of 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 dif ficult 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 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. ceived in 1806 to be 278. per cwt. on 60,000 hogsheads, or 972,00cl. 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 221,000 cwt., or about 18,400 hogfheads, for Great Britain alone. But it will be faid, this estimate proceeds uponthe 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 still more remarkable in the year 1807. The former makes the confumption of Great Britain lefs, by about 43,000 hogfheads, 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. 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 reexported 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. quantity Сс * 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: x-y::5:2, and y = so my + n (x − y) = á; or (m—n) y + n x = a, and x + n x = a, or x= τα 5 x; al = (m—n) Whence the quantity of muscova do corresponding is easily found, being to x as 10 to 7. : quantity of muscovado sugar used in the year for the refining of exported sugar: then suppose that the whole drawback is upon muscovado reexported, (and this will be perceived, by any person who follows the calculation, to be much in favour of the West Indian's argument), and divide that drawback, accordingly, by the drawback allowed in the year; the quotient being added to the sum formerly obtained, gives the whole quantity in cwts. of muscovado sugar, which has paid duties, and is not consumed in the country if this is subtracted from the quantity on which duty has been paid, the remainder is the consumption of the year. By calculating on this principle, it will be found, that the consumption of 1807 was 2,159,990 cwts., or about 180,000 hogsheads for Great Britain, that the consumption of 1806 was about 183,000, and of 1805 about 140,000 hogsheads, and, of consequence, that the average yearly consumption for these years was above 167,000 hogsheads, being nearly 32,000 hogsheads less than the criterion of exports and imports gives. According to the same proportion, the consumption of Ireland should be reduced to about 21,000 hogsheads; and this would give the whole consumption of the empire at 188,000. This is the nearest approximation which the data afforded by the published documents enable us to make. We have already fairly pointed out the best modes of checking our result; and as the discovery of truth is our only object, we shall heartily rejoice to find, that our labours lead even to disclosures which may convict our calculations of error. Although, therefore, we may differ from the West Indians respecting the amount of the actual home consumption, we are not at all disposed to deny that it has greatly increased. We must now, however, proceed to observe, that its increase, in whatever degree, furnishes no proof that the natural and effectual demand for sugar has augmented, or the general glut of the, market been relieved. If the price of the article has been constantly falling, while the consumption was increasing,―if, both in the home market and abroad, sugars were sold in much greater quantities than before, but at prices so reduced as not to replace the sums expended in raising and carrying them,-surely the increase of consumption, instead of proving that the market of the world requires so much more sugar than it did before, only shows that the glut has reduced the price, and that the reduction of the price has created a demand which otherwise would not have existed. The planters prove nothing, if they do not show, that there has been such an increase of demand as to take off more sugars than before at a fair price. The question is, not how much sugar may be used in the world, but, how much can be bought. And to give sugar for less than it costs, is not selling, selling, but throwing it away. Let us only consider the facts as stated by the West Indians themselves. Jamaica sugar costs 20s. 10d. per cwt. in the island; the cost in the other settlements is 19s. 6d.; so that the average expense of raising sugar is about 20s. per cwt. The charges of transport during war are from 15s. to 16s.; therefore, it costs between 35s. and 36s. to bring a hundred weight of sugar into the European market; and this sum must be replaced before the expenses are returned. In 1807, the total import of sugar into the United Kingdom was 316,000 hogsheads, of which there were exported to the Continent about 94,000. But at what prices were the 222,000 hogsheads sold which were not exported? The average price for the year was only 34s., being 1s. 6d. or 2s. less than the article cost; and, that a still greater loss was experienced on the quantity exported, appears from the statement which we gave in our former Article. To call a consumption, forced, we had almost said, by such sacrifices on the part of the grower, an effectual demand-or any thing but the effects of a glut-is an abuse of terms. It is manifest, that if any means could be devised of raising these prices, the consumption now under consideration would cease ;—and we are thus led to inquire, what is the quantity really demanded by the home market? This can only be ascertained by a comparison of former years, when the prices were neither extraordinarily high nor very low. The average price of sugar in the London market during four years, ending 1797, was 57s. exclusive of duties; and it is stated, that this price only yields the planter from 6 to 7 per cent. clear upon his capital. The average annual import into the United Kingdom, during the same period, was, 188,500 hogsheads; the export 56,500; leaving a balance of 132,000 hogsheads for home consumption. In the five years ending 1790, the prite was considerably lower. Yet Bryan Edwards estimates the returns of a West India estate, during that period, at 7 per cent. upon the capital. We may therefore conclude, that the consumption was not greatly affected by the lowness of price: it was 150,000 hogsheads annually. In the five years ending 1800, it was 165,000 hogsheads, although the price was 65s. 9d. But the sugar used in the distilleries during two of those years, greatly relieved the home market. If allowance is made for this circumstance, it will appear, that the actual consumption of sugar did not increase materially in the United Kingdom from 1790 to 1809; or that, whatever tendency there might have been towards an augmented use of the article, the rise of price checked it. Again, in five years ending 1775, the average consumption was 146,000 hogsheads, and the prices such as to allow the planter Cc 2 full |