THE SUGAR CONVENTION BILL.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] Srit,—I have been away for a short holiday, and have in conse- quence only just seen the Spectator for August 15th and 22nd. Your footnote to my letter asks for the quantity of sugar refined
in Great Britain during the year 1902, and states that the experts I refer to are unnamed. I would ask for space in your columns to answer these two points.
The quantity of sugar refined in 1902 was less than that refined in 1897, as in the latter year the imports of raw sugar amounted to 677,000 tons, of which 602,000 tons were refined; the imports of raw sugar in 1902 were 659,000 tons, and as in this year many refineries worked short owing to the very large supply of foreign refined, the quantity passing through refiners must have been less than in 1897. The reason I did not give 1902 in my letter was that I had not exact figures for any year after 1897 by me, but any one conversant with sugar statistics knows that the dif- ference in the amount of sugar refined in this country during the last six years is a bagatelle. You will recollect that your corre- spondent, "Sugar Merchant," in your issue of July 18th stated that "a great deal more sugar is refined in this country than was the case before the bounties came into force." The facts are as follows :—In 1883 over one million tons of sugar were refined in this country ; in the last twenty years this has gradually dwindled to 650,000 tons. The amount of foreign refined sugar that came into this country in 1883 was 164,000 tons, and last year was 919,000 tons. These figures require no comment from me. With regard to the experts who are all of opinion that sugar will not be on the average higher in price during the next ten years than was the case during the last ten years, I referred to those who have the handling of the vast supplies of sugar which come to this country, of which I am one. I consider that with forty-seven years' experience as a specialist I am in a better position to judge the future prices of sugar than those who write on this subject for political purposes.
With regard to Mr. Perris's letter in your issue of Atigust 22nd, I may state that however worthy that gentleman may be in the subject of literature, he has no acquaintance with the sugar trade, and I fail to grasp why he should write so much on a subject about which he knows practically nothing. Mr. Perris quotes a late publication of the Board of Trade, and I may therefore be allowed to do the same. In this Return, "Wholesale and Retail Prices," the cost of sugar paid by certain families in the United Kingdom is given, and works eut at 2d. per pound, or 18s. 8d. per hundredweight. This price represents the value of ordinary white granulated. The wholesale price which allowed of this sugar being retailed at 2d. per pound is given at 12s. 4d. per hundredweight c.i.f. To-day granulated sugar can be bought for September delivery at 10s. 10d. per hundredweight c.i.f. Mr. Perris is terribly afraid that he will have to pay more for his sugar after September 1st; he can reassure himself, for I am in the happy position of being able to offer him sugar at 10s. 102. per hundredweight c.i.f.
In conclusion, may I quote the last paragraph of Professor Lujo Brentano's article in the Fortnightly Review for August?—" Even if there be no fresh building up of the British Empire upon a Protective basis as the result of Mr. Chamberlain's agitation, perhaps there may be an extension of the principle of counter- vailing bounties against export premiums of that kind, which was adopted by the Brussels Sugar Convention. If this were the ease, it would be a death blow to all Protective policy, and an impulse towards the universal introduction of Free Trade, and Mr. Chamberlain would then appear but a manifestation of that power which 'ever wills the evil, but ever shapes the good.'" In my opinion, Mr. Chamberlain wills no evil, and never has ; but in any case I agree with Professor Brentano that the Brussels Convention shapes the good.
[In his previously published letter Mr. Czarnikow referred to "the whole of the experts who deal in beet and cane sugar in Mincing Lane" as holding the view, which he now reiterates, as to the probable course of sugar prices. On our declining to follow him into an argument based on the "alleged opinion of unnamed experts," our correspondent now, it will be seen, offers us his own name alone in sub- stantiation of his assertion.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
