Page:History of Adelaide and vicinity.djvu/225

 Conclusions ADELAIDE AND VICINITY 199 the field had become to South Australia. With the end of this social war there was no immediate abatement in the ill-feeling between the two classes. In June, 1892, Mr. F. W. Holder carried a vote of want of confidence in the Playford Government, and took office as Premier. There was for a time a repetition in politics of the political unrest of 20 and 25 years before. This was caused principally by the number of parties in the House. Mr. Holder had to give way to Sir John Downer within four months of taking office, but even the Downer Ministry did not represent the views of the majority in the Assembly. Soon after the Fourteenth Parliament met, in June, 1893, Sir John was summarily ejected by Mr. C. C. Kingston, Q.C. — now the Right Hon. C. C. Kingston — (son of the Founder, Sir G. S. Kingston), who was supported by a powerful following. Mr. Kingston managed to blend sections which were previously o[)posed to each other, and among his colleagues were three previous Premiers — Messrs. Playford, Holder, and Cockburn — and two popular young politicians, the Hon. J. H. Gordon, M.L.C., and Mr. P. P. Gillen, M.P. It was called at the time a " Ministry of all the talents." The coalition was effective in consolidating parties, and as a consequence, the Kingston Government continued in office longer than any previous administration in South Australia. It was displaced on November 29, 1899, by a hostile motion carried in the Assembly by a majority of one, but at that time only Mr. Kingston and Mr. Holder remained of the original members of the Cabinet. A new Ministry was formed by Mr. V. L. Solomon, who had not previously held office as a Minister of the Crown. The Solomon Ministry, however, only held office for seven days, Mr. Holder securing a majority of three votes in moving the adjournment of the House immediately it met on the day after Mr. Solomon had announced the policy of his Ministry. The cause of all the trouble was a measure introduced by the Kingston Government to alter the franchise for the Legislative Council by giving a vote to every householder. This Bill had been passed by the House of Assembly in 1898, but rejected by the Legislative Council. At the time of the General Ellections in 1899 the electors were asked to express approval or otherwise of the Bill, with the result that 49,208 voted in favor of it, and 33,928 against it. Fortified by the result of this referendum, the Kingston Ministry re-introduced the Bill into the House of Assembly, where it was again carried in the same form as previously, it being understood that should the Legislative Council reject it the Ministry would avail itself of the constitutional power to either dissolve both Houses or take steps to have eight additional members elected to the Council. Mr. Kingston declining to give a promise that the Houses should not be dissolved, caused certain members to seek a means of avoiding this — preferring to consider their own personal convenience, and the cost of having to go through another electoral campaign, to that of the e.xpressed wishes of their constituents and the promises they had made when securing election but a few months previously — sacrificing principle to pocket. Thus was the required majority found to turn out the Kingston Ministry, the malcontents being given to understand that Mr. Solomon would secure a reduction of the franchise qualification to ^15. When the policy, however, was announced, it was found that mstead of /15 it was to be ^20, and that not till next year, while the present voters' wives were