MR. GIBSON BOWLESI beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what Powers, signatories of the Brussels Sugar Conventions, have intimated to His Majesty's Government that, in their view, the Convention obliges Great Britain to levy countervailing duties on sugar and sugared products coming from such of her self - governing Colonies as grant bounties; and on what dates respectively were such intimations received; what Powers, non - signatories of the Convention, but having treaties with this country containing the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause, have intimated that they will hold as an infringement of their rights under that Clause the imposition of differential duties on their sugar and sugared products; and on what dates respectively were such intimations received; has the correspondence with the signatory Powers resulted in a complete common agreement as to the effect of the Convention; and will he lay all that correspondence upon the Table of the House.
§ THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE, Rochester)We have received no direct communication from any Government except that of Austria-Hungary calling in question our refusal to admit any obligation to enforce a penal Clause against any British self-governing Colony. A verbal communication was made by the Austria-Hungarian Embassy on the 29th November last, and further informal communications have since taken place. Statements on the same subject were made on the 9th of June last in the German Reichstag, and on the 2nd of December in the Netherland First Chamber. The answer in the second paragraph of the Question is that Russia is the only country which has made such an intimation. Communications from her were received on the 8th of July last and the 24th of September last. The answer to the 1499 third paragraph is that the correspondence has not resulted in a complete agreement. The correspondence is not complete, and it would not be desirable to lay further Papers at present.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESI beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, will His Majesty's Government undertake not to ratify the Brussels Sugar Convention until the disagreements as to its construction between Great Britain and others of the signatory powers have been removed, and until all correspondence with Foreign States relative to the Convention since its signature has been laid before Parliament, and this House has been afforded an opportunity of expressing an opinion thereon.
§ MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)Can the right hon. Gentleman give the substance of his answer to the Question as to correspondence which I have on the Paper.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI am afraid not. It is a Question which is not marked to be answered orally. In reply to the hon. Member for King's Lynn, I have to say that we see no reason to delay the ratification beyond the date fixed. My hon. friend has probably present in his mind that there is really no question between Great Britain and the other signatory Powers except as regards the liability of this country to penalise bounty-fed sugar from the self-governing Colonies. The objection is more theoretical than practical, as no appreciable quantity of sugar can be received from the Colonies during the five years of the term of the convention.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESBut would it not be desirable to have a complete agreement between the Powers before the ratification? The right hon. Gentleman admits that there is a disagreement.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURNo, Sir. We have never made any secret of our distinct and unalterable view with regard to the penalising of sugar from our Colonies; and we shall ratify the Convention on that distinct understanding. It rests with us, and only with us to penalise.
§ MR. BRYCEDo I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he feels confident that no self-governing Colony will give a bounty on sugar within the next five years?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURNo, Sir, I did not say that; but I said that I did not believe that there could be any amount of export of sugar from any self-governing Colony which is not a negligible quantity, in view of the great bulk of sugar imported. We have distinctly laid it down that this treaty does not require us to penalise sugar from our self-governing Colonies. We should regret if the Colonies put on bounties, but we are not bound to penalise them if they should do so.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTDo any of the Powers agree with, or do any of them differ from, that view?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI think I have implied in my previous answer that there is not as yet an entire agreement between the Powers concerned in this Convention upon that point—an academic point, but, so far as we are concerned, a point which has an important bearing upon the relations between this country and our self-governing Colonies. It rests entirely with us to interpret the treaty as regards the self-governing Colonies, and we mean to interpret it in the sense I have described.