HC Deb 10 May 1889 vol 335 cc1706-9
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, under the Sugar Bounty Convention, Great Britain could be called upon to exclude sugar being the produce of a Nation (not in any way a party to the Convention), on the ground of its giving a Bounty, although such Nation may be entitled by Treaty to the "most favoured Nation" treatment, as in the case of the Treaty of Commerce between Great Britain and the United sates, in which it is stipulated as follows— Nor shall any prohibition be imposed by Great Britain upon the Exportation of any any article the growth, produce, or manufacture of the United States, to the territories of Her Britannic Majesty, which shall not equally extend to all other Nations; And, whether, in a case where such a Treaty exists, Her Majesty's Government claim the right, without the consent of the other contracting party, to exclude sugar, the produce of such country, whilst they admit the sugar of other nations?

*THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,) Bristol, W.

It rests rather with the Foreign Office than with the Board of Trade to give an authoritative interpretation of our treaty engagements, but as the right hon. Gentleman wishes to have my opinion I shall be happy to give it. This question, though apparently general, is really limited to the case of our treaty with the United States. I think all other nations that are at all likely to send us sugar or give bounties are either in some way parties to the Convention or do not possess the Clause which the right hon. Gentleman quotes in their treaties with us. In the case of the United States I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the correspondence which took place in 1884 between Lord Granville and the United States Government. Them he will find that Lord Granville then complained that by the treaties then made, or about to be made, by the United States with the Sandwich Islands and some of the South American States, the latter countries were placed in a more favourable position than our West Indian Colonies, and asked that this might be remedied by extending the most favoured nation clause in our treaties with the United States to our West Indian Colonies. The United States Government declined to do this, offering to consider a reciprocity treaty securing special favour for our West Indian Colonies, and saying—and this is the important point—that The most favoured nation clause in the Treaty of 1815 has not authorized, and could not authorize, Great Britain to ask for the products or ships of the United Kingdom (or our West Indian Colonies if extended to them) favours identical with, or equivalent to, those which Spanish American or West Indian Colonial products might receive in treaties with the United States by reason of special reciprocity treatment. In my opinion the United States would be absolutely barred by the interpretation they thus themselves placed on the most favoured nation clause, and by arrangements made with other countries in accordance with that interpretation, from pleading the most favoured nation clause in bar of the operation of the Sugar Bounties Convention as against themselves. I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have been ignorant of the correspondence which I have quoted, and which took place when be was himself Home Secretary. Perhaps he has forgotten it, as he must have forgotten, when he made his speech the other day that the Government of which he was a Member attempted by negotiation to abolish those very Sugar Bounties which he now declares to be beneficial to this country.

SIR W. HARCOURT

I cannot now answer the rather irregular speech of the right hon. Gentleman upon the subject. I will take another opportunity of dealing with it. I am not aware that any Government ever proposed clauses of the character contained in the Sugar Bounties Convention. The late Government never proposed to limit themselves in that respect. I will not follow the right hon. Gentleman into that matter, but I will ask him this question, which is important as arising out of his answer, whether the Board of Trade have satisfied themselves that the Government of the United States acquiesce in the interpretation he has placed on the most favoured nation clause in respect of the Sugar Bounties Convention? I will further ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has satisfied himself that the French Government, though not acting under treaty, but acting practically under the most favoured nation treatment, also acquiesce in the interpretation he has placed on the most favoured nation clause?

*SIR M. HICKS BEACH

In answer to that question, I may say that the Representative of the United States, though not taking part in the Conference, was present at the deliberations, and the Government of the United States have in no way signified that they have changed the opinion which I. have already read to the House. The Representatives of France took part in the proceedings of the Convention, and themselves proposed the clause barring the operation of the most favoured nation clause with regard to the Sugar Bounties Convention.

SIR W. HARCOURT

Then I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that he states upon his authority that the Government of the United States and the Government of France hold the most favoured nation clause as having no operation whatever against the stipulations of the Sugar Bounties Convention.

*SIR M. HICKS BEACH

It is impossible for me to add to the answer I have already given.