tions of our fleet, revived all the horrors of the Slave Trade. In 1842 the exports of slaves had sunk to 30,000, in 1843 they rose to 55,000, in 1846 to 76,000, in 1847 to 84,000. The trade had since augmented to such a degree that, in 1848, the number of slaves exported into Brazil exceeded the demand by 8000, stimulated as that demand had been by the legislation of the British Parliament admitting Brazilian sugar to the markets of this country. Under these circumstances, slaves being cheaper in Brazil than when the trade was unrestricted, of what value was our squadron on the coast of Africa? We had undertaken a task to which any amount of force was unequal-to suppress a contraband trade which yielded higher gains than any other trade in the world. All experience demonstrated that no lucrative trade of this kind was ever suppressed by coercion. Sir Josiah Child, two hundred years ago, said, He who would give a large price for any commodity shall obtain it by some means or other." Mr. Hutt then adverted to the testimony of Commodore Mansel and Sir C. Hotham, the Commodores of the African squadron, and other naval witnesses, as to the impracticability of putting down the traffic by force; observing that no witness, amongst those who held a contrary opinion, considered the present system a satisfactory one, though 25,000,000l. had been expended upon it, and we were still paying 700,000l. a year, and employing between thirty and forty vessels to maintain it. He objected to this country being engaged in an object in which we could co-operate with no other state, and were constantly trembling on

66

the verge of a quarrel with France and America.

Mr. Baillie seconded the motion, on the ground that this country was really deriving, in the shape of cheap sugar from the Brazils, a profit from the Slave Trade, and that by maintaining the squadron on the coast of Africa we cast a screen of respectability over our conduct as receivers of stolen goods.

Mr. W. Evans, who had given notice of an amendment, which he now withdrew, combated many of the facts put forward by Mr. Hutt, and disputed the correctness of his conclusions, urging that it would be an awful thing to leave the whole African coast exposed to the lawless piracy and ruffianism of slave-traders, and recommending, as a means of diminishing the expense of the squadron, the employment of smaller vessels.

Mr. Labouchere regarded this question as involving not only the cause of humanity, but the character and honour of this country, if our squadron was to be withdrawn from the coast of Africa without any substitute; and deprecated the announcement by the Commons of England, that hereafter this horrible traffic might prevail over every sea without let or hindrance. He believed the people of England would not acquiesce, from motives of economy, in such a retrograde and degenerate course, without the substitution of some other system. The squadron, it was said, had not succeeded in suppressing the trade. Nobody expected it would without other measures. But the withdrawing of the squadron, until other measures had time to come into operation and vigour, would aggravate the horrors of the Slave Trade, extin

guish the seeds of civilization in Africa, replunge that continent in the worst horrors of barbarism, and give a stimulus to slavery in Cuba and Brazil. The argument, that the exertions of the African squadron had been useless, was inconsistent with the difference that had taken place in the prices of slaves, the present high cost of a negro at Cuba and Brazil proving that a practical limit had been put upon the transport of natives of Africa across the Atlantic. Mr. Labouchere cited the testimony of Sir C. Hotham, a witness whose evidence had been invoked by Mr. Hutt, to the evil effects of withdrawing the squadron without a substitute; drew a very encouraging picture of the progress made in civilizing the races on the coast of Africa, chiefly through the influence of the republic of Liberia; and pointed out the inevitable consequences of the resolution upon our sugar-growing colonies, which, suffering from a dearth of labour, would have to contend with foreign sugar-producing countries commanding an unlimited supply of slave labour at a cheaper rate.

Mr. Grantley Berkeley, in supporting the motion, described the depression of our sugar colonies, and insisted that the only effectual mode of putting down the Slave Trade was to stop the admission of slave produce into this country.

Sir G. Pechell would not consent to a measure which must lower the station which this country had always maintained. Though the squadron had not been efficient enough, it had effected a large amount of good, and ships must be maintained on the African coast to protect the factories and legitimate

commerce.

Mr. Anstey maintained that our

blockade of the west coast of Africa, for the attainment of an Utopian object, was a violation of the law of nations. He concurred with Mr. Hutt in the expediency of removing the squadron, which had increased the exportation of negroes, and aggravated their sufferings in the passage.

Sir R. Inglis reduced the annual expenditure of the blockading squadron to 300,000l., half of which would be required for the protection of commerce, and asked whether the House was prepared, for this small saving, to set at nought the solemn obligations we had contracted in the face of the world. The capture of 600 vessels by the blockading squadron had been no slight service rendered to Christian humanity.

Lord H. Vane supported the motion, not on the ground of economy, but from a conviction that the treaties with Spain and Portugal had been inoperative, and that to make the blockade effectual it must be upon a vast scale.

Mr. Cardwell argued that this was a question whether we should at once and for ever surrender the policy of years, and with it the hope of civilizing Africa. The ar guments founded upon the alleged futility of the operations of our squadron, and its expense, he undertook to refute from the evidence. He acknowledged that by a marine guard alone it was impossible to command a long line of coast; but there were two other agencies at work-legitimate trade, and the higher influence of Christianity; and how could these agencies continue to work if deprived of protection? He then showed on how large an extent of the coast of Africa the Slave Trade had ceased; that the price of

slaves had risen at Cuba through the interruption of the trade by our cruisers; that the number of slaves imported into the Brazils was not regulated by the demand, but by the facilities of escaping our squadron. The question resolved itself into this: make the Slave Trade easy, and it will be in the power of black, or Spanish, or Portuguese savages, to obtain better returns in human flesh than in palm oil. Finding such strong evidence of the progress of civilization and of legitimate commerce in Africa, he could not, as an honest man, take upon himself to paralyze the hands of those who had been instrumental in accomplishing these changes, by consenting to withdraw our squadron, and leave the coasts of Africa to the horrors of piracy as well as the Slave Trade.

Captain Pelham spoke in opposition to the motion, amidst frequent manifestations of impa

tience.

Mr. Gladstone, declaring his intention to vote in favour of the motion, observed, that it contemplated only the single treaty with France, which placed this country in a position so anomalous and preposterous as justified a motion to put an end to it. He joined with those who stigmatized the Slave Trade as a detestable traffic; but the system of armed repression had long ago been pronounced futile by Sir F. Buxton; it had been condemned by Lord J. Russell, and by the most responsible and credible witnesses. Was this to be made a permanent system? or would the House look the subject fairly in the face, and come to some decisive resolution? The opinion of Sir C. Hotham-who did not counsel the removal of the

squadron conditionally, but absolutely-was, that if the trade were stopped at one place, it broke out at another. The fact invalidated the argument founded upon the statement that parts of the coast were clear. Had the squadron extinguished the trade? No. Had it made a progress towards its extinction? That was the real issue; and Mr. Gladstone read statements of the prices of slaves, and of the percentage of captives in successive years, contending that the figures showed that there had been no progress, but rather a retrogression. Although the burden cast upon the people of England by this charge was not limited to 700,000l., that was not his main motive; he wanted to grapple with the question on the ground of humanity and philanthropy, and he had come to the conclusion, from evidence of which he gave the details, that the present system of repression did not diminish, but, on the contrary, had a tendency to increase, the sum of human wretchedness. Then he might be asked, what other course he would suggest? It was an indispensable condition, that there should be a general belief amongst other nations of our sincerity; but, having passed the Sugar Duties Act, he defied the Government to re-establish our reputation for sincerity. We must repeal that Act, double our squadron, obtain the right of search from France and America, with power to punish foreign crews; and lastly, we must force Spain and Brazil to fulfil their treaties. Without these conditions-and they were almost hopeless-the success of our squadron in Africa would be visionary.

Lord John Russell said, the

House was asked, at the end of a series of triumphs achieved in the cause of humanity, to take a retrograde step, proclaiming to the world that we no longer meant to take measures against the Slave Trade or to offer a substitute, thereby spreading discouragement throughout the world, in which there were other nations admiring and imitating our example. The renunciation of our treaty with France would enable slavers to hoist the French flag, and the effect of the speeches of the mover and seconder was, Let us have a free trade in slaves." Lord John questioned the correctness of Mr. Gladstone's facts; in the comparison he had made between the existing Slave Trade and that made under Sir William Dolben's Act, he had forgotten that the latter was a regulated trade. Sir C. Hotham and Captain Matson stated that the sufferings of the slaves in the middle passage would be aggravated if the trade were lested. In the matter of economy

unmo

it would be absolutely necessary to keep up some force upon the coast, for if there ever was a commerce which deserved protection it was that now springing up in the place of the Slave Trade. The removal of restrictions from that trade would destroy the hope of civilizing Africa, whilst it would so immensely increase the importation of slaves into Brazil, that our West India Islands would be unable to stand the competition. In reply to the question, what should be done to suppress the Slave Trade, Lord J. Russell said he did not despond. If the cause was good, and had gradually enlisted the nations of the world in its favour, he believed that it was anything but hopeless, and that nothing could destroy it but the want of moral courage on our part.

Lord R. Grosvenor stated, in a few words, his reasons for voting in favour of the motion; and Mr. Hutt having replied, the House divided, when the motion was negatived by 232 against 154.