( « ) 
mantis, that these our fellow subjects should he 
placed on the same footing as the cultivators 
of Chicory at home, and that, therefore, the 
Excise should levy the same duty on home¬ 
grown Chicory, as the Customs do on British 
Plantation Coffee,while Foreign Chicory ought 
to pay the same duty as Foreign Coffee. This 
is so clearly the case,—is so necessary a con¬ 
sequence of our whole present system of co¬ 
lonial and commercial policy, and would at the 
same time, bo attended by fiscal results so 
acceptable, that it is needless to do 
more than merely enounce the proposi¬ 
tion, in order to obtain a general assent to it. 
In the case of Sugar, Parliament has, in fact, 
ever since 1837, recognized and acted on the 
principle of it. By the 1 Vic. cap. 57, the same 
duty was imposed on home-made Sugar from 
Beer-rcoq as on British Plantation Sugar from 
the Cane, and by 3 and 4 Vic. cap. 57, the 
application of the former act was extended to 
home-made Sugar from any substance whatever. 
That- fact must ho regarded as settling the 
question, for no one will argue that our Coffee 
planters are not entitled to the same measure of 
justice os our Sugar planters, and granting this 
is to grant all that is here contended for. 
—“The present duty on Foreign ravvorkiln- 
•diied Chicory is 20s. per Cwb, and on roasted 
or ground ditto, 6d. per lb., and the clearances 
for consumption of it in London amounted in 
1647 to 2 of a million lbs., and last year to § 
of a million lbs. yielding a very insignificant 
revenue.—The gross excise duty collected on home- 
made Sugar at the rate of 24s. per Cut. up to 
Ajjril, 1845, and 14s. subsequently, averaged 
