Page:History of West Australia.djvu/345

 Rh

HE constitutional movement was drawing to its consummation. When proroguing the Legislative Council in December, 1888, Governor Broome announced that Parliament would be dissolved so that the electors might give an opinion on the Constitution Bill. The action of the Imperial Government refusing to sanction loans sufficient to keep alive the public works policy pursued in previous years had greatly affected the finances, and there was the probability of a large deficit in 1889. Because they asked for self-government the people were not allowed to borrow. Governor Broome declared that one question which the constituencies had to decide was whether the colony could afford the additional outlay of £10,000 a year, which, he now predicted, would be the cost under the Act of the change. To Sir Frederick this seemed a grave consideration, but it was not to the electors; they had made up their minds that they wanted Responsible Government.

The Legislative Council was dissolved, and in January, 1889, the general elections were held. A distinct and conclusive vote was recorded for self-government. In detail, public opinion favoured the bicameral system, and desired that the Upper House should be elective, but rather than delay the establishment of autonomy the electors were willing to accept a compromise that the Council should at first be a nominated body, and that the elective principle should be reverted to after a given number of years. In their electoral speeches most of the old councillors spoke vigorously in support of responsible Ministers, and the new Council therefore differed very little from the old. Messrs. Hensman, Fawcett, H. Brockman, and J. Horgan did not resume their seats. The Legislative Council of 1889—the last under Representative Government—besides the members of the Executive Council, consisted of Sir J. G. Lee-Steere (Speaker), Sir T. C. Campbell, G. Randell, D. K. Congdon, J. Morrison (unofficial), L. V. De Hamel, W. E. Marmion, W. S. Pearse, R. F. Sholl, McKenzie Grant, W. T. Loton, A. Forrest, W. Patterson, A. R. Richardson, S. Burr, E. Scott, E. Keane, C. H. Rason, G. Shenton, S. H. Parker, W. H. Venn, and C. Harper (elective).

The Constitutional Bill, in a slightly different form, was again before the Legislative Council on 18th March, when Sir Malcolm Fraser moved the second reading. In April the measure passed another stage in its career, and was sent on its trying journey through the British Parliament. The debate in the Council was serious and instructive. The various speeches betokened a conciliatory spirit, a desirable quality which Mr. S. H. Parker had in previous years laid down as above all things necessary in the negotiations upon which they had entered. Indeed, certain speeches suggested the advocate bent on placating a jury. There was a pleading tone in them, which, had they been sitting on the benches of the House, might have won the good wishes of the implacable British legislators, before whom the measure had finally to go. The pity was that those honourable gentlemen, who, as after events proved, were lamentably ignorant of local conditions, took little account of what was said in the Western Australian Legislative Council. Had they done so they would not have conjured up before their minds such ridiculous fears as to the effects of the Constitution Bill, and would have given it a more ready support.

A considerable portion of the debate centred on the land question, the electoral qualifications, and the Civil List. The bill contained no provision giving the colony authority over any of its lands, but it was understood that Lord Knutsford would insert, in England, a clause giving control over them up to the 26th parallel of latitude, and partial control over lands beyond that line. The Imperial Government was empowered by the measure to divide the colony, and erect separate colonies at any time that Her Majesty might think fit. Mr. Parker declared that the Council was placing a great deal of trust in the Imperial authorities in passing the bill as it stood. He supported the second reading with pleasure, described the probable tortuous routine of the bill when it reached England, and urged members to quickly come to a decision. The more radical section considered that the property qualification for members of Parliament, and the qualifications for electors, were unduly high. It was provided that legislators must possess a freehold estate in lands or tenements valued at £500, or of the yearly value of £50; and that electors to the Assembly must own a freehold estate valued at £100, or a leasehold of an annual value of £10, and that electors to the Council (when it became elective) must possess a freehold of £200, or a leasehold of £30 annual value. Messrs. Venn, A. Forrest, and others supported the property qualifications demanded, but Mr. De Hamel wanted manhood suffrage. Mr. Burr believed that any person should be eligible to be nominated to the Legislative Council, and to sit in the Assembly, whether he had a property qualification or not. Mr. Shenton and Mr. Loton desired that the qualifications be modified, and suggestions were made that