upon points of procedure are to be avoided, but it would have been much more tactful to appoint Mr Reid. There was, on the part of a number of the delegates, a certain jealousy of him. He is a masterful man, and they feared that he might assert himself too prominently. Moreover, Mr Barton is a Protectionist, and this had some weight in an assembly largely Protectionist. The arrangement was privately come to before the Convention met, the ostensible reason being that Mr Barton was elected head of the poll in New South Wales, and that therefore a compliment was paid to the mother colony in selecting him. Mr Reid showed no resentment, but seconded, in graceful terms, the proposal that Mr Barton should be the leader. In other respects the appointment was an excellent one, for Mr Barton is a man of great ability and tact, and he led the Convention in a masterly manner. Still this matter, small as it may seem, is of importance to anyone who wishes to get a grasp of the federal movement. It was undoubtedly a slight to Mr Reid, the originator of the Convention, to pass him by and select a delegate from the colony he represented—and a man not at that time connected with politics—in his place. Such petty intercolonial and personal jealousies have had marked effect on the movement at various stages. The effect of this action was, as many think, to transform Mr Reid, the most powerful man in the most important colony of the group, from an ardent leader to a watchful critic. He took a leading part in the Convention, it is true; but the subsequent failure or, rather, delay of the movement may have had a direct relation to this primary mistake. In a word, Australia has paid for an affront to Mr Reid by waiting another year or so for the Commonwealth.
I have mentioned the inducements to federation and the facilities for its accomplishment, and I must now set out a
