CO885-6 — Page 488

32863

48

No. 58.

COLONIAL OFFICE to FOREIGN OFFICE.

[Answered by No. 62.]

SIR,

Downing Street, September 19, 1905. WITH reference to your letters of the 21st of July and 13th instant,* on the subject of the duties on sugar in the Philippine Islands, I am directed by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton to enquire, with reference to the letters from this cffice of the 18th of May and 15th of July.t whether any later information has been obtained with regard to the circumstances affecting the question of the existence of a bounty in the Philippine Islands other than the fact that no sugar is refined there at the present time?

2. I am also to enquire whether any representation has been made to the United States Government, such as was suggested in the Colonial Office letter of the 15th of July, or whether the Marquess of Lansdowne is satisfied that there is no likelihood of the Permanent Sugar Commission deciding at their next session in favour of the penalization of Philippine raw sugar?

3. Such a decision, as Mr. Lyttelton has already pointed out, would cause very serious inconvenience in Hong Kong, and should, if possible, be avoided.

34605

No. 59.

I am, &c.,

C. P. LUCAS.

FOREIGN OFFICE to COLONIAL OFFICE.

(Received September 28, 1905.) [Answered by No. 60.]

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs presents his compliments to the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, and, by direction of the Secretary of State, transmits herewith copy of the under-mentioned paper.

49

If we have received any further information in regard to these countries the British Delegate should have it. If not, he should be told he must rely on that previously produced.

2. Brazil. The decision of the Commission in regard to this country was also suspended.

Consul Staniforth's telegram of the 21st instant seems rather to point to the conclusion that the surtax in Brazil is used to create a small bounty on export.

I conclude I am not called on to give this information to the Commission; but if what I consider good prima facie evidence is produced by the Permanent Bureau that in Brazil the price for home consumption considerably exceeds the price for export, may. I agree to the application of the Penal Clause to Brazil? 3. The United States, Cuba, Porto Rico, and the Philippines,

I presume I should resist the application of the Penal Clause to these countries?

If I cannot succeed, shall I say that I cannot proceed further with the business of the Commission, but must first refer home for instructions?

4. I presume that if the Commission insists on condemning any country without clear evidence of a bounty, as distinct from a surtax, I should say at once that, if the decision is maintained, His Majesty's Government will appeal to a fresh Conference?

5. Is it necessary to give notice to review the decisions of the Commission in regard to Chile, Costa Rica, Denmark, Japan, or Roumania? It is of no use to do so unless we have clear evidence that no bounty exists. It is probable, at least, that a bounty does exist in Roumania and Denmark.

6. Is anything to be said as to Canada, Australia, and South African Customs Union?

7. There may be some other points when we get the programme of the session, but, if so, these could be dealt with in supplemental instructions.

September 25, 1905.

34805

No. 60.

H. G. B.

is

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O. 882

6 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

Foreign Office,

September 27, 1905.

DESCRIPTION OF INCLOSURE.

Name and Date.

Sir H. Bergne, 25th September, 1903, Memorandum

Subject.

Instructions to British Delegation at the next

meeting of the Sugar Commission.

Sent to Board of Trade, Treasury and Customs.

Enclosure in No. 59, POINTS FOR INSTRUCTIONS.

1. The question of the application of the penal clause to the following countries was suspended at the last session of the Commission pending further enquiry by the Permanent Bureau:-

SIR,

COLONIAL OFFICE to FOREIGN OFFICE. [Answered by No. 62.]

Downing Street, October 3, 1905, I AM directed by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 27th of September, forwarding, as it is presumed, for Mr. Lyttelton's observations, a copy of a memorandum by Sir Henry Bergne as to the instructions which should be given him for his guidance at the approaching session of the Permanent Sugar Commission.

2. With regard to the case of the Philippine Islands referred to in paragraph 3 of Sir Henry Bergne's memorandum, I am to request you to draw the attention of the Marquess of Lansdowne to the letter from this Office of the 19th of Sep- tember, to which no reply has as yet been received, and I am to state that Mr. Lyttelton would be glad to be informed of the instructions which it is proposed to give to Sir Henry Bergne on the subject of the Philippine Islands sugar duties, before these instructions are definitely decided upon.

3. With reference to paragraph 6 of Sir Henry Bergne's memorandum I am to transmit to you, for Lord Lansdowne's information, the accompanying copy of the only replyt which has been received to the despatches addressed to the Governor- General of Canada, the Governor-General of Australia, and the High Commissioner for South Africa, copies of which were enclosed in the letter from this Office of the 5th of July;§ and I am to state that, in view of the fact that none of the Colonies in question have applied for a revision of the countervailing duties fixed in their case by the Permanent Commission, it does not appear to Mr. Lyttelton that there is any occasion for the British Delegate to say anything with regard to them at the coming session of the Commission."

Bolivia,

Guatemala,

Honduras,

Nicaragua,

Paraguay.

I am, &c.,

C. P. LUCAS.

• Nos. 51 and 57.

↑ Nos. 47 and 50.

+ No. 50.

• No. 59.

† No. 58.

† 29966 (South Africa): not printed.

18824

21963: not printed

G