MEMORANDUM BY THE HON. J. VOGEL.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume 1, Issue 13, 28 December 1872, Page 1 (Supplement)

MEMORANDUM BY THE HON. J. VOGEL.

Memorandum on a Circular Despatch i from the right lion, the Secretary of State for the Colonies on Intercolonial Reciprocity. [The following memorandum, dated Wellington, November 15, has dcen forwarded by the Don, Julius Vogel, Colonial Treasurer, to Earl Kimberley.] The Colonial Treasurer has given careful consideration to the Earl of Kimberley’s despatch, dated I9th April, 1872, on the subject of Intercolonial Reciprocity. Though the long correspondence on the subject has rendered inoperative the bill passed by the New Zealand Legislature, the passage of which, in some degree, led to that correspondence, yet the colony had no reason to complain, since it is evident, throughout the communications of t e Secretary of State, that his objections have been urged in a spirit in no sense hostile to the colonies, but, on the contrary, in one of anxiety to do justice to all parts of the empire. Whether or notthe colonies agree with the Secretary of State, they cannot fail to recognise the conciliatory manner in which he has dealt with the question. The Colonial Treasurer proposes to confine himself as far as possible to comments upon those portions of the present despatch which refer to his previous memorandum. The Secretary of State, in his despatch of July 13, 1871, admitted the precedent of the British North American Provinces in favour of Intercolonial Reciprocity, but qualified the admission by contending that the precedent applied to exceptional conditions, and that its operation wa's very limited. Similarly, in the despatch now under consideration, Lord Kimberley admits that the precedents “ are to a certain extent in point,” and goes on to observe that the application of the precedent “is exceedingly limited.” this point underlies the whole contention of the Colonial Treasurer, and it involves a question rather of fact than of argument. In the previous memorandum, it was pointed out at some length that the precedent of the British American Provinces went beyond the limited operation claimed by Lord Kimberley, and, indeed, that it went beyond that for which the Australian colonies were asking. Tn support of the application of the British American precedent, the following points were relied on : — 1. That one of the first acts of the Legislature of the Dominion of Canada was to pass such a measure as the Australian colonies desire to have the power to pass.

2. That the provisions in respect to reciprocity were similar to those which were in an Act of 1866, before the Dominion was constituted; that that Act was a reproduction of a former Act; and, therefore, that the legislation was not new. 3. That Lord Kimberley, in stating “that it (the Dominion Act) 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, 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 contrarv 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 Australian 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 recognised as compatible with, if not leading to, that very union which it is known the Secretary of State would hi ,T hlv approve of, in the case of the Australian colonies. 4. That it was singular “ Lord Kimberlev 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 pot 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. I 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 kdmit colonial articles free, but also to admit, under similar conditions, articles from the United States.” These allegations are in no way denied by Lord Kimberly, and, indeed, they are undeniably correct; but his Lordship fails to recognise 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 - vastchanges in the relations of different parts of the Empire. lie hints that in the United Kingdom the desire cf 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 ; and he says that her Majesty’? 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 Australian 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 imperilled 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 n rts of the Empire. All that is asked has been granted to Canada: why should a different result follow the application of the Australian colonies ? It would be intelligible if it were alleged that Great Britain has changed her policy; butwhv predict consequences that have not arisen in the past ? Existing treaties it is admitted, interpose no obstacle: why need they in future ? If. as it appears to be assumed, it is chance rathef 1 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 precisely 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 theorcti- j cal 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 vears. It seems to have been admitted between the Imperial Government and 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 cf 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, > omf times under a species of protest. Ini ' Q,the Canadian Legislature passed an Act empowering the Governor in Council to admit into Canada, free of j 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 commercial intercourse between the North American provinces.” Nearly seventy years afterwards, on the occasion of a similar Act being again passed, the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos sent out another remonstrance from the Lords of the Committee of Privy , Council for Trade, to which another rejoinder was made ; and no further objection appears to have been offered. A similar controversy was proceeding during the same period, concerning the principle of reciprocal arrangements between the provinces and the United States. In this case, also, theoretical objections were from time to time

stated- —it could be hardly said they were urged ; but, on the other hand, the warmest aid was given towards effecting such arrangements. The Colonial Treasurer appends a report of Sir John Rose, Minister of Finance of the Dominion, which, although marked “confidential,” has already elsewhere been published, in which that geiitleman traces the history of the question as between the. imperial and Provincial Governments. It appears by .that document that so long ago as 1849 Lord Palmerston instructed Sir Henry Bulwer, “ that her Majesty’s Government regard it as of the very highest importance, both commercially and politically, that free admission tg the market of the United States should be obtained for those articles which are enumerated in an Act passed in the last session of the Canadian Parliament, of which I enclose a copy for your information.” The anxiety of the Imperial Government to arrange the Reciproc'ty Treaty with America is a matter of history, as-is also the regret which was felt at its abrogation. M hen it became known that the Reciprocity Treaty was to be abrogated, the Confederate Council of Trade hell a meeting at Quebec in September, at which the following resolution was passed: —“ That, in the opinion of this Council, it would be highly desirable that application be made to her Majesty’s Imperial Government, requesting that steps be taken to enable the British North American Provinces tv open communications with the West India Islands, with Spain and her colonies, and with Brazil and Mexico, for the purpose of ascertaining in what manner the traffic of the provinces with these

countries could be extended and placed on a more advantageous footing.” The Secretary of State for the Colonies, Mr. Cardwell, cordially approved the suggestion, and promised that her Majesty’s Government would “ support it by all the means in their power.” Even the Lords of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade expressed their approval of the proposed step, although as was to be anticipated, they drew attention to possible difficulties that might arise from it. The Commissioners appointed had e’very facility granted to them by her Majesty’s Government; a man-of-war was placed at the command of some of their number. The offers those gentlemen made—under instructions received from the Minister of Finance of Canada and approved bv her Majesty's Government—in the various parts of the world to which they extended their travels, wore in the direction of reciprocal arrangements for the remission of Customs duties. These proposals were made not only to the BritGh West Indian colonies, but to the Spanish West Indian Dependencies, and. to the Imperial Government of Brazil. That the Commissioners were not disinclined to make exceptional and specific arrangements, may be gathered from the following proposal made in Cuba, to the Intendente, the Count de Toledo:—“I venture to suggest to your Excellency, that it would be an important step in this direction, if the Spanish Government would sanction some considerable reduction in the rates of dut y —say on grain, Hour, meal, provisions, fish, lumber, and productions —provided they be imported from British North America in vessels sailing under the flag of Spain.”

It is surely unnecessary further to urge that the Imperial Government have shown as much alacrity to aid the British American provinces to form reciprocal alliances as they have shown a contrary disposition in respect to the Australasian colonies. Yet there are many records of opinion that these reciprocal arrangements were vastly beneficial to the North American Provinces ; and it is in point to add, that those Imperial officers in the Australasian colonies whose opinions are recorded, strongly recommend that the colonies should have conceded to them the powers for which they ask. Thus the Earl of Belmore epigrammatically disposed of the objections which had been raised, when he wrote, “ I am sure the true policy with regard to Australia, so far as the law permits of it, is to do everything to bring its various divisions closer together, even at the expense of a certain amount of economic theory.” Governor Du Cane has personally supported, in cogent terms, the representations of his responsible advisers on the subject. Of late, some of the Australian colonies have narrowed their demands to a power to make reciprocal arrangements amongst themselves’ But in October, 1868, the then Premier of New Zealand, Mr. Stafford, invited the Australian colonies to agree to a Conference, to consider, amongst other subjects, a resolution of the House cf Representatives, moved by the present writer, recommending that steps should be taken to ascertain the position of the colony in relation to commercial treaties between Great Britain and Foreign Powers, and especially that authority should, be sought to enable New 7 and. in connection with the Australian colonies, to negotiate vith the United States fortlie free admis.-ion into that country of wool, the product; of the several colonies. That invitation was favorably received by all the colonies, although the Conference was not held, owing to an agreement not being arrived at as to the time of meeting. Resolutions were, however, in January, 1870, agreed to by the Representatives of New South* Wales and New Zealand, one of which was to the effect that the respective Governments should “address an earnest representation to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, respecting the disadvantages under which the Australasian colonies labor, in regard to the doubts which exist as to their power to make mutual arrangements for the interchange, dutyfree, of their several products and manufactures, as also in respect of the

doubts which exist as to their powers to enter into conventions with foreign countries ; to point out that Canada for a lengthened period has been placed on a more favorable footing ; to urge that all doubts as to the right to exercise such powers be removed ; and that, in entering into arrangements with foreign countries, the Imperial Government should aid tha colonies. That such aid should be immediately granted in respect to endeavouring to negotiate with the United States for the introduction into that country, duty-free, of wool, the product of the Australasian colanies.” The Colonial Treasurer does not urge that arrangements between the colonies and foreign countries should necessarily be made by the colonies. It would be more in consonance with an Imperial policy that such treaties should be made for the colonies at their desire, by the Imperial Government. Mr. Hammond, of the Foreign Office, in a letter dated November, 1865, to the Under-Secretary of the Colonies, laid down an apparently very convenient mode by which such treaties might be arranged. A copy of the letter is appended. In some way, the want of arrangements of the kind must shortly be recognised. The Imperial Government have declined to accept the cession of the Fiji group, and of other groups of islands in the Pacific. The consequence is that, more or less near to the Australian colonies, foreign possessions are continuing to increase ; whilst concurrently the trade between them and the Australasian colonies is also increasing. Thus, there are already the Fiji Islands, a yuasa-independent kingdom, and the Navigator group, likely to become a United States dependency ; and of older standing, there are the French colonies of New Caledonia and Tahiti,, the independent kingdom of Hawaii, and the Dutch dependencies of Java and New Guinea. The necessity must, sooner or later, arise for regulating the relations between these countries and their Australasian neighbours ; and it must be decided whether the colonies are to act for themselves, or whether the Imperial Government are to act for them. (To be continued.)