The Sun.
London, England, 1845-02-20 00:00:00

SUGAR DUTIES.

On Friday evening last Sir Robert Peel stated that the
consumption of sugar during 1844 had been 207,000 tons;
he also admitted that, although 10s. per cwt. protection to
British sugar was the sum named last session, yet the protec-
tion had been practically 10s. 6ct.: per vol. Since the adMis-
siOn of free- labour sugar to the home use—that is to say, that
during the debate last session—the question was treated as
though the duties were 245. to 345. per cwt., and therefore
the difference only 10s. ; but the fact of adding 5 per cent. to
these duties, made the one 258. 3d., and the other 355. 6d.
per cwt., conferring the protection of 20 guineas a ton for.
the benefit of the British sugar producers. Now, 207,000
tons are 4,140,000 cwt., which at 10s. 6d. per cwt. exactly
demonstrates the amount of this-protection, and that amount
is no less than 2,173,500/, being more than the value of the
sugar itself before charges accrue on it. What says Sir
Robert Peel this session ? He announces
inannmouancetasitnhinag, though,thepropo the
d
ses to
ei dffns u
rrceees theec duties
in sugars,
of British sugars; and he
xp esthatsuch reduction of 'duty will augment
expresses
e:a of
hope
6d. a
pi
°es. on
the consumption of sugar in the course of the year from
207,000 tons to 250,000 tons—which are 2,500,000 cwt., at
10s. 6d. per cwt., the cost of protection. By this operation
he expects to lose 1,300,0001., but the consumers will have to
pay to the British sugar producers 2,625,0004 the amount of
their protection. Sir Robert further thinks, that abstracting
from the pockets of the public indirectly, through the opera-
tion of the differential duties, the enormous sum of 2,625,000/.
is not enough for the people to lose in these days of prosperity ;
he therefore proposes to continue the obnoxious income-tax
'for three years longer, in order that he may reimburse the
contemplated loss to the revenue of 1,300,000/. The people
are first of all to be fleeced out of 2,625,000/. for the benefit of
a particular class, and then to be worried and annoyed by a
vexatious and inquisitorial income-tax, with a view to make
occasioned entirely
gNby°o7lvh, ael
edcterfiaucfstiyt
glance
lnpalntahcnee irnae:;ehtnhiuceehoptfahlre7sufog7arl;.lh4omtietshiasrterearrmenandgoeuad.
sacrifice is to be made. First of all, let us look at the sugar
producers in the East Indies--do they need protection ?
Assuredly not ! The cheapness of labour and the fertility
of the soil in those possessions will notoriously enable the
planters to compete successfully with other sugar. producing
countries. Secondly, do the planters in the Mauritius require
a protecting duty of 108. 6d. per cwt. ? For years past they
hare, by employing the labour of the East Indies, participated
in its cheapness ; they consequently require no protection.
Thirdly, the West Indians--do they deserve protection ?
they who have already cost the mother country so much—
they who never did, 'and probably .never will, be able to
make sugar so cheaply, or so well, as other colonists between
the tropics—and who now enjoy the bad pre-eminence of
shipping to Europe the very worst manufactured sugar that
enters the European markets ? And yet it is for their sakes
that the consumers of sugar in Great Britain will have to
pay protection money, if Sir Robert Peel succeeds in carrying
out his proposition, to the tune of two million six hundred
and twenty-five thousand peunds, and be saddled with a
most vexatious tax (the income-tax) into the bargain.
And these things are allowed to pass in the enlightened
days of 1845 !