March, that the administration of justice by the Privy Council has been, on the whole, such as to command the confidence of the Empire. This statement is amply justified by the history of that Tribunal, and no inference to the contrary can properly be drawn from any proposals for still further improving its constitution. The excellent work which has been done by the Judicial Committee in deciding the extremely difficult and delicate questions which arose between the Dominion and the Provinces of Canada is of itself a complete refutation of the idea that the Tribunal as at present constituted needs any defence. The amendments which have been proposed by Her Majesty's Government are based upon no mistrust of the people of Australia; the sole desire of Her Majesty's Government is that, in a matter which affects not only the welfare of Australia, but the interests of the whole Empire, the Bill should be passed in a form which will be best alike for Australia and for every other part of Her Majesty's dominions. In the attempt to attain this result Her Majesty's Government confidently hope that they will have the co-operation and the support of the Australian people. 4th May, 1900. SIR, MR. J. R. DICKSON (QUEENSLAND) to COLONIAL OFFICE. (Received May 7, 1900.) 52, Stanhope Gardens, S.W., May 5, 1900. I LEARN that a second Memorandum from the Australian Delegates, urging that no amendment of the Privy Council Appeal be made in the Commonwealth Bill by Her Majesty's Government has been forwarded for your consideration. As this document does not bear my signature (being one of the Delegates), it appears to me proper that you should know my reasons for declining to sign. They are two in number, viz., An earnest wish to see the Bill passed by the Imperial Parliament without delay, which I know is the paramount desire of Australia, and secondly, a conviction that the maintenance of plenary appeal to the Privy Council, nothwithstanding the provisions of the Bill, is regarded with most cordial approval by every loyal subject-certainly in Queensland-and, I believe, generally throughout Australia. My colleagues well know that whenever we have touched on this subject, I have not seen eye to eye with them; but when we first addressed you I allowed my individual views to give way to a sense of loyal camaraderie and to show unanimity in council. Also, having been instructed by the Premiers at their January Conference to get the Bill passed without amendment, I signed the first Memorandum, presented as the exposition of the views of the Australian Delegates, notwithstanding I felt that the retention of full appeal in our Federal Constitution was the desire of the Government and people of Queensland. Since arriving in London, we have had the honour and immense advantage of consultations with the Attorney-General, Sir Richard Webster, and Sir Robert Finlay, Solicitor-General, who, at interviews and in the written reply to our Memorandum, with which you have favoured us, have expressed arguments in maintenance of full appeal which appear to me to be practically unanswerable. You are aware that after our Memorandum and your reply thereto had been mutually considered, it was deemed advisable to place the position before the Premiers of Australia, with a view to enlarge our commissions and to accept amendments. Their reply is, to my mind, clear. They hesitate to accept the responsibility of enlarging our commissions lest they should show themselves "infirm of purpose" in still conducting the progress of Federation; for, be it remembered, the Premiers who now administer the affairs of Australia are not in all cases the men who successfully carried the Commonwealth Bill through stormy Parliaments and fiercely passioned Referenda. Public gratitude has been expressed by polital ostracism. Nevertheless, I read their reply as assenting to enlargement of appeal, with an earnest request for no unnecessary delay to occur in passing the Bill. Their reply to you states: "(3.) The only alternatives suggested in the despatches (from the Secretary of State for the Colonies) are: (1) Amendment of the Bill, and (2) postponement of its consideration. Of these two the Premiers do not hesitate to say that the latter course would be much more objectionable to Australians generally even than the former." Can any intelligent reader doubt the construction to be attached to this passage? The undoubted meaning is that, above all things, delay in passing the Bill is to be deprecated, and, although they will not undertake the responsibility of accepting amendments, they desire the Bill passed now, even with amendments. Having, then, their answer to your communication, I am of opinion our clear duty is to accept the Bill with the Privy Council Appeal maintained in the form you have expressed to us, and so ably argued and explained by the two eminent legal authorities to whom I have previously referred. I think in presenting a contentious and highly argumentative communication to you now-a document which if fully weighed appears to invite deliberate consideration and reply those who do so are really imperilling the early presentation of the Bill to Parliament, and may tend to frustrate an immediate and successful issue to our most important mission. In illustration of this, I would refer to the paragraphs in this second Memorandum, which assert, "The substantial questions then are: (1) Whether Clause 74 derogates from the rights of other parts of the Empire; and (2) Even if it appears technically to do so, whether the clause would in its operation injuriously affect other portions of Her Majesty's Dominions. The Delegates confess their inability to see that an affirmative answer can be given to either of these questions." My difficulty is to see how any other than an affirmative reply can be given to either of these questions. My colleagues also refer to this question as being "so little" a concession. I consider it to be of immense and far reaching importance. But, if "so little," why dissent from the superior counsels of Her Majesty's Government and delay the Bill in a matter of trivial importance? It is not, however, my intention or desire to proceed with criticism of this document. My colleagues (Delegates) three of whom are justly recognized as most eminent in their learned profession, appear to me to view this question of appeal in a purely legal aspect, and naturally, as the authors of the Bill, to have a parental partiality for their own offspring. My experiences of life and public office induce me to regard it from the standpoints of public policy, as well as of commerce and finance. And in these several positions I hold that maintenance of full appeal to the Privy Council is indispensable to the unity of the Empire and to a feeling of confidence and protection, which-even if it be a sentiment purelyencourages commercial and financial relations and expansion. Surely we should not allow ourselves to be blinded to the immense advantages of assisting the development of fuller trade relations within this great Empire. Hence it is in the true interests of Australia, as well as of Britain, to maintain all present connections, and if so now, how much more so may it be hereafter, when the phenomenal exigencies and patriotic impulses of the present day which bind us so closely together have disappeared. But even as a legal question, I find diametrically opposite views to those held by my learned colleagues entertained by the most eminent jurists of Australia. Sir Julian Salomons, Sir Samuel Griffith-and surely no one will allege that he is "a member of the minority who have opposed the Bill," or that, being in "high official position," his views should be treated as "destitute of authority"-Sir Samuel Way, and, indeed, all the Chief Justices of Australia, are unanimous in advising that full appeal to the Privy Council be maintained in the new Constitution. Therefore, slightly altering the message conveyed to me from Brisbane yesterday, and published in this day's "Times," I may assert without fear of contradiction that my learned colleague Delegates do not represent a majority even of the legal feeling in Australia on this question. While I have the full authority of the Government of Queensland for concurrence in the proposed amendments, I shall not further engage your attention, on which I fear I have unduly trespassed in this lengthy communication, except to add that, for the foregoing reasons, which can be considerably amplified, I have declined appending my signature, and also to say that I am constantly in receipt of letters and cablegrams from Australia, which justify me in asserting emphatically that the prevailing desire of Australia at present is to strengthen the ties which bind her to the Motherland. At no time in Colonial history has a more enthusiastic desire to be bound up in the unity of the great British Empire been felt or expressed than that which now permeates Australia. That desire is the yearning of a great British people to be considered not as "Colonials," but as British citizens, loyal to Queen and Empire, and possessing with their fellow subjects equal rights and privileges, together with similar aims and ambitions. The people of Australia have given proof of this desire by something more practical and tangible than words alone. To you, Sir, and Her Majesty's Government Australia owes the development and present vigorous existence of this mighty feeling, and I conclude by respectfully representing that upon your decision will greatly depend the full meaning of "United Empire hereafter, and the continuance of these loyal sentiments in the breasts of generations of future Australians. I have, etc., JAMES R. DICKSON. MEMORANDUM. Whitehall Court, May 8, 1900. The subscribing Australian Delegates agree that no useful purpose is likely to be served by further written discussion of the amendments proposed to be made in the Commonwealth Bill by Her Majesty's Govern inent. The alteration chiefly discussed between the Delegates and Her Majesty's Government relates to appeals to the Judicial Committee. This is in no sense "a detail of the Constitution," such as is referred to in the second paragraph of the memorandum of May 4th. It has been described from the first by Her Majesty's Government as vital, and has been so treated by the Delegates, who have always distinguished such a proposal from those of minor importance which have been associated with it. As it was understood that the suggested amendment in regard to the Colonial Laws Validity Act had been abandoned, no reference was made to it in the second memorandum of the Delegates. Without receding from any opinion already expressed, they urge that such an Act ought not to apply to the important Legislatures of such great self-governing communities as the Dominion and the Commonwealth, whose statutory authority should be subordinate only to that of the Imperial Parliament when exercised after the establishment of these Constitutions and expressly applied. The Delegates trust that even now Her Majesty's Government may be willing, as they are able, to provide by separate legislation for this and any other matter which they consider essential, passing the Commonwealth Bill without amendments as desired by the Peoples, Parliaments, and Govern ments of the Colonies which they have the honour to represent. For the consequences which may ensue immediately and ultimately if the suggested amendments be made they cannot be held responsible. If they have been outspoken and tenacious of their views, the sincerity of their apprehensions will, no doubt, be accepted as sufficient justification. They again express their thanks to Her Majesty's Government for the courtesy with which their representations have been received. We have, &c., EDMUND BARTON. Correspondence as to the inclusion of Western Australia as an (Sent 4.5 p.m., April 27, 1900.) Referring to my telegram of 5th April, as you are probably aware, Premiers of Federating Colonies have declared that they have no authority to accept amendments in Bill, and they have not given the delegates any instructions in regard to any suggestion. I cannot in these circumstances press the matter further, and I would now urge your Ministers earnestly to consider whether they should not, in the best interests of the Colony, as well as of Australia, make a resolute effort to bring the Colony into Federation at -once. Western Australia, unless it joins as original State, can only enter later on condition of complete intercolonial free trade. It will thus lose the temporary protection offered by Clause 95, and, looking to present population of Colony, it may also be found difficult to secure such large representation as it would receive as original State, and which will enable Colony to secure adequate protection for all its interests in Federal Parliament. Your Ministers will also, of course, take into consideration effect of agitation of the Federalist party, especially in goldfields, if Western Australia does not enter as original State. In these circumstances it appears to me of utmost importance to future of Western Australia that it should join at once, and as your Ministers have done their best to secure modifications desired by Parliament, I would urge them to take early steps for summoning new Parliament and laying position fully before it with a view to the action necessary for ascertaining wishes of people as to entering Federation. If they agree to this course a clause will be inserted in Bill providing that if people have intimated desire to be included before issue of Her Majesty's Proclamation, Western Australia may join as original State. ACTING GOVERNOR SIR A. C. ONSLOW (WESTERN AUSTRALIA) to MR. CHAMBERLAIN. (Received 8.30 p.m., May 2, 1900.) TELEGRAM. I am desired by Ministers to thank you for your great efforts to obtain one amendment required in the Bill on behalf Western Australia, and regret you have been unable to secure the desired alteration. Parliament has been summoned, on your suggestion, for the 17th May, when an enabling Bill will be introduced by Premier providing for the immediate submission of the Federation Bill to the people. Ministers gratefully accept your offer to make provision in the Imperial Act for Western Australia to enter as an original State should the wishes of the people be expressed in favour of Federation before the Queen's Proclamation is issued. ACTING GOVERNOR SIR A. C. ONSLOW (WESTERN AUSTRALIA) TO MR. CHAMBERLAIN. (Received Colonial Office, 11.10 a.m., 1st August, 1900.) TELEGRAM. "Referendum resulted in adoption of Commonwealth Bill by large majority. Meeting of Parliament 15th August, when addresses to Her Majesty The Queen will be at once passed. Federation of Australia is now wholly complete, and am desired by Sir John Forrest to congratulate you and Her Majesty's Government on the satisfactory result of your efforts." WESTERN AUSTRALIA. To the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty. MAY IT PLEASE YOUR MAJESTY, WE, Your Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, members of the Legislative Council of Western Australia, in Parliament assembled, approach Your Majesty with assurances of our loyalty and sincere attachment to Your Majesty's Throne and Person. WE humbly inform Your Majesty that the people of Western Australia have agreed to be united into a Federal Commonwealth together with the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, in accordance with the Act of the Imperial Parliament in that behalf, and we humbly pray Your Majesty to declare by Proclamation that on and after the day therein appointed Western Australia may be admitted as an Original State of the Commonwealth. (Signed) GEO. SHENTON, President. (Signed) C. LEE STEERE, Clerk. 21st August, 1900. WESTERN AUSTRALIA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. To the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty. MAY IT PLEASE YOUR MAJESTY, WE, Your Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, members of the Legislative Assembly of Western Australia, in Parliament assembled, approach Your Majesty with assurances of our loyalty and sincere attachment to Your Majesty's Throne and Person. WE humbly inform Your Majesty that the people of Western Australia have agreed to be united into a Federal Commonwealth together with the |