The Sun.
London, England, 1848-07-22 00:00:00

TIOUS ACTIONS BILL.

On the motion that the report on this Bill be received
Tho Earl of GLENGALL asked whether this Bill
would be extended to Ireland?

Lord CAMPBELL said he thought that such might
probably be the case at some future period.
The report was then received.
Their Lordships adjourned at Twenty Minutes to
Eight.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 21.
SUGAR DUTIES.

Lord GEORGE BENTINCK (in continuation) said--
He proposed to submit an amendment in Committee
which, as it did not go to impose a higher rate of duty,
the Speaker allowed might be put, though it was a nice
point; but he would submit it to the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, whether the best course would not be to
withdraw the present Bill altogether, and bring in new
resolutions, upon which a proper Bill might be founded;
for no ono could believe that Government knew what
they were doing when they framed the resolutions the
House bad passed, and by which so serious a blow
was inflicted on the British refiner (Hear, hear)—
for if they did, what excuse could they make for
keeping the trade and the country in ignorance
of the intention to make so great a change in the
law ? But if Ministers refused to take that course, he
was prepared to unmask a new battery against them—
(Hear, hear, and laugh ter)—he was ready to open a new
budget of Ministerial blunders in respect to this mea-
sure.--(Hear, hear.) He was in a position to prove that
they had made as many as twenty-three blunders in their
calculation of their scale of duties.—(Cheers and
laughter.) To make himself intelligible, he must ex-
plain that all the different rates of duty were based on
the rates of duty leviable on muscovado—muscovado
sugar, to use a railway expression, was the datum line of
the calculation. Molasses were taken, as at 37i per
cent. of the ♦alue of muscovado, white clayed at one-
sixth, high refined at one-third, and double refined at
one-half higher than muscovado. With the first schedule,
he had no fault to find ; but when he came to the
second, that was, the duties to be levied on the sugar of
other British possessions than those where foreign sugar
was not excluded, he found that the amount fixed by the
scale was 11.35. 4d., whereas it ought to be 11. Ss. 7d. In
the next item, single refined sugar, in the first four columns
there was no mistake, ho supposed, because those
columns referred to old duties, and required no calcula-

tion, but in the fifth column, the diity for the year
1352.3, the amount stated was 15g. while the proper
amount, taking muscovado as the basis of value, would
be 15s. 4d., and for the next year, 1853-4, the duty in
the schedule was set down at 14s. 2d., instead of 14s. Bd.
Them on white clayed sugar for 1852.3, the duty stated
in the schedule was 13% 3d. instead of 13s. sd. ; for
1853-4 it was 12s. sd. while it ought to be 128.10 d. In

the duty on molasses i❑ the first column for 1848 9 that
which was charged 55. 7d. ought to be ss. 100. for the next
year it was ss. 3d. instead of ss. sd. ; and for the third
it was 4s. 9d. instead of 4s. 1 lid.; for the fourth 4s. 4d.
instead of 4s. 6d. ; for the fifth 4s. Id. instead of 4s. 4d. ;
for the sixth, 1853-4, it was 3s. 11d. instead of 4s. lid.
-(Hear, hear.) On double refined sugar in tho third
schedule the duty set down for the year 1852-3 was 195.,
it ought to be 19s. 6d. ; for 1853-4 it was 175., while it
ought to be 18s.-(Hear, hear.) He was surprised
Ministers could not obtain the assistance of persons con-
versant with common arithmetic to calculate these
duties with something like correctness.-(A laugh.) In
the same schedule and for the same year the duty stood
for 1852-3 at 16s. Bd., it should be 17s. 4d.; for 1852-3 it
was 15s. 2d., while it ought to stand at 16s. Hero was a
difference of 10d. against the British refiner. Then in
the article of white clayed, for 1852-3 the amount set
down was 14s. 9d., instead of 15s. 2d.; and for 1853-4 it
was 13s. 2d., instead of 14s. The same irregularities ex-
isted in the Hon. Member for Westbury's pet scale-the
" brown clayed;" and if, as had been sometimes said, it
was the nature of greatness to be irregular, the Hon.
Gentleman had certainly succeeded.-(Hoar, and a
laugh.) ss. 11d. ought to have been 6s. 4d., ss. 4d.
ought to have been ss. 9d., 4s. 11d. ought to have been
ss. 3d., 4s. 6d. ought to have been 4s. 11d., and, in the
sixth column, 41. Id. ought to have been 4s. 7d. Now,
that was the sum total, making 23 errors-(Hear, hear)
-and he would ask whether it was too much to expect
of the Government to throw out altogether this horribly
blundering piece of legislation, and frame fresh resolu-
tions in accordance with the intentions of Parliament and
the Legislature?-(Cheers.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that, as it would be extremely difficult to go through all
the various points touched on by the Noble Lord, he
would answer them one by one as they arose in Com-
mittee.

into
Mr. GOULBURN
Committee, i t
wthaosuagbhsto l
utht
ealty,
nbeenfeosrsearthey
kwneonwt
the plan the Government meant to propose, because,
if it should involve
duties it might be necessaryl increase of the : existing
go into a Committee of
the whole House.
The CHANCELLOR of to
the EXCHEQUER said
a reduction of
that the only alterations intended
were
sugar,
foreign
nd the
refined
certain duties respecting refined colonial
correction of some inaccuracies respecting
sugar.
Mr. DISRAELI considered the statement of the
Noble Lord exceedingly clear. It showed such an
glomeration of error in this Bill, that he really did ano
g-
think they should go into Committee without evincing
t
their want of confidence in an Administration that
could produce a measure so saturated with mistakes,—

(A laugh.)
Mr. CARDWELL also pressed for explanation, on
the ground that if they were dissatisfied with the Hon.
Gentleman's explanation in Committee they would have
no remedy.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that the whole subject was matter of the purest detail,
and that if his explanations were not satisfactory it
would be competent for the Hon. Gentleman to move
that the Chairman report progress.
Mr. M. GIBSON controverted the idea of the Noble
Lord the Member for Lynn, that the heading of the co-
lonial scale of duties was incorrect, and that the impor-
tation of foreign sugar was not prohibited at Jamaica.
But that error, if error it were, must be completely nu-
gatory, because the Colonial Act was ruled by the Act
of the Imperial Legislature. If the Noble Lord had
given a deeper consideration to the subject he would
awl!aueAcitnieetnfstifetn,w)rhuteoa7 that the heading of these scales of colonial
Committee.
On
Ifestwelwauersdesbefrinome
proposed,
The the House
Bill was not open
The CHANCELLOR otof
ththse
chEaXrgCeslioEfQiUnacEngursitaciyd
that the B

' which the Noble Lord so lavishly directed against it.
_As to what the law was he had never entertained the
least doubt; hut the Noble Lord having on Wednesday
last stated that the Customs had demanded the payment
of a higher rate of duty from parties importing Jamaica
sugar than was legal,• he sent to the chairmen cf the
Board of Customs, and found from him that no such de-
mand had been made, and that the entry of no sugar
had been refused. The general wording of the Bill
before the House clearly expressed the condition upon
which the sugar of any particular colony was entitled
to admission here at the lowest rate of duty, and that
condition was the prohibition of the import of foreign
sugar into that colony. The reason for that was stated
in a letter from Mr. Deacon Hume to the Treasury
in 1839, in which he said, " It is well known that the
objeet of the prohibition is to prevent those colonies
in which sugar is produced from being made the medium
of a fraudulent transit of foreign sugar, as the produce
of those colonies, into this country."; Accordingly,
when the power of admitting sugar from the East India
provinces were conceded, a distinction was made, and
it was contained in the present Bill, as to the rate of
duty on sugar from colonies from which the importation
of foreign sugar was not prohibited. The sugar im-
ported from such colonies was therefore made liable to
pay a higher rate of duty, because they did not pro-
hibit foreign sugar; consequently the condition on which
the lowest rate of duty was demanded upon sugar im-
ported from our colonial possessions was that the itn •
portation of foreign sugar into such colonies should
be prohibited, and this was done with the view of pre-
venting foreign sugar being fraudulently imported here
through those colonies. Now that was the case before
the passing of the last British Possessions Act. In
1839 the question was raised whether foreign sugar
refined in England was or was not to be considered as
British produce, and the decision of the Government
was that it was British produce, and as such admissible
into the colonies. But lest any misapprehenlion should
arise upon the subject, in the British Possessions Act of
1845, which was introduced by the Right Hon. Gentle-
man opposite (Mr. Glsdstone), and which was the exist-
ing Act, in the prohibition clause there was a special ex-
ception of sugar not being refined in bond in the United
Kingdom ; and it was impossible, therefore, that any
colonial law could affect that prohibition. If the British
Possessions Act were repealed, that sugar might come
in ; but it was distinctly provided that the importation
of foreign sugar was prohibited into all the West India
islands, audit was necessary that it should be so to
allow them to send their sugar hero at the lower rate of
duty.
Mr. BARKLY referred to the Parliamentary papers
of 1846 to show that foreign sugar was practically ad-
mitted into all the Britich West Indies in violation of,
and though alleged to be excluded by, the British Pos-
sessions Act.—(hear, hear.) That was the real question
to consider—which was simply one of fact.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the question was
rather what was the law. The Hon. Gentleman quoted
returns to show that foreign sugar was imported into
Barbadoes, Demerara, and other of our West India colo-
nies in violation of our British Possessions Act, but the
fact of that importation did not prove its legality. The
Hon. and Learned Gentleman having quoted several
Acts on the subject, contended that any and every Colo-
nial Act in opposition to the British Possessions Act
must be null and void.
Mr. CARD WELL said that the confusion which had
occurred on this subject might have been obviated if the
attention of the parties concerned had been called at the
proper time to the change which had been made in the
schedule by the Jamaica Legislature.
Mr. WILSON said that the Act did not come into
operation until the 12th of this month, and as early as
the 15th warrants were prepared in conformity with the
Act of Parliament, and he did not think that much in-
terference to the trade had taken place.
Lord G. BENTINCK assured the House that he
knew cases in which considerable inconvenience had oc-
curred. The real question was—Was the sugar im-
ported to the colonies or was it not? It was known that
it was, and that it paid the duty. How then could any
man be called upon to present a warrant stating that his
sugar was imported into this country from countries into
which foreign sugar was not imported? How could
Parliament pass an Act that would lead to warrants
bearing falsehoods on the face of them?
The ATTORNEY GENERAL said that all that
parties were called upon to state was that the importa-
tion of foreign sugar into the colonies was prohibited—
not that it was not imported. It was, in short, the dif-
ference between what was law and what was fact.
Mr. GOULBURN then moved that after the words
"growth or produce of British possessions" there be in•
serted the words " in America, or any other British pos-
sessions."
After a desultory conversation, in which the Clime-
CELLOR of the Excaeotren, Mr. GLADSTONE, and other
Members joined, the Committee divided on Mr. Goul-
burn's amendment, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it 73

Majority against it ... —4s
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then
rose to propose an alteration in the duties levied upon
refined sugar, and referred to a question which had
been put by the Hon. Member for Leominster (%fr.
Barkly), who had expressed his belief that these du-
ties were not fairly in proportion with the duties levied
on muscovado sugar. It this were so, it would be pro-
ductive of a practical objection. But this was a ques-
tion which referred only to one part of the duties; for
it was notorious that the colonists did not refine, and
unless there was a permission to refine in bond no co-
lonial sugars would ever be used in this country.
After a full inquiry into the subject, he was of opinion
that the duty on refined sugars had always been taken
too high—that was, assuming that the same amount of
duty should be paid on sugar which was refined as would
have been paid on the raw sugar refined not in bond.
With regard to the admission ,of Dutch sugar, it had
always been held that any article manufactured in a
country should be taken as the produce of that country,let
it be grown where it might. England had always insisted
in every case in which she had " the most favou red
nation" clause, on the admission of our manufactures
without reference to the place whence the raw material
had been procured. The matter had been argued in
1835 in this country on the very question of the admis-
sion of foreign sugar refined in this country to the %Vest
India possessions; and the decision then was, that no
matter where the sugar was grown, it must be held to
have become the produce of this country, and was so ad -
mitted into the West India colonies. This principle
was most distinctly laid down, and he had, therefore,
not thought it necessary to re-enact an exclusion which
it was impossible to maintain. He now proposed that
the rate of duty at which foreign sugar came into this
country should be the same as that at which the same
sugar was introduced hero to be refined. Two ob-
jections were raised to this—one by the refiners, who
complained of the Dutch bounty; the other by the
shipping interest, on the ground of the navi-
gation laws. But there was no ground for saying
that the Dutch refiners had any advantage from their
bounty over the English refiners, who were allowed to
refine in bond. A proof of this was the fact that the
Dutch refiners had applied to their Government to be al-
lowed to refine in bond. As to the navigation laws,
their operation would probably only be for another year,
and they would not cause a difference of above ls. a cwt.
—(Hear, hear.) Tho only party who could complain
was the West India producer; and, from the information
he had received from a variety of sources, he was in-
clined to believe that the proceeds of the foreign sugar
refined in bond paying 20s. duty would be rather above
205.; hence the colonist would have the same protection
against the foreign sugar refined here in bond as he
had against foreign sugar generally. It was
also to bo observed, that the greater the pro-
ceeds of the refined sugar the higher duty would it
have to pay. He proposed, then, to reduce the duty on
colonial double-refined sugar from 19s. 6d. to 18s., and
on single-refined from 17s. 4d. to 16s. In this case, as
in that of the foreign sugar, it would make little differ-
ence to the owner of the sugar whether he paid the duty
on it in the raw or refined state. By these means he
hoped to extend the consumption of sugar, and at the
same time to consult the interests of the colonists. He
proposed now to take the reductions of 191. ed. and
17s. 4d. to 18s. and 165., and also those in the first
column. In the third column he admitted there were
some inaccuracies, though not to such an extent as was
imputed by the Noble Lord; and he should take time to
consider the effect of these more fully. He now moved
the reduction of 19s. 6d. to 185.
Mr. GLADSTONE contended that the Government
had no right to lay down the principle that sugars should
only be regarded according to the country of their manu-
facture, and not that of their production. He questioned
whether Holland was entitled to have her sugars refined
in the East Indies admitted on the same terms as
those refined in Belgium. A country had a right, if it
chose, to take a distinction founded on the place where
the article was produced; that distinction had been taken
by other countries, and acquiesced in by us. There were
also traces of it in our own laws. By the Act of 1832,
sugars refined in England from colonial sugar were made
admissible to the North American colonies free of duty,
while those sugars refined from foreign sugars were sub-
jected to a duty of 10 per cent. Again, by the 5 and 6
'rict., e. 47, the manufactures of the Channel Islands
made of foreign materials were deemed the produce of
foreign countries, and held to be imported from such
countries. Therefore, if we recognised that principle as
against ourselves, we were perfectly entitled to do so
with regard to foreign countries, in the way proposed by
the Noble Lord.
Mr. CARDWELL deemed it necessary to a thorough
appreciation of this subject that the Committee should
have some knowledge of the conditions and circumstances
under which Government proposed that refining in bond
was to be carried on; and of this information they were
destitute. In the proposed reduction of duty from 19s. 6d.
to 18s. everything depended on the accuracy of the cal-
culators ; for if, unfortunately, a mistake were made,
the consequences would be most ruinous to the refiners
of this country, owing to the intimate way in which the
question was mixed up with that of the Dutch refiners.
He thought that longer time ought to have been given to
consider the alteration now proposed. He had under-
stood the impression amongst practical men, as to the
265. Bd. and 245. Bd. on foreign sugar, to be, that the al-
teration would operate unfavourably towards our own
trade. Not only ought the Committee to be in posses-
sion of the calculations whence these results wore drawn,
but they should also know what regulations it was pro-
posed to apply to the trade of the refiner. Would the
Chancellor of the Exchequer have any objection to lay
the 'sale url
ea
fit
time;ine endas
nsbdue
gfboaerrfeowtrheoeut
Committee?
breduction
inoperative'fir from
me reductionf2o6r.
.a
sc do
.n
sot
on-
2dcolonial
. on foreign sugar, the House ought to have the
information he had referred to.
Mr. BARELY said the duty of 245. Bd. on refined was
equivalent to a duty of 18s. sd. on raw sugar. Refining
in bond might be an excellent thing for the colonies in
process of time; but meanwhile care must be taken of
our own refiners, and they must not be exposed to the