X.— 2.
1896.
NEW ZEALAND.
DESPATCHES FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES TO THE GOVERNOR OF NEW ZEALAND.
Presented to both Houses of the General Assembly by Command of His Excellency.
INDEX.
No. of Series. Date. Subject. Page. 1 2 3 4 5 6 '7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 20 Feb., 1895 16 Mar., „ 27 Mar., „ 19 April „ 9 May 10 May .„ 14 May „ 21 May „ 24 May 24 May 1 June „ 1 June „ 4 June „ 28 June , 28 June „ 29 June „ 6 July „ 8 July . 12 July „ 17 July „ 24 July „ 26 July „ 1 Aug., „ 23 Aug., „ 24 Aug., „ 25 Aug., „ Extradition treaty with Germany " Shipping and Seamen's Act, 1894 " Death of Sir R. Duff, Governor of New South Wales .. .. ... Belgian Consul-General to act under Public Trust Office Acts Taxing foreign traders .. Governor's visit to Auckland and other islands Australian Colonies Duties Bill, inclusion of New Zealand in .» Kermadec Islands not legally annexed Federal flag, Cook Islands Expiry of treaty of commerce with Uruguay Taxing foreign traders Coins of new design Extension of Coinage Acts to New Zealand Ottawa Conference : Reciprocity and commercial treaties Ottawa Conference : Reciprocity and commercial treaties Right Hon. J. Chamberlain Secretary of State for the Colonies Distinction for saving human life Decoration for meritorious and long service to colonial forces Taxing commercial travellers Coasting service : Certificates to masters and mates Taxing commercial travellers " Colonial Boundaries Act, 1895," 58 and 59 Vict., c. 34 Passports to naturalised British subjects .. ... Opening New Zealand Parliament Reports of voyage of H.M.S. " Challenger " .. Salary of Resident, Cook Islands : High Commissioner Western Pacific not to make regulations affecting the islands Treaty of commerce with Chili determined Bank of New Zealand .. .. •• •• •■ • • ... Tonnage measurement, ships of United States of America - •;','.'.. •'• Mutual trade, Great Britain and colonies .. .. .. •• Taxing commercial travellers .. .. .. ■• •• -• Colonial export trade .. .. • • • ■ • • • Taxing commercial travellers .. .. .. ••....■• ..-",•. Income-tax levied on ship " Earnock" .. .. .. •• • • Shipping and Seamen's Acts, 1894 and 1895, left to operation .. • ■ ■• C. . Coasting service, boundaries of, satisfactorily defined A. B. Worthington Acts of 1895 left to their operation 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 6 6 6 7 7 8-15 16-19 19 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 24 24 27 28 29 30 31 ■32 33 '34 35 36 37 38 1 Oct., „ 18 Oct., „ 25 Oct., „ 28 Nov., „■• 23 Dec, „ 31 Dec, „ 31 Dec, „ 22 Jan., 1896 30 Jan., „ 5 Feb., „ 18 Feb., „ 25 Feb., „ 25 25 25 25 .26 . . 27''.:-' 28 28 29 30 - 30 31 32 J— A. 2.
2
A.—2
No. 1. (Circular.) Sib, — Downing Street, 20th February, 1895. I have the honour to transmit to you, for publication in the colony under your Government, a copy of an Order of Her Majesty in Council, dated the 2nd of February, 1895, for giving effect to the treaty between Her Majesty and His Majesty the German Emperor, for the mutual extradition of fugitive criminals between the territories of Her Majesty and certain dependencies of Germany, which was signed at London on the 5th of May, 1894, and of which the ratifications were exchanged at London on the 3rd of December, 1894. I have, &c, The Officer Administering the Government of EIPON. New Zealand. [For enclosure see New Zealand Gazette of 9th May, 1895, page 772.]
No. 2. (No. 17.) My Lokd, — Downing Street, 16th March, 1895. I have the honour to transmit to you a copy of a letter from the Board of Trade respecting the Act entitled "An Act further to amend the Laws relating to Shipping and Seamen," a copy of which was enclosed in your Lordship's despatch, No. 69, of the 4th December last. I have the honour to request that you will invite your Government to consider the observations made by the Board of Trade. I have, &c, EIPON. Governor the Eight Hon. the Earl of Glasgow, G.C.M.G.
Enclosure. Board of Trade, Marine Department, 7, Whitehall Gardens, London, S.W., Sib,— 7th March, 1895. I am directed by the Board of Trade to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 15th ultimo, transmitting a transcript of an Act passed by the Legislature of New Zealand, entitled "An Act further to amend the Laws relating to Shipping and Seamen," and requesting the Board's opinion as to whether the Act may properly be allowed to remain in operation. In reply I am to state, for the information of the Marquis of Eipon, that the only point which appears to call for remark arises in connection with section 25, which empowers the Minister of Marine to modify the freeboard tables and their application, whereas, under section 438 (3) of " The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894," the only modifications recognised are such as may from time to time be approved by the Board of Trade. The Board are of opinion that any diversity in the modification of the freeboard tables would be very inexpedient, and they would suggest, for Lord Eipon's consideration, that a representation to this effect should be made to the Government of New Zealand. I am further to point out that, in the event of any diversity of practice arising in marking the disc upon a vessel registered in New Zealand, owing to the power given to the Minister of Marine by section 25 of the Act under consideration, difficulty would be created in regard to the issue of an Order in Council under section 444 of " The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894," declaring that the load-lines fixed and marked and the certificates given in pursuance of the Act should have the same effect as if they had been fixed, marked, or given in pursuance of the provisions of " The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894." I have, &c, The Under-Secretary of State, Colonial Office. Ingbam B. Walkbe.
No. 3. (New Zealand, No. 19.) My Lobd, — Downing Street, 27th March, 1895. I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's telegraphic despatch of the 19th instant, conveying expressions of regret on the part of your Government at the death of Sir E. Duff, Governor of New South Wales. I have, &c, EIPON. Governor the Eight Hon. the Earl of Glasgow, G.C.M.G.
3
A.— L.
No. 4. (No. 22.) My Lord, — Downing Street, 19th April, 1895. I have the honour to transmit to you copy of a letter from the Foreign Office, forwarding a note from the Belgian Minister at this Court, in which it is requested that the Belgian Consul-General for New Zealand may be enabled to have control over the estates of his countrymen who die intestate in the colony. If your Government see no objection, I am prepared to approve of the nomination of the Belgian Consul-General under section 6 of " The Public Trust Office Acts Amendment Act, 1891." I have, &c, KIMBERLEY.
, Enclosures. Sib,— Foreign Office, 9th April, 1895. With reference to your letter of the sth of February, I am directed by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to inform you that a note has been received from the Belgian Minister at this Court, copy of which is enclosed, requesting that the necessary steps may be taken to enable the Belgian Consul-General in New Zealand to have control over the estates of his countrymen who die intestate. I am to request that you will move the Marquis of Eipon to inform the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply should be returned to Baron Whettnall. I am, &c, The Under-Secretary of State, Colonial Office. T. H. Sanderson.
Monsieur le Comte, — Legation de Belgique, Londres, le 8 Avril, 1895. Aux termes de la section 6 dv "Public Trust Office Acts Amendment Act, 1891," de la Nouvelle Zelande, l'Agent Consulaire en Chef representant dans la dite colonie un pays Stranger quelconque peut, avec la sanction de Sa Majeste Britannique ou dun Principal Secretaire d'fitat dv Royaume-Uni, sanction a notifier au Gouverneur, etre designe a l'effet de recevoir le montant de toute succession ab intestat gui se serait ouverte en Nouvelle Zelande au profit de personnes residant dans l'etendue de la jurisdiction de l'etat etranger. Conformement a cette disposition legislative, un avis gui a paru le 6 Decembre dernier dans la Gazette de la Nouvelle Zelande annonce que le Marquis de Eipon, un dcs principaux Secretaries d'etat de S.M.B. pour le Royaume-Uni, a donne sa sanction a la designation dv Consul de Danemark a, Auckland pour l'entree en possession dcs successions ab intestat revenant a dcs sujets danois. D'autre part, d'apres cc que le Consul General de Belgique a ecrit a M. le Comte de MeredeWesterloo, un arrangement analogue aurait etc pris avec le concours dv Foreign Office a Londres, entre l'ltalie et la Nouvelle Zelande. Dans ces circonstances je suis charge par mon Gouvernement de prier V.S. de bien vouloir considerer que le Consul General de Belgique a, Melbourne ayant jurisdiction sur l'Australie et les iles adjacentesy compris les iles Fidji, est le Chef dcs Agents Consulaires de Belgique en Nouvelle Zelande, et aurait, par consequent, qualite pour etranger en possession non seulement dcs successiones ab intestat ouvertes au profit de Beiges, gui tomberaient sous l'application de la section 6 dv " Public Trust Office Acts Amendment Act, 1891," de la Nouvelle Zelande, mais aussi de toutes successions de meme nature gui, en vertu dcs lois en vigueur pourraient lvi etre remises dans une colonie ou une possession Britannique quelconque comprise dans sa jurisdiction consulaire. Je serai fort oblige a, V.S. de bien vouloir prescrire les demarches necessaires afin que notre Consul General a Melbourne puisse, le cas 6cheant, exercer les memes droits que ses collegues d'ltalie et de Danemark. Veuillez, &c, Le Seigneurie M. le Comte de Kimberley. R. Whettnall.
No. 5. (No. 25.) My Loed, — Downing Street, 9th May, 1895. I have the honour to transmit to you, for communication to your Lordship's Government, a copy of a letter from Messrs. Bottomley and Company, complaining of a notice with which several gentlemen representing English houses are stated to have been served in reference to " The Land and Income Assessment Acts Amendment Act, 1894." I shall be glad if your Lordship will furnish me with the necessary information to enable me to reply to these gentlemen on the subject of this complaint. I have, &c, EIPON. Governor the Eight Hon. the Earl of Glasgow, G.C.M.G.
A— %
4
Enclosure. Memorandum from M. Bottomley and Co., Bradford, to the Undbr-Secebtaey, Colonial Office. Sir, — Downing Street, 2nd May, 1895. We do a considerable trade with New Zealand, and have a representative who makes two visits each year to that colony, his residence and head-quarters being Melbourne, Victoria. Our representative informs us that several gentlemen representing English houses have been served with a notice of which the following is a copy : — " The Land and Income Assessment Acts Amendment Act, 1894." — Notice. " Eepresentatives of foreign traders having no domiciled agent in the colony are required, under the provisions of the Land and Income Assessment Acts, and the regulations thereunder, to furnish, prior to leaving the colony, or from time to time as may be required, returns in the form and manner provided of the income derived from all or any trade or business entered into or contracted for within the colony. " The values of such trade or business entered into or contracted for must be ascertained from pro forma invoices prepared on the orders given. " John McGowan, " Commissioner of Taxes. " Land- and Income-tax Office, Wellington, 31st January, 1895. " Note. —ln the event of any person failing or neglecting to furnish this return, any goods subsequently imported by his principals may be detained by the Collector of Customs until the tax levied is paid. Any person making a false return is liable to a penalty of not less than £5 or more than £100, and to pay treble duty." (1.) No doubt you are in possession of full particulars on this matter. It strikes us as a manifest injustice to levy a tax (as we understand is the intention) upon entirely problematical profits, as we might not be able to execute our traveller's orders. (2.) We presume the profit on which the tax is to be levied will be the margin between the price at which we invoice the goods to the New Zealand importer and the cost price of the goods here plus all our expenses on this and the other side. (3.) Furthermore, to seize and detain the goods of any principal whose agent has failed to furnish the required return, or to seize the agent's patterns (which is threatened to be done), seems to be a very arbitrary and high-handed procedure. We should feel greatly obliged by the views and information of your department on this (to many English traders) important matter. We are, &c, Thanking you in advance, M. Bottomley and Co., per C.C.
No. 6. (No. 26.) My Lord,— Downing Street, 10th May, 1895. I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's despatch, No. 1, of the 4th March, reporting your recent visit to the outlying dependencies of New Zealand. I concur in the views which you have expressed at the conclusion of your despatch as to the importance of the protection of animal and bird life in these islands. I have, &c, RIPON. Governor the Eight Hon. the Earl of Glasgow, G.C.M.G.
A.-l, 1895 No. 13.
No. 7. (No. 28.) Mγ Lord,— Downing Street, 14th May, 1895. I have the honour to transmit to you for your information a copy of a correspondence which has passed between the Agent-General for New Zealand and this office regarding the "inclusion of New Zealand in the Australian Colonies Duties Bill. A copy of the parliamentary paper C-576 of 1872 is also enclosed for reference, I have, &c, RIPON. ; Governor the Right Hon. the Earl of Glasgow, G.C.M.G.
Enclosures. Westminster Chambers, 13, Victoria Street, London, S.W., Sib,— 26th February, 1895. Eeferring to the Australian Colonies Duties Bill, which has been introduced into the House of Lords and which is put down for second reading on the 28th instant, I have the honour to inform you that I have "received a telegraphic communication from my Government stating that it
5
A.—2
is their wish that New Zealand should be included in the proposed legislation, so as, so far as possible, to promote reciprocity between that colony and the Australian Colonies and other British dependencies in respect to the remission and imposition of Custom duties. I have therefore to request the favour of your bringing this communication under the notice of the Marquis of Ripon, with the view of his including such provisions in the above-mentioned Bill as will have the effect of carrying the wish of my Government into effect. I have, &c, Waltbe Kbnnaway, The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. For the Agent-General.
Sir,— Downing Street, 2nd March, 1895. In reply to your letter of the 26th ultimo, I am directed by the Marquis of Ripon to state that the Bill now before Parliament "To amend the law with respect to Customs Duties in the Australian Colonies " repeals certain provisions in Imperial Acts which preclude the Legislatures of the Australian Colonies from giving effect to differential tariff arrangements, but that there are no similar restrictive provisions affecting New Zealand. I am, &c, The Agent-General for New Zealand. Edwakd Wingpield.
Westminster Chambers, 13, Victoria Street, London, S.W., Sib,— 26th March, 1895. Referring to my letter of the 26th ultimo, and to your reply thereto of the 2nd instant, I beg to state that my Government inform me by cable that they are advised that the provisions of the Australian Colonies Duties Bill now before Parliament leaves the question as regards New Zealand as it stood before, and that therefore it is necessary that New Zealand should be expressly included among the colonies empowered to pass laws in cases provided by the Act of 1873. At present, so my Government are advised, New Zealand can be a party to any agreement relating to differential Customs duties, but has no power to pass a law giving effect to such an agreement. My Government in a later cablegram again express their desire to pass laws as in the case of the Australian Colonies, so that no question could arise in the future. They represent that at the present time there is no express legislation on the subject, and they point out that when New Zealand legislated on the subject in 1870 the Act did not receive the Royal assent. I have, &c, The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. W. B. Pbbceval.
Sib,— Downing Street, 26th April, 1895. I am directed by the Marquis of Ripon to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 26th ultimo, respecting the inclusion of New Zealand in the Australian Colonies Duties Bill. I am to state that no legislation appears to be necessary to confer on the Legislature of New Zealand the power of passing laws to give effect to an agreement with another colony relating to differential Customs duties. I am to add that no advice was tendered to Her Majesty in regard to the reserved Bill of 1870, but that Bill was considered to be open to grave objections on constitutional and other grounds. It conferred on the Executive practically complete power to fix what duties should or should not be levied for the purpose of carrying out any agreement with an Australian colony, and thus divested the Legislature of that control over taxation which is indispensable to a free Constitution ; and moreover, by enabling such agreements to be brought into force at once, it deprived Her Majesty's Government of any opportunity of considering whether they affected prejudicially the interests of any other parts of Her Majesty's dominions, or were in any way inconsistent with Her Majesty's international obligations. Lord Ripon is writing fully on the question of intercolonial agreements to the various colonies represented at the Colonial Conference at Ottawa. John Bbamston. The Agent-General for New Zealand.
No. 8. (No. 31.) My Lokd, — Downing Street, 21st May, 1895. If I have not replied sooner to your despatch, No. 1, of the 15th January, 1894, relating to the Kermadec Islands, your Lordship will, I feel sure, not attribute the delay to any intention on my part to disregard the important constitutional question which your Ministers have very properly brought to your notice. The Kermadec Islands are in themselves an unimportant portion of Her Majesty's dominions ; but the question whether the measures which had been taken with the object of annexing that group to the Colony of New Zealand were sufficient involves a principle of serious and wide-reaching import, and one which has required and received very full consideration by the Law Officers of the Crown, not only in regard to the particular group of islands which form the subject of this despatch, but as affecting other portions of the British Empire.
A.—2
6
The Law Officers have advised me that the annexation to New Zealand of the Kermadec Islands has not, to all intents and purposes, been legally effected. For they are of opinion that where an Act of the Imperial Parliament has bestowed a Legislature upon a colony with fixed limits, or has merely fixed the limits of a colony, a constitutional organization has been established by that Act, and that Her Majesty cannot by her Eoyal prerogative, nor can the colonial Legislature, nor can both combined, enlarge or diminish that organization or alter its quality in so far as either have been determined by the Imperial Parliament, for that would be to overrule an Act of the Imperial Parliament. But they consider that, unless restrained by an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, Her Majesty may lawfully commit the administration and government of any Crown colony to any person she thinks fit, with or without a scheme of self-government, and she may commit that duty among others to the Governor or Government of an adjacent self-governing colony, and that Government may accept the duty so conferred by colonial statute or otherwise. In such a case there is not, in their opinion, a complete fusion or incorporation, but there is an administration of both territories by one Government. And such an arrangement may be altered by Her Majesty, with the assent, at all events, of the colony to whom the duty of government was assigned. It appears therefore that an Act of Parliament is necessary in order to effect the complete incorporation of the Kermadec Islands in the Colony of New Zealand ; and I have taken steps to have a Bill prepared for carrying this purpose into effect, and I trust that it may be possible to obtain the sanction of Parliament to the measure during the current session. I have, &c, EIPON. Governor the Eight. Hon. the Earl of Glasgow, G.C.M.G.
No. 9. (General.) My Loed, — Downing Street, 24th May, 1895. With reference to your Lordship's despatch, No. 12, of the 12th May, I have the honour to transmit to you copies of the drawing of the Federal flag of the Cook Islands as it will appear in the Admiralty Book. I have, &c, EIPON. Governor the Eight Hon. the Earl of Glasgow, G.C.M.G.
No. 10. (Circular.) Sib,— Downing Street, 24th May, 1895. With reference to Lord Granville's circular despatch of the 21st July, 1886, I have the honour to inform you that the Uruguayan Government have, under date 6th April, 1895, denounced the treaty of commerce between Great Britain and the Republic of Uruguay, signed on the 13th November, 1885, and that the treaty will therefore, under Article XVI. thereof, expire on the 22nd May, 1896, being ten years from the date of exchange of the ratifications. I have, &c, The Officer Administering the Government of RIPON. New Zealand.
No. 11. (No. 33.) My Lord, — Downing Street, 1st June, 1895. With reference to my despatch, No. 25, of the 9th ultimo, I have the honour to transmit to your Ministers copy of a further letter received from Messrs. Bottomley and Company regarding the effect of certain sections of the
No. 5,
7
A.—2,
Land and Income Assessment Acts of New Zealand, and I request that your Lordship will be so good as to furnish me with a report on the question which has been brought to my notice. I have, &c, KIPON. Governor the Eight Hon. the Earl of Glasgow, G.C.M.G.
Enclosure. Bradford, 28th May, 1895. Sib, — Land and Income Assessment Acts, New Zealand. Referring to our letter of the 2nd instant, and your reply (7667/95) of the 9th, we have now received (presumably from the Government authorities at Wellington) a copy of the New Zealand Land and Income Assessment Acts of 1891 and 1892, with the amendments made in 1893 and 1894. We find that the clauses affecting British merchants trading in New Zealand but not domiciled there are contained in the original Act, but apparently it is only now that the attempt is being made to put them into operation. No doubt you are in possession of copies of these Acts, and we beg to refer you to page 13, clause 15, subsection (2), and also to page 54, Schedule D, subsection (4a), and to pages 20 and 21, clause 19. Our representative, who resides in Melbourne, and who is shortly about to visit New Zealand, writes urging us to send out to him at once instructions to guide him. We wish therefore to inquire whether the Colony of New Zealand is within its rights in enforcing such legislation as this, and in compelling us, who already pay income-tax to the British Government, to pay an income-tax to the New Zealand Government in addition. If the Government of New Zealand have no right to levy this tax on British subjects not resident in the colony, the sooner this fact is known the better. If, on the other hand, the New Zealand Government are entitled to levy such a tax, we shall feel greatly obliged by your giving us an early intimation of this being the case, as there are various matters, in that event, connected with the mode of assessment, enforcement of payment (some of which we alluded to in our previous letter), to which we take strong objection. The first point to be settled—and we think the Secretary of State for the Colonies will be able to decide this —is whether the New Zealand Government are entitled to enforce against non-resident British subjects—paying income-tax here—the income-tax which they are attempting to levy. Thanking you in advance for the favour of an early reply, We are, &c, M. BOTTOMLEY AND Co., The Under-Secretary of State, Colonial Office, S.W. Per C. Campbell.
No. 12. (Circular.) Sie,-- Downing Street, 1st June, 1895. I have the honour to transmit to you, for your information and for publication in the colony under your Government, the accompanying copy of a Proclamation of the Queen in Council, ordaining that the coins of bronze or mixed metal with the new design herein described shall be lawful and current money of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. I have, &c, The Officer Administering the Government of RIPON. New Zealand. [For enclosure see New Zealand Gazette, 1st August, 1895, p. 1180.]
No. 13. (New Zealand —General.) My Loed, — Downing Street, 4th June, 1895. I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's despatch, N<>. 10, of the 16th April, asking whether any action has been taken on ■ your despatch, No. 22, of the 8th of June, 1893, signifying the concurrence of your Government in the proposed extension of the Coinage Act of 1870, and of section 2 of " The Coinage Act, 1891," to New Zealand.
A.-l, 1895, No. IS.
A.—2
8
In reply I have to request that you will inform your Ministers that action has been delayed owing to the absence of replies from the Governments of New South Wales and South Australia to the request for an expression of their wishes on the subject, and that the Governors of these colonies were reminded in July, 1894, and again in March last. I have, &c, EIPON. Governor the Eight Hon. the Earl of Glasgow, G.C.M.G.
No. 14. (No. 37.) Ottawa Confeeence, 1894. My Loed, — Downing Street, 28th June, 1895. In my despatch of the 13th December last I transmitted to you copies of the report of the Earl of Jersey, G.C.M.G., on the proceedings at the Colonial Conference at Ottawa, together with copies of the proceedings of the Conference. 2. Since then the questions discussed at the Conference have been under the consideration of the various departments specially concerned, and I am now in a position to place you in possession of the general views of Her Majesty's Government on the questions which formed the subject of the three resolutions classed together by Lord Jersey as dealing with trade relations. 3. The first two of these resolutions have for their object the repeal of legislation and the cancelling of treaty stipulations which, in the opinion of the delegates, obstruct the realisation of the policy indicated in the third resolution ; and it may be convenient that I should in the first instance explain the views of Her Majesty's Government with regard to that policy before discussing the first two resolutions. 4. The third resolution declares that : " Whereas the stability and progress " of the British Empire can be best assured by drawing continually closer the " bonds that unite the colonies with the Mother-country, and by the continuous " growth of a practical sympathy and co-operation in all that pertains to the " common welfare: " And whereas this co-operation and unity can in no way be more effectually " promoted than by the cultivation and extension of the mutual and profitable " interchange of their products : " Therefore resolved: That this Conference records its belief in the advis- " ability of a Customs arrangement between Great Britain and her colonies by " which trade within the Empire may be placed on a more favourable footing " than that which is carried on with foreign countries. " Further resolved: That until the Mother-country can see her way to " enter into Customs arrangements with her colonies it is desirable that, when " empowered so to do, the colonies of Great Britain, or such of them as may be " disposed to accede to this view, take steps to place each other's products, in " whole or in part, on a more favoured Customs basis than is accorded to the " like products of foreign countries. " Further resolved : That for the purposes of this resolution the South " African Customs Union be considered as part of the territory capable of being " brought within the scope of the contemplated trade arrangements." 5. With the preamble of this resolution the feeling, not only of Her Majesty's Government, but of the entire population of this country, is, I need not say, in hearty sympathy —a sympathy to which no proposal clearly tending to promote the stability and progress of the Empire can appeal in vain. 6. The unanimity of sentiment which prevailed throughout the Conference oh this point has been noted with pleasure by Her Majesty's Government, and it is with regret, therefore, that they feel compelled to express a grave doubt whether the fiscal policy the principle of which was adopted by the majority of the Conference as a means of securing this object is really calculated to promote it.
A.-2, 1895 No. 16.
9
A.-2
7. The resolution does not advocate the establishment of a Customs Union comprising the whole Empire, whereby all the existing barriers to free commercial intercourse between the various members would be removed, and the aggregate Customs revenue equitably apportioned among the different communities. Such an arrangement would be in principle free from objection, and, if it were practicable, would certainly prove effective in cementing the unity of the Empire and promoting its progress and stability. But it was unanimously recognised by the delegates that the circumstances of the colonies make such a union, for the present at any rate, impossible; and it is therefore unnecessary to discuss the practical difficulties which stand in the way of its realisation. 8. The actual proposition is something essentially different —namely, the establishment of differential duties in this country in favour of colonial produce, and in the colonies in favour of the produce of the Mother-country. Commercial intercourse within the Empire is not to be freed from the Customs barriers which now impede it, but new duties, confined to foreign goods, are to be imposed where none exist at present, and existing rates of duty, now of impartial application, are to be either increased as against foreign trade or diminished in favour of British colonial trade. 9. It was generally recognised at the Conference that this policy involves a complete reversal of the fiscal and commercial system which was deliberately adopted by Great Britain half a century ago, and which has been maintained and extended ever since. By a consistent adherence to this system one duty after another has been swept away in this country, until, at the present day, the few import duties remaining are retained either for revenue purposes alone on articles not produced here, or in order to protect the excise revenue. 10. A differential duty is open to all the objections from the consumer's point of view which can be urged against a general duty, and, while it renders necessary the same restrictions on trade, it has the additional disadvantage of dislocating trade by its tendency to divert it from its regular and natural channels. 11. These general objections to the policy advocated are sufficiently serious, and there are others, no less serious, which flow from the existing conditions under which the trade of the Empire is distributed. 12. Assuming that the preference aimed at by the resolutions is given in the way most favourable to trade—namely, by the partial remission of existing duties in favour of British and colonial goods, rather than by an increase of duties on foreign goods (coupled with the imposition of duties on goods of foreign origin now admitted free which compete with British and colonial produce)—it is obvious that, as the total trade of the Empire with foreign countries far exceeds the trade between the various members constituting the Empire, the volume of trade upon which taxation is to be placed exceeds the volume which would be partially relieved. The result would not only necessitate increased taxation, but would involve a serious net loss of trade, the burden of which in both cases would fall with greatest severity on those parts of the Empire which have the largest proportion of foreign trade, and the loss to these parts would more than outweigh the gain to the other parts. 13. On closer examination it would appear that the material results of the proposal woi;ld be even more prejudicial than appears from the general statement of its more obvious results. In the case of this country, the bulk of the imports from foreign countries, and almost the whole of our imports from the colonies, consists of food or raw materials for manufacture. 14. To impose a duty on food means at once a diminution of the real wages of the workman. If, in addition to this, a duty were' imposed on raw materials, a further encroachment would have to be made on wages to enable the manufacturer to compete with his rivals in countries where there are no such duties. 15. The Honourable Mr. Foster, in his speech introducing the motion now under review, drew a vivid picture of the vigorous and unrelenting competition which the British manufacturer has to meet in the markets of the world; and, if he somewhat overestimated the results of that competition, there can be no question as to the fact that in many branches of trade in which Great Britain
2—A. 2.
A.—2
10
once held a distinct superiority other nations now compete on equal terms. In so far, then, as the British manufacturer failed to shift the burden of any duty on food and raw materials on to wages he would be at a disadvantage in the open markets of the world, and the remission in the colonies of part of the duty in his favour would scarcely place him on level terms with his foreign competitor even there. 16. It must not be forgotten, moreover, that at present about one-fourth of the export trade of this country consists of foreign and colonial produce, and that the imposition of duties on foreign produce would involve an enormous immediate outlay for the extension of bonding facilities, and the necessary charges for their use and maintenance. The result would be to place such obstacles in the way of this trade that its transference elsewhere would speedily take place, goods which this country now receives for re-export being sent direct to their market, or through some other entrepot where they would not be subjected to such disabilities. Thus the position of this country as the great market of the world, already threatened, would be destroyed. 17. These changes could not fail to seriously injure our important carrying trade and to react injuriously on every industry in the United Kingdom. , 18. On the other hand, the gain to the colonies, whatever it might be, would, even at first, be altogether incommensurate with the loss to the Mother-country. And it is improbable that there would be any permanent gain, for, apart from the general loss of purchasing-power, due to the fall in wages and profits resulting from the imposition of duties, it is obvious that the reduction of our imports from foreign countries would be followed by a reduction in our exports to them, no inconsiderable part of which consists of colonial produce imported in a crude state and more or less manufactured in this country. The demand, therefore, for colonial produce, even with the preferential advantage proposed to be allowed to it, would not be likely to increase, and the price obtained for it would, therefore, not be ultimately enhanced. 19. If the differentiation is to be confined to some specified articles, the difficulties of arriving at an equitable arrangement would be in no way diminished. Some of these difficulties were clearly pointed out by the representatives of New South Wales, Queensland, and New Zealand, in the course of the discussion, and no practical standard was suggested by which the value of the concessions to be made on each side could be tried or adjusted. These would obviously vary according to the number of colonies sharing in the arrangement, and many other circumstances, and, as the people of this country and those of the colonies would approach the consideration of the question from entirely different points of view, a satisfactory agreement would seem almost impossible. To this country it would mean a possible increase of revenue for a period, but at the same time a serious curtailment of trade, with loss of employment and enhanced price of food and other necessaries, and it would, in the main, be judged by its effect on our commerce and on the condition of the people. 20. To the colonies, on the other hand, it would in the first instance mainly present itself as a question of revenue. A remission of duty on the bulk of their imports would involve an entire readjustment of their fiscal system, requiring the resort to increased direct taxation or other means; and, though there might be at first an increase in the price of their produce imported into this country, the revenue difficulty would probably appeal to them most strongly. 21. A consideration of these practical difficulties, and of the more immediate results above indicated, of a system of mutual tariff discrimination has convinced Her Majesty's Government that, even if its consequences were confined to the limits of the Empire, and even if it were not followed by changes of fiscal policy on the part of foreign Powers unfavourable to this country, its general economic results would not be beneficial to the Empire. Such duties are really a weapon of commercial war, used as a means of retaliation, and inflicting possibly more loss on the country employing it than on the country against which it is directed, and which would not be likely to view them with indifference. 22. Foreign countries are well aware that the colonies differ in their fiscal policies and systems from the Mother-country and each other, and if a policy
11
A.—2
of the kind advocated were adopted our foreign rivals would not improbably retaliate, with results injurious to the trade of the whole Empire. 23. In the course of the discussion at the Conference the opinion was generally expressed that, although in present circumstances, while so large a proportion of the trade of Great Britain is with foreign countries, the arrangement might scarcely be acceptable to this country, the colonial trade of Great Britain increases so much faster than the foreign that the conditions and proportions would be reversed at no very distant date, and the arguments now urged against the policy of the resolution would no longer be regarded as valid. 24. As a matter of fact, however, the proportion of the colonial trade of this country to its foreign trade is very nearly the same now as it was forty years ago.* The development of external trade does not always keep pace with the growth of population, more especially when it is subject to tariff restrictions either avowedly or incidentally protective; and although the colonies have much room for expansion in the matter of population, and English capital has flowed into them perhaps more freely than into foreign countries, there is at present no appearance of any sustained alteration in the relative proportions of foreign and colonial trade. But even if those proportions were reversed, Her Majesty's Government are convinced that the evil results of a preferential policy would be mitigated only slightly, although they might fall with less severity on this country and with greater severity on the colonies than would be the case under existing circumstances. 25. I have dealt with this question at some length, because the strong support which the proposal met with from the majority of the representatives at the Conference entitles it to the fullest consideration, and renders it desirable to set forth the reasons which have satisfied Her Majesty's Government that it would fail to secure the object aimed at —namely, the stability and progress of the Empire. 26. I now pass to the second part of the resolution, which urges " That until " the Mother-country can see her way to enter into Customs arrangements with " the colonies, the colonies should take steps to place each other's products in " whole or in part on a more favoured Customs basis' than is accorded to the like " products of foreign countries." This resolution raises somewhat different issues from the preceding one. At first sight it would appear that this was a matter in which only the colonies making such arrangements are themselves concerned, and that, as Her Majesty's Government have allowed the colonies full liberty to frame their fiscal systems with the view, if they think fit, of protecting their local industries, there can be no objection to their making arrangements to extend a somewhat similar protection or preference to those of a sister colony. 27. It must be remembered, however, that the primary object of a differential duty is a diversion rather than an increase of trade, and that, as the proportion of the external trade of most of the colonies which is carried on with foreign countries is insignificant compared with that carried on with the M other-country and other parts of Her Majesty's dominions, it will be difficult for one colony to give a preference in its markets to the trade of another solely at the expense of the foreigner, and without at the same time diverting trade from the Mothercountry or from sister colonies which may not be parties to the arrangement. 28. Serious injury might thus be inflicted on the commerce of a'neighbouring colony, and unfriendly feelings generated, which might provoke retaliation, and. would in any case estrange the colonies concerned in a manner which would not conduce to the great aim which the Conference had in view throughout.
* Comparisons are only possible since 1854. For the five years, 1854-58, the total imports into this country were £820,904,330; the imports from British possessions being £195,556,990, or 238 per cent, of the whole. During the five years 1889-93 the total imports were £2,112,252,916, and the imports from British possessions were £482,427,761, or 22-8 per cent, of the whole. The total exports during 1854-58 were £657,699,825, and the exports to British possessions £186,056,817, or 283 per cent, of the whole. During the period 1889-93 the total exports from this country were £1,521,736,951, of which the exports to British possessions were £438,491,542, or 28-8 per cent. Taking imports and exports together, the trade of this country with British possessions in the earlier of the two periods formed 25-8 per cent, of the total, and in the latter 25-3 per cent.
A.—2
12
29. Any agreement for reciprocal preferential treatment between two colonies will, therefore, require careful consideration in regard to its probable effect on the commerce of the rest of the Empire; and although Her Majesty's Government have the fullest confidence that the loyalty and good feeling happily prevailing between the various parts of the Empire would prevent one colony seeking an advantage to itself which could only be gained at the serious prejudice of other parts of Her Majesty's dominions, it is impossible for them to relieve themselves of their responsibility in regard to the general interests of the Empire in such a matter. 38. The last part of the resolution, which urges " That for the purposes of " this resolution the South African Customs Union be considered as part of the " territory capable of being brought within the scope of the contemplated trade " arrangements," opens, as Lord Jersey has remarked in his report, a prospect of additional complication. 81. The Orange Free State is a party to that arrangement, and if a colony outside South Africa were to extend to the produce of that State preferential terms granted to the produce of the Cape Colony, Her Majesty's Government might, unless the same terms were extended to all countries entitled to most-favoured-nation treatment in that colony, be involved in a serious controversy with those countries. 32. Having now indicated generally the views of Her Majesty's Government on the policy advocated by the Conference, I turn to the resolutions which urge the removal of such obstacles, arising from legislation or treaty, as impede the carrying-out of that policy. The only legislative obstacle to such arrangements as are contemplated by the resolutions is the clause in the Constitution Acts of the Australian Colonies prohibiting the imposition of differential duties. After full consideration Her Majesty's Government decided that, however much such duties might be inconsistent with the fiscal policy of this country, they should not, in so far as such duties can be imposed without breach of Her Majesty's treaty obligations, and without detriment to the unity of the Empire, interfere with the discretion of the colonies in the matter. Parliament has, therefore, on the initiative of Her Majesty's Government, agreed to relieve the Australian Colonies of the special disabilities under which they were placed by the operation of their Constitution Acts, and, in consequence, has passed the Act of which copies are enclosed,* repealing the provisions referred to, and that Act has now received Her Majesty's assent. 33. In the case of the Colonies of New South Wales and Victoria, section 45 of the Constitution Act of the former, and section 43 of the Constitution Act of the latter, also prohibit the imposition of differential duties ; but, as the repeal of these provisions is now a matter within the competence of the local Legislatures, Her Majesty's Government leave it to them to take the necessary action. 34. While, however, Parliament has thus removed all legislative restrictions on the colonies so far as Imperial legislation is concerned, it will be necessary, in order that Her Majesty's Government may be in a position to give effect to their responsibility for the international obligations of the Empire, and for the protection of its general interests, that any Bill passed by a colonial Legislature providing for the imposition of differential duties should be reserved for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure, so as to allow full opportunity for its consideration from these points of view. 35. For this reason, and in order to prevent inconvenience, it will be desirable, if such duties are included in a general Tariff Bill, that a proviso should be added that they are not to come into force until Her Majesty's pleasure has been signified. 36. I may here point out that any Act such as that passed by the Legislature of New Zealand in 1870, which proposed to enable the Governor of the Colony in Council to suspend or modify any of the duties imposed by the Customs Duties Acts of the colony in accordance with any intercolonial agreement, besides being open to grave objection on constitutional grounds,
* " Australian Colonies Duties Act, 1895," 58 and 59 Vict., cap. 3.
13
A.—2
would deprive Her Majesty's Government of any opportunity of considering such agreements; and unless, therefore, the articles to which the power should apply and the extent to which remission might be granted were specified, Her Majesty's Government would have grave doubts as to the propriety of advising Her Majesty to assent to such an Act. They trust, therefore, that the colonial Legislatures will not seek to divest themselves in any measure of their power to fix the amount of their taxation, nor to confer on the Executive a power the exercise of which, without the fullest deliberation, might inadvertently give rise to serious complications, not only with other colonies, but with foreign Powers. 37. The second resolution states : " That this Conference is of opinion that " any provisions in existing treaties between Great Britain and any foreign " Power which prevent the self-governing dependencies of the Empire from " entering into agreements of commercial reciprocity with each other or with " Great Britain should be removed." The treaties aimed at by this resolution are the commercial treaties between this country and Germany and Belgium. 38. The particular articles of these treaties which might give rise to difficulties in regard to preferential arrangements between the various portions of the British Empire are as follows : — Belgium.—Article XV. " Articles the produce or manufac- " Les produits d'origine ou de " tures of Belgium shall not be sub- " manufacture beige ne seront pas " ject in the British colonies to other " greves dans les Colonies Britan"or higher duties than those which " niques d'autres ou de plus forts " are or may be imposed upon simi- " droits que ceux gui frappent ou " lar articles of British origin." " frapperont les produits similaires " originaires de la Grand Bretagne." The British and French texts are both given, as there is a shade of distinction in the translation of the word " British." Zollvebein (German Empire).—Aeticle VII. " The stipulations of the preceding Articles I. to VI." (they contain the whole treaty) " shall also be applied to the colonies and foreign possessions of " Her Brittanic 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 higher or other " duties than the exportation to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and " Ireland." 39. It is to be observed that any advantages which might be granted by Great Britain to either Belgium or Germany in virtue of these particular stipulations must also be extended to various other countries under the ordinary most-favoured-nation clauses in existing treaties. If, however, Article XV. of the Belgium treaty, and Article VII. of the Zollverein treaty, were no longer in force, there are no stipulations of a similar character in any other treaty concluded by this country and now in force which could give rise to the same difficulties. 40. The general effect of these stipulations in regard to import duties, as understood by Her Majesty's Government, is stated in the note on page 5 of Lord Jersey's report as follows : — (1.) They do not prevent differential treatment by the United Kingdom in favour of British colonies. (2.) They do not prevent differential treatment by British colonies in favour of each other. (3.) They do prevent differential treatment by British colonies in favour of the United Kingdom. 41. In regard to the first of the foregoing propositions, I may observe that, as will be gathered from what has been said above, the question of admitting colonial produce into the United Kingdom on more favourable terms that the produce of
A.—2
14
foreign countries is a question which Her Majesty's Government are not at present prepared to take into consideration ; and if at any future time it were to come into practical discussion it could be approached with equal freedom whether the treaties with Belgium and the Zollverein were in force or not. 42. As regards the second proposition, the opinion formed by Her Majesty's Government as to the interpretation of Article XV. of the treaty with Belgium is in conformity with an opinion expressed by the Law Officers of the Crown, to the effect that the words " similar articles of British origin," or, in the French text, " produits similaires originates de la Grande Bretagne," relate to the produce of the United Kingdom alone. 43. It must, however, be recollected that in the construction of any treaty the interpretation of one of the parties alone does not necessarily prevail. 44. In regard to the third proposition, it seems clear that under the terms of Article XV. of the Belgian treaty, and of Article VII. in the treaty with the Zollverein, the British colonies cannot grant to the produce of the United Kingdom any preferential treatment as to Customs duties without such treatment being also extended to Belgium and Germany, and through them to other countries which have ordinary most-favoured-nation clauses with Great Britain. In these circumstances the question arises, whether it is desirable — (a.) To endeavour to obtain the abrogation of Article XV. of the Belgian treaty and of Article VII. of the Zollverein treaty separately, without the denunciation of the entire treaties; or (b.) Failing the abrogation of these particular clauses alone, to denounce the treaties themselves, which can be done by giving twelve months' notice. 45. In regard to the separate denunciation of these articles, it may be stated that both the Belgian and German Governments have been asked whether they would consent to the abrogation of these particular clauses without the rest of the treaties being terminated, and the reply in both cases was to the effect that the clauses could not be denounced apart from the rest of the treaty. 46. Her Majesty's Government have no treaty right to demand the abrogation of these articles separately, and in view of these replies there would ■evidently be no use in further approaching either Government in this direction ; and the only method of getting rid of these clauses would be the denunciation of the treaties themselves. 47. Such denunciation would be a step of the greatest gravity; and, whilst Her Majesty's Government are fully alive to the desirability of removing any treaty stipulations which may hamper the action of the colonies in regard to trade relations, they consider that the advantages to be derived from such a step should be very clearly shown to outweigh the disadvantages before it could properly be resorted to. 48. It has been shown above that the United Kingdom could, if it were at any time judged proper, grant preferential terms to colonial produce without infringing the particular articles in question, and, further, that the British colonies could also grant preferential treatment to each other without infringing them as they are interpreted by Her Majesty's Government. The only point, therefore, which remains for consideration is, whether the advantages to be derived from permitting the United Kingdom to enjoy preferential treatment in the British colonies is sufficient to outweigh the disadvantages to the Empire of the denunciation of the entire Belgian and Zollverein treaties. 49. The following figures may serve to indicate generally how the interests of the United Kingdom are affected : — The annual value of the exports from the United Kingdom, according to the Statistical Abstract, may be roughly estimated as having been in 1893 —To Germany, £28,000,000; to Belgium, £13,000,000 : total, £41,000,000. The value of exports from the United Kingdom to all the self-governing colonies for the same year may be roughly estimated at £35,000,000 (India not included). The comparison would not be quite the same if account were taken of the exports of British and Irish produce only. Here it would seem that the exports
15
A.—2
from the United Kingdom to British self-governing colonies exceed the exports to Belgium and Germany. The self-governing colonies, moreover, being geographically distant, the exports to them give proportionately more employment to shipping than do exports to adjacent countries like Belgium and Germany. But the exports to Belgium and Germany are undoubtedly important in themselves. 50. The denunciation of the treaties with Belgium and Germany would thus expose the trade of the United Kingdom to some risks, and might possibly be followed by a loss of some part of the export trade to those countries, probably of some portion of it which consists in the distribution of foreign and colonial produce. With the denunciation of the treaties the commerce of the Empire with these countries would have to be carried on under fiscal conditions subject to constant changes and fluctuations, or at all events without that permanence and security which is of primary importance to successful and profitable interchange. It would be extremely difficult, in existing circumstances, to negotiate new treaties of a satisfactory character at an early date, and the loss which might in the meantime result to a trade of forty-one millions sterling would perhaps prove to be irreparable. On the other hand, no scheme has been proposed which foreshadows any precise advantages to be secured to the export trade, amounting to thirty-five millions sterling, from the United Kingdom to the British colonies in the event of the termination of these treaties. 51. I may further observe that the self-governing colonies themselves would lose any advantage they now derive from their inclusion in the German and Belgian treaties, since, if those treaties were denounced, both countries would, in view of the circumstances attending the passing of the resolutions of the Colonial Conference, and in view of the high tariff's existing in many of the colonies, no doubt decline to include the British colonies in any new treaty that might be negotiated ; and, considering the small amount of their trade, it would be very difficult for them, if in an isolated position, to secure advantageous terms except by very heavy concessions. In this connection it might be expedient for the self-governing colonies themselves to consider how much their interests are involved. A large item in the exports, from the United Kingdom to Belgium and Germany is wool—about £800,000 in value—largely, there is no doubt, colonial wool. Other articles of colonial export also find a market in Belgium and Germany. 52. In .these circumstances, as preferential arrangements in which this country should be included cannot, under present conditions, be considered a matter of practical politics, and as the clauses in the treaties do not, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, prevent intercolonial preferential arrangements, Her Majesty's Government consider that it would not be prudent to contemplate the denunciation of the treaties at the present moment, bearing in mind that this could always be done on twelve months' notice if circumstances should hereafter show it to be desirable. 53. In conclusion, it only remains for me to state that in the consideration of these questions the discussions at the Conference have been of the greatest service to Her Majesty's Government. The discussion throughout was maintained at a high level, and the speeches were eminently practical and to the point, and I have observed with pleasure the unanimity which prevailed as to the importance and desirability in principle not only of preserving but of strengthening the bonds of sentiment, sympathy, and mutual benefit which now unite the Empire. This was one of the main objects for which the Conference was summoned, and Her Majesty's Government are convinced that the result has been a substantial and permanent contribution to the establishment and maintenance of that mutual understanding and sympathy without which that Imperial union which we prize so highly can scarcely hope to be permanent. I have, &c, EIPON.
A.—2
16
No. 15. (No. 38.) Ottawa Conference, 1894. My Lokd, — Downing Street, 28th June, 1895. In my despatch of even date I communicated to you an expression of the views of Her Majesty's Government on the resolutions passed by the Colonial Conference at Ottawa in regard to the trade relations of the Empire. 2. In the course of the discussions there a question of considerable importance was more than once alluded to, namely, the question of commercial agreements between Her Majesty's Government and foreign Powers in regard to their trade with the colonies. Such conventions have already been made on more than one occasion in regard to the trade of Her Majesty's Dominions in North America with the United States of America, and recently with the Government of France in regard to the trade between that country and Canada; and the Cape Colony has also entered into a Customs union with the neighbouring independent republic, the Orange Free State. 3. Although the area within which such agreements are possible is now but limited, owing to the network of commercial treaties by which the nations are bound together, there are still some Powers, such as France, with which agreements of the kind could be made, either because no commercial treaty exists between them and this country, or because some of the colonies have not adhered to the existing treaty. It appears desirable, now that the same liberty of tariff legislation has been accorded to the Australian Colonies as has been enjoyed by Canada, the Cape Colony, and New Zealand, and that the colonies generally are considering the question of extending and increasing their external commerce, that the views of Her Majesty's Government on this question should be generally known. 4. In the first instance it is advisable that the international position of such agreements and the procedure to be followed in regard to them should be made clear, and in this connection I desire to quote from the able speech delivered by Sir Henry Wrixon at the meeting of the Conference on the 10th of June. 5. Eeferring to this question, he said, — " I do not know that 1 have ever thoroughly understood the position which " the Imperial Government takes with regard to the power which they have " already allowed to Canada and the Cape, because we all know that nations can " only know one another through the supreme head. Each nation is an entity " as regards any other nation, and I have no knowledge of how you could " recognise a part of an empire making arrangements for itself. If you look at " the thing in the last resort, supposing conflicts arose, or cause of war, the " foreign Power that had cause to complain of the breach of a commercial treaty " must naturally look to the head of an empire, and they could not be put off by " telling them to look for satisfaction to the dependency. If any foreign Power " made an arrangement with the Cape, and had cause to complain, and wanted " to enforce any proviso, they must go to the Empire of Great Britain; and, " therefore, as far as I can understand it, I am quite against any attempt to " recognise the right of a dependency of the Empire to act on its own behalf. " Everything must be done through the head of the Empire when we are dealing " with foreign nations. One nation is one individual, and it can only deal with " other nations on that basis; therefore I deliberately excluded any reference in " my motion to that subject, and I may only add that I think it is quite ** unnecessaary to refer to it, because we can have no doubt that the Imperial " Government will extend the same consideration to all the dependencies of the " Empire that it has already extended to Canada and the Cape, if in any case any " dependency of the Empire shows that it has good ground for entering into a " commercial treaty outside. I have not the slightest doubt that the Imperial " Government would do for other dependencies what it has already done for the " premier dependency of Canada and the Cape." "Hon. Mr. Fitzgerald : Do you wish it done by legislation ?
No. 14,
17
A.—2
"Sir Henry Wrixon: No. I do not understand how it can be done, " because I have no idea of a nation as anything else than one complete unity " with regard to an outside nation, and I cannot understand a dependency of "the Empire arranging with an outside Power; and I presume, where the " Imperial Government has allowed Canada and the Cape to make arrange- " ments, the Imperial Government itself has contracted and would be prepared "to vindicate the conduct of the dependency in the last resort. I understand " that when occasion arises the dependency informs the Imperial Government "of its desire to enter into certain arrangements. The Imperial Government " authorises its Minister at the Court of the Power which is to be treated with " to carry on that negotiation, and then, technically, it is the Empire which " makes the treaty. In our country some claimed more than this right. I " repudiated any such position. I think it is not consistent with the unity of " the Empire, and I added to that a reason why it was unnecessary—namely, " because the Imperial Government will do for us what they have done for " Canada and the Cape, and will help us to make a treaty if we want to make a " treaty with any foreign Power." 6. This speech not only indicates the procedure to be followed in the case of such arrangements, but clearly explains the reasons for it. A foreign Power can only be approached through Her Majesty's Eepresentative, and any agreement entered into with it, affecting any part of Her Majesty's dominions, is an agreement between Her Majesty and the sovereign of the foreign State, and it is to Her Majesty's Government that the foreign State would apply in case of any question arising under it. 7. To give the colonies the power of negotiating treaties for themselves without reference to Her Majesty's Government would be to give them an international status as separate and sovereign States, and would be equivalent to breaking up the Empire into a number of independent States, a result which Her Majesty's Government are satisfied would be injurious equally to the colonies and to the Mother-country, and would be desired by neither. The negotiation, then, being between Her Majesty and the sovereign of the foreign State, must be conducted by Her Majesty's Eepresentative at the Court of the foreign Power, who would keep Her Majesty's Government informed of the progress of the discussion, and seek instructions from them as necessity arose. It could hardly be expected, however, that he would be sufficiently cognisant of the circumstances and wishes of the colony to enable him to conduct the negotiation satisfactorily alone, and it would be desirable generally, therefore, that he should have the assistance, either as a second plenipotentiary or in a subordinate capacity, as Her Majesty's Government think the circumstances require, of a delegate appointed by the colonial Government. If as a result of the negotiations any arrangement is arrived at, it must be approved by Her Majesty's Government and by the colonial Government, and also by the colonial Legislature if it involves legislative action, before the ratifications can be exchanged. 8. The same considerations which dictate the procedure to be followed have also dictated the conditions under which, though never distinctly formulated, Her Majesty's Government have hitherto conducted such negotiations, and as to the propriety of which they are confident that no question can be raised. 9. These considerations are —the strict observance of existing international obligations, and the preservation of the unity of the Empire. The question, then, to be dealt with is how far these considerations necessarily limit the scope and application of any commercial arrangement dealing with the trade between one of Her Majesty's colonies and a foreign Power, both in respect of the concessions which may be offered by the colony and the concessions which it seeks in return. 10. It is obvious that a colony could not offer a foreign Power tariff concessions which were not at the same time to be extended to all other Powers entitled by treaty to most-favoured-nation treatment in the colony. In the Constitution Acts of some colonies such a course is specifically prohibited; but, even where
3—A. 2.
A.—2
18
that is not the case, it is obvious that Her Majesty could not properly enter into any engagements with a foreign Power inconsistent with her obligations to other Powers, and before any convention or treaty can be ratified, therefore, Her Majesty's Government must be satisfied that it fulfils this condition, and also that any legislation for giving effect to it makes full provision for enabling Her Majesty to fulfil her obligations both to the Power immediately concerned and to any other Powers whose rights under treaty may be affected. To do otherwise would be a breach of public faith to which Her Majesty's Government could not lend themselves in any way. Further, Her Majesty's Government regard it as essential that any tariff concessions proposed to be conceded by a colony to a foreign Power should be extended to this country and to the rest of Her Majesty's dominions. As I have already pointed out, there are but few nations with which Her Majesty's Government have not treaties containing most-favoured-nation clauses, and to most of these treaties all or some of the Eesponsible Government colonies have adhered. Any tariff advantages granted by a colony, therefore, to a foreign Power would have to be extended to all Powers entitled by treaty to most-favoured-nation treatment in the colony, and Her Majesty's Government presume that no colony would wish to afford to, practically, all foreign nations better treatment than it accorded to the rest of the Empire of which it forms a part. 11. This point has already arisen in connection with negotiations on behalf of colonies with foreign States. When informal discussions with a view to a commercial arrangement between the United States of America and Canada took place in 1892, the delegates of the Dominion Government refused the demand of the United States that Canada should discriminate against the produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom, and the negotiations were broken off on this point. Similarly, when Newfoundland, in 1890, had made preliminary arrangements for a convention with the United States under which preferential treatment might have been accorded to that Power, Her Majesty's Government acknowledged the force of the protest made by Canada, and, when the Newfoundland Government proposed to pass legislation to grant the concessions stipulated for by the United States, my predecessor, in a despatch dated the 26th of March, 1892, informed the Dominion Government that they might rest assured " that Her Majesty will not be advised to assent "to any legislation discriminating directly against the products of the " Dominion." 12. It must not be forgotten that, as I have pointed out in my other despatch of this date,* whilst the grant of preferential-tariff treatment is a friendly act to the country receiving it, it is an unfriendly act to countries or places excluded from it, and Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that the bonds which unite the various parts of the Empire together require that every colony should accord to the rest at least as favourable terms as it grants to any foreign country. If a colony were to grant preferential treatment to the produce of a foreign country and were to refuse to extend the benefit of that treatment to the Mother-country and the other colonies, or some of them, such a step could not fail to isolate and alienate that colony from the rest of the Empire, and attract it politically as well as commercially towards the favoured Power. Her Majesty's Government are convinced that the colonies will agree that such a result would be fraught with danger to the interests of the Empire as a whole, and that they will also agree that it would be impossible for Her Majesty's Government to assent to any such arrangement. 13. In regard to the other side of the question, namely, as to the terms which a colony seeks from a foreign Power, the considerations mentioned appear to require that a colony should not endeavour in such a negotiation to obtain an advantage at the expense of other parts of Her Majesty's dominions. In the case, therefore, of preference being sought by or offered to the colony in respect of any article in which it competed seriously with other colonies or with the Mother-country, Her Majesty's Government would feel it to be their duty to use
No. 14,
* Miscellaneous, No. 102.
19
A.—2
every effort to obtain the extension of the concession to the rest of the Empire, and in any case to ascertain as far as possible whether the other colonies affected would wish to be made a party to the arrangement. In the event of this being impossible, and of the result to the trade of the excluded portions of the Empire being seriously prejudicial, it would be necessary to consider whether it was desirable, in the common interests, to proceed with the negotiation. 14. Her Majesty's Government recognise, of course, that in the present state of opinion among foreign Powers and many of the colonies as to differential duties, and in a matter which, to some extent, would affect only a particular colony, they would not feel justified in objecting to a proposal merely on the ground that it was inconsistent in this respect with the commercial and financial policy of this country. But the guardianship of the common interests of the Empire rests with them, and they could not in any way be parties to, or assist in, any arrangements detrimental to these interests as a whole. In the performance of this duty it may sometimes be necessary to require apparent sacrifices on the part of the colony, but Her Majesty's Government are confident that their general policy in regard to matters in which colonial interests are involved is sufficient to satisfy the colonies that they will not, without good reason, place difficulties in the way of any arrangements which a colony may regard as likely to be beneficial to it. I have, &c, EIPON.
No. 16. (Circular.) Sie, — Downing Street, 29th June, 1895. I have the honour to inform you that Her Majesty has been pleased this day to intrust to my care, as one of the Principal Secretaries of State, the seals of the Colonial Department. I have, &c, J. CHAMBBELAIN. The Officer Administering the Government of New Zealand.
No. 17. (New Zealand, No. 40.) My Loed, — Downing Street, 6th July, 1895. I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's despatch, No. 11, of the 16th of April, in which you state that your Ministers are of opinion that power should be granted to confer, in certain cases, a decoration upon civilians and others for bravery in saving human life, similar in character to that conferred by Order in Council, in 1869, in the case of persons distinguishing themselves by bravery in war. I request that you will inform your Government that I have given my best attention to the application, and that I can find no precedent for such a step as is now proposed, the case of the New Zealand Cross not being in point. It would appear that the proper source of decorative distinctions for saving human life in New Zealand is the Boyal Humane Society of Australasia, or the Eoyal Humane Society of the United Kingdom. I have, &c, J. CHAMBEELAIN. Governor the Eight Hon. the Earl of Glasgow, G.C.M.G.
A.-l, 1895, No. 16.
No. 18. (Circular.) Sie,— Downing Street, 8th July, 1895. With reference to my predecessor's circular despatch of the 23rd August t last, I have the honour to transmit to you, for the information of your Government, ] copies of a Eoyal warrant which has been issued (31st May, 1895) in substitution of the Eoyal warrant of the 24th May, 1894, in order to provide for the grant of
A.-2,1895, No. 11.
A.—2
20
medals for meritorious service, distinguished conduct, and long service to forces raised in British protectorates, as well as to the Indian and colonial forces. I have, &c, J. CHAMBEELAIN. The Officer Administering the Government of New Zealand.
Enclosure. VICTOEIA E.I. Whereas it is our desire to grant medals for meritorious service, for distinguished conduct, and for long service to warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and. men of our Indian forces, of our colonial forces, and of forces raised for our service in countries under our protection, under regulations similar, as far as circumstances permit, to those now existing for our regular and auxiliary forces : It is hereby ordained that such medals shall be issued to our said Indian and colonial forces, and to forces raised for our service in countries under our protection, under such regulations as may from time to time be recommended by the Governor-General of India, the Governor-General of the Dominion of Canada, the Governors of the other colonies of our Empire, or our Commissioners in countries under our protection, and approved by our Secretary of State. Our warrant of the 24th May, 1894, is hereby cancelled. Given at our Court at Balmoral, this 31st day of May, 1895, in the 58th year of our reign. By Her Majesty's command. H. Campbell-Banneeman.
No. 19. (New Zealand, No. 41.) • My Lord,— Downing Street, 12th July, 1895. I have the honour to transmit to you, for communication to your Ministers, a copy of a letter from the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce, drawing attention to an Order in Council, stated to have been issued at Government House, Wellington, on the 23rd of January last, containing regulations under the Land and Income Assessment Acts of the colony so far as they affect foreign traders, together with a copy of a correspondence which has taken place in connection with the subject between this office and the Inland Eevenue Department. I request that I may be favoured with a report in relation to this matter for communication to the Chamber of Commerce. I have, &c, JOHN BEAMSTON, For the Secretary of State. Governor the Eight Hon. the Earl of Glasgow, G.C.M.G.
Enclosures. Birmingham Chamber of Commerce Offices, Exchange, New Street, My Lord Maequis,— 17th June, 1895. I am requested by the Council of this Chamber to direct your attention to an Order in Council issued at the Government House at Wellington, New Zealand, on the 23rd January last, setting forth regulations under the Land and Income Assessment Acts of that colony in so far as they affect " foreign traders," a copy of which appears as an annexe to this letter. In my opinion, and in that of my colleagues, the regulations in question are highly inimical to the interests of trade, and calculated to interfere with the export of manufactured goods from this country to the colony. I have, &c, The Most Hon. the Marquis of Eipon, K.G., Thos. J. Walsh, Chairman. Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies, Colonial Office, London.
Foreign Traders. 2. Every agent shall make returns in such forms, at such times, and for such periods as the Commissioner may require; and, as respects goods the orders for which are procured by the agent on behalf of the principal, every such return shall show— (1.) The total invoice price of the goods comprised in every order procured and of every order executed as aforesaid, with the name and address of the person giving the order; (2.) The name and address of the principal on whose behalf such order is procured; and (3.) Such further particulars as the Commissioner may from time to time require.
21
A.—2,
3. As respects goods received on consignment from abroad for sale or disposal within the colony, the return to be made by the agent shall show the total sums received or receivable for the goods sold or disposed of, with the name and address of the principal or principals respectively. 4. (1.) Where any agent or principal fails to pay any income-tax assessed to the agent pursuant to said section 19 of these regulations, the amount due in respect of tax shall, to the extent of the defaulting principal's interest in any goods at any time arriving in the colony consequent on any sale or disposal made or any order procured by any agent on account of the defaulting principal, be a charge on such goods, and the Collector shall have power to detain such goods until the amount has been paid. (2.) For the purpose of this clause the Collector shall have power to require the importer of any goods to produce to him all books, papers, or correspondence, and to answer any questions, and on oath if the Collector thinks fit, relating to any such goods. 5. (1.) Where any agent fails to make returns, or where the principal sells or disposes of, in the colony, any goods, and the whereabouts of the agent is not known, any Collector shall estimate the value of such goods, and shall assess the profit thereon to the principal at such sum, being not more than twenty-five pounds in every one hundred pounds of such value, as the Collector may think just. (2.) Income-tax shall thereupon be payable on the amount of such assessed profit, and the Collector may require payment thereof and shall have power to detain such goods until payment is made. (3.) It shall be lawful for such Collector, on entry being passed for such goods, to require the importer or consignee to produce a copy of the order for such goods, and to make a statutory declaration as to whether or not any such goods were ordered through an agent in the colony, and as to such other particulars as may be required. 6. (1.) It shall be lawful for any importer or consignee to pay to the Collector the amount owing by any principal in respect of income-tax, and every such importer or consignee shall be entitled to a certificate from the Collector as to the amount so paid. (2.) Every such certificate shall be in satisfaction pro tanto of any claim on the part of the principal against the importer or consignees. (10669/95.)
Sir,—- Downing Street, 28th June, 1895. I am directed by the Marquis of Eipon to transmit to you a copy of a letter from the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce, with its enclosures, drawing attention to the inconvenience to which they consider that trade is subjected in consequence of certain regulations issued by the Governor of New Zealand under the Land and Income Assessment Acts of that colony so far as these regulations affect foreign traders. Before sending this letter out to the colony, Lord Eipon would be glad to receive any observations which the experience of the Inland Revenue Department may lead them to suggest, as his Lordship is not aware how far, if at all, the rates complained of by the Chamber of Commerce are based on those of the Imperial Government. I am, &c, The Chairman of the Inland Eevenue Department. R. H. Mbade.
Sic, — Inland Revenue, Somerset House, London, W.C., 6th July, 1895. The Board of Inland Eevenue have had before them Sir Eobert Meade's letter of the 25th ultimo, 10669/95, addressed to the Chairman, enclosing a copy of a communication from the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce, in which attention is drawn to the inconvenience to which, it is considered, trade is subjected in consequence of certain regulations which have been issued by the Governor of New Zealand under the Land and Income Assessment Acts of that colony, in so far as such regulations affect foreign traders. With reference thereto I am directed to acquaint you, for the information of the Secretary of State, that there is nothing analogous in our income-tax law and practice to the detailed regulations laid down in the New Zealand law with respect to the declarations of agents. Agents are bound to make a return of the profits and gains of their principals, as will be seen on reference to section 41 of the Act 5 and 6 Vict., cap. 35. The question of their liability to income-tax was, moreover, recently raised, and a decision given in the Court of Appeal — vide the case of Grainger and Son v. Gough (1895, 1 Q.B. 71) —affirming their liability. They are not, however, required to make a form of specific declaration in regard to the particulars of goods ordered, &c. I have, &c, The Under-Secretary of State, Colonial Office. W. H. Cousins, Secretary.
No. 20. (New Zealand, General.) My Lord, — Downing Street, 17th July, 1895. I have the honour to request that you will move your Ministers to favour me with an early reply to my predecessor's circular despatch of the 10th June, 1893, on the question of the adoption of a uniform system in the issue of certificates to masters and mates in the Australian Colonies, and the fixing of a common definition of the term " coasting service." I have, &c, J. CHAMBEELAIN. Governor the Eight Hon. the Earl of Glasgow, G.C.M.G.
A.-2, 1894, No. 16.
A.—2,
22
No. 21.
(New Zealand, No. 44.) My Lord, — Downing Street, 24th July, 1895. With reference to my despatch, No. 41, of the 12th July, respecting the provisions of the Land and Income Assessment Act affecting commercial travellers, I have the honour to transmit to you, for communication to your Ministers, copies of memorials on the subject from the Walsall and Sheffield Chambers of Commerce. I have, &c, J. CHAMBEELAIN. P.S. —Since writing the above I have received the letter from Messrs. Evans, Lescher, and Webb a copy of which is enclosed. Governor the Eight Hon. the Earl of Glasgow, G.C.M.G.
No. 19
Enclosures. Sib, — Chamber of Commerce and Manufactures, Sheffield, Ist July, 1895. It has been brought under the notice of this Chamber by many subscribers that, under a new revenue law in New Zealand, commercial travellers for English firms are compelled after taking orders to declare the profits which will arise upon such orders and to pay income-tax upon such supposed profits, and such travellers have been threatened with pains and penalties if they did not make returns ; and, furthermore, the colonial Government officials have informed them that if they do not make returns of goods emanating from their employers they will be seized at the Customs House on arrival. In the first place I am desired to ask whether indeed such a law has been put in force in the Colony of New Zealand with the sanction of Her Majesty the Queen, inasmuch as traders here feel it difficult to understand that this can be the case. In the second place I am desired to point out to you how absurd the law, if I have correctly described it, really is, and what an injury it will inflict upon the trade with the colony in question. To begin with, the commercial traveller cannot give his master's profits. He does not know them; and, indeed, ought not to be trusted in many instances with that knowledge. Secondly, if he did know what the profit was, is it to be the gross profits on the order, or the net profits ? And thirdly, is the profit of the New Zealand exportations to stand alone, and is no rebate to be allowed for losses by the manufacturing firms either in New Zealand or other places, or in the United Kingdom as a whole ? Lastly there arises the important consideration disclosed by the following supposition: Suppose a commercial traveller can and does return the profits on an order, and can and does pay the duty (although the latter would involve considerable financial disturbance in many businesses), what is to be done if the particular customer upon the supposed profit on whose order the tax has been paid should, as not infrequently happens, be unable to pay, and the whole transaction therefore results in a loss ? I think, however, I have said enough to bring before you the views of the Council of this Chamber, and I. am desired to ask you for information as to whether my Council have correctly apprehended the position with regard to this new law, and, secondly, whether some protest cannot be made against such an onerous and irritating enactment. In conclusion, I am desired by my Council to say that, so far as they understand, this country is the best customer which New Zealand has, taking, as it does, the bulk of the products of that colony, and that if the colonial Government does not realise that trade is but an interchange of commodities, and that the hampering of export trade to New Zealand must in the long-run hamper the import trade into England from that colony, it would be within the power of Her Majesty's Government to enact something of the same kind with regard to the transactions between New Zealand and the Mother-country, which would probably demonstrate very conclusively to the colonial Government the wisdom of abandoning such interference with trade as, if my Council are correctly informed, exists at the present time. I have, &c, The Secretary of State for the Colonies. Heebeet Hughes, E.M., Secretary.
The Walsall and District Incorporated Chamber of Commerce, Sib,— Offices, The Bridge, Walsall, 4th July, 1895. The attention of my Council has been directed to " The Land and Income Assessment Amendment Act, 1894," of New Zealand, and I respectfully ask to lay before you these particulars: Under the Act, all commercial travellers representing English or other houses not located in the colony are subject to the following vexatious conditions: As often as travellers book orders, and before they leave the colony, they are required to make out invoices of the goods they have sold, and to declare the profit their employers in England, or elsewhere, will make on such goods. On the traveller's estimate of his employer's profit an income-tax is levied. For the following reasons, such a method of raising revenue cannot fail to be most harassing and most unjust, and the result will be general ill-feeling and a considerable restriction of trade:— Travellers are not acquainted with the net cost of the goods they sell, and it would be scarcely possible for them to make the return required, and quite impossible for them to make an accurate return. Further, private matters would be disclosed to the tax officials and others, and ultimately
23
A.—2
to the New Zealand buyer, which would be very prejudicial to the English merchant or manufacturer when he found himself in competition with German or American houses. If it is necessary for revenue purposes to tax commercial travellers who represent firms not located in the colony, my Council would suggest that it should be done in the form of a direct tax upon travellers. In some colonies a tax of £20 per annum is found sufficient. By this means the inquisitorial and irritating consequences of the present Act could be avoided. My Chamber includes a number of firms who trade with New Zealand, and they all are of opinion that the statute, as now existing, will be most injurious to English trade. My Council respectfully ask for your intervention and help. I am, &c, The Eight Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, M.P. Albeet Law, Secretary.
Sm,— 60, Bartholomew Close, London, E.C., 25th July, 1895. We beg to draw your attention to the notice recently served upon our commercial traveller and representative, Mr. M. M. Irving, by the Commissioner of Taxes at Dunedin, New Zealand, dated the 31st January, 1895, in which he is called upon to furnish, prior to leaving the colony, returns of the income derived from business he has contracted within the colony—the value of the business first to be ascertained by pro forma invoice, and a new return to be made afterwards on the value of goods actually supplied. We beg to point out to you the unreasonableness and the great hindrance to trade of this regulation. We further beg to point out the absolute impossibility for us here in London to make any accurate return of the income derived from every order that we execute. Therefore it is still more impossible for our representative, who does not know the cost prices of one-third of the things he sells, to make any such return. The nature of our business is that of wholesale chemists and druggists. We deal in thousands of articles —drugs, chemicals, preparations, druggists' sundries, patent medicines, proprietary articles —besides acting as general merchants and agents for our customers, so that the labour of even attempting to comply with the terms of the notice with us here in London would be incalculable, and for our traveller it would be impossible. Unfortunately, in Cape Colony, the Transvaal, and the Orange Free State, a tax is levied upon commercial travellers from England. We consider this a gross injustice as far as Cape Colony is concerned, and very short-sighted policy on behalf of the foreign States, because it tends to cut off their traders from personal communication with those who are personally acquainted with the English markets. This tax as levied in South Africa is very workable, and if the New Zealand Government desire to take any such short-sighted policy as to tax commercial travellers we beg you will lay before them the desirability of their levying a direct and fixed tax in place of such an absolutely unworkable scheme as they seem to have decided upon. Hoping that this matter will receive your best consideration, We have, &c, The Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies, Evans, Lbschbh, and Webb. Downing Street, S.W.
No. 22. (Circular.) Sir,— ' Downing Street, 26th July, 1895. I have the honour to transmit to you copies of " The Colonial Boundaries Act, 1895," 58 and 59 Vict., ch. 34. The Law Officers of the Crown having recently reported that where an Imperial Act has expressly defined the boundaries of a colony, or has bestowed a Constitution on a colony within certain boundaries, territory cannot be annexed to that colony so as to be completely fused, with it —as, e.g., by being included in a province or electoral division of it—without statutory authority, it followed that certain annexations of territory to colonies falling within the above category which had been effected by Order in Council and letters patent, accompanied by Acts of the colonial Legislatures, were of doubtful validity, and this Act has been passed to validate these annexations, and to remove all doubts as to Her Majesty's powers in future cases. I have, &c, J. CHAMBERLAIN. The Officer Administering the Government of New Zealand.
Seo No. 8.
Enclosure. COLONIAL BOUNDAEIES ACT, 1895. Chaptek 34. ' ■ An Act to provide in certain Cases for the Alteration of the Boundaries of Colonies. [6th July, 1895.] Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: —
24
A.—2
1. (1.) Where the boundaries of a colony have, either before or after the passing of this Act, been altered by Her Majesty the Queen by Order in Council or letters patent the boundaries as so altered shall be, and be deemed to have been from the date of the alteration, the boundaries of the colony. (2.) Provided that the consent of a self-governing colony shall be required for the alteration of the boundaries thereof. (3.) In this Act " self-governing colony " means any of the colonies specified in the schedule to this Act. 2. This Act may be cited as " The Colonial Boundaries Act, 1895."
Schedule. Self-governing Colonies. Canada, Newfoundland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania, Queensland, Western Australia, New Zealand, Cape of Good Hope, Natal.
No. 23. (Circular.) Sib, — Downing Street, 1st August, 1895. With reference to Lord Kimberley's circular despatch of the 18th May, 1882, I have the honour to state that, in view of the difficulty experienced by Consular officers in ascertaining whether the holders of passports issued to naturalised British subjects who apply to them for assistance were, at the time at which certificates of naturalisation were granted to them, subjects or citizens of the State in which they may be seeking help, Her Majesty's Government have decided that in future when a passport is granted to a naturalised British subject the holder's nationality of origin shall, whenever practicable, be inserted in the passport, and I have to request that this course may be followed as regards the passports which may be issued to naturalised British subjects in the colonies. Should a person happen to have been naturalised in another country prior to his naturalisation as a British subject, the country in which he was previously naturalised should also be stated on the passport. I have, &c, J. CHAMBEELAIN. The Officer Administering the Government of New Zealand.
No. 24. (New Zealand, No. 51.) My Loed, — Downing Street, 23rd August, 1895. I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's despatch, No. 24, of the 9th ultimo, transmitting copies of the Speech with which you opened the second session of the twelfth Parliament of New Zealand on the 20th of June, and of the addresses from the Legislative Council and the House of Eepresentatives in reply. I have, &c, J. CHAMBEELAIN. Governor the Eight Hon. the Earl of Glasgow, G.C.M.G.
A.-1, 1896, No. 6.
No. 25. (New Zealand, General.) My Lobd, — Downing Street, 24th September, 1895. I have the honour to inform you that the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have decided to present sets of the reports of the voyage of Her Majesty's ship " Challenger " to various colonial Governments and institutions, including Otago University, Dunedin. The Agent-General in London has been requested to communicate with the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office with a view to receiving these reports, and forwarding them to the colony; and I have to request that you will cause them to be presented on their arrival to the institution for which they are intended. I have, &c, J. CHAMBEELAIN. Governor the Eight Hon. the Earl of Glasgow, G.C.M.G.
25
A.—2.
No. 26. (New Zealand, No. 55.) My Loed, — Downing Street, 25th September, 1895. I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch, No. 21, of the 6th June, enclosing a copy of a memorandum from your Premier, from which I observe with satisfaction that provision will be made on the New Zealand estimates for the salary of the Eesident in the Cook Islands under the existing arrangement. I request that you will inform your Government that the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific has been instructed to refrain from issuing regulations affecting the Cook Islands. I have, &c, J. CHAMBEELAIN. Governor the Eight Hon. the Earl of Glasgow, G.C.M.G.
A.-l, 1896, No. 1.
No. 27. (Circular.) Sib, — Downing Street, 1st October, 1895. I have the honour to state, for the information of your Government, that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has received from the Chilean Minister at this Court a note, dated the 3rd September, 1895, denouncing the treaty of friendship, commerce, and navigation signed between Great Britain and Chile on the 4th October, 1854. This notice of denunciation has been accepted, and the provisions of the treaty —except those relating to peace and friendship between the two countries and their subjects and citizens, which continue obligatory for both parties—will cease and determine on the 3rd September, 1896. I have, &c, J. CHAMBEELAIN. The Officer Administering the Government of N ew Zealand. [For enclosure see Netv Zealand Gazette of 5th December, 1895, p. 1876.]
No. 28. (New Zealand, No. 57.) My Loed, — • Downing Street, 18th October, 1895. I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatches noted in the margin on the subject of the recent action of your Government and the Legislature of the colony in regard to the Bank of New Zealand. In the circumstances, I see no reason to take exception to your action in not reserving for the expression of Her'Majesty's pleasure the Act for carrying out the new arrangements in regard to the constitution of the bank. I have, &c, J. CHAMBEELAIN. Governor the Eight Hon. the Earl of Glasgow, G.C.M.G.
a.-i, i 896, f° s - 12,13>
No. 29. (Circular.) Sib,— Downing Street, 25th October, 1895. With reference to the Earl of Derby's circular despatch of the 10th April, 1883, I have the honour to transmit to you, for information and publication in the colony under your Government, copies of an Order of the Queen in Council of the 3rd of October, 1895, respecting the tonnage admeasurement of ships belonging to the United States of America. I have, &c, J. CHAMBEELAIN. The Officer Administering the Government of New Zealand. [For enclosure see New Zealand Gazette of '23rd January, 1896, p. 97,]
4—A. 2.
A.—2
26
No. 30.
(New Zealand, General.) My Lobd, — - Downing Street, 28th November, 1895. I am impressed with the extreme importance of securing as large a share as possible of the mutual trade of the United Kingdom and the colonies for British producers and manufacturers, whether located in the colonies or in the United Kingdom. 2. In the first place, therefore, I wish to investigate thoroughly the extent to which in each of the colonies foreign imports of any kind have been displaced, or are displacing, similar British goods, and the cause of such displacement. 3. With this object, I take this opportunity of inviting the assistance of your Government in obtaining a return which will show, for the years 1884, 1889, and 1894,— (a.) The value (if any) of all articles specified in the classification annexed imported into the colony under your government from any foreign country or. countries, whenever (and only when) the value of any article so imported from any foreign "country or countries was 5 per cent, or upwards of the total value of that article imported, into the colony from all sources, whether within or without the British Empire, and when the total value of that article imported was not less than £500. (b.) The reasons which may have in each case induced the colonial importer to prefer a foreign article to similar goods of British manufacture. 4. These reasons (which should take the shape of a report on each article separately of which the foreign import exceeded 5 per cent, of the whole import and of which the total value imported was not less than £500, as defined above) should be classified and disclosed under one or other of the following heads : — (a.) Price (delivered in the colony) of the foreign article as compared with the British. The term "price" is not intended to include the duty (if any) levied in a colony; it is the ordinary price in bond, and this should be clearly understood in making the report. But where it is found impossible to give any except the wholesale price (duty paid) this should be stated, and the exact amount of duty entering into the price should be given. In treating of price, regard should be had to cost of transport, facility of communication with any given country, subsidies to shipping, special 'railway rates, bounties on export, terms of credit or payment given by British or foreign exporters, rates of discount, &c. (b.) Quality and finish, as to which full particulars should be given. (c.) Suitability of the goods for the market, their style or pattern. In connection with this, and in illustration of the reasons for the displacement of British goods of any class, it is important that patterns or specimens of the goods preferred should be sent Home, unless the bulk is very great. This will be necessary chiefly in those cases where the difference cannot be fairly described in writing. (d.) Difference of making-up or packing, as to which full particulars should be given. (c.) False markings, such as piracy of trade-marks, false indications of origin, or false indications of weight, measure, size, or number. (/.) Any other cause which may exist should, of course, be stated. It sometimes happens that imports which actually come from foreign countries pass through Great Britain, and are included in colonial statistics as British. Where this is a matter of common knowledge, I shall be obliged if you will treat of these imports under the headings embraced in this paragraph, notwithstanding the fact that they are not distinguished in the returns.
27
A.—2
5. With a view to facilitating the return, I annex to this despatch a draft of the form under which the particulars above requested may be returned; a list of commodities which is intended, as far as possible, to secure uniformity in making the return; and a schedule of instructions as to filling up the return, which I would beg you to commend to the attention of those on whom the preparation of the return may fall. 6. To select the best classification to guide your Advisers in their investigations has been a task of some difficulty. Most colonies have classifications of their own, usually admirable of their kind, but as they have been mainly compiled for the special tariff purposes of each colony they differ considerably from one another, and do not afford a basis of classification generally applicable to all the colonies. I have therefore, on the whole, thought it best to adopt the condensed classification used by the Board of Trade in the Annual Statistical Abstract for the exports of the United Kingdom. At the same time, I suggest that those responsible in each colony for furnishing the returns for which I am asking should expand their return under each chief heading by such detailed subheads as may be suggested either by the ordinary colonial returns or by the course of trade in the particular colony, and in this connection I append a schedule of subdivisions suggested by various Chambers of Commerce in this country. 7. I am further desirous of receiving from you a return of any products of the colony under your government which might advantageously be exported to the United Kingdom or other parts of the British Empire but do not at present find a sufficient market there, with any information in regard to quality, price, or freight which may be useful to British importers. I mention the matter here that you may be prepared with information; but I am contemplating the preparation of a further and fuller despatch on this branch of the subject. 8. I am well aware how much has been and is being done in this direction by the self-governing colonies through the High Commissioner for Canada and through the Agents-General, and also by the Imperial Institute, the Koyal Colonial Institute, and other public bodies. I am glad to have this opportunity of expressing my admiration for the excellence of this work; but in a matter of such importance no additional efforts or opportunities of acquiring information can be superfluous. 9. I shall be glad to have these returns as soon as possible, and shall greatly appreciate your expedition in the matter. I have, &c, J. CHAMBEELAIN. Governor the Eight Hon. the Earl of Glasgow, G.C.M.G.
No. 31. (New Zealand, No. 61.) My Loed, — Downing Street, 23rd December, 1895. With reference to my despatch, No. 41, of the 24th of July last, regarding the provisions of the Land and Income Assessment Acts affecting commercial travellers, I have the honour to transmit to you, for the consideration of your Ministers, a copy of a letter from Messrs. Hunt and Company, complaining that fresh legislation has been passed imposing a poll-tax on commercial travellers. I have, &c, J. CHAMBERLAIN. Governor the Eight Hon. the Earl of Glasgow, G.C.M.G.
No. 19,
Enclosure. Sir, — Brades Steel Works (near Birmingham), 16th December, 1895. We beg to ask your consideration of the subject alluded to in a letter we have received from our representative in the Australian Colonies, written from Melbourne on the 4th of November last, in which he says, — " You will doubtless remember my writing you last year with reference to a tax which the New Zealand Government endeavoured to collect upon all the business done by travellers in that colony: that tax was found to be unworkable, and consequently a Bill was lately introduced into
A.—2
28
the New Zealand Parliament by the Treasurer in which it was proposed that all travellers on entering that colony from Australia or elsewhere should pay a poll-tax of £100 (afterwards reduced to £50) before he could start doing business; the payment of this sum to give him the right to trade in New Zealand for one year. This Bill has now passed the second reading, and is already being enforced, several travellers having to pay the £50. This Bill, if persisted in, will be a hindrance of a grave character to doing business with that colony. As you know, I visit New Zealand once a year, and stay there for five or six weeks; my expenses for this period are never under £100, and I certainly could not afford to pay an additional £50 for the privilege of going there. lam in hopes that, as I take no orders, I may be able to escape the tax, and I intend writing to the Commissioner of Taxes in New Zealand on the matter before I again visit the colony. " In the meantime, I think the matter ought to be brought under the notice of the Colonial Secretary in London." It appears to us that a poll-tax upon any class of persons entering the New Zealand or other colonies is a new departure in the way of interference with the freedom of travel to which we have been accustomed ; and that such a tax as is referred to should be levied upon travellers as a class going to New Zealand for commercial purposes appears to us to be so in restraint of trade, and consequently detrimental to the interests of the colony and the Mother-country, that it should not be countenanced by the Government. We shall be pleased to hear that the subject will receive your consideration, if it has not already done so. We have, &c, William Hunt and Sons, The Brades (Limited), . Per George Heaton, Chairman. The Right Hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies, London.
No. 32. (New Zealand, General.) My Lord, — Downing Street, 31st December, 1895. Eeferring to the seventh paragraph of my general despatch of the 28th ultimo, on the subject of trade, I have the honour to transmit to you, for your information and guidance, a copy of a letter which I have caused to be addressed to the Agent-General for New Zealand, requesting suggestions as to the form which the return of colonial export trade should ultimately take. I have, &c, J. CHAMBEELAIN. Governor the Right Hon. the Earl of Glasgow, G.C.M.G.
No. 30,
Enclosure. Sic, — Downing Street, 31st December, 1895. You will have observed from the seventh paragraph of Mr. Chamberlain's despatch to the Governors of colonies on the subject of trade that he has in contemplation a further despatch asking for a return of any products of the colonies of the British Empire which might advantageously be exported to the United Kingdom or other parts of the Empire but do not at present find a sufficient market there, with any information in regard to quality, prices, or freight which may be useful to British importers. Before Mr. Chamberlain formulates such a despatch, and in order that he may have the best advice from each colonial Government as to the form in which the contemplated return should be made, he desires me to ask you to be good enough to bring the matter before the Government of New Zealand, inviting them to carefully consider the subject themselves and to bring it to the notice of the Chambers of Commerce of New Zealand. I am to request you, when you have received the views and suggestions of your Ministry, to be good enough to transmit them to Mr. Chamberlain, with such observations as it may occur to you to offer upon the subject. I am, &c, The Agent-General for New Zealand. Selboene.
No. 33. (New Zealand, No. 62.) My Lokd, — Downing Street, 31st December, 1895. With reference to my despatch, No. 61, of the 23rd instant, I have the honour to transmit to you, for communication to your Ministers, an extract from a letter from the Walsall and District Incorporated Chamber of Commerce, regarding a deposit of £50 required of commercial travellers entering the colony. I have, <fec, J. CHAMBERLAIN. Governor the Right Hon. the Earl of Glasgow, G.C.M.G.
No. 31
29
A.—2
Enclosure.
Extract from a Letter from the Walsall and District Incorporated Chamber of Commerce to the Eight Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, M.P., Secretary of State for the Colonies, dated Walsall, 24th December, 1895. * * * * * * Eecently my council had under consideration the matter of the New Zealand income-tax assessment, and, as directed by them, I sent you a communication on the 4th July on the subject, which you were good enough to forward for the consideration of the New Zealand authorities, as per your letter of 25th July. The attention of my council was directed to a new phase of this question at our meeting yesterday, from which it appears that a deposit-tax of £50 is to be made by all commercial travellers entering the colony, in anticipation of the income-tax that may accrue on the orders they may receive ; and, in addition to this, there is the usual deposit for duty on the samples he carries. If the object of the New Zealand authorities is to prevent commercial travellers entering and doing business with the colony, this is undoubtedly a most efficient method to employ, as it will be readily seen that if this tax was imposed in all the Australian Colonies, it would mean that travellers (or, rather, their principals) would be under an advance of several hundred pounds on this account, and that they would obtain no interest. It is true that a portion of the advance would be eventually returned; but such return is a tedious process, and the general result must be a hindrance to trade. ******
No. 34. (No. 3.) My Lobd, — Downing Street, 22nd January, 1896. With reference to previous correspondence regarding complaints made by traders in this country as to the collection of income-tax in New Zealand, I have the honour to transmit to you, for communication to your Ministers, a copy of a letter from Messrs. William A. Crump and Son, on behalf of the British Shipowners' Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association, regarding income-tax levied on the " Earnock " upon her loading cargo at Lyttelton. I have, &c, J. CHAMBEELAIN. Governor the Eight Hon. the Earl of Glasgow, G.C.M.G.
Enclosure. 10, Philpot Lane, Fenchurch Street, E.C., London, 2nd January, 1896. Sib, — "Earnock." We have been requested by the British Shipowners' Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association (Limited) to communicate with you on this matter. The ship " Earnock," which is owned by Messrs. J. Shepherd and Co., was recently loaded at a port in New Zealand under a charter party to the New Zealand Shipping Company (Limited) by which the vessel was to load a cargo at certain New Zealand ports and deliver the same at a safe port in the United Kingdom or Continent, the freight to be paid under the charter party being a lump sum of £2,580 or £2,795, depending upon whether or not the vessel proceeded direct or to a port of call for orders. The vessel, upon loading the cargo at Lyttelton, was charged by the authorities with the sum of £6 2s. Id. for income-tax. This charge was made, as we understand, under some regulations prescribed by an Order of the Governor in Council, dated 23rd January, 1895. These regulations prescribe that a shipowner resident outside the colony shall be assessed and be liable to income-tax on £5 in every £100 of the total amount payable to him either in the colony or abroad in respect of passengers, live-stock, and goods shipped in the colony and carried by any such ship. This regulation appears to justify the imposition of the amount in question, but our clients contend that the Order in Council appears to go far beyond the powers given to make such regulations by the Acts under which the Order in Council was made. The amount involved in this particular case is not very large, but our clients, as representing a very large body of shipowners who are frequently loading vessels in New Zealand ports, have interests which extend very considerably beyond those involved in this particular case, and they therefore desire us to lay our views before you upon the matter, which they consider to be one involving a great injustice to shipowners in general who may have business in New Zealand ports. Our clients consider it an injustice that an income should be arbitrarily assessed to be earned in New Zealand simply because the freight is engaged and the cargo shipped there, whilst as a matter of fact the earning of that freight may occupy the vessel for three or four months or longer entirely away from New Zealand; and, as is frequently the case where the vessel has practically gone in ballast, may even represent the greater part of the year's working, and which in the present state of the shipping business often results in no profit whatever being made.
A.—2
30
Our reasons for saying that there is no power given by the Acts to make the regulations in question are as follows : All the provisions of the Acts contemplate an assessment upon a return to be made by the party charged or his agent, and only failing such a return can an arbitrary assessment be made, and the only persons who in any case have power to make an arbitrary assessment are the Commissioners. Schedule Cto the principal Act provides that an owner of shipping shall be assessed upon his income upon such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the regulations, and that such assessment shall be subject to all rights of objections and review provided by the Act. In Schedule Das amended income is described as including the gains or profits derived or received in the colony. By the section which gives power to make the regulation (section 10) it is provided that the regulations are to be not inconsistent with the Act. The regulations in question are inconsistent with the Act, inasmuch as they arbitrarily fix an income, where as a matter of fact there may be no income in the sense of profit or gain. They are such that there is obviously no right of objection or review as provided by Schedule C, and they deal with money which is not derived or received in the colony, but (in this case) at the port of discharge, and the assessment is made not by the Commissioners, but by the Governor in Council. As in our view these regulations have the effect of imposing a tax upon shipowners which has not been authorised by the colonial Legislature, we submit for your consideration that the regulations are ultra vires, and that the colonial authorities should be requested to refund the amount in question, and not to further enforce these regulations. We are, &c, William A, Ceump and Son. The Secretary of State for the Colonies, Downing Street, S.W.
No. 35. (New Zealand, No. 6.) My Lord, — Downing Street, 30th January, 1896. I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch, No. 50, of the 21st of November, and to inform you that Her Majesty will not be advised to exercise her power of disallowance with respect to the following Acts of the Legislature of New Zealand : — 58 Vict., No. 62, entitled "An Act further to amend the Laws relating to Shipping and Seamen." 59 Yict., No. 51, entitled "An Act to further amend the Laws relating to Shipping and Seamen." I have, &c, J. CHAMBEELAIN. Governor the Eight Hon. the Earl of Glasgow, G.O.M.G.
A.-l, 1896. No. 18.
No. 36. (New Zealand, General.) My Lord,— Downing Street, 5th February, 1896. With reference to your Lordship's despatch, No. 45, of the 28th October last, on the question of fixing a common definition of " coasting service " in connection with the granting of certificates to masters and mates by the different Australasian Colonies, I have the honour to transmit to you, for the information of your Government, a copy of a letter from the Board of Trade which has been communicated to the colonies represented at the Hobart Maritime Conference, conveying the views of the Board as regards the boundaries of coasting service as set forth in the resolution passed by the Hobart Conference on the 25th April last. I have, &c, J. CHAMBEELAIN. Governor the Eight Hon. the Earl of Glasgow, G.CM.G.
A.-l, 1896, No. 15.
Enclosure. Board of Trade (Marine Department), 7, Whitehall Gardens, London, S.W., Sib,— 24th January, 1896. With reference to previous correspondence, I am directed by the Board of Trade to state that they had under consideration the communications which have been received from the Governments of Queensland. New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, and New Zealand, with regard to the question of fixing a common definition of " coasting service " in connection with the granting of certificates to masters and mates by the different Australasian Colonies under the provisions of Order in Council.
31
A.—2
The Board of Trade observes that the New Zealand Government were not represented at the Maritime Conference held at Hobart in April, 1894, and, also, that no communication upon the subject has yet been received from the Tasmanian Government. It also appears that no intimation has yet been received from the Australian Governments as to their having finally adopted the resolutions passed at the Hobart Conference, and, in the absence of any such intimation, the Board of Trade presume that the question cannot be regarded as having been yet definitely settled. At the same time I am to state that the Board of Trade has given very careful consideration to the boundaries of coasting service set forth in the resolution passed by the Conference in their meeting of the 25th April, 1894, and the Board are advised that, so far as the requirements of this department are concerned in connection with the issue of certificates in pursuance of section 102 of " The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894," these limits may be regarded as a satisfactory definition of "coasting service" in the case of each of the colonies. I am accordingly to request you to move Mr. Secretary Chamberlain, if he sees no objection, to cause a communication to this effect to be addressed to the Governments of the colonies which were represented at the conference. I have, &c, T. H. D. Pelham.
No. 37. (New Zealand, No. 10.) My Loed, — Downing Street, 18th February, 1896. I have the honour to transmit to you, for the information of your Government, with reference to your despatch, No. 52, of the 22nd November last, copies of documents noted below, respecting the case of A. B. Worthington. I have, &c, E. H. MEADE, For the Secretary of State. The Officer Administering the Government of New Zealand. 5th February, 1896.—Foreign Office to Colonial Office. 1st February, 1896.—The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Paunceforte.
A.-1,1896, No. 20.
Enclosures. Sic,— Foreign Office, sth February, 1896. I laid before the Marquis of Salisbury your letter of the 14th ultimo respecting the case of A. B. Worthington, an American citizen now residing at Christchurch, New Zealand. The Government of New Zealand suggest that the United States Government should be requested to apply for the extradition of Worthington for offences he has stated to have committed in the States. As there has been no result to the representations on the subject which the United States Consul at Auckland is reported to have made to his Government, Lord Salisbury is inclined to conclude that the United States Government are probably content that Worthington should remain abroad ; and in such circumstances his Lordship does not consider it advisable that any formal representation should be made to the United States Government. He has, however, by the despatch of which I enclose a copy for Mr. Secretary Chamberlain's information, instructed Her Majesty's Ambassador at Washington to mention to the United States Secretary of State that the New Zealand Government have reported the presence at Christchurch of Worthington, who they understand is wanted in America for offences set forth in a pamphlet which Sir Julian Paunceforte is authorised to leave with Mr. Olney. I have, &c, The Under-Secretary of State, Colonial Office. Fbancis Beetie.
(Treaty No. 1.) Sib,— Foreign Office, Ist February, 1896. I transmit to you herewith a copy of a letter from the Colonial Office, enclosing a copy of a despatch from the Governor of New Zealand respecting an American citizen, A. B. Worthington, now residing at Christchurch in that colony. This person has founded a quasi-religious sect at Christchurch, to the detriment, it is said, of public morality, and the Government of New Zealand request that representations may be made to the United States Government in order that the necessary steps may be taken for his extradition from the colony. The United States Consul at Auckland is stated to have communicated with the United States Government on the subject of this fugitive criminal, but with no result. The United States Government are probably content that Worthington should remain abroad, and it is not my wish that your Excellency should make any request to them that they should apply for his extradition to the United States for the offences which he is stated to have committed, but you might, in conversation with Mr Olney, mention to him that the New Zealand Government have reported the presence at Christchurch of Worthington, who, they understand, is wanted in America for offences which are set forth in the pamphlet which they have sent Home, and which you might leave with Mr Olney. I have, &c, Sir J. Paunceforte, G.C.B. and G.C.M.G. Salisbury.
A.—2.
32
No. 38. (New Zealand, No. 9.) Downing Street, 25th February, 1896. Intimating that Her Majesty will not be advised to exercise her power of disallowance with respect to the Acts of the Legislature of New Zealand passed in the second session of the twelfth Parliament, 1895. [For lists of Acts see New Zealand Gazette, 24th April, 1896, page 660.] Approximate Cost of Paper.— Preparation, not given; printing (1,350 copies), £U 16s.
By Authority : James Bdbns, Government Printer for the time being, Wellington,—lB96. Price 9d.]
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/parliamentary/AJHR1896-I.2.1.2.2
Bibliographic details
DESPATCHES FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES TO THE GOVERNOR OF NEW ZEALAND., Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1896 Session I, A-02
Word Count
21,031DESPATCHES FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES TO THE GOVERNOR OF NEW ZEALAND. Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1896 Session I, A-02
Using This Item
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in