THE POLITICAL SITUATION IN - VICTORIA.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE " SPEOTATOR."] Slit,—Your correspondent, " A Victorian Colonist," makes certain assertions, as, for instance, that the M'Culloch Ministry "held their majority in hand by monetary coercion," which, from their nature, it is almost impossible to disprove. To what credence, however, his assertions are entitled may be discovered by examining into the truth of one of them, which admits of documentary proof or disproof. He says :— "When I tell you that the Bill for Abolishing State Aid to Religion was sent up and vetoed for fifteen years running, you will understand how obstructive our second Chamber can show itself on occasion." As the opening of the first Parliament of Victoria under the new Constitution (which for the first time established two Houses) took place on November 21, 1856, cud the Bill for the Abolition of State Aid to Religion, after having received the sanction of both Houses, was reserved for the Royal Assent (which it duly received) on July 13, 1870, a moment's reflection would have shown "A Victorian Colonist " that his statement that the Legislative Council vetoed the Bill for fifteen years running could not be true. After a careful search through the "Votes and Proceedings of the Legislative Council," I find that that body rejected the Bill only thrice, namely, in September, 1857, again in June, 1857, and the last time in the Session of 1869. On one occasion, the Bill was read a second time in the Council, but not by "an absolute majority of the whole number of the members of the Legislative Council," as required by the Constitution Act, and therefore it was not further proceeded with. Bills for the abolition of State aid to religion were introduced on seven occasions only into the Legislative Assembly. One of these Bills lapsed in the House in which it was introduced, and another was rejected by the Assembly itself on the second reading. The last Bill has become law. The assertion of your correspondent that the Bill was carried fifteen years' running iinthe Assembly, and was as many times rejected by the Council, s a sample of the fictions to which the Protectionists (who ,very unwarrantably have assumed the title of Liberals) have recourse to gain majorities at the
elections.
Your correspondent accuses the late Ministry of having "checked discussion in Parliament by introducing the elulitre." The reason why the etotere was introduced was because Mr. Berry and his followers had openly avowed their intention of obstructing the progress of public business, in order to compel the Ministry to consent to a Dissolution. If a third of the Members of Parliament were to adopt the tactics of Messrs. Biggar and Parnell, no doubt the cloture would have to be intro- duced into the House of Commons.
The majority of the late Assembly are accused of having "no higher policy than to avert a land-tax." I believe that they did not object to a fair land-tax, although they objected to a land- tax expressly aiming at rendering it unprofitable for those who had purchased considerable tracts of land from the Crown to continue to hold them.
"A Victorian Colonist" asserts that "there is no doubt the vast majority of the people believe that the prosperity of the country is mainly due to its protective tariff." I would observe that it does not follow from the fact of a large majority of Pro- tectionist candidates having been returned, that the proportion of Protectionists to Free-traders in the constituencies is the same as it is in the Assembly. The Free-traders in a constituency may number very little less than half of the electors, and yet the con- stituency, supposing it returns three Members, may, as there is no provision in Victoria for the protection of the rights of the minority, return three Protectionists.
In one Assembly nearly four-fifths of the Members were Pro- tectionists of a more or less pronounced type, and yet on a ca]cu- lation of the number of electors who had voted for Free-trade and Protectionist candidates respectively, it was estimated (if I reraember rightly) that the Free-trade electors were to the Pro- tectionist electors in the proportion of about two-fifths to three- fifths.
In conclusion, I should like to be allowed to say that it must not be inferred from anything contained in this letter that I am an admirer of the political career of Sir James M'Culloch.—I
Previous page
