The Sun.
London, England, 1841-05-11 00:00:00

whole question. We have been told th at sugar is not an
article on which the' consumption del )ends very nicely
on the price ; that it is rather an arti el e of luxury, not
one of those necessaries on which t hi: consumption de-
pends much on the price. I observe that in the House
of Commons in 1829 when the q nestion of the sugar
duties was brought before the. 1.101 Ise of Commons by
Mr. Huskisson and Sir G. Clerk, much discussion took
place on that
point, and l'he lion. Member for Cam-
bridge (Mr. Gisborne) mentioned sugar as not of the
class of articles of that descrii Lion. But I confess I think
the argument Mr. Huskissontl yen employed was a very
proper one to disprove the posit ion of the Right Hon.
Gentleman ; and I must say, also, from subsequent expe-
rience of the consumption of sugar in this country, that
there is no article on which a reduct. on of price is more,
ipti2n, and
this
to produce an increase of consun.
-111-.ond.tftitus sub-
tics, though •
quently of revenue. lam aware that Oil.
Possible.
• is 1 cult to
ject are always dry ; but, at the same time, 1. .
argue these matters without reference to statis.
I assure the House I will do so as sparingly.
I hold in my hand calculations of gentlemen in the .Statis-
tical Department of the Board of Trade, which ~tneY
have made on the following principle :—They have giv."n
me the average price of sugur in the London Gazette for
a series of years, the quantity imported in those years,
and the average consumption of each individual in the
United Kingdom during the same time. The quantity
will not be found to agree with the statements of the
officers of the Customs, because it is calculated on a
somewhat different principle. In the first place, the
error is avoided which affects the calculations f the
Customs in all the first years, owing *l., the erroneous
manner of calculcating the bounty on the sugar ex-
ported ; it also includes molasses converted into sugar,
and all saccharine matter introducld into this country.
I find that in 1830 the quantity Of tons imported was
213,000, and that the price of sugar—(my
object is show
the House how the consumption is affected by the ifice)—
was 25s,the quantity consumed per head in the United King-
dom being 19.941b5. ; that in 1831 the price was 235.8 d.,
average consumption per head 20.111b5. ; in 1832, price
28s. Bd. consumption 19 lbs. ; in 1833, price 295. con-
sumption 17.991b5. ; in 1834, price 295. 21d., consump-
tion, 18.311b5. ; in 1835 (a year which forms a re-
markable exception to the others), price 335. 90. con-
sumption 19.211b5. I beg the House to remark the
consequence of this consumption. 'The year 1835 was a
year of remarkably cheap bread.—(Cheers.) I quite
allow that the price of bread in this country is
the regulating cause of every article of general consump-
tion, but I think it important, at the same time, to put
the sugar trade on a proper footing, and to put the corn
trade on a proper footing at the same time.—(Cheers.)
I would also add that the year 1825 was a year of great
improvement and a year' of great export, and
that the working classes were well off. In 1836
the price of sugar rose to 40s. 9d. and the consumption
fell to 16.58 ; in 1837 the price was 345. 5d., the con-
sumption was 18.38 ; in 1838 the price was 335. 7d., the
consumption 18.42 ; in 1839 the price was 375. 44d., the
consumption 17.16 ; in 1840 the price was higher than it
had ever been, it having risen to 48s. 7id., and the con-
sumption of sugar per head fell in the United Kingdom
to 15.28 per head.—(Cheers.) So, if we compare the
first year of the series with the last, we shall find the
consumption of sugar per head throughout the United
Kingdom had fallen nearly one-fourth.--(Cheers.) When
you come to consider that this diminished consumption
does not affect the higher classes in any considerable
degree, but falls upon the poorer classes, it is impossible
not to conceive what privations they must have under-
gone during this period of low consumption. I remember
that in the year 1829 Mr. Huskisson said, when speak-
ing of sugar as it then was, that two-thirds
of the poor consumers of coffee drank it
without any sugar at all ; yet when he made that decla-
ration, the price of sugar was lower than it is at this
moment ; therefore I apprehend that by this reduction
the provision of this class must be considerably in-
creased. I feel, really, that this is not a part of subject
with which it is necessary to detain the House at any
length ; I think we may defer nice calculations with
regard to the degree of interest which the consumers
have in the reduction of sugar, and as to the amount of
revenue we may depend on being derived from it.
I shall only say with regard to the amount of revenue,
that I am satisfied that if we are allowed to go into Com-
mittee on this resolution—that place where alone a sub-
ject of this description can only be discussed with advan-
ta6nv—l am sure my Right Hon. Friend the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, will have no difficulty in convincing
the House that his calculation, so far from being san-
guine or extravagant, is a very moderate one indeed.—
(Hear, hear.) I have consulted those persons whose
long experience enables them to give an opinion
on the subject, and on whom, not only
the present, but former Governments, have been
accustomed to rely for calculations of this de-
scription ; I have not found one of them who was not of
the opinion, as far as this question affected the revenue,
that the revenue which we anticipate may be safely
expected. I pass on without entering on the question
whether the revenue is received in the shape of a duty on
British sugar or foreign sugar. I admit the difficulty of
seeing exactly what will be the course of the sugar trade
in the next year.—(Hear.) A great deal is talked about
the prospective supply we may have from different ports
of our colonial possessions next year. I have attempted
to inform myself on that part of the subject, but I re-
ceived
from the parties best able to speak upon it such
various and contradictory statements that it is clearly im-
possible to pronounce a decided opinion about it.
The first opinion I find in a petition presented to the
House by the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tam-
worth, from planters, merchants, and others in London,
interested in the British colonies. I find their state-
ment is—Stock in ziaa.l, 35,000 tons ; in the West Indies,
115,000 tons ; in the Mauritius, 35,000 tons ; and in the
East Indies, 62,000 tons. These parties are undoubtedly
competent to form an opinion ; but the other day the
Noble Lord the Member for Liverpool called on me with
a deputation from the Bengal merchants and West India
proprietors connected with the sugar trade in the town
of Liverpool, and they made a statement of the possible
expectations for the following year which I re-
quested them to put in writing, which I find varies
in a very extraordinary manner from the statement
made by the merchants and planters in London.
They agree as to the stock in hand, which is represented
by all at 35,000 tons. They agree also as to the 28,000
from the West Indies. But when they come to the
Mauritius, I find that the gentlemen from Liverpool
adopt an estimate of 10,000 higher than the London de-
putation.—(Hear, hear.) They also estimate the quan-
tity to be expected from the East Indies at 70,000 tons ;
whereas the London gentlemen calculate on a supply of
only 62,000.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, when I find such va-
riance amongst those gentlemen, I must have some further
grounds before I can give full credit to either statement.
—(Hear, hear.) lam quite willing to admit this gene-
ral fact, that I have no doubt in the world that the sup-
plies coming from the East Indies may be greatly
increased. (Cheers from the Opposition benches.)
But I beg the House to consider, in reference to this
part of the subject—that it is of importance that we
should now revise our sugar duties, and put them upon
a staple and sound footing, upon the permanence of
which the country can trust.—(Hear, hear.) If there
were no other reason for this it would be sufficient to
induce me to that determination, when I see the manner
n which capital, attracted by the extravagant prices of
the last year, is making to the East Indies.—(Cheers.)
Sir, I am satisfied that such a state of things can only
lead to the worst results.—(Hear, hear.) I beg the
House to recollect what is the nature of the sugar sup-
ply in India.—(Much noise in the House and cries of
" Order, order, Bar, bar.") It should be considered, Sir,
that India is a great sugar consuming country.—
, (Cries of "Hear, hear, hear.") They only send to us
what they cannot use themselves, except when
they are attracted by our high prices.—(Hear.) It is
sat so with the West Indians, who first send us all they
produce.—(Hear.) India is not a source of supply upon
which we can depend except upon a calculation of high
prices.—(Hear.) Sir, if we desire to deal with this sub-
ject as a question of trade we shall find that for the
benefit of the colonies and of our commerce, as well as
for that of the consumer, the best course is to put it
upon a sound footing—to give the colonies such a
_pro-
tection as the case may require, but not
,to allure
them on by a monopoly, which could never be
for the advantage of the sugar trade or any other
trade. I do not see any reason why the prin-
ciples which are sound in respect to every other trade
should not be equally so in reference to the sugar trade.
--(Hear.) Sir, I am now excluding all considerations
of slavery and the slave-trade—(Cheers from the Oppo-
sition)—and I only urge this as a financial and commer-
cial question—and I do not think that any reasonable
man, accustomed to consider these subjects, will refuse
to apply to the sugar trade the same principles which
are found to be applicable to all other trades. We should
give the colonies a fair protection for their sugar trade,
but not a monopoly, which could be neither good for
them nor for us.—(Cheers, and cries of " Order, order,"
" Bar, bar.") I will now, Sir, come. to that which has
been mainly relied on b$ Gentlemen opposite, in respect
to this proposition of her Majesty's Ministers—l mean
the question of slavery and the slave-trade.—(Cheers.)
Sir, I do not stand here to make light of those objections.
My Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for the
Tower Hamlets has only repeated the arguments which
I have often heard from him, and although I differ from
him in the conclusions to which he has arrived, I sin-
cerely respect and appreciate his motives.—(lronical
cheers from the Tories.) But I ask himself to consider
the grounds on which the question now comes before the
House. Sir, the more the grounds on which he draws
the distinction in this case come to be considered, the less
solid and substantial they appear.—(lronical cheers from
the Opposition.) The argument comes to this, that if we
;admit the sugar of Brazil, we should be encouraging the cul-
I ask the House
tivation of sugar by slaves—that we should be encouraging
the slave-trade, and especially the importation of slaves
hear.) Now,
effect
of
fthestem Sir,sy now pursued?
We export a very large quantity of
B
tinotc)coßnsriadziler.—wliatietiasrih
ritish manufactures
to Brazil. How are those goods paid for ?—(Cheers.)
They are paid for in the only thing Brazil has got to pay
us in—the produce of slave-labour, and especially sugar.
—(Cheers.) It is quite true that we do not bring it
directly to England to be consumed. But we bring it
here in large quantities to be refined and taken out to
other parts of the world. Every one who knows any-
thing of the trade with Brazil, must know in what way
the trade is crippled.--(Hem) It is gradually decreas-
ing, and if the system be not altered, it will rapidly
dwindle to nothing.—(Hear.) But we do not the less en-
courage their slave trade in the meantime.—(Cheers and
counter cheers.) We do not the less, for every bale of
British goods receives payment in the produce of slave
labour.—(Cheers.) This is not the first time the ques-
tion has been thus argued in the House of
Commons. It was so argued in 1829 by Mr.
Grant (now Lord Glenelg), who brought forward a si-
milar measure, with the consent of his colleagues, includ-
ing the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for
Tamworth, and the Right Hon. Member for Cambridge,
who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer. The latter
gentleman certainly said that he differed from his Right
Ron. Friend on the question of finance, but .not upon the