69
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
| य
Reference :-
C.O.
885
18 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
28156
No. 84.
PETITION FROM THE BRISTOL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
(Received August 8, 1907.) [Answered tył No. 58.]
To the Right Honourable the Earl of Elgin and Kincardine, K.G., G.C.S.I., G.C.J.E., His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies.
Year.
Meltings in British Retineries,
Imports of Foreign Retined.
Annual Consumption.
Average price of 839% Bert Koh. Hamburg.
Tonis.
1898
681,083
Tons. 791,581
Tons. 1,435,566
8. d: 9 53
וואן
617,801
868,025
1,117,326
10 0
1900
589,137
$34,789
1,488,535
The humble Petition of the Bristol Incorporated Chamber of Commerce and Shipping. Sheweth,
1901
582,081
1,011,315
1,592,543
10 43
8 03
1902
580,505
1,0),277
1,539,161
1903
595,943
925,783
1901
***
668,095
803,461
1,465,315*
1.496.831
6 74
* 3
10 03
1905
611,687
716,360
1906
670,819
801,869
1,358,796†
1,510,434
11 5
8 71
† 1,200,000 tons short in best crop.
1. That your Petitioners number over 400 members, and represent sugar refining, ship owning, shipbuilding, engineering, manufacturing, and other important industries.
2. That Bristol, owing to its great natural advantages, has been engaged in sugar refining for a very considerable period, and has become identified with that industry.
3. That, in view of the declaration by His Majesty's Government of their intention to withdraw from the Brussels Convention unless released from the obliga- tion to penalise bounty-fed sugar, your Petitioners desire to place on record:-
www.x
That having learned that His Majesty's Government have intimated their dissent from the existing terms of the Brussels Convention, involving, if insisted upon, the probable withdrawal of this country from the Convention, the Bristol Incorporated Chamber of Commerce and Shipping strongly protest against this action."
4. That your Petitioners, for many years prior to the signing of the Convention, took a very active part in the agitation for the abolition of foreign bounties on sugar, and consequently it is with the greatest apprehension that they contemplate the present action of His Majesty's Government, which is practically certain to nullify the effects of the Convention, re-introduce conditions which closed many of the refineries of this town, and transfer to foreign countries an important national industry.
5. That the following figures show the effect of foreign bounties on the refining industry of the country prior to the Brussels Convention, and also the result to the refining trade since Great Britain became a party to the Convention.
Year.
Average price of_8%%%
N
* Convention began. Ist September.
From this table it will be observed that the price of sugar in 1906 has been practically as low as in any previous year except 1902, and much below the average of the 10 years antecedent to the Convention.
6. That the Brussels Convention brought about an improvement in the condition of the home industry, and also ensured a continuance of supplies of cane sugar, which is of vital importance to our refining trade.
7. That while a grave injustice to an important home industry and to the sugar- growing Colonies of this country was terminated by the Convention, the price of sugar to the consumers and sugar-using manufacturers has not been increased, and that while the price of most raw materials has within recent years greatly increased, that of sugar has remained, as stated, considerably below the average price for the decade prior to the Convention.
8. That the trade of sugar refining in this country and sugar-growing in the West Indies and other British Possessions will be seriously injured by a breach of continuity of policy, arresting, as it must necessarily do, the expenditure of capital in improvements, which, under the stable conditions ensured by the Convention, has, during the past few years, been very extensive.
9. That your Petitioners cannot agree as to the sufficiency of the reason for reversing the policy of the Brussels Convention given by His Majesty's Government and announced in Parliament in the following words:" They consider that the limitation of the sources from which sugar may enter the United Kingdom, whether by prohibition or by the imposition of countervailing duties, is inconsistent with their declared policy, and incompatible with the interests of British consumers and sugar-using manufacturers."
10. (A) That your Petitioners submit that the contention that this limitation "is incompatible with the interests of British consumers and sugar-using manu- facturers is not warranted, in view of the facts.
(n) That the following figures giving the exports of British-made confectionery show that no injury has been done to the export branch of the trade of sugar-using manufacturers:-
Meltings in
British Refineries.
Tmports of Foreign Ratial.
Annual Consumption.
Beet fo.b. Hamburg.
Tons.
1886
800,785
Tous. 319.634
Tons. 1,146,414
d.
12 0
1887
909,903
3190072
1888
916,759
311,959
1889
899,124
419411
1890
837,401
473,255
1,173,338
1,182,612
1,282,000
1,219,110
1*1
817,758
511,929
1,335,576
12 2
11 B
16 11
12 7
13 3
1904.
1905.
18:2
819,077
582.386
1,281,528
13 T'
289,811 ewts., value £750,870,
315,178 ewts., value £821,221.
1893
75 000
557,511
1,255,250
1891
738,237
681,306
1,318,519
15 21
11 63
1805
768,260
707,585
1402,409
99.
1896
734,000
724,976
1,384,034
10 64
1807
654,732
772,991
1,378,516
!103 א
201.101 ewis., value £952,953.
(c) That the following paragraph, extracted from the "Chamber of Commerce Journal of January, 1907, justifies the contention that the Home Trade of the confectionery manufacturers has not suffered in volume through the operation of the Convention, and that any diminution of their profits is duc not to the Convention, but to the sugar duty:-* During the past year the confectionery manufacturers have generally been busy throughout the country. There has been undoubtedly a great revival of demand, but most manufacturers complain that profits are not
19006.