ABSTRACT
In their 1841 budget, the Whig administration brought forward proposals to reduce import duties on timber and on foreign sugar and to introduce a fixed duty of eight shillings per quarter on wheat, in order to stimulate trade and improve the state of the finances. The Conservatives focused upon the proposals to modify the sugar duties, because a large amount of foreign sugar was the product of slave labour, which was objectionable to many of the government’s own backbenchers. Britain had taken a leading role in the abolition of the slave trade in 1807 and of slavery in 1833. The tariffs to be paid on sugar were not only an economic issue but were intimately connected with the conditions under which sugar was produced.
In his intervention on the eighth night of the debate, Peel argued that Britain should not accept sugar which was the product of slave labour. Any deficiency in the supply of sugar from the West Indies should be met from the East Indies, rather than through opening up British markets to slave-grown sugar from Brazil and Cuba. To do otherwise would be ‘to abandon the high position we have hitherto taken, and to deny our own right to speak to other nations in the language of commanding authority on the subject of slavery’.
The latter part of the speech contained Peel’s defence against the charge of factionalism and an extended discussion of the principles of William Huskisson, the promoter of Free Trade during the 1820s. Peel also declared his opposition to a fixed duty on corn and criticised government plans for the timber duties.
The speech is principally remembered for Peel’s merciless attack on the Whig government’s financial record. In spite of enjoying ‘the advantage of a reformed Parliament … the full enjoyment of the promised blessings of “cheap government” … no patronage, [and] no obstruction from illiberal colleagues’, the government had amassed a total deficit of £8m. In a memorable phrase, Peel observed, ‘Can there be a more lamentable picture than that of a Chancellor of the Exchequer seated on an empty chest – by the pool of bottomless deficiency – fishing for a Budget?’
The Conservatives defeated the government on this motion by 281–317, a majority of 36. Fifteen government supporters voted with the Conservatives, whilst 18 others stayed away.
