Small In the reign of Queen Anne, the duty on sugar amounted to 38. 5d. per cwt. additions were made to it in the reign of George II.; but in 1780 it was only 68. 8d. In 1781 a considerable addition was made to the previous duty; and in 1787 it was as high as 12s. 4d. In 1791 it was raised to 15s. ; and while its extensive and increasing consumption pointed it out as an article well fitted to augment the public revenue, the pressure on the public finances, caused by the French war, occasioned its being loaded with duties, which, though they yielded a large return, would, there is good reason to think, have been more productive had they been lower. In 1797, the duty was raised to 178. 6d. ; 2 years after, it was raised to 20s.; and, by successive augmentations in 1803, 1804, and 1806, it was raised to 30s. ; but in the last mentioned year it was enacted, that, in the event of the market price of sugar in bond, or exclusive of the duty, being for the 4 months previous to the 5th of January, the 5th of May, or the 5th of September, below 49s. a cwt., the Lords of the Treasury might remit 1s. a cwt. of the duty; that if the prices were below 488., they might remit 2s.; and if below 478., they might remit 3s., which was the greatest reduction that could be made. In 1826, the duty on West India sugar was declared to be constant at 278., without regard to price; the duty on sugar from the Mauritius being then also reduced to 278. In 1830, the duty was reduced to 24s. on West India and Mauritius sugar, and to 32s. on East India sugar; and in 1836, the duty on the latter was reduced to the same level as that on the former. Account of the Quantity of Sugar retained for Home Consumption in GREAT BRITAIN, the Nett Revenue derived from it, and the rates of Duty with which it was charged, in each Year from 1789 to 1814, both inclusive. Account of the Quantities of Sugar imported into the United Kingdom from the West Indies, and British Guiana, distinguishing the Quantities from each Colony, in the under-mentioned Years, from 1831 to 1858, both inclusive. Total 112,745 4,103,800 3,524,809 2,214,764/2,857,705 2,589,120/2,813,065 3,143,1902,915,592/2,810,648 2,915,751 3,196,938 521,502 806,534 2 675,851 85.461 21 597,013 691,819 678,667 95,201 An Account, showing the Quantities in cwts. of the several Sorts of Raw, exc. Refined, Sugar Imported Duty charged on Sugar when entered for Home Consumption, and the Nett Revenue accruing thereon; Bond for the same Years. • These are the quantities retained for consumption, after the quantities exported in a raw or refined state, after payment into the U. Kingdom; the Quantities retained for actual Consumption within the same; the Rates of in each Year since 1815: with a Statement of the Average Prices of British and Foreign Sugar in From 5th July, 1854, the duties have been on all sorts and whence soever imported: £ s. d. 0 12 0 0 15 0 0 13 9 4,741,757 5,818,170 27 22 25 30 56 11 81016 of the duty, have been deducted. To White-Clayed. We had occasion, in a former edition of this work, to remark on the impolicy and injustice of charging sugar from our possessions in the East Indies with a higher rate of duty than was laid on sugar from the West Indies. But, as already seen, this distinction was suppressed in 1836, and the sugar of our various colonial possessions and dependencies is now admitted for consumption on the same terms. Previously to 1845 the duty on sugar from a British possession was decidedly too high, being no less than 258. 2d. (24s. + 5 per cent.) per cwt. But whether this were so or not, there cannot, we apprehend, be so much as the shadow of a doubt that the duty on foreign sugars was then more than twice as great as it should have been, This duty, which amounted for a lengthened period to 63s. a cwt., was, in fact, intended to be prohibitory; and so long as our foreign dependencies furnished so much sugar as not only to supply the markets of the U. Kingdom, but to furnish, besides, a considerable excess for exportation to others, there was little to object to in the magnitude of the duty. Latterly, however, it became most oppressive in its operation. In consequence, as already seen, of the measures connected with the emancipation of the slaves, the imports of sugar from the West Indies declined from 4,103,746 cwts. in 1831, to 2,857,703 cwts. in 1845. Owing to the immigration of hill-coolies, and other circumstances, the emancipation of the slaves in the Mauritius had comparatively little effect; and since 1845 there has been a very great increase in the exports of sugar from that island. (See PORT LOUIS.) But despite this circumstance, and the increase in the imports of sugar from India since 1840, the decrease in the imports from the West Indies was not, for a considerable time, fully compensated. On the one hand, therefore, we had a rapidly increasing population, and on the other we had that population confined by an oppressive duty to a market for sugar, the supply of which had been diminished! The consequences were such as every man of sense might have anticipated from the outset. The business of refining for the foreign market, and our export trade in sugar, were all but annihilated, while the average gazette price of muscovado sugar admissible to the English markets amounted during the 3 years ending with 1844 to about double the price of foreign sugar in bond, of equal or superior quality! We beg, in illustration of what is now stated, to subjoin an Account of the Quantities of Sugar retained for Consumption, of the Nett Produce of the Duties thereon, and of the Prices of British Sugar (ex Duty), and Brazil Sugar in Bond, in 1842, 1843, and 1844, with the Average of these 3 Years. Now, it appears from this statement, that while the price of British sugar (exclusive of duty) amounted during the 3 years ending with 1844 to 34s. 7 d. per cwt., the price of Brazil (and Cuba) sugar was only 17s. 534. per do.! And hence it follows, that, had the then prohibitory duty of 63s. on foreign sugar been reduced to the same rate (25s. 2d., or 248. + 5 per cent.) as the then duty on British sugars, the people of the U. Kingdom might have bought the same quantity of sugar for 17s. 53d. that cost them 34s. 7d., that is, they might have got about 2 lbs. of sugar for the same sacrifice it cost them to get 1 lb. The aggregate loss to the public from this preposterous arrangement of the sugar duties, during the period in question, was quite enormous. It appears from the above account that the average consumption of sugar, during each of the three years ending with 1844, amounted to 4,008,9123 cwts., which at 34s. 73d. cost 6,944,605l. 14s. 5d. But had we been allowed to go into the foreign market for sugar, we might have got the same quantity for 3,502,230l. 13s., being a saving in 1 year of no less than 3,442,375l. 1s. 5d., and on 3 years, of 10,327,1251, 4s. 3d. But it may, perhaps, be said, that had our ports been open to the free importation of Brazilian and other foreign sugars, the price of the latter would have been raised: and so probably it would; though, considering the vast extent and productiveness of the field from which sugar may be brought, we doubt whether this effect would be very sensible. But, supposing that the opening of our ports had raised the price of foreign sugar from 17s. 53d. to 22s. a cwt., still the saving would have amounted to 2,534,8011. 158. 9d. a year! Under these circumstances there could no longer be a doubt that the reduction of the old prohibitory duty of 66s. a cwt. on foreign sugar was imperatively required; this was partially effected in 1844, when the duty on foreign sugar, if produced by free labour, was reduced to 35s. 84d. a cwt.; and when, in 1845, the duty on British colonial sugars was reduced to 14s. a cwt., that on foreign free labour sugar was farther reduced to 23s. 4d. a cwt. But though these reductions of duty effected a great improvement in the old system, they were inadequate to place it on a satisfactory footing. The reduction of the duty on foreign sugar applied to that only which was produced by free labour, the sugar produced by the labour of slaves (unless we happened to be bound by treaty to admit it at the low duty) continuing subject to the old prohibitory duty of 66s. per cwt. Nothing, however, could be more inexpedient than this distinction, on which we took the liberty to animadvert as follows in a former edition of this work: "We take, without any scruple, the cotton, tobacco, rice, and other products of slaveholding countries; and such being the case, it is not very easy to see on what principle we refuse to take their sugar. There is no reason to think that we are at all likely to hasten, by this refusal, the emancipation of their slaves (even if that were certainly desirable), or to improve their condition: our policy in this respect is injurious to ourselves, without being of the smallest advantage to any one else. "But the truth is, if we look a little narrowly into the circumstances, we shall find that we do the very thing we pretend not to do. We annually export large quantities of British produce to Cuba and Brazil; but the sugar of those countries, the principal article they have to send us, being excluded from our markets, we cannot bring it direct to this country, but we carry it to Hamburg and other continental emporiums, and there exchange it for wool, flax, and other articles we are allowed to import; so that, in effect, we transmute the slave-grown sugar into other things, and consume it under its new form. We do not employ it to sweeten tea and coffee; but we clothe ourselves with wool and flax, manure our lands with bones, and manufacture our paper of rags, which are all bought by it! But suppose we were a little more Quixotic, and that after getting the sugar we threw it into the sea, the result, as respects Cuba and Brazil, would be the same. We give, by buying their sugar, all the encouragement in our power to the slavery that exists in them; what we shall do with the sugar is our own affair; and whether we use it, sell it to others, or destroy it, is, as far as slavery is concerned, quite immaterial. But it is by no means immaterial as respects our trade with slave-holding countries; inasmuch as the preference we give to the sugars of others tempts them to lay discriminating duties on our products, and to discourage and embarrass our trade. And even were it otherwise desirable, it may be doubted whether it be in our power to exclude slave-grown sugar. Certificates of origin will, we apprehend, be rather a slender security for this result. But supposing them to be effectual, the consequence will be that a greater quantity of Java and Manilla sugar being consumed in England, less of it will remain to be sent to the Continent, where, by means of our policy, a corresponding market will be opened for slavegrown sugar! "But admitting that something might be found to say in favour of the policy of wholly excluding slave-grown sugar, we, in effect, abandon it, by admitting the slavegrown sugar of the U. States and other countries with which we have treaties of reciprocity; so that, after all, our policy, in this respect, is prohibitive only of the sugars of Cuba, Porto-Rico, and Brazil! If the Americans chose to send us the whole sugar grown in Louisiana, every ounce of which is the produce of slave labour, importing in its stead sugar from the Havannah and Bahia, it would be freely admitted to our markets. Hence it is that, while we exclude the slave-grown sugar of those friendly countries of whose trade we might, if we chose, have a virtual monopoly, we admit the slave-grown sugar of our rivals, of the only people whose commercial marine can come into competition with our own! And to show that this contradiction is not imaginary, we may mention that, during the present year (1845) about 300 tons of the sugar of Louisiana and Venezuela have been admitted to consumption under the new act! Is it, we beg to ask, possible to speak too harshly of such a policy? to imagine anything more perverse, contradictory, and absurd? "It were really, therefore, to be wished that we should cease to rave, as we have done for the last 20 years, about slavery; and that we should allow our merchants to buy sugar, as we allow them to buy cotton and other things, without inquiring how, or by whom, it is produced. We may be assured that we should give as little encouragement to slavery by so doing as we give by our present system, while we should, at the same time, give greater facilities to our trade, and full scope to the late, and in other respects, wise and liberal measures." We are glad to have to state that the principle contended for in the above paragraphs has since been fully admitted by the legislature; the act of 1846, 9 & 10 Vict. c. 63., having equalised the duty on all descriptions of foreign sugars. The quality of the latter is not, as now prepared, well suited to our markets. |