The act was passed by Parliament on 5 April 1764, New England ports especially suffered economic losses from the Sugar Act as the stricter enforcement made smuggling
molasses more dangerous and risky. Also they argued that the profit margin on
rum was too small to support any tax on molasses. Forced to increase their prices, many colonists feared being priced out of the market. The
British West Indies, on the other hand, now had unrestricted exports. With supply of molasses well exceeding demand, the islands prospered with their reduced expenses while New England ports saw revenue from their rum exports decrease. Additionally, the West Indies had been the primary colonial source for hard currency, or
specie, and as the reserves of specie were depleted the soundness of colonial currency was threatened. Two prime movers behind the protests against the Sugar Act were
Samuel Adams and
James Otis, both of
Massachusetts. In May 1764 Samuel Adams drafted a report on the Sugar Act for the Massachusetts assembly, in which he denounced the act as an infringement of the rights of the colonists as British subjects: In August 1764, fifty
Boston merchants agreed to stop purchasing British luxury imports, and in both Boston and
New York City there were movements to increase colonial manufacturing. There were sporadic outbreaks of violence, most notably in
Rhode Island. Overall, however, there was not an immediate high level of protest over the Sugar Act in either New England or the rest of the colonies. That would begin in the later part of the next year when the
Stamp Act 1765 (
5 Geo. 3. c. 12) was passed. The act was replaced with the
Revenue Act 1766 (
6 Geo. 3. c. 52), which reduced the tax to one penny per gallon on molasses imports, British or foreign. This occurred around the same time that the
Stamp Act 1765 was repealed. The whole act was repealed by section 1 of, and the schedule to, the
Statute Law Revision Act 1867 (
30 & 31 Vict. c. 59), which came into force on 15 July 1867. ==See also==