PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
TLC.O. 882
6
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
2661
33
No. 38,
COLONIAL OFFICE to FOREIGN OFFICE.
[Answered by No. 39.]
SIR,
Downing Street, February 3, 1905. I AM directed by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton to transmit to you, to be laid before the Marquess of Lansdowne, the accompanying draft of a despatch* which Mr. Lyttelton proposes to address to the Governor of Hong Kong, and I am to request to be informed, at His Lordship's early convenience, whether he concurs in the passages in this draft despatch relating to the recent decisions of the Per- manent Sugar Commission, and the action of His Majesty's Government with regard to them.
A copy of the lettert from the Commissioners of Customs which forms an enclosure to the draft despatch, together with prints of the previous correspond- ence on the same subject, are enclosed, for Lord Lansdowne's information.
4079
No. 39.
I am, &c.,
C. P. LUCAS.
FOREIGN OFFICE to COLONIAL OFFICE. (Received February 9, 1905.)
SIR,
Foreign Office, February 8, 1905. WITH reference to your letter, 2661/1905, of the 3rd instant, ‡ respecting the recent decisions of the Permanent Sugar Commission, I am directed by the Marquess of Lansdowne to state that His Lordship concurs in the terms of the despatch which it is proposed to address to the Governor of Hong Kong, but would suggest that an addition should be made to the effect that the next session of the Commission, which is to consider the appeal of His Majesty's Government, will be held on April 6th next, and that a further communication will be addressed to him when that session is over.
I am, &c.,
2661
No. 40.
E. GORST.
37
3. On the 2nd of December I received your telegram* asking for a list of the countries which had been declared bounty-giving. To this telegram I replied by telegraph on December 8th and by despatch (No. 349) on December 15th Subse- quently I telegraphed to you on December 19th, ‡ asking you to suspend action with regard to all the countries specified in my first telegram, except Brazil, as their cases were to be reconsidered.
4. The reason for that telegram was this. At the last session of the Sugar Commission certain countries were adjudicated upon and pronounced to be bounty. giving, but His Majesty's Government appealed against the decisions in the case of all the countries specified in the first enclosure to my despatch, No. 349, except Brazil, on the ground that in the case of a non-contracting State it was not sufficient to show that the surtax exceeded the limits fixed by the Convention, but that it was necessary also to show that such surtax resulted in, or was likely to result in, a bounty.
5. The consideration of these appeals stands adjourned until the next session of the Commission, which will be held on April 6th next. A further communication will be addressed to you when the session is over.
6. As regards Brazil, it has been suggested that no steps should be taken to give effect to the decision of the Commission pending the receipt of further infor- mation as to the Brazilian legislation as to sugar, and for the present no action is being taken in this country with regard to Brazilian sugar. If, however, as I assume, no Brazilian sugar is imported into Hong Kong, the question whether its importation should or should not be prohibited need not arise, and I may here repeat what I suggested in my telegram of December 8th § viz., that in the case of countries from which no sugar is imported, it is unnecessary to issue an order of prohibition.
It is fully understood by the Sugar Commission that there is no necessity to apply the penal clause unless there is an appreciable import of sugar from the bounty-giving State in question, and in this country a prohibition order is accordingly not issued in the case of any such State unless there is evidence of an appreciable importation of sugar.
7. I have also to acknowledge the receipt of your telegram of the 20th of December, with regard to sugar from the Philippine Islands. As you are now aware, the importation of sugar from this source need not be prohibited at present, and, since from the information possessed by His Majesty's Government, it does not appear that the existing surtax on raw sugar in the Philippine Islands in excess of the limit fixed by the Convention actually gives rise to a bounty, it is hoped that the Commission may accept the view that Philippine Islands raw sugar should not be penalized, assuming that the Government of those islands does not in the meantime reduce the surtax on raw sugar to the limit fixed by the Convention.
I have, &c.,
ALFRED LYTTELTON.
12
MR. LYTTELTON to GOVERNOR SIR M. NATHAN. [Copy sent privately to Sir II. Bergne, April 4, 1905.]
[Answered by Nos. 44 and 52.]
(No. 28.) SIR,
Downing Street, February 10, 1905. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch, No. 392, of the 5th of November last, and to inform you that His Majesty the King will not be advised to exercise his power of disallowance with respect to Ordinance No. 14 of 1904 of the Legislature of Hong Kong, entitled "An Ordinance to give effect to Article VIII. of the Brussels Sugar Convention, 1902."
2. I enclose, for your information and guidance, copies of correspondence with the Commissioners of Customs, with regard to this Ordinance and the Regulations framed under it. I should be glad if you would cause the Ordinance and Regula- tions to be amended in the manner suggested by the Commissioners, while I leave it to your discretion to adopt, if you think it desirable, the suggestion made in paragraph 5 of your despatch that sugar in transit should be warehoused in the godowns of some company of proved respectability, and I would request you to be good enough to supply me, as soon as possible, with copies of the amending Ordin- ance when passed and of the regulations as finally issued.
• See No. 40.
* No. 37.
‡ No. 38. | No. 31.
Nos. 35 and 37.
9787
SIR,
No. 41.
BOARD OF TRADE to FOREIGN OFFICE.
Board of Trade, February 14, 1905.
I AM directed by the Board of Trade to suggest, for Lord Lansdowne's con- sideration, that, in view of the fact that the question of the position of Cuban sugar will be considered by the Permanent Sugar Commission at its next meeting, and that it is possible that a decision may be arrived at penalizing such sugar on the ground either of the excessive surtax or of the combination of such surtax with the preferential treatment of Cuban sugar by the United States, it might, perhaps, be advantageous if instructions could be sent to Mr. Carden to call the attention of the Cuban Government to the matter.
While informing the Cuban Government of the view taken by His Majesty's Government that a surtax does not necessarily result in a bounty, Mr. Carden might point out the danger that this country might find itself in a minority on the Commis- sion with regard to this point, and he might make a friendly inquiry whether, in view of the fact that the amount of the Cuban surtax on sugar can be of little or no
‡ No. 33.
• No. 29.
† Nos. 30 and 32.
No. 30.
| No. 31,