House of Assembly in Jamaica, we again | 1833, quoted the report of the Assembly of find that he states most distinctly that al-Jamaica in 1804, which stated thatmost every process was carried on as it had been formerly, and that there was a total want of energy amongst the planters. Again, I find the same statement in a book by Dr. Evans, called The Sugar

Every British merchant holding securities on real estate, is filing bills in Chancery to foreclose, although when he has obtained a decree he hesitates to enforce it, because he must himself befrom fatal experience, he knows the consecome proprietor of the plantations, of which,

quences.

"Sheriffs' officers and collectors of internal

taxes are everywhere offering for sale the pro-
perty of indiduals who have seen better days, and
now must view their effects purchased for half
their real value, and less than half their original
cost. Far from having the reversion expected,
the creditor is often not satisfied."
In 1807 they were in much the same
state. In 1811 the petition of the House
of Assembly of Jamaica stated that-

"The ruin of the original possessors has been gradually completed; estate after estate has passed into the hands of mortagees and creditors absent from the island, until there are large districts-whole parishes-in which there is not a

-"now see approaching the lowest state of human misery-absolute want to their families, the horrors of a gaol to themselves." In 1832 a Committee of the House of Commons reported as follows:

Planter's Manual. He states that improvement is excessively slow; that there is hardly a department in which improvement could not be made and is not wanted. Hon. Gentlemen will remember that in former years the question has arisen between the producers of East Indian and West Indian sugar as to the intermediate duty on what is called white clayed sugar: and what is the ground of difference? The East Indians complain that this differential duty is a discouragement to the improved machinery and improved process of manufacture which they have introduced. The West Indians, on the other hand, require the duty as a protection to the low-single proprietor of a sugar plantation resident." priced sugar produced by their inferior And it goes on to say that a large propormanufacture. Surely, Sir, stronger evi- tion of the proprietors dence cannot be adduced of the necessity for improvement in the West Indies. I cannot, therefore, admit that the present losses and distresses of the West Indian proprietors are to be attributed to the Act of 1846, to the admission of foreign slave"The case submitted to them in these papers grown sugar, or to the doctrines of free of the soil. Your Committee have received abunis one of severe distress affecting the proprietors trade. The Committee of the House of dant evidence of the distress which is said to have Assembly of Jamaica attribute their mis- existed, in a considerable degree, for ten or twelve fortunes not to the Act of 1846, but to years past, and to have been greatly aggravated the Emancipation Act of 1833: their report consideration of the causes of the depressed state within the last three or four. In concluding their states that since the passing of that Act, of the West Indian colonists, your Committee of the 653 sugar estates then in cultiva- have not forgotten that their depression has extion in that island, 140 have been aban-isted in former times, and at periods anterior to doned, and the work broken up. This is a most melancholy account; but such accounts are not confined to times since the emancipation of the negroes, or the absence of adequate protection. On going back to the time not only of slavery, but of the unmitigated slave trade, I find in Bryan Edwards' History of the West Indies the following description of those colonies:

"In the course of twenty years, ending 1791, the planters of Jamaica (however profitably employed in the service of the mother country, were labouring to little purpose to themselves; it appeared that no less than 177 sugar plantations had been sold during that period for the payment of debts; that 55 had been abandoned by the proprietors; and that 92 others remained in the hands of creditors."

This account is much the same as that of the Committee of 1847. They were no better, it seems, in 1804, whilst the slave trade was yet in vigour. Lord Stanley, in

VOL. XCVI. {id}

Series

the abolition of the slave trade. To one of these periods their attention has been specially called of 1807, whence it appears that during the late by the reference of the report of the Committee war, and while still supplied with slaves from Africa, the planters complained of inadequate returns and of unequal competition in foreign markets. These results were then ascribed to the circumstances of the war, which has long ceased, and which were necessarily independent of the causes now alleged."

Again in 1844-two years before the Act of 1846-the Agent for the Island of Jamaica represented that

"in almost every district the progress towards abandonment is manifest; the returns of the custodes and magistrates authenticate cases most distressing, of ruin perfected, and peril impending."

This was the state of these colonies in 1791, in 1804, in 1807, in 1811, in 1832, and in 1844; and the same state of depreciation existed at those periods which is

D

now attributed exclusively to the foreign | my hand, written by Mr. Jelley of Jacompetition introduced by the Act of 1846. maica, that in the time of slavery the exIt is, however, impossible to believe that pense of cultivation where gangs were these effects have been solely caused by hired was for cane-hole digging from 4l, that Act, when we find the same state 10s. to 51. 8s. per acre, whereas now it is of distress existing, not only when there no more than from 21. 14s. to 31. 2s. per was no foreign competition, but when no acre; while for cutting down and clearing want of slave labour could be complained heavy wood-lands the expense was in the of. We must look to some other cause time of slavery from 67. to 8l., though at which prevailed during these other periods; present it does not exceed from 21, 108, to and I am afraid that the want of exertion, 31. 8s., and most of the field work in the owing to the reliance of the planters on same proportion. Mr. Scotland, who is protection, has contributed to produce a Member of the House of Assembly in those evils, which we now hear attributed Jamaica, says that the cost of slave labour to other causes, is dearer than that of free labour. In Cuba the slave labourer, he says, costs 157. 168, per year on an average; whereas the payment of ls. a day wages for all the working days in the year in Jamaica is 15l., leaving a difference of 16s, in favour of the free labourer. He goes on to state, that the system of management is the cause of the distress which prevails in Jamaica ; and he contrasts the resident Cuba proprietor with the absentee proprietor.

With regard to the future prospects of the West Indies, I confess that for my part I do not see any reason why the cultivation of these colonies should not be continued, notwithstanding their present depressed state, because I find that distress prevails not only among the plantations of our West India colonies, but that the same distress exists in countries where slave labour is prevalent. I find that in Cuba the older race of planters are overwhelmed with debt; that the old plantations cannot be sold; that the only plantations which in Cuba are flourishing are new plantations, established and conducted by new proprietors, and on a new and improved system of management; and that money cannot be borrowed there under 12 per cent. find that the produce of the West Indian colonies, as stated in the report of the West India Committee, is actually larger per acre than that of Cuba or Java. In Cuba the produce is but 1,200 lbs. per acre; in Java, 1,900 lbs. per acre; in the Mauritius it is 2,000 lbs. per acre; in Jamaica, 2,000 lbs.; in Antigua, 3,000 lbs.; and in Barbadoes, 3,000 lbs. per

acre.

LORD G. BENTINCK: From what are you quoting these opinions?

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE. QUER: I quote from the pamphlet of Mr. Scotland. He says

"Contrast the resident Cuba proprietor with the Jamaica absentee proprietor, the one a pracItised planter, skilled in the cultivation of his estates, and on the spot to correct all abuses, and regulate, with prudent care and management, the to economy; the other living in a far distant contingencies of his property, with a strict regard country, an alien to his estates, perhaps in the hands of an usurious mortgagee perhaps, as in some cases, plundered by an avaricious and unprincipled attorney, and only served faithfully by a hard-working overseer, or a humble bookkeeper, badly and indifferently paid. Can any one wonder that a Jamaica property thus burdened and thus mismanaged cannot compete with a Cuban or a Brazilian sugar estate? Reader, wonder no longer. If I speak not the truth, confute me you shall then have the facts."

Surely, Sir, this is encouraging, both as to the fertility of our own colonies, and as showing that the difficulties of sugar culti vation upon the old-fashioned system are not confined to those places from whence slave labour is excluded. But, independently of this consideration, I believe it will be found that there is strong testimony to prove that free labour may be as cheap as slave labour. Considering that the harder portions of labour in Trinidad were performed by free labour even in times of slavery, and that such labour was found to be more economical than slave labour even at that time, I think there can be but little doubt on this point as to the present period. I find it stated in a pamphlet which I hold in

But there is one more instance to which I wish to allude on this subject, and that is the evidence given by Mr. Price, before a Committee of the House of Assembly in Jamaica, as to his own management of an estate in that island. What is the fact, as regards Mr. Price, on whose authority it has been attempted to throw some doubt? He went out some few years ago as the manager of an estate in the West Indies. He improved within three years the produce of that estate most materially. The persons for whom he managed it were, however, dis

"What crops have been made on Worthy Park during the last three years?-In the year 1843, 190 hogsheads; in 1844, 200 hogsheads; and since the 15th of March, in the present year, 400 hogsheads. The estimate for next crop is very nearly 700 tons. There was a mechanical difficulty in the estate this year, which has thrown a large proportion of the present crop into the

next.

"What other machinery is in use to economise manual labour?-On Worthy Park a tramway was laid down for the purpose, at an expense of 3001. per mile. It was said to be impracticable by my predecessor to make a crop of 400 hogsheads. 8 wains, 16 persons, and not less than 150 head of cattle, were considered necessary, The use of a tramway has economised not less than 12 of these labourers, and 142 head of cattle, employed to carry the canes to the mills; 14 persons were employed to carry away the green trash. Another tramway reduced this number to two, and sometimes to three hands. Horse hoes and small ploughs are used occasionally, but not

and has further economised 10 hands that were

to any great extent.

satisfied with him. They recalled him, | sugar grown in a climate better fitted than and he came home to this country; but, on any other for producing sugar, and on esa full investigation of what had taken tates cultivated by slave labour. In 1843, place under his management they were a law was passed in France imposing a duty so satisfied with all he had done, that he on beet-root sugar rising at the rate of has gone out again to undertake the care of 5 francs per kilogram, in each year; until the property. I will read the questions in August 1848 the duty will be equal and answers :to that on colonial sugar. I find, on turning to Mr. M'Culloch's Commercial Dictionary of 1844, that the effect which was anticipated from this arrangement was that the beet-root manufacture must ultimately be destroyed-that it would be annihilated in France as effectually as if the plantations were all rooted up. So far, however, from the growth of beet-root in France being destroyed, the production of beetroot sugar has increased in the most remarkable manner. The cheap slave-grown sugar of the French colonies cannot compete with the free-grown sugar of France; and the French colonial slave-owning sugar to the French Government, that they can growers are now making representations no longer maintain their ground against the free-grown beet-root sugar of the mother country. It is, I think, therefore, hard to say that the inability to compete with slave-grown sugar is owing simply to the circumstance of free labour only being permitted in our colonies; when we find the position in which the French colonies are placed when subjected to the competition of free labour in France. I believe the difference between improved and imperfect cultivation, and the introduction of superior modes of manufacture, enter largely into the result; and yet, strange to say, the French colonies manufacture their sugar more advantageously than our colonies do. They extract a larger amount of sugar from the cane than we do; and this is owing to the application of superior science and machinery. There is, I believe, great room for improvement in the construction of the mills. I find Mr. Evans stating, in the pamphlet from which I have already quoted on the manufacture of sugar, that he believes a very slight improvement will extract from 100lbs. of cane 20lbs.more cane juice than is usually extracted. In our colonies 50lbs. of juice is, I believe, on the average, extracted from every 100lbs. of cane; but mills have been sent to Cuba, to the Isle of Bourbon, and also to the Mauritius, by means of which they extract 70lbs. of juice from 100lbs. of cane. I am inclined, therefore, to believe from reference to these admitted facts, that the produce of free labour may by a proper

"What are the circumstances that induced you to incur so heavy an expenditure for machinery? -I felt convinced, in the first place, that there would be a reduction in the protecting duties. I concluded that whatever amount of labour I was employing for any certain purpose, required the same amount of labour in a slave country. I calculated the expense that was incurred by the slaveowner, and I calculated that if I could accomplish the same purpose, by an investment, even to an equal amount in value of slaves, in simple machinery, subject to very trifling wear and tear, I should always be able to produce sugar cheaper than the slaveholder could. It was also in consequence of the general complaint in the country of a want of labour, which could only be overcome by the introduction of machinery."

This evidence seems to me very strong as to the economy of labour which may be introduced; and I cannot but think that the permanent interests of the planters would be better consulted by improvements of this description than by the mere importation of additional labour.

In considering the question of the comparative value of slave and free labour, it is well worth our while to advert to what is passing in a neighbouring country. In the French West Indian colonies they have still slave labour as in former years; but instead of being able to compete with the beet-root sugar grown by free labour in France, they require protection for their

process be rendered as cheap as that of slave labour. I will not trouble the House any longer on this matter than by quoting the words with which Dr. Evans sums up his work. He says

have any other relief than that which had been mentioned that evening by the right hon. Gentleman, in order that they might prepare for that which they felt must eventually come-viz., their ruin, and perhaps "Were a system of husbandry continued in the the ultimate loss of the West India coloBritish colonies similar to the one pursued during nies. He had no personal interest in the slavery, I admit that slave labour would prove to question. He considered that it was part be the cheaper of the two; but were a proper of the great question as to the employment and economical method, similar to what we see in Great Britain and many other countries, sub- of labour through the agency of capital. stituted for the barbarous employment of the He did not take up the West India queshand here, the reverse, I apprehend, would be tion as an isolated one; because he was one found to the case. Wherever slavery exists, its numerical force must be adequate to all the calls of those who considered that the West Inthat may be made upon it at any one time. Thus, dies were not more entitled to protection if 300 labourers are required during crop, this than the agriculturists, who had been denumber must be retained throughout the whole prived of it; and though he should feel it year; and if they are to be fed, clothed, and to be his duty to oppose to the extent of housed, economy demands that employment shall his ability any removal of the protection of be found for them, and this necessarily implies the continuance of the system now in force in the navigation laws from the shipping intethose countries. In every other respect the Bri-rest, still he maintained that that interest tish planter has unquestionable advantages over his foreign competitor."

My own opinion is, that free labour may be made to compete successfully with slave labour; and when proper and necessary improvements are carried out throughout the West Indies, as elsewhere, I trust that they may still be maintained advantageously as sugar-producing colonies, and that under a different system of management, and perhaps a resident proprietary, they may exist in a comparative state of prosperity, and be the principal source of the supply of our sugars. I hope that I am not too sanguine in anticipating that this may be the case; and I will say for Her Majesty's Government that if any mode can be pointed out, by which the interests of those colonies can be advanced, consistently with sound commercial principles, we shall be perfectly ready to promote it. But we are not prepared to restore a system of protection which we believe to have been detrimental to the colonies themselves, and most injurious to the interests of the people of this country.

also had not any greater right to protection than had the agricultural interest of Great Britain. He confessed he little dreamed when, some years ago, he was a Member of that House, and a willing and rejoicing party, with the great men that brought forward the question, to the abolition of slavery-he little dreamed that the time would come when he should ever sit in that House, as he now did, and witness those very parties who had formerly brought forward the glorious measure of the emancipation of the negroes, stand up as the advocates of the admission of the slave-grown sugar of other colonies into competition with sugar grown in their own free-labour possessions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that there was great distress in the West Indian colonies; but the right hon. Gentleman seemed full of hope, that, after what he proposed should have been carried out, and if endeavours were made to improve the system of culture, the West Indians would be able to bear this competition with slave-grown produce; but let him ask him how, if it should turn out that they could not do so, the case would be when the differential duty between the produce of their own and that of the slave-labour colonies would have ceased? The right hon. Gentleman and his noble Friend must know perfectly well that the effect of this Bill would be to open the British market freely to competition from all parts of the world, without any protecting duty whatever in favour of the British

MR. ROBINSON said, that the object of his rising was to state that, differing as he did altogether from the Government on this question, he nevertheless gave them credit for the statement which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that, in consenting to this Committee, they would be no party to any delusion respecting any intention to depart from the Bill of 1846. The sooner, in his opinion, that determi-colonies; and which, he contended, must nation on the part of the Government was known the better; as well as that the West Indians should know that they were not to

at the same time be in favour of the mother country: the necessary consequence must be, that a great proportion of the sugars

of his constituents ever reproached him for having been a party to that measure; and he would take upon himself now to say, without fear of contradiction, that, although the pretext put forth, for the present measure was, that the people of this country might have cheap sugar, if they were to appeal to the whole of the country, from the richest to the poorest, they would say-" We are desirous of having cheap sugar, and cheap food of every description, because, in the present competition for employment, and depression of labour, it is absolutely necessary for the subsistence of ourselves and families; but we do not desire it if it is intended to restore the slave trade in our colonies, or to maintain it in the colonial possessions of others." Those, he believed, would be found to be the honest sentiments of the people; and he, therefore, contended that it was a mere pretext-or rather a mistake—that these measures ought to be passed in obedience to the clamour of the people for cheap sugar. He firmly believed that the people of this country would be no parties to any measure which would give any encouragement to slavery. He had no wish to detain the House any longer, although he felt most strongly on this subject, further than by saying that the Chancellor of the Exchequer deserved credit for saying frankly that, although the Government was willing to grant this Committee, yet the noble Lord must not delude himself with any false hopes that the Government intended to depart from the principles of free trade embodied in the measures of 1846. Anything less than this the Go

to be consumed in Great Britain would be the produce of foreign countries. But the policy of the Government up to this time had been, to afford protection to our colonies, and not to leave them altogether to the fate of foreigners; a policy which, in his opinion, had been most beneficial to Great Britain and her dependencies. If the right hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord at the head of the Government were bent hereafter on adopting the principles of free trade as regarded the colonies, facts which must be much stronger than any arguments which he (Mr. Robinson) could offer, would very soon prove that they had adopted a most dangerous and ruinous measure. He should like to ask the noble Lord, when other countries had reaped the advantages of the free-trade folly, and were better enabled, as they would be every succeeding year, to render themselves not only independent of us, but to compete with us in other markets-he would ask the noble Lord, when his eyes were opened to the necessity of retracing his steps, whether it would be as easy to do so then as now; and whether he did not think it more prudent to pause now for a moment on the ruinous policy on which his Government seemed determined upon entering? The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be inclined to ask what proposition he (Mr. Robinson) had to make on this subject? He would tell the Government he would restore protection to sugar to the extent of at least 10s. per cwt. on behalf of our own colonies, and against the sugars of foreign countries; and he would, if it were possible to do so consistently with the faith of trea-vernment would do for the parties desiring ties and the honour of the country (and he would not do it otherwise) exclude slavegrown sugar. Why, let the House consider what a wicked thing it was he himself thought it an iniquitous thing-after having called upon the people of this country to pay 20,000,000l. for the emancipation of slaves at a time when they were ground to the very earth by taxation, and after they had cheerfully submitted to the payment of that immense sum, they should ask the country's consent to propositions which would have the effect of nullifying their attempts to emancipate the slave. At the time that the call was made for the 20,000,000l., he represented a large constituency; and was he reproached for having voted for the payment of that sum out of the public purse that the negro might be freed? No; not one of even the poorest

this Committee. He entertained the highest personal respect for the noble Lord at the head of the Government, but he could not refrain from honestly avowing that, in his opinion, the noble Lord, by these measures of free trade, was undermining the safety and greatness of the country. He (Mr. Robinson) knew how painful it was to stand up in that House and advocate principles which had become so extremely unpopular, viz., those of protection, and point, on the other hand, to the ruinous consequences that must result from those free-trade principles which the people had so readily embraced. He warned the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, although the revenue of the country might not, perhaps, immediately feel the effects of these falsely called free-trade measures, the ruinous effects would, in the course of