“It may be the interest of the ministry to allow this appointment of a committee, as for months they will shelve the question. These months to us are of the utmost value, as during the crop, which commences in January and ends in June in the West Indian colonies, we must decide whether we are to make any preparations for the future. If no concessions are to be made, ABANDONMENT _is the only course to save further loss_. I believe the West Indians want no committee on their case. The hardships must be admitted. What we require is a fair, but not a prohibitory duty; such a one only as will put us on a footing to compete with those parties who enjoy what we are denied—_an abundance of cheap and regular labour_. This protection must be granted until we have the labour, and also some means of commanding its regularity.” In conclusion, we would ask the free-traders themselves, whether the course which has been pursued towards these colonies is equitable or defensible, even on their own acknowledged principles? How far do they intend or propose that these principles should be carried? Is all traffic, even that in human flesh and blood, to be free? If so, let us come to a distinct understanding on the point. If the code of morals maintained by Mr Cobden is of so truly philanthropic and catholic a nature—if “buying in the cheapest and selling in the dearest market” is to be adopted throughout the world as a universal and unexceptionable rule—then, in the name of common sense, let the free-traders be consistent to their creed, let emancipation become a dead letter, and let the slave markets of Africa be thrown open to every customer! Do these gentlemen intend to maintain that there is any thing of free trade in the system, which ties our own colonists hand and foot, prevents them from making use of the capabilities of their soil, dissipates their capital, and then quietly abolishes all distinctive duty between their produce and that of countries which have not chosen to adopt the same system? Is the fleet upon the coast of Africa a symbol of free-trade principles, or the opposite? Why, what a laughing-stock must that be in the eyes of the Spaniards! what an egregious proof of the most silly inconsistency that ever yet was perpetrated by a nation! We will not, forsooth, permit foreign nations to traffic in slaves, and yet we give them the monopoly of our market, knowing all the while that upon that importation alone we are dependent for a cheap supply! We ruin our colonies, transfer our custom to the foreign slave-driver, and with him, as has well been said, _cheap sugar means cheap slaves_! We are glad to see that _The Times_, though differing with us in many economical points, has lately taken up this view, and spoken out with its customary ability. We extract from the number published on 17th January.—