Release date is 2026-04-20

The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (Yale University Library)

A comparison between the British sugar colonies and New England, as they relate…. by an unidentified author is a political-economic pamphlet written in the early 18th century. It argues from a mercantilist viewpoint that Britain’s sugar islands are a dependable, perpetual source of wealth, while New England’s expanding commerce and industry threaten to rival Britain and drift toward independence. The likely topic is a policy case for Parliament to protect and encourage the sugar colonies and to restrict New England’s trade with French and Dutch competitors, especially in rum and molasses.

The work contends that New England has already undercut Britain in navigation and fisheries, dabbles in rival manufactures (hats, woollens, iron), and enriches French sugar islands by supplying lumber and distilling foreign molasses into inferior “kill-devil” spirits. It argues the sugar islands, being small and scattered, cannot become independent and produce goods unlike Britain’s, so their interests align permanently with the mother country. The author rebuts New England’s objections—claiming there is ample capacity in Barbados, Antigua, Montserrat, Nevis, St. Kitts, and especially Jamaica to increase sugar and rum output and absorb all needed lumber; that island monopolies are impossible; and that French northern colonies won’t accept rum, so foreign molasses lacks other outlets. An appended letter to a Member of Parliament expands the case with estimates of rum needs, critiques inflated fishery figures, outlines revenue losses when foreign molasses bypasses duties, and urges New England to focus on supplying naval stores and grains rather than competing in shipping and manufacture. The piece concludes that Parliament must curb the French-linked molasses trade, bolster the sugar islands, and thereby secure Britain’s trade, revenue, and maritime strength. (This is an automatically generated summary.)

Originally published: London: James Roberts, 1732