The Sun.
London, England, 1848-07-22 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING. JULY 22, 1848.

competition of the Dutch refiners. It had been strongly
argued that the Dutch bounty was no advantage to the
refiners of that country; but he knew that in foreign
countries the British refiner was every year more unable
to enter into competition with his Dutch rivals. It was
' a remarkable fact, that since the alteratiens proposed
had been made known, some capitalist in the City had
been stimulated to subscribe 70,000/. for resuscitating
the Dutch refinery of M•Queen and Co. This could not
but inflict a great injury on the British refiners as well
as on the colonists.
Mr. J. WILSON said the question was simply whether
a duty of 245. Bd. on refined was equivalent to a duty of
203. on raw sugar. Formerly, these duties had been
levied on no principle whatever. Government had taken
great pains to ascertain the exact produce of a hundred
weight of sugar, and the result of their inquiries was,
that the duties which they proposed to fix on foreign
single and double refined sugar, of 265. Bd. and 245. Bd.
were exactly equivalent to the duty of 20s. on the raw
sugar. The subject of the bounty said to be enjoyed by
Dutch refiners had been imported into this discussion ;
but h• considered that it was quite beside the question
before the Committee. The bounty, so-called in Hol-
land, was merely a drawback, and only applied to the
sugar refined for home consumption.—(Hear.)
That point had long ago been reached ; and hence the
Dutch refiners had petitioned the Government to be
allowed to refine in bond. as was done by the English
refiners. The case of the Dutch refiners referred to by
the Hon. Member who had last spoken had no reference
whatever to this question; for the arrangements had
been made three weeks before the Government plan was
known. The Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr.
Gladstone) had correctly laid down the principle that we
were entitled, on entering into treaties, to make what
conditions we chose; but it should be remembered that
the question referred to a treaty already in existence—.
not one about to be made. With respect to the naviga-
tion-laws, he held in his hand a price current of Cuba,
by which he found that the difference between the pri-
vileged and unprivileged flags amounted only to 15s. per
ton, or 9d. per cwt. He denied that the British refiner
would have any ground of complaint with the scale now
proposed.
Lord G. BENTINCK had heard the proposed reduc-
tio❑ on British refined sugar with great pleasure. This,
accompanied with the permission to the colonists to re-
fine in bond, would be a great boon; but he regretted to
hear that the measure would occupy a long time in its
preparation. He was convinced, from the statement
made to him by an extensive merchant, that the protec-
tion afforded by the navigation•laws was equivalent to
2s. 6d. per cwt.; and he could only account for the
statement of the Honourable Member for Westbury,
that the difference of rates at Huvannah was only 9d.
per cwt., by supposing that the parties who freighted
the unprivileged ships, deceived by the large pro-
mises of our Whig Government, had supposed that
their vessels would be admissible here as soon as they
arrived, owing to the navigation-laws having been
repealed. He was led to the conclusion that the Dutch
refiners would, by this means alone, enjoy a protec-
Lion of 2s. 6d. a cwt., besides their bounty, which he must
still regard as a bounty. He had in his band two
specimens of Dutch sugar; one of these was at 235. in
this market on Saturday last, but which rose to 255.
after the alteration proposed by the Government. The
other specimen had risen from 21s. 2d. in bond to 245.
Sd. With regard to the Dutch treaty and the assertion
of the Government that the Dutch were entitled to in-
sist on the admission of sugar refined by them, though
not the produce of their own country, how was that to
be reconciled with the fact that the Government up to
the 30th of May, were resolved to maintain the Act of
1846, which contained a clause that the shipmaster or
consignees of foreign vessels were to prove that the sugar
to be imported at the lower rate of duty was bona fide
the growth and produce of the country from which it
was forwarded?—(Hear, hear.) They dealt in that
manner with regard to Cuba, Porto Rico, Brazil, and
their own British possessions, and it was a most mon-
strous absurdity fur Holland to expect to be treated in
a more favoured manner than their own possessions.
Mr. MITCHELL thought that the Noble Lord had
greatly exaggerated the difference of freight caused by
the navigation laws when he made it 2/. 108. He be-
lieved that 255. was considered the outside difference,
and for himself he believed that 10s. was much nearer
the truth.
After a few words from Lord G. BENTINCK and Mr.
MITCHELL in explanation, the duty
,of 18s. was sub-
stituted for 19s. 6d. In the next itentl63 was sub-
stituted for 17s. 4d., and corresponding changes were
made in several other items up to a certain point, be-
yond which, in consequence of some inaccuracies
and mistakes contained in the Bill, the Committee did
not proceed.
On theanotion of Mr. CARDWELL the Bill was com-
mitted pro forma, with a view to its being reprinted ;
the Chairman reported and the House resumed.
Mr. BARKLY hoped that the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer would bring the Bill under the consideration of
the House as soon as possible.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
would do so, but it could not be brought forward on
Monday.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he had given notice of
a measure of great importance fur to.-morrow (Satur-
day), with which he should feel it necessary to proceed
without fail or delay.—(Hear, hear.)