THE COMMONWEALTH 339 



career, the Colony of Victoria has known but one sovereign ruler, 

 and it has been an important factor in keeping alive that spirit of 

 loyalty with which travellers sometimes in a rather condescending 

 manner seem to consider it the proper thing to credit Australians. 

 Men like Anthony Trollope, Archibald Forbes, J. A. Froude, Michael 

 Davitt and many other visitors who have dilated upon Australian 

 characteristics, social and political, are unanimous in crediting the 

 colonists with a large amount of professed loyalty. Most of them, 

 however, express the opinion that the sentiment must not be taxed. 

 They are also fairly well agreed that in due time the bonds of union 

 will be severed and Australia will take her way alone. 



Probably there are few subjects on which there has been more 

 vague talk than this loyalty of the Australian Colonies. So far as 

 the sentiment may be expressed in words, it is easy to find it in 

 scores of addresses to the Throne, to newly arriving or departing 

 Governors, or to visiting representatives of the Eoyal family. 

 When it comes to voting funds for a trifling share in the cost of 

 the fleet that guards its shores and protects its commerce, there is 

 always a higgling minority ready to repudiate any loyalty that costs 

 money. Even the Commonwealth Parliament, which was to be 

 such an exemplar to the local Legislatures, could not escape this 

 pettiness. When it was recently proposed to validate a naval sub- 

 sidy, which had been practically promised by the Prime Minister, 

 a senator had the effrontery to inflict upon the Chamber a speech, 

 in which he protested against spending one shilling on naval 

 defences, upon the ground that the whole country was in pawn to 

 the British capitalist, and it was the duty of the bondholder to 

 protect his security ! And such talk evoked no indignant reproba- 

 tion. 



Forty years ago, when the bulk of the population of Victoria 

 was of British origin, the loyal sentiment was strong enough to 

 resist many undeserved rebuffs which it met with from indifferent 

 or unsympathetic Secretaries of State. There never was a time 

 when it could be said that popular feeling was in favour of in- 

 dependence, " cutting the painter," as it was tersely defined by 

 the press. Even the celebrated resolutions carried by Mr. Higin- 



botham in 1869, when the feeling of irritation against the Home 



22* 



