19 JUNE 1869, Page 16

AUSTRALIA AND ENGLAND.* OF the .two books we purpose to

review, the Letters, by Mr. Martineau, have already appeared in these columns. The political conclusions they express are very different from those we have always supported, whether as regards Australia or England. We remain unconverted to the views that democratic institutions are inherently vicious, that the Australian lands ought not to have been thrown open to small purchasers, or that colonial politics are going from bad to worse. We published the Letters, in the first instance, in the belief that the mature opinions of a candid and highly educated man were entitled to all consideration and respect, and their appearance in a collected form will, we think, justify our decision. Mr. Martineau's indictment against colonial self-government is in one sense the most telling we have read, because he has lived sufficiently among colonists to know the under-tone of thought among educated Conservatives, has cast their accusations into a broader form than is usually found in local discussions, and is judicially careful never to overstate his case. But it is more likely to modify than to change the views of Liberals. It may convince those who were over-sanguine that the millennium has not yet begun at Sydney or Melbourne, but it contains enough to reassure the doubtful and timid as to the future successful workin g of self-government at the Antipodes.

Summed up very generally, Mr. Martineau's charges against the Colonies are corruption in political men, a low tone in the Houses of Assembly, and government for what the uneducated classes conceive to be their interest, which means_ pretty generally at present the unrestricted sale of the public lands and protection to colonial manufactures. It is a minor but important consequence of independence, that fewer educated men come out from England to fill the different posts under Government or to swell the ranks of the liberal professions. Weighty as these charges are, it will be noticed that they fall very far short of the wholesale accusations often levelled at democracy. Mr. Martineau admits that the Bench is pure, the Press improved, and the people at present a high average for self-reliance and intelligence. He Is too well informed not to know that the ignorance of large messes in New South Wales and their consequent sympathy with bushranging are an inheritance from the times of English Government, just as the Catholicism which gives trouble in elections is an import from Ireland. Nor does he regard the diminished number of educated immigrants as anything more than a reason for retaining the home connection, which all colonists are at present anxious to do. Practically, therefore, his criticisms all converge to the point that universal suffrage works badly.

Now, no thoughtful Liberal will deny that the transition in Australia from government by irresponsible Councils .W government by the masses has been attended with many Inconveniences. The interval between the two extremes was, from circumstances, exceedingly short. The educated men in the colonies were mostly such as looked upon England as their true home, and did not care to trouble themselves with contested elections or the duties of representatives. Moreover, in countries that have no foreign policy, and in which Established Churches are impossible, the questions at issue are necessarily few and simple. The issues in Australia have practically been between the squatters and what we may call the free-soilers, or between Protectionists and Free-Traders. On both points, the apparent interests and the convictions of the wealthy classes have been opposed to those of the people at large. In the former instance, we believe, the success of the popular cause was essential to the very existence of the colonies. With sheep selling at six shillings, and wool down to half-prices, the squatting interest itself would be beggared, if new industries and a population had not been called into existence; and practically, since gold-mining has become a monopoly of joint-stock companies, nothing but cheap land will bring out emigrants to Australia, or keep them there. The clamour for protection to native industry is, of course, a senseless plan for setting aside the natural laws of production ; but it is better that the colonists should buy wisdom at the price of a little costly experience, than that a minority in the _country should seem to be assessing the taxes as suited themselves. After all, the reason why most Victorian gentlemen are so clear-sighted in this matter of Free Trade is because they are either importers or consumers on a large scale, and the labouring classes are naturally suspicious of arguments that come recommended by self-interest. Meanwhile, no one can wonder if the popular representatives are not chosen from among the classes opposed to the popular creed. Mr. Martineau says truly that several members of the Melbourne and Sydney Parliaments are coarse, venal, and unscrupulous, much such men as would have been returned in England if all the upper classes in 1832 had refused to concede reform. Many Free-Traders in Victoria supposed during the late contest that they could carry any measure by bribery in the House ; but there is not the smallest proof that such a transaction was really possible, and it certainly would not have been good for a month if it had been effected. The very disgraceful bribery that really takes place is rather of the kind known in America as "lobbying," the retaining of members by fees in private bills or business with the Crown offices. Confident of its power and a little callous in money matters, the Australian Demos looks on placidly at these immoralities, and condones them whenever the offender is popular. Only three months ago a clear case of corruption was established against a Victorian representative. He appealed to his constituency, and was returned again by an enormous majority. Possibly they believed his statement that he was the victim of an aristocratic cabal. But, anyhow, it is right to remember that the House of Representatives has taken a stricter view of its public duties, and has expelled him, though he sided with the Ministry. In a much less scandalous ease in South Australia, where some small acts of bribery were established against a member, his election was instantly annulled, and he was declared incapable of sitting in that Parliament. But it should not be forgotten that the temptations to corruption are really greater in the colonies than in England. The representatives are poorer men, the settlement of a new country gives great facilities for jobbing, and a public opinion has scarcely yet been formed. Our Members were bribed right and left under Lord North; and if the public revenue were to rise to the Australian level, so that Government disposed of 150 to 200 millions a year, it may be confidently predicted that some corruption.would follow the increase in patronage.

Time, then, we think, may be trusted to cure much that is now rotten in colonial government ; as it will also, in all likelihood, bring greater repose of manner and dignity of tone. Nothing can be in more wretched taste than the scenes of personal abuse which Mr. Martineau describes in the Sydney Legislative Assembly ; nothing more deplorable than that virulent and Unfounded personal charges should have been brought forward in such a place against a gentleman of high character, the late Master of the Sydney Grammar School. But are we in a position to criticize these aberrations very severely? Mr. Parkes, who is an Australian writing from England, thus describes a debate he attended in the unreformed House of Commons :—" The House showed itself in a strange and not very creditable temper during

this debate Members lying on their backs lustily shouted Bosh Is during the speeches of Mr. Taylor and Mr. Forster." This was in 1862. In 1866, during the carnival of Parliamentary riot that preceded Mr. Gladstone's expulsion from office, it was difficult for some of the more unpopular Liberals to speak without being crowed or hooted down. And the discussions of 1868 will bear comparison for coarse personalities with those of any colonial assembly, if the import of words be regarded rather than their style. Yet the English Parliament holds its debates in the presence of the whole civilized world, and is not a small gathering of men, many of whom have known one another familiarly as schoolboys. It is carious to notice how much Mr. Parkes was impressed with English rowdyism. "Of course I had heard something," he says, "of the licence given to the undergraduates at the Commemoration. I expected and hoped to see an outburst of the young spirit of the country. Nor did I expect to be charmed overmuch with choiceness and delicacy of expression ; but I did expect to see some classic turn given to the latest slang, same freshness of wit infused into the dispensations of popular displeasure. I was hardly prepared to see the youthful lords and squires of England behave more mob-like in the lowest manifestations of mob turbulence than the so-called mobs of Manchester or Birmingham ; and I confess I was mortified to see the order of gods they had set up for their worship. It came upon me with as much bitterness as surprise to find Jefferson Davis an object of idolatry at Oxford." We are all Northerners now ; so no one will be hurt by another sentence in Mr. Parkes's book, which deserves to be put on record. "Until of late I had lived under the impression that the Americans had a deal to answer for in cherishing a bad feeling towards England, which was entirely unjustified by the disposition of the English people towards them ; but a worse spirit than anything I have ever read of in America is constantly displaying itself among the factory squires and shopocrats of England, while the sympathies of the aristocracy are undisguisedly offered to the rebellious Southerners."

Mr. Parkes's is almost necessarily a less substantial book than Mr. Martineau's. Australians know a good deal about England, and only require to be kept on fait of the topics of the day ; but English ignorance of Australia is not unfairly gauged by Mr. Martineau's instance from the Saturday Review, which spoke not long ago of a governor of New South Wales as Governor-General of the Australian Colonies, and assumed throughout that he exercised paramount authority from Brisbane to Perth. But the contrasts that strike an Australian are mostly such as lie deep in the institutions of the two countries, and an educated colonist is perhaps especially well fitted to be a critic, being at once outside English life and sympathetic with it. Mr. Parkes writes in an easy and pleasant style, and his letters are a very good specimen of colonial journalism.