AUSTRALIAN ESTIMATES OF THE FUTURE OF AUSTRALIA.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SrEcrixoa."
Sui,—Some of your readers may be interested to hear about the reception in that country of your article on "The Future of Australia," published at the time of the centennial cele- brations which have just been held with so much success at Sydney. It was in the evening newspapers at Ballarat, in Victoria, that I first saw the long telegraphic summary of your article (which appeared in many Australian newspapers), stating your belief that in one hundred years Australia will be a Federal Republic, with a population of fifty millions, "able to defy Europe." Highly gratifying to Australian sentiment as your prophecies are, they must have fallen as something of a bomb- shell among the Imperial federationists who have been very active this summer in the Colonies. The conference in London last spring, undeniably a great success, gave an impulse to the movement. The Naval Defence Bill has been passed in all the Australian Parliaments, except in that of Queensland (where the check is only temporary) ; and Lord Carnarvon's patriotic speeches have been applauded to the echo in Minis- terial and Government House circles, and in "society." Loyalty, in short, is the fashion. The Australian, as we are continually reminded, speaks of England as "home," and the traveller is impressed with the faithful, if not always judicious, adherence to the manners and customs of the old country. But signs are not wanting of a very different current of feeling. It is true that in Victoria, where there is at present a great boom of material prosperity, where the Government is strong and centralised (Victorian politicians have been described as Tory Democrats), where the people are naturally aggressive and self-asserting, the Imperial feeling at this moment is strong, —perhaps dominant. The Naval Defence Bill passed through the Victorian Assemblies in a single sitting. With New South Wales the case is different. Whatever the cause—and many would, of course, put it down to the jealousy between the two Colonies—there is here a distinct and articulate opposition to any measures of an Imperialistic character. Sir Henry Parkes thought himself obliged to conciliate local patriotism by the proposal to confer the name of Australia upon the Colony, before he could carry through the Imperial Naval Defence Bill. The opposition to this measure found expression in the Press. The Sydney Bulletin, a comic paper, widely read throughout Aus- tralia, especially in Queensland, is so violently and offensively anti-British, that I do not quote it in this connection, although its existence can hardly be explained away by saying that it merely represents the element of " Larrikinism." The Sydney Daily Telegraph is an important daily paper. Here is an extract from an article of January 30th, written as a defence against the charge of desiring immediate separation:—
" All we have ever stood up for is the maintenance of the status quo in our relations to the Empire, which there is now a very well- defined and a very dangerous movement against. This movement,. however, does not come from separatists ; it comes from an opposite section of extremists who are going the very way which will, if persisted in, bring separation about. These persons are asserting that the relations between Australia and the Mother-country are ripe for a change ; and as the alternative of separation, they advocate an arrangement for making us participators in the labours and dangers of the Empire.' It is these persons, and no others, who have brought the separation question up. Our contention all along has been that. there is no need for any such thing. There are three alternatives before us,—to federate, to separate, or to remain as we are. As long as we are allowed to continue in the latter state, separation is least likely to become a practical question. If the Imperial federationists will not allow this, well then it will become necessary to calmly discuss which of the other two alternatives it is better that we should accept."
Such local and partial signs, though in many ways interesting and significant, are not, perhaps, of great importance compared with the permanent conditions which make for the ultimate independence of Australia. These Colonies are situated in a continent full of actual and potential wealth, mineral, pastoral, agricultural, and sure to support in time a very large population. Their political interests must be entirely different from those of
Great Britain. All their energy must be devoted to developing their country and its resources. The struggle with Nature will leave them little power or inclination to enter upon struggles with England's European enemies, in which for many generations they could be of little or no assistance to us. Nor ought we in England to desire so disastrous a diversion of their energies. The one tie on which we at present rely is sure to grow weaker as a native-born Australian population comes to the front. Casual con- versations with native Australians reveal a jealousy of England, and a sensitiveness as to their own achievements and import- ance, not unlike that which used to prevail in America. Already an Australian patriotism is growing up among the younger men, and it would be strange indeed if it did not in time super- sede the wider patriotism. Pride in the marvellous creation of great cities and of a complex and highly civilised society, admiration of the heroic efforts of early Australian pioneers, and love of the vast and splendid country which they have opened up,—these are sentiments by which even a stranger can- not but be affected. Local differences will die out at the first touch of a common danger ; a federation of the Australasian Colonies must come, and such a combination, in the opinion of the best observers, will not be ultimately favourable to Imperial federation.
But whatever may be thought of the ultimate future of which you were writing, there is no one who wishes for an immediate change. Australia is at present too weak to stand alone. Lord Carrington, in his speech at the laying of the foundation-stone of the new Houses of Parliament in Sydney, admirably defined the present situation :—
"This is not the age of small nationalities, and though in years to come Australia will be taking her place amongst the nations, the sight of the great countries of Europe following Old England's colonising policy, and greedily annexing the few remaining portions of the habitable globs, clearly shows that we cannot delude ourselves into relying on the impunity of isolation which fell to the lot of the founders of the American Republic. Though we have no frontier, and t:le sea is our sentinel, it is evident that without the support of Eugland the three millions who hold the three million square miles of Una great continent would be pat to great struggles and sacrifices in resisting the land hunger of the great military nations of Europe. We should soon see the foreign flags flying on our coasts, while remon- strances from these Colonies would be met by stern reprisals, and ' Australia for the Australians,' instead of being an accomplished fact, would be an empty dream."
His Excellency went on to say, what is perfectly true, that in such a case, "Great Britain would send her last ship and spend her last shilling to help to drive into the sea any persons who might presume to menace the liberties of this fair land." If orators like Lord Carnarvon, by putting before the colonists the possible dangers of the British connection (from which immediate separation would in no way guarantee them), en- courage them to make even greater efforts than they have yet done to provide for their own defence, their labours will so far be productive of good.
A visit to Australia, at any rate, confirms the impression that nothing further can be attempted at present. If the course of years should bring about the result which you seem to anticipate, we ought not greatly to grieve at being obliged to renounce the dream of a world-wide federation which at best would only be weak in its bonds and invertebrate in its policy, or to exchange a shadowy and unreal supremacy for a hearty alliance between free peoples. Such an alliance between English-speaking races would do far more for the peace of the world than a union which would necessarily exclude America, and which would be based on the idea of rivalry with other nations.—I am, Sir, etc.,
Previous page
