TOPICS OF THE DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 11265, 12 June 1900, Page 5

TOPICS OF THE DAY.

[Fhom Otjb Special Corbehpondent.] "LONDON, April 20. A correspondent of the ' Morning Advertiser' criticises Mr Haldane's suggestions by asking: "How does all this meet the colonial objections? The Australians make mo quarrel about the shabby room and the dirty staircase, except by way of subsidiary intimation that the colonies should- be honored with the paraphernalia of Imperial show as much as the component kingdoms at Home. Their substantial objection lies to the qualitv of the law, and the expense and delay involved, and they do not see why they should v.ome to Whitehall or Westminster when thev could provide themselves adequately in their own country. Mr Haldane does not answer these points. He cannot get over the expense or the delay, and he knows what Sir Corner Petheran and Sir William Rattigan have said about the unsatisfactoriness of the Indian decisions of the Judicial Corr-mittee, which apply mutatis mutandis to the colonies, and which would not be obviattd by his plan. He would .v make the colonial members life peers; but would thev consent to become life peers, or any other lrind of peers? Would the coteivies, smarting under the amendment of their Bill, cheerfully contribute £4,000 a year to their Law Lord for an expensive, dilatory, and unsatisfactory result: > Mr Haldane points out that the Canadian Act did not work satisfactorily, and that the Judicial Committee were called in as arbiters, with the • result that Lord Watson mainly readjusted «rervthing to general satisfaction. Very well; let the Australians also have their chance, and, if they cannot succeed better, let them too come back again. If they succeed, all is well. If they come back they will have no grudge against tre.' Why they should be annoyed bv rejection of their Bill we fail entirely to understand. So long as they get their legal and constitutional cases decided to their ? iking, what on earth am it matter to us? The final authority goes out from Westminster, and that is enough for Imperial purposes. Let us not lose the kernel in a futile wrangle over the hUBk." The 'Law Journal' thinks that public opinion in Australia is coming round to the view that the appeal clauses must be so -modified as not to exclude the ultimate iunsdietion of the Privy Council over tho Federal High Court. The maintenance of the Privy Council as the supreme and final court of appeal is a matter of vital moment to the whole Empire. The final appellate jurisdiction of the Sovereign-in-Council is the symbol of Imperial unity in law, and no part of the Plmpire can afford to see it displaced. Tho 'Daily News' says:— "If the settlement of the question were left in prudence and in fairness where it undoubtedly rest* in theory—namely, in the unfettered discretion of the Imperial Parliament—there can bo no doubt that the Privy Council clause •f the Bill would be amended. The Imperial Court Of Appeal must be a stronger Court, and it would be more free from all probability of local partisanship and political bias. The field from which the JBill proposes ;o banish the Imperial Court—namely, that of inter-State disputes—seems to be precisely that in which it would be most useful. . Uniformity of law throughout the Emoiro \<t, moreover, desirable in the interests' of nil parts of the Empire alike, and this can only be secured by the influence of one supreme tribunal exercised over local tribunals by d visions on special appeals." The Imperial Parliament, if it felt itself free, would unquestionably amend tho Bill. "But," asks the 'Daily News,' "is it free?" and it replied to its own question: "If the lAustralian G1 vernment declare that they must have the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill, and that the limitation of the Privy Council's powers is, as it were, the ark of the Federal covenant, then, however much the Imperial Government might de- ' plore such a decision, public policy would on the whole require them to acquiesce in the Australian claim." Tho way out of the difficulty is, tho' Daily News' suggested, the improvement of the Privy Council as suggested by Mr Haldane. The Australian people have objected to the existing Court < of Appeal. They will not object to a new, strong, and thoroughly reformed representative Court of Appeal for the Empire. • PRIMROSE DAY. Yesterday was Primrose Day, and was celebrated neither more nor less than usual. Why the primrose should have been adopted as Beaconsfield's favorite flower seems strange, considering that he appears to have stated that the primrose was only fit for a salad. There is therefore appropriateness in the following advertisement of a South London restaurant: —" For Primrose Day only. A primrose salad will be supplied at threepence a portion, made from a recipe over a century old." It has been suggested (bearing in ,mind this year's outburst of Imperialism) that we should celebrate Beaconsfield"s Day -with more enthusiasm than usual in commemoration of his Imperial policy. On this point there seems almost as much doubt as on the question of his love for the primrose. Lord Rosebery declared in a speech in 1897 that "Lord Beaconstield regarded the colonies as unnecessary and heavy encumbrances, who would hasten to leave us at the shortest notice." Against this a correspondent of I the 'St. James's Gazette' quotes from Beaconsfield's Crystal Palace speech in 1872 an extract which, in the light of present day suggestions of Imperial Federation, is remarkably prophetic:—"l cannot conceive how our distant colonies' can have thrir affairs administered except by self-govern-ment. But .self-government, when it was conceded, ought to have been conceded as part of a great policy of Imperial consolidation. It ought to haver&een acompanied by an Imperial tariff, by securities for the people of England, for the enjoyment of all the unappropriated lands which belonged to the Sovereign as their trustee, ;md by a military code which should have precisely J defined the means and the responsibilities by which the colonics should be defended, and by which, if necessary, this country should call for aid from the colonies themselves. It ought, further, to have been accompanied by some representative council in the metropolis, which would have brought the colonies into constant and continuous relations with | the Home Government. ... In my opinion no Minister in this country will do his duty who neglects any opportunity of reconstructing as much as possible our colonial empire, and of responding to those distant sympathies that may become the source of incalculable strength and happiness | to our land."