In 1911 the Referendum was submitted to the Australian people. To the astonishment of the Labour Government Australia voted “No” in the most emphatic manner to the proposals contained in the Referenda. A year previously Labour swept the boards; then the reaction came. The Government asked too much at once, and it adopted the policy of “all or nothing.” Had its proposals been more modest, the Referenda would have gone through without doubt. Thousands of people who would have voted “Yes” for many of the separate proposals were compelled to vote “No” for the scheme as it was presented to them en bloc. Great numbers of men were genuinely sorry to have been compelled to say “No” to certain of the proposals made, but the way in which the good and the bad were mixed together left them no alternative. The most regrettable thing was that, as the result of the voting, certain vicious monopolies continue to drain the purses of the people. The general feeling is that these monopolies should cease at once. Take the case of one city, in which is a fruit “ring” which keeps up fabulous prices for fruit sold retail. Apples, which are sold wholesale at half a crown the case of forty pounds, are priced at one penny and twopence each in the shops. And for oranges, which in England sell for one halfpenny, threepence each is demanded. There is apparently no power available to prevent the leeches of the ring from continuing their business. Then there is a fish ring, which outrageously robs the public. Fish in parts of Australia near the coast costs three times the price charged in England. Wood, which “up country” can be bought for six shillings a ton, costs twenty-five shillings in the capital. So also is it with coal, which is sold at an inflated price. And the public suffer and pay. If that part of the Referenda which had reference to this kind of thing had been detached from the rest, I believe it would have been universally approved, but the policy of “all or none” deprived the people of the boon.
Again in 1913 certain referenda were submitted to the Australian people for their decision. The questions were drawn up by the late Labour Government, submitted to the Governor-General for his signature, and circulated all over the Commonwealth. Every elector, male and female, had placed in his hand a complete statement of the case. Not only were the questions submitted, but upon the same pages the pros and cons of the case were set forth. The Liberals used their best arguments against the proposals, and entreated the electors to vote “No.” The Labour men used their best arguments, and urged the electors to vote “Yes.” The proposals were very simple. They were frankly Socialistic. They included the nationalisation of a number of industries, the fixing of prices for commodities, the destruction of trusts, and similar measures. The sacred formula of Labour in submitting these proposals was: “Shall the people rule?” The Liberals, on their part, steadfastly resisted the proposals on the ground that some of them were unjust, and that others were unnecessary, since it was alleged that the State already possessed sufficient power to deal with unfair monopolies. At first it was thought that the “Ayes” had it, but in the final count it was seen that the referenda were lost. Two facts stand out very clearly: the “Ayes” have gained considerably since the last time referenda were submitted, and the voting has been remarkably close. It is clear to all that the Commonwealth is almost equally divided in its opinion about the matter. We may take it as certain that each side put forth all its effort, and that, therefore, the late decision of the people fairly represents the state of mind in the country for some time to come.
More moderate referenda, and a different personnel, might have ensured victory for the proposals. For it is certain that there needs to be some change in Australia in certain directions. Faulty government in the early years of the life of Australia has produced, without doubt, certain abuses which ought to be swept away. The cost of living generally and the prices of certain commodities in particular both point to underlying radical wrongs which the referenda sought to remove. There can be no doubt that Socialistic ideas are gaining in Australia.[B] Labour is solid, and it is a force to be reckoned with. It is also a growing force. And if a conflict is to be avoided in the future, the principle of Christ will have to be applied, and men must agree with their adversaries while they are in the way with them.
[B] As these pages are going to the press, the cable announces the return of Labour at the elections of 1914.
The question of Protection or Free Trade is one upon which opinion is sharply divided. In all the Churches the best men take opposite sides in the matter. It is unwise, therefore, to introduce politics in any shape or form into pulpit or upon the religious platform. One party affirms Protection to be the insanest policy that Australia has committed itself to; another claims for Protection all the virtues. The practical facts are that for good clothing one pays 50 or 60 per cent. more than in England; house rent is higher than at home; taxes are lower; paper and printing are much dearer; furniture is very much dearer; tea is cheaper, but sugar is 40 or 50 per cent. dearer; books, of course, are dearer. A pamphlet which at home would sell for twopence costs sixpence in Australia. And so with other things. On the contrary, fruit is much cheaper, where the “ring” does not operate. Beautiful large eating apples sell for half a crown the case of 40 lbs. A large, juicy pineapple costs fourpence or sixpence. Bananas are cheap. Australians do not regard as “dear” what I should. They balance wages and expenditure. Many incomes are larger than in England. The great question has yet to be settled in Australia whether, after all, Protection does protect—the right people.
CHAPTER XXVIII
RELIGION IN AUSTRALIA
In 1912 there were published the statistics of the religious census for the entire Commonwealth, and they form instructive reading. The face value of the figures is considerable. They seem to show that Australia is an extremely religious nation. The vast majority of the people claim to belong to one or other of the Churches. The Episcopal Church is at the top with 1,710,443 adherents; Roman Catholics and “other” Catholics, whatever that may mean, come next with a total of 999,450 persons. Then follow Presbyterians and Methodists, each with more than half a million adherents; Congregationalists and Baptists between them number 160,000; “Undefined” Protestants, 109,861; Lutherans, 72,395; Unitarians are at the bottom of the list with 2,175 adherents; Freethinkers return themselves as numbering 3,254; Agnostics, 3,084; Atheists, 579; while over 110,000 persons declined to make any declaration whatever.
These figures are very instructive, especially when compared with the returns of the last census taken a decade ago. In ten years Anglicans have increased 14 per cent., Presbyterians 30 per cent., Methodists 8 per cent., Baptists 9 per cent., Congregationalists 6 per cent., and Roman Catholics 8 per cent. Pro rata, therefore, Presbyterians stand at the top by a long way. It is interesting to note that “Freethinkers”—a very elastic term—have declined 65 per cent., while “Agnostics”—another very elastic term—have increased from 971 to 3,084. “Atheists” have doubled their numbers, rising from 274 to 579. Now, what is the value of these figures? To deal with the Atheists first. Their numbers are inconsiderable even at the high rate of increase which they show. Thirty years ago atheists were very numerous in the Commonwealth. At that time there was a propaganda led by a notorious person of very odd temperament. That phase of things has almost entirely passed away. The whole Commonwealth numbers only 579 Atheists, and one knows exactly where to find them. For the greater part they are composed of persons whose education is extremely defective and whose impertinence is unbounded. I speak of those whom I know in Melbourne and Sydney. We look for the handful of Atheists on the Yarra Bank in Melbourne and in the Domain in Sydney. To hear these gentlemen speak is not to be impressed so much with their Atheism as with their unbounded audacity, ignorance, and rudeness. Some of them display a banner containing the inscription: “No God, no masters.” One of their speakers informed his audience that the inscription was the translation of the famous “ni Dieu, ni maître,” and he pronounced it “nee doo, nee mater.” Australians laugh at the noisy group of revolutionists. We were always given to understand that the number of Atheists was growing considerably, but the census figures came as a cold douche upon the amazing claims put forward by the sceptical party. The slump in “Freethinking” is remarkable, as is also the growth of Agnosticism. This latter, however, must not be taken too seriously. There are undoubtedly a number of estimable men of culture who are sincerely Agnostic. For these I have a real respect. Some of them I know well. Amongst them are one or two public teachers. But I am afraid the majority who label themselves Agnostics are intellectual dilettanti. The truth of this opinion may be gauged by the fact that of the many young men who have come to me with their religious difficulties—men who speak of themselves as “Agnostics”—I have not yet found one who had a real appreciation of the present trend of religious thought. They are still fighting the bogies of Ingersoll, or they are obsessed with the outgrown philosophy of Spencer, or they imagine that Haeckel represents the ne plus ultra of scientific thought. There is an immense amount of educational work yet to be accomplished in Australia on the religious side.
As regards the Church figures proper, it is natural that the Anglican and the Roman communions should claim the largest numbers. But it would be interesting to know how much of the professed attachment is real and how much is purely nominal. We all know that in England men put themselves down as belonging to the National Church who have no real relation to it. It is the same here. The real test of attachment to a Church is to be found in the number of active communicants and workers, and this information is withheld from us—rather, it was never sought.