Hinton (question)

The so-called Hinton question, which has often been stirred up in the press, in parliament, within the administrative bodies, in diplomatic circles, in cabinet meetings and even at public rallies, had its origin in the regime of privilege granted by the governments of mainland Portugal to the industrialist Henrique Hinton, owner of the Torreão Factory (Fábrica do Torreão). It gave him the exclusive right to manufacture sugar and alcohol, subject to certain conditions, the chief of which was the obligation to buy the sugar cane grown on the south coast of the island at a price fixed beforehand by law. This regime was granted through various laws and decrees, almost identical in their fundamental provisions, although they differ from one another on some points of secondary importance.

The sugar regime (regímen sacarino, the legal regime governing sugar and alcohol production), which was in force in Madeira for nearly a quarter of a century, was a remarkable source of prosperity for this archipelago. The consistently rewarding price of sugar cane led farmers to grow this crop on a large scale. Rural property thus rose considerably in value, and this had a very beneficial effect on the economic life of the district.

The first period of the sugar regime (regímen sacarino, the legal regime governing sugar and alcohol production) began with the decree of 30 December 1895, which created the optional registration (matrícula facultativa) of sugar and alcohol factories. The decree of 24 September 1903 and its regulations of 24 December 1904 introduced various changes to the regime of 1895. The law of 24 November 1904 strengthened the provisions of the regime then in force, while amending some of them. Less than four years later, parliament enacted a new sugar regime with the law of 9 September 1908. This was replaced by the decree of 11 March 1911, and finally came the decrees of 12 April and 2 May 1919, which put an end to the sugar monopoly. This last enactment contains certain provisions that are generally considered harmful to the interests of the cane growers, but which the decree of 12 April 1920, now in force, has not repealed.