Reviewing Australian politics as a whole, one notices that whilst all the colonies are distinctly 'Liberal' in their ideas, the shades of colour vary from Whiggism in New South Wales and Queensland, to extreme Radicalism in Victoria, with South Australia as the exponent of the more sober Radicals. The two more important provinces have diverged considerably from each other, partly from sheer opposition, but chiefly from diversity of circumstances and constituents. Until recently, South Australia was content quietly to beat out its own little track; but the rapprochement between all the colonies, which increased facilities of communication have brought about, is yearly tending to lessen its individuality and to make it a mere copy of one or the other of its big neighbours.
In discussing constitutional questions it is well to remember that, although all the Australian constitutions are founded on analogy with the British, that analogy can easily be carried too far. To begin, the main functions of the Colonial Legislature, and the relations of the two Chambers towards each other, are for the most part written down in black and white, their constitutions allowing no room for the 'broadening down from precedent to precedent,' which has enabled the British constitution to work comparatively so smoothly. The latter grew up naturally, the former were made to order. All parties in Australia are agreed to follow British precedent where none is provided in the Constitution Act; but there is a considerable party who actually hold that the colonial constitutions being modelled on the British, the spirit of the British constitution should be followed, even when it does not altogether agree with the letter of their own; and this, although it is obvious that an Upper House on such a broad electoral basis as that of Victoria or South Australia, affords almost as many points of comparison with the House of Commons as with the Lords. A peculiar instance of this feeling was shown in 1861 in New South Wales, where, the Upper Chamber being nominated by the Government, Sir John Robertson took advantage of the precedent established by Earl Grey's threat, to swamp the Legislative Council with nominees in order to pass a Land Act. Another difference besides the mode of appointment lies in the different education and social status of the members, about which I shall have something to say further on.
Happily there has so far rarely been any strain in the relations with the mother country. It may be true that the colonists are gradually getting less patient when the Queen's assent is refused to an Act, but the Colonial Office is also becoming more wary in refusing such assent. This leads on to the general question of the probabilities of a separation. Certainly there is no sign of any intention deliberately to cut the painter; but by a rash act on the part of the mother country, or if Australia were to suffer severely in a war in which she had no concern, it might suddenly and unexpectedly snap. Such I believe to be the true state of the case, unalterable either by Imperialistic demonstrations at home, or ultra-Royalistic effusions out here; although in the ordinary run of affairs neither of these are without their use in keeping up a cordial feeling. Even in semi-communistic Victoria there is at present an unlimited fund of British patriotism, and, superficially, the colonists are more loyal than Englishmen living in the land. But present it has to be remembered that a majority of the inhabitants are still English born and bred, and that the circumstances of colonial life do not encourage the indulgence of sentiment at the expense of material advantages. Where the treasure is, there will the heart be also. When the purely Australian element gets the upper hand, the keeping of the British connection will become merely a question of advantage and opportunity. In time of peace the advantage is decidedly on the side of the present state of things. The events of war might reverse the position.
No unimportant tie is the disunion between the colonies themselves. So far all attempts at Federation, whether proceeding from England or from public feeling in Australia itself, have completely failed. The subject was actually discussed at a recent Intercolonial Conference, and again last session in the Victorian House of Assembly. But I very much doubt whether all the talk that is going on upon the subject will overcome the practical difficulties within the present generation, unless there come some period of common danger. Certain it is that if Federation is to be brought about, the movement must be endogenous. At present the way is blocked by the opposite commercial policies of Victoria and Now South Wales. That practical experience will point out the true solution of the Free Trade and Protection controversy in Australia is hardly likely, when one notices the present Protectionist movements in England; but in the course of years, one may reasonably expect that a purely Australian feeling will overcome this stumbling-block, and give us one tariff for the whole of Australia. Such a feeling can hardly become sufficiently strong to effect this object without encroaching considerably on the ground now occupied by Imperial patriotism. How true this is, is exemplified by the fact that the first, and so far the only subject upon which there has been any Australian, as opposed to provincial feeling, is Australian cricket, or more properly the Australian Eleven. And in connection with this I note that the matches against England are invariably called International, which is not strictly correct. The two questions of Federation and Separation are almost inseparably bound together, though in time of war a federation would be possible which would only bind Australia more closely to England. Then will be the opportunity, not only for Federation, but for Consolidation, or for Separation. Which it will be, must depend largely on the course events take. As I pointed out above, if Australia were to suffer severely, it might cause Separation; but if, on the other hand, she felt that her liberties and well-being were preserved by direct force of British arms, it is quite probable that an irresistible feeling in favour of Consolidation might arise, and Lord Carnarvon's dreams might be realized, provided the British Government struck the iron while it was hot.
When Federation takes place, I think there can be little doubt that it will take a shape similar to that of the United States; and that in due course of years Federation, in this shape, will become a fact, seems to me more than likely. Sir Henry Parkes's idea of fusion seems applicable enough to Victoria and New South Wales, if they could overcome their economical enmities; but that South Australia or any part of Queensland should join is impracticable. A year in New Zealand has been sufficient to convince me that the abolition of the Provincial system there has been far from an unmixed benefit. For most purposes, the colony of New Zealand is merely a geographical expression. If the distances between Dunedin, Christchurch, Auckland, and Wellington are sufficient to mar the fusion of the New Zealand Provinces, how infinitely more impracticable would a central Government at Albury be so far as Adelaide and Brisbane are concerned.
The character and behaviour of the members of Australian legislatures have to be considered in forming any just estimate of colonial politics. Unfortunately, the little that is known on the subject at home has revealed neither in a favourable light. The rowdy members and rowdy scenes have ipso facto attained prominence; but after carefully watching for myself, and taking the opinions of those best qualified to form them, I cannot but think that the generally-received opinion even in Australia is incorrect, and that, taking all the circumstances into consideration, both character and behaviour are far better than one has reason to expect. Here, as in many other respects, Victoria is the most pronounced example of what may be called Australianism as opposed to Englishism. Up to the present moment, she is the only Australian colony (I do not count New Zealand) which pays her legislators, and consequently she has at once the cleverest and the worst-behaved set. There are very few members of her parliament who can claim to possess any real political talent. But the general average of native as apart from trained ability, and of clearness in expressing what they wish to say, will--if we except the dozen leading men on each side of the House of Commons--compare with that of the more august assemblage. Nine-tenths of the Victorian members possess at least the gift of the gab. In the excitement of the moment, grammar goes to the winds, and h 's fall thick as leaves in Vallombrosa, but they neither hesitate nor falter in their speech, and are nearly all possessed of a good deal of useful practical information. Their behaviour is certainly open to exception, but so is that of the House of Commons. The only difference is, that in Melbourne bad behaviour is almost the rule, while at St. Stephen's it may be considered the exception. Ministers and leaders of the Opposition give each other the lie direct and think nothing of it, and unparliamentary epithets are freely bandied about. At times there have been scenes unsurpassed only in the French Assembly, and one or two members have kept up a continued fire of uncomplimentary interjections. But it is only fair to remember that the great majority of the House belong to the lower middle class, and are found wanting, even if judged by the not very elevated social and educational standard of the colonies. Many of them have risen to their present not very high estate from the lowest class. Amongst people of that kind you cannot expect to find the tone of the House of Commons. The unfortunate members cannot leave the manners and customs of their class in the cloakroom of the House. Besides this, the questions under discussion in Melbourne of late years have been particularly inflammatory. When the appeal has been made from reason to passions on the one side, and to pockets on the other, the debates can hardly be anything but stormy; and if one recollects that most of these encounters take place between the present and the past lower orders, is it astonishing if irony and sarcasm give place to Billingsgate?
The recent exposure of grave political scandals in Sydney has attracted attention to the seamy side of the political life of the colonies. But such scandals, I would fain believe, are exceptional. The tone of the Sydney House is little, if at all, better than that of the Melbourne one, in spite of the members being unpaid. Political adventurers--the curse of communities like these--are perhaps not so numerous, for the £300 a year paid to every Victorian M.P. offers special facilities for the professional politician, but some light has recently been thrown on their misdeeds. The questions under discussion in Sydney are also less important. But the very unimportance of New South Wales politics leaves open a wide door for strong language. I have a vivid recollection of hearing one member talk about the 'effluvium which rises from that dung heap opposite,' alluding to another member, who fortunately was well able to return the compliment in kind. Both, however, are amongst the most useful men in the House. Such amenities are mere matters of everyday occurrence, ripples without which the debates would stagnate. The pity of them is that they discourage men of education and position from descending into the political arena, and even corrupt the manners of those who do. Still, one must bear in mind that, however much a low tone is in itself regrettable, it is no criterion of the work of which the House is capable and which it actually gets through.
In South Australia the tone of the House is much higher than in any of the other colonies. The general standard of ability is not so high as in Victoria, but the social status and general respectability of the members are considerably higher. The House seems to be impressed with the idea that it is considered the most respectable in Australia, and to strive to maintain its reputation in that respect. So mild is the general tenour of the debates, that an old House of Commons reporter assures me that the South Australian Assembly is a more orderly body and far more obedient to the Chair than St. Stephen's. Personalities of the warmer kind are considered bad form, and one of the ablest men in the House has completely lost all political influence from the shadiness of sundry transactions which, in the sister colonies, would most assuredly have been forgiven long before they were forgotten. Of course the House is hot free from adventurers, but they are of the better type, and have to conform to a fairly high standard of political morality, if they wish to obtain office and influence. As I stated before, the absence of burning political questions, and the peculiar temperament of the colonists, has led to a reputation for respectability being the chief recommendation for a seat in the House. There is occasionally a little 'log-rolling' to obtain the construction of public works in particular districts, but like everything else in South Australian politics, this is very 'mild,' and the struggle between the districts is never sufficiently strong to interfere seriously with the common weal.
In Queensland, in spite of a Conservative constitution, the debates, if we may believe the fortnightly letters published in the leading papers of Sydney and Melbourne, rival those of Victoria in rowdyism. Personal animosity between members runs to an unpardonable height, and the leaders of the two parties are constantly making accusations against each other's integrity. Political scandals are more numerous, if less important, than in Sydney. Altogether, the impression that I have gathered is unfavourable to the Brisbane Legislature.
The most prominent politicians in Australia are Sir Henry Parkes and Mr. Berry. Of these, Sir Henry Parkes is unquestionably the abler. He is a fair administrator, a good debater and leader of the House, has statesmanlike ideas, and but for his overweening conceit might have risen to the rank of a statesman. Mr. Berry's talent lies in a fluency of specious but forcible speech appealing to the mob, rather than in debating power. His vision is limited, and he is a poor administrator. After these two I would place Mr. J. G. Francis, now the leader of the Victorian Conservatives, who is decidedly able, and Sir John O'Shannassy, whose adherence to the Catholic claims alone keeps him out of a commanding position. Sir John Robertson may perhaps claim to be placed before either of these two, but it must be upon the ground of past performances rather than of present action; he is emphatically a light of other days. Sir Bryan O'Loghlen will never do anything remarkable; and the same may be said of Mr. Stuart. South Australia has two good administrators in Messrs. Morgan and Bray. The latter has developed during his Premiership abilities for which no one had given him credit. As a leader of the House, he has raised tact to the dignity of a fine art. Mr. Patterson seems to me the ablest of the Victorian Radicals. Mr. Parsons, of Adelaide, should also make his mark. In Mr. Ward, South Australia possesses the most brilliant speaker in the colonies but he has not sufficient application or steadiness to become powerful. Mr. D. Buchanan, of Sydney, is also clever, but his tongue runs away with his discretion. Sir T. McIlwraith, Sir T. Palmer, and Mr. Griffith, in Queensland, should of course be included in any list of prominent politicians of the day, but unfortunately I do not know enough about them to pronounce any opinion upon their abilities which would be worth having. Amongst living politicians who are not now taking part in politics, but whose names deserve to be mentioned, are Mr. Service, Mr. Murray Smith, and Sir Charles Sladen, who throughout the Reform agitation were the pillars of the Conservative party in Victoria, and Mr. Douglas in Queensland.