The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-01 00:00:00

SUGAR DUTIES.

Mr. HOGG then rose to bring forward the resolution of
which he had given notice. lie feared that after the very
exciting debate which had just concluded, he would not
be able to obtain that attention to the subject upon
which he was about to move, notwithstanding its impor-
tance. However, before calling the attention of the House to
the motion, he thought it right on his own part, and on the
part of every one connected with the East Indies, to thank the
Government for the great boon conferred by them on that
country, as well as on the West Indies, in consequence of the
great reduction made in the duties on sugar. But thongh he
highly approved of that part of the measure, he entertained a
strong objection to the differential duty proposed by the Go-
vernment. Neither he per those on whose behalf he appeared
had any objections to make to the abstract justice of a differen-
tial duty. It was perfectly fair and just that sugar
of a finer quality and higher value should be subject
to a higher duty than sugar which was inferior in value
and quality. His objection, therefore, was, not to the
principle, but to the application of a discriminating duty. Per-
haps the House was not aware that up to 1836 there had al-
ways been a discriminating duty of 10s. on East Indian sugar
in excess over the duty imposed on West Indian sugar ; and
so long as the East Indian interest had an exclusive right of
trading between the East Indies and this country, perhaps there
was some ground for that excess of duty upon East Indian
sugar. But, after the year 1833, when the East India trade
was thrown open, there was no longer any excuse for con-
tinuing that distinction. In 1834, the Right Hon Gentlemau
oppo-ite said there was, upon principle, no pretence for con-
tinuing the distinction ; and the Right Hon. Gentleman on
his side of the House declared, in language no less strong,
that there was no reasonable ground for its continuance. But
though there was no ground on abstract princip'e for the dis-
tinction, both the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite and the
Right Hun. Gentleman near him referred to the situation of
the West Indies at that period as a justification. And, considering
the peculiar circumstances of the West Indies at that time,
he admitted that the application of the rule might be just and
reasonable. But in 1836, Lord Monteagle, then Mr. Spring
Rice, stated, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the time had
then arrived when justice to the East Indies required that the
duty should be equalised, and when that equalisation could
take place without injustice to the West Indies. Therefore,
since 1836, the sugar produce of the East and West Indies
eras subjected to the same duty, and all he now asked was, that
that equalisation should be continued. Before he had given
his notice, and after it, he had stated to the Right Hon.
Gentlemen the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that if he found
the discriminating duty were impracticable, he should abandon
them, but if he found them practicable, he should apply the
scale of those duties equally to both the East and West
Indies. He contended that the duties, as they were now to
be imposed, were not equal both to the East and the West
Indies. In the East Indies the manufacture of sugar was the
same as it had been for centuries past. The sugar there was
not claved, while it was in the West Indies. The sugar there
was filtered through grass, which made it whiter and clearer,
and the result of the proposed scheme would be, that they
would have sugar, the produce of the East Indies, coming in
on the higher duty of 16e, while they would have the Musco•
vado, containing snore saccha-ine matter, coming in at a lower
duty. Now, he would put it to the House if that was fair. It was
said that the East India sugar was poor; true, it was, but it
bore in the market a price above its value.—(Hear, hear.)
Why was it so? Because the East India sugar was used by
grocers to mix with smaller quantities of Muscovado sugar,
and thereby reduce its value. The result of the duty would be,
that the tax of 2s. 4d. would fall upon the sugar used by the
middling classes. It might be said that the East Indies might
avoid this by altering their mode of manufacture, but it
was well known that the East Indians were peculiar in their
ways, and it would not be easy to persuade them to adopt a dif-
ferent course. The result of the additional duty would be that
orders would go out from this country to the East Indies, tell-
ing the people there not to send white sugar, but black, dirty,
Parliament sugar—(A laugh)—and, in the end, they would
completely check all improvement with respect to sugar. The
improvement in sugar was increasing every day—( Hear, hear)
—but the Chancellor of the Exchequer was doing all he could
to check it. He contended that every man ought to have the
right of making white sugar for the 'public. The words of the
enactment proposed absolutely declared the colour sugar should
be, in order to pay a high or a low duty; they had, in the Act
which it was proposed now to pass, enacted that East
India sugar, however strong, provided the colour was
avoided, ,might come in at the lower duty. They ought
to declare that the documentary duty should be placed
on sugar, not on account of its colour, but its strength. He
thought it was for the interest of the public and the consumer
that the discriminating duty should be taken off. This was no
matter of speculation, and in order to show that, he would
refer to some documents on the subject. The Hon. Member
then referred to several returns, fur the purpose of showing
that discriminating duties were not good. He might be told,
perhaps, that this was not the first timet hat a discriminating
duty had been proposed ; he might be reminded that the Right
Hon. Gentleman the Member for Taunton, and the Right
Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Excheqner, under the
late Government, had introduced a measure founded on that
principle. But that precedent was wholly inapplicable to the
present case,. because it was then proposed to admit the higher
class of Havannah sugars. On that occasion his Right Hon.
Friend the Member for Newark, who was thoroughly ac-
quainted both vsitia the East and the West, and who oscillated
between the two, expressed a very strong opinion. He
had the authority of the Right Hon. Gentleman for
stating that a discriminating duty was impracticable.—( Hear. )
He then read the extract to the effect he had just stated. He
had reason to think that the Right Hon. Gentleman did not
believe that to be correct. If it were not, his authority for the
statement must be his excuse for introducing it to the Howe.
But every one must recollect the strong opinion expressed by
the Chancellor of the Exchequer last session ; he adverted to
the difficulties of collecting a discretionary duty, and the incon-
venience of depending on Custom-house officers. That was the
opinion of the Right Hon. Baronet last year, that was his (Mr.
Hogg's) opinion then, and that was his opinion now. He had
told the House that in 1821 a discriminating duty was imposed
on East Indian sugar, but so great was the confusion it caused,
and so vexatious was it to the trade, and so constant a source of
loss was it to the revenue, that in 1823, only two years after it
was imposed, this discriminating duty was removed. In the
year 1825 all discriminating duties on British sugars were
removed, and from that time to the present there
had been nu discriminating duties whatever. In 1825,
all the Acts of Parliament relating to the Customs were
submitted to Mr. Deacon Hume, and that great authority
advised that all discriminating duties should be abolished. The
present proposition was more objectionable than the proposition
of the Hon. Member for Bristol last year. He proposed a dis-
criminating duty of 4s. 3d., but it was to be limited to foreign
sugars ; he did not say that it, was to be applied to East Indian
sugar. He contended they mast have one thing or another ;
they must have a discriminating duty on all sugars, both
foreign and home grown, ur they mast have none at all.
Believing that they could not have one that would operate
fairly, he wished to have none at all, and that was the object
of his motion. The Hon. Member for Bristol understood the
subject thoroughly, and was very fair in what he said. lie
said there might be a discriminating duty, but that it ought to
be levied according to the quantity of saccharine matter con-
tained in the ;sugar ; that would be fair, and he had not a
word to say against it. If they had any such instrument as a
saccharometer, to measure the strength of the sugar—
if they had any such means of ascertaining its quality,
he had not a word to say against the intro-
duction of the duty, but let them make it fair in its applica-
tion. In that debate his Hon. Friend took no narrow view to
the East Indian interest. He 'peke with regret, that the pro•
duce of the East Indies had fallen short of late years ; he was
quite right. Both the East and West Indies were in the
same boat, and they together produced a good supply of sugar
for the public. The great experiment they had tried with
respect to slavery, and the object of the Right Hon. Baronet
would be realised. But if they checked the production of sugar
in the East Indies by a discriminating duty, and rendered the
quantity not sufficient for the consumption of the country, no
power on earth could keep out slave sugar.—( Hear, hear.)
The object of both the East and West Indies was to preduce as '
much good and cheap sugar as they could for the public ; that
was the only object of keeping up the protective duty. In the
West Indies there was, he believed, a limit to the production
of sugar ; but he believed he did not speak the language of
exaggeration, when he said that in the East Indies the ca-
pabilities of producing sugar was almost unlimited. In the
evidence of Mr. Trevellian, it was stated, that north from
Hindostan to the mouth of the Ganges. through all the tract
that was called the Valley of the Ganges, there war the
power of producing sugar enough for the consumption of a
whole world. He did entreat the House not to introduce
a measure that would tend to check this production. It had
been said that the East Indies had no claim—at least a very
small claim—to protection ; and the assertion had, to his
great astonishment, been responded to by the Hon. Member
ler Newark, late the President of the Board of Trade. He
implored the House to look at their East Indian empire,
to consider its extent, equal to nearly the whole
of Europe, with four times the population of the United King-
dam ; an empire founded, maintained, and extended, without
subjecting the mother country to a charge of a farthing ; an
empire that defrayed the expenses of all the establishments,
civil and military, out of its own resources.—(" And of its
religions, too I" from Mr. Home.) A country that remitted to
Europe what he might term an annual tribute of three millions
sterling. Why did he call it a tribute? Because they had
no commercial return for it. India sent home, for home ex-
penditure, three millions of tribute, which was now paid, and
would continue to be paid; and the wander of all Eisglishmen
was, how such a tribute could continue to be paid,
India receiving no return.—( Hear, hear.) India, again,
poured into this country an annual stream of wealth
in the fortunes of the public servants, who, having spent their
lives in the East, returned to end their days at home, and this
to an amount lie had heard estimated at 400,0001. or 500,0001.
annually. India took six millions of English manufactures,
which included seven million pounds of cotton twist, and thre-
and a half millions of cotton pieces. He would beg the manno
factoring interest to consider this; and yet thirty years and
India itself was a great manufacturing country, and exporten
to England nearly three millions in cotton goods and muslid
pieces. What was the case now ? English manufactures had
expelled these goods, and supplanted them even in India. Di-
he complain of this? No, so far it was the ordie
nary course of trade and the introduction of ma-
chinery that hail effected it. But pending this transition
English manufactures were imported into India at 31,4 per
cent. duty, while not a single article from India was admitted
here under a duty of 10 per cent. The once flourishing dis-
trict of Deccan was now reduced to a state of misery and des-
titution—its manufactures were ruined, and the people
were driven to the culture of their rich and fertile
soil ; and while India was in this state of transition, he
was told that it was not entitled to protection.
He had sow by him a letter which he had received from a pri-
vate friend of his, but he would not trouble the House by read-
ing it, but it contained very valuable statements, which went
at great length into financial details. It said that though
hitherto India was remarkable for its agricultural property as
regarded sugar, yet he had every reason to believe that there
was glee prospect of extended sugar cultivation, but that
India was increasing her extent of cultivation of sugar in order
to pay fur English manufactures.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon.
Member opposite had dwelt much on the fluctuation of prices
of sugar ; but he (Mr. Hogg) could show by 4 few figures in