bounties. Therefore we cannot consider them as such."

Is it not the fate of all agriculture and all industries to be obliged to change their working methods and their plants? It is very humiliating to see a representative of France make himself ridiculous by utterances such as these at an International Conference. The proceedings of the French Government at the Brussels Conference showed an hypocrisy which deceived nobody.

Since the French Government was determined to maintain production premiums, which had been abandoned by Germany and Austria-Hungary, it was bent on wrecking the Conference. It would have been more dignified to have refused to take part in it.

Sir Francis Plunkett, the representative of Great Britain, read a paper on the first day of the Conference, of which the beginning read as follows:

The principles of free trade, which have prevailed in the United Kingdom since the beginning of the latter half of the century, impose that the products should be sought without any hindrances on their natural markets. As soon as we derogate from this principle by artificial means the course of free trade is interrupted.

The British delegate concluded his interesting statement with the following phrase:

Our Government sincerely wishes that the result of the conference be of such a nature that the necessity for considering subsequent measures will be avoided.

The manifestation of the Societé des Agriculteurs de France of November 28th* was the result of the meeting in Paris of the Commissioners of Germany and AustriaHungary, who had gone there to arrive at an understanding with the French Government on a new International Conference.

On the 27th of November, the following note appeared in Le Siècle :—

The sugar question has advanced another step; we have reason to believe that the negotiations pending between France, Germany and

Austria have had a favourable result. An agreement was signed by the delegates of the three powers embodying the arrangements agreed upon, which includes the abolition of the export bounties. As these bounties differ in each country it has been found necessary to arrive at the means of counterbalancing the sacrifices made by each of the three powers. For instance, the French delegates have agreed upon a reduction of the premiums granted by the law of 1884, which are twofold, viz., those purely dealing with export sugar, and those relating to home sugars, which are looked upon as encouraging agriculture.

Under these circumstances it is understood that a movement will be set on foot with the object of reviving the Brussels Conference, which two years ago had to be adjourned because the various countries which were represented there could not agree. The arrangements agreed upon by France, Germany and Austria will be taken as a basis for an international convention, the terms of which, if accepted, will have to be ratified by the parliaments of the contracting parties.

When the German budget was under discussion in Berlin, Baron Thielmann, the Secretary of State for the Treasury, said (the 10th of December, 1900):

With regard to the bounties on exported sugars, negotiations are pending between Austria-Hungary, France, and the German Commonwealth, which have not given as yet any definite result, but which are of a nature to constitute the basis on which conventions might be built.

It is true that M. Jean Dupuy, the Minister of Agriculture, said in Lille on the 10th of February, "That he thought it impossible for parliament to discuss the question before the next season.

But Lord Cranborne, Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in reply to a question of Col. Milward, on the 21st of February, said that steps had been taken by Belgium in view of a new conference, and that the question had been submitted to the powers. On the 26th of February he added :

The English delegates at the Brussels Conference have reserved entire liberty of action for the British Government. The English Parliament could place a duty on sugars at any time it choose without being obliged to inform the governments which took part in the Brussels Conference.

This declaration is the more threatening as the English Government when imposing countervailing duties might rely upon the support of those nations which would not be subjected to them. If we insist upon fol

lowing the policy which we inaugurated at Brussels and which is advocated by La Société des Agriculteurs de France, we run the risk of being left alone, left under the obligation of consuming our national sugar.

On the 1st of April, Lord Cranborne confirmed his reply of 21st February.

V.

The Instability of Bounties.

EVERY country which grants direct export bounties, introduced in its legislation a proviso that these bounties should be abolished later on. The law of 1897 has been advocated in France as an act of defence against bounties in Germany and Austria. But Art. 11 gives the government the power that in the event of sugarproducing countries diminishing or abolishing the export bounties which they grant to-day, our executive might take the same measures.

When the law of May 27th, 1896, was voted by the Reichstag, the following resolution was added: "The Confederate Governments are requested to seek energetically the means, by way of an international understanding, of suppressing, as soon as possible, the bounties on export sugar."

It was at first proposed that the law of 1897 should only be applied up to the 1st of July, 1898, for, as M. Gadaud stated in his report, "everybody is agreed, the commission as well as the government, that the law is essentially of a temporary character."

At the Brussels Conference, the delegates of the various nations were asked by the Belgian representative to condemn export bounties, and the condemnation was carried without a single dissentient.

A régime, therefore, which is the object of so much reprobation cannot last. Not only is a bounty-fed industry subject to the danger of changes in the legislation of its own country, but it is still more threatened by alterations in foreign legislations. Bounties increase production, they encourage foreign consumption, they are an obstacle to home consumption, and they create industries founded on privileges which are always threatened by crises.

The sugar industry of Europe abundantly demonstrates this.

CONCLUSION.

The necessary Outlet.

FRENCH legislation more than any other has caused the increase of production. At the same time our legislation imposes on sugar for consumption in France a duty of 60 fr., beside a refining tax of 4 fr. per hundredweight of refined sugar, whereas in Germany the home consumption duty is only 20 marks (25 fr.), and in AustriaHungary 38 crowns (39 fr. 90).

Direct export bounties are given by Germany and Austria-Hungary, whereas in France manufacturing and export premiums are combined.

The French system draws to the metropolitan market, by its détaxe de distance, sugars from Réunion and the West Indies as if it were the duty of the French legislation to provoke a glut on the home markets.

The various systems in vogue have succeeded in every country in creating an undoubted increase in production.

From 1875 to 1901 the increase has been for beet sugar 419 per cent., for cane sugar only 58 per cent. The increase in the production of beet sugar continues, more especially in France. In 1899-1900 it amounted