The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-15 00:00:00

THE SUGAR DUTIES.

On the motion thst the Speaker leave the chair for going
into Committee on the Sugar Duties Bill,
Sir WILLIAM CLAY presented petitions on the sub-
ject, and
Mr. HAWES presented a petition from wholesale houses
in London, praying for a drawback of duty on sugar now in
bonded warehouses.

Sir W. CLAY, in the absence of Mr. Wallace, wished to
move, on going into Committee on the Sugar Duties Ri 1. that
compensation be made to such refiners as have paid the duty of
9..b5. 3d. on their stocks undergoing the process of refining,
and who shall nut have had time to get quit thereof, previous
to the new scale of duties taking effect.
A long discussion ensued as to whether this motion or that
of Mr. Hawes, which followed on the paper, should have pre-
cedence. _

Sir H. PEEL observed that it was of the greatest import-
ance that, in respect to moving questions, they should adhere
implicitly to the rules of the House. However, he did not
wish, in consequence of mere technical formality, to prevent a
full discussion. _ . _

I Itimately the SPEAKER decided that Mr. Haw•es's motion
should come on first, then the 13i11 be recommitted, after which
the other motions on the subject could be brought forward.

Mr. HAWES then moved " that provision be made in the
Bill for the drawback of the amount of the duty reduced, on
such duty-paid sugar as now remains in the Queen's ware-
house," '1 he course pursued by the Government in this
matter was altogether unusual. A change was about to be
made in one of the great articles of commerce at a most unu-
sual period—at a time too when the dealers in this commodity
were wholly unprepared for such a change. A great quantity
of sugar lay in bonded warehouses in this country, over which
nobody had any control but the Government officers. How-
ever anxious the House miebt be to confer a great publio
benefit. he was sure they would be anxious to avoid doing so
with the certainty of causing great individual losses. If some
such motion as he proposed were not sanctioned this would
certainly be the case. The petition he had that night presented
was signed by six of the principal London sugar dealers, and he
begged the earnest attention of the House to the situation of
those individuals. Messrs. Conway and Co. had in bond
10,000 cwt. of sugar; Messrs. North and Co. more than
3.000, and Messrs. Stubbs and Co. about the same quantity.
Now, in one instance, there was a stock in hand of not less
than 550 tons, and one house had experienced a loss of not less
than 5.0(i0/., and several others bstween 0,000/. and 3,0001.
Not only was this the case with respect to houses in London,
but in the country also, as might at any time be seen by the
circular of the trade. Liverpool and London, two great
depots of sugar, the wholesale dealers there were in the habit of
retaining considerable stocks in their hands, for, in consequence
of railroads and steam, the Communication was so rapid that
the retail dealers could order whatever they required almost
from day to day, and thus the large houses were the parties
who held the stocks for present consumption. He (Mr. Hawes)
could draw precedents both from
past times and the present. The
first precedent he would draw was from the year 1838, wh4.n the
Right Hon. Barnet was in office. They allowed the drawback
on glass. In the case of gliiss, the glass manufaiiturers had the
power of exporting glass, and demanding the drawback ; and if,
in consequence of any peculiar circumstances, the trade was
depressed, the merchants could resort to the Act of Parliament,
and get the drawback ; and this actually took place on ore
occasion. The whole of the stock in hand was eximrted, and
the foreign market was flooded. The Government then en-
tered into a compromise, and granted 75 per cent. reduction of
the duties. In the case of wine, also, the duty had
been remitted on the stocks in hand. In 1843 a me-
morial had been presented to the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
in the case of French wines, and the Right Hon. Gentleman
had promised that, although the negotiations with Portugal
had terminated without any favourable result, yet that, in any
future treaties, the claims of French wines should be attended
to; and with respect to the stocks in hand, the drawback was
always allowed—when the alteration of the duties took place,
in 1787, by the 27th Geo. 111., and when again, in 1814, by
the 54th Geo. 111., the drawback was allowed; and by 6th
Geo. IV., in 1825, the drawback was again allowed. By the
Ist and 2d William IV., the duties were equalised, and the
drawback was again allowed. When application was made to
the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, he hail pro-
mised that, on the reduction of the duty, consideration
should be made for their case. Now the sugar on which the
remission of duty was prayed for, the goods were in the iden-
tical state, of the same colour, and in the identical place where
it was when the duty was paid. He held in his hand the me-
morial of the sugar dealers, upon whose representations the
Right Hon. Baronet had said he hail thus early brouelst on the
reduction of duty, and by that it appeared that the memorialists
did not expect the change at this unusual period of the year ;
and the memorial does not justify the argument which had
been used for the unusual course which had been pursued.
What_ the memorialists desired was a permanent set-
tlement of the question. The trade wished the continual
changes to which they were liable to be done away with—they
did not look for a settlement at this early period, and certainly
anticipated that time would be allowed them to work off their
stocks in hand, for, if not, they certainly would have invested
to the extent of the stocks which they held. It was the cus-
tom to make the vote for the sugar duty an annual duty, and
they desired that. the fluctuations to which they were subjected
should be done away with by some permanent enactment. If
this early settlement, and not the permanent settlement, had
been the end the memorialists sought, their object would have
been attained. It was, however, said that the allowance to the
wholesale dealers would have been an injustice, unless the
allowance was made also to the retail dealers. He held in his

hand a bundle of letters from all parts of the country, and by
those he learned that the stocks in the hands of the retail
dealers were never so light as at the present moment. That it
was difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain the extent of the
stock in the hands of the retail dealers, he was quite ready to
allow; but he thought that this circumstance ought not to pre-
vent that justice should be done to wholesale dealers, and thus
obviate that stagnation in the trade which was now so
grievously felt, and he did hope that from these several consi-
derations lier Majesty's Ministers would be moved to listen
with attention to the representations of the memorialists, and
with this hope he would leave the matter to the House and
the Government.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER trusted that
he should not seem to treat the motion of the Hon. Member
for Lambeth with want of attention. If he did oppose it, public
considerations alone induced his conduct. If he granted the
petition of the memorialists he would be doing injustice to all
other parties engaged in the trade. Now the petition which
the Hon. Gentleman had presented was from six of the whole-
sale sugar dealers in London, when the wholesale dealers
alone amounted to fifty-two. The lion. Gentleman seemed
to think that these gentlemen conceived themselves taken by
surprise. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought that
if any person had observed the course of the debates during
last session, he must have conceived that one of the earliest mea-
sures this year would be some modification of the sugar duties.
So far as the time at which the change in the duties had been
proposedhire?
the they
hadthoseparties
nofair
caimo cause au a
return
that the Government anticipated from this change in the duty
was a greatly increased consumption, which would make up for
any loss which the complainii g parties might sustain. The
Hon• Gentleman had grounded his claims for these parties on
precedent, and alluded to what had taken place some years ago
with respect to sugar. That precedent to which the
Honourable Gentleman referred he (the Chancellor of
the Exchequer) thought was not analogous to the pre-
sent one. In that case no notice as in the present
case was given, so with the ease of wine to which the Hon.
Gentleman had referred. Wine was an excisable article, and
therefore the course which had been adopted at the time of the
reduction of the duty upon it could not be taken now with
respect to sugar.
Mr. LABOUCFIERE said that upon this question he had
been dispo•ed to adopt the line which the Right lion. Gen-
tleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done, but yet,
upon mature deliberation, he had come to the conclusion that,
in the present instance, a case had been made out by the mer-
chant; of London, who bad signed the memorial, and he thought
that the House would not be acting justly by them if it did not
adopt some measures which would be calculated to afford them
the relief they prayed for. He thought that, under the pecu-
liar 1 circumstances, it was the duty of the House to comply
with the whole of their demands, and to make such arrange-
ments as would mitigate the evils they complained of. The
sugar duties had been brought forward this setrion under cir-