I

revenue must give way, had we no other alternative; but let us in these times of public danger and difficulty spare the revenue as much as possible. shall first lay down a few general rules, and afterwards follow these up by a specific proposition.

The price which the consumer ought to pay for a commodity, should be the expence of producing and bringing it to market, with a profit to the persons engaged in this trade, along with such duties as the legislature has judged fit to impose. But by the proposition of the West-India Committee, the less the market price, the less would be the duty. The consumer has had sugar too cheap for nine years already, and a measure of this kind would tend to confirm to the consumer what he has no right to expect.

It appears by the official returns subjoined to this Report, (page 73) that of the whole West-India produce imported into Britain, nearly one third is exported to foreign parts, exclusive of Ireland. Here is an important fact established beyond contradiction. It will next be found, not indeed upon official evidence, but upon the concurrent testimony of our most intelligent merchants, of those who (see the Evidence of Mr. Bosanquet and Mr. Marryatt) have thoroughly studied the causes which influence the sugar market, that our prices are regulated by our exports, that is, when we are overstocked, our prices fall to the low rate at which foreigners can afford

to purchase, after which they fall no more.* Accordingly, our prices have been for many months at the very low rate of 33s. and 345. exduty. Now that these are the prices at which foreigners order sugar, may be learnt by a reference, either to the Royal Exchange, or to the recorded testimony of the Distillery Report, (page 2.) Miserable as is this price, it would have been still much lower, had it not been for the intervention of the foreign demand. I infer from this, that no consideration should induce us to neglect the preservation of the foreign demand. In what way, it may be asked, do you run any hazard of losing it? You will lose it whenever your market rises above what neutrals can afford it for. At present you have it because you sell at 335. exduty, sugar which costs the British planter above 635. (see page 22 of this work,) and the French planter above 535. to manufacture and send home.

Of course when your prices are so low, not even the neutrals can stand in competition with you. If indeed the neutral intercourse be stopped, the case will be widely different. Prices in that event will rise considerably, and foreigners must buy of you; but as the stoppage of neutrals is a national question, the nation should reap the advantage, for the loss, if any, will fall on the nation. The West-India planter should neither receive the benefit nor sustain the loss of public measures adopted upon public grounds-these chances should

See this point explained in page 19 of this work, and more fully in the "Concessions to America," page 16.

be taken by the country at large, and in this respect the country at large is represented by the revenue.

The foreign demand for sugar has hitherto been preserved at the expence of the planter, and for several months back it has required the additional aid of 2s. bounty from Government. Now neither the planter nor Government ought to bear this burden. The planter ought in no case to bear it, and government ought not to bear it at present, while the home consumer of sugar pays so much less than its legitimate price. In whatever view you consider the case of the home consumer, you will find the justice of the argument, that he pays much less for it than he ought, The fair price to indemnify the planter ought to be 69s. and 6d. exduty *—instead of which the actual currency is, and has long been, only 335. Compare this with the progressive rise of other commodities. Within these last ten years, the price of other commodities has risen at least a third; but during the same period, sugar instead of rising at all, or even of keeping stationary, has decreased a third.

But the planter will say, "Let the Revenue give way, and let sugar continue cheap to the consumer, because its cheapness increases the extent of its consumption." Now there is much less truth in this opinion than planters are apt to imagine. Its

• See page 22,

cheapness will increase in some measure the consumption, and its dearness in some measure lessen it; but neither will operate in any material degree. Was the consumption visibly lessened in 1797 and 1798, when prices were high, or has it materially increased in the long and melancholy period of depression which has since intervened? On this head, in which I profess an opinion so different from many planters, I refer them again to the evidence of Mr. Bosanquet and Mr. Marryatt, and to the conclusive reasonings in the "Concessions to America,' page 18.

Having premised these general observations, and established them I trust on convincing grounds, I proceed to explain the conclusion, to which they appear to me to lead. I would first ascertain the price which the home consumer ought to pay, and next the price which the foreigner, who is not under our controul, is willing and able to pay. It has already been mentioned, that the price which the home consumer ought to pay for all commodities, is the expence of raising and bringing them to market, with a reasonable profit to the persons engaged in the particular traffic, as well as the duty to government. By this rule, and according to the estimate in page 22 of this work, the average price of sugar to the consumer should be 69s. and 6d. exduty. This estimate is confirmed, at least to the extent of 655., by the West-India Report in pages and 20; and it would be easy so shew, that the

4

evidence subjoined to that Report, particularly that of Mr. Wedderburn, justifies my statement of 69s. and 6d. Instead, however, of paying 69s, and 6d, exduty, the home consumer has for many months paid only 3gs. and 6d. If we next inquire the price which the foreigner is willing and able to pay, we shall find it between 31s. and 345. We sell it at present to the foreigner at that rate, but if we raise our price we lose his custom, because neutrals for a few shillings more will bring it to his door. We must therefore on no account lose his custom, but we must raise our market price, or our planters will be ruined. The plan I propose is to lay an additional tax on the home consumer, who has so long possessed an undue advantage in the price of sugar; and from that tax to provide a fund for a bounty on export.

Some persons may object to this plan, that by it we should tax our own people to let foreigners use sugar cheaper than them. No such thing. The plan proposed is not for the foreigner's benefit, it is for our own. If we chose to import only as much sugar as we required for ourselves, we should be altogether independent of the foreigner; but we do, and will continue to import much more than we want; and as we cannot force the foreigner to give us our price, we must either come down to his, or accumulate a mass of useless produce.

To give the planter 8 per cent. on his capital, it