Australia and the Empire/Appendices
APPENDIX A.
ROBERT LOWE ON THE DISABILITIES OF COLONISTS.
I refrained from incorporating with my text this "note," with its eloquent extract from one of Lowe's finest colonial speeches, lest it should be urged that such diatribes are quite out of date since the inauguration of "responsible government" in Australia.
This, as I have endeavoured to show elsewhere, with regard to the appointment of Colonial Governors, is not altogether the case. But beyond this my book would be more imperfect than it is, without a reference to perhaps the most memorable and historic political gathering ever assembled in Australia. The occasion was a public banquet to William Charles Wentworth for his political services in being mainly instrumental in transforming what was originally a penal settlement into a partially self-governed colony. It took place in the hall of Sydney College on Monday, January 26, 1846, and some 250 really representative colonists, prominent among whom was Lowe, attended. The mere presence of two such intellectual giants, as Wentworth and Lowe, at the same festive board, in a remote dependency half a century ago, is of itself a remarkable fact. But my chief reason for transcribing from the columns of the Atlas (Saturday, January 31, 1846) these few sentences of Lowe's powerful oration, is that they are calculated to give the reader a more vivid conception of the "disabilities of colonists" than anything else with which I am acquainted. To the far-seeing mind of the truly Imperial statesman, for whom we are all waiting, this speech would, I fancy, reveal the secret of that deep discontent which we often find so strangely mingled with loyalty for the mother country among the ambitious dwellers in remote dependencies.
"Mr. Lowe, who then came forward and was received with rapturous applause, said:—He could conceive no higher privilege, he could seek for no more exalted position, than that of an independent citizen of Great Britain—possessing a voice in the Government under which he lived, fearing nothing from Queen or aristocracy; he stood in his strength, a part of that great constitution under which he lived, controlling his own destinies, guarding his own interests. To him the venerable fabric of the constitution was endeared by the consciousness of the freedom which it secured; his was the glorious past, the magnificent present, and the splendid future of his matchless country. Tyranny could not reach him, for he knew well that the proudest minister must quail before the voice of truth and justice. Such was the proud position of a citizen of Great Britain—such was the position he was entitled to under their glorious constitution.
"But if that citizen should see fit to change his place of abode—if he should have found it necessary to cast his lot in this land, governed as it was by the same Sovereign; peopled as it was by sons of the same race and of the same language, and entitled to the same privileges; then, indeed, was his political position entirely changed—then he lost the glorious attributes of freedom he once possessed, and stood a naked and disfranchised man, utterly defenceless beneath the lash of political oppression. ······ "The Imperial Government could declare war or peace without the consent of the colonies; although while the glory was allotted to the mother country, safe in her impregnable island fortress, the ravages and horrors of war were sure to fall upon her dependencies. On these great questions he would ask, if the colonies had a voice—a whisper, by which to make their claims heard. In such matters a ten-pound householder, in the meanest borough of England, had a more influential voice than all New South Wales. ······ "Deeply was the colony indebted to Mr.Wentworth, to offer their gratitude to whom they were assembled. He it was who gained for it the inestimable boon of trial by jury, and he it was, at last, who obtained the small remnant of legislative freedom which they at present possessed. Long and earnestly had he devoted his high talents and attainments, the great energies of his mind, to the welfare of his country. Amid persecutions and revilings he persevered, without hope or thought of recompence. In the face of power, in the face of tyranny, he took his stand, and he had not been able to learn that he had met with any reward, except the tribute which they were assembled to offer that evening. Rare and admirable men did, it is true, occasionally arise, who, despising alike the smiles and frowns of the great and powerful, devoted themselves to the good of their country and their kind—who, forgetting the selfish interest of the man in the feeling of the patriot, cast aside all other hopes in their devotion to their country, like this great son of Australia. ······ "Many of his College contemporaries were called on to fill offices of trust and importance to the State. He did not feel envious of their lot; for he believed they would act conscientiously. They had been placed in those offices by the voices of the people, and when they acted unwisely they might he removed; but he, by coming out here, had not only closed to himself that path of ambition, but had ceased to he a part of the governing body—had lost all control over the political destinies of the community to which he belonged, and had sunk into the slave of those who were once his equals.
"If it were an offence to join his lot with that of the struggling colonists of Australia, he thought that political disfranchisement and degradation was too severe a punishment for it."
[This generous tribute by Lowe to the political genius of his only possible rival in New South Wales, Wentworth, was uttered, be it observed, some years before the latter had consummated his great services by founding the Sydney University (1850), and by establishing Responsible Government, under his Constitution Bill, which did not become law until 1856.]
APPENDIX B.
SIR C. GAVAN DUFFY'S "ROYAL COMMISSION."
The years 1870-1872 were certainly critical in the relations between England and her colonies. The Imperial troops were withdrawn in 1870 from Australia. It was the year, as we have seen, of Dr. Lang's "Coming Event." Just afterwards Mr. (now Sir) C. Gavan Duffy was for a short time Prime Minister of Victoria. Lord Granville seems to have succeeded in convincing colonial public men that it was to their interest, as well as that of their particular colony, to promote disintegration. As Mr. Jenkins points out, even Sir Alexander Gait took the hint. Mr. Duffy seized the opportunity to move for the appointment of a Royal Commission, ostensibly to report on the federation of the Australian colonies. The Commissioners, however, deviated into the wider question of the relations between England and the colonies. On this they were divided, but the majority proposed to meet the difficulty, in which Australia would be placed in the event of England engaging in war, "by constituting under the sanction of the Imperial Parliament the Australian colonies quasi-Sovereign States, subject to Her Majesty, with power to make treaties with each other and with other states, and with power to concur in, or stand aloof from, England's quarrels as may to the colonies seem wise and expedient." It was a very pretty and characteristic document, and bore the impress of its authorship upon its face. Two of the Commissioners, if I rightly remember, refused to sign it, and the Report had no influence with Parliament or the country. Mr. Edward Jenkins may rest assured that the Australian people would never shuffle out of their responsibilities in this pitiful way. But, as he has quoted the text of Mr. Duffy's Royal Commissioners' Report ("The Colonial Question," by the author of Ginx's Baby), I cannot do better than give his refutation of the arguments therein adduced.
"No stronger hint could be given to us at home to arrive at a rapid decision upon our future Imperial policy. When the disintegration of our Empire is recommended by a Royal Commission, it is time to consider whether Her Majesty is to be Queen only of Great Britain, or an Imperial Sovereign. The proposal of the Victorian statesmen is unpractical. Such a relation of independent 'sovereignties' could not be maintained in this age; and we have seen, even in democratic America, how the attempt to assert State sovereignty against confederated power was stifled in blood. … Before such schemes are further elaborated, may not we and the Australian colonies judiciously consider what claims the Imperial Government, representing the British nation, has upon those provinces? Colonial Ministers, acting under the Crown, have from time to time constituted small patches of society, excised from our own community, the absolute owners of property held in all moral and political honesty in trust for the people and Government of these islands; for it was won and maintained by our adventure and sacrifice. A slip of an imperial pen has unreservedly transferred whole provinces to those casual communities; but this has been done with the implied trust that they should be held and used only in harmony with Imperial interests. No Minister or Government had the power to confer more. These territories from which we might have drawn Imperial revenues are now administered solely in the interests of the settlers. We exact from them no direct pecuniary profit. They have been the gift by which we meant to reward the enterprise of our adventurous sons. But they must not suppose that they have the right to divest them of the Imperial dominion."
Every honest colonist will agree with these sentiments of the Anglo-Canadian littérateur, whom many Australians, as well as his fellow-colonists, would like to see once again in the House of Commons. I can only hope, however, he has since learned that he need not have taken the futile Report of that particular Royal Commission quite so seriously.
But we might, with mutual advantage all round, have some light thrown on those political machinations. Why should the British Government at that time have been so anxious to cast us off? The plot, as we know, miserably failed; but the experiment gave a renewal of publicity, and subsequently of office, to a colonial politician, thought to be "played out." This was Mr. Duffy, who after his lamentable failure as a Land Minister, and his quarrel with his great countryman O'Shanassy, was completely "at a discount" in Victoria. But having profited by his House of Commons experience, he seems to have detected the drift of the Colonial Secretary's new policy more quickly than the local Legislators. Though only a private member, he contrived to get himself appointed Chairman of that spacious "Royal Commission." Shortly afterwards came one of those curious turns of the political wheel, so common in young democracies, and during a brief "interregnum" caused by the rivalry of the more trusted and responsible leaders, Mr. Duffy, who also had thus brought himself into some prominence again, became Prime Minister. Whether on a hint from Downing Street, or seeing it was no use in the colonies, the proposals of his "Royal Commission" were incontinently dropped.
APPENDIX C.
THE COLONIAL OFFICE AND THE "FOREIGN NOBLEMEN."
Every Victorian is familiar with the phrases in which Mr. Higinbotham used to denounce the Colonial office, and its typical head, the "foreign nobleman." Yet, as I have said in the text, the strong patriotism and intense loyalty of the present Chief-Justice of Victoria were never for a moment questioned. His quarrel was not with England, but with Downing Street and its system of interfering with the self-governing colonies by means of despatches to its nominee, the Governor. Many Australians will read with interest the following thorough-going denunciation by Mr. Jenkins of the system against which one of the greatest of their public men was wont to inveigh:—
"An office, presided over by a shifting partisan, however able, however honest, however industrious—actually conducted by a permanent staff, seldom, if ever, selected for any reputation or experience in colonial life—an office, to visit which, is, for a colonist, like reconnoitring an enemy—to negotiate with which is like a war parley, and to assault which needs almost a forlorn hope and a battery—is, spite of any brilliant abilities existing in it, incapable of discharging, with success, the infinitely varied, numerous, delicate, and detailed duties essential to its business. To every colony, each with its own wrongs, or rights, or difficulties, such an office is sure to appear unwise or tyrannical; because, in its very constitution, its aspect is, to them, foreign."
One feels that the writer of these words is in earnest. As a condemnation of the system they are, no doubt, thoroughly justifiable; and every day should show us the dangers we run in not radically reforming it.
Of course, most of the glaring evils of the Downing Street régime were removed by the establishment of responsible government in the colonies, though not by any means all of them. I feel sure others as well as Mr. Jenkins would like to see a companion sketch to his own of the "Colonial Office," from the pen of Lord Sherbrooke, who thus described the system as it existed when he was in Sydney:—
"Let us see what are the links in the chain. The Governor who knows little and cares less about the colony, whose interest is in every respect anti-colonial, whenever the interests of the colony and the Empire are supposed to clash, is responsible to the clerks of the Colonial Office, who care as little as he, and know even less about us than himself. The clerks are responsible to the Colonial Secretary, who equally unknowing and uncaring, is besides, for our special benefit, a first-rate debater, whose head is full of Corn Laws, and Factory Bills, and Repeal of the Union—whose mornings are spent, not in going through that twentieth part of the business allotted to him as Colonial Minister, which it is possible for the most laborious of human beings to accomplish—but in excogitating sound pummellings for Cobden, stinging invectives for O'Connell, and epigrammatic repartees for Lord John Russell. This functionary is, in his turn, responsible to an Assembly, chosen for a great number of reasons—for wealth, for family connections, for moderate opinions, for extreme opinions, for every conceivable reason except one—their knowledge of colonial affairs. This Assembly is, in its turn, responsible to the people of the United Kingdom, in whose ears the name of colony is an abomination."
One must frankly confess that the latter charge in this diatribe is not in any sense true now.
In another article in the Atlas, the same writer was even more incisive, winding up thus: "Is not the result such as might be naturally expected from such a system,—that the Secretary of State knows nothing about us, except as much cram as may be necessary to make a speech to an inattentive assembly a shade more ignorant than himself; that the Under-Secretary knows just enough of us to adopt some crude and impracticable theory like the one pound an acre scheme, or the civilisation of the aborigines, to which he adheres with the desperate tenacity of ignorance and presumption; and that the Clerk, our real Governor, who is utterly unknown and irresponsible—who will not be praised if we are governed well, or blamed if we are governed ill—should take it as easy as possible, and content himself with echoing back the despatches he receives, sometimes enlivening the matter by an occasional abuse of the Governor for something perfectly right, just to show he has an opinion of his own."
The last stroke is simply delicious.
APPENDIX D.
RELIGION AND IRISH HOME RULE.
For the benefit of my Australian readers, who will be pardoned for taking a lively interest in the present Home Rule Controversy, on the satisfactory solution of which the future relations of "Australia and the Empire" depend, I have collected the following notes on "Religion and Irish Home Rule."
The Rev. Austin Powell, an English Roman Catholic Priest, of Birchley, Lancashire, thus frankly expresses himself in a letter to Sir George Errington, an English Roman Catholic Layman.—(Weekly Register, Nov. 24, 1888.)
"For myself I must rein in, in front of the ditch of roguery and robbery. I cannot imagine it lawful for a Catholic to render aid to a cause which appears indissolubly linked with the nefarious practices of the condemned conspiracies. Such are my convictions, and I am happy to say they are shared by many sincere Liberals, and, of course, by all good Catholics hereabouts."
To which Sir George Errington in the course of his equally outspoken reply observes:—
"I am now reluctantly forced to admit that a great English party, instead of purging Parnellite Home Rule and restoring it to the level of honest politics, has itself been dragged down and identified with the same revolutionary and criminal courses which originally drove me from the movement. With these conclusions staring me in the face, I should be wanting in frankness to you and in consistency to myself if I hesitated to say plainly that as I withdrew from the degraded Home Rule of 1880, so I have now to dissociate myself from this fresh and more dangerous degradation—more dangerous because, in addition to destroying the fairest prospects of local liberty and happiness for Ireland, it has lowered the honour of English public life, and even threatens the safety of the Empire."
Nor should loyal colonists overlook the political significance of the noble Charge of the eloquent Bishop of Derry and Raphoe (Dr. Alexander) to the clergy of his diocese.
"We shall have more and more of unison of spirit with all that is honest and true in this divided land; with the noble-hearted ministers of the Protestant Communities around us, who have borne witness in the face of England to loyalty and honesty; with the tens of thousands of our Roman Catholic countrymen whose voices may he overborne for a while, but who are inwardly with us heart and soul."
All the world knows what these Irish Protestant ministers think of Mr. Gladstone's Irish Home Rule policy. Forgetting old political divisions and social animosities, 864 out of 990 Irish Nonconformist ministers signed the Unionist address to Lord Salisbury and Lord Hartington; and of the small minority who declined to sign it, "only eight did so because they were in sympathy with Mr. Gladstone." Surely never were figures so eloquent.
If Mr. Balfour is spared to serve this United Kingdom a little longer, we shall yet hear the voice of those "tens of thousands" of loyal and law-abiding Irish Roman Catholics to whom the Bishop of Derry feelingly alludes. Meanwhile it is pleasant to find an English priest using such wholesome language as Father Powell employs towards the leaders of illegality and rapine in Ireland.
But my Australian readers will naturally ask. What of the attitude of the head of that Church in England, himself an Englishman? I have regretfully stated what I believe it to be in my text. Allowance must be made for that "usual law of reaction" by which "converts" to an alien faith generally become extremists. Apart from this. Cardinal Manning seems to me to possess the qualities and defects of a born party leader. He has probably long since recognised that if his Church is to play the masterful part, which he and those who joined it with him forty years ago imagined, it is essential that its leaders should be in harmony with the Irish, who form so large a portion of their flocks in London, and the other great cities of England and Scotland, and who are naturally not of the better type eulogised by the Bishop of Derry.[1]
- ↑ It will, I feel sure, be news to most of my readers, British and Australian, that there are only, according to the "Catholic Directory," some 1,354,000 Roman Catholics in England and Wales; but it is even more astonishing to find that at least three quarters of a million are of Irish birth or parentage. Deducting the foreigners, it is fairly estimated that the English Roman Catholics do not exceed half-a-million. Moreover, this element seems steadily decreasing, or rather it does not keep pace with the natural increase in the general population. See that most suggestive article on "The Roman Catholics in England," in the Quarterly Review for January 1888, the authorship of which has been so much canvassed in religious and literary circles. The writer, who is evidently well-informed of what goes on "behind the scenes," makes the following severe strictures on the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster:—"Above all, the policy of Cardinal Manning has been to advertise himself and his Communion, by continually keeping it before the public eye, and by posing in his own person as an English patriot and philanthropist, though simultaneously abetting the National party in Ireland, and assenting to, if not enjoining, that dead silence as to the crimes of the National League, which has been steadily observed by the Anglo-Roman Episcopate, whose flocks are composed mainly of Irish by birth or descent, and who are afraid of telling them unpalatable, however wholesome and necessary truths"—(p. 51). It is highly honourable to the English Roman Catholics, numerically a minority in their own communion, even in their own land, who, under the circumstances, and nobly led by the Duke of Norfolk, have remained so faithful to the loftier traditions of their loyal forefathers.
APPENDIX E.
EDUCATION IN AUSTRALIA.
The New South Wales Public Instruction Act of Sir Henry Parkes, which came into operation on May 1, 1880, attempted a compromise of the religious difficulty, by permitting the teachers to impart religious instruction, and by giving one hour of each school day to the clergymen of the various denominations. In one of his admirable, but perhaps too frequent, addenda to the Cruise of the Bacchante, the Rev. J. N. Dalton, who, as an English clergyman, may be surely taken as an impartial critic, remarks: "The Act was passed almost unanimously, both by the Upper and Lower Houses, and the feeling in the colony is intensely strong in favour of a religious instruction. It is provided that the minimum four hours a day of secular instruction to be given by the schoolmaster shall include general religious instruction free from special dogma. But to meet the views of denominationalists, for whom this general religious instruction is not enough, it is further provided that certified religious teachers shall have access to the public schools, and that one hour in five shall Le available for the special religious instruction of the children belonging to the church of the visiting religious teacher. Common Christianity is thus taught by the schoolmaster; special dogmatic teaching is given by the clergyman. The Roman Catholics, however, object strongly to any secular instruction, even of the simplest kind, being given to their children except by Roman Catholic teachers."
Hence it is that Sir Henry Parkes' well-meant compromise has met with no more approval in that quarter than the frankly secular system of Victoria. It was recklessly denounced by the late Archbishop Vaughan as "godless." In the course of an admirable speech on the question, Sir Henry Parkes himself observed: "I cannot comprehend why Roman Catholic parents cannot send their children to our public schools. I cannot see, when we have of necessity to grow up together, to perform the same duties in society, to drive at the same ends in life—I cannot comprehend how it need interfere with the religious faith of the Roman Catholic child, when he attends school, to read, to sum up figures, to understand a little of the geographical features of the earth, with Protestant children—how that can unfit the child for receiving his religious faith. We must rub shoulders together, we must work in the same workshops together, we must follow the same plough, we must man the same ships together, we must use the same tools in erecting our houses together—and why should not our children sit side by side in being taught to read?"
It is surely evident that those who object to such a system of public education as this do so, not because it is "godless" or secular, but simply because they want the government to subsidise their particular church or sect, notwithstanding that "State aid to religion" has been abolished. On the subject of the "Higher Education in Australia," I have received from Professor Herbert A. Strong, while these pages are going through the press, a further criticism, which, in view of his unique experience as a University Professor, both in England and Victoria, I do not feel justified in passing over in silence, deferring especially to the curriculum of the Melbourne University, Professor Strong points out: (1) that the anti-Darwinian biology is quite out of date in England; (2) that modern languages are taught in England, historically and philologically. Lectures are given in the literature of the subject by the best men that can be got. To keep pace with the old country there should be a Professor of Modern Languages conversant with the most recent German work in philology.
Further, Professor Strong thinks that each professor in Melbourne has far too many subjects—which is fatal to specialised efficiency. He then continues—comparing his present English with his recent Victorian experience: "The great point which I notice, as different here from there, is that the professors here are looked to in every case to take the lead in education. The clerks form an association to educate themselves; and at once come to us for aid. The Teachers' Guild have a professor (myself in this case) as their President. The secondary schools ask us to examine for them as a regular thing, and invite our co-operation in every way. School Boards again elect some of our number to co-operate with them."
Professor Strong winds up his communication with a very high eulogium on the physique and mental capacity of Australian students. He speaks with the greatest admiration of their enthusiasm and openheartedness. I quote these remarks from his letter with great pleasure, because his much wider experience and knowledge of the subject coincides exactly with my own impressions. Since I have been in England, it has in many ways come to my knowledge that the historic Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and such institutions as the Science and Art Schools in connection with South Kensington, are doing much more for the General enlightenment and culture of the mass of the people than are any similar institutions in Australia. It is all very well to have a thorough system of State elementary education; but in these days we cannot stop there. If the Sydney and Melbourne Universities do not bestir themselves, I have no hesitation in saying, however offensive it may be to Australian vanity, that the Australian people, instead of being the best educated in the world, will share the distinction—with the Americans—of being the most generally half educated.
APPENDIX F.
"A TYPICAL AUSTRALIAN STATESMAN."
"Like so many successful colonists, Mr. Service is a North Briton, to which circumstance may be traced his sound practical education, his acute commercial instincts, his deep Liberal proclivities, and his utter absence of that too common weakness of the middle-class Englishman—snobbishness. This combination of strong qualities, and freedom from weak ones, has led to the establishment of the great intercolonial firm of "James Service & Co.," and to its chief having been twice Prime Minister of the colony of Victoria, Mr. Service's political career in Victoria has been a long and honourable one. It dates from the time when he acted as chairman to the Committee of the electors who returned Captain, now Major-General, Sir Andrew Clarke to the first Parliament of Victoria under responsible government. That was in 1856; and in 1857—more than thirty years ago—Mr. Service himself was returned for the then undivided constituency of Melbourne. … As Victorian Land Minister he left his impress on the colony, by introducing the first Land Bill, which contained the principle so dear to the Australian settler, of "free selection before survey." This liberal measure was thrown out by the local Upper House, in which body the squatters and their nominees were the predominant faction. Mr. Service promptly resigned, followed by his friend, the late Mr. Francis, a Victorian public man, whose name is still held in honour because of his bluff manly honesty and generosity, and, above all, his prompt refusal on two occasions of the dignity of knighthood. … Many years after this, Victorian politics resolved themselves into a sort of triangular duel between three men, all of whom were lately at the same time in England—Sir James M'Culloch, another prominent colonial Scotsman; Mr., now Sir, Graham Berry, at present Agent-General, and Mr. Service. After the elections of 1883, the two latter decided to unite their forces and jointly rule the the colony, Mr. Service having the place of honour as Premier. The future historian of Victoria will recognise that Messrs. Service and Berry governed wisely and well. They reformed the most corruptly, or at least stupidly, managed branch of the public service, and, having left their house well in order, adventured with great daring into the untried regions of "foreign policy." From this date began the long unsettled dispute with France, with regard to the récidivistes and the Western Pacific islands. Then Mr. Service set himself the Herculean task of federating Australia, his bold and gallant attempt resulting in the Sydney Convention, and the establishment of the Federal Council. Here, say his admirers, we may see the germ of the future United States of Australasia, differing, however, they hasten to add, from the Great Republic of the West, by being in political union with the mother country.
"Under the strain of all these labours, Mr. Service's health gave way, and in 1885 he began his late prolonged European tour. It was in every way fortunate that he, the foremost advocate of Australian Federation, should have been in England when the recent Colonial Conference assembled in Downing Street, and that both himself and the Agent-General of Victoria were nominated as two of the Victorian delegates. … It is well known that Mr. Service impressed the Imperial Ministers and officials by his earnestness, practicality, and thorough mastery of the subjects discussed between the representatives of Britain and the colonies. It could not be otherwise. He was one of the most capable men at the Council-Table, and one who brought, as well as a hard-earned life-long experience of "provincial" public affairs, the instincts and enthusiasm of "Imperial Rome."
APPENDIX G.
THE HON. W. E. HEARN, M.L.C., LL.D.
Intelligence has just been received in London, through the Australian cable, of the death of Dr. William Edward Hearn, author of The Aryan Household. Dr. Hearn was born at Belturbet, Co. Cavan, in 1826, his father being the vicar of Killague in that county. The future professor received his early education at the Royal School of Enniskillen, and subsequently graduated at Trinity College, Dublin. His profound knowledge of law was acquired under Judge Longfield, then Professor of Feudal and English Law. On the opening of the Queen's Colleges in 1849 he was appointed Professor of Greek by the then Lord Lieutenant. It was not until 1854 that his connection with the colony of Victoria commenced. He was then chosen by a committee, of which the late Sir John Herschel was Chairman, to be Professor of History, Logic, and Political Economy in the University of Melbourne. Among his colleagues who formed the first professorial board of this ambitious colonial University were Mr. W. P. Wilson, the Senior Wrangler of 1847, and Mr. M. H. Irving, of Balliol College, Oxford, eldest son of the famous Edward Irving.
Professor Hearn's influence in the Melbourne University, and with the community at large, was from the first paramount. In 1873, on the institution of the Faculty of Law, he became Dean of til at faculty, thereby resigning his professorship. By this means the bar that had previously prevented him from entering public life was removed, and he became a member of the Upper House, or Legislative Council. For some years he had been engaged on the gigantic task of codifying the English and colonial statutes. It is a remarkable proof of his all-round ability that when Professor Irving resigned the classical professorship, Dr. Hearn acted as locum tenens until the selection of a successor had been made in England, and it was said at the time that he was capable of filling every chair in the University. He is the author of the sound and admirable economic work entitled Plutology; or the Theory of the Efforts to satisfy Human Wants, and of a learned historical treatise on The Government of England: its Structure and Development. Dr. Hearn's masterpiece, however, is The Aryan Household, a work which places him on a level with the foremost thinkers of our age. All of these learned books, intended for scholars and students, were written and published in the colony of Victoria; but despite the disadvantage of remote "provincial" publication, they were at once recognised by competent critics in England as entitling the author to a place beside the late Sir Henry Maine. Dr. Hearn was a keen local politician, ranking himself with what is known as the "Constitutional" or Conservative party in Victoria. He was an apt and brilliant contributor to the local press. He was a member of the Anglican Church, and, after Sir William Foster Stawell, one of the most efficient among the prominent laymen who assist in the working of the vast diocese under the Bishop of Melbourne. Dr. Hearn in private life was a singularly genial man, with a rare fund of that quality, native Irish wit, of which we read so much in books, but see so little in actual life. His death will be felt as an irreparable loss both in the University and in the Legislature of Victoria, for it will be recognised on all hands that there is not the remotest possibility of adequately filling the place thus left vacant.
APPENDIX H.
THE LATE WILLIAM BEDE DALLEY.
This eminent Sydney public man, whose fame became world-wide by his "Disraelian coup," in sending the New South Wales contingent of 750 men to the assistance of Lord Wolseley in the Soudan, expired at his private residence, Manley Beach, Port Jackson, while this work was going through the press.
Mr. Dalley was a native of Sydney, and from an early age, by his oratorical gifts, his skill in forensic fence, and his dramatic ability as a raconteur, was hailed as a particularly bright specimen of native intellect and colonial culture. He was of Irish parentage, and through life a devout member of the Roman Catholic communion. Were I asked to name, from among the prominent Australian public men, those of Celtic-Irish extraction who have risen superior to what I have called Irish tribal or Sept feeling, and become genuine Australian leaders—I could perhaps name only Sir John O'Shanassy of Victoria, and Sir James Martin and Mr. Dalley of New South Wales. From an Imperial standpoint, this is no light distinction; as the aims and aspirations of these eminent Australian Irishmen serve to justify those who believe in the eventual fusion and happy blending of the races.
For, let me point out that both Sir James Martin and Mr. Dalley were colonially trained and educated; they, from the first, rubbed shoulders with those of another creed and race during the plastic period of school-life.
With none of the literary taste and culture of Mr. Dalley, or of the legal acumen and judicial training of Sir James Martin, yet, in my opinion, Sir John O'Shanassy quite merits a place beside them. Perhaps naturally he had greater political capacity than either; but he had not the inestimable advantage of a "common" education with his British fellow-colonists. The result was that he was constantly reverting to the narrower plane of the mere local Irish Chieftain; in fact, towards the close of his career be had sunk permanently to that level. But, for all that, he had many of the great qualities of a true political leader, and the general community of Victoria, as well as his Irish Roman Catholic fellow-colonists, may well be proud of so loyal and stalwart a champion as he.
My. Dalley's career, unlike that of Dr. Hearn, has been very fully chronicled in the London press; and very justly so. For though I differ from Mr. Froude in conceding to Dalley a foremost place among the small band of really great public men of the Antipodes, I cordially recognise that his career was a very brilliant and a very honourable one. I cannot, simply because of his dramatic way of exhibiting his undoubtedly genuine Imperial feeling, rank him with the "nation-builders" of our new world. But he was a bright and most accomplished man, with a real taste for literature and the fine arts; a faithful and loyal subject of our Sovereign Queen; and a true and loving son of Australia, where he was universally popular with all classes in the community.