470 AGRICULTURAL MANUFACTURES. 
that the quantity remaining in it is strictly confined to the 2 or 3 per 
cent., as above stated. 
Having thus given the history of the beet-sugar manufacture, ag 
conducted on the Continent, the question presents itself next, Whe- 
ther it would be advantageous to introduce it into this country; not 
as an adjunct to the farm, as was attempted in France, and in every 
case proved a failure, but under the auspices of a company or firm, 
with adequate capital to carry it on upon an extensive scale, and with 
all the modern improvements and appliances, as it is now conducted 
on the Continent. We are aware that several attempts have already 
been made in England and Ireland to introduce it, all of which have 
failed. But having made myself acquainted with the history of each 
of these establishments, I am able to show that their failures were 
owing, not to the impossibility of making the manufacture profitable, 
but, in the first instance, to the conduct of the Government in sup- 
pressing it, and in the last, to the mismanagement and misconduct of 
those who had the oversight of the concern. 
The first of these was established in Essex, by a respectable and 
well-known milling firm at Chelmsford. At that period (1832) the 
West India “Interest ’’ was all-powerful with the Government; and 
there being no law to impose a duty on indigenous sugar—it never 
having been contemplated that it could or would be manufactured 
here—the “ Interest ” took the alarm, and prevailed upon the Govern- 
ment to interfere by imposing a prohibitory duty, which at once 
broke up the establishment. The proprietors, however, claimed and 
obtained compensation for the loss they sustained on the occasion. 
About the same time a similar attempt was made at Hillsborough, 
near Belfast, Ireland, and it was under precisely the same circumstan- 
ces as that in Essex—the absence of any duty on indigenous sugar, 
which previously was unknown in this country. The measures of 
the Government in imposing a prohibitory duty, as in the former case 
stopped the works. The proprietors were entitled, as well as Messrs. 
M., to compensation ; but their demand upon the Treasury (about 
thrice the amount of their loss) was considered so extravagantly 
unjust, that it was indignantly rejected, and we believe that they 
never received a shilling from the Government. 
In reference to these, two attempts it is proper to state, that although, 
while there was no duty imposed upon it (that on colonial sugar 
being about 3d. per lb.) there was a large margin for a handsome 
profit, irrespective of the quality ; yet so inferior was the article pro- 
duced—half treacle and half candy—and so imperfect was the machi- 
