§ MR. RITCHIEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, looking to the fact that in his reply to the Work- 1945 men's National Executive Committee for the Abolition of the Foreign Sugar Bounties, the figures of the quantity of loaf sugar refined in the years 1864 and 1881 differ materially from the figures given in evidence before the Select Committee on the Sugar Industries, he will inform the House if he derives his figures from any statistical information that has been laid before the House, and, if so, where it can be found; if not, will he inform the House from what other sources the information is derived, and lay a Copy of it upon the Table of the House, giving, if possible, the quantity refined in each year from 1864 to 1881, and along with this the quantity imported in the same years; and, whether it is to be understood that Her Majesty's Government have definitely decided that in the renewal of Commercial Treaties with Foreign Powers they are prepared again to assent to provisions which render them powerless to take any action by means of countervailing duties, or otherwise, against bounties which Lord Granville, in his Despatch to Mr. Adams on the 30th of July last, wrote—
Were contrary to the spirit and intention of those Treaties, and would in another way produce the very effect which their stipulations with reference to import duties were intended to prevent?
MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, it was rather difficult to give satisfactory information in answer to a Question of this kind across the Table without going into much detail. He thought the most important answer he could give was that they should lay upon the Table Papers containing all the hon. Gentleman wished to see, containing the nature of the bounties and the grounds upon which the Government formed their opinion. He might say, however, in answer to the Question, there was a mistake in the evidence given before the Committee in relation to the sugar refining in 1880–81. There could not have been, and was not, any information on that.
§ MR. RITCHIEExcept that the evidence showed that practically the loaf sugar refining was extinct at that time; and it is rather startling to be told now—
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he meant that there was no evidence given before the Committee of the House of Commons with regard to the product in 1881. 1946 What he wished to say was that he believed the hon. Gentleman was proceeding upon an estimate given in by Mr. Martineau. That gentleman stated before the Select Committee, in answer to a Question, that his estimate might be inaccurate; and upon the investigation of other evidence given by other witnesses—Mr. Neil, Mr. Ashton, Mr. Shepherd, and Mr. Peters—the Government had come to the conclusion that his estimate was inaccurate, and they had based their own estimate on grounds which would be laid on the Table, and on which reliance might be placed.
§ MR. RITCHIEAm I to understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Government have made up their estimate from some other evidence given before the Select Committee, or from independent evidence which they themselves have obtained since?
MR. GLADSTONEOh, certainly, we do not rely on evidence given before the Select Committee. We think that the evidence before the Committee shows that Mr. Martineau's evidence cannot be taken as a binding estimate. We have put in motion the means which the Government possess for ascertaining the facts. The hon. Member, in the closing part of his Question, asks whether the Government had definitely decided that, in the renewal of Commercial Treaties with foreign Powers, they were prepared to take any action, by means of countervailing duties or otherwise, against the bounties? With regard to this, I should say that we adhere to our view in regard to countervailing duties, and we do not believe that it would be practicable or beneficial to enter upon such a course of proceeding.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had been asked to state what passed before the French Commission upon this subject. At the 15th joint sitting between the Royal Commissioners and the French Commissioners the subject was raised by the English Commissioners; but the proceedings being confidential, he was unable to give any details of what passed.
§ MR. RITCHIEasked if he understood the Prime Minister to say that the Paper he would lay on the Table would contain, not only the information for the years 1864 and 1881, but also for the intervening years derived from the same source?
MR. GLADSTONEreplied, that the figures for the intermediate period had not been collected; but he would inquire if the information could be obtained. It was not, however, information on which the hon. Member could fully rely.
MR. MAC IVERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to supplement his statement with some information with reference to the position of bounties with regard to shipping. ["Order!"]
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, if he were not out of Order, he should have said that the matter was dealt with at the same sitting; but he feared it would be out of Order to say anything more.