The Federal Parliament would have no power to compel the dominant party in the Perth Assembly either to redistribute seats fairly, or divide the colony, so as to create 'Home Rule for the Rand.' True, we should have washed our hands of the affair, and could tell the malcontent Uitlanders that it was none of our business. But if Perth still remained obstinate, and Coolgardie in consequence began to carry out some of those ugly projects hinted at by Dr. Thurston, it might become our business in an embarrassing fashion. At any rate, it does not seem quite fair to the new Commonwealth to start it in life with this grave question, still unsettled, upon its hands." _S. Low, Enigmas of Empire (Nineteenth Century, June, 1900)._ AUSTRALIA: New South Wales: A. D. 1894-1895. Defeat of the Protectionist policy. Adoption of a liberal tariff. At the general elections of July, 1894, in New South Wales, the tariff issue was sharply defined. "'Protection' was inscribed on the banners of the ministerial party, led by the then Premier, Sir George Dibbs, while the aggressive opposition, led by Mr. Reid, … fought under the banner of 'free trade.' The Free Traders won the battle in that election, as there were 63 Free Traders, 40 Protectionists, and 22 labor members, mostly with free-trade leanings, returned. On the reassembling of Parliament, Sir George Dibbs was confronted with a large majority, and Mr. George H. Reid was called to form a government on the lines suggested by the issues of the campaign. The Council or 'upper house,' consisting of Crown nominees for life, rejected the measures suggested by Mr. Reid and passed by the Assembly by an overwhelming majority, and Mr. Reid dissolved Parliament on July 6, 1895, and appealed to the country. The election was held on July 24, and again the issues, as set forth in the measures, were fought out vigorously. The great leader of protection, Sir George Dibbs, with several of his ablest followers, was defeated, and the so-called Free Trade party came back, much stronger than before. Thus, it was claimed that the mandate of the people, declaring for free trade and direct taxation, had been reaffirmed, and on the reassembling of Parliament, on August 13, the same measure, as passed by the Assembly and rejected by the Council, was again presented and passed by the Assembly by a majority of 50 to 26, and again went to the upper house. Again it was met with great hostility, but the Government party in that chamber, having been augmented by ten new appointments, the temper of the house was softened and the bill was passed with some two hundred and fifty amendments. As, the Assembly could only accept some eighty of these without, yielding material points … a conference was suggested, which, after several days of