The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-08 00:00:00

DIVIDENDS DECLARED.

J. W. Braddick, farmer, Bristol--second div. of 3d. iu the
pound, March 10, or any subsequent Monday, at the office of
Mr. Acraman, Liverpool.
E. Davies, blacksmith, Great Crosby—a div. of 2s. 7d. in
the pound, March 10, or any subsequent Monday, at the
office of Mr. Turner, Liverpool.
J. Garnett, merchant, Liverpool—third div. of 4d. and
2-sths cf a farthing in the pound, March 10, or any subse-
quent Monday, at the office of Mr. Turner, Liverpool.
R. .Alsop, grocer, Manchester—final div. of 2s 81/2d, and a
first and final div. of 14s. 81/,10 in the pound on new proofs,
March 18, or any subsequent Tuesday, at the office of Mr.
Fraser, Manchester.
E. Heron, butcher, Hartlepool—first dir. of Is. in the
pound, March 8, or any subsequent Saturday, at the office of
Mr. Wakley, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
T. Eldridge, coach-builder, Upper North-place, Gray's Inn-
road—first div. of Bs. in the pound, March 8, and throe fol-
lowing Saturdays, at the office of Mr. Groom, Abchurch-lane,

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

FROM TELE EVENING PAPERS OF TESTEPDAT.
GLOBE.—On Monday, as tb‘Chancellor of the Exchequer
announced last night, in answer to a question of Mr La-
bouchere, the Government project of levying different duties
upon different qualities of sugar is again to be brought for-
ward ; and—we hope—to be abandoned. When we consider
its absurd and utterly impracticable nature we are inclined to
believe that Sir B. Peel, as he says, really did not know what
he was doing when he proposed it. Mr. Goulburn, if we may
venture to form an opinion from his hesitating and con-
fused manner of defending it, is equally in the dark. Mr.
Gladstone has, we think, been its ablest advocate; and accor-
dingly we are inclined to attribute to him the largest share
of the responsibility of its production. The measure is, how-
ever, quite faulty enough to justify the assumption of even a
triple paternity, and the full application of Gay's remark,
that

" The child whom many fathers share,
Has seldom known a father's care."
Here, as by common consent, the practical application of the
new duties has evidently been quite lost sight of. Each,
with a lofty horror of drudgery, seems to have left the details
to others. We wish they had settled the onus of this before-
hand. Perhaps, by right, it should have fallen to Mr. Glad-
stone. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might plead other
engagements while getting up materials for the "financial
statement." The Premier could not be expected to do the
work of a subordinate; and yet it is unfortunate for himself
that he did not descend a little in this instance. No judicious
admirer of Sir R. Peel, so eminently " great in small mat-
ters, and in all great matters small," will be prepared to admit,
that had he thought for himself on the subject, he could have
committed co gross a blunder, for instance, as to describe the
present proposition as one involving no alteration of the
differential duties in favour of colonial sugars. Yet, on
the 14th ult. (we quote from Hansard), he announced the
higher scale of duties in the following terms :—" With regard
to white or clayed sugar, or sugar which by some process is
made equal to clayed sugar, we propose that the duty on
British plantation or East India sugar shall be reduced from
255. 3d. to 16s. 4d., and that . . . . the duty on free labour
foreign sugar—that is clayed, or sugar equal to clayed, shall
be 28s.—thus retaining the whole amount of discriminating
duty, which last year was 10s. 6d, but applying it in a
different manner, giving 9s. 4d. protection on muscovado
sugar, and increasing the protection to lls 8d on the more
valuable and costly article of clayed, or white sugar. The
average amount of discriminating duty, therefore, will re-
main the same as it was last year." Independently of the
ignorance it betrays, the confusion of ideas involved in this
announcement is curious. If it means anything to the pur-
pose, it can only be—that the " average amount" of several
discriminating (or differential) duties represents the amount
of " protection" afforded by them. If this be so, we
have at hand a very easy mode of settling the dispute be-
tween the home consumer and the colonial producer of sugar.
We have only to levy upon " white-clayed," or some other
superior class of foreign sugar, a " discriminating duty" of 205.,
and we may then admit all foreign sugar of a lower quality at
a " discriminating duty" of Is, ; for the " average amount of
discriminating duty will remain the same"—viz., 10s. 6d. Sir
Robert, in short, has only to deduct a few shillings from the
9s. 4d. and add it to the lls. Bd. (always preserving the aver-
age amount of:protection), in order to meet the wishes of at
least a very large majority of those now opposed to him on
this question. We fear, however, that a careful consideration
of the probable results of such a step would only induce him to
insist upon the more careful performance of the "discriminat-
ing duty" imposed upon those who are permitted to furnish him
with materials for his financial speeches. We have already
shown that, assuming the practicability of the proposed mea-
sure, one of its effects would be to exclude from home con-
sumption the sugar made liable to the higher scale of duty.
The effective " protection " would then be the difference be-
tween 14s. and 235. 4d., or 9s. 4d. instead of 10s. 6d. The
only sugars, colonial or foreign, which could be made liable
to the higher rate of duty, are those from the East. But its
partial operation upon these would be evaded by their being
mixed with the inferior classes of sugar, and entered in the
highest condition compatible with the payment of the lower
rate of duty.

MARKET NEWS. (YESTERDAY