* Mr. GIBSON BOWLESI think the House will agree that this which I am about shortly to raise is an extremely important subject and precisely one of those matters which show the extreme value of the privilege that has fortunately been retained by the House. I sent word this morning to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs of my intention to raise a question on this Motion at noon, and I had hoped that he would be in his place to hear what I had to say, because it mainly concerns his Department. This is my point. Ten days ago the House approved of the policy of the Sugar Convention, and practically gave power to the Government to ratify the Convention. Since then new facts of the most alarming and unexpected nature have been revealed, as is indeed avowed by 133 His Majesty's Government. These facts, I submit, ought to cause the Government to reconsider their position; and it behoves them to dispose finally of all the grave doubts that have undoubtedly arisen in regard to the Convention, before ratifying it. It is admitted, first of all, that the translation is incorrect. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs has had to admit to the House, for the first time in the history of the Foreign Office, that a Wrong translation has been issued. I submit that this alone should cause the Government to pause before they ratify the Convention. Now, the binding text of the Convention is in French, and, therefore, whether the translation is good or bad, we are bound by that text. The noble Lord has had to admit that in a most important Article of the Convention —the Article which concerns its duration, and the method of putting an end to it—the translation is incorrect. It is to be regretted that there does not seem to be any one at the Foreign Office who knows either French or English; for I could show that in many other respects the translation is incorrect. I have reason to believe, however, that mistranslation is not so much the fault of the Foreign Office as it is the fault of the Treasury, which refuses to supply experts for these translations. But the effect is that the House has decided the question on a false translation and an incorrect statement of the facts before it. But there are two other points far more important even than that. Doubts have arisen since the debate as to the effect of the Sugar Convention on other treaties containing the most - favoured - nation Clause. The noble Lord told me the day before yesterday with regard to Russia that the affair had been settled in l899, that the question was raised by Russia, and that we had then taken up the position that in our view such a Convention as this was not affected by, and did not affect, the most - favoured-nation Clause. He also said that Russia had made no reply to our representation, and it followed, consequently, that we retained our opinion and Russia hers. But yesterday the noble Lord told the House an entirely different story. He said, in reply to the hon. Member for Mid Armagh, that Russia had protested that this Sugar Convention was a violation of the treaty of 1859 with her. When did she protest? She had not 134 done so on Tuesday, because the noble Lord did not mention it in reply to my Question.
THE UNDER-SECRETARy ofSTATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CRAN-BORNE,) RochesterI never denied it.
§ LORD CRANBORNEI was never asked the question.
* Mr. GIBSON BOWLESI am not anxious to detain the House, but if the noble Lord persists in his denial I must quote his words. I asked the noble Lord—
Whether, in view of Article II. of the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation with Russia, of 12-th 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 Maesty's Government to give notice of the expiration of that treaty in 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 12 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.In reply the noble Lord said:—The Russian Government were informed in 1899, when the Government of India had imposed countervailing 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.I am sure the noble Lord-intended to be candid, but was it a full statement in reply not to state the fact that though there was no reply to the communication of 1899 there nevertheless had been the statement quite recently on the part of Russia that this Convention was an infringement of the most-favoured-nation 135 Clause in the very treaty of 1859 to which he had been referring? It was not until yesterday that this information was given to the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh. It is, therefore, a new fact which has transpired since the debate on this Sugar Convention, that Russia not only declares that the Convention is an infringement of her treaty, but it is so important that she actually proposes that we should go to arbitration upon it.But it is not a case merely of Russia; there are other nations, not parties to the Convention, with whom we have a most-favoured-nation Clause. If it is true of Russia it is also true of all these other treaties as well; and it is clear, therefore, that most serious doubts hang over the effect of the treaty in this respect. On referring to the procès-verbaux, I find that even before signing the Convention the Government were aware that doubt hung over the question. On January 23, 1902, Mr. Phipps, the delegate for Great Britain, declared that the British delegates could not definitively adhere to Article IV., which imposes the obligation of countervailing duties without an understanding being established as to its application to this most-favoured-nation Clause. But, notwithstanding that declaration, when the delegates came to Art. IV., although they raised other questions upon it, they did not raise this question again; they signed the Convention on 5th March without any such understanding being arrived at, and recorded in the procès-verbaux. That is not all. To the two points of serious doubt and question already mentioned, I have to add a third, even more serious. The Finance Minister of Holland declared two days ago that in his view—and, if I may say so, it is my own opinion also—the Convention does oblige Great Britain to put countervailing duties, not only on sugars, but on all sugar products, such as biscuits containing sugar; it does oblige great Britain to put a countervailing duty on these products when coming from any one of our self-governing Colonies—I am not speaking of our Crown Colonies—which gives in any way a bounty on the manufacture or export of sugar or sugared products. Yesterday the noble Lord admitted to me in answer to a Question that it is not Holland alone that takes that view, but that it is also held in other quarters. Other Powers have declared the same thing, according to the avowal of the 136 noble Lord. We, however, flatly deny this and take the contrary view, and he admits that a correspondence on this disagreement is proceeding; but he does not say with what Powers. I ask, therefore, with whom is the correspondence going on, and with how many Powers? I am quite certain from what is in the procès-verbaux that Belgium, and I think probably Germany also, holds the same view. But since this is the case, are we to proceed with the ratification of a Convention of this kind, on which there is so much disagreement and which is so vital to us and to our Colonies? It would be absurd to do so; no man fit to be out of Bedlam would ratify such an agreement if he were told before doing so that the other signatories were in entire disagreement with him. It is quite clear that there is a complete disagreement as to the meaning of a most important article between some of the signatories to the Convention. Will the noble Lord lay the correspondence on the Table of the House? Will the Government undertake to arrive at an agreement before it ratifies the Convention? Will it find out whether there is an obligation to impose countervailing duties upon sugar coming from our Colonies? Queensland gives a bounty; Ontario also gives a bounty by lending capital for the building of refineries at five per cent, interest. It may be said that that is only a temporary arrangement, but still it maybe renewed. Any Colony may give a bounty in the future, and this Convention is made for the future. These facts must be borne in mind. Ten days ago the House was induced to pass a Resolution approving the Convention, and to pass it after a debate which was almost entirely monopolised by the Government and those of its supporters who are capable of making long speeches, and which debate was then ruthlessly closured without hearing many who had claims to speak to it. But in view of the new facts, the doubts and disagreement that have since transpired—it would, be monstrous to ignore the gravity of the position or to proceed to ratify a Convention as to the effect of which both signatory and non-signatory Powers wholly disagree with us. I therefore ask the Government to give an undertaking that before the 137 Convention is ratified on the 1st February next they will resolve all the doubts which have arisen concerning it, and that until agreement is reached on them they will abstain from ratification. Unless I get an assurance to that effect, I shall feel I ought to vote against this Motion.
§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.I consider that the course taken by the hon. Gentleman is one not only absolutely without precedent, but one most improper to be taken on such an occasion. Let me remind the House what precisely is the opportunity which the hon. Gentleman has selected for raising those delicate international questions. The House is perhaps aware that among the obsolete survivals in the Rules, which in face of the opposition of the hon. Gentleman I have been attempting to amend, there is one which lays down that when Supply is set up the House shall adjourn from Friday till Monday without Question put. That means that for the greater part of every session the adjournment till Monday is automatic, but during the debate on the King's Speech and in an Autumn Session when Supply is not set up, the Motion comes on; but in the whole of my Parliamentary experience it has invariably been treated as an absolutely formal Motion. The hon. Gentleman did not even give notice.
* MR. GIBSON BOWLESI could not give notice, because some of the facts to which I have referred did not transpire till last night.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI am not discussing objections to the course which the hon. Gentleman has taken, although I think that is open to the gravest an animadversion. I think he might have sent notice to my noble friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs or to the President of the Board of Trade.
* MR. GIBSON BOWLESThat is exactly what I did. I sent notice to the noble Lord this morning as soon as I was able to do so.
§ LORD CRANBORnEAt what time?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURBut that is not the gravamen of my complaint against the hon. Gentleman. The complaint I make is that he has chosen to use this survival in our Standing Orders to raise a subject of debate, absolutely, as far as I know, without precedent.
§ MR. LOUGH () Islington, W.We often make precedents.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURPrecedents should not be made in this way. Nothing can be worse than that it should be in the power of any hon. Member to interrupt the ordinary business of this House by raising, on a purely formal Motion, a Motion which has been regarded as formal for at least a generation, a debate on any subject, however important, however difficult, and however delicate.
§ MR. CALDWELL () Lanarkshire, MidThe right hon. Gentleman forgets that we have this privilege every night on the Motion to adjourn.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThere is no analogy between the two cases. I certainly should suggest to my hon. friends, the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs and the President of the Board of Trade, that they should not lend themselves to this most unfortunate proceeding by taking any part in the debate which the hon. Gentleman has initiated.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)If the admonition or expostulation of the First Lord is addressed to anybody, I am afraid it is to Mr. Speaker, because he has ruled that this is a perfectly proper opportunity for the hon. Member to seek the information he desires to have. I agree with my hon. friend the Member for Mid Lanark that this is absolutely analogous to the daily Motion that this House do now adjourn. It would, of course, be absurd if on frequent occasions that Motion were used, but it is sometimes used for the purpose of extracting information from the Government. The Sugar Convention is a most 139 urgent matter, and one of very great importance to this country, not only within, the narrow limits of the immediate matters with which it deals, but in its effect on the general policy and international position of this country. There has been only one night's discussion on the Sugar Convention, which was terminated by the Closure, and since then—to show that there was no great pressure—there has been an Evening Sitting when the Government had nothing to do, and did not occupy the time at all. I said at the time that one night was not sufficient for debating this great subject, and since then many new points have been exposed by the assiduity of the hon. Member for King's Lynn—points which throw fresh light on the matter. Here is a case where the Government is rattling through business in order to wind up this unusual and protracted session, but this great question of the ratification of the Convention is before us, and we have got to know whether the House of Commons has really given a substantial and final approval to that instrument in the light of all the facts that have come up. The hon. Member takes the opportunity of bringing certain new facts before the House; it is not a chose jugee, because we are in a position to take any line we choose upon it, and I am not at all surprised, seeing the gravity of the interests involved, that the hon. Member should have taken this opportunity, which the forms of the House permit, to call attention to the matter. The right hon. Gentleman need not be afraid because it is open to his colleagues to say that they have not had sufficient warning. They can promise a reply later on to the question put by the hon. Member. The hon. Gentleman was entitled to raise the question, and if there is substance in his point—that I cannot say, because I was not present when he raised them—but if there is substance in them he has done a public service in bringing them before the Government and the country.
MR. JAMES LOWTHER () Kent, ThanetI confess that I am unable to follow the Leader of the House in the censure he has passed on the hon. Member for King's Lynn. In my humble judgment my hon. friend deserves the thanks of the House and of 140 the country. I say, with some knowledge of Parliamentary procedure, that I never heard such a doctrine laid down as that, on a Motion for Adjournment, it is not competent for a Member to raise a question if he thinks fit. It is notorious that in the debate on the Sugar Convention a large number of hon. Members who desired to take part were arbitrarily precluded by the Closure. Not only did the right hon. Gentleman closure the House, but he closured his colleagues.
§ * MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! The question of the Closure cannot be discussed.
MR. JAMES LOWTHERI beg pardon. But the point apparently needs no further comment. I apologise, however, for having to that extent infringed the Rules of the House. I think, Sir, that I am entitled to complain that a great and important international question has been hurried through the House of Commons, and will, in the natural course of events, be settled finally, without the House having a reasonable opportunity of discussing it. I strongly feel that the few old forms of the House remaining ought not to be abandoned, and that my hon. friend was perfectly right in availing himself of the privilege which every. Member possesses of drawing attention to the matter. As to the merits of the question itself I admit that I do not approach it from the same point of view as my hon. friend. I think there is one extremely objectionable feature of it, and that is that it ties the hands of this country behind its back, and prevents it from dealing as it thinks fit with its trading and commercial arrangements throughout the entire Empire.
§ * MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! On this Motion for Adjournment the range of debate is limited, and the right hon. Gentleman will not be in order in re-discussing the question which was debated and decided by the House when it approved the Convention. The hon. Member for King's Lynn has called attention to certain matters which have occurred since that debate took place. He spoke of them as "new" and "urgent" matters. On that point I utter no opinion. But the right hon. Gentleman is treating now of matters which 141 might have been discussed by him in the debate had he had an opportunity of speaking. He must confine himself to something new and not now attempt to re-discuss matters which were then debated and decided.
MR. JAMES LOWTHERIt is not a question of my repeating my speech, since I had no opportunity of laying my views before the House when the debate took place. I must apologise for not having made it sufficiently clear that it was the fresh information which has oozed out, since the hurried debate the other night, that necessitated, in my judgment, my hon. friend calling attention to this subject. It was the revelation as to the alleged disagreement on an essential point among the high contracting parties to this Convention, information which has reached this House since it parted with the subject last week, which justified the action my hon. friend has taken, and I think we have a perfect right to protest against the doctrine which has been laid down by the Prime Minister. I am glad my hon. friend has raised this question, and, for so doing, I think he deserves the thanks of the House and of the country.
§ MR. THOMAS LOUGHCannot the right hon. Gentleman give us another opportunity, before the session closes, of discussing this question—of course before the ratification of the Convention? If so, I am sure that the House will agree with me in thinking that this inconvenient Motion need not be persisted in any longer.
§ MR. LOUGHI wish to call attention to a new fact, which seems even graver than those referred to by the hon. Member. He has told ns that in the Dutch Parliament the Finance Minister threatened us that we would be compelled to impose countervailing duties on sugar coming from our Colonies. But something else took place in the Dutch Parliament, for, immediately after that statement was made, the treaty was accepted and ratified by a unanimous vote. What is the meaning of that? The meaning is that we have not only to impose countervailing duties against our Colonies, but we are agreeing to give preferential treatment 142 to foreign nations. Other countries see the advantage of this, although apparently our Government do not realise it. Continental nations realise the great advantage they are going to get from this convention. They see that the sugar tax provided under Clause 3 gives them preferential treatment in this country—it gives their manufacturers' products a preference. This is a matter of the greatest gravity to manufacturers in this country, who see that their great enterprises here are likely to be ruined. They come to me and to other Members. [Cries of "Order."] Well, I have been studying this subject for seven years, and I did not have an opportunity of saying a single word upon it in the debate. Nothing qualifies a man more to take part in a debate than the fact that he has devoted years of his life to the study of the particular question under discussion. I appeal to the Prime Minister if he will not reconsider the situation and give us some moderate opportunity, before the session closes, of calling attention to these new facts.
§ Question put, and agreed to.