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

r

were regarded as an integral portion of the ernp:
have the same advantages in the disposal of th
as had been conceded to Canada and other favoured c•o1;
nies, instead of visiting them with' a mark of the displeae
sure of the Government, which this " protective" duty in.
(Heated. If England gave the same free laws and institutions
to the sugar producing countries that her colonies enjoyed, then
she would find that these countries were the strongholds of,
the nation in time of peace, and its right arm in time of
war, if such an unfortunate event should occur.—(Hear.)
Mr. ESCOTT was of opinion that if these duties
were to be reduced, that reduction should be met by a
concomitant advance upon some other article. But
the question put by the Hon. Member for Stockport was this :
" Supposing these protective duties to have been removed alto-
gether, what. would be the cons,quence? Now he (Mr.
Eseott) should admit that, to this question, no direct answer
had been given ; but, at the same time, it did appear to him
that very import-nt admissions on the subject of the sugar
duties h.s.d been made. Last year the Hon. Member for Newark
stated, in that House, that this protective duty was, in all cases,
added to the cost price of sugar. Now, lie (Mr. Escott) begged •
to say that he certainly never did uphold the principle of pro-
tective duty upon that ground. The reason he did support
such an impost was, because he conceived it was a necessary
protection to those engaged in the trade, and in order to secure
a sufficiency of supply to the consumers in this country. •
But when it was stated so plainly, by several Honourable
Members that this duty was added to the cost price
of the article consumed, they had indeed made
out a very strong and serious case in favour of the abolition of '
them.—( Hear, hear. ) However. he was far from thinking it
would be right to do assay with these ditties at. once, and thus
suddenly throw their colonies' overboard ; and, under these cir-
cumstances, he could not support such a proposition.
Mr. DARBY said his opinion was that if those differential '
duties were destroyed, he had not the least doubt but that, in
four or five years, the consumers would have to pay just as much
for sugar as they had now ; and therefore be totally denied that
because Hon, Members opposite put four or five figures upon
paper, they had made out, to the satisfaction of the House. '
that his duty was paid by the consumer.
Mr. BRIGHT said he had often observed that, upon some
occa ions, the Right lion. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's
Government and his colleagues took a very active part in the
debates in that House, while upon other occasions they exhi-
bited a silence not less remarkable. When great and plau-
sible sophistry or extraordinary ingenuity were the weapons
to be brought into action, in the share of the debate par-
ticipated by the Right Honourable Baronet and his sup-
porters, then indeed were they most active ; but upon other
occasions, such as the discussion of that night, when
the Right Hon. Baronet well knew that. not all the powers of
ingenuity which he possessed could make it appear that this
was not a most grievous and oppressive tax, then, indeed, he
remained silent, and permitted all those around him, whose
admissions he knew could not damage his success, to go on.
—( Hear, hear.) A very ingenious speech had been made to-
night by the Hon. Member the late President of the Board of
Trade; but that speech was remarkable, less for its applicabi-
lity to the subject under discussion, or the prudence of its
language, than for the deep personal interest which it was
well known the Hon. Gentleman had in the subject itself.—
( Hear, hear.) Not a time that this sugar question was intro-
duced to the House, but a new concoction of the Hon. Gen- •

; let thea

tleman was sure to appear in print in one of the morning
papers, stating, in very positive and dictatorial terms, the
manner in which this:question should be handled by the House.
—( Hear, hoar.) It was true, the Hon. Gentleman was not
now officially connected with the present Govern-
ment ; but whether he was a greater lover of the
Government, or of the sugar planter, upon this
question, it would be rather difficult to say. —( Hear, hear. )
The Hon. Gentleman was the representative of Newark ; but
he (Mr. Bright) would like to ask the Hon. Member what
possible interest the inhabitants of that town could have in up-
holding an increased price of sugar ?—(Hear, hear, and a laugh. )
But he could easily see what interest the planter had in doing
so.—(A laugh.) The Noble Lord the Member for Liverpool,
who well knew the routine of the duties of a State Minister,
had said that this was a tax which could not be measured ; but
he (Mr. Bright) should say rather, that the arguments of the
Noble Lord on the question were such as could not be
fathomed.—(Laughter.) The Noble Lord said it would be
unsafe for the House to act on possibilities • but four year.
ago, when the fate of the then Government depended on the
decision of the House on this question, the Noble Lord had no
such squeamishness at all, and upon his motion that Govern-
ment were outvoted and overturned.—(Hear, hear.) Well,
perhaps, this tax could not be measured, but let Hon. Members
opposite not forget that it was felt.—( Hear, and laughter.)
Ihe Noble Lord wauted to make a character for himself as a
great financier ; but he (Mr. B.) would ask what sort of a
State Minister was he who would propose a tax,
and yet admit it was one that could not be measured 7
( Cheers and laughter.) Such an admission should not be made.
—( Hear, hear.) This was a tax which should be measured, and
its exact amount known.—( Hear, hear.) The labourers in
Dorsetshire, and in Hampshire, and in Wiltshire, who paid for
the pennyworth and half-pennyworth of sugar out of their hard
earnings, should know what it was, for they it was who felt it
( Hear, hear)—and the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her
Majesty's Government, he ( Mr. Bright) contended, should not
have sat still and silent, and refuse the question put to him to.
night.—( Hear.) Nail he (Mr. Bright) could easily suggest
a mode by which this tax could be measured—it was this : they
should have regular returns of all the sugar shipped to this court-
try, and a full and sufficient amount of remuneration should be
paid in order to have these returns accurate. He did not know
how the present Government would propose to do this in their
offices ; but he would suggest that, suppose Sir James
Graham should pay to Mr. Goulburn or Mr. Glad-
stone so much, say 105. ticl. per hundred weight
for every hundred weight of sugar shipped from their
estates for England.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) This
might be very unparliamentary ; hut the Parliament was not
the whole country; and people outside of that House were very
much interested in having cheap sugar, though Members of
Parliament might not care whether the price of it was a penny
or two, more or less, per lb.—( Hear, hear.) He was under
the impression that the Right Hon. Baronet opposite and his
colleagues were always placed in a humiliating position on this
question—( Hear, hear )—and there was! no question upon
which the extraordinary activity of his mind was more readily
brought out than in a discussion upon the sugar duties.--
(Hear, hear.) Then all his finer feelings for the interest of a
certain class were in full exercise ; but he (Mr. B. ) did hope
that, upon the present occasion, he would manifest a still deeper
anxiety for the interest of the country.— (Hear, hear.) Yet
he (Mr. L'.) should say that, in his opinion, persons who were
interested in the levying of a tax for the interest of a class,
should not belong to a Government who thought that a tax
should be kept ep though it could not be measured—(A laugh)
—or who would give a vote in that House in favour of a mea-
sure that was not for the benefit of the country but a class.
Sonic lion. Members had stated that this tax would amount
to over two millions, and yet no reason had been assigned for
keeping it up, except the difficulty of procuring labour in the
West Indies.—( Hear, hear.) But, with reference to the East
Indies or the Mauritius, no answer had been given—good, bad,
or indifferent.—(Cheers.) The late President of the Board
of Trade said, upon a former occasion, that he defended those
duties, on the grounds of a want of sufficient labour and
absenteeism. Well, then, if the Right Hon. Gentleman was
not prepared with a measure for sending back absentees, he
ought to be prepared to say what other remedy he would
propose, instead of lending himself to the spoliation of the
people for the enrichment of the planter.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. ENTWISLE said he would delay the House with
only a very few words. He would merely say that his belief
was that, if the duty was to be taken off foreign free-labour
sugar, the price of that article now, and in three or four or
five years to come, would be very nearly the same. He could
not agree in the conclusion which had been drawn from the
question, nor did he believe that the Hon. Member for Stock-
port intended to increase the cost of sugar to the consumer,
which the full extent of his question would lead them to infer.
Mr. WARD said that he did not agree with the Hon. Gen.
tleman who bad just sat down in believing that the Hon. Mem-
ber for Durham had meant anything personal in what he said.
—( Hear, hear.) He said he believed the effect of the mea-
sure would be to put a higher amount into the pockets of the
planters, and he proposed that those Gentlemen, one of whom
was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and another the late
President of the Board o f Trade, should draw cheques for
what was coming to them from their estates, and then allow
the public to buy their sugar in the cheapest market they
could.— ( Hear, hear.) There was no want of urbanity in
that, though there was a great deal of truth in it.—(Hear,
hear, and a laugh.) That plan would be less burdensome to
the public, acd they would get rid of all the intricacy which
the measure was acknowledge to possess, and the planter would
lose nothing. The Hon. Gentleman who spoke last had in-
troduced the question of slave-labour sugar and free-labour
sugar, which was carefully eschewed on his side of the House.
That was a distinction now known to be impracticable.—(Hear,
hear.) It was a newfangled philosophy foisted into their Cus-
toms' regulations which would turn out to be utterly prepos-
terous. His Hon. Friend near him had proved, from the best
sources of information which this great metropolis could afford,
that the difference of price paid to the West India planters for
their sugar, beyond the price of the sugar sold in the general
market of the world, amounted to 13/. per ton during the last
year. There might be some variation between one year and
another, but about 13/. per ton was the amount which ought to
be placed to the account of the protected interests of the colonies.
He :did not mean to say that they ought to give up their
colonies. That was not the question. The question was
whether they ought not to leave their colonies to exert their
own powers, and to relieve the consumers of this country
from the additional price which they paid for sugar.? Even
if the additional West Indian interest was entitled to protection,
he should like to know why the sugar of the Mauritius, and
the East Indies, where labour was cheaper than in any part of
the globe, should be protected by 10s. per cwt. ?—(Hear,
hear.) And when the question was put to the Right Hon.
Baronet he took care to watch him, and he never heard a
question which the Right Hon. Baronet seemed to dislike so
much—which he touched so gingerly.—( Hear, hear.) It was
his belief that the Right Hon. Baronet was forced by a ma-
jority of his Cabinet to fight a battle which he disapproved of,
and he expected that the Right Hon. Baronet would in another
year come down to the House with pleasure and announce that
it being found impracticable under the proposed plan to exclude
Venezuela and other slave-grown sugar, it was expedient to alter
the existing arrangement, and put the sugar question on a
satisfactory footing.-(Hear, hear. )
Sir W. JAMES he did not know whether the House was
weary of this subject, but he knew he was.—(Laughter.) It
was asked what right the West Indians had to protection ? He
maintained they had a right to protection; and not merely to
ltisse•
no ,s. or
(tihrreenei,e
eol re
hfeeuerr, but to
e .)He
should something
like more
teklni kee
wfortyif
an mil-
Act
of Parliament l
restricting the source from which
w
he could draw was passed,
labourers to cultivate his estate in Cumberland
to his own parish, and that his neighbours were at perfect li-
berty to go where they might for labourers, whether be had not
a right to protection .! To such a state were they brought in the
West Indies, by their bungling legislation. Philanthropy was
a fine thing a few years ago, when it cost nothing.—_(ironical
cheers.) Philanthropy was good, but a low-priced article was
better. He thought, when they legislated badly, that those
Alm
r. theyHlc iAnjHuDredoosuagihdt
htoe odbuenpdreort
seteoted.the amount of money
which the West Indians received was about 90 000 000/ and
if, in addition to this, they were to pay3,ooo- ~000/. a year
would l
no 0, °°°queL question prohadt action,
already)paid.
that b e 0
dThere
was nenatdhdaittitohrei t200701100a tooth ely.
had been paid. It was a sacrifice made by the consumer, said
the Noble Lord the Member for Liverpool. It was paying the
price of the emancipation of the slaves, which the Hon. Mem-
ber for Evesham called paying for their whistle. It was a
spoliation in his opinion—( Hear, hear)—but whatever was its
name, something was paid, and when they came to ask what
the amount was, the Right Hon. Baronet, who was so good u
calculator—who calculated the amount of the duties, the
amount of the income-tax—was not able to give any answer,
because the amount did not come into the revenue, for that
was the only reason, he could conceive, why he did not give
an answer to a plain and fair question.—(Hear, hear. )
Mr. MUNTZ said he was not prepared to deny that some
protection was due to the West India interest. He was not
now, and he never was, a free-trader to the extent of not al-
lowing protection where protection was fairly due. But if they
were to give this bonus to the West Indians, let them under-
stand why they gave it, and let them have the credit of giving
it. The Right Hon. Baronet alleged that the reduction of the
price of sugar was one of the benefits derived from the pro-
perty and income-tax ; but if the planters, and not the con-
sumers, had the advantage of that reduction, credit ought not
to be taken for a benefit which they never had. If the planters
bad the benefit, why not say so at once ?
In answer to a question by Mr. PAR&ZR, relative to beet
sugar,