cochineal, and the tobacco of the Southern States of America, and Mexico, as it does to the sugar and coffee of Cuba. To be in any way consistent in carrying out this principle, we must exclude the great material on which the millions of Lancashire, the West of Yorkshire, and Lanarkshire depend for their daily subsistence; we must equally exclude tobacco, which gives revenue to the extent of 3,500,000l. annually; we must refuse any use of the precious metals, whether for coin, ornament, or other purposes. But even these form only one class of the obligations which the affirming of this principle would impose upon us. If we would coerce the Brazilians by not buying from them, it necessarily involves the duty of not selling to them; for if we sell, we supply them with all the means of conducting their slave labour; we supply the implements of labour, or the materials from which they are made; we supply clothing for themselves and their slaves; we supply part of their foods and most of their luxuries; the wines and the spirits in which the slave-owner indulges; and we even supply the very materials of which the implements of slave punishment or coercion are made;—and thus participate much more directly in the profits of slavery than by admitting their produce into this country. But if we supply them with all these articles, which we do to the extent of nearly 3,000,000l. a year, and are not to receive some of their slave-tainted produce, it must follow that we are to give them without an equivalent, than which no greater encouragement could be given for a perseverance in slave-holding. But the truth is—whatever pretensions we make on this subject—we do, in exchange for our goods, buy their polluted produce; we employ our ships to convey it from their shores, and ourselves find a market for it among other countries already well supplied with cheap sugar, where it is not required, and where it only tends the more to depress the price in markets already abundantly supplied. Nay, we do more; we admit it into our ports, we land it on our shores, we place it in our bonded warehouses, and our busy merchants and brokers deal as freely on our exchanges in this slave produce as in any other, only with this difference—that this cheap sugar is not permitted to be consumed by our own starving population, but can only be sold to be refined in bond for the consumption of the free labourers in our West India colonies and others, or to be re-exported, as it is, for the use of "our less scrupulous but more consistent" neighbours on the continent.

Consistency, therefore, requires equally the abandonment of all export trade to slave-producing countries, as it does of the import of their produce; and the effect will carry us even further. We know it is a favourite feeling with Mr Joseph Sturge and others of that truly benevolent class, that in eschewing any connexion with slave-producing countries, we have the better reason to urge free-trading intercourse with such countries as use only free labour,—with the Northern States of America, with Java, and other countries similarly circumstanced. Now of what does our trade to these countries, in common with others, chiefly consist? Of the 51,400,000l. of British manufactures and produce which we exported in 1840, upwards of 24,500,000l. consisted of cotton goods, nearly the whole of which were manufactured from slave-grown cotton, and partly dyed and printed with the cochineal and indigo of Guatamala and Mexico. Consistency would therefore further require that we abandon at least one-half of our present foreign trade even with free-labour countries, instead of opening any opportunity for its increase.

When men are prepared and conceive it a duty to urge the accomplishment of all these results, they may then consistently oppose the introduction of Brazilian sugar and coffee, and support the present West India monopoly; but not till then.

But now, what effect must this argument have upon slave-producing states, in inducing them to abandon slavery? Has it not long been one of the chief arguments of the anti-slavery party everywhere, that free labour is actually cheaper than slave labour? Now, will the Brazilians give credit to this proposition, so strongly insisted upon, when they see that the anti-slavery party conceive it needful to give support to a system which affirms the necessity of protecting free labour against slave labour, by imposing a prohibitory duty of upwards of 100 per cent. on the produce of the latter? Will their opinion of the relative cheapness of the two kinds of labour not rather be determined by our actions than our professions?

We firmly believe that free labour, properly exercised, is cheaper than slave labour; but there is no pretence to say that it is so at this moment in our West India colonies; and we undertake to show, in an early number, in connexion with this fact, that the existence of the high protecting duties on our West India produce has done more than anything else to endanger the whole experiment of emancipation.

But, moreover, our West India monopoly,—the existence of the high prohibitory differential duty on sugar, is the greatest, strongest, and least answerable argument at present used by slave-holding countries against emancipation. The following was put strongly to ourselves in Amsterdam a short time since by a large slave owner in Dutch Guiana:—"We should be glad," said he, "to follow your example, and emancipate our slaves, if it were possible; but as long as your differential duties on sugar are maintained, it will be impossible. Here is an account sale of sugar produced in our colony, netting a return of 11l. per hogshead to the planter in Surinam; and here is an account sale of similar sugar sold in London, netting a return of 33l. to the planter in Demerara: the difference ascribable only to your differential duty. The fields of these two classes of planters are separated only by a few ditches. Now such is the effort made by the planter in Demerara to extend his cultivation to secure the high price of 33l., that he is importing free labourers from the hills of Hindostan, and from the coast of Africa, at great cost, and is willing to pay higher wages than labour will command even in Europe. Let us, then, emancipate our slaves, which, if it had any effect, would confer the privilege of a choice of employer, and Dutch Guiana would be depopulated in a day,—an easy means of increasing the supply of labour to the planters of Demerara, at the cost of entire annihilation of the cultivation of the estates in Surinam. But abandon your differential duties, give us the same price for our produce, and thus enable us to pay the same rate of wages, and I, for one, will not object to liberate my slaves to-morrow."

Whatever amount of credence people may be disposed to place in this willingness to abandon slavery, nothing can be more clear than that the higher rate of wages paid in our colonies, attributable solely to the high and extravagant price which, by our differential duties, their produce commands, must ever form a strong and conclusive reason with these slave-holding countries against their entertaining the question of emancipation.

We believe most sincerely that an equalization of these duties—that an entire free trade would do more than any other act to encourage an adoption of our example everywhere: while the maintenance of monopoly and high prices as an essential to the carrying out of the experiment of free labour successfully—must be the strongest reason against its adoption with all those countries who have no means of commanding this accompanying confessed essential.

But now were it otherwise:—have the professors of these opinions ever considered the huge responsibility which they arrogate to themselves by such a course? Let these men remember that, by seeking to coerce the slave-labour producer in distant countries, they inflict a