rolling stock in the possession of the Government was insufficient to meet the demand. In the beginning of 1896 the congestion was such that large popular demonstrations and indignant remonstrances greeted the Government from every side. Newspapers were severe in their criticisms, and seemed to consider that the Cabinet should have been cognisant twelve months beforehand of an expansion, probably unparalleled in the history of Australia. A serious disagreement took place on this question between Sir John Forrest and Mr. Venn, the political head of the railways. From statements since published it would seem that Mr. Venn proposed in 1894 to expend a certain sum of money in the purchase of increased rolling stock, but the Government would not agree to grant him the sum he asked. The railways being pushed forward to the goldfields called into requisition much rolling stock, and the sum provided was insufficient to cope with the demand, and the serving of the older railways at the same time. This was explained by Mr. Venn by contending that had the sum asked for in 1894 by him and his officers been granted by the Treasurer, Sir John Forrest, and included in the Loan Bill of 1894, a rolling stock sufficient to meet the requirements of 1895-6 would have been in the colony and difficulties would not have arisen. Sir John Forrest, according to Hansard, stated in his speech on the Loan Bill that he could not see his way clear to increase the amount for rolling stock, which he admitted was asked for by the Commissioner for Railways, giving reasons which seemed to him conclusive. In face of this when Sir John Forrest replied to a statement, made by a business gentleman at a public meeting held in Perth to consider the question, which was published in the West Australian, Mr. Venn considered that Sir John discredited him and his department, and at once published a rejoinder. A most unfortunate breach took place between the two honourable gentlemen, and Sir John requested Mr. Venn to resign, and, when he did not immediately do so, giving as his reason his wish to first vindicate himself by means of documents in his department, the Premier approached the Governor, and Mr. Venn was relieved from office.
An important political question was thus opened up as to the reserved power of Premiers. Mr. Venn accused Sir John of caprice, and of taking a step unique in constitutional law, when the attendant circumstances were taken into consideration. Mr. Venn held a high and responsible position under Constitutional Government. He conferred years of useful service on his country; and internal disagreement which was brought before the public by extraneous means, left a doubt as to which gentleman was in the wrong. It may be assumed that the Premier has power to relieve his Government of any unruly Minister. Todd, the eminent authority, in vol. II., page 198, says: "The position of the Prime Minister toward the Cabinet is peculiar; although he is head of the Administration, and necessarily its most important and influential member, yet he meets his colleagues in Council upon a footing of perfect equality. At the meetings of Cabinet the only one who has precedence is, in fact, the President of the Council; but inasmuch as the entire responsibility for the Government devolves on the First Minister of the Crown, he naturally must possess a degree of weight and authority in Council, which is not shared by any other member; ordinary questions may be put to the vote and decided by a majority adverse to the opinion of the Prime Minister, but if he chooses, he may insist upon Cabinet dealing in any matter in accordance with his own particular views, otherwise he has the power by his own resignation of office to dissolve the Ministry. In cases of irreconcilable differences with his colleagues he may require the resignation or a dissolution of the Cabinet. But it is not usual for the Prime Minister to proceed to extremity with the Cabinet until he is convinced that there is no other alternative between enforcing the adoption of his views and his retirement from office. For a compromise is the natural result of all differences between men in official stations and a Constitutional Government—it is even so when they are not co-equal in authority."
This statement applies to a ministry collectively, and the exponents of Mr. Venn's rights maintain that if the differences were irreconcilable between him and the Premier, the latter should have asked for his resignation, failing which he should have done all in his power to bring about an adjustment of the differences by compromise. Todd mentions no word about summary dismissal—an extremity which would not apparently be exercised except in eases of treason or fraud. Mr. Venn held that his case was not on all-fours with that of Lord Palmerston when he was dismissed from office by Lord John Russell in 1851, for neglect of royal instructions. Moreover, Lord Palmerston was not dismissed until after his Chief wrote him a letter pointing out his irregularity, and called on him for an explanation or written statement, and delayed taking any action until that statement was in his hands, and even then did not proceed to extremity for some days.
Mr. Venn and his political friends affirm that the procedure in his case was quite different. Sir John Forrest made a statement to the press which Mr. Venn conceived to be incorrect, and which, inferentially, reflected upon him and his department. He thought that at that period of strong public feeling with regard to the railways, the Premier should have defended his colleague, and admitted that the Government in 1894 was not prepared to grant all the supplies for rolling stock asked for by Mr. Venn. Mr. Venn was irritated, and perhaps too hastily published a rejoinder in the press, in the form of part of a copy of memorandum previously sent to Sir John, which embodied Mr. Venn's views on the whole question of rolling stock. In this Mr. Venn alluded to the Premier's want of loyalty to himself. After a few days, and when a metropolitan newspaper had animadverted on the matter, Sir John called upon Mr. Venn to resign forthwith. Logically, Mr. Venn's position as a colleague of Sir John Forrest was untenable after the publication of his memorandum, and he doubtless intended to resign the moment his written defence reached the Cabinet. Indeed, putting aside compromise, two courses must follow: either that Mr. Venn must resign, or that Sir John must dissolve his Cabinet and reconstruct. The two gentlemen were tried friends, who had honourably laboured side by side for five years, but in a moment they were face to face behind a public barrier. Mr. Venn conceived that Sir John broke the unwritten law of Cabinets when he published his defence without consulting his Cabinet or his colleague, and considered that the Premier had practically abandoned him at a most critical juncture, when serious statements were being circulated as to the administration of the railways. This was Mr. Venn's justification for defending himself. He accused Sir John of personal feeling, and of seeking to preserve himself, and would not at once resign until he had made his written statement to the Cabinet in justification of his action. It was thought by some that the Governor should have encouraged an interview with Mr. Venn and seek his resignation by wise and friendly counsel, rather than go to full lengths without hearing Mr. Venn on the matter. Mr. Venn subsequently stated
