§ MR. BARKLYobserved, that the present sugar duties might expire before the resolution now under discussion could go through Committee, and a Bill founded on it be passed. He begged to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken the circumstances into his consideration, and what course he proposed to adopt?
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied, that there was only one course open. The Government were endeavouring to pass the resolution as fast as possible, so that it might be reported to the House forthwith. In cases where duties were lowered on the one hand, and raised on the other, the duties were taken under Treasury orders when the resolution was reported to the House.
§ MR. BRIGHTunderstood from what the right hon. Gentleman had said, that whether a duty was raised or lowered, the new duties could be taken on the report of the resolution. When the corn duties were before the House, the question being one of protection, that course was not taken; and it seemed to be then held that such a course should be reserved for cases where the question was one of revenue. The present question was not brought forward with a view to improve the revenue; and he did not think it desirable to take that course which was not observed with respect to corn. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he had made arrangements with the very numerous parties who had cargoes of foreign sugar coming into the country, which cargoes were on their way, and which they expected to have entered after the 5th of July, at a duty of 18s. 6d. per cwt., instead of the duty now proposed 1315 by the Government? On the 3rd May, the noble Lord at the head of the Government had stated expressly that Ministers were not going to alter the Bill of 1846; and since that time he (Mr. Bright) had received letters from merchants stating that in the belief that the measure of 1846 would be adhered to, they had sent cargoes of sugar to this country. He wished to know whether Ministers considered it consistent with their duty to propose a new duty within three weeks after the declaration that the old duty would not be altered, without making an arrangement with importers, so that they might not be deprived of the 1s. 6d. per cwt., to the benefit of which they were entitled by the Act of 1846?
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERobserved, that it was perfectly true the course described by the hon. Gentleman had been taken on the corn duties. The general rule of acting on the resolution of the Committee had been stated on that occasion; but a departure was proposed in that case from the general rule. The same rule was followed with respect to all the customs articles in 1842.
§ MR. ROBINSONwished to know, supposing any importer refused to pay the higher rate of duty, if this measure had not passed into a law, what means had the Government of enforcing payment?
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied, that the Government would simply not allow the goods to be entered.
§ MR. BRIGHTwished to know if the Government intended to make any arrangement by which parties bringing in sugar under the expectation of entering it at 18s. 6d. would be allowed to enter it at 18s. 6d., especially as the noble Lord at the head of the Government had stated that it was not the intention of the Government to alter the sugar duties?
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhad already answered the hon. Gentleman. The question was, in fact, whether foreign sugar now in bond and cargoes afloat, to use the technical expression, were to be admitted at a duty of 18s. 6d. per cwt. His answer was, that according to the invariable practice, when the duty was raised from 18s. 6d. to 20s. per cwt. on foreign brown clayed sugar, the additional duty would be levied, whether notice was given or not (it was never given), on all the sugar liable to the duty.
§ MR. R. C. HILDYARDwished to ask the Attorney General, if a party tendered 1316 on the 5th July, the only duty which by law, as distinct from a resolution of that House, could be demanded, and refused to pay any higher duty, and the Government refused to release his goods, whether the Government would be liable for any loss the party might sustain in the matter? This was a question not of precedent, but of law.
The ATTORNEY GENERALapprehended that a resolution of that House would be recognised by the subsequent passing of the Bill which had been founded upon it. The rule would be this—if the House of Commons resolved that a given duty should be imposed upon goods before they were entered for home consumption, it was fairly to be presumed (and the practice proceeded upon the presumption) that the House would pass a Bill founded upon that resolution; and, as the Bill related to a matter of money, it was not supposed that the other House would interfere with the resolution. The Government would therefore give an order to officers to act on that resolution. He admitted that an action would lie; but before it would be ripe for investigation the Act of Parliament would have received Her Majesty's assent that from and after the 5th of July such and such duties should be levied, and that would be a perfect answer to the action.
§ MR. HUDSONrecollected when no duty was payable upon corn for a day or two; and that the decision of the court in a case in which it had nevertheless been levied was, that not only the duty should be refunded, but all loss and detriment suffered by the party should be made good by the Government also.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the ground of that decision was in truth a confirmation of the view he took of the present case. The case to which the hon. Member referred was one in which an action was brought against the custom-house officers for refusing to allow corn to enter for home comsumption without payment of any duty whatever; and for this simple reason—a resolution having passed that House during the Administration of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Peel) for an alteration of the duties on corn, a mistake had occurred in drawing up the resolution, by which an interval of one day was allowed to elapse between the expiry of the old duties and the imposition of the new, and the Government having levied duty upon corn entered on that one day, were obliged by the court to refund it. If 1317 the resolution had gone back to the moment when the old duty expired, that would have been a perfect defence.