Page:History of West Australia.djvu/326

 274

go to the country to obtain the views upon it of the constituencies; that new members should assemble and determine its fate; and that it should then be transmitted to England for the sanction of the Imperial Legislature. The Constitution Bill, after being formally introduced, was first debated in November, 1888. It provided for two Chambers—a Legislative Assembly, to be elected, and a Council, to be at first nominated. A large Civil list was attached, providing for the salaries of the Chief Executive and Judicial Officers under the new constitution, and for pensions to those officers who would lose their positions by the change. These, with £5,000 demanded for an Aborigines Board, subservient to the Imperial Government, required an annual sum of £16,933 6s. 8d. The question of land control, or separation, was referred to in vague terms. On the 2nd November, the Colonial Secretary, Sir Malcolm Fraser, moved the second reading. He incidentally drew attention to the fact that no provision was made that a member of Parliament should vacate his seat when taking office as a Minister of the Crown, an omission which he considered as a flaw. Mr. S.H. Parker protested against the acceptance of Lord Knutsford's proposed nominated Upper House, and favoured, as a compromise, that the Legislative Council should first be nominated for a period of six years, when all the members should be elected. Mr. A.R. Richardson, in supporting an elective Upper Chamber, maintained that principle should not be sacrificed to expediency. A body so constituted would afford, he contended, a better safeguard against hasty legislation than would a nominated Chamber. Mr. John Forrest forcibly supported the bill, and declared that the question of the elective principle was raised chiefly by a few newspaper writers. Western Australians, he thought, would gladly accept a constitution, such as that of Canada or other prosperous British colonies, which possessed nominated Upper Houses. Mr. Hensman vigorously opposed the nominee principle, but adhered to his advocacy of the adoption of the one chamber system. Messrs. Fawcett, Scott, and Sir T.C. Campbell favoured Mr. Parker's amendment. Strong exception was taken to the sub-division of the colony, but after an interesting debate the second reading was carried, and Governor Broome prorogued Parliament to allow of a dissolution. The elections were held in 1889.

Although at first disinclined to encourage an agitation for Responsible Government, Governor Broome deserves considerable credit for its consummation. Towards the last he displayed more statesmanship than the early years of his administration led one to expect, and when once properly embarked on the constitutional movement he comported himself with a firmness and persistency in pleasing contrast to the procrastinating tactics of the Colonial Office. Upon him devolved the difficult task of harmonising the opposing views of local legislators and the Secretary for the Colonies. His chief fault was the habit of disagreeing and quarrelling with his officers. He was impatient, imperious, and combative, and disliked to have his authority impugned; he was the administrator of the colony. When strong will meets strong will a stern battle takes place.

Mr. John Forrest in his conduct of the Lands Office was as determined and earnest in his views as afterwards when he became Premier of Western Australia; he had extreme difficulty with Governor Broome, but he generally got his way. Mr. Hensman, as Attorney-General, was matched against the Governor, and after substantially gaining his cause, retired from the Executive. The other strong will was Mr. A.C. Onslow, the Chief Justice, whose tenacious, excitable, and argumentative nature would not brook interference. None of these three was a favourite with the Governor, who, excellent and sincere as an administrator, was yet weak in one respect. In 1883 Mr. E.A. Stone was appointed a second judge of the Supreme Court, so that the sole judge difficulty was now removed. Disagreement between the Chief Justice and Governor Broome first assumed a serious form in 1884. To some extent it was influenced by the difficulties between Mr. John Forrest and His Excellency. Mr. Onslow on one occasion declined to advise the Governor upon ad misericordiam appeal, praying for a remission of sentence, from a prisoner of the Crown. Governor Broome referred the question to Sir H. Holland, who ruled that Mr. Onslow was right in the course be had adopted, intimating, however, that it was the Chief Justice's duty to advise on petitions for remission of sentence other than ad misericordiam ones. Governor Broome now asked Mr. Onslow's opinion on certain petitions, and again the latter refused, and angrily wrote the Secretary for the Colonies on the matter. Pending Sir Henty's reply, he incautiously locked up the petitions, and the Governor requested him to return them at once, which was declined, on the ground that His Honour was awaiting instructions from Sir H. Holland. Governor Broome framed charges against Mr. Onslow for detaining important State papers in disobedience to orders, and notified him that he was required to show cause why he should not be suspended from office. The Chief Justice returned the petitions, and handed for publication to the Perth newspapers copies of the whole correspondence. His Excellency fulminated an official interdiction against the Chief Justice. Sir H. Holland, in his reply to His Honour's despatch, upheld the position he had taken.

In September, 1887, correspondence was published, wherein Mr. Onslow made a serious accusation against the Governor. To the Secretary for the Colonies he wrote:—"I protest against the manner in which the Governor persists in harassing me, being calculated to lower and insult myself and my office, and to degrade the administration of justice in the colony." Governor Broome declared that the statements were untrue, and called upon His Honour to exculpate himself in writing before a given time. In reply, the latter said that he had submitted the matter to the Secretary for the Colonies, and warned the Governor that his proceedings were wholly illegal. The aid of the Executive was invoked, and the Chief Justice was informed that the members of that body were prepared to suspend him unless he answered the Governor's charges. Finally, Chief Justice Onslow was interdicted, pending orders from the Secretary for the Colonies, and Mr. G.W. Leake became acting Chief Justice. The bar expressed sympathy with the deposed officer, and public feeling rose to a high pitch. The disagreement was made a national matter; the Working Men's Club tendered him sympathy, and a public meeting in the Perth Town Hall, addressed by Messrs. Haynes, Hensman, A. Forrest, E.K. Courthope, and Traylen, also took sides with the Chief Justice, and indignantly resolved that the Governor's course was "a gross interference with the independence of the bench, and an attack upon the liberties of the people." The Secretary for the Colonies was requested to remove the interdict, and recall the Governor. Then, to conclude, the Governor was burnt in effigy, and a torchlight procession was formed. Similar meetings were held at Fremantle, Geraldton, Guildford, and other parts of the colony. Indeed, Western Australians had from the first shown surprising delight in evincing opposition to the reigning Governors, and were sometimes open to the accusation of unjustly seeking to bring the administration into contempt. In November Governor Broome summoned Mr. Onslow to a proposed meeting of the Executive Council on 5th December to show cause why, as his explanations were unsatisfactory, he should not be suspended from