1058 Immigration. [ASSEM~LY.J Immigra~ion.

frame such a measure as will perhaps not please rabid persons on either side, but which will nevertheless be a substautial gain to this country, and will satisfy, not the rash and hastily moved passions, but the sober and deliberate judg1D;ent of what I believe the people of Victoria to be-a thinking people.

On the motion of Mr. WOODS, the debate was adjourned until Thursday, September 18.

The House adjourned at eleven o'clock.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. Wednesday, September 17, 1879.

Absence of the Speaker-Immigration-Omissionin Division­list-Railway Traffic Charges: Boilers-Administration of the Land Law: Selection at Laceby: Selectors' Leases: Mortgages: Forty-ninth Section Licensees-Hobson's Bay Railway: Unlocked Carriage-doors-Pental Island-Fish SlIpply-Lancefield Railway Bill-Map of Australia­Melbourne Harbour Trust-Legal Professions Bill--Re­vision of the Tariff: Fourth Night: Chinaware: Cordage: Earthenware: Hops: Malt.

A t half-past four o'clock p.m., The CLERK having announced that the

Speaker was unavoidably absent, The CHAIRl\IAN OF COMMITTEES took

- the chair as Deputy Speaker.

IMMIGRATION. 1\11'. R. CLARK (Sandlturst) asked the

Chief Secretary whether his attention had been called to the great agitation going on in England for wholesale emigration to the Australian colonies, and whether he would take steps to inform the laboring population in the mother country of the depressed state of the Victorian labour market? He submitted that action of this kind was called for in view of the number of unemployed people in the colony at present, and also the fact that the labour market of every other Austra­lian colony was as depressed as that of Victoria. He had received a letter from the secretary of the Miners' Association of New South Wales stating that the labour market there was overcrowded, and he believed a similar condition of things existed in South Australia and New Zealand. Certainly it would be most un­desirable for the value of labour in the colony to be depreciated.

1\11'. BERRY thanked the honorable member for Sandhurst (Mr. Clark) for calling attention to the matter. The question was an importaut one, and,

required a great deal of consideration. If the class of people who contemplated leaving England were the laboring class, probably it would be necessary to take action in the direction indicated by the honorable member; but he gathered from the telegrams which had appeared in the newspapers that the persons who thought of emigrating were farmers who possessed a small amount of capitat A revolution was taking place in the con­dition of the farming interest in the mother country, and, when he was in England, the fact of many farmers having given their landlords llotice of their in­tention to quit their farms was a topic of common conversation. He had since seen a statement that a Canadian public man, while in England, had arranged for a large number of farmers, everyone of whomhac1 a capital of not less than £500, to emigrate to Canada. His own opinion was that the immigration of farmers with experience and capital was a thing which should not be discouraged. He noticed that meetings had been held recently in Gippsland, in favour of taking advantage of the depressed state of the farming iu­terest in England to encourage farmers to come out to this country. He mentioned these matters to show that there was more than Olle side to, the question. He considered the Government 'would be acting prejudicially to the interests of the colony if they did anything to check so desirable a proceeding as the introduc­tion of a number of farmers, men with capital and intelligence, even if it were accompanied by a corresponding supply of labour. Care should be taken not to throw cold water, as it were, upon immi­gration which would really be beneficial to the colony. On the other hand, he thought it only right and proper that the Government should inform the Agent­General in London fully and fairly of the present depressed condition of the colonial labour market, although he hoped the depression would shortly pass away.

Mr. SERVICE said he was bound to protest against a subject of this sort being brought before the House in the form of au interrogatory. The matter was one of a strictly debatable character; as was in­dicated by the Chief Secretary in the course of his remarks, and therefore should not be brought before the House except in such a manner as would enable honor­able members generally to express an oJ?inion upon it.

Administration of [SEPTEMBER 17.] TIle Land Law. 1059

DIVISIONS. Mr. HUNT called attention to the offi­

cial record of the division which took place on Tuesday, September 9, on the motion of the honorable member for Ara­rat for the reception of a certain peti tion. The numbers were-Ayes, 23 ; noes, 26. He voted with the" Noes," believing, as the Speaker did, that the petition was not admissible; but, by some mistake, his name did not appear in the division-list..

CARRIAGE OF BOILERS. ROAD v. RAIL.

Mr. BIRD asked the Minister of Rail­ways whether, in view of information furnished by machinery merchants, he would seriously consider the necessity for reducing the present charge for the con­veyance of boilers? He stated that since he last put a question on this subject he had received communications from a num­ber of machinery merchants bearing out what he had previously said as to the railway revenue suffering owing to the high rates charged for the conveyance of boilers compared with the cost of their conveyance by road.

Mr. WOODS observed that boilers were exceptional things to carry, and no doubt there were exceptional circumstances under which boilers could be conveyed better and cheaper by road than by rail. For instance, it was a common thing for one mining company to purchase a boiler from another mining company whose works might be perhaps eight or ten miles from a railway station. In such a case, when the boiler was once on a wag­gOll, inste:1d of t:1king it to the railwa.y station, it W:1S :1S well to take it right through to its destin:1tion; so tl~at before a fair comparison could be drawn between the rate charged for the conveyance of a boiler by railway and the rate of car­riage by road, it was absolutely necessary to know the circumstances under which the boiler was carried. Some inquiries would be instituted with reference to the matter; but until the H:1ilway dep:1rtmcnt was in .possession of more inforlll:1tion thHn it comm:1nued at present, he had no intention to alter tho oxisting rates.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAND LAW.

Mr. SHARPE asked the Minister of Lands if he would stay further action in tho matter of the application of' Samuel

White, junior, for a selection of lan~ in the parish of Laceby, until the House had an opportunity of considering the same? He stated that the question, as it appeared on the paper, was not in the form of the notice which he gave. He gave notico that he would move for papers, at the same time adding that he would ask the Minister of Lands whether he would re­frain from further action until the House had an opportunity of discussing the m:1ttor. v'\Thy the notice had undergone metamorphosis he was at a loss to under­stand, but he considered th:1t if there was an irregularity about a notice the honor­able member who gave it should be con­sulted before it W:1S subjected to alteration.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER. - The notice for the production of papers appears on the list among the notices of motion.

Mr. LONGMORE, in reply to the question, stated that the matter was settled about three months ago, and the papers relating to it would be placed in the Library for, the inspection of honorable members. It appeared that Mr. H. N. Simson, a squatter, made application to the Lands department that his daughter should be allowed to take up a selection if he relinquished his run. Mr. Simson W:1S informed that. his daughter would have the same privilege as any other resi­dent of Victoria in the matter of land selection. Accordingly she made applica­tion for certain land, and Mr. White ap· plied for a small portion of the same l:1nd. That portion, which was under water to the depth of 4 ft. or 5 ft. several months of the year, was situ:1te on the opposite side of the river to Mr. White's selection, and between the river and Mr: Simson's 1and. Consequently it was decided not to give Mr. vVhite any portion of the land, but to grant it to Miss Simson.

Mr. R. CLARK (Sandhurst) inquired of the Minister of Lands whether, before taking action in the direction of forfeiting a selector's lease, it was the practice of t.he department to give notice to the mOl't­gagee t11:1t the rent W:1S in arrear?

Mr. LONGMORE said notice W:1S alw:1Js sent to mortgagees when rents were in arrear, and before anything was done to interfere with the security.

Mr. BIRD asked whether the Minister of Lands would abolish the ch:1rge at pre­sent made of 2s. 6d. on receipts under the 49th section of the Land Aetof 1869 ?

Mr. LONGMORE stated that he be­lieved the charge was made at the inst:1nce

1060 Pental Island. [ASSEMBLY.] Fislt Supply.

of the Audit Commissioners, who thought that some fee should be imposed on the issue of fresh licences every year. But he had no objection to the abolition of the fee. The abolition would not do the licensees much good, or the public revenue much injury.

HOBSON'S BAY RAILWA.Y. UNLOCKED CARRIAGES.

Mr. ZOX asked the Minister of Rail­ways whether he would cause notices to be posted in the carriages on the Hobson's Bay Railway, waruing the public against the danger incurred in opening doors and alighting on platforms while trains were in motion?

Mr. WOODS stated that notices of the kind referred to were already posted in the carriages, and he produced a copy for the inspection of honorable members. The practice of leaving carriage doors unlocked had been in force on the Williamstown line for nearly two years. There had been one or two slight accidents, but the advantages and disadvantages of the sys­tem appeared to be understood and appre­ciated by the public. The only drawback that he knew of was that some young fellows, who liked to show how smart they were, wonld get out of carriages when a train was in motion, and he never saw that proceeding without wishing that the parties might be turned head-over­heels as a warning to others.

PENTAL ISLAND. Mr. DWYER asked the Minister of

Lands whether there was any objection to the gazetting of Pental Island as open for selection ?

Mr. LONGMORE observed that a frontage to the Murray was required by persons who held the mallee country for pastoral purposes. An inquiry was being made as to the nature of the grass and the facilities for obtaining water in that portion of the colony. He understood the Lands Commission had visited the district, and probably they would have some report to make on the subject. Under the circumstances, he was not in­clined to open Pental Island for selection just at present.

FISH. Mr. TYTHERLEIGHasked the Chief

Secretary whether the board appointed to inquire into the matter of fish supply to the metropolis and other parts of the

colony had yet brought up its report? So far as he understood, the board bad confined itself to taking a trip to a place in Gippsland, but the matter was one which should be thoroughly dealt with, because the difficulty of obtaining fish for food was one which was felt in almost every household, and this notwithstanding the fact that fishermen were willing to supply the article at a moderate rate. If the Chief Secretary could not afford any information on the snbject, perhaps the chairman of the board was in a position to do so.

Mr. BERRY stated that no report had yet been received from the board.

Mr. F. L. SMYTH observed that as he had been appealed to by the honorable member for Normanby, he might mention, as a matter of fact, that previous to any board being appointed, he and the honor­able member for South Gippsland· took a trip into Gippsland to' make inquiries on the subject of fish supply. Before doing so they acquainted the Minister of Cus­toms with their intentions, and asked him to give them what assistance he could in the matter. In response to that appeal, the Minister directed Mr. Kabat, the inspector of fisheries in Gippsland, and Captain Payne, to accompany them, and a steam-boat on the Gippsland Lakes was placed at their disposal. The expedition occupied about three days, and it was the' means of ascertaining that the Gippsland fishermen had three causes of complaint. The first was the railway charges for the conveyance of fish; the second was the difficulty of delivery­Oak leigh then being the terminus of the Gippsland line; and the third was the existence of a "ring" in the wholesale fish market, whereby the fish which came to Melbourne were monopolized by a few persons who had the trade all to them­selves, to the det.riment both of the fisher­men and the public. Subseq uently a board was appointed, and, on its repre­sentation, the several causes of complaint were removed. The railway charges were reduced; all the necessary facilities were afforded by the Minister of Railways for the delivery of the fish; aud, lastly, the monopoly in the wholesa"le fish market was broken down, and fish were now sold in Melbourne at prices which admitted of no complaint. Instead of commanding from Is. 6d. to 2s. per lb., fish were at present sold at from 3d. to 9d. per lb. Under these circumstances, finding all

Lance.field [SEPTEMBER 17.J Railway Bill. 1061

causes of complaint removed, the board did not see any necessity for reporting 011,

or further investigating, the matter.

LANCEFIELD RAILWAY BILL.

Mr. HARPER asked the Minister of Railways when he proposed to proceed with the second reading of the Lancefield Railway Bill? The matter was one of some import:1llce, because it would be difficult to find further employment for the large number of men who, according to the daily papers, were about to be dis­charged from the Spencer-street railway station works, unless the Lancefield Rail­way could be commenced.

Mr. WOODS said he did not exactly see wliat the discharge of men employed at the Spencer-street station had to do with the Lancefield Railway any more than it had to do with unyother railway. (Mr. Service­"Why that was the reason given for going on with it.") The Government had en­deavoured to keep faith with the House. The very first night the Bill could be brought forward, at ten minutes to eleven o'clock, he h~d the plans distributed, and was prepared to go on with the second reading of the measure. He was then informed by an honorable member who usually acted with the Opposition that there would be "stone-walling" until the time came when it would be impossible to bring on fresh business. The Bill was introduced on the understanding on the part of both sides of the House that the construction of the Lancefield Railway would be a means of relieving the unem­ployed. The locality was near to Mel­bourne, and a large portion of the work could be done by day labour. If he had any assurance whatever that the Bill

. would be fairly discussed and decided upon its merits, without any unnecessary waste of time, he would have no objection to the second reading being taken that night, but, in the absence of any such understanding, he would leave the rail­way to take its chance in the general scheme of the Government. The matter rested entirely with the House.

Mr. DUFFY (who, to put himself in order, moved the adjournment of the House) stated that it was not right to accuse the Opposition of having retarded the progress of the Lancefield Railway .Bill. Whatever objection there had been raised to the measure had not proceeded from the Opposition. The Chief Secre­tary, the other night, gave an entertaining

little lecture about the Opposition not being so well disciplined as they ought to be; bnt it would appear that there was some slight want of discipline on the Ministerial side of the House when a Government Bill was " stone-walled" by Government supporters. (Sir B. O'Logh­len-" It was the honorable member for Brighton.") That honorable member sat· on the Ministerial side of the House. Another opponent was the honorable and learned member for Mandurang, who was now in Sydney, and therefore could not further retard the measure. The last occasion the Bill was before the House, he (Mr. Duffy) assisted the Minister of Railways in pressing it forward, for the reason that, if the Lancefield Railway were proceeded with, employment would be found for a number of men who could not otherwise obtain it. There was not much opposition of any sort to the Bill, and there was no doubt that it would be passed without much trouble if it were brought forward at a reasonable time of the evening, so that there might be a fair opportunity of discussing the measure. (Mr. Woods-" Pass the Tariff, and you shall have it at once.") That was the Ministry all over. When honorable mem­bers asked for a particular measure to be brought forward, the Ministry required them to pass something else. For the reasons stated, the House ought to have a fair chance of passing the Lancefield Rail­way Bill. If the measure were brought forward without a reasonable amount of progress being made, the Ministry would then be justified in withdrawing it.

Mr. HARPER seconded the motion for adjournment, and was proceeding to make some observations, when

Mr. DIXON rose to order. .He sub­mitted that, according to the rule laid down by the Speaker, it was not compe­tent for honorable members to discuss business which appeared on the notice­paper on a motion for the adjournment of the House.

Mr. KERFERD urged that. the point of order was improperly raised, because the discussion was not as to the merits of any business on the paper, but as to when certain business would be brought on for consideration.

Mr. F. L. SMYTH contended that, as the second reading of the Lancefield Railway Bill was an order for that day, the discussion of the question ought not to be anticipated by a side-wind.

1062 Legal [ASSEMBLY.] Professions Bill ..

Mr. SERVICE pointed out that the order of the day referred to was the con­struction of the Lancefield Railway, but that was not the subject now being dis­cussed. The question which had been asked, and upon which the motion for adjournment had been moved, was-When were they to take the discussion of the Lancefield Railway Bill? The two sub­jects were quite distinct, and he submitted that the motion for the adjournment of the House was perfectly in order.

Mr. MASON observed that if the point of order raised were a good one any hon­orable member who desired to preclude another from speaking on any particular question would only have to give notice of a motion on the subject in order to effect his purpose., Hop.orable members might be anxious to kno,w what the Go­vernment intended to do. with respect to several orders of the day on the paper, but if the point raised were upheld they would be prevented from referring to them.

Mr. RAMSAY remarked that it was very unfair to get up discussi9ns of this kind On W ednesday afternoon~the only time allowed for the transaction of private members' business. The previpus Wed­nesday afternoon was wasted in ~Jsimilar manner.

Mr. GAUNSON said he understood the adjournment of the House had been moved not so much with respect to the Lancefield Railway as in consequence of some remarks by the Minister of Railways, charging the Opposition with obstruction. It was, he submitted, perfectly in order for the honorable member for Dalhousie to move the adjournment of the House to reply to.those remarks.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER.-As I understand the motion, it is moved in order to discuss the question of the Lance­field Railway Bill, and I believe I am fol­lowing a previous decision of the Speaker in ruling that an order of the day cannot be anticipated in this way.

The subject then dropped.

MAP OF AUSTRALIA. Mr. D. M. DAVIES asked the Minister

of Lands if he would furnish the free libraries of the colony with copies of the continental map of Australia now being prepared in his department?

Mr. LONGMORE replied that the map, which was just now being printed,

was very expensive; and he would not be in a position to furnish the free libraries with copies for some time to come.

MELBOURNE HARBOUR TRUST. Mr. RAMSAY asked the Chief Secre­

tary when he would be in a position to afford an evening, or a portion of an evening, for the discussion of the motion which he (Mr. Ramsay) had placed on the pap~r with regard to the Harbour Trust?

Mr. BERRY remarked that it would be impossible to fix a day at present; but when the debate on the Reform Bill was concluded, and the Tariff settled, he would endeavour to afford the honorable member an opportunity of moving his motion. '

LEGAL PROFESSIONS BILL.

The House went into committee for the further consideration of this Bill-Mr. F. L. Smyth in the chair. .

Discussion (adjourned from September 3) was resumed on the 1st and only clause, providing as follows :-

"Every person who, at the date of the passing of this Act, has been admitted, or who hereafter shall be admitted, as a barrister of the Supreme Court of the colony of Victoria shall be deemed to have been admitted as an attorney, solicitor, and proctor of the said court as from the date at which he has been or shall have been ad­mitted as a barrister of the said court j and every person who, at the date of the passing of this Act, has been admitted, or who hereafter shall be admitted, as au attorney, solicitor, and proctor of the said court shall be deemed to have been admitted as a barrister of the said court as from the date at which he has been, or shall have been, admitted as an attorney, solicitor, and proctor of the said court."

Mr. RAMSAY moved the insertion of the words "for all purposes whatsoever" after the word "deemed," in lines 4 and 12.

The amendment was agreed to. Sir B. O'LOGHLEN moved the addi­

tion to tlie clause of the following pro­viso :-

" Provided that any barrister shall be entitled to exclude himself from the operation of this Act by giving notice in writing to the secretary of the Board of Examiners for Barristers of his desire so to exclude himself,. and any snch bar­rister shall be thereupon so excluded." He observed that a number of gentlemen who had been called to the bar in this 'colony, and who were mem~ers of the bar either of England or Ireland, objected to be placed in the position of being called upon to act as attorneys. (Mr. Dwyer­" They need not unless they like.") No, but why should'they be placed in the same position as if they had been admitted in

Legal [SEPTEMBER 17.] Professions Bill. 1063

this colony as attorneys, solicitors, and proctors? They had practised all their lives as barristers, and had been trained to perform the duties of barristers and not of solicitors. They objected to be made attorneys or solicitors, and why make them so against their will ? ' Why should they not he entitled' to retain the position which they held when they left the bar of the old countryalld were admitted to the bar of this colony? The proviso simply enabled a number of gentlemen who had fora very long time been practising at the bar, and objected to be brought under the operation of the Bill, to have themselves excluded from its operation. The conse­quence would be that any barristers who did not wish to practise as attorneys could, by giving notice, remain barristers, and the Bill would not affect them. These gentlemen felt they were not competent to act as attorneys and did not wish to do so; but by the Bill, as it stood, they would be forced to be attorneys and soli­citors against their will. (Mr. Gaunson -" You should also provide that an at-' torney need not be held to be a barrister.") He had no objection to such a proviso, but he was now speaking on behalf of his own branch of the profession. The bar- ' risters he referred to desired that if they' left this colony and went to England they should be received by their feHow barris- ' tel'S as men who had always followed that an4 no other profession. He was in favour of the amalgamation of the two' brancnes, altho~gh he doubted whether the time had come in this colony when it could be actually enfo'rced-,but he be­lieved the principle was one wlii~h woulp. be hereafter adopted in this country and' all English communities.' He did not see, however, why gentlemen who were already following ri,: particular profession should 'be 'forced to adopt anothel' profession, or even: the name of: another profession, if they did not desire to do so., " , Ml~. DUFFY remarked that the Attor­

ney-General must not forget that by the Bill before the committee a new departure was being taken from the English pr~ctice. The Bi~l swept away barristers, attorneys, and proctors, and left them all " lawyers," ai -in America'and South Australia. ' He 'diq riot exactly ~ee: what 'the Attorney-Gen,eral was driving . at in the 'proviso he had proposed. ~he honorable gentleman sought to' ptovide that certain gentfemen should still remain ba:rristers,althongh, if ~he' Bill w'er~' passed;;'the profession 'itself'

would not be known in the law of this colony. He did not see why any gentle­men should be placed in that position. If it was good for them to remain barris­ters, let nIl barristers continue barristers, and things stand as they were. If, on the other hand, this amalgamation would be the great benefit to both branches of the profession and the public which was contended, why should not the Bill be passed into law without making anyex­ceptions? What had been the experience in other countries-America, New Zealand, and South Australia-where the amal­gamation was in force? Had any of the English or Irish barristers settled in those countries suffered in professional status by nominally practising as attorneys? If they had, it was not unreasonable to pro­pose that barristers should not be com­pelled to lose that status against their will, but if, as he believed was the case, they had not lost their professional position by living in a country where the profes­sions were amalgamated, why should there be any exceptions in this colony? At present the professions were amalgamated in the County Court, and no barrister complained of that. If a barrister could be compelled to be an attorney under this Bill, he could be compelled at present to be an attorney in the County Court. He objected altogether to the' Bill, but, if it was to pass, he would oppose any such distinction being made as the Attorney-General had proposed. '

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN observed that, in reply to the question asked by the honor­able member as to whether barristers from England or Ireland suffered in status in countries where the amalgamation existed, he would simply relate a fact which occurred within his own knowledge before he came to this country. A barrister went to America and remained there for a year or two, and while there practised " direct," as it would be termed in this colony. When he returned to the old country he 'was looked upon professionally ass. "black sheep" who had ignored the etiquette of the profession for his own purposes. He was not disbarred, but he was looked upon as having, acted unpro­fessionally, and therefore was regarded in a peculiar light by his brethren at the bar. As to the effect of the Bill, he would point out that it provided that every person admitted as a barrister should be deemed to have been an attorney, solicitor, and' proctor from the date of his

1064 Legal [ASSEMBLY.] Professions Bill.

admission as a barrister. Thus every barrister would in spite of himself be an attorney from the day-perhaps 20 years ago-on which he joined the bar of the colony.

Ml'. GAUNSON remarked that a fea­ture in connexion with the Bill which must strike the lay members of the House with a certain amount of disgust was that its discussion was wholly con­fined to professional members, while it was laymen whose interests alone were concerned. The only question to be solved was whether a man was to be fleeced under the law by one lawyer or two. The Bill gave him the option of being :tleeced by only one, whereas, accord­ing to the law at present, he must be :tleeced by two. " Fleecing" was the ordinary expression used, but he must say that, as regarded attorneys, consider­ing the enormous interests, confided to their care, the smallness of the amount of :tleecing which was practised was enormously to their credit as an honest body of men. With regard to the case related by the Attorney-General of a man being looked upon as a "black sheep" because when in America he had done business both as an attorney and a barrister, that treatment could easily be prevented here. The Legislature could simply prevent any barristers from the United Kingdom being admitted to the Victorian bar if they presumed to talk of any colonial barristers in that way. (Mr. Mason-" What about colonial barristers who go home to he admitted?") He did not know that there was any great advantage in going home. He believed the legal education given here was superior to that given at, home. In his opinion one of the beneficial effects of the Bill would be to make the legal education here most complete. The Attorney-General spoke of barristers not wishing to be attorneys because they did not understand the business, yet they were the learned gentlemen to whom people went for legal advice. The bunkum about a barrister being looked upon as a "black sheep" in the case referred to proceeded on the assumption that barristers were not paid for their services-that they did not take payment, but merely a honorarium-a gift of whatever the client was pleased to give them. But it was well known that if a barrister was offered a five-guinea fee in some cases, his clerk soon came back to the attorney, and said-" No, I

cannot take less than ten guineas in this case." The honorarium business was, therefore, pure rubbish. To show the advantage of this Bill, he might say he was aware of a case, within the last few days, in which a constitll:ent was served with a Supreme Court writ for £ 15, and the costs endorsed on the writ were £5. By Fellows' Act, under which the writ was issued, the defendant in the case could enter an appearance by paying a shilling, and, if he did so, he put his creditor to the expense of not only employ­ing an attorney, but-if the case were defended-a barrister also, and the costs, even under the lower scale, could not be less than £30 or £40 to recover £15. Both the person suing and the person defending were compelled to employ a barrister as well as an attorney in a case of such tri:tling amount. That was in the Supreme Court; but, on the other hand, if the action had been taken in the County Court to recover £15, the state of things would be this: the creditor or debtor would go to a solicitor and ask him to appear in the County Court. The solicitor could say-" No, I am not accustomed to court work ; I would ad vise you to em ploy a barrister-the fee is only £1 3s. 6d." The client, however, would not be bound to consent to that. In the Supreme Court, the law required the employment of two agents, whereas under the County Court Statute a man could employ a barrister direct to act as his attorney. In the County Court, barristers and at­torneys were alike called" practitioners." The amalgamation of the two branches of the profession had existed in the County Court since 1869, and no injuri­ous consequences had resulted from it. Far more legal business was transacted in the County Court than in the Supreme Court, because the process was simpler in the County Court, and the expenses were less. There was no reason why the same system should not be ex­tended to the Supreme Court, and costs be regulated there, as they were in the County Court, according to the amount for which the actions were brought. The object of the Bill was simply to introduce a system which had worked in America for at least a century, which also pre­vailed in South Australia and New Zea­land, and likewise existed in New South Wales until the barristers there became strong enough to put an end to it. The present state of things, w~ich compelled a

Legal [SEPTEMBER 17.] Professions Bill. 1065

man who desired to obtain the opinion of counsel on any legal question to do so through the intervention of a solicitor, instead of being able to consult the bar­rister direct, was an absurdity, and a cause of unnecessary expense. If a client could consult a barrister direct, he might do so for a fee of perhaps £3 5s. 6d., whereas, by having to approach the barrister through the intervention of a solicitor, he had, in addition to the barrister's fee, to pay the solicitor's bill of costs, which would probably amount to £10, made up of such items as the following :-" To attending you, and taking your instruc­tions to obtain the advice of counsel"; " to drawing the case" (so many folios, as long as your arm); " to engrossing same"; " to fair copy for counsel"; "to attending upon him and conferring with him"; "to paying his fee"; "to writing you, inform­ing you that counsel advised," &c.; "to attending you, and explaining to you counsel's advice." It was contended that, if the profession was allowed to amalga­mate, enterprising attorneys and barristers would coalesce together, and that in the long run the public would suffer; but surely the Supreme Court could remedy any case of wrong-doing. If a solicitor gave a client advice contrary to law he was answerable for it, but a barrister was not answerable for any advice he gave. There was no reason why such an absurd distinction should be perpetuated. How­ever, he did not consider the Bill was any great shakes in the direction of legal reform. In addition to the amalgamation of the two branches of the profession he would like to see a simplification of legal process -a radical change in the whole legal system.

Mr. KERFERD contended that if clients were able to consult barristers direct such a method would not work satisfactorily. A leading barrister - a barrister whose opinion was worth having -was so fully occupied that he could not afford to devote the time that would be necessary to enable him to master the facts of and give opinions upon cases if the clients consulted him direct. In some instances it would take a barrister half-a­day to extract the facts of a case from a client. (Mr. Gaunson-" Let him charge accordingly.") Then what advantage would be gained in the matter of expense? Where would be the cheapness of the new system as compared with the present one? The honorable member for Ararat had

VOL. xxx.-4 B

really not done justice to the branch of the legal profession to which he he­longed. If honorable members were fully acquainted with the usefulness of that branch of the profession, they would know that the assistance a solicitor could give in drawing up a case for a barrister in such a precise form as to enable him to give a satisfactory opinion upon it was absolutely essential. A bar­rister could often read and give an opinion upon a case in an hour or so, when the facts had been reduced to writing by an attorney. Consulting a barrister direct was very simple in theory, but in practice it would not be found to work well. (Mr. Dwyer-H Have you found it so?") If his clients came to him direct, without the intervention of a·n attorney, he could not do one-tenth of the business he now did. As to the amendment proposed by the Attorney-General, the effect of it, if passed, would be to defeat the object of the Bill, for all the members of the bar would exclude themselves from its opera­tion, and the measure would simply enable attorneys to practise as barristers. Though opposed to the Bill as it stood, he thought it would be more objectionable if the amendment were adopted.

Mr. NIMMO expressed the opinion t.hat the public were better served under the present arrangement than they would be if the two branches of the profession were amalgamated. He believed in the grand old principle of the division of labour ao ably advocated by Dr. Adam Smith. There was a great deal of force in the argument of the honorable and learned member for the Ovens. . Practi­cally both the medic~l and the engineering professions were divided into branches­some men devoting themselves to one branch, and some to another. He believed it would impair the usefulness of a solici­tor to convert him into a barrister, and vice versa. As he could not see that the proposed change in the law would be any advaI!-tage to the public, he would be compelled to vote against it.

Mr. ORR considered that the legal profession, on its present basis, was one of the most infamous trade unions that ever existed. Why should the law com­pel a man to consult Smith before he could consult Brown? The Bill proposed to abolish that absurdity, and was a step towards breaking up a large trade monopoly. Unless a man was a member of the legal profession he could not even

lQ66 Legal tASSEMDLY.J Professions Bill.

a·raw up fin agreement, if he was paid for it, 'without rendering himself liable to 'a penalty of £50. As civilization pro­gressed and people became more enlight­ened, the monopoly which the legal profession' at present possessed would be swept away. He ··believed there were persons still living whO" could remember the time when, in Glasgow, a man could not start business as a grocer without a diploma from a guild court. A man had actually to pass an authoritative examina­tion, produce his indentures, and pay a heavy fee, before it was considered that he could be safely intrusted with the selling of such articles as treacle, tea, and sugar. Why should the public not be allowed to choose whom they liked to do legal business for them? There was nothing in favour of the present legal monopoly which could not be urged in favour of a similar monopoly in connexion with any profession or trade. He looked upon the Bill as a move in the right direction, and hoped it would not be long before all such relics of barbarism as the one it sought to destroy were entirely abolished.

Mr. DWYER said he trusted the com­mittee would not accept the amendment proposed by the Attorney-General, as he had heard DO tangible objections against the clause as it stood. The honorable and learned member for the Ovens was a very good example of what would be the effect of the measure, for he had been recently practising in a lucrative court where there was no necessity for the intervention of au attorney between client and barrister.

Mr. KERFERD stated that he never appeared in the Lan\l Tax Court iu any case in which he was not instructed by an attorney.

Mr. DWYER said he was sorry the statement he made was erroneous.

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN remarked that he had conversed with gentlemen from South Australia, New Zealand, and Tasmania, where the system proposed by the Bill was in operation, and their unanimous verdict was that it did not affect the cost of legal proceedings one shilling. There­fore, the argument that the amalgamation of the two branches of the legal profession would curtail expenses was an absurdity. It would not effect any saving. He could understand the argument of the honorable member for Moira (1\1r. Orr), who wanted to sweep away both branches of the pro­fession, and throw the practice of the law

open to the whole community; but that was not what the honorable and learned member for Villiers' and Heytesbury and the honorable member for Ararat pro­posed.

Mr. GAUNSON said he did not care if both branches of the profession were thrown open to all persons who simply passed au examination. He believed in the most perfect free-trade, so far as the rubbing of mind against mind in the public interests was concerned.

Sir B. O'LOG RLEN stated that the view just :expressed by the honorable member for Ararat would not be promoted by the Bill; on the contrary, the measure would strengthen the power of barristers and attorneys to prevent the legal pro­fession being thrown open. In reference to a remark made by the honorable and learned member for the Ovens, he desired to say that the adoption of the amendment would not defeat the object of the Bill. There were a number of young barristers who, no doubt, would not exclude them­selves from the operation of the measure; but a great injustice would be inflicted if it were made compulsory on every barrister to be an attorney.

At this stage, the time allotted for giving precedence to private members' business having expired, progress was reported.

REVISION OF THE TARIFF. The House went into Committee of

Ways and Means for the further consider­ation of the Tariff proposals submitted by the Government.

Major SMITH proposed the adoption of the following item :-

" Chinaware and porcelain (except photogra­phic and telegraphic materials)-2s. 6d. per cubic foot."

Mr. BLACKETT suggested' that the exemptions should include" chemical" and " scientific" materials. For example, a particular kind of evaporating apparatus was now very much used in chemistry, and a heavy duty upon it would come upon scient.ific lUen as a hardship.

Mr. LALOR said he· would make a note of the suggestion, and probably adopt it if doing so would not give rise to confusion.

Mr. HARPER remarked that to raise the duty upon chinaware frolU 9d. to 2s. 6d. per cubic foot was altogether too much of an increase, considering that the article was largely consumed and could not be

Revision oj [SEPTEMBER 17.j The Tarij;: i067

il1ade in the colony to any great extent. If there was to be any increase at all it ought to be on a much more moderate scale. It should be borne in mind that the duty was a measurement one, and that, inasmuch as almost all goods of the chinaware kind made very bulky pack­ages, the impost would be found. exceed­ingly heavy. He was informed that the duty would also greatly interfere with the intercolonial trade of the colony.

Major SMITH stated that the esti­mated revenue from this source during the balance of the _ financial year was not more than £2,000.

Mr. LALOR thought an explanation upon the subject was due to the committee, because the proposed increase appeared a rather large one. Honorable members would doubtless recollect that when the existing Tariff was framed, and the duty on chinaware was fixed at 9d. per cubic foot, the charge was admittedly, to a certain extent, experimental. Moreover, he was at the- time somewhat confused by the representations -made to him by the im­porters of the article. Experience, how­ever, had proved that upon the whole the 9d. per cubic foot duty was only equal to 6 per cent., and the additional duty was proposed in order to bring the rate up to 20 per cent. He did not think the committee would consider 20 per cent. too much.

Mr. SERVICE observed that the re­ference of the honorable member for West Bourke (Mr. Harper) to the way in which the new Tariff would interfere with the intercolonial trade was rather behind the time. It was altogether too late to expect the fact of such an interference to be an argument with the committee. In very many articles the intercolonial trade of the colony was already dying out, and would continue to die out. For example, two weeks ago a gentleman came to Mel­bourne for the purpose of buying soft­goods for New Zealand, but ten days afterwards, when he called on him (Mr. Service), to whom he brought letters of introduction, to say good-bye, he said he was off to Sydney to finish up with about £2,000 worth of orders which, owing to the Tariff, he could not complete in Vic­toria. The honorable member for West Bourke was very innocent if he supposed that any representations of the kind he made would have the smallest weight with the Government and their friends.

Mr. LALOR pointed outthat it was much easier to carryon the intercolonia.l trade

4n2

with fixed duties than with ad valorem duties, because the exact amount of the former could at any time be returned in the shape of dmwbacks. How, therefore, the new duty on chinaware could injure that trade was rather difficult to see. As for the mercantile dealings of New Zealand with Victoria being less than they were, that was only a natural consequence of the merchants of the other colony pre­ferring to tl'ade direct with England.

Mr. BAYLES remarked that the ex­planation just offered by the Minister of Customs was somewhat out of place, be­cause it was well known to be almost impossible to allow a drawback on account of measurement duties in connexion with goods the original packages of which were broken up.

Mr. CARTER said he wanted the country to know that the New Zealand merchants, who formerly traded with Mel­bourne, had been practically driven to deal direct with England because of the inconveniences and annoyances the pro­tective Tariff of Victoria put in their way. Before protective duties were established in this colony it had almost the whole of the New Zealand trade, and considering how prone commercial dealings always were to remain in their original channel, it was not likely it would ever have lost it but for the cause he alluded to ..

Mr. LAURENS stated that when he was in New Zealand in 1863 it was cus­tomary for the traders there to get every­thing they could from Victoria, because the great question with them was not so much the price they paid for goods as how soon they could obtain them. But even at that time every merchant of standing was making arrangements to deal with London or Liverpool or elsewhere, not wishing to continue to get goods from this colony. So completely was the Victorian market then all-in-all to New Zealand that the people there actually consumed Victorian green peas, fresh eggs, pota­toes, and oats. It was not likely that New Zealand would be so foolish as to keep up that kind of thing. Besides, the merchants of that colony were just as wide awake as those of Melbourne.

Mr. HARPER remarked that the in­tercolonial trade he had referred to was not so much that with New Zealand as that with other colonies, especially Ri verina. He regarded the trade of Vic­toria with the country across the Murray as of very great importance. But under

106S Revision of [ASSEMBLY.] The Tariff.

duties of the present sort it would be impossible to retain it. For instance, how could drawbacks be obtained upon sayan assortment of chinaware and earthenware supplied to a Riverina station order? Such goods would necessarily have to be taken from their original packages, and in that case how could the Customs autho­rities make an allowance for the duties upon them? It was not likely that the Riverina buyer would consent to pay the extra charge this state of things would occa.sion any longer than he could help. Was H worth while to risk the trade he alluded to for the sake of a duty which would only bring in £2,000 a year?

Mr. MACBAIN observed that he knew it was useless to say a word in favour of the Victorian consumers of dutiable articles, but he could not avoid expressing regret that they should 'be wholly left out of consideration in connexion with the present question. Was it not a little too much that, for the sake of encouraging one or two small manufacturers, the duty on chinaware should be raised from 9d. to 2s. 6d. per cubic foot at one stroke? Would not the imposition of discrimina­tive duties upon particular articles of con­sumption be infinitely better than the present sweeping proposal?

Mr. BO WMAN thought it was unfair to say that the Victorian Tariff caused New Zealand merchants to take their trade from Melbourne to London, because for them to deal directly with the English market was obviously their cheapest plan. With regard to the duty on chinaware taken from Victoria to Riverina, the Riverina squatters could easily avoid paying it by purchasing from local store­keepers who got their supplies from Mel­bourne in bond. Although in that case the Customs department would derive no revenue, still Victoria would keep the Riverina trade, and that ought to be suffi­cient to satisfy the free-trade mind. At the same time, he would suggest that pro­vision should be made for paying draw­backs on chinaware taken from its original package and repacked.

Mr. LALO R made a note of the sug­gestion.

Mr. KERFERD said he listened to the remarks of the honorable member for the Wimmera (Mr. MacBain) with the greatest surprise. Was it possible for th~ honor­able member to be under the impression that the consumer's interest in the Tariff was taken the smallest note of by the

Government? He could not be under a greater delusion. Certainly there was no corresponding delusion in the mind of the Minister of Customs. For example, what did the reports in the Argus of the inter­views between the honorable gentleman and the trades' deputations that waited upon him with respect to Tariff matters show? That his invariable recommenda­tion to them was that they should settle their differences among themselves, and bring the result they arrived at to him. In this way the bootmakers were told to come to an understanding with the tan­ners, the hatters were advised to come to an arrangement with the warehousemen, and so on. About the interests of the consumer in the affair not the slightest notice was taken. Concerning the pur­chasing power of the people the Govern­ment did not appear to trouble themselves one jot. Perhaps from their particular point of view the course they followed might be l'egarded, as sensible enough. It was not for them to trouble themselves about how much the man who spent £1 could get in return for his money. Pos­sibly some day the working men of the colony would awake to the discovery that for every £1 they spent they could only get 13s. worth of goods, and then doubt­less the Minister of Customs would in his turn awake to the discovery that in connexion with Tariff matters the interest of the consumer was the paramount one. Possibly, also, the Government would then admit that something might fairly be said against the duties o,n mining machinery, reapers and binders, and the rest. But for the' present the interest of the con­sumer, like that of the miner and of the farmer, was quite a subordinate affair. Even to mention it was an utter waste of time. It must wait for better days.

Mr. BENT stated that, on the previous Monday, a Melbourne jeweller came to him and said-" This 20 per cent. duty is ruining our trade." He replied--" Why don't you take your story to Mr. Ser­vice?" To this the jeweller said that, if the Minister of Customs saw him with Mr. Service, it would be "a case." He added that he had been to the honorable member for West Melbourne (Mr. Andrew) and the honorable member for South Bourke, and both promised him that the duty of which he complained should be reduced to 10 per cent. The same person stated that, the other day, he lost the sale of a chronograph, because the duty on

Revision of [SEPTEMBER 17.] The Tariff. 1069

the article compelled him to ask £70 for it, whereas the would-be purchaser-a gentleman from Riverina-knew he could buy it in Sydney for £60.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN.-The honorable member is not in order in dis­cussing the item of watches. It has been disposed of.

Mr. BENT moved that the Chairman report progress. He observed that the honorable member for West Melbourne and the honorable member for South Bourke appeared to deny that they gave the promIse he referred .to, but he was quite willing to communicate to them the name of his informant. As for the duty on chinaware, he would like to see its further consideration postponed until he had brought a deputation of old house­wives from Brighton to interview the Government on the subject. One of his lady constituents informed him, the other day, that the extra charge upou a certain chamber utensil on account of the new duty was no less than 9d., and he found, on inquiry, that the statement was correct. The Minister of Customs spoke just now about his having once been confused by the representations certain importers made to him, but it would be well if he would turn his attention to the officers of his own department. It was openly stated that the Customs officers made them­selves a perfect nuisance to the mercantile class, and that honest straightforward men of business stood no chance with them. The case of the umbrella maker in whose behalf duties equal to 25 per cent. were put on umbrellas and such like articles was a sample of how the new Tariff was concocted. Because a man had imported a few umbrella handles and ribs, to be put together here, the whole community was made to pay through the nose. Would it not be better to buy ~p that man body and soul, and send him away? He (Mr. Bent) would undertake to collect enough money among his con­stituents to keep Mr. De Saxe all his life if he would only go away and guarantee that no one else took his place. Then there was the nice delusion put forward that heavy protective duties made the article protected cheaper. The other day he was talking to one of his constituents, a blacksmith, about the new duties, and what their effect on trade was. The man said the price of horse­shoe nails had gone up wonderfully, and he did not know why; but when he had

the reason explained to him, it did not take long to convince him that a heavy duty on the particular article he consumed did not tend to reduce its price, and that the curse of Berryism was ruining the country. He knew well enough that, for aU the' new duties, he could not increase his charge for horse-shoeing. When the new loan was all expended the working population of the colony would soon find out what their friends in the Government had done for them. Talking of that sub­ject, he would take the opportunity to mention that he had been told the Minister of Railways had said that he (Mr. Bent) did his best to prevent the construction of the Lancefield Railway. Nothing could be more incorrect. He did his very best to get the Lancefield Railway Bill through, and in addition suggested that it should be made to include a line to Mordia.lloc. But, in fact, it was the Minister of Railways himself who did not want the Lancefield line. He challenged the honorable gentle­man to bring up a report from his office to the effect that the Railway department did not object to that line. What the honorable gentlemen did in connexion with the money for the Spencer-street station was a sample of what he cO'Qld do. As a matter of fact, if he were allowed to have his own way, it would exhaust the borrowing 'powers of all the colonies to keep him going. It was a grand time for the workiug man of Victoria when his wages were brought down to 4s. per day, and almost every article he consumed was subjected to duty equal to 60 or 70 per cent. If he could have his way, the Government should not pass. another line of their Tariff. He would "stone-wall" the blessed thing until its eyes were knocked out.

Mr. WILLIAMS said he thought it was a false charge to make that the present Administration did not consider the con­sumer in their re-adjustment of the Tariff. Certainly, he was of opinion that some members of the Ministry did consider the consumer. This was shown by the fol­lowing extract from a speech delivered by one member of the Ministry some little time ago:-

" , Protection to native industry' was a vague term. Was it protection to 'waddies' that was meant? If they wanted £40,000 worth of ma­chinery for developing the resources of the colony, would it not be monstrous to pay a duty on this? The protectionists made broad asser­tions, and quoted statistics by the cart-load, but they had nQ titne to loo~ them over ~t a mef;ltin~.

1070 Revision of [ASSEMBLY.] , Tlte Ta'l'ijf.

He believed that to this new system was the civil war in America to be attributed. One part of the States placed protective duties on articles coming from another, and there was no recipro­city of feeling among them. Let them take boots and shoes. Was it not a fact that all the shoemakers in the colony could not supply Btl.llarat alone with these articles? He enter­tained a high respect for a man who came forward and advocated views that he thought in his heart were right, and disseminated them as such, and no doubt many of the protectionists thought they were right. Some time ago he was shown round Melbourne and its public buildings, its pedestals, arches, and columns. 'All very fine,' said the speaker to the gentleman accom­panying him. 'Look at us on Ballarat, who cannot get a water supply, while our miners are contributing to erect those magnificent temples.' Around Melbourne he found a lot of idle men too lazy to work, hanging about their favorite Don, or smiling Gray, or their winsome Berry to amuse them. These men were idling their time, and the miners of Ballarat, as a class, were delving in the depths of the earth-some of them for four years without getting any recompense for their labours, and by the sweat of their brows they were made to contribute to the adornment of Melbourne, while the orators there were haranguing the idle of the city on protec­tion, and declaring that a tax on boots and shoes would be the only salvation of the country." The speech from which this was an 'ex­tract was delivered by the present Trea­surer and Minister of Public Instruction.

Mr. CARTER rose to order. He pro­tested against diabolical sentiments like those contained in the extract being attri­buted to an honorable gentleman who had always held diametrically opposite opinions.

Mr. WILLIAMS stated that there was no point of order in the objection. The speech from which he had quoted was delivered on the hustings at Ballarat in July, 1861. He acknowledged that with regard to political utterances as with re­gard to debt there should be a Statute of limitations; but it should be recollected that, the other night, the Treasurer de­nounced honorable members who sat in the Ministerial corner, and yet before the electors of Ballarat he declared solemnly and earnestly that, if he went into Par­liamen t, he would go

"As an independent member, to do the best he could for his constituents and the country. He would not go there to support any man or body of men. It would be derogatory to him to do so, and his motto would be ' measures, not men.' He would not go into the House to sup­port any clique or party. He would sit on that side of the House that he thought would benefit his constituents. He would not sit on the oppo­sition nor yet on the Ministerial side. He would sit on the cross benches." It was very evident that if an honorable member desired to consult the iuterests

of his constituents he must sit on the cross benches, until he found he could better serve his constituents by taking a seat on the Treasury bench. If the par· liamentary career of the Treasurer were investigated it would be found that the honorable gentleman sat first in one corner, and then in the other, until he was fortu· nate enough to become tt Minister of the Crown. If the sentiments which had been read were the true sentiments of the Treasurer, there could not be much unanimity in the Cabinet with regard to

j the Tariff. However that might be, he thought that the sooner the whole of the Tariff proposals were swallowed without objection, the better would it be for the House and the country.

Mr. SERVICE stated that he thought the honorable member for Mandurang (Mr. Williams) was going to refer to some other Minister than the Treasurer. The honorable and learned member for the Ovens bad omitted to tell the best story which had been current during the last few weeks with respect to the Tariff. He referred to the deputation to the Minister of Customs from gentlemen in­terested in reapers and binders. The report of the interview, as it appeared in the Argus, was most interesting and in­structive. The Minister came out as a rank free-trader on that occasion. Said the Minister to the deputation-" I am told that the colonial-made reapers and binders are not so good as some of those imported, and if a farmer thinks he can do better with a McCormick's reaping machine than with one made ,in the colony, I don't see why he should be compelled to pay duty on that machine." That was exactly his (Mr. Service's) argument. If he chose to wear a London hat, why should he be compelled to pay duty upon it to promote the inrlustry of hat-making in the colony? The hon­orable member for Brighton had alluded to a deputation that had waited upon the honorable member for South Bourke amI the honorable member for West Melbourne (1\1:1'. Andrew), but the honorable member did not know the whole story, because, as a matter of fact, the individual referred to first came to Service, and was recom­mended by Service-who knew that any­thiLlg he suggested could not, by the slightest chance, be carried-to interview the honorable members for South Bourke and "Vest Melbourne. The honorable member for ,Maryborough (Mr. Bowman)

Revision of [SEPTElIIllER 17.J The Tariff.- 1071

was quite correct in the statement that a great quantity of the goods imported by the other colonies was now, and had been for some time past, imported direct. It was only natural that a large proportion of the trade once carried on between this colony and New Zealand should now be diverted. What was complained of was not that New Zealand should try to help itself, but that public men here should en­deavour to destroy the rest of the inter­colonial trade. The Minister of Customs was perfectly correct in the statement that, however heavy a customs duty might be, if it were a fixed duty, so far as goods not broken were concerned, it was no interference with the intercolonial trade. But in the case of goods which had to be opened out-whether soft-goods, ironmon­gery, stationery, china ware, earthenware, or even boots and shoes-the moment a duty was put upon those goods the trade in the article with the adjoining colonies was checked. He had already mentioned an instance of a gentleman from New Zealand who went to Sydney for £2,000 worth of goods instead of buying them in Melbourne; and instances of the kind were occurring every day, the loss to trade being something enormous. Only that "afternoon, there had been placed in his hands a letter addressed to Mr. J. M. Bruce, a member of a soft-goods firm, in which the writer, a gentleman from Tas­mania, said-" As your Tariff is still un­settled, and r must buy goods, I am off by train to Sydney." Here was an evidence of trade in Melbourne being destroyed, and that meant not simply a reduction in the incomes of merchants, but the throwing out of employment of a great many labor­ing men, and also men who had been en­gaged in warehouses and counting-houses, numbers of whom were now walking the streets, filling the rank::; of the unemployed. As he had stated before, he was not dis­posed to move any amendment on the Tariff proposals, but if any amendments were moved, which he thought in the right direction, he would certainly support them. At the same time he deprecated any desire on the part of honorable mem­bers to divide the committee unless they felt they would have some show, because that was only to waste time. The honor­able member for Brighton had mixed up the question before the committee with the item of earthenware. To the increased duty on earthenware he had strong objec­tion, but an increased duty on china he

did not Cfire so much about, because, after all, it fell upon wealthy people. The duty on earthenware, however, fell on the poorer class.

Mr. BERRY observed that if honorable members would only divide there would not be much to complain of; bnt from what had transpired since the House had been in committee he was almost inclined to doubt whether honorable members were going to pass the Tariff or not. For a~ hour or more honorable members had been engaged in discussing an item which was not one of principle but of revenue, and now there was before the committee a motion that the Chairman report progress. If there was an indisposition to proceed with the Tariff, perhaps the better course would be to report progress, in order' that the House might get on with some other business. He thought that the honorable member for Maldon, when he rose, was going to use the weight of his influence to bring about a decision on some of the items. The letter which the honorable member read should induce him to do that, because the letter complained not so much of the Tariff as of the fact that the Tariff was not settled. The Government were anxious to have the Tariff settled. He could understand a proposal being made to reduce the duty now before the committee, and taking a division upon

_ the question, and being done with it. But what good could come of wasting another night in discussing the question of free trade and protection? The speech just delivered by the honorable member for Maldon might have been delivered in 1871. It was then asserted that the intercolonial trade was destroyed. What had there been to destroy since? It was the old story over and over again. No doubt a large portion of the New Zealand trade had passed away, and, with regard to that which remained, probably Sydney profited more than Melbourne, simply because it vms situated so much nearer to New Zealand. If the Opposition had behaved only reasonably the Tariff would have been settled before this. In fact, there had been consumed over this Tariff sufficient time for the settling of half-a­dozen Tariffs. The honorable member for J\t[aldon ought to recollect that it was the party to which he (Mr. Berry) be­longed tlmt first brought into operation the system of drawbacks on open stocks -on broken packages. The honorable member for vVarrnambool, when in office,

1072 Revision of [ASSEMBLY.] The Tariff.

could not see his way to do that. (Mr. Francis-" That is not the case.") Cer­tainly the honorable member did not do it.

Mr. FRANCIS said the whole thing was cut and dried before it was carried out by Mr. Vale, when Minister of Cus­toms.

Mr. BERRY remarked that Mr. Vale carried out the policy of the then Govern­ment, of which he (Mr. Berry) was Trea­surer. Whether there were any materials in the Customs aepartment out of which Mr. Vale managed to perfect the drawback regulations, he did not know. If there were, he was willing to give the honor­able member for Warrnam boo I credit for them. But the drawbacks were never brought into effect while the honorable member was in office. Alt.hough he was a commercial man, and his chief was a commercial man, they were never able to give intercolonial trade the relief which was given to it by the Government to which he (Mr. Berry) belonged. In conclusion, he repeated that he did not care how many di visions were taken on the Tariff pro­posals so long as they got on with busi­ness; but, if there was no disposition in that direction, the Cha,irman had better report progress.

Mr. PURVES desired to inform the Chief Secretary that the protest which the Opposition had made was not in favour of free-trade as against protection-that ques­tion was settled some time ago, at any rate for a reasonable period-but against tin­kering with Tariffs. A change in the tax­ation of the country, when the change was fixed and determined, was a thing which could be understood, and must be suffered and borne. But that was a wholly differ­ent thing from the proceedings of men who did not know their own minds, and who were obliged to withdraw their Tariff, and have it moulded in caucus-at a meeting apart from Parliament altogether. With proceedings of that kind no wonder that the public mind became discontented - that there was no security in commerce or in trade. It was that want of confidence which was doing incalculable evil to the colony at the present time. When the Chief Secre­tary found that certain items of his Tariff would not meet with the favour of the Assembly, he called together his followers and moulded his Tariff to suit their votes. It was not principles the honorable gen­tleman had at heart, but what would satisfy the majority of his supporters. What con .. fidence could any honest man have in a

politician who sought with a Tariff to buy votes, rather than to relieve the bur­then of taxation upon the people? Per­sonally he had not the slightest confidence in or respect for the politician who counted heads with regard to his propositions. Why when the Chief Secretary had to relinquish the reins of Government into abler hands he would leave behind him a task which would require a giant mind to overcome. The danger for the colony was not so much while the Ministry were in office as afterwards, when an effort would have to be made to retrieve the misfortunes they had brought upon the colony. The next Treasurer would have to relieve the colony from the burthen of taxation now being imposed upon it, and for that duty a political economist of the first water, the best man that could be found, would be required. How dare the Chief Secretary say that the present ob­jections on the part of the Opposition were raised by free-traders as against pro­tection? He (Mr. Purves) asserted boldly that what the Opposition did was to pro­test, item by item, against the Tariff pro­posals in order that the country might fully see that they were alive to the gravity of the situation. And here he would ask whether the honorable gentle­men who supported this sudden increase and change in the Tariff were protec­tionists at heart? If they were, why were they not consistent? How was it that gentlemen who boasted of their .connexion with Geelong tweed manufactories wore broadcloth made in Yorkshire? Why did the Chief Secretary import European poli­ticians to aid him? Why did he not stick to the native article? He (Mr. Purves) had watched with some curiosity the change of front with regard to the native article that was, for a time, fostered, pampered, and patted on the back by the Chief Sec­retary. Why did the Chief Secretary throw over the native article, and take to his arms the latest importation? Why the former was worth a hundred of the latter. Then there was the £5,000 voted for an embassy to Europe. How was that money expended? It appeared that it had been spent wholly outside the colony -not a penny of the money had been spent in it. Then again, the other night, the Chief Secretary stated-because he was tinkering with Tariff's and blowing reform bubbles-that he could not afford to allow the House to adjourn in order that honorable members might be able to

. Revision of [SEPTEMBER 17.] The Tariff. 1073

go to Sydney and see the Exhibition, and there learn a useful lesson. Why it would pay the colony well to send every protec­tionist member of the House to Sydney to see what the people there were doing. If protectionist members went there, they would find that the race Victoria was run­ning was a losing one; that she was carry­ing stone upon stone of dead-weight, and that she was far away from the winning­post. He had been to Sydney several times within the last ten years, and when he went there he walked about like a man in a dream. The place was flourishing beyond all precedent. It reminded him of Melbourne fifteen years ago. The wharfs teemed with shipping, the halls of commerce were thronged, and the streets were alive with a busy, prosperous, and smiling people. Notwithstanding its dis­advantages, one of which was that the land in the immediate vicinity was so poor, Sydney had become the central mart of the southern hemisphere. The mer­chants of Sydney were supplying goods to India, the South Seas, and the outlying colonies, while Melbourne was paralyzed by Berryism. Sydney was attracting the best men from Victoria-not mere trading politicians, who thought only of their £300 a year, but the bone and sinew of the country. (Mr. L. L. Smith-" It is too slow for that.") Why one of the first things he saw in Sydney on the occasion of his last visit was a large placard bearing the name of the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Smith). The honorable member had paid an enormous sum for the use of the side of a house near the Exhibition to advertise himself. He repeated that some of the best men of Victoria had gone, or were going, to Sydney. Journalists had gone to start newspapers there; Victorian merchants had opened not branch but main houses there; lawyers were turning anxious eyes towards New South Wales; and the same thing might be said of tradesmen and artificers. He made these statements with regret, because he loved Victoria. The welfare of this colony was dear to his heart, and therefore he wished that honor­able members would give their attention to what was taking place in New South Wales, so that they might learn the lesson that prosperity to a country meant freedom.

Mr. L. L. SMITH stated that when he was in Sydney some six or seven months ago there was a general complaint on the

part of shopkeepers of the dullness of trade-that they were doing nothing, or, at all events, hardly sufficient to pay their rent. With regard to the condition of the Sydney working man, he desired to call attention to the following statements, which were contained in a special report as to the state of trade, issued by the "New South Wales Trades and Labour Council" :-

"The above council having questioned the monthly summary of the labour market given in the Sydney Morning Herald, it was agreed between the council and the managers of the Sydney Morning Herald that a reporter from that journal and a delegate from the conncil, one from the blacksmiths, representing the iron trades, and one from the stonemasons, repre­senting the building trades, should investigate the state of the same, and the following is the result." The Herald, he might remind honorable members, was a free-trade organ which was continually crying up New South Wales and Sydney-just the reverse of what the free-trade journals of Melbourne did with regard to Victoria. The account, therefore, must be taken as a truthful one, inasmuch as a Herald reporter accom­panied the delegates while the information was being gathered. He need not read the whole report, but the state of things existing in Sydney would be unde\'stood from some extracts from it. In the first place, it said that the deputation

"Interviewed employers interested in the various businesses to which attention had been immediately directed, and found that an air of dismay oppressed the enterprise in which they were engaged, and that prospects in the labour market were very sombre indeed. Everywhere there appeared a surplus of men and a scarcity of work-idle hands, hunger, and complaint, troublesome calls for employment, and dis­heartening views of speculation." With regard to the shipsmiths, the report observed-

"Mr. Wright, Circular Quay, reports wages . at Is. to Is. 6d. per hour; not sufficient work to engage an extra hand, although many good workmen apply for employment. . . Mr. Murphy reports Is. ld. to Is. 3d. as wages given; at present there are too many men out of employment, and believes that 50 would respond to an advertisement in one morning."

Then, with respect to the iron trades generally, the deputation reported-

"Mr.Davidson,superintendentof A. S.N. Com­pany's works, reports . . . . supply greater than demand in the iron trades; in fact, he was positively annoyed by the frequency of appli­cations for work by good hands whom he could offer no encouragement to. . . . . Atlas works-No difficulty in obtaining hands; could get 50 or more if required; in truth annoyed

1074 Revision of [ASSEMBLY.] The Tariff.

by frequency of applications for employment by competent hands in all branches of industry; have mechanics with first-class testimonials working as labourers at present. . . . . Mr. Vale, engineering works, Pyrmont, reports­Trade is very depressed, and great numbers of men are out of employment."

The report next referred to the ship­wrights-

"Captain Rowntree, Mort's Dock, and A. t;. N. Company report - Supply of labour much greater than demand, many qualified men having to seek employment in other kindred work, notably in timber elevation and hoisting at the Exhibition."

Then, as to the building trades-" Mr. Wallace, builder and contractor, reports

a great number of men out of employment in . ~verybranch of the building trade ; no difficulty ill obtaining 50 masons if wanted, also brick­layers and carpenters in great surplus; wages, 9s. to lls'. per diem; perceives no signs of im· provement in business. . • . . Mr. Sims reports trade painfully slack, and a vast numuer of journeymen out of work; has continual ap­plications from serviceable men."

This was the prosperous country Victoria was to look to, according to the honor­able and learned member for Mornington ! Further, with respect to quarrymen, it was stated-

" The general returns furnished show supply greater than demand, and wages on the de­cline."

Finally, the report said-" There are 4,000 to 5,000 unemployed m~n,

it is estimated, in Sydney at present. So in­vestigation thus far shows the labour horizon to be oppressed and threatened with dark and ominous clouds which must bring much misery and painful anxiety among sober and industri .. ously inclined operatives."

To show that this report was not in any way exaggerated, the Trades and J..Jabour Council added the following from an article in the Sydney M01'ning Herald of July 12, giving an account .of the meeting at which the report was brought up:-

" 1\11'. 'Vhite concluded his report of the result of the inquiry into the state of the iron and building trades which, in every material point, coincides with the report of the gentleman from the Herald office appointed to accompany him."

Ho thought it was sufficient just merely to give those facts without adJing a word of comment; they spoke for themselves.

Mr. FRASER remarked that there was ono simple fact which was sufficient to dispose of all tho statements the honor­able momber for Richmond (Mr. Smith) had just read, namely, that all tho immi­grants who arrived in Sydnoy wore om­ployed within a very few days. The

same was the case in Adelaiile, and, from his own knowledge of both New South Wales and South Australia, he could say that immigrants there immediately found employment on their arrival. There were always a number of idle men knocking about large towns, but in both Sydney and Adelaide he could affirm that the passengers by immigrant ships always ob­tained employment. (Mr. L. L. Smith­" They are sent up-country.") It did not matter whether they were employed in the country or the town so long as they were employed somewhere. It was all nonsense to talk about the depressed state of Sydney. Any honorable member who took a trip to Sydney, and looked about him with unbiased eyes, could only come to the conclusion that that city was going ahead rapidly, while this colony was as speedily going back. A man could fire a cannon down Flinders-lane at noon with­out doing any damage. Nothing of that kind could be done in Sydney.

Mr. LANGRIDGE said it was not long since he was in Sydney, and his experi­ence was very different from that of the honorable and learned member for Morn­ington and the honorable member for Rod­ney (Mr. Fraser). He hardly saw. any­thing eatable there that was not imported from Victoria; . even the qanterbnry cakes were obtained from this colony.. . Witll respect to the item under discussion, he would remind the honorable member for Maldon that one of the chief reasons why he (Mr. Langridge) and other protectionist members withdrew their support from the Kerferd Government was that the honorable member, when bringing forward his Tariff proposals, refused to insert in the list of duties one or t,vo duties which they requested him to include. At that time the free-traders and protectionists in the I-louse were about equfll, and night after night, during the discussion of the Service Tariff, they were told that the country was tending more and more towards free-trade. Shortly afterwards thore was a, goneral election, which re­turned a great majority of pl'otectioliists to the Houso, yet the same statement was being repeated now when another election was approaching. He was still, however, prepared to support the views he had al ways advocated, and to take tho conse­quences of his nctiou.

Tho motion to report progress was put nnd neg:tti voll.

The resoluHoll was theu l1greed to.

Revision of [SEPTEMBER 17.J Tlte Tariff. 1075

Major SMITH proposed the adoption of the following items :-

" Cordage, viz., coir rope, 5s. per cwt.; hempen and other cordage (except of galvanized iron), including all housing and seizing lines and SPUIl­

yarn, Us. 3d. per cwt. ; white lines and other descriptions of cordage not otherwise specified (except coir yarn), 28s. per cwt."

Mr. CARTER said these duties were, be presumed, proposed to satisfy the per­sons engaged in the rope trade, the in­creased duty on bags and sacks having been withdrawn. The duty on coil' rope was raised from £2 to £5 per ton, and on hemp rope from £4 lOs. to £ 11 5s. per ton, while on white lines and other descriptions of cordage the increase was from £8 to no less than £28 per ton. He thought the committee should pause before they ham­pered in this way the miners and the agriculturists, who all used ropes more or less. (Major Smith-I' The duties only brought in £47 last year.") If the amount realized was so small, why put the duties on? When honorable members com­plained of duties of this kind the Trea­surer asked them to suggest some other way of getting money. Now he could mention one single proposal by which £23,000 could be raised in the simplest manner, namely, by the abolition of the differential duty on spirits. The industry which would be affected only employed 100 persons, and if the Government abolished the duty he would undertake to import as much spirit as was made bere, but of a superior quality, and to deliver it to the Treasurer at 3s. per gallon. The revenue would be then benefited to the extent of 1 s. per gallon, and the Trea­surer could make tbe local distillers a pre­sent of the whole quantity of those spirits for nothing.

Mr. YOUNG observed that if these duties were imposed there was no doubt that intercolonial vessels would get the rope they required in the ports of the other colonies to which they traded. The result would be that the trade in rope, as regarded the shipping, would be driven entirely from the port of Melbourne. The duties would have to be borne by the miners and agriculturists, and would faU very heavily upon them. 'Vith regard to the remarks that had been made about the state of Sydney, he might say he was 1here recently, and he observed-as he had done on a previous visit about a year and a half ngo-tbat building was going on so rapidly as to remind one of the state

of things in Melbourne from 1854 to 1860. He also went through the Exhibition, although it was not opened, and he heard it stated on good authority that a large firm of English manufacturers, who were now exhibiting at Sydney, had determined not to bring their exhibits on to Melbourne on account of the Tariff which was now being passed. They stated, and with some show of reason, that there was no inducement to exhibit their wares here when the Tariff would prevent their goods from being introduced into the colony. The Tariff would have the effect of driving trade from this colony to Sydney, where already Melbourne merchants were establishing their head­quarters.

Mr. HARPER pointed out that the duties would fall heavily on the fishermen and owners of small craft trading about the bay, who could ill afford to pay them.

MI'. FRANCIS protested a.gainst the imposition of such extreme protection as these duties would afford. The duty on white lines would be 33! per cent.

Mr. LALOR observed that he was assured by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs that the duties on the articles included in this group would be exactly the honorable member's own proposal-20 per cent.

Mr. FRANCIS said the Minister of Customs made bold assertions which were inconsistent with facts. He had never proposed a duty of 20 per cent. He be­lieved in a healthy system of protection, but he objected to the imposition of 20 per cent. duties.

Mr. LALOR said he begged the hOll­orable member's pardon. He was under the impression that the honorable member, w hen in office, proposed the 20 per cent. duties, but he found that was not the case.

Mr. FRANCIS remarked that, notwith­standing the calculations of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, he maintained that the duties on these articles would be nearer 30 per cent. than 20 per cont. Seeing that ships wer9 the largest con­snmers of these ropes, he thought it would be extremely undesirable to increase the duties, as ship-owners would undoubtedly get t~leir rope at the ports of the other colonies. It was a gross imposition, also, to place a duty of 30 per cent. on hay­bands and clothes-lines. Tho miners, too, would have to suffer from these duties. (Mr. Lnlor-" They ,yonld not use an imported rope.") Then the duties would

1076 Revision of [ASSEMBLY.] The Tariff.

fall chiefly on the shipping, and vessels would be driven to get their stores else­where. The constituents of the honorable member for Williamstown and the honor­able and learned member for Sandridge would be injuriously affected if this item were carried.

Mr. A. T. CLARK observed that he had not heard a single complaint from any of his constituents with regard to the Tariff proposals. The electors of Wil­liamstown were more consistent than some Members of Parliament, and even if the protective duties did press on them they were prepared to pay for the benefit of the entire colony. They were not like a number of members of the Assembly, who were protectionists up to the point of the duty on mining machinery, but, because that duty affeeted the miners, desired it to be swept away. With respect to the statement that the duties on ropes would drive away the trade of supplying ships with that article, he might point out that the shipping would not be affected by the duties at all. Every yard of rope used by the shipping was taken out of bond, and did not pay a single penny of duty. The only persons who paid the duties were those who used ropes within the colony.

Mr. COOPER stated that the honorable member for Williamstown, in his remarks concerning mining members, had made a great mistake. The honorable member observed that the members representing mining constituencies supported protection until it touched the miners, and then they objected. He did not think the honorable member could mention a single thing the miner wore or used ·in his occu·pation, or which he purchased for his family, that was not taxed. Yet when the miners, who had for years paid all these duties,. asked for such a slight conc·ession as the exemption of mining machinery they were met with such remarks as those of the honorable member for Williamstown.

Mr. BENT remarked that it was the ship-owners-including the owners of small craft who could not afford it-who would pay these duties. The poor washer­women would also be taxed on their clothes-lines, the fishermen on the lines they used to draw in their nets, the miners on their signal lines, and the farmers on their hay-bands. He challenged the officers of the Customs department to say that the duties on these articles only amounted to 20 per cent. There were only two or three ropemakers in the

colony, and only one of them said he wanted these duties. On clothes-lines the tax would be 3~d. per lb.-about the weight of some clothes-lines-and even the twine with which the market gar­deners tie their radishes would, by the ingenuity of the Customs department, be brought under the head of " other descrip­tions of cordage." The present Govern­mlimt would be hereafter known as the "taxation Government "-nothing under them escaped from taxation.

The committee divided on the cordage duties with the following result :-

Mr. Andrew, " Bell, " Berry, " B ill son, " Bowman, " A. T. Clark,

AYES.

Mr. Mason, " Nimmo, " O'Hea,

Sir B. O'Loghlen, Mr. Patterson, " Pearson,

" R. Clark ( Wim.), " W. M. Cla.rk,

" Rees, " Richardson, " Sains bury, " Sharpe,

" Cook, " D. M. Davies, " Fergusson, " Fincham, " Grant, " Inc'e, " J ohnstorie, " Kernot, " Lalor, " Langridge, " Laurens, " Longmore,

Mr. Bayles, " Bent, " Blackett, " Carter, " Cooper, " Duffy, " Francis, " Fraser, " Graves, " Harper,

Mr. Uasey, " Cope, " Dwyer, " L. L. Smith.

Major Smith, Mr. Story, " Tucker, " Tytherleigh, " Woods, " Wright.

Tellers. Mr. Dixon, " Mirams.

NOES.

Mr. MacBain, Dr. Madden, Sir J. O'Shanassy, Mr. Ramsay, " Service, " R. M. Smith, " Young.

Tellers. Mr. Bird,

" Moore. PAIRS.

I Mr. Bosisto,

" Zox, " Kerferd, " Purves.

Mr. BENT remarked that the honor­able member for Moira (Mr. Sharpe) gave his voice with the "N oe8," but de­layed crossing the floor for a few minutes, and then on another honorable member saying he was too late he kept his seat. He claimed the honorable member's vote for the" Noes."

The ACTING CHAIRMAN.-An honorable member's vote must go the way he gave his voice. I will, therefore, ask the honorable member for Moira how he gave his voice?

Revision oj [SEPTEMBER 17. ] The Tariff. 1077

Mr. SHARPE said he certainly gave his voice with the" Noes," and intended to vote that way.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. - As the honorable member gave his voice with the" Noes," according to the parlia­mentary rule his vote must be recorded with the" Noes."

The numbers were accordingly declared to be-

Ayes ... 37 Noes ... 20

Majority for the duties 17

Major SMITH then proposed the adoption of the following item :­

"Earthenware (except photographic mate­rials)-ls. 4d. per cubic foot."

Mr. SERVICE asked the Minister of Customs to give some information with regard to this item.

Mr. LALOR said the existing duty amounted to' 14 per cent., and that pro­posed would amount to 22 per cent. Earthenware was manufactured in several parts of the colony-Sandhurst, Ballarat, and Melbourne.

Mr. BLACKETT suggested that che­mical and scientific apparatus should be exempted from the duty. He understood it was the intention of the Minister of Public Instruction to introduce the teach­ing of science into State schools, and the duty might interfere with the use of scientific instruments. .

Mr. LALOR said he would have the suggested exemptions made at the proper time, if he fonnd they did not interfere with the collection of the duty on other articles.

Mr. FRANCIS moved that the item be struck out. The present duty on earthenware, though nominally 10 per cent., was practically 14 per cent., and the freight, cartage, and other charges, including the loss by breakages, would average 100 per cent. on ordinary descrip­tions of earthenware. The manufacture of colonial earthenware was therefore pro­tected to the extent of 114 per cent. Was not that sufficient protection? He maintained that no such protection was required to encourage the establishment or extension of any native industry.

Mr. BILLSON said there was no ground for the assertion that the freight and other charges on imported earthen­ware amounted to 100 per cent. Fully as much as lOs. or 126. worth, or even

£1 worth, of earthenware could be packed in a cubic foot of space. He was sur­prised that the honorable member for Warrnambool, who called himself a pro­tectionist, objected to the proposed duty, when earthenware goods were manufac­tured in the colony.

Mr. FRANCIS stated that, as man and boy, he had been engaged for more than 40 years in mercantile affairs, and at one time he had a great deal to do with the measurement of cargo. From his personal knowledge a,nd experience, he had no hesitation in saying that the average rate of freight on the commoner kinds of earthenware was fully 60 per cent. of the invoice price of the goods, and that the cartage and other charges, including al­lowance for breakages, made the total cost of importation 100 per cent., ex­clusive of the amount of duty.

Mr. BILLSON remarked that he could measure crates of earthenware as well as the honorable member for Warrnambool.

Major SMITH observed that there were several manufactories of earthen­ware in the colony. Amongst others, there were two or three at Ba,llarat, and one at Sandhurst. The proposed duty would tend to encourage the colonial manu­facture.

Mr. BENT promised to make the hon­orable member for the Ovens (Mr. Billson) a present of a crate of earthenware if the duty on it at Is. 4d. per cubic foot did not amount to 50 per cent. on the value of the goods. The duty was a heavy tax on the poorer classes of the community. He admitted there was as good earthen­ware and pottery made at Sandhul'st as in any part of the world, but the manufacturers did not want this protection of Is. 4d. per cubic foot. What they did want were fair railway charges. While the Government proposed a duty of Is. 4d. per cubic foot on the imported articles, they charged 6d. per cl!bic foot for the carriage of earthen ware from Sandhurst to Melbourne.

Mr. COOPER admitted there was a large earthenware manufactory at Sand­hurst, and that excellent articles were made there, but cups and saucers were not made there. He believed that or­dinary delf cups and saucers were not manufactured anywhere in the colony. (Mr. Service-" What earthenwate is manufactured in the colony?") Bread plates, brown tea-pots, and brownware generally. He concurred in the opinion

1078 Revision of [ASSEMBLY.] The Tmt/J:

that the proposed duty would simply be a tax on the poorer classes of the com­munity.

Mr. COOl{ remarked that brownware of excellent quality, from drainage pipes to articles of the finest description, was made at Brunswick. There was one celebrated pottery there which was well worthy of a visit. A large quantity of clay was imported from Tasmania, and manufactured into earthenware at Bruns­wick.

Mr. TYTHERLEIGH said -he had seen handsome cups and saucers that were manufactured at Sandhurst. The difficulty in the way of their production was, as indicated by the honorable mem­ber for Brighton, the heavy railway charges. It cost 288. per ton to send earthenware from Sandhurst to Melbourne, whereas similar goods were brought from England to Melbourne for 128. 6d. per ton. The proposed duty would encourage the manufacture of earthenware in the colony.

Mr. R. M. SMITH stated that he wished to call the Chief Secretary's attention to a serious dereliction of the principle of protection. The honorable member for East Bourke Boroughs said that Tas­manian clay was imported into this colony for the purpose of being manufactured into earthenware goods. Surely that was a most improper thing for a protectionist Ministry to permit. It was a great injus­tice to persons who dug Victorian clay. He was astonished to hear that a manu­facturer residing at Brunswick should absolutely presume to make articles out of Tasmanian clay. Probably the Government would consider the necessity for at once putting a prohibitive duty on Tasmanian clay, and thereby relegating the Victorian manufacturer to a proper association with Victorian material. With regard to the item before the committee, he desired to direct the attention of the Government to the following statement by one of the largest dealers in earthenware in Melbourne :-

"Our experience of the new Tariffupon our im­portations is that it is vexatious and inefficacious -vexatious because Is. 4d. a foot upon earthen­ware is such an enormous expense that, in order to a-Y0id paying it upon straw and broken goods; the lmporters now unpack the packages and pay duty upon the actual measurement of the goods. True it saves duty, but it causes great expense and delay in getting the goods to sell; for it takes two experienced men to do four or five crates a day. That expense destroys also the intercolonial trade, for you are'Dot,allowed to

repack in bond. Consequently you must either repack or run the risk of paying excessive duty in case the bonded goods are required for local consumption. They are inefficacious, because we find from our last shipment-British Nation­that the revenue has not benefited a shilling; 9d. per foot rough measurement gives as much duty as Is. 4d. per foot for unpacked packages. Clearly no one gains. The goods are. not and can not be made in the colony, and we suffer great hardship and loss of trade for no earthly reason whatsoever. I hope, sir, by making this clear to the House, the majority may be induced to return to the old rate, which would be no loss to the revenue, and leave our business as it was."

Another communication he had received was as follows :-

"Might I point out to you a very great injustice which the importers of china, glass, and earthenware are subject to? If we receive 20 packages, each containing an exact quantity of any line of goods, we are compelled to unpack the whole, and have the measurement of each taken. "Vbat we would ask is that the measure­ment of one be accepted as the measurement of the remainder. This would save us the trouble of unpacking the 19 packages, al;ld would be no loss to the Customs." .

Honorable members must see that this duty was not defensible even from a protectionist point of view. It was a tax on articles which, for the most part, could not be made here; and any that could be made here were amply protected by the cost of freight, breakages, and so on. The duty was nothing else but an enormous tax on poor people - a tax on articles which belonged to the social decenciel:! of life. It ought to be abandoned, without regard to the principles either of free-trade or protection.

Mr. COOPER explained that, when he said cups and saucers were not made at Sandhurst, he meant cups and saucers for ordinary use. He was quite aware that fancy cups and saucers-for show pur­P9ses-were manufactured at Sandhurst, but the real question was whether any Victorian manufacturers could make those articles to supply the place of the imported ones on the working man's table. When there was a possibility of that being done would be time enough to impose the pro­posed duty. He objected to everybody being taxed for years and years in order that somebody might possibly derive some benefit at some time or other.

Sir J; O'SHANASSY asked what was the total revenue received, last year from the duty on earthenware, and the amount expected to be derived this year?

Mr. LALOR replied that the sum received last year· was ·£7,035, and it was

Revision of [SEPTEMBER 17.J The Tariff. 1079

estimated that the new duty would in­crease that amount by £4,000 this year. In reference to the communications read by the honorable member for BQroondara, it appeared to him that some arrangement might be made by the Customs depart­ment whereby importers of earthenware would be saved the trouble of unpacking packages. He would consider the matter.

The committee divided on the proposal for imposing a duty of Is. 4d. per cubic foot on earthenware-

Ayes ... 38 Noes ... 23

Majority for the duty 15

AYES. Mr. Andrew, " Bell, " Berry, " Billson, " Bowman, " D. Cameron, " A. T. Clark, " R. Clark (Sand.), " W. M. Clark, " Cook, " D. M. Davies, " Dixon, " Fergusson, " Grant, " Ince, " Johnstone, " Kernot, " Lalor, " Langridge, " Laurens,

Mr. Longmore, " Mason, " Nimmo, " O'Hea,

Sir B. O'Loghlen, Mr. Patterson, " Rees, " Richardson, " Sainsbury,

Major Smith, Mr. Story,

" Tucker, " Tytherleigh, " Williams, " Woods, " Wright.

Tellers. Mr. Fincham, " Mirams.

NOES. Mr. Bayles, " Bent, " Blackett, " Carter, " R. Clark (Wim.), " Cooper, " Duffy, " Francis, " Fraser, " Gillies; " Graves, " Harper,'

Mr. Hunt, " MacBain,

Dr. Madden, Mr. Moore, Sir J. O'Shanassy, Mr. Ramsay, " Service, ' '" Sharpe, " R. M. Smith.

Tellers. Mr. Bird, " Xoung.

PAIRS.

Mr. Casey, 'I Mr. BOSiS, to, " Cope, " Zox, " Dwyer, " Kerferd, " L. L. Smith. ,. Purves.

On the question that the following reso­lution be adopted :-" Hops, 6d. per lb.,"

Mr. CARTER said the items of hops and malt could scarcely be discussed separately. It was proposed to iIicrease the duty on both articles, which were used in the pro­duction of beer, and he desired to point out that there -Were 'serious objections to the increase, apart'from the question of free~ trade or protection. In the year~ 1864 and

1867, Royal commissions were appointed to take evidence respecting the manufacture of beor in Victoria, and in 1875 analysts were employed in making tests of colonial beer. Mr. Johnson, the Government Ana­lytical Chemist, and Mr. Cosmo N ewbery tested 1,200 samples.' Those experiments must have cost a considerable sum of money, and he believed that the Royal commissions cost about£l,OOO. The result of the analyses was that the imperfections in colonial beer were attributed to the large use of sugar instead of malt, and a de­ficiency in the quantity and quality of hops. It was quite evident that if the cost of the materials used in making beer was increased, the quality of the beer would be deteriorated. He was informed by.brewers that the proposed increase of the duty on hops and malt would increase the cost of the lowest quality of beer about 5s. per hogshead, and the best quality lOs. per hogshead. This was a very serious thing, because colonial beer had become the drink of the country. The present duty on hops was 3d. per lb., and it was now proposed to double it. The best hops produced in the colony were grown in Gippsland, at Coranderrk, and at Oxley Plains. The hops grown in other parts of Victoria were of very inferior quality. The best hops came from Kent and Sussex, and the next best from Tasmania. If the increased duty upon hops was agreed to, the effect would be simply to compel the brewer to either use a smaller quantity of the article, or else bave recourse to hops of inferior quality, otherwise he would be unable to carryon his business. Why the protectionist party should refuse the brewer the protection that was freely afforded to the native industries carried on by others, and actually obstruct him in competing with imports, was something it was not quite easy to discern. '

Major SMITH remarked that when hops were first subjected to duty their price was from Is. 10d. to 2s. 3d. per lb., whereas the price at the present time was from 9d. to Is. 2d. per lb. The reason of the fall was that hops were now grown in the colony.

Mr. CARTER stated that at the time the higher rates ruled there was a failure in the English hop crop, consequently the figures the Treasurer cited were wholly delusive.

Mr. BAYLES thought it was remark. able that .whereas the Government wanted now t~ impose, a -heavy duty on hops for

1080 Revision of [ASSEMBLY.] The Tarijf.

protective purposes, the other day they imported 20,000,000 railway tickets instead of having them printed in the colony.

lVIr. GILLIES said the honorable mem­ber for Villiers and Heytesbury (Mr. Bayles}<owas under some mistake. Only the card-board of the tickets was imported by tho Railway department.

Mr. COOK stated that it was true only the raw material of card-board cut to ticket size was imported, and that the ticket.s were afterwards printed at the Government Printing-office, but if the duty were taken off patent guillotine ma­chines the cutting up could be profitably done in the colony.

Mr. BENT remarked that the honor­able member for East Bourke Boroughs ought to be an authority upon how pro­tection worked, since the industry of pipe and tile making carried on by his consti­tuents was protected by a 20 per cent. duty, and they were enabled in conse­quence to raise the price of their wares, which were of excellent quality, by about 50 per cent. As to the duty now under consideration, he begged to state that he had seen capital hops growing at Bairns­dale, and he was informed that their quality was equal to those of Kent, and better than those of Tasmania. He saw nothing to be gained by taking a division upon the item.

Mr. BILLSON observed that the tee­totallers cried out that the brewers were not sufficiently taxed; but perhaps they would admit that the increased duty on hops, which amounted to from 75 to 80 per cent., was a pretty fair step in the direction they wished to go. The brewers raised no objection to the present proposal, fearing that if it were not agreed to some­thing more vexatious to them would be suggested. N evel'theless he thought it would be better that the tax should be 3d. per lb. on Tasmanian hops, and 6d. per lb. on English hops.

Mr. RAMSAY considered that inas­much as North Gippsland, where Victorian hops were chiefly grown, was practically unrepresented in the present discussion, because the Speaker was absent from illness, and his honorable and learned colleague was in the chair, it would be only fairly generous to carry the item without a division. Besides, being favor- . able to moderately protective duties, he regarded the industry of hop growing as one that ought to be encouraged. At the same time he felt unable to vote for most

of the other duties included in the new Tariff.

Mr. FINCHAM said it was amusing to find the professed farmers' friends not at all eager to support the. duty on hops, although it was one that ought to be specially pleasing to them. How was it that the honorable member for Brighton and the honorable member for Boroondara, for instance, did not seize the present opportunity of advocating the agricultural interest, which, when it suited their pur­pose, they were never tired of talking about? Would anyone deny that good hops could be grown in Victoria? (Mr. Bent-" I have already said they can.") Surely when a proposal strongly in favour of one of ~he producing interests of the colony was before the committee was the time for all honora.ble members who really wished to improve the farmer's position to come forward. The fact was that the professed farmers' friends in opposition only appeared in that capacity when it served their turn so to do.

Mr. LALOR begged to state, for the information of the honorable member for St. Kilda (Mr. Carter), that the duty would amount to something under td. per gallon of beer.

Mr. CARTER remarked that it was impossible to touch his argument that the new duty would amount to 5s. per hogshead on £3 beer,and lOs. per hogshead on the better kinds; and that the brewer would be disabled from selling at the old prices unless he deteriorated· the quality of the article he produced.

Mr. SHARPE thought the proposed tax a good one, irrespective of free-trade or protection. Beer was an undoubted luxury; it was subject to no excise duty, and it ought to contribute something to the revenue. Talk about it being the drink of the poor man! A vast number of that class never used it at all, and it would be better for a good many more of them if they followed the same course.

Mr. BENT observed that what he complained of with respect to the new duties was that his constituents had to pay all of them and got nothing from any of them. He had already intimated that he would liot call for a division on the present duty, but were one taken he would vote with the" Noes." There were already enough madmen through drink without the number being increased by driving the brewer to use cocculus indicus instead of. hops.

Revision of [SEPTEMBER 17.J The Tariff. 1081

Mr. BLACKETT said he did not sup­pose any word from him would influence the Government in the present matter, but as one of the scientific men engaged some years since in analyzing samples of colonial ale-(Mr. Carter-" I beg pardon for forgetting to mention the honorable member's name.")-he felt bound to raise his voice against a proposal to increase the duty on hops. It was certain to lead to the deterioration of drink, and in that light could hardly be consistent with the Chief Secretary's plan of legislating against the adulteration of food.

The resolution was agreed to. On the question that the item of

"Malt-3s. per bushel" be adopted, Mr. CARTER stated that, in 1871,

when the present Chief Secretary, as the Treasurer of the day, was introducing a new Tariff, a .deputation of brewers waited upon him in order to protest against the then expected duty on malt, and they were informed by him that the effect of the impost would be to cheapen the price of the article. How, however, had the anticipation been verified? When the duty was imposed malt stood at 7s. 6d. per bushel, but since it had gone as high as 13s. per bushel, and never been less than 9s. per bushel. At the present mo­ment it was between lOs. and lIs. per bushel. So much for the Chief Secre­tary's prediction. It had not been ful­filled, and there was no chance of it being fulfilled. The honorable gentleman also said, at the same time, that a duty on malt would promote the cultivation of barley. But how had his prognostication been borne out? According to statistics, the acreage under barley had decreased since that date by nearly one-half. For example, in 1874, the percentage was 2'63, while in 1878 it was 1'35. There could be no denying that, inasmuch as good malt was essential to the production of good beer, to raise tpe price of the former was bound to lead to the deteriora­tion of the latter.

Mr. DIXON said it was easy to under­stand why the growth of barley in the colony had decreased. About eight years ago, or less, Gippsland produced some of the finest barley in the world, but, because it could not be got. to market, it was allowed to rot on the ground. Of course, the cultivation of barley was not after­wards kept up to the same extent. In the future, however, Gippsland would, he was convinced, produce barley equal to

VOL. xxx.-4 C

that grown in England, in very large quantities indeed, and, in consequence, malt equal to the best imported would, under the new duty, be made in the colony at less than the English price.

The resolution was agreed to. Progress was then reported. The House adjourned at eleven o'clock.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. Thursda.y, September 18, 1879.

Absence of the Speaker-Religious Instruction in State Schools-Yan Yean Water Supply: South Preston and Gowerville - Penal Department: Superannuation and Reward Fund - Police Protection at Campbe1l1leld­Tramways-Military Forces-Dunmunkle and St. Arnaud Shires Waterworks Bill-Constitution Act Amendment Bill: Second Reading: Eighth Night's Debate.

At half-past four o'clock p.m., The CLERK having announced that the

Speaker was unavoidably absent, The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES took

the chair as Deputy Speaker.

PUBLIC INSTRUCTION. Mr. SERVICE called the attention of

the Minister of Public Instruction to a re­port in the Argus newspaper of a speech delivered by the Rev. C. T. Perks, the previous· day, at the sitting of the Church of England Assembly, in which some most astounding statements were made with respect to the manner in which the State schools were conducted. The speech was as follows :-

" When the Rev. Robert Potter applied for the use of a school at Hotham, he was toli! that he could have it only after school hours, and then he must pay so much an hour for it. In Rich­mond, he had made similar applications and been refused, and he was almost ashamed to mention it in the assembly, but when he asked permission to post up within the school porch a notice that religious instruction would be given in a building ncar the school, even this was refused. As show­ing the spirit evinced towards him by some of the schoolmasters, whose names he would not men­tion, he would tell them some incidents that had occurred in his experience. Having ascertained from ·the teacher of It State school that the duties of the school did not commence till half-past 9, he arranged to take a class tor religious instruc­tion at 9 o'clock, and as soon as the master of the State school discovered this, he set his bell tink­ling about two minutes after 9, and called them in, although he did not really want them for half­an-hour. He, moreover, threatened to flog the children if they came in one minute late. Another schoolmaster in the same district would say to a child as he came from religious instruction, C I suppose they have been telling you over there that you have.a soul, but I will prove to you presently that you have not.' He would then

1082 Van l'ean Waler Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Camp be llfieid.

explain some mathematical problem and say, 'You see I can prove that, but I can't prove that you have a soul.'"

He thought that if honorable members were not prepared to see the dogmas of religion taught in the State schools they' were equally unprepared to see the dogmas of infidelity imparted in those institutions. He would suggest tha,t the Minister of Public Instruction should put himself in communication with the clergyman who had made the statements with the view of ascertaining the truth of the allegations.

Major SMITH said he was glad the honorable member for Maldon had called his attention to the statements, and he would undertake that the strictest possible investigation should be made into the matter. He quite concurred with the honorable member that if religious instruc­tion could not be imparted in the State schools neither should the teaching of infidelity be allowed. Any teacher against whom a substantial case could be made out of teaching anything of the kind would no longer be permitted to remain in the service of the State.

YAN YEAN WATER SUPPLY. Mr. RAMSAY asked the Minister of

Public Works what was the cause of the delay in laying down water-pipes at South Preston and Gowerville, and when the work would be proceeded with? He was sorry to trouble the :Minister on this sub­ject again, but the honorable gentleman did not seem to be fully aware' of what took place in his own department. It appeared that the Minister ordered the pipes to be sent to Preston, and that afterwards the order was countermanded, and the pi pes sent elsewhere.

Mr. PATTERSON observed that the fact was not that he was unacquainted with what was going on in his department, but that the honorable member for East Bourke was unacquainted with what was going on in the district he represented. The practice of the department was to lay pipes only in such districts as would pay a certain percentage. The council of the district knew that the rates would not yield more than 2! per cent., and they ex­pressed their willingness to enter into a guarantee to make up the difference. On the 8th August the guarantee was sent to the local council to sign, and it had not been returned. As soon as the guarantee Was signed and returned, the' pipes would be laid, but not before.

PENAL DEPARTMENT. Mr. MASON asked the Chief Secre

tary whether the superannuation and re­ward fund which was formed several years ago in connexion with the officers of the Penal department was still in existence, and in what manner it was invested?

Mr. BERRY, in reply, read the follow­ing memorandum from the Inspector­General of Penal Establishments :-

"Thereneverwasasuperallnuation'fund in con­nexion with the officers of the Penal department. A fund created by fines inflicted on warders was formed in 1853, from which gratuities to persons remaining in the service as warders for a period of three years were paid. In 1861, however, it being no longer considered necessary to hold out such iuducements to persons to remain in the force, such payments, after due notice, ceased. The balance of the fund, which was invested in debentures, remained to a separate account, into which subsequent fines were also paid until October, 1873, when it was transferrred to the general revenue, it being considered that the Penal department officers received under the Civil Service Act all the advantages they could reasonably claim."

CAMPBELLFIELD. Mr. RAMSAY called the attention of

the Chief Secretary to the following para­graph which appeared in the Age news­paper of Monuay, September 15 :-

"On Saturday the police station at Camp­bellfield was dismantled of all Government mate­rials, and possession given up. Mounted-con­stable Eason, formerly in charge of the district, was removed to take part in the pursuit after the Kelly gang, since which time the district has been left unprotected. A short time ago a deputation waited on the Chief Secretary with a petition praying that a constable might be stationed in the district, as petty robberies and assaults had been of frequent occurrence since the removal of the police. The conduct of a number of youths and young men in the district on the Sabbath is represented as scandalous, as they congregate in places on the main thorough­fare, playing pitch-and-toss, using insulting lan­guage in the presence of females, and otherwise misconducting themselves with impunity. As the harvesting season approaches, this district is always resorted to -by swagmen and other unde­sirable members of the community, and the property-holders consider a great injustice is being done them by the withdrawal of the police constable." He begged to ask what steps the Govern­ment intended to take with the view of providing police protection for the residents of Campbellfield, now that the station had been broken up ?

Mr. BERRY stated that in pursuance of a, promise which he gave to a .deputa­tion of local residents, introduced to him by the honorable member for East Bourke, he addressed a memorandum to the Chief

Dunmunkle and St. Arnaud [SEPTEMBER 18.] Shi1'es Water'works Bill. 108:3

Commissioner of Police, asking whether the police station at Campbellfield could be abolished without undue risk. The reply of the Chief Commissioner was as fol­lows :-

"I beg to inform the honorable the Chief Secretary that on further consideration I see no necessity for recommending that the police sta­tion at Campbellfield be retained. The sub-dis­trict is very quiet, and there has been but little crime there. The only time when the services of a constable might be required would be during the harvesting seasoo, when doubtless rough characters are to the fore. If, therefore, I find that there is any disturbance caused by the har­vest hands in or near Campbellfield, I will arrange to have a steady constable temporarily stationed there. Accommodation could be easily procured for him."

As the honorable member for East Bourke was aware, only a certain number of police constables were at the disposal of the Go­vernment, and there were urgent demands for police protection in newly settled dis­tricts-places situate twelve or perhaps twenty miles from the nearest police sta­tion-whereas there was a police station within three or .four miles of Campbell­field.

TRAMWAYS. Mr. MASON asked the Minister of

Public Works if he would include in the Bill to amend the Local Government Act a . provision empowering local bodies to construct tramways? It appeared that in the Buln Buln and Narracan district, while the making of metalled roads cost £800 per mile, tramways could be constructed for £300 per mile; and the municipal body was prepared to undertake the con­struction of tram ways if Parliament would empower them to take the necessary land from selectors. It would be a great public advantage if local bodies were empowered to construct tramways, and particularly in districts where road-metal was not pro­curable.

Mr. PATTERSON observed that the question, so far as it related to country districts, was favorably regarded by the Government. The new Local Govern­ment Bill would contain provision for subsidizing local bodies that undertook the construction of tramways, and pro­bably it would be necessary also to insert a clause enabling them to take land for the purpose.

Mr. L. L. SMITH expressed the hope that similar provision would be made for the constnfction of tramways in suburban districts.

402

MILITARY FORCES. Mr. RICHARDSON moved-"That there be laid before this House the

report of the board appointed by the honorable the Treasurer on matters connected with the military forces."

Mr. NIMMO seconded the motion, which was agreed.

DUNMUNKLE AND ST. ARNAUD SHIRES WATERWORKS BILL.

Sir B. O'LOG HLEN moved that this Bill be read a second time. He explained that the shires of Dunmunkle and St. Arnaud had undertaken certain works in connexion with the widening and deepen":, ing of the Dunmunkle Creek, which works would form an important part of the scheme of water supply for the district. The works were commenced in 1874, and pro­vision was made on the Estimates for the current financial year for the advance by the Government, by way of loan, of £2,000 towards the cost of construction; and he understood that £3,000 more had been promised. In carrying out the works a certain portion of private land was needed, and the owner of that land refused to part with it except on exorbitant terms. To meet the difficulty, the Bill had been in­troduced. It empowered the shire councils to take the land which was needed for the waterworks, and provided that the owners should receive compensation on the terms laid down in the Lands Compensation Statute, which were those on which pri­vate land required for railway purposes was transferred to the State. As the matter was one of urgency, he hoped the House would allow the Bill not only to be read a second time, but also to pass through its remaining stages.

The motion was agreed to. The Bill was then read a second time,

and passed through its remaining stages.

CONSTITUTION ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

EIGHTH NIGHT'S DEBATE.

The debate on Mr. Berry'S motion for the second reading of the Constitution Act Amendment Bill, and on Mr. Orr's amendment to refer the subject of the Bill to a select committee (adjourned from Tuesday, September 16), was resumed.

Mr. WOODS.-Sir, I feel somewhat put out in commencing what I have to s~y on the question before the House from the circumstnnce that the honorable mem­ber for Boroondara is not in his place,

1084 Constitution Act [ARSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

inasmuch as I intended to apply my re­marks principally to him. I am quite satisfied that the honorable member has not absented himself purposely, because my opinion of him is that he would not run away either from friend or foe. I deem myself fortunate in having to follow an honorable member like the honorable member for Boroondara, who has estab­lished for himself, not only in this House but in the whole of the country, a reputa­tion as a politica] orator; and I think the honorable member deserves to be recog­nised as such even by his bitterest op­ponent. The honorable member, while maintaining his own principles and views -without the least deviation or giving way to the views of others, can manage to do so without importing anything offensive into his observations; he can command the attention of both sides of the House, and can close a speech with applause from both sides of the House. I repeat that I deem myself somewhat fortunate in having the privilege of following an honorable member who is so famous, and who is so gentlemanly in his conduct towards his co-mem bers. I don't expect to command the same amount of attention.

"I am no orator as Brutus i.s." And I labour under the peculiar disadvan­tage of having little or no time to devote to pc:>litical subjects. Honorable members know very well that the needs of my de­partment absorb all the time at my dis­posal. In addition to that, I beg leave to say that both the House and the country seem to be tired of the debate.

Mr.ANDREW.-Tiredofthespeakers. Mr. WOODS.-The honorable member

for West Melbourne (Mr. Andrew) seems to think they are not tired of the interjec­tors. I would ask a little indulgence from the honorable member inasmuch as the subject I am about to address myself to is one of some importance at any rate, and I labour under the peculiar difficulties I have indicated. I repeat that both the House alld the country seem to be tired of the debate. The subject has been thrashed out, and there is little, if anything, new to say; and even to vamp up what has been said before is not only an ungracious task in itself, but is not likely to result in a production at all equal to the originals. Moreover, I am satisfied that every honor­able member who now addresses himself to the question must feel that both the House and the country are saying mentally -" Cut it short; let us get to the ballot-,

box." Under these circumstances every honorable member must now address him­self to the question with a considerable amount of disadvantage. Passing over some little irrelevant matter with refer­ence to administration, and things of that sort, the speech of the honorable member for Boroondara divides itself in my mind into two propositions. The first is that the Legislative Council is pretty nearly perfect-that it is about as perfect as any human institution can possibly be. The honorable member admits a slight imperfec­tion; but perhaps the last touch put upon it has made the institution divine. I refer to the proposal submitted elsewhere the night before last, whereby retired barristers" used-up heads of departments, and worn­out individuals generally are to be placed, by some kind of nominee ism, in a position over Ministers of the Crown. The other proposition is that the honorable member is prepared to give up some of his own cherished convictions in order to have the constitutional question settled. He does not admit that the Legislative Council, except in one instance, has been guilty of any error during the time it has been in existence, but he is prepared to give up some of his convictions in order to achieve something like harmony and concord. The impression which the hon­orable member's language had on my mind was not that he is sacrificing on the altar of expediency, but that absolutely, out of patriotism, he is giving up something he believes in for the sake of peace and quiet. These are the honorable member's two propositions, and I will endeavour to deal with them. Before I can agree with the honorable member that the constitution of the Legislative Council is pretty nearly perfect in itself, it is necessary to ask where it came from, how it cam,e, and what the results to the country have been. In considering these questions, I shall have to go a long way back, I shall have to go far beyond the time when what is called the Constitution was manufactured in this colony-a Constitution which I call a compact entered into by interested parties for the division of the land among themselves, and for the possession of poli­tical power. Honorable members know very well that whoever are the possessors of the land are the possessors of political power. The two invariably go together. The terms upon which the land of a country should be held and the persons who possess it invariably mix themselves up

Second Reading. [SEPTEMBER 18.J Eighth Nights Debate. 1085

with the question of Constitutions. Now the Constitution of this colony-compact, as I call it, between interested parties for the purpose of dividing the land among themselves-was by no means an original contrivance. At the time of what is curi­ously enough called the "Restoration of Charles II" the landed proprietors of Great Britain shifted the burthen of tax­ation from their own shoulders to those of the mass of the people. Up to that period land had borne the whole of the taxation. Occasionally, in war time, what I may call chattel property was subjected to im­posts; but practically speaking the land had borne the whole of the taxation. However, when the glorious "Restora­tion" took place, there was a constitution -a compact entered into between parties interested, in precisely the same way that the compact here was entered into in 1854 when the Constitution of this colony was initiated. The land of Great Britain having borne the burthens of the State up to 1660, this is how the landed proprietors managed to get rid of them :-

"In the opinion of three of the most eminent lawyers that have ever appeared in England, and in the opinion of 149 members of the Convention Parliament, being only fewer by two than those who were of a contrary opinion, the proper and equitable equivalent for these feudal services was an annual rent charge, bearing a fixed pro­portion to the true yearly value thereof, a mini­mum rate to be levied in time of peace, and a maximum rate in time of war, or according to the exigencies of the State, as had been the custom from the foundation of the monarchy. But 151 memhers of the Convention Parliament which met on the 25th of April, 1660, were of a different opinion, for they voted that instead of a rent charge upon their lands the people of England should pay a tax of 15d. per barrel upon all their beer and ale, and a proportionable sum upon other liquors sold (and as a large propor­tion of the beer and ale consumed by those who voted would be home-brewed, the tax would not touch them) in the kingdom. It was calculated that this t.ax, together with the profits of wine licences, would produce from £200,000 to £300,000 a year, which was considered to be an ample compensation."

Mr. L. L. SMITH.-What is the hon­orable member quoting from?

Mr. WOODS.-I am quoting from what are commonly called "The Anti­Corn Law League Tracts." And here is the way in which the matter is summed up:-

" This act gave to the feudatories of England a complete discharge, as the lawyers are in the habit of very correctly wording it, from the op­pressive fruits and incidents of their tenure. It confirmed to them their rights,.discharged from the correlative obligations i and thus created the

moral and legal anomaly of rights without obliga­tions-an anomaly which cannot exist without a legal and logical absurdity, and a moral fraud."

N ow that is the basis of the Constitution under which we live?

Mr. COOPER.-Is the honorable mem­ber referring to the English Constitu­tion?

Mr. WOODS.-I am referring to the Constitution at the time of the " Restora­tion," as it is called, of Charles II. That is the basis of the Constitution, so called, that we have here. I don't acknowledge it ns a Constitution. I persist in saying it is a compact among interested persons, for their own benefit. The analogy be­tween the two lies in this point. We, in this House, assume to have the power of the House of Commons-and it is gene­rally supposed that the other Chamber has the power of the House of Lords­but honorable members know this House has nothing of the sort. This House is merely a taxing apparatus. The power of the State rests wholly and l:iolely with the Legislative Conncil. The Council stands at the helm, and without its action nothing can be done. And there is no power in this colony to compel the Coun­cil to do anything, however much the Assembly or the country may desire it. The power we have is really a sham; it is merely nominal; the ultimate power­the absolute and real power-rests with an irresponsible body of men who shifted the burthen of taxation from their own shoulders and those of their class on to the shoulders of the people. They are a body above the law and above the Queen -for the Queen cannot dissolve them or increase their number-and, in fact, no­thing can be dOlle with them so long as the only safety-valves are their own sweet will in giving way to the people's repre­sentatives or a revolution. The Consti­tution under which we live is based pre­cisely on the model of the Constitution furnished by the Convention Parlia.ment in 1660. To show that the Assembly is, with all its supposed powers, a mere sham, except in regard to imposing taxa­tion, it is only necessa.ry to remember what has occurred in our past history. Is it not notorious that the proposals brought forward in this House have had to be framed with a view to securing the approbation of the other Chamber? The interests of the Upper House, and the interests of the class to which the mem­bers of that House belong, have had to be

1086 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

consulted. The Assembly has not been in a position to freely consult the wishes and the wants of the people of the coun­try. The question simply has been, as the question is now-" What is likely to pass the Upper House?" Only the other evening, the honorable member for .Boroondara, when addressing himself to the plebiscite, reiterated that now familiar phrase-" Is it likely," said he, "that this proposal will pass the other Chamber?" The question was not whether the pro­posal was right or wrong, whether the people want it or not-but simply whether it would pass the Legislative Council. I have endeavoured to show that the Legisla­tive Council was constituted for a purpose, and undoubtedly it answers its purpose·· very well. I do not desire to deal with that Chamber in any other way than as simply a piece of mechanism created for a certain purpose-a purpose which it has fulfilled admirably. It has preserved in the hands of the class it represents practically the whole of the power, and to a large extent the property, of the State. I am free to admit that on one or two occasions popu­lar measures, such as a Land Bill, have received the assent of the other Chamber; but if we consider those exceptional cases in connexion with the circumstances sur­rounding them we will find that they were simply sops given in one way in order to prevent what I may call popular disappro­bation from being, perhaps very rudely, expressed in some other way, the object, however, of the members of the other Chamber being always the same-to re­tain the power in its own hands. The Legislative Council stands as the very emblem of power, practically irresponsible, while the Assembly has been struggling in the best way it could to keep faith with its constituents by endeavouring to carry into law measures that have long been desired by the country. Under such circumstances the disagreement, if I may use t.he term, between the two Houses has naturally been of as long standing as the existence of the Houses themselves. This I wrote about in a

. little pamphlet on a progressive land tax in 1873, in which I said-

"The Legislative Council has become im­practicable and obstructive. It is in a state of chronic antagonism with the thought of the age. It has degenerated into a corporation for the perpetuation of privileges and the protection of monopoly. Practically irresponsible as it is itself, all agreement between it and a represen., tative body must be partial, or accidental, or

Mr. Woods.

based on undignified compromise. Mere reform as applied to the Legislative Council would be public mockery. Reconstruction or abolition are the only remedies."

Mr. KERFERD.-Y ou go in for abo­lition.

Mr. WOODS.-No, I don't. I said "re­construction or abolition." I say any mere reform-any tinkering reform such as that suggested by honorable members opposite, with the object of making the Legislative Council a kind of House of Commons­will not satisfy the people of this country. What is really wanted is not reform, but reconstruction on the basis proposed by the Government in this Bill. And I think the country is perfectly prepared for the reconstruction we propose. I am satisfied, at all events, that, so far as can be ascer­tained, the views of the country are entirely with the Government in their proposal to reconstruct the Legislative Council. I would now desire to point out what has been done by the Legislative Council, for I deny that the Assembly has hitherto had any authority at all. I contend that the whole power has lain with the Coun­cil from tbe beginning, and will remain there until the Chamber is reconstructed. " "Vhat has the Legislative Council done with its power?" is the question I would ask the conservatives, as they call them­selves, although they are not the real con­servatives at all. I contend that demo­cracy is the true conservatism. I contend that the so-called conservatives conserve only that which interests and benefits a particular class, but the real conservatism is to be found in the democracy of a country. Digressing for a moment on this point, I may ask what greater conserva­tism is there than the proposal of the Go­vernment, in the 3rd portion of the Bill, to take a poll of the people under certain circumstances? '''hy it is the oldest form of ascertaining the opinion of the people with regard to any proposaJ. Among the old Saxons the people met at the stone of the Hocllgericht, or high court of justice, the Volkstimme, or voice of the people, was taken, and that became the law. We are simply reverting to a practice which is infinitely older than the conser­vatism of honorable members opposite. Take another point. In proposing a land tax, the Government simply reverted to what was the feudatory system of Eng­land long before the conservatism of honorable members opposite came into fashion. Returning, however, to the point

Second Reading. [SEPTEMBER 18.J Eightlt Niglds Debate. 108'7

with which I was dealing, I desire to insist, in the first place, that the whole power of the State has been exercised by the Legislative Council and its friends sitting in this Chamber. For the Legis­lative Council has never been without friends in this House. It is only now for the first time for 25 years that the friends of the Council are in a minority in the Assembly. For 25 years the Council and its friends have had the management of matters in their own hands. If things have gone very well, they ought to have the credit; but if they have not gone very well, I think they ought to take the blame. Now, the members of the Council having had the management of the affairs of this colony in their hands under circumstances peculiarly calculated to establish a wealthy and prosperous nation here, I ask, what ha ve they done? I will, in the first pl~ce, take the land. Do not honorable members know that the settlement of the people on the lands has been attained, even in its present proportions, in the most extra­ordinary manner? On one occasion when a Land Bill was before another place, I believe honorable members there passed it without really realizing its full meaning and import. It was only afterwards, while the Act was being administered by my hon­orable colleague, the Minister of Justice, that they began to realize its full meaning and force. But, even now, in what p~sition do we find matters as the result of their management? Take only one district-the western district. What is the whole of that district at this hour? If you draw a line from Geelong to Hamilton, thence to the South Australian border, and from thence down to the sea, you will include a country capable of supporting well a population of a million and a half. And. who are there now? The country is a solitude, a wilderness, and it will remain a wilderness as long as the members of t4e Council have the power they now possess. It will be a desert until a reform-I trust the reform that is now proposed by the Government -is carried into law by which this House will, in reality, become the representative body of the people and have supreme power in the colony. That is one instance, at any rate, of what has been done under the management of the Council, and we have a right to judge this institution by its fruits. The honorable member for Boroondara could find no fa.ult with the composition of the Council, ~ut he forbore to g~ into the

effects of the influence which that body has exercised upon the destinies of this country. Can anything be more disastrous than the results - prod~ced wholly and solely by tho power exercised by that body-which are witnessed in the western di::ltrict? I will give honorable members another example of their management. We now find our mines falling o~. For years past the yield of gold has been de­clining, and the miners have had to look out for other means of existence. They have spread out-under laws for whic.h we owe no thanks to the Council, for they were almost taken by force-into districts which were held in provinces by the class represented in the other Chamber. The 'selectors have been compelled, how­ever, to go into districts far away from the sea-board. They have been driven' away from the magnificent soil of the western district, which is, now a solitude, to the borders of the mallee scrub-and even into it-in order to get a living. What does that mean to the State? It means railway accommodation to be car­ried to them at an enormous expenditure. Suppose settlement had been as possible in the western district as it now is in the north and north-eastern districts. Sup­pose that, instead of beiug forced to go to Swan Hill and the mallee scrub, the se­lectors could have selected the wonderfully rich lands in the western district, now held in principalities by a few individuals, what would have been the result to the colony? The money that is spent and must con­tinue to be spent in railways-or else these lands will be again depopulated­would have been saved. Further, had a population been settled in the western district, practically close to the sea-board, they would have been fixed to the soil by what I may call natural causes, for, in that district, while the soil is magnificent, the weather is regular, and consequently the crops are also regular. But in the outer districts, as honorable members know, the selectors are, to use a somewhat common expression, jammed "between the devil and the deep sea." On the one hand they have periodical droughts, and on the other they have to deal with those establish­ments that exhibit three brass balls in front as a sign of their business. There,­however, the unfortunate selectors are placed, awl, unless the State takes railways to thorn, settle mont of a permanent charac­ter in those districts will become abso­lutely impossible. Another disadvantage

1088 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

accruing from the remoteness of the settlers, who are the backbone and sinew of the colony, is this-their produce, in coming to the consumer, is enormously increased in price by the cost of carriage. In fact, if we could only estimate on every point the amount the country has lost by being governed by an irresponsible body invested with the sole power of the realm, the sum would be positively appalling to honorable members. I will now refer to the administration which has been carried on under the auspices of this body. Until very recently the public works of this colony were the laughing-stock of the world. Scarcely a public building was erected that had not to be pulled Q-own again directly, or altered at great cost. Even now, buildings-I refer to the law courts-are going up which are a laugh­ing-stock to everyone, and which will cost perhaps £200,000 more than the original estimate.

Mr. SERVICE.-You have begun ano­ther work of that kind at Spencer-street.

Mr. WOODS.-I have not. I can jus­tify to the honorable member's satisfaction everything I have done in the Railway department when the proper time comes. I will even be content to take the honor­able member's own verdict. I say the whole of the public works of the colony were conducted in so expensive a fashion until recently that they now stand absolute models of folly. That was the kind of ad­ministration we got from this irresponsible body, to whom I trace everything we have at the present time. Then look at the first railways. I desire to be perfectly clear in saying I do not blame the honor­able member for Belfast in this matter, because no doubt he acted under advice. But, as a matter of fact, what is the result ?

Sir J. O'SH.AN.ASSY.-That was done by a joint committee of both Houses.

Mr. WOODS.-I am specially exoner­ating the honorable member. But we want to get rid of the possibility of things of this kind being done by a joint com­mittee of both Houses. That is why we are seeking to pass this Bill. .And what did this joint committee do? They bor­rowed £8,000,000 at 6 per cent., the interest on which is now a millstone on the necks of the taxpayers. .And what is there to show for that £8,000,000? One hundred and ninety-six miles of rail­way. Railways were then constructed at

an expense of £40,000 per mile, and now we are glad if the House will vote £5,500 per mile.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-You forget the double line.

Mr. WOODS.-There was no neces­sity for a double line. There never has been yet any necessity in the colony for a double line. I can prove that by merely alluding to the single line between Mel­bourne and Geelong and the double line between Geelong and Ballarat. The single line carries the whole of the pro­duce not of Geelong alone but of Ballarat and Geelong, whereas there is a double line to carry half that traffic between Geelong and Ballarat. That is the way the money was wasted.

Sir J. O'SH.AN.ASSY.-Was the Gee­long line made by the Government?

Mr. WOODS.-No; the honorable member bought it, and gave £27,000 a mile for it. That has never been a line yet. It has never been ballasted, and we are only ballasting it now by means of the unemployed. What the honorable member really gave £27,000 a mile for was merely the land-which was originally given away-and the right to make a rail­way on it, because there never has been a railway there yet.

Mr. COOPER.-How will the Bill pre­vent these things from being done in the future? .

Mr. WOODS.-This Bill will take the power out of the hands of the Council, where hitherto all the power has rested and still rests. Weare only here on sufferance. Whatever is done by this House is merely done on sufferance. The Bill, however, will take the power from the Council and place it in the Assembly. Honorable members here are directly re­sponsible to and in frequent communica­tion with their constituents, who closely examine and criticise the national balance­sheet. Under such circumstances you may depend that expensive blunders such as constructing railways at £40,000 per mile will not be perpetrated any longer.

Mr. G.AUNSON.-Have you not re­cently purchased unnecessarily a line at £80,000 per mile? .

Mr. WOODS.-Thepoint I desire to enforce is this: that we have been, and are at the present moment, entirely in the hands of an irresponsible authority which has direct personal and class interests which must be conserved at the expense of any other interest in the colony. The

Second Reading. [SEPTEMBER 18.J Eighth Night's Debate. 1089

illustration of that which I have given with respect to the wilderness existing in the western district cannot be surpassed, and I think no honorable member can answer it. We are told that a vast emigration is abou.t to take place from the old country, setting towards Australia. Weare told that people are looking for homes, and will come here in a stream of immigration very different from the farthing rush-light schemes of honorable members opposite. Yet the western dis­trict is a wilderness, and will continue so unless this Bill is carried into law, and the people are enabled to do what they should have done long ago-to put a tax upon land, and make those lands carry people instead of a few sheep. I have alluded to the way in which, under this supreme authority, the lands have been disposed of, and the farmers have been driven into remote districts with the result to the colony of an immense expenditure for railway communication. I will now come to another example of the manage­ment of this irresponsible body. No country in the world ever started under so favorable auspices as this colony in 1851 and 1852. We had the pick of Europe here then. Where are they now? I ask the power which has had the supreme control what has become of that army of men? I .have a return which shows what those men did before they were driven out of the colony by the power to which I object. I could easily refresh the recollections of honorable members by recalling scenes in this colony some of which many honorable members must have witnessed themselves. But I don't want to do that. I don't want to irritate, but to convince-to show by the effects that this irresponsible body has brought about that we are justified in asking for the change we propose. We want to remove the power from an insti­tution by which it has been badly used­to the destruction of the colony almost­and to place it in the hands of the people through their representatives.

Mr. GAUNSON.-Where it will be worse used.

Mr. WOODS.-I find that even up to the end of 1872 the mining population of this colony had increased the permanent wealth of the world-because I contend the production and putting into circulation of gold that never saw daylight before is increasing the permanent wealth of the world-by 42,037,326 OZ8. of go~d, valued

at £168,148,944. I ask this supreme power-" What have you done with the men and what have you done with the money? You have had the management of both, and what have you done with them ?" Up to the present date I find that 1,335 tons of gold, valued at £192,050,680, have been raised in this colony. Again I ask-" What have you done with the men, and what have you done with the money?" I may say to those who have had the management of the colony for 25 years-" Cain, Cain, where is thy brother Abel?" I say the men have been driven out of the colony by bad legislation and by the exercise of irresponsible power. Judged, therefore, by its results, I think the Constitution defended by the honorable member for Boroondara may be said to have signally failed. .

Mr. COOPER.-Is it your argument that the Legislative Council is responsible for all this?

Mr. WOODS.-It is. The Legislative Council is the sole repository of authority in this colony. I defy any honorable member to point to any other absolute authority in the colony except that of the Legislati ve Council. I repeat that the Assembly has been simply used by the other Chamber as a mere taxing apparatus. Until the present Government put a slight tax upon land, labour paid every shilling of the taxation of this colony. When the honorable member for Creswick (Mr. Richardson) was speaking about labour paying more than its share of the taxation I interjected that labour had paid all the taxes. It did so until the land tax was imposed.

Mr. COOPER.-And I interjected­" Why make labour pay more ?"

Mr. WOODS.-There are only two taxes in the world, and I defy anyone to conceive a third-a tax on land and a tax on labour. Whatever is not a tax on land is a tax on labour, and vice versa. All realized property is the result of labour, whether it is in the form of houses, ships, railways, money, or anything else; it is realized labour. Those gentlemen who happen to have pocketed a considerable amount of the results of realized labour fiatter themselves they are the creators of it, but really, under our peculiar system of distribution, they are merely the recipients of the results of labour. Whether they: pay the taxes directly out .of their pockets or not, so long as the taxation is not on

1090 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

the land alone it must come from labour, and consequently until the present Go­vernment placed a tax on land all the taxes in this colony were paid by labour.

Mr. WILLIAMS.-And you are now placing £250,000 more on labour.

Mr. WOODS.-That remark is worthy of the honorable member; I could not pay him a higher compliment. What would have been the result to the colony if in the early days, as the diggers got sick and tired of digging, they could have gone on the lands with their pockets full of money? In what position would Victoria be at the present moment if the 1,300 tons of gold raised-equal in value to nearly a quarter of the national debt of England­had been re-invested, or a large proportion of it, in the soil of the colony? If the people could then have made homes for themselves, could have built houses and become possessed of the land, what would be the population of Victoria now? In­stead of having only a paltry 800,000 people-and some of them, I am sorry to say, unemployed-this colony would be the richest and most prosperous country on the face of the earth. It is because it is not so, it is because those men have been driven out of the colony, that we are pro­posing, even at so late a period, to endea­vour to recover somewhat of our original prestige. We want to begin, as it were, anew, having first taken the power out of the llallds of those who so wretchedly abused it in the past. I do not think it is necessary to go into the details of the Bill at any length. As far as the honor­able member for Boroondara is concerned, I think the Government may fairly claim his vote on it. He said he was perfectly prepared to accept the voice of the people, and the only thing he seemed to object to -because his objection to the nominee system was not very strong-was the plebiscite. Now I don't suppose the honorable member, or any other of the so'-called conservatives, will deny what even the tory Secretary of State, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, insists upon and brings pointedly under the attention of this colony, when ,he recommends in­ferentially the Assembly to maintain the rights of the House of Commons inviolate. If the representative House of the colony is to be the House of Commons, so to speak, of the colony, I don't suppo~e any honorable member wjU seriously contend that the I st part of the Bill is not strictly correct. I presume it is admitted on aU

hands that we in this Chamber are the House of Commons of the colony. Then we ought to enjoy the rights and privileges of the House of Commons; and if we have not got them we ought to get them. The House of Commons claim much larger powers than any we have yet exercised. They don't, for instance, submit to th~ rejection Qf the, Appropriation Bill. They can get money, or anything else they want, with or without the consent of the Lords. Well, if we are to hold the same position, there is no blinking the fact that we must have the same rights, privileges, and powers. The House of Commons are not half so democratic a body as this Assembly. They are elected on a restricted suffrage, and, moreover, are governed By families. The whole country of England is governed by families; the government is a kin\! of family affair; and if we don't look out we will come to the same thing. The toiling millions of England make the wealth of the nation; they are the life-blood of its commerce, and they almost command the industries of the world, but they don't get t.he franchise. Yet even the House of Commons do not deal with their privileges in the same slipshod fashion we seem to adopt here, where every man claims, as his natural and inherent right, to have a share and a voice in the affairs of the State. This I-louse, being the representative 'body of the country,' cannot by any logical process delegate its functions to any smaller body. I don't think the honorable member for Boroondnra will deny that we are, and ought to be, the House of Com­mons of Victoria. If he is going to set up any other plea, let us have it straight. If the Opposition say in their hearts-" We don't like manhood snffrage; we think it is a mistake; we would prefer a restricted qualification; we ,vould rather this Cham­ber represented property to a larger ex­tent; we will therefore offer the people a bait-propose to popularize the other House by reducing the qualification for electors and elected, and so on, and in that way make it a rival HQuse of Commons," let us look at the proposition and see the meaning of it. A more insidious bl~w at manhood suffrage could not be struck. Undoubtedly the principle favoured by the honorable member for Boroondara would result in the Assombly being supplanted by the Council in a very short time. This Chamber would become superfluous to the Constitution altogether. The othor House wO~lld say-:-" We really represen t

Second Reading. [SEPTEMBER 18.J Eighth Night's Debate. 1091

the mass of the people; the Assembly is merely a useless appendage of the State," and then we would arrive at what the Op­position profess to be terribly afraid of, namely, the government of the colony by one Chamber only. But we know what would happen directly the Council was built up on the basis the honorable mem­ber for Boroondara has in view. They would not be long supreme in the State before the question of restricting the suffra.ge would crop up, aud the end would be that the colony would settle down to a partial franchise like that of Great Britain. In a community like ours the powers of the House of Commons must rest some­where, and ,it would seem as though the honorable member contemplates placing them not in the Assembly, nor in the present Council, but in a Council modelled on the basis I have sketched out.

Mr. BLACKETT.-Would the Council be able to initiate Money Bills?

Mr. WOODS.-Do not the Council claim co-ordinate' powers and privileges with the Assembly?

JY.Ir. BLACKETT.-T:hey have never claimed the right to initiate Money Bills.

Mr. WOODS.-Well, perhaps not ex­actly. I admit that solitary exception.

Mr: BLACKETT.-It is a pretty large exception.

Mr.WOODS.-Butthehonorable mem­be~' will recollect that on one occasion the leader of another place suggested that there was no very strong reason why the Council should not have power to initiate Money Bills. To come back, however, to my point. The honorable member for Boroondara must, with his philosophical discrimination, see that if the Assembly is to have the powers and privileges of the House of Commons it is impossible to object to the 1st part of the Bill.

Mr. GAUNSON.-The 6th clause embodies the grant of more power than the House of Commons have.

Mr. vVOODS.-I don't think that pr~ctically that is the case. Taking the dry constitution of the House of Com­mons in connexion with that of the House of Lords, the former body is necessarily and essentially supreme. Perhaps having fast hold of the public purse-strings, and being always able to get what t.hey want, it is not altogether requisite for them to have the active powers defined in the 1st part of the Bill conferred upon them with any very great distinctness. I will take next the 3rd part of the' Bill, which

contains the plebiscite. As I said before, the plebiscite is no new thing in Saxon history. We are said to have imported it from France, but really I know nothing more ancient in connexion with our own race. It was in operation in the time of Woden and Thor. After all said and done, it is simply a poll of the people. In his speech of Tuesday night, the hon­Ol'able member for Boroondara, taking up the same ground he did last session-I admit he is always consistent-told us he was quite willing to accept the decision upon the Reform Bill of the voice of the people. But how, without the plebiscite, can he get the will of the people on the subject expressed? Supposing we were to dissolve to-morrow, and go to the country avowedly on the Reform Bill, it would be insulting the intelligeuce of the honorable member to ask him to be­lieve, 01' to pretend to him, that that measure would then be the only issue before the country. Will not all manner of other questions-education, free-trade, protection, payment of members, personal considerations, this, that, and the other­intrude themselves at every turn? Will not some electors sa,y-" ""Ve will have this man as against the other candidate, not because we believe in his politics, but because we know and respect him"? All these matters are sure to thrust them­selves between the constituencies and the abstract question of constitutional reform. Then it will not be denied that, with the aid of such ad vantages as the" powers that be" have been good enough to allow us, we have become a moderately intelligent people. Of course we have nothing to thank the Upper House, or their crowd, for on that account. They would never have laid themselves out to educate the people into intelligence. That has never been their game. But, at any rate, the people of Victoria are moderately intel­ligent. Most of them can read, the majo­rity study the newspapers, and nearly all of them have numerous opportunities of lifltening to their public men expressing themselves on the public platform on one side or the other of the great questions of t he day. Supposing that, under these <;~l"cumstances, you refer the Reform Bill to' the plebiscite. Imagine the Hill printed and published widely. No doubt, enter­prising newspaper proprietors 'would print it in their journals. In snch ways it would be spread broadcast over the colony. Plenty of time would be given for consideration.

1092 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

But stay; I will not take the Reform Bill for my illustration. Let me rather take the Mining on Private Property Bill. Assume that measure to have been rejected any number of times by the Council. As a matter of fact, it has been so rejected six or seven times. Mind, I don't admit that a Mining on Private Property Bill worthy the name has ever been passed by this House. The reason why we have never adopted such a measure is plain. We have always known that a proper Mining on Private Property Bill would not pass the Legislative Council. On one occasion I took good care to defend my position on that point. I said to this House-" I shall vote for the Bill "-it was the Mining on Private Property Bill brought in by the Francis Government-" but let it be under­stood I don't bind myself to the principles it contains, because it seems to me a Bill to prevent rather than promote mining on private property; I vote for it only on account of its name, and because when once we have got a measure on the sub­ject on our statute-book, it will be com­paratively easy to amend it." The Council have been rejecting Mining on Private Pro­perty Bills for 20 years-ever since 1859. Yet will any honorable member tell me such a measure has no"t all that time been very much required? Are not imperative demands for it constantly coming in from every part of our gold-fields? Are not miners every day discovering that the old leads are trending into private property, into which they cannot go without the permission of the owners of the surface, who have never bought the gold, nor have the smallest right to it, although they claim it?

Several HONORABLE MEMBERS.-N o. Mr. SERVICE.-It is not claimed now. Mr. WOODS.-I am glad to hea"r that

such a claim is now repudiated. Others beside myself will also be glad to hear that. Do I understand the leader of the Oppo­sition and the honorable member for Bo­roondara to say that the owners of land have abandoned all claim to the gold in it ?

An HONORABLE MEMBER.-You know well enough they have.

Mr. WOODS.-Will honorable mem­bers in opposition tell me that all that now stands between miners and the right to mine on what we call private property is an arrangement for the payment of sur­face damages ?

Mr. SERVICE.-I am not aware that anybody asksfol' more than th"at.

Mr. WOODS.-I am glad to have that avowal from the leader of the Opposition.

Mr. SERVICE.-I speak for myself. I know of no further claim than one for the damage done by mining operations.

Mr. WOODS.-I have been 20 years agitating for a Mining on Private Property Bill, alld never in public speaking, or in my own mind, have I allowed or admitted that the owner of the surface of land has the smallest right to claim from miners npon it anything beyond surface damages.

Mr. SERVICE.-Who claims anything more now?

Mr. WOODS.-I am glad of this little interlude. It will do no harm, because what the leader of the Opposition has said will go to the country. Do I not know of £40,000 or £50,000 being paid to the owner of land for simple permission to mine on it? I venture to say that under any Mining on Private Property Act that was not a farce-under anyone that permitted of miners entering upon private lands for mining purposes without being subjected to harsh or unjust con­ditions, by which I mean conditions which would go beyond the payment of reason­able surface damages-employment wonld be found in a very short time indeed for at least 10,000 more miners than are now at work. But, putting all this on one side, let us suppose that, after 20 years of agitation, during which the subject had been thrashed threadbare, a Mining on Private Property Bill on which the hearts of the people were set was rejected by the Council and sent to the people. What would be the result? Let the honorable member for Boroondara imagine not only that public opinion on the subject had had time to mature, but that the measure was to the last the topic of stormy discussion in both Houses.

Mr. R. M. ~MITH.-Supposing the Council amended the Bill, how would their amendments go before the electors?

Mr. WOODS. -If the amendments were in the direction of making the miner pay more than surface damage, they would, of course, be disputed.

Mr. R. M. SMITH.-:-But supposing the amendments went the other way?

Mr. WOODS.-If the Council amended the Bill to make it more workable, I am satisfied the Assembly would treat what they did with respect. But supposing their amendments contravened the principle that the gold belongs, through the Crown, to the miner, and gave to the surface-

Second Reading. [SEPTEMBER 18.J Eighth Night's Debate. 1093

owner a royalty upon the gold taken from his property, the Assembly would never agree to them. It would then be as though the Council had rejected the Bill altogether. Well, imagine the Bill passed by the Assembly and rejected by the Council in one session, and that that ses­sion then comes to an end. There has been discussion in the Houses, in the newspapers, and ~aturally among the public generally. Another session comes on, and the whole process-the discussions in both Houses, and in the newspapers, the rejection by the Council, and all-is gone through again. Perhaps, by that time, new lights have been thrown on the question, or something has occurred to make the need of the measure more imperative than ever. The Bill being a second time rejected, what follows? I assume that the two Chambers have by this time become so antagonistic on the subject that no useful work from them in connexion with it can be expected. To whom should the matter be then referred if not to the very fountain of authority? Recollect that, before a Bill can be sent to the plebiscite, the Government have, as the legislative committee of the Assembly, to decide whether they will risk their position-that is what the step amounts to-on the result of the popular appeal. What, under the circumstances -after all the discussions and other ventilation of the. subject at issue-can the Assembly, through the Government, do better than ask the people of the colony, for whom they legislate-" Shall this Bill become law? Say 'Yes' or 'No.''' The risk the Government necessarily incur in con­nexion with the plebiscite will always be a check upon its abuse by them. I care nothing for the argument that the plebis­cite will supersede parliamentary govern­ment. In fact it will do noth~ng of the sort. It will simply assist parliamentary government at a time when there is a dead­lock, and parliamentary government cannot go on. It will act towards the parlia­mentary system much in the manner that a fly-wheel acts with respect to a stationary engine-it will be a reservoir of power to come into play when action would. other­wise be stopped. The mere fact that such a means can be employed will tend to prevent its use, because each House will have a natural dread of its action failing to receive the ratification of the people. I do not see upon what grounds the. honorable member for Boroondara can, in

the face of the arguments I have adduced, refuse to give his sanction to tho 1st and 31'd parts of the Bill. I look upon the question from an abstract point of view, because I have no fear that the Bill will not be­come law-that the British Government will refuse to enact it. I am not regarding the plebiscite solely in the light of the use it will be to the existing Government. Other Governments will. no doubt be on this bench to employ it, and then honorable members will probably forget the horror they once had of it because of some fanciful notions on their part that it was not of British origin, or rather because it had a modern origin at the time of the French Revolution. There is now only the 2nd part of the Bill-the nominee Council portion-to consider. I believe that, with the other parts of the Bill carried into law, the alteration or amend­ment of the composition of the Legislative Council is, seeing that the Assembly re­presents the whole country, a matter of comparatively small importance.

Mr. SERVICE.-Then leave the 2nd part out.

Mr. WOODS.-The 2nd part cannot be left out, for this reason: this colony living, as it does, at high pressure-living more in one year than our forefathers did in ten-and the whole of the population being essentially one of people working for money, we have not. among us the class of men who have inherited large landed estates from whom is formed the House of Lords. While that is the case, and until we have established here some­thing that will nearly assimilate to the House of Lords, we shall always want a Chamber of wise cool heads - of men selected from among the best in the colony, and not on account of a property qualifi­cation. Why at present the merest donkey can get in for one of the Legislative Council provinces so long as he has money. It does not matter who or what he is, so long as he has money. Under the nomi­nee principle the legislative committee of the nation, as represented by the Govern­ment in this Chamber, will probably not appoint a member of the Upper House much oftener than once a year. Probably it will fall to the lot of no Government to nominate more than two or three members of Council at the utmost.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-Is that in the Bill?

Mr. WOODS.-What I want to show is that the Government will, for their own

1094 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

credit's sake-for the sake of their reputa­tion in after days, when out of office or in private life-and because of the circum­stances under which they will have to exercise their nominating power, be bound to nominate men the choice of whom will redound to their honour. Situated as we are, part 2 of the Bill will meet our case exactly. I cannot understand how those who fa vour the system of a second Chamber, and see that the elective system in its regard is an entire failure, inasmuch as it has resulted in the establishment of a body who represent only a class, and who, as far as the popular will is concerned, devote themselves purely to obstruction, can possibly object to the present Legislative Council being replaced by a Chamber of elders-of the wisest amongst us. I hope the honorable member for Boroondara, and also all the honorable members who oppose the Government more upon individual and personal than upon political grounds, will at the present time forget all feelings of that nature, and, allowing their convic­tions to override their prejudices, vote for the second reading of the Bill.

Dr. MADDEN .-Sir, the Minister of Railways, during the two hours, or nearly so, that he bas entertained the House, has diverged as far from the question before the chair as any honorable member did in the wildest and most eccentric of the speeches delivered in the "stone-wall" period. The honorable gentleman's address reminds me of a story told of a lawyer who was employed to bring an action for the recovery of the value of three goats destroyed by a neighbour of his client. That lawyer, never before having had an opportunity of addressing a jury, took advantage of the occasion to air his elo­quence ; he employed all possible flowers and figures of rhetoric-he addressed the stars and invoked the gods-and, in fact, touched upon everything except the ques­tion at issue, until at last his unfortunate client twitched his gown, and whisper~d to him-" Counsellor, dear, won't you say something about my three goats ?" Cer­tainly, except during ,the last twenty minutes, I could not see the relevancy of any of the remarks made by the Minister of Railways. Some of his statements, however, ought not to go unchallenged. The honorable gentleman drew up a bill of indictment against the Legislative Council~ with the view of showing that it was necessary to pass.a measure of reform in order to clip their wings. He made a

variety of charges against the Legislative Council. He said that in the past oUl; railways and other public works were constructed upon a system of gross extra­vagance, for which the Legislative Coun­cil were responsible. Now the Legislative A.ssembly have always had the right of initiating all the expenditure of the coun­try, and the sole right of altering Money Bills. The Council have never contended that they possessed su,ch a power. If there has been any extravagance in the public expenditure in the past, who is responsible for it except this. Chamber? The Council are certainly no more respon­sible for it than any individual member of the community. The first count in the bill of indictment against them is clearly unsustainable. No doubt. the Council had the power, which they were at last dri-yen to exercise, of rejecting any proposed ex­penditure, but if they had used that .power earlier they would only all the sooner have brought on their heads the thuIJ.ders of honorable members on the Ministerial side of the House. The Minister of Railways also charged the Council with being re­sponsible for the fact, as he alleges, that the land in the western district of the colony is in the hands of certain capitalists, and is not available for other persons to utilize for farming purposes. In what way are the Council responsible for that? The men who own the l~nd bought it 25 or 30 years ago, and are the Council to be blamed because those men choose to use their property in the ~aj that suits them best ? It may be a. source of envy to certain persons that tlJ.ings are not <;>ther­wise, but, as a matter of right, how can it be contended in a British community that those men are not at liberty to use their property ~s they like? Whether they have acted for the good of the community or not, how can any blame iD:;the matter be laid at the door of th~ Legislative Council? Then the Mini~ter said that 1,300 tons of gold have .tbeen . extracted from the' gold mines of' t.l1e colony during the last 25 years, the ~alue of which ,is now lost because it has not been invested in land. How can the honorable gentle­man seriously say that the Council are responsible for tha.t? In the early days' of the gold-fields .men's minds were in a state of fever-h~at. Men of' sober as well as men of sanguine disposition rushed to the diggings" where gold was to be fouo.d almoilt, on the· surfa<:e of the soil, and money waS at their disposal in vast

Second Reading. [SEPTEMBER 18.] Eig MIt ~Nig Itt's Debate. 1095

quantities. The digger in those days thought no more of accumulating money or looking to the future than he cared about the coin he had in his pocket. Does the Minister of Railways mean to say that the men who squandered their money in buying champagne to wash door­steps with as one mode of enabling them to get rid of their money, so that they might return to the diggings and acquire more, would have been disposed, under any state of the law, to invest money in land or anything else rather than in riotous living?

Mr. DIXON.-Hundreds of them would have done so if they had had the chance.

Dr. MADDEN.-The observation of the honorable member shows that he is talking without thinking.

Mr. DIXON.-I know it of my own personal knowledge. That is more than the honorable member can say.

Dr. MADDEN.-As a matter of fact) the land could only be disposed of at that time in one way-by auction-and the diggers had the same opportunity of pur­chasing it as any other persons in the community.

Mi'. WOODS.-No. Dr. MADDEN.-Can the Minister of

Railways point out any Act of Parlia­ment, regulation, or ordinance preventing a digger who had money to buy land with pur?hasing as many acres of land as he chose, the same as a squatter or any other person? , ,

Mr. ,WOODS.-I can point out any number of facts.

Dr. MADDEN.-The honorable mem-, ber, in his two hours' speech, did not show. any single fact that was not a fallacy. "

Mr. COOPER.-One of the complaints is that pers,o.ns;..-couldnot ~ buy less ~h~n 640 acres. .

Dr .. MADDEN.-The question I am arguing is whether or not, the Legislative Council are in any :degre~ responsible for the fact that, the diggers did not invest their money in land in those :days. I feel that I really owe an apology to the House for d'Yelling ,upon such a matter. The diggers had the same opportunities as other peIsons of purchasing land, but tp.ey did not avail themselves,. of ~hem. It is absurd and ridiculous to make this matter one part of ,the, indictment against the Counci~, a.nd to speak of it as an evil ,for the -remedy of which the Reform Bilkis i~troduced. . Tpe ,;MiJ'l.is~er of Railways also stated that the pI'esent Constitution

Act is not a Constitution, but simply a compact. He won't recognise it as a Constitution. He regards it as merely an arrangement between the squatters and the Home Government, by which the squatters were to be at liberty to mop up the lands as they pleased. The honorable gentleman, apparently has never acquainted himself with the real history of the Con­stitution Act. If he had, he would be aware that a committee of the old Legis­lative Council was appointed to draw up resolutions on which a Constitution should be founded. That committee consisted of twelve gentlemen, eleven of whom fol­lowed a variety of occupations, only one being a squatter, and that one, it is said, dieu without possessing an acre of land. As to the other gentlemen, not one of them possessed an acre of land for which he did not pay an exorbitant rate in the open market. I do not say that the Legis­lative Council have not to answer for some indiscretions-some acts of hostility towards this Chamber-which would have been better left undone; but, whatever blame may be attached to the Council, the charges made against them by the Minis­ter of Railways certainly cannot be sus­tained. The Minister made the bold assertion that until the present Govern­ment. came into office the Council had always been represented by 'friends in the Assembly.

J\1r. WOODS.-Hear, hear. Dr. MADDEN.-Does the honorable

gentleman mean to say that the struggles which have been going on between the tw.o Chambers for the last 15 years have been merely a matter of play between friends? From the year 1864 to the present time there has been a standing feud between this House and the other u'pon grounds more or less sustainable. Does the honorable gentleman mean to say that during the whole of that period the present Government are the only Ministry who have honestly endeavoured to tackle that difficulty? I venture to assert that no member of this House be­lieves so. To my thinking, and I believe to that of the country also, the only Ministry who have helplessly bungled the question of reform, and have endeavoured to the best of their ability to hang it up and avoid settling it, are the present Go .. vernment. When the Reform Bill of last session was before this House I addressed myself to it at considerable length, and" although the present meas~re. reproduces

1096 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

the evils of the last one, and magnifies them to a considerable extent, and some­wbat disguises them, I think there is a sufficient family resemblance between the two to enable me in a large degree to 'n,pply to the present Bill what I said in regard to the last, and thus avoid detain­ing the House to-night at such great length as I might otherwise be inclined to do. It seems to me that the most flagrant and deep-seated evil which attends this Bill, like all other Bills propounded by liberal minds, is that, instead of being conceived and designed in that calm dis­passionate manner in which any measure must be designed that is intended to per­mancnl,ly satisfy the people, and to stand tlmt criticism to which it must be sub­jected, it is framed in resentment against the Council-a resentment which is enter­tained towards that body by reason, I suppose, of its conservative views-a resentment which, in many respects, is fanciful and undeserved. The matter comes down to this one point-that the re-arrangement of the Constitution upon a wi se, harmonious, and statesmanlike principle is a secondary consideration; the degradation of the Council is the first principle of success in the minds of the liberal party. The Chief Secretary, with a knowledge of that axiom of his party, has reasoned thus-" So long as the ques­tion remains unsettled, so long is there a lucrati ve mission for me, as the arch­prophet of the liberal party, to discharge." The more nauseous and unacceptable any measure of reform can be made, the less likely are the Council to accept it; and therefore every measure which the Chief Secretary has introduced is charged with all that is objectionable, extreme, and im­moderate, lest the question might settle itself in spite of him, and then his occupa­tion would be gone. The Chief Secretary has again come down to this House and said smilingly and suavely-" I had hoped, after all the light thrown on the subject last session, that this question would have been settled before now;" yet each of' the Reform Bills he has submitted has been snch that no body of men with any self­respect, setting aside such considerations as wisdom, prudence, and foresight, could venture to accept. This mockery, this unreal mode of dealing with reform, which is scarcely a pretence of settling the ques­tion, makes the scheme of the Govern­ment in some respects a difficult one to debate. Though one may try to debate

Dr. Madden.

the Bill earnestly, and endeavour to look upon it as sincerely and honestly pro­posed by the Government as a logical and constitutional remedy for a large and well-recognised evil, it is impossibfe to avoid the conclusion that the Government are all the time laughing in their sleeves that anybody should be found who does not at once see through so transparent a sham. The other day the Age told us that at last even the angels are weeping for the blunders and corruption of the Government. I trust that, if I unite with the angels in their sorrow, I shall not be charged with entering into "a factious and unscrupulous combination against the Government." I can give the Govern­ment credit for one consummate piece of generalship, and that is the consistent manner in which they have dangled, and are still dangling, the reform question in the eyes of the country and their sup­porters. Why are they doing so? Be­cause they know that there are men sitting behind them who are yearning for the settlement of the question for no stronger reason than that they may thrust the Government from office, and rid the country of the incubus of their incapacity. That being the case, how can we expect that the Government will permit, if they can possibly prevent it, a settlement of the question of reform? Their desire to prevent it being settled explains the embassy to England. That embassy was nothing else than a portion of a deep-laid scheme to hang up the question of reform as a cover for still further legislative incapacity and ad­ministrative abuses. What tangible re­Bult has accrued to the country from the expenditure of money,. the waste of time, and the humiliation which has been cast upon us by that embassy going to England to announce to the world that we cannot settle our own affairs? The Chief Secre­tary has had all his heart could desire. He took home with him a Bill which was declared by the largest majority that ever pronounced upon anything in this House to be the very perfection of reform.

An HONORABLE MEMBER.-He did not take the Bill home.

Dr. MADDEN.-He pretended to do so. I suppose he had it in his portman­teau even if he never showed it to any one. After arriving in England the Chief Secretary had several personal interviews with the Secretary of State for the Colo­nies, and had the opportunity of submitting

Second Reading. [SEPTEMBER 18.] Eighth Night's Debate. 1097

him to all the diplomatic cross-examina­tion which so clever a statesman as the Pr~mier of Victoria would be able to sub­ject a mere Secretary of State to. But what was the result? Why the Chief Secretary was simply a baby in the hands of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach. The hon­orable gentleman, however, must surely have extracted some idea from the Secre­tary of State as to what sort of Bill would be likely to meet with the· approval of the Imperial authorities; but we have not heard a word from him on that subject. The question of reform having engrossed the attention of the present Parliament during the whole time it has been sitting, the Chief Secretary must have known ·that there was this all-important element to be explained this session, namely, by what means this Bill is to be passed into law; and yet upon this subject we have not had one word from the honorable gen­tleman, though he has been in actual cou­tact with the Secretary of State. Either the Chief Secretary must have gathered from the Secretary of State the nature of a Bill which will be acceptable to the Impe­rial Government, or he extracted nothing. If the former be the fact, it was clearly the honorable gentleman's duty to com­municate the information to this House; if the latter be the case, the embassy has merely been a waste of time and money. I presume the outcome of the mission is the official despatch from the Secretary of State which has been laid on the table of this House. That de­spatch can be boiled down to a very simple and definite statement, namely,. that such a Bill as we are now discussing can never be endured or contemplated for an instant by the Imperial Parliament. The Chief Secretary will never persuade Sir Michael Hicks-Beach or the pe.ople of this country that the Bill is a reasonable measure. The people of this country are a very explicit people: They know their own mind as a rule, and are in the habit of expressing it. The question of reform has been dear to their hearts for many years; and if the present Bill had been a proper and reasonable measure the people in public meeting assembled, throughout the length and breadth of the land, would have proclaimed aloud for it, and have demanded that it should be passed without delay. The Bill, however, has been re­.ceived by the people in solemn silence, and, as far as they have been consulted, they have declared against it. The other

VOL. xxx.-4 D

evening, the Chief Secretary, referring to the return of the honorable member for West Bourke (Mr. Harper), said gaily that one swallow did not make a summer. q

No doubt the result of the election for West Bourke is by itself a matter of com­parative insignificance, but we must re­member that since the lIth of May, 1877, the following seats have been wrested fwm the Government in spite of their most strenuous exertions :-Sandhurst, Rodney, Boroondara, East Melbourne, Fitzroy, and West Bourke. The Chief Secretary cannot afford to disregard these omens of the future when the Reform Bill goes before the country. I venture to say these are a sufficient number of swal­lows to make it look like a remarkably hot and uncomfortable summer for the Ministry. Sir, I will now endeavour, as. shortly as I can, to point out the details in which I think this Bill utterly fails to ac­complish what it proposes. The object of the 1st part of the Bill, as I understand it, is to assert distinctly, and beyond all dispute for the future, the supremacy of this House in financial matters, and to provide that in future no dead-locks shall occur in respect to financial questions. Reading it according to my lights, it ntterly and ignominiously fails to attain any such results. In the first place, the measme provides th~t-

"The 56th section of the Constitution Act shall be read with and explained by the following sections of this part of this Act." The 56th section of the Com;titution Act therefore remains intact, subject to the explanations given by certain clauses of the Bill. The 56th section of the Con­stitution Act provides that-

" All Bills for appropriating any part of the reven~e of Victoria, and for imposing any duty, rate, tax, rent, return, or impost, shall originate in the Assembly, and may be rejected but not altered by the Council." This remains exactly as it is; and, so long as that is the case, the 1 st part of the Bill is utterly incapable of fulfilling what is claimed for it. The 4th clause provides tbat-

"The right of granting Aids and Supplies to the Crown in Victoria is ill the Legislative Assembly alone, as being the Commons House of Parliament of Victoria." This is a platitude-a general exposition of what has never been denied in this country. It does not carry the matter one whit further than where it has been for the last twenty years and more. The 5th clause says-

" The Legislative Assembly has the power to impose and remit taxes and so to frame Bills of

1098 Vonstitutlon Act CASSEMBLr.J Amendment Bill.

Supply that the right of the Legislative. Assem­bly as to the matter, manner, measure, and time of gra.nting Aids and Supplies to the Crown may be maintained inviolate."

This is a similar platitude, iri no wise alteririg the existing law. Tlie meaning of these clauses, so long as tlley exist side by side with the 56th section of the 'ConL

stit(ltioll 'Act, is that the 'Assembiy shall have the right of initiating ~nd altering Money Bills, and that the Council shall not"; but the' right of rejecting Money Bills is in no way taken ,away from the Council. There is, therefore, no alteration of the present Constitution proposed by these clauses. The 6th clause, which seems to be the 'backbone of the lst part of the Bill!. provides that-

" Immediately on the adoption by the Legis­lative Assembly of any report from the Com­mittee of Supply containing a resolution that any sum be granted to Her Majesty, such sum shall become legally availablE;lJor and applicable to the service or purpose mentioned in such resolution, and may be issued accordingly out of the consolidated revenue."

This deals only with Committee of Supply, and does not in any way. touch Committee of Ways and Means. Therefore, notwith­standing this clause, the Appropriation Bill will go up to the Council year after year, as it has hitherto done, and the Council may reject it or pass it as they please; but in the meantime the money represented ,by the Appropriation Bill will have been spent, and, if the Council reject the measure, the Assembly may snap their fingers at them. Consequently the form of law is preserved, but the meaning of it is reduced to a farce. There is another very important fact to be borne in mind. Every Treasurer and every Government look upon Ways and Means and Supply as co-ordinate matters. It is not sufficient merely to grab the money in the Treasury and speud it; but, while sanctioning a scheme of expenditure for the service of the year, the Assembly must also provide the Ways and Means by which the expenditure can be met. There: is nothing in the I st part of the Bill to I

prevent the Upper House refusing to sanction any Taxation or any Ways .and Means that may be provided by the Assembly. Apparently therefore ~ll that: the Government desire is to have- a free. run of the Treasury-to be able to lay hold of all the money it contains-without: caring a jot whether the Upper House! reject any Taxat,ion or Ways and Means· Bill. They are content t~ know th~t if

Dr. JJladden.

such measures are rejected the only result will be that the Govei'nment will leave a d,eficiency behind th~m which their suc­cessors will have to meet. While taking power to expend the votes of the Assembly notwithstanding .the fact that the Council may reject th~ Appropriation Bill, the Government h~ve lost sight of, or wilfully overlooked·, the necessity for some pro­vision to enable a Ways and Means Bill to be carried into law. The result is that a dead-lock may t.ake place in the future just as it has occurred in the past with respect to any Bill for imposing Taxation. That being the case, surely the whole essence' disappears from part 1 of this Bill. Let us look at the measure in another aspect. The Bill of last session at all events provided some guarantee that the public revenue would not be squandered or illegitimately appropriated, because it required that a,Bill of Supply must pass the Assembly by a majority of the whole House before the moneyco~ld be available. But, as the present Bill is framed, the Go­vernmEmt may get half or the whole of the revenue of the year voted some night when perhaps there is only a bare quorum of the members of the AsseD?-bly present, and, as soon as the resolutions are adopted, the money will be available. The revenue of the country will, therefore, be,left utterly unguarded and at the mercy of any Go­vernment. In the name of reason, why should such a measure be passed by this House? If I was in fa vour of the plebiscite for aninst'ant-if I thought that it could be introduced with .propriety into our constitu~ional system-I would say that of all q!lestions to, which it should be applied the expenditure of money should certainly be one. The question of mon~y is the one thiug upon which all people, including even those of the meanest capaC?ity, can form an opinion. Every man who deals with his own finances knows what money is-hJ3 imovv:s that it is ~ thing not to be lightly dealt with­and therefore he can form an opinion ppon such questions, for instance, as whether £5,000 ought to be expended on an em­bassy. There might be some r~ason for asking the people to give an "Aye" or ~'No" upon such a qU,es.tion as that; but what justification :can there be' for re-

)ferring such an int.ricate and complicated measure as the\Mining on Private Pro­perty Bill to a poll of· the people? The abstract question of the right to mine for g~ld uncleI' private prqperty is a very small

~econd Reading. t.sEPT.~l\tBER 18.J Eigkt/" Nigkt's Debate. 1999 , . " . .. .' .' '. .' ~ .' ...... ,

portion of the Bill compared with the ma- composition of the Council to depend on chinery and details of the measuF~' ~ Why tlie nominations 'of the Government for the should the people, who have .their own time being. The inevitable result would private business to attend to, be asked to be that, instead of the best, wisest, and determine such complicated matters, when most experienced mEm in: the community they send representatives to Pai'liament being selected for seats in the Council, the and pay them to deal with qllestions of Government would be importuned for ap­that sort ? Under no circumstarices can pointments by all the hangers-on of their I be a party to the passing of the 6th party who had not the· heart or the clause of 'the Bill, unless there be added strength of mind to go· forth and con­to the measure some stringentpenalcla~i~,es test a seat for the Assembly. In'fact, ap­!?iving the right of ~mpeaching a. Minis~rl pointments to' the Council would be reduced for any malversatIOn of publIc mon,e! to the same position that nominations to during their term of office. At this.stag~ the offire of justice of the peace have I think I may appropriately answer been by the present Government. The some observations made by the Min~ster result would be· that we would have a of Lands, who quoted from a speech I Council so degraded, unrepresentative, I delivered when the reform scheme .ttnd unreliable in' all essential characteris­proposed by the honorable member for tics that it would be· infinitely better to Warrnambool was before this House. O~l abolish the second Chamber altogether. that occasion, I said that as far as the It. seems· to me that no advantage can right of the Council to deal with Money possibly arise from substituting a nominee Bills was concerned, I would deprive them system' for the presenf elective system. of it by the most convenient method that If the nominees were independent men­could be devised. When I made that ob- if they consider~d and debated questions servation, I was a young member of the as the members of the Conncil do now Assembly, and up to that time the Berry -if they had sufficient se~f-respect to re­¥inistry had not existed. The Ministries sent in.trusions on their iJ?dependence such which I and other ;members were then as the Assembly are consta!ltly making on called on to contemplate were Ministries the present Council, the pr~babilities of which did not disclose such possibilities as conflict between the two Houses would have been disclosed d,pring the last two be as great then as they are now; and, years. But, even after the experience I if the members were not independent, have had, I do not propose to tone down the Council would be utterly worthless. wha/t I then said to any se~ious extent. I Appointed for ten years, they would not be consider, and have always considered, that l'esponsible to anybody'. The probabilities it is the right of the Assembly to deal with are that by the time their term of office the. public finances on precisely the same expired, the Government that originally principle as the House of Commons deals appointed them would be out of office )vith the finances in England-uncontrolled and forgotten, and that another Govern­to . any greater extent than the House of ment that would be glad to re-appoint them Cb,mmonsis controlled by the House of would be in office. The utmost they Lo.rd~.; The Minister of Lands might would have to fear would be that the have done me the justice to :mention that Government that originally appointed I voted,against the Bill of the honorable them might return to office. While on member for Warrnambool. Although I this aspect of the ~ill I desire to refer to was a supporter of the Government of the ~he position taken up by the honorable day in the main,· and personally respected member for Castlemaine (Mr. Pearson). every member of-it, I felt that I could not That honorable member likes the Nor­vote for that Bill, which included theN or- wegian scheme immensely; he thinks the wegian scheme" notwithstanding· that it Bill of ~ast session perfection; ~nd yet he comprised a provision as to Money Bil~s intends to vote for this 'Bill. of ,which he which was not disapproved of by me. ,But does not, as I understand, approve. True parts 2 and 3 of the present Bill, wh,ich he likes the plebiscite, but the nominee propose to establish a nominee Upper portion does not meet his views, and the House and the plebiscite, are much more financial portion is not unobjectionable. objectionable than the. Norwegian scheme. And.while occupying this singular position With regard to part·2,.~hich deals with the honorable member asks what objection the constitution' of the Coupcil, I consider honorable memuers in,opposit.ion can ha:ve ~t .would bo utterly unsafe. to allow the to tl~~ Bill. ,For. myself~ I will answer the " -:I: D 2' ,.

1100 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bilt.

honorable member as categorically as I can. I object to parts 1 and 2 of the Bill be­cause they purport the continuance of the Legislative Council in existence only to degrade it; and I need not offer excuses or reasons why I shall vote against them. With respect to part 3, I scarcely know how to approach it, because, as far as I have had the opportunity of ascertaining fro.m mixing with the community, the plebiscite-or the "plebiskite" as it is more popularly known outside-has only to be mentioned to be laughed at; and, as a matter of fact, this House is really the only place in which people can speak seriously on the subject. Therefore, in approaching it, I find I have more difficulty than in approaching anything else. I thought the Minister of Railways was hard put to for an excuse for supporting the Bill. Certainly he must have heard the virtues of the measure thrashed out in the Cabinet, and yet the only argument he could urge in favour of the plebiscite was that Thor and Woden used it. There is no doubt the ancient Saxons re­sorted to it, and that it was used by a number of worthy and estimable persons who existed before the Saxons, but the reason why the system was abandoned, and that the nations that abandoned it resorted to other means for deciding legislative questions, was because it was utterly primitive and barbaric. In fact it was resorted to at the time it was because people had not the means or cultivation to adopt anything else. The Minister of Hail ways, in the course of his speech, could not refrain from allusions to cylinders and pistons and other engineering appliances ; and I think I might as well suggest to him, on the basis of his own argument with regard to the plebiscite, that, instead of using the highly improved engines in the department over which he presides, he ShOll ld go back to the valuable little ma­chine invented some years ago by George Stephenson, at Newcastle. It seems to me that if there were no other objection to the plebiscite, the one I am,now going to refer to is fatal to it: that it already stands con­demned by the only court of appeal which, according to the Premier, remains open to us-the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The Bill of last session provided for the plebiscite-in fact the plebiscite was the very heart of the measure. That Bill was, I suppose, in some sheepish fashion, sug­gested to Sir Michael Hicks-Beach as the measure which had been passed by this

Dr. Madden.

House. I presume the Secretary of State had the measure under his notice.

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN.-He had. Dr. MADDEN.-Then the meaning of

the official despatch, with respect to the plebiscite, is perfectly clear. No doubt it would not lie in the mouth of a polished English statesman to say-" Take that rot away; we won't look at it." That phrase, suitable as it might be in other circles, would not be employed by a Secre­tary of State with reference to a measure pronounced to be the perfection of legis­lation by an enormous majority in this House. The language employed is­" Send me a reasonable Bill." There is no doubt about what the Secretary of State meant. In using the term" reason­able," he wanted to draw a distinct anti­thesis to the Bill then before him. And yet here we have before us a Bill con­taining the plebiscite and something much worse in addition. How can the Govern­ment venture to suggest the intention of going back to the Secretary of State with a Bill of this kind? What expectation can they have that he will regard this Bill as more reasonable than that which he apparently indicated, when he wrote his despatch, as the personification of un­reasonableness?

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-They are going to convert the English nation.

Dr. MADDEN.-No doubt the Attor­ney-General has pointed out with great force that this measure was one which would be a new starting-point for the British race. I dare say it seems dread­ful that the Secretary of State was so weak-minded as not to appreciate this valuable departure-this thing which was to re-create the whole British nation. But I submit that if we are to rely upon the Secretary of State for a settlement of the dispute, honorable members should unite in pitching out the Bill as speedily as possible, and resorting to something that is reasonable.

Mr. W. M. CLARK.-How did the honorable and learned member gain his seat in this House except by the plebiscite of the people of Sandridge?

Dr. MADDEN.-I am glad the honor­able member for Footscray has made that interjection, for it will relieve him, in my mind, of the error of sinning against light. Clearly the honorable member does not understand the plebiscite. I venture to suppose he merely takes for granted that what the Government tell him is correct.

Second Reading. [SRPTEMBER 18.J Eighth Night's Debate. llOI

I am not here by the plebiscite of the people of Sandridge. I am here as the re­presentative of the people of Sandridge, and therefore a representative of the colony at large, because the people of Sandridge were satisfied that, in this House, I would look after their interests and the interests of the colony, and that I would use what­ever discrimination or judgment. I possess on the legislation submitted to Parliament. That being so, I venture to say that the people of Sandridge would be astonished­whatever the electors of Footscray might think, though I know something of them too-if' some measure of legislation were sent to them with this remark-"My good sirs, although you elect and pay me to re­present you, settle this matter for your­selves." I think the electors of Sandridge are sufficiently keen about matters of busi­ness to say that is not the sort of thing they expect from me; and I don't think it is the sort of thing which the electors of Footscray would expect from their mem­ber. N ow supposing the Bill were to become law, and the plebiscite were to be resorted to, there is not the smallest doubt that parties interested in the pass­ing or rejection of the Bill forming the subject of appeal to the people

. would exert, at the very least, all the efforts they exert in connexion with the return of Members of Parliament. In that case all sorts of undue intluence­intimidation, bribery, corruption-would be exercised. And supposing that as a result of the plebiscite a Bill is passed or rejected, as the case may be, by reason of widespread corruption and undue influence, how is the matter to be corrected? There is no Elections or Qualifications Committee to deal with the matter as there is to deal with the question of members improperly elected. The people would be utterly dissatisfied; they would say-" We know. our wish has not been attained by the manner in which the Bill has been dealt with"; and yet there would be no machi­nery to set the matter right. True the Bill provides that certain penal provisions now in force with regard to the election of Members of Parliament shall apply to the taking of the plebiscite, but they will have relation only to misstatements before the returning officer, party processions, and things of that kind. There will be no way of preventing the exercise of such undue influence as I have referred to.] Then again there is the question which was propounded by the honorable member

for Rodney (Mr. Gillies) the other night, and which has not been answered by any member of the Government except the Minister of Railways, namely, supposing the Government send any question of policy to the plebiscite and it is rejected -the country pronouncing that the Oppo­sition are right, and that the Government and their supporters are wrong-in what position will matters be? The Ministry a,re responsible not to the people at large but to the majority in this House. That being so, the rejection of any meas~re by the country, on a plebiscite, would in no way affect the existence of the Govern­ment.

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN.-It would affect the majority at once. \

Dr. MADDEN.-I cannot ·make that out. I presume that each member of the majority would pledge himself to the same line of conduct as the Government with respect to the Bill made the subject of. the plebiscite before it left this House; and w hen the measure came back from the country, the majority would be scarcely mean enough to turn tail on the views they had themselves expressed. I am afraid the result would' be that the Go­vernment would, with regard to questions of permanent policy, shelve their respon­sibility by sending the measures to the plebiscite, and, if they came back disap~ proved of, it would make no difference.

Mr. COOPER.-The Treasurer says the Ministry would go out in that event.

Dr. MADDEN.-Then there would be a novelty in parliamentary government -the novelty of a Ministry, with a ma­jority at their back, resigning office, and handing over the governmen t to a minority. Things would be certainly left in a hope­less muddle. There is another point worth considering. Supposing the Legis­lative Council, instead of rejecting a mea­sure, should simply "stone-wall" it, or hang it up, how would the 25th and 28th clauses of the Bill apply? Clause 25 provides that-

" Any Bill which shall be passed by the Le­gislative Assembly in two consecutive annual'. sessions of Parliament, whether in the same· Parliament or not, and which shall be rejected by the Legislative Council in each of such ses­sions, may by order of the Governor in Council be submitted to the electors of the Legislative Assembly for their approval or disapproval at a general poll."

And it is laid down by clause 28 that the question whether any Bill has been" re­jected" or not in the. J;;~~.islative Council.

.... " .. ,'-

1102 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

"shall be finally decided by and upon the making of any Order in Council submitting the Bill to a general poll." Assuming, for an instant, that the Government do their duty-which certainly is a violent assumption in some instances-I think it would be a difficult thing for them to assert that the Legislative Council had rejected a Bill which they had never dealt with. That would be a strained interpre­tation of the action of another place. Therefore, supposing a Bill is "stone­walled" by the Legislative Council, in what position will matters be?

Mr. GILLIES.-Supposing a Bill is sent up to the Council only the day be­fore a prorogation?

Dr. MADDEN.-Supposing a case of that kind, could the Government certify to the Governor tha.t the Bill had been rejected by the Legislative Council? Unless they were determined to go "bald­headed" into a violation of their duty, plain language aod common sense would restrain them from doing anything of the kind. Thus there would bea simple and easy method for. any, Legislative Council, if disposed . to bring about a dead-lock, to bring' it about at their good pleasure. I have now stated my reasons for disapproving of and voting ugainst the Bill. ,I repeat that the question of constitutional reform has not been dealt with sincerely by the Go­vernment, and that they are least of all disposed to see it settled. I think there i~ nothing that the Government would regard as so calamitous as to find some fine morning that the question had been put an end to by the Legislative Council accepting this Bill. The Government would be completely done for from that moment. And here I would ask the House to consider whether the Govern­ment are not actually convicted of in­consistency and incompetence in dealing with the question. If so, I would ask honorable members to determine that the Bill ought to be laid aside, and-in view of the impoverished state or the country, and the demands upon us for legislation in other directions-that the question should be dealt with by the means pro­posed by the honora.ble member for Moira (Mr. Orr) or by some other method, in the only proper manner in which it can be dealt with, by some fair, equitable, and just compromise. Let us deal with the matter in the practical way which marks the proceedings of two business men who

\

have to do business with one another-in a fair manner, without endeavouring to intrude upon the rights of others, or filch from them privil~ges 'l!:nd advantages. If ho_norable members on the Ministerial side choose to take that course, I think I shall not be far wrong in assuring them that the Opposition, as one man, will act earnestly and side' by, side with them in asserting and maintaining all reasonable privileges and !ights of this Chamber. If, on the other hand, they will persist ftS legislative highwaymen, in "stand and deliver" fashion, in their endeavour to extort from the Legi!,lative Council that which they have no fair or honest right to demand, all I can say is that, to the utmost, I will refuse to 'lend my voice to any such injustice, or to floJIt ,the portion of :the community which the L,egislative Council represents. "

Mr. NIMMO.-Sir, I have l~stened with very great interest to the debate on this Reform Bill. I have also read the newspaper reports of the various speeches that have been delivered by honorable members for and against the measure; and the conclusion I have been conducted to by the debate so far as it has gone, and especially by the last speech, is that the opponents of the Bill are, perhaps inadver­tently, divertiug public attention from its real merits. The honor:;tble member for Belfast, for whose opinion I have a very high respect, in his speech pointed to what he regards as defects on the face of the Bill, and contrasted them with some features, pleasing to him, which he had discovered in the American Constitution. Now, sir, I do not find fault with' the honorable gentleman for admiring the American Constitution, but I do object.to him finding fault with the Bill on the ground that it does not correspond wi.th that Constitution. The Bill is modelled after the pattern of the Bri~ish Constitu'­tion. Its framers never intended to make provision for an irresponsible Senate. They never contemplated fixing members in their seats for three years without t~e possibility of a dissolution. In a word, they never aimed at copying the Ameri­can system of government; and therefore it is hardly fair to measure the wisdom of the provisions of this Bill by an American standard.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-"The wis-dom !"

Mr. NIMMO.-Or the unwisdom, if the honorable member likes. The honorable

S~~ond 'Reading. (SEPT~l\IBER 18.J Eighth Night'~ Debate. 1103

member for Moira (Mr. Orr). assumed in his address that Sir Michael I-Iicks~ Beach had counselled us to frame a " rrioder~te" measure ot refor~, and up0l!­that assumption he attempted to found an argument condemnatory of the Bill. But Sir :)Michael Hicks-Beach never onC,e mentions in his despatcl~, a "moderate" measure of reform~he :says a "reason­able" ineasure-::md therefore the honor~ able gentleman was sirpply fighting with a man of straw by confounding thil~gs that differ. The temperance reformation is a reasonable reformat,~on, but it is not a moderate reformation. I could under­stand this House framing a Bill to secure its just constitutional rights in a moderate spirit, and by the use of temperate lan­guage; but. I could not understand this House drafting a B ql to secure "mo~erate just rights," any, mom than I could unders~and a judg,e being justified for haying meted out moder~te justice on the b~nch, or a citizen" being praised because ~e was moderately hon~st or moderately truthful. Sir, our constitutional and common law rights ,af(~ nO,t 'mere conyeq-:­tional observances. lin;ble to be changed either, bY,the whimsical ?aprice of a hand,­ful of men, or the ;graspmg ambition of a Legislative Council or a J1l.onarch. They are so~id enduring r~a1ities that~ have bee~ won for us, amid the struggles of centuries -realities that )Ve wish' to 'enjoy, arid hand down to tliose ",'ho are to succeed us,. npt in an abi:idged ~r m{~ti1atcd form, but in their entiI:ety. If the. present Bill, which has been so severely criticised by the honorable: and learriedmember for Sandridg~, el~ims more p;~wer for this ' House than is enjoyed and texercised by I the House of Commons, the Imperial Go­vernment will inform us that our Bill is unreasonable~ because it is,. not based,ou ,tlw:,li~es of ~the British C(>.nstitudol~.; hut' if the m~as:m:e ask~ for nothing mor~ t1ifin I

the ,practic~l applicati0110f those'prin~ cjp~es ~bat form ".the ba~~~, of 'every-day usage in the House of Cow-mons, then the I

Secreta;y of _ State for the Colonies will I be bound by the letter and spirit of his; despatch to pronounce the Bill a "reasoll} , able" measure, an4' aid us in making, It the basis of our futiure legislative prac.tlce.

.Mr. SERVICE.-Plebiscite a11\l all ? ).11\ NIMMO.-I wjll corne tothnt by­

and-by. The honorable member for Moira wjshes to remit tlle Bill to 'n. select COlll­

rphte~:,. -:vVith -regard to;'i;hat :( say that if-the honorable gentler11an intends his

select comp.1ittee to fl:ame ~ "m~d,erate report in which the rights and privileges of this House are to be set forth in an abridged form in 'or<.1e,r to ,p1~*~ o~!'. ~~ll more acceptable to the ot1?-er brancho£' the Legislature, I must take the' liberty of stating that; in my opinion, the honorable gep.tleillan 'is pursuing a. course f'~~ught with,very great, danger to,the rig)its "and privileges of -this I-Iouse,- as we11'-ag.· to the liberties 'of the people of this colony. I have observe~l one fallacy running through most of the speeches which have been made against the Bill., -It is that the two I-louses of Parliam'ent are' ec(:ual in power, or, to. use a more popular ~nd euphonious term, they are co-ordinate; and, on this assumption, there has been no end of argument condemnatory of the Bill. N ow, as a commentary on that kind of argument, allow me, j~lst for a few minutes, to refer not to speeches made by honora"!Jle gentlemen in bygone years-for I consider a great deal of time has been wasted, during the debate, by quoting Hansard- but to the opinions of men who have examined the rules of Parlia­ment from the earliest dates, a,nd are therefore competent to pronounce upon constitutional matters. The dispute with reference to the paper duties has been alluded to by more than one honorable member. It will be recollected that the Paper Duties Bill was thrown out by the House of Lords, whereupon the House of Commons appointed a select committee to search for precedents. In due time the committee brought up its report, and I may mention that the concluding portion of that document teems with truths which I am mtisfied, if they were st~died care­fully, would materially tone down the views of the honorable member for Sand­ridge and a few otber honorable- members in opposition .. -The reportcoqtains the following remarkable language :--'- - ' - _ : "The cornmittee reviewing this testimony de­rived from the records of Parliament, and from the settled practice of the House of C0111111ons, have asked themselves this ques.tion-What is the principle involved in the precedent of the 9th of Henry IV, and what tl~~ I right .of. the Commons of Englan51 which 1'11', Pym declared in the y~ar 1 G.4.-O- had been' not shaken-,by, on~ precedent for these 300 years'? Is it merely that the House of Commons shn'!l begin aU Bills of Taxation and Supply? Or that the Lords shall not by amendment in any Bill raise or diminish, by one penny, nny charge imposed on the people? -Is it oueonly 01' both of thC'l'le things whieh formed 'the staple of the right for-which the Commons have contended during so, many centuries?' ,TIle COlll!llittee canllot douut t,hat

1104 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

the right which the Commons have contended for and have maintained is nothing less than an absolute control in determining the expenditure necessary for the service of the Crown, and the mode and the amount of taxation which shall be imposed upon the people. If the Lords cannot begin a tax, if they cannot increase or abate a tax, yet if they may prolong a tax by refusing their assent to its repeal, when that repeal has been voted by the House of Commons, then it appears to the committee that the fundamental and inherent right of the House of Commons to an absolute control over Taxation and Supply is not only menaced but destroyed."

The concluding paragraph of the report is as follows :-

"'The committee cannot conclude their report without reminding the House that if henceforth, which they will not believe to be possible, no tax hurtful to trade and grievous to the people can be remitted unless the Lords be pleased to remit it, or can be eyen recommended by the Crown to be considered by the Commons with a view to its remission, with that full assurance which has heretofore existed that such a tax will be remitted, not only will the powers of the House of Commons be impaired, but the foundation of the ancient freedom of England will be under­mined, for where shall that ancient freedom be found when the right to determine the mode and the sum of taxation is divorced from the repre­sentative branch of the Legislature ?"

This report was framed in 1862 by a com­mittee consisting of 21 members of the House of Commons, including Lord Pal­merston, Lord John Russell, Mr. Disraeli, and other celebrated statesmen. Here, I say, is an assertion of power on the part of the Lower House which certainly does not agree with the views that have been propounded during this debate by honor­able gentlemen on the opposition benches. The next quotation I desire to make is from Hallam the historian, who was a tory in his instincts-at any rate all his leanings were towards the House of Lords. Hallam, in his Constitutional History of England, says-

"In the first Parliament of Charles I, the Commons began to omi t the name of the Lords in the preamble of Bills of Supply, reciting the grant as if wholly their own, but in the enacting words adopted the customary form of Statutes. This, though once remonstrated against by the Upper House, has continued ever since to be the practice.

"The originating power as to taxation was thus indubitably placed in the House of Com­mons.; nor did any controversy arise upon that ground. But they maintained also that the Lords could not make any amendment whatever in Bills sent up to them for imposing directly or indirectly a charge upon the people.

'" '" '" ... '" '" " These restrictions upon the other House of

Parliament, however, are now become, in their own estimation, the standing privileges of the Commons."

Mr.. SERVICE.-Very good.

Mr. NIMMO.-It is very good. I am extremely pleased with it, coming from the source it does. I will refer to another standard authority~Sir Thomas Erskine May. He states, in his Parliamentary Practice-

"On the 3rd of July, 1678, the Commons re­solved-' All Aids and Supplies and grants to His Majesty from Parliament are the sole gifts of the Commons, and all Bills for granting such Aids and Supplies are to begin with the Com­mons; and it is the undoubted and sole right of the Commons to direct, limit, and appoint in such Bills the ends, purposes, considerations, condi­tions, limitations, and qualifications of such grants, which ought not to be changed or altered by the House of Lords.'

"It is upon this latter resolution that all pro­ceedings between the two Houses in matters of Supply are now founded.

"The principle is acquiesced in by the Lords, and, except in cases where it is difficult to deter­mine whether a matter be strictly one of Supply or not, no serious difference can well arise."

May, in subsequently defining the consti­tutional principle of Supply, says-

"Thus the Crown demands money, the Com­mons grant it, and the Lords assent to the grant."

I now come to another writer who, though he may not be so learned as Hallam, is quite as industrious so far as parliamentary researches are concerned. I refer to Ferrall, who, in his Law of Parliament, makes these observations :-

" To suppose that the three branches of the Government are equal in authority, as some of our elegant theoretical writers on the Constitu­tion have attempted to demonstrate, is but a vapour of the brain; for the means that have been taken, and may continue to be taken, to con­ciliate the temper of the Commons, and to warp the minds of individuals, not being recognised by the Constitution, have nothing to do with the power the House possesses under it.

" The sole power of granting or withholding subsidies is the great characteristic feature of this branch of the Legislature. This it is that gives it virtually the command of the other estates, and renders them, although superior in dignity, vastly inferior in authority. It may then be said, as a phrase of courtesy or good manners, that the House of Commons cannot do this, or may not do that I In truth it can and may do anything that a body of rational men, selected by a large and independent constituency, shall deem befitting. 'The share of power,' says Hume, 'allotted by the British Co.nstitution to the House of Commons is so great that it ab­solutely commands all the other parts of the government.' " Further on, Ferrall says-

" The usage of laying Money Bills before the Lords is a usage of courtesy, It should not be mistaken or abused, and whenever it is, and that the necessities of the times require it, it will become a bold and independent House of Com­mons to lay down broadly and distinctly the principle of the practice; and, if need be, to assert that latent power possessed by that

Second Reading. [SEPTEMBER 18.J Eighth Night's Debate. 1105

House, in conjunction with the Sovereign, of enrolling Acts without the concurrence of the Lords, provided the latter' will not do or yield to anything.'

" The Supply is the sole gift of the Commons, and is presented to the Sovereign for his accept­ance by the Speaker of that House. It can be well given and received without the concur­rence of the Lords.

* * * * * * "The Commons have so uniformly and so vigorously resisted every attempt of the Lords to interfere with this right that the latter have long since desisted from either originating Money Bills,· or from making amendments to such Bills passed by the Commons. The period in which the greater number of precedents occur begins from the Restoration, and con­tinues down to the beginning of the last cen­tury; and whenever the question has arisen, the prompt and zealous denial of the Commons has crushed the encroachment so effectually that latterly the Lords have abandoned all fur­ther attempts as hopeless. This privilege is now the sole and undisputed right of the Com­mons." Sir, the object of the present Bill, as I understand it, is to make this same privi­lege the "sole and undisputed right" of the Legislative Assembly of Victoria. N ow, in all seriousness, I ask honorable members, and especially honorable mem­bers in opposition, if it has been found necessary, in the interests of good govern­ment in England, that the House of Lords should be shorn of the power that would enable it to veto the passage of the annual Appropriation Bill-if it is only as a mere act of courtesy that that Bill is sent to the Upper House at all-does not the same necessity exist in this colony? More than that, I say the necessity is provided for in this Bill. The constructive interpretation of the Constitution Act has been referred to by the honorable member for Sandridge. I agree with the honorable member that the 56th section of that Act gives the Legislative Council full power to reject a Money Bill; and I would never have gone in for an a.lteration of that section in the slightest degree had the Legislative Coun­cil observed the spirit, instead of the dry letter, of the Constitution. Had the Legis­lative Council done that, there would have been no necessity at all for altering the Constitution. That the Legislative Coun­cil has misused its power, I think, must be obvious to any person who studies its proceedings. The honorable member for Boroondara made, on Tuesday evening, a most extraordinary statement considering that he has clear perceptions, that he has a logical mind, and can therefore distin­guish between things that differ. The

honorable member stated that, on all occa­sions of dispute between the two HO~lses, the U ppor Chamber never took the initia­tive.

Mr. R. M. SMITH.-I stated that was so with regard to the three great occasions of dispute.

Mr. NIMMO.-Then the last, being the third, must be included. I think it was the honorable member who ejaculated, when the Chief Secretary was speaking, that if payment of members had been kept out of the Appropriation Bill, that Bill would not have been rejected. But do honorable members opposite really mean to say that it was this House that initiated the last dispute?

Dr. MADDEN.-Yes. Mr. NIMMO.-Let us proceed step by

step. What was the first step taken in the last conflict between the two Houses? The initial step was a question put by an honorable member in the other House, who asked Mr. Cuthbert if it was the intention of the Government to include in the Estimates a sum of money for pay­ment of Members of Parliament. The 56th section of the Constitution Act pro­hibits the Legislative Council from doing anything of that sort. It prohibits them from initiating a Money Bill.

Dr. MADDEN.-Was that initiating a Money Bill?

Mr. NIMMO.-I am now tracing the origin of the dispute-not dealing with Money Bills. Immediately after that question was put, the next step was taken by the other House, namely, the adoption of a petition to His Excellency the Go­vernor, praying him to stay his Ministry from placing a sum on the Estimates for payment of members. The first step was an offensive question interfering with a matter the Council had no right to inter­fere with; the second step was an offensive petition of the most unconstitutional char­acter. Who ever heard of the House or Lords presenting a petition to the King or Queen of England asking the Sovereign to withhold Supplies from the Commons? If such a petition were presented to Her Majesty, I am sure her answer would be to tell the House of Lords to mind their own business. Such interference by the Lords would be the signal for the destruc­tion of the kingdom. The action of the Council, I maintain, was an unconstitu­tional proceeding, and no intelligent man can justify it. And that action gave rise to the dispute. The item for payment of

1106 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Anlendment Bill.

memhers having been placed on the Esti­mates, the Council said-" 'rV eobject to this item because it is not placed in a separate Bill," and then to please them we took the sum out of the Estimates and placed it in a separate Bill.

Mr. GILLIES.-The sum was not taken out of the Estimates and sent up in a separate Bill. A Bill was sent up, but the amount was retained in the Esti­mates.

Mr. NIMMO.-A thing cannot be in two places at the same time. Was it contemplated to give honorable members £600 a year? The Bill provided only for £300 a year, and unless it was intended that honorable members should have £600 a year the money cannot be said to have remained on the Estimates. But even if the amount had not been placed in a separate Bill-if it had been sellt up purely and simply in the Appropriation Bill-I hold that the action of the Go­vernment was quite a constitutional pro­ceeding.

Sir (T. O'SHANASSY.-Then why did they take the item out bf the Appro­priation Bill ?

Mr. NIMMO.-N ever mind that now. My reason for holding the action of the Government constitutional is that pay­ment of members was not a novel policy. It was the law over the whole of Europe, every state in which pays its members. It has been the law in America ever since the foundation of self-government in that country. Payment of members is also a part of the Constitution of the neighbour­ing colony of New Zealand, and payment of members had been the law of Victoria for six years before the 11th May, 1877.

Dr. MADDEN.-In spite of the wishes of 0 the people. 0

:Ml'. NIMMO . ..--'fhe n'lembers .of the Co~mcil had been in l.'l?ceipt of payment I

themselves. A large majority of members were returned to the Assembly on the II th . of May, 1877, pledged to support the prin­ciple, and this fact was announced previous 0

to the assembling of Parliament by the Argus, which pu~lished a tabulated state­ment showing the number of members pledged to support p~yment. Was not that such an expression of opinion as the Counoil should have accepted?

Mr. FRASER.-The qll'estions before the country were reform and the land tax.

:!Vir. NIMMO.-:-I am not s~l.?eakirig, of reform or the land tax. If the ·honorable n'lem bel' will turn up the files of the Argils

he will find the statement I have men­tioned.

Dr. MADDEN.-There was a majority pledged the other way if they had kept their pledges.

Mr. NIMMO.-This larg~ majority carried payment of members in the As­sembly, and what followed? The honor­able au'u learned member for Sandridge interjected a few minutes oago-" Against the wishes of the community," but was there a single district iu the colony which called npon a representative to resign in consequence of him voting contrary to his promise?· The ,usual and constitutional way in which public opinion manifests itself is thus laid down in :Ferrall's Law of Parliament:-

'" The prinCiples we have laid down,' says Vattel, 'lead us to decide ,this point with cer­tainty, that the authority of the legislators does not extend so far (as to change the Constitution) and that tbey ought to consider the funda­mental laws as sacred,if the nation has not in very express terms given them the power to change them. , . . . In short, these legis­lator,S derive their power from the Constitution 0; how then can they change it without destroy­ing the foundation of their authority?' This would be completely applicable to our Parlia­ment were it not that a practice obtains with us which,,in some measure, supplies the defect­I mean the practice of holding public meetings. Tbese assemblages are not merely, what they have been freq~ently termed-' safety-valves' ; they are much more-they are the legitimate and constitutional mode of expressing approw bation or disapprobation of extraordinary public measures. If a great coristitutional alteration be contemplated and proposed, and the public do not meet and express tn'eir disapprobation, I say Parliament does not exceed the limits of its authority; and the silence oof the people must be taken for acquiescence. :·But should the popular voice be generally raised against the governmental change, then, if the'- repre­sentatives persist; they palpabJy exceed the terms of their commission, and their compact is ~ull,aond void, as ,against the people, Lord Holt carnes the prmclple much further, for be says­'If the House of Commons declare themselves to have privileges ,'which' they have no legal claim to; the people oof 'England will not be estopped by that decla:t;atiqn.' We knq:w that there must be an ultimatum of political power in every Government, and that that rests pro­perly with the people. We have three distinct, and, to many purposes, independent branches; yet, as it is an undoubted maxim in our Con­stitution that the King's prerogatives are only held in trust for the benefit of the people, surely, and a fortiori, the privileges of the peers can be possessed on no larger or more inde­pendent condition. It must thence follow that whenever the people of this country' distinctly, calmly, and universally express their determin­at.ion to resume any or all the prerogatives of the King, or the privileges of the peers, they can do so most undoubtedly, provided they act ac­cording to usage and custom."

Second Reading. [SEPTEMBER 18.J Eighth Joligltt's Dehate. 1107

There we have public assemblages re­garded by a high authority as correct indices to guide Members, of Parliament. There were such assemblages previous to the 11th of May, who pronounced in favour of a certain measure. Yet when that D)easure was passed by the people's representatives, and transmitted to the other branch of the Legislature, it was rejected. And what was the cause assigned? That the Council on previous occasions had only voted for payment of members as a tentative measure! Let ~~y sensible business man ask himself this question-Did he ever hear of the mem­bers of the House of Lords voting them­selves £300 a year just to see how they would like it? The man who would say he voted himself £300 a year on tentative grounqs, as the Council said they did, must either be in his second chndhood or his mind must be a terra incognita to political knowledge., But was there not som~thing underneath all these statements.? Was this action of the Council not a claim s.et up by them of superiority over this House---not merely of co-ordinate autho­rity? ,Or was it taken in order to see how the electors would act under the system of non-payment of members?, Was. it \V~th t.he object of seeing men in the Ass~mbly antagonistic to the views held by the majority of members at present here?' If that was the case, then the ~.egislatiye Conncil, in theIr action, were clairrii9g i~l~ power which should be exel'­ci,sed by'the electors of the colony. Let us now come to another matter which has been referred to frequently by honor­aqle members opposite. I allude to the famous embassy. The honorable member for Dalhousie asked how did this embassy originate? vVhy was it sent to England at all? And the question has been repeated by other honorable members. I will refresh honorable members' minds by reference to a'document prepared by the Council themselves, which will throw some light on the point. Before doing so, however, I may remind honorable mem­bers that the Assembly, by the elections of the lIth of May, was pl~dged to reform the Constitution. The House p'assed a measure to effect that pur­pose, and the Bill, on being sent to the Legislati ve Council, was treated as an unclean thing which no member of that C,hamber would tonch, so that it was not c'ven ' ,considered. The Council, however, themselves fl'anWd a measure of reform,

and I regret, in some respects, that their Bill received similar treatment in this House to that which they accorded ours. The Chief Secretary, at this juncture, made what I ,conceived to be a wise pro­position. He proposed that a conference, consisting of representative men from each Chamber, should meet and calmly consider the main provisions of the two Reform Bills. The conference met, but could not agree on the fundame1;ltal prin­ciples necessary to conduct ::),ny future negotia tions.

;Mr. R. M. SMI1'H.-No wonder. , Mr. NIMMO.-I ~ay so too, because the proposals of the Council. were such as I certainly wonld not agree to. The Chief Secretary reported the failure to this ·House, and what was to be done under such cir'curristances? I, for one, counselled him 'not to have recourse to any rash measure which,would precipitate the colony into a tmmoil, but to go home quietly to the parent Government, state the bare facts of the case, and ask their advice.

Mr. SERVICE. - It was on your advice, then, he went home?

Mr. NIMMO.-I am glad to say I was One of the advisers of that course. The Chief Secretary entertaineu the notion that he might get an enabling Act. I never wished him to get an enabling Act -1 simply desired him to state the bare facts, almost without comment, and allow the parent Government to give us advice. I know we are very wise in this colony in many matt-ers, but I don't think we are equal to British statesmen. They have gone through so many storms, arid the great constitutional events of their own country are so impressed on their minds, that they know many things of which we are necessarily ignorant. I thought the course I have mentioned was a proper mark of respect to our Sovereign -for, let me say, I would remain a mem­ber of· no party that would propose for a single moment to sever one of those ties that bind us to the old land. I never wish to live under any other flag than the flag of old England. I was born a Briton, and I always wish to live under and be protected by the Sovereign of England. However, I sincerely desired advice from the Home Government, and I was prepared to obey tha,t advice. The Chief Secretary went home and got a.d­vice, and he got the very .a.d vice I wanted him to get.

1108 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

Dr. MADDEN. - You were easily satisfied.

Mr. NIMMO.-The advice he got settled the question in my mind for ever. Some doubts have been thrown on the character of that advice. (Laughter from members of the Opposition.) Honorable members need not laugh. If they consult the history of the Darling grant dispute, they will find that some leading men in this colony propounded a theory of the Constitution altogether different from that given by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach. The Secretary of State has laid it down that the Constitution of this colony was in­tended to be based on the lines of ther< British Constitution. Gentlemen learned in the law, however, had told us differ­ently; the late Mr. Justice Fellows, for example, said that the Upper House had the power to do everything but initiate Money Bills. Sir Michael Hicks-Beach told the Chief Secretary that he hoped the Legislative Council would in future regulate their proceedings in conformity with the practice of the House of Lords. If that were done there would be no more dead-locks.

Mr. SERVICE.-And the Assembly? Mr. NIMMO.-And that the Assembly

should conduct their proceedings as the House of Commons do theirs. I go in for that. I am as much against tacking as any man in this House or the colony. I do not believe in tacks.

Mr. SERVICE. - Then come over here.

Mr. NIMMO.-I will now explain the proceedings which necessitated the em­bassy. When the conference met and could not agree, the Chief Secretary said to the members representing the Council­"Each party has framed a Bill, and we cannot agree; now I am quite willing, if you are, that the two Bills shall be sub­mitted to the electors of the colony, and let them decide which shall become law." This is admitted in the report of the conference furnished by the members representing the Council, where it is stated-

" At the final meeting of the committees, the committee of the Assembly made the following proposition :-

'" That a short Bill be introduced for submit­ting the rival Reform Bills prepared in the Council and the Assembly, with such amend­ments as either body may introduce, to be accepted or rejected in their entirety by a poll of all qualified electors, the result of such poll to be considered finaL'"

And what was the reply of the representa­tives of t.he Council to that fair proposal?

"Your committee, however, did not consider that this proposition was of a character to induce them to prolong the conference." f;urely the leader of the Opposition, who is a good business man, will admit that that was a fair proposal to settle the dispute. When, however, the Assembly theu pro­posed to send the Chief Secretary to England, there was imn:;tediately a howl raised by the other branch of the Legisla­ture and their friends-" Why not settle our own disputes in our own colony?" They appealed to our pride, and said our pride would be insulted by going outside the colony. Yet the ink was scarcely dry on the very paper in which the Council members of the conference themselves suggested that our disputes should be sub­mitted to the decision of three Governors outside the colony! One of their pro­posals to prevent dead-locks was this :-

"Subject to Her Maje!!ty's permission and directions, the question, whether such grant is or is not rightly included in the Appropriation Bill, to be submitted in a case stated to two Governors of neighbouring colonies; such Go­vernors to appoint, if need be, a third Governor as umpire, and the decision of any two to be binding." What, I ask, colild be done with men who blew hot and cold in the same breath? There was nothing between going home and a revolution. I don't want revolu­tions, but I would remind honorable mem­bers that the history of constitutional changes is very interesting reading. We had one bloodless revolution in England -but only one. I don't want revolutions of any kind, however, in this colony; I want a peaceful settlement of this ques­tion. I believe we exhausted every means, and made every offer that honor­able men could make, to obtain the settle­ment of the question in this country. We proposed to su brnit the two Reform Bills to our common masters, t.he electors, but the Council refused to give the people a voice in the making of the laws by which they were to be governed. What was to be done under such circumstances but send to England for advice?

Mr. SERVICE.-Why not bring down last year's Bill? It might have become law.

Mr. NIMMO.-My concluding remarks on the second reading' of last year's Bill were these :-

" I am prepared to support the Bill brought forward by the Chi~f SeGretary, or any other

Second Reading. [SEPTEMBEH 18.J Eighth }/ight's Debate. 1109

Bill that will-in plain, distinct, and unmistak­able language-confer on this House the powers to deal with the revenue of Victoria that are held and exercised by the House of Commons when dealing with the revenue of Great Britain."

Honorable members opposite have moved no amendment on the present Bill. In their remarks they have confined them­selves to "Woods' brake," "Longmore's delinquencies," and "the historic six­pence." Let them come forward, if they can, with historical references to the masters of constitutional history, and show us that this Bill is antagonistic to the great principle that underlies the British Constitution. If they can do that I will vote against it. I believe, however, the Bill is an emanation from the British Constitution. We cannot put the British Constitution into words, it is too elastic.

An HONORABLE MEMBER.-Why try? Mr. NIMMO.-We are doing our best,

but there would be no necessity for attempting to put the British Constitution into writing in this colony if we could only infuse into the Legislative Council the spirit of the House of Lords.

Mr. SERVICE.-And the spirit of the House of Commons ?

Mr. NIMMO.-And the spirit of the House of Commons into this House. The "infusion, however, of that spirit into the other House implies a miracle, a,nd the days of miracles are past. At least I have never heard of any on this side of the line. As far as I am concerned, I wish the Constitution of this colony had only been written in two words-" Eng­lish practice" ; that is all the Constitu­tion I want. I consider a written Consti­tution has been the curse of this colony. The English Constitution goes" from pre­cedent to precedent." It has been gradu­ally developed and worked by sensible and good men whose hearts were filled with feelings of philanthropy and patriotism, and who were prepared to sacrifice their wealth and their lives on the altar of their country-not by pettifogging fellows whose sole aim is the acquisition of land and money, and who try to undermine every reform. Weare very young here yet, and let us not attempt anything final. The English Constitu­tion is constantly being changed, and the powers of the people are being increased year by year. I have no doubt that if this Bill gets a fair trial it will work wonders. It will do more good than

honora,ble gentlemen opposite imagine, but even if it does less harm than has been brought on this colony by the inter­pretation of the 56th section of the presen t Constitution Act, I think it ought to be passed. Everything is to be preferred to that section.

Dr. MADDEN.-You have it in this Bill.

Mr. NIMMO.-We have it in a modi­fied form; it is toned down by succeeding clauses. As it stood it was dangerous, but now it is improved. I need not detain the House further.

Mr. SERVICE. - What about the plebiscite? " Mr. NIMMO.-I hold the same views

with regard to the plebiscite as I did when the proposal was last before the House. I have a prejudice in favour of British precedents and British practice. r have never disliked the French people, but I like the British people and British customs very much. Perhaps my objec­tion to the plebiscite may only be a prejudice because the system came from France. I admit I have an objection to the plebiscite, but I do not think I ought to let it interfere with my support of the Bill as a whole. There is scarcely a measure passed to some of the clauses of which I may not object, but am I there­fore to condemn the great principles underlying those measures? I look upon the plebiscite as a mere nothing. I want the people of the colony to be placed in the position that they can make the members of this House the exponents of their wishes; and when those wishes are constitutionally expressed on the floor of this House, I want no power to stand between them and their reali­zation in actual law. That is all I want, and if I can get that I am satisfied. As regards the proposed change in the constitution of the Upper House, I believe, after considering the matter, that the Legislative Council will be a more representative body than if it were an elective House. Besides, any disad­vantages connected with the establish­ment of a nominee Chamber will be neutralized by the provision-which does not exist with regard to any other nominee Upper House - rendering the term of office of members limited. If any mem­bers misconduct themselves by impeding useful legislation they can be replaceu at the end of ten years. !f,on the other hand, they conduct themselves properly,

1110 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

they will, no doubt, as good servants be retained in their posts.

Mr. COOPER.-Sir, if the Ministry are fortunate ~nough to get this Bill passed into law, I think, in recognition of the very earnest speech of the honorable member for Emerald Hill (Mr. Nimmo), when the first plebiscite is about to be held, the great crowds from Melbourne and the suburbs should be collected, and the honorable member, placed on the top of "The Hill," should be made the master· of ceremonies, to tell them exactly how they are to go about the business. I think the power of lungs the honorable member has shown this evening would admirably qualify him for the position of instructor-general of the masses on that particular occasion. The honorable member quoted certain valuable and' weighty names in support of the view he held in connexion with the 6th clause of this Bill, b\lt I am sorry to say the view t::ken' by the ho.norable member, as well as by IllY honorable colleague (Mr. Richardson), is altogether erroneous. The quotations they have given us, instead of being the teachings of history, are only detach~d opinions on particular historical events. A very few lines from Blackstone's Commentaries will, effectually dispose of all their histori­cal quotations. Blackstone says, writing of the House of Commo~s and,its proceed­ings-

"First, with regard to taxes-it is the ancient indisputable privilege and right of the House o.f Commons that all grants of subsidies, 01; parlia­mentary Aids, do begin in their House, and are first bestowed by them; although their grants are not effectual to all intents and purposes until they have the assent of the ot4er two branches of the Legislature." ,

That was the practice of the House of Commons when Blackstone, wrote, and it has not been altered t~ this day. While it is contended by all historians that the House of Commons has the right to initiate and determine the time" mode,. manner, and matter of all grants In .aiq, no const~­tutional lawyer, or, as far as I know,. no member of this ~ouse disse;nt~, from that view of the case. I. believe the point is not f3ven contested by the honorable mem­ber for Boroondara.. 1. would ,ask the honorable member fqr Emerald Hill, however, o~e ql,l~stion:is h,e. prep'arlild ~o say, having read . carefully Hallall}, Mac­aulay, Bagehot,. .. Mackintosh, al)d others,: th&t the bro~d teachings of t4o~~4istqrians' are such as. 1;1e h~s, gi.veA·~to-night? ... 1; l;'.e~ture to ~sse~~tt!la~ he b.as n~:t giv~p.·~be.

general tenor of the teachings of those historians. What did John Bright, the grand tribune of the English people, say on the resolutions in connexion with the paper duties? ' He observed-

"Now, after all I have said, I will admit that the House of Lords can reject a Money Bill, and can also initiate a Money Bill if they like. The Ho~se of Lords might to-night bring in a Bill levying a tax or a vote of money for the service of the year, and they can also reject any Bill you may send up."

Mr. NIMMO.-That is only a legal right.

Mr. COOPER.-I am not going to enter into a technical discussion as to an abstract legal right. If the House of Lords have that . right, they have it; and if not, they do not possess it. John Bright says they have it.

Mr. L. L. SMITH.-You' know better. Mr. COOPER.-I do not -profess to

kn,ow better tha;n John Bright:.! Further, Mr. Gladstone~thau whoUl the House will admit there isn-ot a better exponent of parliamentary law and procedure-is equally clear on the point. A short time ago, he said,.--

"The House of Lords have never: given up their right to reject a Money Bill, and if they are wise they never will, because in the changing aspects of the Constitution of this country a time may come when members ~ay be sent into the House .of Commons who may forget their duty to their constituents and the country. And it may be in time to come, as it has been in times past, that the Lords will have. to assert their power to save the. coun~ry .from the de­struction which .its representatives. threaten to it." '. , If what. Mr. Gladstone sais'be cqrrect, I ask what is the meaning of :;tIl these state­ments,about this Hou~e giving up what the House of Commons has always cori­tended for? I am quite prepar~d to admit th~t when this question was .b.efore the HOUl:~e last session I tried to f?upport the J.3JIl submitted by the Government, and in supporti~g that Bill. I was preparedt,o 'cqnGede very gr,eatly iq order to ,~et the matter settled. As soon"however, as that Bill was introduced, I.took occasion to see one or two members of,:the Government, and to tell them that I "could not support it in its entirety. I was told that the Government did not intend to insist on the Bill i:o. its entirety,!and on that under­standing I supported it. I alp. sorry now I flid ~o, ,be~al,lse. tpe Goverqment broke faith with me on thqt, .occasion. Qn the present occasio~I am not prepared to trust tbe Governm.ent at . all, and therefore I s4,ail- ,~il;nply. ,(lpal .:With, this Bjl~ ,on its

Second Reading. [SEPTEMBER 18.J Eighth 1-;rignt's Debate. 1111

merits. Speaking on the last Reform Bill, -on the eve of a general election-was and on the. question of the responsioility that honorable members voted themselves of this B;'9use and the necessity of checks, 200 guineas each. vVell, a general elec­I said- . tion is not far off with us. Supposing

"Now it hftos been objected to the Bill that it this Bill were law, what might not we do will abolish the system of check and counter- under the circumstances? Might we not check so essen'tial in all matters of financial have the Government assembling their legislation, but I: don't think any member of friends in caucus, and the Chief Secretary this House wishes ~o do away with checks, or that the whole of tl;1epublic revenue should be saying to them-" Gentlemen, we dissolve placed under the, control of the Ministry of in a fortnight from this date; I don't know the day, to be distributed at their simple dictum -I am ignorant of the state of your bank­how and when they please." ing accounts-whether you can afford the I reiterate these remarks now, and I say expense of a general election, but I have no that would be the practical effect of this doubt a little money would come in very Bill. In fact, the. title of the Bill should pleasantly; what do you say to voting run something in, this way-" A Bill for yourselves 300 or 500 guineas each as a the purpose of making eight gentlemen honorarium for the intelligent way in absolute in all m'atters appertaining to which you have done the work of Parlia­legislation in the .colony of Victoria." ment ? " Wl;tat is to prevent that idea That would be a c'orrect definition of the being put in force the same night ? Bill. To Ply mind the 6th clause is of An HONORABLE ME}IBER. - Bent the most dangerous character. It slileks might (, stone-wall" it. to give this House absolute control over Mr. COOPER.--;The honorable mem­the finances of the colo,llv, and. seeks to do bel' for Brighton might not be here, or he that in the most objectionable way. Ac- might have 500 good reasons for not cording to the last Bill there was at least "stone-walling" it. His bent might be to be a month's respite.: A Money Bill just then in a -different direction from was to be sent up to the Gouncil, al),d if "stone-:walliIlg." vVhat might not be the they did not pass it in one ~onth, it then result? The resolution might be carried, became law. Under that prop'osal, if the and reported to the House the same night, Money Bill contained a grant.which was next morning honorable. memhws might objectionable to th~ public, the~e was time be at t~e Treasury.getting their cheques, at least· .for protest and petition. There and the day after we might find the whole was time for the people, as the honorable colony ~n a state. of astonishment and membe:r: for Emerald lUll says~-, ,( to rise, won4er, decla,riug that w.hat had been done in their 's~rength" and protest ag~iQst the ought not .to have b~en done. After all, monstrosity .. which was sought to,be perpe- tha.t is ouly,a very)i,ttle .specimen of what trated .. But what do we fi:nd.j.p th~s Bil!? might be .manage4~Doubtless many hon­ProviSIOn made for a state .. of I) ~hings orable members remember when it was which might easily become exactly. what~he~'uie "he~e that fresh business might the honorable and learned memb,er for be tak,en. af~~r eleve.n o'clock, and how Sandridge deeCl~i~t(d·to us to-night.':",~)~er- . m~ny littl~ a:windles of the kind I allude h~ps, at sax. halfv-past ten o'clock ~p..fP.~ to w~r~ t~.~n wc;>rked, through. Many mght, when scarcely more than a qUQ.FuRl . things w.ere doue late at night ,then that of members were pres~nt, the Go:vern- are disgra,ceful to the colony;, and will not ment would come. down' with a proposal bear close investigation, and it is to be .to spend £10,000 upon a .. breakwater \ at; p.oped nothing of., the sort wi~l ever occur Sandriage or WarrIi~mbool".or £150,OP9 in future. It must be borne iu mind that more upon, the ,Spencer-stre~t, !ailWI1Y ~t tlw. time 1. speak of the pl~n of making station, or to, disburse ·money. in spme: money vpte,d available directly the vote other direction, and, n~xt morning~, before; was rEU>~)l~te(l to. the House and the report the public ~a(a chan~e to. put ~ w.ord in I .w.as adopted :w~s. in full operation. I am upon the matter, the l money woul4 be: M>~ry the Goverru:p.f3nt, did not see their .:flowing out of the t 1;reasury .in, QrdeJt to I way to bring,.9.own a Reform Bill of a prodlJ;ce the' wonderful, re$-ult~. ~ini$-ters I C~aL'~cter; ,likety to. ~ommend ,it to the professed ,to lfa~e inyi~w •. Another for- i sop.I.Ijd sense of.the House and the support cible illustra~tonof my meaniog is brQ:ugp.t i of the country. The Refqrm Bill of last to my- minCLby what ,recen.tly pappenE1(l ~n I se~sion" which ·was sai4 at ,the time to be a neighbouring .aplony., One oLthe ..last I an \emhodim€;lnt of all the wisdom that <q,cts of th~ late ~{ew Zeal~I\~ PaJ.:Ha~~pt; .ccnJ~4 ... P9fiS!})ly be brought to bear on the

1112 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

snbject, was passed here with very large lIlajorities, but what followed? The mommre seemed to fall upon the country like [l dead weight, and we found the Go­VQl'lllnent, instead of pressing it on the Coullcil, preparing to send an embassy home. I admit that previously they got np a sort of bogus conference with the COllllcil, but I ask any intelligent poli­tici::m whether, considering the composi­tion of that conference-how it consisted of' extrem.e men on either side-it was ever possible for it to be attended with anything in the shape of an effective reslllt? Why the whole arrangement was absolutely hopeless from the start.

lVIl'. SERVICE.-The Minister of Cus­toms told us what it would be.

lVIr. COOPER.-Doubtless he knew what it was intended to be. The action of the Government in connexion with that conference, inasmuch as it indicated a desire on their part that it should not result in nnything, made a most unfavorable im­pression on my mind. It tended to show me that they were not dealing honestly with the question of reform, and that they were occupied with their personal interests ratlH'r than with those of the colony that wonld be advantaged by a settlement of the matter. If there is in my mind any antipathy to the Government in connexion with the reform question, it arises from their conduct with respect to the subject last !:'8ssion. Next I come to the affair of the emLassy. I have no hesitation in re­peating now what I stated last session, uame]y, that the whole plan of the em­bassy was a mistake. It was a mistake in itself, and a mistake in view of its results. We are told by honorable mem­bers on the Government benches that the Chief Secretary got all he expected and all he desil·ed. Well, all I can say is that if he did he ought to be thankful, and that if he is so, he is thankful for very small mercies. What did he get by going home? How, by going home, did he advance the cause of reform? So far as I am able to measure the matter, I am under the im­pression that his going home resulted in, instead of an advantage; a decided dis­advantage-that it has hindered rather than facilitated the settlement of the re· form question. Its effect has been to call into existence a third party to the dispute on the subject.

Mr. MIRAMS.-The corner party? Mr. COOPER.-I don't refer to the

corner party that seems to be such a bugbear

to the honorable member for Colling­wood (Mr. Mirams). The third party I allude to is the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Instead of having, as parties to the question of constitutional reform, the people of the colony and the two Houses of Legislature, we have now the people on the one hand, the two Houses on another hand, and the Secretary of State on the third hand. Our quarrel has become a triangular one. Ina corre­sponding way the Reform Bill is divided into three parts. The lst part, which is practically contained in the 6th clause, is, I believe, the Ministers' own; the 2nd part, which contains provision for a nomi­nee Council, comes, I fancy, from the Secretary of State; while the 3rd part, which embodies the plebiscite, undoubt­edly belongs to the Age. So the exact paternity of the measure may now be said to be clearly defined. Its divisional cha­racter reminds me of a story I once read of a bookworm, listening to a preacher who derived much of his eloquence from the divines he had studied. As the preacher proceeded, his hearer could not help ejaculating, with reference to dif­ferent passages of the sermon, "That's Wesley," then "That's Cha]mers," and next, "That's Guthrie," to which he added at last, when the minister threat­ened to have him turned out, "That's his own." Undoubtedly the 1st part of the Bill is peculiarly the Ministers' own, and a very bad part it is too. Still it is con­sistent with themselves. They desire absolute control, and while the last Reform Bill went tolerably far to give it to them, the present Bill, although it is said to be the same as the other, goes very much further. If carried into law it will make them absolute and supreme. They will then be able to truly say-

" Weare monarche of all we survey, Our rights there is none to dispute."

And can we not imagine what, supposing the next general election does for them that which the famous 11th May did, will be then their line of action? I fancy I see it being followed. They will call their supporters together and address them in something like this fashion-" We worked the thing well; didn't we give the Op­position slops? didn't we manage the elections first-rate? but the party must stick together; we must be shoulder to shoulder as one man; above all, you must follow your leader-keep your eye on your father." And no doubt the father,

Second Reading. [SEPTEMBER 18.J Eighth lWghfs Debate. 1113

or rather fathers, will keep their eyes on themselves and on each other, and be faithful-exceedingly and continuously faithful-to the grand prominent feature of their policy, namely, the interests of number one. Again, assuming the Go­vernment to have secured for this House absolute control over finance, how is it likely to be exercised? A curious illus­tration of how the oracle may be worked has been afforded us during the present session, when, instead of increased taxa­tion of the people being determined upon by a majority of the representatives of the people, the question has been decided by a minority. A minority of the House -not the opposition minority, but a min­ority composed of Ministerial supporters -have actually, during the present ses­sion, decided to increase the burthens of

. the people in a particular way, and they are, at the present moment, carrying their design into effect. What, under the rule of clause 6, may not that sort of thing develop into? Let us thoroughly under­stand the position. We find the Ministry, after carrying their Budget proposals by a narrow majority, not proposing to deal with their new Tariff on its merits, before the House and the country, but calling their majority secretly together, in order that what the majority of that majority should decide upon should become law. I regard a state of things of that character as not creditable to the Government, and as not auguring well for our future should they, as they are striving to do, become absolute in the colony. Before I go further I wish to say a word with re­spect to the great authorities mentioned by my honorable colleague in the repre­sentation of Creswick, the honorable member for Emerald Hill (Mr. Nimmo), and others. They cited the names of Macaulay, Hallam, and others, but for what purpose? Is it their design to convey the idea that the views they put forward are supported by those writers? If it is, I challenge them to show that either of the historians they allude to in any way countenances the theory that the House of Commons has absolute and unchecked control of finance, or does not distinctly imply that such a theory is contrary to the true teachings of the Great Charter, and to the actual practice of the Imperial Pa,rliament. Fur­thermore, has not Lord Chatham asserted over and over again that there are times when the Lords ought to interfere in

VOL. xxx.-4 E

finance in order to check the extravagance and waste of the Lower House; and do we not find Mr. Gladstone, the greatest living exponent of parliamentary pl'ft.ct.ice, maintaining precisely the same doctrine? I may be asked what danger would there be in giving Ministers the absolute power they wish for? To my mind there would be every danger. Did they not them­selves, when they were in opposition, over and over again contend that it was dangerous for the Ministerial side to have the power of the purse, although they were in a majority, because they did not truly represent the people? Yet neither the then Ministry nor the then majority claimed authority like that which the present Government seek to gain. But if the Bill pass into law every Govern­ment who succeed in getting and keeping possession of the Treasury bench will have absolute control over the public purse. The real holders of the supreme financial power of the colony will be the eight gentlemen who for the time being consti­tute the Ministry.

Mr. BILLSON. - The rest of the House might oppose them.

Mr. COOPER.-What difference would that make? If one Ministry go out be­cause they have not got a majority they will be succeeded by a Ministry with a majority. The absolute power I speak of will remain, although it may change hands. We are assured there can be no harm in giving the Assembly unchecked control in finance, because every three years they must go to their constituents. But what may not be done to the injury of the country during three years? Were we not told, the other night, that by con­senting to a comparatively small outlay we practically committed ourselves to a final expenditure of from £300,000 to £400,000? Imagine that sort of thing carried out during three sessions. And let it be re­membered that during the three years the people of the country would Le power­less to interfere with the ahso] ute masters of the situation in this Chamber. Then, as to the 2nd part of the Bill, the honor­able member for Emerald Hill asserted just nqw that by making the Council a nominee House we would render it a more truly representative one. How he arrives at that conclusion is beyond my comprehension. The Tre,asurer has, how­ever, explained that the Council wouhl become representative because it would be appointed by this House through the

1114 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY. ] Amendment Bill.

Government. No doubt that looks a very nice arrangement, uut it cannot work, because, in the first pluce, this House does n<tt elect the Ministry, and, secondly, the Ministry to a large extent govern honorable members. Let honorable mem­bers bear in mind the threats that are used towards them-the pains and penal­ties in the shape of a speedy dissolution, and Government candidates to oppose them at the hustings, with which they are menaced if they do so and so, or do not do so and so. I am not sure the time is not coming when this House will have to step in to protect their privileges in this direction. I hold that it is a breach of privilege for the Government to threaten any honorable member with particular consequences if he votes in a particular way. That sort of thing has gone far enough, but I don't think even the pre­sent Government will carry it much further.

Mr. SERVICE.-Why do you think so?

Mr. COOPER. --:- Because they are beginning to discover that the constitu­encies are not so pliable as they fancied. Moreover, the constituencies themselves are beginning to wake up to the discovery that men are not always what they seem to be; It is dawning upon them that divers would-be patriotic gentlemen, who appear to want to impale themselves for the good of the country, do not qnite corne up to their professions. It is becoming a wide experience that the great sacrifices we hear of-on the part of Ministers for instance - often greatly resemble the "alarming sacrifice" of a draper. The sacrifice made by the draper is described by him as "tremendous," "frightful," "ruiuoUf'1," but somehow he thrives under it. It is pretty much the same thing with certain honorable gentlemen who pro­fessedly sacrifice themselves for the good of the countl·Y. Have we not before us the cuse of the Attorney-General, who made this alarming sacrifice for the coun­try, that he gave up £600 a year in order to get £1,600 a year?

A'n HONORABLE MEl\'IBER.-He gets more.

Mr. COOPER.-Of course I know he has his share of Mr. Cuthbert's salary, but that is an iucidental affair that did not come within his original calculation. This " sacrifice" game is about played out.

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN.-The honorable member knows nothing about it.

lVIr. COOPER.-I confess I know nothing of any sacrifice for the country the Attorney-General has made.

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN.-The honorable member is misstating facts concerning my private affairs.

Mr. COOPER.-I am talking of public affairs. The position and emoluments of a Minister of the Crown are public affairs, and open to discussion from a public stand-point. Beyond that point I do not wish to go. At the same time I am willing to withdraw anything I have said that is deemed to be personally objection­able. The Minister of Railways stated to-night that, up to the 25th April, 1660 -the period of the Convention Parlia­ment-all the taxation of England was borne by land. That struck me at the time as a most curious statement, and I asked myself how was it that the people of England previously became discontented with their position. Furthermore, I re­membered something about ship-money, contributions, benevolences, gratuities, and the other contrivances that used to be resorted to for the purpose of raising money. Finally, I glanced at Leone Levi's work On Taxation, which contains the following passage :-

"Henry VII, intent on accumulating treasures for himself, cared not what sacrifices and hard­ships he imposed on the nation. He issued com­missions ,vith instructions to demand one-six­teenth part of every man's substance, payable in money, plate, or jewels. Henry VIII, with whose name the Heformation is identified, appro­priated the first-fruits and tenths of the church livings, which formerly belonged to the Pope, to his own use. He laid foreign princes under contribution, raised money by proclamation, and, under the colour of asking loans, he exaCted 4d. in the £1 from the clergy and 3s. 4d. from the laity. The short reign of Edward VI was sufficient to afford scope to the rapacity of his Ministers. Mary exacted loans, laid embargoes on private property, and wasted revenues other­wise abundant. '. . The reign of James I was one of abuses, exactions, and monopolies. His ordinary revenue amounted to ,about £500,000, but he drew large sums from subsidies, sales of land, patents, benevolences, &c. The revenue of Charles averaged £900,000, a large portion of which was derived from illegal sources; but the arbitrary nature and ruinous effects of such exactions greatly exasperated the nation against a sovereign otherwise so unpopular and unfor­tunate." I do not think I need say anything further in refutation of the Minister of Railways. In winding up my remarks on the Bill I will state that the 1 st part of it I cannot, under any circumstances, support. I be"; lieve it to be subversive of the best interests of the colony" and I shall vote

Second Reading. (SEPTEl\i13ER 18.J Eiglitlt Niglt'tt~ Dehate. 1115

agai~st it. The 2~d part, which provides fot a nominoe UPPCl'HOllSe, I hold to be contrary to the traditions and desires of the pe'oplo. I think' they want what certainly I, and the honorable members sitting with me in the Ministerial corner, want, namely, the basis of the Council so widened as to come into harmony with that of this House. We want to see' the Council brought so completely under the power of the people of the colony that both HOllses shall be animated with a concurrent desire to work together for the public good. The question is how ought that result to be accomplished? I do llot think it would be done at all by filling the Council with the nominees and hangers-on of the Ministry for the time being in power., Can we not imagine how, under a state of things of that sort, whenever a Council vacancy occurred, the Ministry and their supporters would be besieged by applicants for the post? I think it most undesirable t.hat the election of the Upper House should be taken out of the hands of the people. My aim is that the Council 'suffrage should no longer be monopolized by the wealthier classes of the community, but be made to include evel'J man in the country who fulfils the duties of citizenship. vVben, for example, a man has married, and established a home for himself and his family, he is entitled to all a citizen's privileges. Are we afraid to confide the Council franchise to the portion of the community comprised in that simple description? Are we, for instance, to. say to the 20,000 miners of Victoria, who have made homes for them­selves and their families amongst us­" Gentl!'lmen, we cannot intrust you with a vote for the Upper House" ?

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN.-What about mBtnhood suffrage?

Mr. COOPER.-I would give every man who is expected to obey the laws a vQice in the making of those laws, and, for that reason, I would allow him a vote for the Assembly. , Sir B. O'LOGHLEN~-And why not

one for the Council too? Mr. COOPER.-I would give to every

person who, is settled in the colony-who lias given proof of his connexionwith the colony.'by establishing a home 'in it-a vdte fo'r' th~ Council; but I don't say I would confer the same privilege upon the man on the" wallaby track," whose home is'the blankets' on hi:s back.

SirB. O'LOGI-ILEN ..... : . .'Why not ?" 4E2

'Mr. COOPER.-Because it" does not seem to me that such a man has lleces~al'jly proved his dght to be regarued as a citizen. Citizenship either means something defi­nite 01' it means nothing. History teaches us some lessons on that head. For ex­ample, a lllun had to do somethi~g before he was admitted to become a Roman citi­zen. I do not think a man who pays no taxes shoulu have quite the same position as a citizen as the man who does pay taxes. I believe that, with the electoral basis of the Council enlarged in the way I sug~est, the duration of membership shorteneu, and ,the size of the provinces reduced, such a power would be brought to bear upon that Chamber that it would soon be found to represent not merely the wealth of the colony but substantially its manhood. My firm conviction is that under circumstances of that sort the legis­lation of the country would go on har­moniously and prosperously. And now with regard to t.he plebiscite, which is the substance of the 3rd part of t.he Bill. So far as I can understand it, it is the best portion of the measure.' It is indeed the only portion worth anything at all. Without it the Bill would not be worth talking about. There seems somet.hing taking in the idea of the plebiscite. But then there is the point-What effect would a vote by plebiscite, unfavorable to a particular Bill, have upon the Govern­ment of the day? The Treasurer says that in such a case the Government would have to retire.

Mr. CARTER.-Would they retire? Mr. COOPER.-That is another mat­

ter. I am not prepared to say they would. Still, if they don't represent the voice of the people, they ought to go out. On the other hand, it needs no second glance to discern that the results of the plebiscite proposed by the Government must be most curious and complicated. Personally I have no objection to the system, and I can imagine it being, under some circum­stances, exceedingly valuable.' But, inas­much as its worth greatly depends upon the machinery provided for its operation, I cannot give my assent to the present proposition in its behalf. For these rea­sons I shall be compelled to vote against the second reading of the Bill.

'Mr. BARR.-Sil', we have had a great many authorities cited to us respecting the present question, bnt, independently of the cir,cumstaoco that qnotations of the sort may always be madoto go in a, variety of

1116 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

ways, I do not think the matter before us is one they are likely to throw much light upon. It is one that depends not so much upon precedents as surrounding circum­stances. As for precedents; indeed it is within the sovereign power of Parliament, as representative of the people, to create precedents. To begin with, I know of no country in which the Upper House of the Legislature has taken up the position our Upper House has. Were the House of Lords to behave in such a way, I don't think the people of England would show the same patience we have exhibited. I think we must all allow that the present contention has lasted long enough. At the same time, what strikes me as most surprising in connexion with the settle­ment of the question is that the greatest drawback in the matter is found rather in this Chamber than in the other. I think in­deed that, if the Assembly had been always up to the mark in asserting their privi­leges, our constitutional troubles would long ago have been brought to an end. Reform should not be made a party ques­tion. It is not a question on which the fate of a Ministry should hang. Every honorable member should feel an interest in having it settled. All sides seem to agree as to the necessity for something being done to make the Constitution workable, yet every panacea that is brought forward has a host of objectors. The Norwegian scheme of reform has been mentioned by some honorable members, but it failed ignominiously when it was brought before the Assembly. I think it is only fair that honorable members should pass the present scheme, so that, if it is rejected by the Council, it may be placed before the country, in order that the people may decide upon it. I am surprised at the attitude taken up by some members of the Opposition. Whenever the question of constitutional reform is discussed they seem to forget that they are represent­atives of the people, and direct their efforts to defend the Council and justify the members of that body in the assertion of the powers and privileges which they claim. The fact that a certain portion of the members of the Assembly'have always been ready to support whatever claims were put forward by the Council has given power, strength, and obstinacy to the other Chamber. While many members of this House are found willing to support the pretensions of the Council, it is a curious circumstance that we never hear any

Mr. Barr.

members of the Council expressing them­selves ready to guard the rights and privi­leges of the Assembly. If members of the House of Commons had pursued the same' course that some members of this House have followed, the Commons would never bave secured the rights which they possess. Has not the Legislative Assembly the same claim to the power of the purse in this country that the House of Commons has in England? To show that the House of Lords has no consti­tutional right to interfere with money matters, I will quote one or two autho­rities. On one occasion, Mr. Gladstone said-

"The Lords have no more right to reject than to amend Money Bills." Even the most conservative peers in the House of Lords have acknowledged, in reference to Money Bills, that if the House of Commons insist the House of Lords must give way. In 1839, a debate took place in the House of Lords on a v:ote of £30,000 passed by the House of Commons for educational purposes. In the course of that debate, the Archbishop of Canterbury said-

"Their lordships had been, with deliberate in­tention, excluded from having the slightest concern in the regulation of a matter so imme­diately bearing on the religious and moral train­ing of the people. Was it fit that such a sub­ject should be disposed of by one branch of the Legislature? Were their lordships, who were 80 well qualified to judge of the subject, to be shut out from all participation in regulations which affected the morality of the people? Was it consistent with the respect due to the lords spiritual. and temporal that the only assembly in which the church had a voice should not be heard at all on' such an important sub­ject ?"

Lord Brougham, who was then Lord Chan­cellor, replied to the Archbishop of Can­terbury in the following terms :~

" The plan now before your lordships is open to none of the objections which have been urged against it but the crime of not having been brought before Parliament. The law stands thus: the Ministry can give away a million of money to any person they please, without ever asking your lordships whether they will or not­without asking your lordships' consent. All they have to do is to have a vote of the other House."

Let honorable members recollect some of the things which the Legislative Council have done. They have claimed co-ordi­nate powers with this House. They have

. rejected a Mining on Private Property Bill time after time. They also rejected a Bill providing for the defence of the colony; and they had so little pride in

Second Reading. [SEPTEMBER 18.J Eighth Night's Debate. 1117

the country in which they live that they likewise threw out a Bill passed by the Assembly for the purpose of having an International Exhibition held in Mel­bourne. By rejecting the latter measure the Council played into the hands of New South Wales, who seized hold of the idea of holding an exhibition which was first mooted in this colony, and" jumped" our position, as it were.

Mr. GILLIES.-Are you in favour of half a million of money being spent on the Exhibition?

Mr. BARR.-That is not the question. What I complain of is the decision of the majority of this House being overruled by the Council.

Mr. GAUNSON.-The Premier was delighted when the Upper House threw out the Exhibitions Bill.

Mr. BARR.-That does not affect the point I am contending for, which is that when a vote passes this House it is the will of the people.

Mr. CARTER.-It is the will of a caucus.

Mr. BARR.-I will read an extract from the London Times as to the powers of the House of Commons; and the Legis­lative Assembly, I contend, possess similar powers in this colony:-

"The ultimate authority in the contest is a newly elected House of Commons. No matter whether the question be administrative or legis­lative; no matter whether it concerns essential, constitutional, or small matters of daily detail­imposing a tax, or making paper currency, making a war, or continuing it-a new House of Commons can despotically and finally resolve."

Honorable members know the action which the Legislative Council adopted last ses­sion with regard to the Payment of Mem­bers Bill. I don't think any subject was placed more clearly before the people at the last general election than the question of payment of members. I believe there were not ten candidates who did not de­finitely state whether they were in favour of payment of members or not. The ques­tion was fairly put at every election meet­ing held in the electorate which I have the honour to represent, and at each of them the "poor working man," who has been so much spoken about, stronglJr insisted upon payment of members as necessary to secure proper representation in this House.

Mr. GILLIES.-Then how is it that your colleague, who is opposed to pay­ment of members, was elected at the head of the poll ?

Mr.BARR.-I don't pretend to account for that, but I know the statement I have made in reference to payment of' members is quite correct. If the House of Lords had thrown out Bills as the Council have done here, the House of Commons would before now have established such a pre­cedent as would have saved me the neces­sity of quoting from any of the authorities to which I have referred. It cannot be tolerated that the members of an irrespon­sible Chamber shall continue to defy the wishes of the representatives of the people in the way that the Council have hitherto done. Reform is now admitted on all sides to be necessary. Even the other Honse have acknowledged its necessity by bringing in a measure of reform; but the idea promulgated by their scheme, as well as by several members of this House, cannot possibly be accepted. If there were two Houses with co-ordinate power -both having control over Money Bills­there would be a perpetual dead-lock, until the people would rise in their might, sweep away both Chambers, and establish a House that would be responsible to them. I would like to know by what means honorable members who are such strong apologists for the Upper House propose to obtain finality in legislation? I think that the Opposition ought to support the pre­sent Bill, even if they do not agree with it on all points, in order ~hat it may go before the country. Sir Michael Hicks­Beach, in his celebrated despatch, acknow­ledges that the Council should bow to the will of the people clearly expressed; and therefore why should the Opposition not agree to let this Bill go to the country? Both Houses ought to be willing to accept the decision of the people upon it. The Duke of Buckingham, in a despatch in reference to the Darling grant, said-

"If the opinion of the constituencies shall be distinctly pronounced in favour of the vote to Lady Darling, I entertain the hope that the Council will have accepted the decision as :L

sufficient reason for acquiescing not only in the vote itself but in the mode in which it shall have been brought before them."

Mr. CARTER.-Don't quote from a duke-give us the opinion of a demo­crat.

Mr. BARR.-As it is getting late, and as honorable members seem inclined to treat the subject in a jocular mood to­night-in fact, as they seem to have be­come demoralized-I think the best conrse will be for me to move the -adjournment of the debate.

1118 Constitution Act [COUNCIL.] Alte1'ation Bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER.-I think the honorable member 'will lose his right of speaking again if he moves tho adjourn­ment of t.he debate.

Mr. GAUNSON.-J submit that, in fair play, a courtesy which has been shown to other members should be extended to the honorable member for Maryborollgh (M i. Barr), especially as this burning question of reform is becoming a frightful farce.

After some discussion, the motion for the adjournment of the debate was agreed to, and the debate was adjourned until Tuesday, September 23.

The House adjourned at four minutes past eleven o'clock, until Tuesday, Sep­tember 23.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Tuesday, September 23, 1879.

Dunmunkle and St. Arnaud Shires Waterworks Bill-Duties of People Bill-Constitution Act Alteration Bill: Second Reading: FirstNight's Debate-Mining on Private Pro­perty Bill-Railway Loan Account Application (!\fel­bourne Station) Bill-National Bank of Australasia Act Amendment Bill-Towns Management Bill.

Tho PRESIDENT took the chair at twenty-six millutes to five o'clock p.m., and read the prayer.

DUNMUNKLE AND ST. ARNAUD SHIRES ltV ATElnVORKS BILL. This Bill was received from the Legis­

Iati ve Assembly, and, on the motion of the Hon. H. CUTHBERT, was read a first time.

DESPATCHES. The I-Jon. H. CUTHBERT presented,

by command of the Governor, despatches from the Secretary of State for tlle Colonies, relating to Australasian mail arrangements and the :l\{elbourne Inter­national Exhibitioll.

DUTIES OF PEOPLE BILL. The Hon. 'V. E. HEARN moved for

leave to introduce a Bill to declare, cou­solidate, and amend certain portions of the law concerning tho duties of the people.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was hl'ought in, and read a first time.

CONSTITUTION AC'r ALTERATION BILL.

Tho Hon. R. D. HElD moved the second reading of this Bill. He said­Mr. President, I am sorry it has not

fn.llen to the lot of some honorable mem­bel~ more up in p~rliamcntary business than I am to bring forward the present measure. I feel that in connexion with it I have undertaken a task that is almost beyond my power. N evertheles!<, I hope and trust honorable members will help me in every way to perfect the meaSlll'e, and bring it to a successful issue. It is a we11-known fact that there has been for a long period of years, throughout the whole of the colony, a strong desire for a reform of this Chamber, but I am sorry to say the Council has not attempted to comply with it in the way I think it ought to have done. Had it, for instance, years ago carried such a measure of reform as that contained in the Constitution of Conncil Bill brought in by Sil' Charles Sladen last week, I firmly believe no further step in the same direction would have been asked for for a long while to come. It would then have been almost impossible for the dead­locks from which the colony has suffered so much to have occurrcd. I am afraid that Bill is now brought forward too late. I fear that something more than what is offered in it is required in order to meet and remove the difficulties to which the dead-locks of the last few yeal's have given rise. vVith this view 1 have tried, as far as my humbJe capacity permitted, to deal in the present Bill with matters of reform which Sir Charles Sladen's Bill does not include. CLmse 2-the first important one of the Bill-is as follows :-

"Notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution Act, it shall not be lawful for the L<'gislati re Council to reject any annual Appro­priation BiH, unless by any provision therein some important question of policy is virtually determined."

Under this' clause, every annual Appro­priation Bill that does not deal with R.

question of policy, or contain matter otherwise objectionable, will be passed by us without a word. I am quite of opinion that no foreign matter ought to be put into the Appropriation Bill of the year, but I also thillk, on the other hand, that somethiLlg should be done which wonld have a tendency to check us from rejecting the measure even upon that account, unless we had very good grounds indeed for taking such a course. Conse­quently the Bill makes the provision con­tained in clause 3, namely :-

"In the event of the Legislatiye Council rejecting any annllal Appropriation or other Bill in which some important question of policy is virtually determined, and thereby rendering

Constitution Act

it necessary or expeclient for the responsible Ministers of the Crown to advise a dissolution of the J.Jegislative Assembly, if the Governor shall think fit to dissolve the said Assembly, he shall also at the same time dissolve the Legisla­tive Council likewise, notwithstanding aUJ'"thing to the contrary in the Constitution Ad."

In this way, whenever the Council rejects the Appropriation Bill because it believes some question of policy is improperly con­tained in it, it will have to accept the responsibility of the position, that is, be su~)ject to. dissolution, supposing the Ministry of the day think the question between the Houses one of sufficient im­portance to warrant them in going to the country upon it. I am satisfied that this is the only judicious plan of dealing with the point in question. I feel that this HOllse has no right to say to the other Honse, as it says now, whenever a diffi­culty al'ises-" Yon go to the country, we will sit here." It is unjust on our part to take up any position of the kind. It is only fair that, if we force the other House to a dissolution, we too should be liable to one. I am told that the Bill provides 110 machinery to carry out this arrangement, but really I don't see that a great deal of machinery ~s required for the purpose. Excepting the 4th clause, I don;t know any portion of the measure that really needs any mechanical means in order to become workable. Clause 4 pro·vides (or a joint meeting of the Houses, aud it is flS follows :-

"If, after such dissolution, the Legislative Assembly shall pass such rejected Bill, and the Legislative Council shall not pass the same, the Bill may be submitted to a joint meeting of the members of both Houses, who shall sit and vote together on a day or days to be named by a proclamation of the Governor. At such. joint meeting the Bill may· be altered, rejected, or passed, and the decision of such. meeting shall be deemed to be the decision of the Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council respectively, and shall be certified'and authenticated accord­ingly."

I have heard in this Chamber some few objections offered to this arrangement, but I declare that ontsiae these walls everv one seems. to favour it more than any oth;r portion of the Bill. I t is called the finality clause, and appears to fiua accept­ance almost evervwhere. I know that Dr.: Hea17n says tl;ere is no such thing in legislation as finality, because one Parlia­ment may upset what any preceuing Pa,r­liament has done, but that has nothing to do with what we have in view. "Ve want finalit.y ill legislation, not for all time but fOl~, the time peing?_ :;tud this clause will

give it. My aim has been to secure fim~:l.it:y with respect to any particular, Ine~SHr~ Parliament may happen to lu\'ve,in hand......,,-:­ill fact, to obtain with regard to our Consti­tution something al1;alogou8 to the power that exists under the British COllstitution to creato new peers, and so· sw·ampan otherwise in:ipractic·able House· of Lords. I think clause 4: of tIle great~st importa?ce, and I will stana by it more fiI'mly than I will by any other portion.of the Bill. It provides for the two Houses of Legislatu~e in Victoria meeting in a manner similar to that of the congress of the two Hou~es of Legislatnre in France, the following de­scription of which I found the other 9.,ay in a letter from the Paris correspondent of the Argus:-

"The question of Paris capital has been de­cided in the affirmative, as was expected, by a vote of the Congress. That does away with the 9th nrticle of the Constitution, by which the seat of goyernment was established at Versailles. As no alteration can be made in the Constitu­tion without the common consent of the two Chambers, expressed in a manner stipulated by that Constitution, the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies met together in congress to form what we now call a National Assembly. Fiv.e hundred and twenty-six ayes against 249 noes ont of 77fi members voted for the abrogation of the obnoxious clause in conformity of opinion with the Government. :Fifty-three members abstained from voting, or were absent on leave, which carries the number of the members of Congress to 828, and five seats are vacant either ill the Senate or the Chamber. The three numbers added together form the total num­ber of the members· of Congress, 833, being 300 for the Senate and 533 for the Chamber of Deputies."

The relative proportions of the two Houses are almost the same in France as it is proposed ill Sir Charles Sladen's Bill they shall ho here, peen,use 42 members of Council will represent just as nearly oue­half of the Assembly u.s the 300 members of the ~rench Senate represent about one­half of the 533 members of the Chamber of Deputies. I feel convincea that this clause will of itself be sufficient to abolish the system of dead-locks that has formerly given us so much trouble. Surely we lu).Ve seen sufficient of the misery caused by that state of things to make us all most anxious to pnt a stop to it for the future. Although I have not found myself able­I know exactly what my deficiencies a1'e­to concoct machinery for the full carrying out of the provisions of my Bill, I have no doubt the omission can: easily be sup­plied by the lawyers at the service of the GoYernment, or perhaps by this Honse. At fLU events, I have provided means

l120 Constitution Act [COUNCIL.] Alteration Bill.

whereby the proposed joint meeting of the Houses can be arranged for. It is con­tained in clause 5, which is t.o the follow­ing effect :-

"The Legislati ve Council or Legislative Assem bly may frwn time to time make standing rules and orders providing for the conduct and proceedings of the joint meeting. All such rules and orders shall become of force imme­diately they are concurred in by both Houses and approved by the Governor." '.

Want of machinery ought, therefore, to be no bar to the adoption of the measure, which, I may say, I did not originally bring forward with the smallest notion that it was to stand by itself. Honorable members will recollect that I first intro­duced the subject last year in the shape of resolutions which I tried to get honorable members to look at, but I am sorry to say they took very little notice of them. When, however, I handed them to an honorable member of another place-Mr. Service - they at once became popular throughout the colony wit.h a large num­ber of persons, and one consequence of that was that almost exactly similar reso­llltions were proposed by the leader of the Opposition elsewhere. Under these cir­cumstances, inasmuch as the Opposition elsewhere may be regarded as in accord with the subject-matter of the Bill, I don't see why, if the Council also agree to it, it should not become the law of the land. Doubtle~s there are many reasons why I should not have brought the mea­sure forward. For example, I am not a flutmt speaker, nor have I anything like the constitutional knowledge and expe­rience that other honorable members of this Chamber - Sir Charles Sladen, for instance-possess. But, nevertheless, I have introduced it, in spite of my defi­ciencies and disadvantages, because it is my desire above all to do my best for the welfare of the country. I do not study to please any particular party, but I simply offer the Bill as an available ground of compl'omise between the Houses. If it is carried here in its integrity, and in a proper spirit, I am confident that enough honorable members elsewhere will be found to stand by it, in conjunction with Sir Charles Sladen's Bill, to carry them both. I would like, with the leave of the House, to read a few extracts from some of the speeches made in another place on the particular subject before us.

The PRESIDENT. - The honorable member will not be in order in referring to debates elsewhere,

Mr. REID.-Well, without reading the extracts, I may mention that it was stated by Mr. Service last year, under particular circumstances, that the Bill Sir Charles Sladen had then brought forward was a remarkably good one, but it required some­thing else in conjunction with it. That something else I believe my Bill provides for. I also remember that, at about the same time, the Chief Secretary stated, ill answer to Mr. Service, that he was per­fectly willing to take the basis my Bill now affords as that of an agreement between the Houses. Under these circum­stances, with the leader of the Opposition and the head of the Government both agreed to stand on the foundation of this measure, I think it only just and right that we should, by doing all we can to pass it into law, make the best of our oppor­tunity. There is one difference between the resolutions I drew up last year and the present Bill that requires a word of explanation. My former proposition was to make the ratepayers'roll a qualification for electors for the Council; but, in defer­ence to Mr. Service, who pointed out to me that the roll might be stuffed with a lot of 5s. people, and offered that if I would make £10 the minimum of the franchise he would go with me, I have altered that part of my scheme. In fact I told Mr. Service that I would accept his plan with pleasure. Moreover, I went to Mr. Berry and asked him ifhe too would accept a £ 10 franchise, and he said that he would be perfectly satisfied to make that limit part of the basis to which he had previously agreed. This part of my proposition appears ill clause 6-the last of the Bill-which is as follows:-

"In the Legislative Council Amendment Act 1868 the words 'fifty pounds' and the figures '£50' shall be repealed wherever they occur except in section 32, and the words' ten pounds' or figures' £10' shall be substituted in lieu of such repealed words or figures as the case may be, and in like manner the words 'one hundred pounds' shall be repealed and the words' twenty pounds' shall be substituted in lieu thereof wherever they occur; the words' one thousand pounds' in section 12 of the said Act shall be repealed and the words 'two hundred pounds' shall be substituted in lieu thereof."

Does not all this afford a fair ground for a compromise between the Houses? I think it would be most suicidal for the Council to reject the measure. Let me draw the attention of honorable members to a passage in an article in the July number of the Westminster Review, on "The House of Lords," which was written

Constitution Act [SEPTEMBER 23.J Alteration Bill. 1121

in connexion with the correspondence re­specting the differences between the two Victorian Houses of Legislature recently laid on the table of the Imperial Parlia­ment. In view of the line of conduct an Upper House like the House of Lo·rds should pursue, the author writes in the following strain:-

" Canning was indeed wrong. The Crown and the Lords still exist, though very different in power to what they were when he spoke. A long train of events has broken the strength of the Upper Chamber. Its independence has been threatened both by the Crown and by the people. Speakers and writers have discussed its death and its successor while it is still living. Some would destroy it outright; some would strengthen it; some would weaken it; some would deck it out with the semblance of power. It may be remembered how in Spanish history was performed the dethronement of Henry IV, how the chair of state was raised on the broad plain of A vila, and how the effigy of the king was placed upon it. The crown was placed on its head, the royal robes were thrown over its shoulders, the sword and sceptre placed in its hands, while thousands thronged to behold the novel spectacle. But at length came the great officers of state, who cast the crown from the head, the sceptre from the hand, and the effigy headlong into the dust, and Henry IV was declared deposed. And thus it will be with the House of Lords if it refuses to re-invigorate itself by reforms, and if too strong a veneration for its own past history prevents it from making changes which are essential to its strength. If it cannot conquer this fatal weakness it may still continue to exist in name and in form, and it may still be draped with the pomp which belonged to it in the days of its prime, but it will not be the House of Lords which has played so conspicuous a part in the creation of English history. It will, indeed, be very little more than its effigy. It may have all the pre-eminence that titles can give; it may hold in its hands all the rights which its predecessors have ever exer­cised; it may be endowE'd with any new power which the people may choose to bestow; but if it is unable to reform itself, if its power is not of itself, its titles, rights, and powers will be as unable to protect it from the rough hand of demo­cracy as were the symbols of royalty to defend the poor abused effigy on the plain of Avila."

I think we ought, in our turn, to follow the very good advice here given, and by coming forward ourselves with a really good constitutional reform, offer the peo­ple of the country something worth having by them as compared with what is just now called constitutional reform in another place. I allude to the proposed nominee system, which to my mind is only a thing. For my part, I deem it a great honour to be returned to this Chamber by the people of the district to which I belong, .but I would think it no honour to be here as the nominee of nine gentlemen elsewhere. Indeed, rather than accept such a position

I would retire into private life. With respect to the nominee Upper Houses that exist in some colonies I will read just one more extract from the Westminster Re­view article I have already quoted from. It is the following :-

"Mr. Mills, in his interesting work on colonial constitutions, takes the same view as Lord Grey. The Legislative Councils were, he says, an at­tempt to plant a life peerage in the colonies. The idea was attractive and plausible, but entirely illusory, as was shown by an experience in some cases extending over two centuries. Still stronger language is used by Mr. Lowe. According to him there is nothing so mischievous as the nomi­nation of Crown nominees. They represent nobody; they have not the slightest affinity to an aristocratic institution; they are the scape­goats of the Constitution; the target of every attack; the butt of every jest. And now, before quitting this branch of the subject, we may perhaps be allowed to quote a passage from Mr. Merivale's volume on colonies and colonization; especially as his words might apply to other life peerages than merely those of the colonies. He says :-' The Upper House or Council in a colo·· nial assembly is a very feeble check indeed when composed of members for life nominated by the Crown; antagonism between the two Houses soon arises, in which the Council must give way, and must lose its force and credit accordingly. N or are nominee councillors good legislators. They have this great defect-they are respon­sible to no one. They have no constituencies. The Crown which has appointed them has no hold on them after their appointment. They have no "order," no esprit de corps.'"

There is another principle in the Govern­ment Reform Bill I will say a word upon. I allude to the plebiscite. I think a more monstrous idea never entered into the mind of a statesman. I cannot understand how, with circumstances standing as they do, it was possible for anyone to bring forward such a proposition.

The Hon. T. J. SUMNER.-I rise to order. Is the honorable member j"estified in discussing the principles of a Bill which has not yet reached us from another place?

The PRESIDENT.-I understand the honorable member to be speaking of cer­tain general principles. So far he is not out of order.

Mi'. REID.-I was told the other day by the honorable member, on the floor of the House, that it was a piece of im­pertinence on my part to bring forward this Bill at all.

Mr. SUMNER.-I did not say any­thing of the kind. .All I did was to give the honorable member some friendly ad­vice as to the impolicy of submittin~ this Bill under the present circumstances.

The PRESIDENT.-If the honorable member (Mr. Reid) made a misstatement

1122 . Constitution Act [COUNCIL.] Altefat-ion Bill.

reflecting on another honorable ~ember, he will of course withdraw it.

Mr. REID.-As I misunderstood the honorable member, I will certainly with­draw my remark and express my regret for misapprehending bim. As to the ple­biscite, what would be the consequences of its establishment in this country? It would give the towns the supreme control of the colony. The electors in the towns being concentrated can vote easily, bnt we know that in the coun try districts great numbers of votes would remain un­polled. Even during an election, when we go before our constituents and ask them as a personal favour- to go to the poll, we are aware of the extreme diffi­culty of getting many. of them to. do so. Is it likely, then, that a man will take the trouble to ride 10 miles to give a vote under the plebiscite? There is not the slightest chance of his doing so. The towns will have the control, therefore, through the mass of voters t.hey will send to the poll, and the consequence will be that the whole of the money obtained from the State, instead of being distributed in a proper manner throughout the country, will be spent in the towns. I feel very strongly on this subject, because I am confident that the electors, from one .end of the country to the other, are not with the propositions of the Government, but with the Bill brought forward by Sir Charles Sladen, with the additions I pro­pose. I only submit my measure as an addition to his to supply some deficiencies which I consider it exhibits. I have no desire to thrust my Bill down the throat of anyone; all I wish is that it may be carefully and maturely considered in com­mittee. If honorable members will allow it to get there, I feel convinced that it will emerge from committee a measure which will be worthy of this House and accept­able to the country.

The Hon. YY. ROSS.-I feel it would be more convenient if the discussion on this Bill were delayed, at any rate until after the second reading of the Bill in­troduced by Sir Charles Sladen, but I may explain that, as far as I myself am concerned, I led Mr. Reid some time ago to understand that I would give him a general support in the introduc­tion of this measure, and I do not think, thermore, it would be right for me to remain altogether silent on the present occasion. I will, however, confine the few remarks I have to make to that portion of

the Bill which refers to the reconstruction of this House. I have seconded the mo­tion for the second reading of the Bill not so much because I think it fulfils the re­quirements of a measure of reform neces­sai'y to make this House stable as because it goes the direction of the manner in which we can attain that object, and place the Council in the position that it can fairly lay claim to be invested with the power of altering and amending Money Bills. ""Vithout this power, I vcnture to say, the Council will never be able to dis­charge properly the functions of a s~cond Chamber, and will be of very little service to the country.' I firmly believe that the solution of the difficulties of the country lies in this direction, and that the first thing to be don!3 is to place this Ho~se in the position that it may claim the power I refer to. When t,hat power is conceded) have no doubt in my own mind that dead­locks will be a thing of the past. When an Appropriation Bill, either through in­advertence or intent, contains something which should not be in it, if this I-louse is given the power to eliminate from the Bill the matter of policy the inclusion of which is objectionable, the remainder of the Appropriation J?ill will .be passed at once, so that no dead-lock can occur. ' The itcm to the presence of which in the Appropriation Bill objection was taken could then be sent up from the Assem­bly in a separate. Bill, and if again re­jected by the Council, the matter could be disposed of by a conference, or, that failing, by a dissolution of the two House's. During the various disputes that have occurred between the two branches of the Legislature in this colony no expressiqn has been more common or frequent in political circles than that if we were to be guided by the rules and practice of the Imperial Parliament, if we adopted the same tone of mutual conciliation aud for­bearance which is displayed in England, all would be well, and there would be no need of reform at all. I thoroughly agree with that; but there is the important diffi­culty of obtaining this forbearance to be got over. Hitherto there has been no such moderation experienced here; in fact the disputes between the two Houses have been so frequent and disastrous in their effects as to have rendered the name of the Victorian Parliament a by-word among other countries. And is there any reason to expect that things will change for the better so long as this House remains constituted

Constitution Act [SEPTElIIBER 23.J Alteration Bill. 1123

as it is ? I fear, if we suffer ourselves to rest content with the hope that things will right themselves of their own accord, we shall only reap further disappointment and trouble. The reason is obvious. There is no analogy between the two Houses here and the I-IoUiC of Lords and the House of Commons in England, and therefore we cannot expect the same relations be­tween the two branches of our Legislature as exist in England. The elements in the House of Commons are totally wanting in the Assembly. The House of Commons, as I understand it, represents to a very considerable extent the cnltivated intelli­gence of the people of England, and to a still greater extent the property and wealth of the country. There is not the slightest probability, therefore, of the House of Commons ever sending up to the Lords a Bill which would be inimical to the interests of property. The House of Commons, in fact, is an eminently con­servative House. Indeed it is question­able whether, if you take the two Honses man for man, and consider the relative uumber of members, there are not pro­portionately more liberals in the House of Lords than in the House of Commons-I refer, of course, by the term liberals, to men who understand and use the word liberal in its proper sense. Lord Harting­ton in the House of Commons, and Lord Derby in the House of Lords, ma,y be mentioned as large landowners of very liberal views. The Lords have no fenr of aggression from the Commons. and there­fore they are well content to leave to that House the power of the purse. That is the real reason why, in searching the recorus of the Imperial Parliament for the last 200 or 300 veal'S, there were few or no instances dis;ovcl'ed of the ]'~jection of an Appropriation Bill by the House of Lords. When, however, we turn to our own Parliament, what do we find? I have no wish to speak disrespectfully of the members of the Legislative Assembly. They are the representatives of the people, and, as such, are entitled to all due re­spect. Nor will I attempt to answer the question whether they or we represent the intelligence of the country. I will say, however, that the members of the Assem­bly do not represent the property or 'weal th of this conn try, nor do they claim to uo so. Indeed, we have it from the lips of the Chief Secretary-who seems too to be proud of the fact-that neither he nor any of his colleagues represe11t property

in any sense, .and that they have 110 other business or avocation to prevent them de­voting their whole time to the service of the country. Whether that is a satisfactory state of things or the reverse I express no opinion; I ollly mention the fact to show there is. no analogy between the Victorian Assembly and the House of Commons. The members of the former are electcd by manhood suffrage, and are paid for their services; neither is the case with regard to the latter. Consequently there is in the Victorian Assembly a total want .of the restraining influence which exists in the House of Comm.ons. Under such circumstances, it is not to be ex­pected from the Assembly, in my opinion, that they will show the same salutary spirit of forbearance which we see ex­emplified in the House of Commons, and therefore I think, as practical men, we should seek our exemplar elsewhere than in the Imperial Parliament. If we can find other countries in which two elective Houses have managed to get on tolerably well together, we should not be ashamed to take a lesson from them, and to profit by their example. The members of the Council have shown that they recognise the need of reform by passing, last session, a Bill to amend the constitution of this Chamber. Although it be the fact that that measure did not meet with the con­currence of the other House-or, indeed, reach beyond the preliminary stage of it$ first reading there-it is to ollr credit that we have striven, in some degree, to meet the requirements of the people, and, by endeavouring to widen the basis of the Council, to render it more accessible to public opinion. The present seems a peculiarly fitting time for bringing for­ward another proposal of thiskinc1. There is a grea,t deal of discontent and dissatis­faction abroad among the people. A large amount of that discontent is with the Government-and no doubt for much of it they have themselves to blame, for they have, by their proceedings, drawn it upon them; but a great deal of the dissatisfac­tion among t.he people also arises not so much from the fact that they clearly per­ceive the cause of their troubles as that the effect of maladministration has been brought home to them in the shape of distress and suffering. I fear too that, when these troublous times have passed away-as umlonbtedly they will-when, nnder happier auspices, wiser counsels, and more favorable seasons, pl'o:;;pel'ity

1124 Constitution Act [COUNCIL.] Alteration Bill.

returns, the people will forget the lessons they are now being taught by bitter ex­perience, and, although our present rulers may be relegated to obscurity; others may arise to better their· instruction, and, by resorting to the same device of inflaming the passions of the people, may endeavour to again set them against this Chamber. If this House is no stronger then than it is at present, I fear the time may come when we shall hear of propositions being brought forward, such as have been sub­mitted in New South Wales, to abolish the Upper House altogether. It is true· that only six members of the Assembly voted for that proposition in the neigh­bouring colony, but in a Chamber elected in the manner of the Victorian Assembly it is not impossible, unless this House strengthens its position before the public, that the time may come when a majority of members of the other House will be found to vote for such a proposition. Of course we can foretell what would be the evil results which would follow if the abolition of the second Chamber were brought about. There would be a period of unexampled suffering and disaster, and then the people would clamor for the re-establishment of an Upper House. Still, I think it would be wise for us to take opportunity by the forelock, and to strengthen this Chamber while we are able in the only way we can do so-by getting the people at our back. What the intentions of the Government are I do not know. They have professed not to desire the abolition of this House, but their acts almost belie their professions. We have heard the Chief Secretary. say that" double Chambers have everywhere proved a failure, so that men are irre­sistibly driven to the conclusion that the most logical and convenient form of go­vernment is by one House." Many strange utterances have come from that quarter, but this appears to me one of the strangeRt, because, if the honorable gentleman is blind to all the lessons of history, surely he cannot ignore the contemporary events that are taking place under his own eyes. In the latest Constitution of which we have heard-that of California-we find that, although framed by the most extreme democrats of this or any other time, the existence of a second Chamber is insisted upon, and of a second Chamber with powers such as we have never claimed. However much we may disagree with the new Constitution of California in other

Hon. W. Ross.

respects, it is satisfactory to find, at all events, that the most extreme democrats there are "irresistibly driven to the con­clusion that the most logical and conve­nient form of government" is that by two Chambers. I may quote also the opinion of De Tocquevill~who, in his work on Democracy in America, says-

"Time and experience, however, have con­vinced the American people that . • . . the div~sion of the legislative power is still a principle of the greatest necessity. Penn­sylvania was the only one of the United States which at first attempted to establish a single House of Assembly, and Franklin himself was so far carried away by the necessary conse­quences of the principle of the sovereignty of the people as to have concurred in the measure; but the Pennsylvanians were soon obliged to change the law, and to create two Houses. Thus the principle of a division of the Legisla­ture was finally established, and its necessity may henceforward be regarded as a demon­strated truth. This theory, which was nearly unknown to the· republics of antiquity, which was introduced into the world almost byacci­dent, like so many other gl'E~at truths - and misunderstood by several modern nations-is at length become an axiom in the political science of the present age."

That is De Tocqueville's opinion as against that of the Chief Secretary. I have not hesitated to express, on the public plat­form, my opinion that the Legislative Council should be elected by all those on the ratepayers' roll, by means of an indirect process. The Municipal Asso­ciation which has been lately inaugurated· in the colony forms, in my opinion, a very good basis for this. To show that the idea is not altogether novel, I may quote the remarks of that veteran conser­vative statesman of this colony, Sir John O'Shanassy, and his words ought to carry weight, seeing he was one of the framers of our present Constitution. Speaking last year, in the Assembly, on the Minis­terial Reform Bill, and referring to the different propositions made as to the con­stitution of the Upper House when the Constitution was being formed, he said-

"Let me refer to one proposition which was eventually looked upon as impracticable. It was that the Upper House should be elected from the muniCipal bodies of the colony. Un­fortunately, at that time, the only municipal bodies in existence in the colony were the cor­porations of Melbourne and Geelong, and obtain­ing from them a Legislative Council that would have had any influence of the right sort was out of the question. So the idea could not be entertained. Had the municipal system which came into force not long afterwards been then in full working, a different conclusion might have been arrived at." The members of this House may be among

Mining on Private [SEPTEMBER 23.J Property Bill. 1125

the wisest and most patriotic men in the community, but their services will never obtain the recognition to which they may be justly. entitled while a class of the people feel that they have not an interest in the well-being, preservation, and pro­ceedings of the Council. It may be per­fectly true-I believe it is-that every member of this House, as it is now con­stituted, does his best to legislate in the interests of the whole colony. But what boots this if we know the majority of the people hold a contrary opinion? Of wh'at value is it if by indifference or false teaching, or both combined, they remain in the belief that our in­terests are not theirs - that we legis­late in the interests of a class, and that class ourselves? Nor shall we tend to counteract this delusion by setting our­selves up as a bulwark to thwart the will of the people, however misguided we may believe that will to be. I take it that our duty as well as our policy is rather to en­deavour to guide and direct that will into the proper path, and I do not know of any more effectual way of accomplishing that object than by showing we are not afraid of the people, by freely opening our ranks and inviting them to participate in our labours.

The Hon. J. BALFOUR.-I think most honorable members will agree with me that it is very inconvenient that there should be two Bills before us at the same time for the amendment of the Constitu­tion. I also think it is inconvenient for us to discuss a Bill containing such pro­visions as that submitted by Mr. Reid contains until we have seen the result of the Government measure now being dis­cussed in another place-in what shape it will come before us. There are some provisions in the Bill introduced by the honorable member the principles of which I am disposed to accept at the right time. While, therefore, I intend to move the' adjournment of the debate for a fortnight, I desire it to be distinctly understood that I do not take this course with the least idea of shelving this important question. I think, however, it will be a more con­venient and more dignified course for this House to pursue to postpone the discussion for the present. It is evident that the present Bill is deficient in machinery to carry out its objects, and it would be better for the House to wait until it has fuller material before it prior to pro­ceeding further with this measure. I

therefore beg to move the adjournment of the debate.

The motion was agreed to, and the debate was adjourned until Tuesday, October 7.

MINING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, BILL.

The Hon. J. A. W.ALLACE moved that this Bill be read a third time.

The Hon. H. CUTHBERT observed thl1t, before the third reading of the mea­sure was agreed to, he desired to make a few remarks in reply to some of the hostile criticism to which the Bill had been sub­jected outside the House. After care­fully going through the Bill for the pur­pose of seeing whether it was deserving of the opprobrium cast upon it as being a " most illiberal measure," he came to the conclusion that the House had gone to a great length in affording facilities to allow miners to enter and mine upon private property. One of the objections made to the Bill was that its machinery was too cumbersome for carrying out the object professed, and it was said that it was the intention of the Council to deprive the miner of the gold that was in the ground, and to hand it over to the owner of the land. Now he was certain that nothing was further from the intention of Mr. Wallace or of the Council than to say­in opposition to the decision of the Privy Council-that the gold belonged to the landowner. What they really intended to do, and what he thought the Bill fully and fairly carried out, was simply not to interfere with any agreements in exis­tence in October, 1877, under which mining was being bonafide carried on by an arrangement between the landowner and the miner. The Bill legalized these contracts, and he believed that if the plebiscite, of which they heard so much, could be taken as to whether the views of the Council on that point were just and equitable for the preservation of the rights of both parties, the general answer would be that the proper course had been adopted. So far as he could gather the feeling of the miners of the Ballarat district and throughout the colony, they were not in favour of having these con­tracts rescinded. That feeling was so prevalent that he had some hope, if Mr. Wallace would intrust the charge of the Bill in another place to a member who had had some experience as a miner and could command the ear of the Assembly,

1126 .Mining on P'l'ivate [COUNCIL.] Property Bill.

that there would be an expression of opinion from the people that tho Bill WfiS

a fair, just, and liberal ODC. Then, in cases where no agreement existed and where no mining was being carried on, the Bill provided that when the owncr and the miner could come to terms the aid of the Minister of ~1 ines should be invoked in order that a lease might he obtained' from the Crown. It might be said that the Council was erring in not allowing the owner and miner to come to terms without reference to the Minister at all. But why was this particular clause so framed? The answer was that the Bill was framed on the model of the Bill which he, as the representative of the Government, had the honour of intro­ducing to the Council in 1877, and the clause in question was contained in that Bill. One of the principles of the Go­vernment measure of 1877 was that, as the gold belonged to the Crown, the Crown should be represented in the agree­ment between the miner and the land­owner. By whom, then, could the Crown be better represented than by the Minister of Mines for the time being? That principle of the Government measure was thus recognised in the present Bill, and consequently it provided that, as soon as the two parties were in accord, the assistance of the Minister was asked pro forma,. The Government, of course, did not want to extract any large­or more than nominal-rental for the privilege of mining, tile object simply being to assert the principle that the gold belonged to the Crown. Further, when the parties were not in accord and could not come to terms, a compulsory clause was provided which gave the miner the power of entering on and taking land much in the same way as it was taken for railway purposes, or for roads and bridges. The very same machinery was adopted in the Bill as was provided in the Lands Compensation Statute, which had received the sanction of Parliament. It was said that this was a cumbrous and expensive mode of carrying the object of the Bill into effect, and that a much cheaper tribunal ,,:"ould be provided by, allowing the owner ftnd mi~er to go.before the w~rden. He could not agree with thos'e wl!o raised tha~ objection to the 'Bi11~ because where the amount of compensa­tion was under £500 it was well known that a police magistrate acted as arbitra­tor,and sat' in' the most' convenient place

Hon. If. Cuthbert.

for both parties. The expenses of the aruitratioll in such cases seldom exc:ceded £25 to £35, nnd he was quite sure ,that this expense could not be in excess of what proceedings before a warden would cost. It was a Iso urged that the Bill would be un workable, because the miner had to pay consequential damages to the owner of the soil. It was said it would be almost impossible to estimato what those consequentia.l damages would amount to. Now, as he unJerstood the Bill, the rules and regulations rel~ting to the gold-fields were to be made applicable, as far as possible, to mining on private property. It was well known that under the regulations with regard to the gold­fields, unless in exceptional cases, the area granted under lease was limited to between 30 and 40 acres, and it was essential that there should be a number of men daily at work, so that the labour covenants might be fulfilled. . Assuming, then, that the leud of gold was traced into private property, and that there was a paddock containing 100 acres, the miner would know the probable depth of the sinking from the' description of the ground. He would have some idea be­forehand whether the depth was 150,200, or 300 feet, as he would know the nature of the rock, and whether he had to cut through one, two, or three layers of rock. He would also be able to form an opinion as to what length of time his mining operations would extend. He would, like any person going to work in building, have plans prepared, and be able' to say whether he would require one or :five acres of ground about the shaft. In addition to that, he would want to cut a drain to carry off the sludge and water; and all this would be on the plan. He would send in his application to tlie land­owner, who would have an opportunity of seeing the plan; Under such circum­stances, he (Mr. Cuthbe'rt) thought the damages could be very quickly e'stimated as between the owner and the miner. As to consequential damages, no such damages were likely to arise in a case of the kind he had described. Supposing the, miner wanted t9 take up five acres of land;o! course he would have to pay for tha~ qua~,tity~ ac,co~'ding tothEL ~air value of the land. Such a thing as the view from a dwelling-house being iuterfered with by t4e land being used for mining pllrposes would be taken' into con,s~dera­tion 'in assessing' the value' or the land,

Railway Loan Account [SEPl'E~mER 23.J Applicatz'on Bz'll. 1121

and therefore could not constitute a claim for cODseqne~tial damages. N eit.her would the fact of running a drive 200 feet be­neath the surface of the ground entitle the owner of the soil to consequential damages on the plea that it might cause a sub­sidence of the land. He did not think any member of the Council intended' that compensation. should be' awarded for consequential ,damages of so remote a character. He trusted that the exertions of Mr. Wallace, ap.d the interest which had been t,aken by honorable members generally in this measure, would be at­tended with ihe result that in a very short time the Bill would become one of the Statutes of the colony.

The motion was then agreed to, and the Bill was read a third time and passed.

RAILWAY LOAN ACCOUNT APPLICATION BILL.

The Hon. H. CUTHBERT moved the second reading of this Bill. He stated that the object of the measure was to authorize tbe expenditure of £75,000, out of the loan raised tmder the Railway Loan Act 1878, towards carrying out c'artain alterations and improvements at the Spen­cer-street railway statioIl;Melbourne. On the previous Tuesday, when the Bill was' read a first time, he promised to obtain some informatio'n' as to the nature of the works which were in progress; 'He begged to' call the attention of honorable'members to tbe fact that a model of the station as it fo.rmerly was, and an'oth,er model show­ing how it wOl~ld, be when th~ alterations w~re , comp~eted,~. were' ~i?~ : e~~i?i/~ed,. ,iu' the chamber for ~nspectlOn .. Tlie. moClels were on a scale of one inch.,to the, chain," He had hoped that the Minister of Rail­ways would,have expl~ined th~m person­ally toth~ H.ouse, but, even if theCol.lll,cil, consented to that bE?ing, done, ,etiquette wOl,lld prevent the honorable gentleman appearing there for such a purpose with­out t~e sanction of'- the Assembly, which had: not been obtained. 'The models showed that straight lines, were' substi­tuted for a net-work of curves, which all honorable. members would· admit was' a great'improvement. The report of the Railway department for the year ending De.cember 31, 1878, stated that-

" Sufficient advancement has been made with the work to enable trains to leave or enter the 1)felbourne stat~on in safety, which twelve months ago w'asalmost an impossibility. The lar,ge llUlhberof shil.ll~ersJ pointstp.~n, y~rds­men, &c.; ~ has ; disa:ppeai'ed'l- -and the I expense

connected with them, :1l1d in their stead three signal boxes, fitted with McKenzie and Holland's patent interlocking apparatus, have been erected, which easily and effectively control every move· ment in the yard, whether of ordinary trains or shunting, with the chances of accident reduced to a minimum. The savings in the cost of em­ploying a special shunting engine, together with the wages of the men above referred to, amount to £4,108 per annum, irrespective of other con­tingent savings consequent on the reduced wear and tear of 1.he permanent way, &c."

The improvements also included the build­ing of new goods-sheds, and the reclama­tion of a large area of land, which would be available for railway purposes. ,It was

'estimated that the money already expended, and the £75,000 proposed to be expended under the present Bill, would enable the department to effect an annual saving of about £10,000 in working expenses. It Was not intended to build a new passenger station with the £75,000; but t.he ground would be properly prepared and the lines permanently laid, so that no further ex­pense in connexion with those works would' be necessary if Parliament hereafter de­cided to have a new passenger station at Spencer-street. ' .

The Hon. W. CAMPBELL asked if it was intended to have a central passenger station in Spencer-street or in Flinders­street, at the bottom of Elizabeth-.street ?

Mr. CUTHBERT replied that the site for a central passenger' station' was a question which would have to be decided by Parliament at some future time. The passing of the present Bill would not in any way "bind the Council as to that matter.

Mr. CAMPBELL expressed the opinion tllat the Railway department deserved credit for what had been done' at. die Spencer-street station. He hoped, how­ever; that 'it 'would eventually be decided that the central passenger ,station should· be in Flinders-street.

The motion was agreed to. The Bill was then read a second time,

and wasn£terwards passed througli its remaining stages.

, NATIONAL ,,: BANK OF AUSTRALASIA, AOT

AMENDMENT BILL. On . the motion of the Hon. J.

BALFO UR, this Bill was rea~d a tliird time and passed. '

TOWNS MANAGEMENT' BILL .. : The House went into committee ,"fOl'~.

the further consideration of this Bill.', ... )

1128 Towns [COUNCIL.] Management Bill.

On clause 64, making every person con­victed of being an idle and disorderly person liable to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, "for any term not exceeding for the first offence twelve months, and for the second and every subsequent offence two years,"

The Hon. W. E. HEARN expressed the opinion that the penalties were too severe for such an offence as having" no visible lawful means of support." Under the English Act, the penalties in such cases were for the :first offence one month, and for every subsequent offence three months. He begged to propose that the maximum penalty for a first offence be three months' imprisonment, and for a subsequent offence six months' imprison­ment.

The amendment was agreed to. On clause 65, making any person who

solicited or collected alms, subscriptions, or contributions under false pretences, or imposed or endeavoured to impose on any charitable institution by false or fraudu­lent representations, liable to imprison­ment not exceeding two years for a first offence,

Dr. HEARN proposed that "three months" be substituted for" two years."

Sir C. SLADEN thought it would be better to leave the clause as it stood, seeing that the offence to which it referred was a gross one against the community.

The Hon. J. BUCHANAN considered that, if the maximum penalty were re­duced at all, it should not be below six months.

The amendment was withdrawn. On clause 67, making a person carrying,

without lawful excuse, any deleterious drug or article of disguise liable to imprison­ment, with or without hard labour," for any term not exceeding for the first offence twelve months, and for the second and every subsequent offence two years,"

The Hon. H. CUTHBERT submitted that it was open to question whether the term "two years" was governed by the words" not exceeding." To remove all doubt on the subject, he begged to move the insertion of the words" not exceeding" before" two years."

The Hon. J. LORIMER stated that, in administering the section of the existing law of which the clause was a transcript, it was frequently a subject of argument among justices of the peace whether for a subsequent. offence· they were not bound to order two years' imprisonment. The

matter would be set at rest by the inser­tion of the words "not exceeding."

The amendment was agreed to. Clause 72 was struck out. On clause 77, which was as follows :­"If any person play or bet at any unlawful

game, or be in any street, road, highway, or other open and public place at or with any table or instrument of gaming at any game or pre­tended game of chance, the person so offending shall be liable to imprisonment with or without bard lab(;mr for any term not exceeding for the first offence two years, and for the second and every subsequent offence three years,"

Dr. HEARN remarked that an impor­tant question in connexion with the por­tion of the Bill relating to gambling, at which the committee had now arrived, was-What constituted an unlawful game? Neither the Bill, as it at present stood, nor the existing law, supplied any definite information on the point. What was set forth in them with respect to it simply related first to keeping a common gaming­house; secondly, to playing an unlawful game; thirdly, to gambling in a public place; and, fourthly, to the offence of playing or betting at an unlawful game, without reference to time or place. All these offences were dealt with in the clause under consideration, in clause 78, which declared the Chinese game of fan­tan an unlawful game, and in clause 79, which was in the following terms:-

"A common gaming-house, or place for gaming, shall be deemed to be a house, room, premises, or place kept or used for playing therein at any unlawful game, in which a bank is kept by one or more of the players exclusively of the others; or in which the chances of any game played therein are not alike favorable to all the players, including among the players the banker or other person by whom the game is managed, or against whom the other players stake, play, or bet." He proposed to answer the question he had alluded to by remodelling clauses 77 . and 79, and including in one of them cer­tain definitions he had taken from the old law on the subject, and also from the mea­sure brought forward in England by Sir J ames Stephen. He would also take the opportunity, in connexion with another portion of the measure, to make the Vic­torian law correspond with the English law on several points on which there was possibly at present some misapprehension as to whether certain provisions of the latter applied to this colony. He would mention, while on this subject, that per­sons concerned in horse-racing would do well to make sure that a similar misappre­hension did not exist in relation to certain

Towns [SEPTEMBER 23.] Management Bill. 1129

restrictions wi th regard to that sport. He begged to move that the following be substituted for clause 77:-

" No person shall play or bet by way of wager­ing or gaming in any street., road, highway, or other open and public place, or in any place to which, whether with or without the payment of money,. the public have or are permitted to have access, at or with any table or instrument of gaming, or any coin, card, token, or other article used as an instrument or means of such wagering or gaming, at any game or pretended game of chance. If any person offend herein he may be apprehended by any constable without warrant, and shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding £20, or to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for any term not exceeding six months."

It was to be observed that he proposed to reduce the penalty for gaming in a public place, and also to include a coin among the possible" instruments of gam­ing."

The amendment was agreed to. Clause 78 was struck out. On the motion of Dr. HEARN, the

following was substituted for clause 79 :-" A common gaming-house or place for gaming

shall be deemed to be a house, office, room, or place kept or used for playing therein at any game of chance or at any mixed game of chance and skill in which a bank is kept by one or more of the players exclusively of the others; or at any game of chance or at any mixed game of chance and skill in which the chances are not alike favorable to all the players,including among the players the banker or other person by whom the game is managed, or against whom the other players stake, play, or bet; or at any game played with dice or with anything in the nature of dice; or at any of the following games, that is to say, ace of hearts, basset, faro, hazard, pas­sage, rouge et noir, roulette, or any similar game; or at the Chinese game fan-tan, or any similar game."

The amendment was agreed to. On clause 90, imposing a maximum

penalty of £50, or one month's imprison­ment, on persons apprehended giving a false name or address to the police,

Dr. HEARN moved an amendment fixing the maximum penalty at £50, or three months' imprisonment.

The amendment was agreed to. Dr. HEARN moved the insertion of a

new clause (to follow clause 99) provid­ing that where it appeared from the evi­dence that the person complained against for committing an offence under the 50th clause had acted under the orders or sanc­tion of his employer, the latter could be proceeded against and the employe dis­charged.

The clause was agreed to. VOL. xxx.-4 F

Dr. HEARN moved the insertion of a llew clause (to follow clause 103) empower­ing a constable to stop a vessel or vehicle from proceeding on its journey for the purpose of counting the pnssengers, and to require the person in charge to re­duce the number if above the authorized limit.

The clause was agreed to. On clause 104, imposing a maximum

penalty for assaulting or resisting the police of £20, or three months' imprison­ment,

Dr. HEARN moved an amendment increasing the maximum penalty to £50, or six months' imprisonment.

The amendment was agreed. to. On clause 106, rendering any person

obstructing any constable" authorized by any search warrant to enter any house, room, or place suspected of being a com­mon gaming-house" liable to a penalty of not more than £100, or to imprison­ment for any term not exceeding six months,

Dr. HEARN moved the insertion of the word "office" after "house," and the substitution of "twelve" for "six" months as the maximum term of impri­sonment.

The amendments were agreed to. Clause 107, providing that if anyone

apprehended as an idle and disorderly per­son violently resisted the police-constable who apprehended him he should be liable to imprisonment for any term not exceed­ing two years, if suhsequently convicted of the offence for which he was appre­hended, and clause- 108, authorizing a maximum punishment of three years' im­prisonment for a similar resistance by persons apprehended for vagrancy and other offences, were amalgamated, two years being fixed as the maximum term of imprisonment.

Clause 113, entitling the municipal cor­porations of cities, towns, and boroughs to a moiety of fines, penalties, and forfeitures in certain cases, was amended so as to make it apply to shires as well as to other municipalities, and the clause, being one appropriating revenue, was ordered to be printed in italic.

The Bill, having been gone through, was reported with amendments.

The House adjourned at a quarter past ten o'clock, until Tuesday, September 30.

1130 Disease in Vines. [ASSEMBLY.] Volunteer Fm'ce.

LE"GISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. Tuesday} Septembe1' 23, 1879.

Municipa.l Endowment-Disease in Vines: Phylloxera ras­tatrix-Volunteer Force: Colonel Hutton-St. Arnaud Pipe-channel-Trentham Railway Station-Mail Commu­nication with Europe: Contract with the Peninsular and Oriental Company-Mining on Private Property Bill­Constitution Act Amendment Bill: Second Reading: Ninth Night's Debate.

The SPEAKER took the chair at half­past four o'clock p.m.

DESPATCHES. Mr. BERRY presented, by command

of the Governor, despatches from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, re­lating to the Melbourne International Exhibition.,; ,

~~. ',Mu~rcipAL ENDOWMENT. j. " 19 '.t .f ...

. ,j:v.h.BROPHY asked. the Government what provision, if any, was intended to be made in .lieu of tolls, and of the subsidy which would expire this month under sec­tion 346 of the Local Government Act?

Mr. PATTERSON stated that the Estimates made provision for continuing the usual subsidy to local bodies, but there would be no special grant in lieu of tolls.

DISEASE IN VINES. Mr. L. L. SMITH asked the Chief

Secretary if he was aware that South Australia and New South Wales had pro­hibited the importation of grapes, on account of the introduction of the pltyl­lox era vastatrix, and if he would be pre­pared to put in fo~e the present Act; also, whether it was his intention to have a thorough inspection of the different vine­yar~s of the colony, so as to inspire con­fidence in the neighbouring colonies .to purchase the produce of Victorian vine-yards? ,

Mr. BERRY said he believed South Australia had prohibited the importation of grapes, and very likely New South Wales would also do so, if it had not done so already. So far as was known, the G-'eelong district was the only portion of Victoria in which the phylloxera vastatrix had appeared, and the Act for the eradi­cation of diseases in vines was being enforced there. Considerable expense would be entailed by having a systematic inspection of all the vineyards in the colony, and he did not think that at prese~lt it was necessary to do more than

was being done. If, however, any other district showed traces of the disease, it would be at once placed in quarantine.

VOLUNTEER FORCE. J\fr. GAUNSON asked the Treasurer

under what circumstances Lieut.-Colonel Hutton resigned his commission in the volunteer force? For some time past it had been the subject of comment that there was hardly any officer on the retired list of Her Majesty's regular forces who had joined the volunteer force of this colony that had not very soon resigued his commission in the volunteer corps. From some correspondence which he had seen, i.t appeared that certain charges were made against Lieut.-Colonel Hutton which were investigated by a board, and that the very' un'usual course was adopted of not giving that gentleman notice of the charges until the board was actually sitting.

Major SMITH said a dispute arose in reference' to Captain Buchan, and, when Captain Buchan was reinstated, it was expected that Lieut.-Colonel Hutton would resign. Subsequently, some differences oc­curred between the Colonel-Commandant and Lieut.-Colonel Hutton. A board, of which Lieut.-Colonel Scratchley was president, was appointed to investigate the matter. Colonel Hutton accepted the board, and gave evidence before it. (Mr. Gaunson-" He objected to Colonel Scratchley.") He believed that statement was not correct. However, he did not desire to go into the facts of the case at present. He had given instructions that Colonel SCl'atchley should be requested to furnish a report of the whole of the pro­ceedings of the board, and, as soon as that report was received, he would lay the papers on the table of the House.

PETITION. A petition was presented by Mr. GRANT,

from selectors and others in the district of Burrapoort, praying for legislation for the destruction of rabbits.

ST. ARNAUD. Mr. DOW asked the Minister of Rail­

ways whether it was with his authority that a pipe-channel was cut between the railway dam and the railway station, St. Arnaud, along a proclaimed and settled district, without consultation with the borough council, and which had resulted in a serious interference with the street engineering arrangements of the to:wn ?

· Constitution Act [SEPTE~1BEH 23. J Amemlment hili. i.iai

Mr. 'VOODS, in reply, read the fol­lowing memorandum from the Secretary of t.he Rail way department :-

" A water-pipe has been laid down along one street in St. Arriaud, but the street has not been metalled, and, beyond the cutting and filling up again of the trench, there was no interference of the street arrangements. By inadvertence, I regret to say, the inspector omitted to com­municate with the officers of the council before commencing the work."

TRENTHAM RAILWAY STATION. Mr. D. CAMERON asked the Minister

of Railways when it was his intention to proceed with the road from Barry's Reef to Trentham railway station?

Mr. WOODS said a number of routes bad been surveyed to ascertain which would be the best and cheapest; but no road could be constructed until fine weather set in.

MAIL COMMUNICATION WITH EUROPE.

Mr. MACBAIN moved-"That there be laid before this House a copy

or'the recent correspondence with the Home Government regarding the proposal made to land all our mails for England at Brindisi, in place of at Brindisi and Southampton, as con­tracted for; also, a copy of the correspondence with the South Australian Government regard­ing the mail contract recently entered into with the Peninsular and Oriental Company."

Mr. BIRD seconded the motion, which was agreed to.

MINING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY BILL.

This Bill was received from the Legis­lative Council, and, on the motion of Mr. KERFERD, was read a first time.

CONSTITUTION ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

NINTH NIGHT'S DEBATE.

The debfLte on Mr. Berry's motion for the second reading of the Constitution Act Amendment Bill, and on Mr. Orr's amendment to refer the subject of the Bill to a select committee (adjourned from Thursday, September 18), was resumed.

Mr. BARR.-Mr. Speaker, I desire to add a few words to the remarks which I made on Thursday evening. The prece­dents cited by the honorable member for Creswick (Mr. Cooper) were, I submit, an­swered by the prec'edents of equal weight which I quoted on that occasion. Indeed it appears to me that, in reference to any qnestion of constitutional practice, prece­dents can be qnoted on both sides. I am

4F2

sorry to see so much time devoted to' find­ing precedent.s flgainst this Bill bj honor­able members who,.' a year PI' two ago, were just as ready to find precedents the other way. The honorable member for Creswick quoted Mr. Gladstone as stating that the House of Lords have not given up their power to reject Money Bills. That is perfectly true; but the honorable member forgot t.o add that there is a great difference between the legal right to do a thing and the constitutional practice fl.S to the exercise of that right. Her Majesty has the legal right to ct'eate 100 peers at any time, but, by constitntional practice, she never exercises that right. The hon­orable member for Creswick said that if the 6th clause of the Bill became law there would be nothing to prevent the Chief Secretary and his followers v.oting them­selves a honorarium of £300 each on the eve of an election. An argument of that kind is an absurdity. I ask honorable members whether such a vote as that would ever be brought forward by any Ministry at any time, and more especially on the eve of an election? If honorable members were foolish fl.nd wicked enough to accept such a honorarium, it would be their death blow, as well as the death blow of the Ministry that offered it. As to the general scope of the present mea­sure, I will q note some extracts from a leading article in the London Spectator of the 23rd March last :-

"The Council's contemptuous rejection of the measure for establishing an International Exhi­bition in Victoria; their contemptnous rejec­tion of the measure for the defence of the colony, on the plan recommended by Sir William Jervois-a rejection which showed how far more powerful is this feeling of rivalry with the Assembly in the minds of the Council than even their loyalty to the empire-to say nothing of their dealings with the Government's Hail­way Bills, and with the Mining on Private Property Bill, were all indications of the same animus-not simply a determination to assert an equality of position with the Assembly in matters concerning the finance of the country, to which neither the precedents of the mother country, their own constitution, nor the narrow electorate by which their House is elected, properly entitled them-but of a further deter-' mination to neutralize, if they could not reverse, the general policy of the popular House on measures connected with finance. It is abun­dantly plain that the fight is not merely a con­stitutional struggle for the formal privileges of the Council, but that it is also a material st,ruggle as to which of the two bodies shall really guide the general policy of the colony on mat­ters of this description. In other words, there is the amplest evidence in the recent history of this conflict that, even if the Legislative Assem­bly had acted with the utmost deference to the

1132 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

co-ordinate authority of the Council-which, of course, it has not done-the Council would yet have asserted its right to act on every matter not expressly determined by a general election as if it were in every way as much entitled to speak for the people of Victoria as the Legisla­tive Assembly itself. Instead of acting with the modesty which, with some exceptions, has marked the House of Lords since the Reform Act-as a body whose authority is of a com­pletely secondary character, a body rather need­ful to prevent undue haste and careless legis­lation than of importance through any weight attaching to its origin-it has been beset by a wild and mischievous ambition to snub the popular Assembly, foil its policy, and pose before the world as the organ of property, intelligence,. and political wisdom. No wonder the Assembly has been irritated into the no doubt otherwise very objectionable tactics of carrying, under the shadow of Appropriation Bills, measures which are substantially measures of policy. . . . . Still, it is as plain as daylight that these quarrels must have been settled in some way, and settled in favour of the House which really represents the country; and, therefore, we hold the Council really guilty of provoking these needless and injurious collisions, well knowing, as it did, that the points at issue must eventually be deter­mined, that they ought to be determined only in one way-that is, in harmony with the real wishes of the people-and that, by doing all in their power to show themselves inflexible to those wishes, they were forcing the Legislative Assembly to adopt some modified political f('Jrm of coup d'~tat. . . . . . It is not Great Britain which is responsible for the constitu­tional blunder of the present arrangement, but Victoria itself, which was allowed to draw up its own Constitution, aud we are glad to see from Mr. Berry's speech that he recognises fully the necessity of amending the blunder which Victoria then made. And he is right, we think, in saying that the way to mend matters is not to enlarge the basis of the suffrage on which the Legislative Council is elected, but rather-if any change is made in that respect-to abolish the pretence of representation altogether, and to recur to the old plan of a nominee Council, only providing machinery by which the real repre­sentative body shall be legally entitled to over­ride the revising body whenever the will of the people is clear. . . . . Some general solu­tion must clearly be found for these dead-locks, and we are strongly disposed to think that the true solution of it lies in the direction indicated in Mr. Berry's speech-the re-introduction of a mere nominee Council, which might be chosen for the public repute and statesmanlike achieve­ments of its members; and further, such a rule as we suggested last week, that a two-thirds vote of the popular Assembly should always override the vote of the revising Assembly-unless, at all events, not even one-third of the revising Assem­bly could be found to support the measure."

. The Chief Secretary, in proposing a nominee Upper House, is giying effect to an idea that I expressed long ago, and which, in the opinion of many thoughtful persons, is far preferable to our system of an elective House. At present the mem­bers of the Council claim to represent

Mr. Barr.

property and the propertied classes; but if they were nominee members they would represent the whole colony, including all classes of the community. They could then act as a check against hasty or ill­considered legislation, but they would not retard any legislative measure when it clearly appeared that the will. of the people was in favour of it. The 1 st part of the Bill, which proposes that the Legislative Assembly shall be absolute in money matters, is the portion that the members of the Opposition most strongly object to. I need not repeat the pre­cedents I quoted last Thursday to show that the House of Commons in England have sole control over matters of finance. The House ot' Lords, no doubt, has the bare legal right to reject Money Bills, but the exercise of that right is contrary to constitutional practice. In regard to matters of' general legislation, the House of Lords always bows to the will of the people; but can that be said of the Legislative Council of this colony? Have not the Council rejected a Mining on Private Property Bill time after time, or so altered it as to make it rather a Bill for giving the gold in private land to the owners of the land? The way in which the Council have resisted the will of the people, as expressed by this House, on the question of mining on private property is of itself sufficient to justify us in insisting that, by some clear, well-defined, and not too tedious a process, the will of the people, in whatever direction it tends, shall eventually become law. The only remedy against the Upper House being able to thwart the wishes of the people for any length of time it thinks fit is to give the absolute power of the purse to the Lower House. There are plenty of constitutional checks to prevent any such wild scheme of attempting to bribe con­stituencies and members as that referred to by the honorable member for Creswick, even if the majority of the House were not honest enough to render any proposal of the kind impossible. The fact is, however, that even if the 6th clause were law no Ministry that valued its existence would dare to attempt any­thing of the kind. With regard to the plebiscite, it can be dreaded by no honor­able member who is not afraid of his acts. Those honorable members who think that the plebiscite would lead to revolutionary proceedings must entertain a very low opinion of the character of the great bulk

Second Reading. [SEPTEMBER 23.] Ninth Night's Debate. 1133

of the population of this colony and of their political knowledge. I would not be afraid of any legislative measure being submitted to the vote of the people. I consider that the plebiscite is the fairest, most honest, and most straightforward manner of putting a question before the country. It will enable the people to ex­press a de6nite opinion on one issue at a time, which it is impossible for them to do at a general election, when a variety of questions are mixed up together. I be­lieve that the adoption of the plebiscite would tend to divest elections of the rancour and bitterness which too often characterizes them now, and leads purely local or personal feeling to sometimes turn the scale against the candidates best quali­fied to be Members of Parliament. In conclusion, I desire to say that I consider it my duty to vote for any measure which on the face of it bears the stamp of an honest attempt to effect such a reform of the Constitution as will allow the work of practical legislation to go on. I consider myself bound to support this Bill even if all its provisions do not meet with my approval, in order that our constitutional difficulties may be settled.

Mr. MACBAIN.-Sir, however much I may differ from the honorable member who has just resumed his seat, I am glad that he has not, like some other members, heaped opprobrium and contumely on the Legislative Council. The honorable mem­ber stated, on Thursday last, that the great drawbacks ·to a settlement of the

. constitutional difficulty were not in the Council, but in the Assembly, and that if the Assembly had been up to the mark with respect to their privileges, the ques­tion would have been settled long ago. My reply to that statement is that if the Assembly had never claimed or exercised any rights and privileges beyond those accorded to us by the Constitution, all the difficulties which have arisen would have been avoided. I am not here as an apolo­gist for the other Chamber. I know that perhaps on more than one occasion the members of the other Chamber have acted with a want of the common sense and dis­cretion which a deliberative body ought to exhibit; but I maintain that the diffi­culties between the two Houses would not have arisen if the Assembly had never claimed or exercised privileges not claimed or exercised by the House of Commons. It is desirable, I think, that we should inquire what the outside public think of

the debate in which we are now engaged. I find,wherever I go, there is a general feeling that the discussion is a bogus affair, and that the Bill is a deception. The universal sentiment, so far as I have been able to ascertain, is that the majo­ritv in this Chamber have no desire to settle the difficulty, and that their only aim is to prolong the struggle to the end of the present Parliament. There are many surrounding circums~ances to war­rant that feeling. The action of the Government and their party during the whole time this Parliament has been in existence justifies the belief that they really have not the slightest intention of remov­ing the difficulties now pressing upon us. And the views of the public, to my mind, are strengthening in that direction. Now I propose to consider the question before us not so much from the constitutional point of view as from the aspect in which it affects the general interests of the country. I think that, considering the present condition of the country, it is our duty, as a legislative body, to see how best we can use our influence to restore a portion of the prestige which we have lost, how best we can remove the present depression, and how best we can restore the confidence necessary to secure the in­vestment of capital and the fostering of local industry. This question requires more earnest thought and more anxious care than we, I am inclined to think, are willing to bestow upon it. I maintain that the present Government have done all they possibly can to depreciate the value of our securities, to aggravate our present depression, and to do away with that confidence which is necessary for the material progress of any country, and especially a new country like this. The attitude of the Government is the more to be regretted, because while certain hon­orable memhers have shown it desire for conciliation and compromise, others have exhibited a desire which, if carried ont, would render conciliation and compromise impossible, and postpone the settlement of our political difficulties further than we have any idea of at the present time. I regret that the Minister of Railways is not in his place, because I desire to refer to some of the remarks which be made the other evening, and I am sorry to be compelled to do so in his absence. The honorable gentleman indulged in an argu­ment of such a nature as to lead honor­able members to suppose that he does not

1134 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

really wish that any com prom ise at all upon the question should be come to. Now I believe that the country is unani­mous in its desire that we should settle our differences with 1he other House. The country cries for peace and rest; it wants us to do what we can to secure a restoration of public confidence, and to repair the injury which has been inflicted. And it is at such a juncture that the Min­ister of Railways thinks fit to indulge in an observation of this kind with regard to the Legislative Council:-

"It has preserved in the hands of the class it represents practically the whole of the power, and to a large extent the property of the State."

What an amount of misrepresenta.tion there is in these few words. Why, as the honorable and learned member for Sandridge stated, this Chamber has had the greatest amount of power and autho­rity ill all the legislation that has taken place in this country. Another statement of the Minister of Hailwnys, open to very strong condemnation, is the following :-

"I am free to admit that on one or two occa­sions popular measures, such as a Land Bill, have received the assent of the other Chamber; but if we consider those exceptional cases in connexion with the circulllstances surrounding them we will find that they were simply sops given in one way in order to prevent, what I may call popular disapprobation from being, perhaps very rudely, expressed in some other way, the object, however, of the other Chamber being always the same-to retain the power in its own hands," I ask-Is that ,a correct representation of the position occupied by the Legislative Council during the time our Constitution has been in force? Not only is it not a correct statement, hut it is an absolute misrepresentation of the entire facts. How many Bills do honorable members suppose the Legislative Council have as­sented to since the Constitution has been in force? Over 600. And how many have they rejected? Not 100, and many of those were unimportant measnres; it was not material \V hether they ever be­cmne law or not. Can honorable members point to a single popular measure that has been sent to t,he Le!!islative Council and rejected by them? U

Mr. MIl{A~'l S.-The Mining on Pri­vate Property Bill.

Mr. l\lACBAIN.-That is the old song. Ko donbt measures dealing wit.h the ques­tion of mining on prinlte property were sent np to the Legislative Council and rejected by them, bllt "\\'e IltLve it on tho authority of lllelllbcrs uf tho present

Government that those measures were calculated not to secure the end which should be kept in view, but to hand over the ownership of the gold to the landed proprietors.

Mr. LONGMORE.-They were emas­culated in order to pass the Council.

Mr. MACBAIN. - Then they were shams. I challenge honorable members to point to any popular measure-to any measure which, in the estimation of the public, was necessary to be passed into law-sent up to the Legislative Council and rejected.

Mr. NIMMO.-The Exhibitions Bill. The Forts and Armaments Bill.

Mr.1\1ACBAIN.-The honorable mem­ber may have reason to regret that he was a party to the passing of the Exhibitions Bill. As to the Forts and Armaments Bill, had this Chamber only observed ordinary amenities to the other Chamber, that measure would not have been re­jected.

Mr. SEHVICE.-Was the Exhibitions Bill a popular Bill in the country?

Mr. MACBAIN. - I have not the slightest belief that it was popular be­yond Melbourne, Collingwood, and perhaps Carlton. No feeling about the matter has been expressed anywhere save in those centres of popUlation. Certainly an hon­orable member who represents a large country constituency, as I do, would soon be brought t.o book by his constituents for sanctioning the expenditure of so much money on large buildings in Melbourne while the country districts are neglected to a great extent.

Mr. LAUHENS.-Was not the Tariff of 1865 a popular Bill ?

1\11'. MACBAIN.-Here is another ex­ample of the way in which people will distort the fact.s of history. The IJegis­lative Council never rejected the Tariff of 1865.

Mr. LAURENS. - They rejected it when presented to them in a separate form.

Mr. MACBAIN.-N ever. The hon­omble member forgets the history of the caso. I repeat that honorable members cannot point to one popular measure ever rejected by the Legislative Council. Therefore I say that the charge preferred by t.he Minister of Hailways is unfoundod, and unworthy of the position which the honomble gentleman occupies. Then again, tho Minister of Railways made this fnrther st.atement:-

Second Reading. [SEP'fEMB'ER, 23. ] .l-lintlt .i.Vi!J /tt's Deb.ate. 1135

"The members of the Council baving bad the management of the affairs of this ~olony in their hands under circumstances pecuharly cal­culated to establish a wealthy and prosperous nation here, I ask, what have they done? . . . Take only one district-the we~te~n distric~. What is the whole of that dIstnct at thIS hour? . . . A solitude, a wilderness."

Now I, with many others, feel that a very large portion of the territory of Victoria has been squandered; but I object to the Minister of Railways imputing the squandering of that public property to another Chamber. Whatever fault may be found with our legislation with regard to the public estate, under which the lands have been alienated at a mere nominal value, the blame should be laid rather at the door of this Chamber and the popu­lar party than at the door of the Council. Why more than one Land Bill was made more liberal by the Legishttive Council than it was when it reached their hands. Certainly whatever injury the country has sustained in connexion with land legislation is traceable almost entirely to this Chamber. Another observation made by the Minister of Rail ways was the following :-

" We are told that a vast emigration is about to tak:e place from the old country, setting towards Australia. We are told that people are looking for homes, and will come here in a stream of immigration very different from the farthing rush-light schemes of honorable mem­bers opposite."

I don't know why the honorable member should have introduced this matter into a debate ou constitutional reform. We know that a considerable amount of immigration is tending towards this country at the present time; but the Minister of Railways, while advocating a system of immigration by subsidizing vessels that come from the old country by the ocean route, is a, member of a Government that has entered into a con­tract which prevents the State incurring any new obligation on the subject. The Minister then went on to say-

"The western district is a wilderness, and will coutinue so unless this Bill is carried into law, fiud the people are enablec1 to c10 what they should have done long ago-to put a tax upon land, find mfike those lands carry people instead of a few sheep."

At present, the western district is turned to the very same purpose that a large portion of the old country and many por­tions of France are turned to. I believe that as the population increases, instead of' the large estates in that district being dedicated chiefly to the rearing of stock

and the growi"llg of wool, they will be>cu.t up .ullc1 sold. I believe. the tendency amon£)' landowners is to give every pos~ sible °facility for the settlement on : the land of people with capital and. enterprise who desire to prosecute agriculture.,: . I know landowners, whom honorable mem­bers are, .so fond of abusing, who are ,pre­pared to hand over land to t~le State for settlement purposes at a consHlerably.less price than it cost them. ., ~ ..

Mr. LONGMORE.-No. Mr. MACBAIN.-Iam speaking.about

somethino- that I know, but the Minister of Lands °does not like to hear it, because, if what I indicate were to come to pass~

i the land grievance business would be I abolished altogether. With regard to the tax upon land, I may mention that the honorable member for Castlemaine (Mr. Pearson), before he left the colony-for England, st·ated tha,t the. great w~rk which the liberal party had to accomplIsh was to amend the present land tax so as to introduce the principle of progression to a greater extent than exists at the pr~­sent time. But honorable members, when they make these speeches, seem regardless of the fact that snch statements must have the effect of depreciating the value of property, and lessening its secnrity. And then for a ·:Minister of the Crown to de­clai'e-if the statement had proceeded from a private member it would not have so much mattered-that if .the Reform Bill did' not pass, the large estates could not be taxed any further, is a thing which all honorable members who have the wel­fare of the country really at heart must deprecate. Why the penal tax al:e~dy in force has hact" the effect of depreCIatmg the value of large estates by at least lOs. per acre; and it may naturally be ~up­posed that the value of small hold.mgs has in consequence been more matenally affected. I believe that the value of farms of from 150 to 320 acres has been reduced from 208. to 30s. per acre. I know for a fiLct that for selected land­good'. whent- grovi'ing land-on which' about 10 rents were regularly paid, and which. were sold for about £2 lOs; pel' acre, it would now be difficult to obtain 25s. per acre.

Mr. LONGMORE.-Something must be allowed for bad seasons.

Mr. lVIACBAIN.-But if there is a bad season one year there may be a good one the next.· 1 say t.hat when the members of the Ministry declare that if this Bill

1136 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

does not pass the people will not be able to tax the land, they throw every possible obstacle in the way of a compromise with the other Chamber. It would seem as if they did not want a settlement of the difficulty at the present time, because a settlement of the difficulty means putting an end to the grievance-mongering which is going on. Every speech made by a Minister of the Crown in the direction of indicating further penal taxation with regard to property, thus selecting one class for taxation and ignoring the duties and 'obligations of other classes, must reduce the capital value of land 10 per cent. This ought to be a warning, both to the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Lands, that the farmers of the country have quite enough to do in coping with bad seasons and low prices for their pro­dllce, without having also to fight against the reckless statements of politicians. There is one more assertion made by the Minister of Railways that I desire to call attention to. It is as follows :-

" Had a population been settled in the western district, practically close to the sea-board, they would bave been fixed to the soil by what I may call natural causes, for, in that district, while the soil is magnificent, the weather is regular, and consequently the crops are also regular. But in the outer districts, as honorable members know, the selectors are, to use a somewhat com­mon expression, jammed' between the devil and the deep sea.' On the one hand they have peri­odical dronghts, and on the other they have to deal with those establishments that exhibit three brass balls in front as a sign of their business." Now does the Minister of R.ailways know what effect such a speech must have upon the property of the class of selectors to whom he referred? . Mr. FRANCIS.-It would have very little.

Mr. MACBAIN.-I can assure the honorable member for Warrnamhool it would have a great deal. It is not to be supposed that slJch a statement would en­hance the value of farms in the district referred to, or induce men of capital to lend money upon them; and in conse­quence the holders are placed in jeopardy by the very men who appeal to them for support in this matter of 90nstitutional reform. It is a curious fact that a great number of the men who have gone to these outlying districts have gone there after selling farms in the rich western district. Many of them were constituents of the Ministel' of Lands. If these men have chosen to go into what they con­sider better wheat-growing districts-for

example, such districts as the Wimmera, Moira, and the Terricks-why should Minist~rs try to ruin them by making their selections a bad security? The Minister of Lands, in the course of his remarks, stated that the Constitution framed in this colony in 18.54 was fit only for slaves.

Mr. LONGMORE.-Hear, hear. Mr. MACBAIN.-Does the honorable

member believe that? I think it is too much for an honorable member with the most extraordinary powers of gullibility to believe. Why there is not so much difference between theConstitution of this colony and the Constitution of England as there is between the Bill now before us and the Reform Bill of last session. The Minister of Lands went on to say :-

"If it had been ratified as it stood when it left the colony, there would hardly be a free man in Victoria to-day. From time to time it has been amended, and we are simply carrying on the process now which the people of the colony will continue to demand until they have true free­dom. We have no true freedom under the pre­sent Constitution. We have no liberty under the present Constitution."

Now are there two men in this House prepared to say that we have no true liberty under the Constitution? Why the people of this colony enjoy a liberty which I believe is possessed in hardly any other country of the world. If we have not true liberty, the term must be a mis­nomer. If we have not true liberty, the honorable members who now sit on the Treasury bench would not be drawing their £1,500 or £1,600 per year.

Mr. LONGMORE.-That is very small.

Mr. MACBAIN. - My estimate of Ministers may be very small, but certainly the amount they receive is not very small. Another allegation made by the Minister of Lands was that" the Constitution was framed so as to enable the lands to be held in the hands of the squatters." This may be a trump card for a stump orator, but is the statement true?

Mr. LONGMORE.-Yes. Mr. MACBAIN.-There is no evi­

dence to support the statement, and seve­ral speakers who followed the Minister of Lands showed conclusively that the state­ment has 110 foundation in fact. I think the Minister of Lands ought to be very careful in the assertions he makes, be­cause, no matter how great may be the misrepresentation, a certain number of people will be found to believe them. Moreover, the honorable member should

Second Reading. [SEPTEMBER 23.J Ninth Night's Debate. 1137

recollect that he was a member of a Go­vernment that had, as many Governments hail before, to sell land by public compe­tition, for the purpose of supplying funds to meet the national expenditure, and thus did the very thing which he now imputes to the Constitution and to an­other Chamber. I have a word to say about the embassy that went to England. It went for a twofold object. It went to get an enabling Act to give absolute power to this Chamber to coerce the other Chamber to do anything it chose; and also to remonstrate with the Imperial Government with regard to the relations of the Government of the colony to the representative of the Crown. Well, we know that just as much was accom­plished by the embassy as was indicated before it left. The embassy went to England, and the members of it were received most graciously- just in the way that Englishmen can receive stran­gers-and sent back witti the instruction that they were to do what was consis­tent with the spirit of the Constitution, and that if, consistently with the obser­vance of the spirit of the Constitution, a settlement of the political dispute could not be arrived at in the colony, an appeal could then be made to the Imperial autho­rities. That is all we know. As to the remonstrance made by the embassy to the Imperial Government in relation' to the position of the Governor of the colony towards the Colonial Ministry, uot one word of information has been vouchsafed. Is it to be presumed that if the embassy did remonstrate they were only given to understand that the position of the Governor could not be interfered with? A great deal has been said about the despatch which has come out from the Secretary of State; but I am satisfied that the contention that that despatch in­dicates censure of the other Chamber, without in any way disapproving of the conduct of this Chamber, cannot be borne out by the facts of the case. I think the Secretary of State, in his despatch, clearly indicates that if the other Chamber did what was constitutionally wrong in re­jecting an Appropriation Bill, the provo­cation was given by this Chamber in sending up an Appropriation Bill in a manner inconsistent with the principles of the Constitution, with the view of coercing the other Chamber. I am satisfied from experience that if this Chamber had re­frained from tacking to the Appropriation

Bill things foreign to that measure, the difficulties which have occurred during the last sixteen or twenty years would have been entirely avoided. I admit that certain Bills may not have received, at once, the approval of the other Chamber; but I think the principle of delay for further consideration is a good one. And when we know that every measure which has received the approval of the people of this country has ultimately passed into law, I say it is infinitely better that we should continue our present practice than that absolute power should be given to this Chamber to coerce another Chamber at any time it may think proper. The honorable member for Creswick (Mr. Richardson) is one of the members of this House who show no disposition to 'compromise the difficulties that exist be­tween the two Chambers. His speech, the other night, to my mind, was calcu­lated to perpetuate the evils we are now suffering from rather than to remove them if opportunity offers. One statement the honorable member made-I quote from the Argus report-was as follows :-

"The Government, then, were only claiming for the Assembly the same power as was exer­cised by the House of Commons. By having full control over the finances the House of Commons secured control over the accounts of collectors of subsidies, the right to inquire into abuses, the power to impeach Ministers for corruption, and control over the Executive Government."

But is it a fact that this Bill only claims the same powers and privileges that are enjoyed by the House of Commons? What does clause 6 say? It is in the following terms :-

" Immediately on the adoption by the Legis­lative Assembly of any report from the Com­mittee of Supply containing a resolution that any sum be granted to Her Majesty, such snm shall become legally available for and applicable to the service or purpose mentioned in such resolution, and may be issued accordingly out of the consolidated revenue."

Undoubtedly to carry this clause would completely destroy a portion of the C.onstitution Act which gives certain power both to this Chamber and the other. Moreover, it would confer upon the Assembly an absolute power which at present w.e don't possess. The House of Commons never claimed such a power. The practice of the Imperial Parliament, to which that of this colony is assimilated, makes the steps in relation to the issue of moneys from the Treasury consist of the following :-First, a resolution of the Commons; secondly, a Ways and Means

1138 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

Bill or Supply Bill passed by both Houses; thirdly, a credit granted by the Auditor­General to t.he Treasury; and fourthly, the Queen's warrant to authorize such credit to be used. I assert that to estab­lish the principle set forth in clause 6 would give to this House an absolute power the exercise of which would be det.rimental to the best interests of the colony, because it is always open to a body constituted as we are to be subject to an attack of popular passion, when of course it is possible for things to be done which would afterwards cause regret. With reference to the checks by which all popular legislative bodies ought to be restricted, let me read the following remarks of the great Daniel ""Vebster :-

"The first object of a free people is the pre­servation of their liberty, and liberty is only to be preserved by maintaining constitutional re­straints and just divisions of political power. Nothing is more decepth'e or more dangerous than the pretence of a desire to simplify govern­ment. The simplest governments are despot­isms; the next simplest limited monarchies j

but all republics, all governments of law, must impose numerous limitations and qualifications of authority, and give mailY positive and many qualified rights. In other words, they must be subject to rule and regulation. This is the very essence of free political institutions.

"The spirit of liberty is, indeed, a bold and fearless spirit j but it is also a sharp-sighted spirit j it is a cautious, sagacious, discriminat­ing, far-seeing intelligence j it is jealous of en­croachment, jealous of power, jealous of man. It demands checks j it seeks for guards j it in­sists on securities; it entrenches itself behind strong defences, and fortifies itself with all pos­sible care against the assaults of ambition or passion. It does not trust the amiable weak­llesses of human lr,ture, and therefore it will not permit power to overstep its prescribed limits, though benevolence, good intent, and patriotic purpose corne along with it. Neither does it satisfy itself with flashy and temporary resistance to its legal authority. Far otherwise. It seeks for duration and permanence. It looks before and after j and, building on the experi­ence of ages which are past, it labours diligently for the benefit of ages to come. E\'ery free government is necessarily complicated, because all such governments establish restraints, as well on the power of government itself as on that of individuals. If we will abolish the distinc­tion of branches, and have but one branch j "if we will abolish jury trials, and leaye all to tbe judge j if we will then ordain that the legislator shall himself be that judge j and if we place the executive power in the same han~s, we may readily simplify government, we may easily bring it to the simplest of all possible forms, a pure despotism. But a separation of depart­ments, so far as practicable, and the preser­vation of clear lines of division between them, is the fundamental idea in the creation of all our Constitutions j und, doubtless, the continuance of regulated liberty depends on maintaining these boundaries."

flIr. illacBain.

I thinkwbat I have just read ought to be impressed on the mind of every honorable mom bor of the House, more particularly of the honorable members who advocate the removal of all checks upon the Lower House, and who would place the finances of the country wholly at the mercy of a majority of this Chamber. The power conferred upon the Assembly by clause 6, coupled with the plebiscite, would infallibly make the Government of Victoria" one of the most despotic the world has ever seen. All the experience of the past goes to show that, instead of removing checks upon the predominant power in the State, it is of tho greatest importance that they shonld be increased. In view of the sledge·hamrner force of "the arguments brought to bear against the plebiscite by the honorable member for Rodney (Mr. Gillies), and the scathirig criticisms in the same direction of the honorable; and learned member for Sandridge, I think I need scarcely say more on that principle than that I agree thoroughly with thei'r estimate of its value. It is utterly foreign to English ideas, and I can see no earthly necessity for its adoption. Certainly none whatever has Leen pointed out. I have hC~1rd it stl1ted that we have already in.:. trodnced the plebiscite into our municipal law, and that therefore we ought not to object ~o its application in a different direction. But the plebiscite provided for in Ollr Acts relating to local govern­ment is a very different thing from the plebiscite provided for in the present Bill'. For my pnrt, indeed, I would have no great objection to allowing the principle of the plebiscite to be applied to politics in the same manner that it is applied -to municipal affairs, that is to say, if it welle only to be used when its use is demanded: by a constituency, or by the country generally. J think, for instance, it might fairly be resorted to by electors who think their representatives in Parliament are acting inconsistently with their profes­SiOllS, and perhaps ruining the country. I next comc-J will deal with it very briefly-to the principle of a nominee Upper Honse, which the Bill proposes to establish . Upon this point I am bound to say that there was a time when I regarded the adoption of such a system rather favorably. But the more I looked into the subject, and considered what the results or llomineeism in the Legislature of the colony had already been, the more did I find myself forced to the conclusion

Second Reading. [SEPTEMBER 23.J Ninth Nigllt's Debate. 1139

that it would be a most dangerous thing to take up with. 1\1y deliberate opinion now is that we ought to have our Upper House constructed on an elective prin­ciple, in order that it should be rendered subject to public opinion. It seems to me tha.t a nominee Council would certainly become in the end more ultra. conservative than is possible with almost any kind of elective House. The fact that to every representative member a time must come when he will have to render an account of his stewardship is sure to make him more careful in the performance of his duty than he might be if lie knew that his appointment simply rested with the Govel'llment of the day. Look at how the nominee principle works in Canada, where their present experience is of the dead-rock sort. I admit that a nominee Upper Chamber is in a way analogous in cbaracter to the House of Lords, but in practice it is a failure. In Victoria it would, I am sure, lead to more dead-locks in the future than we have ever known in the past. The change I would like to see in the constitution of the Upper House is one that would go in the direction of liberalizing it in a proper and thorough fa,shion. Years ago-since 1864-1 advocated very similar alterations to those I venture to recommend now. I would like to increase the number of the members of the Council from 30 to 42, to deCl'ease the size and increase the num­ber of' the electoral provinces, to reduce the term of office from 10 to 6 years, and to reduce the qualificat.ion for both mem­bers and electors. I trust that in any action we may take in the direction of reform we shall look rather to an altera­tion in the constitution of the other Cham­ber than to a radical change in the Consti­tution of the country. I am glad to think that at the present time there is a better feeling amongst honorable members on both sides of the House with respect to the whole question of the differences bo­tween the Honses, and I have great hopes that it will soon be brought to a settle­ment. My opinion is that those differ­ences should be compromised, and I think a course of that nature is demanded by the public outside. With this in view, I am inclined to regard the action taken by the Legislative Council towards liberaliz­ing the basis on ,vhich they stand as a proper :1,lld hopeful step, and I t.rust tho Government will show their good fti.ith by putting no obstacle in the way. Certainly,

the longer delay there is in arriving at a settlement of the reform qnestion, the longer will it be bofore the country is brought back to the comparatively pros­perous condition it was in some eigh teen months or two years ago. I would not have spoken at all in the present debate but that I felt, as one of the repre­sentatives of a large constituency, that I would not be doing my duty if I did not allow their voice to be heard in the matter.

Mr. GRANT.-Sir, after the speeches that have already been made on the sub­ject before the House, I feel that I would not be justified in continuing the dehate at any great length. Nevertheless, one or two statements have been made in it that, to my mind, ought to be answered. In discussing the present question it seems to me as necessary that we should be guided by English standards and prece­dent as that we should use the English language. There are words in the Eng­lish language that aro common to foreign languages, but tLey haye not the same meaning; and, in the same way, there are Legislatures in foreign conntries which, however much they may appear to re­semble the Legislature of England, have neither the same meaning nor the same functions. I don't think it is necessary for us to go for constitutional examples to Switzerland, or to Norway, or to the United States, or to any modern legisla­tive institutions at all, and that all allu­sions to those countries are utterly beside tho question. I now touch upon the re·· fOl'ences made by the honorable memher for Belfast, and also, in a measnre, by the honorable member for Boroondara and the honorable member for Warrnambool, to points of distinction and resemblance be­tween the Constitution of the United States and that of England. I tell the honorable member for Belfast that there is not the slightest similarit.y between the two things, except the fact that in the United States the Legislature consists of three branches, while the British Legisla­ture also consists of three branches. Inas­much as the honorable member, in the course of his remarks, quoted from Mr. Gladstono's Gleanings of Past Years, I call his attention to the follo'wing passage from the same work, in which the author compares the two Constitutions :-

"The two Constitutions of the two countries express indeed rather the differences than the resemblances of the nations, The one is a thing

1140 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

grown, the other a thing made; the one a 'praxis,' the other a ' poiesis'; the one the off­spring of tendency and undeterminate time, the other of choice and of an epoch."

And again, in another part of the book, Mr. Gladstone speaks of-

"The British Constitution, a product of Our

insular soil, which is not only without a parallel, but in its subtler parts almost without analogy elsewhere."

What then becomes of all the honorable member for Belfast's references to the Constitution of the United States? In my opinion they only serve to confuse. I am afraid that the honorable member, when he assisted to frame the Constitution of Victoria, looked rather too much to the United States, and not enough to England. It appears to me that part of our Consti­tution was derived from one source, and part from the other-that, for instance, our Legislative Council was modelled upon the pattern of the United States Senate, and that from that simple circumstance all our constitutional troubles have arisen. (Laughter.) Honorable members may laugh, but I state a broad fact which I believe no sound constitutionalist will deny. It cannot be doubted that our Upper House have assumed certain powers by virtue of their being a so-called repre­sentative House. Well, it seems to me a most extraordinary thing that there should be two representative Houses in one com­munity. A man cannot have two views of the same subject, nor two methods of practically treating it. There is no such arrangement, according to the English system of government, as one of two representative Honses. I want to tie honorable members down to that. The mode of appointment to office does not alter the functions of office. For example, in England the judges are appointed by the Crown, whereas in some of the United States they are elected by the people; but neither mode of appointment in the least alters the judge's functions. How can it be said that the appointment of an Upper Chamber of Legislation by the people or by the Crown alters the legislative func­tions of the body itself? The functions of our Legislative Council are entirely settled for us by the precedent of the House of Lords. The House of Lords constitute the Legislative Council, as it were, of England. The functions of the House of Lords are the functions of our Legislative Council. Consequently it is quite unnecessary for us to discuss what

Mr. Grant.

the functions of the latter body mayor may not he.

Mr. WILLIAMS.-I hope the Govern­ment will stick to that.

Mr. GRANT.-What I now allude to will be the bluthen of my speech. In my opinion, the whole of our constitu­tional differences have arisen from the fact that the other House have misunder­stood their functions. They have assumed themselves to be a representative body, whereas it is impossible for them to be truly anything of the kind. Before it can be shown that a country can have two representative Legislative Chambers, it must be shown that it contains two peoples. We are told that there are two representative Chambers in the United States, but I ask honorable members to consider the difference between a republi­can state and a monarchy. Take our Legislative Council for what it assumes to be, and we have a power above both the Crown and the people. Was ever such a state of things heard of in the history of English civilization? Is a legisla­tive power above that of the people and of the Crown at all conceivable? . How can such a thing exist under a monarchy? I am of opinion that we shall never have peace or good government until we have reformed our Upper House, and brought it under the control of the people. It appears to me that the whole of the constitutional matter we are dealing with lies in a nut-shell. The entire question narrows itself down to this-What insti­tution shall we establish in this country as the Honse of Lords of Victoria? Looking at the subject closely from that point of view renders a vast number of the observations and arguments that have been laid before ns during the present debate perfectly unnecessary. It is con-. ceded by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach's despatch, and I don't think any honorable member will contradict it, that we are the House of Commons of Victoria. Does any honorable member deny that? If that point is conceded, half the whole question is conceded. We need scarcely trouble ourselves about what the Upper House ought to be; it is enough that we are the House of Commons. Is not that all we in this Chamber have ever contended for? The matter we have next to determine is, what shall we establish here to represent the House of Lords. In dealing with that subject, we ought, I think, to affect existing institutions as little as possible.

Second Reading. [SEPTEMBER 23.J Ninth Night's Debate. 1141

An HONORABLE MEMBER.-Will estab­lishing the plebiscite be affecting existing institutions as little as possible?

Mr. GRANT.-I will. deal with the subject from that point of view by-and­by. Let us next come to the proposition of the Government. It is objected that the present Bill is not the same as the Bill of last session. Well, it is the same; and it is not the same. Will anyone say it is not in principle the same, whatever may be the difference in detail? Is it not the object of both measures that the will of the people . as expressed at the ballot-box f:ihould become the law of the land? In that view it will hardly be contended that the two Bills are not in fact the same. Did not the Chief Secre­tary say last session, and repeat this session-" We care nothing about the means so long as we obtain this end, namely, that the will of this House shall, after due consideration, and a certain interval of time given, become the law of the country"? Is not that relatively the position assumed by the House of Com­mons? Does any honorable member deny that the House of Commons is paramount in England? Who will contend that the House of Lords is what we have heard some contend the Legislative Council is, namely, a co-ordinate branch of the Legis­lature? The House of Commons is the supreme power of the State, and possesses ample means of asserting its authority as against any interference by the House of Lords. I would like to direct the at,ten­tion of the honorable member for Belfast to some further passages, with relation to the comparison between the Legislatures of Great Britain and the United States, in the work by Mr. Gladstone I have already quoted from. The author remarks-

" We next come to a difference still more marked. The Federal Executive is born anew of the nation at the end of each four yea.rs, and dies at the end. But, during the course of those years it is independent, in the person both of the President and of his Ministers, alike of the people, of their representatives, and of that remarkable body, the most remarkable of all the inventions of modern politics, the Senate of the United States. In this important matter, whatever be the relative excellences and defects of the British and American systems, it is most certain that nothing would induce the people of this country, or even the tory portion of them, to exchange our own for theirs. It may, in­deed, not be obvious to the foreign eye what is the exact difference of the two."

Again, he saYH-"The original authorship of the representa­

tive system is commonly accorded to the English

race .. More clear and indisputable is its title to the great political discovery of constitutional kingship. And a very great discovery it is. Whether it is destined in any future day to minister in its integrity to the needs of the new world it may be hard to say. In that important branch of its utility which is. negative it com­pletely serves the purposes of the many strong and rising colonies of Great Britain, and saves them from all the perplexities and perils atten­dant upon successions to the headship of the Executive."

I quote this with direct reference to the argument of the honorable member for Belfast as to the similarity between the British Constitution and that of the United States.

~ir J. O'SHANASSY.-I never con­tended what the Minister of Justice speaks of. What I assert is what all authorities admit, namely, that, as far as the framers of the Constitution of the United States could, in the circumstances in which they were placed, they kept in the lines of the British Constitution. In fact, so much is that the case that one of the gravest charges they had to meet was that they made too great an imitation of it.

Mr. GRANT.-Mr. Gladstone further says-

" Both the representative Chambers hold the power of the purse. But in America its con­ditions are such that it does not operate in any way on behalf of the Chamber or of the nation as against the Executive. In England, on the contrary, its efficiency has been such that it has worked out for itself channels of effective oper­ation such as to dispense with its direct use, and avoid the inconveniences which might be atten­dant upon that use. A vote of the House of Commons, declaring a withdrawal of its confi­dence, has always sufficed for the purpose of displacing a Ministry; nay, persistent obstruc­tion of its measures, and even lighter causes, have conveyed the hint which has been obediently taken. But the people, how is it with them? Do not the people in England part with their power and make it over to the House of Com­mons as completely as the American people part with it to the President? They give it over for four years; we, for a period which on the average is somewhat more; they to resume it at a fixed time; we, on an unfixed contin­gency, and at a time which will finally be determined, not according to the popular will, but according to the views which a Ministry may entertain of its duty or convenience."

Another observation made by Mr. Glad­stone in the same article ought to convince honorable members opposite how utterly untenable is the position they have taken up in asserting that the Legislative Council is co-ordinate with the Assembly. He says-

" It is a cardinal axiom of the modern British Constitution that the House of Commons is the greatest of the powers of the State. •

1142 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bilt.

The House of Commons is superior, and by far superior, in the force of its politieal attributes, to a.ny other single power in the Sta.te."

That is the statement of1\fr. Gladstone, and I presume honorable members could not ask for a higher authority. Then when we con­sider that Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, in his despatch, states that this Assembly has the same powers as the House of Commons in England, I think the extracts I have read should put an end to the claim of co­ordinate authority for the other House.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-vVhat does the Constitution Act say?

Mr. GRANT.-The honorable member and his friends have put an unconstitu­tional construction on the Constitution Act, as I shall show, and the arguments on the subject adduced by thc honorable member ill his speech on this Bill were, I must say, not worthy of the Legislature; they were only fit for a court of law. With reference to the Bill, I may state that I agree to some extent with the remark of the honorable member for Rodney (1\11'. Gillies) that the 1st part of it is practically unnecessary. It is only rendered necessary by the constl'Uction which has been sought to be placed on the Constitution Act by the Council and their friends. Leaving out of consideration for a moment the 6th clause, I say that if the proper construction had been put on the Constitution Act by the Council we would never have had the difficulties we have bad to encounter. Considering, how­ever, the attitude which has been as­sumed, we are bound to indicate in the Bill what is the proper construction of the Constitution Act, so that that inter­pretation may be assented to hy the Upper House and passed into law, and their mouths thus estopped in the future from making the pretensions they have done. In my opinion, the exact relative powers of the House of Lords and the House of Commons are, by the 56th section of the Constitution Act, expressly given to the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly of Victoria. The matter could not, I believe, have been put in more con­cise and definite language than it has been by the draftsman in that section. There­fore, apart from the 6th clau~e, I do not see what reasonable objection can be en­tertained to the passing of the 1st part of the Bill, especially seeing that it bas been already assented to unanimously by this House. As regards the 6th clause, I may say that I deeply- regret the necessity for.

embodying that clause in the Bill, but dire experience in the past has proved the ab­solute necessity for it. We cannot ig'uore the fact that twice, at any rate, the U prer House have thrown the affairs of the country into the uttermost confusion by causing a dead-lock. The honorable mem­ber for Warrnambool will well remember

I the ruin and confusion which was inflicted on the country when the first dead-lock took place. No one knows better than that honorable member the misery which was then brought about, and it is greatly to his honour that, as I know of my own knowledge, he was himself the means of assisting many persons in this country on whom the rejection of the Appropriation Bill by the Council on that occasion brought hardship and suffering. I was a member of the Administration at that time, and the honorable member will tes­tify how deep an anxiety was experienced by every member of the Ministry during that period. I never expected to have to undergo such an experience again, but, unfortunately, I was also a member of the Government when the second dead-lock took place. I ask the honorable member for vVarrnambool, and honorable members generally, was it conceivable that, with all the experience of the suffering and ruin which the first dead-lock occasioned, the Legislative Council would have ever again, for such a paltry reason as they assigned, thrown out an Appropriation Bill ? Nevertheless they did so, and it is such conduct that has rendered necessary -though I deeply regret the necessity­the inclusion of the 6th clause in this Bill.

Mr. SERVICE.-Why regret it? Mr. GRANT.-I will tell the honor­

able member why I regret it. It is be­cause, as the honorable member for Rod·, ney very properly put it the other day, the law expects that every public officer and every public institution will do their duty. It is most plainly indic~t'ed in the 1st portion of this Bill, as it is in the 56th section of the Constitution Act, that the Legislative Council shall pass the Appropriation Bill. It is, to my mind, as plainly laid down in the Constitution Act as language can make it that it is im­perative on the Legislative, Council to pass the Appropriation Bill..

, . Mr. SERVICE.-Where? 1\1r. GRANT.-It is plain to any per­

son who chooses to put a constitutional com;truction on the 56th section.

Mr., SERVICE.-Oh r

Second Reading. [SEPTEl'ImER 23.J Nintl" J.."Tigltt's Debate. 111S

Mr. GRANT.-The honorable member may pooh-pooh it as much as he pleases, but his doing so does not alter the fact one iota. It is the imperative duty of the Legislative Council to pass the Appro­priation Bill. Before they rejected an Appropriation Bill, it would have been to cast a slur on them to provide against their doing so. How would it have looked if, in the 56th section of the Constitution Act, the Imperial Parliament had provided that the Appropriation Bill should pass wit.hout the Council's assent? Can hon­orable members conceive a greater insult offered,to a branch·of the Legislature just being created than to suppose it would be necessary to make such'a provision?

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-This Bill con­tains some such provision.

. Mr. GRANT.-I defy the honorable member to answer my statement. I said that, taking the doctrine as correctly given by the honorable member for Rodney that public officers and public institutions are supposed to do their duty, it was to be supposed that the Legislative Council would do theirs. It is an axiom of morals as well as law-in fact, it is an axiom on which the whole of society is founded­that public officers and public institutions are supposed to fulfil their duty. That being so, hoW' would the Legislati ve Coun­cil have felt if such a contingency as dead-locks had been provided for in the Constitution Act ? Would it not have been thought infamous for the Imperial Parliament to have assumed, without any reason, that the Legislative Council would not perform their duty and pass the Ap­propriation Bill? It is only the dtre experience we have had' of -their' llot passing an Appropriation Bill that has rendered tile' inclusion of the 6th clause necessary. Speaking ·for myself person­ally, I may say that, in my opinion, the other clauses of the 1st· portion of the Bill take awaY' from the Legislative Council any· excuse for putting such a construction on the 56th section of the Constitution Act as they have done in the past. I believe the other clauses will be· sufficient to prevent the, Legislative ,Council from refusing to pass an Appro- , priation Bill. For that· reason I have 'always looked upon the· 6th clause as unnecessary, because I believe the Coun­-cil, in the face' of the expres,s words of the other, clanses~ would not aare to %hro:w out :3,n Appropriation Bill. Of '(!ourse oil·;this point I am ·only ; expressing

my own opllllOn. Honorable members opposite, in addressing themselves to this measure, have expended much criticism on the assumption that it will not be considered a " reasonable" measure in England. Taking the 2nd portion of the Bill, I would ask those honorable mem­bers whether they think that portion will be considered unreasonable? As has been very properly observed by the honorable member for Moira (Mr. Orr), that is a part of the measure which will, in all proba­bility, commend itself to the Imperial Government and the Imperial Parliament, because there can be no question that, .:;tt any rate, it brings the Legislative Council into nearer analogy with t.he House of Lords than an elective second. Chamber can be; As to the plebiscite, Idl,sk hon­orable members what is there unreasonable in that 'proposal? We want some means of enforcing the will of the majority of this House. I do not care what: method: is suggested for that purpose; I would almost accept any method which would be sufficient for attaining t~at. end. AllI desire is that the w.il1: .of the maj~ritj of this House, after due consideratio.n--after: one session, two sessions; three: sessions, or any number you like-shall be carried into law. I am not wedded to the plebis­cite, or to any other expedient) so long as that object can be gained. Referring again to the 2nd portion of the Bill, I may say I have always 'approved of the nominee principle for the Upper House, as the only one which is consistent with English institutions •. Therefore, speaking for myself, I say that, if we had the n~mi­llee principle alone, with unlimited power of . creating nominees, there would be a solution of the difficulty at once. For my own part, I would eyen accept the suggestion made' by the honorable member for MaId-on some time ago, that if a measure passed the Assembly in two succeeding sessions, and was rejected by the Council; if it passed the Assembly a third time after a general election it should become the ~aw:. But what is the proposition made by another place·? They propose that we should widen the basis of the Upper House, but how that proposition. is to sol ve the difficulty of dead-locks it '1"8 beyond my comprehension to conceive

A•

Then if we adopt the N orwegiaIi schema, and bring the two Houses together;whn;t security have 'we that it will 'be the",vil! of' the majority of this House that, wiU he carried into law-? That is the';w.lrb1-(>.

1144 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

point, as I have contended to honorable members who entertain a. favorable opinion of that scheme. Why the very purpose of bringing the two Houses together would be to destroy the majority in this House. I cannot conceive any other purpose in bringing the two Houses together, except to destroy the will of the majority of this House. Can any honor­able member answer that view? If that is so, what have we then? That the will of the minority should prevail. Again, assuming that the two Houses are brought together, what becomes of responsible government? There would be an end of it. We were asked, the other night, what would become of the Government if the plebiscite returned a verdict against the majority of this House.' It was asked-Would the House be dissolved or would the Government resign? I can conceive the bare possibility of such a state of things arising; the possibility is on a par with conceiving that, in Eng­land, if a number of new peers were nomi­nated for the purpose of overcoming a majority in the House of Lords, the new peers might vote with the majority. That is just as conceivable as that a plebiscite would be taken which would result ad­versely to this House. But what would become of responsible government if the two Houses meeting together decided, as in all probability would be the case, against the Government? There the difficulty would be still greater, and there is only one solution of that difficulty according to the view of honorable members who support the Norwegian scheme, namely, to come round to the system suggested by the honorable member for Belfast, who is never weary of quoting the excellence of American institutions to this House. I would ask the honorable member for Bel­fast is he prepared to come to the Ameri­can system of legislation and government, especially with regard to the Senate which he is so fond of speaking about? Is he prepared to take the American Constitu~ tion?

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-Certainly, for the Senate.

Mr. GRANT.-The honorable mem­ber must go the whole way. Is he pre­pared to do away with responsible go­vernment and popular government, and to surrender the rights of the people for four years to the head of the Executive? Is he prepared to abandon the British Con­stitution, for that would be the result?

I need not detain the House further. To those honorable members who object to the plebiscite I say-Show us any other way by which the will of the majority of this House can be carried into law.

Mr. FRANCIS.-The majority of It

plebiscite is not the will of the majority of this House.

Mr. GRANT.-I say I will accept the suggestion of the honorable member for Maldon, to which I have referred, or I will accept the system of nominating members of the other House; but the suggestion that the Upper House should be enlarged to 40 members, its basis widened, and that then the two Houses should meet for the purpose of destroying the majority in this House, is a proposi­tion that I do not think we can accept. We are told by the Secretary of State that beyond dispute we are a House of Commons, and entitled to the rights and privileges of that Rouse. I ask honor­able members, if they are prepared to surrender thoso rights, what answer they will make to their constituents? Their constituents. will say-" For years past you have been contending that you are a House of Commons, and entitled to the rights and privileges of the House of Commons; the highest authority to whom you have appealed, the Secretary of State, has pronounced that you are a House of Commons, and entitled to the rights and privileges of that House: how dare you then surrender any of our rights and privileges? Why you are worse than the Irish Parliament, which sold the nation in the Union." For my part, I say that, while I have no doubt that American institutions answer Americans, I prefer English institutions; and the rights and liberties I inherited as an Englishman I hope I shall bequeath to my children and my children's children.

Mr. WILLIAMS.-Sir, I am sorry that during the life of this Parliament we should have been called upon twice to discuss the very important question of constitutional reform. I fear, however, from all I have gathered during the debate which has dragged its weary length along, we shall be likely to have this question discussed more than once or twice yet in the future. I confess, when I read the Bill submitted by the Govern­ment on the present occasion, I expe­rienced a certain feeling of disappointment that the measure was so extreme in its character, instead of being dictated by the

Second Reading. [SEPTEIUBER 23.J Ninth Night's Debate. 1145

spirit of moderation and conciliation which the Chief Secretary professed so loudly in the old country. If there was no pos­sibility of presenting the Bill of last session to the home authorities for their assent, I am quite certain that the present measure will share a similar fate, and we shall have again to begin the discussion of this question de novo. Notwithstanding the extreme character of the Bill, so great is my desire that constitutional reform of some kind should be carried out, and the question settled for a long time to come, that it is my intention to vote for the second reading of the Bill, and to assist the Government to the utmost to render the measure as acceptable as possible. I am bound to state, however, that some of the principles of the Bill are so ex­treme that unless they are eliminated in committee I shall be unable to vote for the third reading. The Minister of Jus­tice certainly made a most astonishing statement when he said he wished no other practice to prevail in this country than that of the Imperial Parliament, and that he desired for the two Houses here only the respective privileges, immunities, and rights of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The honorable gen­tleman could hardly have been present w hen my honorable colleague (Mr. Clark) addressed himself to this Bill, as he showed conclusively that the claims set up for the Assembly by it were not in accord with the practice of the House of Commons. In the despatch which was sent to this colony by the Secretary of' State with regard to the payment of moneys on the votes of the Assembly alone, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach described the manner in which provision is made in England for the expenditure of money as follows :-

" Early in the session votes are taken for the pay, &c., of the naval and military forces, and a resolution is passed in Committee of Ways and Means for a general grant out of the con­solidated fund towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty. This resolution is re­ported to and confirmed by the House, and upon it a Bill is founded, which passes through its various stages, and finally receives the Roya I assent; and then, but not before, the Treasury are empowered to direct an issue out of the consolidated fund to meet the payments autho­rized by votes in Supply of the House of .Com­mons. This general grant of Ways and Means is made -available, so far as it will go, to meet votes in Supply passed both before and after it."

I would ask honorable members how that practice agrees with the course proposed

YOLo xxx.-4 G

by the 6th clause of the Bill? I am quite certain that the clause neither fol­lows nor was intended to follow the conrse thus .described as that pursued in the Imperial Parliament. The 6th clause says-

"Immediately on the adoption by the Legis­lative Assembly of any report from the Com­mittee of Supply containing a resolution that any sum be granted to Her Majesty, such sum shall become legally available for and applicable to the service or purpose mentioned in such resolution, and may be issued accordingly out of the consolidated revenue."

Nothing can be clearer than that this clause is an entire violation of the prin­ciple established and followed in the Im­perial Parliament. A great deal has been said about the British Constitution and its applicability to our affairs here. It is said that if we were to adopt the British Constitution it would suit our circumstances, and there would be no more difficulties. In my opinion, how­ever, the British Constitution, if estab­lished in this country, would totally and entirely fail; and I believe that if man­hood suffrage were established in England the British Constitution would prove as unworkable there as our Constitut.ion does here. Our Constitution was intended, as far as words could effect that object, to be a perfect reflex of the British Consti­tution. That is clearly laid down in the Privileges of Parliament Act, where it is stated-

"The Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly of Victoria respectively and the com­mittees and members thereof respectively shall hold, enjoy, and exercise such and the like pri­vileges, immunities, and powers as, and the pri­vileges, immunities, and powers of the said Council and Assembly respectively and of the committees and members thereof respectively are hereby defined to be the same as at the time of the passing of the said recited Act [the Con­stitution Act] were held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland and by the committees and members thereof, so far as the same are not in­consistent with the said recited Act, whether such privileges, immunities, or powers were so held, possessed, or enjoyed by custom, Statute, or otherwise."

Thus our Constitution was intended to be as far as possible a perfect reflex of the British Constitution, and my opinion is that, as the British Const.itution in a coun­try where manhood suffrage is the law would be a complete failure, the fa.ilure of our Constitution is entirely attrlbuta ble to it following the British Constitution. I do not mean, h01Vever, to oLject in any way to manhood suffrage. On the

1146 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

contrary, I consider its establishment was I might still be rejected with impunity by a great boon to the people of this country. the Council if it contained anything ob­I may remark here that, although I have noxious to them. If the Council are listened carefully to honorable members actuated in the future by the same line of during this debate, I have never been able action that they have adopteu in the past, to see any difference pointed out between there is not the slightest ground for manhood suffrage and a vote by the plebis- supposing that they will shrink from en­cite. I have hea.rd no arguments adduced forcing any of their rights and privileges. which would cause me to alter my views, What then would be the consequences which I have previously expressed, as to under this measure if they did reject an the effectiveness of the plebiscite to secure Appropriation Bill, a Tax Bill, or a Ways legislative finality as fa.r as it can be se- and Means Bill? The Bill rejected would cured, to put::L stop to dead-locks, and to stand over for two ::Lnnual sessions before give the people of this country supremacy. it could be submitted to the plebiscite. In not only over the Council but also over' the meantime, how would the revenue the Assembly as well. I am glad to see proposed by the Tax Bill be raised, or that the Chief Secretary has in some re- I the expenditure included in the Appro­spects seen the error of his ways since he priation Bill be incurred? As fa.r as the brought forward the la.st Reform Bill. expenditure is concerned, the. Government When I on that occa.sion desired that propose to provide for it by the 6th clause, financial legislation, as well as ordinary which gives power ·to pay money on the legislation, should be referred to the ple- votes of the Assembly alone. The money biscite, the honorable gentleman stoutly would thus be irrevocably gone, and, after denounced my action as a violation of re- two years, the Government that expended presentative government, ::Lnd as subver- it would perhaps be out of office. Yet sive of the existing legislative machinery. uuder this Bill the Opposition who had In answer to my proposition, he said- denounced the expenditure would, if they

"This Bill, as I have put the matter, effect­ually carries out its object. It stops all dead­locks, and it provides for the carrying into law of ordinary measures of legislation passed by the Assembly in two successive sessions. It also provides a plebiscite, which is the novelty of the measure, and may succeed or may not. It, however, can do no harm as it is in this Bill ; and we have resisted its introduction in a form that would have been destructive to parlia­mentary government."

I am glad to find by the present Bill that the. Chief Secretary has recanted that observation, because this Bill clearly and distinctly brings all financial legislation under the operation of the plebiscite. Another point is that the 56th section of the Constitution Act, which was proposed to be repealed by the Reform Bill of last session, is allowed to remain intact by the present Bill, and, in fact, this Bill is to be read and explained with that section. N ow, according to that sectio,n, the Assembly initiates all Money and Tax Bills, and the Legislative Council can either reject or pass such Bills, although it has no power to alter them. As the present measure continues that power to the Council, I would ask the Chief Sec­retary what there is to prevent the Council, if they so desire, from rejecting an Appropriation Bill, even if this mea­sure becomes law? There is no doubt whatever that an Appropriation Bill

Mr. lVilliams.

were in office at the end of the two years, have to bring in the very same Money Bill which they had previously condemned, and which had been rejected by the Coun­cil, so that the past expenditure might be clothed with the sanction of Parliament. The Council, of course, would again throw out the Bill, and then the gentlemen who had previously denounced the expenditure in the strongest terms would, because they

. now formed the Government, be under the absolute necessity of remitting this obnoxious expenditure to the people, al­though they knew that the money was irrevocably gone long before, and could not be recalled by any possible means. Would .such a proceeding be anything but a farce? Would it not be simply making fools of the people to call upon them to give their "Votes on a question of that kind when they had no power whatever to recall the expendi­ture and save the money? If the people voted that the expenditure was extra­vagant and uncalled for, of what possible effect would their vote be? The money had long since been spent, and could not be regained. That is a legitimate deduc­tion. from one of the proposals in this Bill, and is it desirable that a provision should remain in the measure which .renders such a state of things as I have described pos­sible? I know it is said that this Bill does not contemplate the rejection of any

Second Reading. [SEPTEMBER 23.J

Money or Tax Bill by the Council, but when the power of rejection is left, there is nowarmnt from the past action of the Council that they will not act on that power in the future. In my opinion, if the Bill is allowed to pass as it stands, instead of bettering the present Constitu­tion it will make it fifty times worse than it is. It is assumed on the face of the l3ilJ that the Assembly is to have supreme a,nd ' .absolute control over questions of finance. That is no doubt, as I have ~hown, a false assumption, but taking the assumption as it stands, if the Council are never to reject an Appropriation, Money, or Tax Bill, there then is to be no check on the Assembly. Now I a::;sert that circumstances have occurred in the past in which it has been seen by the people of the country that such a check is absolutely necessary. If the check which has hitherto rested in the Upper House is removed, and no other check is substituted, the way is left open for the most flagrant corruption and bribery. In fact, I say it is an unkindness to this House to give it such unchecked authority and control. John Stuart Mill says on this subject-

" It is important that no set of persons should be able, even temporarily, to make their sic volo prevail, without asking anyone else for his con­sent. A majority in a single Assembly, when it has assumed a permanent character-when composed of the same persons habitually acting together, and always assured of victory in their own House-easily becomes despotic and over­weening, if released from the necessity of con­sidering whether its acts will be concurred in by another constituted authority."

I say the other "constituted authority" here referred to must exist, wherever it may be placed-whether in the people or in the Legislative Council. From past experience I consider it is most undesir­able to place it in the Council; but if the Assembly were to exercise uncontrolled power; without having to consider any other I;tuthority in the country, we would have, in my opinion, little jobs piloted through this House of a very undesirable character. The very possibility of such things taking place proves the necessity for some other constituted authority, either in the people themselves or in some other body, to check the transactions of this House in some way or other. It has been contended that .the existence of an Uppo­sition would prevent the majority misap­propriating any of the public revenue, but the "Boss Tweedism" of New York shows that it is not sufficient to rely on an

4G2

Opposition in a single Chamber, or in the apparent integrity of the persons in power. By the conspiracy known as "Boss Tweedism" the burgesses of New York were swindled out of millions of dollars. And what sort of a man was Boss Tweed? Why he was considered the purest man in the United States before the exposure of the frauds in which he was concerned. I have received letters from friends of Boss Tweed, stating that previous to his delinquencies beingJound out they thought him a man of pure and unsullied character, incapable of committing any such acts as bribery, corruption, or fraud. People who knew him, fairly had their breath taken away by the revelations made concerning him. We might have men of that charac­ter in this Assembly.:.,;..men who, under the mask of sincerity and the preten­tious garb of honesty, wel'e what would ultimately be discovered to be little better than a whited sepulchre. The lessons of history teach us that we ought, in framing a Constitution, to guard against the possible contingency of attempts being made to misappropriate public money. Does this Bill provide against such an emergency? No. On the contrary, it really clears the road, and makes such a state of things extremely possible-yea, probable. In fact, the way for such cir­cumstances as have occurred in America could not be prepared more effectually than is done by this Bill. A check of some kind against the possible misappro­priation of revenue is absolutely necessary. The people have as much right to be pro­tected from the Assembly as the Assembly has to be protected from the Council.

Mr. ANDREW.-This House is al­tered every three years.

Mr. WILLIAMS.-Three years is quite long enough to ruin the country. While the constitutional question is kept unsettled, the interests of the country are being seriously injured. Such a feeling of insecurity is created that people who have money are afraid to in vest it. The present financial and industrial depression is unparalleled in the history of the colony, aud it is to a large extent attri­butable to the fact of Ministers going up and down the country and delivering wild and extravagant speeches, such as threatening to compel the banks to make all payments in gold. They may never contemplate carrying' their threats into effect, but nevertheless such threats have n seriolls effect on trade Rnd commerce.

1148 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

In fact, the feeling of insecurity caused by the threats of the Government is bringing about all the disastrous results which would be produced if the threats were actually carried into effect. This is an impeachment which the Government can never clear themselves from. Minis­ters ought to carefully consider what the effect of their words will be before they deliver speeches on the public platform. When Napoleon I was Emperor of the French, the stocks of France fluctuated millions up or down just as his speeches were moderate or reckless, and the speeches of Ministers of the Crown have a similar effect in this colony. I repeat that I object to the 6th clause of the Bill. I want the people of the country to have a voice in the expenditure of disputed votes before the money can leave the Treasury. I have therefore prepared an amendment, which I will move in com­mittee. My intention is to eliminate the 6th clause, and substitute one that will be more direct in its operation-one which will enable the people to say "Yea" or " Nay" before the money is expended. My amendment will read as follows :-

"If the Legislative Council, in exercise of the power given by the 56th section of the Consti­tution Act, reject a Money or Tax Bill other than a Bill of Supply or an annual Appropria­tion Bill (such Appropriation Bill containing only grants for the usual and ordinary services for the year), the Legislative Council may, within one month after such rejection, demand that the Bill so rejected be submitted to a gene·· ral poll of the electors for the Legislative As­sembly in the manner provided in part 3 of this Act. If such demand be not made within the said period of one month, such Bill shall be deemed to have been passed by the Legislative Council as the same was transmitted from the Legislative Assembly, and shall be presented to His Excellency the Governor by the Clerk of the Parliaments for Her Majesty's assent." Under this clause, if the Council reject an A ppropriation Bill on the ground that it contains some improper vote, the people will be able to decide at once whether the proposed expenditure shall take place or not, but under the measure in its present shape a poll of the people could not be taken for two years-long after the money had been expended beyond the possibility of recall. With the amendment I intend to propose, the Bill may possibly be ac­ceptable to the country, but if it is sent to the people in its present form it will cer­tainly be scouted. I have not heard one man in my constituency say he approves of the Bill as it now stands. I am desir­ous of voting for the second reading only

Mr. Williams.

because I believe the measure will be materially amended in committee. If it is stated authoritatively that by voting for the second reading I pledge myself to the principles of the Bill, there will be no other course open to me but to vote against the second reading. During the debate on the last Reform Bill, honorable members were invited to agree to the second reading, and make amendments in committee; but, after the measure got into committee, how were they treated? I was then a Ministerial supporter, on whom the shade of schism had not passed; but, when I proposed an amendment, I was called a tool of the Opposition, an enemy in disguise, a wolf in sheep's clothing. These and other discreditable epithets were applied to me. I almost despair of any Ministerial supporter being allowed, although invited, to make alterations in this Bill when it goes into committee. If the measure passes the Assembly un­amended, and is submitted to the consti­tuencies at the next election, it will have a calamitous effect on the country. Such a Bill, if carried int.o law, will stamp out true liberalism in this country-liberalism which means justice in the administration of public affairs, prudence in debate, mag­nanimity ill the conduct of one honorable member towards another, and moderation in all legislative enactments. In fact, the Government, by the extreme legislation which they have proposed, have done much to destroy liberal instincts and feel­ings in the community.

Mr. BERRY.-Give one instance. Mr. WILLIAMS.- This Bill is an

instance, and the new Tariff is another. That Tariff has been agreed to reluc­tantly by the majority of this House in order to save the Government from de­feat. It is an extreme Tariff, and if sub­mitted to the country on its abstract merits, disassociated from all party consi­derations, it would not receive the votes of 20,000 electors out of the 185,000 on the rolls. It has been asserted that the Reform Bill now before the House is sub­stantially the same as the Bill brought forward last session, but I maintain that it is materially different. In the first place, the last Bill proposed tq repeal the 56th section of the Constitution Act, but the present measure does. not. Then the present Bill proposes to establish a nomi­nee instead of an elective Legislative Council. That would abridge the liberties of the people, by taking away from them

Second Reading. [SEPTEMBER 23.] Ninth Night's Debate. 1149

the privilege of electing the second Cham­ber. The last Bill proposed that a Money Bill could not become law without the consent of the Council in less than a month, but under the present measure money may be paid out of the Treasury as soon as a vote is passed in Committee of Supply and the resolut.ion is reported to the Assembly and adopted. The pro­posal in regard to the plebiscite is also different. The last Bill provided that a measure should be referred to the people only at the instance of the Legislative Council, but this Bill gives the Govern­ment the power to put the plebiscite in operation. It was said that the former proposal was a concession to the Council, but that small concession is taken away by the present Bill. I have no particular regard for the Council, but rather than vote for the Bill unamended I would vote for the abolition of the Council altogether, inasmuch as the measure will virtually deprive it of all control over any legislation. I believe that the 1st pnrt of the Bill is extreme-such a measure as was never contemplated at the last general election-and that, if Stl b­mitted to the country, it would meet with the almost unanimous disapp'roval of the people. As to the drafting of the Bill, I desire to draw attention to what appears to me, though I am only a layman, to be an oversight. The 43rd section of the Constitution Act provides that "it shall be lawful for the Legislature to impose and levy such duties of customs as to them may seem fit." Therefore it seems to me th;t, unless this section is repealed, a Tariff Bill could not become law with­out the consent of the Council, which is one of the branches of the Legislature, even if the Reform Bill is passed in the shape it now stands, or with the amend­ment I have indicated. Supposing a Tariff Bill rejected by the Council to be approved by a poll of thc people, how could it become law without the consent of the Council if the 43rd section is unre­pealed? In my opinion it is necessary that the Bill should provide for the repeal of that section. As to the nominee prin­ciple' I really cannot see any substantial difference between the system proposed by this Bill and the system which obtains in other colonies where there is a nominee Upper House. The difference is simply the difference between tweedledum and tweedledee. In New South Wales and other places it has been found that

the members of a nominee House, nomi­nated by one Government, are sometimes most uncompromising enemies of the next Government, and that, instead of assisting popular legislation and carrying out the behests of the country, they are the greatest obstructionists. The same state of things would very likely exist in this country if we had a nominee Upper House. We would have a most unde­sirable set of men in the Council. The Ministry of the day would be compelled to nominate certain men in order to please their supporters, and the result would be that the Council would consist only of the creatures of the creatures of the Assembly. The elective system is the best system for a democratic community. The basis of the Council ought to be broadened almost to the same extent as that of the Assembly. Mill has laid it down clearly that, in a democratic community, you cannot have one branch of the Legislature representing a class, and the other representing the whole people, without most disastrous results arising from such a Constitution; in other words, that the second branch of the Legislature should be almost as repre­sentative in its character as the first. A second Chamber was intended to carefully review the measures passed by the popular Chamber; but it was never meant to exer'cise a permanent veto, or to be a per­manent obstruction. Have not instances occurred of our Legislative Council exer­cising a review over measures sent up to it from this House with very salutary and beneficial results to the legislation of the country? ,Amendments have been made in measures at the instance of the Council which the Assembly have admitted to be improvements, thus showing the advan­tages of a second Chamber. While, how­ever, the members of the Upper House represent only a class, it cannot be ex­pected that they will give that careful consideration to measures which they wouLd do if they were representatives of the whole community. Mill says-

" If there are two Chambers, they may either be of similar or of dissimilar composition. If of similar, both will obey the same influences, and whatever bas a majority in one of the Houses will be likely to have it in the other."

If the basis of the Legislative Council were widened so as to make that House represent the whole of the ratepayers of the country, that would secure all we want, namely, the prevention of dead­locks. A reduction of the franchise of

1150 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Ame1~dment Bill.

the Council is the onlv feasihle and practical solution of th~ constitutional difficulty. The proposal to adopt the nominee principle is a retrograde move­ment, and I am quite certain that it will be considered so by the community. The political privileges of the people ought to be extended, and not abridged as they will be if the Upper House be changed from an elective to a nominee Chamber. At the last general election, I advoc:1ted that constitutional reform I'hould t:1ke the direction of a reduction of the franchise for the Council, sub­division of the provinces, shortening the tenure of seats to five years, and lowering the qua.lification of members. One amend­ment which I intend to move when the Bill is in committee is as follows:-

"Omit part 2 of tlIe Bill with a view to in­sert instead thereof provisions contained in parts 1,2, und 3 of the Bill transmitted by the I,egis­lative Council to the Legislative Assembly during last session, altering the same so as to give the right to vote for members of the Legis­lative Conncil to every male ratepayer."

Mr. COOPER.-Why not to female ratepayers also?

Mr. WILLIAMS. -If a proposition were submitted to the House to extend the franchise to all widows and to all spinsters over 21 years, I would give it careful consideration. The former are deprived of the political privileges "which they enjoyed through their husbands, and the latter, as consumers of dutiable goods, are taxpayers.

Dr. J\tIADDEN.-On the same principle married women ought to have the franchise.

Mr. 'VILLIAMS.-There is this gre:1t difference-,-a man and his wife are one. However, this is a mere by-question, which it is not necessary to discuss now. I think the 2nd part of the Bill, as well as the 1st part, ought to be eliminated. I intend to test the feeling of Ihis House as to the desir:1bility of widening the basis of the Council so as to m:1ke both bmnches of the Legislatlll'e as represent:1-tive as possible. By altering the con­stitution of the Council as I suggest, the two I-louses will be far more likely to work harmoniously together. As to the 3rd part of the Bill, which provides for the plebiscite, I desire to say that I have seen no renson to alter my views in regard to the pleuiseite. The plebiscite is a p:1mllol of manhood sutImge. The lIrgumonts that 11:1ve beo11 llsed against it might with equal force ue lltil'tl agllill~t muuhoou suffrage.

This House cau be dissolved on a great constitutional question, which may have to be submitted to the constituencies hur­riedly and quickly; and if the constituen­cies call be intrusted to decide upon such a question in the heat and passion of a general election, surely they may be in­trusted to decide upon a question when it is abstracted altogether from personal con­siderations. The same reasons and the same objections urged in the case of an election of members of this House would be urged in favour of or against the Bill remitted to the plebiscite, and in conse­quence the outcome would be identically the same. I think that those who argue against the plebiscite must in their hearts believe that the principle of manhood suf­frage is a mistake. I cannot refrain from that conclusion, because I cannot see the difference between a man exercising :1 vote " Yes" or " No" upon an abst.ract ques­tion of legislation such as payment of members, and reconling a vote in my f:1vour when I say I will go in for half-a­dozen or a dozen different kinds of taxa­tion. If an elector can discriminate whe­ther I am or am not a fit and proper person to represent him, and he must take me very much upon credit, he is fully compe­tent to record bis vote on an abstract question of legislation. I believe that if the question of payment of members had been submitteu to the country, by plebis­cite, in the naked form whether there should be p:1yment of members or no­before the last struggle on the question in Parliament-it would have been negatived. But I am inclined to think that if the question were submitted now, it would be upheld by the people. When the Legis­lative Council showed its animus against this House by seeking to destroy payment of members, and thereby to destroy the force and power of a majority in this House, many men who previously were opposed to payment of members actually decided in f:1vour of it. I don't think the Council can be defended against the charge laid ag:1inst them of making the first aggressi ve movement in connexion with the last constitutional dead-lock. There can be no gainsaying the bct that they went out of their way to :1ddress the Governor praying him to withhold his assent from the putting of a certain amount in the Appropriation Bill when that action had 110t been seriously contempl:1ted­when it had not t:1ken pl:1ce. The :1ct was one of direct hostility to the majoriLy

Second Reading. [SEPTEMBER 23.J ~linth Nights Debate. 1151

in this House, who, seeing that the Coun­cil were going in for war, went in for war also. But if that question had been well and wisely considered at the time by the two Houses, if each Chamber had shown a spirit of conciliation and COll­

sideration towards the other, the disastrous dead-lock would never have taken place. No one regrets that dead-lock more than I do. We have not yet recovered from the results of that shock when the legis­lation of the country was entirely thrown out of gear. My opinion is that that dead-lock will be a lesson to the Council and to this House for many years to come. I hope the Ministry will see their way clear to amend the Bill in the direc­tion I have indicated. As one who desires the welfare of the country-and a more glorious country so far as natural re­sources go cannot be found-I wish this constitutional question settled; and I am inclined to think that there is a disposition, not only in this House-both on the opposition and on the Ministerial sides­but also elsewhere to have the question settled amicably, and at the same time so settled that there will not be a recurrence of dead-locks. I shall be most happy to assist in amending the Bill so as to make it acceptable. There is no use in urging extreme arguments in favour of the rights and privileges of this House. We ought to have no rights or privileges that are injurious to the interests of the people. If we possess rights which may be exer­cised to the detriment of the people whom we represent, instead of being Govern­ment for the people, we shall be Govern­ment against the people. Hence, I con­sider that the House, when in committee on the Bill, ought calmly and deliberately to consider the measure with the view to make it as acceptable as possible. I hope the Government will be prepared to make certain concessions with regan 1 to the 6th clause. There seems to be a contradiction among Ministers with regard to that provision. The Chief Secretary has e~pressed a willingness to allow the clause to be eliminated, and yet the Trea­surer says he never will give it np. I say that if the Government don't give up the 6th clause they must give up repre­senting the people, because I !1ln certain that the principle foreshadowed in that clause is not a principle believed in by the people. I am certain that the people will never give their approval to it. ""Ve may arouse the passions of the people, but

if we arouse the passions of the people in a wrong direction can we curb those pas­sions afterwards ? You may make the people unreasonable in their demands, you may satisfy those demands, but can you then restrict their demands in other directions? No. When the Government become wet-nurse to the people, and when the people begin to rely upon the Govern­ment for employment, the people will be­gin to menace the Government. They will say-" We put you in your places, and you must find us employment." If the people are induced to believe that the Government will be their" pater noster," they will not easily be disabused of the impression-they may not be disabused of it without confusion and anarchy in the whole of our institutions. The Minister of Railways states that the Government are going in not for an amendment of the Constitution, but for reconstruction. But reconstruction is a French device, and moans the Lringing about of chaos, ruin, and confusion, and then endeavouring to construct some other edifice. It is con­trary to the English notion-it is contrary to the traditions of the people fi'om whom we have sprung, and with ·whom I hope we shall a.l ways be connected. What use is there in saying-" Yonder is our poli­tical haven, the elysium which we wish to l'each," if we have to descend to poli­tical bankruptcy and perdition only to find that we have been pursuing an ignis fatuus-a phantom of the mind? I say that the rights which the Bill claims for this House are deluaive. They never can be conceded. The people will never allow them to be conceded be­cause they are extravagant and unjusti­fiable. At the same time the people are desirous that the reform question should be settled. 'Vhile it remains unsettled everything is in a chronic state of disorder. But thero never can be a satisfactory settlement so long as such extreme preten­sions are put forward on behalf of this branch of the Legislature. The sooner we get back to sober sense and proper views the better for the country at large. The people are heartily sick of the con­stitutional struggle. I feel sick and tired of it when I see how insincere the Govern­ment seem to be in the matter. If there is a real desire to settle the question, I don't think there can be any more favor­able time than the present. This is the real day of grace. It is fnst passing away, and, if prompt advantage be not

1152 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY. ] Amendment Bill.

taken of it, we will realize some time hence, to our great chagrin, that we have misapplied our opportunities.

Mr. LANGRIDGE.-Mr. Speaker, I shall not attempt to follow the honorable member for Mandurang (Mr. Williams) in his lengthy political disquisition. It was a saying of Napoleon Bonaparte that every French soldier carried a marshal's baton in his knapsack, and it appears to me that almost every honorable member has a Reform Bill of his own. The hon­orable member for Mandurang, it is true, is favorable to the plebiscite; hut no one has spoken more against the Bill than the honorable member or found more fault with it, and yet he is going to vote for the second reading. But with the views he holds I cannot understand how he can vote for the second reading, and thus pro­fess himself a fdend to the Ministry. I feel great reluctance in speaking on this occasion, because it is evident, from the state of the House night after night, that the debate is pretty well exhausted, and that the sooner we come to a division the better. I don't suppose that any argu­ment which may now be used is likely to alter the result one iota, because I have not the slightest doubt that every honor­able member has made up his mind how he will vote. The question of constitutional reform has been before the country, more or less, for the last 15 years, and we are nearly in about the same position as when we started. One of the largest volumes of Hansard is filled with the speeches made on the Norwegian scheme brought forward by the Francis Government­speeches which, though made by honorable members who now sit in opposition, I must say are very similar to those now made from the Ministerial side of the House. And yet honorable members opposite are unabJe to support the Ministerial propo­sals. I think that now we have in office a Government prepared to fight the battle of the people and obtain reform, they ought to be assisted as much as possible. Certainly they ought not to be voted straight against, as the Opposition will vote, no matter what may be their propo­sitions. We never hear suggestions pro­ceed from the opposition side of the House with the view of settling the present con­stitutional _ difference, and it appears that the Government cannot expect support from that quarter, although they are only carrying out in a somewhat different form

> the views with respect- to reform formerly

advocated by honorable members in oppo­sition. Is not this sufficient to justify the inquiry whether those honorable mem­bers were sincere in the avowals they made to this House when the Norwegian scheme was under consideration? Hon­orable members who sit behind the Government have frequently been taunted with following the Government in a servile way. But I would like to ask how the Government are to carryon unless they have a majority? Do the Opposition desire the making of some arrangement whereby a Ministry, after being say two years in office, should retire, and change places with the Opposition? I think Ministerial members are treated unfairly when the accusation I refer to is hurled against them because, as a matter of fact, Ministerial supporters frequently vote with the Opposition, whereas a member of the Opposition never dreams of voting in support of the Ministry. What I say is illustrated by the divisions on the Tariff. The Chief Secretary gave the House to un­derstand that honorable members could vote as they pleased on the Tariff, and, in con­sequence, on the occasion of the first divi­sion, several Ministerial members crossed the House and voted against the Govern­ment; but no members of the Opposition have voted on the Ministerial side, al­though many of them are protectionists. With regard to the position of parties on the reform question, I have been at the trouble to ascertain for myscli how we stand at this particular juncture. I find that we have a distinct straight opposition vote of 27 all told. I take from the Ministerial side all the doubtful, dissatis­fied, and disappointed members, because it cannot be supposed that a Governmeni could carryon for an entire Parliament without offending some of their supporters; and after all this is done, I have no hesi­tation in prophesying that when the divisions take place, the second and third readings will be carried by an absolute majority of this House. In that event, I think the Government will be justified in claiming a victory. Now there are three questions to which I desire to draw attention. The first is-Who prepared our Constitution? The second-How has it worked? The third - What amendments have been made in it? Recently I took the trouble to look over the votes and proceedings of the old Legislative Council when the Constitution was being framed, and I found that almost

Second Reading. [SEPTEMBER 23.J Ninth Night!s Debate. 11.53

every proposition which had for its object the liberalizing of the Constitution, and the placing of power in the hands of this House, was lost by a large majority-the minority usually numbering only four.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-The honor­able member is quite wrong.

Mr. LANGRIDGE.-On one or two occasions I found that the honorable mem­ber for Belfast figured among the" four." Of course it was only natural that the framers of the Constitution should seek to take all the advantage they possibly could to themselves. Although I would be glad of the introduction of' a rule to prevent honorable members quoting H an­sard when it is more than three or four years old, ~ cannot refrain from showing how careful the framers of the Constitu­tion were to take care of themselves, and make their position impregnable. The 28th section of the Constitution Act pro­vides as follows :-

"It shall be lawful for the Governor to fix such places within Victoria, and, subject to the limitation herein contained, such times for hold­ing the first and every other session of the Council and Assembly, and to vary and alter the same respectively in such manner as he may think fit; and also from time to timtf to pro­rogue the said Council and Assembly; and to dissolve the said Assembly, by proclamation or otherwise, whenever he shall deem it expedient. Provided that nothing herein contained shall empower the Governor to dissolve the Council."

I will call attention to one other section -the 60th-which enacts-

" The Legislature of Victoria, as constituted by this Act, shall have full power and authority, from time to time, by any Act or Acts, to repeal, alter, or vary all or any of the provisions of this Act, and to substitute others in lieu thereof. Provided it shall not be lawful to present to the Governor of the said colony, for Her Majesty's assent, any Bill by which an alteration in the Constitution of the said Legislative Council or Legislative Assembly, or in the said schedule hereunto annexed, marked D, may be made, unless the second and third readings of such Bill shall have been passed with the concurrence of an absolute majority of the whole number of the members of the Legislative Council and of the Legislative Assembly respectively."

So that there can be no dissolution of the Legislative Council, and no alteration of the Constitution can be brought about,

. without the concurrence of an absolute majority of the whole number of the members of each House.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-The framers of the Constitution wanted, in the first instance, to make the majority a two­thirds majority as in New South Wales,

but the liberal members succeeded in having it reduced to a bare majority.

Mr. LANGRIDGE.-It strikes me that the gentlemen who framed the Con­stitution Act knew what they were doing. I notice further that while frequent alter­ations have been made in the Constitution, so far as this House is concerned, only one has been made to affect the Legisla­tive Council. A further fact which I cannot avoid noticing is that the care which the framers of the Constitution took of themselves applies not only to this colony but the mother country. They took care that in any differences between the Legislative Council and this House, the former should be well repre­sented in England. Why until the Chief Secretary went to England we had no voice there. My attention has been more particularly called to this fact by a perusal of the "Further correspondence respecting the late differences between the two Houses of the Legislature of Victoria." Among the papers, I find a document setting forth the following :-

"Yesterday, an influential deputation, con­sisting of members of the Victorian Legislature, magistrates, merchants, members of the learned professions, and landowners in the Australian colonies, had an interview with Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, at the Colonial-office, to point out the errors into which they considered Sir George Bowen, the Governor of Victoria, had fallen by his recent conduct with respect to the payment of members of the Legislature of Victoria, and his conduct generally during the recent crisis."

And who were the gentlemen that formed the deputation. Here are the names :-

" Sir Charles Stirling, Mr. Dennistoun Wood, Mr. James A. Youl, Mr. George Armitage, Mr. Robert Landale, Mr. Bruce Smith, Mr. Myles Patterson, Mr. S. W. Silver, Mr. John Carter, Mr. H. G. Archer, Mr. F. J. Dalgety, Mr. F. A. Ducroz, and Mr. W. J. Mattison."

Now I have been in the colony 26 or 27 years, and the only names in this list with which I am familiar are those of Mr. Dennistoun Wood, who is an ex-Attorney­General of Victoria, and was at one time a member of this House, and Mr. Armi­tage; and yet these gentlemen had the impertinence to go to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and lecture him about the conduct of our Governor. Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, in the course of his reply to the deputation, said-

"I think the point which your address sought to bring principally before me was that with which I am chiefly concerned, viz., the conduct of the Governor in the crisis. Now I am bound to say that I regretted to hear the expression made use of by the last speaker, who Raid that Sir

1154 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

George Bowen had been guilty of deliberate partiality to the mob. I think it should be borne in mind that as lately as May last there was a general election, at which, in the popular Assembly of the colony, co~responding to the English House of Commons, a large majority was returned in favour of the present Ministry, and that, as a general rule, the Governor of a colony ought to act on the advice of his respon­sible Ministry:"

I don't know how this matter may strike this House, but, to use the mildest pos­sible term, I think it a very great liberty for any body of gentlemen to go to the Secretary of State, and use the language which, according to Sir Michael Hicks­Beach's reply, was used on that occasion. Had the Chief Secretary or the honorable member for Castlemaine (Mr. Pearson) used such language while in England, would we not have heard about it? I would like to know who these gentlemen are, and what interest they have in the colony.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-Any one of them has more interest in the colony than any man in this House.

Mr. LANGRIDGE.-How? Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-By property. Mr. LANGRIDGE.-I have always

found that those gentlemen know pretl,y well how to take care of themselves. During this debate a great deal has been talked about moderation. But where has been the moderation of the Legislative Council? Have they shown at any time a desire to submit to the will of the people? They have done everything they possibly could to strengthen their posi­tion, and they sit on their seats and set this House and the country at defiance. Last session, when our Bill for the reform of the Constitution was under considera­tion, the Legislative Council brought for­ward another Bill as a counter attraction. I read through that Bill with some care, and, if I recollect aright, I could find nothing in it that showed a desire to con­ciliate this Chamber in any way. We are told that we ought to be moderate, but I am sure we have all along been moderate, and that the people of the country think we have been moderate. Instead of the Council's Bill being a conciliatory one it is one designed to strengthen their posi­tion. What is its object? To enlarge the basis of the Upper House ill every way. Then there is tho other Bill intro­duced in the Council this session. My belief is that to carry the Reid-cum-Munro proposition-I have no expectation that

it ever will be carried-would be equiva­lent to sweeping this House away altoge­ther. Heduce the Council franchise to a £10 rating, and you pract.ically adopt the manhood suffrage this House is based upon. The vote of one House would then practically be the same as the vote of the other.

Mr. BLACKETT.-Would the Coun­cil be able to initiate Money Bills?

)\1:r. LANGRIDGE.-The other Re­form Bill, which was brought into the Council last week, I have not yet had the pleasure of reading. I make these few remarks in order to show that I don't think this Chnmber so much to blame as some honorable members try to make out. If there was the slightest evidence of a desire elsewhere to come to terms with this House in any reasonable style, there are plenty of honorable members sitting behind the Government who would be glad to meet it half-way. As to the Bill before us, which embodies what the House bas so often adopted before, it is my inten­tion to refer to it only very briefly. I don't think that, after the explanation on the subject the Chief Secretary gave us the oth'er night, anything I can say on the point would enlighten honorable members much. One thing the honorable member for Belfast said, in his speech, struck me very strongly indeed. He assumed the present Bill to be carried in this House, rejected else,yhere, sent to the country at a general election, adopted by this House again, and rejected elsewhere again, and he asked-" Where shall we be then?" "VeIl, I suppose we shall be in Victoria. But, joking apart, I think I would very much mistake the tone of Sir Michael Hicks·Beach's despatch, and also the tone of English feeling, if I did not believe that, under the circnmstances the honorable member describes, the Bill would some­how become law.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-'Vhat do you think ought to be done in such a case, to make it law?

Mr. LANGRIDGE.-That is another subject. I don't say I approve of every­thing in the Bill; but it won't do for every honorable member, with reference to such a subject, to insist upon following wholly his own little fancies. The great object I aim at is the passing of a measure that will put an end to dead-locks, stop the injury now being dOlle to trade, and take away some of the power of the Upper House; and I would vote for a

Second Reading. [SEPTEMBER 23.J Ninth Nigltt's Debate. 1155

Bill that would achieve such a result even though it was brought forward by the Opposition. One remark, before I sit down, about the plebiscite. My own no­tion is that a great deal of the objection entertained towards that principle is on account of the name by which it is called. It would be thought far more acceptable if it were called a poll of the people. People say it is an un-English thing. Well, I remember when-I was a lad in London at the time-a motion was annu­ally moved in the House of Commons for the adoption of the ballot, and the stock argument against it was that it was un-English. But what do the people who then abused the principle of the ballot on that aocount think of it now? Have not many who used to curse the ballot lived to bless it? Has it not done an immense amount of good in reducing election ex­penses, putting a stop to bribery and in­timidation, and in a variety of other ways? I cannot help looking at the plebiscite in much the same light, and fancying that inasmuch as we sent the ballot to England we might send them another good prin­ciple as well. I am sorry we have not the plebiscite at the present time, for its ex­istence would at all events tend to shorten this debate. When I look at how our geneml elections are conducted, how many questions are brought at .such times before the electors, and how 1.he personal cha­mcteristics of a man have often as much to do with his election or rejection as his politics, it seems to me that it would be of immense advantage to us if we were able to put one issue at a time before the country, and so get with respect to it a clear answer about which there would be no mis­take. From how much, for instance, might the country have been saved if, when the agitation on the subject reached a certain stage, we could have put the issue of con­stitutional reform by itself to the consti­tuencies, and obtained a straight and direct expression of the wishes of the country on the matter? One thing seems to me certain, namely, that if the plebiscite were once introduced here it would scarcely ever be made any use of. Naturally nei ther House would feel any particula.r desire that it should be resorted to, while the mere fact of it being possible to use it would serve as a beneficial restraint upon both of them. I sincerely hope the set­tlement of the present question will not occupy us much longer. At all events, if the Bill is to be rejected by the Council,

the sooner it is before the country the better. Under these circumstances, I hope the Bill will be sent elsewhere with as little delay as possible, and that, directly the honorable members of another place have dealt with it, the Government will get through the Estimatell, bring the session to a close, and then go before the constituencies, and fight the battle out.

Mr. ZOX.-Sir, it was my intention to have dealt at some length with the details of this Bill, but, in view of the great length to which the debate has already been extended, and the exhaustive nature of many of the speeches made against the measure from this (the opposition) side of the House, I will instead treat the matter in a more general aspect, and with comparative brevity. At the same time, fully realizing as I do the important rela­tions that exist between the settlement of the present question and the well-being of the country, it is impossible for me to content myself with recording a silent vote on the subject. I will now, as con­cisely as I can, place before the House the reasons which lead me to give. my voice against the Bill as one which I con­cei ve to be by no means acceptable to the people of the country. The honorable member for Collingwood (Mr. Langridge) intimated that he knew full well that it was impossible for him to influence any honorable member on the opposition side of' the Honse. He also told us not only that the Government were able to carry their measure by a majority, but that he could name the honorable members who would vote in its favour. In that way he proved to us how extremely good is the organization of the honorable members Oll

the Government benches. I can only re­ply to him that there is, so far as I know 01' am concerned, no such organization on the opposition benches. Every honorable member on this side of the House will, when he addresses himself to the present quesiion, simply give expression to his conscientious convictions, and by those convictions, and not by any party ties or obligations, will he be guided. I mention this because to us, who are led by our reason and honest belief, it appears almost miraculous that the honorable member for Collingwood should be able at the present stage-before the arguments for or against the Bill are conclnded-to state precisely what honorable membera will vote in its favour.

1156 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

Mr. LANGRIDGE.-I spoke accord­ing to my opinion.

Mr. BILLSON.-Y ou know well en­ough how many will vote on your side.

Mr. ZOX.-I do not know with any certainty what more than one honorable member on the opposition side will do in the matter. I have, of course, some idea as to how the honorable members who have expressed themselves against the Bill will vote with regard to it, but that is some­thing totally different from the exact knowledge professed by the honorable member for Collingwood. To come to some of the statements that have been made on the Ministerial side in support of the Bill. In the first place, I don't know how to reconcile the remarks offered by the Chief Secretary regarding the present measure with those that came from him with respect to the Bill of last session. When the honorable gentleman went to England on his famous embassy, what did we on the opposition side of the House say? We prognosticated from the first that his mission would prove an utter failure. We pointed out to him that, until he had unmistakably ascertained what the opinions of the people of the country on the subject of reform were, he had no right to go home and ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies to grant a change in our Constitution. But when he had gone, and there appeared in the Minis­terial newspapers, day after day, telegrams from England stating that he had obtained the sympathy of the leading members of the English liberal party, and that his interviews with Sir Michael Hicks-Beach were altogether favorable, matters ap­peared in quite 11 different light. Then it seemed as though dead-locks in Victoria were for ever abolished, and that every­thing the Government wished to gain was to be conceded. But what did we dis­cover afterwards to be the actual result of his endeavours? I ask the Chief Sec­retary, who took with him to England a measure of reform that had been passed in this Chamber by overwhelming majori­ties, what has become of that Bill? Where is it? It is abandoned. In its stead he has brought forward another Reform Bill which is even worse thau its prede­cessor. When that former Bill was before us, the honorable gentleman spoke in its behalf as follows :-

"And here I wish to enforce very strongly upon honorable members the fact that there is nothing asked for in the Bill which I seek to

introduce that this House does not possess at present-that is not contained in the Constitu­tion Act. The only effect of the Bill is to pre­vent the exceptional exercise of those powers in a way that would be dangerous and inconve­nient to the community." If the Bill was of such a character why did he not stick to it? Why does he now ask his supporters to abandon that Bill and vote for one totally different in prin­ciple? I am quite sure the country will never be satisfied until they know what has been done with the former measure. How is it that when the Chief Secretary came back from England he was welcomed with a magnificent ovation, to get up which all manner of means were resorted to, and that we find now not only that his mission was generally unsuccessful, but that he did not secure a single thing he went home for? Except that the country has paid £5,000, for the expenditure of which nothing in the shape of an account has been rendered - we cannot get the smallest piece of information on the sub­ject-we seem to be now exactly where we were before ever the embassy was appointed. In point of fact, neither the Chief Secretary nor the honorable member for Castlemaine (Mr. Pea.rson) who was his colleague on the embassy, will tell the House the slightest thing about what they did when they were in. England, or what they have to show for the money the colony so freely expended. But to return to the Reform Bill of last session. Let us look at what, when it was before us, the Chief Secretary said respecting it. He told us-

"I want honorable members to put before themselves the fact that this Bill is no mere stalking-horse. It is not something that is to be talked over for a few nights, and then cast into. the waste-paper basket." But how is that statement borne out? I assert that the Bill was a stalking-horse, and the sequel shows that it has found its way to the waste-paper basket.. Further on in the same speech, he stated-

"I challenge every honorable member to· have clear views on the subject, and to know whither he is going. For myself, I knowex­actly whither I am going. I occupy the platform I have always occupied." Later in the debate, he spoke thus :-

"Now the difficulty of dealing with men who don't stick to a thing is that one is always liable to misconception. One is apt to be led into a cul de sac.· What one says in good faith is not used in good faith. One is apparently put in the wrong by being told-' If you will do so much, why will you not do a little more?' If one does a little more, it is asked -' Why

Second Reading. [SEPTEMBER 23.] Ninth Night's Debate. 1157

cannot yon do something else?' and so on. . . " I assure the honorable member for Maldon that nothing short of a resolution of the Legislative Council affirming the basis proposed by Mr. Reid, which threw so much dust+ in the eyes of the House, would justify honorable members in giving up the well-matured Reform Bill which we took months to consider. (An Honorable Member-' Which Bill you have already with­drawn.') Which Bill will yet become the law of the land. (Mr. Service-' Plebiscitum and all? ') The honorable member knows that when things have come to a certain point there is no longer room for withdrawal. Why be­tween 50 and 60 honorable members of this Chamber have affirmed the principle of that Bill, and are now just as strongly in its favour as ever."

But the Bill that was to become the law of the land is now completely thrown on one side, and one of an entirely opposite character is proposed in its place. Yet never was any Government of Victoria in a better position to carry a measure of constitutional reform than were the pre­sent Government when they came into office. I will tell honorable members why they were in that position. The Legisla­tive Assembly, as a body, then consisted of Members of Parliament each of whom had just been returned on the understand­ing that some measure of constitutional reform was an absolute necessity. Nor has the position of the Government in that regard in any way changed. When I was before my constituents, only a few weeks ago, I told them that if the Govern­ment brought forward any measure of constitutional reform which I could at all agree with, as something that w~uld cure dead-locks and give effect to the voice of the people, I would do everything I could to support it. But I could not give my adhesion to their Bill of last session, nor can I support that now before us. Why it means the utter annihilation of the Council. J t proposes to give immense weight to the rights and privileges of this House, but it makes those of another place of no account whatever. Besides, ,the Chief Secretary knows perfectly well that if he can carry its second reading he can only do so by a bare majority. He knows, moreover, that, supposing it to reach another place, there is not a single honorable member there whom he could get to take the measure in hand. Does he not also know that it is a Bill that is by no means acceptable to the people of the country? I ask him why did he bring before us such a mockery, delusion, and sham of a Bill? Is he not aware that, even if the Bill is

read a second time here, very many of its supporters so far will, when it is in committee, vote against some of its most fundamental principles. and have pro­mised that if those principles are re­tained they will vote altogether against the measure at its third reading? My strong impression is that the Government thern­sel ves do not believe in their Bill, and I am thoroughly convinced that their supporters do not. I am in no way re­sponsible for the motives of the honor­able members who sit on the Government benches, but it seems most strange that, for the mere sake of showing their con­stituents that they want constitutional reform, the.y are ready to vote for the second reading of a measure the funda­mental features of which they condemn. Speaking in my position as an indepen­dent member, it appears to me that they would better do their duty to the country and to themselves were they to vote alto­gether against what they don't believe in. 'IV e are told on every hand that the voice of the people, when it has been expressed at the ballot-box, ought to become law. With that doctrine I most thoroughly agree. Moreover, I assert that so long as legislative matters are conducted in a constitutional way, every measure of which the people distinctly express them­selves in favour at the ballot-box must per­force become the law of the'land. But upon the present Bill or its predecessor have the people ever had an opportunity of expressing an opinion? No, they have not. I wish they had had such an oppor­tunity. I think an excellent plan of ob­taining the views of the people upon the subject would be that which Sir James McCulloch adopted with respect to the Education Bill of his Government. What did he do ? Just before Parliament was dissolved he introduced the measure, which was read a first time and ordered to be printed; and then it went before the country, and the constituenciys were able, at the general election, to express an opinion upon it. Why I think some sUGh course should be adopted with regard to the present Rill is that, supposing the measure were, during the present session, agreed to by both Houses, the result would be a fundamental alteration of the Con­stitution carried into law without the people of the country having had a chance of expressing their views upon the subject, or being consulted with respect to it in the ordinary . constitutional way. According

1158 Constitution Act [ASSEM13LY.] Amendment Bin

to my views, that is a state of things that ought not to arise. But, after all, what chanco has the Chief Secretary of gettillO' his Reform Bill passed into law?

b • He has been shown orer and over agam that carrying his measure into effect means the adoption of a principle wholly antagonistic to the BI'itish Constitution. The Imperial law officers of the Crown have placed the fact of that. a?tagonis~ beyond a doubt. They have distmctly laId it down that under the British Constitution no Supply Bill can become operative until it has been passed by all the branches of the Legislature. Yet the honorable gentle­man calmly asks us to adopt a measure which will make public moneys available upon the vote of this ~ranch. of the Legislature alone. I don t beheve the people of the colony are at all in favour of any such arrangement. I am convinced they simply wish the colony to be governed by the rules and practice of the British Parliament and the British Constitution. The Chief Secretary is totally unwar­ranted in telling them that there is consti­tutional justification for such a proposition as that contained in clause 6, which no Imperial Ministry would dare to ask the Imperial Parliament to agree with. Does he suppose that the Government in Eng­land would consider the case of Victoria by itself-would regard it as a colony to which concessions might be made specially and independently? Let us look at the present subject in that light for a m~m.ent. The British Government govern mIllIons of colonial subjects-populous colonies in every part of the world. If w~at t~e Bill proposes were conceded to VIctorIa, is there another British colony that would not demand to be equally treated? When we look at the question in this aspect, do not new and very important considerations arise? Let me, at this point, quote an extract from an anonymous pamphlet re­cently published in Melbourne. It is as follows :-

"The political reformer should endeavour to legislate in conformity with the customs 3;nd established practices of the people. To gIve absolute power to one Chamber in respect to Money Bins is not in accord with the customs and established practices of the English. people. Bills of this character have always receIved the sanction of and much discussion from the Upper House of Legislature. The question which the political reformer is called on to solve is whether the probable advantage of his in~ovation may be expected to outweigh its certain disadvan­tages. Now the characteristic objec~ of politi.cal theorists is considered to be-that m .resolvmg

Mr. Zox.

tbis practical problem, tbey estimate. at its fuli va.lue thc proba.blc advantages of thClr refor~s, whilc they make )]0 allowanc~ for the. c,: ds arisiug from an interference WIth the CXlstmg habits feelings, and modes of thought, and for the co~nteractions to which their measures will be exposed. They cons~der socie~y, it.is said, as a mere subject of expenment, whlCh, hke a .dead body under the kJ?-if? of the surge~m, or l~ke a metal in the chemIst s laboratory, IS deVOId of sensation."

It is 'beyond a doubt that the Government have never given their constitutional re­form proposals the mature. considerati~n that the subject of altermg the mam principles upon which the government of this country is carried on most certainly deserves. Look at what they have done. Last session they brought forward a Reform Bill, which was cheered to the echo by their sup­porters, and carried through this House by enormous majorities, and they have let it become-what? Mere waste paper. Moreover, I prognosticate !hat this Bi~l, which is now a mere stalkmg-horse, WIll

also become in the end merely so much waste paper. Supposing it were passed into law this session, what right have we to assume that the wishes of the people would be thereby complied with? A majority of this Chamber do not neces­sarily represent a majority of the people. The last Government-that of Sir James McCulloch-had a majority behind them in this House, but when Parliament was dissolved, and a general election took place, it turned out that popular feeling was strongly. against them. Again, wh,ne I don't say he was actually wrong III .so doing, was not the conduct of the ChIef Secretary infra dig. when, the other day, he addressed the electors of Geelong upon the subject of the present Bill, although it was then so far sub judice as to be, as it is now, still under consideration in this House? Did his action on that occa­sion indicate any inclination on his part towards compromise or concession? Yet is not the present time especially one for compromise and concession? John Stuart Mill says-

" The same reason which induced the Romans to have two consuls makes it desirable that there should be two Chambers; that neither of them may be exposed to the corrupting influence of undivided power, even for th.e space of a single year. One of the most lDdlspen~3;ble requisites in the practical conduct. of POli.tlCS, especially in the management of free lUstIt~tlOns, is conciliation; a readiness to compromise; a willingness to concede something to opponents, and to shape good measures so as to be as little

Second Reading. [SKPTEl\1BER 23.J JYinti" .Nigltt'sDebate. 1159

offensive as possible to persons of opposite views, and of this salutary habit the mutual give and take (as it has been called) between two Houses is a perpetual school j useful as such even now, and its utility would probably be even more felt in a more democratic constitution of the Legis­lature."

Why does not the Chief Secretary take that advice to heart? Can he be said to be endeavouring to promote the best inter­ests of the colony when, at every turn, he strives his utmost to bring one branch of the Legislature into public contempt? , N ext let honorable members look at the shape he gives to his propositions. At. Geelong, the other day, he told his con- ; stitnents-

"If no other effect had been gained by my journey to England, the fact that a conservative Government recognised the moderartion of the requests of the liberal party in this colony, and endorsed them, was a great gain, and one which our opponents thought impossible of achieve­ment." How is that consistent with the fact that he never presented his Reform Bill to the Secretary of State for the Colonies at all ? Besides, where is the moderation of that measure? What are really the results of the embassy? N ever was there a more gigantic failure. Moreover, the £5,000 that appears to have been absorbed by the' Chief Secretary and his fellow commis­sioner is a mere drop in the ocean com­pared with the loss the prolongation of the present agitation has caused to the com­mercial and trading community of the colony.

Mr. BIRD drew attention to the fact that there was not a quorum present:

A quorum having been formed, Mr. ZOX said-I will next ask honorable

members to listen to a short extract from an article on "Modern Parliaments," written by the honorable member for Castlemaine, and puNished in the July number of the Fortnightly Review. I will mention at this stage that I a~ pleased to find, from the honorable mem­ber's speech the other night, that his ideas on the subject of constitutional reform have undergone some little modification; but still I think a leader of public opinion ought to have more settled views than he appears to possess. In allusion to the Parliament of Victoria, his article makes the following statement :-. "Under this system all maintenance of defi­

nite principles is of course impossible, and the only interest in politics is to watch the fluc­tuating fort'Q,nes and com9inations of successive gangs of a:dventurers. The smallness of con­stituencies, and the large means at the disposal

of an unscrupulous Minister for bribing a needy district by public works, make the appeal to the country on the reconstruction of Cabinets a mere formality for the worst offenders. It is not in ordinary human virtue to reject a man who has carried a rail way at a heavy loss to the State up a steep hill to benefit his constituents, has given them a large system of waterworks, and every possible public institution, and who can confer new favours if he remains in office."

In this passage the author of the article, in his capacity as a Victorian legislator, makes a very distinct charge. I wonder whether, when he wrote what I have quoted, he had in his mind's eye the way in wh~ch the railway system of this colony has been made subseryient to politics. Will he say that a plebiscite might not be governed by means of promises on the side of the Government, and expectations of favours to come on the side of the electors? When the Chief Secretary was at Geelong, he spoke of the "U nited States of Australia." I would like to know what the expression, as it came from his lips, was intended to mean? If he alluded to a severance of our connexion with the mother country, I am sure no one could make a greater mistake than he did.

Mr. BERRY.-How do you know I alluded to that?

Mr. ZOX.-The langua~ admits of scarcely any other interpretation.

Mr. BERRY.-Can you speak for 100 years hence?

Mr. ZOX.-The use of such language at the present juncture implies that it must be taken to apply to the present juncture; and I assert that the'people of Australia could not be more libelled than by the Chief Secretary or anyone else saying or implying that they are not loyal to the Crown, or that they desire seve­rance from Great Britain. . Again, the people of. this colony were most grossly libelled when _ the Chief" Secretary,. told his hearers at Chelsea that he was abso­lutely afraid to walk the streets of Mel­bourne for fear of personal violence. He must know that among his bitterest opponents there is not a man who would not at almost any risk protect him or any Chief Secretary from anything of the kind.

Mr. F. L. SMYTH.-Would you do so? Mr~ ZOX.-If anyone held up his

hand against the Chief Secretary I would protect him to the utmost of my ability. For the honorable gentleman to say

1160 Constitution Act [ARSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

what he did of the people of a British colony was a· gross unjustifiable libel upon them. I ask the Chief Secretary whether there is a member on this (the opposition) side of the House who has not expressed his desire for constitu­tional reform, and his opinion that we can obtain it if we will only set about the work in a spirit of mutual concession? Again, the Chief Secretary said-

"The intelligence of the people is being put to one of the severest tests ever applied in any country. Money will not be spared, influence will not be spared, truth will be disregarded, scandals and libels will be uttered, with the object of preventing reform."

N ow is that true? Will the Chief Secre­tary adhere to that statement, having heard the leader and every member of the Opposition say they are anxious to assist in carrying a reasonable scheme of refotm? Surely it is not the part of a statesman to put false cries of this kind before the people. No one is more anxious for reform than I am, but I will not there­fore accept this unreasonable and un­English scheme proposed by the Chief Secretary. What did the honorable gentleman say further? He said-

"We have been brought face to face with difficulties that, in other countries, would have been settled by revolutions. We have borne and forborne until to bear any longer will not be a merit, and will not be consistent with our own manhood."

Is that, I ask, a proper utterance for the leader of a great party in a British colony to make to his constituents while Parlia­ment is discussing a scheme of reform? I tell the Chief Secretary that he had no right, while his Bill was being calmly and deliberately debated in this House, to deliver an address on a public platform calculated to irritate and to engender ill­feeling over the colony by containing state­ments which were without a scintilla of foundation. I would really ask the Chief Secretary to pause before pledging even his followers to support a Reform Bill of this description. I am quite sure that several members on the Ministerial side of the House, if they were to express their conscientious convictions, would say they do not believe in the Bill. Even if the opinions of all the honorable members opposite who have spoken on the measure be analyzed, it will be found that none of them support the Bill in its entirety. After the opinion of the measure expressed by the honorable member for Mandurang

Mr.Zoz.

(Mr. Williams), I was surprised to hear him say that he would vote even for the second reading, for he objects to some of the fundamental principles of the Bill. Again, the honorable member for Colling­wood (Mr. Langridge), though he will sup­port the second reading, admits that he does not believe in several of the principles of the measure. When we have a question of such vital importance to deal with, cannot we, by mutual concession, come to some arrangement by which a measure of a last­ing character will be passed into law? For my part, I may say I give in my adhesion to certain portions of the Reform Bill now before the other Chamber. If the concessions offered in that Bill with re­ganl to the reduction of the qualification of members and electors of the Conncil, the shortening of the tenure of seats, and the liability of the Council to a dissolution, had been offered some time ago, they would have been looked upon as wonder­fully liberal. The Government, however, want too much. They ask the Council to consent to a suicidal policy which would be utterly destructive of the dignity and usefulness of that Chamber. I would far rather see the Council wiped out altogether than established on the basis proposed by the Government. In fact it would be a saving of useless expense to do away with that Chamber if it is only to be a body without any power. The Government propose that, while divesting the Council of any control over Money Bill~, if they differ from the Assembly on any ordinary measure the decision is to be referred to the people. I have as much respect for the people as anyone, and I believe they are able to express an intel­ligent opinion on most matters, but when we read such language as the Chief ~ec­retary used at Geelong, what confidence can we have that the people would not be misled and prejudiced by having false views of questions placed before them? Of the plebiscite the anonymous Mel­bourne writer I have already quoted ex­presses views with which I thoroughly agree. He says-

"To this proposal the objections are numerous and insuperable. It is wholly opposed to the habits and customs of the English people, and to the principle of true representative govern­ment. It has been said that it is the trusteeship which gives so high a value to representative government. When the Athenians, trying the un­fortunate generals after the battle of Arginusre, were reminded that they acted in direct contra­diction to the laws, they exclaimed that they were the people, they made the laws, why should

Second Reading. [SEPTEMBER 23.J Ninth Night's Debate. 1161

they not have the privilege of disregarding them ? It is an adoption of the unicameral form of government, and is in fact the discovery of that absolute power which leads to 'unvarnished absolutism.' Historically it has proved a disas­trous failure. On the direct voice of the people, as expressed at the ballot-box, Louis Napoleon based his power and strangled the liberties of France. . . . . . It throws an enormous power into the hands of the Executive, and causes the virtual extinction of Parliament as a deliberative and legislative body. Again, in­stability in the form of government is most injurious to a country, and yet what hope can there be of stability where the people can change the form of government, whenever it suits their pleasure, by a mere majority of votes ?"

But that I believe with the honorable member for Collingwood that nothing said now is likely to alter a single vote, I would recommend those observations to the attention of honorable members who are inclined to support the plebiscite. To show the improbability of English states­men allowing this colony to adopt so dangerous a precedent as the plebiscite, I may quote the following remarks from a speech of Lord Brougham in the House of Lords, which shows what a watchful eye is kept 011 the colonies :~

"If you will have dominions in every clime; if you will rule subjects by millions on the op­posite sides of this globe; if you will undertake to administer a government that stretches itself over 1;>oth hemispheres, and boast an empire on which the sun never sets-it is well. Whether this desire be prudent or impolitic for yourselves

. I ask not-whether its fruits be auspicious or baneful to our own interest-I stop not to in­quire; nor do I raise the question, whether to the distant millions over whom you thus assume dominion this mighty and remote sceptre be a blessing or a curse. But of one thing I am ab­solutely certain; at all events this resolution to have so vast an empire imposes upon you the paramount duty of wakefulness over its con­cerns-it prescribes the condition that you shall be alive to its administration-vigilant at all times - that you shall not slumber over it, neither sleep, nor, like the sluggard, fold the hands to sleep, as if your orders were issued to a ,district each corner of which the eye could at each moment command, or a kingdom the communication with all parts of which is open every day and every hour, and where aU the orders you may issue are to be executed in the self-same circumstances in which they were conceived and were framed."

This speech was delivered when it was proposed to change the Constitution of Canada in 1838. And I may remark here that, in my opinion, with all our changes, we have never had better men to adminis­ter the affa~rs of this colony than the men who framed our Constitution. . There is another observation by Lord Brougham

VOL. xxx.-4 H

in the same speech to which I give my adhesion, namely :-

" Of all established Constitutions we are bound to speak with some respect, more or less; they have been tried, and at least been found to answer some of the purposes for which they were designed. But a wholly new and untried scheme is entitled to no respect at all beyond what its intrinsic merits claim; and as far as this scheme is comprehensible it appears emi­nently ridiculous."

I apply those remarks to the scheme for the reform of our Constitution submitted by the Government, and I say that "as far as this scheme is comprehensible it appears eminently ridiculous."

Mr. BROPHY.-Sir, although it may seem presumptuous on my part to detain the House at this hour of the night after the manner in which this debate has been conducted during the past two or three weeks, I trust the importance of the subject will sufficiently excuse me. The question is one which affects not only all the people in the colony at the present time, but will affect our children and chil­t11'en's children after us. When the last Reform Bill was before the House I voted on each occasion with the Government, although I candidly own that a portion of that measure did not accord with my views. I mentioned at the time to the Chief Secretary and other members of the Government the part of the Bill that I disagreed with, and they informed me that they were not tied very strongly to that portion of the measure, and that they were prepared to give way on certain points when they met the Upper House. Unfortunately, however, nothing came of the negotiations between the two Houses. Not only did I vote for the last Bill in its entirety, but I voted also for the embassy. Now, when I supported the embassy, I was under the impression that the object of the mission to England was that the dele­gates might take home the Reform Bill passed by this House. No one was more surprised than I was when, a short time after the Chief Secretary and his col­league had left "the colony, I saw it announced that the Chief Secretary had left the Reform Bill behind him, because I certainly thought that that measure would have been referred to the Secretary of State and the Imperial Government. I did not expect that the whole of the mea­sure would be accepted in England. On the contrary, I was of opinion that some of the clauses would be objected to there, and that the Chief Secretary would be

1162 Constitution Act (ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

told to come back to Victoria, pass the degenerated from the7itbility of their pre­measure again, omitting the obje9tionable decessors, for Sir M:ichael Hicks-Beach, clauses, and that if the Bill was again in his despatch, has sncceeded in pleasing rejected by the Council, and approved of all parties in this country, and if ever an by the people at'a general election, if the English statesman deserved a vote of Upper House once more refused to pass it, thanks from the people of this colony, the home authorities would give us relief he does. No sooner was the despatch by means of an Imperial Act to amend published here than it was claimed as a our Constitution. The Chief Secretary, great victory both by the newspapers however, chose to ask for advice instead, supporting the Government and those and what advice he got, beyond what is opposed to it ; and it appears further that contained in the despatch of the Secretary not only has Sir Michael Hicks-Beach of State, neither I nor any other member been successful in pleasing us but he has of the House have been informed. The pleased the Imperial Parliament also. As Chief Secretary, on returning to the far as the despatch is concerned, I hope colony, also left behind him the honorable both the Ministry and the Opposition will member for Castlemaine (Mr. Pearson) take a lesson from it. It has been truly to watch the debate that was expected to said that the despatch itself would make take place in the House of Commons on a valuable Act of Parliament for this Victorian politics. Unfortunately for colony. this country that debate did not take Major SMITH.-A portion of it is in place, but I would ask honorable members' this very Bill. ~ttention to the terms of the motion of Mr. BROPHY.-I hope the Govern­Mr. A. Mills on which the debate was ment will also include in their Bill the expected. The motion was as follows :- portion that is left out. I refer to the

" That, in the opinion of this House, Imperial moderate portion. With regard to the intervention in the Constitution of colonies Bill, while I agree with the honorable possessing representative government is unde- member for Collingwood (Mr. Langridge) sirable and inconsistent with the rights of self- that we cannot each get all we want in a government granted to such colonies unless such B intervention is officially solicited by both Houses Reform Bill, I mnst say this ill gives us of the Colonial Legislature." a great deal we don't want. I was sorry

to hear the honorable member for Cres­In view of that motion I think the hon-orable member for Carlton put a very wick (Mr. Richardson) say he would. vote

S against the Bill if the 6th clause were cut important question to the Chief ecretary ont, for I, for my part, should regret very wh~il he asked him was he prepared to

much if it were left in. That clause gives say that the home authorities would the Assembly full power, without let or pass the present Reform Bill if i,t were hindrance of any description, to vote away agreed to in this House. The Chief as much of the public money as it cho'oses, Secret.ary has not answered that question and that is. a power I would never up to the present time. and, if it be not agree to grant one Chamber. As to the thought impertinent, I would desire to second portion of the .Bill, I must express repeat it now. If this Bill is carried in my great regret at the proposal of the this House, will it be agreed to by the Government to reintroduce the nominee Home Government? system in this colony. My experience of

Mr. BERRY.-I have already said I nomineeism in this country has never left believe it will. my memory. I came here a young man

Mr. BROPHY.-But there is no gua- and went on the gold-fields, where I was ran tee that it will? hunted for the 30s. licence-fee, and the

Major SMITH.-How can we guaran- general cry then was-" Down with the tee the action of the Imperial Government nominee Council!" Having been free and Imperial Parliament? from the nominee system for 25 years, I

Mr. BROPHY. - At all events it is sincerely trust the Government will not desirable that the state of affairs in that persist in attempting to re-establish it in respect should be clearly understood. the colony again. The experience of the With regard to the despatch in reply to breakdown of the system in New South the delegates, I may say that, while tho "Wales, and still more recent.ly in Canada, statesmen of Great Britain have always should be sufficient to deter them from been noted for their talents, it is evident I ~oing so. Neither do I bel~eve that we a~e that those of the present' day have not hkely to get as good nomlllees under thIS

Second ileading.

Bill as wm;e some of t.he gentlemen who were members of the old nominee COllncil. I would not like to trust [my political party -eithe1' the present Government or the Opposition-with the selection of mem­bers of the ot.her Honse. I believe, with the honorable member for Mandnrang (J\fr. Williams), that political inflnence would be brought to bear on the appoint­ments, and that the result would not be beneficial to the welfare of the colony. I have no doubt that the lVlinister of PuOlic Instruction would try to get one or two members from the Ballarat district for the Upper House, and I know one or two gentlemen in that district whom we could afford to spare for the purpose. I believe after a while that Chamber would be so const.ituted from the repre­sentatives of the different parties that the fate of the Kilkenny cats would befall the members of the Legislative Council. As to the plebiscite, I voted for it in the last Bill, and I would not like to vote aO'ainst it now, but I am not strongly in fav~ur of the system. I was very pleased to hear the Minister of Justice announce that he was not tied to the plebiscite or the 6th clause. If the Government take my advice with regard to this Bill, they will follow the example of a cer­tain tribe of North American Indians­the Sioux or Blackfeet, I think. This tribe, more barbarous than the others, not content with merely scalping, truncate their victims by cutting off the head and the legs. As the Minister of Justice expresses his willingness to give up the head and the tail· of the Bill, my advice to the Government would be to throw away the trunk also. I think it would be to theit interest to do so, for if they go to the country on the nominee principle, I fear they will not come back as strong as they are now. I cannot imagine why on earth the Government are afraid to adopt the reform of the Upper House which has been supported for many years. I remember I was cheered to the echo when I told a large meeting of electors that I would like to see the Upper House liberalized, and I think we could not adopt a better system at the present t~me. As I said on the occasion I refer to, I woultl be in favour of reducing the qualification of members of that House from £2,.500 to £1,000, for I believe the electors would get as honest, able, and intelligent representatives in the Council in men only possessing £1,000 as

4H2

in men possessing £100,000. I would also be in favour of reducing the qUfilifi­cation of electors to £10, and would not ohject even to go as low as tho ratepayers' roll. I was pleased to hear the hon01'able member for 'Varrnambool and the honor­able member for Belfast announce, the other night, their willingness to accept £10 as the qualification for electors of the Council. \Vhile the honorable member for Warrnambool was speaking, I inter­jected-" Make it the ratepayers' roll," and I believe the honorable member would be pleased to assist in carrying out such a proposal. I would also divide the colony into ten districts, each returning three members to the Council-as I believe the present number of members is quite sufficient-and I think we could not do better than also adopt the muni­cipal system of making one member for each district retire every two years, one-third of the Council being thus elected every two years. I believe that is a fair measure of reform which would be sup­ported by every good citizen in the colony, and if the Government desire to have their names handed down as the saviours of our adopted country at a critical time, they cannot do better than accept the offer of the honorable member for Warrnambool and the honorable member for Belfast. If they do so they will, I believe, come back stronger from the country than ever they have been; but if they do otherwise, I am afraid they will return very much weaker than they are at present. I do not see why a liberal Government and the liberal party-above all others-should be afraid of intrusting the election of the Upper House to all the ratepayers of the colony. It is said that, so elected, the Council might overshadow the Assembly; but it must be remembered that the Council have no power to initiate or amend a Money or Tax Bill. I cannot agree with this Bill at all, and I think the Government ought to accept the amend­ment of the honorable member for Moira (Mr. Orr), and thank him for proposing it, for it will give them a chance of getting out of a very ·difficult positiol1. I intend to vote for the amendment, or for any other proposal which will keep the nominee principle out of this colony.

On the motion of Mr. RAMSAY, the debate was adjourned uuW next day.

The House adjourned at four minutes past eleven o'clock.

1164 . SpeaXer's Gallery. [ASSEMBLY.] Volunteer Force.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. Wednesday, September 24, 1879.

Speaker's Gallery: Accommodation for Ex-Members-Volun· teer Force: Colonels Hutton, Gardiner, and La Marchand - Railway Construction Bill - Railway Department: Monthly Tickets: Flinders-street Station: Management of Trains - Motions for Adjournment - Approaches to Parliament House - Melbourne Harbour Trust Bill­Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Bill-Mr. S. White, jun.-Constitution Act Amendment Bill: Second Reading: Tenth Night's Debate.

The SPEAKER took the chair at half­past four o'clock p.m.

SPEAKER'S GALLERY. Mr. MASON called attention to the

propriety of providing special accommo­dation in the Speaker's gallery for ex­members of the House, in the same way that special accommodation was provided for members of the Legislative Council. It was humiliating for ex-members to be shut out from hearing an important debate simply because seats were not set apart for them. He considered the presence of ex-members desirable from a public point of view, because the knowledge and ex­perience they possessed of parliamentary matters might sometimes be appealed to with advantage by those who took part in discussion in the House.

The SPEAKER.-I think it only rea­sonable that some arrangement should be made for the accommodation of ex­members of this House. I believe it was originally intended that the front row of that portion of the Speaker's gallery on the north side of the chamber should be set apart for ex-members, in the same way that the corresponding row in the other portion of the gallery is reserved for mem­bers of the Legislative Council; and, if it be the pleasure of the House, I will give directions that that row shall be kept for ex-members each evening up to the re­freshment hour, after which, if the seats are not occupied, they will be open to other persons. I may mention that, in the chamLers 'of Continental Legislatures, I have seen a special bureau reserved exclusively for ex-members.

VOLUNTEER FORCE. Mr. GAUNSON stated that he de­

sired to correct a mistake in the Argus report of what he said the previous even­ing about Lieut.-Colonel Hutton. The report represented him as saying that "Lieut.-Colonel Hutton did not receive

notice of the appointment of. the board until it was actually sitting." What he did say was that" until the sitting of the board, Lieut.-Colonel Hutton never knew the charges which were brought against him." He also desired to mention that probably he would call attention to Lieut.­Colonel Hutton's case next day on a motion for the adjournment of the House, because he did not think that an officer like Lieut.-Colonel Hutton should lie for a moment under unjust suspicion., In connexion with this matter he desired to ask the Treasurer whether, when he laid on the table the papers connected with Lieut.-Colonel Hutton's resignation of his position in the volunteer force, he would also produce the papers connected with the resignations of Lieut.-Colonel Le Marchand and Lieut.-Colonel Gardiner?

Major SMITH intimated his willing­ness to do so.

The SPEAKER.-Unless the papers are called for by motion passed by the House, it will not be competent for the Treasurer to lay them on the table.

Mr. RICHARDSON explained that the House ordered, the previous week, the production of the report of the board ap­pointed in Lieut.-Colonel Hutton's case, and he believed that compliance with some formality in the Treasurer's depart­ment was only needed to enable the report to be laid on the 'table.

Mr. CASEY moved, by leave, without notice-

"That there be laid before this House the papers connected with the appointments .and resignations of Lieutenant-Colonels Gardmer and Le Marchand from the volunteer force."

He thought the honorable member for Ararat would see that it would be unad­visable to provoke a discussion on the question until the production of the papers.

Mr. FERGUSSON seconded the mo­tion.

Mr. GAUNSON said he did not wish to provoke discussion, but he would mention as a matter of fact, which could not be disputed, that Lieut.-Colonel Hutton was directed to refrain from exercising his command on the 20th February, and that on the 3rd March, in a letter addressed to the Treasurer, he poin~ed out that no charge had been laid against him. There was a supposition abroad that Lieut.­Colonel Hutton was somewhere in the wrong, but the fact was that he was a very much injured man, as the papers, when they were produced, would show.

Railway Construction Bill. [SEP'fElIlBER 24.J Railway Department. 1165

Mr. SERVICE inquired whether" the report of the board appointed on matters connected with the. military forces,"

. ordered on September 18, would include the whole of the papers relating to Lieut.­Colonel Hutton's appointment?

Major SMITH replied in the affirmative. The motion was agreed to.

RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION BILL. Mr. FERGUSSON asked the Minister

of Railways whether he would be able to introduce the new Railway Construc­tion Bill before the contemplated adjourn­ment of the House next month?

Mr. WOODS said he would not be in It position to answer the question until the Cabinet came to a decision on the subject.

RAILWAY DEPARTMENT.

Mr. W. M. CLARK asked the Minister of Railways if he would make a reduction in the price of monthly tickets on the suburban lines in cases where several members of the same family used the

. railway all the year round in travelling between their residences and their places of business?

Mr. WOODS replied that the price of monthly tickets was already as low as it could be consistently with the railways paying at all. As it was, the taxpayers of the colony, plenty of whom made no use of the lines, had to put their hands in their pockets to the tune of £140,000 per year for the maintenance of the railway system.

Mr. SERVICE expressed the hope that the Minister of Railways, when he next visited the Flinders-street station of the Hobson's Bay Railway, would. give his attention to the entrance to the Brigh­ton portion of the yard, where some blue­stone metal had been thrown down in such a disgraceful way as to make the place almost impassable.

Mr. HUNT observed that compared with the accommodation at many country railway stations there was nothing to complain of at the Flinders-street station.

Mr. WOODS said he was aware that the place referred to by the honorable mem­ber for Maldon wanted repair, and he would have it repaired at once. With reference to the statement of the honorable member for Kilmore, it should be recollected that for every person who used the stations he alluded to, at least 500 used the Flinders­street station.

Mr. COOPER inquired whether the Minister of Railways had received any report with reference to a train which, on Monday, notwithstanding it was fitted with W vods' brake, could not be pulled up at Chewton station, and went on to Castlemaine, and had to be backed to Chewton to take up passengers?

Mr. WOODS stated that he had re­ceived no such report. He had not heard a word about the matter. If the honor­able member for Creswick (Mr. Cooper) had dropped a note to the department, the thing could have been inquired into at once, without wasting the time of the House over a milk-score affair like this.

Mr. COOPER said he would move the adjournment of the House, in order that he might emphatically resent the remark of the Minister of Railways.

The SPEAKER.-Many years ago, Sir Francis Murphy ruled that an honorable member who put a question to a Minister of the Crown, and did not obtain a satis­factory answer, was not at liberty to move the adjournment of the House to debate the subject. That was the parliamentary practice at that time. Since then, the Speaker of the House of Commons has permitted the practice of moving the adjournment of the House, with a view to the further consideration of a subject, if the motion be made not by the member who puts the question, but by some other. If some other member is prepared to move the adjournment of the House, the honor­able member for Creswick (Mr. Cooper) will be at liberty to offer the remarks he may desire to make.

Mr. CASEY mentioned that, by news­papers received by the last English mail, or the mail before, he found that the Speaker of the House of Commons had recently ruled that a member who asked a question, and received an answer, could then move the adjournment of the House.

The SPEAKER.-I have seen the ruling, and the result of the Speaker having unwittingly yielded was a dis­orderly scene for two hours calculated to lower the character of the House of Com­mons. I do not feel bound to accept a new ruling of the Speaker of the House of Commons on a point on which there is established practice. The House of Commons may change its practice for some reason very forcible there, which may not be applicable here. I don't think a practice which was established and ac­cepted by this House in 1857, when our

1166 Railway Depa1·lmel~t. [AS SElVlBL Y. ] PliTiiament llouse.

!:itandillg orders came into op~ration, shonld be di~tllrbell, ultless thero is some conclu­sive reason for the proceeding.

1\11'. GAUN~ON stated that, as he sympathized with the honorable memLer for Creswick (lVIr. Cooper), he would move the adjournment of the House. He COI1-

sidered that, when an honorable member was appointed to an office of trust like that of a Minister of the Crown, and was in receipt of a handsome salary, the least he could do was to be civil, especially in the presence of the public. That the Minister of Railways had been uncivil on this occasion no one could doubt. "lVIilk­score" was a term which the Minister had applied to matters that had been brought under his notice on previous occasions. If a question put by an honorable mem­ber was answered, when addressed in the Legislative Assembly, in the way the Minister of Rail ways had answered the honorable member for Creswick, what sort of answer would it get if addressed to the Railway department?

Mr. COOPER observed that he con­sidered that he, and the dignity of Par­liament through him, had been insulted by the uncalled for and improper remarks of the Minister of Railways. In the best possible spirit, he called the Minister's attention to an occurrence which was the subject of common conversation in a rail­way train, and in return the Minister gave him what he called a snub. That he (Mr. Cooper) resented. He neyer wasted the time of the Assembly. If the Minister of Railways did not know how to behave himself in the House it was about time he was taught. Certninly the langunge the honorable member used wns altogether unnecessnry and uncnlled for.

Mr. SEH.VICE said he was somewhat astounded at the explosion of the Minister of Railways, because the question which he (Mr. Service) put was as much entitled to be called a "milk-score sort of ques­tion" as the interrogntory of the honor­able member for Creswick (Mr. Cooper).

Mr. "VOODS remarked that he had not the faintest iden that "\vhat he sniLl would have been taken up in so serious a way. He wns simply anxious that the limited time dedicateu to private members' busi­ness should not be trenched upon by such trivial matters as a tmin over-shooting a station, ",hich would be promptly nttended to on a representatioll being made, by letter, to the Hail way departmont. He could not imagine how allY honomble

member could have taken what he said as an insult.

Mr. FINCHAM considered the matter brought forward by the honorable mem­ber for Creswick (Mr. Cooper) a paltry one-so paltry, indeed, as not to be worth the attention of the House. If every item of conversation which took place in rail­way carriages were to be made the subject of a question to a Minister of the Crown, the whole of the public time might be consumed in asking and answering ques­tions. Moreover it shoul<l be recollected thnt grievances of the kind mentioned would not escape notice, because of the watchfnlness of the press.

Mr. HUNT said he was under the im­pression that the remnrk of the Minister of Railways applied not to the question of the honomble member for Creswick (Mr. Cooper), but to the question of the honor­able member for Mnldon, which he con­sidered a paltry one in view of the amount of money which was lavished on Mel­bourne railway stations, while the stations on the North-Eastern Rnilway were not fit for the purposes for which they were" built.

The motion for the adjournment of the House was put and negatived.

PARLIAMENT HOUSE.

Mr. A. K. SMITH called the attention of the Minister of Public Works to the condition of the approaches to Parliament­house from Gisborne-street and Albert­street, and asked if he would take steps to have them placed in a pnssnble condi­tion? They contained the accumulnted filth of yenl's, a bct much to be depre­cated seeing thnt they were overlooked by a State school. The matter was one for the attention of the Government inasmuch as the locality was not within the juris­diction of the City Council.

Mr. PATTERSON promised to give prompt consideration to the matter.

MELBOURNE HARBOUR TRUST BILL.

Mr. NIMMO moved that this Bill be read a second time. He said-I want to impress upon the House the fact that this Bill does not ask for increased powers for the Melbourne Harbour Trust-it docs not ask thnt tho trust should have an in­creased area of land, or more money, or authority to impose fresh taxation. I would Bot be prepared, uuder present cir­cUlllstances, to submit a Bill for giving

Melbourne Harhow' [SEPTEMBER 24.J Trust Bill. 11.67

that body increased powers. All that the Bill asks for is the validation of proceed­ings. The 6th section of the Melbourne Harbour Trust Act provided that the first election of Commissioners should take place on the 30th March, 1877 ; but the Corporation of Melbourne did not appoint their representatives until the lOth Sep­tember, 1877; and the Footscray Borough Council did not appoint their representa­tive until the 12th of the same month. The Act also provides that the commis­sioners shall be appointed by open voting, but the Williamstown Borough Council appointed their representative by ballot. Some parties with whom the Harbour Trust have to do business think that these departures from the express provisions of the Act render the proceedings of the trust invalid. Contractors who under­take works for the Harbour Trust desire to feel something like certain that they are dealing with a responsible body, against which they can enforce their claims, and the Harbour Trust Commissioners are equally anxious to be placed in that posi­tion. Under these circumstances the commissioners, after careful consideration and consultation with learned counsel, ha ve come to the conclusion that, in justice to themselves as well as the general public, all doubts as to their con­stitut.ion should be removed. Therefore the Bill has been introduced simply to remove doubts. The Harbour Trust, as a corporate body, is, of course, not respon­sible for the irreguhuities which have occurred in the election of some of its members. The commissioners have been advised by counsel that the trust rests upon a sound foundation, but if it was compelled to go into court it would be put to great expense and inconvenience in order to prove its corporate existence. As the Bill is simply a validating measure, I trust the House will see fit to pass it.

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN.-I certainly am not prepared to consent to the second reading of this Bill. The honorable mem­ber for Emera.ld Hill (Mr. Nimmo) has mentioned what he considers a flaw in the title of the Harbour Trust Commis­siouers; but in· my opinion t.here is a much more serious flaw. Without com­mitting myself to the opinion in a very decided way, I am inclined to believe that the commissioners are not legally a trust -·that they are simply commissioners de facto. I think it is advisable that the House shouhl not consent to the passage

of the Bill on the ground that the Har­bour Trust was established, by another Parliament. Having the matter ill' its own hands, it should not let the oppor­tunity slip away of dealing with this question in a radical manner; I am en­tirely opposed to the policy of handing over aunually a large sum out of ··the public revenue to what I consider an irresponsible body. I am not inclined in any way to further that policy, which was begun when the Harbour Trust Act was passed.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-Do you want it to go back to the Government?

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN.-In my opinion, the money given to the Harbour Trust ought to revert to the general revenue of the country. The precedent established in this instance is a very dangerous one. No doubt a Harbour Trust is a most de­sirahle body, and the objects for which it was created are very proper objects; nevertheless I think that other means of attaining them ought to have been adopted than that of handing over a large portion of the public revenue to an irresponsible body to spend according to its judgment.

Mr. DUFFY.-Is this a Bill to repeal the Harbour Trust Act?

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN.-No; it is a Bill to remove doubts as to· the validity of the trust as at present ·incoTporated, or appa­rently incorporated. 1 think it is better that the House should not legislate on the matter in the way proposed, so that it may have the opportunity of dealing with the whole question on some future occa­sion. The trust has been going on as a merely de facto trnst. I can see great inconvenience in it doing so ; but I think that, when the matter is dealt with by the Legislature at all, the whole question should be treated. Entertaining this view, I shall oppose the second reading of the Bill.

Mr. SERVICE.-Sir, the Attorney­General has given two reasons for op­posing this Bill, the first, and seemingly the one he considers the most important, being that a certain portion of the public revenue has been improperly handed over . to a quasi-private body. Honorable mem­bers who know the facts of the case are not prepared to admit that any such thing has been done. For a series of years sums of money were collected by wharfage rates, and went into the general revenue first, and then went out of it for the purpose of constructing and repairing certain works,

1168 Melbourne Harbour [ASSEMBLY. ] Trust Bill.

which works are now under the super­vision of the Harbour Trust. Wherever harbour trusts exist-at Liverpool, Glas­gow, Belfast, and elsewhere-their revenue is derived from identically the same kind of rates as the Melbourne Harbour Trust obtains its revenue from. The works undertaken by this trust are peculiarly local works, and the whole of the money spenton them is derived from local sources. Some people say that the wharfage rates ultimately fall upon the whole community, but it is unnecessary for me to discuss that question now. What I wish par­ticularly to impress upon honorable mem­bers is the fact that the wharfage rates are entirely of a local character, and that, if the trust were abolished, the whole of these rates would still have to be expended on the maintenance of the wharfs. The general revenue is not entitled to any advantage from wharfage rates on goods coming into the port of Melbourne any more than it is entitled to participate in the market dues of Ballarat or Sandhurst. The second reason urged by the Attorney­General for opposing the Bill is that, as the trust is in a difficulty, it ought to be kept in that position. Such a sentiment is utterly unworthy of the honorable gentle­man. The trust has been established by an Act of Parliament, passed in confor­mity with our Constitution; and it is a new and extraordinAry doctrine that a Bill of this description should not be agreed to because some honorable mem­bers object to the existence of the body to which it applies. If the Attorney­General thinks that the present Assembly is averse to the continuance of the Har­bour Trust, he will be perfectly justified in bringing in a Bill to repeal the Act under which it is constituted; but, if he tries that on, he will utterly fail.

Mr. LONGMORE.-Why? Mr. SERVICE.-Because there is not

a majority of the House prepared to abolish the trust. The Chief Secretary has advocated the establishment of har­bour trusts at Melbourne, Geelong, Warr­nambool, and other ports of the colony.

Mr. BERRY.-This Bill does not propose to do that.

Mr. SERVICE.-But surely, if it is desirable to establish such bodies at Geelong, Warrnambool, and other places, that object is not likely to be promoted by abolishing the Harbour Trust already constituted. However, whether the Mel­bourne Harbour Trust is to be continued

or abolished, the present Bill ought to be passed. While the trust exists, the com­missioners ought not to be kept in their present state of uncertainty and doubt. It is not· for the public interests to keep them in that condition. Duties of a most important character have devolved upon them by virtue of a law passed by Parlia­ment, but they cannot exercise their func­tions properly while in the present state of doubt. The commissioners have ac­cepted their position as members of the trust on the faith of an Act of Parliament, which Act has apparently turned out to be defective, or, at all events, doubts have arisen as to the legality of the constitution of the trust. The consequence is that the members of the trust may be involved in personal responsibilities which they ought not to be liable to, and the trust as a corporate body is trammelled in carrying out the obligations which the Act casts upon it. Each individual member of the trust is, I submit, entitled to ask for the relief which this measure will give. The trust does not ask for any additional powers, but simply that if it goes before the Supreme Court in any case it shall not be compelled to incur great expense and' trouble in order to prove its corporate existence. I hope the Government will not persist in opposing the Bill, the justice of which must commend itself to every member of the community.

Mr. CASEY.-Looking at this ques­tion from a national point of view, I feel anxious to know how the Harbour Trust has expended the £100,000 per annum which has been given to it out of the public revenue. I am one of those who do not believe in the creation of this trust at all. I object to it on the broad prin­ciple that the work it performs was previously carried out by one of the departments of the State, and if we once commence to transfer functions performed by a public department to a private cor­poration, we do not know where that may end. By this Bill the Harbour Trust asks for something, at all events, and therefore we have a right to inquire whether it has fulfilled its functions. I don't think that it has. When I take into account the amount of money which it has received since it was established, and what it has done with that revenue, I cannot satisfy myself that the works it has carried out have been as efficiently. or as economically performed as they would have been if they had continued

Melbourne Harbour [SEPTEMBER 24.J Trust Bill. 1169

under the direction of the Public Works department. One of the first things the Harbour Trust did was to appoint a num­ber of officers at increased salaries. This increased expenditure did not come out of the pockets of the commissioners them­selves, or out of the pockets of the class which the trust is supposed to represent, but out of the money handed over to the trust by Parliament. The Glasgow and Liverpool Harbour Trusts have been re­ferred to in former debates, but not a single penny of public money was voted by Parliament. They derive their revenue from taxes imposed by themselves.

Mr. SERVICE.-Upon what? Mr. CASEY.-Just in the same way

that tolls are imposed for the maintenance of roads.

Mr. SERVICE. - That is what the Melbourne Harbour Trust does.

Mr. CASEY.-That is exactly what it does not do. Before the trust was created the merchants of Melbourne were continually complaining of the wharfage rates, and it was said that they would be put on a different system if the main­tenance of the wharfs was transferred to such a body as a harbour trust. Instead of altering the system, however, the trust has continued it just the same as before. The honorable member for Maldon asks on what principle the public revenue should receive a penny of the wharfage rates, but I may remind the honorable member that the State pays for lighting the Heads and buoying the channels of the Bay to enable the ships to enter the port. The Harbour Trust does not pay for those things.

Mr. SERVICE.-I beg the honorable member's pardon. The Harbour Trust hands over to the Government a certain portion of the money collected from wharfage rates.

Mr. CASEY.-A certain portion of the public revenue derived from wharfage rates is retained by the Government, and the rest is handed over to the Harbour Trust; but I venture to say the honorable member for Maldon cannot sustain the proposition that the lighting of the port and the buoying of the channels of the Bay, which form the entrance to the port, are paid for by the trust. I chiefly rose to say, however, that, having adopted the experiment of handing over to a private trust functions previously performed by a public department, we have a right to ask how the money which has been given to

that trust has been expended. I would like to see some report furnished con­trasting the expenditure by the Harbour Trust for the maintenance of the wharfs with that of the Public Works depart­ment, in order that we might ascertain whether the work was not more economi­cally performed by the department than it is by the trust. I concur with the honorable member for Maldon that the Attorney-General is not justified in op­posing the present measure for the reason which the honorable gentleman gave. At the same time, I strongly reprobate the conduct of the Harbour Trust in trying to fasten upon the Attorney­General a charge tantamount to one of forgery. Nothing could be more unjus­tifiable than such a procedure. I do not believe that circumstance has actuated the Attorney-General to oppose the mea­sure now before the House, but I think the Government ought to introduce a Bill either to abolish the Melbourne Harbour Trust, or to put it on a basis which will meet with public support, and establish similar trusts in other ports.

Mr. LAURENS.-I think this is an in~pportune time to discuss the question whether the Harbour Trust should be abolished or not. The argument which the honorable and learned member for Mandurang has advanced against the existence of the trust, namely, that the work which it performs was, up to a cer­tain period, carried out by one of the Government departments, might with equal propriety be used against the trans­fer of any functions from a general cor­poration to another body, although the transfer might possibly be attended with economy and other advantages. The question of establishing a harbour trust for the port of Melbourne was brought prominently before the constituency of West Melbourne as long ago as 1856, when the first election under the present Constitution was held. At that time I felt convinced that, in the interests of the country at large, and especially in the interests of the metropolis, such a trust ought to be created. The Bill now before this House simply asks Parliament to rectify an error which has occurred in the constitution of the trust. It will have no other effect than to place the trust in snch a position that its title as a corporate body cannot be impugned in a court of law. The difficulty has arisen in consequence of the Harbour Trust Act not containing

1170 Melbourne Hm'boU1' [ASSEMBLY .. ] Trust Bill.

a provision similar to one in the Local Government Act, which says that no pro­ceedings of a municipal council shall be deemed to be illegal or invalid in conse­quence of the wrong election of a member. The 30th section of the Harbour Trust Act provides that-

" No act or proceeding of any of the commis­sioners acting under the authority of this Act shall be invalidated or be illegal in consequence only of there being any vacancy in the number of commissioners at the time of doing or exe­cuting such act or proceeding." If that section had gone further, and pro­vided that no act of the trust should be invalidated or be illegal in consequence of any defect in the appointment or elec­tion of any of the commissioners, the question now before the House would not have arisen. The Bill is merely a valida­ting one, and honorable members may fairly allow it to pass. I think that Par­liament should not abolish the trust; but, if there is anything wrong in its constitu­tion, it should be eager to step in and l'ectify the defect, so as to place the trust in a position to do useful work.

Mr. MASON.-Mr. Speaker, I submit that the Bill is not in order, inasmuch as it was not originated by a resolution passed in committee. The standing orders require that all Bills affect.ing religion or trade shall be originated in committee. 1JtJay states that, in the House of Commons-

"The Burgh Harbours (Scotland) Bill, 1852, was held to be one concerning trade, and, having been introduced without a committee, was with­drawn; and other Bills concerning harbours have since originated in committee." The Melbourne Harbour Trust Act, which the present Bill seeks to amend, was originated by resolution passed in com­mittee; and I ask your ruling whether this measure ought not to have been originated in the same way?

Mr. NIMMO.-I think that the objec­tion which has been raised ought to have been taken when the Bill was first pre­sented to the House.

Mr. l\1ASON.-It can be taken at any stage.

Mr. NIMMO.-If I had known such an objection was to be taken, I would have adopted a different course; but, of course, if the point is a good one I must submit to it.

lVIr. KERFERD.-I ani afraid that the objection is fatal to the Bill. I desire to say, however, that I think the Government ought to grapple with the question affect­ing the Harhour Trust. It is a monstrous

thing for the Attorney-General to admit that the law is inoperative, and for the Government to decline to bring in any measure to amend it.

The SPEAKER.-The laws affecting trade were primarily laws concerning the export and import of commodities. Har­bour Trust Bills have always been held to come within that description. Our 223rd standing order requires any Bill relating to trade, or altering any Jaw concerning trade, to be originated in committee. The point of order raised by the honorable member for South Gippsland is therefore a valid one. .

The Bill was accordingly withdrawn.

SUPREME COURT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE BILL.

Mr. F. L. SMYTH;..-Mr. Speaker, I beg to move the second· reading of this Bill, the object of which is "to amend the practice and procedure and to facili­tate the proceedings of the Supreme Court." In proposing the first reading, I briefly explained the leading features of the measure, and I will again call the at­tention of honorable members, as concisely as possible, to the material alterations which it is intended to effect in the prac­tice and procedure of the Supreme Court. The first important alteration proposed by the Bill is to give po:wer to the judges sitting at the law side of the court to exercise equity jurisdiction in relation to questions that arise at the law side of the court. At present, if a question of pure law arises at the law side, the judges, of course, can decide it; but if it should be mixed up with equity the courts of law, out of respect for the equity jurisdiction, hold themselves incompetent to determine it, and the proceedings have therefore to be commenced de novo. Sometimes cases occur in which the line of demarcation between law and equity is of a very fine character, and after the party instituting the suit has proceeded at the Jaw side, under advice, it may be found during the discussion of the case that it should have been commenced at the equity side. Two or three cases relating to partnerships have recently been before the Supreme Court· in which this question arose, and in one case lately the court was obliged to say, after the case had gone some length, that the suit should have been commenced at the equity side. The object of this portion of the Bill is to prevent snch failures of justico. Therefore the judges

Sup'l'eme COU1't Practice [SEPTEMBER 24.J and Procedure Bill. 1171

at the law side are given jurisdiction to decide on the equity as well as the law of a case, and the delay and expense entailed, by the law judges having to dismiss a case 011 the ground that it should have been begun in equity are thus prevented. The second leading proposal of the Bill is to virtually abolish the system of pleading at present carried on in the Supreme Oourt between plaintiffs and defendants, and to assimilate as closely as possible the plead­ing and procedure of the Supreme Court to the practice of the County Court. In other words, it is proposed to free the Supreme Court from the present compli­cated system of pleading, and to substi­tute the simplicity of the County Court, the system in which has been found to work satisfactorily by the judges, barris­ters, solicitors, and the public generally. At present, in the Supreme Court, there is a very voluminous system of procedure before a case comes to a hearing at all. In the first place, a writ has to be issued and served on the defendant; then an appearance is entered by the defend­ant; then, the parties having thus been brought into court, as it were, the plaintiff for the first time declares the object of his suit by means of what is called a declaration. Next, a plea is put in by the defendant within a certain number of days -there mnst be a certain period between each step-and then the plaintiff files his replication to the plea. The initiatory proceedings may go still further, for the re­plication may invite a rejoinder, to which again perhaps the plaintiff may put in a surrejoinder. In fact, there is a whole series of documents, with a certain number of days between each, put in on each side before the case is heard at all, and all this, as may be imagined, involves considerable expense to the suitors. Besides the pro­cesses I have mentioned there are rebutters and surrebutters, although I admit that the preliminary proceedings seldom go beyond a rejoinder and surrejoinder. Contem­poraneously, however, these interesting modes of procedure may be varied by a demurrer. The previously mentioned pro­cesses are only intended to bring the issue between the parties before the court as to the facts, hut a point of law may arise, and then it rests with the defendant to demur to the declaration of the plaintiff or the plaintiff to demur to the plea of the defendant, or there may be demurrers to the replication, rejoinder, or surrejoinder. Frequently, in f[Let, there is n series of

pleadings and a series of demurrers going on at the same time. This was witnessecl at the last sitting of the Supreme Court in banco, where the court heard a series of pleadings and demurrers in the one case at t.he same time. The Bill proposes to do away with these voluminous pLead­ings and to adopt, as far as possible, the system in the County Court. The prac­tice in the latter is simply this: there is no preliminary writ' or preliminary ap­pearance, but simply a summons and plaint issued containing a declaration in which the defendant is informed what he is summoned for, the subject-matter of the action being concisely stated with­out the voluminous verbosity of the present Supreme Court practice. Then, under the 56th section of the County Court .Act, if the summons is issued under that section, the party summoned can notify his intention to appear and defend the case. That is the practice followed in the Bill. It repeals the ex­isting proeednre of the Supreme Court and substitutes a simple summons and plaint. Any In,w points that may be raised are to be raised on the hearing of the case, and the defence is also raised at the time of the hearing. Several years' experience has now been gained of the County Court practice, and, so far from wishing to alter the system there, the general desire is to extend' the jurisdiction of the County Court, so great is the satisfaction felt with its cheapness and simplicity. As regards the comparative. cost of proceedings iu the two courts, I may say that an action which in the Supreme Court costs £60, £80, £100, or £130, could be decided in the County Court for from 15s. to £10 or £12, according to the amount at issue­and these are the outside costs. There are other minor provisions in t.he Bill to which I need only allude at present. Facility is given for arbitration and bring­ing matters before assessors, and for suits against parties out of the jurisdiction of the court. There are also a number of miscellaneous clauses in relation to various points that have hitherto been the subject­matter of disputes, and which it is sought to settle by the Bill. The measure, I believe, will tend greatly to cheapen and faeilitate the administration of justice, and I trust it will recommend itself to the Honse. My only desire is to have the Bill read a second time and committed 711'0 jm'ma, without proceeding furl.her jnst nov\,. lVly reason for this course is

1172 Supreme Court Practice [ASSEMBLY.] and P1'ocedure Bill.

that I understand there is a measure of a similar character now before another place which is based on the English Act, and which will probably be sent ,down here before long. I believe the Attorney­General has also in hand a measure on the same subject, though we have not yet seen it, otherwise I would not have introduced the present Bill. If t.he Bill is allowed to be committed pro forma, when the other measures make their appearance all the Bills can be compared, and if it is considered that either of the others is superior to that which I have introduced, I shall have no objection whatever to withdraw my Bill, or to agree to the appointment of a committee to inquire into and report upon the three Bills. Upon their report a new Bill might then be framed.

Mr. :OWYER.-In supporting the mo­tion of the honorable and learned member, I may express the hope that whatever else may be done with the three Bills he has alluded to they will not be referred to a select committee, for that will simply mean shelving the question for this Par­liament. I regret that the Government have not had time to introduce a measure on tp.is subject during the present session, but I believe the Bill now before the Legislative Council, which will make its appearance here in due course, was intro­duced by the present Government on a previous occasion, but not persevered with. There can be no doubt that the present state of the legal procedure of this colony is a disgrace to any civilized community. The more one studies the subject, and gets to know about the pitfalls and technica­lities of the law, the more one is astonished that a suitor who has the merits on his side ever succeeds in a case at all. Beyond doubt, the present complicated procedure is equivalent to a denial of justice to many suitors who have the merits on their side. The present system of pleading has this radical defect-not only does it lengthen out a case almost interminably, but whether a man has a good defence or a bad defence, or a good claim or a bad claim, the way of stating it is exactly the same in each case; and no system which involves that radical defect should be allowed to continue in existence. If the Bill now before the other Chamber is, as I believe to be the case, carefully drawn and modelled on the English Act, and so framed as to, enable the courts here to have the benefit of the decisions under the English Act-the

Bill of course being altered to adapt itself to this country-there will be no necessity for the honorable and learned member for North Gippsland proceeding further with his measure than the stage he has indi­cated. I have also a Bill on the same subject on the notice-paper, and if the measure now before the other Chamber is sent down in good time it will be simi­larly unnecessary for me to persevere with mine. I hope, however, if there is any undue delay in receiving the Bill intro­duced elsewhere, the honorable member for North Gippsland will proceed with his measure, for, as I have said, the existing system of legal procedure is a radically bad one. In addition to the defects I have alluded to, I may mention that I know of a case at present before the equity branch of the Supreme Court, which was commenced at the beginning of the year, and the plaintiff has not got to evi­dence yet. From the way in which the rules have been framed it is very doubtful whether evidence in the case will be taken this year, and if the plaintiff gets to a hearing next year he may consider him­self very fortunate. That is a state of things which should not be allowed to con­tinue. Whether in law or equity, if there is a cause of action, there should be a mode of dealing with the matter as expe­ditiously in the Supreme Court as cases are now dealt with in the County Court. I may express the opinion that the Bill might have been made a great deal shorter without impairing its effective­ness.

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN.-I think con­siderable credit is due to the honorable and learned member for North Gippsland for having taken the trouble to prepare this Bill and bring it to its present stage. He is quite correct in stating that the Government propose to introduce a Bill 011 the same subject, but I doubt very much whether, during the present session, we shall have any time to deal with the question. The Bill was on the notice­paper last session, and we found no time to deal with it then, and, as far as I can foresee the business of the House, I doubt whether there will be an opportunity of con­sidering any measure on, the subject during the remainder of this session. I would point out to honorable members that among the matters we have still to deal with are the consideration in committee and the third reading of the Reform Bill, the Tariff, the Land Tax Bill, the Local Government

Supreme Court Practice [SEPTEMBER 24.J and Procedure Bill. 1173

Bill, the Railway Bill, and other important measures. I cannot see how, under such circumstances, time will be afforded for considering a measure on this subject. I am very anxious, not alone for the sake of the public but of the profession, that a Bill should be passed to simplify the procedure of the Supreme Court, be­cause the simplification of the practice in England has resulted in a very large in­crease of litigation. A great deal of liti­gation is now completely crushed out in this colony, as, owing to the expense and intricacy of the procedure, parties prefer to compromise their disputes rather than proceed with a suit. In England the practice has been so simplified that parties are not now afraid to go to law there, and the consequence is that the number of judges has had to be increased oue-third. There are now something over twenty judges in England, and even with the increase in the number the amount of litigation has so augmented that the courts are somewhat in arrear. There would thus· be a good prospect for the profession in the colony, as well as for the public, if the procedure of the Supreme Court were simplified; but I fear there will be no opportunity of dealing with the question this session.

Mr. DUFFY.-I am sure, after the re­marks of the honorable member for Moira (Mr. Orr) on the Legal Professions Bill, it must be somewhat startling to him to hear that the passing of the present measure would be attended by a large increase of litigation; under such circumstances the honorable member can hardly be expected to vote for this Bill. Notwithstanding that all the hard things which have been said about our present legal procedure are hardly deserved, there is, I think, no doubt that a little simplification would do it no harm. The Judicature Act in England has been a great success, not only in increa$ing litigation-as has been men­tioned by the Attorney-General-but in the facilities it offers to the general public for obtaining a speedy adjustment of their disputes. Owing to the present procedure in this colony there is no doubt that litigants and their professional advisers frequently prefer to compromise matters rather than to risk a lawsuit, on ac­count of the amount of the expense and the length of time which it en­tails. If we can, by an adaptation of the English Judicature Act, get lawsuits decided more cheaply and speedily than

at present, it will undoubtedly be an advantage for both the public and the profession. Reference bas been made by the honorable and learned member for North Gippsland to the County Court prac­tice, but I can assure the honorable mem­ber that there are a number of inconve­niences attending the practice in that court which are not present in the Supreme Court. Pleadings have been abused by the honorable and learned member for North Gippsland and the honorable and learned member for Villiers and Heytes­bury, but nevertheless they have their nse, as they enable both parties to come into court knowing exactly what they have to prove. III the County Court, however, the plaintiff comes into court without having any idea of what defence the de­fendant is going to set up.

Mr. F.L. SMYTH.-He can antici­pate it.

Mr. DUFFY.-In practice it is found that in numbers of cases the defence is not anticipated even remotely.

Mr. DWYER.-The same objection applies to the common law side of the Supreme Court in its ordinary pleadings.

Mr. DUFFY.-If we could only hit the happy mean by which without the rejoinders, rebutters, &c., to which the honorable member for North Gippsland has alluded-and which, by the way, do not occur nearly so often in practice as he would make it appear- we could have a simple system by which the plaintiff would be enabled to state his case, and the defendant his defence, so that each party would come into court knowing what was the case of the other, I believe it would do a great deal of good. It is also necessary to get rid of the monstrous system by which, as Lord St. Leonards has said, a man may in one branch of the court lose his estate without difficulty, and in another branch, on the same set of facts, may regain it. The amalgamation of the two systems of law and equity in England has proved very beneficial, and I trust we will follow the example of the mother country in that respect as soon as possible. It appears, from the observations that have been made, that we are likely to have three Bills on the present subject before us. Now I consider it is very dangerous to tinker with legislation of this importance, and I would be glad if the Government or a select committee would take the responsibility of dealing with the entire

1174 1~<up1'eme Court Practice [ASSEMBLY.], and Procedure Bill.

question. We are all agreed as to the principles of the measure, but some respon­siLle hody should take charge of working up the details, which are a matter of con­siderable difficulty. The Judicature Act was drafted by the late Mr. Justice Fel­lows, who, it wiU be admitted, certainly knew something about his profession; yet we know that a great number of muddles were made in that Act which had to be remedied afterwards. I trust, therefore, that when we deal with this question it will be in an efficient manner.

Mr. MASON.-I hope the honorable and learned member for North Gippslanu will persist in proceeding with his measure, for it has been too frequently the practice to postpone dealing with important ques­tions. An amendment of the Civil Service Act, for example, has been talked about for the last 10 or 15 years, but we see no amendment proposed yet. If this Bill only contained the one provision for expe­diting the business of the Supreme Court, I think it would be worthy of the favor­able consideration of the House. From the statement of the Attorney-General that the effect of the measure would be to encourage litigation, it must follow that the public are at present debarred from litigating in consequence of the delay and expense connected with proceedings in the Rupreme Court. The public know their own business best, and if they con­sider it profitable to go into litigation it is the duty of Parliament to provide reasonable facilities for their doing so. The Bill proposes to apply to the Supreme Court the practice of the County Court, and we are aware that that practice has worked very cheaply and satisfactorily for several years. As the proposed sys­tem has worked well in England, there is an additional reason for trying the experi­ment here, and I hope the honorable member for North Gippsland will not be induced to abandon his measure.

Mr. RAMSAY.-I hardly understand what course the Government intend to take with regard to this Bill. I under­stood the Attorney-General to say that there are practically three Bills on this subject before Parliament at present, and as, no doubt, the object and general pro­visions of the three Bills are the same, it would certainly be desirable to know what course the Government intend to take with respect to the matter. There are some provisions in the present Bill­especially those. with regard to the

Supreme Court administering law and equity concurrently-which there would be no difficnlty in passing throngll the House at once. Another part of the Bill contains tbe provisions known in England as "Lord Selborne's clauses" - calleu in the Bill "miscellaneous provisions"­which form most important and beneficial alterations in the law which will commend themsel ves to every legal member of the House. The object of these provisions is to do away with the anomaly referred to by the honorable member for Dalhousie, by which, on the common law side of the court, a man may be deprived of his estate, while on the other hand he may, by an equity suit, recover it again. This state of things has been abolished in England by the recent Judicature Act, and a similar amenument is well deserv­ing of the attention of the Attorney­General and the Parliament of this colony. Cbanges of this kind, how­ever, are of too important a character to be taken charge of by a private member, unless the House has some guarantee that the measure has been carefully prepared, and that in its details it will carry out the objects in view. If, therefore, the Attorney-General will ex­amine the Bill, and give the House an assurance on that point, I believe honor­able members will be willing to accept it to a very la.rge extent, and to pass the Bill without much delay. If, however, the Bill is simply submitted by a private member without any assurance as to its effectiveness from the Attorney-General, I feel it is perfectly hopeless to expect the measure to be passed at this stage of the session. Every clause will, under such circumstances, have to be most care­fully scrutinized, and the result will be the shelving of the question for the ses­sion. I should much regret that result, as the Bill, if it follows the main pro­visions of the English law, is calculated to have a very beneficial effect. .

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN.-I have already stated that the Government have a mea­sure of their own on this subject, in the preparation of which I have taken con­sidetable time and trouble, and if -time permits it will be introduced this session. Under such circumstances I do not see the use of forwarding another measure on the subject, but I have no objection to the Bill of the honorable and learned member for North Gippsland being read a second time, and committed pro forma.

Constitution Act [S 1':PT El\IBER 24. ] Amendment Bill. 1175

At some future period. in the session the honorable member may find an oppor­tunity of pushing on his measure, and the House may perhaps have an oppor­tunity of comparing his Bill· and mine.

Dr. MADDEN.-As a reason for not proceeding further with this Bill at pre­sent, I would point out that, besides the measure prepared by the Attorney-Gene­ral, there is another Bill now before the Council which has been dealt with by a committee of gentlemen in whom this House and the country will, I am sure, have the utmost confidence.

At this stage, the time allotted for giving precedence to private members' business having expired, the debate stood adjourned until Wednesday, October 1.

SAMUEL WHITE. Mr. SHARPE moved-"That there be laid before this House all

papers iu connexion with the application of Samuel White, junior, for a selection of land in the parish of Laceby."

Mr. HUNT seconded the motion, which was agreed to.

CONSTITUTION ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

TENTH NiGHT'S DEBATE.

The debate on Mr. Berry's motion for the second reading of the Constitution Act Amendment Bill, and on Mr. Orr's amendment to refer the ,~ubject of the Bill to a select committee (adjourned from the previous day), was resumed.

Mr. RAMSAY said-Mr. Speaker, in addressing myself to the present question, I feel the difficulties to which pr'evious speakers have alluded, as arising from the circumstance that so much has already been said on the subject that very little relating to it that is new remains to be dwelt upon. I don't think I would have taken a part in the debate at all but for the fact that I was disabled by a severe illness from joining in the discussion upon the Reform Bill of last session, and that an hpnorable member who gives a, silent vote upon a matter of such importance as the one 'before us is very liable to have his action misconstrued. As it is, I intend to offer reasons why, although I am strongly. in favour of greatly reforming the relations that exist between the two Houses of Parliame.nt, I shaJ.l vote against the second 'reading of the present measure. The necessity that exists for constitutional reform in this country has, for many years

past, been admitted by all our public men; and I am satisfied that, were the abstract question of whether such a reform should be effected submitted to the country, there would be a unanimous expression of opinion in the affirmative. I also believe that honorable members on both sides of this Chamber are actuated by a sincere desire to bring the present difficulties between the Houses to an end. The only point upon which we are divided in opinion is the mode by which the object ought to be achieved. There is no doubt the course of action followed by another place in years past has produced a very general feeling of irritation and hostility towards that body. Indeed that sentiment is not at all to be wondered at, considering the protracted struggles the liberal section of this House have had to make in past years in order to secure reforms of a very moderate nature. For instance, there is the prolonged battle between the Houses that took place in connexion with State aid to religion. As one who, when a young man, was secretary to the society then formed for the purpose of obtaining the repeal of the 53rd section of the Constitution Act, in which State aid to religion was practically embodied, I naturally remember how often, after the repeal of that ~ection had been carried by the Assembly by an overwhelming majority, the measure went to another place only to be treated with contempt. Inasmuch as I am, and always have been, a sincere liberal, these are matters I cannot forget, especially on the present occasion; for no honorable member on the Govern­ment side of the House is more truly anxious for constitutional reform than I am. When, however, I come to discuss the present measure, I feel that differences between myself and the Ministerial side immediately make themselves apparent. IIi: the first place, I cannot help thinking; I am sorry to say, that the Government are not altogether sincere with respect to tlie matter. For example, look at the g,reat delay they allowed to take place before they brought forward any proposi­tion on the subject. Having thus, by tr.ying to gain time, created one difficulty, they have since added to it by the mode in which they proposed reform legislation. During the three years they have been in office they have done-what? In their first year they left reform alone, in their second year they introduced a Reform Bill in favour of which they seemed as

1176 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

though they could not say too much, and now, in their third year, they ask us to adopt another Reform Bill essentially dif­ferent from its predecessor. So great is the contrast between the two measures that the Minister of Public Works ad­mitted, the other night, that the Reform Bill of 1878 did not deal at all with the radical defect in our Constitution. I think, before the Government ask us to follow them in a regular crusade as it were for the present Reform Bill, they ought to do something to assure us that they them­selves are sincere and in earnest with re­gard to it. I regret that my observation does not lead me to suppose that they are anything of the kind. I cannot forbear re!llembering that when; a few years ago', the Francis Government honestly endeavoured to deal with the q ues­tion of constitutional reform, only one member of the present Government gave the slightest assistance to the liberal party of the country in carrying the measure then brought forward to a successful issue. The principle embodied in that Bill, which is known as the Norwegian scheme, was not hastily adopted by the Francis Government. It was not taken up in a hurry, nor laid down in a hurry. It received from them the most serious and careful attention. Every possible solution of the difficulty they had to contend with -every possible constitutional alteration, even the adoption of the plebiscite-was discussed by them in turn, and the result of their careful deliberations was the ado,p­tion by them of the Norwegian scheme. I still adhere to that scheme, and I believe that the more it is thrashed out by hon­orable members the more will it present itself to their minds as the best that can be accepted. It was at the time sup­ported by the liberal party, by the leading liberal organ-the Age-and even the honorable member for Castlemaine (Mr. Pearson) afterwards became its advocate; but, when the second reading of the Bill containing it came to a division in this Chamber, the Minister of Customs was the only one of the present Cabinet who voted for it. Of course I except the Attorney-General, who was not then in Parliament. Nevertheless, the proposition has, in spite of all that has been said and written against it, stood, so to say, the test of time and

,experience; and I still think it the best system we could have recourse to. It is amusing to compare what the members

Mr. Ramsay.

of the present Ministry said respecting the Francis Constitutional Reform Bill with what is contained in the Bill hefore us. The only one among them who in any way appears consistent is the Chief Secretary, who was, at the time I speak of, so far as I understand the language he used, in favour of the one-Chamber sys­tem, of which, to my mind, the present Bill is a distinct embodiment. F or ex­ample, he spoke of the Norwegian scheme as follows :-

" It may lead in the direction that the demo­cratic section would like to go, and which to a large extent I favour myself, namely, in the' direction of legislation by one' Chamber. I believe that to a great extent simple machinery is better than complex machinery, whether in matters of legislation, mechanics, or anything else. What is done by one Chamber can be done easily or reversed easily, whereas the com­plex machinery of two Chambers makes all legislation more difficult." What I complain of is that, on several occasions in the course of the present debate, the honorable member has some­what leu the House to believe that he now entertains a different view, and is in favour of two Chambers. At the same time, I don't think anyone who carefully studies the present Bill can come to any other conclusion than that its effect would be to place the whole legislation of the country in one Chamber. To that arrangement I am not at all favorable, nor do I think the people of tl1e country either are favorable. One fact we cannot dispute, namely, that in every country where there is respon­sible government we find the bicameral system adopted. The reasons for that state of things are so obvious that I will not trouble the House with them. On the occasion I allude to.-:..the debate upon the Norwegian scheme-the Minister of Justice expressed himself thus :-

" I am perfectly willing to join in a measure for the reform of the Upper House, such as that introduced by the Government last, session. I would go further, and abolish all property quali­fication, both for electors and elected, putting the constituents and members of that House on the same basis as those of this House. I would subdivide the provinces and shorten the tenure of the seats in the Legislative Council. I am perfectly willing to proceed in that direction, for t.hat I believe to be the right course to take. That alone is the direction in which the people of this country will travel, because it is a con­stitutional one, a sound one, and a peaceful one. I believe that the effect of reform in that direction will be to bring the members of the Legislative Council into harmony with the people, and if they are brought into harmony with the people, in the name of all that is good, what more do you want? Are they not to be

Second Reading. [SEPTEMBER 24.J Tenth Night's Debate. 1177

allowed-is it not their duty-to see that no laws are passed by hasty legislation? Are they not there to express a decided opinion upon the legislation which takes place in this Chamber ?" The Minister of Justice was followed by the Minister of Customs, who thus deli­vered himself :-

" Looking at the history of the world, we find that nearly all written Constitutions have failed, and that the English Constitution alone has stood the test of time. I repeat that the prin­ciple of this Bill makes the nearest approach to that Constitution that we can effect, because it gives this House the means of enforcing its views, if it is determined to do so. I believe that neither our Constitution nor any other can pos­sibly last in this age of the world unless this principle be put in force. I am a supporter of two Cham bel'S of Legislature. I believe that all Constitutions should possess a check against hasty legislation, but that check ought not to be allowed to degenerate into absolute obstruction."

The same honorable member also, on the same occasion, spoke of a nominee Upper House as follows :-

"Some persons are in favour of having the members of the Upper Chamber nominated by the Crown-that is by the Ministry of the day. I do not think that would be a desirable change to make in the present condition of the country, because we know that one Ministry would nomi­nate a certain number of gentlemen in order to carry a particular Bill, while the next Ministry that obtained office would nominate another set of members to carry some other measure."

Finding in this way that, within the space of not half a century but almost of a few revolving moons, the honorable members who now occupy the Treasury bench have expressed such widely different sentiments on the subject of constitutional reform, how can we accept them as good and reli­able guides with respect to the direction in which that reform should go? At the time I refer to, the present Minister of Public Instruction was evidently by no means in favour of a reform like that now proposed. His views went in an entirely different, and much more rational direction. After having described the way municipal elections were conducted, he spoke as follows :-

"What would be easier, what would be more practical in every sense of the term, than a fair application of the same principle to the election of members of both Houses of Parliament? The Government might have adopted a scheme somewhat of this kind. They might have come down with a Bill proposing to divide the whole colony into 26 electoral districts, that each of those districts should return three members to this House - which would have given the Assembly 78 members, or exactly the number that it now consists of. . • I would also suggest that the boundaries of the electoral districts for the Upper Chamber should be the same as those of the electoral districts of the

VOL. xxx.-4 I

Assembly, but that each district should only return one member. . . The members of the Council might be elected by persons whose names are on the ratepayers' roll only, while the members of the Assembly should be elected both by those on the ratepayers' roll and those on the roll of electors' rights. . . If some s'uch plan were carried, we should have none of the dead-locks in legislation which we have hitherto had. . Provision should be made that if, at any time, any large and important question arose, upon which it was desirable that the whole country should speak out and give its decision, the Governor should have the power to dissolve Parliament, and the tenure of the seats of the members of the new Parliament would, of course, be regulated in the same way as at the first election."

The present Minister of Railways, dealing with the same question, stated-

"I ask them to weigh well whether the Bill will obtain for us the reform which our Consti­tution most needs, or whether the latter does not rather lie in the direction of not interfering with the powers now exercised by the Legisla­tive Council, but making them on certain occa­sions and under certain exceptional circum­stances responsible to their constituencies in precisely the same way as we are. Many hon­orable members here have shrunk with a species of terror from the idea of popularizing that branch of the Legislature; but I reply to them by asking where the Government got their scheme from ?"

Lastly, the present Minister of Public Works added his quota by saying-

" I don't agree with those who seek to humili­ate the Council by rendering its functions abor­tive. I could better understand a bold proposal to abolish it altogether."

Mr. ANDREW.-Hear, hear. Mr. RAMSAY.-I am glad to hear

the honorable member's cheer, because it helps to develop more distinctly than ever the real character of the present Bill.' The Government have not a more faith­ful henchman than the honorable mem­ber, nor does the House contain a warmer supporter of the single-Chamber principle. But were a plebiscite taken on that par­ticular question, he would find that the establishment of a one-Chamber Legisla­ture is enormously at variance with the views of the great mass of the people.

Mr. ANDREW.-Y ou would not like to try it.

Mr. RAMSAY.-I would not be at all afraid to do so. I believe that the people are mainly determined on one thing, namely, that dead-locks shall cease, and I believe this House, myself included, are thoroughly agreed with them on tlwt point. It is because I do not believe carrying this Bill will achieve that end that I cannot bring myself to vote for it. One striking dif­ference between the present Bill and that

1178 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

of last session lies in the proposition we have now before us to constitute a nominee Upper House. To any such system, how­ever, I am utterly opposed. I regard the proposal as a thoroughly retrograde ono, and I am glad to say it has been received by the people generally with more cold­ness than they have displayed towards anything the Government have heretofore brought forward. It is a curious circum­stance that the two honorable members of this House-the Chief Secretary and the honorable member for Castlemaine-who were sent home a few months since for the purpose of representing before the Secretary of State for the Colonies the supposed united will of this House with respect to constitutional reform essentially differ on this very important point. .As I understood the honorable member for Castlemaine the other evening, he ex­pressed himself as thoroughly opposed to the nominee system. He had not, in fact, a good word to say for it, and honestly told the House that he did not approve of it. The Bill is divided into three parts, with each of which I will try to deal se­parately. The 1st part contains theprin­ciple embodied in clause 6, under which money voted by Parliament at say one o'clock in the morning may become pay­able at the Treasury in the course of the same forenoon. I believe a principle of that sort to be utterly repugnant to the feelings of the country.

Mr. BERRY.-How do you know that? Mr. R.AMS.AY.-I know that when­

ever the principle has been put in practice it has always operated most injuriously, and I observe that the leading liberal organ - the Age -which has hitherto given the Government a most generous support, expressed itself against this clause the other day in very decided terms. Perhaps the honorable members on the Government side, who rarely pay much attention to the utterances of the "unscrupulous Opposition," will listen to the following extract from a leading article in the Age, published a short while since :-

"There is no doubt that if the Assembly were vested with the power of spending the money of the public on the strength of its single motion, it might lead the way to abuses of the most serious kind."

Mr. ANDREW.-It is the Daily Tele­graph you are reading from.

:Mr. RAMSAY.-I assure the honor­aule member it is the Age. There can

be no mistake, for all the Government advertisements are in it. The article goes on to say-

"The Government of the day would prac­tically have uncontrolled access to the Treasury. An unscrupUlous majority might compel it to do anything they pleased, to build a public work in this district, or to pass a prospecting vote for that. As every member is personally interested in getting everything he can for his consti­tuency, there would be no limit to the system of bribery, extortion, corruption, and extrava­gance."

I will not read the rest of the article, nor do I deem it necessary to dwell longer on this 6th clause, but I must say I can hardly understand the position of the Go­vernment with regard to it. I know that some of their staunchest supporters de­clare that unless it is taken out of the Bill they will vote against the third reading of the measure. Then, while one Minister has distinctly intimated that the Cabinet will on no account give up the clause, one of his colleagues has expressed an inclina­tion to surrender it, and the Minister of Justice has made it quite plain that he is not wedded to the Bill at all. For my part, I think the clause would, if once adopted, form an instrumen t of a most dangerous character. For example, snp­posing at the next general election, in consequence of confusion among the poli­tical parties of the colony, a cert.ain sec­tion of the community-say the Catholics -were to obtain a chance majority in this Chamber, what would there be to hinder them from using this clause to vote say £100,000 to their own denomination for educational purposes? Why, under such circumstances, notwithstanding that we live in an age of daily newspapers and telegraphic communication, the money might be voted at a late sitting and paid away next morning before a single tax­payer outside these walls was acquainted with the fact that such a proceeding was ever- contemplated. That sort of thing might be made utterly destructive of the liberties of the people. But I believe that, so soon as the nature of the proposal con­tained in clause 6 is known throughout the length and breadth of the country, the feeling against it will bp,come so strong that its rejection wlll be ensured. To my mind, the liberals of Victoria would do better to follow the lead of the Age-at all events with respect to clause 6-than that of the present Government. The 2nd part of the Bill contains the nominee system for the Legislative Council, which

Second Reading. [SEPTE3tBER 24.J 1~entit l{ight's Debate. 1179

I have already described as a retrograde moYomen t. Some years ago ,ye learned from experience what a nominee House of Legislature is.

Mr. CASEY.-But the members of the old Legislative Council were not nomi­nated by responsible Ministers.

Mr. RAMSAY.-I think the nominee principle one that may appear to some minds very fine in theory, but in practice it is found to work very badly indeed. Of course, the nominations under the Bill would be made by the Ministry of the day. No other mode would be open. Well, our experience of Goyernment ap­pointments is such that we cannot regard hopefully any extension of the system. Look, for instance, at how the present and past IVlinistries have appointed jus­tices of the peace. It is well known that the gentlemen nominated by the Govern­ment of the day as justices are not gene­rally the most desirable men for the position.

Mr. BERRY.-Would you make the position an elective one?

Mr. RAMSAY.-! don't think an elec­tive plan would be wholly a bad one. As a matter of fact, such a system prevails with us in practice to a large extent at the present time, inasmuch as every mayor or shire president is a justice ex officio during his term of office and for some time after; and I am sure we have not a bettel' class of men on our ma.gisterial bench than they are. As to judges, we know that in some countries their appointment is an elective one. One of the chief dangers arising out of the Government nominee scheme lies in the £'tct that its adoption would make the Upper House the mere creature of the Executive of the day. It really seems to me that a leading feature of the measure, in addition to its evident leaning towards legislation by one Chamber, is its strong tendency to­wards an undue exaltation of the powers of the Executive of the country. Now everything that tends to weaken the legislative body of the country, and to increase the power of the Executive, ought to be viewed by every true liberal with the greatest jealousy. What with the undue exaltation of the power of the Executive on the one hand, and of the people, by means of the plebiscite, on the other, the operation of the Bill would be to so completely sandwich tho legislative body between the two that, instead of occupying the front posit-ion which is its

412

right in every country possessing'respon.­sible government, it would be l'edllCecl to a very second~mte place. I don't think, moreover, that the experience of other British colonies possessing nominee Upper Chambers is of snch a nature as to lead the liberals of Victoria to adopt the same plan. We find the nominee Upper House of Canada a constant source of grievance and irritation among the people" while at the very time we are asked to make om; electi ve Council· a nominee one, New South Wales is anxiously stdving· to change its nominee Council into an elec­tive one. Another evil attendant upon the establishment of a noniinee Upper House in this colony lies in the fact that under such an arrangement the in­dependence of the judiciary would be endangered. At present, a judge can only be removed by the adoption of au address praying for his removal by both Houses of Parliament, but under the nominee system half that security would disappear. Now, if this country ought to be proud of anything, it ought to be prouu of the independence of its judiciary. I deeply regret that, the other night, during the speech of the honorable member for Boroondara, the honorable member for West Melbourne (Mr. Andrew) interjected, respecting the Chief Justice, " He is the greatest enemy to this country." .

Mr. ANDREW.-Which I am pre­pared to prove.

Mr. RAMSAY.-I am sure, however, that the character of the Chief Justice needs no endorsement from the honorable member. I do not know that any man stands higher in the community than the learned gentleman I allude to, and it ill becomes any honorable member of this Chamber to cast the smallest reflection upon him. I hope the lofty and indepen­dent position which the judiciary of Vic­toria have been able to maintain in the past will be maintained in the future, for an independent judiciary is one of the leading safeguards of liberty. But with an Upper House composed of simply the creatures of the Executive, possibly nomi­nated by a corrupt Government, there would be very great danger of that inde­pendence disappearing. ""Vhile I believe the Norwegian scheme affords the best possible solution of our present constitu­tional difficulty, I am, nevertheless, not bound to it, but will accept any reasonable plan of reform that may be s~l~~ested iil

1180 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

any quarter of the House. In this spirit I am disposed to think that the scheme put forward by a reform league some years

. a,go, and since frequently discussed in public and in this House, is deserving of much consideration. I regard it as most unfortunate that the franchises of the two Chambers should be so widely different. I share the feelings of the Minister of Railways so far that I have no terror of popularizing the Council. Indeed I be­lieve that if the Council franchise were considerably lowered, and its members' tenure of office shortened by one-half, and if the Governor in Council were enabled, under certain circumstances, to dissolve both Houses simultaneously, dead-locks in the future would be prevented altogether. I believe the knowledge on the part of the Legislative Council that they coulll be dissolved would lead them· to exercise great moderation-much greater modera­tion than they have exercised in the past with reference to measures which have come before them from this House; it would cause them to carefully consider a Bill before rejecting it as they have done hitherto, and very often contemptuously. I believe the knowledge that they could be dissolved would prevent any necessity for a dissolution. I have no wish to occupy the attention of the House much further. The subject has been thoroughly thrashed out; and I feel that nothing which can be said will have the effect of altering a single vote. I wholly disapprove of the Bill. I believe, if reform of the Constitu­tion is ever to be effected, and I hope it will be soon for the sake of the country, it will be effected by some persons outside the Ministry altogether. Why should not the subject be dealt with by a select committee, who would approach it free from party, and in a reasonable and rational spirit? I am afraid that the Ministry-judging of them by their acts­are not in earnest in connexion with this matter. We are now in the third year of the present Parliament, and what has been done up to the present time in con­nexion with reform? One Bill, the pro­duct of the legislative wisdom on the Ministerial side of the House, was passed last session only to be taken to England and abandoned; and now we have an­other Bill essentially different in its lead­ing features. Under these circumstances I cannot look to the present Government to settle the question. I believe that a select committee like that proposed by

Mr. RaTn$ay.

the honorable member for Moira (Mr. Orr) is much more likely to deal with the question in a fair, rational, and moderate spirit, and to settle it in the interests of the colony, than the present Ministry are likely to do. I repeat that I do hope the matter will be speedily settled. This colony, with its grand natural resources and its splendid geographical position, is really being ruined by this long con­test. We have had the political cauldron boiling for the last three years, and the Chief Secretary says the question must be settled while the colony is at fever heat. Those were the words of the Chief Secretary this session. But I say the important question of constitutional reform should not be settled when the colony is at fever heat. It would be just as sensible for the Chief Secretary to recommend a man, when in a state of de­lirium, to set about arranging his worldly affairs. I believe the colony is in a much more rational frame of mind in connexion with this subject than it was two years ago, and that an appeal to the people on the Bill would show the Chief Secretary that he is grievously mistaken if he thinks the liberal party will support him in the yagaries he now proposes.

M·r. WRIGHT.- Sir, the honorable member who has just sat down, in the course of his speech, read copious extracts from ·Hansard, with the view to show that the leaders on this (the Ministerial) side of the House have not been thoroughly consistent with themselves. I don't pro­pose to follow that course, for the reason that if the Bill now before us meets my views it does not matter very much to me whether the honorable gentlemen who introduce and support it held other views five or ten years ago. In following the line of argument I propose to adopt, I am placed at somewhat of a disadvantage, because the Minister of Justice, last night, anticipated a great deal of what I wished to say. I don't know that the House has any reason to· regret that, because he was able to set forth my ideas with much greater force than I can do myself. At all events, it only remains for me to refer to sueh little matters as he left untouched. The Minister of Justice showed pretty strongly the undesirability of selecting provisions from the Constitutions of other countries, which may work very well in those countries, to incorporate with our Constitution-a Constitution devised for a different set of circumstances. He

Second Rf'ading. [SEPTE~fBER 24.] Tenth Night's Debate. 1181

more particularly referred to the sugges­tion of the honorable member for Bel­fast that our Legislative Council should be moulded upou the model of the Seuate of the United States, and demonstrated that it would be very undesirable to do so, pointing out the many differences existing between the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Great Britain upon which our Constitution is modelled. In the course of my life I have acquired a knowledge of America and Americans which has enabled me to realize the idea of the American Constitu­tion perhaps better than the honorable member for Belfast, notwithstanding his undoubted ability and great research. It must not be forgotten that the United States is not one state but a conglomera­tion of sovereign states-states sovereign in themselves, and independent except through the organization provided for by the Constitution. This fact alone would debar us from copying largely from them. I think I can show that there are very good reasons for giving the Senate of the United States much greater power than it would be safe to give to the Legislative Council of this colony or any similar country. The Senate of the United States is not representative of the people of America in any sense. '1'he Constitution of the United States is not so much a Constitution in our sense of the term as a treaty between a number of independent states whereby each state surrenders a portion of its powers to the Executive and the Legislature, all the powers not specifically mentioned in the treaty being' retained by the several states. It is not there as here, where there is a central power--,-the Legislature of the colony­which, although possessed of absolute power within the colony, has, for its own sake, distributed a certain amount of its power among local bodies. The members of the Senate of the United States, being chosen by the several states, represent those sovereign states, and do not in any way represent the people of the country. At the time the American Constitution was framed, the framers had, no doubt, their old provincial Constitutions to guide them; they had also the British Con­stitution to guide them, but it should be recollected that the British Con­stitution as it then existed was widely different from the Constitution as we now know it. Government was then in a transition state between the old idea

under which Ministers were the Ministers of the Sovereign, and individually respon­sible to him, and the present condition of things under which Ministers are respon­sible to the Commons directly, and give advice to the Sovereign collectively in­stead of individually. The framers of the American Constitution, being conservative, preferred to follow the old idea with re­gard to the Executive, and gave to the President for the time being full and ample powers of choosing his own Min­isters, and while he keeps within the law of the land he is not responsible to any person. However, as it was felt to be ex­tremely undesirable that any person should have absolute power, the framers of the American Constitution thought it well to place a check on the chief magistrate, and, in consequence, a large number of the executive functions of the President must be exercised in conjunction with the Senate. The check was placed in the hands of the Senate, as representing the individual states, in order that the Presi­dent, in his capacity of first magistrate, should not favour one state at the expense of another. The House of Representatives was based on a system of representation according to population, and thus was placed a preponderating power in the hands of the larger states; and it was necessary to have the Senate as a check upon those states. It will thus be seen that the Senate was created as a check on the Pre­sident on the one side, and a check on the po:wer of the representatives on the other. But it does not follow that because the large powers conferr~d upon the Se~ate of the United States have been used wisely, and have worked for the good of America, ·it would be well to model our Legislative Council by that body. The powers ac-corded to the Senate would be inordinate in such a Constitution as ours. I think the Minister of Justice hit the blot in OUt' Con­stitution when he said that all our troubles have arisen from the Legislative Council mistaking its functions and aiming to be a co-ordinate House with this-abandoning its analogy to the House of Lords and claiming to be a second House of Com­mons. As far as I understand constitu­tional practice, the theory of the British Constitution and all the Constitutions that have been moulded upon it is that there should be one Chamber representing all the various interests in the country as far as may be, and that there should be an­other Chamber not specially connected or

1182 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

identified with nny intoresl-, :~1H1 ablo to retard, revise, fwd generally to regulate tIle proceedings of the popnl::tr House. Have we had anything of that sort hero? I scarcely think anyone will contend that our second Chamber is not identified with certain interests, or that it is able to retard, revise, or regulate the proceedings of this Chamber. It is said that a second Chamber should be a check upon hasty legislation; but I think it must be admitted that our second Chamber has not been a check upon hasty legisla­tion. We have heard a great deal about certain Acts of Parliament having to be modified or revoked in the session fol­lowing that in which they were passed; and I maintain that our second Chamber was as much responsible for those mea­sures as this Chamber and the Govern­merit. I contend that our second Chamber has failed to be a check upon hasty legis­lation, because it has abandoned its propel' functions, and claimed to exercise func­tions which should belong to this Chamber, and this Chamber only. There are in this colony certain interests which, thinking they are inadequately represented in this House, have succeeded iu securing a com­plete representation in the other Chamber, where no interests should be represented. Certain interests, which are partly repre­sented here, have sole control of the other Chamber, and, under these circumstances,­what can we expect but a state of chronic antagonism snch as has existed in this colony for many years? And, not content with the evils already existing, a number of members of this House have represented that we should follow a course which would ouly intensify those evils. Certain honorable members advocate, with regard to the Legislative Council, that we should extend the basis of representation by lowering the qualification of electors, that we should enlarge the choice of the electors by reducillg the qualification of members, that we should reduce the term for w bich they are elected, and that we should reduce the size of the provinces­in fuct, they are for taking every pos­sible step to assimilate that Cham ber as much as possible to this. The only result I can anticipate fi'om snch an ar­rangement is that there might be a change in the interests wllich would pre­ponderate in the other Chamber. That mav not be wllat the ad vocatos of these !1lt~rations det:ire. I can quite con­cei ve a ve!'y ditIcrellt r:et 01 interests

lJtIr. lVriyht.

preponderating in the othol' Chn.mber if the proposed change wero carried out. Still it would be a Chamber representing in­terests diverse from the interests repre­sented here, and that would only intensify the evils we are now suffering under. It seems to me that the remedy proposed is worse than the disease. Then it is sug­gested that the second Chamber should be liable to dissolution. That might be a mea,ns of getting rid of dead-locks, but I scarcely think it would. In the event of a dissolution, the new Council would repre­sent the same interests as its predecessor, so that there would be no benefit by the change. The principal use of a second Chamber, as far as J can see, is its stability. It should be not only a check upon hasty legi~lation, but it should be independent of any sudden gust of popular passion; and what is proposed is that the Council should be subjected to dissolution not at a time when the colony is at peace, but w hen the two Chambers are quarrelling with each other. And surely when popular passion is at fever heat is not the time for abandoning the only safe anchoring­ground we have, and causing our Legisla­tive Council to be re-elected almost by household suffrage. 1 am glad the honor­able member for Belfast has set himself against that. The honorable member quoted from Judge Story a passage which represents my views exactly, and puts them in a more forcible form than I could hope to do. Perhaps the I-louse will excuse me if I read the passage again, as it is so very apropos to what I am now saying. Judge Story remarks-

" A Senate duly constituted would not only operate as a salutary check upon the represen­tatives, but occasionally upon the people them­selves, against their own temporary delusions and errors. The cool deliberate sense of the community ought -in all governments, and actu­ally will in all free governments, ultimately pre­vail over the views of their rulers. But there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will after­wards be the most ready to lament and c~ndemn. In these critictLI moments how salutary will be the interference of a body of respectable citi­zens, chosen without reference to the excit.ing cause, to check the misguided career of public opinion, and to suspend the blow until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authorit.y over the public mind."

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-He is justi­fying tho formation of the American ~cnate.

Second Reading. [SEPTElIIBER 2~1.J Tentlt l-ligltt's Debate. 1183

Mr. 'VIUGHT.-I admit he is referring to the American Senate; bnt, as I have saiJ already, that Senate was established for a different purpose from the Legisla­tive Council of Victoria. However, the passage applies to all second Chambers; and, looking at the subject from tT udge Story's point of view, it seems to me that the proposed changes I have just referred to are nothing less than revolutionary. Yet they proceed from people who call themselves conservatives. It seems to me that many of those who call themselves conservatives scarcely understand what the term means. At any rate their defi­nition of the term does not accorcl with mine. I think I am much more conser­vative than some honorable members on the opposition side of the House who dub me as a revolutionist, and therefore I trnst that the proposal will meet with less favour in the country t.han it has appa­rently met with from many members of this Chamber and from honorable mem­bers elsewhere. In dealing with the Bill before us, we are hampered by more than the usual number of difficulties. It is a serious task at any time to frame a mea­sure which will .pass through both Cham­bers of Legislat.ure successfully. But here we have to provide a measme which not only we ourselves can agree upon by a majority of the whole House, but which will meet wit.h some sort of reception in the other House, and which, above all, will meet with t.he approval of our con­stituents. Still further is it necessary that the measure should meet with the approval of the Imperial Executive and the Impe­rial Parliament. So that a measure, the preparation of which would be difficult enough under any circumstances, is ren­dered peculiarly difficult under present circumstances. Looking at the matter from that point of view, I think it will be well to modify some of the provisions of the Bill. I make the suggestion not to meet any object.ions that I have to the mea­sure, because I intend to vote for the second reading, but rather to meet the objections of other people. The 6th clause is one that I personally have no objection to; but a large number of members object to it strongly, and so do a large number of people out-of-doors; and I [tm afmid that the Imperial Executive may look upon it with suspicion. I cannot conceive that it will be attended by the evils which have been foreshadowed by some honorable members. I have too much faith in the

honesty and good scnse of my counhT­men to think that t!le mcmbersof thr~ Assembly, or the majority of them, wilt becomc rogues and vagabonds by. any change in the law proposed by this Bill. " Swindles" have b13en passed through this House, and no doubt, if this Bill becomes law, "swindles" will still be carried through. But no greater. facilities for the carrying of " swindles" than exist now will be afforded by the Bill. N ever­theless I think it desirable to carry out our object, if we can do so-and I· think we can-within the strict bounds of the British Constitution. I consider that we might strike out clause 6, and obtain the remedy we desire by resort to lines on which we have already attempted to travel, though unsuccessfully. I refer to a proposal contained in the report from a joint committee of the two Houses sub­mitted some twelve years ago, and adopted by this House a couple of sessions since. That proposal was as follows :-

"That the two Houses be respectively ad­vised that, inasmuch as doubts have arisen respecting the form, or contents of, and prac­tice relatiug to Bills required by the 56th section of the Constitution Act to originate in the Legislative Assembly, it is expedient that the practice of the Lords and Commons respec­tively be observed as to such Bills, and as to all subjects of Aid and Supply, and that each House should be guided in all matters and forms re­lating thereto by the precedents established by the House of Lords and by the House of Com­mons respectively."

It seems to me t.hat this would afford us all we propose for ourselves by clause 6, and would provide it iu a way that could not be objected to by any member of this House, or by the Imperial Executive 01' the Imperial Legislature. As to the other Chambet·, seeing that it claims to be not so much an annlogl1e of the House of Lorcls as a second House of Commons, probably it would object, as it has objected before. But if we could agree to the practice, if our constitnents would agree to it, and if the Imperial authorities would agree to it, it would be much better to adopt it rather than clause 6. Some eighteen months ago the Assembly passed a l'e~olution to the effect that they w'ere still willing to be bound by the agreement arrived at in 1867, and intimated their readiness to concur in an Act of Parlia­ment embodying the agreement. The offer was not accepted by the Conncil, thongh I believe there would be no diHi­cnlt.y in obtainiilg for such a measure the approval not only of our constituents but

1184 Constitzttion Act [ASSEMBLY. ] Amendment Bill.

also of the Secretary of State for the Colonies; for he says, when referring in his despatch to the differences on financial matters between the two Houses-

"This difficulty would not arise if the two Houses of Victoria were guided in this matter, as in others, by the practice of the Imperial Par1iament, the Council following the practice of the House of Lords, and the Assembly that of the House of Commons."

So that, although I have no objection to clause 6 as it stands, yet, in order to placate those who see objection to it, I think it would be as well to abandon the clause, and make some such provision as that arrived at by the joint committee of the two Housesin 1867, approved of by the Assembly recently, and also approved of by the Secretary of State. The pro­vision would not be so mechanically com­plete; it would leave something open to conjecture; but in nearly every case there would be little difficulty in ascer­taining the Imperial practice, and which­ever Chamber was so unreasonable as to depart from it would put itself so hope­lessly in the wrong that the country would be entirely against it, and therefore it could not hold its position long. I am prepared to take part 2 as it stands, but, in consideration for the views of others, I beg to suggest that it would be well to abandon the nominee system, and to pro­vide for the election by this Chamber of members of another place. Substantially the same result would be arrived at. Many persons object to the nominee sys­tem. I consider the objection unreason­able; at the same time I think it should be provided for. It was argued by the honorable member for Mandurang (Mr. Williams), last night, that on the approach of the time for appointing members of the Upper House, political parties might be equally balanced, and a few men banding themselves together would be able to control the nominations by the Governor in Council. I think that is scarcely likely, but, if such objections can be met by a formal, not a substantial, change in the machinery, it is as well to adopt it. In addition to that, I think that instead of having the elections or nominations every two years, it would be as well to provide that there should be an annual change, which could be accomplished whenever vacancies occurred by appointing three mem bers for nine years, and three for ten years, instead of the six for ten years. Thus in course of time it would come to

Mr. Wright.

pass that three members would "have to be nominated or elected every year. But under the system as provided for in the Bill, a Government might be in office eighteen months and yet not have the chance of appointing anyone to the Upper House, although another Go­vernment that might come in imme­diately afterwards, and be in office only six months, might have the appoint­ment of six members. The matter is one of comparatively little importance, but I submit that it is worth consideration. As to the 3rd part of the Bill, I object to it simply for the same reason that I object to the other parts. I have no fear of the plebiscite, but a large number of people do object to it, and I think resort to it will become unnecessary, after the first few years at any rate, if the second Chamber be elected by this House, and three new members be elected every year. Suppos­ing any Bill" passed by the Assembly should be opposed in the Council by 20 members and supported by only 10 mem­bers, in two years; under the arrangement I propose, the minority could be changed into a majority. Moreover, I think it undesirable that we should go out of the bounds of the British Constitution unless the departure is urgently required. I voted for the plebiscite last year, and I will vote for it again; at the same time I think it desirable to consider whether we cannot accomplish the same end in another way­in a way strictly in accordance with the British Constitution. There can be no doubt whatever that the plebiscite would be the means of staying dead-locks, and it might have other consequences which we cannot foresee at the present time. It is very often the unforeseen that happens; and a thousand different things might arise out of the changes contemplated by the Bill. If we had the plebiscite we would have to work out our Constitution in our own way, and to make our own pre­cedents instead of resorting to the prece­dents of the Imperial Parliament, which we can ill afford to lose. Therefore it may be well, when the Bill is passing through committee, to consider if the amendments I have indicated are not de­sirable ; but, whether they are entertained or not, I shall vote for the third reading of the measure.

Mr. CASEY. - Mr. Speaker, I feel somewhat diffident and reluctant to in­trude any observations on the House at what may be considered the tail-end of

Second Reading. [SEPTEMBER 24.J Tenth Night's Debate. 1185

the debate. I feel oppressed by the con­viction that scarcely anything I can say has not been already said; and indeed, if there is any disposition to take a vote upon the Bill to-night, I would willingly refrain from saying a single word. As, however, it is intended that both to-night and to-morrow night shall be given up to the further consideration of the question, I think it desirable to offer a few remarks. In the first place, allow me to call atten­tion to the objections which the honorable member for East Bourke takes to part 2 of the Bill-the part which enables the Upper House to be created by nomination. The -honorable member says the nominee system has proved a failure in Canada and also in the neighbouring colonies. I think if the honorable member will read the history of Canada carefully, he will find that, so far from the nominee system having proved a failure there, it was the elective system that was a failure, and that the Canadians, after trying an elective second Chamber, were obliged to go back to the nominee system with which they originally started. "With respect to the neighbouring colonies, we have this broad fact staring us in the face­that in each of the three colonies which possesses a nominee second Chamber the two branches of the Legislature work in comparative harmony; while in each of the three colonies that possesses an elective Upper Chamber there are constant collisions between the two Houses, on almost identically the same subjects about which differences have arisen here. In South Australia there is an elective Upper House, and there a difficulty arising out of a money question has" taken place between the two Cham bel'S. The Legis­lature of South Australia have persistently abstained from passing an Audit Act so as to keep the power of the purse in the hands of the Lower House. It is feared that the moment an Audit Act is passed, the Upper House will have power over the appropriation of public moneys, and thus have at command another means of producing dead-locks. "Then "again, in South Australia, there is a desire to impose taxation upon large estates, but the efforts of the Lower House in that direction have been frustrated in conse­quence of the constitution of the Upper House; and at present an endeavour is being made to pass a Bill the principal provision in which is to sub­ject the Upper House to dissolution with

the view to bring it under the control of public opinion. Tasmania is the other colony where there is an elective Upper House. Last year that House threatened to reject an Appropriation Bill not for anything it contained, but in order to compel the Ministry to send up another Bill which it wanted to deal with. Now, unless the honorable member for East Bourke is able" to produce instances of some such conduct pursued by nominee Upper Houses, how can he venture to ask this Chamber to agree to his proposition that nominee Upper Houses are a failure? So far fl'Om that being the case, nominee Upper Houses-from the highest, the House of Lords, down to the latest cl'eation at the Cape of Good Hope­work in perfect harmony with Lower Houses, and for the very simple reason that, as soon as a nominee Upper House is created, it proceeds to follow the course of action of its great exemplar; it does not set itself up as a second House of Commons; it does not give itself airs in order to try and control the public ex­penditure, but it seeks to keep within the lines of the Constitution, and is con­tent to be guided by English precedent.

Mr. KERFERD.-Is that the case at Sydney?

Sir J. O'SHANASSY. - There the Upper House has the power to alter Money ·Bills.

Mr. CASEY.-The other day three very important Bills were rejected by the Upper Chamber in Sydney, and they de­clared that they did this not on behalf of a class but on behalf of the public. We don't have such an assertion as that here. In this colony when the Upper House reject a measure they say that they do so be­cause their constituents will not agree to it. There is one notable instance in which the Council rejected a Bill for the second time, after public opinion had been expressed in favour of it.

Mr. BAYLES.-No. Mr. CASEY.-When the Appropria­

tion-cum-Tariff Bill was submitted to the country, at a general election, an over­whelming majority of members were re­turned to this House pledged to vote for it, thus affirming the Tariff and also the tack. The Bill was again sent to the Upper House, and again rejected by that Chamber. I repeat that, in New South Wales, when the Upper House reject a Bill passed by the Assembly, they always say that they act on behalf of the public.

1186 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

Only recently, in New South Wales, Mr. Dalley, in moving in the Upper I-louse the rejection of a Bill defining the privi­leges of the A.ssembly-a most important measure, proposing to give tbe Legislative Assembly of New South Wales the same powers and privileges that this House pos­sesses-stated that he did not believe the public were in favour of the measure, and offered to resign his seat in the Council and contest auy seat with any member of the Assembly who would resign and test the opinion of the public on the matter. I mention this to show that, in New South Wales, the members of the Coun­cil regard the public as the parties to decide any measure in dispute between the two Houses. The question of whe­ther a nominee or an elective Upper House is preferable has been settled by experience. Wherever an elective Upper House has been tried it has beeu pro­ductive of failure. If we continue an Upper House which departs at all from the British model, we will seriously have to consider whether we should not depart from that model still more, and assimilate the Council to the Senate of the United States. I certainly do not wish to go in that direction. I prefer to adhere as nearly as possible to the British model. I may here remark that the speech deli­vered by the Minister of Justice last evening is one to every word of. which I can subscribe. I believe that if a measure were introduced embodying what the honorable gentleman stated, it would find approval not only in the Assembly, but in the Council, and that, if it were not con­curred in by the Upper House, it would unquestionably be passed at home. There cannot be any doubt that if we pass a Reform Bill based on the lines of the British Constitution it must ultimately prevail. The only reason I have for addressing the House at all on this occa­sion is to point out one or two instances in which I think the present Bill departs from the lines of the British Constitution. At the very outset, the Bill makes a most important departure from the practice of the British House of Commons. The 4th clause says-

"The right of granting Aids and Supplies to the Crown in Victoria is in the Legislative Assembly alone, as being the Commons House of Parliament in Victoria."

This is an assertion which has been fre­quently made by this House, and I hope that the Legislative Assembly will always

Mr. Casey.

continue to maintain that it is the Com­mons House of Parliament in Victoria. But it is of no advantage to make asser­tions unless we provide means by which they can be enforced. The assertion of a thing in an Act of Parliament will give us nothing unless we also provide some method of compelling the other branch of the Legislature to recognise our right if they refuse to do so. The 34th section of the Constitution Act provides that the forms and usages of the two Houses of Parliament in England shall be adopted respectively by the two Houses here, but we have no means of compelling the other branch of the Legislature to observe the practice of the House of Lords if they refuse to do so. If the Council choose to say, as they' do say, that they are a second I-louse of Commons we have no means of compelling them to keep within the exact lines of the 34th section of the Constitll­tion Act. The 4th clause asserts that the right of granting Aids and Supplies to the Crown rests in the Assembly alone. Now those words have a distinct and well­known significance. There is a wide distinction between Supply and Ways and Means. Supply is the special and peculiar function of the House of Commons in Eng­land as it is of the Assembly in Victoria. Supply authorizes the expenditure of public money, but the Committee of Ways and Means provides the money for the purpose of paying the expenditure pre­viously authorized. One of the two weapons this House possesses is the right to have grievances redressed before it grants Supply. On the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair, with the view to the House going into Committee of Supply, any honorable member can bring forward any grievance he thinks proper, for the purpose of having it redressed, in accordance with the constitutional maxim that grievances must be redressed before Supply is granted. After Supply is granted, there is still another weapon in the hands of this House-a weapon which can be used against the Government as distinguished from the Crown. Supplies are granted to the Crown, but, after they are granted, there is no means by which the money can be paid out of the public treasury until the Committee of Ways and Means authorizes the expenditure. The resolution passed by the Committee· of Way~ and Means has to be embodied in a Bill, which eventually has to be passed by both Houses. The great Ways and

Second Reading. [SEPTE~1BER 24.J Tentlt JlvTigltt's Debate. 1187

Means Bill of the year is the Appro­priation Bill. How often it has been said in this House, in previous Parliaments, that if the Ministry wanted to prorogue before some important question was dealt .with, the House would stick up the Ap-

• propriation Bill and prevent it being passed until the other matter was disposed of. Let us see how far these two privileges­the special and peculiar privileges of this House-are continued by means of part 1 of the Bill before us. In the first place, there is the declaratory clause asserting that the right of granting Aids and Sup­plies is in the Legislative Assembly alone. That clause does not say a word about vVays and Means. I don't know whether the omission is important or not. That is a matter for the Attorney-Geneml to look to. It would be wrong for me, on the second reading of the Bill, to take a mere verbal exception to a clause of this de­scription; but I think it is desirable to point out the omission, so that it may be remedied, if necessary, when the clause is dealt with in committee. The 5th clause says-

., The Legislative Assembly has the power to impose and remit taxes, and so to frame Bills of Supply, that the right of the Legislative As­sembly as to the matter, manner, measure, and time of granting Aids and Supplies to the Crown may be maintained inviolate."

I don't think it is possible for the Legis­lative Assembly of its own mere motion to impose or remit any taxes. I deny, as a matter of law, that the Legislative As­sembly has any power whatsoever by itself to impose taxes. There is a section in the Constitution Act which provides for the imposition of taxes, and the power is conferred on the two Houses of Legislature. Taxes can be imposed only by the consent of the two Houses. This clanse, however, asserts on the face of it that the Assem­bly by itself can impose taxes, and pur­ports' thereby to be following British precedent. Until some authority be shown to me, which at present I am not a,wnre of, I shall maintain that this is an asser­tion of power which does not exist. Not only does such a power not exist in the House of Commons in England, but I don't think it exists in any country in the world where there is a bicameral system of. legislntion. The imposition of taxes-the placing of burthens on the people-is one of the most important things that Plll'lia­ment cnn do, and, if there are two branches of the Legislature, it is only reasonable that bot.h Houses shoulLl have the power of

dealing with it. Our Constitution Act says the Legislative Council may reject, bu t not alter, any Bill for imposing taxes. The assent of both Houses is absolutely necessary before such a measure can be­come law; and therefore I do not see how the proposition asserted in the !5th clause of this Bill can be maintained so far as the imposition of taxes is concerned. The 6th clause says-

" Immediately on the adoption by the Legisla­tive Assembly of any report from the Committee of ~llpply, containing a resolution that any sum be granted to Her Majesty, snch sum shall be­come legally available for and applicable to the service or purpose mentioned in such resolution, and may be issued accordingly out of the con­solidated revenue."

I do not intend to deal with the fact that this clause gives the exclusive power to this House to expend money at its own discretion. That has been discussed al­ready by a number of honorable members, and if I were to discuss it I would only have to travel over the same ground that they have already traversed. I desire, however, to call the attention of the At­torney-General to the fact that the 6th clause must be read in connexion with the 3rd clause, which says-

"The 56th section of the Constitution Act shall be read with and explained by the follow­ing sections of this part or this Act."

I confess I am at fi loss to see whfit possible connexion there is between the 6th clause and the 56th sect.ion of the Constitution Act; but I can see fi consi­derable association between the 6th clause and the 24th section of the Audit Act, bocause the words "such sum shall be­come legally available for and applicable to the service or purpose" are in the Audit Act, and not in the Constitution Act. vVhat the 6th cbuse proposes is that the votes pnssed in Committee of Supply, when adopted by the Assembly, shall be equivalent to an Act of Pm'lia­mont-that, whereas an Act of Pm'lia­ment is now required before the certificate of the Auuit Commissioners can be obtained that money is legally available, in future resolutions passed in Committee of Supply and auopted by this I-louse shall be suffi­cient.. That being so, the Audit Act, and not the Constitution Act, ought to be amended. The Audit Act, however, re­mains untouched. The 24th section of the Audit Act says-

"The Treasurcr shall as often as occasion may require calculate the amount of moneys likely to become due and payable out of the

1188 Constitution Act [ASSEMBL Y. ] Amendment Bill.

said account during a period not exceeding one month next after such calculation, and shall thereupon prepare an instrument in the form contained in the 7th schedule to this Act, and shall set forth therein the said amount, classify­ing and arranging it (if for the public service) under the same divisions and subdivisions that shall have been employed in the appropriation thereof."

This section, therefore, clearly contem­plates an Appropriation Act before the Audit Commissioners can certify that money is legally available. How can the Attorney-General get over the difficulty that the 6th clause of the Bill and the 56th section of the Constitution Act can­not be read together? It is simply a jumble to attempt to read them together. Instead of saying that the two shall be read together, the Audit Act ought to be amended if the 6th clause is retained.

Mr. BERRY.-The Audit Act can be altered.

Mr. CASEY.-No do~bt; and I hope the Chief Secretary will impress that view upon the Attorney-General. The honorable member for Benambra has sug­gested a course which would meet my views. Instead of the cumbrous system proposed by the Bill-which is certainly a wholesale departure from anything I know of in British precedents-we should adopt the simple plan of providing that the forms, practices, and procedure of the two Houses of the British Parliament shall regulate the two Houses of our Par­liament.

Mr. BERRY.---":How can you enforce that?

Mr. CASEY.-Just in the same way that it is proposed to enforce the 4th and 5th clauses of the Bill. I understand the Government are going to strike out the 6th clause.

Mr. BERRY.-If that clause does not carry out what we intend it to do, we can make it do so.

Mr. CASEY.-With respect to the whole of the 1st part of the Bill, it seems to me that it would be very much better to adopt what Sir Michael I-Iicks­Beach recommends, namely, that we should provide for a uniform system be­tween the two Houses by means of a joint resolution. If it cannot be done by resolution it can be done by a Bill. There are abundance of ways of dealing with it. I will ask the Chief Secretary how far the 6th clause, if it be passed as it stands, will get rid of the scrutiny provided for by the Audit Act?

Mr. BERRY.-The clause only says that when resolutions from the Committee of Supply are adopted by the Assembly the money "shall become legally avail­able."

Mr. CASEY.-But does not that, to a certain extent, dispense with the Audit Commissioners al together?

Mr. BERRY.-No. Mr. CASEY.-I don't raise this point

as a substantial objection; but I do ask the Chief Secretary-who I know has no desire that anything of the kind should be done-to consider whether the passing of this clause may not in effect dispense with the supervision which the Audit Commis­sioners ought to have over the public expenditure. It seems to me that if the clause is passed there will be no more Appropriation Acts.

Mr. BERRY.-Money used to be paid on the authority of votes passed in Com­mittee of Supply, and yet we had Appro­priation Acts during that time.

Mr. CASEY.---No doubt money used to be paid on the authority of votes passed in Committee of Supply~ but, unfortu­nately, we cannot do that any longer, because the Chief Secretary asked for an opinion from the Home Government, and got one that closes the door against it. We can only obtain the power by the two branches of the Legislature over­riding the despatch from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and I am afraid the Chief Secretary will not be able to induce the two branches to override that despatch as easily as he got the despatch.

Mr. BERRY. - We shall have the power by this Bill.

Mr. CASEY. - If the 6th clause be passed, a weapon will be taken away from this House which the Assembly ought always to possess, even as against the Government. The Crown, on the advice of the Ministry, can prorogue Parliament at a moment; but the Assembly has it in itg power to withhold the passing of the Appropriation Bill until any important measure which it thinks ought to be dealt with is disposed of. The 6th clause, however, will render an Appropriation Bill unnecessary, so that the Government

. of the day, having got all the votes they require passed in Committee of Supply, will be able to close the session when they think fit, and thus prevent any further legislative work being done. I merely mention this to show that the 6th clause is a departure from the safeguards

Second Reading. [SEPTEMBER 24.J Tenth Night's Debate. 1189

which British precedents confer on this House. We ought not lightly to abandon those safeguards. There is really no ne­cessity for us to do so. It is not as if all the world around us were fighting against us on the question of reform. On· the contrary, everyone seems disposed to have a reform of the Constitution for the pur­pose of putting an end to the present unsatisfactory state of things. Already there are two proposals for reform under discussion in the Upper House, and I believe the Opposition in this House will submit another.

Mr. SERVICE. -And one from the Ministerial corner.

Mr. CASEY.-I can only speak for myself; and I will vote for any reason­able measure with a view of settling the question. I will vote for the Bill now before the House, and will endeavour in committee to make it as perfect as I can. In saying this, I wish it to be distinctly understood that I don't say this Bill is a good or a perfect one, nor do I believe it is likely to be carried. Indeed, I don't think it will be carried.

An HONORABLE MEMBER. - That is why you are going to vote for it.

Mr. CASEY.-No; I shall vote for the second reading of this measure for the same reason that I shall vote for the second reading of the Bill expected to be received from the Upper House. I will do my best to get that measure considered by this House. I shall vote for it with the simple desire of having the reform question settled. The continual turmoil which .the country is being kept in is producing an immense amount of injury. The country wants some repose; and I will take any instalment towards a settle­ment of the difficulty that may be offered, even if it does not please me to the fullest extent. I would even take part 1 of this Bill, which I am now criticising, rather than have nothing; but I must say part 1 does not meet with my concurrence. I don't think it is based· on any principle. I don't think it follows any precedent; I don't think any authority can be quoted to induce us to give our support to it. It purports to follow the despatch of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, but it omits a very important part of that despatch. If the Legislative Council are to respect the rights of the Legislative Assembly in dealing with money matters, this House ought to respect the Council by not putting things into Appropriation Bills which, by

British parliamentary precedent, it ought not to place in.

Mr. BERRY.-It has not done so. Mr. CASEY.-If I were asked to de­

cide judicially, I would be inclined to say that it has done so. Payment of members is, I think, a question which the other branch of the Legislature might fairly be asked to deal with in a separate Bill. Payment of members is not only a vote of money, but it involves an alteration of the Constitution, because the object of it is to bring into this House, or to facilitate the coming into this House, of a class of per­sons who would not otherwise come in.

Mr. BERRY.-That might be so the first time payment of members was passed.

Mr. CASEY. ·-The principle is the same now, though I agree with the Chief Secretary that my remark would apply to a greater extent to the first occasion on which payment of members was proposed. I would feel bound to say, if I were asked. t.o decide the question judicially, that a "Vote for payment of members ought to be sent up to the Council in a separate Bill. Upon this point there happens to be a very apt illustration in the precedents of the House of Commons. Honorable members are, no doubt, familiar with the celebrated Palmer case. At the time that case was under consideration a cor­respondence took place between the Pre­mier of the day and the Speaker of the House of Commons as to whether the vote should be put in the Appropriation Bill or in a separate measure, a -portion of which I will read. The Speaker wrote to the Prime Minister as follows :-

"Dear Perceval,-I have looked into the question which you desired me to consider, and, so far as I have been able to discover by my own examination, and the searches of others, the result is this :-1. No instance occurs in which the Lords have ever amended the Appro­priation Acts; and, had they done so, it would have been a direct violation of our rule, estab­lished in .1678. 2. If any amendments were made in such a Bill by the Lords, expressly contravening any grant of the Commons it could not be agreed to by the Commons; nor could a second Bill on the same subject be brought in during the same session. 3. Four instances of short prorogations occur "--

That is, prorogations in order to have a new session to send up the same Bill again. "viz., 1553, from 21st October, for three days; the Lords having amended the Tonnage and Poundage Acts. In 1689, 24th October, for two days; understood to have been on account of the Succession Bill having been lost in the Lords. In 1707, 8th April, for six days, the

1190 Constitution Act [A~SEMBLY.J Amendment Bill.

Lords having rejected a Bill for importing foreign commodities into Scotlaml. Awl in 1721, 29th July, for two days; to allow of bringing in a Bill upon the South Sea busi­ness, contravening some other Bills of the same session."

In a subsequent letter the Speaker wrote as follows :-

"Since you spoke to me in the chair yester­day evening, upon the subject of Mr. Palmer's business, and mentioned to me the course you intend to take, I have turned the matter very scriously in my thoughts; and I feel that I ought not to lose any time in acquainting you with my view of it. If the, Lurds differ in opinion from the Commons upon the Bill now before them, they will, of course exercise their right of throwing it out; and upon the expecta­tion that they will hold the same opinioil npon the grant of the sum in gross, whieh bas been voted by the Commons, it will be for the Com­mons to consider how they will act.

"Now it does not appear to be right or fitting for the Commons, in such a case, to surrender or abandon their own vote; or that the appre­hension of its being rejected by the Lords can .justify or excuse them for not maintaining the exercise of their own undoubted right in the matter of Supply. For the Commons to retract, rescind, or give up their own absolute and un­qualified grant of money by not inserting it in the Appropriation Act, and for such a cause, appears to me, as far as I have had the means of information, to be a manifest departure from the uniform practice of Parliament, and an abandonment of the highest privileges of the Commons.

"Viewing the question in this light, you will not, I am sure, be surprised that, in the progress of the proceedings, I shall think it my duty, in my situation, openly to declare that opinion, which on every account it will be pain­ful for me to do. And although I am aware that the circumstance may not and ought not to vary any determination which you may have come to upon grounds sufficient to satisfy your own judgment. I am very desirous <that you should have the earliest and fullest knowledge of my sentiments upon a proceeding which appears to me to be so dangerous and important in its consequences, and I shall ever regret that such an occurrence should have happened in your time or mine."

To this letter the Prime Minister replied as follows :-

" My dear Mr. Speaker,-I am most obliged to you for communicating so promptly and so distinctly your opinion upon this very important and embarrassing question. I will give the opinion all the attention in my power. At pre­sent I confess that in the degree in which I feel the necessity of upholding as undoubted the pri­vileges of the Commons with respect to all grants of Supply, I feel it important not to mix in any Bill of general Supply separate matters of grant, upon which the Lords may reasonably be supposed to entertain a different opinion from the Commons, and upon which they have au un­questionable right to give their negation.

" When that is likely to be the case, and when the Commons, with their eyes open to such a case, do mix such a grant with their general

Mr. Casey.

Supply for the services of the year, I conceive thcy do offer a violence to an undoubted right of the Lords, and of the Crown, Ilot to lta\'c any question of any sort so tacked to the Supply as to disable them from exercising nn unfettered judgment upon the propriety of the grant itself."

Mr. BERRY.-Would you put that against the Speaker'S opinion?

Mr. CASEY.-I have read both siUes of the question. The quotations show that the Spea.ker of the Honse of Com­mons and the Prime Minister discussed the question whether a vote of money which had been the subject of contro­versy between the two Houses should be put in a separate Bill or in the Appro­priation Bill.

Mr. RICHARDSON.-The Prime Minister was opposed to the grant.

Mr. CASEY.-That does not alter the question of practice. Although the Prime Minister was opposed to the grant, he had to get a message from the Crown before it could be passed by the House of Com­mons. The result was that the grant was placed in a separate. Bill instead of in the Appropriation Bill, and carried in the I-louse of Commons by a division of 186 to 63. This precedent is of value as showing the course of procedure adopted by the House of Commons with respect to grants of money involving questions of pnblic policy upon which there is a rea­sonable ground to snppose the House of Lords entertains a different opinion from the Commons. It shows that there are duties on both sides. The very despatch which the Chief Secretary brought with him from England points out that there are duties which belong to the Assembly as well as duties which belong to the Council. The honorable gentleman has put in his Bill the duties that belong to the Council, but he has omitted from it the duties belonging to the Assembly. I thoroughly subscribe" to the speech of the Minister of Justice, and, if it were put in the form of a Bill, I would willingly vote for that measure, for it would be in accordance with British pre­cedent. All I ask of the Chief Secretary is simply to follow the terms of the despatch he brought with him from Eng­land, which says that while, on the one hand, the Legislative Assembly will claim, the right to deal with the disbursement of public money and the imposition of taxes, on the other hand it should not put into a Money Bill any grant or subject of legislation which is foreign to the measure itself, and thereby coerce the other branch

Second Reading. [SEPl'EUBEl{ 24.] Tenth J.Vight's Debate. 1191

of the Legislature to pass a Money Bill including a tack. I don't say this from a desire to protect the other branch of the Legislature. I do not stand here as the ad vocate of the Council. I have no desire to raise my voice very strongly in their favour, but I do raise my voice against the Assembly' making so complete a de­parture from the practice of the Imperial Parliament as this Bill involves. Wit.h the exception mentioned by the Minister of Justice, that we have an elective in­stead of a nominative Upper House, I believe that our charter-our Constitution -is as nearly as possible a copy of the British Constitution. If it has failed I desire, instead of making the departure still greater, to bring it into closer har­mony with the _ British Constitution. While talking about tacks, I may mention that only within the last year the Presi­dent of the United States vetoed an Appro­priation Bill for 15,000,000 dollars pro­videdfor the civil service because there hap­pened to be a tack to the m@asure. In my opinion that tack was a gross impropl'iet,y. It had been found that in the state of New York 108 votes were recorded for every 100 citizens,on the roll, though it was computed that not more than 80 per cent. recorded their votes. The consequence was that certain persons, called super­visors of elections, were appointed to exercise a scrutiny over the ballots, with the view to prevent the ballot-boxes being stuffed. A clause was inserted in the Appropriation Bill in question repealing

. the appointment of' the supervisors of elections, and it was vetoed because of that tack. It was sent back to the two Chambers, who a,gain passed it, but not with. the requisite majority, and it was vetoed a second time. A very able minute was written by President Hayes pointing out the duty which each' branch of, the Legislature owed to the other, and show­ing that it was not fair to throw the responsibility upon one branch to accept or reject a measure containing foreign matter. I refer to this case to show that the objections to tacks are not mere senti­mental objections but real things, which are t,O be found not only in British communities, but in -the American States. If, on 'the one hand) we want to bring the Council within the lines of the British Constitution, on the other hand it is desir­able that some guarantGe should be given that the"Asse'mbly will nQt overstep their powers by putting into the Appropriation

Bill, or a Bill of Taxation, any foreign matter. If, instead of part 1 of this Bill, we had a few simple clauses providing that we should have the forms and pro­cedure of the British I-louses of Parlia­ment, the difficulty would be at an end, for we could at once find out whether there was any authority f01' us in any procedure we intended to adopt. The next part of the Bill is that which re­quires a vote of the people to be taken in the event of a Bill passed by the Assembly in two successive sessions being r~jected each time by the Council. Since the first reading of the Bill I have received. a letter from a very intelligent Swiss, from whose country the proposal of the plebiscite is taken, and, as he puts the matter in a very clear light, I will, with the permission of honorable members, read it to the House. It is as follows :-

"Norwood, near Maryborough, August 4, 1879.

" Dear Sir,-As the plebiscite is again on the tapis, and seeing that a great deal of discussion took place last session about it in connexion with Switzerland, from which country it was stated it was copied, a few remarks about it from a Swiss man may not b(' out of place. First:ly, the word 'plebiscite' is unknown in Switzerland; but in 1874, when the Constitution was revised, a new principle called the refer­endum was introduced in it, giving to the people the option of accepting or rejecting a law just passed, and it works this way :-When the two Federal Chambers, called the' Conseil N ationnal' and the 'Conseil des Etats,' have passed a new law, if during an interval of three months from the passing of that law nobody says anything, it then becomes the law of the land; but, on the other hand, if before the expiration of that three months a petition signed by 30,000 citizens demanding the referendum is taken to Berne to the Federal Government, then that body has to appoint a day upon which all the citizens (electors) are invited to go and record their vote upon such law, simply yes or no, and then the majority carries the day. Here is an example of it. In August, 1878, the Chambers passed a law granting a subsidy of 8,000,000 francs to the St. Gothard Railway Company to finish that great enterprise. The inhabitants of the Canton. qe Vaud finding they would have to pay their share of it, and perhaps not get a corresponding advantage when that railway would be finished, they got up the 30,000 signatures petition within the two months, and took it to the proper place. The 19th January, 1879, was appointed for the referendum, and the law was accepted by an overwhelming majority. From 1874 to 1879 the referendum has been exercised five times, the expenses in connexion with it costing the country about £3,000. But the circumstances between Switzerland and Victoria are altogether different; There the people being the sovereign, it is quite right that finality of legislation should rest with the people, and I must say, so far as I am aware; it has worked very well; in fact, legislators having the referendum before their eyes have

1192 Constitution Act [ ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bilt.

not rushed laws through in haste, but have devoted their best attention to frame them in a way to satisfy the country at large, without having recourse to the popular vote. So you see the life, the very soul, of the referendum is that it gives to the people the option of demanding an opportunity of recording their vote upon a law which may not suit them, whereas' Mr. Berry's plebiscite does no such thing, since it leaves it to the Governor in Council whether it may be desirable to call a vote of the people upon such or such a question. As you very properly remarked, on Tuesday, the 22nd July, it gives the Assembly the power of appealing against itself, a proposition which is absurd. However, my object was to point out the enormous difference between the Swiss referendum und Mr. Berry's plebiscite. My task is done so I conclude with my respects.

" I have, &c., "LOUIS WURLOD." Mr. BERRY.-How does the Assem­

bly "appeal against itself" when we pass the Bill before the plebiscite is held?

Mr. CASEY.-Because the Ministry are a committee of the Assembly, and under the proposal of the Government it is the Governor in Council, or, in other words, the Ministry, who are to have the power of calling for the plebiscite. That is prac­tically giving the Assembly" the power of appealing against itself."

Mr. BERRY.-They appeal to the ple­biscite to endorse the Bill already passed by them.

Mr. CASEY.-To endorse or to con­demn. You cannot ask the people to vote for a Bill and not against it. If the Chief Secretary will adopt the Swiss plan of the plebiscite, as explained in this letter, I will vote for it thoroughly. I think it is an excellent plan to afford the people an op­portunity of saying that they do not wish to have a law which the Legislature has made, but that is not what the honorable gentleman proposes.

Mr. BERRY.-Substitute " Assembly" for "Legislature," and that is exactly what we do propose.

Mr. CASEY. - But the substitution makes all the difference.

Mr. SERVICE.-How would this pro­posal get rid of dead-locks between the two Houses?

Mr. CASEY.-Of course it would not get rid of dead-locks. The Chief Secre­tary himself has furnished all the objec­tions to the plebiscite he proposes that could possibly be collected. I intended to state my own objections, but, happening to look at the Ri'l.'erine Herald, I found there collected from Hansard the Chief Secretary's remarks on the plebiscite last session, and I saw at once that they

concentrated all the arguments that could be used against the proposal now made by the Government. I have the less hesi­tation in quoting the Chief Secretary's criticism, inasmuch as the House wi11 re­cognise that the honorable gentleman is an authority certainly not hostile to the pre­sent Government. On the 1st October, 1878, the Chief Recretary said-

" The only questions that could be submitted to a plebiscitum were those on which every man in the country could fairly be asked to express an opinion. For instance, there was the ques­tion of giving religious instruction in the State schools. That was a question upon which every man had an opinion, and the decision of the ballot-box would be better than even the deci­sion of the House. But who ever heard of sub­mitting questions of taxation to the country at large, especially where the population was, like that of Victoria, a scattered one? Supposing there were a deficit in the revenue of £500,000, and that in order to make it up fresh taxation in several ways was proposed, how, assuming the Council sent the Bill to the plebiscitum, could it be expected to be adopted? Some of the electors would be in favour of one tax and against the others, and so on. Besides, what in­ducement would there be to electors to ride­as some of them would have to do-40 or 50 miles in order to record their votes in favour of the measure? Supposing the Bill were nega­tived, how would the deficit be got rid of? How would the case be met? Should the Govern­ment resign? If they did not resign, but dis­solved the House, and obtained a majority in the next Assembly in favour of their Tax Bill, what if that Bill was again sent to the plebiscitum, and again rejected? Would not the colony then have a worse dead-lock than ever? The Constitution would then become unworkable."

Mr. BERRY.-I still hold to those re­marks, but how do they apply to the pre­sent Bill? I was then speaking on the amendment of the honorable member for Mandurang (Mr. Williams) to apply the plebiscite to Money Bills.

Mr. CASEY.-I thought the Chief Secretary contended that this was the same Bill as that of last session. If the plebiscite is good for one thing it is good. for another. .

Mr. BERRY.-I say not. Mr. CASEY.-There I differ from the

Chief Secretary. I am not afraid of the people at all. If we are to call the people into our counsels to determine any ques­tion, if that is decided to be a proper course-and I admit a great· deal has been said for as well as against it-I am quite willing that all questions should be submitted to thein.

Mr. BERRY.-1 thought the honor­able member said he agreed with my remarks which he quoted.

Second Reading. [SEPTEMBER 24. ] Tenth ~Nig M! s Debate.

Mr. CASEY.-I said the Chief Secre­tary had put the objections to the plebis­cite now proposed far more strongly than I could have done, and I adopted his words, instead of my own language, to describe my objections to the proposal.

Mr~ R. M. SMITH.-That is unkind. Mr. CASEY.-I didn't do it from that

motive. On the contrary, because, if I used my own language, the Chief Secre­tary might think me unkind, I simply employed his own words. Again, a week later, the honorable gentleman said-

" I do not hesitate to say that in the present state of the country, with the imperfect means of communication, with the constant necessity for each working man to attend to his work, there would be great danger in transferring from this Chamber to the country many questions of the very gravest importance. And why? Be­cause we shaH always have the wealthy minor­ity, to whom time is not money, who will, when their interest is at stake, always spend money in order to obtain a decision in their favour. 'Ve should have every man of the wealthy min­ority voting at the plebiscitum; but how many of the industrious working classes would vote? Honorable mem bers sitting around me know that many of their constituents have lost a day's work and walked 20 miles to vote for them; but are those men to lose a day's work and be dragged to vote on every question, and sometimes on questiolls they cannot understand? What can a man following the plough know about a discussion we have had in this House concern­ing the imposition of a tax? • . . How can responsible government be worked if every question has to be remitted to the ballot-box?"

Mr. BERRY.-Hear, hear. Mr. CASEY.-If the Chief Secretary

is still of that opinion, I do not need to convince him at all events; he and I are at one on this matter. I say I am not in any way afraid of trusting the people of this country. Why should I be? It was the people who sent me here, and I have no right to distrust the ability, in­telligence, or integrity of those whose representative I am. All I desire to do is, to the best of my ability, to assist in pro­viding some method of patching up our Constitution so as to make it workable. That is what I am trying to do, but I am one of those old-fashioned people who prefer to follow some precedent which has been working for a number of years, and of which we know the effect, rather than to devise some new plan the effect of wilich we do not know. The adoption of a Constitution, as has been truly said by a previous speaker, is like laying down the rules of a game before the players begin. All parties are interested in the work, because we don't know who may be in

VOL. xxx.-4 K

office or who in opposition to-morrow. We ought, if possible, therefore, to lay aside all party considerations, and endea­vour to provide a workable Constitution. It is from that point of view I am address­ing these remarks to th~ House. I don't know of any precedent which will justify the system of taking a vote of the people in the way proposed by the Government, because the proposition is not· to ask the people to vote, as in ~witzerland, upon the question whether they approve or not of a measure which has been passed, but really to ask them to construct the mea­sure. Take, for example, the Chief Sec­retary's own illustration of the Mining on Private Property Bill. That will clearly show the difficulties which underlie the system proposed. The question of min­ing on private property is continually being mentioned as one which is pecu­liarly suitable for settlement by the plebiscite. Now, of course, we are all in favour of mining on private pro­perty. This House is in favour of it, and whether or not the Council were in favour of it some years ago, they are so now at all events. But what we differ upon is the mode in which private property should be entered, and as to the principle on which compensation should be given to the owner of the land. There are three Mining on Private Property Bills which are well known, namely, tIle Bill of the Minister of Mines, the Bill of the honor­able member for Sandhurst (Mr. Mackay), and the Bill of Mr. Wallace, which has been passed by the Legislative Council. Now, suppose anyone of those Bills was remitted to the electors, it would be neces­sary, before any elector could vote on it properly, that he should know the con­tents of the other two measures. There is an elaborate system of prin ting carried on by the Government, and a large print­ing establishment supported at a cost of some £30,000 a year, so that when a Hill is introduced into either branch of the Legislature, copies are sent to members of both Houses, who are thus kept acquainted with the details of every measure that is before the Legislature. But what the Governmen t ask in their proposal is that every person iu the colony entitled to vote should be acquainted with each measure submitted to him, and-in the case of the mining on private property question which I have taken as an illustnttion­that the people should study and decide upon the relative merits of the three Bills

1194 Constt'tutz'on Act CASS:BMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

which have been proposed on the subject. I think that is asking too much. vVith all our desire to confer on the people as much power as possible, we ought, at the same time, to consider whether we are asking them to perform a duty which it is reasonable to cast" on them. That is one practical difficulty in the way of the plebiscite proposed by the Government; but there is a still greater one, namely, that the country districts would be com­pletely at the mercy of the towns. A thousand voters could be got in the towns to record their votes on a plebiscite much more easily than 200 could be got to do so in the country, the facilities in the former case being so much greater.

An HONORABLE MEMBER. - That ap­plies to the present system of election.

Mr. CASEY.-In the present system of electing Members of' Parliament a com­pensation is allowed to the country dis­tricts to make up for that state of things. As a rule, the town districts have fewer representatives than the country districts in proportion to the uumber of electors. I admit that the plebiscite has received very powerful advocacy from an organ of public opinion which I do not hesitate to say is perhaps the most influential news­paper in the southern hemisphere - a journal which is ably conducted, and which has pursued this question with an ability and determination deserving of all com­mendation. I myself have often experi­enced great difficulty in having to differ in opinion on this subject from a journal which is so influential and so ably con­ducted ; but one's duty to one's own con­victions and what he believes to be right must, in my opinion, be paramount; and an honorable member would be unworthy of a seat in this House if he did not ex­press his own opinions, no matter whom they displeased or offended. I say with regard to the plebiscite that, if it can be applied here in the manner in which it is applied in Switzerland, I have not the smallest objection to allowing the refer­endum to the people on any question with regard to which the people themselves, by a reasonable number of votes, demand that their opinion should be taken. I be­lieve that system would be a check on improper legislation on many occasions, and I thiuk the power would be a desirable one to give the people.

Mr. ORR.-That would be a sub"stitu­tion for the Royal prerogative of vetoing measures.

Mr. CASEY.-The Royal prerogative as far as vetoing legislation is concerned is practically in abeyance; it is transferred to the Ministry the moment they are ap­pointed, for the Crown takes the advice of its Ministers. There is another matter I would like to say a few words about, and I only refer to it because the Chief Secretary has himself invited us to ap­prove of his mission to England and the result of his labours there. If the Chief Secretary had refrained from doing so I would not have alluded to the matter I am about to mention, and I only refer to it lest, if I abstained from doing so, I would seem by my silence to have concurred in the mission and its results. When the debate on the mission to England took place last session, I made the following remarks :-

" The real tangible grounds of my objection to the whole proceeding are-first, that it practi­cally involves an abandonment by us of the principle of self-reliance, of our claim to possess the power of making laws for ourselves in all cases whatever, and of our determination to be interfered with by nobody outside our jurisdic­tion j secondly, that the failure of the embassy­and it most certainly will fail-will strengthen the Upper House and make our difficulties in respect to them still greater than they are j and, thirdly, that such a failure will materially in­jure the force and power of the great liberal party. Indeed I don't see how the party will be able to sustain such a failure. For these reasons I shall vote for the amendment of the honorable member for Carlton."

I think honorable members will admit that, if I had been gifted with the power of prophecy, I could not have uttered words more clearly prophetic.

Mr. FERGUSSON.-Not at all. Mr. CASEY.-I shall prove the state­

ments. My first objection to the embassy was that it practically involved an aban­donment by us of the principle of se1£­reliance, and of our determination to legislate for ourselves.

Mr. NIMMO.-That is an assumption without foundation.

Mr. CASEY.-It is an absolute fact, as I shall show. In the correspondence present~d to the House I find that that very point was put very markedly by the late Governor· in his despatch to Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, dated December 27, 1878. He observed--

" Whatever opinion may be formed concern­ing this mission in other respects, there is one point of view in which it can hardly fail to be considered satisfactory. The majority of the representatives of the people of Victoria now seek the counsel and aid of the Imperial

Second Reading .• [SEPTEmmn. 24.J ii95

Government, whereas a few yen,rs back all intel'­ferellce on the part of the home authorities was vehemently repmliatecl by that House. I would refer to the address "otecl by the Asselllbly on the motion of ]\fr. (now Sir James) McCulloch, on 4th June, 1868 (already quoted in my despatch of the 19th September, 1877).; and also to the resolutions adopted iu N oyember, 1869, on the motion of Mr. Higinbotham, and of which oue was framed in the followiug terms :-' That the official communication -of advice, suggestions, or instructions by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to Her Majesty's representative in Victoria on any subject whatsoever connected with the adminis­tration of the local government, except the giving or withholding the Hoyal assent to or tlJe reservation of Bills passed by the two Houses of the Victorian Parliament, is a prac­tice not sanctioned by law, derogatory to the independence of the Queen's representative, and a violation both of the principles of the system of responsible government and of the constitu­tional rights of the people of this colony.' "

Mr. BERRY.-"Vhat has that to do with your statement?

Mr. CASEY.-I will tell the honorable gentleman what it has to do with it. The course the Chief Secreta.rv took was taken advantage of by the late "Governor of this colony to point out to the Secretary of State i.ts importance as a clear departure from the practice previously followed, and he quoted the resolutions adopted on the mot.ion of 1\11'. Higinbotham in proof of his statement.

l\fr. BERRY.-The cases are quite different.

Mr. CASEY.-I assert that they are not, and, as the honorable gentleman per­sists in his denial, I would point out that, in the very despatch brought to the colony by the Chief Secretary, the Secretary of State regards the application made by the embassy to the Imperial Government as really being a practical abandonment of self-government by this colony. The Secretary of State asks in effect-" Do you want to surrender your right to make laws for yourselves ?"

Mr.BERRY.-Can we make the laws we want here? Have we not beeu trying in vain for 20 years?

Mr. CASEY.-Yes, and we will try again and again, if necessary, until we make them ourselves. Moreover, I will tell the Chief Secretary this: that I have no earthly doubt in my own mind that, if there was any reasonable effort made to make the law we want to make, it could be done this !3ession. I have no earthly doub~ that, if there was any real desire to make this law, it could be made. I will not: utter or even think anything offensive

4K2

with regard to the Chief Secretary. I will eyon go the length of saying I belieye he thinks the course he is pursuing the only oue to follow. Nevertheless, for my own part, I have no doubt whatever th~t in two months from the present hour, If a reasonable effort were made, the whole of this question could be settled and put an end to. . Mr. BERRY.-Let us make it then, by

all means. Mr. CASEY.-I am willing to help,

but the Chief Secretary ·knows very.well that when I made certain proposals last session they were not received with much favour. They did not meet with a very agreeable reception from the honorable gentleman or his supporters, and it is a very unpleasant thing when one makes proposals for the purpose of endeavouring to ca.rry through what is Gertainly a great work to find one's motives misunderstood, and to be treated in the manner I was met. But I would ask the Chief Secre-

, tary to show that we have been for 20 years trying to deal with this question. I do not think he can justify that state­ment. We have amended our Constitution Act half-a-dozen times since we got it, and in the attempts to amend it which have been unsuccessful the difficulty has been in this House. The difficulty about the Norwegian scheme was not in the Council but in the Assembly. The only Bill sent up to the other House for the purpose of settling this question was the Reform Bill of last session.

Mr. MUNRO.-Which has since been abandoned by the Chief Secretary himself.

Mr. CASEY.-Referring to the aban­donment of the last Reform Bill this session reminds me that the Chief Secre­tary cannot fail to see that the substantial difference between the present and the last Bill is an admission that there is a grow­ing disinclination to endorse the course of procedure adopted by the Government with regard to this question. The last Reform Bill provided that all Money and Tax Bills passed by the Assembly should become law within a month, whether the Council agreed to them or not. That is not the proposition this year. The ques .. tion of taxation is left out altogether, the question of appropriation is dealt with in the 6th clause, and the education of the Chief Secretary's party-the disruption of his party-as I predicted last year, has been going on to such an extent that even

. the 6th clause he is not able to cun:y.

1196 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

Mr. BERRY.-I don't know about that. What will the country say?

Mr. CASEY.-The honorable member is a good prophet, no doubt, and I will not venture to prophesy what the country will say. I was so far out in one memor­able prediction that I will not endanger my reputation by venturing on another one. I will ask the honorable gentleman, however, to remember that, so far from being able to invite this House and the country to endorse the last Reform Bill, he has now brought in a totally different measure, and one which demands a great deal less. Indeed, the nominee part of the Bill I look upon as a conservati ve proposal. I think the Chief Secretary has conceded a great deal to the conservative classes by proposing not to make the Upper House an unlimited, but a limited nominee Cham­ber. Instead of being opposed by the con­servati ve classes, I think this portion of the Bill ought to be accepted by them in the spirit in which it is tendered. The Chief Secretary must feel that his proceed­ing, in going to England, has had a dis­heartening effect upon his party. Of course we all recognise England as the mother country, but still, as she has given us power to legislate for ourselves, we think we ought to deal with our own troubles ourselves. The Chief Secretary cannot but notice the discouraging effect which his action has produced on his own party. This Bill has now been before the House for two months, and there have been no meetings held in its favour, while there have been a great many meetings held against it.

Major SMITH.-Where? Mr. CASEY.-If the honorable gentle­

man will look behind him he will see an honorable member-the honorable mem­ber for the Wimmera (Mr. Clark)-who addressed one of those meetings. And there have been many others.

Mr. SERVICE.-At Casterton, Ararat, and several other places.

Major SMITH.-Attended by half-a­dozen people.

.Mr. CASEY.-I do not attach very much importance to the meetings beyond the fact that the absence of meetings in favour of the Bill, and the holding of meetings against it, show that the Chief Secretary's course of procedure has re­sulted exactly as I predicted. The honor­able gentleman's party is becoming dis­heartened with the series of failures and rebuffs he has met with-first starting for.

England with something, then losing it on the road, then asking for something else, and then coming back with a despatch which gives him some very good advice which he does not follow. All these things must be discouraging to the party who desire to see liberal politics succeed in this country. I do not for a moment doubt the Chief Secretary's sincerity-I give him greater credit on th·at point than he is willing to give me-but I want to reach his judgment, and I desire to put these facts before him to show him that this disintegration is going on, and that it is necessary for him to take some step by which it may be arrested. I believe it can be arrested to a very considerable extent if the honorable gentleman will only take the advice which was given by his colleague, the Minister of Justice, last night. If he will only help to mould this Bill so as to bring our Constitution into harmony wit~ the British model, I be­lieve he will have as large a majority around him in this House and the country as his heart could desire. But if he will not do that, but will try to introduce new notions which have no existence anywhere else, and which cannot be justified-pro­posals which even members of his own Government have pronounced most vehe­mently and strongly against-he can­not fail to see that his own side must feel disheartened when they are asked to follow such a course. I do not de­sire to raise any difficulties in the way of the Government or in the way of this Bill. I am anxious that there should be some settlement of the question of reform, and I can honestly and cordially say that I will be very glad to see such amendments made in the Bill, in com­mittee, as I think will ensure it being passed in the other branch of the Le­gislature. But let me ask the Chief Secretary a question, which I think he must admit is a pertinent one-Has he any hope that this Bill will be passed by the Legislative Council? Immediately it was announced that the Bill would contain the plebiscite, we found two prominent members of the Council stating that there was no possibility of it being aceepted there. I refer to Mr. Cuthbert, who left the Government rather than introduce the last Reform Bill in the Upper House as their representative, and to Mr. Jenner, who was for many years associated with the liberal party in this country as a leading member of it, and

Second Reading. [SEPTEl\t:BI£R 24.J Tenth l.Vigltt's Debate. 1197

who I am sure has no desire to support what may be called the ultra-conservative interest. Both of those gentlemen have said that there is no chance of this Bill being carried in the Council, and the Government are now without a repre­sentative in that Chamber, presumably because no member of the Upper House can be found to take charge of the measure. Then, if there is no reasonable hope of the Bill being passed in the Council, I would ask the Chief Secretary whether he has worked out any theory in his own mind by which he can make it law? I suppose the honorable gentle­man will say that the opinion of the people will be taken on the Bill, but suppose the Council do not agree with it then? At the next general election the electors may ask the members constituting the majority of this House-" Suppose we vote for you, and you pass the Reform Bill again, and the Council reject it, what will you do then?" What answer will be returned? Does the Chief Secretary want to go to England again? J s there to be another embassy? It is important to know-and I think the Chief Secretary should say­whether he has sketched out any mode of procedure by which eventually he can make this measure law . We cannot always get what we want at the first effort, and if the Chief Secretary is not disposed to accept what may be offered him and will hold out for his own proposal, even sup­posing it is the best that can be devised, it is of. no use unless he has some method bv which it can be carried into law. Even if he has the country thoroughly with him on his Bill, how does he propose eventu­ally to make it law, always bearing in mind that he has to keep within the lines of the law and the Constitution? I fear I have already trespassed too much on the time of the House. My only desire in offering these remarks was to announce clearly 'my anxiety that this question should be settled, and my willingness to give my best assistance to any Bill­whether introduced by the Chief Secretary or from any other quarter-that will have for its object the reasonable solution and settlement of the question of reform. I will conclude by asking, as I did last session, that we shall all, if possible, put aside party feelings and party considera­tions, and deal with the question solely as members of the Legislature who are endeavouring to perfect a constitutional instrument which will prevent dead-locl\s

from arising aga,in, and which will relieve the country from the almost revolutionary acts which are consequent upon the rejec­tion of Appropriation Bills.

Mr. CARTER.-Sir, I think if any­thing could excite sympathy for the Ministry in the breasts of the Opposition it must be the spectacle presented when the honorable and learned member for Mandurang assumes the character of the "candid friend." I think on such occa­sions the Chief Secretary might well feel disposed to say-

"Perhaps it was right to dissemble your love, But-why did you kick me down stairs?"

Or he might exclaim with Canning­"Save, save, oh 1 save me from the candid

friend." A few more such friends as the honor­able member for Castlemaine (Mr. Pear­son) and the honorable member for Mandurang, who have given such excel­lent reasons not only why the Bill should not be passed through this House but why it should not even have been intro­duced, and who at the same time declare their intention of voting for the second reading, would, I think, be the ruin of any Ministry. The honorable member for Mandurang read a letter from a Swiss gentleman by which the House would be led to believe that the plebiscite in Switzerland is of recent origin. A refe­rence to De Lolme, however, who was himself a Swiss, will show that such is not the case. In a note on his work on the English Constitution, he says-

"In Geneva, in the year 1707, a Jaw was en­acted that a general assembly of the people should be held every five years, to treat of the affairs of the republic; but the magistrates, who dreaded these assemblies, soon obtained from the citizens themselves the repeal of the law; and the first resolution of the people in the first of those periodical assemblies (in the year 1712) was to abolish them for ever. The profound secrecy with which the magistrates prepared their proposal to the citizens on that subject, and the sudden manner in which the latter, when assembled, were acquainted with it, and made to give their votes upon it, have indeed accounted but imperfectly for this strange determination of the people; and the consternation which seized the whole assembly when the result of the suffrages was proclaimed has confirmed many in the opinion that some unfair means had been used. . . . . . In the year 1738, the citizens enacted at once into laws a small code of 44 articles, by one single line of which they bound themselves for ever to elect the four syndics (the chiefs of the council of the twenty­five) out of the members of the same council j

whereas they were before free in their choice. They at that time suffered the word' approved' to be slipped ~nto the law whieh was transcril;>ed

1198 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

from a former code; the consequence of whieh was to render tIle I1lngistrates absolute masters of the Legishtnre. The citizens had thus been successi vely stripped of all their political rights, and had little more left to them than the plea­sure of being called a sovereign assembly when they met."

I think that woulu be pretty much the position under this Bill. The people, having been stripped of their rights, would have the satisfaction of imagining they were masters of the situation, when in reality they would be nothing of the kind. There is another point on which I differ from the honorable member for Mandu­rang. With that well-known courtesy for which he is celebrated, he said he would not attribute any want of sincerity to the Chief Secretary. 1 am so~ry to say that I must be more frank, if not so courteous, in the expression of my opinion. You, Mr. Speak~r, last session, when the vote for t.he expenses of the proposed mission to England was before t.he committee, were good enough to say-

"Before this session commenced, the Chief Secretary consulted me on the possible neces­sity of sending a mission to the Secretary of State for the Colonies."

This clearly shows that actually before the last Reform Bill was introduced the Chief Secretary had a foregone conclusion in his own mind that it would not be carried into law; in fact, 1 may say he introduced the. Bill knowing perfectly well that it was predestineu not to pass. Where was his sincerity in such a course as that? 1 am sorry to say also that 1 think he introduced the present Bill having formed an equally clear conclusion on the subject-that he brought forward this measure as a mere bogus Bill intended to pass away the time of the House for the remainuer of the three years of this Parliament, anu to prevent any settlement of the reform question whatever. My chief objections to the Bill are, first, that it distinctly abolishes representative go­vernment (1 think there can be no doubt on that head); secondly, that it practically extinguishes the second Chamber; and, thirdly, that it enables the Ministry of the day to expend the funus of the country in whatever way they may think fit. I think the feeling of the conservatives­or rather 1 should say of the Opposition, for they are the true liberals-is in favour of represelltati ve government. Represen­tation in the government of the country seems to me to be the accomp::wiment of

. all modern eiviliznt,ion. Wherever we Mr. Carter.

find a conntry obtaining the right of self-government we observe that t.he first step taken is that the people shall be representod in the government of the country. 1 have not yet heard any member of the Ministry state any reason' why the Government object to the people being represented in the Legislative Council. The members of the Government are very fond of telling ns that t.hey desire to have the people represented in the Assembly, bnt I have not yet heard t.he slightest reason assigned why the Upper House is not entitled to be just as representative a Chamber as this one. I remember when I was contest.ing the Ovens electorate, 11 years ago, 1 put before the electors the very same proposals which I support now as to the propel' direction in which a rerorm of the Constitution should be pursued. Those propositions were to re­duce the then qualification of members of the Council from £5,000 to £1,000, and the qnalification of electors from £100 to £20. Since that time we have seen, from the gradual growth of public opinion and the progress of settlement, that we may go down much lower in the qualification of electors. I myself would go even as low as the ratepayers' 1'011, and in the meantime 1 am quite prepared to accept £10 as the qualification of electors. The Minister of J usti.ce spoke a great deal last night about the resemblance of this Cham­ber to the House of Commons, and of our Upper Honse to the House of Lords, but 1 do not quite see the analogy. How can the analogy exist? The House of Commons represents not only the intelli­gence of the country but also the property of the country.

Mr. MUNRO. - And this Assembly also represents the property of the country.

Mr. CARTER. -How can that be, seeing that our electoral franchise rests upon a basis widely different from one of property?

Mr. MUNRO.-I know that I have 27 votes for this House.

Mr. CARTER.-Then the honorable member is uncommonly well represented.

Mr. BENT.-Neither the honorable member for Carlton nor anybody else can have 27 votes for this Chamber.

Mr. CARTER.-But,afterall, the state­ment of the honorable member for Carlton does not in the leas t alter the case I put. 'What do we get in return for the abolitioll of representative government

Second Reading. [SEPT\£l\IBER 24.J Tentlt l\7ight's Debate. 1199

embodied in the Bill? Is not the· abo­lition complete? In what other light can we regard nomineeism and the ple­biscite ? What is bound to be their effect? Clause 6 having removed all Money . Bills from the control of the Legislative Council, all other Bills are removable by the plebiscite from the con­trol of both Houses. I would like to know on what grounds the system of sending a Bill to a poll of the people, which is now proposed, is expected to commend itself to any reasonable man. Have honorable members read clause 30 ? It provides as follows:-

"The Clerk of the Executive Council shall forthwith on the proclamation of any day for a general poll forward to the returning officer of each electoral district a sufficient number of copies of the Bill about to be submitted to the general poll to enable him to supply six: copies of such Bill to each polling-place within such district, and such copies shall be posted up out­side each such polling-place on the day of taking such poll." .

Mind, the copies of the Bill are to be posted up not three months before the poll is to be held, but on the very day it is taken. Only imagine a constituent of fhe honorable member for Mandurang (Mr. Williams), who is so enamoured of the plebiscite, leaving his work on his farm, and travelling some 10 or 20 miles to his polling-place to record his vote upon say the present Bill. Well, he arrives at his destination, hangs up his horse, and next addresses himself to the question what the Bill he has to vote upon is. If the larrikins of the neighbourhood have left a single copy of the measure for him to study, he proceeds to tl'y and make himself 'acquainted with its character and contents. Under these circumstances, about the first thing he comes across is the following clause :-

"The 45t.h section of the Constitution Act shall be and is hereby repealed."

How is he to know what the terms of that 45th section are, or what are the terms of the 56th section mentioned in the next clause, or those of the 3rd section mentioned in clause 13? How also is he to understand clause 19, which is as follows :-

"All laws in force in Victoria relating to elected members of the Legislative Council which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act shall apply, so far as the same can be ap­plied, to members of the Legislative Council appointed in accordance with the provisions of this Act."

How is this difficulty to be got over?

Mr. PATTERSON.-That is only a small matter.

Mr. CARTER.-At all events it is a very essential matter, and not the smallest explanation has been offered with respect to it. Of what vlllue is it to apply to ·tbis Bill, and the state of things it is expressly designed to create, arguments derived only from the use of say the referendum in Switzerland, with respect to questions such as that of capital punishment, upon which electors can vote with ease, be­cause their "Yes" or '" No" covers tlie whole ground? If we were disposed to adopt the more or less common-sense pIaIl followed in Switzerland we might, perhaps, with profit send such a qnestion as payment of members to a poll of the people, because in that case the query put to the electors would be simply-" Are you in favour of members being paid?" and pel'haps-" How much shall they be paid?" But to ask for "Yes" or "No" with respect to a Bill of 39 clauses is a radically different affair. "Vhat would be the case if the measure sent to the plebiscite were the Metropolitan Gas Company's Bill, which it is scarcely possible for a large number of people to comprehend, or a Local Government Bill with 300 or 400 different clauses? Considering that, in spite of all the efforts made by the candidates at an ordinary political election, they are rarely able to bring to the poll more than 60 per cent. of the total number of electors, what sort of response is likely to be made by them to an appeal to vote upon a Bill in which they have no manner of concern, and which is presented to them in the most bare and naked form conceivable? In view of how fre­quently it happens with regard to a Bill before this House that only a very few honorable members take the smallest interest in it, with what fairness can we expect the electors generally to feel an interest in it-to even ta.ke the trouble to acquaint themselves with the meaning of a single provision in it ? There is the Judicature Bill, for example. I-low many honorable members even are likely to have the smallest know­ledge of its contents? How many people outside tho House will study it? How could an ordinary layman make head or tail of it? Yet, under the plebiscite, to his decision might tho measure be referred. Snppose the :Melbourne Exhibitions Bill were sent to a plebiscite, does anyone snppose it would be carried? The merest

1200 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

gl:mce shows the whole system embodied in the 3rd part of the Bill to be utterly un­workable and useless. Supposing it were applied to a question with respect to which only a minority of the community felt a keen interest, while the majority cared little or nothing about it, what would be the result? Would not the minority carry the day ? Would not a condition of things of that kind constitute a standing danger to our civil and religious lioerties? Another point to which I wish i,o draw attention is the different way in which obstruction offered by the Upper House is viewed here and in England. I only wish we could imitate heJ'e the forbearance and good feeling exhibited, under circumstances of the kind I refer to, by statesmen at home. Take the case, for example, of Lord Althorp, the leader of the House of Com­mons in 1832, the year the Reform Bill passed. When the Reform Bill had been rejected by the Lords, and it was proposed to ask the King to create 40 or 50 peers, in order to force the measure through the Upper Chamber, what did the honorable gentleman-I quote from a memoir of his life-say on the subject? His cautious and forbearing remark was-

" But to make 40, 50, or 60 peers would be to effe(~t a certain revolution with a view of pre­venting a contingent one."

And again-"He dreaded the establishment of a single

Legislature; believing, as he did, that the action and reaction of each House on the other consti­tuted one of the greatest safeguards of the com­munity."

Further on in the book, he is recorded as saying, with respect to swamping the Lords with new peers, as follows :-

"It is a measure of extreme violence; there is no precedent for it in our history, the case of Queen Anne's peers not being in point; it is a certain evil, dangerous itself as a precedent; and, with all these objections, in my opinion, very uncertain of success."

These extracts show the" spirit in which House of Commons leaders meet opposition and repeated rejection of Bills on the part of the Lords. They do not, under such circumstances, follow the line Ministers here prefer to pursue, namely, waste one six months over a foolish embassy, and another six months over a Bill which they know for certain can never become the law of the land. I will, in the next place, suggeflt one or two improvements that might be made in the measure before us. I think it would be well to introduce into it a clause providing means by which

Mr. Carter.

Ministers might be impeached for mis­applying or misappropriating-I am not speaking of their putting the money into their own pockets-funds voted by Par­liament for a specific purpose. Upon this subject I will quote a few lines from a recently published Age leader on the case of the City of Glasgow Bank, because it is only necessary to substitute for the words "bank director" the words "Go­vernment of the day," and for the word " shareholders" the words "people of the country," to make the passage extremely applicable to the subject I refer to. The extract is as follows :-

" Professor Levi defines clearly that a bank director is the agent, the mandatary of the company, and with limited powers, his position does not differ much from that of ordinary trustees. In consideration of certain fees or emoluments he lmdertn.kes to look after and carefully guard the interests of the sharehold­ers ; to take care that the moneys placed under his supervision are employed judiciously, and that every precaution is observed to prevent the possibility of loss."

Have we not in this colony frequently known cases of money voted by Par­liament not being applied to the purpose or purposes for which it was appropriated? Has not the misapplication of money by the Government under such circumstances become quite a custom? Under these circumstances, I think it is time measures were taken to render Ministers liable for such conduct. We are told by the Chief Secretary that Ministers are so liable, but how far does that liability extend? It goes no further than their constituents. That is scarcely liability at all. If they were rendered liable to impeachment for such misappropriation as that involved in spending £20,000 upon the cutting down of the Nelson, in the construction of an unauthorized railway in Flinders-park, or in making docks in connexion with the Spencer-street station, the result would be that they would not be guilty of any acts of the sort. Such things would then never be done. Another excellent reason why this power of impeachment should exist is furnished by applying in the way I have already indicated the following further remarks in the Age article :-

" Any attempt, indeed, to ask for particulars of any special amount in the balance-sheet, or to want' to know you know' a little more than the totals supply, is regarded as a want of con­fidence in the board of management, and is im­mediately resisted by their partisans."

Does not that description tally exactly with the state of things in this Chamber?

Second Reading. [SEPTEMBER 24.J Tenth Night's Debate. 1201

If an honorable member wants to inquire into the particulars of a certain expendi­ture, and presses for anything like specific information with respect to it, how is he met by the Government? He is told he is obstructive, and raising a factious op­position. With reference to the City of Glasgow Bank directors, the Age article also s ta tes :-

"The recent trial of the directors, however, · proves that these men were credited with know­ledge in financial matters far in excess of what they actually possessed.".

Is it not just possible to regard these words as applicable to the Treasurer, who gave us the other day a lame account of a supposititious saving of £2,000,000, and who, having come in with a surplus, is prepared to go out with a deficiency? At this point I will mention something that has given me some surprise. It has been boldly stated by several honorable mem­bers that the insertion, in the course of the first session of this Parliament, of a vote for payment of members in the Appropria­tion Bill was not a tack; but merely putting forward that contention must involve a considerable want of knowledge of the circumstances of the case. Did I not, at the time, ask the Speaker whether

· payment of members was not a subject which honorable members were precluded, by the terms of the 121 st standing order, from voting upon, on the ground that they had "a direct pecuniary interest in it"; and did not the honorable gentleman distinctly rule that the question was one of State policy? How is it possible to regard the inclusion in the Appropriation

· Bill of the year of a question of State · policy as anything else than a tack? So far as the settlement of the question of constitutional reform is concerned, no one in this Chamber can be more delighted than I would be to see it accomplished, because for years past Ministers - I allude to former Governments as well as that now in power- have been enabled to make the subject a stalking-horse on which

. they have ridden rough-shod over the people of the country. It has been simply used by them as a means of exciting the people -of keeping up a constant agitation of which they have not found it difficult to take advantage. But I think the warmest supporters of the present Ministry must see that, although the settlement of reform upon the basis supplied by the Bill might be all very well ,while they remain in office

-no one would dream of regarding them as unfit to be trusted-it is quite possible for a Ministry of a very differen t sort to some day succeed them. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that the power carry­ing the Bill into law would confer might, when wielded by an incapable Ministry, backed up by a servile majority, be used to ruin the material prosperity of the country. What sort of Ministry might we not have to employ the absolute autho­rity the Bill would give? We might have ,one who would, in order to float upon a sea of agitation, create feuds between capital and la.bour, which would end in the former being driven into exile, and in the latter being left to starve. We might have one who would excite contempt for us abroad, and foment class hatreds at home. It is possible for us to have a Ministry who would so hamper mining and fetter agriculture with needless taxa­tion as to prevent the development of our natural resources, and at the same time destroy our trade and commerce. vVho shall say that, supposing the "un­scrupulous Opposition" get into power, we would not have a Ministry so different from the present that their appointees would be party hacks instead of public servants-a Ministry who would return " blow for blow,"_and satiate their political animosities with attacks upon a helpless civil service; who would have for a plat­form "broken heads and houses in flames," and for pass-words "dogs of hell" and "mountains of damnation"; and who would be supremely indifferent to the people's sufferings so long as they could, by putting their hands in the public purse in an "easy, peaceful, and accessible man­ner," satisfy, even at the nation's cost, their greed, lust of power, and personal ambition? Such a Ministry we have known; might we not repeat the experi­ence? I don't suppose any Minister would own it to be possible he could be guilty of conduct like that I have depicted. The only public man I ever heard of who was perfectly frank as to what he would do is the American gentleman who hus been alluded to during the present debate under the name of Boss Tweed. When a reporter waited on him, and asked him to give in a few words a verbal photograph of himself, he said­" My description of myself is this: I have always put out my hand as far as it would reach, and I have always drawn back as much as it would hold-that's me." I

1202 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

hope honorable members will have the courage of their opinions. If they regard the Bill as something like a gun· that wants a new stock, lock, and barrel, of what use is their voting for its second reading? A measure of that sort cannot possibly be amended in committee. For my part., I regard the Bill as from begin­ning to end starting in an utterly wrong direction. It cannot be amended. To make it what it ought to be would be re­construction not amendment. Therefore I will not vote for its second readiog. I am, in fact, opposed to it in essence. It goes exactly contrary to the way in which I, and I believe the country also, wish to travel, namely, that of increasing the re­sponsibilities and widening the representa­tion of the Upper House. In conclusion, let me express the hope that when the Bill is lost, whether that takes place here or elsewhere, the Government will screw their courage to the sticking' place, and, instead of seeking to longer protract their miserable existence, go at once to the country, and let the people, whose crednlity they have imposed upon, and whose con­fidence they have betrayed, decide the question at issue, and so terminate an agitation which, however satisfactory or beneficial to those promoting it, is para­lyzing the energies and sapping the most vital interests of all classes of the com­munity.

Mr. O'HEA moved the adjournment of the debate.

The House divided-Ayes ... 29 Noes ... 9

l\1ajority for the motion 20 AYES.

Mr. Bent, " Billson, " Bropby, " R. Clark (Wim.), " Cook, " Cooper, " D. M. Davies, " Dixon, " Fincham, " Grant, " Graves, " Hunt, " Johnstone, " Langridge, " Laurens,

Mr. Mirams, " Mllnro, " O'Hea,

Sir B. O'Loghlen, Mr. Patterson, " Richardson, " Sainsbury, " Sharpe,

Major Smith, Mr. F. L. Smyth, " Story, " Wright.

Tellers. Mr. Longmore,

" L. L. Smith. NOES.

Mr. Blackett, " Carter, " Fra.ncis,

Dr. Maddcn, Sir J. O'Shanassy,

Mr. Purves, " Zox.

Tellers. Mr. Bird, " Young.

The debate was then adjourned until the following day.

The House adjourned at twenty minutes past eleven o'clock.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. Thu7'sday, September 25, 1879.

IJ;l~pection of Vineyards-Mllnicipal Endowment-The Re­form Debate-Hobson's Bay Ra.ilway: Ticket Packets­Pleuro-Pneumonia. in Cattle - Railway Department: Management of Trains: Produce Platform-Keilor Com­mon-Mr. A. T. Clark and Mr • .Bent-Call of the House­Constitution Act Amendment Bill: Second Reading: Eleventh Night's Debate.

The SPEAKER took the chair at half­past four o'clock p:m.

:DISEA.SE IN VINES.

Mr. L. L. SMITH asked the Chief Secretary the following questions :-

"1. What was the amount of funds actually paid to the inspectors of vincyards last year?

"2. How many are retained, exclusive of the Secretary for Agriculture, to inspect the whole of the vineyards of the colony?

"3. What ,vas the cause of the dismissal of the former inspectors ? .

"4. If they were appointed to inspect vine­yards outside of. Geelong, is it a fact that the in­spections were. not carried on over the remainder of the 'vineyards of the colony?"

Mr. BEREY stated that he had been furnished by' the Secretary for A.gricul­ture with the following replies :-

"1. Amount paid to inspectors, including tra­velling expenses, ip. 1878-9, was £776 9s. 8d.

"2. One. All, however, were relieved at the close of last season; but one only (Mr. Hopton) has been re-employed".

"3. Because the work which they were en­gaged to perform had been completed.

"4. Yes. It was never contemplated to in­spect the vineyards of the entire colony. Informa­tion had been furnished to the effect that vines had been supplied to thef'andhurst district from Geelong within the last few years, and an inspec­tion was insti ttl ted for th~ purpose of establishing whether or not the disea~e by that means had been taken into the Sandhurst district. No dis­ease was reported. At the instance of Mr. L. L. Smith, M.L.A., a further inspection was made of the vineyards in the Yering district, but there, too, no disease was discovered."

MUNICIPAL ENDOWMENT. Mr. SHARPE asked the Treasurer if he

would pay the State subsidy to municipal councils on or before the following Tuesday, so as to allow those bodies to comply with the provisions of the Local Government Act?

Major SMITH stated that the subsidy had already been paid to a large number of

110bSOlt'S Bay Railway. [S£PTE:\Il3ER 25.J Ticlwts. 1203

municipalities, and the remainder would receive their share 011 the following day.

Mr. MASON asked whether the Hew shires of' Buln Buln and Narracan, the subsidy for which was specially provided for on the Estimates, would be placed in the same category?

Major SMITH said he would make inquiry.

THE REFORM DEBATE. Mr. D. CAMERON inquired whether

those honorable members who would be precluded from speaking to tbe second reading of the Reform Bill if the divi­sion on the question were taken that evening, would have· the opportunity afforded them of discussing the principles of the Bill when the measure went into commi ttee ?

Mr. BERRY stated that no doubt the more important principles of the Bill would be debated over again when the measure was in committee, and he considered that precedence and a larger latitude should be allowed to those honorable members who did not speak on the second reading.

SANDHURST AND INGLEWOOD RAILWAY.

Mr. WOODS laid on the table a return to an order of the House (dated July 23), showing the traffic on this line of rail way to the end of June, 1879.

HOBSON'S BAY RAILWAY. TICKETS.

Mr. DUFFY asked the Minister of Railways if he would continue the present practice of issuing packets of railway tickets on the suburban lines? The prac­tice of issuing packets of tickets had been in force for some time PH-st on the Hob­son's Bay Railway and also in connexioll with the Melbourne Omnibus Company. On the railway it had been found parti­cularly convenient, especially by ladies and delicate persons who could not endure the hustling which sometimes took place at the ticket-office window. According to an advertisement which had been pub­lished in the newspapers, the Minister of Railways intended to do away with t.he system at" ~he end of October; but he hoped the honorable gentleman would re­consider his decision. It was stated by the Age newspaper that, uuder the packet system, the Railway department Lad not a sufficient check on the tickets, but the Omnibus Company, though they had not

the same facilities as the Railway depart­ment, managed to establish a. snfficient check on their employes.

Mr. WOODS observed that the differ­ence be'tween the case of the Omnibus Com­pany and that of the Rail way department was that the fares of the former were uniform while the fares of the latter varied, and with varying fares it was impossible, with the ticket-packet system, to check roguery. For example, supposing a man. bought tickets to convey him from Wind­sor to· Richmond, and that he also bought tickets to convey him from Richmond to Melbourne, he might travel between vVind­sol' and Melbourne without ever showing a. VV-indsor ticket; it WOllld be sufficient for him to hand over a Richmond ticket when the tickets were collected. Even supposing the man might be suspected of travelling on the Windsor line, he would have his packet of Windsor tickets to fall back upon, and could produce one whenever the occasion demanded. Under the ticket­packet system anyone inclined to cheat the department could do so, and all the checks that could be devised would fail to detect the roguery that was going on. He might mention that it was his practice to attend at the Melbourne station of the Hobson's Bay Railway twice a week, exactly in the same way as the direc­tors of the company did; and the business was conducted, as fHr as possible, in the manner in which it was conducted by the company. Everything was kept in pretty well the same groove. The recommenda­tion for the abolition of ticket-packets came from Mr. Elsdon, wLo had endeav­oured, but ineffectually, to put a stop to the practice of cheating which was known to be going on. Under the circumstances, acting simply for the protection of the revenue of the department, and without wishing to interfere with the convenience of the public at all, he felt it absolutely necessary to adopt Mr. Elsdon's views, and give notice that the issue of ticket-packets would be put a stop to.

Mr. DUFFY suggested that the diffi­culty might be met by the department not issuing packets of tickets as between Richmond and Melbourne.

PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. Mr. E. H. CAMERON asked the Chief

Secretary whether he was aware that a large number of diseased cattle were in the neighbourhood of Pakenham, travelling in the direction of Gippsland? I-Ie was

1204 Railway Department. [ASSEMBLY.] Keilor Common.

told that they wel'e dyiug by scores every day from pleuro-pneumonia.

Mr. BERRY stated that he was not aware of the circumstance, but he would communicate with the Under-Secretary at once in order that the matter might be inquired into.

RAILWAY DEPARTMENT.

Mr. WOODS informed the honorable member for Creswick (Mr. Cooper), with reference to the statement made in the House the previous evening, that he had received from the Acting Traffic Manager a memorandum stating that the guard of the 7.15 p.m. train from Melbourne on Monday denied having overrun the Chew­ton platform.

Mr. COOPER observed that what he said the previous night was founded on a statement made to him by Mr. Heymanson, in the presence of the honorable member for Sandhurst (Mr. Clark), when travelling to Melbourne on Tuesday. Mr. Heyman­son's statement was that a train on Mon­day, fitted with Woods' brake, went past Chewton station, and did not pull up until near Castlemaine, that it had to go back to Chew ton to pick up passengers, and that therefore it reached Castlemaine much behind the usual time.

Mr. WOODS said be thought there was something at the back of the statement. However, he would write to the gentleman whose name had been mentioned for par­ticulars. With reference to Woods' brake, he might mention that a train of 8 car­riages, fitted with the brake, carrying 150 people, the whole load being equal to 130 tons, had entered a cutting of 1 in 52 at a speed of 66 miles an hour, and had been stopped in a great deal less distance than three miles. The brake would stop any train running at ordinary speed on any portion of the line in a quarter of a mile. (Mr. Gaunson-" This is an advertisement.") He would refer to the matter when he pleased. The country was using his brake and his brains, and he would not submit to be maligned in silence.

Mr. BILLSON called the attention of the Minister of Railways to the fact that a great deal of the chaff and hay brought to Melbourne by railway was spoilt because the platform at Spencer-street on which the produce was deposited had no roof, and therefore there was no protection from the rain. Not only was the hay spoilt from this cause, but it was liable to take fire.

Mr. WOODS stated that a couple of old coal-sheds, which had been removed from Spencer-street in consequence of the alterations, would be re-erected on the lower level siding to cover the agricultural produce.

KElLOR COMMON.

Mr. BENT called the attention of the Minister of Lands to a notification in the Government Gazette that 435 acres of the Keilor Common would be open for selec­tion under section 49 of the Lana Act the following morning. The area was di vided into 21 allotments, varyillg in size from 5 acres to 20 acres, and the rent demanded averaged leRs than 5s. per acre, although the capital value of the land could not be less than from £10 to £15 per acre. Indeed some persons went so far as to say that it was worth £20 per acre. He objected to what might be called suburban allotments being given to whomsoever the Minister of Lands liked, for that was practically what the arrange­ment would amount to, and particularly while the land was useful, for commonage purposes, to the inhabitants of the loc.ality.

Mr. LONGMORE stated that he could supply the honorable member for Bdghton with plenty of land between Keilor Com­mon and Melbourne for £4 per acre. The land referred to by the honorable member was a common for the use of the inhabi­tants of Keilor, and the pastoral tenant in the neighbourhood took care to use every blade of grass upon it. (Mr. R. M. Smith-" Who is the pastoral tenant ?") The honorable member knew. (Dr. Mad­den-" There is no pastoral tenant.") Because he had bought up the pastoral lands and become a very large freeholder. The inhabitants of Keilor asked him (Mr. Longmore) to cutup the common into allotments which could be fenced in in such a way that the holders would get the use of the grass. In compliance with the request, he had the land assessed, and the parties who took up the land would pay 8 per cent. on the assessment for three years, when the land would be put up for sale by auction, the assessment, which was from £2 to £7 per acre being the upset price. The quantity of land taken for this purpose was 356 acres, divided into 20 lots, aud there would be 214 acres left for the use of those who could not acquire any of the lots. The desire of the Lands department had been to serve the inhabita.nts of the district. He wa.s

Keilor Common. [SEPTEMBER 25.J Keilor Common. 1205

only afraid that the price of the land had been placed too high. What had boon done with regard to the matter would fully bear the light of investigation.

Mr. R. M. SMITH remarked that he knew of no pastoral tenant in the neigh­bourhood of Keilor, and he would be glad to know the name of the person to whom the Minister of Lands referred.

Mr. LONGMORE said, if it were de­sired, he would bring down a plan showing the large areas which the pastoral tenant had secured.

Mr. GAUNSON (who, to put himself in order, moved the adjournment of the House) observed that the statement just made by the Minister of Lands was simply a misrepresentation. Not only was there no pastoral tenant in the neighbourhood of Keilor, but the Minister of Lands knew full well that the gentleman he spoke of purchased all the land which he held. Did the Minister of Lands make the statement in order to induce people outside to believe there was something behind it? (Cries of H Divide" and other interjections from Ministerial members.)

Mr. L. L. SMITH here proceeded to read from a newspaper in audible tones.

Dr. MAD DEN rose to order. He begged to ask whether the course which the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Smith) was pursuing was in accordance with the practice of the Assembly? He was aware that the House of Commons sometimes resented observations addressed to it by an honorable member by howling him down, but he had no knowledge of the practice having been reproduced here. 1£ it could be kept out of the Assembly so much the better.

The SPEAKER.-I trust honorable members will not seek to prevent the honorable member for Ararat proceeding with his remarks. I am sorry that the power of moving the adjournment of the House under such circumstances exists without some limitation, because it is liable to misuse; but the honorable mem­ber is clearly within his rights.

Mr. GAUNSON said he desired to call attention to the case of a man named Osborne, who selected land in the parish of Korweinguboora under the 49th sec­tion of the Land Act of 1869. Notwith­standing that the man had been eight years in possession, and had paid up his rent to December, the Minister of Lands had sold the land over his head with £200 worth of improvements. The conduct of

the Minister of Lands ill the case was on a par with his conduct in the caso of a man llamed Hughes. (Interruption from Ministerial members.) With regard to the Keilor Common case, the honorable member for Brighton was perfectly justi­fied in bringing it under the notice of the House. The honorable member for West Bourke (Mr. Cameron) was the gentle­man who caused the land to be put up for selection. There was an anonymous cor­respondent of some up-country newspaper who had stabbed the character of certain honorable members, among others the honorable member for Dalhousie, and the identity of that correspondent was said to be somewhat akin to the honorable member for West Bourke. In the Ararat Adver­tiser of the previous day, the honorable member for West Bourke wrote-

"Mr. Speaker has shown himself very firm in sitting on Mr. Gaunson and other obstructives."

Mr. D. CAMERON asked if the hon­orable member for Ararat was in order in stating that he (Mr. Cameron) wrote something that appeared in the Ararat Advertiser?

The SPEAKER.-The statement is not out of order unless the honorable member denies that it is true.

Mr. D. CAMERON denied that the statement was true.

The SPEAKER.-Then the honorable member for Ararat must not repeat the statement.

Mr. GAUNSON said he would not repeat it, but the honorable member as­serted to him that he was the contributor. Of course, in a parliamentary sense, he was bound to accept the denial of the honorable member, but he preferred the honorable member when he spoke in his private capacity mthel' than when he spoke in his public capacity. (Cries of " Di vide," "Sit down.") He would like to know whether it was true or false that this land on Keilor Common had been put up for selection at the instigation of the honorable member for West Bourke, to make political capital at the next election?

Mr. L. L. SMITH said he felt too in­dignant to be able to sit still while the honorable member for Ararat was persist­ing in wasting the time of the House.

The SPEAKER.-I must ask the hon­orable member for Richmond (Mr. Smith) not to use violent language. The honor­able member for Ararat is exercising an extreme right, but he is within the bounds of order, and the House must bear with

1206 J{eilor Common. [ASSEMBLY.] Kcilor Common.

him patiently till it thinks proper to alter I that part of the common was offered fOl' the existing practice. sale at the auctioll-room of Messrs. Byrne,

lVIl'. GAUNSON sLated that his o~ser- Vale, and Co., on the 29th April last, and vations had been prolonged in conseqncnce realized £9 an acre, some of it being worth of the interruptions t.o which he hnd been £5 or £6 more per acre than that amount. subjected. His object was to bring the He hoped the Minister would consent to honorable member for West Bourke (Mr. reconsider the decision at which he had Cameron) on his legs. The honorable arrived. Poor men could be brought for­member wns an allonymou~ contributor to ward who would give from £8 to £10 an the Ararat Adve'rtise'r and other papers. acre for some of the land in question if

Mr. D. CAMERON seconded the it were put up to auction. motion for the adjournment of the House, Mr. A. T. CLARK expressed astonish­in order to explain his action in regard to ment at the attitude assumed by the hon­the Keilor Common. For years the com- orable member for Brighton in this. mat­mon had been useless for the purpose for tel'. Not many months ago he (Mr. Clark) which it wns intended, as the grass was presented a petition signed by 80 or 90 of eaten up by travelling sheep from all parts his constituents in regard to the upset of the colony. The inhabitants of Keilor price of some land purchased by the hon­therefore desired that a portion of it orable member for Brighton at £120 per should be cut up for selection, so that acre which was worth from £300 to £500 they might be able to obtain small allot- pel' acre. On pointing out the facts to ments, which they would fence in, and the Minister of Lands, the sale was im­cultivate. He brought the matter under mediately stopped, and he knew not by the notice of the Minister of Lands openly what influence the honorable member for in the board-room, in a perfectly legiti- Brighton afterwards obtained the land. matA manuel'. As to the personal matters Mr. BENT.-Your commission did it. referred to by the honorable member for You robbed me. Ararat, he would decline to take any The SPEAKER. - The honorable notice of them. member cannot be permitted to use such

Mr. DUFFY observed that, as his language. He must withdraw it. name had been mentioned III connexion Mr. BENT said, if it was unparliamen-with a certain anonymous letter which tary, he would withdraw it. appeared in a newspaper with respect to Mr. A. T. CLARK stated that the land, a personal explanation he made in the which was sold for £120 an acre, was House-an explanation he believed the worth at least three times that amount. Rouse was perfectly satisfied with-he (Mr. Bent-" You can have it for £120 begged to say that that anonymous con- per acre.") Immediately after he bought tribution was a cowardly slander, and if it, the honorable member hims~lf sold in­it was written by any member of the ferior land, a long way back from water House that honorable member was un- frontage, at £175 per acre. (Dr. Madden worthy of a seat in the House or any -" Is it true you got a commission on the other respectable place. purchase of this land?") The honorable

Dr. MADDEN considered that the member for Brighton would not assert reason given by the Minister of Lands for anything of the kind. (Mr. Bent-" You throwing open a portion of the Keilor got a commission, and sold me after­Common to selection looked extremely like wards.") He had nothing to do with the a subterfuge, inasmuch as there was not a matter beyond opposing the sale. He pastoral tenant of the Crown within 30 would repeat that the honorable member miles of the common in any direction. obtained Crown land at £120 per acre All the holders of land in the immediate which was worth £300 or £400 an acre. neighbourhood of the common purchased (Mr. Gaunson-" Why did you not bid their land at its full value at the time they for the land?") Because he had not the bought it. - money to bid with. ,He simply called

Mr. BENT remarked that he did not attention to this matter to show that know any squatter in the neighbourhood people who lived in glass houses should of this common, and he never voted for not throw stones. With regard to the a squatter. He had called attention to Keilor Common, he thought that the action the matter in the interests of poor hard- taken by tho Minister of Lands was about working men living at Keilor, one of the most sensible course the honorable whom had writt~n him a letter, stating gentleman could have adopted. It was

Call of [SEPTEMBER 25.J Tlte l{ouse. 1207

far better that the common should be cul­tivated than lie barren, or be used as it had hitherto been. By throwing it open to selection the State would obtain, indi­rectly if not directly, a valuable return for the land.

Mr. BENT asked leave to make a per­sonal explanation. Some time ago he, in conjunction with Sir Charles MacMahon, purchased the Stony Creek cement works from the English, Scottish, and Australian Chartered Hank. . The works were on land held under licence from the Crown, and the usual practice was to sen the land to the licensees at £50 per acre, but the honorable member for Williamstown wished to get a commission, and, instead of the land being. obtained in the ordinary way, Mr. Cowderoy was sent down to value it, and he placed a valuation of £120 an acre on it. The land was sold at £ 120 an acre, though it was not worth £80 per acre. He wished the honorable member for Williamstown had it. He (Mr. Bent) lost over £3,000 by the specu­lation. The honorable member for Wil­liamstown obtained a commission from him, advised him to buy the land, and then used his political influence to prevent him obtaining it.

Mr. A. T. CLARK said it was abso­lutely untrue 'that he received any com­mission from the hdnomble member in connexion with the sale of the land re­ferred to. (Mr. Bent-" Our books will prove it.") He did not receive' a soli­tary sixpence from the honorable member directly or indirectly.

The motion for the adjournment of the House was then put and negatived.

CALL OF THE HOUSE. The order of the day for the call of the

House having .been read, Mr. BERRY moved-"That the House be called over."

Sir B. O'LOG HLEN seconded the motion. .

Mr. GAUNSON said he really could not see what object was to rbe gained by a call of the House, because, 'after answer­ing to their names, any honorable members could leave the chamber who chose to do so ;. and the second reading of the Reform Bill 'could not be carried unless an abso­lute majority of the House voted for it. Having' a call of the House; therefore, appeared to be a farcical proceeding.

The motion was agreed to.

1\11'. BERRY moved-"That the Scrjeant-at-Arms do go to the

places adjacent and summon the members there to attend the service of the House."

This motion was also agreed to. The Serjeant-at-Arms went accord­

ingly, and, having returned, the House was caned over.

Eighty members answered to their names. The absentees were Mr. Pear­son, Mr. Lyell, Mr. F. L. Smyth, Mr. Bowman, :Mr. McIntyre, and Mr. Carter.

CONSTITUTION ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

ELEVENTH NIGHT'S DEBATE.

The debate on Mr. Berry's motion for the second reading of the Constitution Act .Amendment Bill, and on lVIr. Orr's amend­ment to refer the snbject of the Bill to a select committee (adjourned from thE' pre­vious day), was resumed.

Mr. O'HEA.-Mr. Speaker, I feel very strongly the difficulty of saying anything on the question of constitutional reform which can attract the interest of honorable members, it having been debated so fully both this session and last session. N ever­theless the subject is of so much import­ance that I do not like to give a silent vote. The points we have to consider are, it appears to. me, the following :-ls the measure before the House necessary; is it a fitting measure; will it accomplish the end in view; is it in conformity with the spirit and intention of the British Consti­tution, under which we live; and have we the power within ourselves to give it effect? As to the necessity of the mea~ sure, I think very little need be said. The proceedings of the Legislative Council, not only during the present Parliament but in preceding Parliaments, show very plainly the necessity for a fundamental reform of the' Constitution. When' you, Mr. Speaker, were the Premier of the colony, you bore testimony to the necessity for such a reform, as Sir James McCulloch had done previously, and the honorable member for Warrnambool did subse­quently. The eminent lawyer who wa~ the Attorney-General of the Francis Ministry, and who is now on the bench, illustrated. the difficulty of the position caused by the obstructiveness of the Upper House by stating that this coun­try was engaged in attempting to solve a problem which never had been solved by any civilized country in the world, namely, how to govern with two Houses claiming

1208 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

co-ordinate authority on every measure. He said that was un impossibility, and that a reform of an organic character was required. It is not necessary, therefore, that I should dilate upon the necessity of a measure of this sort. The next question is-Is it a fitting measure? Will it accom­plish the end in view? Is it in accord­ance with or conformable to the spirit and intent of the parliamentary system of the British Constitution? That is the ques­tion we have to solve, and it particularly applies to the I st part of the Bill. In order to arrive at a proper judgment on that point it is necessary to define our position in this colony--to ascertain if we share in that sovereign status which is the possesl:;ion of the British people in the United Kingdom. N ow the sove­reignty of the British people is the most potent and patent fact in the present state of things in the British Empire. There was a time when the sovereignty, the supreme power, of the people was denied, and it was sought to force on them the mischievous-I might almost say abomin­able-doctrine of the right divine of kings and the passiveness of the people. The attempt to force that dogma on the British people resulted, as we know, in one king losing his crown and head, and in another king losing his crown and the succession of his dynasty to the Government of England. The long contest which the British people waged against the Stuarts from 1628 to 1688 resulted first in the Petition of Right, next in the Bill of Rights, and finally in the Act of Settle­ment. Those were the tangible fruits of that struggle, and they illustrated the principle since in operation that the free people are the sovereign power within the realm of England, and that the monarch on the throne and the Parliament at West­minster are simply subordinate agencies of the sovereign people. These agencies have their own privileges, prerogatives, and functions, but they all work together in subordination to the sovereign people, and for the purpose of carrying out jus­tice and right in conformity with the will of the people. That is the condition of the British Constitution at the present day-a condition which -was called into existence by the Act of Settlement of 1689, and which has continued ever since. The people, thus possessing the sovereign power within the realm of England, by reason of that power call into existence a representative body

Mr.O'H,a.

which they clothe for the time of its existence with their own sovereign power, and hence comes the Commons House. This House has sovereign power for the purposes of legislation, and for the manage­ment of the finances. It has especially this power with regard to finance, for the reason that all taxation in England-and I may say amongst all English-speaking races-is self-imposed. The people COI1-

sent to taxation through their represent­atives in Parliament, and, as the natural result of that, they are the 'sole masters of how the taxation is to be imposed and the expenditure carried out. Thus it comes to pass that the ruling principle of the parliamentary system of the British Con­stitution is the sovereign control of the finances of the State by the Commons House of Parliament. In order to give effect to that ruling principle, and to carry it into practical operation, the Commons House of Parliament devised certain legis­lative machinery or mechanism, and they have found by experience that that me­chanism is all-sufficient for its purpose. It. is so by reason of the acquiescent spirit and the conciliatory temper of the I-louse of Peers. If the House of Commons in England had found that there was a similar spirit in the House of Peers to that which we experience here in our Legislative Council - a disposition to thwart the action of the Commons House -they have themselves told us ill resolu­tions, which are imported into the present Bill, that they know how to prevent any such obstruction. They gave practical effect to that determination when, in 1861, they incorporated in the general Bill for the customs and inland revenue a Bill re­jected in the previous year by the House of Peers for the repeal of the paper duties. That was in fact a tack, because, as I understand, a tack is the import­ing into, or adding to, any Bill a matter which does not naturally belong to that Bill. The repeal of the paper duties was not a natural portion of a Bill which was intended for the imposition of taxation-a stamp and other taxes­and hence the inclusion of that proposal in the Bill was a tack. The mechanism which the House of Commons devised in order to give practical effect to the ruling principle of the parliamentary system has been found adequate and all-sufficient for its purposes; but it is not so with us. We have adopted the same mechanism in this country, but owing to the absence of

Second Reading. [SEPTEMBER 25.J Eleventh Night's Debate. 1209

a conciliatory spirit on the part of the second Chamber we have found that that mechanism is not sufficient, and hence we have recourse to the Bill now before this House to amend it. The question next arises-In thus attempting to amend the mechanism of the House of Commons for our own purposes are we departing from the spirit and intent of the British Con­stitution? Are we carrying out a power we possess, or are we transcending our powers? N ow, when the people who at present inhabit Victoria left the United Kingdom to come to this country, they did not leave behind them the British Consti­tution. They did not forfeit their rights as British citizens when they came here to found a new colony and a new portion of the empire. They brought with them all that appertained to the British system and every element of the British Consti­tution. I know some persons will deny this, and assert that we have not that sovereign power which is possessed by the people of England. I contend, however, that the practice of our daily life shows that we have, and I will mention a few of the leading elements of the British Con­stitution which we have in daily practice, in order to show that we occupy exactly the same status as the people of England. In the first place, when we came here we imported with us the common law, together with the right of that common law to modify the statute law. Then we im­ported the right of free locomotion-that is, the right to travel and change our domicile. That is a right which is pecu­liar to the English-speaking races. On the continent of Europe it does not exist. There a man, no matter what his rank is, must get a passport if he wishes to travel. If a working man wants to go from one town to another he must have a livret, or little book setting forth his last place of employment, his employer's name, the length of time he was in his service, and the character given by him. In the next place, we have freedom of commerce-a British subject can trade where he likes and under all circum­stances. We have also brought with us the inviolability of property, religious liberty, the liberty of the press, freedom of speech-a thing peculiar to English-

. speaking races-the privacy of letters, and the protection of personal liberty. In regard to the latter we are very much before all the continental nations which imagine they have constitutional liberty.

VOL. xxx.-4 L

In France and Germany there is no such mechanism as is provided for the protec­tion of the liberty of the subject by our Habeas Corpus Act. In British coun­tries, when a man is arrested he is enabled by a self-acting law to have himself brought before a judge, and to compel the man who had him arrested to assign rea­sons for causing him to lose his liberty. There is no snch self-acting provision for the protection of personal liberty in exis t­ence in any of the contInental countries. Further, we brought with us the right of petition, and the right of meeting in asso­ciation. It was the denial of the latter right which lost Louis Philippe his throne in 1848, as doubtless many honorable members will recollect. We also brought with us the right of resistance-a right which was illustrated so effectively by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the mailed barons on the field of Runnymede, again in the wars of the people against the Stuarts, and in more peaceful times and a more peaceful manner by the suc­cessful agitation for the Reform Bill. That is a right which is not recognised on the Continent, except where it is en­forced by arms. Last, but not least, we brought with us the representative system which is a part of the British Constitu­tion. All the rights and elements of con­stitutiona.l liberty, which are component parts of the British Constitution, are thus in daily operation amongst us, and there­fore there is no reason to assume that the parliamentary system of the British Em­pire is not as completely and fundamen­tally in operation here-as far as our own boundaries-as it is in the mother country. Acting upon this sovereign authority, we too have called into existence a HOllse of Commons. We too-the people of this country-have clothed that HOLlse of Commons with supremacy ill matters of finance ancllegislation, and, pnrsuing the analogy, that House bas adopted themecha­nism of the House of Commons. It now finds, however, that that mechanism does not suffice, and it therefore proposes a. remedy by the present Bill. Now it is worth while considering what the mechanism of the Honse of Commons is, as, from some of the statements that have beeu marie, there do not appear to be very correct ideas existing on the subject among many honorable members. The primary and fundamental power of that meehalli~m is the vote in Committee of Supply. The vote in Committee of Supply is the SOlf

1210 Constltution Acl tASSE:MBLY.] Amendment BiU.

and tl'ue appropriation of money. All that follows afterwards-nam~ly, the Appropriation Bill, and the Supply and Ways and Means Bills-are, as it were, the fringes of the garment; the real appropriation of money by the House of Commons for the service of the State is the vote in Committee of Supply. That is a point I want to impress on honorable members. Those who are not familiar with the practice of the House of Commons may be disposed to deny this statement, and therefore I desire to quote an authority on the subject. In the House of Commons, in 1861, a short de­bate was raised by Lord Robert Montagu, who complained that the Appropriation Bill was not printed, and seemed to think it was of great importa~ce. Sir George Cornewall Lewis, one of the ablest and most enlightened statesmen of his time, thereupon remarked-

"He apprehended that the votes in Supply during the sessiou were the real appropriations, and constituted the substance of the Appropria­tion Bill. The votes were brought by the Executive Government before the Committee of Supply, and discussed in committee, and each vote was in fact an appropriation.".

Then, with respect to the Appropriation Bill, he said-

"The preparation of that Bill had always been considered, very properly, the act of the clerk~ of that House. It involved nuthing but a clerical function. There was nothing in the Bill on which discretion could be exercised. It had never been until lately the practice to print even a single clause, but a few years ago there wa.s a request made that one or two clauses might be printed, and they were printed."

As honorable members may be aware, the A ppropriation Bill of the House of Com­mons does not emanate from the Govern­ment at all; it is simply a schedule prepared by the clerks of the House. The remarks of Sir G. C. Lewis show that the main appropriation-in fact, the sole appropria­tion- of money for the service of the State is the vote in Supply. The Appro­priation Act is nothing more nor less than a. classified index of the votes in Supply prepared by the clerks of the House for the convenience of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Accountants of the Trea­sury, and the Commissioners of Audit, so that when the moneys are being expended there may be a catalogue raisonne, as it were, to save going through all the votes and proceedings of Parliament to find under what head each sum of money should be spent. The Appropriation Act, therefore, conlititutes in itself no

M,·.O'Hea.

appropriation at all; it cannot and does not change a single vote, but is merely, as I have said, a classified schedule. There is another authority on this point more potent than even Sir G. C. Lewis - I refer to Lord Palmers ton. During the same debate, he said-

" The honorable member also found fault with us for saying that a vote in Supply is an autho­rity to issue the money. No one doubts that the moment a vote in committee js passed the Go­vernment is empowered to spend the money. It is quite true that for the purposes of audit the preliminary sanction of the three branches of the Legislature is necessary, and that is what the Appropriation Act gives, but that Act does not alter a single vote. It is a record of past transactions, and does not afford the House an opportunity of altering any vote." That is the opinion of no less a personage than Lord Palmers ton, one of the leaders of the HouseofCommons almost continuously from 1808 up to the time of his death in 1865. Besides the vote in Committee of Supply, which constitutes the bonajideand true appropriation, there is also another piece of mechanism to be borne in mind, namely, the Ways and Means Bills and the Supply Bills, and it is necessary that hon­orable members should understand the operation of these Bills. During the session of Parliament it happens in England, as it happens here, that the Treasury is often without funds to meet the public expendi­ture. When that happens, the Govern­ment of England do what people in private life often do, namely, raise money on their credit by bills, which are called Exchequer­bills. In order to bring those bills into existence the Committee of Ways and Means sits, and a resolution is passed that so much money-eight or ten millions (generally eight in the middle of a ses­sion )-should be raised by means of Ex­chequer-bills. That resolution is the foundation of a Bill which is passed into law, and then a temporary fund is brought into existence for the convenience of the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the Bank of England turning the bills into ready money. The money which is thus raised is called the unfunded debt; but, though the money has been provided by the Ways and Means Committee, the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot touch it until he is empowered to do so by another Bill called a Supply Bill. This, Bill gives him power to take out of the consolidated revenue the amount of the unfunded debt, and to apply it to the public service. But mark-the Chancellor of the Exche­quer can only expend that money upon

Second Reading. [SEPTEl\fBER 25.J Eleventh Night's Dehate. 1211

those services which have 0 been already provided for by the votes in Committee of Supply. I will give an illustration of this. Suppose that on the 10th of June, when the session would be about three­fourths over, there is a sum of ten millions thus provided for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that at tbis time the army, and navy, - and ordnance esti­mates are passed, but the civil service estimates are not passed. 0 The Chan­cellor of the Exchequer c~n apply the ten millions to the service °of the army and navy and ordnance-for which votes have been already passed in Committee of Supply-but ohe cannot spend °a sixpence of the amount on the civil service for which there has been no vote. Thus hon­orable members will see that the sole ap­propriation of money for specific services of the State is the vote in Committee of Supply, and, whethel' the money comes from the consolidated revenue or from the unfunded debt, the Chancellor of the Ex­chequer can only expend it on the services for which votes in Stipply have been ob­tained. Now, that being the actual prac­tice and theory of the system in the House of Commons, all that is asked in this Bill is to give effect to that system in a Statute. Instead of relying on the acknowledged usage and custom, which are all-sufficient in the House of Commons, we find it ne­cessary, in conseq:uence of the obstructive attitude of another place, to crystallize this power in the form of an Act of Parlia­ment. Then comes the question-In doing this, are we transcendiijg our powers? I say certainly not. As I have already stated, the people here are sovereign in Victoria as the people of England are sovereign in the realm of England, and the Assembly here is sovereign for all Victorian purposes by means of the dele­gated authority of the people, just as the House of Commons is in England. It is, therefore, completely within our power to make the alteration we seek-an altera­tion in the mere mechanism, which does not touch the dominant principle of the cus­todyof the purse, but, on the contrary, will enable that dominant principle to be more effectually carried out. The 6th clause of the Bill, therefore, 3S far as it goes-I do not say it goes sufficiently £1,r-is simply the embodiment in a Statute of the theory and practice of the parliamentary system of the House of Commons. Consequently I have' no objection to the 6th clause; on the contrary, I am very determinedly

4L2

prepared to support it. There is, how­ever, I think, one defect in the clause. It provides for the summary and imme­diate expenditure of public money, but it will often happen-or may happen, at all events, as it has happened this year­that a deficit occurs in t:Q.e revenue, and that though this House :Q.as authorized the expenditure of money, there is no money available to give effect to its vote. Under these circumstances, a Tax Bill may be brought in' (as the Tariff Bill or an im­proved Land Tax Bill is to be brought in this session) and passed by the As­sembly, and the Government, relying on those Bills for making up the deficit, may have their intentions defeated by the Upper House rejecting the measures. What is the remedy for such a state of things as that? If the Government pro­vide, as they do in this Bill, forOthe sum­mary expenditure of money free from all obstacles, they should provide also that the raising of the necessary revenue should not be exposed to such obstacles. The remedy is to add to the 0 6th clause a pro­vision that whenever a Tax Bill is passed by the Assembly, and rejected by the Council, a poll of the people shall be taken within one month on that Bill. In this way the requisite means would be provided for carrying out the votes passed in Com­mittee of Supply. Without such a pro­vision a Tax Bill, under the 3id portion of the measure, if rejected by the Upper House will be put off until the next session, and if it is then passed in the Assembly again, and again rejected by the Council, a plebiscite will be taken on it. Thus 18 months or two years must elapse before the hiatus in the Treasury, which it is necessary to supply at once, can be filled up unless provision is made for a poll of the people being taken on Tax Bills immediately on their first rejection by the Council. With reference to the Brd portion of the Bill-the plebiscite-I may say I have given this proposal a great deal of consideration. I was inclined for a long time to oppose the proposition, but after mature deliberation I came to the conclusion that it was the only logical and effective mode of disposing of irre­concilable disputes between the two HOllses. I did not come to that conclusion hastily, but I consider now, after giving the matter much reflection, that, the pro-:­posal will, when llseq., be very effectual for its purposes, but" like all sovereign remedies, it will not be necessary to use it

1212 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

frequently. The very fact that such a remedy is in existence will prevent the obstructiveness that would cause it to be employed, and therefore I am strongly in favour of this portion of the Bill. With regard to the proposition to transform the Upper House into a nominee Chamber, I confess at once that I think it a great im­provement. Ever since the Constitution came into operation, it has been impossible, aud is so at the present time, to get a true representation in the Legislative Council even of the class of people it is supposed to represent. The provinces are so large, and the people so scattered, that it is utterly impossible for any except men with a great deal of wealth and time at their disposal to canvass the districts. The result is that none but wealthy men have a chance of presenting themselves as can­didates, and instead of the electors having a choice of representatives they are com­pelled absolutely to take whoever offers. That being so, I think it would be a very great improvement indeed that the Minis­try of the day, acting upon their own re­sponsibility, and anxious therefore to do themselves credit, should be empowered to select men fitted by experience and education and by freedom from class pre­judices to form the Upper House. That is a point which one could elaborate if time permitted, but it suffices me to say at present that I think the proposed trans­formation will be a vast improvement. I see only one defect in the proposal, namely, that it is too slow in its operation. Under the plan in the Bill nine years will be re­quired to complete the transformation. I think it would be far better, instead of gradually introducing an exotic element into the present constitution of the Council, to effect the transformation within a period of two years, by providing that the 15 of the present members who have the least time to serve shall retire at once, and the remaining 15 two years hence. I do not mean, however, to propose any amend­ment in this direction; I only throw out the suggestion, as I think every man should unbosom himself as fully as possible, so as to add to the volume of thought on the con­stitutional question. I may therefore say that the whole of the divisions of the Bill, with the exceptions I have mentioned, have my warmest and most entire sup­port; and I trust this House will pass the Bill with such a majority as will convince people in the Council, throughout the colony, and beyond the seas that this is

Mr.O'Hea.

the Bill which we want in order to secure good government and to settle our dis­putes.

Mr. MUNRO.-Sir, the question be­fore the Assembly stands at the present time in a position somewhat different from that which it occupied when it was before the Chamber last year, and I am quite sure the difference is owing to the action of honorable members in this Chamber. When, twelve months since, the second reading of the Reform Bill of last session was under consideration, there was not a more united or determined body in any Legislature in the world than the majority in favour of the measure ·sitting on this (the Ministerial) side of the House.. I, for one, was completely under the impression that we were all thoroughly resolved, as a political party, to carry out the views of our constituen­cies with regard to constitutional reform. Whil e I personally felt that there were many things in the Bill of which I did not approve, still I thought the Govern­ment were in earnest with respect to it, and, inasmuch as their supporters were also in earnest, I had great hopes that the reform question, ·about which the country has been so long and so much agitated, was on the point of being settled. But, unfortunately, matters being at that stage, the Government thought proper to adopt a course totally unlike any course ever followed before in connexion with the subject. At the very time theil' fol­lowers here were all enthusiastic in their favour, and the country was prepared to give them every support-when every­thing was ripe for a determined effort to remove the difficulty that has troubled the community during so many years-the Government turned aside, said there were no means in the colony of carrying their measure into law, and went off to England. Now, when the Chief Secretary communicated to the Governor his in­tention of going home, he made use of some expressions to which I desire to refer, as they may serve to guide us in ascertaining what the plans of the Govern­ment at that time were. In a Ministerial memorandum for the Governor, dated August 6, 1878, and signed by the Chief Secretary, there occurs the following :-

"There can be little dOli~t that it has already received the full assent of a large majority in that House, and, concurrently, almost universal acceptance by the mass of the community out­side. When, therefore, in due course, it has passed the Assembly, and been sent up to the

Second Reading. [SEPTEMBER 25.J Ele'ventk Nigltt's Debate. 1213

Council, a time of great anxiety will have arrived. It is impossible to predict, with any certainty, the probable course which will be adopted by the Council, but, whatever that course may be, Ministers are fully determined on meeting the Council in the spirit of concession and conciliation on all matters outside the principles involved in the Bill.

"Should, however, conferences, or any other mode of effecting a conciliatory arrangement unfortunately fail, as it is to be feared they may, Ministers will be most reluctantly com­pelled to despatch to England, on behalf of and with the express sanction of the Legislative Assembly, commissioners chosen from the leading members of that House, to lay before Her Majesty's Imperial Government the matured result of its deliberation, with a view to get that result embodied in an Act of the Imperial Legislature, and in the full confidence that it will be so embodied at the earliest possible moment, to carry into effect the pressing policy of rendering our present Constitution workable."

I am quite sure that, when the Chief Secretary signed that memorandum, the Government as a whole fully believed in the correctness of the statements it con­tained, and that what they had resolved upon doing was the right thing to do. We were, moreover, told by them that they intended to send three commissioners to England, for the purpose of getting the Bill-the Bill of last session-carried into law. The subject was then discussed in this Chamber, and, although I differed from the Government as to the propriety of their intention, the House decided that three commissioners should go to England to carry out the business to be intrusted to them, and £5,000 was voted for, their expenses. But, when the time for their departure came, three commissioners did not go. Only two commissioners were sent to England, and from the time one of them returned, we have never heard a word about the other. The commissioner who was the first to come back has always, when speaking of what was done by the commission, said-" I did so and so," and, "I submitted so and so." In this way the Assembly has been, to some extent, misled and deceived.' The Assembly expected that three commissioners would go home, but they have found that only two went, and that, so far as can be made out, one of them did all the work. The name of the other commissioner has never been mentioned, and we don't know that he took any part whatever in the proceedings.

Mr. BERRY.-Who said that? Mr. MUNRO.-The Chief Secretary,

when speaking of the commission, always Elbaped his words thqs-" ~ went to the

Secretary of State," "I did so and so," " I represented so and so," and so on.

Mr. BERRY.-If I spoke in that way I inadvertently fell into a mistake. I am under the impression, however, that Istated most distinctly that the honorable member for Castlemaine (Mr. Pearson) was with me on at least two occasions when I had an interview with the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Mr. MUNRO.-If the Chief Secre­tary made that statement, I assure him I do not remember hearing it. However, I accept his explanation. Well, we find that whatever was the number of the commissioners who went home they did not do what the Government, when they sent their memorandum to the Governor, said they would do. The Chief Secretary has most distinctly informed us that the Reform Bill passed by us last session was not, during any interview he had with the Secretary of State, referred to at all, that no notice was taken of it. I do not, say there was no understanding on the subject. What I want to point out is that the Government started to go in a certain direction, but gradually turned round until they got into a totally different onl'l-ona directly contrary to that which they had said they intended to adopt. The result is that we really don't know whither we are being led. I don't say that the Govern­ment did not change their mind. I simply desire to establish that, until the action I refer to was taken, they had about the most compact, determined, and enthusiastic body of supporters ever seen in any Par­liament. The Chief Secretary admits that the understanding set forth in the memorandum of the 6th August was not adhered to, and that the Bill which was then alluded to as the "matured result" of the deliberations of the As­sembly was not taken home at all. I now come to something in connexion with this affair which has given me more pain-it is of course possible I am under some misapprehension on the matter­than anything else I remember with regard to politics. Before he went home the Chief Secretary informed a public meeting at Sale that he intended when he was in England to settle another matter besides reform legislation. He said he proposed dealing with the question of the commu­nications between the Secretary of State and the Governor of the colony, and that he would not allow the interference that h~d been going on in that quarter in the

'l '

1214 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

past to continue in the future. But what is the result? The colony never received a greater insult than it has had to submit to, in connexion with that matter, in the person of its Chief Secretary. Instead of the Secretary of State behaving to him as a commissioner from this Assembly, and as the Premier of Victoria, what did he do? He simply treated him with a copy of a despatch addressed to the Governor. It is a most fortunate thing that the Chief Secretary hns a cooler temperament than mine, because, had I been insulted in that way, I would have flung the document in the Secretary of State's face. If it was proper for the Chief Secretary, as the commissioner of the Legislative Assembly of Victoria, to go to the Secretary of State, it was proper that the latter should communicate directly with him. That the Secretary of State did not do so appears to my mind a distinct endeavour on his part to show that he considered that the whole proceeding from beginning to end was wrong-that the Chief Secretary should never have gone home. Certainly, had he never gone home, he would not have been so insulted. We heard a great deal from the Treasurer the other night about the immense benefit derived by the colony from the Secretary of State's despatch; but so far as I can understand its meaning, I consider it most humiliating to us all. For example, the tliird paragraph is as follows:-

"The request urged by Mr. Berry in his letter of 26th February, that Parliament should, 'by a simple alteration of the 60th section of the Constitution Act of Victoria, enable the Legislative Assembly to enact, in two distinct annual sessions, with a general election inter­ven.ing, any measure for the reform of the Con­stitution,' is, in my opinion, even more open to objection than the proposal I understood bim to convey in bis memorandum of 6th August. But it is not necessary to discuss the merits of this or any other proposal, for though fully re­cognising the confidence in the mother country, evinced by the reference of so important a question for the counsel and aid of the Imperial Government, I still feel that the circumstances do not yet justify any Imperial legislation for the amendment of that Constitution Act by which self-government, in the form which Vic­toria desired, was conceded to her, and by which the power of amending the Constitution was expressly, and as an essential incident of self-government, vested in the Colonial Legis­lature with the consent of the Crown. The intervention of the .Imperial l'arliament would not, in my opinion, be justifiable, except in an extreme emergency, and in compliance with the urgent desire of the people of the colony"--That puts in better language the very expression I lIsed in moving that words

Mr. Munro.

be added to the vote for the commis­sioners' expenses, to the effect that the Imperial authorities should not be askecl for legislation interfering with the internal affairs of Victoria, except at the instance or with the express consent of the people of the colony. " when all available efforts on their part have been exhausted. But it would, even· if thus justified, be attended with much difficulty and risk, and Le in itself a matter for grave regret. It would be held to involve an aumission that the great colony of Victoria was compelled to ask the Imperial Parliament to resume a power which, desiring to promote her. welfare, and be­lieving in her capacity for self-government, the Imperial Parliament had voluntarily surren­dered, and that this request was made because the leaders of political parties, from a general want of the moderation and sagacity essential to the success of constitutional government, had failed to agree upon any compromise for enabling the business of the Colonial Parlia­ment to be carried on." If that is all we sent commissioners to England for, I am sure every Victorian who reads the despatch must feel ashamed of himself. We are simply informed in it that we have not in this colony sufficient "modera.tion and sagacity" or courage or earnestness to settle onr business amongst ourselves. I think those who received that answer from the Imperial authorities ought to feel that they subjected Victoria to a humiliation it ought not. to be sub­jected to. We are told that, although the mission to England did not accomplish what it was intended to accomplish-did not, in fact, obtain an enabling Act-it gained a great many other things that would not have been gained had the com­mission not gone. Into these matters, however, I don't propose to go. All I now refer to is the fact that. the despatch, which is the result of the mission, con-. veys to us simply the information that if we are incapable of doing our own business, and the country declares us to be so inca­pable, the Imperial Parliament will step in and help us, because then we will have acknowledged that we are unworthy of self-government. That is distinctly what the document implies. The Minister of Justice made use last night of words I was delighted to hear. Moreover, I was somewhat sUl'prised to hear them, although from my previous knowledge of the gen­tleman they are only just what I. might have expected him to use. He said-

"It is as necessary that we should be guided by English practiee and precedents as that we should use the English language." I quito agree with that. I have long felt

Second Reading. [SEPTE~IBEU, 25.J Elevent't Nigltt's Debate. 1#215

that our· greatest difficulties have arisen from our departing from English practice, and venturing into new and untried courses. Our mistake has been that we have pre­ferred to grope in the dark rather than follow the good old path. We are, in fact, very much in the position of two travellers I once read of. They had gone to bed in a strange room and found, when they were in the dark, that there was no venti­lation. One of them then got out of bed and smashed some panes of glass, and upon that they slept in peace. But next morning they found that the broken panes belonged merely to a cupboard door, and that, therefore, no extra ventilation had been obtained. We are only groping in the dark, and, as it were, smashing windows without in any way improving our position. For all we have done we have' got no nearer the object of our desires and our struggles, nor do I see much chance of our getting any nearer unless we take a course very different from that which we are now following. I am quite sure every honorable member would be delighted to assist the Govern­ment if they would only follow the right course, namely, endeavour to make the Constitution of Victoria as near as possible a counterpart of the British Constitution, and to· settle Victorian affairs within Victoria. Were they to do that they would find their party and the country as enthusiastic in their favour as ever they were. But the traces of the British Con­stitution that exist within the four corners of the present Bill are so faint as to be scarcely perceptible. I don't think they could be discerned, with any clearness, through the strongest magnifying glass. At the same time I feel it to be my duty, on account of those traces, faint though they be, to vote for the second reading of the Bill. I am bound to entertain a hope that, when the measure is in committee, the Govern­ment wilUisten to reason, and consent to amendments that will make it a useful one. Unless, however, the alterations I indicate are made, I ,,,ouM not on any account vote for the third reading of the Bill, or in any way put my mark upon it, as representing the matured judgment of the House, with a view to it passing else­where. The Government made a serious mistake in framing the Bill as it stands, and the sooner they remedy their blunder the better. If, on the other hand, they don't mean to consent to amendments of the kind I refer to, our dealing with the,

thing a moment 10nger will be purely. wasting time. The Chief Secretary hl'" formed us, on introducing theBil~, that"be knew of no means by which, it could be passed into law in this colony. Well, -r . am quite sure he must know as well as I do that there are no means of passing it into law anywhere else. I don!t believe there is an honorable member· present who thinks in his heart that the British Parlia ... ment would ever soil its records with it.

Mr. LONGMORE.-Order. Mr. McINTYRE. - They would not

take it in hand at all. " ., Mr. MUNRO.-I don't think the Min­

ister of I.ands quite understands what is diso·rderly. I repeat that we are. wasting time in considering the Bill further, unless the Government are prepared, to seriou,sly amend it, in order to make it acceptable to the people of the country.

An HONORABLE MEMBER.-Does it not go far enough for you?

Mr. MUNRO.-The Bill isl·foolishly extreme. It is impracticable on account of its extremeness.. I say it is not the duty of the Government to bring forward a piece of folly of this sort. Their duty is to propose practicable legislation-mea­sures calculated to carry out their views in the most moderate manner possible. Otherwise they cannot expect to succeed. I don't believe in extreme measures. In my estimation the effect of clause 6 would be to abolish the Legislative Assembly. Let me call the attention of honorable members to the position of affairs at the present time. Three months .of the financial year have passed. Supplies equal to about ~£1,500,OOO have been voted, and are in course of expenditure, and yet we have not carried a single item of the Estimates. If under present circum­stances we act in this reckless manner-a manner discreditable to every honorable member of the Chamber-what would we do if, when money had been voted in Committee of Supply, it became, so soon as the vote was reported to the House, available for payment from t.he Treasury? The result would be that Ministers would be in every way masters of the situation. They can at the present time jump on honorable members pretty well, but then they would snap their fingers at us. They would be utterly independent of us. I venture to say that, under the operation of the 6th clause, this Chamber would be utterly. power­less to control any Minister. Would

1216 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

we not then find my honorable friend the Minister of Railways coming down to the House, flinging a memorandum or so on the table, and saying-" Here is an estimate of the money I want, unless it is

• voted this evening all the men employed on the works I have in hand will be dis­charged to-morrowmorning"? Howwould honorable members be able to refuse him? And when money was once voted what further would the House have to do with it? Simply nothing. Then look at clanse 22. Is it not clearly intended to provide for the abolition of both Houses of Parliament? It runs as follows :-

"The recital of the enacting power in the preamble of any Act so made by Her Majesty shall be in the following words (that is to say): -' Be it enacted by the Queen's most excellent Majesty with, the consent of the people of Victoria, '"

Why under that the Legislative Assembly aud the Legislative Council would be' wiped out entirely; they are not even mentioned. They are not considered worthy of mention.

Mr. LONGMORE. - Their masters will take the work in hand.

Mr. MUNRO.-I am quite sure the Minister of Lands requires a master. Some 'men can be masters and lead, other men must be servants and follow. The Minister of Lands must have a mast.er or he is notlling. The people of Victoria have hitherto been under the impression that parliamentary government is a proper form of government. I am not sure that even the Minister of Lands has publicly given expression to any contrary opinion. I have never heard of it being advocated at say any public meeting in the colony that Parliament should be abolished, and that the whole legislative work of the 'country should be done by nine Ministers referring Bills to the people.

Mr. LONGMORE.-That is not a fair way of putting the case.

Mr. MUNRO.-Does the Minister of Lands himself ever put anything in a fair way? I am very sure he never does so if he can help it. If it were once enacted that laws could be made by the Queen and the people, what necessity would there be for Parliament at all ? It would not be wanted in the least. Indeed, have we not heard it asked more than once during the present debate-" Why should Parliament not be abolished?" Has not the Chief Secretary said within the last few nights-" If Parliament does not do

its duty it ought to be abolished"? The Bill, however, contemplates the abolition of Parliament, even should it do its duty. The case under the Bill amounts, by a very simple train of reasoning, to this: because Parliament has done its duty­to wit, in passing this Bill-it ought to be abolished. It seems to me that, under these circumstances, the Bill has not got a title in accord with its contents. To make the two things thoroughly harmonize, the measure ought to be designated :-

"A Bill to abolish the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly of Victoria, and to provide a mode by which Ministers may dis­pense with the said Council and Assembly respectively by sending Bills direct to the elec­tors for approval, and thus relieve Ministers from the inconvenience of parliamentary inter­ference and controI." That would be a, title which the people could thoroughly understand, and it would express exactly what the Bill means. If it does not mean what that title indicates, it means nothing. It means simply that there are to be nine Ministers of the Crown in Victoria, whose plan of opera­tions will be to get Bills drafted for them according to their own ideas, and then send them to the people. If the people pass them, well and good; if they do not, no harm will be done. The state of affairs would be that absolutely no ODe could take action in any thing but the Government. If the country wanted a particular Bill ever so, it would be power­less to get it, unless the Ministry chose to provide the means. Now, joking apart--

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN.-Is all you have been saying only a joke?

Mr. MUNRO.-The whole Bill is a joke from beginning to end. The At­torney - General could not have been serious when he framed the 22nd clause. He must have wanted to set the whole colony laughing. I am sure, if the real meaning of the clause were generally un­derstood, the whole people would think he was either joking or insane.

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN.-They would endorse it.

Mr. LONGMORE.-And every other clau se of the Bill.

Mr. MUNRO.-I would be sorry to have the poor opinion of the intelligence of the country the Attorney-General and the Minist.er of Lands seem to hold. For my part, I regard the Victorian community as one of the most intelligent on the face of the earth. I believe they have aj3

Second Reading. [SEPTEMBER 25.J Eleventh Night's Debate. 1217

good a knowledge of politics as any people in the world. Furthermore, I believe they are extremely anxious for the question of· reform to be brought to a settlement. But I also believe they are thoroughly in earnest in de­siring to see parliamentary government under two Houses of Legislature. Never have I heard a public expression of opinion to the contrary. Well, being in favour of two Houses and parliamentary govern­ment, I cannot vote for this 22nd clause, because under it the legislative arrange­ment I believe in would become a mere excrescence on the State. I am quite with the Attorney-General in desiring that an Act should be passed providing means whereby certain questions might be referred to the people, in order that the popular opinion upon them might be dis­tinctly expressed, but I would never con­sent to the country being constituted an enacting party with respect to laws. That is the fatal mistake of this Bill. There is, however, a principle in the BiH which, if properly applied, I would approve of. I allude to the proposal to appoint nominee members of the Upper Chamber. Care­fully guarded, and put in force as it ought to be, the nominee system would be found very useful in the constitution of a good Upper House. But the proposition in the Bill with respect to nomineeism embodies nomineeism in its worst form. It pre­serves all the mischievous elements of the arrangement without securing any of the benefits derivable from it. The Bill pro­vides that as soon as an elective member of the Legislative Council ceases, through effluxion of time, to hold a seat in that body, the Ministry of the day shall be able to appoint some one in his place. N ow one of the great evils of the elective system of the Council - indeed one of the causes of all our constitutional troubles -is that, because of the difficulty of being elected to the other Chamber, it has not hitherto been sufficiently represented in the Cabinet. I am quite sure half of our disputes with the Council would disappear if two-thirds of the Cabinet had seats in this Chamber, and one-third had seats in the other Chamber. When, under such circumstances, Ministers met together they would understand among themselves the views of both Houses, and in that way be able to bring in measures which would have a chance of becoming law. At the present time, however, the Cabinet is wholly represented ip, this House, while

in the other there is only a paper Minister -one who holds no office, receives no pay, and has no influence in the Cabinet-and· the result is that the two Houses are not in any way ill' accord. Under a proper nominee system, Ministers to sit in the other Chamber could be appointed when­ever occasion arose. In the Imperial Parliament the number of Ministers in the House of Lords is very large indeed, and the result is that the influence of the Upper House is strongly felt in the Cabi­net. But according to the Bill there can be no representation of the Ministry in the Council worth speaking of. Unless a seat in the Council be vacant at the exact moment a Ministry is being formed, there would be no opportunity of putting a Minister in there at all. It appears to me as though the nominee system in the Bill was framed for the distinct purpose of dis­gusting people with nomineeism altogether. I do trust that when we go into com­mittee on the measure the Government will listen to reason, which hitherto they have not done. Their whole career with regard to constitutional reform has been not creditable to them. They first went in one direction, then they turned away in another, and now they have brought in a Reform Bill totally different from that of last session, disregarding, in so doing, the advice I gave them before the Chief Secretary went home. I hope they will allow this Bill to be modified in com­mittee to suit the requirements of the colony. I am not so much opposed to the measure as some of my constituents are. I asked an influential elector in my district, the other day, what the people round him thought about reform. " Well," he said, "they are all in favour of reform, but the Government Reform Bill must be amended, or it will never be accepted." I asked what amendments the Bill re­quired, and he told me-" What wants to be done to the Bill is to take the 6th clause, the nominee system, and the ple­biscite out of it." For myself, I don't go so far as that. What I say is that the Bill contains many things it ought not to contain; but, at the same time, the country is really ripe for reform, and the sooner we get it the better. If the Government are determined not to make any material alterations in the Bill they will simply play into the hands of their opponents. I am sure they must be satisfied that their measure will never be carried by the country. There is not one of them

1218 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

who does not know that to go to the country with the Bill means defeat. The Chief Secretary was good enough, the other evening, to ask me how I would pass a Bill of this sort into law. I might reply that it would be soon enough for me to speak on the question when I had responsibility with regard to it. But nevertheless I have no objection to give expression to my views on the point, as I did last session, before the commissioners were sent to England. I said then that a Reform Bill that would satisfy the people could he passed if the Government were determined it should 'be passed. The first thing they ought to do in order to carry a Reform Bill is that they should keep its provisions in accord with the views of the people. The measure should, in fact, be of such a reasonable nature that they could, if necessary, go to the people with it. But what have they done with respect to their reform proposals? They have divided public opinion concerning them. Now in an attempt to reform the Constitution Act -the instrument under which we are empowered to make laws at all - no Government can nJford to divide public opinion. Then they ought, in order to carry their point, to concentrate their whole power and strength upon it. They ought to be prepared, as a Government, to st.and or fall by what they propose. Unless they do that they will never carry reform. Now they were not prepared to stand or fall by their Bill of last session. They did not even allow room for an ex­pression of public opinion upon it. How, indeed, could they do so, since their plan is to go in a direction different from that of public opinion? It is one thing to beat about the bush, and another to go seriously to work. Had they in the first instance adopted a proper scheme of reform, and then determined to never leave it alone until it became law, we would have had what the country wants before now. Thirdly, in order to carry a measure of reform, the Government ought to have im plicit confidence in the people of the colony. They should wipe away every idea of going to any foreign nobleman in order to get their Bill carried. They should appeal to the people to justify the confidence reposed in them by the Imperial Parliament, and lay it down firmly that the laws of this country should be made by the people of this country, and by no one else. It

~lr .. MU1lro.

has been said that we are a sovereign people and that this is a sovereign Parlia­ment. But that is a mistake. We are simply a colony belonging to a higher power; but we have the power of legis­lation, and, that being so, we ought to be proud of it, and be determined to legislate for ourselves, and not go elsewhere for our legislation. I am sure, from inter-. course which I have had with persons re­sident in all parte of the country, that this Bill is not in the direction in which the public desire to go. While I personally am in favour of the nomination of mem­bers of the Legislative Council, I believe the people of the country are determined that they shall be elected. I am prepared to bow to that determination, because I consider that we have no right to legislate against the will of the country. The will of the people is that the election of mem­bers of the other House shall be in their own hands.

Mr. BERRY.-Part of them. Mr. MUNRO.-All, with the exception

of those who really look to England for everything. All who believe in self-go­vernment-in Victorians managing their own affairs-consider that the Legislative Council should continue to be an elective House. It is said that a great many at­tempts have been made to alter the Consti­tution and that they have not succeeded. My opinion is that there have been no genuine attempts at all. There have been quarrels with the other Chamber, but de­termined attempts to alter the Constitution there have been none. '.rhe honorable member for Warrnambool was the first Minister who made any move in that direction, but that was not a real deter­mined attempt. The honorable member brought his measure forward when the whole of the constituencies had been ap­pealed to, and when candidates had com­mitted themselves to various schemes; and the honorable member fell ill before the measure he propounded could be carried through Parliament, and, in consequence, the scheme was abandoned. The second effort was made last session. Although personally I disapproved of many of the provisions of the Bill then submitted, I sat quietly behind the Government, and, believing they were in earnest, voted with them on every occasion. I refrained from speaking for fear of embarrassing them. But when I found that they were for going to England for legislation, I felt I had been deceived, and that I could not

Second Reading. [SEPTEMBER 25.] Eleventlt lVigltt's Debate. 1219

follow them any longer. Suggestions have been made in various quarters for the settlement of the reform question, and my name has been associated with that of a member of another place in connexiou with certain .proposals. I desire to say that I had nothing whatever to do with any of those proposals beyond receiving them from the gentleman I nUude to, and handing them to members of this House for their opinion. I had nothing to do with the preparation or arrangement of the scheme. But my candid opinion is that the Bill which embodies those pro­posals, and which is now before the other Honse, is more in accordance with the feelings of the people than the Bill now under our consideration. I am confirmed in that opinion by what appeared this morning in oue of the daily newspapers. That newspaper, which has always been the advocate of liberal measnres in this colony, admits that all the provisions of the Hill, except the plebiscite, ought to be abandoned. It says that the plebiscite should be regarded as the first item in a scheme of reform, and that the Bill which has been discussed this week in the other House shonld be the second. I differ from that view; at the same time I consider it significant that the journal which has always led the liberal party in this colony should arrive at the conclusion that a Bill introduced in the conservative Chamber is a :Bill worthy the support of the people of this country. I say that is a great step in advance; and I feel confident that if we were to adopt the principle observed in the mother country of conceding where it is wise to concede, and insisting only where it is necessary to insist, our difficulty would soon be settled. I happened re­cently to turn upa book published in 1615, called Tlte Estates, Empi1'es, and Princi­palities of tlte World, translated from the French by Edward Grimstone, Serjeant­at-Arms, which shows how disputes be­tween two Houses of Legislature were settled at lIt,hat time. I . take from it the following extract ;-

"Bills are preferred indifferently to either House, and when they ha.ve passed the one, a.fter three readings, they are seut into the other by certain committees. If the Com­mons approve that which has past the Lords they confirm it with this subscription-' The Commons have consented,' and, contrariwise, if tbe Lords allow of that whereof the Com­mons are a.uthor, they write, 'The Lords have assented.' vVhen the Lords and Commons con­cur not in opinion they choose certain com­mittees of either House to debate tha.t wl1ich

is in question, and to propound their opinions together, after which they do many times yield one to another's opinion. So as nothing ca.n be of force, unless it be a.llowed by both Houses~ wl1ich is not sufficient unless it be in the end confirmed by the King." This is what was done iu the British Par­liament in 1615, and the system has been carried out ever since. Whenever a serious conflict arises between the two Houses on matters of legislation, they refer the ques­tion in dispute to committees to deal with as reasonable beings, and in that way the difference is frequently adjusted. Here, however, when we want to get anything settled, or to prevent anything being set­tled, instead of appointing committees to deal with the matter after the English fashion, we appoint only those who are determined not to agree., I consider both Chambers in fault in that respect. I trust there will be no further action in that direction, but that we will settle down to business as reasonable beings determined upon obtaining a final settle­ment of the question, if possible, this session. At all events, if the question cannot be settled this session, let our views be put in such a form in a Bill that we can all go. to the country and say it is a Bill we are prepared to stand or fall by. I am sure that if the Government are determined to adhere to their Bill as it now stands, the great liberal party of the 11 th May will absolutely cease to exist. They will go to the country, but they will not come back from the country in the form they came previously. The Government will thus play into the hands of the con­servative pa,rty in the colony. The symp-. toms of failure become every day more apparent. The feeling is growing in the country that the Ministry are not sincere about the question of reform, and that things are not being done as they ought to be done. I am quite sure that the sooner the Government resolve to make their Bill what it ought to be, a reason­able measure-a measure in accord with the views of the people-the better will it be for themselves and the party. If they are willing to modify the Bill in that directio~, I feel certain that the question may he settled this session without any appeal on the subject to the country. I am sure that no one who t{tkes an interest in the welfare of the country but would be delighted to find the question finally settled, and the country allowed the rest and repose which it stands so much in need of. I. believe that if the colony had that

1220 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

rest and repose, it would soon resume the progress it was formerly making but is not making now. I don't condemn the Go­vernment for our present position. I con­sider there have been faults on both sides. So far as legislation is concerned, there has been serious obstructiveness on the other side. While mistakes have no doubt been made on the liberal side, there has been an almost impregnable barrier between the people and the legislation they desire-a barrier almost impossible to overcome. But I believe we have arrived at such a pass that we can feel almost in the atmosphere the desire of all parties that the difficulty should be brought to an end. That being so, I think only madmen would step in to pre­vent a settlement. I repeat that the sooner the question is settled the better will it be for all parties. I shall vote for the second reading of the Bill with the inten­tion of doing my best, when the measure is in committee, to get it so modified that it may be in accord with the will of the country; but I must say that, if the 22nd clause is not eliminated, it will be utterly impossible for me to vote for the third reading.

Mr. SERVICE.-Mr. Speaker, with a great many of the remarks which have fallen from the honorable member who has just resumed his seat, I thoroughly concur. In fact those remarks have run so much in the groove that I intended to follow that I feel that much of what I pro­posed to say it will be utterly unnecessary to trouble the House with. There can be no doubt whatever that the Government have led this country through devious paths in searching after reform. They have held up before the vision of the country a will-o'-the-wisp which we have been fol­lowing for the last eighteen months, which we continue to follow still, and which, unless this House and the country interpose, will land the liberal party and reform in utter destruction. I do not intend on this occasion to deal to any extent whatever with the principles contained in the. Bill now before the House. I desire rather to a,sk the House, for a few minutes, to consider the pre­sent position of affairs-not only where we stand at the present time, but where we appear to be drifting to. It is that aspect of the case which I desire to press horne more particularly on honorable mem­bers. Honorable members have already had recounted to them the story of the embassy

in many ways, the opinions as to what it went home for being frequently contradic­tory. We have had the story told us over and over again, but we have never had it told by the gentleman from whom we naturally expected to have the whole story. The Chief Secretary, who was the prime mover of the embassy in the first instance, and who was voted a handsom.e sum of' money to go to England with, for the purpose of determining the reform question for all time to come, went to England and came back from England, but he has not, up to the present time, given even a succinct account of what .took place in connexion with the mission in London. So far, almost all that we know about the matter has been gleaned from the public journals, from public telegrams which arrived here during the time the honorable gentleman was in London, and from the letters of newspaper correspon­dents. So far as the chief ambassador himself is concerned, he has treated this House-I don't say intentionally-with the most marked discourtesy; or we must come to the conclusion that he has told us no story because he has no story to tell. In that case I sympathize with the Chief Secretary. I believe he has no story to tell. There is some difficulty in discover­ing what the Chief Secretary went to England for, because his utterances on this subject, as on every other, have been so diverse, so contrary, that any half-a-dozen gentlemen in the House could find out half-a-dozen reasons for the embassy. But there are two rea­sons, one or the other of which must at last be fixed upon as the true object of the embassy. Unless one or the other of those reasons be the true reason, there was no reason, even from the Chief Sec­retary's own point of view, for the em­ba~sy at all. Either the embassy went to England to get the Bill which this House passed last session sanctioned by the Im-

. perial Government, or it went to obtain an enabling Act - an Act to enable this country to pass into law whatever mea­sure it thought proper. As I have said, the Chief Secretary has been perfectly reticent on the subject of his mission; but will any honorable member say that he succeeded in either the one object or the other? Sir, he has utterly failed in both. In the last week of last session, when some­body on this (the opposition) side of the House, in response to a remark from the honorable member for Castlems"ine (Mr.

Second Reading •. [SEPTEMBER 25.J Eleventh Nights Debate. 1221

Pearson) about the Bill which had passed the House not being taken to England, referred to the fact of the Bill being thrown into the waste-paper basket, the Chief Secretary, in the most emphatic terms and in the most indignant manner, dared anyone to say that that Bill was to be lost. He denounced the idea with the utmost indignation. And yet, practically, the fact is that from the moment it passed this House that Bill was simply waste paper. It never was anything else. And the Bill now before us will never be anything else. Every member of this House knows it. Every man in the country who has studied the reform ques­tion knows it. Sir, it is as well known now that this Bill will never be law as it is known that the honorable gentleman who introduced the Bill of last session never hoped it would become law. I re­collect, towards the close of last session, before the embassy left for England, speak­ing to a very steady Government sup­porter, and asking him, in view of the farce which had been enacted, how long the thing was to last. His answer was a very fair one from his point of view, and I respected him for the position he took up. It seemed to me not an unfair posi­tion to be occupied by a Government sup­porter. He said-" Things have not gone as I expected, but Mr~ Berry says he. will lead us to a proper modicum of reform; he will secure that if we support him; we will give him his own way, and if he fails, we must get some one else to carry it out for us." Well the mission to Eng­land entirely failed. The Bill, which this House spent so much time over last ses­sion, and which it was stated again and again would be forced down the throats of the Legislative Council-the Bill which it was said the country would have, and nothing else-has become waste paper. The time of the country was wasted last session in discussing a measure which is now regarded even by the Government themselves as so imperfect that they did not dare, when the Chief Secretary re­turned to the colony, to present it to this House again. Now I say as a mere matter of tactics, if the Chief Secre­tary, on his return from London, had again introduced the Bill of last session, he could have kept alive, to a large extent, the enthusiasm of the country on that measure, not that the Bill was highly satisfactory to the people, but because the people supporting a party outside, as

Government supporters supported the Go­vernment insidePal'liament, having com­mitted themselves to the Bill, would have rallied round the old flag if the Chief Secretary had hoisted it again; and the difficulty of the other branch of the Legis­lature, in defending itself against what may be called the aggression of that Bill, would have been very great indeed. But what has happened? The Chief Secre­tary, having deliberately thrown away the Bill which we wast'ed so much time over last year, "comes up smiling" this ses­sion, as if nothing of any consequence had transpired, and throws on the table a Bill in every respect different from the Bill of last session. The Bill which the Opposi­tion were denounced, from Dan to Beer­sheba, for not accepting-the Bill in which the Legislative Council was spoken of in the most contemptuous terms, and the second reading of which no member of that body would move-has been treated with greater contumely by its authors than by anyone else. Nothing could be more con­temptible than the manner in which Minis­ters have treated their own product; and here we have another Reform Bill, which reforms nothing and revolutionizes every­thing-a bantling which, the moment it saw the light, everybody knew must die. Cer­tainly it will be quite impossible to nurse it to maturity. I really think the Chief Secretary, with all the experience he has secured, might have produced a better measure. What I think this House has the greatest reason to complain about is that, notwithstanding the embassy which cost so much time that this session is almost lost so far as practical legislation is concerned, we have not advanced one inch with the reform question so far as knowing what description of Bill will receive the sanction of the home autho­rities. One would have thought that the Chief Secretary would have taken. the Bill which passed this House last session to Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, and have said-" If after the people of Victoria, on being appealed to by means of a dissolu­tion, agree to this Bill, will you undertake to obtain the sanction of the Imperial Parliament to the measure?" Did the Chief Secretary put the thing that way? If he did not, why not? If he did, what was the answer? The present Bill contains one of the principles of the measure of last year. I refer to the plebiscite. But it is generally understood in this country that the plebiscite will never go down in

1222 Constitution Act [ARSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

Ellgland, and that I think is confirmed by the telegrams received from Engla.nd in the course of this afternoon.

Mr. LALOR.-Why did they arrive to­day?

Mr. WOODS.-A manufactured co­incidence.

Mr. SERVICE.-" Suspicion always haunts the guilty mind." There is nothing but suspicion on the Ministerial benches. The usual course of human affairs is not supposed to regulate the action of any class of men who are op­posed to the present Government. If the honorable gentleman who asks why the telegrams arrived to-day will tot up the number of days which have elapsed since this particular Bill was laid on the table and printed, he will find that there has been just time for the Bill to reach London, and that that is the reason why the tele­grams have arrived to-day. The telegrams could not have arrived last week, because the Bill had not then reached London. I think the people in London who have seen the Bill must agree with those who nave seen it here, that it is the most piti­able piece of political joinery ever sub­mitted to a Legislative Assembly.

Mr. BERRY.-Do. the telegrams say that?

Mr. SERVICE.-I think it will be interesting to read the telegrams. I may mention, by the way, that members of the Government have been favoured by the Argus proprietors with copies of the telegrams. I believe the Attorney-Gene­ral has received a special copy, and there­fore I hope he will remember the Argus when he receives telegrams from the next embassy. The telegrams state as fol­lows:-

"London, Sept. 23. "Tlte Times, Standard, Spectator, and Pall

Mall Gazette contain articles on the Bill for the reform of the Constitution introduced by the Victorian Government.

" They condemn the plebiscite as iJiconsistent with and fatal to parliamentary government; and they say that the proposals prove that, de­spite Mr. Berry's professions, he has thrown moderation to the winds.

"The Times says that, in the event of the re­jection of the Bill, Mr. Berry is bound to con­fess that he has not followed the advice he sought from Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, and that, there­fore, he is precluded from again asking the Imperial Government to intervene." .

It would thus appear that the expenditure of £5,000 on. the embassy has been as profitable as if the money had.been thrown into the middle of the ocean. And now

let us see bow the Chief Secretary, with that guilelessness which characterizes him, ,yith that pleasauL disposition he has of shunting a carriage on to a siding, has managed-as he did on a former occasion­to confuse the House. I was going to say" dupe the House," but, a~ that might imply something offensive, I refrain. The honorable gentleman says the Bill now be­fore us is substantially the same as the last? Why? "Because," he adds, "the principle is the same-the principle that the majority must rule."

Mr. ANDREW.-Heur, hear. Mr. SERVICE.-I am glad to hear the

solitary voice of the honorable member for West Melbourne (Mr. Andrew). It is easily heard now. It used to be entirely lost in the cheers of Ministerial supporters. Now it is heard occasionally, supported sometimes by a "Hear, hear," from the honorable member for South Bourke or the honorable member for Collingwood (Mr. Mirams). Those three honorable members are all that are left of the large phalanx that used to support the Govern­ment through thick and thin. What I wish to call attention to is that the prin­ciple of this Bill is not that the majority shall rule. If that were the principle of the Bill, everyone of us would go for t.he measure.

Mr. LONGMORE.-No. Mr. SERVICE.-Why there is not a

man in this House-not one that I am aware of-who does not admit the prin­ciple that the majority shall rule. That may be the object of the Bill, but it is not the principle. The Chief Secretary may blunder, and bungle, and make" confusion worse confounded" by not carefully dis­tinguishing between the object and the principle of a measure. The object of a Bill is best discovered by the interrogatory "What?" What is it that is wanted ?­what is the object aimed at? The an­swer to that would give the object of the Bill. The principle of a Bill is ascer­tained by the interrogatory" How?" How are you going to arrive at that end? There is the distinctio.n-a distinction which prevails in all legislation. Take, for example, the educat,ion question. The question of educating the people of this country is one about which· every member of this Ho.use is agreed. There is not a single member· who does not con­cur in the "object". of educating every child. in the colony, but the "how" to educate would create a great difference of

Second Reading. [SEPTElIBER 25.J Eleventlt l\Tigltt's Debate. 1223

opllllOn. . In fact the Bill for the purpose of securing the" object" of educating the people which would be introduced by the honorable member for 'tV arrnambool would be a Bill of a very different "principle" from the Bill to secure the same "~bject" which might be introduced by the honor­able member for Belfast. Both honorable members are alike in desire that the peo­ple of the country should be educated; the object of the two gentlemen is exactly the same, but their principle of action is altogether different. Take again the question of mining on private property. 'Ve are all agreed that mining on private property should be legalized, but when we come to the principle or rather the machinery of the matter-the way how to do it-we differ altogether. Take also the. question of the Oakleigh Railway. The whole House was in favour of join­ing Oakleigh and Melbourne by railway, but how much was it divided as to the mode by which the junction should be brought about? There was the "outer circle" line, the direct route, the route through the Government Domain, and the route ultimately adopted. It is the same with every subject you like to take up. But mind you it is upon the principles of the Bill and not .upon the object of the Bill that the Government .stake their fortunes. Everything depends upon "how" a thing is done. All our legislation consists in "how to do it." The object in many cases is a thing that creates no difference of opinion; but the mode by which the object is secured is what brings about the difference of opinion. And here it is that the, functions of the Government truly come in. It is the. duty of the Government to consider thoroughly and to recommend what are the best means of arriving at a particular object, and, 4aving done that, as the honorable mem­ber for Carlton puts it, they are bound to stand or fall by their measure. Without that, we have no responsibility at all. If Ministers can come down here and utter simply platitudes. such as "the majority !pust rule," and are then allowed to box the compass year after year with Bills constructed upon different bases, then I say there is an end to parliamentary go-· vernment altogether. This is just the conduct Ministers have been guilty of. In so doing, it appears to me that they have man~fested their entire incapacity so to prepare legislative measures a~ to enable this Parliament to deal with them

in any satisfactory way whatever. Ano­ther illustration of the confusion of miud manifested by the Chief Secretary in dealing with the question of reform is to be found in a portion of the speech delivered by the honorable gentleman when moving the second reading of the Bill. The passage I refer to indicates such a confusion of thought, words, and aims that it is almost impossible to imagine that such a passage was ever uttered by a gentleman who has occupied such a pro­minent position in t.he history of the colony. The language is as follows :-

"There is no doubt that this Bill does admit the bare right of rejection in extreme cases to the Legislative Council, and that you cannot help except by the mechauical con~rivances of last year. The Bill is couched in such clear unmistakable language that they can never raise the question as to their right to reject; but sup­posing some extraordinary proposal was sub­mitted to them which they thought the country was not prepared for, then there is something reserved to them which I think must commend itself to all thoughtful minds, because I notice that, no matter how liberal a man is, there is always something in his mind that other men, under certain conditions and circumstances, may propose something disastrous, unjust, and ex­treme; and there ought, therefore, to be some power to stop those men for the time being. But any exercise of such power would have to be done in the face of the clearest language the Imperial Parliament has been able to frame, in order to protect the right of the House of Com­mons. The 4th and 5th clauses cover all the rights of this Chamber and all the rights of the House of Commons."

N ow to illustrate the extraordinary con­fusion not perhaps at first apparent in read­ing this statement, I have put down the four distinct propositions the passage contains, and in the Chief Secretary's own words. The propositions are-

1. "There is no doubt that this Bill does admit the bare right of rejection in extreme cases to the Legislative Council.

2. "The Bill is couched in such clear unmis­takable language that the Legislative Council can never raise the question as to their right to reject."

That is going north first and south imme­diatelyafterwards. Now take east.

3. "But supposing some extraordinary pro­posal was submitted to the Legislative Council which they thought the country was not pre­PFed {or - something disastrous, unjust, and extreme-there ought to be some power to stop those men 'for the time being." .

Now we go west. 4. "If, however, they do reject, they will do so

in the face of the clearest language the Imperial Parliament has been able to frame in order to protect the rights of this Chamber." -

Here are four contradictory propositions.

1224 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

Mr. BERRY.-It is exactly the same in England.

Mr. SERVICE.-The Chief Secretary says, first, that the Bill admits the bare right to reject; second, that the Bill is couched iu such language that the Legis­lative Council can never raise the ques­tion; third, that an extraordinary pro­posal the Council might have power to stop for a time; and, fourth, that if they stopped it for a time they would do so in the face of the clearest language. Why all this is pure rubbish. I don't use the term in any offensive sense; but let me tell the Chief Secretary that the confusion of mind, language, ideas, and aims is so palpable that it is perfectly obvious that the honorable gentleman is incapable of presenting a clear and distinct measure which this House and the country can accept. The fact is the Chief Secre­tary is fast in the mallee scrub on this re­form question, and he will never get out of it. He wanders about north, south, east, and west-he becomes almost wild as he feels he cannot get out-he gyrates round and round, and, unless some search party or other lays hold of him, the Chief Secretary and his reform measure will utterly perish. Now I would ask in all seriousness, without the least feeling of disrespect to the Chief Secretary, whose qualities no one admires more than I do, if it be possible for members of this House and the country, in the face of such gross confusion 'of language, in the face of such gross contradiction of measures, to hope that the Chief Secretary can ever lead them into the promised land? I think the feeling uppermost in the country now is that the Chief Secretary and his Govern­ment have shown themselves to be abso­lutely incapable of dealing with the ques-tion of reform. .

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN.-Collins-street is not the country.

Mr. SERVICE.-I am afraid that . when the Attorney - General speaks of Collins-street he confines his attention to Temple-court, and to a little office in Temple-court. Certainly if he were to walk along Collins-street, he would find that the sentiments I express are shared by intelligent and ed ucated men.

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN.-But the coun­try is the other way.

Mr. SERVICE. -If the Attorn~y­General appeals to the country on this Bill-but I think he will never do so-

I venture to say he will get a very diffe­rent reply from what he expects. If the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who shall prepare for the battle? The Chief Secretary, with the power which he pos­sesses, .perhaps better than any man in the country, of arousing the passions of the people from the public platform, succeeded, by stumping the country, in arousing the enthusiasm of the country not in favour of the Bill of last session, but in favour of the ability of the Government to settle the question of reform, to prevent dead­locks, and to secure finality in legislation. There is now a feeling of disgust on the part of the great majority of those who last year were supporters of, the Govern­ment. They consider that they have been ~horoughly sold on this occasion, because, Instead of the same measure being again presented to Parliament and supported by the Ministry with all the vigour they could bring to bear in its favour, a Bill has been introduced which is on totally different lines from the last. I have not yet met a single man, either in Collins-street or else­where, who says he is in favour of the Bill, although I don't confine my conver­sation to people holding my own views, but make a practice of talking with all sorts of persons on subjects of this sort. The expression used by the honorable member for St. Kilda (Mr. Carter) is one that nine-tenths of the more intelligent supporters of the Government will agree with, namely, that the Bill requires "a new stock, lock, and barrel."

An HONORABLE MEMBER.-And a new ramrod too.

Mr. SERVICE.-The Reform Bill of last year was stated by the Government to be absolutely perfect - a measure that would effect the objects which the coun­try had in view-=--and now the Attorney­General tells us that that Bill was defective in one main particular. After rousing the country over the Bill of last session, and talking of burning houses and broken heads, the honorable and learned gentleman now says that, after all, it would have been a pity if the Le­gislative Council had passed that mea­sure. This is a specimen of the style in which Ministers conduct the busi­ness of legislation. On the reform ques­tion they are all at sixes and sevens; not two of them think alike on it. The Chief Secretary is willing, under pressure, to give up the 6th clause of the Bill, but the Treasurer and the Minister of Public

Second Reading. [SEPTEMBER 25.J Eleventh Night's Debate. 1225

Works stated' in their speeches that they were determined to stick to it-that it was an essential part of the Bill, and must be maintained. Again, the Minister of Public Works declared that the Bill will inevitably prevent dead-locks, but the Chief Secretary told us that it will not prevent dead-locks if clause 6 is struck out, and also that it still leaves the Upper House the power, without any qualification whatever, to reject all Money Bills except the Appropriation Bill. The Minister of Public Works cares nothing for part 2 of the Bill, because, he says, it is a matter of no consequence how the Council is constituted so long as there is "an easy and accessible means" of getting at the public purse; yet part 2 is. the par­ticular bantling of the Attorney-General, who declares that it is a most essential feature of the measure. The honorable and learned gentleman says it contains what was left out of the last Bill, namely, provision for a nominee Upper House.

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN.-That was left to be dealt with afterwards. It was stated at the time the last Bill was before the House that the constitution of the Council was not dealt with by that measure.

Mr. SERVICE.-If the honorable member's words did not express the mean­ing which I have attached to them, that is a proof of what I have already hinted at-that the Government don't seem capnble of conveying proper ideas, or explaining what they really mean. The Minister of Justice told the House, the other night, that the people-the sovereign power in this country-are one and indivi­sible, and that therefore there can be only one representative House. That reminds me of the logic contained in the maxim­" He who drives fat oxen should himself be fat." I mention the matter, however, to contrast the statement of the Minister of Justice with a statement made by the Chief Secretary, as another illustration of how Ministers run against each other. The Chief Secretary said that the Upper House, as it is proposed to be constituted under this Bill, will more truly represent the whole country than a Chamber consti­tuted in any other way could possibly do. lt is a curious thing how Ministers differ from one another as to various provisions of the Bill. They are like the Mahom­medans with the pig; they are told not to touch it, and yet they manage to eat the

VOL. xxx.-4 M

whole of it. They say their Bill is per­fect, but their action about it reminds me of that of the various sects of Christians, who all say that the Bible is a perfect rule of fn.ith, and yet each of them interprets it in a different way. As to th~ plebiscite, the honorable member for Castlemaine (Mr. Pearson) is in favour of it because it has been introduced in modern times into Switzerland and California; but the Minister of Railways goes in for it because it was used by our savage forefathers in the days of Thor and Woden. The Chief Secretary sticks to the plebiscite, and the only reason I can imagine why he does so is because it is not his own proposal. He has departed fi'om everything of his own that is in the Bill, but this, not being his own, he sticks to. With the bowstring of the Age round the neck of the Government, what could they do but stand by the plebiscite? It is the old story of "the Koran or the sword." Knowing what the people of England think about the plebiscite, the Chief Secre­tary would not have adhered to it had it not been for the reason I have given. Let us consider for a moment what are the objects sought to be accomplished by the Bill. According to the Chief Secretary, the first object is to prevent dead-locks, and the second is to procure the passing of measures which the people of the country have set their ~earts upon, or, in other words, to procure finality; but the Minister of Public Works added a third object, namely, the supremacy-the abso­lute supremacy-of this House in matters of finance. So far as the Chief Secretary's proposit.ion is concerned, I believe there is no difference of opinion that such ought to be the aim and object of a reforin of the Constitution; but on the question of the supremacy of this Cbamber in mal tel'S of finance, I think we are hopelessly divided. That is the question, I venture to say, upon which the serious fight will take place in connexion with this Bill. If there is one thing that the people of' this country, and also a great many members who usually support the Government, are more determined upon than another it is that the absolute supremacy in matters of finance shall rest neither with one House nor the other, but with the people. 'Ve should take care to preserve to this Hou;-;e complete control over the raising and expenditure of money, inasmuch as the other House is not permitted to initiate a financial measure for any purpose; but,

1226 Constitutlon Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

baving secured that object, we should not deprive the people of any other check they desire in order to see that this House deals with the finances of the COUll try properly.

Mr. BERRY.-Hear, hear. Mr. SERVICE.-The speech I made

last session contains everything I am now saying. But the 6th clause of the Bill gives the Assembly absolute and Ull­

checked control over the finances. The Chief Secretary is not very particular about that clause; but, if it is struck out, what shall we find? Honorable members on the Ministerial side of the House are hopelessly divided. The honorable mem­ber for Carlton stated that, unless some radical amendments are made in the Bill, he cannot support the third reading; the honorable member for Creswick (Mr. Richardson) told us, the other night, that if the 6th clause is struck out he will vote against the Bill on the third reading; and the honorable member for Mandurang (Mr. Williams) said that if the 6th clause is not struck out he will vote against the third reading. All this tends to show the diver­sity of opinion which pervades members on the Ministerial side. I t is manifest that members are going to vote for the Bill not because they believe in it, but be­cause they hope, or say they hope, to be able to amend it in committee and make something of it totally different from what it is. That is a course which has not usually been adopted either here or at home. It is not in accord with the practice of the Imperial Parliament, or with what was the practice here for many years. Until recently the practice in this House was to bring in a Bill showing the machinery by which the Government of the day intended to secure a certain object; and, if they failed to get their machinery approved of~ they left the business to be done by somebody else. Will this Bill really do what, above all things, is desired-will it prevent dead­locks? The answer must be "No." As far as the Appropriation Bill is concerned, if the 6th clause is struck out we sha11 remain exactly in the same position as we are now. I see the Chief Secretary shakes his bead. I hope he will be able to tell us how the Bill will prevent dead-locks if the 6th clause is struck out. The honor­able gentleman te]]s us that with respect to all Money Bills except the Appropriation Bill-with respect, for instance, to a Pay­ment of IVlembers Bill, a Land Tax Bill, or a Railway Loan Bill-the relations

between the two Houses will remain ab­solutely as they have been hitherto. Is it not, then, a sham, a delusion, and a snare to bring down such a Bill, and tell us that it will cure the evils under which we have been laboring? Does the Bill procure finality in legislation? It only procures finality with respect to Bills other than Money Bills, which, so far as the past history of the colony is concerned, are of the least importance, because on no occasion yet have we come to a dead-lock ove.r any measnre which was not in some way or other connected with finance. And how does it propose to secure finality with respect to measures other than Money Bills? By a mode which I think -and many other members have already expressed the same opinion-is exceed­ingly objectionable, namely, the plebiscite. Now there are several objections to that mode of obtaining finality, some of which have not yet been urged in this House. One of the most important is that a Bill containing provision for a plebiscite can­not become law at all events within the next twelve months. The Chief Secre­tary knows it is utterly impossible to secure the passing of a Bill with the plebiscite in it without his going home to England; and, if he goes to England, will he secure it? The honorable gen­tleman ought to have been in a position to tell us that when he returned from his recent mission. He altogether failed in his duty when be came down to this House with a Bill containing such an important provision, which also appeared in the Reform Bill of last year, without telling us whether that particular pro­vision had secured the approbation of the Imperial authorities, to whom he will look to make this Bill law. Another objection to the plebiscite was well illustrated by the honorable member fql' Moira (Mr. Orr), in the distinction he drew between taking a vote of the people in a locality like Collingwood and in a large and thinly-populated country district. It is, indeed, very diffi­cult to determine how the plebiscite will work. Those who have thought most over the subject feel particular difficulty in coming to the conclusion that this mode of obtaining finality will be at all satisfactory to the country if it becomes law. There is one objection to the ple­biscite which I have not heard urged at all. It is that the adoption of the plebiscite to secure finality will deprive

• Second Reading. tSEPTEMi3ER 25.J Eievimi/t }.tigltt's Dehate. i22~

honorable members of this I-louse of those motives to deal with questions upon which the two Chambers disagree in that spirit which is essentially necessary to all satisfactory and intelligent legislation. That I hold to be a great defect not only in this Bill, but also in the last. In fact, in regard to the preparation of all the measures of the present Government, they have failed to be guided by those motives which have influenced honorable gentle­men in the Imperial I.egislature for so many generations, and have enabled them up to the present time to avert those llliserable dead-locks to which we have been subjected for the last 15 years. The mere fact of honorable members knowing that any measure which the majority think proper to pass must be submitted to the decision of the people by means of a plebiscite, after the lapse of a certain time, would, I think, take all the spirit and life out of the debates of this House. It would certainly have a tendency to encourage a disposition of apathy, indif­ference, and perhaps slothfulness, which characterizes all persons who have no motives sufficiently strong to prompt t.hem to perform their dnty to the best of their ability. The absence of sueh motives on the part of honorable mem­bers, which there will naturally be if the plebiscite proposal is adopted, I regard as the most fatal blot upon that particular form of securing finality. With regard to Switzerland, the letter read last night by the honorable and learned mem­ber for Mandurang shows that there is no precedent there for the present proposal. The referendum, as the Swiss people call it, is in no shape analo­gous to the plebiscite proposed by this Bill. . Here the plebiscite is intended to settle a question when the two Houses don't agree; in Switzerland the plebiscite is intended to deal with a question after the two Houses have agreed. Therefore the argument of the honorable member for Castlemaine and those who agree with him as to the plebiscite entirely fails, so far as the illustration from Switzerland is concerned. A similar remark will apply to the case of California. I believe that there the Legislature has to agree to amendments of the Constitution before they are submitted to a vote of the people. The two illustrations of the value of the plebiscite, therefore, disappear altogether; and where else can we look for an example of it? The fact is that we are chalking

4 1\1 2

. out for ourselves a new and uuknown path-we are proposing to adopt a thing which is utterly unknown in any part of the British Empire. We know not where it will lead us, or whether it will not be disastrous rather than advantageous to the true interests of the people. As to the 2nd part of the Bill, I regard the principle of nomineeism as the most absurd and dangerous principle which could be em­bodied in our Constitution. The form of nomineeism which it proposes is also a novelty, for it exists in no country on the face of the earth. It would simply create a Council of crawlers. It would degrade the other branch of the Legislature. I verily believe that is the object of some honorable members on the Ministerial side of the House. They are seeking to do indirectly what they dare not propose directly. They want to bring the Upper Chamber into disrepute in the eyes of the people, so that, hereafter, they may wipe it out without meeting with that oppo­sition which any attempt to deal with it in that fashion would now receive. The proposal that outgoing members of the Council should be dependent for their re-appointment on the Government of the day brings to mind many of the evils that have been experienced during the last two years in respect to other Govern­lllent appointments, and the same kind of things would undoubtedly occur in con­nexion with the appointment of members of the Council. I now come to the question whether this Bill should under any circum­stances be read a second time? I venture to remark, in answer to that, that the second reading of this Bill on the present occasion will be utterly devoid of any poli­tical or constitutional significance. (" Hear, hear," from the Ministerial benches.) Honorable members on the Ministerial benches must know that, if the Bill were to be tested on its merits, the result of the division about to take place would, to say the least, tremble in the balance. They know very well that if there be a statutory majority in this House for the passing of this measure, it is all that there is ; and I venture to hope that, before the third reading comes on, it will be im possible for the Governmel)t to secure a statutory ma­jority. 'Ve find a number of honorable members, especially in the Ministerial corner, tell us that thoy don't believe in the Bill-that they think some of' its fun­damental principles will be disastrons to the best interests of the couut.ry~yot they

1228 Constitution. Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

say they will vote for the second reading simply on the broad question-" Shall we have reform or no reform?" If the ques­tion was put in that way, I think every member of the House would vote" Aye." If the members of the Opposition were asked "Shall we have reform?" their answer would be "Certainly." But hon­orable members on this (the opposition) side of the House feel that it would be a departure from the good old constitutional practice to regard the principles and machinery of a Bill as altogether dis­tinct things, and, abiding by that prin­ciple, it is utterly impossible for us to vote for the second reading of this Bill. I don't think honorable members will say I am exaggerating when I state that one-half, or probably more, of the members who have addressed the House from the Ministerial side have con­demned the Bill in very unmea~ured terms. That shows to me clearly that the Go­vernment have not only failed to read aright the feeling of the country, but they have failed to read the opinions of the representatives of the country sitting on their own side of the House. That is a more fatal defect than the other, be­cause on matters of this sort I believe that the people are to a large extent led by their representatives. On other measures the representatives are led by the constituencies; but on a question of this character the constituencies are to a great extent led by their representatives. There is another reason why the Bill should not be read a second time: if the 6th clause be struck out, the possibility of dead-locks will not be removed one inch from where it has always been, and, if it be not struck out, then absolute supremacy in matters of finance will be vested in this Assembly. I don't care whether it be to "the devil or the deep sea"-into one or the other we are bound to fall, because, if the clause is kept in it is objectionable, and if it is struck out the Bill will not be one bit of good. For this reason, if there were no others, I do not see how honorable members who desire to treat the Bill on its merits can possibly vote for the second reading. With respect to the amendment of the honorable member for Moira, I may say that I 'don't intend to discuss it. It is similar to the one I proposed last session, but I think the time for proposing to refer the subject to a select committee has gone by. The present is not an

Mr. Service.

opportune time, especially as the Govern­ment have indicated their determination to oppose the amendment. If the honor­able member determines to press his amendment to a division I shall vote for it, but I don't see that any good can come out of it at the present juncture. However, I will not say" No" to what I said" Yes " last session. I think, when it was brought forward last session, the proposal was a likely and promising one; indeed it was then, and would have been now, if it had been brought forward by the Government, the most likely and reason­able mode of solving the difficulty. The question might now be asked-Are we to sit down and do nothing? Are we simply to oppose this Bill and propose nothing else? Under ordinary circumstances we would be quite justified in taking that course; but we have not taken it hitherto. We did not take it last session, and I don't think it will be unjustifiable to pursue t·he same course now that we adopted last session. Honorable members on the opposition side of the House and in the Ministerial corner have already expressed to some extent their own views as to the nature of the reform that is desired. I have no hesitation in saying that the pro­posals I submitted last session still com­mend themselves to my mind, as they do to the minds of other honorable members. I have not changed my views respecting those proposals one iota. The more maturely I consider them, the more I am convinced that they afford a satisfactory solution of the difficulty. I have no hesi­tation in repeating what the honorable and learned member for Mandurang stated last night-that the reform question can be settled during the present session, and without a dissolution. It could be settled without any difficulty if the gentlemen on the Treasury bench were out of the way. They have introduced Bill after Bill, which their own supporters have shrunk from, and which the country has regarded, to say the least, in the coldest possible manner, and yet they persist in asking this House to endorse measures which the country itself will. refuse to accept. The Chief Secretary has st;1ted this session, as he stated last session, that he is quite WIlling to negotiate for a settle­ment of the question upon any reasonable basis-that he is not particular as to the mode of sett.ling it. The Minister of Justice has said the same thing, and the honorable member for Collirrgwood

Second Reading. [SEPTEMBER 25.J Eleventlt Night's Debate. 1229

(Mr. Mirams) expressed a similar view in his speech during the present de­bate. If that be the spirit in which honorable members generally regard this measure, I really don't think that there can be any difficulty in getting the question settled. I don't think it can possibly be settled in the way suggested by the honorable and learned member for Mandurang. That honorable member suggested that a joint standing order, or a Bill, should be framed declariug that the practice of the Imperial Parliament should be followed by the two Houses of this Legislature. Where would that leave us? Exactly where we have been and where we are now. All along, from the begin­ning of the disputes between the two Houses, the difficulty has been to deter­mine what was and what was·not constitu­tional practice. This House has always declared the constitutional practice to be that which suited itself, and the Legisla­tive Council has always declared the con-

. stitutional practice to be the view which it took of the question. How are we to settle the difficulty by simply declaring that the law is as it is? The thing is an utter absurdity.

Mr. ORR.-The Council don't always accept that position.

Mr. SERVIOE.-What position? Mr. ORR.-The Council have denied

that the two Houses here occupy the position of the House of Commous and the House of Lords respectively.

Mr. SERVICE.-I don't know that the Council, by resolution, or by any corporate action, have ever said anything of the sort.

Mr. ORR.-The leading members have. Mr. SERVICE.-The leading mem­

bers of this House have announced the most absurd doctrines. It is nonsense to say that, because certain members of the Council have said foolish things, therefore the Council as a corporate body is com­mitted to them. . Mr. MACKAY.-But suppose a joint standing order was adopted?

Mr. SERVICE. -A joint standing order would fail to secure the object in view. We want something more than a joint standing order, or the declaratory clauses of this Bill.

Mr. BERRY.-Tell us what it is we do want.

Mr. SERVICE.-Do you want my scheme ? Well, let us make a bargain. If I propose a reasonable,. fair, and just

measure, which one-half of the honorable members on the Ministerial side of the House will accept, will the Chief Secre­tary take it ?

Mr. BERRY.-I never buy a pig in a poke.

Mr. SERVICE.-There is nothing in the honorable member's pokes when he opens them. Nothing can better illustrate. the mode in which the Government deal with this question than their neglect to act upon the advice contained in the despatch from the Secretary of State for the Colonies. That despatch gives advice to both Houses in the same tem­per and tone, yet Ministers studiously ignore-in a manner which is only not dishonest because it is so clear and per­spicuous that it deceives nobody-one side of the question submitted by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach. They point out that the Council are advised in that despatch not to reject Appropriation Bills, but they keep perfect and absolute silence, . both by their lips and by their actions, as to the recommendation that this House' should follow the course adopted by the House of Commons, and avoid the cause which leads to the rejection of Appropriation Bills, namely, a tack.

Mr. LALOR.-What is a tack? Mr. SERVICE.-The Minister of Cus­

toms' temark opens up the old question which we have been discussing for 15 years, and may discuss fOL' another 15 years without being any wiser. Hence the necessity for providing some sort of mechanical means in order to get out of the difficulty, which would never have arisen if both Houses, and both sides, had manifested a spirit of fair play, modera­tion, and conciliation, which has been notoriously absent from this House for the last two years. It is of no use honorable members saying that the House of Lords has given up its constitutional right to reject Money Bills in face of the evidence to the contrary. The most eminent liberal parliamentary men in the old country have stood up and declared point­blank that the House of Lords does possess that constitutional right. In the case of the Paper Duties Bill, Mr. John Bright, while denouncing the Lords for rejecting that Bill, specifically stated that they possessed the constitutional right to reject the measure.

Mr. GAUNSON.-And to initiate a Money Bill.

1230 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

Mr. SERVICE.-I don't know whe­ther Mr. Bright went a,s fa,r as that. Ertrl Granville stated this year, in regard to a £6,000,000 vote sellt llP ill a separate Bill, that the House of Lords had a per­fect constitutional right to reject that measure if it thought proper. I will quote a case from Halsell's Precedents, which sets forth the question as to the power of the two Houses with respect to MOllev Bills in t.he clearest possible man­ner, a"nd puts it in a nut-sholl. .lIatsell sets forth the following" exceptions from the general and ordinary practice of in­serting all grants of Supply into the gene­ral clause or clauses of appropriation" :-

" Of 37 grants of Supply carried into effect by separate Bills, with or without including them in the general Appropriation Act, from the 1st William and Mary to the 48th Geo. III. (1688 to 1808), 120 years, 21 are included in the Appropriation Act, and also provided for by separate Bills; 16 are not included in the Ap­propriation Act, but provided for by separate Bills, of which 16 grants 4 were conditional-to Mrs. Stephens, 1730, Mr. Harrison, 1763, Mr. Philips,1781 and 1785; three personal,for debts claimed as due-Captain Hoche, 1707, Dr. Smith, 1772 and 1781; one a personal grant of favour and bounty-Lady Anne Jekyll, 1774; eight for public works-Milford Haven, ·Westminster Bridge, Rye Harbour, Portsmouth and Ply­mouth, African Company, &c."

Halsell goes on to say-"To the personal grants of this description

was added 23rd of June, 1808, the sum voted for Mr. Palmer's arrears of his post-office per­centage. This was made a separate Bill upon the precedents above enumerated, for the avowed purpose of affording to the Lords an opportu­nity of considering that grant distinctly from the other grants of the year, the Lords having, on the 21st of June, thrown out a prospective Bill for his future percentage."

Nothing can be clearer than this case. It shows distinctly the power which the House of Lords claims.

Mr. BERRY.-It is the one exception which proves the rule.

Mr. SERVICE.-The vote for Lady Anne J eky 11 wa~ a very peculiar vote. The father of that lady hud by will left the na­tion a certain estate, and she claimed it and appealed to Parliament to have the estate vested in her name. There was no differ­ence of opinion between the two Houses with respect to the question, and yet the grant was sent up to the House of Lords in a separate measure. In t1l is colony, if we were mR,king a grant under such cir­cnmstances to Captain Volum of Geelong, t.he family of the late Sheriff, the widow of an ex-Member of Parlin,lllont, or to allY I one else, we w(lulll 110t have the slightest

hesitation in placing it in the Appropria­tion Bill. Yet here is the case of a grant about which there was not the slightest Jiffel'ence of opinion-which, as far as tho records show, was passed without debate --:;t,nd still the House of Commons sent it up in a separate Bill.

Mr. BERR Y.-"Vas not the grant to last more than one year?

Mr. SERVICE.-It was a grant of a specific sum of money like the Palmer vote. III the Palmer case the House of Lords threw out a Bill on three different occasions, ana it was only on the fourth occasion-after the House of Commons had shown the utmost desire to conciliate them-that the House of Lords passed the measure. In the face of all these facts it is p~rfectly idle to say that the House of Lords have given up their right to throw out Appropriation Bills or Money Bills.

Major SMITI-I.-But they don~t do it. Mr. SERVICE.-Why don't they do

it ? For the simple reason that both Houses are guided by the practice which is recommended to us by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach. The House of Commons do not put into the Appropriation Bill things which have no right to be there, and hence the House of Lords do not re­ject the Bill. As the one body does not offend in the first instance, the other does not offend in the second. To return, how­ever, to the best mode of dealing with the question of reform. I say, as I did last year, that the Legislative Council have afforded ns by their own action a fail' starting point for the framing of a Heform Bill which ought to be, and I believe will be, thoroughly satisfactory to the people of this country. Of course the proposal of the Qouncil will not be satisfactory to those gentlemen who wish to destroy the utility of the other I-louse and desire to have only a single Chamber. It must be obnoxious to them, but I am certain there is a majority in this House· who desire no such thing, and who are disposed to hail with pleasure the Bill the Council now have before them, framed on the same lines as the Bill of last year. I will now mention the propositions of that Bill specifically, so that they may be once more put before the coun­try, and the eouutry may see aistinctly that a large number of gentlemen on the G0V0l'l1ment side of the House are willing to join with the gentlemen on this side in order to secure a mensure by which this

Second Reading. [SEPTEMBER 25.J Eleventlt Night's Debate. 1231

question may be satisfactorily and speedily settled. The Council's Bill proposes to reduce the size of the provinces by incroas­ing their number, to reduce the qualifica­tion of members of the Council and in­crease their number, to reduce the qualifi­cation of electors, and to shorten the tenure, of seats from 10 to 6 years. On all these points, I think, there is a very large num­ber of members in this House thoroughly agreed. I claim the Chief Secretary him­seH as one, and I think it will be very difficult for him to get away from sanc­tioning ,a measure of that kind. The Chief Secretary is certainly not in a posi­tion to take exception to the Conncil's Bil], except in one aspect, namely, that' the proposal with respect to the qualifica­tion of electors is not on a sufficiently libi:lral basis. But that, as the Chief Se,cretary knows, is a mere question of detail; and he knows that, whilst we might not probably get all we desire in respect to the lowering of the fi'anchise for the Upper House, nevertheless we are likely to secure, as a matter of com­promise, a very large concession indeeu from the gentlemen in another place. From the very fact that they have intro­duced this Bill themselves, and that they express themselves deiiirous of a settle­merlt of the question, we are entitled to ~ope, at all events, that we shall secure even a larger reduction of the franchise than is proposed in their Bill. On this question I desire briefly to express my own views. I have never agreed to the proposal to make the ratepayers' roll of the colony the basis of the franchise for the Council. I have never gone that length, and I do not think I am likely to do so. Here I may take occasion to remark that an honorable gentleman in another place, on Tuesday evening, in moving the second rending of his Reform Bill, stateu that certain proposals, which have been largely descanted on, were handed by him to me and in troduced by me to this House. N ow I take no credit whatever for originality with respect to the resolutions submitted by me; in fact, the principles contained in them have been before the country for years. Both the principle of the double dissolution and the principle of the united vote of the two Houses were included in Mr. Francis' Bill of 1874. I do not, therofore, claim the resolutions as original in any way. The proposals I made last year were spoken of as the "Service proposals," simply

because they happened to be stated to this House by my lips and for no other reason -just in the same way as certain other proposals have been called the ~'Reid­Munro proposals" for shortness. As for the statement, however, of the honor­able gentleman that he handed me these resolutions and that I introduced them hore, I may say that the only time I r~,­mom bel' talking to tho honorable gentle­man at all about his resolutions was on one occnsion long after my' resolutions had been debated, at all events in little cote­ries among politicians. He cnlled at my office, and, handing me a list of proposals, said-" What do you think of these as a settlement of the question?" Reading them down I found that the last provided that the ratepayers' roll should form the basis of the franchise for the Council. "WLy," said I, "these are simply the resolutions we have been discussing, ex­cept the last ono, which I do not admit." That is the whole story of what has oc­curred between the hotlorable gentleman and myself, and I think it desirable, for the sake of all parties concerned, and for the sake of future history, as the honor­able gentleman has referred to the matter, to set it right. As far as I am concerned, I would be sorry to see the ratepayers' roll of the colony adopted as the franchise for the Council, but I am perfectly pre­pared to agree that all who pay rates in virtue of being owners of fi'eehold should be constituents of that Chamber. I shall willingly consent to that, but I draw the line distinctly between ownership and non­ownership of property.

Mr. GAUNSON.-Would you include leaseholders? '

Mr. SERVICE.-That is not a point I am prepared to take great exception to, but I dissent from making the ratepayers' roll as it stands the basis of the franchise for the Council. I think in having two Houses we ought certainly to have one which represents the property of the colony. As has been said again and again, the Government of the country is formed for the purpose of protecting life and property, and I consider it is desir­able that the owners of property should have a voice in the legislation. The great evil in the past has been that, the Upper House, under its present constitu­tion, has represented not the property but the wealth of the country. That is a principle I utterly disagree with. It is an undesirable thing that the wealth of

1232 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

the country should be represented by one branch of the Legislature, but it is a desirable thing that the property of the country should be so represented. The honorable member for Creswick (Mr . . Cooper) expressed the opinion that when a man had reached mature years, and was making his own nest, as it were, he should be intrusted with the franchise for the Council. Now I think it is a very desirable thing-and I think we all agree it is desirable-to cultivate amongst the people of this country a desire to acquire property--

Mr. BERRY.-Is not that natural? Mr. SERVICE.-And to respect pro­

perty when it is acquired. Th8 Minister of Public Instruction has taken great pains, by the establishment of penuy savings banks in State schools, to teach the rising generation the advantage of the acquisi­tion of property. But will the honor­able gentleman tell us this-If it is a virtue to acquire a few penuies in the school bank, how many pennies would those children when they grow up need to acquire before that virtue becomes a vice? That is a very important point to determine, if the honorable gentleman would tum his attention to the problem. We would then know how it arises that school children are told to Slwe their pennies, while when they have grown up, and have collected their pennies, we tell them we are going to "burst them up" and take their pennies from them, and that they nre enemies of the country. I desire now to refer to the proposal I sub­mitteu last year of a double dissolution. It was a proposal which emanated from the Council by way of resolution, though it was formulated by myself in my propo­sitions. I have no hesitation in stating that I regard t.he proposal of a double disso­lution as the solution of the whole difficulty. I do not hesitate to say that on that one proposition hangs the means of solving the entire difficulty aud every dead-lock that is likely to occur. As far as I am personally concerned, I would desire not.hing further. I hold that the great object of a double dissolution is to pro­duce tho::;e very feelings of moderation and conciliation-in fact, those motives for agreement between the two Houses in dealing with disputed questions-which have been absent in the past. What would be the natural result in cases of disagree­ment if both Houses knew that in the I event of their continuing to disagree they

must go before the country? Will any honorable member venture to say that a single case would arise in a generation in which a dissolution would take place?

Mr. GAUNSON.-Might not that system emasculate the independence of the Chambers?

Mr. SERVICE.-I do not think that would be the result. In cases where the Upper House disagreed with a measure

. sent up from this Chamber, instead of the matter being shelved there would be a conference, and both part~es would meet in a very different spirit from that in which the members of the two Houses met at the conference of last year. We would meet, as it were, with a rod hang­ing over us, and an appeal to the people would be the very last resort if a compro­mise could be managed without the public themselves outside demanding a disBolu­tion. A voluntary dissolution, I venture to say, would never occur in the history of the country. Now, because the propo­sal of a double dissolution would produce that result, I, for one, would be quite con­tent with it. As the theory of finality, however, would not be complete without something else, I am quite prepared to carry out the last resolution I submitted last year, namely, that in the event of a dissolution failing to bring about an agree­ment, the two Houses should meet and vote unitedly. The objection raised to this proposal is that it would give the other Honse a very large power-that, in fact, there would be no certainty after all of the people getting their own way. Now in any mode of dealing with finality diffi­culties would m:ise, but, considering the comparatively small section of the people who would vote in the case of a plebiscite, I think the mode of dealing with the su bject which I propose would probably afford a more correct and satisfactory solution than would be gained by submitting any question to a plebiscite. A plebiscite might indeed result in a state of things which would be very unsatisfactory. Suppose Parliament and the country were equally divided, or about equally divided, on a question-and we have seen cases in the colony, both in municipal and political elections, where the election resulted in a tie. Of course in such a case under the plebiscite the question would lapse. But a majority of one would carry a question of vital import­ance-and no other would justify a disso­lution. Now no one will contend that it

Second Reading. [S~PTEMBER 25.J Eleventh Night's Debate. 1233

would be a desirable thing to have the legislation of this country altered in an important direction by a majority of one. Would the Chief Secretary object to this proposal-that a two-thirds vote of this House, after a dissolution, should suffice to carry a Bill over the heads of the Council ?

Mr. BERRY.-Would they pass that elsewhere?

Mr. SERVICE. -That is not the question.

Mr. BERRY.-It is the question. Mr. SERVICE.-That is not the ques­

tion I am now discussing. I take it, at all events, that the Chief Secretary would think this proposal worthy of considera­tion. I am not going to suggest such a proposal, as I think it would be objection­able in the same way as the honorable member for Carlton thought it was objec­tionable to set forth in the preamble of a Bill that it was enacted without the autho­rity of the two Houses. I think it would be undesirable to have Bills of any sort, or under any circumstances, passed into law without having it set forth that they were enacted with the consent of the two Houses of Parliament. But I want to show that the effect of my proposal of the two Houses meeting together would. be that a two-thirds majority of the Assembly would, as far as we can judge from the history of the past, suffice in every case to carry a measure; and that in the great majority of cases a considerably less num­ber would be sufficient. What are the facts? If two-thirds of this House were re­turned to a new Parliament in favour of a particular measure, it would only require 7 members of the other House, if the number of the Council were increased to 42, to give a majority to the Bill. Now what would be the chance of getting 7 members of the other House to vote for anything the country had set its mind upon? Let us see what was the case in the most serious disputes that have occurred in the past, namely, those with regard to the Darling grant and the Tariff Bills. I find that if in a new Council of 42 mem­bers, the same proportion voted for any measure on which there had been a disso­lution as voted for the Darling grant and the Tariff Bills, the measure on which the dissolution had taken place would, with a two-thirds majority of the Assembly, in­evitably be carried. And can we conceive a Legislative Council being returned after going to the country on such a broad

basis as even a £10 property franchise would afford, which would not contain 7 members. out of 42, or one-sixth of the whole, who would be in accord wit.h the people of the country? I admit the con­tingency is barely possible, but it is so highly improbable as notto be worth taking into consideration by this House or the people. The Chief Secretary himself last session accepted the principle of having a different constituency for the election of the Upper House from that which elects the Assembly. I would remind him that one of the objections he offered to the proposals I made last year was that they were brought forward in the last week of the session, when it was too late to deal with them. The Chief Secretary cannot bring forward the same argument now, as the proposals are brought forward in ample time for them to be discussed by the House and dealt with by the Government. I would point out that the Chief Secre­tary, in accepting the basis of the Reid­Munro proposals, left himself open to the identical charge which he has levelled against the united vote of the two Houses with respect to the possibility of the peo­ple not getting their own way. Why so? Because the Chief Secretary, in agreeing to take the ratepayers' roll as the electoral basis for the Council, left altogether out of consideration a very large number of the electors of the colony. And will the Chief Secretary venture to say that there is not a possibility that the other House so constituted may refuse to assist the Assembly to pass a Bill which after a dissolution a considerable majority are returned to this House to pass? I admit, at once, that the possibility is a remote one, bu t it is hardly more remote than that I referred to with regard to the united vote, and thus the Chief Secretary, in ac­cepting the Reid-Munro basis, laid him­self open to the same difficulty which is alleged against my proposal. There is another reason why this House should feel that a two-thirds majority would be a fair thing to have as a safeguard in dealing with a question in dispute. We find that a provision of this sort exists in other places in a variety of forms. III the United States the President can veto a measure, but the two Houses can 'pass it over his veto afterwards. That, however, cannot be done by a bare majority, or even by a majority of the whole of the members of each. House; a majority of two-thirds is required in each Chamber.

1234 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

In our own colony there is also a recog­nition that in dealing with certain mea­sures it is desirable that a bare majority should not be able to move the foundations, as it were, of our legislative system. The very Bill we are discussing cannot be passed by an ordinary majority, but re­quires an absolute majority of the whole of the members of the House before it can leave this Chamber. The principle being thus introduced, I think it is worthy of consideration, at all events, in dealing with a difficulty which is so utterly remote that I venture to say it woul<l not be heard of in this generation-I refer to the con­tingency that after a dissolution there would be a difference of opinion between the two Houses which would prevent a satisfactory determination being obtained.

Mr. MACKA Y.-The Mining on Pri­vate Property Bill was rejected by the Council after a dissolution of this I-louse.

Mr. SERVICE.-The honorable and learned member for Mandurang showed in his speech that it would be very diffi­cult to refer that question to the plebis­cite. Of course it would be referred to the electors under the proposal I make by a dissolution. I do not care what measure is submitted to the country by a double dissolution; if the people return two-thirds of the members of this House in favour of that measure there is hardly a possibility but that it will become law.

Mr. MACKA Y.-Two-thirds of the members of this I-louse voted for the second reading of the Mining on Private Propei·ty Bill, yet after a general election the Upper House threw out identically the same measure.

Mr. KERFERD.-But it was not sub­mitted to a vote of the two Houses sitting together.

:Mr. SERVICE. - There is another point of some importance to which I wish to call attention. The Government must have noticed that the South Australian Legislature are at. the present time deal­ing with the same subject as we are, and not only that but they propose to deal with it in the same way as I have suggested. They are proposing to follow the precise lines of my suggestion. That being so, I think the House will recognise that several a<lvantages would result to the country and to this House if the Government would accept a proposal of the kind, and have the question settled at ollce. In the first place, this can be done by ourselves without going home-and it is a question

whether it can be done at home at all. It certainly can be done this session, and this Parliament can have the honour of doing it. By tbis proposal dead-locks would certainly be put an end to, which is more than can be said for the proposal of the Chief Secretary. We have got very near to an agreement amongst a great number of the members of this House, and the only difIiculty now, as far as I can see, is the plebiscite, which stands between a good many members on each side. ,Ve know, however, that the plebiscite is a thing that the two Houses cannot agree upon, and we know also that it is very unlikely to be got by an appeal home. Why, then, should we insist on adopting a mode of settling differences which, besides heing unknown, possesses the great dis­advantage that, in all probability, we can­not get it carried into law? I suppose the Chief Secretary intends to address the House to-night, and when he gets on his legs I hope he will apply himself to the arguments brought against his mea­sure, and not deliver one of those cus­tomary stump speeches by which, at the end of a debate, he always endeavours to rally his party. We shall have him, no doubt, endeavouring with his usual tact to rally the gentlemen arouJid him in the old way. .

Mr. P ATTERSON.-Perhaps you will tell him what to say.

Mr. SERVICE.-I am telling him what not to say. I tell him the time is gone by \yhen he can rally either the House or the country by a mere ad cap­tandum speech. "Ve want the Chief Secretary to meet in the face the facts and difficulties which confront him, and unless he deals with this question now in a different way from what he has done heretofore, the question will be taken out of his hands. The people of the country and the press of the country will not stand much further trifling with this ques­tion, which has been the course adopted by the Government from their beginning to deal with it up to the present time.

Mr. BERRY.-Sir, I think the honor­able member for 1\{aldon might have con­cluded his very long address without any reference to stump speeches, because if ever I listened to a speech intended for the stump it was that of the honorable member. I think also there may be some justice in his fear that it will be impos:.. sible to rally this House 01' the country if they arc confronted too frequently with

I Second Reading. [SEP'1.'ElUBEH 25.J Eleventll, Nigltt's Debate. 1235

speeches of the character of that of the honorable member, which sent to sleep nearly all the honorable members on his own side of the House. I would have liked the leader of the Opposition to make a fair reasonable second-reading speech on the Bill in which there might have been something to answer-I would have liked him to deal with the Bill before the House. The honorable member, however, commenced his speech by saying that he did not intend to denl with the principles of the Bill; but what are we discussing on the second reading of the Bill except its principles? The honorable member omitted the one import-ant matter he should have dealt with, and then he addressed himself to almost everything connected with the last three sessions of Parliament, whether it related to the Reform Bill or not, that he could possibly think of. In fact his address was another of those scolding speeches which he invariably in­dulges in, the burthen of which is that all the Government do is wrong, and that all the wisdom is throned in the Opposition. No dOll bt that is a very proper feeling to exist in the mind of the leader of an Opposition, but he need not be al­ways telling us of it. He need not be always forcing on the attention of the House his opinion that the majority of his fellow members are either rogues or fools, because that is really what the logical sequence of his remarks amonnts to. He commenced by saying that if the Government went on much longer as they are doing all chance of reform would be destroyed. Well, I am not quite sure whether it would not be better to destroy it rather than have the reform .indicated by the honorable member. I will tell the honorable member that there is reform which may make things worse than they are at present. No doubt, in the interests of the country, it would be very desirable that there should be an interpretation of our Con8titution Act embodied in an Act of Parliament-be­canse really that is all that reform need attempt. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that the people of this country, under the Constitution Act, do possess an enor­mous amount of power, not one tittle of which I hope they will be disposed to part with under the plea of reform. Therefore I say, unless reform goes in the right direction and secures to the people what the Constitution Act pro­fesses to· give them, we had better h~tVe

no reform, and remain as we are. What we want is self-government, and not any . hocus-pocus by which the minority shall be made into the majority. We want a reform by which the honest sterling majority of the country shall have the control of the affairs of the country, otherwise we hnd better remain without reform at all. Because, under the pre­sent Constitution, there is nothing which this country really sets its honrt upon and for which it is prepared to ulldergo a. temporary sacrifice that it cannot secme, and it is only to prevent the inconve­nience that arisel:! out of the determina­tion of the country to secure what the Constitution professes to give-and which we contend it does give, if fairly int.er­preted-that we introduce this Bill. Our attempt is to make the Uonstitution Act so clear with respect to the rights of the people that there shall be no mistake in the future a.nd no inconvenience and loss from dead-locks, and to provide also some clear enactment by which finality, after discussion and agitation with re­spect to measures, shall he secured. To achieve those two points according to the will of the majority is all that we want or that any member of this House wants; and the present Bill, like the Bill of last session, proposes simply to effect those two objects. Why did not the honorable member for 1\1aldon show in detail that the Bill does not effect those objects, or that, if it does, it does not effect them in a proper way; or why did he not point out some other mode which would effect them equally well, ·while being less open to objection from the opposition side of the House? The honorable member indulged in the pro­phecy that this Bill will never become law, and that the Government know it. That assertion is only another sample of the courteous treatment we receive from the Opposition. I don't think any other Government has ever been insulted by i nsinuatiolls of that kind. I think it has heen left for the present Opposition to degrade parliamentary discussion by at­tributing motives in this way to the Government. Let me ask how is it that the honorable member can make that prophecy with some probability of it coming true? Has he judged by the past history of the country? Does he bear in mind that whatever the people of this country want, a section of the community, if they like, can prevent becoming law?

1236 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

It is because the houorable member knows he can depend upon the obstruction of the second Chamber that he prophesies that this Bill will not become law. He won't venture to say that there will not be a majority in favour of it in the next Parlia­ment, and that it will not then be sent up to the Legislative Council by as large a majority as sent up the Bill of last session, and probably a larger majority than will send up the Bill on this occasion.

Mr. SERVICE.-I will say so if you like.

Mr. BERRY.-The honorable member may say it, but I will join issu'e with him. If I know the people of this country at all, I know that they have set their hearts on securing what the Government and the liberal party desire to give them­genuine control over their own affairs. So satisfied am I of that, that I wonld not ask for more than one chance of allowing the people of the country a final settle­ment of this question.

Mr. R. M. SMITH.-You have had two such chances.

Mr. BERRY.-Not one. The people have never had a voice in the shaping of the Constitution. This is the first time they have had a chance of saying under what Constitution they desire to live. If the honorable member for Maldon will agree with his friends elsewhere to pass a short Bill to send the question of consti­tutional reform by itself to the country I will accept the decision. I make this offer to the Opposition-it will be a test of their sincerity - let them help the Council to settle their Bill as they like, help us to put our Bill through com­mittee, and make it accord wit.h the wis­dom of our party, and then let both Bills be sent to the ballot-box separate and distinct from motives as to the election of honorable members, and let every elector in the country vote for one Bill or the other. Only a settlement of that sort must be a final one. Will the Opposition accept that? Is there one among them who will accept it ?

Mr. MACKAY.-Yes. Mr. BERRY.-I believe the honorable

member for Sandhurst (Mr. Mackay) is the only member of the Opposition who is willing to accept my offer.

Mr. CARTER.-I am another. Mr. ZOX.-And so am I. Mr. HERR Y.-The honorable member

for Maldon told us that we dare not present this session the Reform Bill of

last session. I don't know that it is very courteous for one honorable member to tell another that he dare not do this or that.

Mr. SERVICE. - Why I used your own words to the Council - "If they dare."

Mr. BERRY.-I will make the hon­orable member a present of all that. The honorable member in one breath tells us we don't dare to submit the Bill of last session (which he condemned as strongly as possible), and in another breath he blames us for not making again the iden­tical proposal we made last session, and which he then asked us to modify in the direction of the present Bill. He tells us we ought to stand by the former Bill, and at the same time that our fault is that we adhere to our own ideas, and will not take ideas from him and his friends. But the honorable member does not venture to assert that the present Bill is not at all events more acceptable elsewhere than the former one, and that that additional acceptability arises from the elimination of the mechanical contrivance for finality that appeared last session to be viewed in another place with such repugnance. The whole difference between the Bill of last session and the present one arises from the desire of the Government to adopt, if possible, and without any sacrifice of prin­ciple, a class of machinery acceptable to the Opposition and elsewhere. With what consistency does the honorable member for Maldon blame us, on the one hand, for adhering too closely to our own views­dragging the House, as it were, too much in the particular direction we want to go­and, on the other, for endeavouring in the present Bill to meet the objections urged to the Reform Bill of last session, and make it more acceptable? And then the honorable member could not help letting out a little of the wisdom that will per­haps stand him in good stead some day. What he said reminded me of the curious suggestion he made during the Tariff de­bate, as to how we might have covered a deficit. He could not help telling us that, though we had brought down a better Bill than the one of last session, we ought not to have had the moral courage to introduce it, because it would have been right for us, as a matter of tactics, to have rather stuck to our first proposition. No doubt there is wisdom in the argument, and probably it is the kind of wisdom the honorable member will, when he has the opportunity,

I

Second Reading. [SEPTEMBER 25.J Eleventh }.lignt's Debate. 1237

bring to bear upon the affairs of the country. But I think the country will understand that the Government who have the moral courage to alter a Bill in order to make it, without any sacrifice of prin­ciple on their part, more acceptable to their opponents, are at all events more likely than they would have been had they adopted a different course to succeed in incorporating their proposal in the law of the land. The honorable member further made the assertion that the Bill would reform nothing and revolutionize every­thing. That is a high-sounding phrase. But why did not the honorable member take up the Bill and show that his remark was an applicable one?

Dr. MADDEN.-It has been shown over and over again.

Mr. BERRY.-I don't know who has shown it. What does the Bill revolu­tionize? Will any honorable member say that the 1st part of it revolutionizes any­thing?

Mr. CARTER.-The 6th clause does so distinctly. Your own supporters admit that.

Mr. GAUNSON.-The whole of the 1 st part goes towards revolutionizing.

Mr. BERRY.-Of course, if honorable members shelter themselves under asser­tions of which they have no proof, all argument is a.t an end. They must hold their opinion while we hold ours. For­tunately this is the last session of the present Parliament, and we will soon be before the jury that must decide the question between us. That question is bound to assume a very prominent place before the country, and I trust the verdict upon it will be a very emphatic one. I don't think the country will endorse revo­lution, or anything that is of a dangerous character. I am prepared to show that there is nothing in the Bill, and that it was never intended that there shoulq. be anything in the Bill, that will at all justify the term "revolutionize" being applied to it. For example, with the exception of clause 6, with which I will deal separately by-and-by, the most strik­ing feature of the 1st part of the Bill consists simply of a portion of a resolu­tion that has already been carried by this House, and also by the House of Com­mons.

An HONORABLE MEl\IBER.-And only a portion.

Mr. BERRY.-Moreover, the same re­solution is quoted by the Secretary of

State for the Colonies in the despatch he sent out hero. That resolution was originally adopted in order to give the House of Commons complete control in affairs of finance, and it does so as explicitly as the English language will allow. Can the adoption of language used by the House of Commons be revo­lutionary? I dare say what that resolu­tion means is revolution to the minority of this Chamber. Thev do not intend if they can possibly h~lp it, because they will be in a minority for many years to come, that the majority of the Assembly shall be able to exercise the same rights and privileges, and in the same way, as the House of Commons.

Several HONORABLE MEMBERS.-They do.

Mr. BERRY.-Then how can it be called revolutionary to ~dopt in the Bill a principle embodied in the practice of the House of Commons?

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-I am ready to accept the practice of the House of Com­mons, but this Bill does not propose to follow it.

Mr. BERRY.-That is a statement that calls for proof. Before I go further let me remind the honorable member for Maldon of what he said about the 1st part of the Bill, namely, that' it does not materially alter a state of affairs which he seems to think not only exists, but 'is something which it is utterly impossible to remove. Also let me recall to his memory that, w hen speaking a session or two ago on a question affecting the privileges of this House-the question of a dispute between the two Houses over a Railway Construc­tion Bill which the Council altered-he described the document containing the carefully prepared arguments with which the Assembly justified the stand it then made as "a bag of chaff." In view of that contemptuous epithet, I can under­stand the 1st part of' the Bill appearing in his eyes as revolutionary. Undoubtedly when this Bill becomes law, what he then called "a bag of chaff" will assume the form of something very material indeed. He also, on the same occasion, spoke as follows :-

"My contention is that we have got a written Constitution, and by that written Constitution everybody referred to in it is equally bound. The functions, powers, and privileges of the two Houses are distinctly set forth in the Con­stitution Act; and I don't care what assertions are made by 'either House, what conferences are held between the two Houses, or what

1238 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

agreements are come to between them, for such agreements are not worth the paper they arc written upon. They ma.y tide over a difficulty for the moment, but facts and history bear me out when I say that in the very next session of Parliament, or even in the same session, all such agreements may be swept away. They can bind nobody. This is not a Hew doctrine. I said the same thing to the electors of Collingwood years ago."

Of course the honorable member did. Is not the honorable member always in opposition to what the liberal party con­tend for?

Mr. SERVICE. - Is there a liberal party?

Mr. BERRY. - Ask the honorable member for Warrnumbool. He was in office when the honorable member for Maldon made the speech to the Colling­wood electors he referred to. 'What the honorable member culls revolutionary is simply and purely the embodiment in the form of an Act of Parliament of what this House has always contended for, and the honorable member has always resisted. In the same speech I have quoted from, the honorable member also said-

"If the Council are weak enough at any time to give way, the very next week they can laugh to scorn any concessions that have been made by their predecessors, and place themselves in an impregnable position within the four corners of the Constitution Act."

This Bill, then, is not to pass into law, because the. position of the Council is inipr.egnable.

Mr. SERVICE.-Have you not found it so?

Mr. BERRY.-Undoubtedly. Then what becomes of the peculiarity of this Bill? Seeing that the Council's position is impregnable, they can reject not only this Bill but any Bill.

Dr. MADDEN.-You claim to huve discovered a way of carrying this Bill.

Mr. BERRY. - We are making an attempt to do so. That is all any man can do. But to return to the honorable member for Maldon's former speech. In order that there should not be a single loop-hole for this House, he told us-

"There has been a great attempt made to show that our Constitution is modelled upon the English Constitution, and that therefore our Constitution Statute must be interpreted by the English Constitution. (Mr. Grant-' No doubt about it.') I deny that utterly."

The honorable member said further-"Where our Constitution Act is clear and

unmistakable in its terms, we have no more to do with the practice of the House of Commons than the man in the mooD."

What stronger langunge could he use? No onc has spoken more strongly than that. The honorable member is another place's best defender. It is remarkable that he made the remarks I have quoted when sitting on this (the Ministerial) side of the House-before he gravitated to the Opposition.

Mr. SERVICE.-After Black Wed­nesday.

Mr. BERRY.-I urn sure the honor­able member could have had little sym­pathy with the party with whom he then sat.

Mr. SERVICE.-They had great sym­pathy with me.

Mr. BERRY.-I know the honorable member is always flattering himself that he has supporters on this side of the House. According to him it would seem that the ordinary divisions of the House are not sufficiently politically distinctive. I next corne to clause 6. !. am not at all surprised at the virulence with which that clause is attacked, hecause it is an enact­ment that would, if accepted by the House and the country, settle for all time the possibility of dead-locks. It is calculated to achieve that because it leaves, in un­mistakable language, the whole and sole control of finance to one House instead of two Houses.

Mr. SERVICE.-Yet you were going to give it up if the majority wished.

Mr. BERRY.-I am so much a be­liever in the majority ruling that I would have it rule ulthough it happened to differ from me. Indeed, if the House and the country were against clause 6, I would have no option but to give it up. But I have never said a word that can be con­strued into meaning that I did not believe in the clause, or that I would not make a strenuous effort to defend it. N everthe­less, I admit at once, it would be better if it were recast, and in that· shape I pro­pose to carry it both in the House and in the country. I don't pretend that the phraseology of the Bill is so perfect that it must not be altered in a single letter. What I think the clause wants is some­thing that will enable it to meet the tangible objection raised last night by the honorable and learned member for Man­durang, namely, that standing as it does it might do more than it is intended to do. lt might take away from this Chamber its control over the Ministry of t.he day until the very last day of the session, because it might render an Appropriation Act so

Second Reading. [SEPTEMBER 2.5.J Ele-ventlt ~ligllt's Dehate. 1239

much a matter of form that the Govern­ment might, so to speak, do without it. N ow there is not, nor do I suppose any honorable member ever thought there was, the least intention on the part of the Government to remove the slightest por­tion of the control of this House over the Executive. Therefore we have no ob­jection to so reshape the clause as to make it applicable only to cases when an in­terim Supply Bill or the Appropriation Bill has been rejected by another place. In its changed form it will entirely answer onr purpose, while the alteration will so completely take away all objection to it that there is not an honorable member on this side of the House who will not record his vote for it. There is no other cure for dead-locks. If we leave a right of rejection with the other Chamber, and it is exercised, and this Chamber then deli­berately re-enacts the votes already passed by it in Committee of Supply, that re­enactment, when the votes are reported to the House, will constitute an equiva­lent to the Appropriation Bill until the Council is prepared to pass it. The honorable member for East Bourke told us a short time since-I am surprised at the remark coming from one who has experieuce as a Minister of the Crown­that under the clause as it stands it would be possible to vote money at night and pay it out of the Treasury next morning. He mentioned that as something startling, to which the attention of the people of the country ought to be carefully directed. But does not the honorable member know that passing an interim Supply Bill into law renders any vote on the Estimates that has been carried in Committee of Supply and reported to the House payable next day? Now interim Supply Bills are usually passed as a matter of course, ,and the present Bill will not prevent them being passed in the future; but there is nothing in them that discloses what a single one of the votes that become pay­able under them is.

Mr. SERVICE.-An interim Supply Bill is never passed except to defray ordinary votes. . Mr. BERRY. - Practically, nothing

more than what takes place under an ordinary Consolidated Revenue Act will take place under the 6th cla:use, which, in it~ new shape, will in no way alter the relations of the Assembly with the Go­vernment. Considering everything, I do not think ~here is. much reason for the

stress the honorable member for East Bourke laid upon his statement. The only tangible objection to the clause as it stands is that raised by the honorable and learned member for Mandurang; and, lest his contention should have a semblance of foundation, we intend to recast the clause in the way I have indicated. I now come to the 2nd part of the Bill, which proposes to substitute a nominee House for the present Council, that is elected by only a small minority of the people of the country. I admit that it is a minority that has property-the thing that has such charms to the eyes of the honorable member for Maldon.

Mr. SERVICE.-It counts for some­thing, certainly.

Mr. BERRY.-It is a very nice thing; but it is not a god, that we should fall down and worship it. There are men without property as honest and intelli­gent as those who revel in it. Therefore, while I recognise the value to be attached to property, I don't like to see it elevated above its proper level. After all, it is only freehold property that is concerned in the present matter. But I don't like to see even freehold property regarded as though the man without it were not equally wise with the man who possesses it. A man with a wife and family has 'a stake in the' country quite as large as the wealthiest. We propose, by constituting under this Bill a nominee Upper House, to disfranchise the small section of the community who, by what bitter expe­rience has taught us to call a dummy election, return the Chamber that, accord­ing to the honorable member for Maldon, occupies the impregnable position of being able to refuse its assent to any legislative measure it chooses. If we are to have a second Chamber, we want a Council that will sympathize more with the views of the majority of this House than with those of the minority. Is it revolutionary to have a nominee second Chamber? Why I challenge any honorable member to put his finger on a more conservative proposal. I go further and say that, had not the proposal emanated from the present Government, it would have been accepted by the honorable member for Maldon. '

Mr. SERV1CE.~Not if it came from any source. ,

Mr. BERRY.-But the word has gone forth that nothing from this Government can be approved. Then we come to the 3rd part of the Bill, which proposes a

1240 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

poll of the people. Is that revolutionary? The honorable member for Maldon has "The majority must rule" always on his lips, but the moment any machinery for giving effect to the will of the majority is proposed he object.s to it. He sticks to the principle, but objects to it being carried into effect. In the course of his remarks he read a very fair extract from my speech in moving the second reading of the Bill, but I feel some sorrow in saying, know­ing the pains and trouble he must have been put to in order to obtain a quotation of the kind that would have even the ap­pearance of supporting his views, that his effort was not a success. His attempt to throw contempt on what I said altogether failed. He must be aware of that, because the passage he cited is as applicable to the British Constitution as it is to the measure before us. Take, for instance, the refer­ence to the House of Lords. The honor­able member knows very well that the power to reject Money Bills rests with the House of Lqrds, yet there is nothing clearer than that the House of Commons would resent, in language stronger than any the honorable member read, any at­tempt on the part of the Lords to exercise that power. Yet the House of Commons would not like to take that power away by express enactment. No doubt that is an anomaly, and as such it is referred to by Mr. Gladstone, in words which honor­able members will perhaps excuse my quoting. They are as follows :-

"No doubt, if tried by an ideal standard, it is open to criticism. Aristotle and Plato, nay Bacon, and perhaps Leibnitz, would have scouted it as a scientific abortion."

An HONORABLE MEl\1BER.-Yet you wish to take the power away from our Upper House.

Mr. BERRY. - The right, so far as the 56th section of the Constitution Act is concerned, is retained under the Bill, but, just as the same thing has been done at home, the Bill also de­clares, in the clearest language, that its exercise would be unconstitutional. It is recognised at home that the Lords would be justified, in extreme cases, in invading the privileges of the Lower House rather than submit to something they believe to be flagrantly wrong, and exactly the same principle is recognised in the Bill. The right of granting Aids and Supplies to the Crown rests with the Legislative Assembly alone, and the Bill passing into law will have the effect of

disabling the members of the Legislative Council from infringing that right with the plausibility it is possible for them to display under our Constitution as it stands. They now plead that the written Constitution gives them a clear right to reject a Money Bill as often as they like. Well, the 1 st part of the Bill does not restrain the exercise of that right; but never, after the measure becomes law, can they exercise it without knowing, and all the country knowing, that they are flying in the face of a clear enactment to which they themselves were a party. I repeat that the 3rd part of the Bill is to enable the majority to rule. We pro­pose that when this House has in two sessions twice passed a Bill by an abso­lute majority of the whole number, and it has been on each occasion rejected else­where-when, in fact, the second Chamber will not transact its business like other second Chambers, so that the will of the people of the country may become the law of the land-the difficulty shall be solved by a poll of the people. Could there be a better solution than that? Is it not better to say the people shall decide than that the Executive shall gain its end by swamping the second Chamber with fresh members? Cer­tainly the proposed course is preferable to depriving the people of useful legisla­tion because a section of the community refuses to concede to the country what it has a clear right to have conceded to it. Where is there anything in the Bill in­consistent with the lines of the British Constitution, with true liberty, or with the right of the majority to rule? Where is there evidence in the Bill of the haste that would rush a measure into law while the country was in a state of great excite­ment respecting it? The honorable mem­ber for Maldon complains that the plebis­cite would take away all interest from the debates in this Chamber, but never in my life have I heard an argument that more obviously ought to be put the other way. Surely if there is one thing that would raise the tone of debates in this Chamber it is the plebiscite. I have not regarded the matter in this light before, but un­doubtedly it shows a new reason in favour of the proposal. If honorable members thought the question they were debating would probably go to the plebiscite, and that their utterances would consequently be studied with increased interest and in­tensity by the electors, would they not

Second Reading. • [SEPTEMBER 25.J Eleventh Night's Debate. 1241

rise with the occasion, knowing that they were pleading before a jury consisting of the whole country? They would know that they were educating the country, and the feeling would supply a stimulus rarely known by them before.

Mr. GARTER.-You promised the honorable and learned member for Man­durang, last night, that you would answer his arguments. Why do yo'u not do so ?

Mr. BERRY. - I am paying great attention to what fell from the honorable member's leader, and it is not usual for an honorable member to object to his leader's arguments being answered. Does the honorable member repudiate his alle­giance to the honorable member for Mal­don? Does he now pin it to the honorable and. learned member for Mandurang ?

Mr. R. M. SMITH. - That is no answer. Does the Chief Secretary want to get out of his promise?

Mr. BERRY.-If the honorable mem­bers who interrupt me wish to change their leader, let them say so. The honor­able member for Maldon asked how, if the 6th clause were struck out, dead-locks would be cured. I do not think the 6th clause will be struck out, because I be­lieve it to be an essential part of the measure. But, in the event of it not being in the Bill, I would imagine the language of the other portion of the 1 st part-language used for the same pur­pose by the House of Commons-ought to have effect in restraining the Council from flying in the face of the country. It is just at this point that I feel the dis­ingenuousness of the Opposition. If I do the utmost that has been done in England, they say I have done nothing; if I go a step further, they declare that I am travelling outside the lines of the British Constitution. It is of no use· dealing with them. They don't want to settle the question of reform, but simply to put out the Government. If there was any display on their part of a real desire to deal with the matter in the tone and spirit of the remarks made last night by the honorable and learned member for Mandurang, I am here to say that the Government would be most eager and anxious to go into the question with them. I am prepared to say, further, that if the Legislative Council would only pass in good faith a simple resolution that they would agree to a Bill the basis of which should be to give the whole and sole co.n­trol of the finances to this House, that

VOL. xxx.-4 N

there should be a definite period at which agitation concerning Bills required by the country should come to an end, and that both points should be carried into effect by machinery that should be mutually satisfactory, so anxious am I to give peace to the country and to get constitu­tional reform to the extent I name, that I would accept a settlement on the basis I indicate, although the machinery to be employed differed from that of the Bill before us.

Mr. GAUNSON.-That is because you want to go home.

Mr. BERRY.- I tell the honorable member that it would take a good deal to induce me to go to England again. I am not so fond of a sea voyage, and leaving my family behind me. The honorable member, therefore, will please to under­stand that I have not the remotest idea of going again to the old. country. I have not the slightest intention or thought of ever returning to England upon any con­sideration, or for any purpose whatever. To come back to the question of reform. I wish to say that whilst I would accept the settlement I have just described, that settlement must be one in the right way. I don't hesitate to assert distinctly that I will do all I can to prevent a settlement which would to my mind involve a sur­render of the rights of this House. We must understand each other. Either the question will, so far as I can influence the course of events, remain as it is, or it will be settled so as to give this House full and undivided control over finance, put an end to dead-locks, and provide means whereby, within a reasonable period, the will of the country, as expressed at the ballot-box, will become law. It is of no use mentioning other reforms. Talk about widening the basis of the Council! What possible good would that do? The only result would. be that the minority repre­sented in the Council would be more strongly entrenched than ever. Their position would then be more impregnable than it is now. The Council may be likened to besieged men who, after being driven out of the country and out of the town, have taken refuge in the citadel. There they have entrenched themselves, but, finding that they cannot hold out without recruits, they invite a portion of their besiegers to come in, join them, and help them to strengthen their defence. But do you think the besieging army, by which I mean the whole country, will

1242 Constitution Act [ARSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill. . allow the Council to recruit their forces with a few more from the propertied classes? 'Yhat is the whole proposition but an attempt to destroy manhood suf­frage? It is a deadly blow aimed at mall­hood suffrage-one more attempt to get rid of "that bugbear, responsible govern­ment." 'Vith two elective Chambers we conld not have responsible government, and we would not be one iota nearer the settlement of dead-locks. The proposal to widen the basis of the Legislative Council is made with the view to strengthen that body, and yet it would only embrace a certain section of the cQmmunity. The proPQsal now before another place is for lowering the franchise of the Legislative Council so as to include fr~eholde)'s whose property shall be rated, if in towns, at £25 per annum, and, if in the country, at £15 per annum. The property qualification must be freehold. I say that honorable members of another place are endeavouring to make them­selves stronger. Stronger against whom? Against this Chamber that represents the whole community. Let us consider t.he danger which confronts the country. First of all we have to run the gauntlet of plural voting.

Mr. FRANCIS.-Dummy voting. .Mr. BERRY.-Yes, on the other side. Me. FRANCIS.-In West Melbourne. Mr. BERRY.-In 'Vest Bourke. I

have hjjard numerous complaints of boys under the age of twenty-one having voted at the recent election for that district, and probably, if there had been a scrutiny, that election would have turned out differently from what it did. I say that first of nil we have to run the gauntlet of plural voting. Many. members of the Opposition, if it were not for plural voting, would not be here. Why there are men who can vote ten times at a general elec­tion. They have the influence of ten men without property. Is not that enough? And yet after a general election takes place we find between 50 and 60 members sitting on the :Ministerial side of this House, and only about 25 in opposition. What next do we find? Why that the minority in this House is practically the majority elsewhere, that is entrenched, according to the honorable mem ber for Maldon, in an impregnable position. Now, I ask, are the majority in the country, as repre­sented by the majority. in this House, to submit to two ~inorities which are iden­tical? 'Vho is to rule the country? Who

is to represent the country? The major­ity. There is no humiliation in submit­ting to the majority, but there is great humiliation - and that humiliation the people have undergone too long-in sub­mitting to a minority. There is no justice in that. Honorable members op­posite, if they do not like manhood suf­frage-if they want a restricted suffrage in order to keep the control of the affairs of the country in the hands of a class­should never have granted manhood suf­frage. What they are trying to do now is to reverse the reforms of years in connexion with this Chamber by leading the people a wild-goose chase in a series of reforms of another Chamber. But why should we fight t.he battle twice-? Why should we commence de novo? Supposing that the basis of the other Chamber were broad­ened, so that the electors should include freeholders whose property is worth £10 per annum, what then? The line which the honorable member for Maldon now draws may be obliterated, as lines drawn in the past have been obliterated, so that leaseholders as well as freeholders may be included.

Mr. McINTYRE. - Why should it not?

Mr. BERRY.-The interjection shows that if honorable members in opposition are put to the test, there is disclosed as much diversity of opinion on their side as to the shape reform should take as there is on the Ministerial side.

Mr. SERVICE.-I do not object to leaseholders.

Mr. BERRY.-But if leaseholders were included the question would arise why yearly tenants should not. What. I want to point out is that, if you commence in that direction, the same thing would take place with regard to the Legislative Coun­cil that took place with regard to the franchise for this House. Agitation would go on for the lowering of the qualification and the bringing in of more voters, .until practically there would be the same con­stituency for the one House as for ·the other. And when that was done, what would be the gain? There would be two Houses, but they would be an emanation from the same people. As the Minister of Justice has stated, if you have two Chambers elected by the. same constitu­encies, you have only one people, one public opinion, one majority. . .

Sir J. O'SHANASSY. - Then you would be ill harmony.

, .:

Second Reading. [SEPTEMBER 25.J EieventA j..jighls Dehaie. i243

Mr. BERRY.-You might not; but, if you were in harmony, what would become of the check of a second Chamber?

Mr. SERVICE.-Then you only re­quire one?

Mr. BERRY.-The honorable member fOL' Maldon is working towards one Cham­ber a great deal more than I am. Either the Council, with its widened basis, would be similarly constituted to this Chamber, or we would have all the evils of the present arrangement., with the Council strengthened and this Chamber weakened. So that the honorable member for Maldon, who has such a horror of government by a single Chamber, is positively working ill that direct.ion. But the honorable member gave another indication of how his mind is tending towards government by one Chamber. He snggests that in the event of the two Chambers being dissolved, and being unable to agree after returning from their constituents, they should meet as one Chamber. By that arrangement, the united Chamber would consist of abont 126 members, and, in order to carry a measure, there must 0 be an absolute majority-6-!. But on any question in dispute between the two Houses, conld we depend upon a single member of the other Cham bel' ? No. We would have to be sure of 64 of the 86 members of this House. "'hat would that mean? Why that a minority­because the members of another. place and the minority in this House would represent only a minority of the people­would be able to out-vote a clear majority of the people. Is that such a reform as is wanted? Practically it would make the position of. the other Chamber more impregnable than it is now. I don't go so far as to say that occasionally certain Bills might not pass under this ma­chinery; but we are endeavouring to settle the Constitution according to the will of the· country, and, in order to have fair play, I think it better that we should have a revising second Cham­bel' in harmony with the country: as our Bill proposes. Our. Constitution is far more likely to work well, and in ac­cordance with the British Constitution, if the second Chamber be such a Chamber as we propose, rather than an elective Chamb.er which, though not elected on so wide a basis as this, would assume far more .. pretensions than even the Legisla­tive Oouncil hasassum~d in the past, and with. mpre. reaSOllL . I believe that, under

4 N 2 . '

the Bill now before another place, the number of electors for that House wonld be increased from 40,000 or 50,000 to 80,000, and I ask honorable members how they would like to place the 180,000 electors who return them to this House under the heel of the majority of the electors-numbering perhaps only 41,000 -of the other Chamber? If honorable members mean that, let them be plain and straightforward. Let them tell the coun­try fairly that they believe not in govern­ment by the majority, but in the u~e of legislati ve machinery, plausiblc in,. char­acter, which w:ill enable the minority, as heretofore, not to allow anything to pass which is not to their interest; and which they don't approve of. I say that is a kind of reform which I am bound to op­pose, and which I am sure the country will not accept. And here I desire to call attention to the fact that ther<;l is no ana­logy between the reform that is noeded here, and the reform which has taken place from time to time .in cODllexion with the Imperial Parliament. In Eng­land reform has chiefly been connected with the extension of the franchise. That has been battled for for cent.uric;!, aud the franchise has been lowered and lowered so as to ta,ke in class after class, and enable persons to have votes who never had them before. That was the idea of reform which prevailed ill this country until such time as it came to pass that this House was elected by manho.od suf­frnge. But I submit that reform in that direction is not the reform which is wa,nted in connexion with the Legislative Council. You don't want to enlarge the basis of the other Chamber. You want to curtail its power rather than increase it. You don't want to raise up a compa­nion Cha,mber to this Chamber, but you want a, second Chamber composed of men notorious for their wisdom and experience, who would review-modify, alter, and amend-the measures sent up to them by this House.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.--Where is the guarantee for that?

. Mr. BERRY.-I think the guarantee is in the Bill.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-No. Mr. BERRY.-At all events, I con­

sider that if the Upper House were to remain elective, and if it were made to a large extent a representative Chamber, the. two Houses would. not agree any better than they agree now, and the second

1244 Constztution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

Chamber would have more reason for withstanding the decisions of this House than it has at present. For these rea­sons, I don't think the suggestions which the honorable member for Maldon made towards the end of his speech are such as will commend themselves to any large number of members of this House. I am sure that if they were accepted we would only have greater difficulties to contend with in the future than we have had in the past. Indeed I would sooner leave the Constitution as it is, trusting to the weight of public opinion at length to secure the reform which I think necessary, than see reform go in a wrong direction. Why it might take years to undo the mis­chief caused in one session by a Bill of the plausible character sketched out by the honorable member for Maldon. Such a second Chamber as the honorable member favonrs would not rest satisfied until it had equal powers in finance to this House; and, with two co-ordinate Houses estab­lished by Statute, government w<;mld be the most difficult thing imaginable. It is difficult enough to govern through a majority in one Chamber; and the diffi­culty would be infinitely greater if it became necessary to have a majority in both Houses.

Mr. SERVICE.-You ignore the prac­tice of every other English colony.

Mr. BERRY.-I do not. In nearly every English colony the second Chamber is a nominee Chamber. I believe this colony was the first departure from that rule. Then again, I don't think the second Chamber of any English colony has the power to amend Money Bills.

Mr. SERVICE.-Yes. Mr. BERRY.-Then the Constitution

of that colony is not an analogue of the British Constitution. The second Cham­ber in this colony has not that power, and I don't think we are likely to grant it. I am perfectly aware that reform is a fundamental question-that it goes to the root of what shall be the basis of our Constitution-that it involves the question whether power shall rest, as I contend it ought, with the majority of the whole people, or whether it shall practically be vested, in one form or another, in a minority - the property-holders of the country. I think the time has gone by for that. I don't believe the idea will dazzle the people. No doubt many persons might be content with that kind of reform, but they are being educated to see its

mischiefs, and how it will intensify difficul­ties. Our Bill may not be exactly what every man would like, or what he might draw out for himself, but the people have suffered so much in the past from dead­locks and from want of useful legislation, that I think they will accept any Bill which gives the power into their hands hereafter to shape the Constitution as they like. Honorable members cannot deny that if this Bill is passed it will give facilities to the country to alter or amend the Consti­tution in any way it likes afterwards. The question which they will have to answer when they go to the country will be-" That Bill you voted against and rejected, would it or would it not have given us control over our own affairs?" If the answer is-" Yes, it would have given you control, I admit, but there was something in it I did not like," the hon­orable member who makes it will be met with the rejoinder-" What care we what you liked or did not like in it? we wanted one thing-control of our own affairs; you should have voted for that; and what you did not like could have been eliminated afterwards." That is the one practical question which will confront honorable members at the next election. In conclu­sion, I repeat what I said at the com­mencement of my remarks that, to show how little the Government desire to treat this as a party question, how little they want to mix it up with their retention of office, I am content, if the minority in this House and the members of the Council will submit to the test, after the Bill now before us, and the Bill under consideration in another place, have been duly con­sidered and received their last touches, to let them go to the country, and allow the electors to determine, at the ballot-box, which scheme of reform shall be adopted.

Mr. R. M. SMITH.-I desire to ask the Chief Secretary a question which I was reluctant to put during his speech for fear of interrupting his argument. The question is whether he will be good enough to give us some information with reference to the attitude assumed by the Imperial Government with regard to the plebiscite? It is very important we should know, if there was any expression of opinion on the part of the Imperial Go­vernment with regard to that proposal, what the expression of opinion was.

Mr. BERRY.-I assure the honorable member for Boroondara that I did not hear a single ybjection to the plebiscite

Second Reading. [SEPTEl\IBER 25.J Eleventh Night's Debate. 1245

from the Secretary of State for the Colonies. He did not object to any prin­ciple of the Bill, or any principle that we might em body in the measure. As I have already informed the House, all that the Secretary of State said is contained in the despatch which has been laid on the ta.ble. The only limitation which he made, and that was a limitation more in language than in fact, was that the measure which we might submit for the approval of the Imperial Government should be a reasonable measure; and that is a question for the people of this country to decide.

. I infer, from the way in which the honor­able member for Boroondara puts his question, that he wants to know whether there is· anything within my knowledge that makes the plebiscite peculiarly ob­jectionable to the Imperial authorities?

Mr. R. M. SMITH.-Yes. Mr. BERRY.-There is nothing of the

kind. The SPEAKER.-The honorable mem­

bers who did not answer to their names when the House was called will now be called a second time.

The whole of them responded to the call except Mr. Lyell, who, it was stated, was out of the colony.

On the motion of Mr. SERVICE, se­conded by Mr. BERRY, the absence of Mr. Lyell was excused.

Mr. BENT.-Sir, before t.he debate closes, I desire to make a few remarks. I must say that I was surprised at the re­marks of the Chief Secretary, seeing that, last session, he voted against a proposal that the people should have a voice in financial matters. With regard to the 6th clause, I would like to ask how he recon­ciles the appearance of that clause in the Bill with the statements contained in a despatch from Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, and the argument of the Minister of J us­tice, on Tuesday evening, that we should follow the lines of the British Constitution? In a despatch dated the 17th August, 1878, the Secretary of State explains the practice of the House of Commons in pro­viding funds to meet expenditure autho­rized by the Committee of Supply. The explanation is as follows :-

"Early in the session votes are taken for the pay, &c" of the naval and military forces, and a resolution is passed in Committee of Ways and Means for a general grant out of the consoli­dated fund towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty. This resolution is reported to and confirmed by the House, and upon it a Bill is founded, which l?aBB~~ tnrough

its various stages, and finally receives the Royal assent; and then, but not before, the Treasury are empowered to direct an issue out of the con­solidated fund to meet the payments authorized by votes in supply of the House of Commons. This general grant of Ways and Means is made available, so far as it will go, to meet votes in Supply passed both before and after it."

After that explicit statement, I cannot understand how the Chief Secretary justi­fies the 6th clause of the Bill. The Minister of Railways and the Minister of Lands have talked of the hindrances which the Legislative Council have placed in the way of useful legislation; but it is the fact that we are indebted to the Legislative Council for one of the most valuable sections of the La.nd Act, and for the prevention of that which would have made our railway system one of the worst in the world, namely, a break of gauge. With respect to the Chief Secretary's statements about going to the country, I am ready to go to the country to-morrow morning. The Chief Secretary says the people are in favour of the Bill; but the Bill has never been before the country. If the honorable gentleman wants a settlement of the reform question this session, why does he not accept the amendment of the honorable member for Moira (Mr. Orr)? Why does he not allow the appointment of a committee of this House to confer with a committee of· the other House, by which means, I believe, a Bill could be produced that would meet the wishes of the country? With regard to the plebis­cite, I desire to remind honorable mem­bers that in Gippsland, some time ago, no less a person than the Speaker of this House declared the plebiscite to be a Frenchified system not fit to be adopted in this country. I consider that a statement of the kind from such a constitutional autho­rity proves the plebiscite to be no good. I maintain that the plebiscite would not be a good thing for the country. It might answer very well in such places as Col­lingwood, but it would not do in country districts where men have to ride ten or twenty miles to record their votes. A pro­posal to extend the franchise of the Upper House to all persons on the ratepayers' roll would, I believe, meet the wishes of the country. If a proposal of that kind were submitted to the country alongside the Government measure, I am quite sure that the former would be· preferred. I shall not act like some honorable members -speak against every provision of the Bill now before the ~ouse, a~4 vot~ for

1246 Constitution Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

the second reading. I shall vote against the second reading, and, in committee, I intend to vote against every clause, be­cause I consider it is a bad Bill, and that there is not a good clause in it. It is a measure which, if passed, would, I believe, restrict and endanger the liberties of the people.

Mr. BIRD.-I enter my protest against the principles of this Bill, and I shall vote against the second reading of the measure.

Mr. DOW.-I have waived my right to address 1he House on the motion for the second reading, in response to the appeal of the Chief Secretary, and the general desire that the division should take place to-night. I desire to say, however, that, while agreeing with the main principles of the Bill, I believe the measure is capable of improvement in committee; and, on the understanding that the Government will assist to amend it, I shall vote for the second reading.

Mr. ORR.-With the leave of the Honse, I will strike out of my amend­ment the names of the proposed com­mittee. My desire is that the House shall choose any members it thinks fit to form the committee. .

Mr. BLACKETT.-I have three ob­jections to the Bill. The first is that it will enable money to be expended on the votes of the Legislative Assembly with­out the consent of the Legislative Coun­cil; the second is that, by creating a nominee Upper House, which, in my opinion, will not be so good as an elective Chamber, the measllre will deprive a large section of the community of electoral privileges which they now enjoy; and the t.hird is that the plebiscite will be subversive of parliamentary government in this country.

The SPEAKER then put the question -That all the words after "That," in the original motion "That the ~ill be now read a second time" (proposed to be omitted with the view to insert the words of Mr. Orr's amendment, for re­ferring the subject of the Bill to a select committee) stand part of the question.

(.rhe House divided-Ayes ... 49 Noes ... 29

Majority against the amendment 20 AYES.

Mr. Andrew, " Barr, " Bell, J' Berry,

Mr. Billson, " Bowman, " D. Cameron, " A. T. Clark,

Mr. R. Clark (Sand.), " W. M. Chtrk, " Cook, " Cope, " B. G. Davies, " D. M. Davies, " Dixoll, " Dow, " Dwyer, " :Fergusson, " 'Fincham, " Grant, " Graves, " Hunt, " Ince, " James, " J ohnstol1e, " Kernot, " Lalor, " Langridge, " Laurens"

Mr. Longmore, " Mason, " lVIirams, " Nimmo, " O'Hea,

Sir B. O'Loghlen, Mr. Patterson, " Pearson, " Rees, " Richardson, " Sainsbury, " Sergeant,

Major Smith, Mr. F. L. Smyth, " Story, " Tytherleigh, " Woods, " 'Wright.

Tellers. Mr. L. L. Smith, " Tucker.

NOES.

Mr. Bayles, " Bent, " Blackett, " Bosisto, " Brophy, " E. H. Cameron, " Carter, " R. Clark (Wim.), " Duffy, " Francis, " Fraser, " Gillies, " Harper, " Kerferd, " MacBain,

Mr. Mackay, Dr. Madden, Mr. Moore,

" Orr, " Purves, " Ramsay, " Service, " Sharpe, " A. K. Smith, " R. 1\1. Smith, " Young, " Zox.

TeLlers. Mr. Bird,

" McIntyre.

The House afterwards divided on the question that the Bill Le read a second time-

Ayes ... 50 Noes ... 28

Majority for the motion 22 AYES.

Mr. Andrew, " Barr, " Bell, " Berry, " Bill son, " Bowman, " D. Cameron, " A. T. Clark, " R. Clark (Sand.), " W. M. Clark, " Cook, " Cope, " B. G. Davies, " D. M. Davies, " Dixon, " Dow, " Dwyer, " F~.'gusson, " Fincham, " Grant, " Graves, " Hunt, " Inee, " James, " Johnstone,

Kernot,

Mr. Lalor, " Langridge, " Laurens, " Longmore, " Mackay, " Mason, " Nimmo, " O'Hea,

Sir B. O'Loghten, Mr. Patterson, " Pearson, " Rees, " Richardson, " Sainsbury, " Sergeant,

Major Smith, Mr. F. L. Smyt.h,

" Story, " Tucker, " Tytherleigh, " Woods, " Wright.

Tellers. Mr. Mirams,

" L. L. Smith.