374 THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [PART IV
General in Australia, and Mr. Fisher, explained that the
matter would again be brought before the people at referenda,
probably at the next general election, which would secure
party feeling and a larger vote, and that the Government
would not of course resign, as it had a majority of about 12
out of 36 members of the Senate, and commanded the support
 of about 44 of the 75 members of the House of Representatives.
 Yet the majority against its proposals was
about four times the majority for the party in the elections
of 1910. The view held by the advocates of the reform was
in the main that people had not realized the need of such
large reforms, and required education. Stress must also be
laid on the complications of the referenda, the active exertions
of so many able politicians against it, and their unwonted
unanimity, and the lack of party enthusiasm in voting on
an issue separately from the voting for persons. It is now
contemplated to solve, if possible, the question by a voluntary
xrant of power by the states.
§ 6. JUDICIARY!
The powers conferred upon the High Court of the Commonwealth
 by the Constitution are as follows, their exercise being
regulated by the Judiciary Act, 1903-10, defining and explaining
 the general terms of the grant in the Constitution. The
High Court is the outcome of a long struggle ; as early as
L849 the tentative scheme of federation contemplated a High
Court, but the Act of 1885 did not provide for one. In 1870
the question was discussed as the outcome of a Commission
in Victoria, but the Imperial Government was not assured
of the need of any change? Naturally it appeared at the
Sydney Convention of 1891, and was adopted in 1900.
Cf. Clark, op. cit., pp. 153-84, who draws a distinction between the
position of the High Court as the appeal court from the states, a jurisdiction
which the Parliament cannot confer on any other court, and as the
depositary of the judicial power, which subject to the terms of the Constitution
 can be divided among several courts ; see for the appellate federal
jurisdiction, Ak Yick v. Lehmert, 2 C. L. R. 573.
* Quick and Garran, op. cit, pp. 735 seq. For the objections of
Mr. Justice Richmond of New Zealand and Mr. Justice Clark’s reply, see
Parl. Pap., C. 6466, pp. cxliv seq.