PAPERS RELATIVE TO INTERCOLONIAL RECIPROCITY.

Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1872 Session I, A-09

A.—No. 9.

PAPERS RELATIVE TO INTERCOLONIAL RECIPROCITY.

PRESENTED TO BOTH HOUSES OP THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, BY COMMAND OF HIS EXCELLENCY.

WELLINGTON.

1872.

A.—No. 9,

PAPERS RELATIVE TO INTERCOLONIAL RECIPROCITY.

No. 1. The Hon. W. Milne to the Hon. W. Gisbobne. Chief Secretary's Office, Sic, — Adelaide, South Australia, 3rd November, 1871. I have the honor, by desire of His Excellency Sir James Fergusson, to forward herewith, for the information of your Government, copy of a Bill passed by the Legislature of this Province, intituled " An Act to make better provisions for the Interchange of Colonial Productions and Manufactures between the Colonies of Australasia," which was reserved by His Excellency, on the 26th ultimo, for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure thereon. I have, &c, The Hon. the Colonial Secretary, New Zealand. William Milne.

Enclosure in No. 1. An Act to make better provisions for the Interchange of Colonial Products and Manufactures between the Colonies of Australasia. [Reserved, 26th October, 1871.] Wheeeas the free interchange between the Colonies of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, Queensland, Western Australia, New Zealand, and South Australia of their respective products and manufactures is restricted by reason of the obligation which is now by law imposed upon the said Colonies to subject such products and manufactures, upon admission into any of the said Colonies, to the same duties of Customs as are imposed upon the like products and manufactures when the same are imported from other places: And whereas such restriction prejudicially affects the trade and commerce between the said Colonies, and it is desirable that such restriction should be removed or modified : And whereas it is necessary to this end that each of the said Colonies should be empowered to make arrangements with the others for the interchange of their respective products and manufactures, on such terms as may be mutually agreed upon: Be it therefore enacted by the Governor of the Province of South Australia, with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council and House of Assembly of the said Province, in this present Parliament assembled, as follows : — 1. The Governor, with the advice of the Executive Council, may enter into an agreement with the Governors of the Colonies of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, Queensland, Western Australia, and New Zealand, or with any of them, for the admission into South Australia of all or any of the products and manufactures (except spirits and tobacco) of the said Colonies, or of any of them, free from Customs duties or other charges, or at such reduced duties and charges as the Governor, with the advice aforesaid, thinks fit: Provided that every Colony with whose Governor such agreement shall be entered into, shall agree to admit the products and manufactures of South Australia, or some of them (except spirits and tobacco), either free from all duties and charges, or at such reduced duties and charges as may be agreed upon. 2. Any such agreement may be entered into for a period not exceeding ten years ; but there shall be inserted in such agreement a stipulation that such agreement may be terminated by any or either of the parties thereto after one year's notice of the intention to terminate such agreement shall have been given to the other party or parties to such agreement, in a manner to be provided therein. 3. Any such agreement may be altered or terminated at any time by the Governor, with the advice of the Executive Council, with the consent of the Governor of every Colony who is a party to such agreement, or may be terminated by notice to be given as before mentioned, but not otherwise. 4. The Governor shall, by Proclamation to be published in the South Australian Government Gazette, declare and make known the products and manufactures which under such agreement are exempted from duty and charges, or subjected to reduced duty and charges, as the case may be; and thereupon such products and manufactures may be imported free of duty or other charge, or subject to such reduced duty or charge as is set forth in such Proclamation, so long as such agreement as aforesaid continues in force. 5. Every alteration or rescission of any such agreement shall be made known by Proclamation to be published in the said Gazette. 6. The Governor, with the advice of the Executive Council, may make orders for carrying this Act into effect, and for determining what articles come within its provisions; and any such orders may from time to time be altered or rescinded by the Governor, with the advice aforesaid: Provided that all such orders shall be published in the said Gazette. 7. This Act may be cited as the " Intercolonial Free Trade Act, 1871."

A.—No. 9.

4

PAPERS RELATIVE TO

No. 2. The Hon. W. Gisboene to the Hon. W. Milne. Colonial Secretary's Office, Sib,— Wellington, N.Z., 18th December, 1871. I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 3rd ultimo, enclosing the copy of a Bill passed by the Legislature of South Australia, intituled " An Act to make better provisions for the Interchange of Colonial Products and Manufactures between the Colonies of Australasia." I beg that you will convey to His Excellency Sir James Fergusson the thanks of this Government for his attention in forwarding the Bill. Accompanying this letter you will receive a circular covering two copies of a Memorandum by the Colonial Treasurer of this Colony, which explains the views of this Government upon the subject of Intercolonial Eeciprocity. I have, &c, The Hon. the Chief Secretary, South Australia. W. Gisboene.

Enclosure in No. 2. (Circular No. 66.) Sib, — Colonial Secretary's Office, 'Wellington, 20th December, 1871. I have the honor to enclose, for the information of your Government, two copies of a Memorandum by the Colonial Treasurer of New Zealand, which fully explains the views of this Government on the subject of Intercolonial Eeciprocity, as raised by the Circular Despatch from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, dated the 13th of July last. I shall be glad to receive a statement of any opinion that may have been formed by your Government upon this subject. I have, &c, W. Gisbobne.

Sub-Enclosure to Enclosure in No. 2. Memorandum on a Circular Despatch from the Eight Hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies on Intercolonial Reciprocity. The Colonial Treasurer has carefully studied the Circular Despatch dated 13th July, 1871, from the Eight Hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies to Governor Sir George Ferguson Bow'en, on the subject of Intercolonial Eeciprocity. He recognizes the consideration which has induced his Lordship to set forth at length the views of Her Majesty's Government on the subject; but he is unable to discover in those views reasons for withdrawing the recommendation already given, that the Colonies should be at liberty to mate reciprocal tariff arrangements. The Despatch was brought under the notice of the Assembly, and the special attention of the House of Eepresentatives was called to it, but no Member expressed a wish that the subject should be reconsidered. The Secretary of State does not, in his Despatch, mention that the position of New Zealand differs from that of the neighbouring Colonies. He treats of them collectively : but there is reason to believe, from previous communications, that his Lordship is aware that there is no law which prohibits the New Zealand Assembly imposing differential duties. Although such a prohibition is contained in the Constitution Acts of the Australian Colonies, it does not find place in the New Zealand Constitution Act, the provisions in that Act being confined to a prohibition against passing any law infringing treaty arrangements between Great Britain and Foreign Powers. Probably Lord Kimberley did not think it necessary to refer to the distinction; because, evidently, as long as New Zealand alone possesses the power to impose differential duties, she cannot enter into reciprocal arrangements with her neighbours. Still it is important to remember she has the power, both because she might find it convenient to use it outside the Australian group, as the British American Colonies have used a similar power, and also because it may fairly be claimed that the power possessed by New Zealand ought without delay to be granted to the Australian Colonies, including Tasmania. There are some incidental passages in Lord Kimberley's Despatch, which, if grouped, might lead his Lordship to reconsider the views he has expressed. 1. There are allusions to the absence of any urgent need of dealing with the matter. 2. Throughout the Despatch it is contended that the proposal of reciprocity is made in the interests of protection. 3. The desire is indicated to encourage a Customs Union. 4. The admission is made that an Act similar to the measure the Colony desires to pass, was one of the first Acts of the Legislature of the newly-constituted Dominion of Canada in its opening Session ; " that it was passed in the expectation that at no distant date the other Possessions of Her Majesty in North America would become part of the Dominion;" and that " the assent of Her Majesty's Government to a measure passed in circumstances so peculiar and exceptional, cannot form a precedent of universal and necessary application." These four references, taken in connection, are unusually suggestive. The Act passed by the Legislature of the Dominion, to which Lord Kimberley refers, was, in respect to the clauses permitting reciprocity, similar to the Act of 1866, passed before the Dominion was constituted; and that again was copied from a former Act. In these Acts, clearly the provision was made from a genuine desire to permit suitable reciprocal arrangements; but Lord Kimberley states that in 1868 the provision was made in the expectation that other Provinces would join the Dominion, and that the assent of Her Majesty's Government was given in consequence. It may be assumed that Lord Kimberley uses the word " expectation "in the sense of desire. It was not necessary to make provision for remission of duties in the case of those Provinces which became part of the Dominion, for the fact of becoming part

INTERCOLONIAL RECIPROCITY.

5

A.—No. 9.

would have caused the duties to cease. It must be concluded that Lord Kimberley wishes it to be understood that the provisions in the Act passed since the constitution of the Dominion were made with the view of encouraging other Provinces to join, or of preventing obstacles being thrown in the way of their joining, and not upon the grounds which previously, for a long period, led to similar legislation in the different North American Provinces. The words " circumstances so peculiar and exceptional," do not apply to the legislation, for that was of a traditional character, but to the desire of the Dominion and of Her Majesty's Government to encourage and promote a further union of the British American Possessions. This desire constituted what Lord Kimberley terms "the circumstances so peculiar and exceptional." But for that desire, where was the urgency ? and if there was urgency in the British North American case, why is there not urgency in the case of Australasia, in the presence of a similar desire to encourage a Customs Union or a Confederation ? The actual results in Australasia lead inferentially to the belief that the Dominion authorities and Her Majesty's Advisers were correct in considering the matter urgent in the interest of Confederation, although the proof is only of a negative character. The mere power to make reciprocal arrangements might not in itself be sufficient to induce Confederation; but Australasian experience leads to the belief that it would tend to prevent the growth of obstacles to Confederation. In the absence of the power desired by the Australasian Colonies, retaliatory tariffs of a protective character have grown up ; and the way to Confederation, or to a Customs Union, has in consequence become more difficult than it was when the power to make reciprocal arrangements was first asked for, or than it would be now if the power had been granted. The inference is, that those who in the case of British America deemed the matter urgent, were right; and that the Secretary of State, desiring a Customs Union or Confederation of the Australasian Colonies, can only deny that the matter is urgent on the assumption that it is too late to deal with it, because of the disposition which has been shown to impose hostile Intercolonial tariffs. Several of the protective duties now in force in the Colonies owe their origin to feelings of self-defence or retaliation. The most ardent free-traders have admitted that the tariffs of some Colonies have forced protective duties on others, so that the absence of reciprocity has actually fostered protection. Therefore, in respect to the four propositions, it can be said that in the interest of a Customs Union or of Confederation there was urgency, because the power to enter into reciprocal arrangements would, in all probability, have prevented the fresh obstacles to union which have grown up; and that, in the interest of free trade, reciprocity was desirable, because its absence has encouraged protection. No doubt, it may be argued that special reciprocal arrangements are in their nature opposed to free trade ; but the test of the theory would be the practice; and if that practice were principally confined (to quote his Lordship's justification of the Acts of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island) to "a limited list of raw materials and produce not imported to those Colonies from Europe," it might readily be understood that, in respect to other articles, the absence of retaliatory tariffs would tend in the direction of free trade. It is not desired, however, to contend that with powers of reciprocity there would necessarily be free trade in Australasia, any more than, with similar powers, free trade has been the rule in Canada. It is merely contended that in some of the Australasian Colonies the desire for free trade has been stamped out by prohibitory tariffs, which have owed their growth, partly or wholly, to the absence of that power of reciprocal arrangement so unaccountably withheld from Australia, whilst its urgency was admitted in the case of Canada. The question naturally arises why Lord Kimberley should only compare the proposed legislation with that of the period subsequent to the formation of the Dominion. If he would compare it with the precisely similar legislation of the British North American Provinces prior to the Dominion, he might admit not only that when the Dominion was formed the legislation was required to encourage other Colonies to join, but that the legislation and the friendly intercourse which grew up under it had something to do with the establishment of the Dominion, and. that, therefore, it was conducive to a desirable result. The Colonial Treasurer proceeds to comment on the various questions which Lord Kimberley states the proposal before him raises : —lst. " Whether a precedent exists in the case of the British North American Colonies for the relaxation of the rule or law now in force?" His Lordship admits the precedent, but qualifies the admission, first as already mentioned, by contending that the Act of the Dominion was passed under peculiar and exceptional circumstances ; and second, in the case of the Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland Acts, by contending that " as dealing with a limited lisb of raw materials and produce not imported to those Colonies from Europe, they are hardly, if at all applicable to the present case." It has already been shown that the " peculiar and exceptional circumstances " can only mean the circumstances calculated to induce the Colonies affected to join the Dominion, or the prevention of obstacles which would preclude their joining; and those circumstances are precisely of the nature which Her Majesty's Government, in the desire to encourage an Australasian Customs Union or Confederation, should not deem exceptional. In respect to the Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland Acts, it may with propriety be assumed that the Australasian Colonies will exercise the powers they ask for with the same judgment, moderation, and discretion which the two North American Colonies have shown. Those Colonies possess the power sought by the Australasian Colonies—they exercise it without their Acts being reserved for Her Majesty's pleasure ; but in the case of the Australasian Colonies the power is withheld ; and when they ask for it, and cite the precedent, it is not to them a satisfactory answer to be told, in effect, that the precedent need not bo dwelt upon, because the Colonies enjoying the privilege have used it sparingly. No doubt, Lord Kimberley did not wish directly to urge this plea; but throughout his Lordship's Despatch, and indeed at the base of all his objections, is the supposition that the Australasian Colonies, if they possessed the power of entering into reciprocal arrangements, would use it in a manner injurious to the interests of Great Britain. But it is singular that Lord Kimberley should give two instances only of British American legislation of the kind, and that he should assign to that legislation the character of " dealing with a limited list of raw materials and produce not imported to these Colonies from Europe." There are other Acts of the British American Provinces of a similar nature, but which leave to the Governor in Council to determine the articles to be admitted. Indeed, it is difficult to understand on what grounds Lord 2

A.—No. 9.

6

PAPERS RELATIVE TO

Kimberley considers the two clauses which he quotes from the Newfoundland Act to have the character he assigns to them. The clause quoted from the Prince Edward Island Act professes to deal with " raw materials and produce," but includes several manufactures. The clauses from the Newfoundland Act do not even profess to exclude manufactures from the list; and the first of those clauses, instead of not dealing with goods imported from Europe, proceeds to the length of exempting from duties the articles mentioned, being " the growth, produce, or manufacture of the United Kingdom." In respect to the second question, " Whether Her Majesty's treaty obligations with any Foreign Power interfere with such relaxation?" i.e., the rule or law against differential duties, the Colonial Treasurer observes that Lord Kimberley admits the correctness of the view taken by New Zealand. It is a matter which should create much satisfaction, on broad and enlightened national grounds, that the right of Her Majesty's Colonies to make between themselves arrangements of a federal or reciprocal nature, without conflicting with treaty agreements, has been recognized. It would have been demoralizing to the young communities of Australasia, had they been taught to believe that reciprocal tariff arrangements between the Colonies were inconsistent with Her Majesty's treaties with Foreign Powers, but that they could override the spirit of such treaties by the subterfuge or evasion of a Customs Union. If, for instance, it be a wrong to any Foreign Power that New Zealand should admit free of duty any produce of New South Wales, 'while for the like produce from any other colony or country a duty would be demanded, the wrong would be just as great if, by Imperial legislation, such free admission were legalized through a Customs Union. It should clearly be impossible to vary a treaty by the legislation of only one party to it; and seeing that New South Wales and New Zealand were originally one Colony, with one tariff, and may by Imperial legislation become so again, it is evident that if such a result can be brought about without the infringement of Imperial treaties, any terms of more modified arrangement, such, for example, as the free admission of only some goods, would not be open to objection on the score of bad faith with Foreign Powers. Lord Kimberley admits that the quoted paragraph of the Zollverein Treaty has no application to the case of arrangements between different Colonies. Its object seems to be to prevent the Colonies making such reciprocal arrangements with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland as from time to time may be found desirable. A provision of this nature is at least open to the objection that it is constantly liable to be infringed. In the Act of the Canadian Dominion already referred to, and which, from what Lord Kimberley writes, appears to have been under the special consideration of Her Majesty's Government, there are provisions which beyond question conflict with the quoted paragraph in the Zollverein Treaty. The list of free goods in the Schedule to the Act comprises two items which are to be free if of British produce or manufacture. The clause quoted by Lord Kimberley from the Newfoundland Act, which makes free of duty the articles mentioned, " the growth, produce, or manufacture of the United Kingdom," also conflicts with the provisions of the Zollverein Treaty. Again, the argument which the Colonial Treasurer has used as between the Colonies, applies as between the Colonies and the Imperial country. Why should a foreign treaty contain a provision tending to preclude the union of different parts of the Empire ? If Great Britain were to confederate her Empire, it might and probably would be a condition, that throughout the Empire there should be a free exchange of goods. The arguments in favour of a Customs Union between Colonies have as much force in their application to a wider union embracing the whole Empire. Either the Zollverein Treaty would prevent this, or the necessary legislation would make the quoted clause inoperative. The effect, if not the intent, of the stipulation in the Zollverein Treaty is to make Great Britain hold the relation of a foreign country to her Colonies. It is appropriate here to urge on the Secretary of State, since he has the subject under his notice, not to confine his consideration to the mere question of intercolonial arrangement. His Lordship entirely refrains, in his allusion to the British American Acts, from noticing that they contain not only a discretionary power to admit Colonial articles free, but also to admit, under similar conditions, articles from the United States. Great as is the distance between the British American and Australasian Colonies, the vast limits of the United States bring that country into ready communication with Australia as well as with British America. It may be for the interest of the Australasian Colonies, just as much as it has been for that of the British American Colonies, that arrangements should be made to admit free, articles from the United States or from some other country. It is desirable that the Secretary of State should define the position of the Australasian Colonies in this respect. Are they to be denied the power which for a long period the British American Colonies have uncontrolledly exercised ? That power gives them the right to make reciprocal arrangements with their American neighbour; for only on the ground of the arrangements being reciprocal would they fail to be infractions of the " most favoured nation " clauses of British treaties with Foreign Powers. The Australasian Colonies would value similar powers. The third and fourth questions raised by Lord Kimberley are sufficiently analogous to make it convenient that they should be considered together. They are: —" Whether a general power should be given to the Australasian Governments to make reciprocal tariff arrangements, imposing differential duties, without the consent of the Imperial Government in each particular case ? " and " Whether, on grounds of general Imperial policy, the proposal can properly be adopted?" The Colonial Treasurer submits that these questions really raise the issue, whether, in the original Constitutions granted to them, the Colonies should have been allowed so much discretion as to fixing their own tariffs; and if this be the issue, the Treasurer admits that much may be said against the discretion which has been granted. The exporters of Great Britain are, no doubt, largely affected by the nature of the Colonial tariffs; but it can make no difference to them whether New South Wales and New Zealand exchange their produce free under a special reciprocal arrangement, or by virtue of an Act constituting them into Provinces with a federal union. The actual duties affect the exporters, and not the question whether those duties are the result of federal constitution or reciprocal arrangement. In failing to assert the right to control Colonial tariff's, Great Britain does not take advantage of her power to consolidate an immense trade, from which she and her Dependencies might equally benefit. But it must be observed that, if the right were asserted, it would logically follow that the Colonies should

INTERCOLONIAL RECIPROCITY.

7

A.—No. 9,

enjoy some share, either by representation or consultation, in deciding the policy by which they would be affected. Lord Kimberley writes : —"Her Majesty's Government are alone responsible for the due observance of treaty arrangements between foreign countries and the whole Empire; and it would scarcely be possible for the Colonial Governments to foresee the extent to which the trade of other parts of the Empire might be affected by special tariff arrangements between particular Colonies." The remark as to the trade of other parts of the Empire might be applied with as much cogency to the actual tariffs fixed by the Colonies as to the special arrangements entered into between thorn. Lord Kimberley, recognizing the difficulty which Great Britain would have in dealing with the matter, points to the want of local knowledge which Her Majesty's Government would labour under. . The same want of information would equally affect the ability to decide the Colonial tariffs, unless, in either case, there was available the assistance of Colonial representatives. In short, Great Britain must logically do one of two things—either leave the Colonies unfettered discretion ; or—if she is to regulate tariffs or reciprocal tariff arrangements, or to make treaties affecting the Colonies —give to the Colonies representation in matters affecting the Empire. In other words, she must apply in some shape to the Empire that federation which as between the Colonies themselves Her Majesty's Ministers constantly recommend. To urge the right of Great Britain to regulate these matters under present circumstances, is to urge that the interests of the Colonies should, be dealt with in the absence of the requisite knowledge of their wants and requirements. In one passage in his Despatch, Lord Kimberley infers that reciprocity in reality means protection; and, again, he writes—" Her Majesty's Government are bound to say that the measure proposed by the Colonial Government seems to them inconsistent with those principles of free trade which they believe to be alone permanently conducive to commercial prosperity, nor, as far as they are aware, has any attempt been made to show that any great practical benefit is expected to be derived from reciprocal tariff arrangements between the Australasian Colonies." There could not be more striking evidence of the disadvantage under which the Colonies in their present circumstances would labour, if the treatment of their fiscal interests were left to Her Majesty's Government, than is supplied by these observations of the Secretary of State. " The measure proposed " may be used to do no more than that which, as already observed, his Lordship in the case of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island seems to consider unobjectionable. It may be used to make similar arrangements to those which were introduced in the treaty with France, devised by the late Mr. Cobden, the apostle of free trade. It is true that it has been said that that treaty was not a free-trade treaty, but it undeniably was made in the interests of free trade. Again, " the measure proposed " may be used to bring about that Customs Union to which Lord Kimberley is not averse ; and, as already shown, it may be used to stop those retaliatory tariffs which impede free trade and stimulate protection. In fine, it may be used to encourage the exchange of the productions of the temperate and tropical portions of the Australasian Colonies, without even remotely affecting the interests of British exporters. If, in commenting upon Lord Kimberley's Despatch, the Colonial Treasurer has appeared to travel beyond the immediate questions referred to in it, he has scrupulously abstained from doing so to an extent greater than he has considered necessary for the purpose of representing to Lord Kimberley that, although the New Zealand Government still adhere to the desire they have expressed, they do so for reasons which are not calculated to create unfriendly feelings between the Imperial country and the Colonies. Such Lord Kimberley deems to be the tendency of the present question, although his Lordship vorv considerately does the Government the justice to believe that it is their desire to preserve the friendly feeling now existing on each side: and it is with a view to prove that such is the desire, that the Colonial Treasurer, whilst expressing the adherence of the Government to their former opinions, has endeavoured to show that those opinions have not the unfriendly tendency suggested, but that, on the contrary, their full and free discussion may lead to a determination to make yet more intimate, and more subservient to mutual welfare, the ties which bind together the Irnjierial country and the Colonies. Wellington, Bth December, 1871. Julius Vogel.

No. 3. The Hon. C. G. Duffy to the Hon. "W. Gisboeme. Sm,— Chief Secretary's Office, Melbourne, Victoria, 12th January, 1872. I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 20th ultimo, enclosing a Memorandum explanatory of the views of the Government of New Zealand on the Secretary of State's recent Despatch on Intercolonial Reciprocity, and requesting a statement of the opinions entertained by Government on that question. I have to express my thanks for the Memorandum transmitted. The views of this Government are contained in a Minute submitted to the Governor when bringing under His Excellency's notice the Resolutions of the Intercolonial Conference, for the purpose of laying them before Lord Kimberley. I have much pleasure in enclosing for the information of your Government a copy of that paper. I have, &c, The Hon. the Colonial Secretary, New Zealand. C. Gavast Duffy.

Enclosure in No. 3. Memorandum for His Excellency Viscount Cantekbuey, X.C.8., &c. I desibe to bring under His Excellency's attention a report of the proceedings of the Intercolonial Conference, which has just closed its sittings, with a view of having it transmitted to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

A.—No. 9.

8

PAPERS RELATIVE TO

The main business of the Conference was to consider the most effectual and economic method of establishing a fortnightly mail with Europe. Two routes have been agreed upon, the existing one by Suez and Brindisi, and a second through the United States. As the commercial and political interests of the United Kingdon would be promoted by these services in as great a degree as the corresponding interests of the Australian Colonies, it has been assumed that the Imperial Government will be willing to bear a moiety of the entire cost of both services. The negotiations which have already taken place between the Agents of certain of the Colonies and the Postmaster-General in London justify, I think, this assumption. The specific grounds, however, upon which the claim of the Colonies for co-operation and assistance in these undertakings is based will be brought under the attention of the Imperial Government anew by the two Colonies intrusted with the duty of transacting this business on behalf of the contracting Colonies, as soon as the.sanction of the Colonial Legislatures has been obtained for the proposed routes. In the meantime I have to request your Excellency to send a copy of the proceedings to the Post-master-General in London, through the Secretary of State, that he may be acquainted with what has been done, and have an opportunity of considering whether he will be pleased to undertake, on behalf of the Imperial and Colonial Governments, the negotiations and arrangements specified in clauses 8 and 10 of the contract. I have farther to bring under your Excellency's notice resolutions unanimously adopted by the Conference—with the exception of the Delegates from Queensland, who were restricted to the consideration of the Postal question—with respect to the recent Despatch of the Secretary of State on the subject of "reciprocal tariff advantages." I wish at the outset to acknowledge on the part of this Government the evident desire the Secretary of State exhibits to treat the wishes of the Colonies with respect and courtesy, and to find a method if possible compatible with political feeling at home to accomplish their wishes. We reciprocate this sentiment, and desire also to find a method, of securing a necessary concession strictly compatible with our determination to maintain the closest and most affectionate relations with the mother country. The Secretary of State intimates grave doubts whether the subject of Intercolonial Tariffs presses for immediate decision or action, and it was, I believe, this doubt which chiefly induced the Conference to come to an immediate and unanimous decision. The question certainly has passed from the stage in which it might be justly described as not yet urgent, when three of the Australian Colonies have passed Bills, and two Intercolonial Conferences in succession have adopted resolutions, with respect to it. What the Australian Colonies claim to do, the Dominion of Canada and some neighbouring Colonies have already done; and we are unable to comprehend any peculiar claim the North American Colonies have to exercise powers which cannot be safely intrusted, or indeed can be legitimately denied, to the Colonies of Australia. The Secretary of State suggests that there were peculiar circumstances arising out of the expectation that a Federal Union between the Dominion and the Colonies which it favoured would soon be accomplished; but it is the desire of the leading statesmen of Australia to effect a federal union of these Colonies also, and the means that were considered effectual for that purpose in North America ought not, we submit, to be denied to us. But, in truth, the right of establishing differential duties between the Colonies has been already exercised by the two principal Colonies of Australia. There is an agreement known as the Border Treaty, which has been in force for several years, by which the products of New South Wales pass into this Colony duty free —an advantage enjoyed by no other colony or country whatever. The right for which we contend, therefore, has been long in operation, not only in Canada, but in Australia. The Secretary of State admits that there are no treaty obligations which fetter the discretion of the Imperial Government on this subject; and for our part, this Government do not understand how any treaty obligations with foreign countries can now, or hereafter, pretend to regulate the relations of two British Colonies any more than the relations between two counties of the United Kingdom. The political difficulties which the Secretary of State suggests are no doubt entitled to consideration. A Bill to repeal the laws prohibiting the full exercise of Colonial rights would, he thinks, give rise to serious discussion in Parliament and elsewhere. But we believe a distinct statement of our claims will tend not only to facilitate their recognition but to remove these difficulties ; and we are well aware that since colonies existed they have not obtained any concession that did not, in the first instance, raise serious discussion both in Parliament and the country. The Secretary of State warns us against the impolicy of exercising the powers which we seek. We contend, with unfeigned respect for the Secretary of State, that this is a question which belongs solely to the Colonial Legislatures. No attempt can be more hopeless than to induce free self-governed States to adopt exactly the same opinion on such questions as free trade and protection which the people of England happen to entertain at that precise moment. They were protectionists when they thought it their interest to bo protectionists, and they are free traders when they think it their interest to be traders ; and in these respects small and large communities bear a close resemblance to each other. I trust your Excellency will assure the Secretary of State that the desire to which he alludes of seeing the connection between the Colonies and the Mother Country maintained and strengthened is nowhere more active than in Victoria; but a people who have founded a great State, who have built great cities and established a commercial navy larger than that of many kingdoms in Europe, who have maintained order and protected property as strictly as they are maintained and protected in any part of the United Kingdom, and who have done these things without asking assistance from the Imperial Government, are naturally impatient of being treated as persons who cannot be intrusted to regulate their own affairs at their own discretion. Government Offices, Melbourne, 7th October, 1871. C. Gayan Dtjity.

A.—No. 9.

No. 4. The Hon. J. M. Wilson to the Hon. W. Gisborne. Sic, — Colonial Secretary's Office, Tasmania, 19th January, 1872. I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter under date the 20th December last, transmitting two copies of a Memorandum by the Colonial Treasurer of New Zealand on Lord Kimberley's Circular Despatch of the 13th July, 1871, which you are good enough to inform me fully explains the views of your Government on the subject of Intercolonial reciprocity. The Government of Tasmania is much obliged by the opportunity of perusing Mr. Vogel's able and exhaustive Memorandum on the important Despatch under consideration, and is pleased to find Now Zealand thus strenuously supporting the action on this head of the Melbourne Conferences of 1870 and 1871. I have now the honor to forward you herewith four copies of a paper printed by order of the Parliament of this Colony in its last Session, containing Despatches and Correspondence on the subject of Intercolonial Free Trade, together with a Report and Minutes of the Proceedings of the Intercolonial Conference held in Melbourne in September last. At page 21 of this paper will be found a Memorandum which I addressed to His Excellency Governor Dv Cane, on the 11th September last, which embodies the views of the Government of Tasmania on the questions treated of in Lord Kimberley's Despatch. You will perceive that my Memorandum coincides in its general tenor and in some particular points with the views expressed in Mr. Vogel's Minute; and the Government of New Zealand will, no doubt, observe with satisfaction that Governor Dv Cane's Despatches to the Secretary of State strongly support the application to the Imperial authorities for the concession to Australasia of the privilege long since conferred upon British North America, of negotiating Intercolonial reciprocity conventions. The Memorandum and Resolutions adopted by the Melbourne Conference in September last alao firmly maintain and assert the same principle on behalf of the Australasian Colonies. I have, &c, The Hon. the Colonial Secretary, New Zealand. J. M. Wilson.

Enclosures in No. 4>. Extbacts fboh Papees and Coeeespondence eclating to loteecoioniai Fbee Tbade between Tasmania and the other Australasian Colonies. His Excellency Governor Dtt Cane to the Eight Hon. the Earl Gbanville. (No. 26, Executive). Mi Loed, — Government House, Tasmania, 14th July, 1870. In my Despatch of the 15th ultimo, I informed your Lordship that, at the suggestion of my Ministers, an Intercolonial Conference of Representatives of the Governments of New South "Wales, Tasmania, South Australia, and Victoria was to be held in Melbourne on the 20th ultimo, having for its object (amongst other matters), "to consider and decide upon the advisability of establishing an Australian Customs Union on the basis of a common tariff and a free interchange of products and commodities." 2. In that Despatch I enclosed copies of the Commission under the Public Seal of the Colony appointing the Hon. Mr. Wilson, Colonial Secretary, and the Hon. Mr. Chapman, Colonial Treasurer, to be the representatives of my Government at the Conference, and of my instructions to those gentlemen as such representatives. 3. I have now the honor to acquaint your Lordship that the Conference has been held in Melbourne ; and I append a printed copy of its report, minutes, and resolutions, supplemented by correspondence, returns, tabulated statements, and memoranda by individual representatives, bearing upon the various subjects considered during its sitting. ****** 5. But your Lordship will observe that by far the most important resolution unanimously arrived at by the Conference is the one which asserts the rights of the Australian Colonies to " enter into arrangements with each other for the reciprocal admission of their respective products and manufactures duty free, on such terms as may be mutually agreed upon ;" and which requires the repeal of so much of the, " Act for the better Government of the Australian Colonies" as forbids the enactment by any Colonial Legislature of a tariff imposing differential duties. (Resolution 1, page 5.) 6. Now Zealand and Queensland, though not represented at the Conference, have already promised their adhesion to the principles enunciated in the resolution, as will appear from Mr. Gisborne's letters to my Government, at pages 13 and CO ; and from a Memorandum agreed to in January last by the Government of Queensland in concert with those of New South Wales and New Zealand, at page 47 of the Conference Papers herewith. 7. My Ministers have undertaken to prepare a draft measure for submission to the several Australian Governments to give effect to this resolution; and it seems next to a certainty that identical, if not simultaneous, legislative action in this direction will be taken by the four Colonies represented at the Conference, as well as by New Zealand and Queensland. 8. I have the assurance of my Ministers that the tone of the Conference on all questions affecting the present or prospective relations of the Mother Country and the Colonies was that of loyalty to the Crown, and anxiety for the maintenance of the Imperial connection. # # * * # # 10. Tour Lordship will observe that the resolution adopted by the Conference does not seek to transfer to any single Colony or group of Colonies the Imperial prerogative of concluding treaty engagements with Foreign Powers. It only aims at the removal of the veto on Differential Duties as 3

9

INTERCOLONIAL RECIPROCITY.

A.—No. 9

10

PAPERS RELATIVE TO

between the Colonies, and claims for their Legislatures and Governments the right to enter into arrangements in the nature of reciprocity conventions amongst themselves. A principle very similar to this has, I apprehend, been recognized by Her Majesty's Government, and acted upon, in the case of the British North American Provinces before their confederation in a single Dominion, as well as in the case of the legalized remissions of Customs duties on goods entering Victoria and New South Wales across the Murray Border. \\ # # # There is no doubt that the present system operates injuriously in many ways to the producing, industrial, and commercial interests of Tasmania; and the colonists, as I have gathered from opinions I have heard pretty generally expressed, find it difficult to to understand how imperial interests or Imperial obligations can be affected by Intercolonial arrangements that would allow the admission duty free into the Continential Colonies of Tasmanian timber, grain, hops, malt, beer, or preserves, in return for the similar admission into Tasmania of the wines, spirits, sugar, woollens, and other manufactures of the Continental Colonies. In thus forwarding that which will probably be the earliest information your Lordship will receive respecting the proceedings of the Conference, I feel it to be my further duty to invite beforehand your Lordship's favourable consideration towards the application for these powers which will for certain be embodied in an Act of the Legislature in the approaching Session. * * # # # * 13. I cannot regard otherwise than with feelings of satisfaction the fact that the idea of this Conference, which in all probability will lead to great and important results, and which undeniably has promoted a useful interchange of ideas between the official representatives of the principal Australian Colonies, emanated in the first instance from my Eesponsible Advisers, and was brought about by their energy and perseverance. I have, &c, The Eight Hon. the Earl Granville, KG. Chaeles Dt: Cane.

The Hon. J. M. Wilson to the Hon. J. Bobertson. Sic, — Tasmania, Colonial Secretary's Office, 17th August, 1870. Herewith I have the honor to enclose you " A Bill to make better provision for the Interchange of Colonial Products and Manufactures between the Colonies of Australasia." 2. This Bill has been drafted for introduction into the Legislature of this Colony, with a view to giving effect to the resolution on the subject of Intercolonial Reciprocity unanimously passed by the late Conference in Melbourne; and it is now submitted to the Government of New South Wales, in accordance with the undertaking given to the Conference by the representatives of the Government of Tasmania. 3. It will be seen that the Bill is almost identical with the Intercolonial Free Trade Bill of the Parliament of Tasmania, which was disallowed by Her Majesty on the advice of the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos. 4. The present draft, however, differs from the disallowed Bill in this particular, that no schedule of dutiable articles is appended to it. 5. It was thought desirable to render the measure as simple as possible consistently with a clear appropriation to the Governor in Council of power to enter into such arrangements with the Governors of other Australasian Colonies, or with any of them, as would " allow of the reciprocal admission of their respective products and manufactures, duty free, on such terms as may be mutually agreed upon." 6. With this view, the only condition attached to the exercise of this power is one requiring that such arrangements shall be baßed upon absolute reciprocity. 7. For obvious fiscal considerations, spirits and tobacco are excepted from inclusion in any such, reciprocal arrangement. 8. I entertain no doubt whatever that the Bill—of which I transmit you a copy —or a very similar measure, will be passed by the Parliament of Tasmania in its next Session, which will open on the 23rd instant; and 1 trust that your Government will take an early opportunity of inviting the Parliament of New Zealand to assent to a similar enactment. 9. There is the more occasion for promptitude in this matter inasmuch as the legislation now contemplated must be accomplished in the case of New South Wales and Victoria by an amendment of their Constitution Acts, which can only be effected by Bills passed by two-thirds majorities of both Houses of Parliament in cither Colony, and reserved for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure ; while in the cases of South Australia, Queensland, New Zealand, and Tasmania, besides the delay incidental to a similar reservation, it may be necessary, if I am rightly informed, that an Act of the Imperial Parliament should be passed empowering Her Majesty to assent to legislation in excess of the powers conferred upon Colonial Legislatures by " The Act for the better Government of the Australian Colonies," (13th and 14th Victoria, cap. 59, section 27). 10. The Government of Tasmania has observed with extreme satisfaction that the Parliament of South Australia has already adopted a Petition to the Queen praying for the removal of all Imperial restrictions on the free interchange of products and manufactures between the Colonies. ******* I have, &c, The Hon. the Colonial Secretary, New South Wales. James Milne Wilson. [Similar to Victoria.]

INTERCOLONIAL RECIPROCITY.

11

A.—No. 9,

The Hon. J. M. "Wilson to the Hon. W. Gisboene. Sic, — Tasmania, Colonial Secretary's Office, 17th August, 1870. (Paragraphs 1 to 10 inclusive identical with Victoria and New South Wales.) 11. In your last communication on the subject of the proposed Intercolonial Free Trade Conference to be held in Melbourne, under date the 28th March last, while declining to assent to the suggestion of an Australian Commercial Federation on the basis of a common tariff, you intimated that the New Zealand Government "would be prepared to recommend the New Zealand Legislature to join those of the neighbouring Colonies in asking for power, and if necessary in insisting on obtaining it, to make reciprocal tariff arrangements with other Colonies and Countries." 12. The resolution of the Conference which the Bill now submitted to you is designed to effectuate, deals only with the question of commercial reciprocity as between the Colonies. It was thought undesirable to complicate that question by mixing it up with the larger question of reciprocity conventions as between the Colonies and Foreign Countries, irrespective of Imperial treaties. 13. I venture to hope that the New Zealand Government will not refuse to co-operate with the Governments represented at the Conference, to the extent indicated by the tenor of the draft Bill enclosed herewith. 14. The demand for " power to enter into reciprocal tariff arrangements with other Colonies " would naturally pave the way for the concession of the larger power of treaty with Foreign States ; and you will probably agree with me that the concurrent legislation of the Australasian Colonies in the direction of Intercolonial reciprocity would constitute the most effective practical protest against existing Imperial prohibitions of differential duties, and would forcibly impress Her Majesty's Government with a sense of the necessity for relaxing the restrictions which the British Legislature, in deference to treaty obligations, has hitherto imposed upon the free fiscal action of Her Majesty's self-governing dependencies. I have, &c, The Hon. the Colonial Secretary, New Zealand. James Milne "Wilson.

Exteact from Despatch No. 48, of October 27th, 1870, (Executive,) to the Eight Hon. the Earl of KIMBEBLET. Bill No. 43. " A Bill to make better provision for the Interchange of Colonial Products and Manufactures between the Colonies of Australasia." In my Despatch to Lord Granville, dated 14th July, 1870, enclosing the Eeport of the Proceedings of the Melbourne Conference, I called, attention to the resolution unanimously arrived at by the Conference, " asserting the rights of the Australian Colonies to enter into arrangements with each other for the reciprocal admission of their respective products and manufactures, duty free, on such terms as may be mutually agreed upon." I further stated that my Ministers had undertaken to prepare a draft measure for submission to the several Australian Governments to give eifect to this resolution; and that there was a strong probability of identical legislative action in this direction being taken by the four Colonies represented at the Conference, as well as by New Zealand Queensland. This Bill is the measure to which I thus alluded, and empowers the Governor of this Colony to enter into arrangements with the Governors of the adjoining Colonies for the reciprocal admission of all articles the growth and produce of the Colonies, with the exception of spirits and tobacco, free of duty. My Advisers have received official information that the Legislatures of New Zealand and South Australia have concurrently adopted similar legislation; and that there is reason to believe that other Australian Colonies, whose Parliaments are now or will shortly be in Session, are likely to legislate in the same direction. There is no doubt whatever that the power to enter into reciprocal arrangements of this kind with adjoining Colonies would confer a very great boon upon Tasmania, by tending to develop its timber trade, and encourage other important branches of industry. I quite admit that it would be a preferable proceeding for two or more Colonies to enter into a complete Customs Union, as suggested in your Lordship's Circular Despatch of the 15th July, 1870. But although this Colony has demonstrated its anxiety to bring about a Customs Union of this kind, by initiating as it did, through my Responsible Advisers, the recent Intercolonial Conference at Melbourne with a view to that final object, local jealousies and diversities of views as to the incidence of taxation have rendered abortive all attempts to accomplish it. It appears to me, however, that the concession of the power to enter into reciprocal engagements will pave the way towards ultimate complete union. Friendly commercial and financial relations will, at all events, be initiated between such of the Colonies as may avail themselves of the permission to enter into these engagements, local jealousies now in force will gradually lose their influence, and the advantages of complete union become better understood and appreciated. Under these circumstances I would suggest to your Lordship that Her Majesty's decision with respect to this Bill should be postponed pending the expression, either by legislation or by petition to the Crown, of the opinions entertained on the question by the majority of the other Australian Colonies. I apprehend at all events, as the Attorney-General has pointed out in his Eeport, that it will be necessary for the restrictions imposed by the 27th, and possibly also the 31st, sections of the Act 13 and 14 Victoria, cap. 59, to be modified by Imperial legislation before the Eoyal assent can be given. Chaeles Dxj Cane.

A.—No. 9,

12

PAPERS RELATIVE TO

An Act to make better Provision for the Interchange of Colonial Products and Manufactures between the Colonies of Australasia. Wheeeas the free interchange between the Colonies of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, New Zealand, and Tasmania of their respective products and manufactures is restricted by reason of the obligation which is now by law imposed upon the said Colonies to subject such products and manufactures, upon admission into any of the said Colonies, to the same duties of Customs as are imposed upon the like products and manufactures when the same are imported from other places: And whereas such restriction prejudicially affects the trade and commerce between the said Colonies, and it is desirable that such restriction should be removed or modified : And whereas it is necessary to this end that each of the said Colonies should be empowered to make arrangements with the others for the interchange of their respective products and manufactures on such terms as may be mutually agreed upon: Be it therefore enacted by His Excellency the Governor of Tasmania, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council and House of Assembly, in Parliament assembled, as follows :— 1. The Governor, by and with the advice of the Executive Council, may enter into an agreement with the Governors of the Colonies of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and New Zealand, or with any of them, for the admission into Tasmania of all or any of the products and manufactures (except spirits and tobacco) of the said Colonies, or of any of them, free from Customs duty, wharfage, or other charge, or at such reduced duty and charges as the Governor in Council thinks fit: Provided that every Colony with whose Governor such agreement shall be entered into shall agree to admit the products and manufactures of Tasmania or some of them (except spirits and tobacco) either free from all duties and charges, or at such reduced duties and charges as may be agreed upon. 2. Any such agreement may be entered into for a period not exceeding ten years. 3. Every such agreement may be altered or rescinded by the Governor in Council of Tasmania, with the consent of the Governor of every Colony who is a party to such agreement, but not otherwise. 4. The Governor shall, by Proclamation to be published in the Gazette, declare and make known the products and manufactures which are under such agreement exempted from duty and charges or subjected to reduced duty as the case may be; and thereupon such products and manufactures may be imported free of duty, wharfage, or other charge, or subject to such reduced duty or charge as is set forth in such Proclamation, so long as such agreement as aforesaid continues in force. 5. Every alteration or rescission of any such agreement shall be made known by Proclamation to be published in the Gazette. 6. The Governor in Council may make Orders for carrying this Act into effect, and for determining what articles come within its provisions; and any such Orders may from time to time be altered or rescinded by the Governor in Council: Provided that all such Orders shall be published in the Gazette. 7. This Act may be cited as " The Intercolonial Free Trade Act."

Memobajjdtjm by the Hon. J. M. "Wilson. Loed Kimbebley's Despatch, under date the 13th July, 1871, on the question of Intercolonial Reciprocity, has received the attentive consideration of His Excellency's Advisers. It is satisfactory to find that the Secretary of State admits that, in the cases of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, in 185G, and of the Dominion of Canada in 1867, Her Majesty's Government have assented to Acts exempting Colonial products from the duties imposed on similar articles when imported from Europe; and that, as regards the latest precedent, Lord Kimberley is not " prepared to deny that the Australian Governments are justified in citing it as an example of the admission of the principle of Differential Duties." It is not easy to understand why the earlier precedents are not similarly recognized as applicable to the recent demand for an admission of the same principle by the Legislatures of New Zealand and Tasmania, to which may now be added that of South Australia. The lists of articles in the sections of Statutes appended to the Despatch comprise, in the main, the products and manufactures of the Provinces and Colonies therein named ; and the reciprocity conventions contemplated by the reserved Bills of Tasmania and New Zealand would deal similarly with the products and. manufactures of the Australasian Colonies. There is, however, another example of the admission of the principle of Differential Duties by Her Majesty's Government which is not referred to by Lord Kimberley. The Acts of the Legislatures of Victoria and New South "Wales, which sanction the reciprocal importation across the Murray Border of goods which are liable to Customs duties on the wharves of Melbourne and Sydney, have received Her Majesty's assent, and constitute a recent and conspicuous precedent for legislation in favour of Intercolonial reciprocity; and this example derives special importance from the fact that the Acts in auestion were passed in the exercise of powers to legislate on this point, specially conferred upon Victoria and New South Wales by the Imperial Statutes which granted to those Colonies their present Constitutions. It would therefore seem that all the precedents that can be instanced of Imperial assent to Colonial legislation on this point may be " cited as examples of the admission of the principle of Differential Duties." When we come to the extent to which such Colonial legislation would affect Her Majesty's treaty obligations with Foreign Powers, it is admitted that there is but one treaty in existence which contains a stipulation restricting the fiscal legislation of " Colonies and Possessions " of the British Crown ; and that the Secretary of State is "advised" that the Article in question "may be held not to preclude Her Majesty from permitting" —to quote the language of the Despatch—"such a relaxation of the law as would allow each Colony of the Australasian group to admit any of the products or manufactures of the other Australasian Colonies duty free, or on more favourable terms than similar products and manufactures of other countries." From this we may infer that, while Her Majesty is bound to require that differential duties

INTERCOLONIAL RECIPROCITY.

13

A.—No. 9

shall not be imposed upon imports into British Colonies from the United Kingdom and Foreign States, Her Majesty is not required by any treaty to refuse the Royal assent to measures admitting the reciprocal importation between two or more British Possessions, duty free, of articles which the Colonial legislatures have subjected to Customs duties when imported from Europe. Lord Kimberley's suggestion of the impolicy of placing " German products and manufactures under disadvantages in the Colonial markets," seems to touch a subject on which it may be said the Legislatures of Australasia are the legitimate, perhaps the best, judges. Lord Kimberley's observations on the question of Colonial Differential Duties as affecting the general Imperial policy seem to proceed upon a misconception of the object aimed at by the Australasian Governments, and of the motives which influence the advocates of the removal of Imperial restrictions on the fiscal legislation of the Colonies. The object of the Tariff Conference held in Melbourne last year was to establish a Commercial Union of the Australias and New Zealand on the basis of a common tariff", with a distribution of the Customs revenue to the several Colonies according to population. That object was found to be, at that time, unattainable; and the Conference adopted a unanimous resolution to tho effect that it was desirable that the Colonial Legislatures should be freed from Imperial restrictions on their reciprocal fiscal arrangements. Her Majesty's Government had intimated their readiness to assent to a Customs Union of two or more Colonies; but when such an arrangement was found to be impracticable, the Governments represented at the Conference were willing to rest content with the removal of the existing restrictions on Intercolonial trade by reciprocity conventions. It is difficult to apprehend the force of objections offered to this mode of treating the question when no objection is raised to a Customs Union, which would produce precisely analogous results on a much larger scale. A Customs Union between all the Australasian Colonies would enable these countries to impose, if it were thought desirable, protective duties upon imports from Europe, while Colonial products and manufactures were reciprocally interchanged duty free. How, it may be asked, can such a system be deemed legitimate and admissible, when a plan for carrying it into only partial operation by less direct means is held to be open to grave objections ? Her Majesty's Government are prepared, we are informed, to sanction an arrangement that would enable a group of six Colonies, if they were so minded, to establish absolute free trade amongst themselves in combination with protection against all the world beside. But when two Colonies desire to be placed in a similar position by a tariff convention, " Her Majesty's Government are bound to say that the measure proposed seems to them inconsistent with those principles of free trade which they believe to be alone permanently conducive to commercial prosperity." By Lord Kimberley's own showing, there are precedents for the legislation now submitted for the Eoyal assent; and there are no legal obstacles to its recognition in the shape of Imperial treaty obligations. It is only on an abstract theory of the superior advantages of a free-trade policy that the Secretary of State objects to a proposal which seems to sanction protection under the name of reciprocity. These are views which can find no acceptance with Colonial Legislatures under a system of Constitutional Government. The question they desire to solve is one directly affecting the interests of the communities for which those Legislatures are elected to make laws. Its effect upon Imperial interests is almost inappreciable. The doubt whether " the imposition of differential duties upon British produce and manufactures might not have a tendency to weaken the connection between tho Mother Country and the Colonies, and to impair the friendly feeling on both sides," seems scarcely warranted by a fair consideration of the whole bearing of the application under discussion. It may be observed that the tariffs of the Australasian Colonies have, in effect, for some years past imposed duties on British manufactures either intentionally or incidentally protective. Is it to be sujjposed that the " friendly feeling on both sides " which has survived the imposition of protective or prohibitory duties on British manufactures would be " impaired " by a reciprocity convention, —for example, between Victoria and Tasmania, —which permitted the products and manufactures of those Colonies to be mutually exchanged duty free, or under a lower duty than similar articles imparted from the United Kingdom ? It may be suggested, with far greater probability, that " the friendly feeling on both sides " is more likely to be impaired by the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to relax a law which imposes an irksome restriction on the fiscal legislation, and vexatiously intermeddles with the domestic taxation, of these self-governed Colonies. Lord Kimberley seems to complain of the absence of " strong representations and illustrations of the utility or necessity of the measure." The unanimous resolution of the Conference of last year, and the subsequent identical legislation of New Zealand, South Australia, and Tasmania, may be taken as a sufficient indication of the strength of the conviction of the Governments and Legislatures of Australasia of the urgent necessity, and by consequence, in their judgment, of the utility, of the same. As far as the Colony of Tasmania is concerned, the " necessity and utility of the measure " are sufficiently obvious. Our Customs duties are imposed for revenue purposes only. But when our nearest neighbours practically close against our producers and manufacturers their best and natural market by tho comprehensive operation of an intentionally protective tariff, we seek relief in reciprocity conventions, which, while they would extend the basis of commercial operations between us and our neighbours, would in no way prejudice the interests of European producers and manufacturers, inasmuch as the desired convention would, for the most part, " deal with a limited list of raw materials and produce not imported to these Colonies from Europe." Lord Kimberley's treatment of this question indicates throughout a natural anxiety to avoid a decision which might seem to commit Her Majesty's Government to a departure " from the established commercial policy "of the Mother Country. But, since his Lordship assures us that Her Majesty's 4

A.—No. 9.

14

PAPERS RELATIVE TO

Government have not " come to any absolute conclusion on the questions which he has discussed," we may venture to hope that a firm but respectful persistence in the course of legislation already adopted by New Zealand, Tasmania, and South Australia will shortly secure for the Australasian Colonies that freedom from Imperial restrictions on their fiscal relations with each other which the conciliatory policy of Her Majesty's Government has already conceded to the Colonies of British North America. James Milne Wilson, His Excellency the Governor. Colonial Secretary's Office, lltli September, 1871.

No. 5. The Hon. J. M. Wilson to the Hon. W. Gisbobne. Sir, — Colonial Secretary's Office, Tasmania, 18th June, 1872. Referring to my previous communications on the subject of Intercolonial Reciprocity, I have now the honor to forward you a copy of a Memorandum which I have addressed to His Excellency Governor Dv Cane, embodying the views of the Government of Tasmania on Lord Kimberley's Circular Despatch, under date the 19th of April last. You will observe from this Memorandum that His Excellency's Advisers, not deeming it necessary to enter into a further discussion of tho points at issue between Her Majesty's Grovernment and the Australasian Colonies, as dealt with by Lord Kirnberley, have thought it sufficient to renew their request to the Secretary of State, that Her Majesty may be advised to assent to the " Intercolonial Reciprocity Act, " of which I have already supplied you with a copy. In conjunction with my colleagues, I now desire to suggest to the Government of New Zealand the advisability of continuing in like manner to press for the Royal assent to the Intercolonial Reciprocity Act of your Legislature. The concurrent and almost identical legislation on this subject of New Zealand, South Australia, and Tasmania, embodies in a practical form their objects and views on the question of Intercolonial Reciprocity and Differential Duties ; and assuming that those Colonies are not prepared to recede from the attitude maintained by that legislation, it would seem that the readiest way of impressing Her Majesty's Government with the assurance that these objects and views remain unaltered by the considerations suggested by Lord Kimberley, would bo to join in a simultaneous application for the Royal assent to tho Acts which now await the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure. It is my intention to communicate a copy of the enclosed Memorandum to the Governments of New South Wales and Victoria, and to urge them to introduce to their respective Legislatures, Intercolonial Reciprocity Acts, in accordance with the resolutions adopted at the Melbourne Conferences of 1870 and 1871. The adoption of the mode of procedure in this matter which I have suggested would not, of course, preclude any Colonial G-overnment from entering, at the same time, into that " further explanation of their views," which Lord Kimberley invites in the concluding sentence of his Despatch. I have, &c, The Hon. the Colonial Secretary, New Zealand. J. M. Wilson.

No. 6. The Hon. W. Milke to the Hon. W. Gisborne. Chief Secretary's Office, Ste, — South Australia, Adelaide, 19th January, 1872. I have the honor, by desire of His Excellency Sir James Fergusson, to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 20th ultimo, enclosing copies of a Memorandum explanatory of the views of your G-overnment on the subject of Intercolonial Reciprocity, as set forth, in Lord Kimberley's Circular of 13th July last, and to inform you, in reply, that the opinions of this G-overnment on the Despatch in question are embodied in the report of the proceedings of the late Intercolonial Conference held in Melbourne. I have, &c, The Hon. the Colonial Secretary, New Zealand. William Milne.

No. 7. The Hon. J. Robeetson to the Hon. W. Gisbobne. Sir,— Sydney, 23rd January, 1872. I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your circular letter of the 20th ultimo, transmitting two copies of a Memorandum by the Colonial Treasurer of New Zealand, which fully explains the views of your Government on the subject of Intercolonial Reciprocity, as raised by the Circular Despatch of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, of 13th July, 1871, and inviting the communication of any opinion that may have been formed upon the subject by the Grovernment of this Colony. I have, &c, The Hon. the Colonial Secretary, John" Robertson. New Zealand, Wellington.

INTERCOLONIAL RECIPROCITY

15

A.—No, 9,

No. 8. The Hon. J. Eobeetson to the Hon. W. Gisboene. Sic,— Sydney, 25th April, 1872. Eeferring to my letter of the 23rd January, and to yours of the 20th December last, in which you asked for a statement of any opinion that might have been formed by this Government on the subject of Intercolonial Reciprocity, as discussed in the Circular Despatch from the Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies, dated 13th July 1871, I have now the honor to refer you, for the desired information, to the printed proceedings of the Intercolonial Conference held at Melbourne in September, 1871, a copy of which is forwarded herewith, and on page 6 of which will be found the Memorandum on the above subject agreed to at the Conference by the Delegates from New South Wales, Tasmania, and South Australia. I have, &c, The Hon. the Colonial Secretary, John Eobeetson. New Zealand, Wellington.

Enclosure in No. 8. The Jifemorandum on the subject of Lord Kimberley's Despatch, as agreed to by the Delegates from New South Wales, Tasmania, and South Australia. We, the undersigned Delegates from the Governments of New South Wales, Tasmania, and South Australia, now assembled in Melbourne, having had under our consideration the Despatch of Lord Kimberley, dated the 13th July, 1871, have agreed to a joint Memorandum in reference to that Despatch. We are of opinion that the right of the Legislatures of these Colonies to direct and control their fiscal policy, as amongst themselves, without interference on the part of Her Majesty's Ministers in England, is a right which it is our duty to assert and maintain. We desire that the connection between the Mother Country and her offspring in this part of the world should long continue; and we emphatically repudiate all sympathy with the views of those who, in the Imperial Parliament and elsewhere, have expressed a wish that the bonds which unite us should be severed. As members of the British Empire, the relations of which with other countries are conducted by the Imperial Government, we deny that any treaty can be properly or constitutionally made which directly or indirectly treats these Colonies as foreign communities. With the internal arrangements of the Empire, whether in its central or more remote localities, foreign countries can have no pretence to interfere ; and stipulations respecting the trade of one part of the Empire with another, whether by land or sea, are not stipulations which Foreign Governments ought to be allowed to become parties to in any way. The article in the Treaty with the Zolverein, to which Lord Kimberley refers, is, therefore, one from the obligations of which we should claim to be considered free, if it were interpreted so as to prevent these Colonies from imposing differential duties as between themselves and foreign countries. By the agreement made betwren Victoria and New South Wales in 1867, free trade across or by way of the Eiver Murray was established ; and free trade between these Colonies by sea, as well as by land, might at that time with equal propriety have been established had it been thought expedient. Nothing that we are aware of has since occurred to call for or justify any interference with a similar arrangement between the same or other Colonies. It is of great importance that a cordial understanding should at all times prevail amongst these Colonies, and to that end nothing can be more conducive than a free interchange of their products and manufactures as amongst themselves. We all agree that efforts should be made in our respective Legislatures to provide, at as early a period as practicable, for this mutual freedom of trade ; but we at the same time assert the right of the Colonies we respectively represent to impose such duties on imports from other places, not being differential, as each Colony may think fit. In conclusion, we agree that copies of this Memorandum shall be transmitted through the Governors of our respective Colonies to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Signed at Melbourne, this 27th day of September, a.d. 1871. James Martin, ~1 Attorney-General and Premier, j Geo. W. Loeb, I ~ „ ~ TTr , Colonial Treasurer, \ New South WalesJoseph Dockee, j Postmaster-General, J J. M. Wilson, Colonial Secretary and Premier, j» Tasmania. James Dunn, M.E.C., J John Haet, "^ Treasurer and Premier, j William Milne, y South Australia. Chief Secretary, | W. Moegan, M.L.C., J

PAPERS RELATIVE TO

A.—No. 9

16

The Resolutions in reference to Intercolonial Tariffs, as agreed to iy the Delegates from New South Wales, Tasmania, South Australia, and Victoria. The Delegates from the Governments of New South Wales, Tasmania, South Australia, and Victoria, in Conference assembled, having had under their consideration Lord Kimberley's Circular Despatch of the 13th July, 1871, have unanimously adopted the following Eesolutions :— let. That the Australian Colonies claim to enter into arrangements with each other, through their respective Legislatures, so as to provide for the reciprocal admission of their respective products and manufactures, either duty free or on such terms as may be mutually agreed upon. _ 2nd. That no treaty entered into by the Imperial Government with any Foreign Power should in any way limit or impede the exercise of such right. 3rd. That Imperial interference with Intercolonial fiscal legislation should finally and absolutely 4th. That so much of any Act or Acts of the Imperial Parliament as may be considered to prohibit the full exercise of such right should be repealed. sth. That these resolutions, together with a Memorandum from each Government, or a joint Memorandum from such Governments as prefer to adopt that method, shall be transmitted to the Secretary of State, through the Governors of our Colonies respectively. Signed at Melbourne, this 27th day of September, a.d. 1871. James Maetin, 1 Attorney-General and Premier, Geo. W. Loed, , New South Waleß Colonial Treasurer, Joseph Dockee, . Postmaster-General, J J. M. Wilson, ~) Colonial Secretary and Premier, > Tasmania. James Dunn, M.E.C., ) John Haet, 1 Treasurer and Premier, | William Milne, }- South Australia. Chief Secretary, I W. Moegan, M.L.C., J C. Gatan Duity, 1 Chief Secretary and Premier, Geaham Beeet, }■ Victoria. Treasurer and Commissioner of | • Customs. J

No 9. The Hon. F. P. Baelee to the Hon. W. Gisboene. Colonial Secretary's OiSce, g IB _ Western Australia, Perth, 19th February, 1872. I have the honor the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your circular letter of 20th December 1871 No 71, 3614, and, in reply, I am directed by His Excellency Governor "Weld to thank you for'your courtesy in forwarding to me a Memorandum by the Colonial Treasurer of_ New Zealand on the subject of Intercolonial Eeciprocity, and to state that no expression of opinion on this very important subject has been elicited in the Legislature of this Colony, and that he is not aware that any section of politicians in Western Australia believes that differential tariffs would conduce to the interests of free trade, or promote the general unity of the various communities of Her Majesty's subjects. I have, &c, The Hon. the Colonial Secretary, Wellington, New Zealand. Feed. P. Baelee.