the 11th March, when, on the motion of Sir Joseph Abbott, a clause saving the prerogative to grant special leave to appeal was carried by one vote in a House of thirty-nine Members. This was followed by an amendment, moved by Mr. Symon, excepting cases involving the interpretation of the constitution of the Commonwealth or of a State, which was carried by 21 votes to 17. || The original draft of the Adelaide Session, therefore, which abolished appeals from all lower Australian Courts, and except by special leave from decisions of the High Court in matters involving the public interests of the Commonwealth, &c., was completely departed from, and the question of the appeal was left in the position summarized on page 7 of the Delegates' Memorandum. || If the provision in the Adelaide draft had carried out the declared intention of those who framed it, and left only the special appeal from the High Court in the cases in which appeals are allowed from the Supreme Court of the Dominion, it would have been entirely satisfactory to Her Majesty's Government, but the exception introduced at the last moment on the motion of Mr. Symon leaves the question in a very unsatisfactory and anomalous position. That exception had not been discussed in the several Parliaments when the measure was before them for detailed consideration and can hardly be said to have received adequate discussion. || The Delegates urge that the contention for the finality of the Judgments of their High Court is based by Australians on the argument that if they are fit, as is conceded, to make a Constitution for themselves, they are fit also to say what that Constitution means, and for that purpose they should be allowed to rely on the decisions of their High Court", that judicial knowledge of local conditions invaluable always is indispensable in the interpretation of Constitutions", and "that Her Majesty's Judges Australian as well as British, will ever be men of conspicuous ability and integrity, whose impartiality will not be prejudiced by their domicile“. The answer is that in many cases the construction of the Constitution of such a country as Australia cannot be regarded as affecting Australian interests alone.

That cases would come before the Imperial Court of Appeal with the advantage of a full knowledge of local conditions relevant to the case as they would have been explained in the Judgments of the Australian Court, and that while the high standing and ability of Australian Judges s recognized to the fullest degree, it would be of great assistance to them that, in exceptional cases, there should be the possibility of having their decisions on constitutional questions reviewed by a Tribunal which, even if party feeling ran high on the question in dispute, could not

possibly be charged with being under its influence. In conclusion, it should be remembered that the question must be looked at from a still wider point of view. The retention of the prerogative to allow an appeal to Her Majesty in Council would accomplish the great desire of Her Majesty's subjects both in England and Australia, that the bonds which now unite them may be strengthened rather than severed, and, by insuring uniform interpretation of the law throughout the Empire, facilitate that unity of action for the common interests which will lead to a real Federation of the Empire. || The object of every one at present should be to draw closer together all parts of the Empire. The existence of the right of appeal, subject to the leave of the Privy Council, has been a link effectively binding together every part of Her Majesty's dominions: the weakening of this tie would seriously lessen the value of even so great and beneficent a result as the Federation of Australia. If the Bill were passed in its present form, while it would mark a step in advance as far as the Federation of Australia is concerned, it would be a retrograde measure so far as it affects the larger question of Imperial Federation.

March 29, 1900.

Nr. 13136. NEU-SEELAND.

Denkschrift der Regierung an

den britischen Kolonialminister. Wünscht einige Änderungen am Verfassungsentwurf.

The Government of New Zealand desires to secure the insertion of certain amendments in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Bill shortly to be laid before the Imperial Parliament. These amendments are three in number. The first of them is, in effect, that New Zealand should preserve the right of joining the proposed Commonwealth of Australia on the same terms as the original States now about to be united in such Commonwealth. The second is, that while New Zealand remains outside the Commonwealth, litigants in her higher Courts, though reserving the right they now possess to appeal to the Queen in Council, should, as an alternative, have the right to appeal to the high Court of Australia on paying the fees and complying with the rules of that tribunal. The third amendment is, that the Australian Commonwealth and the Colony of New Zealand should be empowered to make the necessary arrangements to employ their naval and military forces for mutual aid and defence, including operations outside their own boundaries, and for

that purpose to co-operate in forming a homogeneous Australasian force. The importance of the first amendment to New Zealand is great. The Colony is divided from Australia by 1200 miles of unbroken sea. It still takes from four to five days for persons quitting New Zealand to reach any port in Australia. Though a large and valuable trade is carried on between the two countries, and though New Zealand is linked to Australia, not merely by financial ties, but by bonds of intercourse, cordial friendship, and sympathy, she has also vital and separate interests. Many, also, of the leading matters on which the discussions on Federation in Australia during the last 12 years have turned are topics with which the New Zealand people is almost unaquainted. It is therefore only to be expected that the Colony should watch the Federal movement with caution and reserve. It is also true that, until June of last year, New Zealand was unable to judge as to intentions of the great Colony of New South Wales with regard to the Commonwealth Bill. It was not until the month of September that Queensland decided to enter the Commonwealth; Western Australia has not even yet done so. And it was directly after the decision of Queensland had become known that, in response to a request from Sir John Forrest, the leading statesmen of Australia intimated that, in their opinion, it was impossible to consider any further amendments of the Commonwealth Bill. From that moment the only course left open to New Zealand has been that now taken. About that time there appeared in New Zealand evidences of the growth of a feeling in the Colony in favour of a closer union with Australia. This was on the eve of the general elections, and Mr. Seddon, the Prime Minister, then defined his position, stating that the future relations of New Zealand with Australia were a matter for education and careful examination: that for himself he kept an open mind, but that prudent deliberation was advisable. At the general elections which took place in December last, Mr. Seddon was returned to power with an unusually large majority. It may therefore very safely be assumed that this cautious but not hostile attitude fairly represents the present view of the people of the Colony. Some stress may be laid on the foregoing facts in view of the possible objection that New Zealand's action now comes to late. The Colony virtually asks that, in view of its positions of distance and difficulty, it should have more time given it to make up its mind than has been found necessary by colonies which are continguous or almost so. If it should be proposed to fix a limit of time to this, that would clearly be a matter for reasonable consideration. || In so far as the second amendment would give certain New Zealand

litigants a right of resort to the High Court of Australia, it is scarcely
likely to meet with objection in Australia unless on the general ground
that no amendment whatever of the Commonwealth Bill is now desirable.
In the event of the amendment being admitted, it is obvious that certain
precautions might have to be taken to conserve the existing rights of
New Zealand litigants, and also to prevent clashing of appeals, but
doubtless these could be provided for. || The third amendment, that
providing for a species of partial federation for purposes of defence and
mutual assistance, seems not only desirable but unobjectionable in every
way. It does not propose that any kind of compulsion should be applied
to either the Commonwealth or New Zealand: it merely empowers them
to make such arrangements as may be deemed mutually advantageous.
At present it seems more than doubtful wether either the Commonwealth
or the Colony has the power to make simple, binding and effective
arrangements which would involve operations and expenditure outside
their own boundaries, and under which each would have to act so as to
affect colonists not subject to their respective jurisdictions. Recent events
have clearly shown that the time has passed by for regarding the
military forces of a colony as something never to be employed outside
its own boundaries. I need not point out that such a co-operation would
be of value not only to Australia and New Zealand, but to the Empir
which both are so anxious to serve.
W. P. Reeves.

Westminster Chambers, 13, Victoria Street,
London, S. W., March 30 th, 1900.

Nr. 13137. WEST-AUSTRALIEN. - Denkschrift der Regierung an den Kolonialminister über den Verfassungsentwurf.

In the discussion at the Convention which drafted and passed the Commonwealth Bill, it was generally admitted that the condition of Western Australia entitled it special treatment if it joined as an Original State in the Federation of the Australasian Colonies. It was pointed out that not only would the Colony lose a great portion of its Revenue by Intercolonial Free Trade, but also that the settlement of the soil and the development of its industries would be most prejudicially affected by the unrestricted competition of the other Colonies. In these circumstances the Convention passed the 95th Clause of the Bill, which is as follows:

„Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, the Parliament of the State of Western Australia may, during the first five years after the imposition of uniform duties of Customs, impose duties of Customs on goods passing into that State and not originally imported from beyond the limits of the Commonwealth; and such duties shall be collected by the Commonwealth. ||,,But any duty so imposed on any goods shall not exceed during the first of such years the duty chargeable on the goods. under the law of Western Australia in force at the imposition of uniform duties, and shall not exceed during the second, third, fourth, and fifth of such years respectively, four-fifths, three-fifths, two-fifths, and one-fifth of such latter duty; and all duties imposed under this section shall cease at the expiration of the fifth year after the imposition of uniform duties. If at any time during the five years the duty on any goods under this section is higher than the duty imposed by the Commonwealth on the importation of the like goods, then such higher duty shall be collected on the goods when imported into Western Australia from beyond the limits of the Commonwealth." The Commonwealth Bill was, in July of last year, referred to a Joint Select Committee of both Houses of the Western Australian Legislature for consideration and report, and the Committee reported with respect to this Clause that it would cause great inconvenience and injury to trade, and recommanded that it should be so amended as to give the whole of the present duties to the Colony for the full period of five years, without reduction. In order to give effect to the Committee's recommendation, the Government of Western Australia now seek to have the Bill amended by striking out the 95 th Clause, and inserting in lieu the following:- || During a period of five years following the imposition by the Parliament of the Commonwealth of uniform duties of Customs, the State of Western Australia may, notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, continue to receive the same duties of Customs as are in force there at the passing of this Act, such duties to be collected by the Commonwealth. The Parliament of Western Australia may, during that period, repeal or alter, but may not increase, any of such duties; and, at the end of the said period, such duties shall absolutely cease. „During the said period of five years all goods imported into the other States of the Commonwealth from Western Australia shall be subject to such duties of Customs as the Parliament of the Commonwealth may impose." || If this amendment be made, the Government will immediately summon a meeting of the Western Australian Legislature, with a view to passing the necessary legislation so that the Commonwealth Bill may be referred to the people,