MR. GAVAN DUFFY ON AUSTRALIA.

Press, Volume X, Issue 1197, 7 September 1866, Page 3

MR. GAVAN DUFFY ON AUSTRALIA.

At the last meeting of the session of the Society of Arts, held on Wednesday evening, May 30, the Hon. Gavan Duffy read a paper on " Popular Errors concerning Aus tralia." Mr Duffy, who was warmly received on rising, commenced by speaking of the common interests and sympathies which ought to bind together the colonies and the British islands. They were men of the same race, with the same laws and institutions, the same material interests, the same intellectual enjoyments; and within the last dozen years four hundred thousand English, Irish, and Scotch men had passed from these islands to that continent— Yet (continued Mr Duffy) there were few countries in the world of which the people of England received impressious so erroneous and untrustworthy as of the Australian colonies. The colonists were persuaded, and upon no light grounds, that the rivals and enemies of England were treated with less harshness of judgment than was habitually exhibited towards them by many public writers in this country. Instead of regarding this great social expedition of our people to new regions with Some of the interest and sympathy never denied to military expeditions— instead of recognising in their remarkable labors, in the cities which they have founded, the wealth which they have added to the storehouse of human comfort and prosperity, and the States which they have created and governed, conquests to be proud of, they were habitually represented as little better than the semi-barbarous and chaotic republics of South America. When one came to inquire what was the root oflthis prejudice, it was found to spring from a belief that the Australians, having a great trust committed to them in the complete power of self-govern-ment, had abused it, and run riot in licentious excesses. It was amazing how wide-spread and deep-rooted this belief had become, considering the slender foundation upon which it rested. In what respect had G-overn-ment failed in Australia ? Those who have had the duty of governing these communities for the last ten years considered that they were engaged in a deeply interesting and pregnant experiment, which . had been conducted on the whole in a manner to deserve the applause and not the censure of youthful men. A community composed of the middle and lower classes attempted, practically for the first time, toworkthecomplicatedmachineryofthe British constitution, not only without the counterpoise supplied at home by the personal influence of the Sovereign and of hereditary rank and wealth, but in connection with a franchise which, from the circumstances of the country, waß necessarily nearly as wide as the adult male population; and yet to perserve completely intact the principles and the machinery of responsible government—the most marvellous system for accomplishing peaceably the wishes of a free people that mankind has framed. Under these conditions colonial statesmen had undeniably preserved public order, maintained public credit, and fostered national prosperity. They had so well preserved it that a man's life, liberty, and property were as effectually under the protection of law in the City of Melbourne as in the City of London ; and dazzling as the prosperity of England had been for the last ten years, it was less prosperous than Australia. In what respect, then, had Government failed ? Public men had committed mistakes, of course, for mistakes are committed in all experiments; but these were the results attained. Whenever any person prejudiced against Australia was pressed with this question, it invariably proved that political instability was what alarmed him; that he considered a ministerial orisis was the normal condition of Australia, and that Governments were Bet up like nine-pins only for the pleasure of knocking them down again. Iv support of this view of English opinion, Mr Duffy quoted the recent speech of Mr Lowe on the Beform debate, in which he said responsible government must be withdrawn from the Australian colonies in consequence of the instability of administrations, and a stable Executive substituted, and an article of the " National Review," of which the following is an extract:— "Itis,however (saysthe "Eeview,") only fair to observe that the American Constitution has one great excellence

at this momeut, not indeed as compared with the English Constitution, but as compared witb that degraded imitation of it which exists, for example, in our Australian colonies. In these governments the Parliament is wholly unfit to choose an executive; it has not patriotism enough to give a decent stability to the G-overnment; there are ' ministerial crises' once a-week, and actual changes of administration once a-month. The suffrage has been lowered to such a point among the refuse population of the gold colonies, that representative government is there a very dubious blessing, if not a certain and absolute curse." He then proceeded to say :— Here are not only general and sweeping imputations, but fortunately exact and specific statements. If an Australian, familiar with the facts, were to reply that the governments so savagely disparaged had work to do in founding and organising new States as serious as fell to the lot of any administration in Europe during the same period, and did that work in general effectually, and to the satisfaction of the people who confided power to them; and further, that to mistake for confusion and chaos the vigorous action of new communities which appear regular and well ordered to eyes familiar with the forces at work, was like the dogmatism of the deaf spectator of a waltz, who insisted that the performers were lunaticß because he could not hear the music which gave meaning and harmony to their movements. And moreover, that this sort of thing and worse than this has been written iv England of the first memorable Congress of the CTnited Colonies of North America, with no benefit to any one concerned, but much evil; if, I say, an Australian made this sort of defence, though strictly true, it would, perhaps, amount to little. But, in the language of the courts, I not only demur to the indictment, but join issue on the facts. I deny that these charges are true; and I propose to put them to the test. I am not going to enquire whether there are " ministerial crises once a week and actual changes of administration once a month," but whether, when the truth is known, there is any just ground for wonder or complaint on this score. The territory of Australia is nearly as large as civilised Europe, that is, Europe shorn of the frozen swamps and penal settlements of northern Russia. This territory is divided into five states possessing Parliamentary government, which are politically as independent of each other, and geographically as separate, as the Governments of England, France, Italy, Prussia and Austria. The neighboring islands of New Zealand form a sixth State under Parliamentary Government; aud the political news from these islands commonly reaches Europe under the heading of Melbourne or Sydney, the chief ports of departure for European ships, and is confounded by ordinary readers with Australian news. It is easier to reach Paris and even Turin from London than to pass from the capital of any one of these States to the capital of its nearest neighbor. Berlin or Vienna is much nearer to London than the capitals of the colonies lying farthest apart are to each other. But whenever a change is announced in any of those separate Governments, half the journals of England* and, it may be presumed, a proportionate number of politicians in clubs and reading-rooms, cry, "What! another ministerial crisis in Australia; will they never be quiet ?" Perhaps they will add, with the " National Eeview," "these people have a crisis once a week, and a change of ministers once a month." These criticisms in good time are carried across the ocean, and the colonists feel natural wrath and shame that cultivated men among their own kinsmen persist in making blunders about Australia, which a shepherd in the Australian " bush " would scarcely make with respect to European States. This is the primary source of the common error on this subject. But it may naturally be asked, whether, after making due allowance on this score, there is not still an inordinate number of ministerial changes in these new states. Let ujj see whether there is or not. One of the States, Queensland, has only existed since December, 1859, but during that entire period of six years and a half there has been no change of ministry. Two or three individual members have left the Government upon personal grounds, and been replaced by others of the same opinions, but there has been no political or party change whatever. Another of the States, Tasmania, has been under Parliamentary Government since 1855, but during these eleven years there have been only six administrations. Six administrations in eleven years I may be told was a great deal too many. I can only reply that England is the mother and model of representative governments- the colonies have no pretensions to be better than she is in this respect, and in England during the same eleven years there have been exactly six administrations. New South Wales, the senior state, as a distinct colony,and as the seat of Parliamentary institutions, has enjoyed responsible government for more than ten years, and it has had till quite recently for its Prime Minister a gentleman who, if prolonged tenure of office be a merit, may boast of having held that position in his colony for as many of these years as Lord Palmerston held it in England; with such occasional interruptions as even that fortunate statesman did not escape. And his most important competitor has held office during these years twice as long as Mr Disraeli. But Victoria remains the most populous, the most vivacious, and the most democratic of the Australian colonies, and that one commonly cited by English critics as the example of all Australian excesses. For her case it will be necessary to go a little into detail. The constitution by which Victoria obtained the power of changing its Government was proclaimed law in the colony in November 1855. In the ten years and five months ensuing there have been eight administrations, (He stated the title and duration of each admin-

istration.) Omitting the purely exceptional case of the first O'Shannassy admmistration, this gives an average of a year and a-half for each Government; or, including that administration, we have an average of a year an a-quarter, not of a month, as the " National Review" undertakes to affirm. . . But a year aud a-quarter is a miserably short average duration for a ministry it may be said, and argued after all that the Colonial Parliament has, in the words of the reviewer, " not patriotism enough to give a decent stability to Government." The colonial Parliament has given precisely such a decent stability to G-overnment as the English Parliament has been in the habit of giving when it was not mastered by a great popular favorite, or managed by a skilful intriguer. The succession of, long-lived English administrations in the Georgian era, commanding undevriating majorities in Parliament, belonged to a period when Parliamentary corruption constituted one of the chief agencies of Government. Mr Duffy shows by reference to history that " as soon as the contest of opinion" began in England, the changes of administration were as frequent as in the colonies; and after j alluding to other misconceptions I concerning the class of men who are elected representatives, he concluded by saying :— " The Australian colonists possess, and fortunately know that they possess, one of the freest and most serviceable constitutions in existence; but the more universally they recognise the fact, the better and more stable Government will necessarily become; for order rests upon public content as its basis. It follows that any criticism calculated to disturb this content ought to be made only upon sure grounds ,* and that not only wilful, but even ignorant disparagement of the institutions upon which it depends by writers or speakers of authority, amounts to a grave oifence. The colonial statesman has difficulties to iface from which theEngliah statesman is nearly altogether free. In England the bones and sinews wlrch sustain and move the body politic, and constitute the vital machinery of the State, are covered by flowing robes of ceremony, and custom forbids too close an inspection of the august and mystic organism beneath. In Australia you have only the naked ribs and vertebras, possessed with a vigorous principle of life indeed, but with scarce a rag of traditional veneration to shelter them from inquisitive eyes. Reverence and custom, agents so powerful in the government of Btates, can scarcely be said to come at all in aid of authority which has to depend in a" large degree upon its intrinsic strength for acceptance and support. It is not surely the part of an English constitutionalist, whether in Parliament or the press, to increase the natural difficulties of government under such circumstances. In truth, the maintenance of friendly relations between England and her great colonies has passed from the care of the Colonial office to the care of public opinion and its interpreters. The chief peril lies, I think, in the offensive superiority which Englishmen who remain in England are sometimesinchned to assume over Englishmen .who have left England. The and the Scotch, who are an emigrating people, only share this feeling in a small degree. But the question is not one of feeling and sentiment exclusively, but is becoming one of national interests. England interprets between the new countries and all Europe and America, and she is ushering them into the world with the serious impediment of blemished characters. The colony of Victoria, in which I reside, has never cost the mother country a guinea, has never done or wished her anything but good, has exhibited her sympathy in a practical way on trying occasions, has poured upwards of a hundred millions sterling into the coffers of her trade, and may surely expect not to be wantonly injured ; and one of her citizens will not be accounted unreasonable, I trust, if he moves for a rehearing of her case upon grounds so sufficient as that the verdict found against her is contrary to the weight of evidence."