West India Sugar 3,935,549 cwts.
East India and Mauritius 271,848 „
Foreign 205,750 „
4,413,147
The duty on East India being equalised, and that on foreign remaining as
before, we imported in 1840—
West India Sugar 2,217,681 cwts.
East India and Mauritius 1,043,737 „
Foreign 774,427 „
4,035,845
* * * * *
In 1824, the revenue from sugar was £4,641,945
1840, 4,449,035
Between 1824 and 1840, the population had increased five millions, and
yet there had been an actual falling off in the consumption of sugar of
no less than 377,302 cwts. and a loss of revenue of £192,910, to say
nothing of the consequent loss of employment which the five millions
would otherwise have enjoyed, resulting from the impulse given to
manufactures and shipping, by an increase in the sugar trade. The cost,
exclusive of duty, of 3,764,710 cwts. retained for home consumption in
the year, as calculated by Mr. Porter, at the _Gazette_ average prices,
was £9,156,872. The cost of the same quantity of Brazil or Havanna
sugar, of equal quality, would have been £4,141,181, so that in one year
we paid £5,015,691 more than the prices which the rest of the inhabitants
of Europe would have paid for an equal quantity of sugar. In that year
the total value of our exports to our sugar colonies was under
£4,000,000, so that we should have “gained a million of money in that one
year by following the true principle of buying in the cheapest market,
even though we had made the sugar-growers a present of all the goods
which they took from us.” {31}
The Brazilian ambassador has been in vain endeavouring to effect a
reduction of the duty imposed on foreign sugar. The reign of monopoly is
to be continued yet a little longer. We are to go on throwing away our
money, and losing our trade. The working man’s food is taxed out of all
proportion. We may not use the cheap sugar of Brazil, which is
imported—slave-grown as it is—into England, and, here refined, is then
sold to the settler in Australia, or the emancipated West Indian
labourer, for fourpence a pound. No, the unemancipated white labourer
must pay a high price for his adulterated sugar; for be it remembered
that 400,000 cwts. of various ingredients are annually used, and which,
cheapening the price, though then it is much higher than that of the
genuine article would be, were we allowed to import it for home
consumption from Brazil, is consumed principally by the lower orders of
society. The necessaries of life in this country being thus heavily
taxed, the cost of our manufactures is raised, and, as a consequence, the
German under-sells us in the Brazil market; and, more wonderful still,
the American enters our own colonies, such as the Cape of Good Hope, and
under-sells us there; and thus it is that we are punished for our sins.
It must also be remembered that, in spite of our virtual exclusion of
foreign produce, Java, and Cuba, and the Brazils, had grown sugar in such
abundance, as that our merchants have three separate times begged
permission of the government to introduce it merely for the purposes of
agriculture, promising, if their request were granted, to spoil it in
such a manner as that it should be totally unfit for human food.
Notwithstanding a duty of 63_s._ in their favour, the monopolists
complain of the low price of sugar. From the circular of Messrs. Truman
and Co., we find that, whilst the highest price of British sugar (West
India middling to fine) is 68_s._ per cwt., the highest price for foreign
(Havannah white) is only 28_s._ per cwt.; and thus they are getting
nearly 150 per cent. more than we are paying for foreign sugar. Again,
the lowest price of English sugar (Bengal brown) is 48_s._, whilst the
lowest price of the foreign article (Java) is 16_s._ 6_d._, and thus
getting nearly 200 per cent. more than foreign sugar can be got for, they
have the impudence to grumble about low prices! Pretty cool! considering
the shameless system of plundering they have been carrying on.
This immense difference in the cost of the two articles is equalised by
the heavy duty imposed on the one, and the light duty upon the other:
that on the highest foreign produce being 238 per cent. on the value of
the sugar, whilst the duty on the highest-priced colonial sugar is but 37
per cent.; and the lowest-priced colonial sugar pays but 50 per cent.
duty, whilst the lowest-priced foreign sugar actually pays 400 per cent.!
Be it remembered, this goes not to the government at home, but is so much
money put into the pockets of the West Indian monopolists. It is
reckoned by a writer in the _League_ that “the sum paid for sugar at the
monopolists’ shops, more than it could be bought for at the Brazil shop,
is £7,000,000 per annum.” The same writer gives the following statement
of the case:—
“Sugar at the West India shop, 5¼_d._ At the Brazil 1¾_d._
per lb. shop, per lb.
Tax, per lb. 2¾ Tax, per lb. 7
8_d._ 8¾_d._
So that a fine of 4¾_d._ is imposed on every poor man who dares to
buy a pound of sugar at the Brazil shop.”
And thus an article of consumption, that has now become an essential, is
raised to an extravagant price to maintain a monopoly, of which even the
monopolists themselves complain.
Considered as a question of revenue, it is extremely desirable that our
differential duties on sugar should be abolished. The increased price we
pay goes not to government, but into the monopolist’s pocket; he alone is
benefited by it; the consumer pays 20_s._ a cwt. more than he otherwise
would do to the grower of the favoured produce. Equalise the duties,
and, as was exemplified in the reductions that took place in the duties
on coffee, by making a decrease of price to the consumer, we get an
increase of revenue. It may not be amiss to state that Mr. M‘Gregor
Laird declared, in a late speech before the anniversary meeting of the
Glasgow Emancipation Society, that, if the people of England consumed
sugar at the same rate per head as the population of New South Wales, the
annual consumption would be 900,000 tons. The Editor of the _Economist_
has so fully proved this part of the subject, that we cannot do better
than give his own words. We quote from an article headed “Free Trade and
the National Debt,” that appeared in that paper on the 7th October last:—
“Our consumption of sugar last year was 3,876,465 cwts., at a cost of
65_s._ per cwt. (wholesale price), and, consequently, at that rate,
the country paid for sugar £12,598,511. Now, there is every reason
to believe that, if sugar were cheaper, the same sum would still be
expended upon it, and a correspondingly increased quantity consumed.
In this opinion we are supported by the very extraordinary fact that
the annual consumption of sugar, which, in 1811, averaged 23¼ lbs.
per head on the whole population of Great Britain and Ireland, was
reduced, in 1842, in consequence of the restriction of quantity, to
the rate of 15⅞lbs. per head, while the paupers in our workhouses are
allowed at the rate of 23¾lbs., and the seamen in her Majesty’s
service 34 lbs. per head.
“Well, then, assume that the duty on foreign sugar were reduced to
24_s._, the same as we now pay on colonial sugar, the price of sugar
would be lowered thereby to 45_s._ per cwt. instead of 65_s._; then
the sum of £12,598,511, which we last year expended on sugar, would
command 5,599,338 cwts., in place of 3,876,465 cwts., being an
additional consumption, at precisely the same entire cost. Now, at
present, all the revenue which is derived from sugar is from the duty
of that on 24_s._ on that of colonial grown (the high differential
duty excluding all other), and on the quantity consumed last year
yielded the sum of £4,651,758. By the proposed equalisation of
duties this sum would remain untouched, but an additional quantity
(which at present gives no revenue at all) of 1,722,873 cwts. would,
at the rate of 24_s._ per cwt., raise the revenue to £6,719,205.
“The result, therefore, would be, that for the same sum of money
which the country expended last year in sugar, an additional quantity
of 1,722,873 cwts. would be enjoyed by the community, which would
only restore the average consumption of 23¼ lbs. per head of 1811, an
additional revenue of £2,067,447 would be given to the State, and an
increase of trade amounting to nearly £4,000,000 annually would be
experienced by the dealers, merchants, and carriers of sugar.”
Now, with us all this seems very reasonable, and we are not a little
surprised to find, as we certainly do, many intelligent and philanthropic
men joining in the outcry against slave-grown sugar which the West India
planters, those paragons of excellence and humanity, have had wit enough
to raise, and which has answered their purposes remarkably well. We are
told it is slave-grown. What of that? Half the Brazil slave-grown sugar
is bought by British money, and refined by British skill, and then sold
by British merchants all over the globe. Our cotton is
slave-grown—tobacco, which yields a revenue of three million pounds and a
half, is slave-grown. From the southern states of America and Mexico we
import slave-grown rice, indigo, and cochineal; of the manufactures we
export, half are of cotton, imported from the slave states, and upon
their produce the millions of our manufacturing population depend for
their subsistence. It would require no little impudence for any of the
English monopolists to tell the Brazilians that we were so squeamish that
we could not deal with them, because their sugar was slave-grown, when
every one knows that our merchants gladly trade in and allow every one to
have it cheap and good except our own hungry, wretched, and perishing
poor. {35} They are to be taxed and fleeced to keep up the West India
monopoly—their bone and blood are to be preyed on by the harpies that
lust for human gore. That their desires may be gratified—that the value
of their estates may be unnaturally kept up—that their vested rights, the
rights of the robber and the pickpocket, if such a term can be applied to
them, may be preserved—the English labourer, from a state of honest
independence, is degraded into pauperism, dies in the parish workhouse,
and rots in the parish vault. Shame on this Christian land, with its
stately churches, its noble mansions, with its swarms of well-paid
luxurious priests, with its peers of unrivalled wealth and power, with
its sons boasting their royal blood—shame on such men, that for one hour
they suffer so wretched a system to continue! It is well that they
should talk of their love to religion and law, but the religion and law
that connive at crying abuses and monstrous wrongs, can neither please
Heaven nor bless man: they evidently are unworthy of the name they claim
for themselves.
To those who are really in earnest in the cry against slave-grown
produce, we say, that it is abundantly proved that the West Indian
monopoly tends directly to keep up slavery. If that were abolished, we
might expect to see slavery destroyed. The monopoly enables the West
Indian planter to pay an unreasonably high price for labour, in
consequence of which there is an importation of labour into the market—an
unnatural demand is created. The high price the West Indian planter gets
for his sugar, makes it answer his purpose to pay more for hire than his
rivals can, and the consequence is, that the neighbouring European
colonists are afraid to emancipate their slaves, knowing well, that
directly they would leave them for the monopoly market, and they would be
left without a hand to till the soil. For instance, we give the
following case:—A large slave-owner, in Dutch Guiana, thus addressed the
editor of the _Economist_, when that gentleman was at Amsterdam. “We
should be glad,” said he, “to follow your example, and emancipate our
slaves, if it were possible; but as long as your differential duties are
maintained it will be impossible. Here is an account-sale of sugar
produced in our colony, netting a return of £11 per hogshead to the
planter in Surinam; and here is an account-sale of similar sugar sold in
London, netting a return of £33 to the planter in Demerara; the
difference ascribable only to your differential duty. The fields of
these two classes of planters are separated only by a few ditches. Now,
such is the effort made by the planter in Demerara to extend his
cultivation, to secure the high price of £33, that he is importing free
labourers from the hills of Hindostan, and from the coast of Africa, at
great cost; and is willing to pay higher prices than even labour will
command in Europe. Let us then emancipate our slaves, which, if it had
any effect, would confer the privilege of the choice of employer, and
Dutch Guiana would be depopulated in a day—an easy means of increasing
the supply of labour to the planters of Demerara, at the cost of entire
annihilation of the cultivation of the estates in Surinam. But abandon
your differential duties; give us the same price for our produce, and
thus enable us to pay the same rate of wages, and I, for one, will not
object to liberate my slaves to-morrow.” {38}
We would not damp the sympathy which is felt for the enslaved _producer_
of sugar in Brazil; but we would claim some portion of that sympathy on
behalf of the toil-worn _consumer_ at home. The Lancashire operatives,
starving in our midst, have ties on us which we must not and cannot
overlook. Let their case be considered—let their prayers be heard. Let
justice be done to them. They are our brethren, and their case is ours.
Let us seek for them the abolition of all monopoly—for one does but
involve another—they are all the results of the same impure system—they
all stand and fall together. In every country under heaven the friends
of the people are ranged on the one side, and their foes and the friends
of monopoly on the other. If a monopoly of legislation had never existed
at home, a monopoly of trade would never have existed in favour of any
colony or nation under the sun. Let the legislative monopoly continue,
and we shall not only peril our trade abroad, but our very existence at
home, and England’s glory shall vanish as a dream. All that has been
written by historians, and said by orators, and sung by poets, of a
nation’s gradual decline and ignominious extinction, shall we realise in
her hapless fate.
The Mayor of Liverpool, at a public meeting there, was heard to say, that
our legislators were gentlemen. Whether this was said ironically, or
otherwise, we know not. The assertion certainly contains a great deal of
truth. We cannot look at one single act of theirs without finding it
full of blunders and bulls. By their own folly we lost half our American
market. Brazil, the fourth foreign market we have, we are about to lose.
Our artizans are overworked to raise annually four or five million
pounds’ worth of goods, which are then taken, and, as it were, drowned in
the bottom of the sea. What a man might have for once buying, the
legislature, in its wisdom, makes him pay for twice. It decrees that a
man must toil all day for that which he might otherwise have for half a
day’s work. What admirable policy! Blessed are its effects, in the
misery it has shed over the homes of our operatives—in the life-blood it
has wrung from the labourer’s heart! It is time that whatever of manhood
there is left in this Saxon and once happy land—whatever of stern valour
that once distinguished us from the nations of the earth, and which the
struggle for the pittance that barely keeps up life has not frittered
away, or which the Union House has not starved out—should arouse and join
in that cry which demands that man’s rights should be given back to
him—that his serfdom be abolished—that his brotherhood be owned—that
England should no longer be one vast poor-house—that life should no
longer be a source of sorrow, but of joy—no longer what priestism and
class legislation have made it, a thing to be feared and shunned, but a
boon to be desired—that that should be a blessing, which in times past,
was a bitter curse.
* * * * *
* * * * *
London: Blackburn and Pardon, Printers, 6, Hatton Garden.