Page:EB1911 - Volume 26.djvu/62

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
46
SUGAR


Table II.

The world’s trade in cane and beet sugar in tons avoirdupois at decennial periods from 1840 to 1870, inclusive, and yearly from 1871 to 1901 inclusive, with the percentage of beet sugar and the average price per cwt. in shillings and pence. Tons avoirdupois of 2240 lb = 1016 kilogrammes.
Year. Cane. Beet. Total. Per cent.
Beet.
Average
price
per cwt.
s. d.
1840 1,100,000 50,000 1,150,000 4.35 48 0
1850 1,200,000 200,000 1,400,000 14.29 40 0
1860 1,510,000 389,000 1,899,000 20.43 35 0
1870 1,585,000 831,000 2,416,000 34.40 32 0
1871–1872 1,599,000 1,020,000 2,619,000 38.95 24 9
1872–1873 1,793,000 1,210,000 3,003,000 40.29 24 8
1873–1874 1,840,000 1,288,000 3,128,000 41.17 22 10
1874–1875 1,712,000 1,219,000 2,931,000 41.59 20 1
1875–1876 1,590,000 1,343,000 2,933,000 45.78 18 1
1876–1877 1,673,000 1,045,000 2,718,000 38.44 22 8
1877–1878 1,825,000 1,419,000 3,244,000 43.74 23 0
1878–1879 2,010,000 1,517,000 3,581,000 43.80 19 2
1879–1880 1,852,000 1,402,000 3,254,000 43.08 19 3
1880–1881 1,911,000 1,748,000 3,659,000 46.13 20 4
1881–1882 2,060,000 1,782,000 3,842,000 46.38 20 4
1882–1883 2,107,000 2,147,000 4,254,000 50.47 20 2
1883–1884 2,323,000 2,361,000 4,684,000 50.40 16 8
1884–1885 2,351,000 2,545,000 4,896,000 51.98 12 4
1885–1886 2,339,000 2,223,000 4,562,000 48.72 13 1
1886–1887 2,345,000 2,783,000 5,078,000 53.82 11 9
1887–1888 2,465,000 2,451,000 4,916,000 49.85 12 9
1888–1889 2,263,000 2,725,000 4,988,000 54.63 14 10
1889–1890 2,069,000 3,633,000 5,702,000 63.1 15 1
1890–1891 2,555,000 3,710,000 6,265,000 59.21 14 0
1891–1892 2,852,000 3,501,000 6,353,000 55.10 13 6
1892–1893 3,045,000 3,428,000 6,473,000 52.95 14 3
1893–1894 3,490,000 3,890,000 7,380,000 52.71 13 5
1894–1895 3,530,000 4,792,000 8,322,000 57.75 9 11
1895–1896 2,830,000 4,315,000 7,145,000 50.30 10 7
1896–1897 2,864,000 4,954,000 7,818,000 56.18 9 3
1897–1898 2,898,000 4,872,000 7,770,000 62.70 11 9
1898–1899 2,995,000 4,977,000 7,972,000 62.70 11 9
1899–1900 2,904,000 5,510,000 8,414,000 65.48 11 6
1900–1901 2,850,000 5,950,000 8,800,000 67.61 11 6

The quantities of cane sugar are based on the trade circulars of Messrs Willett & Gray of New York: those of beet sugar on the trade circulars of Messrs F. O. Licht of Magdeburg; and the prices are obtained from statements supplied by importers into the United States of the cost in foreign countries of the sugars which they import. The table has been adapted from the Monthly Summary of Commerce and Finance of the United States, January 1902, prepared in the Bureau of Statistics, Treasury Department, Washington Government Printing Office, 1902.


Table III.

Quantities of raw and refined cane and beet sugar in tons avoirdupois imported into the United Kingdom in 1870 and in 1875, and yearly from 1880 to 1901 inclusive, with the consumption per head of the population in lb and the price per cwt. of raw and refined sugar.
Year. Raw Cane. Raw Beet. Refined Cane. Refined Beet. Total. Consumption per head. Total. Price per cwt.
Raw. Refined. Raw. Refined.
Tons. Tons. Tons. Tons. Tons. lb lb lb s. d. s. d.
1870 556,000 84,000 3,000 82,000 725,000
1875 556,000 107,000 10,000 128,000 956,000 30.64 8.88 59.52 21 2 30 4
1880 590,000 260,000 11,000 140,000 1,001,000 51.09 9.46 60.55 21 9 29 5
1881 623,000 310,000 5,000 135,000 1,071,000 56.61 8.44 64.45 21 9 28 11
1882 726,000 265,000 6,000 133,000 1,130,000 58.78 8.38 67.16 21 1 28 8
1883 597,000 420,000 7,000 157,000 1,183,000 58.73 9.87 68.10 20 1 27 2
1884 582,000 399,000 53,000 160,000 1,194,000 55.57 12.58 68.15 15 6 28 21
1885 561,000 410,000 114,000 152,000 1,237,000 55.46 15.75 71.21 13 10 18 2
1886 468,000 339,000 71,000 247,000 1,125,000 44.61 18.75 63.36 13 0 16 8
1887 439,000 461,000 39,000 311,000 1,250,000 50.80 20.25 71.05 12 1 15 8
1888 574,000 319,000 2,000 342,000 1,237,000 47.97 19.99 67.96 13 5 17 3
1889 470,000 407,000 1,000 448,000 1,326,000 48.38 26.54 74.92 15 5 19 8
1890 283,000 503,000 15,000 484,000 1,285,000 42.87 28.22 71.09 12 6 16 4
1891 349,000 461,000 27,000 540,000 1,377,000 45.O8 32.94 78.02 12 10 16 6
1892 386,000 429,000 2,000 529,000 1,346,000 44.58 30.63 75.21 13 0 17 1
1893 363,000 434,000 2,000 575,000 1,379,000 42.41 33.17 75.53 14 2 13 4
1894 324,000 391,000 1,000 696,000 1,412,000 37.18 39.90 77.08 11 5 15 6
1895 388,000 463,000 1,000 706,000 1,558,000 45.28 40.10 85.38 9 7 13 4
1896 381,000 406,000 1,000 738,000 1,526,000 40.94 41.53 82.47 10 5 13 7
1897 242,000 434,000 1,000 793,000 1,469,000 34.52 43.92 73.44 9 0 12 3
1898 286,000 478,000 1,000 825,000 1,560,000 39.89 45.29 85.18 9 8 12 5
1899 186,000 469,000 1,000 889,000 1,545,000 35.63 48.68 84.31 10 6 12 7
1900 150,000 512,000 1,000 961,000 1,624,000 35.48 52.23 87.71 10 5 12 10
1901 178,472 526,451 1,000 1,079,553 1,785,476 36.80 56.40 93.20 10 6 12 0

of 1902 had thus been renewed in a modified form. Great Britain, instead of agreeing to prohibit the importation of bounty-fed sugar, was allowed to permit it under certain limits. Russia, which gave bounties, was to be allowed to send into European markets not more than 1,000,000 tons within the next five years, and Great Britain undertook to give certificates guaranteeing that sugar refined in the United Kingdom and exported had not been bounty-fed. The renewal of the convention was disapproved by certain Liberal politicians, who insisted that the price of sugar had been raised by the convention; and Sir Edward Grey said that the government had intended to denounce the convention, but other countries had urged that Great Britain had induced them to enter into it, and to alter their fiscal system for that purpose, and it would be unfair to upset the arrangement. Besides, denunciation would not have meant a return to prior conditions; for other-countries would have continued the convention, and probably with success, and would have proposed prohibitive or retaliatory duties in respect of British sugar, with bad results politically. Still the British government had been prepared to denounce the convention in view of the penal clause which had ensured the exclusion of bounty-fed sugar, either directly or through the imposition of an extra duty. But this had been removed, and it was now unreasonable to insist on denunciation. Russia would have made the same arrangement she had obtained had we seceded from the convention. She had formerly sent to England about 40,000 tons of sugar yearly; she might now send 200,000 tons. Was this limitation a reason for sacrificing the advantages we had gained? Under the original terms of the convention Great Britain might have been asked to close her ports to sugar proceeding from one country or another. This was now impossible.