CO885-(6-7) — Page 178

126

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O. 885

6

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

3. Minute

10

The full text of that Article is as follows, in (1) the [English version, and (2) the

therson by Sir French counterpart respectively

H. Bergne.

4. C. O., April

16, 1894.

5. C. O., April

16, 1894.

6. Minute

thereon by Sir

H. Bergne.

7. Sir E Grey

to Sir H.

Bergne, April

20, 1894, with

Minute by

Mr. Davidson.

---

(1.)

"Articles the produce of 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'autrès ou de plus forts droits que ceux qui frappent ou frappe- ront les produits similaires originaires de la Grande Bretagne."

It will 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." Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies has under con- sideration, as you will perceive from the Colonial Office letter of April 16th, the question of facilitating trade relations between the British Colonies, by arrangements which might apparently involve preferential terms in regard to Customs duties, and it therefore becomes matter for practical consideration whether the words of the English text are 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 pro- duced in Great Britain proper, i.e., England, Wales, and Scotland, to the exclusion of all other parts of Her Majesty's dominions.

If each text were clearly unambiguous in itself, and if both texts were clearly contra- dictory as between themselves, it is 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 inten- tion to be and to have been whatever they might now mutually agree that it should be.

If, however, the English text be admittedly ambiguous, the following further questions appear to arise:-What is the meaning of the French text; can the French text be consulted to explain the English text; and must the French text, if held to be unam- biguous, be taken as decisive of the ambiguity of an English text?

The subject now referred to you is so fully discussed in the papers enclosed, that it does not seem to be necessary to trouble you with any further or more detailed observa- tions in this letter.

I have the honour to request you to take the papers into your consideration, and to favour Lord Kimberley with your opinion whether in Article 15 of the Treaty of July 23rd, 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.

I am to request you to be good enough at the same time to favour his Lordship with any general observations which the consideration of the papers may suggest to you.

The Law Officers of the Crown.

DEAR BERGNE,

I am, &c. (Signed)

House of Commons, April 20, 1891.

I THINK these papers had better go to Davidson before I send them to Lord Kimberley.

Your point as to whether the English or French version of the Belgium Treaty is to be authoritative on this particular question seems to me to make it still desirable that the papers

should go to the Law Officers; they have apparently never had the Belgium Treaty before them in this connexion. If the Zollverein Treaty was worth submitting the Belgian is too.

I think the Board of Trade have put the question of policy as regards our own trade interests pretty well. I suppose the Colonial Office will rely upon the last paragraph of their first letter of April 16, if we attack them about this.

Yours, &c. (Signed) E. GREY.

11

When the papers originally came to me I gave an opinion which was based solely on the English text of the Anglo-Belgian Treaty.

My attention was not called to the matter, and I had no idea that there was any discrepancy between the two texts. The difference, however, which does exist raises a rather awkward question..

The point which rather presses upon me with regard to it is this, assuming for the moment that the English text is ambiguous, it is then reasonable, even for the sole purpose of construing the English text, to go to the French counterpart for the purpose of solving the ambiguity. If, of the two possible readings of the English text the French counterpart is distinctly in favour of one, that (the ambiguity being, of course, admitted) is a very strong argument for adopting the construction which the French counterpart supports.

If, on the other hand, each text is clearly unambiguous in itself I do not see how the question as to which of the two is to prevail can be settled, except by amicable arrange- ment between the two High Contracting Parties whereby they could declare their joint intention and meaning to have been whatever they might mutually agree that it ought

The matter ought to be referred to the Law Officers, however.

to be.

Refer to Law Officers.

E. G.

K. May 2.

Colonial Office, March 22, 1894.

This letter raises rather a knotty point.

W. E. D.

1st May 1894.

It is not stated in what precise manner it is desired to amend the Act 36 Vict. c. 22.

(a copy of which I annex), but from the question at the end of the letter as to the bearing

of existing treaties, it may be presumed that what it is desired to do is, to permit trade between Australasia and Canada to be carried on upon preferential terms to those conceded either to foreign countries or to the United Kingdom.

In considering this question it is necessary to give in full the text of the two Treaty Articles which bear upon it, viz :—

Great Britain and Belgium, July 23rd, 1862, Article 15. "Articles the produce or manufacture of Belgium shall not be subject in the British Colonies to other or higher duties than those which are or may be imposed upon similar articles of British origin.

Great Britain and Zollverein, May 30th, 1865. Article VII. "The stipulations of the preceding Articles 1 to 6 (which contain the whole provisions of the Treaty) shall also be applied to the Colonies and foreign possessions of Her Britannic Majesty. In those Colonies and possessions the produce of the States of the Zollverein shall not be subject to any higher or other import duties than the produce of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or of any other country, of the like kind; nor shall the exportation from those Colonies or possessions to the Zollverein be subject to any other or higher duties than the exportation to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."

The ordinary most-favoured-nation articles in our treaties do not really touch the point. now in question, except in so far as under some of them what is granted to the Zollverein and to Belgium by the two Articles above quoted is also granted to other foreign States.

I observe that when the point now in question was referred to the Law Officers by the Colonial Office, the treaty with the Zollverein alone was brought to their attention, not that with Belgium-and they reported that the Zollverein Treaty did not "preclude "the legislature of a British Colony from imposing on articles being the produce of the "States of the Zollverein any higher or other import duties than those which are levied on articles of the like kind which are the produce of another British possession, provided "such dutics are not higher or other than the duties imposed on articles of the like kind

being the produce of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."

46

It is probable that this construction of the Zollverein Treaty is correct as to the intended meaning of the signatory parties, though even in regard to that it might perhaps be thought doubtful whether the words "any other country" which I have underlined above, and which in the German text are given "eines anderen Landes," must for certain

B 2