124 SUGAR 



question, so far as diplomacy was concerned, slumbered 

 more or less for several years. In 1880 the Government 

 made a feeble effort to reopen negotiations, but were 

 met at once, very properly, by the French Government, 

 who pointed out that they could not consider the matter 

 until the British Government were prepared to give the 

 contracting parties security that they should not have 

 to compete in British markets with sugar receiving 

 similar advantages in other countries. 



In 1888 an International Conference met in London 

 and included Germany and Austria. But, though a 

 Convention was more or less agreed to by the contracting 

 parties, its presentation in the House of Commons for 

 ratification was met by one or two speeches which might 

 easily have been answered, but which apparently so 

 frightened the Government that they promptly with- 

 drew the Bill. Great Britain had, on this occasion, to 

 bear the obloquy of rejecting the Convention. 



The controversy raged fiercely at that time. The 

 dogmatists had fallen back on the argument that the 

 sale of goods below cost price was such a blessing to the 

 consumer that it was wicked to attempt to stop it. 

 They failed to see that if industries are injured by such 

 competition the consumer also suffers. Production is 

 reduced and prices rise. This is exactly what has 

 happened with sugar. Very low prices have alternated 

 with very high prices at regular intervals. As the late 

 Lord Farrer pointed out, glut is followed by collapse 

 and ruin. The short-sighted dogmatists declare, on the 

 other hand, that they do not mind this ; they welcome 

 ruinous prices as they do sunshine. 



Another ten years elapsed, the competition among 

 the various beetroot sugar producing countries had 

 become more and more keen and the weaker ones began 

 to pine for some way of escape from such an artificial 



