CO885-(7-8) — Page 644

172

|| | ||

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O. 885

}

8

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

134

we in Canada could make use of the ships of foreign nations where they do reciprocate, I think that we would not object to the resolution, but before going further into it we should be pleased to hear just how the treaties affect this question as to whether we are free to make such an arrangement as is now suggested. I understand Mr. Balfour's opinion is that we are embarassed by the treaties.

The PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I think we certainly -should be embarrassed by the treaties if this were intended to be not a reciprocal arrangement, but an arrangement absolutely reserving the inter- Imperial trade to British vessels. If it is to be a reciprocity arrangement, so far as my knowledge goes the three countries principally concerned-if not the three countries only concerned-are Russia, the United States, and France. Every other country, I think, does practically leave its coastal trade open to British vessels. Russia and the United States are exceptions, and France is a partial exception, that is to say, that, France refuses to open her coastal trade in the narrower sense of the term to vessels of other nationalities, and also the trade between France and Algeria, but the trade between France and her more distant possessions is open to all the world. Now, as regards Russia and the United States my impression is that we could close our coastal trade to these countries under powers already given us by existing legislation. That would be, of course, a point for the Law Officers of the Crown. As regards France I am not quite certain whether we could close our coastal trade to France without infringing existing treaties. Perhaps, Sir Alfred Bateman, you would be able to express an opinion upon that?

Sir ALFRED BATEMAN: I think we could do so reciprocally.

The PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: There is a special arrangement between Great Britain on the one side, and France on the other, with respect to trade between France and Algiers.

Sir ALFRED BATEMAN: Yes, but we could close the trade as regards the coasting trade of the United Kingdom, but not as regards the coasting trade between the Colonies and the United Kingdom.

The PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: You are speaking now of France?

Sir ALFRED BATEMAN: Of France.

The PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: That is to say, if Sir Alfred Bateman's view is right, we could close the coasting trade in the narrower sense of the United Kingdom against France, but we could not close the trade between the United Kingdom, say, and Australia or Canada, inasmuch as France opens her trade with her distant Colonies to all the world.

I

Sir WILFRID LAURIER: Do you expect serious competition, Mr. Balfour?

The PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: No, not from France

I think, either in the present or in the future.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER: It could be ignored?

The PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I should think it could be absolutely ignored, and I may say that, at present, the share of Russia and the United States in inter-Imperial trade is extremely small.

135

Sir WILFRID LAURIER: Will it not become larger?

The PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: It might become larger. The further question might be raised by Russia whether the inter- Imperial trade the trade between Great Britain and her Colonies-was or was not in the proper sense of the term constal trade. 'The United States could hardly raise that question, because they have already treated the trade between the United States and Porto Rico, and between the United States and Honolulu, as coastal trade, and I imagine they will do the same with that of the Philippine Islands when certain engagements into which they have entered with Spain and with this country conie to an end. The United States, therefore, could not raise the question. Russia could raise the question, but at the same time I am not at all certain that it would not be a very desirable thing that the question should be raised and settled in a case where the actual material interests are still very small.

The SECRETARY OF STATE: I think the legislation which would be required might be only Colonial legislation, because, of course, if a Colony prohibits foreign vessels in its ports it would be impossible for these foreign vessels, even though they were free, to come to English ports, to carry on trade between England and the Colony concerned; therefore, legislation in the Colonies would be just as effective for the purpose as legislation at home, and it would only be necessary to legislate at one end in order to secure the result. What I wanted to ask you was whether you had any opinion as to the effect of the treaties on Colonial legislation; whether that would involve difficulties if the legislation were confined to the Colony?

7

The PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I believe the question as regards the Colonies is not in exactly the same position as it is with regard to the United Kingdom. You would in every case have to look closely into the treaties in order to determine whether as regards a particular country it could or could not close the coastal trade against Great Britain or the Colonies.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER: I do not see any reason why this resolution should not be adopted. It does not bind us to accept. It only says to call the attention of the Colonial Governments to the matter.

It is a very important question; and one which certainly requires attention. So far as Canada is concerned, it has always engaged our attention. It simply reads that it is desirable that the attention of the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Colonies should be called to the present state of the navigation laws in the Empire and in other countries and to the advisability of refusing the privileges of coastwise trade to those countries in which this trade is confined to ships of their own nationality. It is simply opening the question without settling it at all, and meantime, for my part, I see no objection why this resolution should not be carried, leaving it afterwards to deal practically with the differont countries in the way Mr. Balfour suggests.

Mr. SEDDON; Mr. Chairman, I take the same view as Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and I do not think we shall get any further by deferring a conclusion upon the question. It is quite clear that under existing conditions something must be done. The way to do it is to call the attention of the Colonial administrators, and they, in turn, will call the attention of the Parliaments to it. It is only a question for the Imperial authorities to lead us.

We are

all satisfied as to the necessity of doing it, and in doing it I have no doubt in advising us they will warn us of shoals that we may come upon in the proposed legislation. And for my own part, I say that the Mother Country is suffering and the Colonies are suffering. I would like to say that oven the Cape Parliament, and the Canadian and Australian Parliaments, and we in our respective Colonies, we do not like to see, after what has been done by the Colonies and by the Mother Country, we do not want to see the merchandise and the trade of South Africa going to other countries. If something could

R 4