A.—4.

annexation questions. I consider that the colonies are much indebted to their representatives in England, not only for the energetic action, but also for the spirit of harmonious co-operation which has happily been so very much evinced by the Agents-General. I have, &c, James Service, Sir Francis Dillon Bell, K.C.M.G., Agent-General for New Premier. Zealand, Westminster Chambers, London, S.W.

No. 8. The Premier, New Zealand, to the Premier, Victoria. Sir, — Premier's Office, Wellington, sth January, 1885. I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 18th December, covering copy of a letter addressed by you to the Agent-General for this colony, in acknowledgment of copies of his paper on the recidiviste question, being a translation of notes of a debate in the French Senate, and also expressing your appreciation of the services to Australasia rendered by him in connection with that question, and as regards annexation generally. I have, &c, The Hon. James Service, Premier of Victoria. Robert Stout.

No. 9. The Agent-General to the Premier. Sir, — 7, Westminster Chambers, London, S.W., 31st December, 1884. In my letter of the 19th November (No. 533), giving you an account of the interview between Lord Derby and the Agents-General, I mentioned that a formal note would be prepared by the Agents-General of what had passed. I have now the honour to transmit to you a copy of that note herewith. I have, &c, The Hon. the Premier, Wellington. F. D. Bell.

Enclosure No.. 1. Notes of an Interview between the Earl of Derby and the Agents-General for New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, and New Zealand on the 18th November, 1884. Sic Saul Samuel, the senior Agent-General present, introduced the Agents-General to Lord Derby, and stated that (as on previous occasions) they had requested Sir Francis Bell to open the discussion. Lord Derby was accordingly informed that the Agents-General had waited upon him to express the views of their Governments upon the present position of the Becidiviste Bill, and to mention the desirability of providing a more effectual jurisdiction than at present existed over the islands in the Western Pacific not subject to the New Guinea Protectorate. The events connected with the Eecidiviste Bill were then traced since the first interview which the Agents-General had with Lord Derby, in June, 1883. At that time, his Lordship would recollect, the Bill had just passed the Chamber of Deputies. The scheme had. then three leading features. The first was, that France was to be entirely freed from large numbers of her relapsed criminals, the estimates of such numbers reaching as high as sixty and even eighty thousand. The second, that this great advantage to France would be obtained, comparatively speaking, without cost. The third, that the recidivistes were to be absolutely free on their arrival in the colony to which they were to be sent. His Lordship would no doubt also remember that the last feature was one which had seemed incredible at the time. Now, it was only necessary to compare the Bill as it went up from the Chamber with the Bill as just passed the premiere deliberation in the Senate in order to see how great was the change that had been made. This change was undoubtedly very greatly due to the representations of Her Majesty's Government, and especially to the consummate tact with which those representations had been enforced by Lord Lyons, Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris; and the Agents-General were glad to take this opportunity of expressing the obligation of the colonies for the spirit in which those representations had been made. All the three leading features of the original scheme were now reversed. In the first place, instead of there being sixty or eighty thousand criminals to send, there were only to be about nine thousand altogether, spread over a period of three years. In the second place, instead of the scheme being one to be carried out at little cost, the estimates for these nine thousand during the first three years exceeded one million sterling, showing that, if the original numbers had been sent, the cost would have amounted to between eight and nine millions. In the third place, instead of the recidivistes being free upon arrival in their colony, they were to be placed under effectual restraint, and be compelled to labour. And, in addition to this reversal of the three leading features of the original scheme, another change had been made in the proposed distribution of the recidivistes. His Lordship would remember that the Bill as it passed the Chamber of Deputies named four colonies for the proposed transportation; whereas in the amended Bill these had been struck oat, and the place of relegation left entirely to the Executive Government. An equally marked change had occurred in French public opinion. There had always been some opposition in France as well to the principle as to the details of the original Bill; but recently this opposition had been urged so powerfully, especially in several letters by M. Jules Leveille, that the Government 2—A. 4.

9