amend so as to leave the jurisdiction of the Privy Council in no way curtailed, served to call attention to the constitution of the court; and the subject was referred to a Colonial Conference in 1901, which, as being of a restricted character, we have not hitherto mentioned. The Crown Colonies and India were also represented at it. Though Mr Chamberlain, in convening the Conference, declared his intention of introducing a Bill on the subject immediately, it does not seem that any definite proposals were put before the Conference on behalf of the Government. The delegates were left to their own devices, and they differed in opinion. Australia, New Zealand, and Newfoundland were in favour of a new Imperial Court of Appeal; Canada, the Cape, Natal, and the members appointed by the Government to represent India and the Crown Colonies, were content to suggest some improvements in the existing Judicial Committee.

Mr Chamberlain, who had begun with an earnest desire to deal with the matter this session,' and with an intention to create colonial law lords, ended by announcing that His Majesty's Government do not propose to make any material changes for the establishment of an Imperial Court of Appeal.' The reason assigned was the fact that the Colonies were divided in opinion. It has been conjectured-we believe, correctly-that there was another division of opinion nearer home. The scheme which Mr Chamberlain is understood to favour is that suggested by Mr Haldane in 1900 in an address now reprinted in the collection under review. It is the fusion of the Judicial Committee in the House of Lords, which would thus become the single supreme Court of Appeal for the whole Empire, and the creation of colonial law lords to strengthen the House for that purpose. Such a creation was perhaps regarded by some of the more conservative members of the administration as the end of a dangerous wedge. It is to be hoped that such qualms will not always stand in the way of a proposal, of which the advantages have been so well stated by Mr Justice Hodges, the Australian delegate at the Conference of 1901:

'Such a court would bring the best legal thought in the United Kingdom in touch with the best legal thought in the Empire outside the United Kingdom. It would be a wonder

fully strong court, and command the admiration and respect, not only of the whole British race, but of every race in the British dominions. It would be a powerful factor in the development of a closer union between all parts of the Empire. In the British dominions it would obliterate in the administration of justice all distinctions between place and persons. Just as there is one flag to protect the subject from external assault, so there would be one court as the final arbiter of internal disputes.'

Such an Imperial Court of Appeal would, as Mr Holland observes, be a far truer symbol of the Empire than the present Judicial Committee, which, except in ecclesiastical cases, has no jurisdiction in the United Kingdom; a truer symbol, even, than the Parliament now sitting at Westminster, which, so far as the self-governing colonies are concerned, has little real jurisdiction outside the United Kingdom.

The army and the navy are institutions which exist for the common defence of all; their personnel and organisation might well be made more Imperial in character. As we have already said, we do not anticipate that the Colonies will as yet shoulder their proportionate share of the financial burden; but meanwhile any measures which should identify colonial interests more clearly with the Imperial army and navy would be steps in the right direction. Lord Brassey has done good service by pointing out the fine material for a naval reserve that might be found in the Colonies. The Committee on Military Education has wisely recommended that a large number of commissions should be placed at the disposal of the colonial governments.

From common institutions we pass to common action on subjects of common interest. The scope for unification here is very large. It is to be found in the whole field of legislative and administrative activity. There may be no common councils; the legislation and administration of each state within the Empire may be separate and particular, and yet each may be informed by a common purpose. Take, for instance, the subject of defence. No state need surrender any portion of its freedom of action,

* See 'Correspondence relating to the proposed Establishment of a Final Court of Colonial Appeal, November 1901' (Cd. 846).

and yet the strength and solidarity of the whole would be greatly increased if each kept in mind a common understanding with regard to pattern of armament, schemes of mobilisation, formation of reserves, and other kindred matters. In the field of law there is even more room for the pursuit of uniformity. Matters such as trade-marks, patents, copyright, naturalisation, immigration, have already been discussed at colonial conferences; and much remains to be done in the direction of common action. Such discussions attract little notice in the newspapers. They lend themselves but ill to the fine phrases of the platform. But if they lead to greater uniformity of law and practice within the Empire, they will conduce to real, as distinct from formal, federation.

If such uniformity of action and concentration on common purposes are to be attained, there must be means and opportunities provided for interchange of ideas between those who, in the several parts of the Empire, are concerned in directing its policy. It is instructive to note that these opportunities have so far come about naturally, and in connexion with the Crown. True statesmanship consists in following the line of natural advance. Now, Jubilee or Coronation conferences cannot be relied upon always to offer themselves at appropriate intervals. The next step forward would seem to be a policy of conference on a more extended scale and on a systematic basis. Mr Seddon put down on the agenda paper for the Conference of 1902 a proposal that triennial conferences be held between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Premiers of the self-governing colonies.' It may be that this proposal is in some respects too binding, as in others it is too confined. The policy of conference, wisely interpreted, would not be limited to formal sittings, at fixed periods, in Downing Street. The exchange of ideas should be constant. The confidential communications which have passed between London and some of the selfgoverning colonies during the progress of negotiations in South Africa are significant of the new order. Such communications in themselves secure some of the objects of formal confederation. Some day there may be evolved, from the growth of this usage, an Imperial Council advising the Crown and acting as a medium between the

groups of confederated states and the great executive officers in charge of Imperial interests.

The view presented in the preceding pages of the relations between the Colonies and the mother-country,. and of the immediate possibilities of drawing them closer together, may appear disappointing to those who have been full fed on more ambitious schemes. But it is in keeping with the spirit of our institutions, and also with the lessons of our colonial experience. If we look back over the modern colonial history of Britain we shall perceive that two successive mistakes of policy have arisen from the inability of statesmen to grasp a great and governing idea. The idea was new in modern history, and it is the glory of Britain to have realised it. But it was long before it dawned upon the political consciousness, and even now it is perhaps only imperfectly seized. The idea is that of free colonies; of the union of liberty with empire; of states united by a tie (in a phrase of Sir Henry Parkes) as light as air, and yet as strong as steel. The statesmen of the eighteenth century could not perceive the possibility of such a connexion. They insisted on keeping it tight, and they lost the American colonies. The statesmen of the mid-nineteenth century could not perceive the possibility either. They made the connexion loose, and they expected, and even desired, the 'ripe fruit' to drop off the parent stem. There is some danger now of a third mistake from an imperfect grasp of the same principle. The ripe fruit has not dropped off, and does not seek to drop off. The connexion is loose, but it is strong and it is voluntary. Then why not, say some, tighten it once more? Closer, if not tighter, the connexion may well become; but it must be by following the laws of natural growth. The immediate object to be aimed at is not so much the creation of a single organ of sovereign will, but the concentration of the free-wills of the several states upon a common purpose. The federation thus attained may not be symmetrical or logical. It will conform to no known type; but it will realise a great ideal. It will establish an empire whose service is perfect freedom.

Art. XVI.-THE CORONATION OF THE KING OF

ENGLAND.

1. Missale ad Usum Ecclesie Westmonasteriensis nunc primum typis mandatum. Curante Johanne Wickham Legg. Three vols. London: Henry Bradshaw Society, 1891, 1893, 1897.

2. The Manner of the Coronation of King Charles the First of England at Westminster, 2 Feb. 1626. Edited for the Henry Bradshaw Society by Christopher Wordsworth, M.A. London, 1892.

3. The Coronation Book of Charles V of France. (Cottonian MS. Tiberius, B. VIII.) Edited by E. S. Dewick, M.A., F.S.A. London: Henry Bradshaw Society, 1899.

4. Three Coronation Orders. Edited by J. Wickham Legg. London: Henry Bradshaw Society, 1900.

5. The Coronation Service according to the use of the Church of England. With notes and introduction. By the Rev. Joseph H. Pemberton. London: Skeffington, 1901. 6. English Coronation Records. Edited by Leopold G. Wickham Legg, B.A. Westminster: Constable, 1901. 7. The English Coronation Service, its History and Teaching. By F. C. Eeles. Oxford and London: Mowbray, 1902.

8. The Form and Order of the Service that is to be performed, and of the Ceremonies that are to be observed, in the Coronation of their Majesties King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra, in the Abbey Church of S. Peter, Westminster, on Thursday, the 26th day of June, 1902. Cambridge, University Press; Oxford, University Press, 1902. UNTIL a few years ago the student who would know something of the ancient ceremonial of the coronation of the kings and queens of England had to be content with such information as he could extract from works like Selden's Titles of Honour,' the folios of Ogilby and Sandford, Arthur Taylor's Glory of Regality,' and Planche's 'Regal Records,' or the few surviving copies of the Form and Order of the Coronation of a particular sovereign. The Monumenta Ritualia Ecclesiæ Anglicana'* of Mr

* A second and greatly enlarged edition of Mr Maskell's work was issued in 1882.