OCR Text |
Show AUSTRALIAN COMMONWEALTH. (Editorial Correspondence.) A bill known as the Australian Commonwealth Com-monwealth bill has been introduced in the British House of Commons and it vould appear that much is expected from its enactment in solidifying Australian Aus-tralian sentiment in favor of England. On the occasion of its introduction, Mr! Joseph Chamberlain, secretary of state for the colonies, described the measure i " b11 important step toward the organization of the British Empire It would make Australia an indissoluble indissolu-ble federal commonwealth, united for the most important functions of government, gov-ernment, with intercolonial free trade, a common tariff for all the colony and common control of the national defense. de-fense. Such a consummation, the secretary sec-retary declared, was as much to Great Britain's interest as to Australia's. What was good for Australia was clearly good for the whole empire. The empire rejoiced at this great, free, progressive pro-gressive movement, which was a monument mon-ument to legislative competency and worthy or all the great labor that had been expended on it. After explaining the difference be- tween the Australian proposals and the Canadian constitution. Mr. Chamberlain Chamber-lain pointed out that as foreign countries coun-tries were concerned in the new constitution con-stitution it was Important that measures meas-ures which might involve the imperial government in the most serious responsibilities re-sponsibilities should be interpreted bv a tribunal in which all the parties had full confidence. The government could not consent to clause 74, relating to the Appeal Court, because it meant the abolition of the imperial veto, would be prejudicial to the unity of the empire and might lead I to a conflict of authority between the proposed new High f.'ourt and the Privy Council. There was by no means, he pointed out, unanimity on the subject sub-ject in Australia. The government would consequently ask the House of Commons to so far amend the bill as to retain the power of .ie Court of Ap peal. j The government, he added, proposed j to introduce in the House of Lords J forthwith a scheme to appoint for sev-i sev-i en years a representative each of Canada, Can-ada, South Africa, Australia and India, to be members of the Privy Council and act as Lords of Appeal. Life peerages peer-ages would be conferred on them, so that they would continue to sit in the House of Lords, although they would not act as judges after their term of service had expired. They would be paid the same as Lords of Appeal and at the cost of the imperial government. The new constitution, although in important im-portant respects unlike any now existing, ex-isting, more closely resembled the constitution con-stitution of the United States than any other. State rights throughout were jealously preserved. In Australia. however, the Senate would be elected by the same electorate as the Legislature, Legisla-ture, and the members of both bodies would receive the same salary. These are very fine words from Mr. Chamberlain, but we imagine ihey will fool no one in Australia. Much time, it is true, as well as intelligent thought, has been given to the making of a constitution con-stitution for Australian federation, but at one stroke of the pen Joseph Chamberlain Cham-berlain nullifies what Australians deem the most essential feature of the provisions pro-visions of the constitution, that which renders inoperative the royal veto, but which wiley Joseph would, of course, retain. ' The English secretary justifies him- j self for this interference with the de- j manded rights of the Australians on the plea that the Australians themselves them-selves were not united in their demand. We imagine that the bill as imasculated by Chamberlain will prove most unac- j ceptable to the people of Australia. Joseph Chamberlain will leave a sorry sor-ry mark on English history. THOS. H. MALONE. London, May 27, 1900. |