§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government of Denmark declined to sign the Sugar Bounty Convention on the ground that the prohibitory Article 1854 (VII.) was irreconcileable with the most favoured nation clause of the Commercial Treaties (Commercial Papers, No. 13, pp. 373, 438); whether the Government of France declared, at the close of the Conference, that their assent was absolutely "conditional on the adhesion of all sugar-producing States," and that, "unless all sugar-producing countries became parties to the Convention, the prohibitory Article VII. would be contrary to the most favoured nation clauses" (ibid. p. 431); whether these conditions having been rejected the Government of France refused to sign the Convention (ibid. pp. 437, 438); and, whether Her Majesty's Government have any reason to believe that the Governments of Denmark and of France have abandoned the views thus stated, or that those Governments are prepared to recognize the right of States who are bound by the Convention to exclude, on the score of bounty, the sugar of ether States not parties to the Convention, who, under treaty or otherwise, are acting on the principle of the most favoured nation clause?
§ *SIR J. FERGUSSONThe right hon. Gentleman has correctly quoted opinions expressed by the representatives of Denmark and France during the proceedings of the Sugar Conference, but the position of the Governments of those countries towards the Sugar Convention of August, 1888, is authoritatively defined in the declaration annexed to this Convention. Both having signed the draft Convention, and adhered in principle to it when completed, have accepted the suppression of Sugar Bounties within their territories. Denmark is not a sugar-producing country, and as France, having accepted that principle, took the lead in the Convention of August, 1888, the agreement that privileges under the most favoured nation clause should not be pleaded against prohibition, even on the part of such signatory States as might hereafter withdraw from the Convention, it does not seem reasonable to suppose that she could object on that ground to prohibition by other States, should it become necessary under the terms of the Convention.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTasked the hon. Gentleman whether it was a fact that the clause proposed by France commenced with a statement that it is "on 1855 condition that all the sugar-producing countries join in the Convention"; and whether, on the motion of the President of the Conference, that condition was struck out before the clause was put into the Convention?
§ *SIR J. FERGUSSONYes, Sir, that was so; but the declaration that France accepted the Convention in principle was subsequent to it.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTasked the hon. Gentleman whether his contention was that France was bound by a clause of which the material part was struck out?
§ *SIR J. FERGUSSONThe right hon. Gentleman's question involves a legal point, which I should be rather imprudent to answer offhand. I do not think he would do so himself, but the fact is that the Convention, with the reservation stated, was accepted in principle.