§ MR. J. C. BOLTON (Stirling)asked the First Lord of the Treasury Whether it is true as stated in the public press, 330 that the International Conference on Sugar Bounties have concluded a Convention for the abolition of bounties, and that all the Powers have engaged to prohibit absolutely the importation of bounty fed sugar?
§ THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)In answer to the hon. Member, I have to say that, at the concluding sitting of the International Conference on Sugar Bounties, the final Protocol, with the Draft Convention, was signed by the Representatives of all the Powers. Those Representatives will now submit the Draft Convention, with the reserves they have made, to their respective Governments, who will communicate their views to Her Majesty's Government by July 5. The Plenipotentiaries will be invited to meet in London, on August 16 at latest, for the signature of the Treaty. Pending the receipt of such communications and the re-assembling of the Plenipotentiaries, it would be obviously improper, and contrary to diplomatic usage, to give to the House the details of a Draft Treaty, which, in its present form, is the property of the powers collectively, and not of any individual power. I may add that this view has been adopted by the Delegates of all the Powers, who agreed at their last meeting that no publicity should be given to the Draft Convention until after the re-assembling of the Plenipotentiaries.
§ MR. J. C. BOLTONasked, whether the statement, as reported, that all the Powers had engaged to prohibit absolutely the importation of bounty fed sugar was true or false?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHThe accurate statement is that which I have just read out of the House.
§ In reply to the Mr. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne),
§ MR. W. H. SMITHadded that, with regard to giving an opportunity for the discussion of the Convention, the usual course would be followed.
§ MR. J. C. BOLTONasked, the First Lord of the Treasury to give a pledge on behalf of the Government that an opportunity would be given to the House of expressing its opinion on the question before the country was finally committed to absolute prohibition.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSON (Cumberland, Cockermouth)asked, whether the 331 Government had taken into account the increased amount the people of this country would have to pay for their sugar if its importation were prohibited?
§ MR. PICTON (Leicester)wished to know whether the Government had power to prohibit the importation of any kind of commodity without a Resolution or an Act of Parliament?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHThe hon. Gentleman who asked me the last Question has answered the hon. Member for Stirlingshire. It is absolutely impossible to carry out any engagement without the authority of Parliament.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)asked, whether the 16th of August was the date at which the final ratification of this Treaty was to take place?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHThat, I believe, is the present arrangement of the Powers; but any agreement springing out of the Convention will be a prospective arrangement.
§ MR. ILLINGWORTH (Bradford, W.)asked, whether it was not desirable that legislation in regard to this subject should be as early as possible, in order that if there was a disinclination on the part of Parliament to proceed, other Governments would be saved further trouble in the matter?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHIt is absolutely impossible for us to propose legislation in the meantime, seeing that the Convention may fall to the ground, or that the Powers, or any of them, may disagree with it.
§ MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he meant that as they had taken the initiative in regard to the Conference, so they might in reference to legislation.