A period of five years is sufficiently long to enable a man to correct or to confirm his earlier impressions of a people. Looking backward, I find I have very little, if anything, to correct of my first impressions of Australia and its people. It may be an advantage, therefore, to set down in better order than is possible in fugitive correspondence some of the deepened impressions which a careful study of Australian life has created. During my sojourn under the Southern Cross I visited the capitals of all the Australian States—Tasmania included—from Brisbane to Perth and Hobart. This has meant a good deal of travelling by land and sea. But travelling on the main routes in Australia is rendered luxurious by means of corridor trains, with sleeping, observation, and dining-cars attached; and also by means of a remarkable service of coastal steamers, second to none in the world. The luxury of such boats as the Indarra and Canberra exceeds by far anything of which the P. and O. or Orient companies can boast. It is off the track that travelling becomes a weariness and a torment. But it has been my lot to travel off and on the main routes, with the result that the very first impression which Australia made upon me has been immensely strengthened, namely, that of the vast territory of the country and its enormous natural wealth. A map enables one to understand a little of the vastness of this lone land, but the reality does not actually seize the mind until a person begins to travel over its wonderful spaces. Upon this continent I have experienced every kind of climate, from the tropical, with its enervating heat, to the frigid, with its bracing cold. What other land can grow the varied fruits that flourish in Australia? What other country can boast the possession of more than half the kinds of precious stones in existence? Think of the sugar-cane, the pineapple, the mango, and the common English gooseberry growing upon the same soil! Think of gold, silver, tin, and coal cheek by jowl! When it is claimed that Australia is naturally the richest country in the world, who that knows the facts can deny the claim? Its possibilities are unbounded. The merest fraction only of the natural riches of the land has thus far been touched, and out of this fraction men have made enormous fortunes. It seems to me that Australia may easily become the granary, the dairy, the orchard, and the wool supply of the Empire. Capital and labour alone are required to develop the land. There are millions of acres yet untouched, while the northern territory is crying aloud for men to come and unlock the treasure house of Nature, hitherto hidden from the whites.

But here the question of a White Australia presents itself. The Commonwealth is committed to this policy. Meanwhile, what of the great north? It is admitted that white men cannot labour to advantage in that terrible climate. There are many of our fellow-subjects in India who could work there, and would, if they were permitted, but then they may not cross the colour line. Australia is to be reserved for a white population. It need not necessarily be British. Already it is, in small parts, Spanish, German, Greek, and Italian; but it must be white. It is only fair to say that Australians, in deciding upon this “white” policy, are not animated by selfishness, as is sometimes supposed. They honestly fear the appearance of a negro problem such as exists in America, and many of them fear it upon moral grounds. But such a problem does not present itself when it is the question of coloured persons, who in intelligence, diligence, and morality are quite equal to the average white man. It is better not to press this question of “white” morality in the north, even in Australia, or some very ugly stories could be told. Looking at the matter dispassionately, in full view of all the factors—the northern climate being the chief—it would seem that Australia must yet modify—if it does not abandon—its “white” policy. Economically it will have to do so, and politically it may yet be forced to do so, for “coloured” nations like Japan and China, which admit whites into their countries, are not likely to bear for ever the insult which is implied in their exclusion from the midst of a people to whom they are in no way inferior.

The other question concerns labour. Unless there is a speedy, amicable understanding between masters and men, the productive power of the Commonwealth will be seriously hindered. Labour here, as everywhere else, has had to fight for its rights, and, so far as Australia is concerned, it has won some notable victories. In no place is the working-man so well-off as here. His hours of labour are fixed upon the basis of an eight hours’ day. Wages Boards determine his rate of pay. His health and limbs are protected in every possible way. There are really no “dangerous” trades for him on this account. He can claim equality with his master. He is never called upon to grovel to a “superior.” He is a creature entirely independent. More often than not he owns his own house, while he has a substantial sum standing to his name in the savings bank. His daughter can earn her thirty to forty shillings a week behind the counter or at the typist’s desk, and yet, despite all this, there is scarcely a week without its local strike. Upon the least pretence tools are “downed.” Ferment is nearly always in the air. Professional agitators take care to keep strife stirring. In a word, labour is tending to become a tyranny. And it is due to the fact, largely, that amongst the leaders are no such strong men as Britain has in Philip Snowden, Ramsay Macdonald, or Arthur Henderson. The strife is often unreasoning, and it nearly always ends in a reverse for the striker. The present temper of labour in the Commonwealth—especially that phase of it which is hostile to religion in any form—is a distinct menace to the prosperity of the country.

Side by side with this question is that of the culture of the people. A people materially prosperous in a new land are liable to forget the higher things. Wealth tends to make them vulgar, and to limit their horizon. Australia has not escaped this danger. There are very many refined people—especially in connection with the Churches—who keep themselves abreast of current thought; people who live in tasteful houses, who are models of courtesy, and who generally understand the art of savoir vivre. The children of many wealthy people proceed to the university. There are hundreds of young women in Melbourne who have graduated in Arts, Science, or Law, not in order to obtain a livelihood, but solely for the culture which the study brings. But the rank and file of the people—who obtain good wages—have little intellectual ambition beyond the football or the cricket fields, or the prize ring at the Stadium. The manners of this particular rank and file leave much to be desired. The doctrine that “Jack is as good as his master,” as practised in Australia, too often results, not in the elevation of Jack to the rank of his master, but in the coarsening of Jack. The Chief Justice has recently lectured Australia’s youth upon its rudeness. The rebuke was deserved. Australians are most polite to their women, and true gentlemen everywhere are polite to each other, but there is a tendency amongst others to be too brusque and even disrespectful. It is due largely to thoughtlessness, and it belongs to a certain stage in the evolution of a country’s life. Yet it need not be in Australia. Politeness does not cost much—a little more polish would make the street Australian one of the best men in existence. His natural qualities are excellent; he needs only, on the social side, a little more consideration for the feelings of others. Nothing is more necessary for this young country than the inculcation of the spirit of respect.

My earlier impression of the new type of British life which is being evolved under the Southern Cross has been abundantly confirmed during the last five years. There can be no question that the Australian type of Briton is wholly different from the English type. For this difference the climate is chiefly responsible. Close observation has revealed the fact that the third generation of Australians—that is, the generation which owns for its parents an Australian-born father and mother—tends towards the Italian, Sicilian, or Spanish type rather than the English, having jet black hair and dark eyes. This is particularly noticeable in Sydney and in Queensland. Life there is largely Neapolitan in character.

A Neapolitan climate is producing a Neapolitan type of men and women. The atmosphere of Puritanism, which has lingered over England even until this day, is wholly absent from Australia. The break between the two ways of life is complete, and the distance between them seems destined to become wider. The British prejudice against the theatre, for example, does not exist out here. Great numbers of Church members openly patronise the playhouse. Some of the devoutest and most earnest Christian men I know find a place in their programme for the theatre, when good plays are staged. Australians, as a whole, are a sport-loving people. They are a happy people. They take all life in the sunshine, even their religious life. The minor chords are entirely absent from their music. All is gay and lively. This spirit has invaded the Sabbath. The old-fashioned Sunday exists only for a small minority of persons. During the summer months tens of thousands of people spend the week-end among the hills or by the seaside, and the vast majority of these never trouble the Churches. Yet, if they were challenged, they would disclaim hostility to the Church. They might even contribute to its funds. Nevertheless, Sunday is for them a day of pleasure. This problem of climate and its influence upon character and religion is one of the most serious the country has to face.

Time has not effaced my earliest impression that the Defence Act needs serious reconsideration. In part justification it is pleaded that already many lads of the “larrikin” type have benefited physically and morally as the result of drill. I am prepared to admit that, up to a certain point. But, on the other hand, the withdrawal of boys from technical evening schools for the purpose of training, more than balances the gains. Australia needs, very badly, a race of competent workmen who can finish their tasks. The discipline of apprenticeship would secure some of that training which the Defence System aims at; and it would secure that higher skill which we need. Nobody objects to the boys being subject to discipline and training; our objection is to this training being associated with militarism. There is no need for the creation of the military spirit in Australia; it is politically a blunder, morally indefensible, and economically a burden too great for the people to carry.

To bid farewell to Australia is not easy. I have learned to love the country and the people. They have treated me well, and I wish them well. May the land of the wattle ever flourish, and its vast continent be filled with a happy, peaceful, God-fearing people to whom Empire shall ever stand for all that is great, noble and good.

Printed by Cassell & Company, Limited, La Belle Sauvage, London, E.C.
F15.1214