A.—No. 14.

10

PAPERS RELATIVE TO A PROPOSED CONFERENCE.

Soutli Wales, Victoria, Queensland, and New Zealand, were not long since under one Government, and formed one Colony; and also, that by reason of the close proximity of these Colonies to one another, andjfrom the fact that, each of these Colonies possessing gold fields of considerable extent, there is such an intercourse between, and a going to and fro of the populations, as to make them, if not one people, at least to give them in most matters an identity of interests; —bearing in mind these matters, the absence of reciprocity in commerce can only be accounted for by the existence of some unnatural obstruction. That unnatural obstruction is found in the Constitutions which the Imperial Parliament lias imposed on tho several Australian Colonies. In each of them is found the same prohibition —the prohibition having its immediate origin in the 31st section of the 59th of I.3th and 14th Victoria. An attempt on the part of Tasmania to enter into an arrangement with others of the Australasian Colonies, for the importation of products and goods on terms of reciprocity, was stopped by the disallowance by the Imperial Government of the Bill passed by the Colonial Legislature authorizing such an arrangement. No doubt the Bill was invalid as being contrary to the 13th and 14th Victoria, c. 59, Bee. 31, and would have been invalid even if not disallowed. The proper course for Tasmania and any other of the Australasian Colonies desiring to authorize the establishment of such reciprocity, is to procure the repeal of those provisions on the Imperial Statute Book which prevent the Colonial Legislatures from passing Acts giving the necessary authority. It will not be sufficient to procure this repeal as to Now Zealand alone, should it be wished that such reciprocity should be established here with regard to any other of the Australasian Colonies ; but each of the Australasian Colonies with which it is proposed that New Zealand should establish such reciprocity must procure the repeal of the prohibition which prevents legislation by its Parliament. In answer to any request made to the Imperial Parliament for such repeal, it maybe said that the prohibition is created not only by provisions of the Imperial Statutes, but also by the treaties entered into by the Imperial Government with foreign countries, and that the provisions of such treaties cannot be disregarded or abrogated without the consent of each of those foreign countries with which the treaties have been made. But assuming that any treaty entered into by the Imperial Government is capable of such a construction as would prohibit one part of the British Dominions from entering into terms of reciprocity with another, how is it that such a construction does not apply to the British North American Colonies equally with the Australasian Colonies ? It is true that in the Imperial Statutes in force before the constitution of the Dominion, giving or regulating the constitution of the North American Colonies, there is not contained a prohibition similar to that which has been created by Imperial legislation with regard to the Australasian Colonies, but nevertheless there are the same treaties, and those treaties contain no reservation or exception of the North American Colonies. It would appear, therefore, that if the Imperial Parliament should remove the express prohibition, the provisions of the treaties would present no obstacle. However, if from want of sufficient information on the subject the position of the North American Colonies with regard to Imperial Government treaties with foreign countries has not been correctly put; if there bo some reservation or exception of the North American Colonies from tho operation of foreign commercial treaties ; then the same reasons which have induced the Imperial Government to stipulate for such exceptions equally bind it to procure the relaxation of these treaties, so far as they can be construed as applying to the Australasian Colonies. But there are provisions in the Imperial Statute Book which have been passed for the purpose of declaring that goods, the produce of one part of the British Dominions, when imported into other parts of the British Dominions, shall not be treated as foreign. By some such provision for the purpose of enabling the Australasian Colonies to establish a system of reciprocity, each of these Colonies could for such purpose be declared to be so, —not to be separated or foreign to one another. It may bo observed that, in the Act constituting the Dominion of Canada, the Imperial Parliament, though providing that, subject to the provision of that Act, the Customs duties leviable in each Province shall continue leviable till altered by the Parliament of Canada, yet the same Act provides that articles the produce of any one Province shall, after the union, be admitted free into each of the other Colonies. No doubt the provision is quite consistent, because all the Provinces, though each has a separate Legislature for some purposes, avo formed into one country or dominion subject to a General Legislature. It would be too great a labour to go through all or the principal of the Commercial Treaties now existing between foreign countries and the Imperial Government, for the purpose of ascertaining whether any of them are capable of receiving such a construction as to prevent the Australasian Colonies from following the example of the British North American Colonies, and establishing a system of reciprocity. It may be that, in some treaties, by a strict construction, provisions will be found which may appear to prohibit the establishment of such system. It is submitted, however, that where, in a treaty with a foreign country, it is stipulated that no other duties shall be imposed on the importation into British territories of any articles, the growth, &c, of such foreign country, such stipulation does not apply to the importation from one Colony to another. The context shows that tho word " foreign " must be construed in its proper sense of alien. It is clear that the " most favoured nations" clauses do not apply as between one part of the British Dominions and another. The 13th clause of the Belgium Treaty of 1862, though it would prevent reciprocity between the Colonies and Great Britain as against Belgium, does not, nor does any stipulation in the treaty, prevent reciprocity between any two British Colonies. It is also submitted that where, as in the treaty with Italy, the words "other country" are used, and the word "foreign" is not expressed, the meaning is the same, " other country" meaning " other foreign country." Should the Imperial Government not be disposed to ask Parliament to repeal the prohibitory legislation referred to, it would be well that it should be asked to point out specifically wdiat treaty stipulations there are existing which prevent the establishment of the proposed reciprocity. This is more important with regard to New Zealand, since by the Constitution Act the only prohibition is against imposing restrictions, exemptions, &c, contrary to or at variance with treaties concluded by Her Majesty with any Foreign Power; while the provision in the Constitution Acts of Victoria and New South Wales is, that no new duty shall be imposed upon the importation of any article the produce of any particular "place," which shall not equally be imposed upon the importation of articles imported from all other places. However, inasmuch as it is with these Colonies that reciprocity is desired, any restriction on legislation by those Colonies acts as a restriction on New Zealand. J. Pkendekgast.