THE MELBOURNE REVIEW. No. 17. JANUARY, 1880. AN
AUSTRALIAN NATION. John Douglas
SIR HENRY PARKES's paper in the last number of the Melbourne
Review seems to me to raise some questions which are very worthy of further
discussion before an Australian public, even though they are scarcely likely to
be practically dealt with at present by any of the Australian Legislatures. I
am partly tempted to say some-thing in connection with this subject because I
observe that Sir Henry proposes to exempt Queensland from the operation of the
confederacy which he advocates. "The time has come," he says,
"when an Australian nation might start into existence with all the
attributes of national greatness, and with that homogeneity of interest which
is best calculated to promote the strength and glory of a free
commonwealth." He proposes that New South Wales, Victoria, and South
Australia should constitute this Australian nation, exempting, however, as I
have said, Queensland from the operation of the confederacy, on the grounds
that "her capabilities of soil and climate so clearly mark out for her a colonizing
career dissimilar from that of her elder sister, while her noble extent of
territory affords more than ample scope for the growth of a mighty
nation." I feel bound to say something in reference to this proposition.
The difference between the capabilities of the soil and climate of Queensland,
and the capabilities of the soil and climate of the other three colonies which
have been mentioned, is not, I conceive, sufficient to justify the reservation
of our Queensland territory for the growth of a new nationality. Compare the
climate and soil of Cape York or of Carpentaria with the climate and soil of
the Australian Alps or the Pyrenees, and there will be found, no doubt, to be
remarkable differences. But compare, again, the same characteristics as
exemplified in Gippsland and New England with the hot, dry plains of the
Darling or the humid valleys of the Clarence and the Richmond, and the
difference will be found to be just as great. Moreover, the largest half of
South Australia is, both in climate and in soil, even more dissimilar from the
climate and soil of Victoria than the latter are from those of Queensland.
Furthermore, the differences here described are not nearly so great as those
exemplified in the differences existing between the climate and soil of
Colorado, Nevada, or the Saskatchewan river, and the climate and soil of
Florida and the states bounded by the shores of the Gulf of Mexico.
I cannot, therefore, think that we illustrate distinctions
sufficiently different to justify the inference which has been drawn. If I am a
judge also of the people who have occupied this portion of Australia, I doubt
much whether they are now, or ever will be, content to enter their claims of
right to the inheritance prefigured for them, if it is to be based on such a
distinction as that which has been referred to. They are at present a part of I
should rather, perhaps, say a dependency of" a mighty nation," conventionally
known as the British Empire, and more correctly designated as the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and its Dependencies. They may some day
become an integral part of a new nation, which will probably be known either as
the United States or the United Dominion of Australia.
I can, however, undertake to say, with a considerable amount
of confidence, that there are not in Queensland, at the present time,
half-a-dozen men of reasonable intelligence and ordinary experience who
contemplate the existence here of a separate nationality except in association
with the rest of the Australian states, colonies, dependencies, or whatever
else they may be called. I am sure, nevertheless, that there are not a few who
are very much interested in the growth of those ideas which may lead to the
foundation of "an Australian nation."
Passing, however, from this minor consideration of
eligibility, let me ask what a nation really is. "The advocates of
federation have often," says Sir Henry Parkes, "been rich in
eloquence and powerful in argument;" but he complains that they have
"made no advance in the realm of achievement," because their aims
have been intangible, and because "there has been a want of logical consistency
in the relegation of this subject from the domain of local legislation."
Now, with the utmost possible respect for so experienced a politician as Sir
Henry Parkes, I cannot but feel that exception may be taken to his proposed
confederacy on something like the same grounds as those which he has here
described. The aim is not sufficiently tangible, the end in view is not sufficiently
clear, and the means by which the end is to be attained are not adequate for
the purpose contemplated. At any rate, they have not yet been adequately
described. If we are to have a new nation, and if we are to have a new people,
it is plainly our duty to endeavour to understand exactly what we mean when we
use these terms. What, then, is a nation? There is a philosophical sense—I
suppose I may say an ethnical sense-in which a nation may be said to be
composed of people who are descended from the same stock and who speak the same
language. Germans and Italians, when they were more divided than they now are,
might perhaps not inappropriately have been described as nations in this sense,
though they owed allegiance to separate and independent governments. In this
sense, also, Englishmen and Americans might be said to belong to the same
nation. But we all know that they do not belong to the same nation in the
political sense of the word. It would be a very grand thing if once more they
could become united in a great confederacy which would make them one nation. It
is not impossible that there may some day be a great Anglo-Saxon or
Anglo-Celtic confederacy of this kind, which might at least "rule the
seas;" but it is not likely to be in our time, and it need not be
discussed here. What we have to ask now is not this, but whether we are to have
"an Australian nation;" and if we are, it is very certain that we
must have something more than a philosophical or an ethnical idiom—that, in
fact, a State must be founded which will be responsible to itself alone for its
internal policy, and to the family of nations for the management of its
external affairs. A nation, therefore, in the political sense in the sense in
which we are now speaking is an independent sovereign State, with separate and
distinct responsibilities, under one supreme government, so constituted for all
the purposes so recognized among nations, and accountable to other nations
under the forms and usages of international law. Nothing less than this will
constitute a nation. It is therefore quite clear to me that, if this is the
thing which is contemplated, it ought to be plainly understood and stated. No “Australian
nation" will "start into existence" without a complete
alteration of the relations which at present subsist between the Australian
colonies or dependencies and the mother state or nation, which is supreme. It
is of no use to hold up the simulacrum of an Australian nation, and at the same
time to tell us, as Sir Henry Parkes does, that there will be no change in our
relations to the British nation. The relations must be changed, and might be
changed to the very great advantage, I think, of all concerned, if there is to
be "an Australian nation."
The affirmation, therefore, or the negation of the
proposition would at once, it seems to me, supply the "tangible aim in the
realm of achievement" which Sir Henry Parkes says is so much wanted. I
think it ought to be affirmed, and that opinion may, I think, be entertained
with the profoundest regard, affection, and loyalty to the mother State, who
may, in a higher sense than ever before, become in very truth the mother of
nations. What was wrung from her in the War of Independence by the American
colonies may yet be granted by her to us as the consummate offering of both
reason and affection.
There have been approaches before now to this "tangible
aim." Let us go back to 1870—a critical period in our national history.
Russia and Germany were then in closer alliance than they now are, or, let us
hope, than they ever will be again. England might then have been committed to a
great controversy in arms by sea and land—a controversy which, if once entered
on, might have taxed her strength to the utmost. The thoughts of many who were
intimately connected with Australian interests were then turned, as they have
never since been turned, to consider the position of these colonies or
dependencies under certain eventualities—a federal union was then seriously
contemplated. I turn to the report on this subject of the Royal Commission
which sat at Melbourne in that year, and I fancy I discover in that report the
germ of something better in the future than a mere eloquent argument. It is a
sober and a stately deliverance, deliberately arrived at after consultation by
some of the best men who then sat in the Victorian Legislature. Among those
commissioners I find the names of Francis Murphy and Gavan Duffy, Fellows and
Casey, Kerferd and Graham Berry. They had been instructed to report upon
"the necessity of a federal union of the Australian colonies for legislative
purposes, and on the best means of accomplishing such a union." They
agreed as to the primary question, and reported that a federal union was
desirable. As to the best means of bringing it about, they made certain
definite propositions, which seem to me to demand attention now. From these
last propositions two of the commissioners—Mr. Fellows and Mr. Langton—dissented;
but, with these exceptions, the report was unanimously adopted, For those who
wish to read the report as a whole, I must refer them to the Victorian
Parliamentary Papers, vol. ii. of the second session of 1870, page 463.
I make no excuse, however, for quoting the first few
paragraphs, which, though eloquent, are not illogical, and which deserve to
stand on record as a plea in justification of "an Australian nation."
"ADVANTAGES OF A FEDERAL UNION. On the primary question
of a federal union of the Australian colonies, apart from all considerations of
time and method of bringing such a union about, there was a unanimity of
opinion. The indispensable condition of success for men or nations is that they
should clearly understand what they want, and to what goal they are travelling,
that life may not be wasted in doing and undoing; and as we are persuaded that
the prosperity and security of these colonies would be effectually promoted by
enabling them to act together as one people, under the authority of a federal
compact, they cannot, we believe, too soon come to an understanding upon this
fundamental point.
"The difference in strength and prestige between
isolated communities having separate interests, and a national confederation
with a national policy, has been illustrated in the history of almost every
great State in the world, and conspicuously in the history of States of which
we share the blood and traditions. The effects of such a confederation, where
it is voluntary and equal, are felt throughout the whole complicated relations
of a nation's life, adding immensely to its material and moral strength. By its
concentrated power it exercises an increased gravitation in attracting
population and commerce. It multiplies the national wealth by putting an end to
jealous and wasteful competition, and substitutes the wise economy of power
which teaches each district to apply itself to the industries in which it can
attain the greatest success. It enlarges the home market, which is the nursing
mother of native manufactures. It forms larger designs, engages in larger
enterprises, and, by its increased resources and authority, causes them to be
more speedily accomplished. It obtains additional security for peace, by
increasing its means of defence; and, by creating a nation, it creates along
with it the sentiment of nationality—a sentiment which has been one of the
strongest and most beneficent motive powers in human affairs. The method,
indeed, by which States have grown great is almost uniform in history. They
gathered population and territory, and on these wings rose to material power;
and with the sense of a common citizenship, there speedily came, like a soul to
an inert body, that public spirit by whose inspiration dangers are willingly
faced and privations cheerfully borne in the sacred name of country.
"We cannot doubt that it is the destiny of the
Australian colonies to pursue a similar career, and their duty to prepare for
it. They possess resources and territory which fit them to become in the end a
great empire. They are occupied by a population already larger than the
population of many sovereign States; they yield a revenue greater than the
revenue of six of the kingdoms of Europe; and we believe that they share the
sentiment which may be noted as the most subtle and pervading of our century
the desire to perfect the union and autonomy of peoples of the same
origin."
Now, this appears to me to be admirably expressed. The inert
matter of these infant States is ample enough. Figures may be supplied in
abundance. Our industrious Mr. Hayter arrays his "Australian
statistics" with infinite pains. His facts are astounding; and young
Australian nationalists stroke their beards with a sense of expanding power
when they scan these nicely-assorted proofs that Australia is rapidly
approaching a stage when, next to America, she will be able to "whip
creation." There are millions and millions of acres, millions of sheep and
cattle, horses very nearly innumerable, pigs and goats numerous; and of people—men,
women, and children—two millions, or, if we include Fiji and New Zealand, two
millions and a half. All this we have, with future potentialities immeasurable,
and as yet—most grievous to think of we have no soul. But it will come, say the
commissioners, with "the sense of a common citizenship." Sad, indeed,
to have an outward aspect of wealth, and yet nothing of that subtle sense which
lends strength and beauty to the form! So that the "inert mass," if
it wishes "to brave dangers and encounter privations in the sacred name of
country," must see to it that, somehow or other, it finds a soul!
Nevertheless, it is difficult to make the dangers in order to brave them where
no dangers exist, and it is rather quixotic to seek for privations in order
that they may be encountered. It seems, therefore, to be doubtful whether a
nation with a soul can be born at all. without some of those pangs of labour
which have usually ushered nations into existence. Let us admit, however, that
something like a prevision of what "an Australian nation" must be
when it becomes a nation has been attained by these commissioners, and
doubtless by some others who have endeavoured to formulate their thoughts so as
to get hold of something as a tangible aim. It includes, necessarily, a
confederacy of the whole states or colonies now carved out of the great Terra
Australis. Setting aside New Zealand, Fiji, and even Tasmania, nothing less
than the geographical entity if I may so express myself of the Australian
continent will satisfy an adequate conception of the territorial limits to be
occupied by the future Australian nation. I am inclined, however, to agree with
Sir Henry Parkes that, while this should be the aim, and must be the end of our
efforts, it does not follow that it can be attained all at once. By attempting
too much at first, we may fail; and yet it is essential that our aims should be
high, clear, and intelligible. At present, it seems to me that we are
"drifting," pleasantly enough perhaps, with the stream; but I think
it is also possible we may be drifting in the direction of dangers which may be
avoided. What port are we making for? I cannot doubt that it ought to be for A
UNITED GOVERNMENT, WITH SUPREME AUTHORITY. It is the honest, open, manly course
the safest, the boldest, the most natural, and the most filial towards our
great mother State. It ought to be plainly avowed in the "sacred name of
country." Thus alone will come to us "the soul" which is to
animate our "inert matter." But whether this inspiration be called a
soul or not, let us be sure that the inner life which gives it being will be
compounded of some subtle substance not defined alone by the circumscription of
a legal and constitutional instrument. It may be called public spirit—it may be
spoken of as love of country; but of this we may be well assured, that it will
never find full play for its expression under the forms of a dependent
Government. Those, therefore, who have measured the real meaning of what an
Australian nation must be, if it is to be worth calling a nation, should not
hesitate to say what they mean, or ought to mean, by it.
But how to attain to it? The suggestions of the present
Prime Minister of New South Wales point, as we have seen, to an immediate
combination between three of the colonies. A year, he thinks, ought to suffice
for the purpose. The three Parliaments might be fused into one, he thinks,
though the process by which this is to be effected has not been described. We
are left to infer that a convocation is to be called, or that, by some
authority not defined, a kind of States-General is to meet, and that by virtue
of this authority the union is to be effected. We have heard of no pending
negotiations for such purposes. Is the suggestion nothing more than a
suggestion, without a definite aim? I can come to no other conclusion. Sir
Henry Parkes has had some experience of conferences. He despairs of effecting
anything by such agencies. He accordingly makes a suggestion, in the hope that
it may lead to some method being discovered to give effect to it.
But why, once more, should we not have recourse to the recommendation
of the commissioners? Speaking of the best means of effecting a federal union,
they say: "The Canadian Dominion presents the most perfect example of
federated colonies. Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward's
Island enjoyed constitutions substantially the same as ours, and were,
consequently, under the control of governments responsible only to the local
Legislatures. For the purpose of attaining the increased vigour and authority
which result from union, these colonies agreed to abandon some of the powers
enjoyed by the local Legislatures in favour of a general Parliament and a
general Government, authorized to act on behalf of all the confederated
colonies. A constitution was framed accordingly, under which each colony
retains a local Legislature, possessing complete control over purely local
interests and over the public lands of the colony, while the Parliament and
Executive of the Dominion are charged with what may be distinguished as
national interests."
And they add: "But there is preliminary work to be
done. To effect a union of any kind, binding alike upon all, an Imperial Act is
necessary. Such an Act might be a permissive one, and might authorize the
Queen, by proclamation, to call into existence a federal union of any two or
more of the Australian colonies. We are distinctly of opinion that the best
means of accomplishing a union is to remove by such an Act all legal
impediments to it without delay, and leave the colonies to determine, by
negotiation among themselves, how far and how soon they will avail themselves
of the power thus conferred on them." This recommendation, it would seem,
has not been acted on, or only partially, when in 1873 a bill was passed
repealing those clauses in the Australian Government Act of 1850, by which the
Australian Governments were restrained from imposing differential duties. No
Act has been passed to facilitate the union of the Australian colonies, and we
know from Lord Grey, who has lately reminded us of this in his article in the Nineteenth
Century Review, that in 1850 the House of Lords threw out a clause in the
Australian Government Act which empowered the Crown to summon a general
assembly of those colonies who desire to meet and legislate on matters of
common interest. This, however, is just the sort of power which is required;
and I should not be surprised if herein we have a solution of Sir Henry
Parkes's suggestion. The exercise of such right of summons must necessarily be
subject to the expressed wish of the Legislatures, who might address the Crown.
But if this step was once taken, then we should find that a great advance had
been made towards the policy of a united Government, with supreme authority.
Now, assuming that the Dominion of Canada is an example from
which we may learn much as to the road which has to be followed in order to
attain a united Government, what do we find is the political condition of the
Dominion? It is that of a consolidated power containing a population of four
millions and a half; it is growing naturally to the full stature of
nationality, and may, without the least jar to the well-being of the
common-wealth, become an independent nation whenever it is deemed that the full
measure of its freedom ought to be accomplished. And how has this state of
national preparedness been attained? Gradually-step by step. And yet what
strifes and bitternesses there were between the two provinces of Upper and
Lower Canada! French against English—Catholics against Protestants. In every
sense a divided country, with diverse laws, diverse languages, and diverse
religious tendencies! All this has passed away in the presence of those hopes
which union has generated; and now, in the sacred name of a country which
extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific, the Canadian is prepared to face
privations, to encounter difficulties in defence of his home and in
justification of those rights which he enjoys in common with his
fellow-citizens. It is the growth, not of a day, of a month, or of a year, but
of more than one generation. First of all, the reunion of the provinces of
Upper and Lower Canada was effected by Lord Sydenham in 1839, under the
authority of resolutions to that effect passed by the Legislature. If
everything did not work smoothly at first, who can be surprised when provision
had to be made for the transaction of business in two languages? The rival
cities of Montreal, Quebec, and Toronto made lively times of it for legislators
and governors. Party spirit ran higher than it has ever yet run in Australia,
and yet out of it all there came the great act of union in 1867, by which the provinces
were united into one dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland. Canada is not yet a nation, but Canada has now within her
all the elements of nationality. The stately ship is well rivetted from stem to
stern. At any time the blocks may be cut away, and when the word is given she
will glide out upon the waters of her future freedom.
I do not pretend to draw exact comparisons. I do not pretend
to say that what has been done in Canada should be done in the same way in
Australia. But this, I think, may be said. The disparities of the present
condition of the Australian colonies are certainly not greater than were the
disparities of the Canadian provinces forty years ago. The differences which
divide Victoria from New South Wales are as nothing compared to the differences
which separated Upper and Lower Canada. The one is not intensely Catholic, the
other intensely Protestant. The one is not French, the other English. They are
agreed about most things. There are shades of difference as to the actual
amount which it is expedient to raise out of taxation on imports. Mr. Berry
says that, for his part, there may be a Customs union in a month, if only the
people of New South Wales will accept the Victorian tariff and call it
protection. Sir Henry Parkes, on the other hand, strikes out for the New South
Wales tariff, and calls it free-trade. But neither Sir Henry Parkes nor Mr.
Berry are, we should hope, such extreme men as to preclude them from arriving
at the basis of a common understanding in this respect. The greater includes
the lesser, and if the political union of New South Wales and Victoria under
one Government be considered possible, then much more possible is it that there
should be some rational grounds of agreement on the question of a common
tariff. Indeed, it seems to me that any other question would become immediately
of minor importance if once we could get our people and our leading public men
to waken up to the realities and responsibilities of what may be, and indeed
must be, the future Australian nation. The instincts and the interests of the
inhabitants of this island continent are all in the direction of national
integrity. Secure in these distant seas, happily far removed from the ambitious
contentions of Imperial adversaries, we are chiefly and above all things
anxious to be permitted to pursue the allotted course of our existence in
freedom from the political entanglements of older, even if more civilized,
countries. Our great mother-country is more and more every day taking to
herself the splendid but anxious responsibilities of an Imperial Power. She is
not only the mistress of the seas, as we trust that she may long continue to
be, but she is gradually acquiring territory and influence in the East which
will double her responsibilities as a ruling Power. These responsibilities, great
and enviable as they may seem to be, are not responsibilities which we should
be willing to share. Our instincts and our interests are in the direction of
national integrity, the integrity of an Australian nation. It may be a great
work to civilize the East. It may yet be reserved for Imperial Britain to open
out a highway in the old seat of empire for the Western nations. It is a
chivalrous but most weighty responsibility upon which, under the guidance of
Lord Beaconsfield, she has now entered. But that is not our path. Our path
seems to me to be the path of peaceful enterprise. We do not ask for power. We
ask for peace “peace," we shall always hope, "with honour," but
peace on our own responsibility, not war on the responsibility of those who
must be guided by very different considerations from those which ought to
actuate us. And it also seems to me that Imperial Britain, our mother country,
will be the first to recognize the reasonableness of this contention. Indeed,
already she recognizes it more decidedly than we do ourselves. Young maritime
nations, such as Canada might be to-morrow, and Australia might be in a few
years' time, would in reality provide an infinitely better security for the
freedom of the seas and the immunities of commerce than the perpetuation of
armoured navies and of fortified arsenals. It is surely time, then, that the
people of these colonies, and those who lead them, should rise to their
responsibilities, and endeavour to lay the foundations of their future freedom
in the substructure of a united Government. It matters not where it is
commenced, whether in Victoria or in New South Wales. The work is a great one
to be done, and it demands the earnest sympathy and support of the best men we
have amongst us. About what are they now contending? Mere trifles, which would
vanish like smoke if they would lift their thoughts into the rarer atmosphere
of those considerations which arise when we come to think of what "an
Australian nation" might be.
It appears to be a leading feature of Sir Henry Parkes's
proposal that the three Parliaments of the three colonies which he mentions,
together with their associated administrative systems, should merge into one
Parliament and one administrative system. In addition to the increased
importance they would reach in the scale of legislation and administration, he
anticipates a greater unity of design in the systematic construction of
railways, a more matured system in connection with the treatment of the public
estate, and a very marked economy in the expenses of general government. All
this, no doubt, might be secured by centralization, but the attempt to secure
it would certainly be very strongly opposed by the present depositories of
power. I cannot think, therefore, that any one of the present Legislatures of
Victoria or New South Wales or South Australia would be content to be absorbed
into the future Legislature of British Australia. For many of the purposes for
which they at present exist as Legislatures, they must continue to exist. The
Heptarchy of Australia, which Sir Charles Du Cane used to speak of, can
scarcely disappear from our political and geographical horizon by a stroke of
the pen. The Wessex, Mercia, and Northumbria of our Australian colonies cannot
be transmuted into another England unless Sir Henry Parkes is prepared to play
the part of a foreign conqueror. They must continue to exist, just as the
Legislatures of the Canadian Provinces continue to exist, for many useful
purposes. For be it remembered that these provinces, colonies though they be,
are yet in dimensions not less than European kingdoms. It may be highly
interesting to think that "the-colossal power in Australia," which
Sir Henry Parkes speaks of, might be governed from some central capital, but,
in the mean-time, I cannot think that the several colonies would be content to
accept such an absorption. There are many useful functions which they must
continue to perform, though there are other functions specially appertaining to
the "Australian nation" we have been speaking of which they cannot
and never will perform.
Here, then, we come to the point which has to be decided
before "an Australian nation" can be started on its course. A supreme
Legislature and Administration is required in order to enable the united
colonies to deal with those matters which are relegated to it by the provincial
and dependent Legislatures. This has been done in the case of the Dominion of
Canada, and there seems to be no reason why it should not be done in the case
of Australia. I have spoken of the first step towards this being the possible
union of Victoria and New South Wales, just as the first step in the
construction of the Canadian Dominion was the reunion of Upper and Lower
Canada. Melbourne and Sydney will soon be connected by railway. The people of
the two principal Australian colonies are approaching one another more closely
every day. Diverse as their opinions are on some points, it would yet, it seems
to me, be easier to effect a union between these two colonies than between any
others, and, if effected, then we may be sure that the higher union which is
aimed at in the aspirations after "an Australian nation" would be a
matter of comparatively easy attainment.
While, therefore, I am unable to concur with the conclusions
arrived at by Sir Henry Parkes, I think it is very essential that the public
mind should be educated and animated into the idea of a future "Australian
nation" coterminous with the Australian continent. The sentiment of union
is a most essential element in the creation of "the soul" animating
"the inert mass" which our commissioners have spoken of. A good
sentimental perception of the future Australian nation will go a long way
towards assisting us to overcome the obstacles which stand in the way of it.
What was it which gave life to the action of the United States, the oldest and
the greatest of the English colonies, and what was it which enabled them to
perfect and complete the Union in its darkest hour of trial? It was the
sentiment of union, the sentiment that, at all hazards they must belong to a
united country. It came to me like a revelation, when in the United States I
read the inscriptions over the graves of the men who fell in the last war. They
died "in the war for maintenance of the Union." Look at Italy, look
at Germany! What has been their history for the last five-and-thirty years? It
has been this, that political and dynastic relationships must give way before
the centripetal forces of a people gravitating to one centre. Germany becomes
one, not because Bismarck successfully crushed Austria and France, but because
behind Bismarck there was a force of which he was only the exponent. Germans,
speaking one language, and inhabiting a geographical space on the earth defined
by certain contiguous limits, had made up their minds to become one nation. So,
in Italy, its inhabitants, parcelled out as they had been into petty kingdoms,
made up their minds that from Turin to Messina they would become one nation.
And why, then, should not England and Australia continue to
be one nation? I should have, I fear, to say more on this point than my readers
would have patience to listen to at present. England may be committed to a
career of greatness in the future which we will hope may eclipse even the
glories of her past achievements. The "hope of a better age" still
centres in her imperial sway. But, as the years roll on, the Englishman of Australia
and his descendants in this country must seek out for themselves and find a
national development which may be akin to, but must also be distinct from, that
of the mother country. And after that, a time may come when the
English-speaking race throughout the world may once more unite in the bands of
a common fellowship under one supreme confederacy.
JOHN DOUGLAS, C.M.G.
