There was a full-dress debate in the House of Commons
on Monday on the sugar bounties, Mr. Gerald Balfour moving a Resolution approving the policy embodied in the Brussels Sugar Convention of last March, and the adoption of necessary measures to carry out its provisions in the event of its final ratification next February. Under the Convention, it will be remembered, Great Britain, as one of the signatory Powers, sanctioned the abolition of bounties, as well as a penal clause under which it would be in the power of a country either to impose countervailing duties or prohibit the entry of bounty-fed sugar. We also agree while the Convention lasts not to give any preference to sugars from our own Colonial Empire. Mr. Gerald Balfour's arguments may be summed up as follows. To condemn countervailing duties in all cases was economic prudery. The Liberal party, teste Mr. Glad- stone in 1881, were committed to the principle of abolishing bounties, by which alone the West Indies could regain their prosperity. No substantial rise in prices need be anticipated, nor did he believe it would ever be necessary to carry out the provisions of the penal clause. In conclusion, Mr. Balfour declared that we could not sacrifice our West Indian Colonies for the sake of adhering to antiquated economic principles.
Previous page
