"the public interests" of some part of Her Majesty's dominions outside Australia were involved; but the distinction did not go far enough. It was uncertain whether the phrase "public interests" would cover, for instance, the private interests of investors, or of any body of Her Majesty's subjects. Moreover, foreign relations were of equal importance with Imperial relations. The proposals of the Imperial Government had been before Australia for a week, and had been in most cases favourably considered. The Delegates, too, finding it impossible to carry out what they believed to be their mandate to secure the passage of the Bill without amendment, had been most considerate, and he had now arrived at an absolute agreement with four of them. He then read and explained the proposed new clause. With regard to the power of the Federal Parliament to limit the right of appeal, the Delegates had pointed out to him that a similar power was inherent in the Parliaments of the Australian colonies, subject to the reservation of the Bill exercising such power. Accordingly, it was proposed to grant this right to the Commonwealth, subject to an absolute statutory requirement that such Bills should be reserved.

Mr. Asquith, for the Opposition, expressed his gratification at Mr. Chamberlain's announcement of a settlement. He admitted the trusteeship of the Imperial Parliament, but thought that the danger of clause 74 had been exaggerated in some quarters. Mr. Henniker Heaton, Mr. Blake, Mr. James Bryce, and Mr. S. Evans joined in the congratulations. The Attorney-General expressed his appreciation of the tone of the debate, which was concluded by Mr. W. Redmond and Mr. T. M. Healy declaring, on behalf of Ireland, their envy at the rights of self-government accorded to Australia. The Bill was then read a second time with cheers, and taken into Committee pro forma.

AUSTRALIAN CRITICISMS.-In Australia, however, the suggested compromise was received, first with hesitation, and then with distinct disapproval, both the drafting and the policy of the new clause being condemned. On 24th May, a telegram seems to have been sent by the Government of New South Wales to Mr. Chamberlain, indicating acceptance of the arrangement by the Premiers; but a study of the cabled text of the clause changed the situation. In Queensland, Sir Samuel Griffith pointed out that the provision that no constitutional question should be "capable of final decision except by the High Court" was a clumsy and inaccurate mode of saying that all appeals in such cases should be brought to the High Court alone. He also argued that this would be a restriction, and not an extension, of the right of appeal to the Privy Council given by the original clause-under which he contended that appeals, even in constitutional cases, would lie from the State Courts direct to the Privy Council. This, however, was not the generally received interpretation of the original clause, nor was it the intention of the Convention, which clearly intended that the prohibition of appeals to the Privy Council in constitutional matters should include appeals from the State Courts; (see Historical Note to sec. 74 infra). But his strongest point was that in cases between private suitors, in which a constitutional point arose, a party's right of appeal ought not to be made dependent on the consent of the Executive Government of his

State or of the Commonwealth. In all the colonies it was forcibly urged that the interference of the political with the judicial department would be fraught with danger. Mr. Philp threatened that, if the new amendment were adhered to, he would demand the insertion of a clause requiring the assent of the Queensland Parliament before the Bill became operative in that colony. In South Australia, the. Chief Justice, Sir Samuel Way, commented on the new clause as being not only obscure, but dangerous, novel, and unauthorized.

Meanwhile, to remove ambiguities and meet some of the criticisms from Australia, the first part of the proposed clause was redrafted as follows:

"No question, however arising, as to the limits inter se of the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth on the one hand, and those of any State or States on the other, shall be capable of final decision by any Court other than the High Court, except that an appeal may be permitted to the Queen in Council from any decision of the High Court on any such question by the consent of the Executive Governments concerned, whether parties or not to the litigation, the consent to be signified by the Governor-General in the case of the Commonwealth, and by the Governor in the case of a State."

This verbal improvement, however, did not meet the main objections to the proposed clause; and on 14th June the Premiers of the southern colonies sent a joint telegram to Mr. Chamberlain, stating that opinion throughout Australia was strongly opposed to subjecting the right of appeal to the consent of the Executive Governments. They urged the reconsideration of the proposal to pass the Bill without amendment. If that was impossible, they said that the original proposal to preserve the prerogative right of appeal intact would be less objectionable than the new proposal.

THE FINAL COMPROMISE.-Sir George Turner, in an interview, suggested the substitution of the leave of the High Court for that of the Executive Councils. Mr. Wise and Mr. O'Connor telegraphed the same suggestion to Mr. Barton; but on 16th June, just before the arrival of this telegram, Mr. Chamberlain, in consultation with the Delegates, had at last resolved to make this further concession, and to offer clause 74 in the form in which it now stands in the Constitution. This was gladly accepted by the Delegates, including Mr. Dickson. The Queensland Government withdrew their protest, and offered no objection. The Government of Victoria expressed approval of the clause as altered; and the Government of South Australia, while reiterating their inability to accept any amendment, telegraphed that they did not anticipate any difficulty from the amendment now proposed. The Government of Western Australia telegraphed that the new proposal was preferable to the previous one, but that they would have preferred an appeal as a right, without leave. In New South Wales-the only colony in which Parliament was then sitting-the Government submitted to both Houses a resolution affirming that the amendment now proposed was not such an important departure from the original Bill as would justify any action which would further delay Federation. This was carried without division in the Assembly on 21st June, and in the Council on 27th June.

THE BILL IN COMMITTEE.-On Monday, 18th June, the discussion of the Bill in Committee of the House of Commons was begun. In covering clause 5, Mr. Chamberlain moved the omission of the words which had been inserted to save the prerogative of appeal in all cases (see p. 242, supra). He suggested that as some of the verbal amendments which were on the notice paper in his name hinged upon the acceptance of clause 74 as now proposed, this would be the best time for a general debate on the subject of appeals. He described the proposed settlement as an "arrangement" rather than a compromise, as neither party gave up anything to which they attached importance. The Australian objections to the previous proposal had been (1) that it would limit the right of appeal from the State courts more than was done by the original Bill-it being thought in some quarters that the original Bill did not prohibit appeals from the State courts to the Privy Council in constitutional cases; (2) that it introduced the Executive into judicial questions. The new arrangement-in connection with which he acknowledged the assistance given by Sir Samuel Griffith--met these objections, and satisfied all the five Delegates; though no reply had yet been received from their Governments. Several members of the Opposition complained that the House was placed in a difficult position by being asked to debate so important a clause on such short notice, and without information as to the views of the Australian Governments. Eventually, after some discussion, the debate was adjourned till Thursday, 21st June.

On that date the Committee stage was resumed. Mr. Chamberlain read telegrams announcing that the Governments of Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, and Tasmania, were satisfied with the proposed arrangement, and that the Parliament of New South Wales was being consulted, and would probably agree. He pointed out that the right of appeal to the Privy Council would be the same as in Canada, with the trifling exception-which he was almost inclined to think an improvement-that in certain rare cases the leave to appeal would be granted by the High Court and not by the Privy Council. Mr. Haldane and Mr. Bryce thought that in some respects-and particularly as regards cases involving the public interests of Imperial possessions outside the Commonwealth-the clause in the original Bill was better than that now proposed; and they suggested that there would be some ground for the argument that in constitutional cases the High Court was co-ordinate with, and not subordinate to, the Privy Council. This contention was answered by Sir William Anson and by the Attorney-General, Sir Robert Finlay. Mr. Asquith admitted that as the colonies had assented to the arrangement, it should be carried into effect. Mr. Chamberlain's amendment to covering clause 5 was agreed to.

In covering clause 6, the reference to the Colonial Laws Validity Act was omitted, as was also the definition " Colony shall mean any colony or province." Covering clause 9 was restored to its original form, the Constitution being thus appended to the clause, instead of forming a Schedule to the Act.

In the Constitution itself, the original last paragraph of clause 73 was restored to its position, instead of standing as clause 74, and

the new clause 74 was inserted according to arrangement. In the Preamble, the words "and under the Constitution hereby established" were restored. The Bill was then reported with amendments.

THE BILL IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.-In the House of Lords, the Bill was read a first time on 26th June. The second reading was moved on 29th June by the Earl of Selborne, Under-Secretary for the Colonies. Earl Carrington accused Mr. Chamberlain of imprudence which had imperilled the Bill, and characterized his settlement as an unconditional surrender. The Earl of Halsbury, Lord Chancellor, deprecated this as a partizan attack which would mar the harmony and unanimity of the Empire's acceptance of the Bill. Lord Davey thought the appeal clause was not a happy solution of the difficulty, and hoped that the colonies would hereafter modify it. The Earl of Jersey, the Earl of Kimberley, Lord James of Hereford, Lord Russell of Killowen, Viscount Knutsford, and Lord Brassey, spoke in terms of congratulation. The Bill was read a second time and taken into committee pro forma. On 3rd July, it was carried through Committee without amendment, and on 5th July it was read a third time and passed.

THE ROYAL ASSENT.-On 9th July, the Queen gave her assent to the Bill. At the request of the Delegates, Her Majesty signed the Commission, declaring her assent to the Bill, in duplicate, and gave Mr. Barton one of the copies, as well as the pen, inkstand, and table used by Her Majesty, to be preserved in the Federal Parliament Buildings. On the same day, in the House of Lords, the House of Commons having been summoned to the bar, the Lords Commissioners (the Earl of Halsbury, the Earl of Hopetoun, and the Earl of Kintore), announced the Royal assent to the Bill, which was received with cheers.

ADOPTION BY WESTERN AUSTRALIA.-On 17th May-three days after the introduction of the Commonwealth Bill in the House of Commonsthe West Australian Parliament met, and an Enabling Bill was at once introduced. It was on the lines of the Enabling Acts passed in the other colonies, and provided for the submission of the Constitution to a referendum of the people of the colony, and for an address to the Queen in the event of the vote being in the affirmative.

On 23rd May Sir John Forrest moved the second reading, and announced that he would vote for Federation, though he did not see that it would be any great benefit to Western Australia for some time. The Bill as introduced provided for a referendum on the existing rolls; but during the debate the Government consented to have it taken in accordance with the newly extended franchise of the colony. (see p. 71 supra), so that all adults-men and women-who had been twelve months in the colony should be entitled to vote.

The second reading was carried without a division on 31st May. In the Council slight amendments were made, which were accepted by the Assembly. On 13th June the Bill was assented to.

The referendum was fixed for 31st July, and the campaign for and against the Constitution began at once. Sir John Forrest fought hard for the Bill, though some of his colleagues opposed it. The logical and sentimental argument for the completion of the continental union was made the most of. The ultimate entry of Western Australia into the Commonwealth was recognized as inevitable; and

it was forcibly urged that even if the immediate benefits of Federation to Western Australia were not obvious, her interests would be better secured by joining the union at the outset, and helping to mould the federal policy, than by standing aloof. The strongest argument of the opponents was that a federal tariff with intercolonial freetrade would dislocate the finances of the colony, and that section 95, allowing Western Australia to retain intercolonial duties on a diminishing scale for five years, was inadequate to meet the difficulty. This argument was assisted by appeals to intercolonial jealousy and by vague allusion to the terrors of the unknown. The stronghold of the federal party was on the goldfields, where the population was largely recruited from the other colonies; whilst the most solid opposition came from the agricultural interests, which dreaded the removal of the duties on intercolonial produce.

Though federalists were confident of victory, the decisive issue was a surprise. The result of the poll was a vote of 44,800 for the Constitution, and 19,691 against, leaving an affirmative majority of 25,109. An analysis of the voting gives the following result:

On 21st August, both Houses of the Parliament of Western Australia passed addresses to the Queen, praying that Western Australia might be included as an Original State of the Commonwealth in the Proclamation shortly to be made.

THE ROYAL PROCLAMATION.-The issue of the Queen's Proclamation fixing the day for the establishment of the Commonwealth had been withheld pending the issue of the referendum in Western Australia, in order to enable her Majesty to be "satisfied that the people of Western Australia have agreed" to join the Commonwealth. Meanwhile some telegraphic communications passed between the Imperial and Colonial Governments as to the date on which the Commonwealth should be established. The prevailing opinion was in favour of the 1st January, 1901, the first day of the twentieth century-a dramatic and significant date for the birth of Australian nationhood. The sentimental argument was reinforced by the practical one that the 1st January was the beginning of a financial half-year in all the colonies. On the other hand there was some advocacy of the 26th Januarythe anniversary of the foundation of New South Wales in 1788-which was celebrated in several of the colonies as the patriotic festival of the year. The date chosen was the 1st January; accordingly, on 17th September, 1900, the Queen signed the Proclamation declaring that on and after the first day of January, 1901, the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, Tasmania, and Western