The Press. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1872.

Press, Volume XX, Issue 2996, 10 December 1872, Page 2

The Press. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1872.

A correspondence is etill going on between the Imperial and Colonial Governments on the subject of intercolonial reciprocity. It began so far back as 1868, upon the disallowance of an Act passed by the Tasinanian Parliament for the establishment of intercolonial fff-e trade ; and has been continued intermittently ever since, in connection partly with the action taken by the Legislature of New Zealand, and partly with resolutions adopted by Colonial Conferences. The latest addition to it is iv the form of a memorandum by Mr "Vogel, dated the 15th November, written in reply to a circular despatch from Lord Kimberley to the Colonial Governments in April last. Mr Vogel's memorandum is very long ; but, if the case of the colonies cannot be put upon stronger grounds than thot<e urged by him, the Imperial Government is not likely to be induced to abandon its objections. What is the use of arguing with Lord Kimberley whether the precedents of the North American colonies are in point or not ? Lord Kimberley says they are not, because the case of those colonies is exceptional. His Lordship may or may not be right ; but he is not likely to be driven from his position by the Colonial Treasurer of New Zealand. Perhaps his Lordship may think it somewhat unbecoming in the Colonial Treasurer of a small dependency, to endeavor to draw the Imperial authorities into a kind of diplomatic controversy on such a point. At all events he will no doubt decline the offered encounter, and will refuse to take up the wager of battle thrown down by Mr Vogel. Nor is it profitable to discuss with the Imperial authorities the question, how far the doctrines of free trade are applicable to colonies. Great Britain will not concede a principle which she has deliberately adopted as the foundation of her commercial policy. Nor is it likely that Lord Kimberley will discuss with Mr Vogel the federation of the empire, and the terms on which the colonies should be admitted to a participation in the Imperial Go vernment. All this can lead to no practical result. Still we do want the power of making arrangements with our sister colonies of Australia, for the interchange of some of our commodities. To do bo seems, to us, a step in the direction of free trade itself. We cannot understand why — because we are compelled for purposes of revenue to impose import duties on foreign wines generally —we should be debarred from promoting the consumption of cheap and wholesome wines manufactured in the Australian colonies, by remitting or relaxing our customs duties in their favor, and obtaining from them concurrently a better market fur our grain, flax, and other home-grown products. This would be free trade, at all events partially. It is answered: "By all means reduce your tariff on wines ; but let the same reduction include French and other wines as well." That is another question ; not one of free trade, but of equal treatment of all countries, foreign and colonial, alike. But we cannot afford to do this. We are obliged for the sake of revenue to levy duties on foreign wines. "Then," Bays the Imperial Government, " you shall show no favor to your sister colonies over foreign countries. Tou shall impose similar duties on all alike." The demand for equality of treatment may be properly applied to foreign countries. One foreign country may have a right to claim from the empire and from all its dependencies the same treatment as another. Some countries may claim the benefit of the " most favoured nation" clause which is common in modern commercial treaties. The colonies may be, and to some extent no doubt are, bound by such Imperial treaties; at all events those existing at the time when we obtained irom the Imperial Parliament the power of regulating our own import duties. But these colonies are not, in relation to each other, foreign countries. Originally the whole present group of Australasian colonies formed parts of one colony—New South Wales. At that time there was perfect freedom of commercial intercourse internally between what are now distinct colonies. As one colony after another broke off —Tasmania first, subsequently New .Zealand —they retained and practically exercised the right of free interchange of their respective products (the principle which is now contended for) regardless of Imperial treaties. The earliest Customs Acts of Tasmania and New Zealand expressly provide for the .admission of customable commodities from the parent colony, New South Wales, free of duty. The Imperial Government then raised no objection to the principle of free commercial intercourse between the colonies.

In fact, it seems reasonable in itself that the various parts of the Empire, notwithstanding their separation into distinct colonies, should inter se be at liberty to regard themselves aa a political unit for commercial purposes, and to interchange their home grown commodities, just as England, Scotland, and Ireland interchange theirs. And if they have such a right, surely it is reasonable that they should be at liberty to make arrangements between themselves as to the terms on which the interchange of commodities should be regulated ; in other words, to enter into commercial treaties with each other, subject of course (as all colonial legislation must be) to Imperial disallowance. Mr Vogel puts forward a claim on the part of the colonies directly or indirectly to settle the terms of treaties to be made with foreign countries respecting colonial trade. This is denied by Lord Kimberley. Tbe making of treaties with foreign power* is, be insists, exclusively an Imperial function. Mr Vogel's position is untenable, But surely we are at liberty to

arrange amongst ourselves, by reciprocal compacts which simply concern ourselves. We chum to exercise this right without dispute in reference to such matters as postal, telegraphic, shipping and shipping dues, and other matters of a like kind. The Imperial Government does not insist on intervening in the arrangements made by one colony with another on these matters. Were it do so, the colonies would quickly recent and repudiate such interference, as an encroachment on their proper local autonomy. On what ground does Great Britain claim to exclude us from making similar intercolonial arrangements respecting our Customs tariffs ?

Mr Vogel seems in his argument to have abandoned these strong positions, and has weakened the cac-e of the colony by insisting on doubtful precedents, and setting up exaggerated claims which wiil not be admitted by the Imperial authorities. The subject i* one which requires tobehandled more carefully, and with more consideration than Mr Vogel seems to have bestowed upon it.