another and higher rate, if imported in foreign ships; but, upon sugar imported from the colonies in foreign ships, instead of such higher rates, the "Surtax de affrétement" so imposed, which is 20 or 30 francs, according to the exporting colony, for every ton for which the sugar pays freight; so that, if the importer pays freight for 100 tons, the "surtax paid upon that quantity. This surtax, therefore, is not the freight, but a protection for the flag or national ship.

is

The effect of that surtax or protective duty is to make a comparison of the absolute duties a somewhat complicated affair, as compared with the duties of another country; but it leaves the question quite free from complication in this respect, that the scale now in force in France is a scale of one rate for refined sugar and another rate for unrefined sugar, without making a distinction between unrefined sugars, which is the subject which has been referred to the consideration of this committee. There is but one scale for unrefined sugar. Then in the United States we have the Morrill tariff: raw sugar, Muscovado or brown, and syrup of sugar or sugar cane, and concentrated molasses or melado; they seem all to be put together in one head, 14d. a lb., or about 11s. 8d. a cwt.; then white and clayed, or advanced beyond the raw state by claying, but not refined, the same; refined loaf, lump, crushed and pulverized, 2d. per lb., being 18s. 8d. per cwt., and when tinctured, coloured, or in any way adulterated, and sugar candy, 4d. the lb. weight, being 37s. 4d. per cwt.; and molasses 3d. the gallon. In America, also, the distinction appears to be, as in France, between refined and unrefined. It appears that they divide unrefined sugar into two classes, and yet each class pays the same rate of duty. The next statement which I can give is with regard to Belgium, which is very complicated also; sugar-cane, raw from the Dutch colonies in the East Indies, by water from Holland, for the 220 lbs. weight, 18. 11d.; direct from the country of production, or a port beyond the Cape of Good Hope, in Belgian vessels, for 220 lbs. weight, one-tenth of a penny; in foreign vessels, 18. 44d.; from the Transatlantic non-productive countries, the 220 lbs. weight, 38. 5d.; in Belgian vessels, the 220 lbs., 18. 44d.; in foreign vessels, the 220 lbs., 18. 11ąd. From elsewhere by sea, in Belgian vessels, the 220 lbs., 28. 23d.; in foreign vessels, the 220 lbs., 38. 5d.; in any other way, prohibited; refined, or raw mixed with refined, the 220 lbs., 37. 158. 24d.; molasses of all sorts prohibited. It appears also that raw sugar pays, beside the import duty, also an excise duty of 35 francs and centime per 220 lbs., and when refined sugars, syrups (not molasses), and beet-root sugars have paid excise duty, that duty is returned at their exportation.

Then in Holland, raw and clayed sugar for the 220 lbs. weight is 4d.; refined, for the 220 lbs., 37.; and refined and mixed with raw, for the 220 lbs., 31.

In the Zollverein, sugar refined and candy pays by the centner 17. 108.; on raw and powdered sugar, the centner, 1. 48.; raw, for refinement in the home manufactories, 15s., and molasses, 98. The centner is equal to 110 lbs. avoirdupois.

The present import duty on sugar into Russia is, for raw sugar, 3 silver roubles the pood; refined, in loaves, 5 silver roubles; crushed and all but the above descriptions are prohibited. One silver rouble represents 35d. English, and 1 pood represents 36 lbs. weight.

Uniform Duties.-Mr. Travers anticipated great benefit from a simplifi

cation of the rates, or a uniform scale; that the price of the superior raw sugars would be cheaper, and that the consumption would be larger. In his opinion the refiner would not suffer from a uniform scale, although causing the inferior sugar, now refined in this country, to be imported in a fit state for consumption. But though favourable to a uniform duty, Mr. Travers was not prepared to suggest what that duty should be. He expressed himself in favour of an uniform duty on all sugars, whether refined or unrefined.

Mr. Nelson was of opinion that the effect of a simplification or adjustment of the present duties would be to encourage the introduction of better sugars, and, by opening the trade, to increase the consumption. He thought that the present standard and duty for refined or fine sugar should be continued at 188. 4d., and that there should be but one duty for unrefined or raw sugar. He asked for two rates, as an improvement on four or five

rates.

Mr. Key, Mr. Arnauld, Mr. Wright, Mr. Arbuthnot, and Mr. Kew, all contended for two duties only, as simpler and better. Mr. Nelson, on the other hand, stated that one duty only would be the more correct principle, and that the proposition of two duties is rather in the nature of a compromise. So did Mr. Stokes. Mr. Mackenzie, Mr. Arnaud, and Mr. Porter said that one fixed rate would be the simplest and most certain plan. Sir Thomas Freemantle stated that, with one uniform duty, Cuba and the Mauritius would have an advantage as against the West Indies; and that the effect of only one rate of duty upon unrefined sugar would be largely to exclude the importation of the inferior class of sugars. It would encourage the importation of the higher class of sugar, and discourage the import of the lower classes. Mr. Davis said that a uniform duty would be a benefit to the Mauritius and East Indian manufacturers of superior sugars, and would give them an unfair advantage in their rivalry with British refiners. He adverted to the presence of molasses in West India sugar, and showed that an uniform duty would press unequally and unjustly on such sugar, as compared with the better East Indian sugar. Mr. Farrie stated that the tendency of a uniform duty would be to cause producers of low sugar to send a better article, but that would be at the expense of a less quantity. Mr. Fryer stated that a uniform duty would exclude the lower sugars, and be prejudicial to the home refiner, without being beneficial to the consumer. Mr. Naghten said that the effect of a uniform duty would be to interfere with the natural course of things, or with the sending of West Indian sugar to this country in a crude state to be refined here. Mr. St. John said that considerable difficulty and dissatisfaction may be anticipated if there were an uniform duty of 13s. 2d. on unrefined sugar, and a duty of 18s. 4d. on refined sugar. Sir Thomas Freemantle said that injustice would be involved in an uniform rate of duty applicable to unrefined sugar imported in various forms.

Refining in Bond.—Mr. F. St. John gave evidence on this subject as follows:

The tests for the protection of the revenue, under the system of refining in bond, were exceedingly unsatisfactory, and the only thing we could really rely upon was the attendance of the officers; and, altogether, it was both an unsatisfactory and expensive system. The results would never come out the same. We could not ascertain whether the refining was carried on satisfactorily from any results which we got from the produce that was made; we never could keep any thorough check upon it, inasmuch

as only one officer would be present at a time. The officer of customs knew the quantity of sugar that went into a refinery, and the quantity of product which came out of the refinery.

A custom-house officer was deputed to watch and to see, so far as he could, that no sugar, either before it was refined or after it was refined, found its way into domestic consumption. The duty of the officer was to keep a watch there, to receive the sugar that came in, and to weigh the product that went out again, and, so far as he could, to ascertain the result. Then there were superior officers (of whom I was, at one time, one) to check him; and in the execution of my duty there, I endeavoured, as a very large running account was kept from year to year without being balanced, to check the quantity, and to ascertain whether any sugar had been otherwise removed which was written off in the shape of waste. fact, I found it impossible, and the account was obliged to run on till the refineries closed in 1854, when all the accounts were made up, and whatever the deficiencies were, our board had to write them off, whether they were satisfactory or not.

In

You

There was no test on which we could rely, in fact none whatever. could not rely on the quantity, neither could you ascertain whether a fraud had been committed or not, until you came to the winding up at the end of the transaction; and, whatever your suspicions might have been, you could not point out any instance in which a fraud had been committed. I remember, on one occasion, where there was a large deficiency, we made what inquiry we could, and then we had to write that quantity off as loss.

During the time when that system was in operation, there was no test which was regarded as adequate; and our impression was that with a view to the revenue it was unsatisfactory. In 1854, that system was wound up.

When that system was wound up, the stock-taking took place. It was not a stock-taking, the quantity was wound up; it came to a close altogether. While the sugar house was open you could not take a satisfactory stock; then the refiners worked up what produce they had, and the duty was paid upon the products when they closed the working. No stock was attempted to be taken while they were working, and I feel sure that it could not be done. There being no stock-taking during the time that the working was going on, the effect of winding up was to bring us to the conclusion which we had sought in vain to obtain by stock-takings during the

process.

I have been looking over the actual accounts kept, and I think I could give the results of the winding-up of several of the refineries at the time. I had, perhaps, better not give the names of the refineries; I had better call them No. 1, and so on. One refinery, which was the largest, went on refining from the year 1833 up to 1854, and during that time they refined 1,343,150 cwts. 2 qrs. and 2 lbs. of sugar, and I will give the result of that when they came to wind-up in 1854. I have the different quantities of each sort of produce that was made; they consisted of refined sugar, bastards, treacle, wet lumps, and white syrup. That left a loss at the end of that time of 25,837 cwt. 2 qrs. 2 lbs; that was equal to 24th per cent.; that was considered very reasonable, considering the large quantities, and no difficulties were made. That is No. 1 refinery. At No. 2 refinery, there were 62,000 cwts. refined; that commenced in 1853 and ended in

1854, lasting a very short time only. There the products were the same, except that they did not give white syrup; they delivered wet lumps and the other products, but the loss there was 3 per cent., being 1931 cwts. And at another refinery, which I will call No. 3, they commenced in 1848 and ceased in 1851, and then began again in the same year; they refined altogether 78,819 cwts., that was given out in the same products, and there was a loss of 2ths per cent. And at another refinery, at a distance which I have marked No. 5, the loss was 24 per cent. Then, in another refinery, when it wound up, there was a loss of 93 per cent., and that refinery produced some rather curious results as to the quantities.

The last refinery, where the loss was so great, commenced on the 20th of February, and ended on the 30th of June, 1854; therefore, it worked a very short time, and only refined 16,863 cwts. of sugar. I will give the product of that; there were 289 cwts. of refined sugar, 7878 of bastards, 3477 of treacle, and then there was some brown Muscovado sugar (which was duty paid on the 13th of July, 1854), weighing 1655 cwts., and molasses at the same time weighing 1191 cwts., and there was obliged to be made an allowance of water upon that, equal to 826 cwts., and besides that, there was a loss of 344 cwts. for waste, that is, equal to 9 per cent., not including the water, because the officers saw there was water there, and allowed for it, altogether that would have made nearly 13 per cent. of actual loss upon it. There was an inquiry made about it at the time; it was not satisfactory; in looking over the papers, I see the officers said there was a great deal of sand and dirt, so there was nothing to be done for it but to wind up the affair.

Upon the whole, the result in that case was that we wound up the case, not having any evidence satisfactory to ourselves as to whether the whole duty had been actually paid or not. We assumed that it had been, and there was nothing to induce us to recommend that anybody should be prosecuted, although the transaction had taken place in so short a time; our own officers were present, and had no suspicion. Although the assumption was that everything was correct, the evidence fell far short, in our judgment, of being satisfactory. Those are the accounts from the refineries which I have given.

The process would depend with the manufacturer, upon what sort of sugar it was his intention to make, but the results given are very important indeed. We had, before we commenced, some inquiries made, as to what ought to be the product of refined sugar; and this is an extract from the official papers, which I believe has been prepared by Dr. Ure, who was at the time consulted as to what should be the product of a cwt. of ordinary British plantation sugar when refined; he gives 68 lbs. of refined sugar of all sorts, 19 lbs. of bastards, 18 lbs. of molasses, and 5 lbs. of waste, making the 112 lbs. ; the actual result is shown by the working out of these quantities; refinery No. 1 produced 61 lbs. of refined sugar, 13 lbs. of bastards, 20 lbs. of treacle, 2 lbs. of wet lumps, and one-tenth of white syrup, and 2 lbs. of loss for every 100 lbs.; No. 2, produced only 5 lbs. of refined sugar, instead of the contemplated 68 lbs., 35 lbs. of bastards, 36 lbs. of treacle, 17 lbs. of wet lumps, and 2 lbs. taken out as raw sugar again, and 3 lbs. of loss; refinery No. 3, produced 67 lbs. of refined sugar, 15 lbs. of bastards, 13 lbs. of treacle, 1 lb. of white lumps, and 2 lbs. of loss; No. 4, produced 60 lbs. of refined sugar, 12 lbs. of bastards, 22 lbs. of treacle, and 4 lbs. of loss; No. 5, produced 1 lb. only of refined sugar,

46 lbs. of bastards, 20 lbs. of treacle, 16 lbs. of raw sugar, 5 lbs. of water, and 9 lbs. of loss out of every 100 lbs.

Looking at those figures, the result was exceedingly various, as to the produce that resulted from a cwt. of sugar in the different refineries. There is no doubt that each refiner manufactured in the way which he thought would produce the largest profit; I do not suppose they all tried to make the same quality; no doubt they did not.

That being the case, it would be more difficult for you to form an accurate idea of the result which ought to be produced if a given number of cwts. go into the refinery, than it would be if the mode of manufacture were more uniform and the results more uniform. It depends, for one thing, upon the part of the kingdom in which it is made; there are different products, according to the different places of sale; it is impossible to get a uniform system. The want of uniformity in the operations of the trade creates an additional difficulty to the officer of the customs, in judging by the refined product whether all the sugar which has gone into a bonded refinery as raw sugar has ultimately paid duty. I hold it to be utterly impossible for him to say what he ought to have; he cannot know. In those statements which I have given you, where it should be recollected that all went in as dry sugar, a great deal of the products came out in the shape of treacle, which would contain a great deal of water.

I hold it to be entirely impossible to carry on any system of refining in bond that would give a satisfactory security to the revenue; in fact it will appear so from some papers and plans which I have here, and which I shall be happy to show to the committee, of one or two of the refineries which had been approved; they would show how difficult it is to keep a watch.

If refining in bond were allowed for home consumption, the difficulties would be very greatly increased; we should have to add greatly to the number of officers to take charge of the arrangements, inasmuch as under the former system anything that was taken away, except for shipment, would excite suspicion; but in the present case there would be always carts loading, and you would therefore always require officers to attend, and to take account of the quantities of sugar going in on the one side, and you would require men about the floors to see that the sugar was properly going through the processes, and you must also have officers to attend to the delivery on the other side, which, I apprehend, as the refiners deal with grocers and various other parties, would be very often of small quantities; so that, compared with the old system, when the sugar was chiefly taken in large quantities for exportation, the difficulties would be very much increased in every way.

Memorandum on the Scale of Duties on Sugar, 31st March, 1862.

THE existing scale of duties on sugar, with the relative standards, was settled after much inquiry and consideration; and, although there was at first some difficulty in working the system, it soon became well understood, and is now regarded with very general satisfaction, as imposing the tax on sugar more equitably than any previous arrangement.

It appears, indeed, from a petition recently presented to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that some parties connected with India, Mauritius, and Cuba, allege that the scale operates to discourage the preparation of