A sharp discussion has been taking place in the Times
during the week, between Mr. C. H. Pearson, one of the Victorian Com- missioners for the settlement of the Constitutional difficulty, and Mr. Frederick W. Haddon, who takes the part of the Legisla- tive Council of Victoria, on the question whether or not the Legislative Council were disposed to come to a reasonable com- promise with the popular Assembly, if there had been no attempt to appeal to the Imperial Government. On Friday the Times, in a leader, took up the subject, and gave its suffrage for Mr. Haddon's view, on no intelligible evidence. Mr. Haddon has no difficulty in showing that the Legislative Council, or some members of it, have put forth what professed to be com- promises; but on the other hand, Mr. Pearson has no difficulty In showing that the compromises proposed were all in effect very slightly disguised re-assertions of the equal authority of the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly. That the Legislative Council has ever been prepared to accept,—as the House of Lords has repeatedly accepted,—the signs that the -country at large had decided against it, as sufficient ground for withdrawing its opposition to measures it disapproved, there is no evidence at all. And of course without a disposition of this kind, the necessity for some constitutional change that would put a natural end to recurring dead-locks, is as clear as ever. But whether Sir Michael Beach will see it, is another matter. He is too apt to be prompt only in procrastination,—firm as a rock only against decision or resolve.
Previous page
