This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]
# SUGAR BOUNTIES,
Sir,
**CONFIDENTIAL.**
No. 1.
The Marquess of Lansdowne to Count de Lalaing,*
212
[April 19.]
## SECTION 1.Foreign Office, April 19, 1904.
WITH reference to the note which you were good enough to address to me on the 28th ultimo, asking to be furnished, for communication to the Permanent Commission appointed under the Brussels Sugar Convention, with a list of the principal "sugared products" as to which His Majesty's Government would wish information to be collected from the Signatory Powers in view of the discussion which is to take place at the next meeting of the Commission, I have the honour to state that the particulars desired shall be supplied as soon as possible.
I have, &c.
(Signed)
LANSDOWNE
No. 2.
The Marquess of Lansdowne to Sir E. Monson.
(No. 64. Commercial.) Sir,
THE Secretary of State for the Colonies has informed me that complaints have been received from Messrs. Butterfield and Swire, and from Messrs. Jardine, Matheson and Company, two firms engaged in the sugar industry in Hong Kong, respecting the orders alleged to have been issued by the Customs authorities of the French Colony of Indo-China, prohibiting the import of sugar from Hong Kong. These firms have learnt from their Haiphong correspondents that this action has been taken on the ground that Hong Kong is a self-governed Colony, and is not considered to have adhered to the Brussels Convention.
Foreign Office, April 19, 1904.
The Governor of Hong Kong reports that he has referred the matter to the authorities of Indo-China through the French Consul at Hong Kong, pointing out that Articles V and VIII of the Convention of March, 1902, apply to the Crown Colonies of the British Empire, even though such Colonies have not adhered to the Convention. The Consul has communicated with the Government of Indo-China, but no reply has yet been received.
Under Article V the Contracting Parties engage to admit at the lowest rates of their Tariffs of import duties sugar produced by the Contracting States or by those of their Colonies or possessions which do not grant bounties, and to which the obligations of Article VIII respecting the transmit of bounty-fed sugar, are applicable.
I request your Excellency to draw the attention of the French Government to the matter, referring to the proceedings at the twenty-fifth sitting of the Permanent Commission at Brussels on the 12th March last. On that occasion M. Delatour, the French Delegate, made certain inquiries as to the position of the British Crown Colonies with regard to the Convention, and as to the terms on which sugar exported from them should be admitted by the French Colonies. At the following sitting, on the 14th March, Sir Henry Bergne replied that the British Crown Colonies had not fully adhered to the Convention, but that in view of the provisions of Article V, the French Colonies were bound to admit sugar from the British Crown Colonies at the lowest rate. He added that instructions had been given to the Governors of Crown Colonies that all sugar exported to one of the Contracting States must be provided with a certificate of origin in accordance with rules adopted by the Commission. There was therefore no reason whatever to suppose that raw sugar which had received a bounty elsewhere, would be refined in Hong Kong, and re-exported thence to Indo-China,
* Copy to Treasury, April 21, 1904.
[1035