A correspondence was published in the Times of Monday between
Mr. Chamberlain and Messrs. Icke and Sharp, Limited, one of the chief Birmingham firms of confectionery manufacturers. The latter wrote pointing out the disastrous effects on their industry of the Sugar-tax and the Brussels Convention. Mr. Chamberlain replied that a reduction of the Sugar-duty was contemplated by his scheme of Fiscal Reform, while Retaliation might secure a reduction in the heavy foreign import-duties. He added that the high price of sugar could not be due to the Brussels Convention, since (1) fluctuations of price nearly as serious had occurred while the bounty system was in operation; (2) cotton had suffered a similar rise, and there was no question of bounties in its case ; (3) the fluctuations were due to the fact that the world's demand had increased, while, owing to climatic conditions, the supply had fallen off. The only true remedy, he concluded, was, as with cotton, an enlargement of the sources of supply. These are the arguments which we anticipated would be used in defence of the Convention, but they are not a logical answer. Fluctuations in the sugar market are easily enough explained, but the natural corrective of such fluctuations— recourse to another supply-ground—is made impossible by the Convention. If the sugar crop is short in one country, we cannot now make up deficiencies from another.
Previous page
