Since then she has consistently declined to be represented at this Federal gathering, has she not? || The Hon. W. Pember Reeves: I could not say how many invitations we have declined, Mr. Kingston. We certainly declined one; whether we have had subsequent invitations I am not able to say. The Right Hon. C. C. Kingston: Are you able to express any opinion as to the probability of New Zealand desiring to join the Federation? | The Hon. W. Pember Reeves: If you had asked me that question twelve months ago, I should have said there was very little hope. I am bound to say that last year more interest, much more interest seemed to be taken in the question. It received more support than I could have thought possible; more than that I will not say. || The Right Hon. C. C. Kingston: You do not think there is any immediate prospect of New Zealand joining the Federation, do you? || The Hon. W. Pember Reeves: I would say this, that if this concession is granted it would make it, in my opinion, a great deal more likely that we should join. || The Right Hon. C. C. Kingston: Do you think that New Zealand has any reason te apprehend any unfair treatment at the hands of the Commonwealth with reference to her admission under the powers of the Commonwealth under the Bill? | The Hon. W. Pember Reeves: I would not use the word „unfair". I am sure the Commonwealth would do nothing unfair, and nothing that the interests of its own citizens would not require, but there might be interests in the course of the next few years that might grow up which might affect the introduction of New Zealand. || The Right Hon. C. C. Kingston: Then if New Zealand could rely under the Bill for anything that is fair she does not want anything more, does she? | The Hon. W. Pember Reeves: Nothing more. || The Right Hon. Mr. Kingston: I know that it is the desire of New Zealand that, even whilst outside the Federation, her people should have the right of appeal to the High Court of Australia. Is it not intended that under such circumstances the decision of the High Court should be final, or is it suggested that that appeal should be simply another obstacle in the path of final justice? || The Hon. W. Pember Reeves: I am really unable to say. Of course, what is asked is the option of going to that Court, and I assume that if both litigants preferred to go to that Court rather than to go to the Privy Council, I could hardly imagine them wishing to go to both if they had gone through the two Courts in New Zealand already, our Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

The Right Hon. Mr. Kingston: I suppose you would consider it a mischief and not an advantage that another Court should be interposed in the path of final justice? || The Hon. W. Pember Reeves: In what way

is it a mischief? I do not consider an appeal to the Privy Council a mischief. || The Right Hon. Mr. Kingston: No, but you interpose a decision of the High Court. || The Hon. W. Pember Reeves: I should say an arrangement which should lay open to litigants four Courts in succession, the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court, the High Court of Australia, and the Privy Council, would be embarrassing. I could hardly conceive such a thing; we do not ask such a thing, and we do not contemplate it. The Right Hon. Mr. Kingston: You wish the power to go to the High Court for final decision. The Hon. W. Pember Reeves: I want it to go to the High Court. I assume in that case of New Zealand the Court of Appeal would be cut out. || The Right Hon. Mr. Kingston: In the case of New Zealand the Court of Appeal would be cut out. | The Right Hon. J. Chamberlain: I thank you, gentlemen, for your attendance. || Mr. Parker: May I be permitted, Mr. Chamberlain, to say just one word? You mentioned, sir, that you presumed if this amendment I ask for were adopted, that it might cause some delay. I think probably it would not cause any delay. I take it that if this amendment were adopted the whole matter could be settled in Western Australia in the course of three months, and that probably would be before the Proclamation was published declaring a Federated Australia. And following up the amendment I suggested the third clause in the Bill would also require to be amended, because it mentions the names of the Colonies which would be united in the Federal Commonwealth; and I would propose as a further amendment the addition of the words: If at any ||,,If time before the Proclamation the Parliament of Western Australia passes an Act enabling that Colony to join the Commonwealth as an original State, the people of Western Australia may be included in the Proclamation and united in the Commonwealth." || The Hon. A. Deakin: Is that with or without consulting the people by referendum? || Mr. Parker: Oh, with. || The Hon. A. Deakin: It does not say so, and there is no provision for that. || The Right Hon. C. C. Kingston: I would like to ask, has Mr. Parker any reason for believing that the Bill, as proposed to be amended, would be more acceptable to the majority of the people of Western Australia than the Bill as it now stands? || Mr. Parker: Yes, I believe it would. I believe if the Bill were amended in the manner suggested it would be adopted by a very large majority of the people. || The Right Hon. C. C. Kingston: You know the amendment is strongly resented amongst the consumers? || Mr. Parker: It is not resented amongst the consumers except the goldfields' consumers. It must be borne in mind that the wage earners in the goldfields are paid proportionately to

the amount that they have to pay for their food, and a reduction in the cost of food would mean a reduction of wages. I do not think, therefore, it would affect them. || The Right Hon. C. C. Kingston: Is it not the fact that even in Perth, where the amendment is most strongly advocated, a resolution was lately carried at a public meeting against it? || Mr. Parker: I do not think it was. The Right Hon. C. C. Kingston: At the Town Hall, just before you left. || Mr. Parker: No, I do not think so; I do not think there was a resolution carried against this. || The Right Hon. C. C. Kingston: Against any amendment of the Bill. || Mr. Parker: Was there? It may be, but you must bear in mind that you can get up a public meeting and you can carry anything. || The delegates from Western Australia and New Zealand then withdrew.

Nr. 13139. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Der Kolonialminister an die Gouverneure von Neu-Süd - Wales, Viktoria, Queensland, Südaustralien, Tasmania. Legt die Einwände gegen Kap. 74 dar. Die Delegierten sollen zur Änderung dieses Punktes ermächtigt

werden.

Sent 11 midnight, April 5, 1900.

Telegram. The discussion with the delegates has been carried on in a most friendly spirit and with good result. Any desire or intention to interfere in any matter involving interests exclusively Australian is disclaimed by Her Majesty's Government, but they are confident that full weight will be given to their suggestions by your Ministers when urged on behalf of interests of United Kingdom, or as Trustees for the Empire at large. || Her Majesty's Government would have desired amendment as to various questions which have arisen, but are unwilling to risk delaying Federation by pressing their views, and the operation of Clause 74, in restricting the right of appeal to the Privy Council, is now practically the only matter at issue. || Her Majesty's Government object to this clause because (1) the term "public interests" is so vague and indefinite as to leave uncertainty in a matter where precision is of first importance, and increased litigation, due to applications for leave to appeal and the multiplication of arguable points on appeal, will be the result. || (2) A most important link of Empire would be seriously impaired, and the consequences would be far-reaching in allowing divergency to spring up where in the general interests unity and uniformity is most desirable. || (3) It can scarcely be to the interests of Australia that in important questions as to boundaries between powers of Commonwealth and States the final

decision should not lie with highest tribunal of Empire, beyond suspicion of local bias or predilection. || (4) Important questions may arise as to operation of Commonwealth Laws on British shipping, or generally as to whether such laws are ultra vires, which the Imperial Parliament can scarcely allow to be concluded by decision of Australian High Court. || (5) Commonwealth legislation on such subjects as fisheries may seriously affect the interests of subjects of other parts of the Empire, and in such matters Parliament could not expect them to submit to be deprived of appeal to an Imperial Court. || (6) Banks and other financial and commercial institutions having large interests in Australia entertain very strong feeling against the limitation, and weighty representations have been made on the subject to Her Majesty's Government. || (7) Her Majesty's Government feel that the actual restriction, and the power claimed to make further restriction equivalent to practical abolition of appeal, would be specially inopportune at the moment when they are considering terms of a Bill for enhancing the dignity and promoting the efficiency of the Judicial Committee by practically amalgamating it with the House of Lords, and providing for adequate permanent representation of the great Colonies in a new Court which it is proposed to create. Should Australian appeals be practically withdrawn, the new Court would be deprived of a large part of its value as providing a new sphere for co-operation between Colonies and Mother Country, and giving effect to some extent to ardent desire for closer relations now happily existing both in Mother Country and Colonies. || Her Majesty's Government feel that for these reasons and others which have been fully explained to delegates they must press for amendment of Clause 74, but it is their earnest desire that such amendment may be carried out in the way most agreeable to Australian sentiment, and so as to avoid if possible the necessity of delay and expense involved in a further referendum. Several suggestions have been made with this object, but delegates feel that lack of instructions precludes them from discussing the form which any amendment should take, or the method by which effect should be given to it. It is also necessary that provision should be made for explaining that, as intended by the framers of the Constitution, the Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, will apply to Laws of a Commonwealth Parliament; there can be no difficulty in arranging suitable terms on this point. I now earnestly appeal to your Government to co-operate with me in securing the unopposed passage of a Bill which, while accepting the Constitution proposed by the Colonies practically in its entirety, will also take account of the considerations urged above; and I trust that

your Ministers may see fit to enlarge the instructions to their delegate, and to give him authority to arrange with Her Majesty's Government the speediest and most satisfactory method by which these objects can be ensured.

Nr. 13140. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Der Kolonialminister an den Generalagenten für Neu-Seeland. Antwort auf

Nr. 13136.

Downing Street, April 10, 1900.

Sir, I am directed by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain to inform you that he has received a letter from Western Australia, suggesting that, if it is impracticable to amend the draft Commonwealth Bill to meet the views of Western Australia by the substitution of five years' fiscal freedom for the sliding scale of Customs duties at present provided, it would be desirable to amend Section 121 of the Bill in order to allow the Federal Parliament, if it so pleases, to admit Western Australia to the Commonwealth hereafter on the terms desired by the Colony it being presumed by the writer that the Parliament will, under Section 121 as it now stands, be able to admit new States to the Commonwealth only within the conditions of the Constitution, one of which conditions is free trade between the States. || Mr. Chamberlain would be glad to learn whether the Australian delegates hold this view as to the restricted effect of Section 121. I am, &c.,

H. Bertram Cox.

Nr. 13141. VICTORIA. - Der Gouverneur an den britischen Kolonialminister. Erwiderung der australischen Minister auf Chamberlains Vorstellungen in Nr. 13139.

Received 6.45 p.m., April 22, 1900.

Telegram. In accordance with request made by Premiers in conference, Melbourne, transmit following telegram:-|| The Premiers of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, and Tasmania, in conference assembled, having given full consideration to the despatches, from the Secretary of State for the Colonies respecting suggested amendments in the Commonwealth Bill, reply:- (1.) While they fully recognise the feeling of the Imperial Government that vigilance on their part is essential in the interests of all parts of the Empire, and also the importance of securing the inclusion of Western Australia in the Federation