CO885-(16-18) — Page 480

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

ག ་། ། ་ །

Reference

C.O.

+885

17 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

42

that in 1903 the then Cape Government expressed the opinion that it was not desirable to introduce legislation, so far as that Colony was concerned, in the direction of limiting the coasting trade or the laws affecting shipping on the lines of the resolution of the Colonial Conference in 1902 referred to below.

6. As regards the Commonwealth Resolution headed "Treaty Obligations as affecting Dependencies of the Empire," I am to inform you that the Foreign Office has been asked to furnish a statement giving the desired information to be laid before the Conference.

7. With reference to the Commonwealth Resolution as to "Merchant Shipping and Coastwise Trade," it will be observed that it begins by reaffirming the resolution passed at the Conference of 1902, and then proceeds to ask the Imperial Government to take the necessary steps to revise any commercial treaties which prevent preferential treatment being accorded to British goods carried in British ships as proposed in the Bill recently passed by the Commonwealth Parliament and reserved by the Governor-General for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure, a copy of which was enclosed in the letter from this department of the 28th of November last.

8. The question of the resolution at the Conference of 1902, respecting the navigation laws of the Empire, was dealt with in the despatch to the Governor-General of Australia of 17th October last,† a copy of which was forwarded to you in the letter from this department of the 18th October, and I am now to enclose for convenience of reference a printed copy of that despatch together with printed copies of correspondence referred to therein.

9. Lord Elgin would be much obliged if the Board of Trade would draw up a comprehensive memorandum, to be laid before the forthcoming Confer- ence, dealing with all the questions involved in the above-mentioned resolution of 1902, and with the addendum now proposed by the Commonwealth Government. It is desirable that such a memorandum should specify what treaties of commerce and navigation would have to be denounced-

(1) if vessels of foreign countries, which confine their coasting trade to vessels of their own nationality, were to be excluded from engaging in the coastwise trade of the United Kingdom, or of the Colonies;

or

(2) if the privilege of engaging in the trade between the Mother Country and its Colonies and Possessions, or between one Colony or Possession and another, were to be refused to countries in which the corresponding trade is confined to ships of their own nationality; or

(3) if it were desired to limit preferential treatment accorded to British

goods to such goods carried in British ships.

10. It is desirable that the memorandum should show what would be the probable effects of and the objections to denouncing such treaties, and also, apart from the treaty question, what would be the advantages or disadvantages of any measures aimed at restricting British trade to British ships. Moreover, as the expression "revision of treaties" is used in the Commonwealth Resolution, which may point to action on the lines of the recent declarations made at Athens, whereby the Colonies obtained power separately to withdraw from the treaty with treece, it would be convenient that the memorandum should point out the difficulties which would stand in the

way of securing this power in the case of the other treaties concerned. 11. As regards some of the treaties in question, I am to enclose, with reference to your letter of 23rd November last, copy of Notes dealing with certain points in which their interpretation appears to be doubtful.

12. The memorandum might also with advantage deal with the arguments for and against the adoption of the principle that the phrase "Coastwise trade" should in all cases be taken to include the trade between the Mother Country and its dependencies or between one dependency and another.

• Not printed.

† 31291 not printed.

43356; not printed.

43

13. The memorandum might conclude by referring to the draft treaty enclosed in your letter under acknowledgment (to be printed as an Appendix) as being the model form on the basis of which His Majesty's Government as at present advised would wish to negotiate future commercial treaties; but His Lordship will be glad if the Board will consider whether it would be practicable or desirable to separate the navigation and commercial clauses of the draft treaty, with a view to negotiating in future separate navigation and commercial treaties, so as to give the Colonies the opportunity of adhering to the one without necessarily adhering to the other.

14. I am to add that Lord Elgin will be glad to see the proposed memorandum in draft form before it is finally settled and printed for the use of the Conference.

15. A copy of this correspondence is being forwarded to the Foreign Office, to which Department the Board of Trade will doubtless communicate the proposed memorandum.

I am, &c.,

Enclosure 1 in No. 1.

NEW ZEALAND RESOLUTION.

H. BERTRAM COX.

IX.-Preferential Trade between Self-Governing Dependencies. That all doubts should be removed as to the right of the Self-governing Dependencies to make reciprocal and preferential fiscal agreements with each other and with the United Kingdom, and further, that such right should not be feltered by Imperial Treaties or Conventions without their concurrence.

CAPE OF GOOD HOPE RESOLUTIONS.

Ocean Freights.

This Conference notes with appreciation the appointment by His Majesty's Government of a Commission to deal with certain questions con- nected with the system of rebates in the British shipping trade, and recommends that the scope of the Commission's instructions be enlarged with a view to the inclusion of the following subjects as part of their inquiry

(1) Control of combinations.

(2) Subsidies to lines affected by subsidised foreign competition.

Limitation of British trade to British bottoms.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA RESOLUTIONS.

XIV.-Treaty Obligations as affecting Dependencies of the Empire. That the Imperial Government be requested to prepare, for the information of Colonial Governments, statements showing the privileges conferred and the obligations imposed on the Colonies by existing commercial treaties, and that inquiries be instituted in connection with the revision proposed in Resolution No. 5, to ascertain how far it is possible to make those obligations and benefits uniform throughout the Empire.

V.-Merchant Shipping and Coastwise Trade.

That the resolution of the Conference of 1902, which was in the following terms, be re-affirmed :—

"That it is desirable that the attention of the Governments of the Colonies and the United Kingdom should be called to the present state of the navigation laws in the Empire, und in other

Page 480Page 481

44'

countries, and to the advisability of refusing the privileges of coastwise trade, including trade between the Mother Country and its Colonies and possessions, and between one Colony or possession and another, to countries in which the corresponding trade is confined to ships of their own nationality, and also to the laws affecting shipping, with a view of seeing whether any other steps should be taken to promote Imperial trade in British vessels.' That the Imperial Government be requested to take the necessary steps for the revision of any commercial treaties which prevent preferential treatment being accorded to British goods carried in British ships.

"

Other resolutions to be deferred until the receipt of the resolutions of the Merchant Shipping Conference.

45

5. It is to be noted that while the form of the article in the Russian Treaty is in some respects similar to the corresponding article in other treaties, c.g. the Italian Treaty of 1883, the wording at the end of Article V. of the Italian Treaty differs at a crucial point by substituting the words "a port of either of the contracting Parties" for the words "a port of the other contracting Party." Thus, Article V. of the Italian Treaty would appear to include inter-imperial trade, while the corresponding article in the "Russian Treaty does not.

6. In view of these doubts as to the correct interpretation of the above Treaties, it would seem desirable to avoid referring to them as forming an obstacle to the Australian proposal to give preference to British goods carried in British ships.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O-885

17 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

Enclosure 2 in No. 1.

Notes on certain Treaties.

With reference to Board of Trade letter of the 23rd November and previous correspondence on the subject of the treaty position in regard to the proposed Australian preference to British goods imported in British ships, there appears to be some doubt as to the correctness of the Board's view as to the interpretation of the Austro-Hungarian Treaty of 1868. That treaty seems to relate to navigation only and not to commerce generally. At the time that it was made there was already in existence a treaty (that of 1865) regulating our commercial relations with Austria-Hungary. would therefore appear that the privileges and favours granted in the 1868 treaty refer only to rights of navigation, &c., in territorial waters, harbours, rivers, &c., and have no reference to import duties, in regard to which most- favoured-nation treatment is secured by the Commercial Treaty of 1876.

It

2. Similarly in the treaties with Honduras and Paraguay, the stipulation as to the national treatment of ships and cargces seems to be limited to matters included in paragraph 2 of Article III. (Honduras) and paragraph 2 of Article IV. (Paraguay).

3. Possibly, however, the records of the Foreign Office show whether the terms of the above-mentioned treaties were intended to apply to import duties

or not.

C

means

4. It also seems doubtful whether the treaty with Russia of 1859 really forms an obstacle to the proposed preference to British shipping. It is true that Article 5 presents some difficulty of interpretation, but in view of the second paragraph of the article it seems probable that the phrase "any other country" where it first occurs in the first paragraph of that article any other non-British country," and that the same phrase in latter part of same paragraph means "any other non-Russian country." For the second paragraph, which purports to set up perfect equality of treatment in regard to exportation between the two countries in the same manner as the first does with regard to importation, runs "The same export duties shall be "paid in the dominicns and possessions of either of the two contracting parties on the exportation of any article legally exportable therefrom, whether such exportation takes place in Russian or in British vessels, and "whatever may be the place of destination, whether a port of the other I contructing party or of any third Power," ie., the equality only extends to the exportation of goods from the country of the one contracting party to the ports of the other contracting party or the ports of a third Power, e.g., Australian goods to Russian or non-British ports. Arguing from this paragraph to the first paragraph, it seems fairly clear that in the same manner the equality with regard to importation only extends to the importa- tion of the goods of one country into the dominions of the other or any third Power, i.e., British goods into Russian ports or non-British ports, and does not include the importation of British goods from one British port into another British port.

<

42931.

SIR,

No. 2.

COLONIAL OFFICE to FOREIGN OFFICE.

Downing Street, January 16, 1907. Wrr reference to your letter of 24th November last, I am directed by the Earl of Elgin to transmit to you, to be laid before Sir E. Grey, copy of a letterf addressed to the Board of Trade on the subject of Resolutions proposed by the Governments of the Commonwealth, New Zealand, and the Cape of Good Hope, which bear on the question of treaties as affecting the trade relations of the Empire, together with copies of all the enclosures accompanying that letter, and a copy of the Board of Trade letter of 23rd November last, which is mentioned in the last enclosure.

2. I am to state that Lord Elgin will be much obliged if Sir E. Grey would cause a statement to be prepared, to be laid before the Conference, giving the information asked for in the Commonwealth Resolutions headed Treaty obligation as affecting dependencies of the Empire," and in this connection I am to draw attention to your letter of 3rd September last§ and the letter from this Department of the 13th September referring to treaties containing most-favoured-nation clauses other than those noted in [Cd. 1807].

I am, &c.,

83/S.

No. X.

H. BERTRAM COX.

Preferential Trade (General Correspondence).

No. 1.

The SECRETARY OF STATE to the ADMINISTRATOR OF NEWFOUNDLAND.

(Confidential.)

(See No. 2.)

Downing Street, January 9, 1903.

SIR,

I HAVE the honour to acquaint you, for the consideration of your Ministers, that I have received from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a copy of the Newfoundland Commercial Convention, as signed by His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington, and the United States Secretary of State.

2. I observe that in its final form the Convention differs from the draft in one point of importance, the addition to Article V. of the words "and that no heavier duty shall be imposed on articles coming from the United "States than is imposed on such articles coming from elsewhere."

46

43367/06; not printed. † No. 1. 43356; not printed. § 32669; not printed.