CHAPTER XIV

CREATION OF THE COLONY OF VICTORIA

6

Robert Lowe's 'Separation' Speech-Resigns his Seat as Crown Nominee— Sir C. Gavan Duffy's Comments on Irish and Victorian Home Rule'Lowe's alleged 'Pedantry '-Account of the Rupture with Sir George Gipps

Ar this period the whole of Eastern Australia was known as New South Wales. What are now the separate colonies of Victoria and Queensland were then the Port Phillip and Moreton Bay districts of New South Wales. From the time that Sir Thomas Mitchell went south, and explored what he termed 'Australia Felix,' a steady influx had set in of younger sons of good English families and impoverished Scottish and Irish country gentlemen; these settled on the rich pasture-lands in various parts of Port Phillip, and became the pioneers of the present colony of Victoria.

In this first Australian Parliament-the old Sydney Legislative Council-the district of Port Phillip had a representation of six members, of whom no less than three were citizens of Sydney-a city not only hundreds of miles distant, but, from the lack of means of communication, practically in another continent. So radically dissatisfied were the people of Port Phillip, and especially the citizens of the rising towns of Melbourne and Geelong, with being politically a mere adjunct of Sydney, that the one qualification they insisted on from anyone aspiring to represent them in the Legislative Council was that he should vote straight on the Separation question. They demanded at once, not

only Home Rule, but its logical outcome, entire separation from New South Wales. These six Port Phillip members therefore, were, in a very strict sense, delegates; but among their number were men of first-rate political capacity, notably Dr. Lang, who has already been mentioned, and Dr. (now Sir Charles) Nicholson. Dr. Nicholson, indeed, succeeded the Hon. Alexander Macleay, and became the second Speaker of the infant Parliament.

Dr. Lang-John Dunmore Lang-has a claim to be considered the political parent both of Victoria and Queensland. At all events he was the most prominent public man of Sydney who restlessly urged, and was mainly instrumental in achieving, autonomy for those provinces, now grown into great Australian States.

Such a line of conduct was intensely unpopular in official circles in Sydney-which no doubt gave it additional zest in Dr. Lang's eyes. For some time a movement had been gaining ground for what was called the financial separation' of the Port Phillip district from the mother colony. The arguments in favour of this step were very forcibly brought before the Council by Mr. John Phelps Robinson, a member of the Society of Friends, then one of the representatives of Melbourne. Finally matters came to a head, and on August 20, 1844, Dr. Lang proposed, and Mr. Robinson seconded, a resolution for the separation of Port Phillip from New South Wales, and its erection into a distinct and independent colony.

In moving this resolution Dr. Lang, who had evidently primed himself for the occasion by an exhaustive study of the history of colonisation from the time of the Greeks, delivered an oration whose report spread over many columns of the Herald. This speech was no doubt intended to be a monumental effort; but, as a matter of fact, Dr. Lang was one of those highly-effective popular orators, idolised on the hustings, with their ready retorts and vulgarly humorous allusions, who generally fail on a great occasion before a select or

educated audience. Much of his speech was clearly beside the mark, and it was so interminably long and ill-arranged that, despite his vigorous delivery, it must have wearied the Council.

The seconder of the resolution was the Quaker member, Mr. Robinson, who stuck close to the financial aspects of the question, and showed how much Port Phillip contributed to the general revenue, and how little she got out of it in the way of public works. There was an ominous silence on the Government benches. It is true that the Colonial Secretary, Mr. Deas Thomson, from an unflinching sense of duty, rose and attempted something in the nature of a tentative reply to the Port Phillip separatists. Dr. Bland, one of the popular Opposition members for Sydney, also opposed the resolution as premature. Dr. Nicholson ably supported his colleagues, Lang and Robinson, and maintained the desirability of a much more extended subdivision of the Australian provinces. Then there was another ominous pause, when suddenly the far too independent Crown nominee rose, and made his breach with Sir George Gipps absolutely final by delivering a really memorable speech against the Government, and in favour of the separation of Port Phillip. After a few preliminary sentences, in which he disclaimed agreement with the theory of endless provincial subdivision' which Dr. Nicholson had mooted, Robert Lowe uttered the famous declaration :

As a general rule, the interests of the Colonies are not consulted by frittering them away into minute particles, but by combining as large a territory into a single State as could be effectually controlled by a single Government. I cordially agree in the abstract truth of the motto prefixed to the article in the newspaper of this morning, that Union is strength,' and I would extend that principle to the whole Colonial Empire of Great Britain. I hold and believe that the time is not remote when Great Britain will give up the idea

The Sydney Morning Herald, which strongly opposed the separation of Port Phillip.

of treating the dependencies of the Crown as children, to be cast adrift by their parent as soon as they arrive at manhood, and substitute for it the far wiser and nobler policy of knitting herself and her Colonies into one mighty Confederacy, girdling the earth in its whole circumference, and confident against the world in arts and

arms.

Nevertheless, he went on to argue, the separation of Port Phillip from New South Wales was inevitable, though he dreaded that the result might be a war of tariffs and restrictive duties, which he held in utter horror and aversion.' Delivered in a mere provincial assembly, this speech rose to truly Imperial heights. Unlike most eloquent speeches, it bore fruit, for in a very few years the new colony of Victoria-named by its own wish after the Queen-came into being.

On going to division, Dr. Lang's motion was lost by 19 votes to 6, the minority consisting of the five Port Phillip delegates and Mr. Lowe.

On the rejection of his motion, it occurred to the indefatigable Dr. Lang, that as the Port Phillip members were unanimous, a most effective petition on the subject might be sent to the Queen. This he accordingly drew up, and he and all his colleagues signed it. Lord Stanley sent back a favourable reply; but some subsequent delays ensued owing to a change in the English Ministry, and the transformation of the district of Port Phillip into the colony of Victoria was not proclaimed until July 1, 1851.

To the Sydney Morning Herald the speech and vote of Mr. Lowe on this occasion were quite unaccountable. That respectable journal could only attribute it to his intention of offering himself for a Port Phillip constituency. Of course, this motive had nothing whatever to do with his conduct; but every thoughtful Victorian must have a feeling of regret that this distinguished English statesman, who played so leading a part in obtaining the creation of the colony, did not, when

he became a representative member, sit for one of the Port Phillip constituencies.

Referring to this subject of the separation of Port Phillip, Sir Charles Gavan Duffy, then a Victorian colonist, thus characterised Lord Sherbrooke's action:

The motion was supported by the representatives of the district, but opposed by all the members for New South Wales, with a single exception, but a memorable one-that of Robert Lowe, who is now employing his great powers upon a more conspicuous stage.1

But in a more recent allusion to this circumstance Sir Charles, in an article in advocacy of Irish Home Rule, clearly insinuates that Lord Sherbrooke, as the former supporter of Port Phillip separation, was inconsistent in his opposition to Mr. Gladstone's present Irish policy:

Robert Lowe, then a practising barrister in Sydney, who was not a political pedant in colonial affairs, considered the union between Port Phillip and New South Wales an injustice and a grievance, and voted for its immediate repeal.2

This seems to imply that it is political pedantry to decline to support Irish Home Rule if one has strongly upheld the policy of dividing a colony into two. But from his valuable Victorian and Irish experiences Sir Charles, of all men, should recognise that there is no analogy between the two cases. Port Phillip demanded, with complete unanimity, through her six delegates, not merely Home Rule, but absolute separation from New South Wales. Robert Lowe, though a New South Wales member and a Crown nominee, swayed by the justice of the claim, supported it, as his speech shows, on the broadest of Imperial lines. Will Sir Charles Duffy tell us, as he quotes this colonial illustration of the benefits of Home Rule to Victoria-Does Ireland, or does she not, demand complete separation from England as Port Phillip did from New South

1 Melbourne Review, October 1876.

2 'An Australian Example,' by Sir C. Gavan Duffy, K.C.M.G. (Contemporary Review, January 1888).