Commons Sitting of 1 August 1851

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT.—For Downpatrick, v. Richard Ker, Esq. Chiltern Hundreds.
PUBLIC BILLS.—3° New Zealand Settlements; Lunatics (India); Collection of Fines, &c. (Ireland).

COUNTY COURTS FURTHER EXTENSION BILL.
House in Committee.
The ATTORNEY GENERALmoved that the following Clause should be added to the Bill:—
"And whereas it is provided by Act 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, s. 40, that the salaries to be received in any case by the Judges and clerks of County Courts, shall be 1,200 l. by a Judge, and 600 l. by a clerk, be it enacted that after the passing of this Act, the greatest salaries to be received in any case by the said Judges and clerks respectively, shall be 1,500 l. by a Judge, and 700 l. by a clerk."
As they were now going to impose on these Judges additional duties, including a very important part of the business now transacted in the offices of the Masters in Chancery, he thought it would only be justice
1808
to give them a commensurate increase in their incomes.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he objected to the clause. In many cases the Judges of these Courts were not more than half employed; and as they did not in general now receive more than 1,000 l. a year, he thought the power which already existed to raise their salaries to 1,200 l. would be quite sufficient to secure their adequate remuneration for the additional duties to be imposed upon them. No one at present knew what the amount of those duties would be; but should it turn out that they were, not sufficiently paid at 1,200 l. a year, he should not then object to assent to the provisions of the proposed clause. He would suggest that, except perhaps at Manchester and Liverpool, the County Court Judges should be invested with a jurisdiction in bankruptcy. In some parts of the country, especially in Wales, parties experienced considerable inconvenience from the distance which they had to travel to attend the Courts of Bankruptcy.
MR. COLLINSsaid, it was his intention to oppose the Clause. Its object was to increase the salaries of the Judges from 1,000 l. and 1,200 l. a year, to 1,500 l. a year. He believed that 1,000 l. a year was quite sufficient to secure the services of eminent lawyers, and that 1,200 l. a year would be abundant compensation for any additional labour thrown upon them. He was fortified in this opinion by the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who declared last Session that 1,000 l. a year was quite sufficient salary for the Judges of the County Courts.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLwas by no means of opinion that the salary proposed to be given to the Judges of County Courts was too much. In the county of Sussex, with which he was best acquainted, the Judges had, in some instances, to travel 100 miles to reach their Courts. He wished to know whether it was intended to give the Judges the whole salary of 1,500 l., as none of them had more than 1,000 l. a year at present.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the object of the clause was to make the maximum salary 1,500 l. a year. Several of the Judges had now more onerous duties to perform than others, and it was proposed to give them 1,500 l. a year.
MR. CLAYsaid, that up to this time, in his opinion, the County Court Judges had not received sufficient remuneration

1809
for their services. The words "not exceeding 1,200 l." he always understood to mean "1,200 l.;" and yet they had been paid in most cases not more than 1,000 l. This had been adding insult to injury, and he should like to hear from the Government that it was intended to have a minimum salary of 1,200 l.
SIR GEORGE STRICKLANDhad great confidence in County Courts, and wished to see their respectability maintained, and the Judges properly paid. They were increasing in importance every day, and he should support the clause.
MR. AGLIONBYwould also support the Clause, and in the absence of any opposition, save that offered by two hon. Gentlemen, hoped that the Committee would at once agree to it, and would determine that the minimum salary should be 1,200 l. per annum.
MR. BECKETT DENISONsaid, that there was a greater difference in the amount of work to be done in different districts than there was between 1,200 l. and 1,500 l. a year. In fact, he knew that some districts were better worth 1,500 l. than others were worth 1,000 l. He found nothing in the clause about a minimum salary, and he should prefer to leave the proportion in the hands of the proper authorities.
MR. MULLINGSsaid, that he should support the clause. In some cases he knew that the Judges were monstrously overworked. He was acquainted with one of the most active, who had assured him that without a deputy it would have been impossible for him to get through his work, and that his salary had only left him a clear income of 700 l. a year.
MR. J. WILLIAMSwould urge upon the Government to transfer the bankruptcy business of North Wales to the County Court Judges in the districts. It was well known that creditors in North Wales lost thousands a year because they could not go to Liverpool to prove small debts before Commissioners who did not understand the Welsh language. He approved of the proposition to raise the salaries of the Judges of these Courts, and he would suggest that the duties of the revising barristers should be also transferred to them, by which means a saving would be effected of 1,200 l. a year.
SIR JOHN DUCKWORTHexpressed his approval of the clause, as he thought the County Court Judges were not sufficiently paid.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he would not divide the Committee.
MR. HARDCASTLEsaid, he wished to propose an Amendment that it was expedient to provide salaries for assistant clerks in those cases where the office of clerk is held by the same individual for more than one Court. He was assured, on competent authority, that the duties of the district assistant clerks were by far more onerous than those of any other officer of the Court. The Amendment which he begged to propose would be to give 300 l. to the assistant clerk, such assistant clerk being an attorney of, and duly admitted in, one of the Superior Courts.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTapproved of the Amendment, and would suggest that as the work was all done by the assistant clerks throughout the country, the office of clerk might be dispensed with altogether.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the Amendment might lead to great abuses. A certain sum was allowed for clerks' work, and the principal clerk very properly appointed a deputy clerk to assist him.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the Amendment, if agreed to, would treble the expense of the County Court system, because an assistant clerk would have to be appointed in every district.
MR. COLLINSsaid, it was his intention to support the Amendment. In his own neighbourhood the assistant clerk had to keep his office open from ten till four o'clock, and all the remuneration he received was 70 l. a year.
Amendment withdrawn; Clause agreed to. Other Clauses moved and agreed, to.
Preamble agreed to.
House resumed. Bill reported.

CHURCH BUILDING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Bill, as amended, considered.
The SOLICITOR GENERALmoved the addition of the following Clause after Clause 29:—
"After next avoidance, Bishop may cause a church to be provided in any benefice having a population of forty persons, and an income exceeding 150 l., where there has been no church for ten years."
Clause brought up, and read 1°.
Motion made, "That the said Clause be now read a Second Time."
MR. FREWENsaid, he must complain that he had not been fairly treated in this matter. He thought this clause would not apply to a great number of cases which

1811
he thought ought to be met by such a provision, He objected also to the clause being limited to incomes of 150 l. a year. He thought, likewise, that the clause ought to be made to apply to benefices which were now void.
The SOLICITOR GENERALcould assure the hon. Member (Mr. Frewen) that he had endeavoured bonâ fide to carry out what appeared to be the expressed wish of the House when this Bill was last under its consideration. He admitted the clause assumed rather a strong character, but he had founded it on the precedent which enabled a bishop to compel a clergyman to erect a parsonage house. The hon. Member said 150 l. was too high a sum; but he would remind the hon. Gentleman that a bishop could compel a clergyman with an income of only 150 l. a year to build a parsonage. Where there was no parsonage house the clergyman could be charged 600 l. upon his income of 150 l. to provide a parsonage house, the payment of that 600 l. being spread over a period of thirty years. By this clause he would be charged with the payment of 750 l. more, which would reduce the annual value of the benefice to little more than 100 l. But if the hon. Gentleman reduced the sum below 150 l., then on an income below that sum the clergyman would have to pay from 1,200 l. to 1,300 l. over a period of thirty years.
SIR JOHN DUCKWORTHsaid, he must protest against the passing of a clause involving so important a principle in the way proposed. With regard to the building of parsonage houses, that was a legitimate charge on the fund set apart for the income of the clergyman; but this clause went on a totally different principle. As the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Frewen) who introduced the clause first of all, to which this was an amendment, had stated that the clause as now altered was not one to which he attached any value, he (Sir J. Duckworth) trusted the Government would allow it to be negatived.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, in his opinion this Clause proceeded in a wrong direction. His view of dealing with the case would be this: that the bishop should exercise the power which he had of insisting that a clergyman should live in his parish, and then the building of a parsonage house would very soon be accomplished.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, if the House was opposed to the proposition, he was not disposed to press it.
Question put, and negatived.
Amendments made; Bill to be read 3° To-morrow.

EPISCOPAL AND CAPITULAR ESTATES MANAGEMENT (No. 2) BILL.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
Mr. J. A. SMITHasked whether the noble Lord at the head of the Government would lay on the table of the House the rules by which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners proposed to be guided in dealing with the lessees of Church property now under the control of the Commissioners?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, there were no rules that had been made by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners since the Report of the Committee of the House of Lords, and therefore there were no rules of the kind to which the hon. Member alluded which could be laid on the table of the House. He believed the Committee of the House of Lords consisted in great part of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and therefore it might be supposed those Commissioners were acquainted with the views of that Committee.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLasked whether hon. Members could be furnished with copies of the minutes of evidence taken in the House of Lords, before the House proceeded further with this Bill?
MR. SPOONERsaid, the evidence had been ordered to be printed.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, the Bill was brought down late on the 31st of July, and read a second time yesterday (Thursday), and he had asked if hon. Members might not have the evidence printed and placed in their hands before they proceeded with this Bill.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, no such rules of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had been laid on the table of the House.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, the Committee, having no duties imposed upon them by this Bill, had not framed any rules or regulations with regard to a measure which had not received the assent of Parliament.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYthought it was not a fair or reasonable course to ask the House to go into Committee on this Bill until the evidence taken in the other House of Parliament was printed, and in the hands of Members.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the Bill was merely of a permissive character,

1813
its object being to enable all parties to do what they could not now do, if they thought fit to avail themselves of the provisions of the Bill. The evidence taken before the House of Lords could have no bearing upon that question.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYthought the hon. and learned Gentleman had given the best reason for delay. It would be useless to discuss the principle of dealing with the property which was the subject of the Bill, until they had the evidence before them on which the Bill was founded.
COLONEL THOMPSONwished to have his lay intellect distinctly informed whether it was or was not intended by this Bill to force an agreement on any unwilling parties? [Several Hon. MEMBERS on the Ministerial bench: No, no!] He assumed, then, that it was distinctly asserted that the Bill only gave a power in some quarter to legalise an agreement made between consenting parties. If that was so, there could be no objection to its going into Committee. He voted upon that assurance.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, the Bill was only permissive. It did not compel any party to enter into the agreement in question; but he was sorry to say there were more contracting parties to those agreements than two. There were the lessees on the one hand, and the ecclesiastical bodies on the other; and, thirdly, there were the Church Estates Commissioners.
MR. GOULBURN: They were consenting parties.
MR. AGLIONBY: Very well; but if a permissive agreement could not be carried into effect without the consent of those Commissioners, he could regard them in no other light than as parties to the contract. He asked the Government and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goulburn), under the circumstances, to postpone the further consideration of the Bill until the next Session of Parliament.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, the noble Lord at the head of the Government must be aware that there was a strong feeling in the House that the present system of taking fines upon leases should be abolished. Everybody was agreed upon that point. But the real question was, whether those hon. Members who were the representatives in Parliament of the lessees, and the lessees themselves, should have time to consider the Bill now brought under the consideration of the House? He contended, if the noble Lord was sincere in his wish to abolish the existing
1814
system—and he (Sir B. Hall) believed he was—and if the noble Lord wished them to have a fair Bill, he ought to give them a fair time for considering it. Why should they be put in a worse position in that House than noble Lords were in the other, where ample time had been given for considering the whole subject? The Commissioners had made two reports, the one in January and the other in July, 1850, which were most admirably calculated to carry out the objects which hon. Members had in view. The principles on which the lessors and lessees ought to act were those which were embodied in those two reports of the Commissioners. If the gentlemen forming that Commission had any leaning, it would rather be in favour of the episcopal and capitular bodies, and certainly not in favour of the lessees. A Bill was founded on those reports. The grounds on which that Bill proceeded were greatly in favour of the lessors, though it was said to be founded on the reports of the Commissioners. That Bill was brought in by Lord Carlisle, sanctioned by the episcopal and capitular bodies, and by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Hon. Members were naturally led to believe, when the Government brought in a Bill of that kind, defining clearly the grounds on which enfranchisements were to go, that such a measure would have passed. The very day on which that Bill was read a second time, an objection was taken to it by the Bishops; and the only ground on which it was permitted to be read a second time was, that it should be referred to a Select Committee of the other House of Parliament. It was referred to a Committee. Of whom was that Committee composed? It was composed of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, and the Bishops of London, Winchester, Lincoln, Salisbury, Norwich, Oxford, and St. Asaph. [An Hon. MEMBER: Read on.] There were laymen he (Sir B. Hall) admitted; but there were nine of the Episcopal Bench and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who ought not to have sat in a Committee on the Bill, they being parties interested in the matter. The great evil as regarded Select Committees was, that parties were put on them who had a positive interest either in the progress or the stopping of the measure which was before them. No such parties ought to appear in the Committee, except as witnesses. The Bill was read a second time in the latter end of April. It was referred to a Select Com-

1815
mittee on the 22nd of May, and those right rev. Prelates, being so interested, sat on the Bill together with laymen. What was the principal object of that Bill? It was an excellent object. The second clause provided that the Church Estates Commissioners should be the commissioners for carrying the Act into execution. That was exactly what he (Sir B. Hall) and those whom he represented desired. What were those Commissioners to do? According to the third clause, they wore to summon and examine witnesses and to call for returns. That ought to be the very object of the Church Estates Commissioners: and it ought to be the object of the Government that they, the laity, who constituted the vast community of the Church, should know what was the property of the Church through the medium of the Church Estates Commissioners. What took place in consequence of those two clauses? The Bill having been referred to a Committee on the 22nd May, after having been in Committee exactly two months, a report was made that it was not expedient to proceed further with the Bill. The Bill was consequently rejected. What followed? There was a Bill ready prepared by the Bishops, who were ever watchful of their own interests, and it was brought down to the House and printed on 24th July. Now let them look at the indecent haste with which that Bill was pushed through both Houses of Parliament. The Bill now before the House was only introduced two days after the report of the Committee to which he had referred, on the 24th July. It was read a second time on 25th July, committed on the 28th, and read a third time on the 29th. It was then sent down to the House of Commons on the 31st July, printed on the following morning, and they were asked to take the second reading of it six or seven hours after they had received it. And now they were asked, twenty-four hours after they had received it, to go into Committee on the measure. He said that was a disgraceful thing; and after that statement of facts, if the noble Lord insisted on pressing the Bill, he (Sir B. Hall) must say he was labouring under some species of episcophobia, for which he should seek a remedy as soon as possible. The proceedings that had taken place in the House with regard to this Bill, had caused a sort of consternation among the lessees in and about the metropolis. The Bill placed the whole property of the lessees in
1816
the hands of the episcopal body; the lessees had no power of redress: and the House was now called on to sanction such a monstrous proposition as that. It was said yesterday that it was rather hard he should take so active a part, as he did not represent lessees. If he (Sir B. Hall) was not the representative of lessees, he should like to know who was. He represented the most valuable Church property in existence, namely, that in the county of Middlesex. He represented the Church property in the parish of Paddington, the annual value of which, on the parochial assessment, was about 360,000 l. Nearly the whole of that parish belonged to the Bishop of London. There were 2,500 lessees there interested in the passing of this Bill, and he would undertake to say there were very few of those persons who then knew what the House was doing with reference to their interests. They ought to have a Bill brought in, denned in its purpose, and laying down the grounds on which enfranchisement was to take place, and they ought to reject this Bill, because, according to the 8th clause, it left everything to be transacted by a body who had not the confidence of the country, and to correct the abuses of which an Act had to be passed last Session. The whole powers of this Bill were then to be placed in the hands of those who had perpetuated those abuses. The House and the country had condemned the Ecclesiastical Commissioners as unworthy of confidence, and yet this was the body in whom the noble Lord would place the power of making rules to determine the terms on which sales with lessees should take place. Did they suppose that those clever and astute-minded prelates, having the power to ride over the authority of the Church Estate Commissioners, would neglect the opportunity placed within their reach? He contended, if they passed this clause, that they would be doing away with the whole of the legislation of last Session, and that they would be re-enacting that system which had cost them so much time and labour to expose and to defeat. He had said that the progress of this Bill caused much consternation in the minds of lessees of ecclesiastical property. That morning, upon coming into the House, he was met by a body of lessees holding-property from the Bishop of Winchester, and a document was put into his hand, which was a circular requiring the attendance of lessees to take into consideration the provisions of a Bill in the House of

1817
Lords, by which their interests were affected. The meeting was to take place upon Monday, the 4th of August, in Lantstreet, in the Borough. Why, before that day, if the Government persisted in this Bill, the very one referred to would become the law of the land, and they would dispose of the interests of these men without giving them even the opportunity of being heard. Now, if these people, who were in the vicinity of their House, had not an opportunity of considering the matter, was it possible that the lessees of the bishoprics of Durham and York could pass an opinion on a question so deeply affecting their interests? The circular concludes by calling upon the lessees to resist this gross infringement upon their rights, and assures them that if they did not look to their own interests, there was no person who would. That was, in point of fact, saying that the Bishops would not. He did not object to the principle of the Bill. What he objected to was the hurried mode of legislation upon such an important question, and the mode in which the principle was to be carried out. He showed, the other night, that two of the most important Acts relating to the Church temporalities had been hurried through Parliament with the most indecent haste. He made reference to the 3rd & 4th William IV., which received the Royal Assent on the 14th of August, 1833, and the 3rd & 4th Victoria, chap. 113, which received the Royal Assent on the 11th of August, 1840. This Bill was worse than either of those. They might call it a permissive Bill, but they might rely on it its operation would be exceedingly dangerous. All they intended to do was this—to pass this Bill, which could not be acted upon, but then to say, we have passed a precedent, and upon that precedent we will fashion our future proceedings. The exposure of the ecclesiastical body contained in the blue book was fresh in the mind of the people. If they pushed this Bill through upon the 2nd of August, with the full influence of the Government, when Members had left London, there would be a greater feeling of disgust than there had been already exhibited. Moreover, if this Bill were proceeded with, it would be a breach of faith on the part of the noble Lord. It was most distinctly stated by the Government, when the Bill was in the House of Lords, that it was not likely that the Bill would come down to the House this Session. When a Minister made a statement, they did not act upon the strict letter of that
1818
statement, but upon the spirit: and the spirit of that statement was that they would not be called upon to legislate upon that subject during the present Session. That was his impression; and if he had left town, it would have been with that belief. He would willingly go into Committee upon the Bill, provided there was a declaration that they would not be asked to take the third reading of the Bill this Session. In Committee they might make it as good a Bill as they could, and leave it to be considered in the next Session of Parliament. But if this promise were not given, he would oppose the Bill in every manner that lay in his power.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLhad in vain endeavoured to learn what were the objections entertained by the hon. Baronet to this Bill. If his hon. Friend had made any tangible objection against the course he proposed to take, he (Lord J. Russell) would have been very glad at that period of the Session to spare himself any trouble with respect to a Bill of this kind, and to postpone it to another year; but really the hon. Gentleman's objections were quite impalpable. The hon. Gentleman said he had no objection to the principle of the Bill; and the only fault, indeed, that he had found with any part of the measure was, with regard to certain words in the 8th clause. Now, those words were perfectly open to discussion and amendment. He (Lord J. Russell) would gladly consent to amend them, if it should be the opinion of the House that any alteration ought to be made; but he did not think the fact that there were two words in one of the clauses to which his hon. Friend objected, was a sufficient reason for rejecting the Bill. The only other ground on which the hon. Baronet opposed the Bill was, that the history of the measure was such, that he felt bound to object to it. He (Lord John Russell) agreed, that if it were now proposed to lay down positive rules in this Bill with respect to the enfranchisement of the estates in question, it might be reasonable to say that there was no time to consider whether the conditions were fair or not; that it was impossible to legislate positively on the subject; and that the Bill ought to be postponed. But the history of this Bill was precisely similar to that of many other measures of the same kind. After endeavours had been made for months in a Committee of the House of Lords to settle terms upon which the ecclesiastical corporations and the lessees might come to some arrangement as to their re-

1819
spective interests, no such terms could be agreed upon, and it was then proposed that the corporations and the lessees should be left to make their own terms, and that no positive terms should be laid down by Parliament. There were, therefore, no positive terms laid down by this Bill, which was permissive only in its nature. What was there in that conclusion that was objectionable? It was not in the object of the Bill, which was the enfranchisement of these lands; and it was admitted that the enfranchisement of these lands was by no means objectionable. Then, were there any parties who would suffer damage? The ecclesiastical corporations could not suffer, because they must be consenting parties to the enfranchisement. The lessees could hardly be sufferers either; because they too must be consenting parties; and if the terms proposed by the bishop or any ecclesiastical corporations were too hard or severe, the lessee had nothing to do but to refuse those terms, and he remained in the same position as before. It might be, however, that the interest of a third party, of the greatest importance—the general interest of the Church and of the public—would suffer; but he thought it was a question to be considered in Committee on the Bill, whether that interest was sufficiently guarded. If his hon. Friend (Sir B. Hall) considered that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were not proper persons to guard that interest, they might consider in Committee whether the Church Estates Commissioners were the persons to whom such guardianship should be confided; but, certainly, there seemed nothing unfair or unjust in saying, "We will provide that none of these three parties shall suffer damage." If those three parties consented to particular terms, then no damage was likely to result to any of them. He (Lord J. Russell) certainly thought this was a Bill that ought to be considered in Committee; for, if in Committee they found that the security of the last interest he had mentioned—for the first two could hardly be neglected or wronged—was not sufficiently provided for, they might substitute some other body for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He must say he was disposed to think, with regard to Clause 8, that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were not the best body who could be selected for carrying out the measure, and in his opinion the Church Estates Commissioners would be a better body to intrust with the making of the rules. If this Bill had proposed to lay down terms
1820
and conditions upon which Church lands should be enfranchised, or the tenure should be changed, then strong objections might have been made against it. He did not see that there was any reasonable ground for opposing the Motion now made. He therefore trusted the House would agree to go into Committee; and as to the last objection, jealousy of the Ecclesiastical Commission, that was a matter which could be amended when they came to the consideration of the clause which appoints that body to decide the question.
MR. HENLEYremarked, that the noble Lord in his speech stated, that there were no reasons urged why the House should not proceed further with this Bill. But he overlooked the fact, that parties who were deeply interested had no time to become acquainted with its provisions. The Committee of the House of Lords bad recommended that legislation should be confined to farms and tithes; but this Bill dealt with mines, houses, and other descriptions of property. That was the principal reason urged in favour of delay, and he, for one, thought the reason was conclusive. The arrangements to be made under this Bill were to be regulated by an objectionable board, who might lay down rules and establish principles which rendered the Bill virtually inoperative; and when the lessees themselves came to Parliament to legislate equitably upon this subject, they would be met with the objection that a permissive law was already in existence, which must have a fair trial before any further legislation could take place. One of their objections to the Bill was, that they did not know on what terms the conditions were to be made. The noble Lord said that the lessees would not be damaged, because to any change under this Bill they would be consenting parties. But if this body, on whom he was now desirous to shift the responsibility, laid down rules of which the lessees did not approve, what chance would they have of getting a legislative means for dealing with the matter upon a fair principle? Now, he was anxious to guard against such a state of things as that, and he should support the hon. Baronet opposite in obtaining the postponement of this measure. It was perfectly indecent in the Government to force a Bill of this kind through the House in a manner which no one could have believed. More than one half the Members who had left London had not the most distant imagination that any legislation of this kind was to take place. The measure

1821
seemed to him to give an opportunity during the next six months for a few transactions, which had an ugly name which he did not wish to pronounce, that would be the result of the measure. If the noble Lord thought that the body whom he was about to empower to make these regulations, could do that which the Committee of the House of Lords had failed to do, let them by all means put them forward in the shape of a Bill, and bring them under discussion in the next Session of Parliament. If they were upon a sound principle, there would be no difficulty in legislating.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, it appeared to him that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were inclined to deny the prescriptive rights on the part of the lessees. He was an advocate for acknowledging the right of the tenant, who held a farm for a certain term, to a beneficial interest in the improvements he might make, for which compensation ought to be made him. There was no provision made by which the interests of these parties were to be estimated in the renewal or commutation of their leases, which had been practically acknowledged, and had acquired prescriptive, though perhaps not technical, legality, owing to the improvements of the properties which the lessees had effected, in reliance on the ancient and continuous practice of renewal. He shrank from the scandal that would be entailed on the Church by withholding that principle, and he therefore wished to have it fully recognised.
MR. SPOONERsupported the Bill, believing it would be for the interest both of the lessees and the Church, that this question should in some way be set at rest. It seemed to him impossible that any injustice could be done under its provisions, as before a lease could be avoided the consent of the lessee as well as of the lessor must be first obtained for the purpose. The report which had been referred to, recommended that in any arrangement that might be made with regard to episcopal and capitular property, due regard should be had to the just and reasonable claims of the present holders of such property, so that their rights were fully and completely recognised. He agreed with the noble Lord, that the administration of a measure of this kind ought not to be intrusted to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, for he did not think they possessed the confidence of the country; but he would have complete reliance upon the management of the Church Estates Com-
1822
mission. It was most desirable to give facilities for the alteration of the present system of leasing, due regard being had to the reasonable claims of the present holders; and he thought that Parliament ought, without delay, to place the lessors and lessees in a position which would give them an opportunity of settling their property.
MR. J. A. SMITHconsidered on the whole, that the wisest and best course the House could pursue, was to go into Committee; but he could not but be of opinion, that a Bill of this importance ought not to have been introduced at such a late period of the Session. He wished to guard himself from giving an unqualified assent to the principle of the Bill; and in Committee he reserved to himself the right of objecting to various portions of it, and proposing such alterations as he might think necessary. It was impossible not to regret that the evidence and report taken upon this question had not been placed upon the table of the House. There was one passage in the latter document against which he must enter his protest. In the last paragraph of the Report, he found the following words:—"And the Committee look forward to the result of such voluntary dealings as furnishing a safe basis for compulsory enfranchisement." Now, he would enter his strong protest against their being taken for any such basis. He did not believe that the interest of the lessees would be best entrusted in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, for there was one circumstance which was most discreditable to that body, and that was, in their dealings with the lessees, they charged them 5 per cent, while against themselves they only charged three and a half per cent. It was exceedingly to the honour of the Bishop of Lincoln that he disavowed all share or knowledge of this rule, The whole of the working of this measure would depend upon rules to be made by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but which Parliament was not to see before the passing of the Bill.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTthought it was only trifling with the House for the Government to attempt to force the Bill with this indecent haste. Considering that the interests of his constituents wore deeply affected by it, and that they had not sufficient time to consider its provisions, he would move that the debate be now adjourned.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
MR. ALCOCKmentioned the case of a number of sub-lessees of the Bishop of Winchester, who would be placed at the mercy of the first lessee, should the latter choose to enfranchise. On the ground that sufficient time had not been given for consideration, he would vote against going into Committee.
MR. AGLIONBYwas a lessee, and was interested still more for friends whom he could not now consult. He was very anxious to see the question satisfactorily settled, and he should vote for going into Committee and going through the clauses, and in Committee endeavour to get the objections which he had felt obviated, and to introduce amendments; and, if the Bill could be made more satisfactory to the lessees, he should consent to its going on. He wished to say that in giving notice of a Motion to substitute for the Church Estates Commission in this Bill some other independent Commission—he did not care what, but he had suggested the Copyhold Inclosure and Tithe Commissioners—he did not mean the slightest disrespect to the Church Estates Commissioners; personally he should be quite content to leave the matter entirely in the hands of those three gentlemen, and no doubt the public generally felt confidence in them.
MR. RICEexpressed himself entirely of the same opinion as the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, that all matters would be safe in the hands of the Church Estates Commissioners.
MR. MULLINGSwould be willing to go on with the Bill if he saw in it any indication of a consideration for the dormant interest, the tenant-right, as it was called, of the lessees. He apprehended that some lessees with strips of church land, perhaps adjoining or in the middle of their frehold estates, would purchase upon almost any terms; and those purchases might be taken as the basis of future legislation.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLquite agreed that it would be very unfair to take the prices given in such cases as the rule or basis for a compulsory act; but he also thought it was rather hard upon the parties referred to that they were not to be allowed to enfranchise, even though they would be glad to do it at a high price.
The House divided:—Ayes 30; Noes 51: Majority 21.
Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. J. STUARTobjected to go into Committee, on the ground of the House not having had time to consider the Bill; and
MR. FREWENmoved that the House go into Committee on this Bill that day three months. The Government must allow time to consider the measure.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'that' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee,' instead thereof."
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 48; Noes 37: Majority 11.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
House in Committee.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLwas ready to consent to the postponement of the consideration of the clauses till Monday. He believed no one would have more cause to regret the failure of the Bill, should it fail, than the lessees.
House resumed. Committee report progress.

SUGAR REFINING.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had to present a petition to which he wished to call the particular attention of the House. It proceeded from twenty-three of the great London sugar refining houses for the home market. He believed that in London there were only twenty-four or twenty-five of these firms, so that it might be regarded as the petition of almost the entire trade. It was signed by Mr. Martineau, Mr. Davies, and indeed by all the great sugar refiners in the metropolis. The prayer of the petitioners was, that no alteration whatever should be made in the law relating to sugar refining during the present Session; and they stated that they had heard of two proposals for alteration, one to alter the system of refining in bond generally, and the other to allow certain houses who manufactured in bond for export, to enter their produce for home consumption. Petitioners held that these alterations would injure their trade by the vexatious provisions it would he necessary to make for the protection of the revenue.
Petition ordered to lie on the table.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONrose to bring forward the following Motion, of which he had given notice:—
"That in the opinion of this House the British

1825
refiners of sugar should be permitted to refine in bond, and to enter their manufacture for home consumption upon payment of the same duties as are levied upon refined sugar imported into this country."
He feared that, after the unexpectedly protracted sitting of this morning, he should approach the subject which he was about to bring before the House under considerable disadvantage. But he could not allow the Session to close without pressing upon the attention of the Government and the House a question which, if it did not possess a very general and widely-spread interest, was of all the more importance to the parties who were immediately concerned. He approached that subject with no party feeling and no party object. His wish was to make a calm appeal to the House and the Government. He was sorry not to see the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place; but he saw the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade was present, and he would ask Her Majesty's Government to meet him on this topic, not with pretexts or excuses, but in this spirit and this manner, whether or not by reason and argument the question could not be settled; whether on the ground of consistency on the part of the Government themselves, and on strong grounds of justice, a material alteration ought not to be made in the law affecting the refining of sugar in this country. He would put the grounds of his Motion before the House as clearly and as concisely as he could. There were two classes of Her Majesty's subjects affected by the law—one, the refiners themselves, and the other the British grower of sugar in our Colonies. He would, in the first place, advert to the former class. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had just presented a petition from, as he said, a large proportion of the London trade; and he (Sir J. Pakington) was perfectly aware that the refiners of sugar in this country were divided in opinion as to the expediency of the change he was about to urge. He believed that in the metropolis they were so divided, and he held, also, that the majority of the trade in the metropolis were adverse to the change, and he would state the reasons which, in his opinion, influenced them in that view. But, taking the whole of England and Scotland, a very large proportion—one-half numerically—were not only in favour of, but greatly desirous of the change he was about to propose. They already al-
1826
lowed the refining of sugar in bond; they allowed sugar to be refined in bond for exportation, and had done so for the last twenty years; but they would not allow sugar to be refined in bond for home consumption. The consequence was, that a portion of the refiners who refined sugar in bond for exportation were exposed to a double hardship; they were met in the foreign market by the Dutch refiners—the Dutch refiners under the law of Holland received a bounty upon the refined sugar they exported; the amount he was not prepared to state, but he was within the mark when he said the bounty amounted at least to 2s. 6d. in the cwt. The result of this bounty on the part of the Dutch Government on the refined sugar exported from Holland was, that the refiners in bond for exportation were met by the Dutch sugar in foreign markets, and exposed to a disadvantage so serious that they were unable to compete with the Dutch refiners in the foreign markets. Under these circumstances, they naturally wished to have the option—an option they ought to have—of being able to come into the home market. He would state to the House and to the right hon. Gentleman the course which the refiners in bond were obliged to take to get the sugar when refined into the home market. They were obliged to export it to Jersey or Guernsey, let it touch the land, and then again import it into this country as if it had been exported from a foreign country. Thereby they were exposed to the double freights, and to the hardships of every kind that must result from this circuitous and troublesome, and perfectly absurd practice. He was assured that one of the refining houses in this country had last year spent no less than 1,300 l. in the charges that resulted from the absurd process of sending sugar to Jersey and Guernsey, that it might be brought back to this country as refined sugar imported from abroad. That was a part of the system, and he called upon the Government to defend it if they could. There were other refiners, especially some of the refiners in Scotland, who, by scientific inventions, had advanced very much in the process of refinement. They converted at a cheap rate the coarser sugar into refined sugar; but if the Government persevered in carrying out the present law, when those days arrived which they contemplated, when all sugars would be on a par with respect to duty in this country, these refiners said their trade would cease,

1827
they could not contend with such disadvantages, and it would be impossible for them to come into the market on fair terms. With respect to the petition which the right hon. Gentleman had presented, he admitted at once that there were some refiners who, for their own interests and objects—to which he would presently advert—were adverse to his proposition; but there were many others who strongly advocated that proposition, and he called upon the Government to meet him on this point, namely, that the trade of these persons was seriously injured, and that the Government on their own avowed principles were bound to relieve them. Having said so much with respect to the case of the export refiners, he would no more advert to it, but proceed to the next part of the question, namely, that the Government were bound in justice to our Colonies to carry out fairly their own legislation, and release the growers of sugar in those Colonies from the disadvantages under which they were placed by this law. It was not his intention now to enter generally into the West India question, as he had given notice of a Motion for next Session, that he would call the attention of Parliament to the subject of the sugar duties generally. He would only advert to the legislation on the sugar duties, so far as they affected the question, the law of refining in bond. Some might think that, for reasons of state policy, it was expedient to admit all sugars on the same terms, and to leave the West Indies to the disadvantages that had been imposed upon them; although some might think that course right, he (Sir J. Pakington) thought it wrong. Yet no one on either side of the House would deny that great hardship had been inflicted upon our West Indian Colonies. Therefore he contended that in carrying out their own legislation, the Government had no right so to shape their law as to inflict additional injustice, and that when they proposed to place all sugars, foreign and British, on an equality in duty, they placed the British sugar grower in a position of great disadvantage and injury. At present there was a differential duty of 5s. 6d. placed upon brown clayed sugar in favour of the British grower; that was what the Government professed to give from the 5th of July last; but such was the operation of their law regarding the refining in bond, that in consequence of the difference in quality between the British growers' sugar and the
1828
foreign sugar, at least 18 d. per cwt. was taken from their nominal differential duty, and the differential duty that professed to be 5s. 6d. was not more than 4s. That was not fair. He would not dwell upon the state of the law as it affects the British grower at the present time; he thought he should make the argument stronger and clearer to the House if he anticipated a little, and looked forward for the next three years, and carried forward the House to the time, in 1854, when all sugar, British and foreign, would be placed on an equality; and he should proceed to show that, instead of equality being the result, the British grower would be placed in a position of unjust disparity and disadvantage. After 1854 there would, under the Sugar Duty Act, be three rates of duty payable; on the refined sugar imported, 13 s. 4d. per cwt.; then there would be the white clayed sugar; and then would remain the British Muscovado and the foreign brown clayed. The whole of that sugar would pay the same duty, namely, 10 s. per cwt. Upon the inferior sugar of the East Indies, and upon the superior sugar of Havana and Java, they would pay 10 s. duty. He was sure that the difference in quality of those sugars was no less than this, that while the cwt. of coarse raw sugar from the East Indies would produce only 50 lbs. when refined, the cwt. of superior sugar from Havana and Java would produce as high an amount as 90 lbs. when refined. As the law stood, all sugar was to pay the duty in the raw state, and they imposed upon the inferior sugar of the East Indies, producing only 50 lbs. from the cwt. when refined, the same duty that they exacted from the superior sugar of Havana and Java, which produced 90 lbs. in the cwt. when refined. He was taking the admitted extreme cases; but it was unfair to expose the sugar of the East Indies to the same rate of duty as the sugars that came from Cuba and Java. He asked, therefore, the Government to allow the refiners to refine the sugars first, and then to pay the duty; the result would be, to make the duty an ad valorem duty; no injustice would then be inflicted, and the inferior sugar, producing 50 lbs. to the cwt., would be no worse off than the superior sugar producing 90 lbs. And here he must remind the House that the principle of the sugar duties was ad valorem, but the principle of equal duty on unequal quality was unjust and unfair to carry out; and all he asked on behalf of

1829
our West Indian colonists was that the Government would allow them to pay the duty which their sugar was really worth; let them pay duty on what they produced, and let not Government, under the pretence of putting the same duty upon foreign and British produce, inflict a great practical disadvantage on the British grower. What would he the answer the Government would give to this Motion? He was sorry to observe that the noble Lord at the head of the Government was not present. That noble Lord would confirm him when he said that an influential deputation of sugar refiners had waited upon him in order to press their case upon his attention. He (Sir J. Pakington) was one of a deputation on the part of the West Indies, who had waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to represent the injustice of their case, and that right hon. Gentleman heard courteously every statement advanced by the deputation, and—with all the discretion of an official man—said nothing. In that House, however, they could not be blandly smiled at and bowed out, and they hoped to hear the answer of the Government, and how they met a case that was so entirely founded upon reason. He saw opposite to him the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. J. Wilson), who had formerly expressed an opinion on the subject, and of such a character that he could not help hoping that amongst his supporters that day he would find the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman was, as he (Sir J. Pakington) was, a Member of the Committee that sat in 1848, under the able presidency of his lamented Friend Lord George Bentinck. In that Committee several sets of Resolutions were moved, amongst others, the hon. Member for Westbury himself proposed a series of Resolutions. The hon. Gentleman seemed to doubt what he stated; but he rather thought that he was correct, at least to this extent—the hon. Gentleman's Resolutions were not put to the Committee, because on a division it was decided they should not be put; but the hon. Gentleman brought Resolutions forward, and they stood at that moment in the report in his name. He (Sir J. Pakington) had seen them that day, and one of the Resolutions was to the effect, "that from the evidence taken by the Committee, it appears clearly that the present mode of levying the duty on sugar, without sufficient regard to the variation of quality, imposes a great practical disadvantage upon the producers in
1830
many of the British Colonies." Omitting the words "without sufficient regard to the variation of quality," the Resolution was carried, and that Resolution recognised the principle for which he (Sir J. Pakington) was contending. The hon. Gentleman afterwards, in a discussion in that House in 1848, stated that the privilege of refining in bond would he an advantage to all those colonies; and in the same year he expressed his regret that the Government had come to the conclusion that for the present they could not introduce a measure for refining in bond. He found, also, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the same year (1848), stating, "he was sorry to say that the result of their communication with his hon. Friend the Member for Westbury had led the Government to conclude that for the present"—he (Sir J. Pakington) begged the House would remark the expression—"they could not introduce a measure for refining in bond; he was far from underrating the importance of such a measure, if it could be carried into effect with due regard to the interests of the revenue, and those engaged in the sugar-refining trade." The parties to whom he had referred (the refiners), required that the measure should be postponed for that Session (1848). He (Sir J. Pakington) would not pretend that any promise was here given; but when he hoard the Chancellor of the Exchequer using the expression in 1848 that for the present he must postpone bringing in a measure to carry out those views, it raised a presumption on the part of those whose interests were deeply at stake, that it was in the contemplation of the Government at some future day to bring in a measure of that kind. In the speech of the President of the Board of Trade on that occasion there was this expression:—"With respect to the proposal of allowing sugar to be refined in bond, he altogether agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if it were possible to do it consistently with the security of the revenue, it would he a most important boon to the West Indies." The right hon. Gentleman would admit that if he had made so large an admission as that such a measure would be an important boon to the West Indies, that justified him (Sir J. Pakington) in calling upon the right hon. Gentleman to show how the revenue would suffer by his conferring it. He must now advert to that class of refiners who objected to his proposition. He wished to speak of them with all possible respect;

1831
no body of mercantile men could be found in any country in a higher position, and the only allegation he had to make against them, in respect to the proposed change, was, that, like all other human beings, having a good thing, they wished to keep it. He would state what he believed to be the secret of their object. The right hon. Gentleman had said, there were only about twenty-five refiners in London, and that was the secret of their objection. Under the present law, no man could enter into the refining trade without having very large capital. When he bought the sugar, he had not only to pay the value of the sugar, but the amount of duty. The consequence was, that the trade had fallen into a very few hands; and he believed that they practically enjoyed a monopoly, and that it was their desire to maintain it; and he was told that ten or twelve of those gentlemen, by acting together, did and could control the sugar market to an extent that was perfectly inconsistent with the interests of the consumer. That was the mode in which he dealt with the objections that were made by a certain portion of the refiners in London to the change of the law which he was now venturing to press upon the House. As an illustration of the mode of dealing among a certain portion of the London trade in reference to the alteration he proposed, let him relate to the House a little incident which occurred last month, and which confirmed the view he had taken. The House was probably aware—the right hon. Gentleman was well aware—that under the present system a fall took place in the duties of 1s. on British and 1s. 6d. on foreign sugars. No sooner had that fall taken place on the 5th of July, than a more than proportionate fall occurred in the prices of sugar; since then the price of sugar had fallen 2s. per cwt., but the price of refined sugar had not fallen at all. It remained now at the price it had been before the fall in the price of raw sugar, and therefore the refiners were now pocketing that reduction of 2s. per cwt.; and the British public, for whose interest the House legislated, had derived no benefit whatever from it. That fact went a long way to show that he had not taken an illegitimate or unfair view of the real object of these refiners. He was sure the sugar-brokers of the metropolis would be opposed to this change. They were paid one-half per cent on the sales they make; and if the House agreed to make the alteration proposed by
1832
him, and allow the duty to be paid after the sugar was refined, the consequence would be that the raw sugar would be sold at a price minus the duty, and the broker's per centage would be smaller in amount. Looking to these refiners; looking to any other class which had an interest of its own in this matter, he asked the Government to bear in mind the principle upon which they had acted—to remember that they had acted on the principles of free trade in the changes they had made in the commercial law, and that they could not in common justice, be now influenced by the interest of these refiners, or by the interests of any other body of men, to resist this Motion. What were the grounds of resistance? He was very sorry not to see the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place; for though he was silent with the deputation, he believed the only objection he could openly urge was that he apprehended danger to the revenue. On this point he (Sir J. Pakington) challenged the right hon. Gentleman to meet him. If the revenue would be endangered by the change, let him show how. He (Sir J. Pakington) understood it was said that it would be endangered in two ways—directly by the diminution of duty, and indirectly by fraud upon the revenue. As to the first point, with respect to the direct reduction, he admitted that if they made the change, the result would be this—that all the inferior sugar would be refined before duty paid, and all the higher class sugar would pay the duty and be refined afterwards; and he admitted that if such a state of things came into operation, the revenue would suffer; but still he would say that they had no right to recruit their revenue by an admitted injustice: the right hon. Gentleman opposite had admitted the justice of this change. He had no objection to a compulsory law that all sugars should be refined in bond. All he said was, "Do justice to your own sugar growers." If they thought the revenue would suffer, why then, if they liked, they could make it compulsory that all sugar for home consumption should be refined in bond. He would not object to it; and as regarded the revenue, they would derive a higher revenue from the superior sugars, which would make up for the loss they would have on the inferior sugars. With regard to the other portion of the argument that might be urged, namely, the indirect loss, he asked the right hon. Gentleman to tell him how it could occur? They

1833
might find it necessary to make new arrangements; but this was not a new matter, for they had been refining in bond for twenty years. It had been done for exportation, he admitted; but they would have as much facility in refining for home consumption as they could have in refining for exportation. The only difference would be that the transactions would be on a larger scale. He had never heard of any fraud on the revenue as resulting from the practice going on for twenty years of refining sugar in bond for exportation; and he did not believe there was so much danger as it was the interest of some parties to make them believe in extending the principle to refining in bond for home consumption. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving in the terms of his notice.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That, in the opinion of this House, the British Refiners of Sugar should be permitted to refine in bond, and to enter their manufacture for home consumption, upon payment of the same Duties as are levied upon Refined Sugar imported into this Country."
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, it now became his duty to state to the House—which he would endeavour to do in as few words as possible—the reasons why, in his opinion at least, they ought not to agree to the Resolution of the hon. Baronet. He must first, however, express his regret at the unavoidable absence of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had devoted much attention to this subject, received many deputations upon it, and considered it with every desire to relieve the trade from all restrictions from which he could liberate it consistently with the interests of the revenue, and with a view to give to the British colonial interest, and particularly to the West Indies, every advantage it was possible to extend to them in reference to this question. He begged it would be understood, in the first place, that he did not at all dispute with the hon. Baronet that the restrictions imposed on the refiners of sugar, like the restrictions imposed on any other trade, operated on them unfavourably. There was no doubt that if sugar could be imported free of duty, and refined either for home consumption or for exportation, without the Government troubling themselves about securing, in the process, any revenue by the imposition of any restrictions whatever, all the parties concerned would be very greatly benefited, and an advantage would be derived by the West Indian
1834
and other sugar-producing colonies, and by the consumers in this country. But this was not at all the question before the House. The House was aware that 4,000,000 l. were levied on this article; and unless hon. Gentlemen were prepared to jeopardise that revenue, the only question for consideration was, whether there were any restrictions which might safely be removed as injurious or superfluous. Now he could assure them that the whole matter had been repeatedly looked into by the Government, with a desire to free the trade from all restrictions that could possibly be removed; and, after full investigation, the Government had with great reluctance come to the conclusion not to disturb the present system of separating the refiners of sugar in bond for exportation from the refiners of sugar for the home market. As regarded the case of the Colonies, on which the hon. Gentleman had laid great stress, he could assure the House he felt as strongly as the hon. Gentleman could do, that it was their duty, as well as their interest, to free our Colonies, and especially our West Indian Colonies, from every commercial impediment, the effect of which was to fetter their industry or to interfere with their prosperity. The hon. Baronet stated that the grievance under which the West Indian colonists suffered by the existing system was, that they exported their sugars in the coarse state, differing in that respect from the sugar exporters of Cuba, Java, and others, and that the consequence was that as the duty was paid, not on the sugar when refined, but on the sugar as it entered this country, they were, in point of fact, subjected to a discouragement by a duty which was meant to apply equally. Now this question had been much considered by the Committee which sat in 1848, and over which Lord George Bentinck presided. It was quite true that the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. J. Wilson), one of the Members of the Committee, acknowledged at that time, with other Gentlemen who sat on the Committee, that as the scale stood, a substantial grievance had been made out on the part of British producers. But did no alteration in the law take place in consequence of this investigation? The hon. Baronet was perfectly well aware that at the recommendation of the Committee—a recommendation made in reference to this special grievance—a material change in the law took place. An intermediate duty on brown clayed,

1835
between Muscovado and white clayed, was agreed to, in order to meet this particular case. In some degree, therefore, this grievance had been dealt with. [Sir J. PAKINGTON: But my Motion is prospective.] No doubt; but the Motion did not refer to 1853–4; and in the month of August, it was quite sufficient to argue as to what might be or ought to be done in 1851. Another alteration, diminishing the difficulty complained of, had been made in regard to the management of sugar in the Colonies. He believed that the quality of the sugars imported from British possessions approached now much more nearly the quality of foreign sugars than at any previous period. In both the East and West Indian sugar-producing colonies there had, of late years, been considerable improvement in the process of working sugar; and the result had been that the sugar from these places competed favourably in quality with sugars of Cuba, and other foreign sugars of sugar-producing countries. It could not be otherwise than satisfactory to the House to know that there was no reason to suppose that there had been any diminution in recent years in the quantity of sugar imported into this country from our Colonies. In ascertaining this fact, he looked to the triennial averages, which appeared a fairer test than the figures of a particular year. He admitted that this year the importation from the West Indies had fallen off; but he believed that this was chiefly to be ascribed to the calamity which had occurred to Jamaica—the cholera, which had committed such ravages in Jamaica, had deprived that colony of its required number of labourers, and there had been a consequent decrease in its usual exportation of sugar; but he believed that from none of the other West Indian colonies had there been any material diminution. Taking the triennial averages, the general result was most satisfactory; and, while considerable benefit had been conferred generally on the revenue from the entire importation, there was no reason to suppose that any injury had been inflicted on the Colonies. He would not read the items; but the totals of the triennial averages were these: In the three years, 1839 to 1841 inclusive, there were imported from the British West Indies 2,389,570 cwt.; from 1842 to 1844, inclusive, 2,487,401 cwt.; from 1845 to 1847, inclusive, 2,733,713 cwt.; and from 1848 to 1850, inclusive, the total amount imported was 2,740,649 cwt.; being a
1836
trifle more than in the three years preceding. From the Mauritius the increase had been greater. For the first triennial period there were imported from the Mauritius, 620,734 cwt.; for the second period, 568,590 cwt.; for the third period, 918,313 cwt.; and for the fourth period, 929,099 cwt.; and from the East Indies, for the first triennial period there were imported 746,864 cwt.; for the second period, 1,044,911 cwt.; for the third period, 1,386,169 cwt.; and for the fourth period, 1,381,090 cwt. While, therefore, the general supply of sugar had increased, to the great advantage of the revenue, and to the great benefit of the consumer in this country, it was apparent that the gratifying result had not been accomplished by a sacrifice which he, for one, should greatly lament—the sacrifice, namely, of the sugar-producing interests of the British possessions. And as to prices, those interests had no ground for complaint. Taking the last four years, up to the 31st December, the price of Muscovado, East and West Indian sugar had been, in 1847, 22 s. per cwt.; in 1848, 22 s. per cwt.; in 1849, 26 s. per cwt.; and in 1850, 27 s. per cwt. Thus, therefore, the larger supply to this country had not been accompanied by anything like that ruin to the West Indian colonies which had been predicted. He would admit, then, that if sugar-refining in bond for home consumption could be allowed, it would be a boon to the West Indian producer; and he thought that that boon ought to be granted, unless very serious practical objections could be urged to the concession. He would now, therefore, state the real objections to the Motion of the hon. Baronet. The hon. Baronet had treated rather lightly that petition from London sugar refiners which he (Mr. Labouchere) had laid on the table that evening. The hon. Baronet had represented that this petition was only signed by a majority of the sugar refiners of London. He (Mr. Labouchere) begged to inform the hon. Baronet that it was signed by nearly every one of the sugar refiners of the metropolis; and he further begged to remind the hon. Baronet that the sugar-refining trade of London was somewhat larger than the whole sugar-refining trade of the rest of the United Kingdom. The hon. Baronet had said that the sugar refiners were divided in opinion. There was no doubt that they were; but they were divided most unequally. The hon. Baronet had suggested that the sugar refiners of Glasgow

1837
and of Liverpool were of a very different opinion from the sugar refiners of London. But that was not altogether the case. One of the gentlemen who had signed the petition referred to was Mr. Fairrie, the proprietor of one of the most extensive sugar-refining concerns in the kingdom. This gentleman had a refinery not only in London, but in Liverpool and Glasgow, and, in signing the petition, he represented the trade generally. He (Mr. Labouchere) denied that among the sugar refiners out of London there was anything like a unanimous belief that the alteration proposed by the hon. Baronet would be generally useful to them, or advantageous to their trade. He denied that they were at all satisfied that such a proposal could be assented to without subjecting their trade to new restrictions of the most mischievous description. When the case had been first submitted to the Government, the Chancellor of the Exchequer went into it with the utmost desire to arrive at a conclusion enabling him to grant a greater amount of freedom to the sugar refiners. He (Sir C. Wood) saw repeated deputations on the subject; and eventually he employed some of the most experienced officers of Excise to examine into the process of sugar refining, and to report upon the effect which the suggested change in system would have upon that process as respected the interests of the revenue. And when that report was submitted to the sugar refiners they did not gainsay the assertion of the Excise officers that certain severe restrictions would be necessary if the revenue was to be protected; and they replied that they would not thank the Government for a boon which would be so accompanied. The hon. Baronet had admitted that if his proposal were adopted, and the refining in bond for the home market were to be permitted, the system would have to be made general and compulsory.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONhad not said this. All he had said was, that if making the system compulsory, or to meet the objection of the Government as to revenue, he would have no objection to it.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Yes; but though the hon. Gentleman assented, it was a fact, that the trade generally greatly objected to rendering such a system compulsory. The Excise officers had said two things: first, that if such a system were to be allowed at all, it must be compulsory and universal, all refining houses to be on
1838
an equal footing; and, in the next place, that restrictions, for the sake of revenue, would have to be introduced, which would be so burdensome and harassing as to interfere with the actual working of the concerns. The reasons upon which the latter opinion was based, were of a very technical character, not easily explicable to the House; but, briefly, the cause necessitating restrictions would be this. Sugar refining was not a single, simple operation. You could not take a lot of sugar, refine it, and have done with it. Were this so, the check would be easy; for by the sugar gone in, a calculation might be made as to the sugar which ought to come out. But this was not the case. After one batch of sugar had been refined, a sort of syrup remained, which went to the next batch, and in this way it might be said that sugar-refining was a perpetual operation, the residue of one working being used in the next working—thus leading to a system, on the part of the Excise which, if extended, would be of practical inconvenience to the trade. The question of the hon. Baronet was, why, if they allowed sugar to be refined in bond for exportation, not allow the same to be done with sugar for home consumption? It had to be considered, however, that the trade of sugar refining in bond for exportation was in the hands of very few houses. The operations of these firms were conducted on a great scale. Their buildings had been constructed specially for these extensive operations, and all their arrangements were of a kind admitting of perfect security to the revenue. But it' the proposal of the hon. Baronet were acceded to, and other parties were to be permitted to refine in bond for the home market, those parties would, in many instances, have to alter the situation of their premises, and to build new premises; and after all this had been done, there would be still the risk of such evils arising as to compel the Government to put a stop to the whole system. These were the considerations which had been placed before his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and persons of practical experience and best informed on the points at issue having represented the consequences which the proposed alteration would entail, his right hon. Friend would obviously have been wanting in his duty as guardian of the public purse, had he allowed any relaxation of system likely to injure so seriously the revenue. As far as he (Mr. Labouchere) was informed, the

1839
parties who urged the change were parties having two establishments: one establishment for refining; sugar in bond for exportation; and a second establishment, out of bond, for the supply of the home-market. Now, it was represented that if such parties were permitted to work the two systems in the way they wished, the greatest injustice would be inflicted on all others in the trade in consequence of the inequalities which would arise; and that such parties alone would be the gainers by the change. In confirmation of the views which he had urged on the House, he could not do better than read the resolutions which had been passed at a full meeting of the sugar refiners of London, called together in April last to consider this proposal; and he had no doubt that such a declaration of opinion from individuals who were themselves deeply engaged in the trade would have great weight with hon. Gentlemen. The resolution was as follows:—
"The special business for which the meeting was also summoned, namely, the question of refining in bond, was then considered, when, it being understood that a deputation of Scotch refiners had applied to Government for permission to refine in bond, paying the duties on the various extracts of the refining, and the trade in London having been requested to co-operate in promoting their object, in was resolved—'That in referring to the report made by the officers of excise when the subject of refining in bond was investigated by them in 1849, wherein it was stated, that in order to protect the revenue from fraud, it was necessary to impose inconvenient restrictions on the working of the sugar houses, and having fully considered the present state of the sugar trade, it does not appear to this meeting for the interest of the trade to press upon the Government at the present time the introduction of a law for altering the system of working the refineries.'"
He now submitted to the House that under these circumstances, and at this period of the Session, it being proved that the great body of the sugar refiners were averse to the alteration, on the ground of the inequality which would be produced, and of the inconveniences which would arise; and it being further ascertained from the most experienced Excise officers that such a change would be attended with risk to the revenue if the most severe restrictions were not resorted to—it would be in the highest degree inexpedient to agree to the Resolution proposed.
MR. MITCHELLthought that even at this period of the Session the sugar refiners, who were pressing this change, would see no reason to regret that the hon. Baronet had brought his proposal forward,
1840
if it were only that it had elicited the speech which the House had just heard. He (Mr. Mitchell) was astonished that the right hon. Gentleman, with his great experience in commercial matters, should have ventured to resist this Motion upon grounds so exceedingly weak and narrow. He (Mr. Mitchell) had taken some part in this matter, and wished to explain the course he had thought it right to adopt. Two or three months ago some sugar refiners had submitted their case to him, and had represented that they were very badly treated. They desired him to undertake urging their claims on the House of Commons, and when he asked them to make their limited proposal general, they answered that it would be better to commence by a small Motion this year, and in the next Session to base on that a much larger proposal. He then entered a notice of Motion on the paper in compliance with their wishes. Subsequently the hon. Baronet gave notice of a larger proposal; and as he (Mr. Mitchell) had seen no objection whatever to the principle involved, he withdrew his notice, and offered to support the hon. Baronet. The case had been fully made out that evening by the hon. Baronet. It had been proved that the sugar refiners were subjected to the greatest injustice in their competition with foreign countries. The right hon. Gentleman laid the chief stress in his objections to the Motion on the petition and resolution of the London sugar refiners. But what did these prove? Simply that certain gentlemen, having got a monopoly, were anxious to keep it. The right hon. Gentleman had said a good deal as to the danger to the revenue which would accompany a change; but he had given no reasons for that supposition. He (Mr. Mitchell) placed very little reliance upon the reports of either excise or customs officers. These persons were trained in a particular system, and were always disinclined to adopt any improvements. The right hon. Gentleman judged very harshly in supposing that the sugar refiners were capable of defrauding the revenue. It was absurd to suppose that great capitalists would place themselves in the power of their workmen.
Notice taken that Forty Members were not present: House counted; and Forty Members not being present,
The House was adjourned at a quarter before Nine of the clock.