The Making of the Australian Constitution: Studies in Australian Federation by J.A. La Nauze (review)

REVIEWS 473 Crossman whocould give ussohonest andreflective aviewfromtheinside ofhigh parliamentary politics. ALBERT TUCKER Glendon College TheMakingoftheAustralian Constitution: Studies inAustralian Federation. j.A. LANAUZE. Melbourne,MelbourneUniversityPress[Portland,Ore., InternationalScholarly BookServices], •972. Pp.x, 369,illus.$2o.oo. Historiansseldompossess the breadthof knowledgeand detachmentnecessary to copewithhindsight.Its temptations andpitfallsare numerous, conditioning selection of facts,determiningwinnersand losers,and revealingpatterns,cycles, or trends,all of whichcombine toproducea distortedaccount of theperceptions and problems of the historian's subjects. Perhaps the mostoutstanding qualityof this fascinating studyisitsconscious treatment ofhindsight. Professor LaNauzeisableto establish convincingly whattheframersthoughtcrucialwhilenotingwhatultimately provedephemeral.Fewagreed,for example, withAlfred Deakinthatconcern over thelargerstates combining against thesmallerstates in a federationwasmisplaced because ofthegrowthinAustralia ofthepartysystem. 'It isnot,'hesaid,'intheleast degreea question asto wherethe populationis.It isa question howthe population will be politicallydivided'(p. •88). SouthAustraliandelegates' concernoverriver trade using paddle-wheel,flat-bottomedsteamersoccasioned much discussion thoughthe trafficwassoonto becomeextinc, t. 'The debate,'observes Professor La Nauze,'hadsimplyillustrated thefactthatwhenmenplanfor thefuturetherewill inevitably beoccasion for muchadoaboutnothing'(p. 2• •). During meetings and conventions in the •89os,heldin several Australiancities,whichdraftedtheconstitutionof •9oo,such occasions werenotinfrequent.Butheemphasizes thatsuch lackof foresightwasnot an afflictionfrom whichthe framersparticularlysuffered,but rather that it is a feature of all human endeavour. Professor La Nauze even uses his vastknowledgeof Deakin, not, as he might be tempted,to assignhim a more importantand propheticrole in the deliberations, but rather to note Deakin's prejudices andatavisms. It mightbearguedthatProfessor LaNauze's narrationistoopreoccupied with detail,tooproneto ventureintohistorical cul-de-sacs; thatwhatlittlequantitative analysis hedoesisidiosyncratic (of thethirteenmenwhoattendedtheMelbourne conference of •89o'therewasoneclean-shaven member;oneworea moustache only;onea moustache andside-whiskers; therestbeards, moreor less impressive' [p.•2]);andthathisinterest inthefoibles ofindividual framers andlawyers' quibbles ignores groupandclass interests asthese impinged onthedrafters.However, he makes itabundantly clearthatthoughthetaskisimportant, heisnotwritingahistory of thefederalmovement. Moreover,hisrichlytexturednarrativeisausefulantidote tothosewhowouldforcethedraftersintoneatcategories: conservatives or liberals, capitalists orlabourers, elitists ordemocrats. Furthermore, hisdetailed analysis once andforallsettles thequestion ofwhere theAustralian constitution-makers gottheir precedents. Their ownconstitutional experience, particularly withregardto the 474 THE CANADIAN HISTORICAL REVIEW nature ofresponsible government andthefunction andcomposition oftheupper house, wascrucial.Had theCanadian constitutional experience beenencapsulated in an elegantly writtenandauthoritative publication, the framersmighthavepaidit moreattentionandbeenless inclinedtoignoreit ontheassumption thatit gaveaway too much to the central government.As it was,James Bryce'sThe American Commonwealth was readilytohand.Coupled withthedraftconstitution setoutin t89o byAndrewInglisClark,theTasmanian attorney-general, whowasa close student and admirer of Americaninstitutions, it shapeda good deal of the specifics of Australian federaldocument. Finally,of thesome eightyparticipants whoattended themeetings andconventions, Professor LaNauzehastotreatabouttwentyinsome depth. Rarely does hesuccumb tosimple caricature, andthough hehas favourites, he doesn't letthisobscure histaskofdetermining whichmadethemoreablecontributiontothefinalproduct . Professor LaNauze has notavailed himself ofthepresently thshionable toolsand techniques of the historical method.Yet hisworkwill help prevent those whodofromignoring theimportance oftheunique andtheparticular in thehumanexperience. ROBERT V. KUBICEK University ofBritish Columbia UNITED STATES THE FOUNDING FATHERS VINDICATED; A REVIEW ESSAY Essays ontheAmerican Revolution. EditedbySTEPHEN G.KURTZ andJAMES H.HUTSON. ChapelHill andNew York,Published for theInstituteof EarlyAmericanHistory andCulture,Williamsburg, Virginia,bytheUniversity of NorthCarolinaPress and W.W. Norton, i973. Pp.xii, 3•,o.$t •,.5 o. TheDevelopment ofa Revolutionary Mentality. Libraryof Congress, Symposia onthe American Revolution, Washington, DC,•97•,.Pp.x, t57.$3.5o. Theseessays andcommentaries weredeliveredatsymposia heldattheInstitutefor EarlyAmericanHistoryatWilliamsburg andattheLibraryof Congress. They vary frombroadanalyses oftheorigins andconsequences oftheAmerican Revolution to limitedtreatments of specific aspects of therevolutionary era.The authorsfor the mostpart belongto a generationof historians trainedand maturedin the years following theSecond WorldWar.In contrast tothose oftheinterwargeneration who tendedto perceive therevolution in termsof whatisnowdenigrated assimplistic classconflictand narrow economicinterest,more than half of the scholars represented inthese volumes emphasize political or religious ideology, a returntothe motivation for therevolution professed bythefoundingfathersthemselves. It isappropriate thatthefirstessay in theWilliamsburg volumeisbyBernard Bailyn,theleading exponent oftheprimacy of radicalWhigideology. In contrast to scholars who believedthat socialand economicfactorswere uppermostand that ...