HC Deb 15 December 1902 vol 116 cc1214-7
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON () Dundee

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it will be competen; for the Germanor Austrian Government, under the terms of the Brussels Convention, to pay the whole of the rail and shipping freights on sugar exported to the United States, and what relation such payment would bear to the money bounties now paid by these Governments.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,) Leeds, Central

Under the Brussels Convention, should any question arise as to whether one of the contracting Powers were, by some course of action such as that referred to in the question, conferring an indirect bounty on the export of sugar, such a question would be referred to the International Commission for consideration and report. I cannot anticipate the decision of the Commission on a case which has not arisen.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

Will the decision of this Commission not be absolutely final and without appeal?

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

Yes, I rather think it would on this point.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, have the present law officers of the Crown given to His Majesty's Government advice relative to the effect of the Brussels Sugar Convention on the most-favoured nation Clause in existing commercial treaties contrary to that given by the law officers of the Crown in 1880; and if so, is the present advice that of all the law officers of the Crown, including the Lord Chancellor, Mr. Attorney General, and Mr. Solicitor General, or is it the advice of one only of them.

The HON. MEMBER also had the following Question on the Paper: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact, recently ascertained upon further investigation by His Majesty's Government, that the highest legal authority, the law officers of the Crown, advised His Majesty's Government in 1880 that to impose a countervailing duty in order to neutralise a foreign bounty on sugar would be contrary to the most-favoured-nation Clause in existing commercial treaties, His Majesty's Government now propose to ratify and and act upon the Brussels Sugar Convention, and thus to violate those treaties; if not, do they propose to give notice of the termination of those treaties; is he aware that such treaties exist between Great Britain and twenty-one foreign States, not being signatories of the Convention, including Russia and the United States; and what course do His Majesty's Government propose to take in the event of these countries adhering to the view expressed by the British law officers of the Crown in 1880, and withdrawing from British produce and manufactures the advantages of the most-favoured nation Clause.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Perhaps I may be allowed to answer both Questions together. His Majesty's Government are advised that there is nothing in the terms of the Sugar Convention inconsistent with the most-favoured-nation Clause that is in the contrary sense to the advice which it appears was given in 1880. My hon. friend has asked for details as to the particular law officers concerned in giving the advice, and, although there would be no objection on the present occasion to giving the advice, I think it would be a very bad precedent, which I ought not to set. As my hon. friend will have perceived from that answer, we are not of opinion that the Sugar Convention violates the most-favoured-nation articles in the existing treaties. This opinion is shared, so far as we are aware, by every non-signatory Power except Russia; and Russia herself was a signatory to the convention of 1880, which contained a penal Clause.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

Has any communication been received from any of the twenty-one countries concerned, or any inquiry made to ascertain their opinions?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I cannot answer my hon. friend's Question off hand. But, of course, this matter has been long before the international public of all these countries; and, if there had been any objection of the kind my hon. friend supposes I am sure we would have been made aware of it.

MR. BRYCE () Aberdeen, S.

May I ask whether there will be any objection to the presentation to the House of all the correspondence which has passed with foreign nations on the subject of the interpretation of the Convention, particularly on this point?

MR. BALFOUR

I am not aware that there has been any correspondence on this point, because it is a point which, I believe, is a matter of common agreement, not requiring correspondence. But, if the right hon. Gentleman will put down a Question on the subject, he will receive an answer.

MR. BRYCE

With a view to clearing up the point, may I ask, if there has been no correspondence, by what means is the right hon. Gentleman able to state his belief as to the agreement of the other nations?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

That is obviously a Question which cannot be answered without full notice. But take the case of the United States. We know full well that the United States has vehemently protested against the view of my hon. friend, not in relation to this Convention, but in relation to other international transactions.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House the despatch from Russia, in which Russia takes the view which was given by the law offers in 1880 and by my humble self now?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

That point will be answered when the Question is put on the Paper by my hon. friend or the right hon. Gentleman opposite.