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:—