land; nay, from the approaching restitution, much more than the usual quantity was sent, as Sir William Young himself, (West India Common-Place Book, p. 61.) expressly admits. It is difficult to calculate the whole amount of this quantity; but we can easily discover the least at which it may be stated. The conquered colonies, during four years ending 1807, sent to Great Britain and Ireland annually, on an average, about 41,000 hogsheads. To this must be added the import from Martinico, which, in 1798, was above 18,000 hogsheads; and, in 1802, must have increased very considerably. Making no allowance for the effects of the general clearance, therefore, above 60,000 hogsheads were brought to England in 1802, which, in any other year of peace, must have. gone directly to the Continent; and, by at least this amount, was the export of sugar from hence to the Continent, greater in that year, than it would have been in any other. + Neither is it fair to take 1803 as a standard; for the war was renewed at the very moment that the greatest part of the crop was coming over to France and Holland. This is partially alluded to in the evidence of Mr Maryatt before the committee, Report, p. 257; but it requires no illustration. From the month of May until the end of the year, then, a great allowance must be made for the foreign sugars brought into England by our cruizers, and the difficulty of transporting the enemy's sugars, always greatest at the beginning of a war. Besides, we captured some of his settlements during that year. Tobago and St Lucia were taken in June;-Demerara, Essequibo and Berbice, in September: and though no great quantity of the crop was probably to be found at the latter period, it is certain that we found a large proportion in Tobago and St Lucia. The whole effects of the hostilities in 1803, then, cannot be estimated to have turned less than 30,000 hogsheads out of their natural course, and brought them into the English market. The average export of the two years, therefore, must be diminished by 45,000 hogsheads on the very lowest calculation, before we can fairly compare it with the overplus likely to remain in the English market during peace; so that, admitting the general principles assumed by the West Indians, they have-we will not say purposely-but with a very happy carelessness, made an error in their own favour of at least this amount, in their calculations. But * He says, the extraordinary influx of that year arose from the clearing all residue of produce on hand in the conquered colonies, then returning to France and Holland.' † We include Trinidad in this estimate; because the West Indians have done so in theirs, wishing to show, as we presume, favour towards the old colonies. But we have now to remark, that the principles themselves are altogether objectionable; and that the calculations founded upon them prove absolutely nothing in favour of the planters, though admitted to the last cypher. They assume, that the excess of the import above the export, is equal to the home consumption; and this excess having gone on greatly increasing, it is inferred that the consumption has increased in the same degree. Before this can be admitted, we must see some proof that the stock remaining on hand has not gone on increasing also. The West Indians do not either admit or deny this in their arguments and reports; they, in fact, pass it over wholly unnoticed, as if it had no bearing upon the question. But, in their evidence, we find some data by which we can ascertain it. It appears, that at the end of 1804, the quantity of sugar in the West India dock premises was 60,000 hogsheads;-at the end of 1805, it was 69,000; and at the end of 1806, it was $2,000 hogsheads. The import of sugar into London, in 1804, was 164,000 hogsheads;the stock on hand at the end of that year, about 39,000 ;-the import in 1806, was 195,000 ;-the stock on hand at the end of that year, about 82,000. There remained on hand, therefore, at the end of 1804, less than a fourth of the quantity imported into London ;-but at the end of 1806, there remained between one half and one third of the import. Still greater is the increase in other places. The import into the seven principal outports, was, in 1804, 88,000 hogsheads;-the stock on hand, 11,000, or one eighth. In 1805, it amounted to somewhat more than one fourth; and in 1806, it was above a third of the whole import. * The last committee have not enabled us to bring this calculation further down a circumstance the more to be regretted, because nothing can be clearer than its bearing upon the very question at issue. Howeyer, they have given the quantity on hand in the docks in March 1808, and the quantities delivered for the six preceding months and it appears from this account, that there must have been on hand, at the end of 1807, about 85,000 hogsheads. If the import of London for that year be estimated. by the proportion which it bore in 1806, to the whole import of the country, (and it is not our fault that we cannot state it more directly) it will amount to 187,000 hogsheads; so that the stock on hand in 1807, bears a considerable greater proportion to the im port, than it did in the year before. : All this demonstrates very clearly the fallacy of taking the balance of exports and imports as a sufficient criterion of home consump tion; and shows, that the glut of sugar which we formerly describ * See Report, 1808, p. 243, & seqq. + Ibid. p. 184. ed ed, has been rapidly increasing. For the prices during the four years which we have been comparing, fell first slowly, and afterwards with unexampled rapidity. In 1804, the average was 53s. 3d.; in 1805, from bad crops, the importation was considerably smaller, yet the price fell to 52s. 2d.; and, notwithstanding this, there was more left on hand than the year before. Still the planters endeavoured to hold out, in consequence of the low crop and high price; but in 1806, a good average importation with the stock already on hand, brought the price down to 44s. 5d.; yet, at the end of that year, a much greater quantity remained on land than ever, and in a far greater proportion to the quantity imported. In 1807, though the importation was considerably less than the former year, the price fell to 34s.; and though, no doubt, a great deal more of the article was consumed at this price than could have been used at a higher rate, and though the accumulation of the stock was thereby prevented from going on so rapidly as it had done under a more gradual fall of prices; nevertheless, there was a considerable increase of the stock in hand, both absolutely and relatively; both in proportion to the surplus of former years, and in proportion to the import of the year itself. We submit this, even to the West Indians themselves, as a very satisfactory demonstration of our general proposition. In truth, can any man fancy to himself a better proof of glut than the history of the sugar trade here affords? Nor let it be said, that the exportation to the Continent had been obstructed during the period in question. This will not account for the facts. The average export of these four years was 81,000 hogsheads, being exactly the average of 1800 and 1801, after deducting the produce of Martinico: And the exportation of 1807, was nearly 95,000; notwithstanding which, the price fell, and the surplus stock increased so that the foreign market was nearly in the same state of glut with the home market, in spite of all the enemy's decrees; and the same alterations of low price and increased consumption, are observable in the history of both. A particular account of the revenue arifing from fugar in different years, would furnish the means of eftimating how much of the excefs of the importation over the export is actually confumed in the country. The committee have only given us the duties of three years, ending 1807; but thefe fufficiently prove how much more was imported than fold. The excefs of the import above the export, in 1805, for Great Britain, was about 173,000 hogfheads; the excefs in 18c6 was about 233,000. If the ftock on hand was nearly equal at the end of 1804 and 1805, and the confumption was increafing at the fame rate with the excefs of the import above the export, we might expect the additional duty re ceived ceived in 1806 to be 27s. per cwt. on 60,000 hogfheads, or 972,000l. But the grofs duty received in 1806 was only 673,500l. more than that of 1805-leaving a difference of 298,500l., anfwering to about 221,oco cwt., or about 18,400 hogsheads, for Great Britain alone. But it will be faid, this eftimate proceeds upon the comparison of the grofs duties, and makes no allowance for reexportation. This, however, is favourable to the argument of the Weft Indians; for the export of 1806 exceeded the export of 1805 by about 7400 hogfheads. And accordingly, the net duties of 1806 exceed thofe of 1805-that is, the duties, after allowing for drawback and bounty-by only 657,7951.; being a difference in favour of our argument, which answers to about 1000 hogfheads. The difference between the criterion of confumption affumed by the Weft Indians, and that afforded by the revenue, is ftill more remarkable in the year 1807. The former makes the confumption of Great Britain lefs, by about 43,000 Kogfheads, than it was in 1806;-the latter, if taken from the grofs duties, makes it near 30,000 hogfheads greater; if taken from the net duties (which, on account of the great increased export of 1807, is certainly much fairer) only about 4100 hogfheads less; in other words, the revenue shows only about one tenth part of the diminution, which the criterion assumed by the West Indians would establish. These calculations may be trusted, when different years are to be compared; because, if there is any incorrectness in the principle (and we admit that they only give a wide approximation), the same will affect all the years in the same proportion. But the Committee might, with the greatest ease, have given the account of the revenue, so as to furnish a most accurate criterion of absolute consumption. If, instead of stating merely the sums received as gross duty, the sums paid in drawback, and the sums paid in bounties, under these three general heads, they had stated the proportion of drawback paid upon export of muscovado, and the proportion paid, in name of bounty, upon ground or powdered refined sugar, (both of which payments are classed under the head of drawback by the statute, vid. 45. Geo. III, c. 93, and all the other acts regulating the drawbacks on sugars); and had also stated the proportion of bounty paid upon refined sugar in loaf, and bastards; it would have been easy to ascertain the quantity of sugar reexported after payment of duty; and the difference between this and the quantity which had paid duty would give the total consumption, independent of smuggling. We shall add the formula of the account which we should wish to see produced, in order to prevent all misapprehension. Years Years. Grofs duties Drawback on Bounty on Bounty on Bounty on If the arrangements at the customs do not allow of this account, much might be gained by a clear statement of the rates at which the bounties were paid, that is, of the proportions in which those bounties were allowed at the different sums specified. in the statutes and an account, showing the proportion of sugar réexported without payment of duties, to that reexported after payment, distinguishing refined from raw, would answer nearly the same purpose. As we are wholly destitute of the lights which such statements would afford, we must endeavour to grope our way, as far as we can, towards the object of our search ;-and the only path which we have been able to find, is the following. It is known, that one cwt. of muscovado sugar yields about five tenths of refined loaf, and two tenths of bastards. We may suppose, that the quantity of refined, exported, (independent of the powdered, which ranks with muscovado), consists of these two kinds in the proportion just now specified. If so, we can calculate the amount to which the bounty corresponds; for we have two equations, and only two unknown quantities. The operation is very simple, and may be seen below:* it leads to this rule,Multiply the number of shillings in the bounty paid any year by seven, and divide by the sum of five times the number of shillings in the average bounty payable that year per cwt. on loaf, and by twice the number of shillings in the average bounty per cwt. on bastards; the quotient gives the number of cwts. of refined and bastards exported: increase this in the proportion of seven to ten, on account of molasses and waste; and you obtain the whole VOL. XIII. NO. 26. Cc quantity * Let a whole bounty paid in any year; m average bounty per cwt. on refined loaf in that year; n average bounty on bastards; x = total of cwts. of both sorts exported; y = total of cwts. of refined loaf exported :-We have y: xy::5:2, and y = 5 7 x; al so my + n (xy) = a; or (mn) y + n x = a, and (m xnxa, or x= 5 m 7 a Whence the quantity of muscova do corresponding is easily found, being tor as 10 to 7: |