slave policy in antecedent years. The abolition of the slave trade I consider as the proudest memorial of the short Administration of Mr. Fox, whose fortunate lot it was to see the triumph of the measure which, throughout his life, he had steadily advocated. I also regard as the proudest memorial of the Administration of Earl Grey the measure of slave emancipation, which I consider as a great triumph in the cause of liberty and humanity; and I rejoice that it was my good fortune to have a share in the Administration by which the abolition of slavery was carried. I do not deny that I regard it as a misfortune, and that the West Indies have some ground of complaint, that although the large sum of 20,000,000l. was granted when emancipation was carried, the apprenticeship system, which was a part of the general arrangement, was cut short by the Legislature. Now, having said this, I will give a brief glance at the legislation which followed when I had the honour of being a Colleague of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth and my right hon. Friend the Member for the university of Cambridge. There had been brought into direct competition with the West Indies, and admitted upon equal terms, the sugars of the East Indies and the Mauritius, when, in pursuance of the policy which received the sanction of the late Parliament, my right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel) thought the time had arrived for reducing the price of articles of the first necessity, and our attention was directed to that article of great importance, the article of sugar. In 1844, when the tariff was altered, and the duty on articles of the first necessity, and more especially on articles constituting the food of the people, was reduced, we saw that the time had arrived when the duty on sugar must be reduced. But it was necessary to pay attention to what was the state of the supply, for it was quite clear that if the supply were deficient as compared with the demand, any reduction of duty would not have lowered the price to the consumer, but would have enhanced it only for the producer. It became necessary, then, to look to the state of the supply at that time, to look to the British possessions in the West and East Indies, and to calculate what would be the supply, supposing foreign sugar were practically excluded. The supply, then, appeared to us to be confined within such narrow limits that it was barely adequate to the demand, and an enlargement of the area of the supply appeared to us to be absolutely necessary. We thereupon resolved, simultaneously with a reduction of the duty upon colonial sugar, to admit upon easy terms, as compared with slave-labour sugar, sugar the produce of free labour. Now, I admit for myself—rand in discussing a matter of such vast importance, and speaking without the responsibility of office as an individual, I may be allowed to state the whole truth—that it was a great imperfection in the measure as introduced by us in 1845, that we did not give greater prominence to the important question of the encouragement or discouragement of the slave trade. Sir, it is impossible to deny, that by attracting free-labour sugar from the market of Europe you are creating a vacuum in that market which is filled up by slave-labour sugar. But at the same time I do not admit that the direct admission into the English market of slave-labour sugar is not a much greater encouragement than the indirect encouragement given to slave-labour sugar by admitting free-labour sugar into the English market. But that was not the only difficulty of the policy of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth. We were compelled to admit that it was necessary for us, under the obligations of treaties, and under the "most favoured nation" clause, to admit the sugar of the United States of America, and even of certain republics of South America. The admission of free-labour sugar thereby trenched upon the principle of not giving encouragement to slave labour; and the question was argued with consummate ability by my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, as between the Spanish Government and the American Government. The subject was one of great difficulty, but I think upon the whole the balance was in favour of the course which we pursued. Still I admit it was a doubtful case, and one in which good faith was concerned, which ought never to be swerved from. I am still disposed, on the whole, to defend the policy of 1845 with respect to the course we took upon the sugar duties; but the House will recollect that in the following year Her Majesty's present Ministers, with perfect consistency, almost necessarily pursuing, indeed, the course which they had adopted in opposition, sought to give effect to the policy which they had advocated then. They had objected to the admission of the sugar of the United States, and to the refusal to admit that of Cuba, on the grounds I have stated, that an imaginary line was drawn in taking the sugar of one slave-labour State and refusing that of another, and that the Spanish Government had, under treaty, a right to a different course from that which we adopted. Her Majesty's Ministers then, on their accession to power, sought in 1846 to destroy the difference between "lave and free-labour sugar. I can only say, speaking for myself, that I gave an unwilling support to that measure. I did so upon the grounds stated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth, who was the head of the Government under which I served; and, upon the whole, I considered that we had so lately left office—that the present Government, in displacing us, enjoyed the confidence of the House—it did appear to me altogether unfitting that I should take part in overturning the Government to which I had so lately given way, and that it was not desirable that I should attempt to produce a change in a Government which had been so lately formed. Now, I must say, that this House and the Legislature took the step of passing the Act of 1846 deliberately, on full argument, and after passing all the facts of the case in review. The bearing of the change of policy on the question of the encouragement of the slave trade, was amply discussed and considered, and the policy of 1846 deliberately received the sanction of both Houses of Parliament; and, without pronouncing any decision on a matter of this kind to be absolutely final, yet, I think the step then taken was deliberately taken—as deliberately as any Act that ever passed the Legislature—giving ample warning to the West Indies on the one hand, and to all foreign Powers on the other, that our policy with respect to sugar was a settled and a fixed one. What has been the effect of that policy? It has greatly added to the revenue, reduced the price to the consumer, and I am not satisfied that it has increased the slave trade in any great degree. At all events, I must say that the intention of the Legislature, as I collected it from what passed at the time, has been carried exactly into effect by the consequences of the measure which was then adopted. I now ask, what is the precise demand at present made on the Legislature in reference to a proposed reversal of the step taken in 1846? I have heard several suggestions; and my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry said, I think, that "we want a little assistance to tide over our difficulties." This is exactly what I have heard from the West Indian body ever since I have had a seat in Parliament. "We want a little assistance," they say, but they never specify what that assistance should be. Then a petition had been presented from the West Indian body, which was a little more distinct; but I believe that petition was not quite formal, and there being some technical difficulty in the way, I doubt whether it was laid on the table or printed; but I think I caught some expressions used in that petition to this effect: the petitioners said that no legislation that does not assure profitable cultivation will be of any avail. Now, observe this is what they ask you to do—by legislation to assure profitable cultivation. That appeared to me to be a general request, which it was impossible to give effect to. Then we come to something still more specific in the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich, which we are now discussing; and though there was vagueness in the assertion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry to the effect that "we want some assistance to tide over our difficulties," and in the request of the West India body that Parliament should adopt "some legislation to assure profitable cultivation," I fully expected to find something specific in what the Member for Droitwich stated. He began by reference to immigration; and said that a 7s. differential duty per cwt. against foreign sugar, whether slave-grown or free- labour, was insufficient. Now I want to know what will be sufficient? Then we come to the report of the Committee over which the noble Lord the Member for Lynn presided, and I see it there stated that a discriminating duty of 10s. per cwt. for six years is indispensable, otherwise the abandonment of the majority of the estates is inevitable. A discriminating duty of 7s. is insufficient; but a discriminating duty of 10s. for six years is declared to be indispensable, unless the majority of the estates are to be thrown out of cultivation. Sir C. Grey, in that despatch of which we have heard so much, expresses an opinion similar to that at which the Committee arrived. The answer to that despatch was written by Earl Grey on the 14th of April, and I must be permitted to read a very short passage from it:—

"The high rate of wages, the insufficiency of the labour given, and the want of a steady command of it by the planters, are, in my apprehension, in a great measure attributable to those duties, which, by maintaining artificial prices of sugar, have induced the planters to compete with each other in the labour market, and produce in their turn artificial wages of labour. In point of fact, by leading the planters to expect prices for their produce which have not been realised, and thus inducing them to raise wages beyond their proper proportion to the market value of sugar, I believe the system of protection to have been seriously injurious to the cultivators of sugar. It is by reducing both prices and wages to their natural amount, that I hope to see the cost of production brought to its due proportions, and a sound basis established for that energy, enterprise, and improvement, by which the cultivation may be again rendered remunerative,"

I must say that this passage of the answer written by Earl Grey does appear to me to contain the sound doctrine fairly stated, and quite conclusive as an answer to the recommendations of Sir C. Grey. It was sound in principle, accurate in fact, and a good answer both to the recommendations of the Committee, and to the suggestions of Sir C. Grey. I will also refer to another authority on this point—to the hon. Member for Leominster, whose evidence before the Committee was characterised by ability, discretion, and fairness. In his evidence, if I mistake not, the hon. Gentleman stated that the amount of protection recommended by the Committee of 10s. would, if prolonged beyond two years, be injurious in the highest degree. In the case of the Mauritius it is not alleged that there is any want of labour; on the contrary, the immigration into the Mauritius has been pushed to an extent almost incredible, somewhere about 65,000 Coolies having been introduced within the last five years. This had stimulated the production to that degree, that notwithstanding this immense addition to the number of labourers, the rate of wages had risen from six to ten dollars a month. This was a proof of the truth of the observations of Earl Grey. I think there is a peculiarity in respect to sugar, which renders protection, as applied to that article, peculiarly dangerous. I think that in its very nature the growth of sugar is a gambling speculation, very much like the growth of hops in this country; the profits are sometimes great, and sometimes the losses immense; and anything like protection, holding out a prospect of high prices, generates infallibly speculation, which operates in the labour market, and the tendency of protection is greatly to enhance wages. What is the statement made by the hon. Member for Droitwich? There was a dispute between him and the hon. Member for Westbury, with respect to the different cost of production in the West Indies as contrasted with slave-labour countries. I will assume my hon. Friend the Member for Droitwitch to be right. He makes the average cost of production in the West Indies to be 1l. 2s. 8d. per cwt.; and the average cost of production in Brazil, Porto Rico, and Cuba, somewhere about 6s. 8d. per cwt.; making on the whole a difference of 15s. 9d. in the cost of production. Assuming my hon. Friend to be right, what becomes of the 10s. protection as an efficacious remedy? My hon. Friend's statement, assuming it to be right as to cost of production, is a conclusive argument against the efficacy of that proposition. But what is the proposition of my hon. Friend? As the proposition now stands in the hands of the Speaker, no one can tell what is the meaning of my hon. Friend; and though second thoughts are sometimes best for the purpose of catching votes, they do not always lead one to express one's meaning in the clearest possible manner. There is certainly a freshness about first thoughts which indicate the intentions of the party better. I have in my hand the first resolution of my hon. Friend, and it runs in these not ambiguous, but perfectly intelligible terms:—

"That any change in the present duties on sugar which is not in accordance with the resolutions which have been reported to the House by the Select Committee on Sugar and Coffee Planting in the present Session, will be insufficient to avert the ruin with which the sugar-growing pos- sessions of the British Crown are now threatened, or to check that increase of the slave trade which has been the result of the Sugar Duties Act of 1846."

There is no disguising from ourselves this truth, that the proposition now urged upon the acceptance of the House is the adoption of a 10s. duty for a period of six years. That which we are called upon to do is to make this proposed duty permanent for six years, which it was said could alone prevent the throwing out of cultivation of the majority of the West Indian estates. I repeat that this proposition is no more or less than a 10s. duty for six years. This is certainly not the opportunity for discussing the plan of the Government, or the plan either of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford; but this I will at once say, that I am opposed to a 10s. duty for six years, for I consider it to be inexpedient, first, with reference to the colonies themselves. It cannot have been forgotten by the House that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, when on the first night he was discussing the plan of the noble Lord, said, that two years ago he had foretold a reaction, and had specified the time at which he apprehended that that reaction would take place; and now the time of that reaction has arrived. I know that according to the strict rule of this House, I am not at liberty to state any accounts of what is supposed to have occurred in another place; but we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that Lord Stanley has proposed to prolong the time during which the corn laws are to continue in operation. We find, also, now in this House, the right hon. Member for Stamford, whom I rejoice again to see amongst us, for I am sure we all highly esteem his experience, knowledge, and eminent abilities, and consider his opinions entitled to great attention—now, as we all have heard, it is his opinion that nothing can be done for the relief of the West Indies. It is by some hon. Members, in effect, desired that we should have a duty approaching a prohibitory tax. If we went to a prohibitory duty—if, under the earnest advice which we have received, and influenced by the proposition of the Duke of Richmond, a reaction be impending, I have only to say, that to any such reaction I am opposed. In passing, let me advert to a little of what has been said with respect to cheap sugar, and of the connexion which the noble Lord said there existed between cheap production and low wages. I do not shrink from that declaration. My official experience—[Lord G. BENTINCK: You stated it both ways.] 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 of opinion that low prices made low wages, but my official experience seems to justify the conclusion that high prices make low wages; and 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 becomes 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 promised not to detain the House long, and I shall only add that I consider this the first step in the line of reaction—that I am not prepared to take that step—and I will not waste the time of the House with another word, further than to say that I most sincerely intend to give my vote against the Amendment.

was understood to express no disinclination towards the Government proposal so far as regarded sugar, but to reserve his opinion with respect to the proposed alteration in the differential duty on rum, which was a very different matter. The hon. Member urged the claims of the Irish distillers to that consideration and justice to which they were so fairly entitled.