The Timaru Herald. MONDAY, MARCH 26, 1900.

Timaru Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 3220, 26 March 1900, Page 2

The Timaru Herald. MONDAY, MARCH 26, 1900.

We confess that we do not quite understand the attitude of Lord Carrington towards the Australian Commonwealth Bill. In a speech delivered a day or two ago, His Lordship expressed a hope that " the Liberals would stand shoulder to shoulder and refuse to sanction any alteration of the Bill " by the Imperial Parliament. As stated in one of our cablegrams on Friday last, Lord Carrington's reason was that "as federation of the Australian colonies had been ratified by a great majority, Britain should not arrogantly order another compact to be made." If that be a good reason for declining to allow any alteration whatever in the Bill, his Lordship's pronouncement involves much more than he probably intended, and the Imperial Parliament is reduced to the position of a mere registering body in respect of Bills coming from the colonies with the sanction of a majority. It might be difficult— it is, in fact, impossible — to determine how far the right of the Imperial Parliament to introduce alterations in such Bills should be exercised. It is, however, a constitutional right, and the duty of the Imperial Parliament is to exercise it in the interests of the whole Empire. . Each case as it comes forward must be judged on its own merits. Of course arrogant and merely meddlesome alterations should be avoided. We are not prepared to say whether that character belongs to the alterations suggested by the Crown Law Officers in the Commonwealth Bill. Fuller information on the subject is wanted, but on the face of the cablegrams it does not appear that the proposed amendments are either arrogant or meddlesome, for they are said to refer to the Navigation Laws and to the application to the Commonwealth of the Colonial Laws Act, 1865. The difficulty over the Commonwealth Bill is intensified by Mr Seddon's action. It seems that he instructed the Agent-General to endeavour to secure amendments allowing (1) outstanding colonies to enter the Commonwealth on the same terms as those which bind together the original federated colonies, and (2) allowing outstanding colonies to enter the Commonwealth partly, say, as regards defence, the use of the Federal Courts within certain limits, and the right to make treaties with the Commonwealth. These amendments may be good, but we do not think that the Premier of New Zealand has acted fairly or courteously in springing a mine upon thecolonial Governments and peoples who have laboured so assiduously to make federation an accomplished fact. New Zealand stood aloof "from the federation movement, and we think wisely so ; but nevertheless the Premier might have pressed his views on the attention of the Australian Premiers whilst the Commonwealth Bill was still before the colonial legislatures. It does not appear that he did so. He preferred to allow the colonies to come to an agreement, and then made his appeal to the Imperial Government. It strikes us as being a rather underhand and crooked method of procedure. If he had first moved the colonial legislatures through their respective Governments, whilst the Bill was still under consideration in the colonies, and they had declined to fall in with his views, they could not have blamed him had be then appealed to the Imperial Government. As the matter stands, his action has caused considerable friction, and has to some extent embarrassed the position of the Home authorities. An outspoken and straightforward policy would have been infinitely better. The legislature of New Zealand has also cause to complain of the action of the Premier, for he should have taken honourable members into his confidence. Instead of doing so, he left them altogether in the dark. It is the Premier and not the Parliament of New Zealand who has intervened in the matter of the Australian Commonwealth Bill.