1841 · London
by Sir Robert Peel
London, 1841. The Sugar Duties. Sir R. Peel’s Speech in the House of Commons, May 18, 1841. London: William Edward Painter, 1841 and Want of Confidence in Ministers: Sir R. Peel’s Speech in the House of Commons, Thursday May 27, 1841. London: W. E. Painter, 1841. Bound together and removed from a larger volume. Sugar Duties has 24 pages; Want of Confidence, 15 plus one page of advertisements. In nice shape.
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the British West Indian colonies monopolized world-wide sugar production. This was fueled in part by England’s domination (along with Portugal) of the African slave trade. Over 12,103 slaving voyages launched from London, one of, if not the, the most important slave trading centers in the world.
However, following the Napoleonic Wars, the West Indian domination of the sugar trade weakened as sugar exploded in Brazil, India, Cuba Mauritius, the Pacific, and especially Louisiana. Simultaneously, Britain began act upon many of its citizens’ revulsion at the slave trade, and the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 emancipated the West Indian enslaved workers in 1833. To make up for this catastrophic economic blow, Britain began import all-but-enslaved coolies from India to replace the cheap labor on their West Indian plantations that had been provided by African slaves.
By this time, Britain, like much of the world had become addicted to sugar which had become part of its tea culture. Debates raged in parliament over the import of the ‘virtuous’ non-slave West Indian sugar versus the slave-produced sugar of Louisiana. In fact, the moral posturing was hypocritical as difference between slaves and coolies was mostly semantics. As pointed out by both contemporaries and historians, these arguments were largely ignored with slave-produced cotton from the American South, which was essential to the British economy. Similarly, despite being couched in virtuous rhetoric, sugar-trading decisions were based on economic, rather than moral, arguments.
In 1841, Sir Robert Peel, a Tory Prime Minister, infamously flip-flopped on the arguments and his indecision hampered his control of the Conservatives. . (For more information, see Henry’s “Slavery Abolition Act: United Kingdom [1833] at the Britanica website, “How did the slave trade end in Britain?” at the Royal Museums Greenwich website, Mahoney’s ”A ‘new system of slavery’? The British West Indies and the origins of Indian indenture” at the Britannica website, and Williams’s “Laissez Fair, Sugar and Slavery” from the March 1943 issue of Political Science Quarterly.)
A scarce pamphlet recording the British debate on the international sugar trade, which could have, but didn’t, have a significant impact on Louisiana’s sugar industry. At the time of listing, no other examples are for sale in the trade or have been listed at auction per the Rare Book Hub. OCLC shows that although digital reprints abound, there are no more than seven physical copies (of a different edition), only one of which is held by a U.S. institution, Yale. . (Inventory #: 010419)
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the British West Indian colonies monopolized world-wide sugar production. This was fueled in part by England’s domination (along with Portugal) of the African slave trade. Over 12,103 slaving voyages launched from London, one of, if not the, the most important slave trading centers in the world.
However, following the Napoleonic Wars, the West Indian domination of the sugar trade weakened as sugar exploded in Brazil, India, Cuba Mauritius, the Pacific, and especially Louisiana. Simultaneously, Britain began act upon many of its citizens’ revulsion at the slave trade, and the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 emancipated the West Indian enslaved workers in 1833. To make up for this catastrophic economic blow, Britain began import all-but-enslaved coolies from India to replace the cheap labor on their West Indian plantations that had been provided by African slaves.
By this time, Britain, like much of the world had become addicted to sugar which had become part of its tea culture. Debates raged in parliament over the import of the ‘virtuous’ non-slave West Indian sugar versus the slave-produced sugar of Louisiana. In fact, the moral posturing was hypocritical as difference between slaves and coolies was mostly semantics. As pointed out by both contemporaries and historians, these arguments were largely ignored with slave-produced cotton from the American South, which was essential to the British economy. Similarly, despite being couched in virtuous rhetoric, sugar-trading decisions were based on economic, rather than moral, arguments.
In 1841, Sir Robert Peel, a Tory Prime Minister, infamously flip-flopped on the arguments and his indecision hampered his control of the Conservatives. . (For more information, see Henry’s “Slavery Abolition Act: United Kingdom [1833] at the Britanica website, “How did the slave trade end in Britain?” at the Royal Museums Greenwich website, Mahoney’s ”A ‘new system of slavery’? The British West Indies and the origins of Indian indenture” at the Britannica website, and Williams’s “Laissez Fair, Sugar and Slavery” from the March 1943 issue of Political Science Quarterly.)
A scarce pamphlet recording the British debate on the international sugar trade, which could have, but didn’t, have a significant impact on Louisiana’s sugar industry. At the time of listing, no other examples are for sale in the trade or have been listed at auction per the Rare Book Hub. OCLC shows that although digital reprints abound, there are no more than seven physical copies (of a different edition), only one of which is held by a U.S. institution, Yale. . (Inventory #: 010419)
(571) 409-0144
