A.—B

2

" of the Dominion," and that "the assent of Her Majesty, given to a measure passed in circumstances " so peculiar, cannot form a precedent of universal and necessary application," virtually admitted that the Dominion Act was assented to not because of any omission to reconsider the expediency of former legislation, but, on the contrary, because the legislation was approved of in the expectation that the consolidation of Her Majesty's possessions in British America would be completed: that, therefore, the Australasian Colonies could not only appeal to the precedent as one of long standing, but also could appeal to it on the ground that it was recognized as compatible with, if not leading to, that very union which it is known the Secretary of State would highly approve of, in the case of the Australasian Colonies. 4. That it was singular " 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 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.' " 5. That the British American Acts " contain not only a discretionary power to admit Colonial " articles free, but also to admit, under similar conditions, articles from the United States." These allegations are in no way denied by Lord Kimberley, and, indeed, they are undeniably correct; but his Lordship fails to recognize that they cut at the root of some of the reasons he urges. It seems to the Colonial Treasurer that one of Lord Kimberley's objections to granting the requests of the Colonies has, throughout the correspondence, been, that to do so would invite vast changes in the relations of different parts of the Empire. He hints that in the United Kingdom the desire of the Colonies may be regarded as one unfriendly to Imperial interests ; that it would lead to the necessity of adopting a particular course with future commercial treaties j and he says that Her Majesty's Government, " before so serious a step is taken, would ask the Colonists gravely to consider " the probable effects of a measure which might tend materially to affect the relations of the Colonies to " this country and to the rest of the Empire." These apprehensions are disposed of, when it is said that all that is asked is to place the Australasian Colonies in the same position as those of British America. By an accident, probably (because the stipulation is differently worded in the case of New Zealand, and an alteration in the New Zealand Constitution Act is not necessary), words were inserted in the Constitution Acts of some of the Colonies, which prevent those Colonies entering into reciprocal Customs arrangements. Those words require to be altered; and if the alteration were made, the Australasian Colonies would still have less powers than the British American Provinces have exercised for many years. But no momentous consequences have arisen from the powers exercised by the British American Provinces. It is not pretended that the exercise of those powers has retarded the progress of British America, or imperiled or injuriously affected the relations between different parts of the Empire. The Australasian Colonies ask for nothing new. They desire nothing which is not sanctioned by precedent: they wish only to know why they, more isolated than the British American Provinces, may not be allowed to make those convenient Tariff arrangements which are suitable to their condition as a group of Colonies far distant from other countries and from other parts of the Empire. All that is asked has been granted to Canada: why should a different result follow the application of the Australasian Colonies ? It would be intelligible if it were alleged that Great Britain has changed her policy; but why predict consequences that have not arisen in the past ? Existing Treaties, it is admitted, interpose no obstacle : why need they, in future ? If, as appears to be assumed, it is chance rather than design that has prevented existing Treaties interposing obstacles to the present proposal, surely when the conditions are more clearly understood, it is not likely that mistakes will be made in future Treaties from which accident has saved those of the past. When Lord Kimberley denies the full application of the British-American precedent, his Lordship, it is submitted, fails to recollect that precisel}' similar questions of theory were raised in respect of the policy of those Provinces, but that the Imperial Government again and again decided not to allow theoretical objections to override obviously practical considerations. The Colonial Treasurer, in referring to the history of the question, is under the disadvantage of not having access to the whole correspondence, which extended over many years. It seems to have been admitted between the Imperial Government and the British American Governments, that the question of reciprocity was to be considered in two phases —the one as between the different Provinces themselves, and the other as between those Provinces and foreign countries. As far as the Colonial Treasurer is able to ascertain, theoretical objections were from time to time urged against the operation of reciprocal agreements, whilst the warmest possible assistance was rendered in order to bring them about. The Lords of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade were in the habit of reporting, in more or less decided terms, against such arrangements ; the Canadian Government replied to the objections ; and the Imperial Government accepted the Canadian view, sometimes warmly, sometimes under a species of protest. In 1850, the Canadian Legislature passed an Act empowering the Governor in Council to admit into Canada, free of duty, the products of any of the British American possessions. The then Secretary of State for the Colonies, Earl Grey, though he called attention to its provisions, did not disallow it. Various Acts of the same nature were passed, until, in 1860, it was proposed to much extend the conditions of interchange. The Board of Trade interposed an objection; the Finance Minister of Canada replied, in a report which was adopted by the Executive Council of Canada; and after some consideration, the Duke of Newcastle intimated that Her Majesty's Government had no wish to offer "an obstacle " to any endeavour which might be made by the respective Provincial Governments to bring about a free