CO882-6 — Page 476

28

Prohibi-

charged with watching the execution of the provisions of the Convention, in this Law referred to as the Permanent Commission;

And whereas it is expedient to make provisions giving effect to the said Con- vention, in so far as the same affects this Island:

Be it enacted by the Governor and Legislative Council of Jamaica, as follows, that is to say:—

1. Where it is reported by the Permanent Commission that any direct or in- tion Order. direct bounty is granted in any foreign country on the production or export of

the Governor in Privy Council may make a Prohibition Order, that is to say, an sugars, order prohibiting sugar from that country to be imported or brought into this Island. While a prohibition order is in force, the laws relating to Customs shall apply as if the sugar in respect of which the order is made, was specified in the list of goods absolutely prohibited to be imported into this Island by Section 37 of the Customs Consolidation Law, 1877 (Law 18 of 1877).

Importation of Sugar in respect of

which order

made

probibited!

Governor

regula. tione.

2.

3. The Governor in Privy Council may make such regulations as appear to him may make necessary in relation to any order under this Law, and may by these regulations in particular, require the origin of all sugar imported or brought into this Island, whether in transit or otherwise, to be proved by certificate or other evidence, as may be provided in the order.

Molasson and

Glacose.

4. An order made under this Law shall not apply to molasses, nor glucose, nor, except as expressly mentioned in this Law, to sugar in transit.

5. The Governor, in Privy Council, may by order, revoke, alter or add to any order made under this Law.

21561

SIR,

No. 27.

COLONIAL OFFICE to FOREIGN OFFICE.

Downing Street, June 24, 1904. WITH reference to the letter from this Office of the 27th of May, I am directed by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton to observe that the action of the Government of French Indo-China in prohibiting the import of sugar from non-contracting countries which do not give bounties would appear to be contrary to the Brussels Convention.

That Convention provides, by Article III., that the surtax leviable upon foreign sugars (whether from contracting States or not) shall not exceed a certain limit, and it is obvious that prohibition must be equally incompatible with the terms of that article, since its effect would be even greater than that of a high surtax.

The practical effect of the regulation in question in French Indo-China may very probably be trifling, but if any question were raised as to the admission, for instance, of Japanese raw sugar refined in Hong Kong, it might be pointed out to the French Government that the prohibition of Japanese raw sugar is contrary to the Con-

vention.

A further letter will be addressed to you very shortly on the subject of the regulations to be adopted in Hong Kong with regard to the sugar trade of the Colony.

I am, &c.,

C. P. LUCAS.

21561

No. 26.

21561

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

་། ། ། ། ། ༄།

C.O. 882

Reference :-

(Confidential.)

MR. LYTTELTON to ACTING GOVERNOR MAY.

SIR,

Downing Street, June 24, 1904. WITH reference to my numbered despatch of even date,* on the subject of the Hong Kong Sugar Trade Regulations, I have the honour to transmit to you, for Colonial Office to Foreign Office, April 13 your further information and guidance, the (without enclosures).

Foreign Office to Colonial Office, April 26.

enclosed copies of correspondencet with the Colonial Office to Foreign Office, May 5.

Foreign Office, and of the statement made May 27. by Sir Henry Bergne at the 26th sitting of the Brussels Permanent Sugar Commission, to which reference is made in the letter from the Board of Customs of the 17th instant.§

1

2. In my numbered despatch, referred to above, I have suggested that the simplest course to adopt in Hong Kong will be to prohibit the importation of all foreign sugar which the Permanent Commission may have decided to be bounty-fed; and in this connexion I should explain to you that, as regards the alternative sugges- tion that Hong Kong should become a party to the Brussels Convention, apart from any objection which might be felt to such a course in consequence of its entailing the necessity for placing the Hong Kong refineries in bond, there is the further objection that the question might be raised as to whether the freedom of fiscal relations, as between the United Kingdom and the British Colonies and Possessions, reserved by His Majesty's Government under the final Protocol, regarding Article XI. of the Brussels Convention, includes the right of freedom of fiscal rela tions as between the Colonies themselves; and it might be contended that if Hong Kong adhered to the Convention it would be bound to penalise Australian or Natal sugar, should any such sugar come to Hong Kong.

3. It has consequently been thought better, in the absence of any strong reason to the contrary, that the Crown Colonies should remain, as at present, outside the Convention, except as regards those articles which specially apply to them.

I have, &c.,

ALFRED LYTTELTON.

SIR,

No. 28.

COLONIAL OFFICE to THE BOARD OF CUSTOMS.

Downing Street, June 24, 1904.

I AM directed by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton to acknowledge the receipt of your letters of the 17th instant, relative to the regulation of the Hong Kong sugar trade, under the Brussels Convention, and I am to request you to convey to the Board of Customs Mr. Lyttelton's best thanks for the observations and sugges- tions with which they have been good enough to favour him.

I am to take the opportunity of transmitting to you, for the information of the Board, the accompanying copies of two despatchest which are being addressed to the Officer Administering the Government of Hong Kong on the subject, together with copies of two letters which have recently been addressed to the Foreign Office on the subject of the regulation of French Indo-China, under which the importation of all foreign sugar from non-contracting States is prohibited, certain Chinese sugars only excepted.

40804

No. 29.

I am, &c.,

C. P. LUCAS.

GOVERNOR SIR M. NATHAN to MR. LYTTELTON. (Received 12.21 p.m., December 2, 1904.) TELEGRAM.

[Answered by Nos. 30, 32 and 33.]

Is not clear from proceedings of Permanent Commission which countries in addition to Denmark, Russia, Argentine, should be declared bounty-giving under Ordinance recently prohibiting importation of bounty-fed sugar. Te cgraph names.

• No. 25.

↑ Nos. 9, 10, 13, and 17.

Appendix II. to No. 22.

f No. 22.

• No. 17.

↑ Nos. 22 and 23.

↑ Nos. 25 and 26.

Nos. 17 and 27.

6

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO