this excess yield, but on exportation | bond as a substitute. There was a long he received a drawback equal to the correspondence on the subject between duty he was supposed to have paid, and Lord Derby, Lord Lyons, and the Duc the French sugar refiners were thus en- Decazes; but, notwithstanding all reabled to undersell the English refiners. monstrances, France had systematically The industry and skill of our refiners evaded that which she had promised to had long enabled them to stand even do, and we were now in the position this competition, but the system had that the Convention of 1864, which, as he now come to be intolerable. It was a had said, was our only locus standi, would rule with regard to raw sugar that the expire to-morrow, while France declined deeper the colour the less was the yield, to act upon the law which she herself and the French refiners had turned this to had passed, and now actually proposed their advantage, by artificially deepening to do nothing in the matter until the the colour of the raw sugar and obtaining 1st of March. What reason did she a much greater yield than was officially give for this course? Within the calculated. In the case of the ordinary last month or two there had been ancane sugar the disadvantage resulting other conference between England, to English refiners from this manipulation of the raw sugar was great, but in the case of beet root sugar, which was largely manufactured in France, it was ten-fold greater. One might say that this was a matter which France would soon open her eyes to. As a matter of fact, she did open her eyes to it as far back as 1864, for it was at her instance that the Convention of 1864 with England, Holland, and Belgium was entered into. Under that Convention a certain scale was drawn up, which it was said would meet the requirements of the case. The English Government had loyally carried out the terms of the Convention; but France, which had originally proposed it as the champion of the abolition of bounties, from that time to the present had systematically evaded her obligations. It was consistently insisted on the part of England that refining in bond was the only way to give effect to the Convention of 1864, and a proposition was made in the French Assembly in 1874 proposing to establish that system on the 1st of May. The proposition was rejected by a small majority, but so strong was the feeling on the subject that it was again brought forward with the consent of the French Government in the same year, and carried by a large majority. It was then decided that refining in bond should commence on the 1st of July, 1875, at the very latest; but it was also declared that every exertion should be used to bring the system into operation at the earliest possible moment after the passing of the law. That engagement was not entered into with us, because our locus standi was the Convention of 1864, for which, however, we were willing to accept refining in France, Holland, and Belgium, with the view of inducing Holland and Belgium also to refine in bond. A Convention to that effect was agreed to, and the 1st of March was named in it, because it was necessary that Holland and Belgium should get a law passed by their respective Assemblies in order to carry out the provisions of the Convention, and that could not very well be done much earlier than March. But then that excuse did not apply to the case of France because she had already passed a law for refining in bond; and further, the French delegate at the opening of the Conference, had expressly stated that whatever dates Holland and Belgium fixed for the commencement of refining in bond, France was bound to commence that system not later than 31st July so that the delay now proposed was a distinct breach of this understanding. He had not the slightest faith that France would carry out refining in bond even in March; but even if she did, it was a most ruinous thing for our sugar refiners to have to stand against those bounties for another six months. If the present state of things were not remedied, he did not believe that in another month there would be a sugar-refiner at work in the whole Kingdom. It had been said, why should they object to the French taxing themselves to give us cheap sugar? But it really was not a consumer's question, for the consumer did not derive any benefit from the system. The drawback received by the French refiner was £3 or £4 per ton, but he only reduced his price just below the price at which sugar could be made by our refiners; that was to say, he reduced it not more than £1 per ton. | amount of capital lost, it was absolutely necessary, whether by remonstrances or by other means, to bring France to a sense of her obligations. He, therefore, earnestly trusted that the Government would adopt some method by which the injury he had described would be remedied, and a prosperous branch of manufacture in this country saved from utter extinction. or at about the rate of 1-16d. per lb. MR. SAMUDA said, he would not go over the same ground as his hon. Colleague had; but this he must say, that the amount of injury which had been done to this country by France in the sugar refinery question was very great. He did not want the House or the Government to pursue any course that would be against the consumers' interest; but this was a long-pending question between the people of Franco and this country. France had been much favoured by this country, but she had broken all her engagements with England. Lord Derby had put the matter to her in the simplest and broadest way when he said this was not a consumers' question; it was more than that; it was a question in which the action pursued by the Government of France had almost entirely destroyed the sugar-refining interest of this country and the whole of the capital that had been invested in it; and unless something was done speedily to remedy the evil, the sugar manufacturers in this country would be obliged to shut up their houses. He believed his hon. Colleague had under-stated rather than over-stated the magnitude of the mischief done by France to one of the largest sugar-refining districts of this country. It was melancholy to witness the way in which the sugar manufactories in the Tower Hamlets had one by one succumbed, owing to the causes so well described in the admirable exposition to which the House had just listened. The course that France was adopting was the simple one of bearing down, by unfair competition, the sugar-refining trade of this country, in which so much capital was invested, with the hope of recouping herself subsequently, when she had got the whole trade in her hands, by charging a large additional price for her sugar all over the Continent. It so happened that the soil of France was peculiarly suitable for the growth of beet, and that after the sugar had been extracted from that root, the residue was nearly as valuable for feeding cattle as the root in its original state. Therefore, the French Government, by being enabled to throw into beet cultivation an enormous quantity of their land and to employ a large number of labourers in the sugar-refining trade, were able to recoup themselves for the large sum which they most unfairly paid out of public money to their sugar refiners. In these circumstances we ought not to stand upon formalities, and it would be advisable that the French Government should be informed that the course of action they had adopted was contrary to all good faith and to their express agreement, and that until they put themselves in the right, we should no longer consider that we were under any obligation to regard them as entitled to be dealt with under the most-favoured nation clause of the Treaty. MR. M'LAREN said, the question was one that was possessed of much interest for the Northern part of the Kingdom, where things were coming to a crisis with regard to it. There was only one sugar refinery in Edinburgh, and it had been working at a loss for a considerable time, and within the last day or two the proprietors had given notice to their workmen of their intention to stop the works altogether. His hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. Grieve), who was a partner in the largest sugar-refining business in the Kingdom, told him that things were in the same state in his part of the country, and that many houses thought of giving up their business altogether, which would cause thousands of men earning good wages to go idle. The mode adopted by France partook too much of the nature of the Old Bailey practice, of making a promise to-morrow in order to break it the next day, and the time had come when our Government ought to meet the matter in a very decided manner, and should teach the French Government to act like honest men. Within the last few years we had largely reduced the duty on the importation of French wines, as compared with those of Spain and Portugal, and we should take care that it was known that it was not too late for us to retrace our steps in that matter. SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA said, that France had been greatly favoured with respect to the duties on wine to the prejudice of the distillers of this country, and it ought to go forth to the Ministry of France that every part of the United Kingdom was agreed upon this pointthat the system of allowing a drawback to the manufacturers in France, in order that they might compete with us on unfair terms, was a system which could not be tolerated by any country which respected itself. The growth of beet and the manufacture of sugar in Ireland might be profitably carried on were it not for the undue advantage that France gave to her sugar refiners. MR. BOURKE said, he was sure that no one could be surprised that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) had brought this subject before the House, because, if other hon. Members had seen and heard as much of the condition of the sugar refiners of this country as he had done within the last three or four months, they would be glad that the question had fallen into such able hands as those of the hon. Member. Nothing could be more conclusive than the hon. Member's statement, and he thanked him for the kind way in which he had spoken of the action which Her Majesty's Government had already taken in this matter, and for the terms in which he had referred to him personally. All he could say was, that it had given the greatest pain at the Foreign Office to hear of the great distress in the sugarrefining trade that existed in all parts of the United Kingdom, and he could assure the House that the Foreign Office had from time to time in the last few months repeatedly remonstrated with the French Government upon this question as it affected England, Ireland, and Scotland. At that hour of the night, he would not weary the House by going into the bygone story of the classification of sugar, but the debate must have reminded many of the older hon. Members of the time when the whole subject of the classification of sugar was gone into very fully, first by Sir Robert Peel, and subsequently by a Select Committee of the House in 1862. It was owing to the Report of that Committee, which the then French Minister of Finance had had translated into French, that the pernicious system that was then in force there was put an end to, and that sounder views on this question were entertained all over Europe. From 1864 to 1871 we were anxious to establish a system | treasury. Moreover, the taxpayer was of classification, but no one could doubt in all cases obliged to pay the bounty, that in reality that system broke down, and an additional tax was placed on the for unless carried out with great fidelity, article subject to that bounty. The reit opened the door to a large amount of sult was that the consumption of sugar fraud. In 1871, when France said she in France, owing to the heavy duties, would establish a system satisfactory to was far less than in England, being only us, it was found impossible to proceed 17 lbs per head as against 57 lbs per with our classification system. Up to head here. The French people, he bethe present time France had not kept lieved, would soon find out that the systhe engagements which we had a right tem they were now pursuing was ruinous, to expect she would keep. Owing pro- and they would then urge upon their bably to circumstances over which she Government the necessity of putting an had no control, she said recently that end to it. If the bounty system were she wished the time for establishing re- extended in the way its advocates defining in bond to be extended, and now sired, the burden on the Exchequer this time was fixed for March 1, 1876. would increase so largely that it would Although we might feel much disap- be impossible for any country to bear it. pointment with the course taken by Before long, in all probability, France, France, she had given strong pledges Holland, Belgium, and other countries that she would introduce the system of which had adopted this vicious system refining in bond at the time fixed. Ne- would find that our example was the true gotiations were also going on with Hol- one to follow. The Conventions expired land on the same subject, but until the this very day, and France might turn proposal which would be made by Hol- round upon us and say-"We are bound land actually reached Her Majesty's to you no longer." All we could thereGovernment it would be imprudent to fore do was to establish the system which refer to it. He might say, however, that we were bound to establish, and which Her Majesty's Government would be we thought was the best for our councautious how they entered into any other try; and he believed that if we could Convention on the subject. When the show to France that that was the best House saw the correspondence, he thought system we should produce a greater they would come to the conclusion that effect than could be produced in any the Government had taken the only other way. course open to them in withholding their consent from the proposal made to us quite lately by the four Powers. A countervailing duty upon refined sugar had been suggested, but Her Majesty's Government would not think it right to adopt this course, nor would it be sanctioned by public opinion. It also ap-vernment was that they should be kept peared to the Government that such a step would be one of doubtful policy, when in nine months they hoped to see an end to the evil now complained of. The system of bounties was a very vicious one. The only persons who could benefit by it in France were, not the beet-growers, but the refiners. It was absolutely ruinous to attempt to prop up an industry of this kind by artificial means, for when deprived of the stimulus the industry would be more depressed than ever. The system of bounties was the worst system of the most aggravated kind of protection, for whereas a system of protection in some countries and some cases might fill the treasury, a system of bounties must in all cases empty the COLONEL EGERTON LEIGH said, he was sorry to find that, although it was admitted a wrong had been done to the English refiners, there seemed to be no idea of providing a remedy for it. While our sugar refiners were being ruined, the only suggestion of the Go waiting still longer, until the trade was ruined entirely. He should have liked to hear something more satisfactory than the declaration that bounties were bad things in general, and that Her Majesty's Government intended to adopt some course which would have compelled France to do the right thing by us. He did not wish to see a commercial enterprize of that sort destroyed in England, and he hoped our Government would be wise in time. Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to. SUPPLY-ARMY PURCHASE COM MISSION. SUPPLY considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) effect of the arrangement might be known. MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN hoped that no objection would be made to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman in favour of the officers in question, who had a strong equitable claim. SIR HENRY HAVELOCK urged the claims of those officers who had been compelled by the passing of the Act to retire on half-pay, although they had been previously selected for Staff appointments and the rank of major. MR. STANLEY pointed out that the case of the officers referred to had been fully investigated by the Royal Commissioners, who reported that the claim they put forward was of too vague a character to be entertained. His right hon. Friend was, on the one hand, anxious to give the fullest consideration. to claims which were favourably reported on, and, on the other, to guard the House from a too wide and over liberal extension of the terms on which the original procedure in this matter was taken. (1.) £486,560, to complete the sum for the Army Purchase Commission. MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in proposing the Vote, said, that when he came into office a Commission appointed under the auspices of his predecessor, almost judicial in its character, was inquiring into certain grievances on which the officers had memorialized the Government. Her Majesty's Government had desired to carry out the provisions of the Army Regulation Act, not in letter only, but in spirit, and he had adopted as far as he possibly could the recommendations of that Commission, but the questions raised by them as to the desirability of keeping up the system of promotion as it existed during the existence of Purchase was now being investigated by another Commission. The Committee would find under the sub-heads of this Vote that there were three new Votes to be taken. One was for what was called bonus, which was a sum which was paid to officers who retired. As had been said by the Royal Commission, there was no sound distinction between an exceptional overregulation price and an exceptional bonus. Practically, it was an over-regulation price which was not permitted SUPPLY-CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES. under the Army Regulation Act, but which the Royal Commission unanimously recommended should be paid. The second Vote was for over-regulation prices granted to officers who were on full-pay at the time of the passing of the Act. The third Vote was one which he was sure the Committee would readily accept, which was recommended by the Royal Commission-namely, that those officers who had been put compulsorily on half-pay, many of whom had performed distinguished services, particularly those who had served in India, should, on being brought on full-pay, receive over-regulation prices. GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR said, he was glad the right hon. Gentleman proposed to carry out the arrangements of Lord Cardwell. He thought a list should be furnished of the names of the officers who had received money under this Commission in order that the SIR HENRY HAVELOCK expressed his regret that the case of officers who had, in his opinion, a just claim for compensation had not been favourably considered. Vote agreed to. CLASS III.-LAW AND JUSTICE. (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £745,037, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1876, for the Constabulary Force in Ireland." MR. ERRINGTON hoped the Chief Secretary for Ireland would take into consideration the claims of those members of the Constabulary Force in Ireland who retired compulsorily or voluntarily between 1873 and the end of 1874, in the interval between the passing of two Acts for granting increased pensions to those who retired, and who were thus deprived of the extra benefits secured by the latter Act. MR. WHALLEY demanded to know why, in the name of common sense, they paid £1,000,000 a-year for police in Ire |