HL Deb 16 December 1902 vol 116 cc1315-8

My Lords, I understand that the argument of the noble Lord opposite is of this kind—that if we are to regard the opinion given by the law officers of the Crown in 1880 as still holding the field, we should thereby be precluded from imposing countervailing duties upon bounty fed sugar entering this country from other countries with which we have commercial treaties containing the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause. The form of the Return for which the noble Lord has moved suggests the idea that if that be the case we should be exposed to reprisals on a large scale at the hands of foreign Powers, with the result that our commerce might be very seriously checked. I think the Return is intended to show what the extent of that check might be. I can state in half-a-dozen words why it is that we are not deterred by these apprehensions. A good deal has happened since 1880. I think I am not wrong in saying that public opinion, both at home and abroad, with regard to the obligations imposed by the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause has undergone very considerable change; and I am also confident that I am not incorrect when I say that legal opinion upon the same subject has meanwhile undergone considerable modifications. Perhaps I should say rather that it is not so much legal opinion that has changed as the circumstances of the case, which have justified our legal advisers in giving advice of a different kind from that which was tendered to the Government of 1880. Since 1880 there have been what I may call two important leading cases bearing upon this subject. There was, in the first place, that of the United States of America, when they in 1897 resorted to the imposition of countervailing duties upon bounty fed sugar. The imposition of those duties involved the United States Government in considerable controversy with the Government of Russia, but the United States Government successfully maintained their rights. Two years later the Government of India found it necessary to impose countervailing duties on bounty fed sugar. At that time the Government of the day obtained the advice of high legal authorities both in India and in India and in this country, and that advice was to the effect that these duties did not involve an infraction of the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause in commercial treaties.

I think I may say that the most instructive instance of all is the conduct during the present year of the Powers who were represented at the Conference at Brussels. At the Conference of 1888 the Powers thought it necessary to insert in the Convention then agreed to, but not ratified, an article pledging them not to render nugatory the penal Clause against bounty fed sugar to which they had agreed by any appeal to the privileges conferred by the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause. On the occasion of the recent Conference—the Conference of 1902—the Powers, with all those facts before them, deliberately came to the conclusion that the insertion of such an article was not necessary; I think, therefore, we may regard these Powers as deeply committed to the view that the imposition of countervailing duties or the prohibition of bounty fed sugar does not involve an infraction of the commercial treaties. As far as signatory Powers represented at the Brussels Conference are concerned it seems to me there can be no question as to their attitude. Then there are the remaining non-signatory Powers, of whom there are. I believe, altogether twenty-one, but a great number of these Powers do not occupy any very important position as producers or exporters of sugar. I find that of the whole twenty-one only six send sugar into this country. They are Argentina, Columbia, Mexico, Denmark, Russia, and the United States. The last two are the most important. So far as the United States are concerned, I do not believe it is unreasonable to contend that they are absolutely committed by their action in 1897 in insisting on the imposition of countervailing duties themselves. I do not see how they can possibly adopt any other policy. There remains Russia. I do not think the Russian Government can have any ground of complaint of the manner in which they have been treated in this matter. Russia did not think fit to be represented at the Brussels Conference; and in the, year 1899, when the Government of India resorted to countervailing duties, it was, in the course of a diplomatic correspondence which then took place, fully and clearly explained to the Russian Government that we claimed the right of imposing those duties and did not admit that their imposition involved an infraction of the most-favoured nation Clause. No reply was received to that representation. We thought it, however, not unreasonable to inform the Russian Government that, if they considered themselves aggrieved by what had taken place, we had no objection to denouncing our commercial treaty with them; and that offer has lately been renewed in consequence of what took place at the Brussels Convention. Therefore, if I may say so, I do not think there is any cause for apprehension of these wholesale reprisals, the expectation of which seems to be in the mind of the noble Lord opposite. We at any rate shall not be deterred by any fear of such reprisals. With regard to the return for which the noble Lord has asked, we are, of course, quite ready to afford any information which may be instructive to the public upon so important a subject: but I can hol out no hope that the information which the return is likely to disclose will deter us from advising his Majesty to ratify the treaty at the proper moment. There is a slight change in the form of the Return which I shall suggest privately to the noble Lord, but we shall be glad to give him substantially the information for which he asks.