SUGAR CONVENTION

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 252, 17 July 1908, Page 7

SUGAR CONVENTION

MB. ASQUITH'S DEFENCE. PARLIAMENT NOT IGNORED. NO RESTRICTION OF SOURCES OF SUPPLY, (dt TELEGRArB—miss ASSOCIATION —COPTRIGHT,) London, July 15. . . Mr, E. A, Villicrs, Liberal member for Brighton, in introducing to the Primo Minister a large deputation of members of tho House of Commons, on the subject of tho Sugar Convention, declared that tho Government, in entering into the new Convention, betrayed • Free Trade principles, infringed tho rights of tho House of Commons, and violated tho constitution. Several members of tho deputation dissociated thomsolves from this.language. The Prime Minister, Mr, Asquith, describing tho accusation' as improper and unjustified by fact, assured the deputation that the new Convention was in harmony with all the essential principles of- Free Trado: It did not contain any restrictions as to tho sources from which sugar could bo obtained, He disclaimed any' idea of acting behind Parliament's back. The Government had explicitly announced its policy as early as Juno, CONFLICTING POINTS OF VIEW. RIGHTS OF THE COMMONS. V . . In" the new sugar convention there is an important modification that was insisted on by the Freetrado and Liberal Government' of Britain last year, viz.; Britain is exempted from the. articlo compelling her to penalise bounty-fed sugar. In announcing,'this policy,Sir Edward Grey (Secretary for Foreign Affairs) stated-that the Governmont desirod not to revive the system of bounties, but to enlarge the sources of supply, Since then, the Government has gone furthor in the direction of oheapening sugar for manufacturers and small consumers at Homo by reducing the sugar tax from Jd. to Jd. Freetraders would go farther-and would wipe out the whole. of the tax and the whole of the Convention, making 6ug(ir free. Says the ''Financial Reform Almanac": "Thanks to' tho Convention, sugar has been reduced in price to the popple of France, and Germany, but increnseu to tho people of this country, It has riot bonefitted our West Indian colonies, : and, so far as the sugar refiners are concerned, tho Conven■tlon has not resulted in ; a single additional refinery being opened; while, on tho other herd, great misohief has been dono to all thoso trados that flourished on cheap sugar." ■ On tho ■ other hand, Lord Denbigh declared that tho" Government's denunciation of. (ho penal clause in the Convention had caused' the abandonment of a movoment to establish a sugar factory at Senford "which would luvo employed 120 men." And "The Times," also assailing the Government, declared that uulor the Convention tho colonial sugar industry hod revived, "but now the Government would crush,/ out the cano industry and give Germany and Austria a monopoly, with power to raise prices. After running counter to the wishes of tho sslf-govdrning colonies at the- Imperial Conference, tho Government is offering up tho West Indies on tho-same altar of fscil prudery." Somewhere between thoso two extremes tho Government is—not very comfortably—located. Tho. amended Convention is, according to "Tho Times,"- binding till September 1, 1913. Great Britain signed tho new Act on August 28 last, and the Act provided for its ratification on February, 1 last, (though .it was not actually ratified till March 31); and it is here that tho charge of unconstitutionality and violation of the rights of tho House of Commons' comes in.'-Mr. T. G. Bowlos, ox-M.l 1 ., recently pointed out that tho dates are such that it was physically impossible for Parliament to take aotion before either tho signature or the ratification of the, Act; and lie doubted whether it was competent for the Government, to proceed to effectual ratification of tho Aot without the previous consont of Parliament, for 'that Act assumed to pledge Groat Britain to rnako.a prant of'public' money and;to imp'oso,a chrrpo upon the public revenue beyond' any grant' or charge already existing. ' Asked in the Houso of .Commons on February 6. why tho. Government.'.had fixed a.',date for ratification "which precluded all effective discussion by Parliament." Sir Edward .Grey made a reply which covers that given by the Prime Minister in tho aboyo cablegram. .Sir E. Grey said: "Hi's Majosty'a Govevrimeni: did not fix any date for the ratification;'they desired the earliest date, in order that the trade might know as soon as possible what the settlement was to be, but they agreed to the dato -. jonsidered necessary by other Powers who, woro under a constitutional obligation to bring the 1 matter before .their Parliament. I cannot, with every dosiro to afford opportunities for lisenssion, give an assurance such as the hon. member-desires—to givo Parliament in all such i :hses,.opportunity for discussion—without al- ■ ;ering what has hitherto been, the constitu;ional practise. I may, however.'remind the ' ion. membor that the line which His Majesty's < government have followed in the matter was ' mnounced on Jurio G last." - i " ========= '' : ' I