The Sun.
London, England, 1846-08-10 00:00:00

POOR REMOVAL BILL.

Lord REDESDALE presented a petition from the chair-
man, vice-chairman, and board of guardians of the Leicester
union, complaining of the inefficiency and injustice of this Bill.
SUGAR DUTIES CONTINUANCE BILL (No. 3.)

Lord CLARENDON then rose to mere the first reading
of this Bill, and hoped that their Lordships would, in
accordance with the usual practice, permit the Bill
to be read a first time. It was, as their Lord-
ships were aware, customary to discourage any explana-
tion which could lead to a debate, reserving such debate
until the second reading, but after the consideration
which had been given to the measure, and that their Lordships
were prepared to discuss the measure, if he asked their
Lordships' leave to depart from that course on the present oc-
casion, he could assure their Lordships it was from no wish
to interfere with the practice of the House, or to
establish a precedent, which, he was sure their Lordships
would always continue to sanction, and still less so be-
cause he had not, on the part of the Government,
any intention to prevent a full discussion of the
question. At the present late period of the session, it was
desirable that their should be no unavoidable delay. He
would refrain front any details on the subject, because
with those all their Lordships must be familiar, and
upon the principle of which they had already formed an iapi-
nion. He trusted that those opinions might not be adverse
to this Bill, and that it might be allowed to pass without oppo-
sition. But even if he were certain of the votes which
they would give on this question, he felt that he should be
wanting in respect to their Lordships, and he should ,be
improperly discharging his duty, if he did not lay
before their Lordships the grounds upon which her Majesty's
Government asked them to grant a measure which involved
considerations as various as the principles of the measure
were interesting to the country. He must, therefore, for
a short time trespass upon their indulgence whilst he briefly
discharged the duty which devolved upon him. The princi-
ples of the present Bill had been sanctioned by the policy of
the Government and Legislature during the last four years.
Parliament had ceased to legislate for particular interests, and
had adopted what might be considered, he thought, a principle
of Rational benefit; and the system of protection,or rather non-
protection, might be looked upon as settled and, he might ven-
ture to add, for ever abolished. He would, therefore, say no more
on that part of the subject, but content himself by expressing
his confidence, that as their Lordships had declared ultimately
to withdraw protection from British agriculture, that they
should not refuse to adopt the same policy towards the colonies,
and consequently not reject the principle of the corn-law
measure which a few weeks ago received the sanction of
their Lordships. He was further induced tofeel this confidence
because he relied upon the consistency of that House, and
because he was fully assured that no political changes would
induce their Lordships to depart from the principle which,
under such circumstances, they had adopted. He also felt
this confidence, because a departure from the course he pointed
out would be injurious to the great mass of the people,
as it would prevent them from obtaining one of the first neces-
I series of life at a moderate rate. Besides the rejection of the
measure would be injurious to the revenue; and above all its
rejection would inflict great injury on those classes of our
fellow-countrymen, with whose interests its welfare was found
upon—he meant the British consumer ; and he must
add that upon this question, to them so important,
they had exhibited the greatest moderation.—( Hear,
hear.) He included in this Colonial merchants, who call for
nothing beyond that which their countrymen here enjoyed.
From the moment when they understood-that the abolition of
the corn-laws was settled here, they also understood that the time
had come when there should be no difference between sugar the
produce of slave, and sugar the produce of free labour.--( Hear.)
But they considered that the worst thing that could happen to
them would be to leave the question in that state of uncer-
tainty which had occurred from year to year on ac-
count of the annual discussion of the subject of
the sugar duties by Parliament—a course which fre-
quently rendered their business fruitless and devoid of
profit, because it was impossible to apply their capital and ma-
chinery to the best advantage. They looked anxiously forward
for a final settlement of this question. They were induced to
look, in this state of things, to the great amount of dif-
ferential duties, together all the sums paid for the eman-
cipatirn of the slaves, which had imposed upon this coun-
try 42,000,0001. during the last eleven or twelve years.
He would show, with reference to sugar, that Parliament had
inflicted a constant, unnecessary, and cruel injustice. Forty
years ago, when the whole population and wealth of this coun-
try was less then than at present, the consumption of sugar was
estimated at 301bs. by some persons and by others at 221bs.
per head, and this was no exaggerated allowance for the
humblest classes of this country at present were allowed 22i1b.
per head, and the consumption for the sailor in her Majesty's
navy was 341 b. 3oz. But notwithstanding the in-
crease in the wealth and population of the country,
and in the improved mode of living, the present
average amount was little more than 161 b. per bead.
But even this gave no correct estimate of the consumption
with reference to the labouring classes. The price of the
article had made no alteration in the consumption by the rich
and middling classes, the former of whom consumed 60 lbs. per
head, and the latter 37 lbs., while the amount left to
be divided among the poorer and labouring classes
did not amount to more than 8 lbs. per head, or 180
per cent. below the pauper and the convict, and
300 per cent. below that of the common sailor. In order to
show what was the power of consumption of this article, he
would tell their Lordships, from a return which he held is his
hands, that in New South Wales the annual con-
sumption of sugar amounted to 104 pounds per head. If
their Lordships referred to any of the various tables which
had been submitted, showing the wages of the labouring man
They would find that the allowauce was not more than three
or four ounces per head per week. This might be sneered at

by the philanthropist of the negro race, and they might say
this was a necessary state of things. But he looked upon it as a
disgrace to any Parliament that they should thus deprive, by the
existing laws, the poorer and the unprotected classes
of the country of, the means of preserving an article
which, with the exception of bread, was capable of
a more useful, nutritious, and extenssive consump-
tion than any other articles imported into this country.
He begged to call their attention to the course to be pursued in
that respect. In 1821 the duty on colonial coffee was is., on
East India coffee Is. 6d., and on foreign coffee 10s. In 1825
the duties were 6d., 9d., and Is. 3d. In 1835 the duties on
colonial and East Indian coffees were equalised, and
the duty on the foreign coffee remained the same. In
1844 the duty on foreign coffee was reduced to
tid. The consumption in 1821 was seven millions of
pounds, in 1831 it was 22 millions, in 1841 it was 28 millions,
and in 1835 it was 34 millions, and the increase of revenue
was from 340,021/. to 718,000/. The consumption of tea in
1821 was 22 millions, in 1831 it was 29 millions, in 1841 it
was 36 millions, and in 1845 it was 44 millions. The revenue,
in 1821, was 3,200,000, and in 1845 it was 4,800,000. Then
they came to the consumption of sugar. In 1821
it was 4,000,000 cwt., in 1831 it was 4,000,000 cwt.
In 1841 it was 4,000,000 cwts, in 1844 it was 4,000,000
cwts., and in 1845 it was 5,000,000 cwts. The revenue
on sugar from 1823 to 1345 varied from 5,500,0001. to
3,800,000/. The price of sugar had varied very little
during the last 17 years,
.the lowest price being 1/. 3s.
Btl., and the highest 2/. Os. lid. The population during
that period having increased fourmillions, and the consumption
having remained nearly stationary. Under these circum-
stances,e heohf hopedahner.w
hteihraarj
iteestetldyi
sw Househ
Governmentewould
tai ge re
we el:
thhowui
it
adh
bhdei
um: l
at
ehreat
athbjee tcitin
d
on a more
gde
tnlhitelshai eeters abolef
iatnsnideeorureaelsdvt firmer basis. That ha +1 been the
revenue oefa
ablen and
oh theeshow
ee,B wantsrtieti
the
hho
ef theHo producersuee o
thatple .
to
Hert re-
gard
re u xtt oei
such an alteration would be for the benefit of the public and the
consumer. From 1841 the duty has been reduced to 14s. 6d.
The consequence has been that there has been an increased
amount in the consumption of sugar in this country, while,
under the former system, it could not be shown that any
advantages resulted to the planter himself, and that the
labourer desires no advantage from the system as it then ex-
isted. He did not show that these was any imoroved manner
o; production of the commodity. It did not appear, there-
iore, that any advantage resulted from the, differential duties.