Page:History of West Australia.djvu/348

 296

which, they said, was the heritage of Great Britain. They declared that the proposed surrender of the whole country would be nothing less than the establishment of an extensive oligarchy of squatters on a vast Imperial reserve, and that to accept such a position would be mere folly. They believed that if half the colony were to be handed over to some 8,000 families immigration would be discouraged, and suggested that if the claims of Western Australian were conceded, their power to divide the land among themselves should be definitely limited, so as to prevent land-grabbing. In other words, they seemed to think that Western Australians were not Britishers, that they would not conduct themselves as Britishers, that they would revert to primitive methods of "grabbing" the land, and that they would be so foolish as to seek to keep the colony to themselves by carefully refusing admission to immigrating capitalists and workers. Governor Broome took an early opportunity of exhaustively answering these arguments in a letter to The Times, devoting special attention to the land question. It was a splendid effort to disabuse the minds of English people regarding Western Australian conditions.

The Enabling Bill, empowering the Queen to give assent to the bill passed by the Legislative Council of Western Australia was again before the Commons in February, 1890. On the 25th, copies of the original bill were issued to members. The Imperial Government had seen fit to make some alterations, one of which was designed to enable the British Parliament to veto any colonial bill which provided for the exclusion of immigrants. But the provision of most interest to the colony was that assigning to Western Australia the control of waste lands south of the twenty-sixth parallel of latitude. Lord Beauchamp, in the House of Lords, supported the proposal made by a Western Australian, that the land west of longitude 121 should be given to the colony; but Lord Knutsford adhered to his favourite boundary line. In the debate on the second reading Sir G. Campbell, with a substantial following, was the strongest opponent. His opposition was practically based on the contention that it was undesirable to give up the heritage of the whole British nation to a few colonial monopolists. Suggestions were made that the reserved tropical and sub-tropical portions of the territory could be utilised for the surplus population of India; but one speaker pointed out that a federated Australia might object to anything of the kind. Baron Henry de Worms, the Attorney-General, had control of the bill.

Sir G. Campbell gave notice of an amendment blocking the second reading. A conference was held between him, attended by Messrs. Bradlaugh, Channing, and H. Vincent, and Baron de Worms, attended by Sir F. Broome, Sir W. Robinson (who was supporting the cause), Mr. Parker, and Sir T. C. Campbell. After producing reasons Baron de Worms asked that the block should be removed; but Sir George refused to alter his course. He subsequently, however, refrained from bringing forward his amendment, and the second reading was carried on 27th February.

A Select Committee, consisting of nineteen members representing all shades of opinion, with Baron de Worms as chairman, was appointed to report on the bill. Between the 13th March and the 5th May the members held twelve meetings, and their report had the effect of dispelling most of the misapprehension, and led to Western Australians being presented with a constitution more pleasing than they anticipated. Mr. Parker, Sir T.C. Campbell, and Sir F. Broome were subjected to a searching examination. Since their arrival in London they had been indefatigable. At a banquet held at the St. George's Club on 1st February, glowing speeches were made by Sir W. Robinson and Sir F. Broome. The former gentleman very fortunately happened to be in England when the Western Australian cause seemed most forlorn, and he threw all his influence and energy on the side of the delegation. He was already looked upon as the probable successor to Sir F. Broome. Referring at the banquet to the land hobby, he pointed out to those who said that all the territory must not be handed over, that it was not really "handing over" the land, but merely transferring the guardianship to Ministers of the colony who knew what its requirements were. Moreover, they were not handing this land over to 40,000 people, but to hundreds of thousands of the descendants of those people. He was sure if any body or gentlemen chose to send out emigrants, that Western Australia would be glad to receive them. Sir F. Broome asked those who wanted to know more about the land question to read the accounts of Forrest's and Giles's exploring expeditions; they would then discover that the country beyond the utilised areas was not such that it only required tickling with a plough to make it smile with a harvest. Mr. S.H. Parker felt pride in declaring that he was an Australian native, and still greater pride in knowing that he was an Englishman.

Sir F.N. Broome, in his evidence before the Committee, reiterated statements made in his various despatches as to the intelligence of the legislators and the policy of the country, and refuted the arguments concerning the immigration and land questions. Mr. Parker was emphatic in his declaration that Western Australians were earnest in their desire for Responsible Government, and said that at the preceding elections not one candidate advocated the retention of the existing constitution. He was frank in his references to the financial condition of the colony, which, he said, was due to the Colonial Office refusing, since the resolutions of 1887 arming the desirability of establishing self-government, to allow Western Australia to borrow money, except £100,000. With autonomy he anticipated a considerable influx of capital, and as that capital must employ labour, Western Australia must become a better field than at present for the mere immigrant as distinguished from the colonist. He agreed with Governor Broome that the south-west was the only part of the colony available for immigration. The people were unanimously in favour of an immigration scheme which would settle the land. But to simply send labour to the colony, without providing means of settlement on the soil, was courting failure, as it would be impossible for any number to obtain employment. He thought that the clause in the bill, which reserved to the Imperial Government the control of the northern lands, should be omitted. In defence matters, and the reservation of lands for fortifications for Imperial purposes, it appeared to him that Imperial interests and local interests were one and the same, and that colonists were just as much interested in Imperial questions as Englishmen residing in the mother country. He felt sure that Western Australian sentiment would be perfectly in accord with the construction of as many Gibraltars on their shores as the British Government thought proper to place there.

Sir T.C. Campbell also asserted that Western Australia, as a whole, was in favour of the movement. There could, he said, be no federation of Australia without free government in Western Australia, and there could be no free government without full control locally of the Crown lands. The colony contained all the elements of prosperity, and the people only wanted a free hand to take advantage of them. He did not think the control of the Colonial Office over the lands was of the slightest use, and he even went so far as to say that the Colonial Office favoured jobbers and land grabbers, and that the development of the colony was hampered by the Colonial Office, which would not agree to any speculative action.