Ministry. The islanders stopped fishing and took to petitions.
These were numerous and lengthy, and it is only proposed to consider
here the petition which was sent by dissentient members of the House
of Assembly, containing a formidable indictment of the proposed
agreement. The objections brought forward may be briefly summarized:

1. The electors were never consulted.

2. The Bill was an absolute conveyance in fee simple of all the
railways, the docks, telegraph lines, mineral, timber, and
agricultural lands of the colony, and virtually disposed of all the
assets, representing a funded debt of 17,000,000 dollars, for
L280,000.

3. While the Bill conveyed large and valuable mineral, agricultural,
and timber areas, amounting, with former concessions, to four million
acres, it made no provision for the development of these lands.

4. The conveyance embraced the whole Government telegraph system of
the colony.

5. It included a monopoly for the next thirty years of the coastal
carrying trade.

6. It included the sale of the dry dock, and the granting, without
consideration, of valuable waterside property belonging to the
Municipal Council of St. John's.

On March 23rd Mr Chamberlain answered the representation of Governor
Murray, and the profuse petitions which the latter had forwarded. Both
from the general constitutional significance of the reply, and its
particular importance in the history of Newfoundland, it is convenient
to reproduce the letter in full:

Mr Chamberlain to Governor Sir H.H. Murray.

Downing Street,

March 23rd, 1898.

SIR,--In my telegram of the 2nd instant I informed
you that if your Ministers, after fully considering the
objections urged to the proposed contract with Mr R.G. Reid
for the sale and operation of the Government railways and
other purposes, still pressed for your signature to that
instrument, you would not be constitutionally justified in
refusing to follow their advice, as the responsibility for the
measure rested entirely with them.

2. Whatever views I may hold as to the propriety of the
contract, it is essentially a question of local finance, and
as Her Majesty's Government have no responsibility for the
finance of self-governing colonies, it would be improper for
them to interfere in such a case unless Imperial interests
were directly involved. On these constitutional grounds I was
unable to a