, 1875-06-09
M. CHEVALIER AT LIVERPOOL, ON
THE FRENCH AND ENGLISH
SUGAR TRADES.
From Tie Sugar Came.)
From lie Sugar Cdme.)

he received at Liverpool last month, said
it was Ayery fattering that they should
ask him for his opinion on the sugar
question. He was a free-trader in works
and he wished also to be a free-trader
in words, for he should speak frankly to
them. The question had been much
agitated; perhaps more in France than
in England. It began with privilege,
which had been prejudicial to industry.
In the time of the First Napoleon, IN
consequence Of the English fleets and
privateers, there was not much intercourse
with the colonies, and he offered to them
a new fabrication of sugar by the beet
root, to which he gave an immense pri-
vilege in the beginning. The foreign SUI
gar was taxed at a tremendous rate, per-
haps it was -f16-at any rate it was a
tremendous rate. So in his time, when
he was master of France, any kind of in
dustry really was privileged. After Ma
p%oleon's fall they had the Bourbons.
They were surrounded by r%efiners. They
produced in beet root sugar twice as
much as what they wanted for their own
consumption. Under the Second EN-
pire they had made the treaty Of 1864,
which he considered a remnant of pro-
lection. There were in 1864 three
Governments in Europe who tried to eX-
tend the outlet of refined sugar by any
means, particularly by protectionist means.
1t began with the Dutch Government,
who produced a very large quantity Of
sugar. They wanted to sell it, and this
sugar belonged TO Government, or it was
in the hands of a company which were
financially connected with the Govern
ment, and they consented TO lose some
thing in order to have an outlet for their
production. The Belgians then were
much more protcctionists than they are
now They paid to the refineTs a bounty,
and The French Government at that time
did the same. From this fact resulted
that Convention by. which they tried
to regulate and to make inter
national regulations which there was 10
more reason for doing than there was for
any other trade. The Convention Of
1864 was a remnant of that system.
The French exported a great deal OF
refined sugar, and as one gentleman in the
deputation had pointed out, the way OF elias
styling the different kinds of sugar was a
complete absurdity, because they Were clas-
siied by the colour, which did not signify
anything. French taxation was very high,
and the wisdom of showing a favour 30
one industry over another at the public
expense was beyond the conception of
most Frencbmen. 1t was for that reason
voted in the National Assembly that proper
steps should be taken to change the regu-
I%ations, and if possible to refine in bond.
Referring to the quotations from Pouyer-
Quertier by a member Of the deputatlon,
he observed that that gentleman was not
usually regarded as very accurate 10 bis
statements, and it was generally admitted
that he had exaggerated the amount OF
bounties to the French ~reiners. Still be
IN. Chevalier) admitted that this bounty
did exist, and that the refners derived from
it some benefit, and no doubt they
might make use Of it for extending
their commerce out of France. The boun-
ties benefited the French consumer very
indirectly. The attention OF the National
Assembly was fixed on that point, and ne
was certain they would take steps, it
might be reasonable steps, to reduce the
bounty to nothing if possible, or to a very
Indifferent sum if it could not be abolished.
They might rely upon it the French Govern
ment would save itself from loss fit could.
Still. for himself, he did not like much to