§ 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 1,300l. 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 18d. 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, 13s. 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, 10s. per cwt. Upon the inferior sugar of the East Indies, and upon the superior sugar of Havana and Java, they would pay 10s. 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 4,000,000l. 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, 22s. per cwt.; in 1848, 22s. per cwt.; in 1849, 26s. per cwt.; and in 1850, 27s. 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. LABOUCHEREYes; 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.