THIRD READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.] (Hansard, 4 July 1890)

§ (4.31.) DR CLARK (Caithness)
Mr. Speaker—

§ *MR. SPEAKER
I am afraid the hon. Member has already spoken.

§ DR. CLARK
I have not spoken on the Third Reading, Sir.

§ *MR. SPEAKER
My recollection is that the Question of the Third Reading had been put.

§ DR. CLARK
What occurred, Sir, was this: The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury asked the consent of the House to take the Third Reading.

§ *MR. SPEAKER
I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I put the Question from the Chair, "That this Bill be read a third time." I am not able to allow hon. Gentlemen to speak who have already spoken.

§ *(4.33.) SIR J. COLOMB (Tower Hamlets, Bow, &c.)
I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state to the House what reservations have been made in the neighbourhood of St. George's Sound for the purposes of Imperial defence?

§ *(4.34.) THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS,) Liverpool, East Toxteth
The question which my hon. and gallant Friend puts to me is exceedingly important. It was considered by the Committee, who took evidence on the subject, and the Secretary of State telegraphed to the Government officials in Australia to reserve land in St. George's Sound for the purposes of defence. It must not be understood that the land is to be garrisoned by British troops. It is reserved for colonial defence. It will be fortified by the colony, and the armament will be supplied by Her Majesty's Government. We have received a telegram stating that all the land in the immediate neighbourhood of St. George's Sound which is likely to be required in connection with the defence of the port, has been reserved. As long as the reserves continue, the land cannot be sold or applied to any other purpose than that of defence.

§ (4.35.) MR. W. REDMOND (Fermanagh, N.)
I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary a question. I want to know whether it would not be possible for Her Majesty's Government to convey to the Government of Western Australia some idea of the opinion which has been so strongly 815 expressed here against that part of the Schedule of the Bill which restricts the franchise under the proposed Constitution? A great many Members who have done everything they could to secure the passage of this Bill, strongly regret the restriction of the franchise; and I think it would be a vary good thing if, without at all dictating to the Colonial Government, Her Majesty's Government could convey to them the fact that there is a strong feeling among the friends of the Bill against the restricted franchise.

§ *(4.36.) MR. MORTON (Peterborough)
I object to the Third Reading of this Bill, and, if I have an opportunity, shall vote against it. The other evening I asked for some explanation of the Preamble of the Bill, in which there is something said about the allowance to the Attorney General of Western Australia. No explanation has been given, nor have we been told whether the Attorney General is to have an allowance at all. My principal objection to the Bill, however, is that we are forcing on these colonists a Constitution which they do not want—a Constitution based on a franchise which as soon as we possibly can we shall discard in this country altogether, and which contains other objectionable features. I find on reading the evidence given before the Select Committee that the elected Representatives on the present Legislative Council are entirely opposed by a considerable majority to the provisions of this Bill. The chief witness, Mr. Parker, who is said to represent the views of the elected members of the present Council, objected both to the proposed franchise and to the qualification of Members of the House of Commons. He says he is willing to allow the measure to pass because he thinks these things can be altered directly they get the new Constitution. But, as was pointed out in other evidence, they are not likely to be allowed to alter it for six years, and the Senate will probably prevent them altering it for many years. What I say is that we, having the settlement of this matter now before us, ought to take care that we give the Western Australians the most democratic Constitution we possibly can give them. I should not mind allowing this colony to have control of the lands, if the whole of the people were to have a voice in the 816 Government. Under the franchise now proposed, the colony will be controlled by about half the persons who ought to have votes. It looks almost as if this Constitution had been made up for the purpose of benefitting the moneyed classes in the colony. We are informed by the Return that the Bank of New South Wales has nearly 3,000,000 acres of land in the colony, that another bank has 2,500,000 acres, that the Union Bank of Australia has nearly 8,000,000 acres, the Western Australian Bank over 1,000,000 acres, Mr. W. McKennon 4,000,000 acres, and the Forrest family about 2,000,000 acres. I am afraid that if such a Constitution as this is adopted, this sort of thing will go on until practically the whole of the land in the colony will get into the hands of land grabbers and that sort of people. This Constitution does not come from the colonial people, except geographically; it does not come from the majority of the people. It is stated in the evidence that it comes from the minority. [Baron H. de WORMS indicated dissent.] The Colonial Secretary says that is not so, but the evidence is entirely against him, because we are told that at a recent election in Perth a candidate who advocated manhood suffrage and other reforms was returned by a large majority. Other evidence goes to show that if this Constitution were put to the vote, two-thirds of the people would declare themselves against it.

§ *BARON H. DE WORMS
The hon. Member's statement is entirely inaccurate.

§ *MR. MORTON
Well, if your own Governor makes inaccurate statements, I cannot help it. I gathered from his statement that two-thirds of the population were against this Constitution. Well, we know that if there is only a third of the people in favour of the Constitution, it may be a generation before the majority can get an alteration made. I think, under these circumstances, we ought to reject this Bill, or that, at least, we should make provision that there shall be a Convention of Representatives of the people of the colony on the subject. I know it is said that the promoters of the Bill need not have come here at all on this question. Why have they come here? Because they want to get possession of the land. We ought to take care to put Western Australia in the same 817 position as the other Australian Colonies. I shall vote against the Bill, feeling satisfied that a few months' delay will make no difference to the Colonists, and that they will be grateful for our action if in the end we give them a good Constitution. Now, Sir, I find I was right in what I said about the two-thirds. On page 63 of the Blue Book I find these questions and answers:— Q.—Can you tell us about what the proportion of the majority would be? A.—I could not. I imagine, numerically speaking, the majority of the population would dispense with the property qualification. Q.—Would it probably be five or six to one at all events? A.—Possibly so. Well, five or six to one is more than two-thirds, and, therefore, I have more than made out what I said just now.

§ *BARON H. DE WORMS
The hon. Member has made out nothing at all.

§ (4.49.) MR. O'KELLY (Roscommon, N.)
I think the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Morton) has spoken without a sufficient knowledge of the facts. Under the present franchise the people of Western Australia will be able to elect the majority of Parliament. I should like very much myself to see a wider Constitution, but, according to the evidence, a £10 franchise in Western Australia means a very different thing from what it means in England, and would practically take in four-fifths of the population. But the great guarantee is that the elected Members under the new Constitution will be able to control the Government, which will be a representative one. As to the land question, I would point out that all the land that is worth anything in the colony is rented under the existing system. The land which is given under this Bill is largely mining land, which can be of no use to anyone unless he is willing to venture large sums of money on its exploration. It is land totally unfitted for colonisation in the ordinary sense. Under the circumstances, therefore, I think the House will do well to pass this measure. Western Australia did not take the trouble to send one man to this country to protest against the Bill. We tried to obtain evidence against it, but no one took the trouble to communicate with us in opposition, showing clearly that there cannot be any very strong reasons why the measure should 818 not pass. The evidence given before the Committee was altogether in favour of the passing—and the rapid passing—of the Bill.

§ (4.54.) MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)
I should like to say that, although some hon. Members were opposed to this Bill in the Committee, in view of the decision of that body, and knowing that to delay the passing of the measure will cause serious dissatisfaction in Western Australia, those hon. Members have refrained from offering that strenuous opposition which, under other circumstances, they would have felt it their duty to offer. We had hoped, however, that in passing the Bill the Colonial Office would, in some way, have secured a pledge from the colony that in return for the Constitution which is being secured to them, they should, when the good time comes, abolish this restrictive franchise. I think the Colonial Office might fairly have claimed that as a quid pro quo.

§ (4.55.) MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)
By the indulgence of the House, I should like to put a question to the Under Secretary for the Colonies as to the pension to be provided in the Schedule for the Attorney General of Western Australia. A question on the subject has been asked, but I have not yet heard any answer to it. I want to know, in view of directing my own vote, if we go to a Division, whether any alteration has been made, as suggested in the Preamble of the Bill in connection with that pension; and, if so, what that alteration is. I would further ask why any pension should be paid to this gentleman at all considering the circumstances—which are so well-known in the House and the country—under which he was pitch-forked into his present position?

§ *(4.56.) BARON H. DE WORMS
The present salary of the Attorney General of Western Australia is £600. Of this £500 is fixed and paid by the colony, and £100 is annually voted. It was first proposed to give this gentleman two-thirds of his whole salary—that is to say, £400—as a pension. The sum, however, was changed to two-thirds of the fixed amount of £500.