LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
QUEENSLAND AND THE NAVAL DEFENCE BILL.
[To THE EDITOR OT THE " SPECTATOZ."j
SIB,—Public attention has rarely been directed towards the politics of Queensland. It is well worth while, however, taking account of a General Election that has recently been held in that Colony, bearing significantly as it does upon one of the greatest questions that is likely to ripen in our time. The Imperial Conference, as long as it is remembered, will be associated with the organisation of Naval Defence. After lengthy and thorough discussion, a scheme was drawn up and agreed to by Australasia's representatives for the permanent protection of commerce in Southern waters. The Home Government undertook to provide five fast cruisers and two torpedo gunboats for the exclusive use of the Colonies. In return, these promised to pay £91,000 a year for the main- tenance and 5 per cent. on the original cost of this fleet. Experts generally are of opinion that the Colonies were liberally treated, and that they fared far better than they would have fared, had the British authorities attempted to deal with them in a hard, businesslike manner. The separate Legislatures were required to confirm the action of their several delegates, and admit the requisite disbursement, before the Bill could become law. This duty was eagerly performed in Victoria ; amidst a scene of tumultuous acclamation and exuberant enthusiasm, the Speaker was able to announce an absolutely unanimous decision. The popular and dignified Governor, Sir Henry Loch, immediately accorded the Royal Assent with impressive ceremony. In the Victorian Parliament, much was said con- cerning " military partnership " and " Imperial instincts ;" the measure was distinctly greeted as a step towards a closer political union both with the other Colonies and the Mother- country. In South Australia and Tasmania, the respective Governments experienced no difficulty in converting the Bill into an Act; practical men of business viewed it with favour, while Federationists of all sorts welcomed it with positive delight. In New Zealand, after some preliminary demur, the Legislature consented to share the proposed responsibility on the understanding that two ships of war should be stationed in New Zealand waters. This guarantee rendered the Act extremely popular in every seaport town from Auckland to " The Bluff." The New Zealander loves ironclads, and hitherto has rarely had an opportunity of gratifying his passion. In New South Wales, the veteran Premier, Sir Henry Parkes, was naturally unable, when introducing the Bill, to communicate to the Assembly an enthusiasm he did not entertain himself he brought forward the question in a purely perfunctory manner, mildly advocating the adoption of the proposal as a mere local measure designed to supply the Colony with what one of his Attorneys-General has described as " a just line of coastal defence for our own shores." The measure even upon these terms was severely handled in the Lower House at Sydney, several members of the Premier's party assailing it with unmeasured violence. Their astute leader, however, perceived the nnwisdom of rejecting the proffered protection that was being rapidly accepted by other Colonies, and possibly regretted his preliminary indifference. The " Old Parlia- mentary Hand" of Australia became anxious to push the matter through. The provincial pride of the Assembly was highly gratified at this time by a proposal to reduplicate the name of Australia for the benefit of New South Wales,—a proposal which excited high indignation in the remaining Colonies. The Naval Defence Bill was passed, and the offensive name was dropped.
In Queensland, the story of the Bill bears a different com- plexion. Sir Samuel Griffith, the Premier of that Colony, a man of quite exceptional capacity, returned from London to confront a jealous Parliament. He found himself severely censured in several quarters for having presumed to speak and act as the mouthpiece of the Legislature at the Conference ; his measures were met by the rising Opposition with scorn and contumely, while he personally became the object of extrava- gant and virulent vituperation ; and when he was abandoned by his treasurer a couple of days before the Budget speech, his Government was doomed. It might have been expected, in
spite of the rancour inspired by the Premier, that the Naval Defence Bill would have been treated on account of its inherent merits as a non-controversial question, especially as the late Opposition in Queensland to a large extent represented the wealth and intellect of the Colony, or, in other words, were the spokesmen of those classes that elsewhere had given it an earnest support. Unfortunately, the burden of respon- sibility did not weigh heavily upon the acting leader of the Opposition in the Assembly. The scheme designed to secure the floating trade of Australia along a vast sea- board, was subjected to persistent and pitiless obstruc- tion, and Sir Samuel Griffith was spoken of as though he had betrayed his country in giving it a qualified sanction. People laughed at these savage attacks as " part of the game," and affirmed that they would in no way affect the fate of the Bill, which, in virtue of its patent advantages, was bound to become law, though in the interim it was being used as a vehicle of abuse by the opponents of a statesman who is widely accused of having permeated public affairs with an exceedingly bitter element. Countenance was given to this reassuring view by the fact that Mr. Morehead, then leading the attack at Bris- bane, was never by way of being a serious politician, and was considered only a remorseless practical joker. So when this farceur, by his power of eternal speech and everlasting jibe, finally compelled the humiliated Government to drop the project in the face of an impending General Election, it was regarded as merely delayed. The bare suggestion that the leader of Mr. Morehead's party, Sir Thomas Mcllwraith, a shrewd Scotchman—who at this time re-entered political life to try another fall with an old foe—could in this respect endorse the action of his flighty lieutenant, would not have been tolerated. But the unexpected frequently happens in politics, and the electioneering manifesto which the ex-Premier addressed through North Brisbane to the electorate at large, not only indicted the financial and agrarian policy of the Government, but explicitly condemned and re- pudiated the Naval Defence Bill. Nor is this all. While the contest was in progress, Sir Thomas Mcllwraith, to the amazement of those who had followed his previous career, developed an attitude absolutely hostile to any Imperial relations whatsoever. He attacked his enemy on the ground of his subservience to England, and announced in grandilo- quent language that the party which had previously been called " Conservative," would under his leadership become famous as the " Australian National Party." This lament- able volte-face, which for celerity and surprise has only been equalled by that of a British statesman, was acquiesced in by the Colony's constituencies. The leader of the Opposi- tion fought the head of the Government in his own division, and after a vigorous campaign, led at the poll by several hundred votes. Under the intoxicating influence of his success, Sir Thomas Mcllwraith used this remarkable language when returning thanks to the electors of Brisbane :— " He looked upon the result of that day's polling as an expression of the strong feeling that existed with regard to the national sentiment, which had for a long time been working within him of making Australia an independent Australia, and he hoped it was a feeling which would rever- berate throughout the whole Colony."
The battle of Brisbane was contemporaneous with numerous victories in different parts of the Colony, and eventually the chief of the " National" Party found himself at the head of the largest majority that has ever been returned in Queens- land since the institution of the Parliamentary system. With Mr. Morehead, he now holds the reins of power, and has com- mitted his Parliament for a time to the narrow and short- sighted policy of rejecting naval assistance. Co-operative defence is to this Colony a matter of essential and crying necessity, situated as she is nearer to the enemy than any other member of the group, and possessing as she does an extensive and vulnerable coast-line that could only be protected at enormous cost. Happily, the ex-Premier is a man of resource, and we may be certain that he will spare no legitimate effort to secure adhesion for this desirable and patriotic
Previous page
