Читать книгу Life of Sir Henry Parkes - Charles E. Lyne - Страница 22

Table of Contents

The second Parliament under responsible government sat for little more than twelve months, its principal work being the passing of a new electoral law.

Not more than half of this short period had gone by when Mr. Parkes again resigned his seat in the Assembly, this time in consequence of the difficulties of the Empire having reached a point which forced the property into the Insolvency Court.

For the short period during which he sat in this second Assembly he took a prominent part in its work, and in various ways showed his ability and usefulness as a legislator.

Early in the session he was instrumental in saving the Cowper Government from a necessity to resign on a motion which was virtually one of censure. By an indiscretion on the part of the Governor, Sir William Denison, the House had been offended in its dignity, and Mr. Cowper, accepting responsibility in the matter, ran great risk of being sent out of office.

The incident is interesting as it is the first instance, under responsible government in New South Wales, of a Governor coming into conflict with Parliament.

The Indian Mutiny had just broken out, and the Governor-General of India was looking in all directions for troops. A regiment of infantry and a company of artillery were, at the time, stationed in Sydney, and Lord Canning thought the colony might easily spare them for the urgent service of assisting to quell the rebellion in India. Sir William Denison thought so too, and sending a message to the Assembly, covering a despatch from Lord Canning, he asked the Assembly to consent to the immediate despatch of the troops to Calcutta, and at the same time to make provision for the purchase of the horses necessary to enable the artillery upon landing to take the field. The colony was paying for the services of these Imperial troops, for it was then considered essential that a properly trained and disciplined force should be maintained in Sydney for the purpose of its defence. The infantry consisted of the 77th Regiment, and the Assembly was willing that it should go to India; but objection was raised to the artillery leaving the colony, and the proposed expenditure in the purchase of horses, £3,640, was refused the moment it came before the House in definite form. Regarding the proposal as one to assist the East India Company, a wealthy corporation, well able to bear the cost of these horses, the majority of members declined to sanction the expenditure, and the Government were of course bound to acquiesce. The decision of the House was annoying. It was a rebuff to the Government for bringing forward the proposal, and it was not complimentary to the Governor. But there was no intention to show disloyalty to the Crown. At the very time the Assembly refused the money for the purchase of the artillery horses, a movement was in progress in Sydney for relieving the distress of sufferers in India from the effects of the Mutiny, and there was every reason to believe that, in the aggregate, the contributions would be very large, and, when forwarded to India, very beneficial.

Mr. Parkes, on this occasion, was with the opponents of the proposal, and it was withdrawn.

Sir William Denison, angry at what had taken place, for he had committed himself in the matter so far as to have informed Lord Canning that the troops would be despatched with the horses required for the artillery, sent to the House a message of remonstrance in terms which were considered to be unjustifiable and insulting; and the House, resenting the Governor's conduct, referred the message to a select committee, and then adopted a report from the committee in which the message was strongly condemned. Very properly, the Government assumed all responsibility in the matter as between the Assembly and the Governor, and, regarding the course taken by the House as a vote of censure, were obliged to consider their position, and would have resigned if Mr. Parkes had not come to their assistance with a motion of confidence. This was passed by a majority of nearly two to one, for, though the Government were not in great favour, there was no general desire for a change, and the position of Mr. Cowper and his colleagues was, for the time, materially strengthened.

One important result of these proceedings was that they served to establish definitely in the eyes of Parliament and the public, the responsibility of Ministers in all proceedings between the Governor and the Assembly. For all time it was placed beyond question that, in all his acts in his relations with Parliament, the Governor should proceed with the advice of his Ministers, and that for the consequences of those acts Ministers are fully responsible. The incident was also an important assertion of the independence of Parliament. The old order of politics and the domination of Government House, it was shown had passed away, and the rule of the Governor had given place to the will of the people expressed through their representatives in the Legislature.

Mr. Cowper rose in public estimation by his announcement of ministerial responsibility, though many persons regarded the admission as unnecessarily exposing the Government to the risk of disaster; and, on the whole, it resulted to him in considerable advantage. To Sir William Denison the proceedings were a cause of much discomfort, for the course taken by the Assembly had the appearance of a rude rebuke. Unfortunately for him, he had not become properly conscious of the great change which the Constitution of 1856, and the election of the first popular Assembly, had brought about; and, although on the whole he endeavoured to conform to the new order of things, his actions at times indicated something of the old system of arbitrariness and almost absolute power.

One of the measures introduced by Mr. Cowper at this period, was a bill to restrict Chinese immigration, and in the debate on the motion for the second reading Mr. Parkes expressed, for the first time, his views on the subject. They were very similar to what they were thirty years later, when he carried through Parliament the Act which virtually prohibits Chinese immigration into New South Wales. Very few in number as the Chinese in the colony in those days were, compared with the number here now, they had begun to make themselves obnoxious, and an impression was abroad that unless their influx were in some way checked they might very soon overrun the country. Mr. Cowper proposed a poll tax of £3 on each Chinese arriving in the colony, and the proposal received the sanction of the Assembly, but the bill was defeated in the Council. Mr. Parkes was of opinion that the measure should be prohibitory, and consistently with that opinion he managed to pass such a measure thirty years afterwards.

Throughout the period during which he sat in the second Parliament, Mr. Parkes was constant in his attendance in the House, and very active in the performance of the duties of his position. The difficulty of the "unemployed" made its appearance in Sydney; and while the Empire advocated sending as many persons as possible into the country, in order that they might be judiciously distributed through the districts where employment was probably to be found, its conductor endeavoured as far as he was able to bring about in the Assembly a reduction in the general public expenditure. He thought retrenchment possible, and, in view of the condition of the country at the time, desirable. He did not contend that the officers employed in the public service were too numerous, or the salaries paid them too high, but he considered that a very desirable saving might be effected by a reorganization of the departments. There were, for instance, at the time, two ministers attached to the Crown Law Offices, and yet not at the head of a department. Another minister had the management of the public lands and the public works of the country.

In moving resolutions on the subject, Mr. Parkes argued that, since the time when the salaries then paid were fixed, rents had fallen 50 per cent., the prices of provisions and clothing, which had risen very largely during the excitement attending the discovery of gold, had decreased so much that the market was glutted and sales were being effected at a positive loss; and, in view of the general depression, as much economy in the Government expenditure as was possible should be exercised. Ministers of the Crown, as well as officers of the Civil Service, he proposed, should come under the general revision. He did not think any salary the country could pay could be sufficient remuneration to a minister who properly discharged his duty. Ministerial salaries, he contended, could only be considered as "some kind of nominal recognition of the minister's services". But he was alive to the danger of a growing extravagance in the public expenditure, and he thought that ministers should be paid an equal salary, and that the salary should not amount to more than £1,200 a year. His resolutions were:-

"(1.) That a reorganization of the departments, which shall place the duties of public employment more equally under the control of ministers, and secure their more economical performance, is urgently required and ought not to be delayed."

"(2.) That the estimates of expenditure for the ensuing year ought to be framed upon the basis of reduction, according to amount in each case, considered in reference to the nature of the service proposed."

"(3.) That the salaries paid to the responsible Ministers of the Crown ought to be equal in amount, and not higher than £1,200 per annum."

The resolutions were not passed by the House. They were opposed by the Government, who suggested that the matter might be referred to a select committee; and this course was adopted. Mr. Parkes was careful to explain that, while he believed the expenditure had unnecessarily increased, he regarded it as impolitic that public service should be underpaid. What he desired was to restrict the Government to the expenditure which was absolutely necessary for the public service; and he followed up his resolutions by moving for a return of the annual expenditure of the Civil Service of the colony for the seven years 1850-1858, showing the separate cost of each department, and the proportion of the total to each head of the population, with an accompanying explanation of the cause of increase or decrease in any department.

About this time the country became interested in a dispute between the Government and Mr. J. H. Plunkett, which led to his dismissal from the office of Chairman of the Board of National Education, and his resignation from the position of President of the Legislative Council. Originating in a difference of opinion as to the powers of the Board of Education in relation to the issue by the Board of certain rules and regulations in connection with non-vested schools, the dispute led to a sharp correspondence between the President of the Board and the Colonial Secretary, Mr. Cowper, in which Mr. Plunkett used expressions such as the Government considered it impossible to overlook, and steps were taken to bring about his removal.

In common with other prominent public men Mr. Parkes endeavoured to effect a reconciliation.

Mr. Plunkett was an old colonist who had done good public service, and was very generally esteemed. Coming to New South Wales in 1832 as Solicitor-General, and afterwards filling the office of Attorney-General for nearly twenty years, he had become conspicuous in the public life of the country; and his appointment to the position of President of the Board of National Education had given general satisfaction. He was a Roman Catholic, but he was a man of liberal mind, and he enjoyed the respect and confidence of a large proportion of the Protestant community. For ten years he had sat at the head of the Board of Education, and in that office his labours had undoubtedly been beneficial. It was therefore with something like universal regret that it was learned that he had left the post where he had been so useful.

The matter came before the Assembly in a series of resolutions moved by Mr. James Macarthur, and after a debate extending over several days, during which excitement in and out of the House ran high, the difficulty was brought to an end by a compromise. Sympathy was expressed with Mr. Plunkett, and the Government was not directly censured; but, in an amendment moved by Mr. Parkes, and adopted, it was hoped that such steps would be taken as would enable the Government to restore Mr. Plunkett to the position from which he had been removed.

In putting forward this amendment, its author was actuated by the double motive of acting fairly with Mr. Plunkett and defending the Government in a case the merits of which he considered were in their favour. He could not close his eyes to the circumstance that some of those who were loud in the support of Mr. Plunkett, were moved less by a wish to befriend him than by a desire to injure Mr. Cowper and his Government; and; while he recognised Mr. Plunkett's distinguished services, and the desirableness of bringing him and the Government together again on friendly terms, he declined to admit that the Government had done wrong. A reconciliation, however, would be in the interest of society, and for the benefit of the cause of education; and this he was able to bring about. The country could not afford, he said, to deal carelessly or lightly with its public men, who were one of the greatest elements of its moral worth; and it was equally undesirable to censure a Government that had taken in this matter the only course a proper sense of its dignity would allow.

Mr. Plunkett did not return to the Board of National Education, but he publicly expressed his regret for that portion of his correspondence with the Government which had led to his dismissal.

A few months previous to this George Robert Nichols had passed away. For something like a quarter of a century he had been a prominent figure in politics. In various ways he had rendered important public service, and had exercised considerable influence. He had been a Minister of the Crown. Several of the most prominent lawyers in the community owed to him much of their advancement One who was well able to speak of him said "Scarcely any member of the Legislature had laboured so zealously, so devotedly, and so continuously as he." Especially useful were his services in committee, his great legal knowledge and acumen being employed to much advantage in the criticism and amendment of bills. He had some of the virtues and some of the failings of Goldsmith. A story is told of how a distressed friend called upon him on one occasion for relief, a bailiff having been put in the friend's house in consequence of a debt of £60. Curiously enough there were bailiffs in Nichols' house at the time, consequent upon a debt which Nichols had not been able to pay of £120, but he had been able to get together a sum of £60 towards meeting the liability. With the appearance of the friend, however, his intentions with regard to the £60 changed; and, handing the money to his fellow sufferer, he said: "Take it! it is of no use to me in the circumstances, and it is just the sum you want." He died almost in poverty, leaving a little property, but with heavy mortgages hampering it; and a public meeting was held to collect subscriptions for his widow and younger children.

Many years afterwards, at the instance of Mr. Parkes, the name of George Robert Nichols was inscribed with those of other prominent politicians of the early days, in the vestibule of the Legislative Assembly, where it is to be seen at this day.