The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-08 00:00:00

The colonies were entitled to protection. Legislative inter-
ference had given them that claim. He said again that the
price of sugar in tins country was not to be measured by the
amount of duty. Some years ago there was a differential duty
of 395. against foreign sugar—would Ilan. Members hold that
the price of sugar to the consumer was thereby so much en-
hanced ? The facts were entirely against such a supposition.
If nineteen or twenty parts of the sugar consumed in this
country were imported from foreign countries at the differential
duties mentioned, then the argument might apply, but surely not
when the case was reversed. We were now near the condition
in which we were in 1813, when our colonies enabled us to be
exporters of sugar.
Sir WILLIAM CLAY said the speech of the Hon. Ba-
ronet who had just sat down was entirely beside the question of
the Hon. Member for Stockport. If their colonies furnished
a supply for exp,,rtation above what we required, then he ad-
mitted that there might be some force in the argument of the
lion. Baronet, and that the differential duty would net raise
the price of sugar, but that was not the state of things at present.
The Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had
actually calculated upon being obliged to import a considerable
quantity of foreign sugar—(Hear, hear)—and there could be
no doubt but the differential duty enhanced the price, it not to 111
the extent mentioned by the Hon. Member for Stockport, at
least to a very considerable extent.
Mr BORTHWICK considered the supposition of the Hon.
Member for Stockport as absurd, and thought he answered it
in his own statement.

Mr. C. WOOD said the question of the Hon. Member for
Stockport related to the price of all colonial sugar, as compared
with foreign sugar, and he (lid not think the slightest progress
• had yet been made towards answering it. He hoped some
Member of the Government would attempt to give a plain
answer to a plain and practical question. The Government
did not deny that the effect of this measure would be to impose
a tax on the people of this country, for the benefit of the colo-
nial producer. The question asked by the Hon. Member was—
what was the am Ault of the tax so levied ? In that Honourable
Member's opinion it amounted to 2,300,0001. Ile might be
wrong in that calculation, but let him be corrected if lie ss
and told what the amount of this taxation really was.
Lord SANDON thought it would be impossible to answer
the question in the shape now put.—( Laughter, and-cries of
" Hear, hear," from the Opposition.) But the supposition of
the Hon. Member for Stockpot t was erroneous, for it might
with as much justice be contended that we paid in tax-
ation on the 19,000,000 of home-grown corn consumed in this
country, the amount of taxation imposed on the 1,000,000 of
quarters of foreign corn imported here. It never was denied
that protection was intended air the colonies, and that the
people of this country were taxed in consequence.—( Hear,
hear, from the Opposition.) Why, Hon. Members opposite
were to some extent protectionists themselves—at least they
recognised the principle. He admitted the colonial
protection ; but what he denied was that they could measure
amount of taxation in this country, in regard to protection, by
the amount of differential duty. The argument of the Hon.
Member for Stockport might be very good on the boards of
Covent-garden Theatre, but would not be admitted in that
House, because it was opposed to common sense and to
experience.
Mr. !MILNER GIBSON wished to make only one remark.
Last year it was an undoubted fact that the price of foreign
sugar in bond was 215., while the price of colonial sugar was
345., and therefore 13s. was squeezed out of the public
by the system of protection.-13s. per cwt. was, on an
average, squeezed out of the public by colonial protection,
and, therefore, it followed that the British public was squeez-
able to the extent of 13s. Now, they reserve to themselves
the power of squeezing 10s. 6d. out of the English people.
By the late law they could squeeze 135., and they still re-
tained the power of squeezing 10s. 6d. more than sugar need
cost in the markets of the world. They proposed to hand over
2,300,000 guineas from the consumers of this country (from
taxation upon the consumers rather) to the West Indfan—to
the colonial proprietors. They gave them, last year, 2,600,000/.,
with a 13s. en every cwt., and they now proposed to retain a
power of charging 10s. 6d., and of giving 2,300,000 guineas
to the colonial proprietors, out of the Exchequer. The Right
Hon. Gentleman did not say it would not be so. He had only
heard it stated that his Hon. Friend (Mr. Cobden) had not
proved it would be so given, but the Right Hon. Gentleman
did not say it would not be so. it might be so. They invited
Hon. Members on that (the Liberal) side of the House to do
their utmost to transfer 2,300,000 guineas to the West Indian
and to colonial proprietors, out of the Exchequer of the country.
Mr. BROTHERTON said that the case had been under-
stated by His Hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, for he
(Mr. Brotherton) found that during the last five years the
average price of British plantation sugar was 19s. 4d per cwt.
more than for foreign sugar.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord
(Lord Sandon) wished tohave the amount of a tax on corn at
Bs. per quarter, supposing that duty to be imposed. He (Mr.
Brotherton) believed that it might be roundly stated at
8,000,0001. of a burden on the people. It was "difficult, he
confessed, to know what proportion of the duty charged on
sugar went into the pockets of the colonial planters ; but he
remembered that when they were discussing, in 1834, the
propriety of granting 20,000,000/. to the West India planters,
as some compensation for the emancipation of the slaves, a
gentleman from Liverpool called upon him (Mr. Brotherton)
and said that he might vote for that grant, as
the country would have the whole 20,000,000/. returned to
its pockets in the course of a few years. Since 1841, how-
ever, they had paid a sum of 19,000,000/. or 20,000,000/.
more by this system of taxation. If four millions of hundred
weights of British colonial sugar, therefore, came into this
country every year, it was quite clear that 4,000,000/. of money
was taken out of the pockets of the people of this country.
Yes, England gave the colonial planters 4,000,000/. a-year,
and they took in exchange 3,000,000/. of their manufactures.
That was a poor trade, he thought, that England should give
the colonies 4,000,000 i. of money, and that they should take
3,000,000/. of goods. He thought the best and cheapest plan
would be to vote a certain sum of money, and let the duty on
British colonial and foreign sugar then be equalised. He stated
the fact, and he hoped the House would bear it in mind, that
during the last five years they had paid 20s. more for their
sugar than they required to do.
Mr. MITCHELL said the Right Hon. Baronet the Mem-
ber for Stamford had said, that if they took the duty off British
plantation sugar it would rise the price of the foreign produce.
But the Right Hon. Baronet forgot the fact that if foreign
sugar were raised 3s. per cwt. in that country, it would be
raised 3s. all over the continent. What they complained of
was that they could not compete with foreigners in their manu-
factures, because they paid in that country higher for their
sugar and their other necessaries.—( Hear, hear.) He did not
care whether the price of sugar were lower or higher,
provided the same price was maintained throughout the con-
tinent.

Mr. VILLIERS said that the Right Hon. Member, the
late President of the Board of Trade, had stated that the Hon.
Member for Stockport had not put his question with a view
of eliciting any information. If such were his Hon. Friend's
wish, he eertainly had been very successful.—( Laughter. )
They had not yet got a specific answer to his question, and he
trusted it would not go forth to the public in that way. Per-
haps the Right Hon. Baronet at the bead of her Majesty's Go-
vernment, or the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, could tell how much they had handed over to the
proprietors. Perhaps either of them could tell how much the
country had paid out of its Exchequer to the colonies by these
sugar duties. There was an additional price given to colonial
planters for their produce. That was done by these differen-
tial duties. Now surely the Government could tell them what
was the amount of that sum? They knew what the sugar cost
in the markets. They knew what it sold for here, and what
they would be enabled to purchase it for from abroad. This
subject had been deeply meditated during the recess, and
they were no doubt prepared, when they brought forward
this measure, to say what was the price necessary to be given
on each cwt. of sugar in order to save the West Indies.—( Hear,
and a laugh.) He would refer them to a valuable work,
written by a gentleman connected with the Board of Trade,
entitled " The Progress of the Nation." That gentleman was
Mr. Porter, and his book was now read and quoted as an
authority upon the subject upon which it treated. He would
call the attention of the Right Hon. Baronet to a statement
in that work. It said that the people in this country had paid,
in the year 1841, a sum more than they required to do for their
sugar, of 5,000,000/. Mr. Porter, of the Board of Trade,
stated that the British public paid, in 1841, 5,000,000/. more
than they needed to do. He said that the value of the export
trade was 4,000,0001. ; and that if they :made a present of all
their trade for that year, and retained the money they had
given to the growers of sugar, they would be a million in
p ocket.—( Hear, hear.) If that had been stated by Hon.
Members on that (the Liberal) side of the House, they would
hare been charged with extravagance. Let it not
then be said that the question could not be an-
swered, for if any person wanted to know bow much
was paid to colonial proprietors in the shape of protection, they
might look in that work, and know it. They had spent
that amount every year for sugar, which, if bought at Ham-
burgh or Trieste, would have been five millions less, but got
from our colonial possessions cost just as much more. They
complained of this loss to the public, and they, naturally
enough, asked for whom they were to make that sacrifice?
They asked the Government for their calculations, and it was
but barely just that the House should know precisely what
amount of loss the British public sustained in colonial pro-
tection.

Mr. P. BORTHWICK explained.
Mr. THORNELY said they had on the table of the House
parliamentary papers throwing sufficient light upon the subject,
both as to the quantity imported and the prices of British and
foreign sugar. He would take the papers moved for by the
Hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Hawes), and printed for the
use of the House on the 2d of May, 1843, and those papers he
had then by him. He found that the consumption of colonial
sugar in the year 1840, was 3,594,834 cwt. ; and in one
column was placed the prices of museavado, and in another the
prices of sugars from the Brazils. The price of muscovado, in
1810, was 495. per cwt., and that of Brazilian brown and yellow
was only 21s. fid.—showing a difference, therefore, between
the prices of British sugars and the sugars of Brazil to the ex-
tent of 275. Gd. upon the cwt. It followed, therefore, that on
the quantity consumed—namely, 3,594,834 cwt., there was a
difference in price, owing to taxation required for the protec-
tion of those colonies, of 4,957,8751., being within 40,000
guineas of five millions of money.
After a few words from Mr. KEMBLE,
Mr. P. M. STEWART said there was not much encou-
raeement for him, after hearing the opinions advanced by Hon.
Members beside him, to rise in defence of the colonial planter.
But lie would remind the House that the'great difficulty to those
possessions competing with the slave-labour market arose from
the monstrous legislation to which they had been subjected.--
( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Salford had stated that
a friend from Liverpool said, that if he voted for the emancipa-
tion of the negroes in our colonies, the amount of comFensation
would be repaid in a few years. Probably that gentleman
calculated upon an increase in the amount of sugar produced
in these possessions. But how stood the fact as regarded pro-
duction ? In 1833, at the period of the emancipation of the
slaves, the colonies produced 207,000 tons of sugar annually,
but since the passing of that measure the amount had been re-
duced to 107,000 tons. This reduction of the productive
powers of the colonies was owing entirely, or in a very great
degree, to the difficulties thrown in the way of immigration by
the Government, owing to the impediments thrown in the way
of those who wished to emigrate to those colonies is order to
receive a fair day's wages for a fair day's work. It it had do
been for those difficulties there would have been a naturalnot
been
set-
tlement of this question. Instead of 107,000 tons given as
the exportable quantity at present, they would
sufficient quantity for their own consumption, and been
enabled also to export to other countries. If they
dealt with the colonies as some of his Honourable
Friends desired, the sooner they threw over the colonies the
better. The unfortunate proprietors in the West India islands
were labouring
under disadvantages which were unknown to
his Hon. Friends. Let the Government give them encourage-
ment to get a sufficiency of free labourers under a fair arrange..
men —let them take off the restrictions, which amounted to
prohibitions—let the colonists carry their produce
i
poesttiv e
where they liked—( Hear, hear)—let them have their supplies
whence they pleased, and, above all, let the Government take
off the differential duties between British spirits and the rum
imported from the colonies. If the colonists were to be
thrown into competition with other countries, let them at
least have a free stage, and they would do what they could for
themselves. They were at present, he repeated, suffering from
ill-advised legislation Let him not be mistaken—he did not
mean the Emancipation Act—but the difficulties which had been
thrown in the way of extending their trade with this country.
He would say to the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, do not
take deleterious drugs or other mincr matters into considera-
tion ; but take up this subject in the way in which the great
majority of the intelligent portion of the community would
view it ; he would say, let the produce of the sugar countries
be admitted into England upon term that would phow they