HL Deb 16 December 1902 vol 116 cc1314-5
LORD WELBY

My Lords, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to the statement made by the Prime Minister that the Law Officers of the Crown in 1880 gave an opinion to the effect 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, whether His Majesty's Government, before advising His Majesty to ratify the Brussels Convention, will lay before Parliament information showing:—

  1. (a) what countries are engaged in the Production of sugar.
  2. (b) Which of the countries in list (a) have commercial treaties with the United
  3. Kingdom containing a most-favoured-nation Clause.
  4. (c) Which of the countries contained in list (b) are not parties to the Brussels Convention.
  5. 1315
  6. (d) What is the annual value of the exports from the United Kingdom to each of the countries in list in the last five years.
Of course, the opinion of the law officers is in no sense a declaration of law; it is only advice given to the Government of the day. But the law officers who, in 1880, gave that opinion were men of great legal repute—namely, Lord James of Hereford, and the late Lord Herschell, and no doubt foreign powers who are interested in the question will take full advantage of their admission. I full recognise the importance of the answer given by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons to the effect that the present law officers do not share the view of the law officers of 1880, but assuming that the opinion of the law officers of 1880 is correct the question will seriously affect English trade, which to a great extent depends upon the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause. I therefore appeal to the noble Marquess whether before the time arrives for the ratification of the Convention, he can lay before Parliament the information asked for in my Question.