13082.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :--
C.O. 885
COPYRIGHT PROTOGRAUE
BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE
No. 68.
(AUSTRALASIA.)
(GENERAL.)
LAW OFFICERS to FOREIGN OFFICE.
MY LORD,
Royal Courts of Justice, July 20, 1894. We were honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Sir H. Percy Anderson's letter of the 2nd ultimo, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to us the papers noted in the accompanying list, relative to a doubt which had arisen as to the meaning to be attached to Article XV. of the Treaty of Commerce of 23rd July 1862, between Great Britain and Belgium.
That the full text of that article was as follows in (1) the English version, and (2) the French counterpart respectively :-
(1.)
"Articles the produce or manufacture of Belgium shall not be subject, in British Colonies, to other or higher duties than those which are, or may be, imposed upon similar articles of British origin."
(2.)
"Les produits d'origine ou de manufacture Belge ne seront pas grevés dans les Colonies Britanniques d'autres ou de plus forts droits que ceux qui frappent ou frapperont les produits similaires originaires de la Grande Bretagne."
That it would be seen that the English text uses the words "similar articles of British origin" where the French text employs the expression" produits similaires originaires de la Grande Bretagne."
That Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies had under consideration, as we should perceive from the Colonial Office letter of 16th April last, the question of facilitating trade relations between the British Colonies, by arrangements which might, apparently, involve preferential terms in regard to customs duties, and that it, therefore, became, matter for practical consideration whether the words of the English text were to be taken to indicate articles produced in any part of Her Majesty's Dominions, or articles produced in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or lastly, articles produced in Great Britain proper, .e., England, Wales, and Scotland, to the exclusion of all other parts of Her Majesty's Dominions.
That if each text were clearly unambiguous in itself, and if both texts were clearly contradictory as between themselves, it was conceived that the question which of the two texts should be held to prevail could only be settled by amicable arrangement between the high contracting parties, whereby they might declare their present and original intention to be, and to have been, whatever they might now mutually agree that it should be.
That if, however, the English text were admittedly ambiguous, the following further questions appear to arise:
What was the meaning of the French text? Could the French text be consulted to explain the English text; and must the French text, if held to be unambiguous, be taken as decisive of the ambiguity of the English text?
That the subject was so fully discussed in the papers referred to us that it did not seem to be necessary to trouble us with any further, or more detailed, observations.
That Sir H. Percy Anderson was to request us to take the papers into our considera- tion and to favour your Lordship with our opinion whether, in Article XV. of the Treaty of the 23rd July 1862, between Great Britain and Belgium, the words:- 'Similar articles of British origin when considered in conjunction with their equivalent in the French text, relate to the produce of the United Kingdom alone, or should be taken to include the produce of any part of Her Majesty's Dominions: whether, also assuming the words "Articles of British origin" to include the produce of any part of Her Majesty's Dominions--it was open to Belgium (or any other nation claiming most-favoured-nation treatment) to demand the full benefit of that reading notwithstanding the words in the French text " produits originaires de la Grande Bretagne."
79871.--34. 25.-8,94.