The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-15 00:00:00

coffee, because of its bad flavour. But this disturbing of th e duties
bad the most pernicious effects. What confidence could the
merchants have in the stability of the present state of things ?
—(Hear, hear.) The motion that he had brought forward
was the result of mature consideration on the part of those
most interested in the subject. Other countries had a system
of differential duties. Looking to the wording of the Bill, he
was- informed by those whom he consulted on the subject that
the higher quality of Java sugar would be introduced under
the Bill. He thought, at all events, they should not
be left to the whim of Custom-house officers.—( Hear,
hear.) He was told that compensation had been
given, but could that be called compensatian which did not
give the West India interest one-fifth of what they ought to
get ? He thought that if they had a free system of immigration
in the West Indies they would not have so much to complain.
(Hear, hear.) But that was not allowed, and now their colo-
nies would be worse than useless, unless they were supported by a
sufficient discriminating duty. In Jamaica, Trinidad and Guiana,
the price of labour was 4icl. an hour, while in Barbadoes it
was only 2d. ; the consequence of this was that it occasioned
a difference in the value of estates. It had been stated that
the land, particularly that of Jamaica, had been worn out.
He had travelled over the island, and could contradict that
assertion. They might be sure that as long as their colonies
existed they would require protection. The Right Hon.
Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, might suppose
that his proposition would have the effect of injuring the
revenue, but he did not think such would be the case. The
colonial sugar markets could not be in a worse condition than
they then were, and the shipping interest connected with the
West Indian trade was in a most depressed state. He wished
the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer
would pay a visit to his estates in the West Indies, and then he
would see that those territories which formerly produced
the cane in abundance, were now overrun with wood
and weeds. St. Domingo, formerly so productive,
was now in a most impoverished condition, which
might be chiefly attributed to the emancipation of
the slaves. He did not come forward to ask any exorbitant
protection in favour of the West Indian colonists. He only
asked so much as would screen them from total ruin. He had
hitherto given his consistent support to the Government, but
he believed it to be his bounden duty to oppose them on this
occasion. He felt it useless to appeal to the Treasury benches,
as he knew he should find no mercy there. He felt it equally
useless to appeal to the Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were in
favour of a free trade in sugar. But he turned with some
degree of confidence to the agricultural Members.—(lronical
cheers from the Opposition.) They surely ought to support
the colonists, as the case of these men might very soon be their
own.—( Laughter.) The same principle applied to both. The
only difference was, that here we grow corn, there they grow
sugar.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman concluded by
proposing his amendment, and expressing his regret that he had
not been able to address his arguments in a more effective manner
to the House.
Mr. BAILEY seconded the amendment, and observed that
the Right Hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of
Trade, had, in combatting some arguments of the Noble
Lord, the Member for the City of London, misquoted the re-
turns of the price of American sugar, or rather misrepresented
those returns, in order to suit his own purpose. The Right
Hon. Member quoted the returns of the price of sugar at New
York, which set forth that the price in that city was from
353. to 403. per cwt., whereas the average price in New Or-
leans, as appeared from late returns, was only 225. per cwt.—
( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member then quoted from the last
official returns of the United States, which stated that in New
Orleans sugar was only 25 cents per lb., or 255. per cwt., and
these documents further specified, that since the American
tariff had been passed the increase of sugar had been very great,
particularly in the State of Louisiana. In truth, the Bill was
brought into the House under a false pretence—( Hear, hear)
—and the arguments of the Government in supporting it were
grounded upon false data. Slave-grown sugar would not be
kept out of the English market by the Bill. By this Bill
America would be enabled to send sugar to this country at a
cheaper duty than it could come from our own colonies. If
this were the case, then a vacuum would be created in the sugar
market of America, and that vacuum would have to be filled up
with the slave-grown produce of Cuba and Brazil. This Bill
would, therefore, be indirectly an encouragement to slavery and
the slave-trade. Now, he wished to ask the Right Hon. Ba•
ronet whether it was his intention to enter into a treaty of
commerce with Brazil ? If he did so, the first article of that
treaty should be to place Brazil on the footing of the most fa-
voured nation. He (Mr. Bailey) thought the people of the
country had to complain of the course which the Government
had taken on the subject. To show the necessity for this Bill,
the Government ought to have shown that the supply of sugar
this year was less than the demand. This, however, was not
the case, for the returns showed that the stock in hand this
time last year was 31,000 tons, while this year it was 38,000
tons. He believed that the vacillating and uncertain course of
her Majesty's Government would, if persisted in, involve a
large portion of the empire in the greatest destitution and
distress.
Mr. EWART could not support the proposition of the
Hon. Gentleman, because it maintained a difference in the duty
on sugar in one part of the world and sugar grown in another.
He did not believe that the proposition would be of that benefit
to the country which the ion. supporters of it had anticipated.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
the speeches which the two Hon. Gentlemen who had pro-
posed the amendment had delivered, applied but ill to the re-
solution which had been submitted to the Committee that even-
ing. The Hon. Member for Bristol had stated that the reso-
lution of the Government would give protection to the slave-
trade, but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would
ask whether the Honourable Gentleman's own pro-
proposition would tend in any way to discourage that trade?
To come more closely, however, to the proposition then be-
fore the House, if he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) were
prepared to agree to any further reduction of the duties on
sugar he should not be willing to make them as suggested.
Did he think such reduction desirable he should prefer to
effect it in such a way as to give an advantage to the con-
sumer, and also very probably to throw some of the money into
the pockets of intermediate parties. He must, however, be
permitted, whilst speaking to the proposition itself, to congra-
tulate the House that there was so much agreement between
it and that which he himself had had the honour to submit to
their consideration.—(Murmurs from the back Ministerial
benches.) His Hon. Friends behind, by the proposition which
they had submitted, showed that they agreed with him that
there ought to be a distinction made between colonial and
foreign sugar, and they alto agreed with him that whatever was
the reduction, it should be made as early as possible. His Hon.
Friends behind him also told the House that he had rightly
estimated the amount of protection that they required.—(Loud
cries of " No, no," and expressions of surprise.) Why, they
proposed precisely the same amount of protection as he had
proposed, and the only distinction between the two measures
was this, that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) sub-
mitted a measure without a reduction of revenue. There
might, perhaps, be some fraction of &difference between them,
but he confessed he looked upon it as of so minute a character
as not to be worth one moment's consideration ; and, there-
fore, he was justified in saying that even in the
view of his Honourable Friends behind him, ten
shillings protecting duty was looked upon as ade-
quate and sufficient. If then the protection was the
same in both cases—the same according to the plan of the Go-
vernment, and the same according to the suggestion of his
friends—if they had the same advantages hereafter against com-
peting parties as they themselves proposed—what was the be-
nefit they proposed to attain by the course they were now pur-
suing(? The end would he this, that there would be a loss to
the revenue, no benefit to the consumer, and the duty that was
sacrificed they hoped to get into their own pockets in whole or
in part. Now, in discussing the two proposals before them, it
was the duty of the House to consider how they would operate
on the different interests affected by them. To begin with the
case of the consumer. With respect to his (the Chancellor of
the Exchequer's) proposal his friends behind him stated that in
its working it would only give to the consumer the advantage
of one halfpenny in the pound. He freely admitted that the
benefit was small, and not as good as might have been wished.
But his object had necessarily been two-fold--to consult the
comfort of the consumer, and to regard the interests of the re-
venue. Now it was necessary to state that when he made up
his mind to propose a measure in reference to the sugar duties
he acted under the pressure of a feeling which still exercised it-
self powerfully upon him, that during the latter part of the year
which had to arrive there would probably be a considerable
scarcity in the article of sugar. And this expectation he had
founded, not on loose statements, but on a careful consideration
of facts communicated to him, and on a consideration of what
had occurred in antecedent years. These expectations were
confirmed by the West Indian party themselves. From the
best sources he could consult he had come to the conclusion
that the supply of sugar for 1844 would be about 227100 tons,
or equal to that which they had anticipated in 1843. He
well knew that owing to the great drought in Jamaica,
the failure of the crops had been most extensive, and he could
speak with the more confidence on this point, because his own
property, which was situated in by far one of the most fertile
portions of that island, had partaken of the general unpro-
ductiveness. The crop in all the district he referred to had
fallen so, that where they counted by hundreds they now only
counted by tens. He had also been informed, on the very best
authority, that a number of estates had been given up. And
therefore, when he had to make his estimate of the probable re-
ceipts of sugar, he could not but come to the conclusion that
they must not calculate for this year on a larger import than
for the year 1843. There were a number of persons, how-
ever, who complained strongly of the way in which the sugar
duties were levied—of the annual discussions—( Hear, hear)—
upon the subject, and of the unsettled state in which property
and trade were kept by it.—( General and loud cries of
" Hear, hear.") He was ready to admit that the present in-
security which existed on this subject was a great evil, and
that it was most desirable to put those duties on a more stable
footing. And when the time came that the income-tax must
be taken into consideration, in connexion with the great sub-
jects of the trade, commerce, and revenue of the country, it
would be for the House to make up its mind whether it would
not recur, as regarded the sugar duties, to that state of per-
manence to which ithad formerly rebelled, butto which perhaps
hereafter it might properly prefer to return.--( Hear, hear. )
But let him see what effect the proposition of his friends be-
hind:him would have upon the consumer. What would be
the effect? Why,.,that during the intervening period be-
tween this and the time they proposed that their scheme
should come into operation, they would paralyse the trade.-
they gave an intimation to every man who was now about to
buy not to do so. The effect of that would be to stint the
market to the greatest possible degree, and all that incon-
venience would result to the consumer which a contracted
market necessarily occasioned ; and this, too, would take
place precisely when most mischief would be occasioned ;
when, from the abundance of iruit, the demand for sugar
ought to be the greatest and the supply ought to be accorded to
the largest extent possible. In considering this question they
were bound to look at its effect on the revenue. He antici-
pated from this alteration a loss, at first, of 660,000/. to the
revenue, against which was to be placed the increase that
would probably arrive in the latter part of the year. It was
necessary that they should keep the revenue up to its usual
amount, or they would not be able to give the House that
fair opportunity of discussing the continuance of the income-
tax, which it was most desirable the House should have. With
respect to the risk that it was said would arise from the admis-
sion of Java and Manilla sugars into the home market, he
had made diligent inquiry into the subject, and he could not
discover in the warehouses of London any Manilla or Java
sugar of a higher quality than the usual sugar in the market.
He did not, therefore, see the necessity of any additional item
in the tariff; that would only lead to great doubt and confusion.
Whether it might be possible t 3 draw a more clear and defi-
nite distinction between the different sorts of sugar he did not
know, but it was a point well deserving consideration. At
one period he made a proposition of that kind to the House,
which, however, was not favourably received.—(" Hear, hear,"
from Lord John Russell.) There was a combination
against it of Members on both sides of the House;
and his only consolation under the difficulties of the ques-
tion was the confession of Lord Sidmouth, in his place
in the House, that he thought the attempt was extremely
praiseworthy ; and he regretted that he should ever have
opposed it. His Hon. Friend had entered into a variety of
topics that were rather applicable to the general principles on
which a country should be governed than to the immediate
question before the House. He knew that there was a great
objection to the principle of free trade, as applied to this and
other questions. This might to some extent be owing to the
d
fobrbeoel
mo qn udu
syo
jetndhg.e
what
hr
Buta pas
he
he he at dhwoaal csi
gq
hnu
toi acquiredaf
osfromuh
iatttahuel
e reason,wabye iwnt
eo
ewbn he itchdhee
ti
et; hor
nead
tteenndinngg ppaarrttress:_tlotrwecaos
nbce:cl e aut
hwe hein ht
earde
sttr: tried
tt
ho e reconciler
wc nt h-
that of the consumer—that he had exposed himself to the im-
putation of having brought forward a measure that was dis-