CO885-(18-19) — Page 159

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O.885

18 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

3.1

2. Undisturbed development (sic) of internal consumption, and a possibility that German sugar shall be made capable of competing with bounty- fed sugar in the English market. This can only be attained by greater freedom at home.

The last paragraph would rather seem to indicate that the German producers will aim at a higher surtax, so as to have an absolute monopoly of the home market, and increased possibilities of dealing with the foreigners by means of cartels.

Herr von Mühlberg mentioned to me yesterday that the German Government had not yet had time to come to any decision as to what reply they would give to the communication they had received from the Belgium Government. He did not think that they would be inclined to agree to empower the Permanent Commission to deal with the English proposals, but would wish to have a fresh Conference convoked to discuss the entire sugar question.

Sir Edward Grey, Bart., M.P..

&c., &c.,

24410

&c.

No. 56.

I have, &c.,

J. DE SALIS.

WEST INDIA ASSOCIATION OF GLASGOW to COLONIAL OFFICE. (Received July 10, 1907.)

[Acknowledged July 16, 1907.] .

111, Bath Street, Glasgow, July 9, 1907.

YOUR LORDSHIP,

WE beg to enclose, for Your Lordship's perusal, a letter addressed by this Association to His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, concerning the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the Brussels Sugar Convention.

We desire to add the testimony of this Association to the many representations, which Your Lordship no doubt has already received, of the feelings of apprehension with which the proposed denunciation of the Convention is contemplated, both in the West Indies and by those in this country interested in the sugar industry.

We earnestly trust that Your Lordship may see fit to use your influence, on behalf of the Colonies under your charge, to prevent any such action being taken as would lead to the catastrophe which, we have no hesitation in saying, would overtake them, were the bounty system to be revived.

We have, &c.,

H. CRUM EWING,

JAMES R. GREIG,

Vice-Chairman.

Director.

Enclosure in No. 56.

SIR,

111, Bath Street, Glasgow, July 9, 1907. It was with feelings of the deepest concern that all interested in the West Indies and British Guiana read your statement in the House of Commons on the 6th of June regarding the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the Brussels Sugar Convention. We therefore beg leave to address you in reference to this subject, which, of all others, is of paramount importance to the welfare of those Colonies in which this Association is so deeply interested.

Having been brought closely in touch with the whole question in 1897, we know you to be fully aware that, in the event of the re-establishment of the bounty system, the sugar industry, and with it the West Indian Colonies generally, will undoubtedly relapse into that critical and almost hopeless condition out of which they have been gradually emerging during the past few years.

In the hope that His Majesty's Government may alter the position they have taken up with regard to this matter, we would respectfully draw your attention to the following points in the report of the Royal Commission of 1897, which appear

35

to deal very pertinently with the question as to whether Great Britain should adhere to the Brussels Convention.

The Commissioners found :-

1. That the depression in the West Indies was due to the depression of the

sugar industry (p. 8, par. 46, &c.).

2. That the depression of the sugar industry was due to the bounty system

(p. 69, par. 548, sec. b.).

3. That the best immediate remedy for the critical state of affairs in the West Indies would be the abandonment of the bounty system by Continental nations (p. 69, par. 548, sec. g.).

4. That they had no hesitation in saying that the abolition of the bounty system was an object at which Her Majesty's Government should aim, even at some sacrifice (p. 9, par. 55). These unanimous conclusions of the Commissioners seem amply to justify every effort being made on the part of His Majesty's Government to prevent any possibility of the renewal of the bounty system.

We would further venture to point out that circumstances have entirely changed since you, Sir, and Sir David Barbour were unable to agree with Sir Henry Norman's recommendations for the following five reasons (p. 13, par. 82), namely :-

1. The loss to the British consumer that would arise from any rise in the

price of sugar:

We gather from your statement that His Majesty's Government have no wish to encourage the revival of bounties and are therefore in agreement with the Commissioners, who were of opinion that the loss to the British consumer

might reasonably be accepted in view of the importance of removing the disadvantage under which the West Indian producers laboured (p. 11, par. 70), and that the benefit which the British Empire derived from any lowering of the price of sugar was too dearly purchased by the injury which that system imposed on a limited class, namely, Her Majesty's West Indian and other subjects dependent on the sugar industry (p. 9, par. 51).

2. The inconvenience to trade that would be caused by the imposition of

countervailing duties.

3. The uncertainty whether any such measure would permanently save the

industry in the West Indies.

4. The inexpediency of raising questions connected with the interpretation of the most-favoured-nation clause, which might have the effect of weakening its force.

We believe you will agree with us in thinking, that now the bounties have been abolished without the inconvenience of counter- vailing duties, or any trouble arising in regard to the most-favoured- nation clause, and the benefits derived by the West Indies are apparent, these reasons no longer exist.

There remains then,

5. The danger, direct or indirect, of departing from what has hitherto been

considered to be the settled policy of the United Kingdom.

For this cause alone, so far as we can ascertain, His Majesty's Government propose to withdraw from the Convention.

We must respect fully submit that there will be a universal feeling of resentment throughout the West Indies and British Guiana, a straining of their undeniable loyalty, if the sugar industry their most vital interest and in many cases their sole means of subsistence-is sacrificed to the fear of departing (if departure there would be) from a theoretical policy.

Further, we would mention, on behalf of the sugar machinery engineers of Glasgow, and the west of Scotland, all of whom are members of this Association, that since 1903 they have had a very large increase of business, with a proportionate increase in employment of labour, but that already, in fear of the denunciation of the Convention, projected schemes for new, and improvements to old, factories are hanging fire; while those proprietors who have lately erected new machinery and otherwise expended capital in the sugar industry are regretting their action.

28370

JE 2