78 



BELGIUM. 



letters, 20,597,401 ofTicial letters, 45,376,318 postal 

 cards, 91,274.331) packets of printed mutter, and 

 101,513,576 newspapers. 



Internal Affairs. The Catholic Conservative 

 jwirty held its position in the general elections which 

 occurred in May, 1898. The Catholic majority in 

 the Chamber was increased from 70 to 72, and in 

 the Senate the former majority of 36 remained un- 

 altered. The new Chamber was composed of 1T3 

 Catholics, 28 Socialists. (> Liberals, and 6 Radicals. 

 The Flemings, gathering strength with each succes- 

 sive election under the amended Constitution of 

 1893, carried through the Senate a bill requiring 

 public announcements to be printed in both 

 Flemish and French, and according to their lan- 

 guage a larger recognition in court proceedings. 

 The Socialists, who gained in strength by the elec- 

 tion, had been very active in strikes and public 

 demonstrations, and in the former Chamber very 

 aggressive. M. Demblon, who on Jan. 21 attacked 

 the president of the Chamber, ex-Premier Beer- 

 naert, in the debate over a bill amending the law of 

 mutual-benefit societies, provoked a vote of expul- 

 sion. When he declined to withdraw the sitting 

 was suspended, and when he was prevented from 

 entering by the military guard before the door at 

 t lie next meeting of the House a fracas ensued, in 

 which Socialist Deputies were roughly handled. 

 An order of the day condemning the measures 

 taken by the officers of the Mouse was rejected by 

 86 votes to 29, with 9 abstentions. The Deputies 

 Roger and Brenez were in the month following con- 

 demned to terms of imprisonment for insulting and 

 assailing the burgomaster of Hautrage in a labor 

 conflict. 



The Sugar Conference. The Belgian Govern- 

 ment, at the instance of Germany and Austria and 

 with the encouragement of the British Government, 

 invited the governments which were represented in 

 the Sugar Conference at London in 1887 to a new 

 international conference to consider the question of 

 abolishing or reducing by mutual agreement the 

 bounties paid on the export or production of sugar. 

 Since alarm was first aroused in 1884 as to the 

 possible effects of the bounty system the world's 

 production of sugar has doubled, the average cost 

 of production has been halved, and the average 

 price of refined sugar has fallen one half. The in- 

 crease has been wholly in bounty-fed beet sugar, 

 while the prcduction of cane sugar, to which no 

 bounty is given, has actually declined. The sugar- 

 producing con.;7iunities in the tropics, especially 

 the West Indian islands, have been threatened with 

 ruin as a result of the Continental bounty system, 

 until the British Government has at last given 

 some slight assistance to its West Indian colonies in 

 the form of grants of money. The British sugar- 

 ivfminu' industry at Greenock, London, and Bristol 

 is likewise menaced with' extinct ion. On the other 

 hand the British consumers and the manufactures 

 in which sugar is an important material have 

 greatly benefited, such as jam manufacturing, 

 confectionery and randy making. The statesmen 

 of Belgium, (irrmany, 'Austria, and Holland had 

 changed their views as to the economic benefits of 

 bounties, while the French state-men in control of 

 affairs still clung to the system of export bounties 

 and high internal taxes, the effect <>f which was to 

 make Migar t wice as dear or more in France as in 

 Knu'land. Those who advocated the abolition of 

 bounties held that it would be necessary to abolish 

 the excise duty at the same time, believing that the 

 increased demand would supply a natural stimulus 

 to production and offer the natural outlet of an 

 expanding market for the supply produced, since 

 at present, owing to the high price of sugar, the 

 consumption on the Continent is one third what it 



is in Great Britain. The governments of Germany, 

 Austria, and Belgium, supported with reservations 

 by Holland, were willing to abandon or greatly 

 modify the bounty system, which cost heavy sums 

 annually to the government treasuries and imposed 

 a heavy tax on the bulk of the population in order 

 to confer a fitful and uncertain benefit on a single 

 class of producers. They could not see their way 

 to carry out this fiscal reform, however, unless 

 France would agree to renounce bounties also, or 

 unless Great Britain would sustain them by impos- 

 ing a countervailing duty on bounty-fed sugar; 

 otherwise their product would be driven out of the 

 British market and French sugar secure a monopoly 

 of this trade on which all Continental producers 

 largely depend. The Belgian Government decided 

 to reduce to 15 francs a quintal the excise duties on 

 refined sugar from Oct. 1, 1899. 



The International Conference on Sugar Bounties 

 met in Brussels on June 7, 1898, under the presi- 

 dency of the Belgian Premier, M. de Smet de 

 Naeyer. All the delegates were instructed to con- 

 sider the question on the basis of a total abolition of 

 bounties. The French Government, while ready to 

 abandon direct premiums, made reservations as to 

 the internal regulations of the excise in France. 



The president stated that Belgium was ready to 

 adopt the principle of refining under Government 

 supervision as a step that might facilitate a general 

 understanding. The German and Austro-Hun- 

 garian delegates declared that their governments 

 were in favor of a complete suppression of the 

 bounties. The Netherlands delegate proposed a 

 gradual suppression. The British delegate declared 

 that the British Government desired the abolition 

 of bounties and was prepared to receive favorably 

 any proposals tending in that direction. The 

 Swedish delegate stated that Sweden was not an 

 exporting country; hence no question of export 

 bounties arose. The French delegate explained 

 that, although France was prepared to consider the 

 suppression of the direct bounty on export granted 

 under the French law of 1897, it had entered the 

 conference under the express reservation that the 

 internal law of 1884, which granted indirect boun- 

 ties on exports, should remain outside of the scope 

 of the discussions. The Russian delegate made a 

 similar reservation, stating that Russia had accepted 

 the invitation on the express understanding that 

 her internal laws were not to be discussed. When 

 questioned as to the views entertained by Great 

 Britain in regard to a penal clause for the imposi- 

 tion of countervailing duties on bounty-fed sugar, 

 the British delegate maintained an attitude of 

 reserve, stating that the decision of the Brit ish 

 Government could not be taken until it was in 

 possession of some definite project of agreement 

 and was in a position to know which powers were 

 willing to become parties to it. The Russian dele- 

 gate stated categorically that his Government had 

 no intention of altering" its existing system, which 

 was pronounced by the Austro- Hungarian repre- 

 sentative as equivalent to a bounty on exportation. 

 The French delegate made a statement showing the 

 necessity felt by France for retaining the law of 

 1884. The Belgian and Dutch delegations proposed 

 two alternative solutions: one that- France should 

 abolish the direct export bounty and reduce by one 

 fourth the indirect bounty in each year in which 

 the average export of 235".000 tons should be ex- 

 ceeded, until the bounty entirely disappeared; the 

 other that she should abolish the direct bounty and 

 levy a duty on exported sugar in excess of 50,000 

 tons equal to the bounty on production. Should 

 France accept either of these suggestions in prin- 

 ciple it was contemplated to suggest a similar com- 

 promise to Russia. The French delegate, however, 



