Sir William Harcourt met the Resolution by moving the direct
negative in a very able speech. The projected change, he contended, would destroy the independence of our finance by rendering the imposition of Sugar-duties subject to the dictation of the permanent Commission at Brussels; we should have to pay £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 more a year for our sugar; while it was by no means certain that the West Indies would gain any per. manent benefit. The ensuing debate, in which Mr. Bonar Law made an extremely effective speech in support of the Resolu- tion, was closed by Mr. Chamberlain, who asserted that the Government were bound to show other countries that they were sincere in accepting the Convention. He scouted Sir Williams gloomy predictions, and contended that in so far as the Convention would secure trade equality, it conformed to the principles of Free-trade as declared by Cobden. He ridiculed the estimate of the cost to the consumer if prices should rise; the sacrifice we should have to make was trifling, and even if it were considerable, honour and duty constrained us to make it in the interests of our fellow-subjects in distant parts of the Empire. After Mr. Balfour had moved the Closure, Sir William Harcourt's amendment was negatived by 213 votes to 126, and the Resolution was agreed to. We are bound to say that the debate has failed to remove the apprehension ex- pressed in these columns last March on the signing of the Convention,—viz., that its ratification would infringe the mother-principle of Free-trade—that our ports and markets, except for revenue needs, should be open to all traders—with- out inspiring the conviction that the West Indies will obtain the relief they expect.
Previous page
