Sitting of 2 May 1864

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee —NAVY ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Rivers Pollution (Scotland) *; Admiralty Lands and Works *; Administration of Trusts (Scotland) *.
First Readinq—Joint Stock Companies (Foreign Countries) * [Lords]* [Bill 87]; Admiralty Lands and Works * [Bill 88].
Committee— Promissory Notes and Bills of Exchange (Ireland)* [Bill 38].
Report—Promissory Notes and Bills of Exchange (Ireland)* [Bill 38].
Considered as amended — Customs and Inland Revenue [Bill 82].
Third Reading—Penal Servitude Acts Amendment* [Bill 23]; Civil Bill Courts (Ireland) * [Bill 79], and passed.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he rose to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of the Government to propose any measure to the House during the present Session, with a view to establish more equitable relations between Landlord and Tenant than exist at present in Ireland, and to induce increased exertion on the part of the Tenant by securing to him the results of his outlay and industry?
  SIR ROBERT PEEL, in reply, said, it was not the intention of the Government to introduce any measure of the nature alluded to by the hon. Gentleman,

POST OFFICE-SATURDAY HALF HOLIDAY—QUESTION.
MR. O'REILLYsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether any inconvenience has been felt, or any

1977
extra expense by the employment of additional clerks incurred, in consequence of the officials of the Money Order Office, and other departments of the Post Office, having the advantage of the Saturday half-holiday?
MR. PEELsaid, in reply, that he understood from the Post Office authorities that no inconvenience had been sustained, or extra expense incurred, by the Saturday half-holiday.

BANK NOTES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, after the expression of opinion in the debate on the Bank Notes (Scotland) Bill, he means to proceed with the Bank Acts Bill for Scotland?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied, that during the recent discussion, a general opinion had been expressed on the part of the representatives of Scotland, that it would be better not to deal partially with any isolated point belonging to the currency or banking; and as no great public interest was involved in going forward with a Bill of so limited a scope, he would defer to that feeling, and not ask the House to proceed further with the Bill.

VACCINATION OF SHEEP.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JERVOISE JERVOISEsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council of Education, When the results of the experiments in vaccinating sheep, begun in 1862, concluded in 1863, and the Report of which was promised by Easter, 1864, will be laid before Parliament?
  MR. H. A. BRUCEreplied, that the experiments with reference to the vaccination of sheep were concluded at Michaelmas last. At the commencement of the present year, the gentlemen who had charge of those experiments were asked for their Report, and they undertook that it should be ready by Easter. They were not officers in his department, and all that they could do was to urge upon them to be expeditious. That Report had not been presented, but he might state the general effect of it was within the knowledge of his (Mr. Bruce's) department. It had been found that sheep were very imperfectly suscep-
  1978
  tible of vaccination, and that the vaccination so taken afforded no real security against the sheep taking small pox.

LAW OF HYPOTHEC.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CARNEGIEsaid, he wished to ask the Lord Advocate, Whether it is the intention of the Government to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the nature and working of the Law of Hypothee as regards agricultural subjects in Scotland?
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, in reply, that it was the intention of the Government to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the nature and working of the Law of Hypothec in Scotland.
  MR. CARNEGIEthen said that he should not proceed with the Motion upon the subject which stood upon the paper for to-morrow,

UNITED STATES—THE FORGED DESPATCH.—QUESTION.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have expressed any opinion on the circumstances of Mr. Seward having presented a document to Lord Lyons on the 22nd of December last, which, on the 19th of March, he "felt bound" to tell him he had "just discovered" to be "a forgery;" and whether Her Majesty's Government communicated with the agents of the Confederate States in Europe on the subject, or with the Government of the Confederate States at Richmond, and with what result. He also wished to know, whether Mr. Seward had been called upon to name the gentleman who was the author of the report?
MR. LAYARDsaid, Her Majesty's Government had not expressed any opinion upon the communications from Mr. Seward. As the hon. Member was aware, there was no agent of the Confederate States in this country to whom questions could be addressed, and it was not usual to address questions to the agent of a Government which was not recognized. Every endeavour was made by the Government to ascertain whether the document referred to was genuine. As soon however as it was found that the document was a forgery, that fact was stated by the noble Lord (Earl Russell) in another place.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he wished to know whether an agent had not been despatched from the Havannah to the Confederate States, in order to communicate with the Government at Richmond, and whether that agent was not refused permission to pass through the blockading squadron?
MR. LAYARD: That is so. He was not permitted to pass through the blockade.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he also wished to know whether the circumstance of an agent being accredited by Her Majesty's Government and sent to communicate with the Confederate States Government did not amount to an acknowledgment of the Executive power of the Confederate States?

THE CHANNEL FLEET.—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I beg, Sir, to ask my noble Friend the Secretary of the Admiralty, Whether it is true that the Channel fleet has been moved from Portland to the Downs; and, if not, whether they are under orders to proceed thither? I wish next to ask, whether the noble Lord is in a position to say that the ships constituting the Channel fleet have been completed with respect to their coals, provisions, and other stores? I also beg to ask the noble Lord whether the large iron ships of the Channel fleet have been into dock since their return from their winter cruise in the Atlantic?
LORD CLARENCE PAGET: Sir, the Channel squadron are in the Downs. They are very nearly complete, and they are perfectly ready to proceed to any part of the world at twenty-four hours' notice. The iron ships have not been docked since their winter cruise; but the Warrior was docked on the 12th of November, the Black Prince on the 22nd of October, the Prince Consort on the 11th of November, the Hector on the 12th of January, and the Defence on the 10th of October.

THE AUSTRIAN FLEET.—QUESTION.
LORD ROBERT CECIL: In connection with the Question just put by my right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington), I beg to ask, Whether any information has been received with respect to the movements of the Austrian fleet which has moved northwards; whether it is known that any kind of guarantee or pledge has been given that it shall not go beyond the North Sea; or
1980
if not, whether there will be any opposition to its entering the Baltic?
MR. LAYARD: If the noble Lord will put the Question on the paper I will answer it to-morrow.

SEATS OF UNDER SECRETARIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he wished to ask a Question respecting the subject which had been referred to a Select Committee —the seats of the Under Secretaries. The House was aware that the Committee had made a Report, but that there had been great differences of opinion. He wished to know, Whether the Government intend to propose any legislation upon the subject?
  SIR GEORGE GREY, in reply, said, the general opinion seemed to be that there was a great difficulty as to the construction of the Act of Parliament, and therefore the Government did intend to introduce a Bill to amend it.

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.

  [BILL 82.] CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. J. B. SMITH, who had given notice to move, "That the duties on sugar be continued in force for one year only," rose to make the Motion—when
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the Amendment, if carried, would have the effect of stopping the Bill—a result which he believed was not within the contemplation of the hon. Member.
  THE CHANCELLOR OP THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the hon. Member could move the insertion of his restriction on the consideration of Schedule D.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYasked what effect this Bill would have upon the stamp duties? It was important that it should be understood whether there was anything in the shape of new taxation in connection with the Bill. He thought the words of one clause widened the area of the Stamp Duty Bill, and that under Schedule C certain things were brought under the operation of the stamp duties which up to the present moment were not so. He therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would state clearly whether there were any new taxes in the Bill; and, if there were any, what those taxes were?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, so far as his understanding

  1981
  went, and so far as the intention of the Government went (although it was not for him to give any authoritative interpretation of the words to which objection had been taken), the only points in which taxation was to be raised by this Bill were as follow:—The principal point was the extension to policies of insurance, when made the subject of settlement, of liability of stamps ad valorem. This point would receive the particular attention of the Committee. There were no taxes to be laid or increased by this Bill excepting what he had mentioned in the financial statement. He remembered there would be an incidental application of the stamp duties in certain cases in connection with perpetual curacies which were brought under the same category as rectories, and would be similarly treated. If the right hon. Baronet would refer to any other point in particular upon which he wished information he would be happy to give him it.
  MR. HENLEYcalled attention to Clause 6, which proposed to grant licences at a reduced rate to persons occupying houses below a certain value, to be granted on the overseer's certificate of rating. Under the next clause the overseer was required to give a certificate in such cases, and he was liable to a penalty of £10 if the statement thus given was untrue in any particular. He (Mr. Henley) thought that, as the overseer was liable to this penalty, he ought to have facilities for extracting the information he required from the poor rate book, in order that a mistake might not be made between one John Smith and an-other John Smith, and thus the overseer become liable under the clause. He thought also they were entitled to some small fee on giving the certificate.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he did not know whether the hon. Gentleman objected to the penalty or not? [Mr. HENLEY: No.] As to the question of allowing a small fee for giving the certificate, he would consider the point and give an answer to it when he proposed to read the Bill a third time.
  Clause 5 (Occasional Licences may be granted to Refreshment House Keepers, Wine Retailers, Beer Retailers, and Tobacco Dealers).
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) had given notice of an Amendment to this clause requiring
  1982
  the consent of a justice of the peace to the issuing of occasional licences under the Bill, and imposing restrictions as to hours. The House would remember that when occasional licences were granted, it was provided that they should only be granted with the approval of two magistrates. The law was subsequently modified to one magistrate. He first proposed by this clause simply to grant these occasional licences to publicans; but he now proposed to grant them to the other class of persons who had licences for wine and beer, and to place them under the same control as the other licences. He would add words to this effect to the end of the clause. This would probably meet the views of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he was perfectly satisfied with the alteration proposed.
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEobjected to the provision with respect to the mode in which penalties should be recovered. The clause was so worded that the penalty might be recovered even for an unintentional error.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the penalties would not be recoverable by a private person, but by an officer of a public department subject to be called to account for any abuse of his powers. The same provision had been introduced into the other Revenue Acts, and when a system of penalties generally couched in form of expression pervaded the Revenue law, it was better to adhere to that form rather than introduce other expressions that might perplex the general administration of the Revenue laws. If it were said that all should be considered, that was another question; but he did not think they should consider it in a particular Bill. The hon. Member for Youghal (Mr. Butt) had suggested that the definition of goods, wares, and merchandize in the hands of manufacturers for sale was not complete. His hon. and learned Friend had observed that many accessory materials used in manufactures disappeared in the process, though they contributed to the result of the fully manufactured article. He did not think that there was anything doubtful in the provision; but as the suggestion had been made, he proposed to add words for the purpose of removing any doubt that might exist.
  The clause was amended accordingly.
  MR. WALPOLEpointed out that a new ad valorem duty was imposed by the Bill on foreign and colonial stock.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the duty was imposed on the settlement of foreign and colonial stock, which up to the present time had not been taken cognizance of for the purpose of taxation. That was not the position that property held by a British subject abroad should be placed in, when compared with property of the same description held by him in this country. An anomaly, therefore, existed, which the present Bill proposed to remove.
  MR. MALINSsaid, that by a decision of the Court of Exchequer it had been held that a policy of assurance brought into settlement was not property and was not subject to ad valorem duty. The right hon. Gentleman now proposed to make these policies liable to the duty. But he contended that this was not a reasonable proposal; for where a man on his marriage insured his life for £5,000, and made this a subject of settlement, the policy had then no value whatever, and yet it was to pay the same duty as if it was so much money in the funds. It was true that a proviso had been added to that clause by which the policy was not made liable to duty unless in the deed of settlement there was a covenant to keeping it alive. But in every well-drawn instrument such a covenant was inserted. He would propose an Amendment in Clause 12, by which, when a policy of assurance was made the subject of settlement, the ad valorem duty would be payable only upon its value at the time of the settlement.
  Amendment proposed, in page 6, to leave out from the word "if," in line 13, to the word "behalf," in line 15, both inclusive.— (Mr. Malins.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was sorry he could not accede to the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend, which did not appear to be supported by any strong argument, either in principle or practice, and would introduce into the law a most invidious and arbitrary exemption. He saw no principle of justice to be urged in favour of the Motion. He would grant that, in the case of a policy where there was no covenant for keeping it alive, it might be fair to exempt it from the ad valorem duty; but as for a policy that had a covenant for keeping it up, that was equi-
  1984
  valent to a bond given by the person bound to keep it up. With respect to the law and the practice, his hon. and learned Friend had said truly that there had been a judgment of the Court of Exchequer to the effect that life policies included in settlements were not chargeable with an ad valorem duty; but his hon. and learned Friend had not stated the whole of the question. The Government were not able to carry the judgment to a superior court on appeal, or they would have endeavoured to obtain its reversal. The Law Officers of the Crown had, however, been consulted from time to time, and they had given their opinions repeatedly to the effect that life policies were chargeable. They had also recommended the Government to continue to charge the duty, thereby challenging the parties on whom the duty had been levied to further try the question if they thought fit. On this being represented to him, he certainly was of opinion that it was not desirable that such an equivocal state of things should continue; and the Government had therefore thought it right to ask Parliament to construe the law in the sense for which they contended. The whole argument was, in principle, in favour of the proposal which the Government made. It appeared to him that, if the present practice was to be impeached on any ground at all, it was on the ground that taxation on settled personalty was exceedingly low compared with that on unsettled personalty. It paid only 5s. per cent; it escaped the probate duty. [Mr. MALINS: It gets the succession duty.] Yes; but it escaped not only the probate duty but the legacy duty. He stated it moderately in estimating the taxation on one description of property at 5s. per cent, and that on the other at £2 10 s. per cent. He could hardly, therefore, believe his hon. and learned Friend would make any serious opposition if he were to propose to raise the duty on settlements. He entirely objected to the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend.
  MR. HUNTthought it was very inconvenient to have those discussions on this stage of the Bill; but, notwithstanding what had been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was of opinion that it was desirable the House should adopt the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend. He was astonished that the Law Officers of the Crown should have advised the Government to disregard the decision of a Court of Law, He made no charge

  1985
  against the Law Officers of any particular Administration, for he did not know under what Government the advice referred to by the right hon. Gentleman had been given.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he did not think the Law Officers of the Crown were bound to abide by the decision of a Court whose ruling was not final. He said so without any prejudice or personal feeling, because the present Law Officers of the Crown had not been consulted on this point. As to the Question before them, he contended that policies of Insurance ought to be taxed like other engagements. Suppose a man had not the means of paying-down money to make a provision for his wife, but he hoped by his exertions to save money for that purpose. Well, he covenanted that after his death his executors should pay £5,000 for that purpose, Under the existing law the instrument by which he entered into that covenant paid duty, no matter whether the amount was covenanted to be paid the next day or not for years after. And what was the effect of a policy of Insurance? It was simply a covenant that, instead of the insurer's executors paying a certain sum out of his estate upon his death, an Insurance Office should pay the money, and that the insurer should do everything necessary to be done on his part to make that payment absolutely certain. Therefore it was quite plain that the House would be acting with partiality if it refused to impose on policies of Insurance duties similar to those imposed on instruments containing analogous covenants.
  MR. HENLEYwould put a case. If A and B entered into a contract of marriage, and if C, father to A, gave a bond to pay a certain some of money at his death, the money agreed to be paid was hard money not coming from A to B, but from a third party, C. In the case of an Insurance the parties out of their annual income contracted to lay by a certain sum, all the product of which was paid to one of them when the other died. It was not by any means the same thing to persons marrying, because in one case they had a sum of money coming to them on bond, and in the other it was their own savings which were taxed. The two things were not the same in reality, and if the hon and learned Gentleman went to a division he should vote with him.
  MR. HADFIELDalso thought the two
  1986
  cases were not on the same footing, and he should support the hon. and learned Member.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYthought that if there were to be any exemption, it should be for the bond, which was the least valuable instrument.
  MR. PRICEalso thought that if the bond was taxed, the Insurance, which was the more valuable instrument, ought to be taxed as well.
  MR. NEATEsupported the clause as it stood.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, it was a monstrous proposition to tax a sum of money in futuro exactly as if it were in hand. He would support a proposition for the entire omission of the clause.
  SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTONsaid, that the Attorney General would get few people to agree with him that it was not the duty of the Government to acquiesce in the decision of a superior Court of Law until it had been revised, and it was a gross act of tyranny to force the subject not only to go to that Court again, but to appeal to the House of Lords. If the Government were discontented with the law as laid down, it was their duty to come to Parliament.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEthought the two cases were in parimateriâ, and could see no reason in making a distinction between them.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes 161; Noes 124: Majority 37.
  MR. J. B. SMITH: — I rise, Sir, to move words in Schedule A limiting the operation as to levying the duty on sugar, to the 1st August, 1865. The sugar duties have for many years past been annual, and my proposal is that they shall continue to be so, to give the House and the country opportunities for the further discussion of the question with which they are at present imperfectly acquainted. I am an older free trader than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or than my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden). I had the honour to be the first to advocate, in the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, the total repeal of the Corn Laws, and also the equalization of the duties on foreign and colonial sugars; but I take shame to myself that I have not, until recently, inquired into the effect of the

  1987
  sugar duties upon the interest of the consumers of sugar. Having now done so, I am astounded to find that a gigantic monopoly has silently grown up, while we have been quietly flattering ourselves that all monopolies had been for ever swept away. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has truly observed of the discussions which have recently taken place in letters and pamphlets on the sugar duties, that "the literature is overwhelming." I can well understand hon. Gentlemen, who have complained to me that the more they read of the sugar literature the more they are bewildered; for that was so much my own case, that I found the only course was to lay it aside, to get at facts, and reason them out in my own mind. I soon discovered that the sugar refiners and monopolists had raised a false issue; they shouted lustily for free trade, but under cover of this cry, they endeavoured to blind us as to their real object by a bewildering "literature." I think I shall have no difficulty in showing that the real object of these pretended free traders is to prevent the consumer of sugar from buying it in the cheapest market. Let us see what was the origin of the existing state of the sugar question. Previously to 1845 there was only one rate of duty on sugar. In that year Sir Robert Peel brought in a Bill to change the mode of levying the duty on sugar to a classified rate of duties upon different qualities. It is quite clear that Sir Robert did not foresee the effects of his new measure, for he stated that he expected there would be an importation that year of about 85,000 tons of white clayed sugar; the import, however, turned out to be only 1,161 tons. Since that time the consumption of sugar has more than doubled, and if Sir Robert Peel's estimate had been realized, we ought now to have an import of 170,000 tons of white clayed sugar; but, instead of that, our import in 1863 was only 1,100 tons. The fact is. that Sir Robert Peel's Bill has had the effect of completely revolutionizing the sugar trade; it has resulted in banishing the best qualities of sugar from the market and of supplying their place with sugars of the lowest qualities, which are unfit for consumption by the people of this country until they are made over again by the sugar refiners. The operation of the law in banishing good sugar from the market is very clearly shown by Mr. Hardman, a sugar planter, examined before a Committee of the House of Commons in
  1988
  1848. Mr. Hardman stated that he had erected expensive machinery, on the most scientific principles, for making sugar, by means of which he was enabled to make a larger quantity and of better quality from the raw material than by the former process. That he sent three parcels of sugar, of different qualities, to London—all made from the same raw material, and all sold by auction the same day. The first parcel, which was yellow sugar, was sold for 51 s., duty paid, and as the duty was 14 s., he netted 37 s. per cwt.; the second, white clayed, sold for 53 s. 6d., and the duty on this being 16 s. 4d., netted him 37 s. 2d.; the third was called other refined, sold for 56 s.; the duty was 18 s. 4d., netting him 37 s. 8d. per cwt. As the importer paid the commission, and discount was allowed on the gross price, there was an actual difference of less than 2d. per cwt. between the best and the worst quality, so that although the best quality sold in the market for 5s. per cwt. more than the worst, the classified duty prevented him from netting more than an additional 2d. per cwt. for it. The consequence was, he said, "that the classification had operated to their absolute ruin." The law of classified duties, it is seen, prevents the planter from obtaining more for the highest class of sugars than for the lowest, and here is at once the explanation why white clayed sugar has ceased to be imported. It must not be supposed, however, that because these duties have had the effect of banishing the importation of white clayed sugar, its use has ceased; on the contrary, it is now supplied from a different quarter. A new trade has been created by the classified duties which did not exist before. Formerly, the trade of the English sugar refiner was confined to refining raw sugar into loaf sugar; now he carries on the new trade of re-making low qualities of raw sugar into cleaner looking moist sugar, resembling white clayed sugar. Before Peel's Bill enacting classified duties, the sugar refiners used about 100,000 tons of sugar per annum; the new trade of remaking sugar has increased their consumption to 400,000 tons out of 500,000 tons, the total quantity of all kinds consumed. It is important to observe that the moist sugars furnished by the English refiners are inferior to those imported, because the re-making of sugar deteriorates the quality; it is fair to look upon, but the process of re-making deprives it of a. portion of its native sweetness, and the

  1989
  application of bullocks' blood and animal charcoal, which are not used when originally made, leave behind an unpleasant smell in re-made sugar. A law which excludes the importation of good sugar appears unnatural on the face of it. What, I then, are the pretences for this law of classified duties? That it is a kind of ad valorem duty on the quantity of crystallizable saccharine matter contained in each quality of sugar. But that this is a false and impracticable scheme was never more ably shown than by the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Card well) before he became a free trade backslider. When President of the Board of Trade in 1853, in answer to the complaints of the Governor of British Guiana of the injurious effects of the discriminating duties on sugar, the right hon. Gentleman forwarded a reply, stating that
  "These discriminating rates of duty were fixed as an approximation to the ad valorem principle, it being held to be unfair to subject to the same duty sugars containing different qualities of saccharine matter. Although, in the opinion of my Lords, Customs duties proportioned to the value of imports, wherever practicable, are more just in principle, with reference to the incidence of taxation, than uniform rated duties, it has been found necessary, from a practical experience of the fraud to which such duties give rise, and the difficulty and cost of their collection, to adopt uniform duties upon so many important articles subject to Custom duties, that the retention of the ad valorem duties, which still remain in the British tariff, becomes comparatively unimportant. In the present instance my Lords are disposed to allow considerable weight to the arguments adduced by the Governor of Guiana; and they would observe that the application of ad valorem duties on sugar appear to be in many respects less appropriate than to several other articles, in regard to which it has been found expedient to abandon them. To impose a discriminating duty upon distinct kinds of a given produce, such as the produce of vineyards varying in richness, different qualities of tea or tobacco would appear to be a legitimate application of ad valorem duties; but to strike with a superior duty one pound of sugar which, by a better mode of manufacture, contains more saccharine matter than another pound obtained from the same raw material, is to inflict direct discouragement upon improvement."
  This, then, is not a question of jaggery and crystallizable saccharine matter, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have us believe. That is a false issue raised by the sugar refiners to throw dust in our eyes. The real issue is, that having abolished all other monopolies, will you pass laws to throttle scientific improvements in sugar making in your colonies and elsewhere, and thus prevent the con-
  1990
  sumers of sugar from buying the best qualities in the cheapest market, for the purpose of proteeting the re-making of sugar in England? But, Sir, this law is not only impracticable, but it is founded on a vicious principle. The valuation of sugar for the duty is not made on the quantity of saccharine matter it contains, for that cannot be ascertained but by comparing its appearance with certain standards provided by the Customs. This opens the door to fraud. All laws which tempt either merchants or Custom House officers lo fraud are vicious in principle. I have had some experience in this way. There was formerly an ad valorem duty on raw cotton, by which the house with which I was connected were great losers. The law was that every importer entered his cotton at any valuation he chose, and the Customs could take it at that price, adding 5 per cent to it. It so happened that we were importers, not of low kinds worth 9d. per pound, but of the finest worth 1s. 6d. to 3s. 6d.; and we found there were importers of this kind who, presuming upon the ignorance or dishonesty of the Custom House officers, entered the same qualities at half the price we entered ours. Thus the revenue was defrauded, the fair trader injured, and public morals not improved. The same temptations to fraud exist under the present system of levying the duties on sugar. The Custom House officer decides what duty any particular parcel of sugar shall pay, and it is notorious, not only that sugar which has paid the lowest rate of duty has sold at a higher price than that which has paid a higher duty, but that on the same kind of sugar different rates of duty have on the same day been imposed at Glasgow, Liverpool, and London. The sugar in any one cask is not of the same quality throughout. A sample taken at the top of the cask would be charged with a different rate of duty from a sample taken from the bottom. A fine field for chicanery! Some years ago there were classified duties on tea, and every lot had to be examined by a Custom House officer, samples brewed in tea pots, and a value affixed according to the taste and flavour. It is a curious fact, that this system of duties had precisely the same effect in banishing good teas that the classified duties have had in banishing good sugar. We never had such bad tea as then; when the duty was equalized, good teas immediately took the place of bad, and now such a quality as Bohea is

  1991
  unknown in the market. The notion that the interests of the consumers of sugar were consulted by the adoption of classified duties was effectually dissipated by the evidence before the Select Committee of 1862. Sir Thomas Freemantle, Chairman of the Board of Customs, gave it as his opinion—
  "That the scale of duties has a tendency to act as a protection for the production of low-class West India sugars, and that if it is a question of protection, the consumers suffer. The West India proprietors claim the protection. They cannot stand the competition of Cuba and slave-producing countries."
  Now, let us hear what the West India planters themselves say. Mr. Rennie, the representative of the largest West India house in England, was asked what would be the effect of one uniform duty. He answered—
  "I think the immediate effect of it would be to put an end to the cultivation of all the estates making the low description of sugar. They are struggling now for existence with a protection of 1s. 2d., and if you took away that, they could not exist, and you would give a stimulus to a very large production of Cuba sugars, and all the finest West Indies sugars, and all the finest Mauritius and East Indies sugars; but you would lose the supply of the whole of the present low-class of West India sugar, that comes to this market to be refined here."
  This evidence speaks for itself. There are planters who, availing themselves of scientific discoveries, have erected improved machinery for making sugar, by means of which they can make a larger quantity and of better quality than by the old machinery; but there is a large class of West India planters who, feeling great reverence for the wisdom of their ancestors, continue to make sugar after the manner of their great grandfathers, and they call out for protection against the new-fangled machinery, and insist that an extra duty shall be laid upon all the sugar it produces, and moreover they threaten us that if we do not comply with their demand, they will cease to grow sugar. Well, Sir, this is not the first time we have heard that kind of argument. There is an amusing similarity in protectionist arguments all the world over. When the people demanded the right to buy their corn in the cheapest market, the corn-growers told us a similar story: they said that the land would go out of cultivation. What say the sugar refiners?
  "It was said by a London refiner, that if the 16 s. duty was removed, not only would the fine sugars from the East Indies and the Mauritius come here, but that the much more preferable
  1992
  white Havanah sugars would come in and supersede the sugars of the refiners, because they are white, and can be sent in any quantity. That such sugars are generally as cheap as any other sugars, but they are not used on account of the high duty. That if these fine sugars were imported, the business of the English refiner would be unjustly interfered with; that if the same duty is put upon the low sugars, containing molasses, water, and dirt, the refining trade would be at an end, because it is not their business to make white sugar whiter, but to make brown sugar into white. That refiners principally exist in this country on account of the large supply of low sugar; and if a better description is brought in and admitted at the same duty as low sugar, there will be less for them to do, as such pure sugars could be refined with the greatest ease and comfort, whereas, with the low sugars brought from the West Indies, the process is more difficult, and requires twice as many sugar houses as the other would."
  Here is the key to the clamorous outcry of these pretended free traders—the sugar refiners. They unite in the cry with the West India planters for the exclusion of the good sugars of Cuba and the Mauritius, lest it should interfere with their remaking of bad sugar. The fact is, that these classified sugar duties have raised up a formidable monopoly interest, with which we shall have to struggle; and the struggle is rendered more difficult by the monopolists, strange to say, having enlisted on their side the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden). But I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, does he call the cry to be protected from Cuba and Mauritius free trade? I ask the right hon. Gentleman how he can reconcile his rejection of the claims of the silk manufacturers and those of the papermakers to be protected from the competition of the paper-makers of France and Belgium, whose paper is admitted duty free, while a duty is imposed in those countries on the export of rags? He tells the papermakers—
  "The claims of the consumers are paramount: they have the right to buy their paper in the cheapest markets."
  Why does he not hold the same language to the West India planters and the English sugar refiners? The right hon. Gentleman said, on introducing this Bill—
  "That no courage or ability can induce the Legislature to sanction a system of protection."
  I quite agree with him, but I think I have shown that this Bill is "a system of protection," and I confidently predict that it will not he long ere it be repealed. When the people open their eyes to the fraud which has been practised upon them by

  1993
  this Bill, they will insist with one voice upon their right to buy their sugar, as they, buy everything else, in the cheapest market. I had not the honour of a seat in this House when Sir Robert Peel's Sugar Bill; was introduced, but it was opposed by those: consistent free traders, Mr. Hume, Mr. Ricardo, Mr. Bright, and Mr. Milner Gibson. My hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Milner Gibson) was then Member for Manchester, and was considered a sort of free trade watch-dog, and a very wakeful watch-dog he was; his voice was always heard when there was the least; approach of danger. We have not heard his opinion of the present Bill, but if he be about to become a free trade backslider, like his Colleague the Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Cardwell), I hope he will have better reasons to offer for such a course than that right hon. Gentleman. The Secretary for the Colonies, who, when President of the Board of Trade in 1853, described the graduated scale of sugar duties as "inflicting a direct discouragement upon improvement," now turns round and thus defends them—
  "He would show that since the graduated scale had been adopted, the consumption had gone on increasing until it was larger than ever."
  I do not deny that our supplies of sugar have increased as stated, but does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that if the classified duties had been abolished, the supply would not have equally increased? The increased consumption of sugar is not the consequence of a law which excludes good sugar, but in spite of it, The increased consumption of sugar is owing to the increased population, and the improved condition of the consumers of sugar. Then the right hon. Gentleman says—
  "The object of the scale has been attained, because a quality of sugar most valuable to the consumer has been imported."
  I deny that a valuable quality has been imported; good sugar is more valuable than bad, and the effect of the law has been to exclude good sugar. If, as the right hon. Gentleman says, the classification has brought us increased supplies of low sugar, does it follow that the converse of the proposition must be true, that the abolition of the standards and the adoption of one rate of duly would have diminished our supplies? It so happens that the experiment has been tried in France. In 1860 the graduated scale of duties was abolished, and all qualities of
  1994
  raw sugar were admitted at one rate of duty. Mark the results; the imports were in 1860, 60,496,812 kilogrammes; 1861, 95,802,687 kilogrammes; 1862, 129,167,182 kilogrammes. In England, under classified duties, the imports increased in eight years 25 per cent. In France, under one rate of duty, they increased in three years more than 100 per cent. But it is important to note that classified duties have brought us low rubbish, while an equal duty has brought France sugars of the most beautiful quality. The glory of the Bill, said the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Colonies, is, that it admits the lowest class of sugars and excludes the best; and we are told this is for the benefit of the lower classes, who use low sugars. But why should the lower classes be compelled by law to consume the worst sugar? The lower classes desire good sugar as well as other folks. At one time they were content with oatmeal and barley bread, but now they are all aiming to get better bread and better meat and drink than before. Do you believe they prefer coarse sugar to fine, or bad tea to good? Time was, when bad tea was forced upon them by classified duties, as bad sugar is now; that scandalous law is now abolished, and the law forcing bad sugar upon them ought and must be abolished also. There has been a similar and instructive struggle going on in France on the sugar duties as in England. The sugar refiners in France have the monopoly of refining sugars for export, which are required to be refined from foreign sugar. The French beetroot sugar-makers justly claim an equal right to refine their sugar, and to receive the same drawback on exportation as: the refiner. The French refiners, with whom are allied the shipowners, are little behind their brethren in England in sugar literature, but they sail on a different tack. In England, the refiners knowing the stigma attaching to protection, preach free trade. In France, free trade doctrines are less fashionable, and they tickle their countrymen, by affecting extraordinary concern for the safety and glory of France. If, say they, beetroot sugar be allowed to be exported, the import of foreign sugar will fall off, foreign commerce, the nursery of our seamen, will be diminished, and the safety of the nation will be imperilled, for if war should some day break out with "perfide Albion," you will have destroyed the arm (the seamen) by which their in-

  1995
  solence would have been punished. The French Government have this year, by way of compromising the claims of the beetroot sugar-growers and the refiners, allowed the growers to export their sugar; but to pacify the refiners, have adopted two classifications, namely—a duty of 42 francs and 44 francs per kilo, on raw sugar. The Secretary for the Colonies told the House the other night that there had been a Conference at Paris of representatives from Holland, Belgium, France, and England, at which, although at first all except England were opposed to classified duties, at the close all were in favour of them except Belgium, and led us to expect that France would adopt our system. Well, France has adopted two classifications for raw sugar; England has four. The difference between the highest and the lowest rate of duty on raw sugars in France is 10 d. per cwt.; what is the difference in England? Instead of 10 d., it is 3s. 6d. per cwt. I am sorry my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden) has not remained in the House, because I gave him notice that I intended to put him on his defence. I charge my hon. Friend with having been the cause of great mischief on this question, by silently allowing the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the sugar refiners to make use of his name as an approver of this Bill, without, I believe, having, with his usual shrewdness, inquired into its operations. The consequence has been that the free traders all over the country, confiding in his usually sound free trade opinions, have been lulled into a false security. My hon. Friend told the House the other night that our foreign Ambassadors and Consuls ought to be sent to school to learn political economy, and study Adam Smith. But some of my hon. Friend's constituents are of opinion that there are other persons besides our Ambassadors who ought to be sent to school. The grocers of Rochdale asked my hon. Friend's opinion on this question of the sugar duties, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer quoted the letter which my hon. Friend wrote to them as an evidence of his approval of his plan of classification. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not read to the House the answers of the Rochdale grocers, which showed that my hon. Friend ought to go to school again. My hon. Friend has been a great school-waster in his day, and he taught his scholars so well, that they immediately detected the sugar fallacies of their old
  1996
  master. They reminded him, "These are not the doctrines we learnt from you; in considering this question, you have not put on your anti-Corn Law spectacles;" and so they beat him with the weapons he had taught them to handle. I contend, in the interest of the consumers, that the duty on sugar should operate in the same way as if there were no duty at all. If there were no duty at all, the West India planters would have to compete with sugar-growers all over the world; and if they chose to continue the system of their great grandfathers, and found themselves unable to compete with those who used the best machinery, and the most scientific processes of making sugar, they must take the consequences—they must go unpitied to the wall. The English sugar refiners would also have to compete with the colonial and foreign sugar refiners, and, under this competition, prices would soon regulate themselves, and the consumer would be supplied with the best sugar at the lowest price at which it could be afforded. It is proved that it is impossible to ascertain by inspection the quantity of crystallizable saccharine matter contained in any sample of sugar, and I hold, as the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Cardwell) formerly held, that—
  "To strike with a superior duty one pound of sugar which, by a better mode of manufacture, contains more saccharine matter than another pound obtained from the same raw material, is to inflict direct discouragement upon improvement."
  I am, therefore, in favour of one rate of duty, as the only just principle to adopt in the interest of consumers. One rate of duty on all qualities would attain the same object as no duty. But my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale reminds me of the old anti-Corn Law cry, "A fixed duty is a fixed injustice." I quite agree with him that a fixed duty on corn is a fixed injustice; but I never advocated a fixed duty on corn, although my hon. Friend once did, and it is a curious historical fact, that he wrote a pamphlet in which he proposed a fixed duty on corn as a source of public revenue. Why was a fixed duty on corn a fixed injustice? Because if a fixed duty, say of 10 s. a quarter, be laid on foreign corn, the price of home-grown corn would be proportion-ably raised to the consumer. Thus, an import of 2,000,000 quarters of foreign corn, at 10 s. per quarter, would raise a revenue of £1,000,000, whilst the price of

  1997
  the 20,000,000 quarters of home-grown corn being raised by 10 s. per quarter, the consumers would be taxed £10,000,000 for the purpose of putting £1,000,000 into the Exchequer. Let me remind my hon. Friend of another anti-Corn Law argument, which he has frequently used in former days, that if a duty be placed on foreign corn for purposes of revenue, a corresponding duty ought to be placed on home-grown corn. Let the House apply this principle to sugar. If the foreign and colonial planter paid a duty of 16 s. per cwt. on their white sugar, why should not the English refiner pay a corresponding duty? But he pays no tax at all on his white sugar; he only pays a tax of 12 s. 8d. on the lowest quality. It is said, no doubt, that the refiner pays on the "waste," but how does the House know what the "waste" is? Here is the juggle. Under the name of classified duties, the refiner gets a bounty on the low quality of sugar, which enables him to re-make it into white sugar, equal in appearance, but worse in quality, at a less price than the colonial planter, who has to pay a duty of 16 s. instead of 12 s. 8d. per cwt. The consequence is, that of the 500,000 tons of sugar which are consumed in this country, 400,000 tons pass through the hands of the sugar refiners, of which 300,000 tons pay the lowest rate of duty. Now, this 300,000 tons of sugar, paying 12 s. 8d. duty, is re-made into sugar of a quality which, if imported by the sugar-planter, would pay duties of 16 s. and 18 s. 4d. per cwt. Is it just to make the planter pay a higher duty upon sugar of the same appearance, made by one single process, than the English refiner pays on that quality, because he puts it through the double process of making it over again? The fact is, this is a law to drive the planters of good sugar out of the market by high duties, and to give the English refiner, by means of low duties, almost the sole monopoly of the sale of sugar in this country. This is neither more nor less than a law to prevent the consumer from using cheap and good sugar, that the refiner may be protected in selling bad and dear sugar. No eloquence can long maintain this scandalous law. I trust I have shown sufficient reasons why it should be re-considered, and I therefore move, "That the duties on sugar be continued in force for one year only."
  MR. LEATHAM: Sir, in rising to second the Motion of my hon. Friend, I do not rise with any intention or desire of
  1998
  expressing dissatisfaction with the propositions of the right hon. Gentleman; on the contrary, I cordially concur in the opinion which has been so generally expressed, that when we take into consideration the peculiar difficulties which at this moment beset this question, and especially the ill-informed and confused state of the public mind with respect to it, the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with it as satisfactorily as the House had any right to expect. In common with many who do not go quite so far as the right hon. Gentleman appears to go in their admiration of what we call ad valorem duties, and to whom simplicity in taxation has greater charms than complexity, I have observed with pleasure the step which the right hon. Gentleman has taken in the direction of equalization. And if the House will permit me, I should like to state the grounds upon which I think not only that the right hon. Gentleman was fully justified in taking that step, but would be fully justified if, on some early occasion, he should take other steps in the same direction. The right hon. Gentleman constructs his scale upon the principle, that the amount of the duty should correspond with the amount of crystallizable saccharine matter which is contained in the various sugars; and in order to show that the scale is just, we ought to be able to show that such is really the case. But with all due deference to the authority of the right hon. Gentleman, I cannot withhold my very grave doubts upon the fact. In the course of the very remarkable speech by which the right hon. Gentleman introduced his Budget, he had occasion to refer to the flood of literature with which this whole question has been inundated, and in which not only he but every hon. Member who takes a lively interest in great fiscal questions like this, has been hopelessly immersed during the last few weeks. Now, a peculiarity of that literature is, that the great bulk of it has proceeded from the pen of interested parties, and it seems almost necessary to disclaim at the outset (as I have much pleasure in being able to disclaim) the least personal interest in any particular solution of this question. Well, since I had no personal interest to guide me, the House may readily imagine how I floundered about in that Slough of Despond of controverted or conflicting facts which those who took part in this controversy contrived to place in the path of every pilgrim who set out

  1999
  on his journey with a single eye to arriving at the truth. But in the midst of this war of interests and conflict of opinion, there was one substantial fact which I was able to grasp firm hold of, and that was, that there exists the greatest diversity of opinion as to the amount of crystallizable saccharine matter contained in the various samples, and therefore the greatest possible doubt as to the justice of the scale. For example, I find Dr. Scoffern writing to the papers that
  "He had on many occasions extracted upwards of 90 per cent of white pure sugar commercially equal to Dutch lumps from Indian khaur."
  Now Indian khaur is the coarsest sugar known, and is practically identical with that Indian jaggery which the right hon. Gentleman selected when he put his extreme case the other night, and asked us whether it was fair to tax equally sugar nearly in a refined state, and Indian jaggery which contained only 50 per cent of crystallizable saccharine matter. I was astonished (having brought to the investigation the impression which I will engage to say prevails among ninety-nine out of every hundred Members of this House, that there exists the greatest disparity in the amount of crystallizable saccharine matter contained in the various samples) when I took up the Report of Professors Brande and Cooper, who conducted, at the instance of the Customs House, an analysis of 19 samples of sugar, embracing every kind known to the trade; I was astonished, I say, to learn from that Report, that those learned gentlemen discovered in 15 out of the 19 samples no less than 90 per cent of crystallizable saccharine matter, and that in no one instance of the other four did the analysis disclose less than 85 per cent. Now if this be so, what becomes of the assertion (by which I venture to think the public mind has been grossly abused) that sugars are constantly imported containing 30 or 40 or 50 per cent of crystallizable saccharine matter only? And what becomes of the justice of your scale which is based on some such assumption? Surely, there must have been great ignorance or great delusion somewhere (to use no harsher term), either on the part of those who conducted this analysis, or on the part of those who, flying in the face of these results, still cling so tenaciously to a system of duties which they know to be so preposterously at variance with them. But I will call the refiners in order to prove
  2000
  the truth of what I say. And the refiners, at all events, are not obnoxious to the charge of giving ex parte evidence in favour of a uniform duty. Mr. Gaddesden, an eminent refiner, and in every sense an unimpeachable witness, in the course of his evidence before the Select Committee, proceeded to show how fraud would be committed if you refined in bond, and this is the illustration which he gave—
  "I purchase," says Mr. Gaddesden, "West India sugar paying the 12 s. 8d. duty, which contains of water about 5¾per cent, dirt 1 percent, total net sugar 6¾per cent."
  Mr. Gaddesden therefore speaks (as though it were a matter of daily occurrence) of purchasing West India sugar paying the very lowest duty, and containing 93¼ per cent of saccharine matter. Then Mr. Fryer (who is a great champion of the refiners, and a very able one) admits that he has bought sugar paying only the 13 s. 10 d. duty containing 95 per cent of crystallizable saccharine matter. Now, I do not wish to weary the House by needlessly multiplying proofs, but I should like to state a few facts with reference to the scale as it at present stands. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Potter), who has himself written very forcibly upon this question, obtained several samples of sugar which had passed the Customs House under the new scale, and transmitted them to an analytical chemist of great eminence, whose name if I were to mention it would be well known to the right hon. Gentleman, and the results I hold in my hand. There was one sample of sugar admitted under the highest duty but one, and this contained 94.5 per cent of crystallizable saccharine matter. There were two samples admitted under the 9s. 5d. duty (now the lowest but one); one of these contained 84.4 and the other 89 per cent of crystallizable saccharine matter. There were also two samples admitted under the lowest duty of all—the new duty recently added by the right hon. Gentleman to the scale in order to embrace the very lowest sugars;—one of them contained 82 and the other 85 per cent of crystallizable saccharine matter. Now I have but little information beyond what I glean from publications which are the property of everybody; I have no ends to serve beyond those of justice; and what I want to know is, whether these facts (attested by the evidence of eminent analysts who must be presumed to be impartial wit-

  2001
  nesses, and by the evidence of eminent refiners, all whose interests point in a contrary direction) —I want to know whether these facts are facts or only so much gratuitous romance, because if they are facts I am at a loss to understand the justice of the scale. And do not let the right hon. Gentleman reply that it matters little how much crystallizable saccharine matter the samples contain if they do not yield that amount to the refiner, because, in the first place, this is not a refiner's but a consumer's question. In the second place, the right hon. Gentleman has admitted himself to be a disciple of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, and the words of their memorial, as quoted by the right hon. Gentleman, are these — "that it is needful the duties be assessed upon the article in proportion to the amount of crystallizable saccharine matter which it contains," not which it may be made to yield; and in the third place, because the refiners themselves have stated that it is not their object to extract the greatest amount of sugar, but to extract it in the most tempting form, Thus Mr. Fairrie (and Mr. Fairrie is a perfect giant upon the field of saccharine literature), expressly states —
  "That the refiner must carry on his manufacture in such a manner that he may obtain clear and bright crystals; which is not to be done if he makes it his principal or only object to get a large percentage of sugar. In this case his goods would be small in the grain, with a dingy look, and saleable only at a low; price."
  Now since my hon. Friend has not by his Motion distinctly raised the question of a uniform duty, I do not propose to go further now into the question of ad valorem duties as applied to sugar; but this I must say before I sit down, that if this artificial and capricious system is to be do fended by analogy, it must be by much sounder analogies than those which the right hon. Gentleman strove to draw the other night. The right hon. Gentleman cited the case of wine, cocoa, coffee, corn and timber, as analogous to that of sugar, Now with the exception of wine, I cannot admit that any true analogy exists; and even in the case of wine, surely that man must be a poet who would call the wine duty an ad valorem duty, unless, indeed, he is prepared to throw overboard age, colour, bouquet and flavour, everything which constitutes the value of wine, and to value wine solely for the rapidity with which it will make him drunk. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that at the same duty
  2002
  are introduced brandies, quoted at 15 s. proof, and rum at 15 d., and he knows perfectly well that at the same duty come in, side by side, the most silky Chateau Lafitte, at five or six guineas a dozen, and the most rasping Gladstonian, at 14 s. But take the case of the other articles of import; the right hon. Gentleman states that cocoa paste pays a higher duty than cocoa nibs, roast coffee than green, flour than corn, and planks than timber; but what does this fact prove more than that your tariff sanctions the principle that the manufactured article ought to pay a higher duty than the raw product out of which it is manufactured? Cocoa nibs, green coffee, corn and timber, are all raw products, but sugar is never a raw product, it is always a manufactured article. No one imports sugar canes; and if the analogy is to prove anything, it must go much farther, and it must be shown that you strike the manufactured article with a higher and higher duty in proportion as it is further and further removed from the condition of the raw product out of which it is manufactured. Take the case of flour. The right hon. Gentleman ought to have shown that extra superfine pays a higher duty than superfine—superfine than fine—fine than seconds. But he can show nothing of the kind, and therefore I maintain that his analogy falls to the ground. And here is another point which is most material to this part of the question. The fact that these manufactured articles are liable to be charged with a higher duty than the raw products is instantly and of itself apparent. A blind man could tell the difference between roast coffee and green by the evidence of his nose, and by the use of his touch he could tell the difference between corn and flour, or between planks and timber; but in the case of sugar (and this is precisely where the shoe pinches) great technical knowledge and experience are requisite to assign the proper numbers; indeed, so nice and delicate an operation is it, that we are told the decision may be influenced by the shade of the sky, and by the state of the atmosphere, and that, too, in a climate and a country where two consecutive days were never yet known to be alike. And in the case of wine, the amount of duty to be charged is determined by the amount of alcohol which is present, and this is ascertained by the simplest operation known to science; but the analogous process in the case of sugar is an admitted failure—and

  2003
  in the evidence which the Customs House officers gave before the Committee, they stated that they judged solely by sight, by grain and colour. Well, the natural, the inevitable, and the notorious consequence has been, that strong sugars are constantly coloured in order that they may pass at a lower duty. So much, then, for the right hon. Gentleman's analogies. And, in conclusion, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, and ask the House, what possible future can there be before a system of classified duties in defence of which even the right hon. Gentleman, with his vast stores of knowledge, with his keen ingenuity, and his wide range of illustration, is able to discover no sounder analogies than these?
  Amendment proposed to Schedule (A), page 8, line 10, by adding after the words "sixty-four," the words "until the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-five."— (Mr. John Benjamin Smith.)
  MR. CAVEsaid, that having taken a somewhat active part in the Committee on the Sugar Duties, he desired to say a few words in opposition to the Motion which had been submitted to the House. He would be as short as possible, and avoid figures, which could not be tested in a debate; and if the subject were somewhat dry, and indeed scarcely intelligible to those who had no occasion to acquire a special knowledge of the details, he at least was not responsible for its having been forced a second time upon unwilling listeners. The hon. Member who had introduced this Motion had stated that he had only just given attention to the subject. That he (Mr. Cave) could well imagine. But the question had for a long time occupied the attention of others. According to the evidence of some of the witnesses before the Committee, this agitation arose from the dissatisfaction of certain wholesale grocers at their province being invaded by the refiners, who deprived them of the monopoly of supplying the retail trade. The fact was that a very great change had come over the taste of the great body of consumers, and large classes, who formerly never dreamt of using refined sugar, now did so habitually, owing chiefly to its increased variety and cheapness, and, perhaps, in some degree, to the publication some years ago in the Lancet of the magnified likenesses of acari, or raw sugar insects. This change of taste
  2004
  happened to be contemporaneous, in this country at least, with the new sugar duty scale, which was quite enough for the logical minds of a certain class of reasoners; but, unfortunately for them, in Scotland, where the same scale prevailed, scarcely any raw sugar had been used for more than twenty years. These "sugar insurgents," as they had been called, were joined by other highly respected houses, which had been trying the experiment of carrying the mountain to Mahomet, by refining in Mauritius and India, and did not find it pay. He fully believed the sincerity of these gentlemen, with some of whom he was well acquainted; and it would be absurd in him to say a word against interested motives. In such matters attack and defence were generally prompted by interested motives. The progress of the country was owing to various interests pressing forward, checking and being checked in turn. He was afraid that progress would be much retarded, did it depend upon public spirit alone. These gentlemen had among them a sort of newspaper, by means of which they instructed the people after the usual fashion of agitators, that is, by exaggerating the arguments on one side and suppressing those on the other; and it could not be denied that they had made many influential friends. Great were the advantages promised from a change of system. All profits, no losses! Sugar unknown to the present generation (though the scale was only ton years old) sparkling like Sinbad's valley of diamonds! But how was this saccharine paradise to be reached? Through the gate of a Parliamentary Committee. Give them but an opportunity of stating their case, and no reasonable man could fail to adopt their views. He need scarcely say the ordinary accessories of agitation were not wanting. They dressed up two lay figures, calling one free trade and the other protection, to frighten timid people, and the convenient poor man was pressed into the: service, of whom agitators were so fond on platform and on paper, but whom they too often so utterly ignored everywhere else. The Committee was obtained by the aid of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London. It might, therefore, be taken for granted, that its composition could not be challenged by those who adopted his views. The Chairman, the present Secretary for the Colonies, was supposed to be committed to the same opinions. After a long and patient in-

  2005
  quiry, the Committee, by a large majority, adopted the Chairman's Report not against, but in favour of, an extension of the scale—in the main, in favour of the scale of this year's Budget—the adhesion of at least one Member of the Committee being caused by positive conversion from his former faith. The decision of the Committee was a blow to the agitators, who, however, soon consoled themselves by stigmatizing the majority, from chairman downwards, as people of intelligence much below par. They were sure the House of Commons would not adopt such an absurd decision. The appeal to the House of Commons came off last Session, under the auspices of his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland. The result was certainly not triumphant; it was, however, easy then to abuse the House as a parcel of people who got there no one knew how; bad enough as individuals, still worse in their collective capacity. "There were, however, exceptions. The hon. Member for Rochdale would set the whole affair right, though it was scarcely worth troubling him about; scarcely dignus vindice nodus, so clear was the case." The hon. Member for Rochdale, however, thought otherwise, and then their opinion of his powers also changed; "he had overworked his brain, he was no longer quite himself. Was it not he who quarrelled with The Times?" A conference took place about this time on the duties between delegates from France, Belgium, Holland, and England. They concurred in a report in favour of classification; but his friends, the agitators, were very severe upon them as people with foregone conclusions, who merely wrote to order; "They were not worth thinking about. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would never perpetuate such enormities in his Budget." The right hon. Gentleman, he imagined, must have given some indication of his opinions, for it was hinted some time before Easter that his mind was too subtle to take a straightforward course, and his counsels "dark as Erebus." There was a last resource —the all-intelligent, all-powerful British public. There was to be a public meeting, but, in order to secure a proper expression of public opinion, only one side was to be heard. It was to be, in fact, a private meeting, disguised as a public one. It came off. His hon. Friend the Member for the City presided with his usual ability; but the British public intimated that they preferred hearing both sides, and even -tually there was a scene much like that
  2006
  which took place in the Rotunda in Dublin about the same time. The enemy were left in possession, and passed resolutions in favour of the Report of the Sugar Duties Committee. In spite of all this crushing weight of authority, the Member for the City would not give way, and he could not but admire the constancy with which his hon. Friend stood by a hopeless case.
  " Vietrix causa Diis placuit, sed victa Catoni."
  And he deserved a better fate than that his able speech a few nights ago could induce only a forlorn hope of seventeen to follow him into the lobby.—What was the case of the other side? First, that the Customs' Officer could not judge accurately of the quality of the sugar from samples. They had had all this before the Committee — the dark day, the yellow fog, the bilious Custom House Officer; but it was proved that the trouble had been much exaggerated, the complaints few. The Committee could decide without proof, that if a bilious officer thought the sugar looked yellower than usual he would see the standard in the same light. Grocers, and specially refiners, settled the price they should give by tests similar to those by which the officer settled the duties, and if they could do so in a range of from 10 s. to 15 s., why should not he in a range of less than 5s.? The Dutch numbers, which were standards of value all over the world, were on the same principle, and more reliable than the samples which some hon. Members had, he understood, been carrying in their pockets ever since the Budget. But objection was taken to the principle of classification, even, if it could be carried out in a perfect manner. The other side protested against taxing one pound of sugar more heavily than another. He (Mr. Cave) quite agreed with them. The late Mr. James Wilson had the same objection urged against his measure. Why do you have differential duties on sugar? His reply was, "We have not; we have only one; we tax sugar 13 s. 4d. wherever we can get at it." So spirit was taxed at the same rate in cheap sherry and costly Lafitte. A person complaining that he paid a higher duty on his sugar simply complained that he had more sugar to pay for, like the man who on becoming rich grumbled that he had to pay more income tax. This was the principle of the sugar duties—to tax at one rate all the pure sugar which a refiner in the ordinary exercise of his trade could extract from that compound of various matters which was

  2007
  called the raw sugar of commerce. The duty would be strictly ad valorem if all sugar passed through refineries, but, practically, good grocery sugar—that is, sugar; which came into consumption in a raw state, often fetched a higher price than the amount of pure sugar warranted, on account of its appearance—a kind of fancy price—and was, therefore, more lightly taxed according to its value; and sometimes a planter, in trying to improve his sugar, spoilt this appearance, and so lost the grocery market, which would have given him a better price for an intrinsically less valuable article. This accounted for some inequalities to which allusion had been made. It could not be too clearly stated that precisely the same considerations influenced the refiner in fixing the price he would give for sugar as the Customs' Officer in fixing the duty he would charge. Experience was a tolerably sure guide in both cases. The chemist might tell them that he got such and such percentage in his laboratory, just as he used to tell them after operating on a dozen ripe canes how much sugar they ought to grow to the acre. He remembered a story being told of an unhappy Jamaica planter going to air his grievances at the Colonial Office some years ago, when Mr. Hawes was Under Secretary, and while waiting in one of what the author of Philip Van Artevelde called the "sighing rooms," being asked by an enterprising, clerk how much sugar he made to the acre? On replying that if the soil and weather were good and the negroes would work, he might get a ton all round, he was immediately met by the rejoinder, "Why, how can you expect to make both ends meet? our Under Secretary makes twice as much as that out of the worst soil upstairs!" The practical man knew that these calculations were worthless for ordinary life. If the refiner could get as much pure sugar profitably out of the lowest as out of the highest qualities, why did he give so much more for one than the other? A single illustration would suffice. In a Bristol refinery the other day, 12 lb. of actual mud was found in a cwt. of Brazilian sugar, which choked the filters, and caused much expense in reburning the animal charcoal. It was said, however, that the classification brought in this abominable stuff. "If it were not for this false system it would all be purified in the place of growth, and come in good sugar." [Mr. CRAWFORD: Hear, hear!] Well! but
  2008
  would it? In order to test this, they must go to the place of growth. If they found there that the producer could only get as much for his good sugar as his bad, there would be at least a prima facie ground for this charge; but if they found, as they did, that the price of good sugar at the place of growth was always far higher than that of bad, what should induce the planter to make bad sugar except his incapacity, from various causes, to make better? Why should a man deliberately make what was worth 10 s. when he could as easily, as they were told, make what was worth 20 s.? Certainly not from fear of the duty, for he (Mr. Cave) was talking of prices at the place of growth. Possibly this was caused in some instances by want of means to make more than the rudest and simplest qualities; in others, by a conviction that the highest price was not always the most paying price, and that a colonial refinery, working only during crop, could not compete with one in England, working all the year round with every command of fuel, machinery, and reliable workmen, Just as it was cheaper for a West Indian planter to buy sawn planks from Canada than to cut down and saw up the splendid trees at his own door, so it was cheaper for him to send his sugar in a matrix of incongruous substances to be purified in London, Bristol, or elsewhere—very much as the Australian sent his copper ore to be smelted at Swansea. When Mr. Pitt said that the colonies should not make a nail, he pronounced an arbitrary edict for the benefit of the mother country; but, no doubt, it would not have been wise in the colonies to attempt it. When the hon. Member alluded to the decrease in the quantity of sugar equal to white clayed, as proved by the Returns, he forgot that the standards were altered in 1854, and that a great deal which formerly came in under that denomination now passed in the class below. This showed how dangerous it was for hon. Gentlemen to get up pamphlets, and then come down and make speeches on them. In truth, when they were told of the great increase in the lower qualities of sugar in this country, it was not that we had lost the better but that we had gained the others in addition. The greater part of the low sugars were foreign, and before 1846 excluded by a prohibitory duty. He did not defend the Act of 1846. He considered it a gross breach of national faith and national consistency, but as a free trade measure it was right; and

  2009
  as the duties on slave and free grown sugar gradually approximated under that Act, those from Brazil and Manilla, formerly excluded altogether, came in in great abundance, and the consumption rose from 17lb. a head in 1841 to more than 36 lb. in the past year. He felt sure that the great demand consequent on this reduction of duty would cause fresh land to be brought into cultivation, and an increased supply of low sugar, which could be more quickly made to meet a sudden demand than high qualities. The hon. Member had talked of increased importation to France in a particular year, but that was caused by the failure of the beet root, and had nothing to do with duties. Certain fine qualities, no doubt, sought Franco rather than England, because the Government there chose to give them a high bounty in more ways than one. The result being that the net revenue derived from sugar as compared with the gross receipts was said to be us fifteen to forty-five, but when an uniform duty was recommended as likely to give the consumer a supply of good raw sugar, where was the proof of this in France? A Return, however, moved for this Session by the hon. Member for the City showed that last year the people of England got better sugar at a less price than the year before. It would be easy to show that if a scale was oppressive, because the lower qualities in each came so near the highest in the grade below, how much more oppressive, conversely, would In.' Uniformity, which taxed at the same rate qualities differing in so much greater a degree. But he had already trespassed too long, and he would conclude by saying that, in his opinion, the most valuable of the Chancellor's proposals in respect of these duties was that which secured their permanence. Nothing was so injurious to a trade as that its operations should be unsettled for many weeks, year after year, by speculation on changes in the duties. For three years past the evil had been greatly aggravated by this mischievous agitation. He had heard that their fate at the next election depended on their course with reference to this question, but he hoped that hon. Members would disregard even this formidable threat. He trusted that that night this mere shadow of a shade might be laid for ever, and that it might be long before they had another debate on the sugar duties within those walls.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, that the more he had examined this question the more he had come to the conclusion that the ad valorem or differential scale of duties—call it which you would—was not in the interest of the consumer. The room in the London Tavern in which the meeting was held, to which reference had been made, was packed with sugar refiners and their friends, and the advocates of an uniform duty were swamped by the Protectionists. He was much struck by hearing the same kind of arguments used on that occasion as had been used at former meetings in the same place concerning the Navigation Laws. The cry then was, "We shall not be able to compete with the foreigners, and ruin will fall upon us;" and now the sugar refiners said that an alteration in the sugar duties would ruin them. But many other traders who entertained similar fears had survived and prospered, and so, no doubt, would the sugar refiners. At any rate, the business of the House of Commons was to legislate not for the sugar refiners, but for the interests of the country at large. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was not fair to tax dirt; but surely it was expedient to discourage the importation of dirt under the disguise of sugar. The right hon. Gentleman said he aimed at taxing the saccharine matter. But if the principle upon which he went was sound his figures were wrong. Under the lower scale of duties there was 85 per cent of crystallizable saccharine matter which ought to be taxed, and 15 per cent of matter which ought not to be taxed. The 85 per cent paid 8s. 2d., while the 100 per cent paid 12 s. 10 d., being a difference of 35 per cent, while the difference in the percentage was only 15 per cent; consequently, a boon of 20 per cent was given to the sugar refiner. He had all along been an humble supporter of his right hon. Friend's policy, which was in the interest of the people, regardless of class; but his present proposition consulted the interests of the sugar refiners as against the consumer. He thought, however, that the right hon. Gentleman was taking a very arbitrary course in refusing to re-open the question. Moreover, practical difficulties would arise in the way of sampling sugar, which would be a great hindrance to trade. Consider the inconvenience which would arise supposing a 2,000 ton ship arrived carrying 16,000 bags of sugar, every ten bags of which would have to be sampled in order to see whether they came under

  2011
  the higher or lower scale of duty. At all events, he hoped the House would not allow their hands to be tied, but take care that the subject should be again discussed when the next budget was brought forward. He was quite sure the more the question was discussed, the more an ad valorem scale of duties would be seen to be a protection injurious to free commerce and disadvantageous to the consumer.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated in his Budget speech that the principle on which the duties on sugar should be levied in future was that stated in the Memorial of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce— according to the extractable saccharine value; but this Bill involved an entire departure from that principle. So far from saccharine value only being taken, the third clause of the Bill enacted that "for facilitating the due assessment of the duties on sugar with reference to colour, grain, or saccharine matter, considered collectively," &c. He wished to know how the Chancellor of the Exchequer reconciled that clause with the principle laid down in the Manchester Memorial. Colour, grain, and saccharine matter collectively were now, it appeared, to be the criterion of value, and not saccharine matter only. Reference had been made to the meeting at the London Tavern. Now, having been one of the persons who convened it, he desired to say that that meeting was intended to be a meeting of those who were in favour of an equalization of the duty, and it was convened to consider a common course of action in discussing the question in that House. On arriving at the place, he found that the refiners had stolen a march upon them, occupied the room which others had hired, and conducted the business to their own entire satisfaction; and they afterwards sent him the bill. The meeting, in short, was packed, and could afford no indication whatever of public feeling. It only showed the apprehensions which existed among the refining interest at the progress which had been made hostile to their views. The hem. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Cave) had referred to the small following he (Mr. Crawford) had the other evening into the lobby; but if the division had taken place at an earlier hour he had the best reason to believe his following would have been much larger. He was also quite convinced that if the numbers were on one side the arguments were on
  2012
  the other. He would remind the hon. Member for Shoreham that colour was not to be relied on—
  "O formose puer, nimium ne crede colori."
  He should support the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. J. B. Smith)—if for no other reason, because of the great dissatisfaction that prevailed among the great body of consumers at the present scale of duties, which rendered it proper that this subject should be again brought under the notice of Parliament next Session, without leaving it to the arbitrary discretion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide any opportunity for such consideration.
  MR. CRUM-EWINGsaid, he had failed to discover in the renewed discussion any fresh argument on either side; he should, therefore, not reply to the speeches that had been made, but would confine himself to a statement of his own opinions. Being himself a large producer of sugar, and having upon his estates the most improved machinery, his own interests would rather lie in the direction of a single duty. As, however, he sat in that House to represent the interests of the community at large, he was bound to say that a uniform duty, without the privilege of refining in bond, would have the result of enhancing the cost of sugar to the consumer. The Committee of 1862 were strongly in favour of permitting refining in bond, but the Customs authorities declared there were extreme difficulties in the way of carrying out that plan. He was convinced, however, that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would exercise a little pressure upon the Customs authorities those difficulties would be overcome. He believed the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be a step in the right direction, and, therefore, he could not support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stockport.
  MR. MOFFATTsaid, that while he admitted that the plan now proposed was an improvement upon the original proposition, he still thought that the interests of the consumer had not been sufficiently considered. He would urge upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the propriety of reverting to the old practice, and of allowing the sugar duties to be annually discussed and voted by that House. The effect of the graduated scale had been to revolutionize the sugar trade, and to constitute the refiners a very large and important body in this country, because the consumers had been compelled to purchase their sugars of the refiners, in-

  2013
  stead of from the original importers. The result of his experience, and of the evidence given before the Committee, was that the consumer had been placed at a disadvantage from the enhanced cost which was attributable to the operations of the refiners. He had heard from retailers, and the same point had been urged upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that there was another element in the sugar supplied by the refiners, for which the public had to pay largely, and that was water, which was present in proportions varying from 6 to 10 per cent. It was impossible that the present arrangement could be final, or that it would allay the agitation which prevailed; and, therefore, he would press upon the right hon. Gentleman the expediency of making these duties the; subject of annual discussion in Parliament. At present it was clear that the importation of the finer qualities of sugar was diminishing, while the introduction of low-class sugars was increasing; and the consequence was, that our exportation of sugar was at a very low ebb. While France exported annually 70,000 tons, Holland 60,000 tons, and Belgium 24,000 tons, England with her vast mercantile marine, and extended commerce, only exported 7,000 tons. All these facts showed that the subject ought to be considered next Session, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consent that an opportunity should be given for that purpose.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, it appeared as though the advocates for postponement thought they were the only depositories of the principles of free trade. He should be prepared to discuss the question, not; in the interest of the refiners, but of the public. As far as his intercourse with those gentlemen enabled him to judge, he did not think that they adopted protection in the sense in which it was attributed to them. What they desired was the protection of a just and equal law against a system which would, in fact, give a large bounty to the foreign refiners against the refiners in this country. The principle which they maintained was, that the duty should be levied in such a manner as to make it the interest of no one to refine in one place more than in another. There was abundant evidence to show that it was not the interest, desire, or inclination of the persons who produced raw sugar to introduce it in a refined state. There were some few cultivators who had erected ma-
  2014
  chinery for refining their sugar on the spot, and it was because of their failure that those persons were agitating for a new system which should be a protection and bounty to them; but, in point of fact, ninety-nine out of every hundred knew that refining abroad could not be carried on with economy. It was not practically the case that there were persons in the East Indies who were desirous of producing refined sugar, but refining there was a distinct business as it was in London, and they wanted an uniform duty, because the raw material of the refiner would then be presented to them with an advantage which would be equivalent to a sum of 5s. or 10 s. a cwt. The principle was the same elsewhere. The effect of the present system was to increase to the utmost the production of every description of sugar, and the effect of lowering the scale would be to bring into the market such coarse sugar as perhaps the African, who was incapable of the delicate operations of refining, might be able to produce from the cane. The hon. Member for the City of London had already brought forward the subject in an intelligible and reasonable form, and the opinion of the country had then been well expressed in that House, as well as at the meeting in the City, which was not packed as the hon. Gentleman described. With regard to the form in which this Amendment had been proposed, nothing could be more inconvenient than to keep any branch of industry in suspense. He had always felt it to be unjust to do so. Cut of all trades the sugar trade was the last in which they should desire to make an annual experiment. The production of sugar was not a matter of one year, but extended to three or four years, and it was not till the end of that period that the practical effect of any arrangement of the duties could be felt. It was of importance, therefore, if they would legislate on the matter, that some security should be given to those who traded on the basis of that arrangement that it should not be changed to-morrow. By creating an impression that the present system would be changed next year, they were levelling a blow at a large branch of industry, no matter where it might be carried on. His hon. Friend (Mr. J. B. Smith) had presented the question in a most impracticable form, and in one that would be most injurious to commerce. He hoped, therefore, the House would not accept the proposal submitted for its consideration, He was prepared at

  2015
  any time to discuss the question upon the principles of free trade, and he would undertake to satisfy any reasonable man who would accord to others, as well as to himself, some comprehension of the principles of free trade, that the duties as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or any similar tariff, would give to every man the greatest possible latitude in his choice of operations, whether as a grower or refiner, consistently with the levying of those duties.
  MR. BATHURSTsaid, that he was a Member of the Committee on Sugar Duties; and as an allusion had been made to the corn duties, with reference to the sugar duties, he begged to remind the House that the question referred to the Committee was not the abolition of the sugar duty, but the question in what form it was most desirable to raise a certain amount of revenue. For himself, he was thoroughly convinced that the demands of justice and the benefit of the public required the maintenance in substance of a graduated scale of duties.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I feel anxious to explain the reason why I followed the hon. Member for London when he led a "forlorn hope "into the lobby against the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a graduated scale of sugar duties, and why I am again prepared to vote with the hon. Member for Stockport, in his proposal to restrict the new scale to one year only. The objection to the graduated scale of sugar duties which has the greatest weight, is that it has tended to the importation of one quality of sugar only, and that of the lowest and worst description. Whoever looks at the history of the sugar trade since the introduction of the graduated duties, cannot fail to perceive that, notwithstanding there are four different rates of duty on sugar, none, or at least small quantities only, have been imported of the two highest grades, and the importations have consisted of qualities not equal to brown clayed, and equal to brown clayed paying respectively 12 s. 8d. and 13 s. 10 d. duty. The effect of this has been that all the sugar imported passed necessarily into the hands of the refiners, for the two lowest qualities are not fit for consumption as grocery sugars. A very small quantity of the 13 s. 10 d. kind, carefully prepared and coloured for the purpose, formed an exception to this rule, but of late years scarcely any importation of the 16 s. and 18 s. 4d. duty sugars has taken place. Besides this it is worth noticing that the quantity of the lowest
  2016
  class at 12 s. 8d. duty has been increasing from year to year till it has reached upwards of 80 per cent of the whole importation of the United Kingdom. It follows from this state of things, that the sugar importation of the country has been specially prepared and adapted for the refiner. Being the great, or rather the only buyers of sugar, the requirements of the refiner had to be met, and as a matter of course they only wanted such sugars as had to be refined. The consequence has been that a regular toll has been levied in the interests of the refiner on all the consumption of the kingdom. What has been the amount of this toll it is not easy to say, but the refiners themselves in their anxiety to support a system of graduated duties have afforded certain data which enable us to form an estimate, if not exactly of their gain at least of the public loss. They have told us that sugars are imported containing only 50 per cent of crystallizable succharine matter, the remaining 50 per cent being impurities of various kinds. If such sugars have been imported to any extent, it follows that the crushed and lump sugars prepared for the British market were manufactured under extraordinary difficulties. In the first place, such low sugars containing one half of foreign matter had to pay double freight and charges of every kind, as compared with pure sugars. Then there was the drainage on low half manufactured sugar always amounting to a large percentage of waste. But that was not all. If only one-half saccharine produce was obtained, duty being charged on the impure sugar as imported was equivalent to a charge of double duty. In addition to all this there was the refiner's profit to be allowed for, at whatever that may be estimated. But it is obvious there must be some mistake in such figures. No doubt the British consumer does pay dear enough for the weak crushed sugars which alone he uses, but he cannot he the victim of a system of manufacture so improvident and wasteful as this.
  The solution of the difficulty is not far to seek. The refiner is master of the situation, because he is the only buyer in the sugar market, and the imports of sugar are carefully prepared to suit his wants and promote his profits. It has become the highest art of the sugar planter to hit the exact standard of colour and strength that will qualify for the lowest duty, and sugar of that description commands a certain and speedy sale. But it

  2017
  is a delusion to represent such sugars as containing only 50 per cent of saccharine. The truth is, that dry well made sugars, not subject to the drainage complained of, and containing from 80 to 90 per cent of pure sugar, are regularly imported at the lowest duty of the scale. Hence the difficulty of the refiner was by no means so great as he represented; on the contrary, there is every reason to think that he carried on a very lucrative trade. It is no part of our business here to inquire into the secrets of trade, or to endeavour to estimate its profits; but there are two circumstances which afford at least a strong presumption that an unavowed and concealed profit was earned by the refiner. In the first place we know that there have been many new refineries built, as well as large additions made to old works during recent years; and, in the second place, it: is most suggestive of the cost which the British consumer must pay for his sugar, that not a pound of what has been prepared for his use can find a market elsewhere. Whatever may be the level of price in the sugar market of Europe, whatever may be the scarcity of cane or the failure of beetroot sugar, not one pound can be exported from our stocks of crushed sugars. It is not my wish to say a single word against a class so respectable as the British sugar refiners, nor do I make any charge against them either of one kind or another. My remarks are solely directed in the interests of the consumer and of the public revenue. There are various aspects of this argument which it is not necessary to enlarge upon, as the present debate must be regarded rather as a protest against an unsound principle than a serious attempt to overthrow it. But I cannot help noticing one remarkable effect of the late duties, and which will equally follow under the new scale, and that is, that the practical result in no way corresponds with the professed objects of its advocates. The main burden of the argument for a uniform duty so strongly put by the Chancellor of the Exchequer consisted in this, that varying qualities of sugar should be charged with varying duties, and that it is contrary to reason and sound policy to charge the same duty on khaur and jaggery as on the produce of the vacuum pan. We deprecate, said the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters, a uniform duty as contrary to common sense, as neither more nor less than a reductio ad absurdum as against one rate. But
  2018
  would it be believed that the legislation embraced in the present Bill does in effect produce that very result? One duty, and one duty only is levied at the Custom House, because only one kind of sugar is imported. We have heard much in late discussions about a "miscarriage of justice; "this appears to be a ease of a "miscarriage of legislation." The law not only does not accomplish what it proposes, but it accomplishes exactly the reverse. If a gradation of duties has any meaning at all, it means that sugar of various qualities should be imported, and that the consumer should have variety and assortment from which to choose. But the very opposite is the fact. Only one kind of sugar is imported, and only one duty levied. What, then, becomes of the arguments about adaptation of the scale to every quality of sugar, and the advantage of importing produce of all kinds and from all quarters? The truth is, that the professed object of the graduated scale is an utter failure. One quality of sugar, and that the worst quality, has been imported, and will continue to be imported so long as the principle of the present Bill is adhered to. I therefore have no hesitation in voting with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there were two questions before the House—the one the merits of a classified as against an uniform scale of duties; and the other, a proposal that the classified scale as now submitted should only continue for a year. He hailed with satisfaction the admission which had been freely made in the course of the debate by those who advocated an uniform duty— namely, that the scale of duties now proposed was an improvement upon the existing one. In that admission lay the answer to some part at least of the objections raised to a classified system of duties. It had been said by the hon. Member who spoke last (Mr. Buchanan) and by others, that the effect of the old scale was to drive out the superior kinds of raw sugar; but that might be not because it was simply a classified scale—that we had yet to learn— but rather because it was a classified scale which might not be adapted to the several elements of the taxable material. The hon. Member who spoke last stated that the present scale favoured the introduction of only two descriptions of sugars—namely, those "equal to brown clayed "and those "not equal to brown clayed," and that it re-

  2019
  pelled from this country both sugars above and sugars below those classes. But the hon. Member also complained of the proposed multiplication of the number of steps in the scale, although one of the new steps was expressly intended to meet his objection that only two descriptions of sugar were encouraged, and to let in a description which was now shut out. As to the difficulties which were said to exist in carrying out the principle of a classified duty, those difficulties lay within very narrow limits, and were not such as rendered necessary any departure from the principle. The judgment of the House upon the main question should not depend upon this. His hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. J. B. Smith) had referred to the case of the papermakers, and asked how the conduct of the Government towards them could be justified. But he did justify it, and had no difficulty in doing so. What they had done in the case of the paper-makers was this—they had declined to recognize foreign legislation as the basis of differences in English law. But if he had acted on the case set up by his hon. Friend he should have great difficulty in mitigating the case of the papermakers, because it would be in effect giving a bounty to the sugar refiners of one country over those of another. It was said that this was the case of the refiners against the people of England, and that the refiners declared their inability to compete with the foreigner; and then it was added that this complaint was analogous to other complaints made by interests which desired protection. Now, it was not true that the refiners had, as alleged, cried out for protection. The refiners said that a penalty was imposed upon them, as compared with the foreign refiners, by the limited margin allowed between refined and unrefined sugar. He did not admit this to be a well founded complaint, for he believed the scale to be a just scale. What the English refiners asked for, however, was not protection, but equality, and equality alone. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham), in seconding the Amendment, said, that the manufactured article should always be struck by a higher duty than the raw material. But sugar was always a manufactured article — nobody imported sugar canes—it was an article which was better or worse according to the amount of labour and capital bestowed upon it. Hon. Gentlemen admitted that no inducement should be given to parties to apply their
  2020
  labour and capital in one country rather than in another, and to carry on the process of sugar refining upon the hanks of the Ganges rather than upon the banks of the Thames. If, therefore, it paid importers to bring "dirty" sugar to he refined here on account of the superior machinery or the more abundant capital or the more highly skilled labour which were available in this country, Parliament had nothing to do with this result, unless it could be shown that Parliament offered inducements to importers to bring "dirt" to this country. What was wished for, apparently, was that Parliament should say to the English sugar refiners, "If you carry on your trade at all, you shall pay upon the refined sugar very much more than you would pay if you were carrying on this process upon the banks of the Ganges." The effect of a uniform duty had been well demonstrated by a gentleman (Mr. Reed) who had been a sugar refiner in this country, but who, seeing the advantage which a duty so levied afforded to the Indian refiner, transferred his operations to Calcutta. He saw that the Indian refiner could land sugar in England for 18 s. 5d, for which the British refiner had to pay 25 s. 3d.—exactly equivalent to a tax upon the British refiner of 6s. 10 d. from which the Indian refiner was exempt. Others saw this, too, and began to open establishments at Calcutta; but unfortunately (said Mr. Reed) the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the same discovery, and the introduction of a system of the classified rates reduced the Indian refiners to an equality with those of England. The object of the Government was that the British refiner should be under no inducement whatever to fix himself abroad rather than in England, or in England rather than abroad. His hon. Friend (Mr. Leatham) had quoted him as having said that the duty ought to be on the extractable saccharine matter. If his hon. Friend had in view the main principle which ought to govern the duty, he did not deny that to be his opinion. Colour and grain were elements which must he taken into account; but the extractable saccharine matter was the main consideration on which the scale had been framed; and he contended that the nearest approximation to equality which the case admitted of was that at which the Government had arrived in the proposition now before the House. He could assure his hon. Friend that if they had departed from the principle of free trade in this

  2021
  matter, their apostacy had not been a wilful apostacy; but it did appear to him that the principle of free trade was best exemplified and best applied by endeavouring to frame the law in such a manner as would remove all hope from all parties of adventitious advantages which capital and industry did not fairly place at their disposal. This question was one of great importance, and the decision at which the House had arrived on it was, on the whole, a very deliberate one. It had been arrived at after very full and deliberate discussion there, and, what was more, after most ample discussion in Committees of the House and out of doors, by pamphlets, and by the press in every shape; and that being so, it was best for all parties that n sufficient time should be allowed for the purpose of testing the merits of the newly adopted measure. He did not say that they were for ever to shut their door against all improvement in legislation; but this he did say, that no more unwise course could be suggested than that Parliament, after having the subject before it for many years, and having arrived at a decision with, he might say, solemnity, but certainly with a knowledge of all the elements involved in the matter, should limit the operation of the new scheme to a period within which it was utterly impossible there could be any satisfactory experience. The fact that they could not have that experience in a year was a strong reason for allowing this question to be put to rest till those who took an interest in the question should have a better opportunity of urging their views by the light of the experience which might he accumulated in the interval. Since the year 1841 there had been numerous changes, and from that time the sugar duties had had nothing but a precarious existence. From his personal knowledge, he could say that throughout the tenure of their official existence the Government of Sir Robert Peel were anxious to make a permanent arrangement of the sugar duties, if it had been in their power to do so; and the Government of Lord John Russell, which succeeded to Sir Robert Peel's, attempted such an arrangement. Confusion, uncertainty, loss—heavy loss to the revenue, vexation, and bewilderment to producers abroad, partial paralysis pervading every ramification of one of the most important branches of our commerce, would be the result of adopting the Amendment of the hon. Member. Seeing the ability, energy,
  2022
  and zeal with which the hon. Member's side of the question was supported, they might safely conclude that the means would not be wanting for bringing it forward should the expectations of the Government be disappointed. He thought that, in the interests of those concerned in the sugar trade, and of the public generally, the House should decline to adopt the Amendment.
  MR. J. B. SMITHrising to reply—
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Member's proposition having been introduced as an Amendment he was not entitled to a reply.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The House divided:—Ayes 14; Noes 97: Majority 83.

  AYES.

  Barnes, T.

  Moffatt, G.

  Buchanan, W.

  Pease, H.

  Cobbett, J. M.

  Potter, E.

  Crawford, R. W.

  White, J.

  Denman, hon. G

  Williams, W.

  Hay, Sir J. C. D.

  Hubbard, J. G.

  TELLERS.

  Lawson, W.

  Smith, J. B.

  Lindsay, W. S.

  Leatham, E. A.

  NOES.

  Ayrton, A. S.

  Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

  Baillie, H. J.

  Gilpin, C.

  Barttelot, Colonel

  Gladstone, rt. hon. W.

  Bass, M. T.

  Goldsmid, Sir F. H.

  Bathurst, A. A.

  Goschen, G. J.

  Baxter, W. E.

  Greaves, E.

  Beccroft, G. S.

  Gurney, J. H.

  Berkeley, hon. C. P. F.

  Hadfield, G.

  Black, A.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Blake, J.

  Headlam, rt. hn. T. E.

  Bridges, Sir B. W.

  Henderson, J.

  Briscoe, J. I.

  Hennessy, J. P.

  Butler, C. S.

  Hornby, W. H.

  Caird, J.

  Hotham, Lord

  Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

  Howes, E.

  Cave, S.

  Hutt, rt. hon. W.

  Chapman, J.

  Jones, D.

  Childers, H. C. E.

  Kinglake, J. A.

  Clifton, Sir R. J.

  Kingscote, Colonel

  Collier, Sir R. P.

  Langton, W. H. G.

  Cox, W.

  Lee, W.

  Dalglish, R.

  Lyall, G.

  Dawson, R. P.

  Martin, P. W.

  Dent, J. D.

  Martin, J.

  Disraeli, rt. hon. B.

  Massey, W. N.

  Duff, R. W.

  Mills, J. R.

  Dunbar, Sir W.

  Moncreiff, rt. hon. J.

  Dunlop, A. M.

  Morris, D.

  Dunne, Colonel

  Morrison, W.

  Ewart, J. C,

  Norris, J. T.

  Ewing, H. E. Crum-

  O'Conor Don, The

  Farquhar, Sir M.

  O'Loghlen, Sir C. M.

  Fenwick, E. M.

  O'Reilly, M. W.

  Fleming, T. W.

  Padmore, R.

  Floyer, J.

  Paget, Lord C.

  Foljambe, F. J. S.

  Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J.

  2023

  Parker, Major W.

  Taylor, P. A.

  Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

  Trefusis, hon. C. H. R.

  Peto, Sir S. M.

  Turner, J. A.

  Price, R. G.

  Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

  Pugh, D

  Walcott, Admiral

  Ridley, Sir M. W.

  Walsh, Sir J.

  Robertson, H.

  Whitbread, S.

  Selwyn, C. J.

  White, hon. L.

  Smith, A.

  Winnington, Sir T. E.

  Smith, Sir F.

  Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

  Somerset, Colonel

  Somes, J.

  TELLERS.

  Stansfeld, J.

  Brand, hon. H. B. W.

  Surtees, H. E.

  Knatchbull-Hugessen, E

  Talbot, hon. W. C.

  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERmoved an Amendment, reducing the stamp duty upon powers of attorney given by seamen for the receipt of their wages from 20 s. to 1s.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, when the Bill was in Committee he expressed the opinion that the duty was rather high, and urged its reduction. He was glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had knocked off 19 s., and cordially accepted the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERmoved, that in that part of the Bill which regulates the duty on perpetual curacies, the words, "shall not exceed £100," should be inserted instead of the words "shall not amount to £100." The alteration was necessary in consequence of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners having adopted the system of raising the perpetual curacies to £300 a year, which, without this alteration, would be subject to a heavy duty.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Other Amendments made.
  Bill to be read 3° To-morrow.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

RECREATION GROUND AT CHIGWELL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. COXsaid, that last year a Bill was introduced for the inclosure of a portion of Chigwell parish, and on looking into the matter it was found that it proposed to hand over to the Inclosure Commissioners some 600 or 700 acres of land,
  2024
  which, from time immemorial, had been used by the public, forming part of Hainault Forest. Petitions were presented against the Bill, and it was referred to a Select Committee, which added to it a clause, providing that fifty acres of ground should be set apart for public recreation. Relying on this clause, the public took very little further trouble in the matter; but some time afterwards it was found that the assistant valuer had set out fifty acres, of which two-thirds were swamp and the other third gravel. It was clear that if this project were sanctioned, the intention of the clause added by the Select Committee would be nullified. The Inclosure Commissioners had very properly at first refused their sanction to it; but within the last few weeks it had been rumoured that the sanction they had originally refused to the plan had now been given to it. In the same parish there had been, from time immemorial, opposite a house called the May Pole, very much frequented by the public, a large piece of green used for cricket and other purposes of recreation. He was told that the Commissioners had determined to enclose this green. He could not say whether it was a Village Green under the Act of Parliament; but, certainly, it had been used from time immemorial for purposes of recreation. He wished, therefore, to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is now the intention of the Inclosure Commissioners to set out the fifty acres of Recreation Ground, under the Inclosure Act of last Session, for the parish of Chigwell, Essex, at the spot which they, in November, 1862 (in their Order to the Valuer), disapproved of, such spot being wet and swampy; and whether the Village Green, opposite the May Pole at Chigwell Row, is to be preserved (in accordance with the fifteenth section of the General Inclosure Act of 1845), as it has heretofore, from time immemorial, been a place for the recreation and enjoyment of the people?
  MR. PEELsaid, it was quite true that the provisional orders of the Inclosure Commissioners were sanctioned by Act of Parliament, with the Amendment that fifty acres of ground should be set apart in the pariah for the purpose of public recreation. After the Act passed a valuer was appointed in the usual manner at a public meeting in the parish, and instructions were there drawn up for him. The Act of Parliament directed that the fifty acres should be at or near a spot marked A

  2025
  on the plans, and the instructions drawn up at the meeting directed the valuer to set them out within four given spots. The Inclosure Commissioners disallowed the instructions, not on the ground that the area was swampy, but because they considered that at that particular stage of the proceedings it was advisable that the discretion of the valuer should not be tied up, and that, under the circumstances, he should view the ground and form his own opinion. Since the valuer was appointed—a gentleman of great experience as a land surveyor — he had proceeded under the general supervision of the Inclosure Commissioners, and he was informed that his report was likely to be confirmed within the present year. On behalf of the Commissioners, however, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the intentions of the Act of Parliament would not be nullified, and that the fifty acres would be of such a character as was contemplated when the clause was passed. Power was given to drain and level any land that might be set apart for the public; and if there were, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, any gravel pits within the area set out, care would be taken to fill them up, and to make the ground in every way available for the pur pose of recreation. With regard to the second question, he was informed that the Assistant Commissioner had reported that there was no Village Green in the neighbourhood, nor had there been any claim of the sort made.
  Motion agreed to.

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £449,298, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of New Works, Improvements, and Repairs in the Naval Establishments, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1865."
MR. WYKEHAM MARTINrose, pursuant to notice, to call attention to the manufacture of ropes by machinery in Her Majesty's dockyards. He had been told that neither in efficacy nor in economy was the system of rope making by machinery equal to the old hand-spun manufacture. He had been informed that the machine process of manufacture was precisely the same as that by which an old coat was turned into a new one in some of the clothmaking towns of Yorkshire. If hon. Mem-
2026
bers did not understand the process, he might be allowed to state that it consisted in putting the coat into a machine called a "devil," by means of which a material called "shoddy" was produced, which, although it bore the appearance of good cloth, yet had its fibre so damaged by the machinery that it was almost worthless, and was ready to drop to pieces after a few days' wear. Now, precisely the same effect was, he believed, produced on the hemp by the spinning machine in the manufacture of ropes, which were not at all equal in strength to those which were spun by hand. In support of that statement, he might observe that, in twenty-two trials which had taken place in Her Majesty's dockyards, while the machine-spun ropes broke at a strain of 8½ tons, it required a strain of 9½ to break the hand-spun. But, independent of that fact, there was in the machine-spun ropes the greatest irregularity in the number of strands in the same class of rope; in one sample it was stated that instead of 300 there were only 291, and in another 307 instead of 300. They were also open to objection on the score of economy, it being proved by experiments that there was in their case a loss of about 6½ per cent, which would amount to about £80,000 on the ropes used in our dockyards supposing Russian hemp to be at the price which it actually had reached, of £80 a ton. He might add that our most eminent shipowners — such, for example, as his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) and the Messrs. Green —would not use the machine-spun ropes; while the Secretary for India, on behalf of the Indian Government, declined to accept them after trial, notwithstanding that the noble Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty, his Colleague, employed them for the British navy. He was not, therefore, to be told that he was behind the age when he only proposed for the Government what the great private shipbuilders found good enough for themselves. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the Vote should be reduced by £1,549, the amount asked for for the provision of additional accommodation for spinning machinery at Chatham.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the item of £1,549 be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Wykeham Martin.)
MR. LINDSAYsaid, it was not strictly correct to say he never used any machine

2027
made rope. It was true he had a manufactory of hand-spun rope on the banks of the Thames; but that was a very small establishment, producing not more than seventy or eighty tons in the year. Rope was largely made by machinery; yarns were still spun by hand, but to a large extent yarns also were spun by machinery. Yarns spun by machinery, he believed, were not so strong, but were more regular than those spun by hand. He could not support the Motion of his hon. Friend, because he thought the Government were only following the example of large manufacturers, who found it much more economical to spin yarn for ropes by machinery than by hand.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the question was not one of spinning ropes by machinery, but of spinning yarn by machinery. In 1857 the House voted a sum sufficient for, establishing machinery at Chatham for spinning yarn of certain descriptions, and the result had been that not only had the cost of the machinery been paid for, but £4,000 had been saved to the country besides. Now the Government proposed to purchase new machines for £9,350; and it was demonstrable that in a very few years not only would the cost of the machines be repaid, but a saving to the country of £5,000 a year would be effected. The facts as to the expense, he thought, were conclusive; but other topics had been touched upon by his hon. Friend. He said that the hemp was bruised and crushed by the process. He hardly thought his hon. Friend could have seen the process. He (Mr. Childers) had seen it, and he could assure him that there was no bruising or crushing of any kind. It was true that the loss in weight was greater when yarn is machine-spun. The loss on hand-spun yarn was 2 per cent, and on machine-spun yarn 5 per cent, but the loss was an advantage, as it tended to the strength of the rope. Very careful experiments had been instituted to ascertain the relative strength of the two kinds of rope. At Woolwich the result of a large number of trials was 5 per cent in favour of rope made by machine-spun yarn, and at Devonport and Chatham the result was nearly the same. Then came the question of durability. Among other experiments this was tested on hoard the Ariadne. All the rope on the starboard side was made of machine-spun yarn, and all on the larboard of hand-spun yarn, and the result was that the rope made of
2028
machine-spun yarn was in every respect equal, and, in some, superior in durability to that made of the latter. On the whole, it appeared that the general result of experiments was in favour of rope manufactured from machine-spun yarn; and he might say as regarded the opinion of the trade, that two of the largest steamship companies in this country were exclusively using rope of that description.
MR. WYKEHAM MARTINsaid, he held in his hand the result of fifty experiments, which showed that machine-spun rope was very inferior to hand-spun rope. The statement of the hon. Gentleman had, therefore, taken him by surprise. He would withdraw his Amendment.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. H. ROBERTSONsaid, he thought it desirable that some explanation should be given as to the item of £7,500 for "Preparations for Extending Portsmouth Dockyard." It was proposed to take 300 acres altogether for this extension, but it appeared that this item only extended to 100 acres with the possible future extension to 300 acres. Experience suggested that this item would commit us to operations of a much larger nature, and might, perhaps, prove only an instalment of £750,000. He doubted the wisdom of the Admiralty design, and thought that the employment of a competent engineer to report on the design and nature of the works would, in the end, turn out an economical expenditure.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that there were two distinct proposals for extending the dockyard accommodation at Portsmouth—one the reclaiming a part of the harbour for the purpose of making basins and docks, and the other by adapting for Government purposes a large tract, of waste land that was called the Pest House Fields, lately the property of the War Department, but which had been given up to the Admiralty. That land would require walling round, the construction of tramways, and preparations for the stacking of timber, and the sum of £7,500 asked for in these Estimates was mainly required for those purposes, though a small portion of it would he required for buying the plant for the purposes of what might be called the great sea extension of the dockyard; but as that was now under the consideration of a Committee upstairs, he need not

2029
then trouble the Committee with going into it. The proposition of the hon. Gentleman, that before they engaged in a work of that magnitude the Admiralty would consult some eminent engineers, was quite reasonable; and he could assure the Committee that such advice would be taken.
MR. LINDSAYasked whether the; £7,500 would complete the works referred to, and whether they would be distinct and complete in themselves, or whether it was only a part and parcel of a great plan to which the House had not yet given its sanction?
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, it was principally a Vote for what was required for the preparation of the Pest; House Fields.
SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, that last year a sum of,£8,000 was taken for the Naval Barracks at Portsmouth, but only £10 had been expended. Now the Admiralty asked for an additional £5,000., How much of this sum was intended to be spent?
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the scheme of the Naval Barracks would depend very much upon the scheme now before the Committee upstairs, for if they extended the docks and basins in a northerly direction from the dockyard, it would ' be desirable to place the barracks in some place more contiguous to them.
COLONEL BARTTELOTrose to call attention to the situation of the new Marine Artillery barracks at Eastney. It was necessary that particular attention should be paid to them in connection with the enormous sums laid out at Portsmouth for the fortifications there, and he regretted that the noble Lord at the head of the Government, whom he held responsible for that expenditure, was not in his place in the House. The barracks at Eastney were erected in the very eye of the Channel, in going into Portsmouth Harbour, so that: any ship attacking Portsmouth must fire into them. He feared there had been no harmony or concerted action between the I Admiralty and the Defence Committee in: carrying out those works. An enormous sum had been voted for fortifications at Portsmouth, and they had been asked to vote a large sum of money for the construction of barracks in a most untenable position. No doubt it might be said this was the only position where the Marine Artillery could practise the large guns; and that might or might not be true; but
2030
all he could say was that a far better site might have been obtained for them inland, and where the troops might have been better protected. These barracks were intended to contain the wives and children of soldiers as well as the soldiers themselves belonging to the Marine Artillery, and that being so, Her Majesty's Government ought to have selected some safe and proper place whereon they could have erected these barracks, instead of where they had been erected, close to the shore and between two small forts that had been erected on the recommendation of the Defence Commissioners. Fort Cumberland, where the Marine Artillery now are, is bomb proof; but these barracks were three stories high and were not bomb proof, and were not to be defended against shot and shell for a quarter of an hour; and yet these barracks were intended to accommodate the Marine Artillery and their wives and children. Nothing could justify the erection of barracks in such a position. Then they had allowed public-houses and other dwellings to be built close round the barracks, and those buildings would perfectly command the barracks. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had made himself responsible for the fortifications at Portsmouth, and it was his bounden duty to see that all the works for the defence of the port were in harmony and concert with each other.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the barracks were placed on the best site that the Government could procure for the purpose which they had in view. One weighty reason which had influenced the site was, that the barracks were close to the sea and had a very good range for heavy guns. It was necessary that the young Marine artillerymen, who were constantly practising at this range, should reside in the neighbourhood of their guns. Another reason which influenced the site was, that the Admiralty obtained the ground at very little expense. The barracks were close to Fort Cumberland, and formed a chain of defence from that fort to Southsea Castle, so as to occupy the whole of the beach. The barracks had a very strong breast-work in front, and all round the rear was a crenellated wall, so that they were capable of a very respectable defence. It would not be occupied by any very great number of men in time of war, as Marine artillerymen generally embarked at such times for naval service. The barracks were, in fact, to be considered

2031
principally as a place for the education of young recruits in time of peace. They were certainly exposed at present, but, when the Spithead forts were completed, the Admiralty trusted that Spithead would be pretty well defended, and that the works within Spithead would be comparatively safe. No doubt it was very desirable to find a safe place for the women and children; but they must submit to the fate of their husbands and fathers. Then the hon, and gallant Gentleman said these barracks were surrounded by public-houses. Unfortunately that was true, but all our barracks were equally surrounded by public-houses. Build them where they might, there was no escaping the evil. He wished they could put a stop to it.
SIR FREDERIC SMITHexpected to hear a better defence of the Vote than had been made by the noble Lord. In the whole course of his military experience, he had never found a barrack worse situated. It was said it was a link in the defence; but it was a link of sand. A heavy weight striking that barrack would carry all before it. It could not stand for a minute before the broadside of a man-of-war, so that it could not be called a defence. His hon. and gallant Friend stated that there could have been no communication between the Admiralty and the War Department on the subject. But if that were so, and if there had been no consultation with the Defence Commission, it was a most flagrant instance of neglect. If considered as a defensive work, it was one of a most discreditable character; and if it was not a defensive work, then it was placed in the wrong position, and was a waste of public money. He believed the total amount was to be £167,801. But what he most found fault with was that those who had devised this plan had placed the officers under a bomb-proof building [Lord CLARENCE PAGET: That is only partly the case], while the troops were put into that pack-of-cards house.
MR. WHITBREADthought the fort on the Horse Shoe Sand had been left out of sight by the gallant Officer. Did any officer suppose it would be an agreeable position for any vessel to he near that fort for the purpose of shelling the barracks? The barracks were built, in the first place, because the site was an eligible one; and secondly, because it would afford great facilities for practice in gunnery. The gallant Officer was mistaken in supposing that the Admiralty had not com-
2032
municated with the authorities at the War Office.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the hon. and gallant Officer ought to have known better than to talk of the officers being placed in a bomb-proof building while the men were exposed in the barracks. No doubt, some officers would reside with their men in the bomb-proof; but there was the proper arrangement to leave the full complement of officers with the men in the barracks.
SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he went upon the Estimate.
CAPTAIN JERVISasked, what was the good of having an unprotected barrack between the two forts? The noble Lord said they had got merely recruits, women, and children there. [Lord CLARENCE PAGET explained that what he meant was that, in time of war, they would probably have but a small number of Marine Artillery there. They would go on shipboard.] And leave their wives and children behind. The great object should be to have the barracks out of range of shot.
COLONEL NORTHwould ask who were to defend the forts upon which they were spending millions of money? The noble Lord the other night told them that these forts would be defended by the Volunteers and the militia. Why the Volunteers were never intended to man the forts except when the country was invaded. Now it would seem that the women and children were to be left to defend them. He could see no use in spending money on these forts if they were not to be properly defended.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the barracks were not for the Artillery, but for the Marine Artillery in time of peace. If there was a war to-morrow the probability would be that nearly every able-bodied man in the Marine Artillery would be on shipboard.
COLONEL DICKSONasked whether they were to understand that they were to lay out these enormous sums on barracks as to which in time of war, when the Marine Artillery wore on shipboard, it did not matter a jot whether they wore to be blown in pieces or not.
CAPTAIN JERVISwanted to know how much money had been spent on those barracks, and how much on the officers' quarters?
LORD CLARENCE PAGETreplied, that the total estimate for the work was £167,000, the amount already voted was

2033
£67,000, and the gross sum already expended on it was £56,000. The sum; taken for the present year was £30,000,; and the further estimate for completing the work was £73,000. He could not at the present moment say what were the particular sums out of that amount to be expended on the officers' quarters and on Fort Cumberland.
COLONEL BARTTELOTinquired, in the event of the Marine Artillery now in Fort Cumberland going into ships, what; officers and men would then garrison that fort?
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that in the event of such an improbable matter as the bombardment of Spithead, Fort Cumberland would probably be garrisoned, in the absence of the Marine Artillery, by the Militia or Volunteers.
In reply to Sir FREDERIC SMITH,
MR. CHILDERSsaid, that it would be impossible to stop the works now, which were completed to a considerable extent, without the loss of all the money expended upon them under the sanction of the House during the last three years.
LORD CLAUD HAMILTONwished to know whether, supposing it to be inexpedient to alter the plan of the officers' and men's quarters, as far as it had gone, there was not yet time to locate the women's and children's quarters in a place not so very dangerous?
MR. CHILDERSpresumed that the noble Lord would not propose that the women and children should be placed in a different spot from the place where their husbands and fathers were located.
COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, that he should have divided the Committee against the whole Vote if he had seen the barracks sooner. The officers' quarters were unroofed.
SIR FREDERIC SMITHnoticed that the former Estimate for constructing additional barrack accommodation at Plymouth was £76,000, and in the present Estimates the sum of £80,000 was put down for their further extension and completion, He thought that some explanation was necessary on this point. It was deceiving the House to bring forward a supplementary Estimate larger than the one originally proposed.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that every day improvements were being made in the construction of barracks for the army, navy, and Marines, by means of additional ventilation and other accommoda
2034
tion for the health and comfort of the men. Again, the Marines had been increased from 15,000 to 18,000 men, and, consequently, additional barrack accommodation was required for them. At Chatham, for instance, the barracks had been increased, and in order to furnish additional barrack accommodation it was sometimes necessary to throw down existing buildings.
SIR FREDERIC SMITHthought the noble Lord's explanation satisfactory,
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he now desired to call the attention of the Committee to a matter of considerable importance—the item for deepening the north-west basin arid constructing a first-class dock at Malta. The original sum put in the Estimates for this purpose was £15,900; and he had now to move that that item be reduced by the sum of £5,000. It was right that he should state the grounds on which the Government had decided to make that reduction. The question was rather complicated, but a brief statement would explain the reasons of an agreement which the Admiralty had come to with the Maltese Government, and in which he was confident the Committee would concur. So far back as 1858 it became evident that the harbour used for Her Majesty's ships was entirely insufficient, on account of their increased size, especially as the trade of Malta had also augmented; and consequently proposals were made that a certain portion of the great harbour at Valetta, called the French Creek, should be appropriated to ships of the navy on certain conditions. The arrangement was that before Her Majesty's Government took possession of the French Creek, they should, as a preliminary condition, construct at the Marsa a harbour for merchant vessels, with quays and a basin. As originally proposed, the basin was to have had a depth of only twelve feet, and would consequently have been utterly useless for vessels of war. In the Resolution passed by the Council of Government of Malta on the 29th of May, 1859, it was distinctly laid down that —
"The merchant shipping shall continue in the possession of the creek, called the 'French Creek,' until all the works intended to he performed at the Marsa and in the said extensions shall have been completed."
There was a very clear understanding with the Maltese Government on that point, and up to the present time they had shown themselves desirous of acting in a spirit of the utmost good faith towards the Home

2035
Government, who, on their part, were bound to take care that not a shadow of suspicion should rest on the integrity of their conduct in the matter. During the progress of the works the engineers suggested that it would be advantageous to deepen the basin to thirty feet instead of twelve feet, so as to permit vessels of war to make use of it, and to excavate the stone in that part of the harbour where it was supposed to be of a superior quality, employing the stone for the walls of the basin, and converting the quarry into a dock. Upon this the Maltese Government, after communicating with the Home Government, agreed to the following Resolution:—
"Resolved,—That the head of the Government of Malta he authorized and empowered to enter with the Imperial Government into an agreement to the following effect — namely, 'That if the Imperial Government will, at the charge of the Imperial Treasury, cause a repairing or graving dock capable of receiving a ship of the largest class in Her Majesty's navy to be formed in the proximity of the north-western basin referred to in the Resolution passed by this Council on the 25th of May, 1859, and to be furnished with the machinery and other appendages required to render such dock fit for use; and if, moreover, the said Imperial Government will agree to permit merchant vessels, at moderate charges, to be repaired in such dock, when the use of it may not be required for Her Majesty's ships, then the Government of Malta will consent that the work of deepening the said north-western basin to such extent, beyond the twelve feet established in the above quoted Resolution, as may be necessary for the easy passage to the said dock of a ship of the largest class in Her Majesty's navy be considered as part of the works mentioned in the said Resolution.'"
Accordingly the Maltese Government consented that a sum of about £10,000 should be applied to meeting any excess of expenditure in the works beyond the original estimate; but they were careful to insert a proviso to this effect—
"That the Government of Malta shall not be bound to pay any sum for the additional depth to he given, as aforesaid, to the said north-western basin before that depth shall have been attained, and the said dock shall have been formed and brought to a working condition, whatever may be the cause of either of those works remaining in an incomplete or insufficient state."
On the 13th of December, 1862, the Secretary to the Admiralty announced to the Colonial Office that my Lords were
"Prepared to propose to Parliament a Vote for constructing a first-class dock out of the northwest basin and in the line of the proposed canal, and to make the necessary deep water access to it, upon the conditions set forth in the Resolution passed by the Council of the Governor of Malta at sitting No. 34, on the 9th of May, 1862,"
2036
Here there was a distinct agreement between the Home Government and that of Malta originally to construct this great work, afterwards to deepen the basin to thirty feet, and to construct a first-class dock, and the whole arrangement was based on the understanding that the French Creek was not to be occupied until the other works were completed. He believed no objection was made on the other side to the deepening of the basin. That work had been proceeded with, and was now in a forward state of progress; but the dock was not yet commenced. The basin was now in the course of excavation. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: How deep is it?] He was informed that the walls were nearly complete, and that round the edges the full depth had been attained in some places. He could not, however, say exactly how far down the excavation had been carried. Two distinguished naval officers, both well acquainted with Malta (Admirals Codrington and Sir William Martin) had reiterated objections to the scheme of the Government. Neither of these officers, he was sure, would give an opinion which he did not conscientiously believe to be right. Each of these gallant Admirals, however, had a pet scheme of his own, and that must not be forgotten. They alleged that the Marsa Dock was inconvenient on account of its distant situation, that it would be very difficult to get large ships through the merchants' vessels moored there, and there were other objections which he did not deny had all some force. He believed, however, that these two officers grounded their opposition on the impression that the Government were going to rest satisfied with the Marsa Dock, and that they were not going to make use of the other site. He wished to assure the Committee that the dock at the French Creek and that at the Marsa were not to be put into comparison for a moment. In his opinion, every day proved the necessity of constructing more extensive docks; and, although he could not give a distinct answer, he believed that if the Government were in a position to effect that object they would probably do so. Upwards of 2,000,000 tons of shipping went in and out of Malta harbour annually—and among them 100 steam ships of 1,000 tons each. Malta was becoming of more and more importance to this country. We had given up the Ionian Islands. With an increasing trade going on in Malta, and the probability of the Indian reliefs going by that

2037
route instead of by the Cape of Good Hope, would it be believed that no such thing as a merchant dock existed in Malta? Anil was it not then wise and right towards the colony that the Government should contribute to a magnificent work that would be at once beneficial to the colony, to commerce, and to the navy? The Duke of Somerset had sent out to Malta two able men—Sir Frederick Grey, the First Sea Lord of the Admiralty, and his hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), to inquire into this matter; and, after hearing both sides, Sir Frederick Grey came to the conclusion that the Government had taken a wise course. But Her Majesty had an opposition in Malta as well as in this country, and it was very strong there as well as here. The opposition in Malta was represented by four elected Members of the Council, who wrote a letter to the Duke of Somerset, dated 8th September, 1863, in which they stated—
"Having been informed that it has been asserted to the Home Government that the elected Members of the Council of this Island are opposed to the plan of a dock being constructed in the French Creek, we consider it our duty to deny the truth of that assertion, so far as we, the undersigned, are concerned. There is no reason why we should wish that a naval dock should be constructed at the Marsa (the north-western extension) rather than at the French Creek, since this creek must become naval property, according to the existing agreement for the harbour extension. As to whether such a work might be commenced immediately, we only desire that the merchant shipping be not disturbed in the use of the French Creek, before the new extension shall be ready to receive it. If arrangements can therefore be made to that effect, we see no objection to the commencement of the work immediately, with a view to its being completed by the time the French Creek will become naval property. We do not see how it can have been asserted that we are opposed to the construction of a dock in the French Creek, inasmuch as we have never been consulted on this subject, nor have we ever expressed any opinion which could warrant such an assertion."
They entirely repudiated the engagement that had been entered into with the Maltese Government. This caused great surprise in Malta. The other Councillors represented that they could not understand on what grounds they had come to that conclusion. The Governor, in a letter dated 29th of January, 1864, said—
"I am at a loss to understand what could have moved the Members of Council who signed the letter to the First Lord of the Admiralty to take that very unusual step, without previously referring to me for ascertaining whether, in what terms, and on what grounds, I had expressed my opinion in
2038
regard to any opposition that might be expected, in or out of the Council, to a grant to the Admiralty of any portion of the shore on the water of the French Creek, at the present moment; and I am still more surprised at the secresy in which those members kept that correspondence till, I might say, the eve of the opening of Parliament, to the extent even of not consulting their own colleagues, among whom are two of the wealthiest merchants in Malta.… It may also be worth noticing that that correspondence took place at a time when those four members of Council, and two of the merchants whom they consulted, were making every effort to obtain support to a petition against my administration. I cannot believe that the letter they addressed to the Duke of Somerset was unconnected with the agitation which existed at the time when that letter was written. That letter was evidently procured to contradict the statement made by myself and others acting under my direction, to the effect that strong opposition would be made to any grant to the Admiralty of any site in the French Greek. That statement was correct, and I firmly believe well founded, and I am satisfied that the very members who signed that letter (on learning the terms of the resolution of the 25th of May, 1859, which they seem to ignore, and on being informed by their predecessors of the reasons why the latter insisted on the insertion in that resolution of the clause establishing that the mercantile marine is to continue in the possession of the French Creek until the completion of the harbour works) would be the loudest in denouncing a breach of faith on the part of the Government, should any portion of the shore of that creek be now surrendered to the Naval Department for the construction of a dock. I cannot better show to your Grace what was the object of that clause than by a reference to the accompanying letters written to me on the subject by one of Her Majesty's Judges, Dr. Naudi, who, being then member of Council, moved the insertion of that clause in the resolution; and from another letter which, the next day after the publication of the correspondence in question, the other four elected members—one of whom, Dr. Randon, was also a member in 1859—thought it their duty to forward to mo; your Grace will see how that important clause continues to be understood. For myself, who know that the resolution respecting the harbour works would not have received the assent of the Council, or at least of the elected members, without the positive assurance given on the part of the Government, and then embodied in the clause above alluded to—namely, that no portion of the shore or water of the French Creek would be made over to the Admiralty before the harbour works should be completed, I feel bound to submit to your Grace my strong opinion that any such grant at the present moment would be no less than an infraction of a promise solemnly made by the Government, and required by the Council as a guarantee for the performance of those works."
The letter of Judge Naudi said —
"The object of the clause unanimously adopted by the Council was that of keeping in the hands of the local authorities the French Creek as a security for the exact and total execution of the works contemplated in the resolution, and by that clause it was meant that no portion of

2039
the shore or of the wall of that creek, destined as it was for the use of merchant shipping, should be made over to the naval department before the works aforesaid should have been completed."
He had read these passages to show to the Committee that they were really bound to the Maltese Government to fulfil their engagements. Before engaging in these works they stated they would do so, provided Parliament granted the necessary funds. Last year he had brought the subject before the Committee, and the dock and basin had been sanctioned, and he would read a passage from the Governor's letter to show what were in his opinion the reasons for the delay that had taken place—
"For, to speak frankly, there can be no doubt, while Admiral Codrington was in command of the dockyard (and who made no disguise that his views were adverse to the plans which had been approved by the Admiralty), that prejudices were fostered which have not yet been altogether eradicated; and although I feel under great obligations to the straightforward, honourable, and very active support of Admiral Austin, yet obviously an undercurrent has shown itself among certain of the subordinates of the department, who, unable or unwilling to conquer their prejudices, prosecute their labours with a want of spirit and energy that is not to the advantage of the public service; indeed, I cannot better characterize my meaning than by saying that 'their heart is not in the work.' "
He had only further to say that he believed this to be a work of great national importance. It was important to Malta and to the commerce of the Mediterranean, and, above all, he believed we were under an engagement to the Maltese Government to proceed with it. It might be asked why he proposed to reduce the Vote. He had taken upon himself the responsibility of asking the Government to allow the Vote for the dock to be deferred; but he assured the House and the Maltese Government that he had not conceived that the Vote should be expunged, but merely deferred. He had done so because there was a Committee sitting to inquire into dock and basin accommodation at home and abroad, and this was a subject that could properly be considered by them. He was quite sure the hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite would not bind themselves to a proposition that the Government should be guilty of a breach of faith. With respect to the basin, the works were in progress, and a great part of the money had been expended. He was sure that hon. Gentlemen would exercise their judgment, and not, because men of
2040
great weight and experience objected to the Marsa dock, oppose the Government plan, which was not objected to upon its own merits, but simply in comparison with another plan. The Government did not say that the Marsa dock would destroy the utility of a dock at the French Creek; on the contrary, they asserted that when the French Creek came into their possession it would be worthy of consideration whether a, dock should be constructed there, and Mr. M'Clean had reported on the feasibility of constructing a dock in the French Creek by order of the Government. Under all these circumstances, he trusted the Committee would not incur the danger of anything like a breach of faith, and would allow the Vote to pass.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item of £15,900, for deepening the North-West Basin, and constructing a First-class Dock, be reduced by the sum of £5,000,"— (Lord Clarence Paget,) —put, and agreed to.
CAPTAIN TALBOTsaid, the speech of the noble Lord had given him great pleasure, because it showed that the trouble he had taken about this matter had not been thrown away; it had put a stop to the progress of a dock which he believed was not necessary for the Imperial service, nor for the mercantile marine. So far the statement of the noble Lord was satisfactory; but beyond that there were subjects for remark. He had had a map prepared of the locality, and he trusted the House would look at it while listening to what he had to say. When it was determined to extend the harbour accommodation at Malta, the estimated cost, £125,000, was to be divided equally between the two Governments, and if that amount was exceeded, then to the extent of one-fourth of a limit of £42,000 the Government of Malta would be responsible. It was also agreed that when those extensions were made, the Maltese merchant shipping should give up the French Creek to the Imperial marine upon the water of the Marsa being deepened to a depth of thirty feet at the outer portion, and the remaining portion to a depth of not less than twenty-five feet. For a considerable time the Maltese Government had been desirous of having the dock made by private enterprise; but that plan was not carried out. The want of dock accommodation in the Mediterranean for British vessels had been long known to all naval officers, while at the same time they were

2041
well acquainted with the gigantic strides which the trade of France had made of late years in those waters. That Power had lately provided three docks in the Mediterranean, capable of receiving the largest ships, while at Marseilles ten docks were nearly available, and steps were probably being taken at Algiers in the same direction. Therefore it had been urged upon the Government, that more docks were wanted in the Mediterranean. The Governor of Malta, knowing those facts, proposed to the Government to make a first-class dock at the head of the harbour extension, capable of taking in our largest iron-clad ships—to make a dock inside the north-west basin, which, according to the harbour extension agreement, was only to have a depth of twelve feet, and, as an encouragement, the local Government offered, if any surplus remained from the Supplemental Estimate that was not required for the harbour extension, it should be expended in deepening the water beyond twelve feet. That proposal was an absurd one, because more than that sum would be required for the harbour extension itself. He had thought it right to call particular attention to the point, because it was of the utmost importance for them to have correct Estimates submitted to their consideration if they had any intention of practising economy. In the Estimates, the Admiralty had specified £50,000 for the construction of a dock, and for deepening of the north-western basin; from which sum they had subtracted £10,830 as a subscription from the Maltese Government. Of this latter sum, however, not a single farthing would be forthcoming, as it was only the savings of this sum which should be left after the harbour extension should be completed that the Maltese promised, and there was no doubt that the whole of it would be swallowed up in that work. An engineer, however, who had been lately sent out by the Admiralty for the purpose of inspecting the spot, had reported that it would be necessary to line the excavation with masonry, and to face it with hard stone. His estimate for the construction of the dock alone was £50,000; for the deepening of the basin, £41,000; and for the deepening of the harbour outside—a provision which the Admiralty and Mr. Scamp had entirely forgotten — £4,000. This would bring the total cost up to £95,000. One of the arguments urged in favour of this dock was its cheapness, but he believed that the House would now
2042
perceive the fallacy of that reasoning. He regarded it as a most extraordinary circumstance that the Admiralty determined upon their plans without any reference to the opinions or advice of Admiral Sir William Martin, Commander-in-Chief of the Mediterranean station, or Rear Admiral Codrington, who had been the Admiral Superintendent for three or four years at Malta, and under whose attention, therefore, the question of the dock must undoubtedly have been brought during the period. Admiral Sir William: Martin had made a proposition to the Admiralty, but his communication had not been well received. It was true that the Admiralty had written to Admiral Codrington, but not with the view of obtaining advice; and the first intimation that that officer received of the plans of the Government was through the instrumentality of a Maltese paper. The first objection to the formation of the proposed dock was its distance from the dockyard. The noble Lord had assured him upon a previous occasion, that the distance did not exceed half a mile, but he had subsequently ascertained that it was very nearly — within one-twelfth of-—two miles. Not only would the conveyance of stores he a work of great labour and occasionally peril, but the difficulty of approach for the vessels themselves was very great. They would have to pass through crowds of merchant-shipping, and could hardly by any possibility reach their destination without a collision. The harbour-master looked upon the operation as a most hazardous one. Another objection was that they would have to build supplemental factories in the neighbourhood of the docks. This objection had been met on the part of the Admiralty by the supposition that the deficiency would be supplied by private enterprise, and that the factories which would necessarily be erected for the use of the mercantile marine could be made available for the necessities of Her Majesty's ships. He believed that supposition, however, to be a delusive one, for it could not be imagined that such factories (even were they erected, which was very problematical) would be of much service to our large class of vessels, or be at all capable of repairing our more powerful machinery. The two Admirals to whom he had referred had both pointed out the advantages of the French Creek, which was only 800 yards distant from the dockyard by water and 700 by land. The noble Lord had said that in consequence of the

2043
objections raised by the two Admirals, the First Sea Lord of the Admiralty, Sir Frederick Grey, and the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) had been sent out, but he felt convinced that they had been sent on a foregone conclusion. ["No, no!"] They only remained at Malta two or three days, and he did not believe that they held any communication with the Admirals by whom the objections had been urged. The question was an important one, as affecting the efficiency and the safety of their Mediterranean fleet; and on a matter of that kind, when two Lords of the Admiralty were sent out to Malta, it was very remarkable that they should content themselves with a mere verbal report. That, he must say, appeared a very slovenly way of carrying on public business. One of his difficulties in dealing with that subject was, that he had to meet bare assertions. They had the bare assertion that the dock at the Marsa, with the approaches, was only to cost £50,000; and they were also told that the dock at the French Creek would be so expensive that they could not have it. That was entirely unsupported and erroneous. The noble Lord had conceded that the French Creek was the proper site for the dock; but it was only after toiling day after day and month after month that they had arrived at that position; because at first it was said that the distance was the same, that the expense would be much greater, and that the time occupied would also be much greater, if the French Creek were chosen instead of the Marsa. All these assertions, he was prepared to show, fell to the ground. He wished to call attention to the Report of Mr. M'Clean, the engineer lately sent out to the Mediterranean to report on that subject. The noble Lord had glanced lightly at that Report, and well he might, for it went entirely against the noble Lord's position. Mr. M'Clean entered into the different estimates, said the dock would cost so and so, the basins so and so, and he ended by very nearly doubling the estimates that had been laid on the table. Moreover, he said not one word in praise of the dock, but, on the other hand, he did say a great deal in favour of the site of the French Creek. It was true that that gentleman did not recommend the dock which Admiral Codrington recommended. That, however, was not the point; but he recommended that the dock should be made at the French Creek.
2044
The noble Lord had referred to the four elected Members of the Council at Malta, and drew a comparison between the Opposition there and the Opposition in this House. Now, the position of parties in that House was not quite the same as it was at Malta, because the Government at Malta always had a working majority of fourteen against four. The Council at Malta was composed of eighteen Members; ten of them being official Members, who always voted with the Government on pain of losing their places. The remaining eight were elected Members, who were supposed to represent the public feeling of Malta; but two of the eight were large Government contractors, who had property round the very place where the dock was intended to be constructed, and no wonder they should support the Government. Besides these gentlemen, two more of the elected members went with the contractors and the Government. Therefore, there was a standing majority of fourteen, the other four members being the representatives of the people of Malta. Some months ago, when the noble Lord said, that if the Governor of Malta allowed them to make a dock at the French Creek, the Council and people of Malta would object to what the noble Lord erroneously called "breaking faith" with them,—when that was known at Malta, the freely elected Members of the Council wrote a letter to the Duke of Somerset, stating that they were not at all opposed to the construction of the dock at the French Creek. Those gentlemen were not content with sending their own opinions, but they wrote to the Chamber of Commerce of Malta, inviting the opinion of that body, and also that of the public of Malta. The Chamber of Commerce, in a letter dated Valetta, September 1, 1863, said they were not aware of any objection on the part of the public at Malta to the construction of the dock at the French Creek, and that they did not believe it existed. They also observed that they would not suffer, but rather gain by its construction there rather than at the Marsa. He was convinced that the real feeling of the people of Malta was that they would prefer the site of the French Creek being adopted without the disturbance of their mercantile waters. He had been surprised at the noble Lord quoting a passage in the letter of the Governor of Malta, throwing doubts on the character and motives of Admiral Codrington. Admiral Codrington was actuated

2045
by a regard for the public interest, and it was entirely ridiculous to say that he had left an animus among the subordinates in the dockyard at Malta. He was astonished that the noble Lord, himself an Admiral in Her Majesty's service, should have taken upon himself to endorse that statement. The noble Lord now proposed that the Vote should be reduced, and that the question of the docks should be submitted to a Committee sitting upstairs. Now, however that Committee might be constituted, he had such confidence in the strength of his case that he believed the dock would be condemned. If the case was to be referred to a Committee, it was only right that the whole case should be considered. Last year a Vote of £10,000 was taken; this year, if the noble Lord's Motion were carried, £10,900 more would be voted; and the Admiralty said that the sum of £10,800 had been subscribed by the Maltese Government. The whole of this money ought to be spent at once in providing proper dock accommodation at Malta, and in providing it, as soon as possible, in the proper place. The Admiralty had said lately that the French Creek was far superior as a site to the Marsa, but that the dock could not be made there without upsetting the arrangement with the Maltese Government, Now, no one wanted to disturb the merchant ships in the waters of the French Creek, and he contended that there was no impediment in the arrangement referred to which need prevent the Admiralty from carrying out the work as proposed, so that when we came into possession of the waters of the French Creek we should have a dock there complete.
MR. WHITBREADsaid, that as his lion, and gallant Friend expressed his entire approval of Mr. M'Clean's plans and estimate, it must be a matter of satisfaction to him that he had not succeeded on a former occasion in carrying his Motion for the abandonment of the dock in the Marsa. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Talbot) had ignored the fact that the excess, which Mr. M'Clean's Report would lead the House to expect, upon the original estimate, had arisen from the proposal to commence new works which were for the benefit of the navy, and had to be undertaken solely at the expense of the Imperial Government. The whole question lay in a nutshell. The question had never been, which was the most desirable site, but which was the possible site? Unless the
2046
Government had been prepared to violate an agreement solemnly entered into, they had no choice but to build the dock in the Marsa. He had authority from Sir Frederick Grey to say, that when he recommended the Admiralty to go on with this dock it never entered into his head that it should be treated as a bar to the construction of a dock in the French Creek. In this opinion he entirely concurred, and it was shared by the Duke of Somerset and by the Board of Admiralty. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that they had: only just found this out, but they had really stated it all along. In. their minds there was never any sort of comparison between the dock of the Marsa and that of the French Creek; what they looked to was the fact that the former was possible and that the latter was not possible. Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman said they ought to have written an elaborate report of the results of their visit to Malta with respect to this question. Now, the members of the Board of Admiralty had something to do besides writing letters to themselves, and it would have been idle to do so when they could explain themselves to their colleagues much better by word of mouth. As to Admiral Martin and Admiral Codrington, their: opposition arose from a complete misapprehension. They believed all along that it; was possible to go on with the dock in the French Creek, whereas it was considered by all the local authorities, that to take the necessary steps for this would have been a violation of the agreement which had been entered into. In his opinion it was owing to the persistent opposition of the two Admirals at Malta, backed by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington), and of hon. and gallant Officers opposite, all of: whom recognized the immense importance; of providing additional dock accommodation at Malta, that there was not a dock in the Marsa at this moment, and they alone] would be responsible if any inconvenience should result from the want of it. He, believed that the original estimate of the cost was a sound one, and that it would not be exceeded—at any rate by more than a few thousand pounds, and deeply regretted that the noble Lord should have thought it proper to strike out any portion: of the Vote.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONthought there were passages in the report of Mr. M'Clean which did not bear out the interpretation which the hon. Gentleman put upon it. Hon. Gentlemen on his side of

2047
the House had no wish to break faith with the Maltese; on the contrary, they quite admitted the necessity of keeping faith with them; but our faith was not pledged with them for the construction of this dock. He hoped hon. Gentlemen would not run away with the idea that this was a question of £5,000 or £10,000. The question was one of the greatest importance to this country. He thought the Admiralty were much to blame. We had not a dock in a good position at Malta, and we ought to hare constructed one years ago. As to the allegation of good faith in connection with the dock on the Marsa, what was the use of sending the hon. Gentleman to Malta, and of sending Mr. M'Clean there, if the Government were already pledged to the construction of that dock?
MR. WHITBREAD: I never said we were pledged to the construction of the dock.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: The hon. Gentleman implied it.
MR. WHITBREAD: Neither did I imply it.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONwould not, of course, say any more on that point. But the whole subject was an important one. No time ought to be lost in constructing a dock on the French Creek, and abandoning this dock on the Marsa, which was condemned by all the authorities. [" No, no Hear, hear!"] He wished to ask the noble Lord what was their position at that moment? He did not understand from the noble Lord how they stood with regard to this Vote. What was the intention of the Admiralty in withdrawing the £5,000? Were they to understand that the construction of the dock on the Marsa was abandoned for this year?
LORD CLARENCE PAGEThad said he was ready to refer the question to a Select Committee. He was quite sure that his right hon. Friend and his hon. and gallant Friends on the other side of the House would not, from any feelings of party, or any wish to criticise the acts of the Government, do anything unfair, or anything calculated to cause a breach of faith on the part of this country with Malta.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONwanted to know why the noble Lord withdrew the £5,000, and what were his intentions with regard to the Marsa dock? He wanted to know how he intended to apply the £10,000, for he should object to deepening the north-west basin beyond
2048
twelve feet. They were not pledged to deepen it beyond that depth.
LORD CLARENCE PAGET: The £5,000 was withdrawn for the present on account of the dock. The £10,900 would go on towards deepening the basin and completing the side walls of the basin where it had already been deepened. Considerable progress had already been made with the work.
COLONEL SOMERSETsaid, while he held the command of a regiment at Malta, he had given attention to this subject. The Government of Malta in 1858 was requested by the Admiralty to find the best harbour, and it was-, suggested that the Marsa was the only place. The merchant shipping there at the time were uneasy lest the Government should take the French Creek, which was the only place available for them. The question of this French Creek was mooted several times, but the expense was much greater. The dock at the Marsa was for the mercantile marine, and was a first-class one, on the principle of those of the Messrs. Laird. It was extraordinary that they had not a first-class dock in the Mediterranean for the navy; if they were going to war they would not have a dock there at which they could recruit.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid no sailor could have recommended the project now before the Committee. It had been stated that the scheme was that of the Governor. No doubt the Governor wished to make things easy; but two Admirals were opposed to the plan. It was time that the House of Commons took up the question. The Committee had been told that the trade of Malta was immense; if so, the dock would always be occupied to the exclusion of Government vessels. The noble Lord said it was intended to send troops to India by way of the Mediterranean. If so, it was the duty of the Government to make the necessary provision.
CAPTAIN TALBOTwished the Committee clearly to understand the question at issue. Was the new dock not to be proceeded with before the next meeting of Parliament? He also wanted to know whether the north-west basin was to be deepened to the extent of thirty feet?
LORD CLARENCE PAGEThad already stated that he proposed to withdraw the clock, referring it to the Committee now sitting upstairs. He was persuaded, in spite of what had been said, that he should have to bring forward a new Vote

2049
before the end of the present Session. All the money now asked for would be expended in deepening the basin.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONwas satisfied with the statement of the noble Lord that the dock would not be commenced until Parliament was again consulted.
Question put, and agreed to.
CAPTAIN TALBOTmoved the omission of the whole item for deepening the basin and constructing the dock.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item so reduced be omitted from the proposed Vote."— (Captain Tal-bot.)
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsupported the Amendment on the ground that if the dock was not to be constructed there would be no necessity for deepening the basin.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETobserved, that the importance of deepening the basin was admitted even by those who opposed the dock.
SIR JOHN HAYdenied that the importance of deepening the basin to the extent of thirty feet was admitted. He himself regarded it as a waste of public money.
MR. CHILDERSremarked, that in the opinion of Mr. M'Clean the deepening of the basin to thirty feet was a matter of the greatest importance.
The Committee divided: — Ayes 93; Noes 111: Majority 18.
Original Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
£444,298, New Works, Improvements, and Repairs, also agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolution to be reported on Tuesday; Committee to sit again on Wednesday.

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
  RIVERS POLLUTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to prevent the discharge of Impure Water from Manufactories into Rivers in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE, Sir GEORGE GREY, and Sir WILLIAM DUNBAR.
  ADMIRALTY LANDS AND WORKS BILL.
  On Motion of Lord CLARENCE PAGET, Bill to make provision respecting the acquisition of Lands required by the Admiralty for the public service, and respecting the use and disposition thereof, and the execution of Works thereon, ordered to be brought in by Lord CLARENCE PAGET and Mr. CHILDERS.

  ADMINISTRATION OF TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to facilitate the Administration of Trusts, and to regulate the powers of Trustees in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE, Sir GEORGE GREY, and Sir WILLIAM DUNBAR.
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL— Committee—High Court at Bombay * (No. 57).
Their Lordships met; and having gone through the business on the paper, without debate,
House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.