The Sun.
London, England, 1845-02-27 00:00:00

SUGAR DUTIES.-SUPPLY.

On the motion that the order of the day for the House
resolving itself into a Committee of Supply be read,
Mr. MILNER GIBSON begged to offer a short ex-
planation of part of the statement he made on the sugar
duties question a few nights since. As it had been sup-
posed that, in his estimate of the cost of producing a
hundred-weight of sugar, he had not included all the
expenses, he begged to say that in his estimate he had
included salaries, wages, taxes, &c,—(Hear, hear.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL then rose and said—Sir, I
believe that the House is now about to enter upon the
consideration of a question of very great importance,
brought forward by the Right Hon. the Chancellor of
the Exchequer. It is a motion of great importance,
not only in a financial, but in a commercial point of view.
The Right Honourable Gentleman, in this proposition,
has laid down these two propositions—first, that it is
desirable and necessary to renew the income-tax fur a
further limit ; and, secondly, that the use to be made of
the surplus revenue which this tax will create, or
a great portion of it. is to apply it to the relief of
the country from certain other taxes, and to in-
crease the trade and commerce of the manufacturing.
districts. With regard to the first of these proposi-
tions, I need not dwell upon it, for the House
has already, by a great majority, agreed to the renewal
of the income-tax, thereby declaring that, if the other
taxes about to be proposed shall appear to this House
to be the best that could be proposed, the House has no
objection to try the experiment proposed in this respect
by the Right Honourable Baronet at the head
of her Majesty's Government. But with respect
to the second proposition, that appears to me
to . be one of such vast importance as to require
more careful and deliberate consideration, as it would
materially affect certain articles of consumption. And
the first of these articles is sugar ; and it would appear
to me, though such has not been stated by her
Majesty's Government, that the views of the
Government are to make such an alteration in
the duty on this article as will place the ma-
.nufacturers of sugar in a position that will not give
them room to complain that those duties had been lightly
. altered. If that be so, I think this House should take
cure to see that certain necessary and indispensable con-
ditions should be complied with. The first of those is,
to take care that no enactment on the subject should be of
an inconsistent or contradictory nature in itself ; and
secondly, that there should not he taken from off arti-
cles of commerce a greater amount of taxes than would
be necessary for the purposes of the revenue, and at the
same time do justice to the West India grower, by giving
ham such an amount of protection as may be necessary.
The first objection that I have to this proposition is,
that
it professes to keep up a distinction which I hold
to
e impracticable, between the produce of foreign free
atondmselaa proposition sove labour. That this project is illusory seems
plain that, if it were not that the
I should hardly attempt plan of the Government t
9 contemplatesdetain t
he aucooons tor aarny;
len course,gth
of time in arguing
question,
oaeostbiovtaouls a proposition.. But when
we discussed theg
proposal ?leer, certain answers
were offered to the
Itothethnemasdame,othdatotayl!
foreign sugar should be subjectle
whether it were the produce of free labour or of
answers.
now to take
slave labour. I think
some notice of these
sam was no this distinction was illusory.
same duty
fr fromil
I said there objected that
ob-
jection to take tobacco or cotton at the
the countries where they were slave-grown
free states. It was answered that certainly the Goomvetrne
ment did not propose to interfere with the tobacco or-
cotton duties, or with commerce long established ; but
that in all new regulations which might be in-
troduced, they would make the distinction be-
tween the produce of free labour and that of
slave labour. But this is not the fact, for the proposal
of this year, as well as that of last year, does make an
alteration ; but the distinction between foreign free and
slave labour is not observed. Take coffee for instance—
last year the duty was reduced from Sd. a pound to Gd.,
and the same duty was imposed upon foreign slave-grown
sugar as upon the produce of free labour. With respect
to copper ore, it is proposed this year to admit without