MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether in view of Article II. of the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation with Russia, of 12th January 1859, which binds this country not to place other or higher duties on any articles the growth, produce, or manufacture of Russian dominions than on those of any other foreign country, and not to prohibit the importation of any such articles, and of Article X. Which binds this country to grant to Russian subjects every privilege, favour, and immunity granted to subjects of any other Power, it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to give notice of the expiration of that treaty in 1058 order to place itself in a position to carry out the Sugar Convention, Brussels; and whether, in view of Article XXII. of the Treaty of 1859, which stipulates that the treaty shall remain in force until twelve months after either party thereto shall have given notice to the other to terminate the same, such notice has already been given by His Majesty's Government; and, if not, how His majesty's Government propose to place themselves in a position to give effect to the Sugar Convention as therein stipulated on 1st September 1903.
§ LORD CRANBORNEIn the opinion of His Majesty's Government the imposition of countervailing duties upon, or the prohibition of the importation of, bounty-fed sugar is not inconsistent with the provisions of the most-favoured-nation Clause. The Russian Government were informed in 1899 when the Government of India had imposed counter vailing duties against sugar imported from Russia, that this was the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, and that if the Russian Government were unable to agree in this view Her Majesty's Government were prepared to denounce the Treaty of Commerce of 1859. No reply was made to this communication.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESI may gather that as a matter of fact no notice has at present been given to terminate the treaty of 1859?
§ LORD CRANBORNEWill my hon. friend put the Question on the Paper?
§ LORD CRANBORNEWhat we have said is that we were ready to denounce the treaty if the Russian Government wished it, and no answer has been received.
§ LORD CRANBORNENo.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.): Seeing that twelve months notice has to be given, what 1059 operation will that have upon the coming into effect of the Sugar Convention?
§ LORD CRANBORNEI have already said that in the opinion of His Majesty's Government the imposition of countervailing duties or the prohibition of bounty-fed sugar is not inconsistent with the most-favoured-nation Clause.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON () DundeeIs that founded on legal advice?
§ LORD CRANBORNEOf course it is.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESAs the Russian Government hold a contrary opinion, what measures have His Majesty's Government taken to reconcile the two opinions?
§ LORD CRANBORNEIt would be inconsistent with practice to answer a supplementary Question of that kind. But we have offered to denounce the treaty of 1859.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESI beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs a Question of which I have given private notice. It is whether the noble Lord is aware that Dutch Minister of Finance stated yesterday in the Dutch Second Chamber that England will be bound by the terms of the Convention to levy countervailing duties on bounty fed sugar from her autonomous Colonies and British India; whether he can say that any, or which, of the States who signed the Convention have adopted a policy similar to that mentioned by the Dutch Minister of Finance; and whether there are any other points or articles in the Convention on which any of the other contracting parties have adopted a differed construction from that of His Majesty's Government.
§ LORD CRANBORNEI only received notice of the Question a short time ago. If the hon. Member will be good enough to put the Question on the Paper I shall be delighted to give an answer.