(An Historical Sketch of Australian Politics down BEING THE BEAUCHAMP PRIZE ESSAY OF 1915 AT Lecturer in Law at St. Andrew's College, Sydney University; Scholar WITH A FOREWORD BY PROFESSOR G. ARNOLD WOOD, M.A. (Oxon), SYDNEY: THE LAW BOOK CO. OF AUSTRALASIA LIMITED, 51-53 ELIZABETH STREET. LONDON SWEET & MAXWELL, LTD. 1918. FOREWORD. British Liberalism was the British expression of the faith which towards the close of the eighteenth century began to revolutionize the society of all the lands of Europe. In France that faith was the strength of those who shouted the three battle cries of the day of glory. But it was the faith not of a day nor of a battle. It was a faith founded on strong thought, deep-rooted in fervent emotion, the permanent compelling faith of a People. It became the religion of the nineteenth century. All men, said the new gospel which was the old gospel, all men are able, by virtue of common human nature, to be happy and good. By nature man is free so to be. But by the State— the State controlled by King, Lords, and Church-he has been enchained. He must throw off the chains. The State must become the instrument, not of the tyranny of person, of caste, of superstition, but of the common will of the people. Force must yield to humanity. All men must help all men to live the good life. And, when mankind has accepted the new-old religion of the service of man, war will end in sense of brotherhood. This faith, with British interpretations, has been the inspiration of British Liberalism. And in its light and strength British statesmen, in unbroken succession, from Charles James Fox to David Lloyd George, have fought for the rights of human souls. In Australia there has been a fight for the same faith. It has not been a very famous fight, for in Australia there has been, if not “lack of foes to conquer," at least lack of the giant foe in shining armour which in Britain had to be fought both in pitched battles and inch by inch. In Australia, as Mr. Evatt says, a Conservative party on British models was not possible." This is a fact of inestimable importance and of inestimable value; but the lack of a great enemy makes the story of Australian democracy, at first view, somewhat uninteresting, because there appears to be a corresponding lack of great heroes and of great exploits. And yet there is much interest in this story both for the student and for the politician. It is the story of a British society that was able to ignore the Norman conquest, that was free to make itself what it wished to be, free to grow on the lines on which the people who composed it desired that it should grow. It has been not so much a 398128 story of battles against tyranny as a story of evolution on lines determined by the sentiments of a people, a story of the gradual growth and operation of a faith. And the faith that has grown and operated has been the faith, with Australian interpretations, of liberty, equality, and fraternity. Mr. Evatt has undertaken the task of studying, analysing, and explaining this story. The value of his essay will be evident to every reader. But it will be most evident to students who know the difficulties that have been overcome. The study of the material of Australian history has hardly begun. It is the day of the pioneer historian, who explores new country, and whose work is indeed work of special interest, but also of special difficulty. Mr. Evatt has overcome difficulty with remarkable success. He has collected significant facts by careful research, and has explained their significance in clear, thoughtful argument. He has shown for the first time the meaning and the interest of a movement whose great importance will in future be more fully recognised. He has not only written a very good essay, but has also shown what opportunity exists in Australian history for the writing of other very good essays. I trust that some day he will himself write more fully about the movement of which he now gives this admirable sketch. G. A. WOOD. UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY. CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION. LIBERALISM IN AUSTRALIA. In spite of Mr. Bruce Smith's statement* that, from the passing of the first Reform Bill in 1831, to the opening of the Home Rule campaign in the 'eighties, Liberalism and the English Liberal party were one and indivisible, there has always been a good deal of uncertainty as to the meaning and application of political party titles. Throughout the Russell administration of the 'fifties lines of party division were blurred. Peel had broken up the Tory party and helped considerably to break up the Whigs; and Russell himself was not successful in converting the Whig party to the new fiscal policy. Melbourne remained a protectionist to the end, and many free-traders placed the personality of Peel before the principles of the Whigs. Meanwhile Cobdenites and the followers of Peel owned no allegiance to the Government, and voted as they pleased! Still, with the advent of Gladstone and Disraeli as leaders of two different sections of the House of Commons, it became possible to connect their parties in a more or less continuous succession with the two great factions of the aristocracy which ruled Great Britain in the eighteenth century. But the Whigs had become Liberals and the Tories had become Conservatives. Absorbing some of the doctrines of the French Revolution, the former stood for individual liberty, for freedom of competition. They adopted democratic ideals, such as the extension of the franchise, and set themselves to break down the monopoly of the landowner and the power of the Church, to establish equality before the law, and to remove the country from what was deemed the tyranny of Protection. Such principles had forced the Conservative party to defend the existing order of affairs, and they waved the banner of the Crown, the Church, and the Constitution. As they were compelled to accept democratic principles, they made it their object also to redress grievances. But whereas the Liberals attended to those evils resulting from privilege, the Conservatives devoted themselves to the remedying of the effects of excessive freedom of competition. The latter laid stress on order and authority, the former on the liberty of the individual. But other complications were always forthcoming. The prolonged duel between Gladstone and Disraeli, the bias of Nonconformist Wales and Cornwall towards Liberalism, and the religious and national sentiment of Scotland and Ireland-all these factors brought other issues into the political world. And the vigorous foreign policy of the one party, like the laissez-faire policy of the other, often alienated the support of men who placed principle before factional solidarity. The difficulty was, of course, even greater in Australia, the political life of which has had a character all its own. The methods of English politics could not be introduced as easily as English constitutions. * In "Liberty and Liberalism." |