THE AUSTRALIAN COLONIES CUSTOMS BILL. (Times, May 16.)

Waikato Times, Volume IV, Issue 189, 26 July 1873, Page 2

THE AUSTRALIAN COLONIES CUSTOMS BILL. (Times, May 16.)

A. BiM, was read a second tune yesterday in the House ef Lords whioli in a matter of some importance extends tho power of self-government already enjoyed by our Australian, oalomoi. Bv tV law wluu i defines their existing Constitution tlioy ar* at present prohibited from imposing differential duties. It is no* proposed to repeal the prohibition no far a* concern* the mutual commerce of the colonies themsolvos. The bill provide* that the Legislature of any one of the oolonios shall have lull power from time to time to remit or impose Custom's duties upon the importation into such colony qf uny artiolo the produoe or manufacture of any other of the colonies, including New Zealand. It is provided, however, at the same tune that no new duty *hull be imposed, and no existing duty remitted upon importations fram any particular country, without being equally i-nposed or remitted upon similar importations from other countries. Tho effect, therefore, is to give these colonies perfeot liberty to practise between themselves either free trade or protection ; and there can be no doubt that lomo of them will use their power for the purpose of protection. Tasmania has already passed a bill imposing ditfeicutia* duties, which, in obedienoe- to the existing law, was of course vetoed. But, whatever may be the consequence, we abandon, by this bill, the control by which we have hitherto attempted to impose upon the Australian colonies our own fiscal system. We leave them free to act in respect to their mutuai relations according ta their own view of their interests. It is impossibly not to regret the immediate purpose for which this liberty has been a«ked by some of the oolonies ; but to statesmen imbued with the old traditions of Colonial Government, it appears almost revolutionary. Lord Grey, for instance, asks whether to surrender the Queen's authority ovor the commercial policy of the colonies does not amount to an abandonment ot aU useful connexion between them and the mother country. Ho urges that when, free trade was adopted by the Imperial Parliament it was adopted as a system which should prevail throughout the British possessions, and that the existing prohibitions are in pursuance ot the intention of Parliament that the Australian colonies should be identified with the general commercial policy of the British Empire. There is a certain truth in these remarks ; but the Government had to deal with difficulties on which Lord Grey bestows very scant consideration. They had in some way or other to meet an urgent demand by the c-olonies for the liberty they now propose to grant. Lord Grey says he bJieves this diffioulty could have been got over " if the home Government had pointed out the dangers of a protectionist policy, and had declared that as free trade was the commercial policy of the Empire, it must be that of the Australian colonies " But argument on this subject has been tried with the colonies again and again. Lord Kim-berle-y did not yteld without previous remonstrance, but the colonies continued of the same mind. Lord Carnarvon dislikes the bill, but he admitted it to be impossible to read the correspondence " without perceiving that the colonial Governments had brought considerable pressure to bear on the Government in reference to this subject, and that little alternate c was left to tho Government except to accede to some measure like the present." In truth all Lord Kimberley could urge in deprecation',of protection is familiar to Australian statesmen in the equally convincing form of books and. speeches. They are not children to need instruction in the elements of political economy. We need not go further than the other side of the Channel, if so far, to find persons thoroughly familial with the whole controversy, and yet staunch Protectionists. We cannot expect Australians to be always wiser than the French on such a subject. But if they had made up their minds that the power to impose these duties is essential to their welfare, what would be the. effect of our continuing to resist them, except to pro Toke & sentiment of dissatisfaction with a connexion which seemed to obstruct their interests 9 Indeed, it would have been an error with reference simply to the encouragement of a wiser fiscal 'policy Nothing could tend so much to render free trade unpopular as to make the colonists feel that it is imposed upon them against their wdl by the power of the mother country. In short, to have held out persistently would, as Lord Kimberley expressed it, have been " to make this question of differential duties one of the right of the colonies to govern themselves " Lord Grey desires to promote free trade, and to avert any disagreement between the colonies and the mother country ; but tht policy he recommended would have been the worst for both purposes. The House of Lords was fortupate in having among its members two Peers who had served as colonia.l Governors in Australia, and they concurred m representing that a persistent refusal) by the home Government would have defeated its own object. Lord Canterbury assurred Lord Grey that intervention in the internal fiscal affairsof the "colonies instead of promotirggoodw ill or strengthening the bonds of union between the colonies and the mother country would have a totally contrary effect." The time has come, in fact, when the Australian colonists know their own mind in matters winch more immediately concern themselves, and are sensible that it ought to be deferred to. They think they ought to be free from leading strings in such matters, and they are no longer a loose collection of emigrant atoms They have politics of their own, and they have public men sufficiently able and well instructed to have furnished the mother qountry with two, not unsuccessful statesmen. Lord Grey could not concur in concluding " that the colonists know best what ought to be done in respect of colonial matters," and there is very good reason for his doubt. But all Lord Kimberley had argued was that we should assume they know their own. business best. It does not follow because a man has reached years of discretion that he is therefore the best judge of his own interests; but it is necessary to treat him V if hewere. The Australian colonies are just in the condition of a prosperous young man who is determined to earn his own, experience. They are beyond tutelage, and they must be allowed to take their own course, except in matters of imperial concern. They will yi all probability make many mistakes, as the mother country has done before them ; but; mistakes are the lessons of life. The tendency of events in. Australia is probably, as Lord Kimberley said, towards tho formation of. a Federel Union among the colonies. Perhaps a Customs' Union may be the. first step towards it, and Lord Canterbury pointed out the importance, with a view to this result, of leaving the colonies perfectly free to regulate their own taxation They can only forma satisfactory Union upon terms which are the result of a perfectly voluntary agreement. Lord Canterbury also, did well to point out that the bill in no way touches theforeign trade of the colonies. It neither gives nor holds out any hope of hereafter giving them power to. impose differential duties on articles imported from abroad, and, of course,, it contains an express promo that no duties shall be levied or remitted inconsistent with comnjerciaj, treaties, to which England is a party. It is simply the internal trade of the colonies which is affected by it, and this is a matter on which it is no longer possible, even if it were desirable, to, restrain them.. A refusal would only have involved a concession at a later time with a bad grace. St,Ul the power which the colonies will acquire by this extension of self-government is one which it is difficult to use with discretion, and we must hope, with Lord Kimberley, that they will be cautious in their first exercise of their new liberty.