cussion and a Bill was agreed to, which, saving the Prerogative, provided for an Australian Court of Appeal. But it was entirely in accordance with custom that the matter should end there. The tariff as a subject of conference has been already considered; and the other principal matters suggested for joint action were the regulation of Chinese immigration, and the suppression of another "undesirable immigrant," the rabbit.

The failure of intercolonial conferences and its causes are referred to by Mr. Service in the passage cited above. The conferences were indeed a valuable means of educating opinion amongst politicians as to the need of some closer and permanent union of the colonies. But as a practical method of getting business done they were almost useless First, there was the difficulty of securing assent to a conference at all. If the matter to be settled was a competing claim on the part of two colonies, as in respect to rights in the River Murray, or the adjustment of border duties, the party in possession, who had something to lose and nothing to gain, was well enough satisfied with the status quo. 2Then time and place to suit the Governments of seven or eight colonies for New Zealand and Fiji were interested members of the Australasian group-formed another obstacle; and the common action aimed at seemed a long way off when a prompt answer, or any answer at all, to an invitation to conference was by no means a common courtesy. When after months of correspondence the conference assembled, it would be found that some colony whose presence was of importance could not send representatives. As a conference of States, the meetAs ing had all the marks which distinguish such a body from the deliberative assembly of a nation. Every delegate was charged first and foremost with the promotion of the interests of his own colony; the conference was in fact a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests, which interests each must maintain as an agent and advocate against other agents and advocates." The vote was taken by States, so that the smallest colony had

equal voting power with the greatest. This, however, was of small importance, because the majority had no power to bind the minority; the dissent of a single colony prevented Australia from speaking with one voice to the Home Government, and was often fatal to effective action in matters within the powers of the colonies themselves. Nor did unanimity in Council, even when it was obtained, by any means, ensure unanimity in action. The delegates were not plenipotentiaries; they had in most matters no power to bind; they could only bear a report and offer advice to their principals. The neglect of a colony to carry out the measures agreed upon was itself calculated to promote illwill and to give rise to accusations of bad faith, which would have been more serious had not failure been so much the rule as to count amongst the things expected. It was said by Mr. Service in 1883 that of twenty-three subjects. discussed in the conferences not more than three had been dealt with effectively, and of those agreements which required uniform legislation not one had been carried out. When the matter involved communication with the Home Government, the presentation of a resolution to the Secretary of State was but the beginning of negotiations which had to be carried on with every member of the group, and which rarely failed to disclose differences of opinion amongst the colonies. The proposed amendment of the law concerning fugitive offenders may serve as an example. In 1867 the conference had passed a resolution calling upon the Home Government to enlarge their jurisdiction in criminal matters. The Secretary of State pointed out that the differences in the criminal law of the various colonies presented certain difficulties, and invited suggestions, and particularly a draft Bill, for the best mode of giving the powers required. Some colonies were in favour of one course, others proposed another; some did not take the trouble to answer the letters of the Colonial Office. Three years' delay would have taxed the patience of a more sympathetic Secretary than Earl Granville; and in 1870 the Minister announced the decision of Her Majesty's

Government not to proceed further in the matter, on the ground of "the want of unanimity of opinion both as to the proper mode of proceeding and as to the scope of the proposed legislation.'

Called into existence by the pressure of external conditions at a time when the commercial policies of the colonies were unfavourable to complete union, the Federal Council was no more than an attempt to provide a remedy for the most obvious of the defects of the intercolonial conferences. A constitutional body could be summoned, a conference was merely invited. The conferences met at irregular intervals; the Council was to meet at least once in every two years. A conference could only recommend legislation; the Council could make laws. A conference had no corporate existence; the Council was a permanent body, and under the powers conferred by the Act (§ 24) it proceeded at its first meeting in 1886 to appoint a Standing Committee to act out of session, which should, through its chairman, communicate with the Secretary of State. Thus the Council lightened the burden of negotiation with the Imperial Government. The functions of the Council were mainly deliberative and advisory; above all things it was to have been the articulate vote of Australia. The legis lative function was subordinate; federal judiciary or executive there was none. Altogether the Federal Council of 1885 fully merited the description applied by Sir Henry Parkes to his scheme in 1881-"an unique body formed upon no historical model."

In constitution the Council was modelled on the conferences. The members of the Council were the colonies, and while the Council itself had a permanent existence, membership was purely voluntary, and terminated at pleasure. Queensland, Victoria, Tasmania, and Western Australia were the only constant members, and in 1891 Western Australia was unrepresented. Fiji was represented only at the first meeting of the Council, and South Australia withdrew from membership after a single session. But more serious was the fact that New Zealand

7

2

and New South Wales never became members at all. Sir Henry Parkes was in England when the Convention of 1883 adopted the scheme, and when he returned to New South Wales joined forces with those who were opposed to federation in any form. In 1881 Sir Henry Parkes had been one of those who believed that the great thing was to get a union of some sort as the foundation of a more complete union in the future. In 1884 Sir Henry Parkes believed that the Council would impede the federal movement; and his "unique body" had become such a ricketty institution" that to join it would be to wake a 'spectacle before the world which would cover the country with ridicule."

The representatives of the colonies in the Council were delegates nominated and not elected; until 1895, when the representation of each colony was increased, they were always Ministers or ministerial supporters. Save in a few matters, the Legislative powers could be exercised only on the initiative of the legislatures of the colonies. Every power of the Council was restrained by the fact that it could neither raise nor appropriate revenue; even its own expenses had to be provided for in the budgets of the colonies. Lord Derby, well aware of the difficulty of settling colonial contributions, even when the colonies were ready to provide money, had urged that the Council should have powers of expenditure; but the colonies would not hear of it. The power of the purse must lie in a body chosen by popular election, and in such a body the equal representation of communities of very unequal powers of contribution would be impossible. Financial powers would have involved the creation of an assembly in which the colonies would have been represented according to their population; and the claims of equality of states would have involved the establishment of a Second Chamber. The expenditure of money would have required an executive. But this would have been exactly that complete federal union for which, according to the Convention of 1883, the colonies were not yet ripe, and for which the

Federal Council was only to prepare the way. Sir Henry Parkes was right when he said that the Council could not by any mere process of expansion undertake the subject of national defence; those who would give a constitution to a nation must build anew. Changing membership and the hostility of New South Wales prevented the Council from becoming an efficient instrument even for its limited purposes. After 1895 the Conference of Premiers overshadowed the Council in dignity and importance, while for co-operation in special matters-military, marine, postal, and statistical-there were frequent conferences of officials. The best that can be said of the Councilbut that is not a little-is that, far from exhibiting a natural jealousy of schemes which involved its own extinction, it did good service in fostering the cause of national union.

The next step in the federal movement is connected with the subject of defence. At the Colonial Conference held in London in 1887, important conclusions were arrived at both as to naval and military defence. In regard to the former, an agreement was come to between the Imperial Government and the Australasian Colonies whereby the latter were to contribute the sum of £126,000 per annum for the provision of the Australian Squadron. The agreement was ratified by Acts of the Legislatures of each of the colonies and by the Imperial Parliament in the Imperial Defence Act, 1888. As to military defence, it was agreed that there should be a periodical inspection of the Australasian forces by a General Officer of the Imperial Army. The further proceedings concerning this inspection themselves offer an interesting illustration of the futility of all attempts at concerted action by the divided colonies. Immediately after the conference, a correspondence began which soon developed the usual differences of opinion, and Sir Henry Parkes on behalf of New South Wales withdrew from the arrangement altogether. At last, the Imperial Government undertook to Victorian Parliamentary Papers, 1889, vol. iii., p. 605.