Reform Billi [FEllRtAiiY 17.J -,Pubiic Se1·vz1ce. 148'5

that there are experts in both Houses- BANQUET TO MR. SERVICE. men of great capacity-who, if appointed J\ir. R. M. SMITH said it was intended for the purpose, could frame a suitable by a large number of the citizens of Mel­and satisfactory amendment of the Con- bourne to give the honorable member for stitution. For my part, I have steadily Maldon a banquet before he left the maintained from tlte commencement of the colony on a yisit to England. The only 30'itation that no permanent and satisfac- day on which the banq net could take t;1'Y meaSll1'e of reform can be obtained place was Tuesday, the 1 st March. If except by the appointment of a select the Ministry would consent to the ad­committee of both Houses. I would ask jOUl'nment of the House on that day at the Government, if they desire to see a the refreshment hour, they would gratify settlement of the question, to consent to a considerable number of honorable mem­refer the matter to such a committee. I am bel'S and a large body of citizens. as anxious as any man that the question of Mr. VALE stat.ed that he had some reform shall be removed from the arena of conversation in reference to the matter party politics, so that the practical business wit.h the Chief Secretary before the hon­of the country may be proceeded with. Can orable gentleman left the chamber. As any man in his senses doubt that, after the probably more than half the members of example which we have set of making re- the Assembly would desire to be present form a party question, and Ol~e for dissolu- at the banq-uet, the Chief Secretary felt tions to be grounded 011, if the present Bill that tho Ministry would not be justified in were carried, sncceeding Ministries would throwing any obstacle in the way of what start fresh constitutional agitations for the they felt to be a reasonable and satisfactory want of other exciting questions? All expression of interest in a gentleman who experience points out that such would be had long occupied a pl'ominent position the case. A joint committee appointed in the House. The Government would, to prepare a men sure on the subject would thererore, accede to the request. guard against this evil-it would guard The Honse adjourned at fhe minutes to fwainst the possibility of Ministers bring- eleven o'clock, until Tuesday, February il~g in a scheme of reform merely 011 theil

f' 22.

own motion, and for the purposes 0

agitation. What prospel'ity or permanenc.o in property or industry can there be untIl the COllstil iltion ceases to be a source of agitation and political turmoil? 'Vhat

LEGISLATIVE COUNCII.J. Tuesday, Feln'uary 22, 1881.

are nIL Ont· la1Ys intended for except as a Loan Application (Water Supply) Bill-The Public Senice-University Constitution Amendment Bill. means to an end, and that end settled ~lltl

good O'overnment? With these observa­tion." or will conclude by saying that I t.rust honorable members on both sides of t.ho House will admit that I have endea­vOUl'ed to deal with the qnestion in a fair and impartial spirit, and wit,h t.he view to it.s permanent settlement.

Mr. R. M. SMITH.-I wish to correct . a small mistake made, no dOll bt unin­tentionally, by the honorable member for "Vest Bourke (Mr. Deakin) in regard to my remarks on the 24th of June last. The honorable member did not quote the whole of the following sentence :-

"What possible fundamental difference can there be between the interests of £10 ratepayers and those of ordinary ratepayers, to make the representatives of the £10 ratepayers vote as one Ulan to a certain extent, while the Lower House, represent.ing the general body of ratepayers, is broken up and divided on the same question?"

On the motion of Mr. FISHER., the debate was adjourned until Tuesday, Feb­ruary 22.

2ND SESe 1880.-5 L

The PRESIDENT took the chair at twenty-five minutes to five o'clock p.m., and read the prayer.

LOAN APPLICATION (WATER SUPPL Y) BILL.

The PRESIDENT announced the re­ceipt of a message from the Legislative Assembly, intimating that they had agreed to certain amendments in t.his Bill recom­mended by His Excellency the Governor, and inviting the concurrence of the Council therein.

On the mot.ion of the Hon. R. D. REID, the message was ordered to be taken into consideration at the next sitting.

THE PUBLIC SERVICE. The HOIl. W. E. HEARN asked the

honorable member represent.ing the Go­vernment when the return relating to the public service, ordered by the House, on November 3, would pe laid on the table?

1486 CCOUNctt.j Amendment Bill.

The Hon. R. D. REID stated that the matter had slipped his memory. I-Ie would, however, take every means in his power to expedite the production of the return.

UNIVERSITY CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT BILL.

The Hon. R. D. REID moved the second reading of this Bill. He said­MI'. President, I do not consider myself quite competent to dilate upon every por­tion of this measure,· but I think I can give an explanation of its main points that will to a great extent indicate its scope and character. It contains four leading prinCiples, the tenor of which I will endeavour to describe. The first is that the members of the teaching body and lecturers of the U uiversity should have power to elect four members of the University.council. I take it that that is a change which has received very careful consideration. The second is that the Government of the day should be autho­rized to appoint three members of the council, only one to be nominated in any one year. I consider that arrangement a 'very necessary one. Surely, when we con­sider that almost the whole of the money by which the University is supported comes from the State, we shall not think it at all out of the way, but only fair, that the Government should be enahled to ap­point some portion of the governing body of the institution. For example, Ministert:! would, if the Bill became law, be enabled to nominate to the council such men as Mr. Justice Higinbotham or Chief J us­tice Stawell, gentlemen who would reflect honour upon the body they were appointed to. The third important principle of the measure is that the graduates of the Uni­versity should be enabled to amend pro­posals sent down to them by the council; and the fourth is that ladies should be per­mitted to attend University lectures, and take degrees. I think these changes will be regarded by honorable members generally as calculated to be highly beneficial.

The Hon. W. E. HEARN.-Sir, it is, I think, more than twenty-two years since the first matriculation examination in connexion' with the University took place. There were then only four candidates, whereas, at the similar examination held very recently, there were nearly 800 can­didates. It is not therefore very surpris­ing, in view of the great growth of the institution, that some of its arrangements should i'equire revision. At the same

time, I believe that whatever difficulties have ari.sen in its practical working, they may be said to have been quite natu­rally caused, that is, that much in its method of management that was perfectly well suited to it in it.s4linfancy has now, owing to the circumstances of its expan­sion, ceased to be so. Besides, it must not be forgotten that w hen our U ni vcrs i ty -the same may be said of' the universities of other colonies-was first established,' the proceeding was necessarily, to a large extent, only an experiment. It was, in­deed, scarcely possible, in the then state of society, to call into existence, upon allY other terms;institutions that were to re­semble as nearly as might be universities that had been growing up for centuries, nncler circumstances of a very different and much more fn,vorable character. It can be no wonder, therefore, that some of the arrangements of our University that were then extemporized-if I may so speak-have not altogether been found to work as satisfactorily. as might be desired. There are, to my mind, two difficulties connected with the working of not merely the University, but also other establishments of a public character in this city. The first arises from attempting to carryon the administration of a great in­stitution simply by means of a committee of trustees; while the second springs fr~m the obstacles that naturally stn.nd in the way of reconciling the working of such a body with that of a number of skilled gentlemen. So far as my knowledge goes, the latter evil is experienced in every one of our public offices, and I think that, under our present p01itical system, not only must it always exist, but we can do very little to mitigate it. With respect, however, to the first-mentioned difficulty, the case is a little different; and I think it extremely desirable, in con­nexion with not only the University but other institutions-such, for instance, as the Melbourne Hospital, the affairs of' .which have lately come a good deal be­fore the public-that a certain distinction should be drawn. To my. mind, the governing body ought to be simply one of superintendence, whose functions should be purely critical. They should hn.ve the patronage of the institution to which they belong, and they should see that all its officers, whatever their rank may be, are steady and regular in the perform­ance of their duties; but for say twenty gentlemen, all more or less amateurs, to

I .I

University Constitution [FEBRUARY 22.J Amendment }Jill. 1481

successfully undertake the pra.ctical ad­ministration of its affairs seems to me utterly impossible. In my opinion, ditli­culties have cropped up in the working of the University-that is to say, matters there have not gone on as smoothly as might be-becn.use the law casts on the council tasks which it is -impossible, from the nature of things, for it to perform with satisfaction. At the same time, when we come to consider the proposals now mn.de to remedy these evils, I think we shall sec that, in mn.ny instances, their adoption will by no means tend to pro­duce the results they arc intended to produce. In the first place, it is desired thn.t the number of the council should be increased. Well, according to the view I am endeavouring to express, the council is n.lren.dy altogether too large. Next, it is proposed to alter materially the con­stitution of the council. Two changes are submitted: first, that the Government shall be n.ble to nominate three mem~

_ bers of that body, and,secondly, that the other members - the total number is to be twenty-four-shn.U be elected by the senate, with this restriction, that one member from the teachers in each faculty must invariably be chosen. As to the In.tter provision, every requirement in con­nexion with the cn.se would, to my think­ing, be met if the members of the exist­ing teaching body were simply allowed to be elected by the senate in the same way as other persons. I don't think it at all necessary to insist upon a particuln.r re­presentation of the teaching body, because there is no doubt that the senate would, if left to their own discretion, elect- as many members of it as may be thought desirable. Therp, seems to be an idea, on the part of the honora.ble member who moved the !econd reading of the Bill, that under it the professors, lecturers, and examiners of the University would be able to elect members of council from among themselves, but, in fact, the measure pro­poses nothing of the kind, although I believe it was originally intended that it should do so. All it does in that direction is to stipulate that the senate, in electing members of council, should be bound to choose a certain proportion of them from among the teaching body. For my part, I don't think the restriction at all neces­sary, but, inasmuch as I know n. different opinion is held in other quarters, I will not offer any strong objection to the change. After all, insisting upon a certain number

5L2

of the teaching hody being put upon the council would only provide by law for what, if the election of members of' thn.t body were once permitted, would inevita­bly happen in any case. But the proposn.l that the Government should be enabled to appoint a certn.in proportion of nominees to the couneil stands on a totally different footing. I am not aware of any reason whatever that can fairly be urged in sup­port of that n.rmngement save one which wonld, of course, weigh very much with me, namely, that of absolute necessity. I mean to say that if I thought the Bill would not pass unless it provided that the Government of the day might nominate a small-very small-number of the council, I would then reluctantly consent to the provision. But, so far as argument is concerned, not a solitary good reason for the adoption of such n. plan has been, or to my mind can be, adduced. The bon­OI'able member representing the Govern­ment told us just now that it is highly desirable that the Government should be enabled to appoint 'to the Council such men as Mr. Justice Higinbotham or Chief Justice Stawell. I Heed only add to his statement that the latter gentleman has been a member of the University council from the very first, and that in all probability he will be the next Chancellor; whi.le Mr. Justice Higinbotham has for years been a member of the senate, and, if he desiI:ed to sit in the council, his nomi­nation to the post would, no doubt, receive very considerable support. I don't think, therefore, that we need make a funda­mental alteration in the constitution of the University in order to provide means for the appointment of the two gentlemen named. At the same time, I take leave to say that I am decidedly sceptical as to their being any probn.bility of the Govern­ment choosing them or anybody like them for the purpose. Accordingly, I conceive that we may very fairly trust the whole appointment of the council with the senn.te, who are naturally the proper persons to look after such mn.tters. There ca.n be no doubt they will always choose suitable persons. It is not very long since they actually went out of their way to pay a deserved compliment to n. distinguisbed scientific man of this city, by electing him to serve on the· conncil, although he was not a member of the University; and I am perfectly satisfied that they will always be ready to recognise distinguished merit outside the University ranks, in the

1488 University Constitution [COtJNCIL.] Amendment l)ilt.

same way-the only one open to them. It is also urged, in favour of the proposal, that the State contributes the money by which the University is supported. But the University grant is a permanent one which was made twenty-five years ago, and I don't think· it is usual for such grants to be revoked, or for new condi­tions to be attached to them. If at any future time the University were to ask the State for a little more money, and the Government of the day were to accede to the request, it would be quite open to them to accompany the gift with whatever conditions they might think fit. Under existing circumstances, however, they have no more business to interfere with the present University grant than they have to interfere with a grant of land possessed by any member of this Chamber. When a grant has once been made, the whole question respecting it, including the conditions attaching to it, is at an end, and there is no more to be said on the subject. Upon these grounds, I think the Government are not in the slightest degree entitled to interfere, in the way proposed, with an arrangement that has existed a long time, and worked very satisfactorily. vVhen the EiH is in com­mittee, I will be prepared to move that the provision relating to Government nominees in the University council be struck out. Again, I may point out that the measure is in an extremely unfortunate condition. For example, clause 4 provides as follows :-

" U ntH a faculty of arts is established in the UniYersity, the powers· hereinafter conferred upon any such faculty shall be exercised by those professors and lecturers who lecture upon suhjects included for the time being in the course for the degree of bachelor of arts," &c. But the Bill confers no powers whatever upon any such faculty. In fact, the measure, in its innocent course in another place, met with a misfortune. Certain alterations were made in it, but the con­sequential amendments which they ren­dered necessary did not follow. Under these circumstances, it will be necessary for this Chamber to' take a good deal of pains in order to bring the Bill into a proper condition. For my part, I will propose in committee that the ·council shall remain as at present, consisting of twenty members, and that all those mem­bers shall be elected by the senate, two of them being chosen from the teaching body, the whole of whom shall be eligible. That will simplify tbe Bill in many respects, and accomplish pretty nearly all that is at

Hon. W. E. Hearn.

present required. There are several other amendments which it will be necessary for me to propose in committee, bu t I don't think I need go through them now in detail. There is one portion of the Bill which the honorable member representing the Government did not not.ice, namely, the 15th clause, which is as follows :-

" Subject to the statutes and regulations of the University, the council may, after examina­tion, confer in any of the faculties of arts, law, medicine, music, or engineering and practical science any degree, diploma, certificate, or licence which can now be conferred by any university in the British dominions, or which it shall hereafter establish with consent of the Governor in Council; provided that the Univer­sity may make such statutes or regulations as it thinks fit for the admission without examina­tion to any such degree of any person who may h~ve graduated at any other university."

At present the University has authority to confer only certain l~mited degrees, such as that of bachelor and master of arts, and bachelor and doctor of medicine and laws respectively; but it is now pro­posed to enlarge its powerR, and allow it to confer degrees in any faculty, or any " degree, diploma, certificate, or licence" which can be obtained frqm any other. British university, except of course with relation to divinity. Another important change is the extension of the U ni versity to both sexes. When the University Act was passed, it was no doubt felt, as it was at the time felt in Great Britain, that such an institution could be intended only for men; and consequently its arrangements were made to apply only to the inferior class of creation. N ow, however, it is proposed to remove that blemish, and to allow any lady to go through a University course. To tell the truth, I believe this provision is not likely to be taken very much advantage of, and I don't know that it is very desirable that it should. N ever­theless, it is right to give an opportunity to any lady who chooses to go through so heavy a course to do so. Hitherto ladies have stopp·ed at matriculation, and no doubt they will continue to remain at that point. I believe I have now referred to all the points of the Bill worth considera­tion other than those which it may be necessary to call att.ention to while the measure is passing through committee. Upon the whole, I think carrying it will be very advantageous to the University; but, at the same time, it is necessary that it should be amended in the way J have indicated. I am sure, however, that the House will not grudge the time and

University Constitution [FEBRUARY 22.] Amendment Bill. 1489

trouble required to make the Bill capable of working satisfactorily, and becoming beneficial to the institution for t.he ad­vantage of which it was framed, and in which we all take so deep an interest.

Sir C. SLADEN.-Mr. President, I desire to say a few words respecting the Bill, although it is not my intention to deal with it at allY length. First of all, I wish to call attention to what was put forward with regard to it in another place by the honorable gentleman who is its author, namely, that, inasmuch as it had virtually l'eceived the sanction of the conncil of t.he University, it ought not to meet with any opposition. I think I am j tlstified in asserting that, when the honorable gentleman committed himself so far, he made a very singular mistake. I may add, indeed, tbat, from a gentle­man who has distingui.shed himself as a professor of modern history, we might nn,turally expect a little more pl'eciseness and accuracy than that which charac­terizes the statement I refer to. For example, when it was made, the BiH had never been before the University at all. However, when it had been read a second time, and referred to a select committee, overtures were made by its anthor to the University, requesting that some of the members of that body should be deputed to attend the committee and give evidence re­specting the measure; and then, for the first time, it came under the consideration of the University authorities. But even then they did not agree with the propositions the Bill embodied. To show how far they went the contrary way, I ",,'ill read a few extracts from the minutes of t.he meeting of the council of the University, held on the 23rd October, to consider the letter relating to the matter the Chancellor had received from Professor Pearson. It is worth notice that the Bill was referred, after its second reading; to a select committee, towards the end of September, and that Professor Pcn,l'son's letter to the Chancellor was not received until the 12th October. Well, the council, at that meeting, passed certain resolutions, including the following:-

" That the council submits that no legislation interfering with the present constitution of the University should be introduced, unless after an inquiry into the working of the University by a Hoyal commission, and a recommenda.tion by it that an alteration is required."

Subject to that protest, they also decided as follows :-

" That it is undesirable to increase the pUluber of members of the council."

And also-"That all the members of the council should

be elected by the senate, as at present."

Could anything be in more direct opposi­tion to the provisions of the Bill? The other resolutions n,dopted were :-

"That the teaching staff should be made eligible, with restrictions as to the numbers to be elected, and the powers of voting if elected.

"That the number of members of the teaching staff be limited to two, and that no such mem­bers should be entitled to vote on a question affecting the appointment, tenure of office, duties, or salaries of professors, lecturers, or examiners.

"That the selection of candidates, subject to this restriction, should be left, as at present, entirely in the hands of the senate, as it is unde­sirable, and practically impossible, for faculties, or any section of the University, to be repre­sented by the council.

" That all disabilitil's as to the election of the clergy to seats ill the council be removed." Those resolutions were adopted a month after the second reading of the BiH in another place-the occasion on which Mr. Pearson stated that the measure had the assent of the council of the University­and I have the authority of several mem­bers of the council for stating that the Bill had never previously been before them. As to the Bill itself, I may ex­pln,in that the couneil of the University, us estn,blished by the University Act, con­sists of twenty members. The members were originn,lly appointed by the Go­vernor in Council, but since there has been a senate they are elect.ed, as vacancies occur, by that .body. Under the present constitution of the council, only four clergymen can occupy seats on it. This Bill proposes that the disability with re­gard to clergymen shall be removed, so that the senate may n,ppoint any number it likes. I dare say that is a very whole­some proposition, and that it will be very much better to leave the entire discretion in the hands of the senate, w10 .are un­doubtedly the fitt.est persons to determine of whom the council shall consist. The most objectionable -feature of the Bill, in my opinion, is the proposal to introduce Government nominees into the council. I have the strongest possible objection to that proposal. I notice that, when the Bill was before the select committee, many of the professors were examined on this par­ticular point, and, although I cannot say that they opposed the proposition as reso­lutely as I would have expected them to do, still with one or two exceptions they did not express any approval of it. One gentleman, however, in giving wh~~ !!~

1490 University Constitution

considered a reason in favour of the intro­duction of Government nominees, fLppeared to me to afford the most forcible argument for excluding them. In the early part of his examination, this witness had said, speaking of the University-"I think the less '.ye have to do with politics the better," and there I agree with Lim; but, snbse­quently, this leading question was p~lt to hilll-

"But from t.he University point of view you see no objection to the Government being repre­sented at the conncil ?"

His answer was-"No, I think it would be better. I think we

should get more money."

Now that answer seems to me to show why it would be most mischiovous to carry out this proposition--:-to put a body of men on the University council who would he always intriguing, or be the snbjects of intrigue, with the view of getting more money from the State. Money, it is said, is the root of all evil, and certainly once we introduce intrigues to get more money into the University council we shall be under­mining the good foundation on which the University exists at present. This witness also stated-

" At present, out of the large expenditure for education, the University only gets £9,000. The University would be very glad to have two gen­tlemen appointed by the State who could in­fluence the Government to assist us." N ow I think we have had a good deal of experience in this colony of tho way in "\vIlich corrupt manIlcrs' may very soon croep into cveIl so august a hody as the Uuivcrsity council. I am quite sure that thc professor who gave the evidence I have quoted never dreamed of such a thing as corruption, and was simply cal'l'ied away by his great zeal for the University. Ho saw the institution was not able to do at present nearly so much as he in his enthusiasm coul<1 wish, and therefore he hailed the idea of Government nominees merely as offering a prospect of obtaining m01'8 money for tho University. He never sn,w t.ho difficulties snch a system of intriguc as be foreshadowed was likcly to pillnge the University into, or, I am COll­vinced, be would not have replied in the ungllardcd manner he did to the leading question put to him purposely to elicit a favorable answer. I am sure, however, that if money is required by the Univer­sity, at any time when t.he State is in funds to grant it, that institution will not be the last recipient. Of COl1rse, whilst the revenue is at a low ebb, the University,

Sir C. Sladen.

Aniendment Bill.

like other institutions, must be content to plod on in the best way it can with the means at its disposal; but, when the sun shines brighter by-and-by, I am sure that if more money is wanted for the purposes of the U ni versity, and to en con rage the higher class of education, it will not be wanting, without the procurement of Go­vernment nominees. The honorable mem­ber representing the Government told us he thought it was a very desirable thing that the Government should be rcpre­sented on the council of the University, and the only reason he gave for the opinion was that' all the money spont came from the Government. It might almost have been supposed, from what the honorable member said, that the gen­tlemen now on the Treasury bench in Hnother place made a contribution among themselves towards helping the Univer­sity to its present endowment. He does not seem to be at all aware of the real circumstances of the case .. What end could be served, as regards controlling the expenditure of money, by the Govern­ment appointing gentlemen to represent them on the University council? Are the Government responsible in any shape or form for the expenditure of that money, and what good would be done if they were represented on the council with re­spect to seeing that the money was pro­perly expended? :From all the experience we have had of the appointments by late Governments, it does not appear to me t.ha,t there is any particular inducement for us to support the presence of Government nominees on the council of this institution. Indeed it is pretty well known that Go­vernment nominees have been sometimes very unworthy, and I am sure we don't wish to have any on the University coun­cil. I t.hink the senate is quite competent to decide who are the fittest persons for appointment to the council, and it is far better that we should leave the matter in their hands. Indeed, so strongly do I feel against this particul:n proposition that I would vote against the second reading of the Bill if I thought there was :tny chance of that clause being carried in con;nnittee, but from what Dr. Hearn has stated this afternoon, as well as "That he has told me privately, it appears very likely that that proposal will be given up by those who are interested in the passing of the Bill, and I am very glad to hear that such is the caso. With regard to the 1eaching staff of the University being represented

Unive1'sity Constitution [FEBRUARY 22.] Amendment Bill. 1491

on the council, I notice that, in the evi- I

dence taken before the select committee, 'nearly every witness expressed the opinion that it was desirable that there should be some representation of the teaching staff on the council. If there is any difference of opinion at all on this subject, it is simply as to the amount of the represen­tation and whether there should not be some maximum fixed of the number of the teaching staff who could have seats on the council. I am not quit9 sure whether the council, from their resolutions which I have read, think it desirable that the senate should be obliged to elect a certain number of the teachers. I think all the council recommended is that mem­bers of the teaching staff-professors, &c. -should be eligible for election by the senate. However, that is a matter of detail which can be considered more fully in committee. The only other important feature of the Bill appears to be that connected with the admission of females to the ad vantages of the University. Now, if there were nothing more in that proposal than is disclosed on the face of the Bill, I would have no objection to offer to it. Indeed, it would be of no use urging any objection, because virtually the point has been alreadyconceued, as females do now go through the University examinations. At present, however, there is no power to confer degrees on females, and the Bill proposes to give that power. Still, if the

. proposition rested even there, I would offer no objection to it. But there is another, and much more important, feature underlying this proposal, which calls for a great deal of consideration on the part of the House. The 11 th clause of the Bill provides that the senate of the Uni­versity shall consist of all persons who have been, or who may hereafter be, ad­mitted to any degree of doctor or master in t.he University. That clause would admit to the senate any female who ma.y have proceeded to such a degree. Now I confess I am not prepa,red, at this time of the world, to consent to such an innovation npon the whole of our govern­ing system. If females may be admitteu to be members of the senate of the University-and hence of course mem­bers of the council also-we shall be introducing a new element into all our governing bodies, because they all hinge together. I ask honorable members, before they commit t.hemselves to nn innovation' of such yast importance, to

consider whether the social and domestic relations which have heretofore existed be­tween men and women are not likely to be disturbed by the introduction of this new feature, and by putting women on a par with men in the governing institu­tions of the country? The question is a very large and a very serious one, and I make these remarks without meaning any disparagement whatever of the talent, ability, or even business capacity-which is very great in many of them-of the female sex. My objection is simply based on the ground that snch a change would alter our whole social and domestic rela.­tions. If a woman were, on the floor of this House, to bandy arguments, sarcasm, and satire with the male members, is it likely that she would meet on the same terms as she does now in the social circle t.he men with whom she ha(l been break­ing a lance in the lists? I do not think so. I do not propose, however, to go into the question further at present than merely to place that point before the con­sideration of honorable members-Can the present social and domestic relations of men and women possibly continue if the latter are admitted to the same governing powers as we hold ?-and I think the answer must be in the negative. I sha1l not object to the second reading of the Bill, but there is a great deal of it which in committee I will endeavour to strike ont; and I will be prep!tred to move the addition of a proviso to the 16th clause which will at all events determine the question whether or not women shall be permitted to be members of the senate of the University.

The motion was then agreed to, and the Bill was read a second time, and committed p1'oforma.

The House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes to SiK o'clock, until Tuesday, l\1arch 8.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEl\1BLY. Tuesday, February 22, 1881.

Motion for Adjournment: Railway Department: Exercise of Patronage: Diseases in Stock: The Minister of Lands and the Bullarook Forest-Lands Department: Mr. D. H. Weir's Land: Dismissed Officers - Warrenheip nnd Gordons Railway-Gippsland Railway-Gee\ong Railwar Pier- Yan Yean Water Supply Works-Reform Bill: Second Reading: Second Night's Debate.

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

1492 Railway Department. [ASSEMBLY.] Exe'l'cise of Patronage.

RAILWAY DEPARTMENT. PATRONAGE.

Mr. lVIASON (who, to put himself in order, moved the adjournment of the House) said he desired to again refer to a matter to which he alJuded the previous Thursday, namely, that a member of the disbanded artillery corps who. went to the Railway department, to present a letter making application for employment, was ordered off the premises, and was threat­ened that he would be given in charge of a constable if he did not go away. The facts which he mentioned were grounded on a statement made to him by a gentle­lUan in whom he had implicit confidence. He would now enter more fully into the circumstances of the case. The dis­charged artilleryman presented a note of illtroduction to him from a prominent cit.izen, who asked him to endeavour to procure the man employment. The lllan told him that he was married, that he waR in destitute circumstances - not having even a loaf of bread in the honse-and that he desired t.o obt.ain work of any kind. temporary or permanent.. He re­ga-rued the mnll as having a special claim for employment by the' ~tal:e, in conse­quence of the action of the Assembly in disbanding the artillery corps, and he requested him to put Ids application in writing. The applicant did so, and l,e (Mr. l\fason) appended tile following memorandnm to it for 1\11'. Elsdon, the Engineer-in-Chief and G eueral Manager of the Railwny department :-

•• If there is any work for the writer of this note, I shall feel obliged if lVIr. Elsdon would let him have it. I regard him as having a strong claim for employment on account <if the dis­banding of the artillery corps.-F. C. MASOS.-7/2/81."

The man presented the letter on a Mon­uay, and waited for foul' hours, but was not able to obtain an answer, aud ,,;as refused aumission to any of the superior officers of .tbe department. He called again on the following uay, and was again refused It reply or an interview with any of the sup~rior ottieel's. On the Wednes­day he calleu ollce mOl'll, nnd still he obtained no answer to Ids applicatioil, and had not yet received any. He asked for the return of his application, but t.hat req uest was refuseu; and he was tolll that if he did not go about his business he would be gi ven in to the charge of a police-constable. Although it was stated in the three morqing jonrnals of Saturday

that he received a reply in the negative to his application for employment, the fact was that no reply had been sent to him up to the present time. The para­graph in the morning newspapers was as follows :-

"Mr. Mason complained in the House on Thursday that a discharged artilleryman, who had applied to the Railway department for em­ployment, had not only been refused his request, but had been threatened with being given into custody unless he left the platform. ,"Ve have been desired by the Engineer-in-Chief, who has made inquiry into the matter, to dcny that there was the slightest foundation for the latter statement. The man made an application, which was answered by letter in the negative, and, as a mattcr of fact, he had no interview with any of the superior officers."

This paragraph evidently emanated from the Engineer-in-Chief; and, in point of fact, it stated that the papers in which it appeared were desired by the Engineer­in-Chief to tell him (Mr. Mason) that he was a liar. What right lweI the Engineer­in-Chief to give n contntuiction, through the newspapers, to ::t statement rmlde by an honomble meml)er ill his place in Parlia­ment? Not ollly \ras Ihe conunct of Mr. Elsdon in viohttion of the civilscl'yic('l'cgu­lal ion:", but the statement which he contra­dicted was perfectly accurato H.llll tl'lIe. 'Vhen t he lie direct was gi ren to a mem­bel" of the House in thiil way, it was cer­tainly the duty of honorable members to assert their position, and to tell the Min­ister of Railways, who alone was respon­sible to them for the management of the Railway department, that they were not prepared to stand anything of this kind . If public officers were allowed to commu­nicate to the newspapers, and to contradict the st~ltements of members, there w(luld be an end of all Ministerial responsibility. The statement which 110 made in the II onse about this ex-artilleryman could, and would if necessary, be borne out by a statutory declaration. Althongh no relJly was sent to the man himself, the letter applying for employment was returned to him (Mr. Mason) about nine days after it waS written, with the following memo­randum from the Engineer-in-Chief :-

" I regret that !'here is at present no vacancy in t.his departmcut. The work to which he pro­bably refers is olily temporary, and the men arc engaged by the time-keeper, uuder instructions, and put· off as is found necessary.-,"VILLIAM ETJSDON, Engineer-in-Chief and General Muna­ger.-16/2/81."

It had been stated in the newspapers that the Minister of Railways had handed o'·er the exercise of the patronage connected

Railway Department. [FEBRUARY 22.J Exercise of Patronage. 1493

with the Railway department to the En­gineer-in-Chief, and it appeared from this memorandum that the Engineer-in-Chief referred applicants for employment to the time-keeper, who, in his turn, would pro­bably refer them to some one else. He (Mr. Mason), however, held the Minister responsible for the exercise of the patron­age of the department until he was re­lieved of that responsibility by the consent of Parliament. Personally he placed no value on the patronage of the Rail way department, for he had never received any of it, but he strongly objected to baving men sent into his district from Castlemaine and other places as line re-

. paircrs and porters when there were men on the spot out of employment who could do the work just as well. He would insist upon fair play and justice, and he wouM resent ~ny attempt on the part of the Argus to dictate to him how he should shape his conduct. He wondered whether the change of policy on the part of that journal towards the Minister of Rl1il ways, some little time ago, was at­triuutable to the fact that the honorable gentleman, when Postmastm'-Gelleml, ap­pointcLl a near relative of a prominont l11ln:IILer uf the Argus staff to a situft.tion in the Pust-office, or to the recent appoint­ment of another relative of a member of the staff to a Government office, although the individual in question had never be­fore been in the pu bHc service, and there were a large number of ex-civil servants out of employment. The Argus stated that in future, in the Railway department, persons were to be appoin ted on their merits, and not through political influence; but what guarantee had honorable mem­bers that such would be the case? ",Vas it the fact that even now the Minister had a schedule of all vacancies and of all applicants for employment brought to him every morning. and that, although he did not touch it with his pen, he touched it with his finger? It was rumoured that such was the case. He was curious to know whether, if such an office as that held by Mr. Labertouche, the Secretary of the Hailway department-who appeared to be in a fair way of being shunted-or that of the Assistant Traffic Manager became vacant, the filling of it up would be made a Cabinet question or left entirely to Mr. Elsdon. He understood that the Cabinet were not in unison as to the policy of what the Minister of Railways had done, or rather whtit he pretended to have done,

for he believed the transfer of patronage to Mr. Elsdon was merely a pretence. If he desired to recommend any persons for employment in the Railway department, he would certainly object to being told by the Minister of Rail ways to go to Mr. Elsdon, and by Mr. Elsdou to go else­where. If it was a proper thing to hand over the patronage of the department to Mr. Elsdon or to a board, it ought to be done in an open straightforward manner, and with the sanction of Parliament. He had felt it his duty to again bring the case of the ex-artilleryman before the House because he thought the man had been harshly treated, and because of the contra­diction given by Mr. Elsdon to the state­ments he (MI'. Mason) made about the' matter. He might remark that the Min­ister of Railways, being away in the coun­try at the time, could not have given Mr. Elsdon instructions to communicate the paragraph which appeared in the press; and it was, of course, impossible for Mr. Elsdon to have any personal knowledge as to whether the lIIan was threatened to ue lJallded over to the custody of a police­constaLle, inasmuch as the appli~ant had llO iuterview with any of the superior offi­cers uf the department. He (Mr. Mason) never saw the applicant until the man presented a letter of introduction to him, and he had only seen him once since. If the contradiction given by the Railway de­partment to his statements was persisted in, he would be prepared with a statutory declaration setting forth the whole parti­culars of the case.

Mr. BURROWES (who seconded the motion for adjournment) remarked thai he thought the Minister of Railways, after tbe speech of the bonorable member for South Gippsland, might well exclaim­" Save me from my friends." The action of the Minister, in handing over the patronage of the department to Mr. Els­don, who was far better able to judge of the competency of applicants for employ­ment, was not only a wise proceediug, but it was one for which most honorable members. would be grateful, as it would save them from being bored by their con­stituents. He wished that all the Ministers would adopt a similar course in regard to the patronage of their departments.

Mr. MIRAMS stated that he desired to call attention to the following paragraph in that day's Argus:-

"The rule which Ml'. Patterson is enforcing, that railway employes shall he appointed upon

1494 Railway Department. [ASSEMBLY.] Exercise of Patronage.

their merits, and not by political pressure, is giving more offence than was at first supposed. The Reform League members have taken the matter up with warmth, and Mr. Mimms and Mr. Longmore are to head a deputation which is to wait upon the Chief Secretary at three o'clock to-day, to remonstrate with him upon a rule which, they declare, is injurious to the suc­cess of their party in practical politics."

The whole of the paragraph, from be­ginning to end, was one mass of lies. There were just about as many lies in it as there were lines. He had not been asked to head any deputation from the Reform League; the Reform League had not said a word on the subject referred to ; and, so far from feelillg that the giving up of patronage by Ministers would be detri­mental to the interests of the liberal party, he for one could say that he would have nothing to do with t.he party if it depended lIpon the paltry patronage connected with the Government departments. Personally he had not one word to say against tbe course adopted in this matter by the Minister of Railways. During the four or five years be had heen a member of the House, he had never, to .his knowledge, got more than one man into the Railway department, and that was when the honor­able member for Stawell was Minister of Railways. He knew nothing about the man on whose behalf he interested himself, except that he was highly recommended by his former employers as a skilful carria.ge­lmilder, and in that capacity he was put into the Williamstown workshops. So far from regretting that merit was to be the order of the day in future, he rejoiced in that announcement; but, unfortunately, tLere did not seem to be any genuine belief, either on the part of honorable members or of the public, that the new a.rrangement was being carried out properly and faith­fully. (Mr. vVoods-" Nobody believes it.") At any rate he had met with some people who did not believe it, and who lookcll upon it simply flS a very nice ar­rangement by which the Minister coulu, if he chose, cLoke off those members he llid not want to oblige, and be very oblig­ing to those whom he did want to serve. If honorable members conlll be satisfied that tl~e new system would be honest.ly and faithfully carried out, he believed that there would not be two of tLem hetter pleased with it than he and the honorable member for Ripon would be.

Mr. SERVICE saill he thought it would not be well to allow the discussion to puss ,vithout expressing the thorough

approval of the opposition side of the House of the action taken by the Minister of Railways in regard to the patronage of his depa.rtment. He was glad to hear that the gentlemen representing the Reform League took the same view of the matter. (Mr. Longmore-HI don't; and you did Dot when you were in office.") So long as a Minister enunciated and car­ried out such a policy as that announced by the Minister of Railways, he (M~·. Service) would venture to say, from hIS knowledge of the feeling of honorable members on the opposition side of the House, that the honorable geOntleman would have their thorough ~upport. He believed that honorable members generally· would also approve of a system which could only bave olle result, namely, the more efficient working of the railways in t.he interests of the public; and there could be no doubt that the country at large would concur in t.he opinion that tho course adopted by the Minister was the right one to pursue. The honorable member for Collingwood (1\11'. Mimms) sa.id there was a donbt abroad as to whether the 1\1inister bad really handed over the matter 6f patronage to the General Manager of the H,ailways. (Mr~ Patterson - "A little impertinence.") The honorable member also stated that he would be satisfied if he was as­sured t.hat the principle laid down by the Minister would be thoroughly car­ried out. Well, the honorable member could easily secure the certainty which he desired to obtain by insisting that the exercise of patronage in connexion with the public service should not be in the discretion of the Minister of Rail ways or any other Minister, but that the Govern­ment should bring down a new Civil Ser­vice BiH makillO" provision t.hat the course which had bee~ adopted by the Minister of Railways should be carried out through­out all the depart.ments of the public service. The power of ma,king appoint­ments could be given to the practical head of each department, or to a board specially appointed for the purpose. Members on both sides of the House bad heretofore expressed their opinion in favour of such a course, and it was the proper one to adopt. He was sure that it would be approyed of by the country at large. Whether it would give a longer or a shorter term of office to the Ministry he did not know, but he did know that, in or out of oflice, the course which the

Railway Depm·tment. [FEBRUARY 22.J ·Exercise of Patronage. 1495

Minister of Rl1ilwl1ys proposed to carry into effect was one which ·would redound to the honorable gentleman's credit for all time to come.

Mr. LONGMORE remarked thl1t it was quite refreshing to hear the Spl1rtl1ll simplicity of the honorable member for Maldon, who, during t.he short period he was in office, turned out of the civil service all the persons he could who were opposed to him politically, and filled their places with his own creatures. The action of the Minister of Rl1ilways was sure to 1e greeted with a preall by the honorable member for Maldon, as the honorable gentleman was no longer in office himself, but he (Mf. Longmore) held that the Minister could not do away with patron­age, and that he had no right to do away with it. Some time ago, when the Chief Secretary exercised a little patronage in the Government Printing-office, and put men in whom he considered most capable for, and most entitled to employment there, the permanent head of the department, when examined before another place, said he could not see why those men were put into the civil service at all. That was what things were corning to. Honorable members were to be treated as rogues and vagabonds, but the civil servants were gentlemen, and nothing but gentlemen, who would never do anything wrong, and who would never· help their friends into a position if they had the patronage of the public departments. It was all very well for the conservatives to deprecate tho exercise of patronage by the Government so long as they were not in office; but the f:'lct was that, unless the liberal party exercised proper control over the civil service while they had the opportunity of doing so, the civil servants would turn them out of power. It wns no­torious that the civil servants were against the liberals, simply because the liberals had been obliged to turn out the regi­ments ,vho got into office ,,,hile the other side were in power. It was bealltiful to see the Minister of H,ailways divesting himself of patronage, but· he would tell the honorable gentleman that he was not doing justice to himself, his party, or the country. It was the duty of the Chief Secretary and his colleagues to take the matter into their careful consideration, and see whether they were jnstified in hl1nuing over the patronage of the railways to the servants of the railways. A time-keeper was ce1't:1inly not the man to have the

patronage, yet Mr. Elsdon said that no employment of the kind which the ap-

. plicant recommended by the honorable member for South Gippsland dEsired to obtain was given except occasionally, and by the time-keeper. The party at present occupying the Treasury bench had the right to nominate the men to whom em­ployment should be given in the Railway department, and they should not divest t.hemselves of that right. In the interests of the country, it was their duty to retain it. The honorable member for Maldon said, forsooth, that the Minister had the good-will of the opposition side of the House. No wonder that was the caso, because the Opposition had friends in the public service, who would appoint other friends if patrona.ge was placed in their hands. Personally he (Mr. Longmore) was not desirous of exercising one particle of political patronage, because men did not come to town from his constitnency to beg for work. He hoped, however, that the Government would reconsider the question which had been raised, and not vest the patronage of any department in the hands of officers of that department. In j us­tice to the party by whom they had been placed in power, they ought to ret.ain the patronage in their own hands.

Mr. WRIXON submitted that what the public would like to know was not whether the party on the right of the chair were justified in recriminating on the part.y on the left as to the distribution of patronage, but whether it was better for the country that appointments in the Railway department should be made in accordance with the new rule established by the Minister of Railways thfLll that they should be made by political influence. Appointments had hitherto been made by political influence, and the question was whether that was a good rule to continue. He considered that a. more certain mode of demoralizing the public service could not be devised. The honorable member for Ripon had contended that" under the new rille, every person of whom a Member of Parliament approved would, ipsofacto, be tabooed. Eu t that was no argument at all. N or was it :1 true statement of the question. The fact was that when a Member of Parliament gave a recom­mel1l1ation, as all of . them at times bad to do, he gave it under no certain amount of pressure. For example, a person recom­mended by a lVlember of Parliament for a certain place i.n the pnblic service might

1496 Railway Department. [ASSEMBLY.] Exercise of Patronage.

have made himself conspicuous in serving that member at different electioJls, and. the point was whether the member was Hot to a certain exten t biased in the recommendation by considerations which did not affect the question of what was hest for the public service. What mem­ber would not be ready to recommend a persoll who had actively assisted in his election? (Mr. Longmol'e-" And why not ?") The" why not" was that a man who made an excellent elect.ioneering agent might make a very bad engine­driver. It did not follow, because a man had been useful in the electoral arena, that he would make a reliable civil sm:vant. (Mr. GauDson-" Recommendations will still come from members thongh Mr. Elsdon makes the appointments.") That interjection led him to ask whether the objection was to the taking a'way of poli­tical patronage at all, or whether the objection bad been raised because it was assumed that the proceeding of the Minis­ter of Railways was only a sham? If political patronage vms to be put out of the question, honorable members would have reason to rejoice at such a reform being effected; but if the movement in­augurated by the Minister of Railways was not genuine, honorable members would be placed in a different position altogether; they would have strong ground for com­plaint of the conduct of the Minister.

Mr .. MASON here interposed with the explanation that he did not object to political patronage being taken from mem­bers of the House. What he objected. to was the method ad.opted by the Minister of Railways, wbich he regarded as a sham-as an insincere method.

:Mr. WRIXON sa,id in that case he would suggest to honorable members that the best way was for them to see tha,t the proceeding was not a sham by agreeing, one and all, to act as if it were a reality; in other words, to abstain from making recommendations. The question of poli­tical patronage had been forced upon public attention by what had takell place in the department of' Railways, because there, if incompetent persons were ap­pointed, the lives of Her Majesty's subjects were endangered. He would be heartily glad if the whole Government endorsed the policy which he understood had been adopted by the Minister of Railways. Cer­tainly to Members of Parliament patron­age was as much an encumbrance as un assistance.

Mr. FINCHAM flgreed with t.he honor­able member for Portland that political patronage was, to Members of Parliament, more of a curse than a blessing. At the same time he was inclined to be suspicious when a member of the Cabinet happened to sta,nel upon a pedestal to be glorified by the Opposition. He objected to what seemed to be a spasmodic effort in the direction of abolishing political patronage. He knew the Minister of Railways was famous for a considerable amount of ac­tivity and shrewdness. Perhaps, like the fox, the honorable gentleman could get out of a scrape better than all the other members of the Ministry put together. But he did not believe in the virtue which appeared t·o have prompted t.he Minister to take the exceptional action he had. The evil of filling the civil service with mon not on account of their capacity, but because of the political influellce which they could bring to bear, was one that he would like to see got rid of; but he considered the action of the Minister of Railways in tbis case was simply humbug -nothing but humbug-because the hon­orable gentleman knew that a whisper, or only a wink, on his part would be the means of securing the appointment of any individual he might desire to see in the department. Moreover, for the Minister to attempt this thing single-handed was a mistake altogether. He (Mr. Fincham) could have understood the proceeding if it had applied generally to all branches of the public service. He could have under­stood the Chief Secret.ary calling his col­leagues together, and proposing that a scheme should be devised for getting rid of political patronage, which had been a bore to Members of Parliament., and a still greater bore to the Government. The Minister of Railways had been compli­mented on his abilities as an administrator, both by the opposition press and by gen­tlemen who sat on the opposition side of the I-louse, and it was eyen rumoured that the honorable gentleman was going, before long, to throw over his colleagues. If there was no truth in the report, the Minister of Railways should thank him for this oppor­tunity of disowning the soft impeachment, and declaring tlmt he had no sympathy with honorable members in opposition. Certainly he considered it wonld have been better if the Minister of Railways ha.d held his hand, with regard. to the matter of patronage, until the Government, as a whole, were in a position to recommend

Railway Department. [~-1EBRUARY 22.J Exercise oj Patronage. 1497

the adoption of some well-devised scheme for getting rid of an admitted evil which exi::;ted in connexion with all the public departments.

Mr. KERFERD observed that he did not gather from the remarks just made that the honorable member for Ballarat West (Mr. Fincham) objected to the alteration made by the Minister of Rail­vmys with regard to patronage. The honorable member appeared to be con­cerned chiefly about the Minister's motives, but motives need not be troubled about so long as the action was in accordance with the views of a majority of the Assembly. Anyone with parliamentary experience must know that it was a seriolls annoy­ance to honorable members to be called upon to press upon Ministers of the Crown claims which they themselves frequently thought ought not to be entertained. The question for the House to consider was not the motives of the Minister of Rail­ways, but whether the honorable gentle­lOan had done a right and proper thing in endeavouring to place the distribution of patronage upon somet.hing like a proper footing. The honorable member for Ripon had been good enough to say that honorable gentlemen in opposition, wben in office, crammed the public service with employes, and that 110W they were out of office they were glad to see Ministers taking an opposite course. But if the Minister of Lands were asked-" Who put into the IJands-office most of the im­mense number of employes that you have recently dispensed with?" no doubt tbe ans\ver would be-" Longmore." Honor­able members did not want to wait for the abolition of patronage until some organ-. ized scheme such as the honorable mem­ber for Ballarat West had indicated could be devised. They desired that the evil should be put a stop to as quickly as pos­sible, and a more favorable opportunity for putting a stop to it than that which the Minister of Railways had taken ad­vantage of coultlnot be expected. It was the duty of tho'se honorable members who considered the proceeding to be a sham to expose it. They could easily do so by calling for a return showing the number of appointments made by the Minister of Railways since the alteration of the system. If the proceeding was a sham, a long array of appointments would be found; but if the Minister of Rail W:1ys was in earnest, the return would show very fewappoint­ments, and a substantial explanation for

those could be given. He could quite understand, from what had been going on for a number of years, a MinistOl', who desired to make the State railways pay, coming to the conclusion that the Railway department was over-manned, that it could be worked without :1ny additional appoint­ments, and that whatever appointment.s were made in the future should be only on account of t.heir fitness. Then why should there be this howling against a Minister who attempted to do his dnty manfully? The honorable member for Ripon appeared to he bl'gely influenced in his conduct by the fact th:1t the action of the Minister of Railways was approved of by honorable members in opposition, and hy one of the leading journals. (Mr. Longmore - " I had doubts about it immediately.") He was surprised that the honorable member' for Ripon could be carried away by any such feelings. The only question to be considered was whether what the Minister of Railways had done was t.he right thing to do. He was satisfied that the feeling of every Minister, as it was the feeling of' everyone who had been in office, was that he would like to be divested of patronage. He did not see why the Opposition should be precluded from sup­porting a Minister when he did what they believed to be the right thing. One pa,rt of the policy of the Service Govern­ment was to place the State railways under the management of a board; and why should not the Opposition be honest and true to their convictions when they saw them carried out by their successors in office? He agreed wit.h the honorable member for Collingwood (Mr. Mirams) that no political party need rely upon patronage for its existence; and he be­lieved that, however the honorable member for Ripon and others might denounce the Minister of Railways, that honorable gen­tleman had taken a course which would be generally approved of by the country.

Mr. DOW remarked that reference had been made to the so-called inconsistency of a. certain journal because, at one time, it criticised in rather candid terms the conduct of the Minister of Railways in filling the Post-office with young girls and employing Castlemaine labour in Gippsland, and now backed him up in bis action with reference to patronage. But there was no inconsistency whatever to compbin of. He joined issue with the honorable member for Maldoll as to the' propriety of placing the State railways

1498 Railway DepCU'itizeni. [ASSEMBLY.] Exe'J'cise of Patronage.

under the control of a board. The creation of a board simply meant a perpetuation of the abuses of the present Ministerial system. The Minister of Rail ways bud hit the blot in his department by deter­mining that the responsibility of all future appointments should rest with the officer who managed the railways; and if the ex­ample was to be followed by the honorable gentleman's colleagues and by succeeding Ministries, it would be an excellent depar­ture. As a Member of Parliament, he considered it would be a great deliverance to be rid of all the trouble connected with patronage. His chief complaint in relation to patronage was that Ministers stuck to it all. He considered that, so long as Ministers exercised patrona.ge, the nomination of a Member of Parlia­ment, especially if he supported the Go­vernment, with regard to an appointment in his district-all other things being equal-should have a chance. Surely the word of a Member of Parliament was as good as the word of any other man with regard to the fitness of an individual for an appointment. However, he had never got any patronage. When he was first elected, he gave his constituents a pledge that, so long as he was in Parliament, he would never ask for any relative a position

.. in the Government service; and he had never done so. Whathe had donein the way of trying to obtain appointments would be illustrated by what he was about to say. In view of the constrnction of a railway from St. Arnaud to Donald, certain miners in his district sent him a letter pointing out that one of their number had become incapacitated for his usual occupation, and asking that the position of gatekeeper might be given to him when the railway was opened. In compliance with the request, he laid the letter before the Railway department. That was a sample of what he had done in the direction of influencing Government patronage; and he did not believe any honorable member wonld think of asking for an appointment nnless, all things being equal, he considered his nominee capable of fulfilling the duties of the office properly. However, he cor­dially supported the action of the Minister of Railways. An honorable member would now be able to say to a constituent _" My dear fellow, I would be glad to exercise my influence on your behalf, but for the future the Railway department is to be conducted on a proper commercial basis, and nu application of mine will

Mr. Dow.

recei ve any attention." He ·believec1 thnt, by this new departure, honorable n;temLers would be relieved of a great deal of dis­agreeable troubl e.

Mr. McKEAN stated that the discus­sion would be beneficial if it helped to educate honorable members as to the necessity for a change in the matter of Ministerial patronage. Some honorable members were favorable to the course taken by the Minister of Railways in deleg·ating his patronage to the permanent head of the department; but others looked with great jealousy upon the proceeding­they were disposed to regard it as a mere blind, seeing that the permanent head might be the creature of the Minister. One of his constituents from Sale waited upon him that day with reference to em­ployment in the Railway department. He (Mr. McKean) stated that it was useless to make application, because the Secre­tary's books contained the names of over 7,000 persons who had sought employ­ment under the department, and could not obtain it; and that the Minister had de­legated the power of appointing employes to Mr. Elsdon, who appointed such per­sons as he thought fit. His· constituent then said-" You are quite under a mis­take, because Mr. Clark, member for Sandhurst, gave a friend a letter for em­ployment to the Minister of Railways; the letter was taken on a Thursday, when the person was told that he could not . be appointed; and, nevertheless, on the following Monday, he received a letter requesting him to attend the department, and he did so, and was put on."

Mr. PATTERSON said he had re­ceived no letter from Mr. Clark. The whole statement was a fabrication.

Mr. McKEAN observed that he had repeated the statement as it had been given to him; he did not know what truth there was in it. But he did know that young men not previously in the civil service had received appointments in the Railway department. Again, he understood, when the late reductions in the civil service. were effected, that it was then laid down that the officers dispensed with were to have· the preference when­ever a vacancy arose, and a new appoint­ment had to be made; but, so far as he could glean, it did not appear that that rule had been at all carried out. Various schemes had been devised for the pmpose of removing the difficulties experienced in connexion with making Government

Railway Depdrtment. [:B1EBRUARY 22.J ExelJ'cZse of Fat'l'ondge. 1499

appointments, hut his own notion was that the best plan .would be to constitute a board to ma,nage the whole business, and become responsible for the character of each of their appointees. That would be an eminently practical arrangement, and infinitely preferable to one under which the Government were split up, as it were -the Minister of Railways abdicating functions which were exercised by every one of his colleagues. As for the political head of a department delegating the making of appointments to the permanent head under him, that mnst necessarily be a farce, .seeing that the latter would invariably take care to sbape his action according to the wish of the Minister over him. He ph. McKean) could not but recollect his own experience in connexion with applications from among his con­stituents for employment upon the new North Gippsland roads. The fact was that, whenever he communicated with the Public Works department on the subject, he was almost always assured that there were no vacancies, and that, when he sub­sequently saw the men who had applied to him, they told him that the work they wanted had been given to Castlemaine men. In fact, seeing how largely men from Castlemaine had been taken on for Govel'llment work all over the country, it seemed as though there could hardly he one male adult wanting employment left in that district. . Mr. W. M. CLARK thought it would

suit no one better than himself if the plan adopted by the Minister of Railways was persevered in and carried out in its in­tegrity, because he (Mr. Clark) was in the habit of receiving about 100 applications per month for employment in the Railway department, and he would be very glad to be rid of them. The point was, however­Was the honorable gentleman sincere? It was to be feared that he was not altogether so. For example, only the other day, a porter engage~ at one of the busiest sta­tions on the Williamstown Railway was removed, and a boy of fourteen was put in his place-why? It appeared that the boy came from Castlemaine, and room had to be found for him somewhere.

Mr. PATTERSON stated that, if par­ticulars of the case were furnished to him, he would have the matter satisfactorily cleared up by the following day.

Mr. W. M. CLARK said he was told, only twenty-four hours ago, of an appli­cant for railway emplorment being assured

that directly" the parson" saw Mr. Elsdon it wOllld be all right. N ow, bad as it was for political patronage to be in the hands of Ministers of the Crown, it "would be infinitely worse if it were in the hands of the clergy. Again, some time ago, a station-master in the Footscray district, charged with being drunk and assaulting a passenger, was first fined at the police court and then dismissed the service. But what was done with him afterwards? He was actually reinstated. The honor­able member for North Gippsland (Mr. McKean) knew about the case.

Mr. McKEAN remarked that he pro­secnted the man, and considered the fine ample punishment. His dismissal from the public service was far too great a penalty.

Mr. DEAKIN stated that he would be most happy to assist any movement to­wards shutting out every kind of political influence from public service appoint­ments. He, therefore, thoroughly ap­proved of the action taken by the Minis­tAr of Railways, so far as it went. It was necessary, however, in order to secure the end at which that action was aimed, there should be not only purit.y in the appointment or dismissal of public ser­vants, but also some popular evidence of the fact-some public proof that the new arrangement was not a sham. If, for in­stance, the Minister of RaHways would show that his transference of power in con­nexion with appointments to Mr. Elsdon was something more than a merely nominal transference, he would do all that could be asked of him, and place himself above suspicion. (Mr. Patterson-" What would you Hke to have done? ") He would like to see the . Minister of Railways adopt the plan suggested, the other evening, by the honorable member for Cl'eswick (Mr. Cooper), namely, publish every month every appointment and dismissal that had taken place during the previons month in his department. (Mr. Patterson-" I have not the slightest objection to do that.") The Minister would then give a thoroughly good guarantee of his sincerity, and the change ill his department would deserve the highest commendation. It was to be hoped the plan would be commenced at once, and that every future month would see laid on the table of the House a list of the railway appointments and dismis­sals of the previous month, with details showing who the new appointees were, and from what part of the colony they came.

1500 Railway Department. [ASSEMBLY.] Exercise of Patronage.

Mr. BARR asserted that no one could be more eager than he was to join in any scheme that would relieve honorable mem­bers from the applications for Government employment that were now so constantly being made to them, but he would like to see a better plan adopted than that which the Minister of Railways was following. Was it not clear that, if the power of ap­pointment and dismissal was placed in the hands of the perma,nent heads of de­partments, they would simply experience, in their turn, the same pressure that was at the present time brought to bear upon their political heads? Moreover, would not this disadvantageous state of things arise, namely, that whereas, at the present time, an honorable member who had a complaint to make about an appointment or dismissal could bring the Minister of the depai'tment concerned to book without delay in the House, he would be unable to tIeal in the same way with the per­manent head of the department unless he got him summoned to the bar? Also, would not the great check which Parlia­ment now always had upon the Executive with respect to appointments and dis­missals in the public service be then, in fact, removed? Another serious draw­back to the arrangement was that, under it, appointments in the civil service would almost always go to persons Ii ving in Mel­bourne or its suburbs, while those living in the country, except perhaps. in certain favoured localities, would be left out in the cold. If the list the honorable member for West Bourke (Mr. Deakin) wanted to see published was to be of any good, it ought to contain not only the llame and address of every person ap­pointed, but also the name of the person who nominated him. Again, would not Ministers divesting themselves of the patronage that now belonged to their several offices lead to the civil service becoming a greater power in the country than ever? Would not the permanent heads of departments then wi~ld such tre­mendous parliamentary influence that they would soon be practically able to say who their masters should be-who should sit on the Treasury bench ? Under these circumstances, would it not be better for honorable members to pause before they expressed absolute approval of the system the Minister of Railways had adopted? All constitutional history showed that political patronage constituted an import­ant means of keeping a political party

together. Of course a party that could not be kept alive without political patron­age ought to die straight away; but it was another thing to simply stimulate the energies of a party by a judicious dish-i­bution of the rewards and privileges to which it was entitled. Upon the wh01e, he considered that, inasmuch as the united wisdom of the Ministry was unequal to the task of devising a scheme under which they could successfully forego the exercise of their patronage, they had better con­tin ue to use it.

Mr. L. L. SMITH remarked that he was pleased at the debate having arisen, because it helped to show what sort of Government the country had at the pre­sent moment-that it was a species of Government through the Opposition. Everything came from the Opposition, and there was no responsible government whatever. For instance, there were three members of the Ministry, including the Chief Secretary, who were continually being patted on the back by the Opposi­tion. (Mr. Berry-" The pats are rather hard ones sometimes.") Sometimes, of course, the Opposition wired in, but it waS not often. Let honorable members on the liberal side realize what tools and puppets the Chief Secretnry and Minister of Railways were making of them. If they did not, it would not be long before they found themselves most preciously ·sold. Let them notice, for instance, how the Minister of Railways had corne out of his shell on the question of assisted immigration, and the benefits derivable from it. When he (Mr. Smit.h) brought' up the subject, before the Christmas re­cess, how did the Government treat it ? They repudiated the whole idea from end to end. Now, however, the Minister of Railways talked outside the House of im­migration to a certain extent being a very good thing. It must be admitted that the Chief Secretary was so far true to his principles that, when a proposition was made, while he was in Sydney, that the three colonies should combine to cheapen the passage from England, he said his views were against such a plan. How­ever, he (Mr. Smith) differed from him, for he thought the class of immigrants who could pay say £7 for their pas­sage from home would almost always be industrious and thrifty men, whom it would be very good to have here. But it was curious how the Minister of Railways was patted on the back for what

Railway Department. [FEBRUARY 22.J Exercise of Patronage. 1501

he said by the late Premier, the late At­torney-General, and the honorable mem­ber for Sandhurst (Mr. Burrowes). Indeed the honorable members in the Ministerial corner who declined to vote with him (Mr. Smith) on a certain recent occasion would do well to watch t.he clever way in which the Minister of Railways was advertising hirnself. That honorable member was acute enough, and knew perfectly well what he was about. He saw rats leaving the rotten ship, and so he made a bid to the other side by going. in for virtue and purity. What, however, did he do the other day, when a fellow Minister pressed him to find a particular person employment in the Railway department? Did he com­ply with the request? Oh! no; he was too virtuous for anything of the kind. But his colleague was even more astute, for he ndvised the applicant for employment to put his name on the Castlemaine roll, nnd then go to the Minister of Railways in the new character of one of his full­fledged supporters. The tnan did so, assured the Minister that he had always stuck to him like a leech, and of course was soon told that he was "down for an appointment." And now to look at the political aRpect of this new ar­rangement in the RaHway department. What wonld be the outcome of it? Sup­posing the patronage of the department to be really and truly handed over to its permanent head; what then? Mr. Els­don Was undoubtedly an honorable mau­there was no man more worthy of esteem -but when he found. himself subjected to the pressure formerly brought to bear upon his political chie~ what must he think? That was the point at which the door of corruption· became open. It would be impossible for him to avoid saying to himself-" The more I do for Members of Parliament the more power I shall have, and the more will they stand by me if ever I get into trouble." But ,,,ho would be the real Minister of Railways then? Was it not most unfair to place the En­gineer-in-Chief in any snch position? Again, it was all very well for the Minis­ter of Railways to give up patronage when there were no more men from Castle­maine to bestow it upon, but why did· he enter into the thing singly? Did he consult his colleagues before he took the step, or did he act upon his own respon­sibility? If he went npon his own hook, he did what seemed to be a sneak ing political action in order to cnrry favour

2ND SES. 1880.-5 M

with the Opposition. No doubt, however, there were others who would do the same but for one little thing, namely, the Reform League, and the whip its presi­dent, the honorable member for Ripon, held over them. Honorable member all round on the Ministerial benches knew what that whip was. Was it not held over him (Mr. Smith) because, having the courage of his opinions, he tried to bring the Government to their duty? And what was the. effect of the action he took? 'Vas it not that the country was, after all, going to get reform? But it was a cowardly, blackguardly, and ruffianly political trick .to send men to a

. meeting against him in his own district. Not that he cared a snap of the finger for t.he Reform League. He held his position above the Leagne, whom he had never once asked for a favour. He could never forget that, after all, the honorable mem­ber for Ripon practically supported in the House the course he (Mr. Smith) took with respect to his want of confidence motion. To come back to the Minister of Railways. What did he do in the case· of Newman, the engine-driver con­cerned in the Beaufort accident? Did he not first deal with the man by means of a special board, and then, having got his own evidence out of him, order him to be prosecuted in open court? (Mr. Patter­son-" There is a motion on the subject on the notice-paper.") Then he would drop further allusion to the affair for the present. It was all very well for the Minister to try and get out of the bother of continually ma,king appointments, but to shove the business on the working head of his department was not the right course. He would take udvantage of the motion for adjournment to draw the atten­tion of the Chief Secretary to the neces­sity of passing the Bill based on the report of the select committee on diseases in stock as quickly as possible. He had l'ecei ved several letters from owners of stock complaining of the delay in dealing with the matter. He trusted the delay was not attributable to the articles which had appeared in the Argus on the select committee's report, because those articles were full of ignorance and misrepresenta­tion. For example, the Argus represented the committee as reporting in favour of compulsory inoculation over the whole colony, whereas they did no such thing, but merely recommended that there should be compulsory inoculation in a district

J502 llaiiway Department. t~SSEMBLY.J . -

Exe'J'cise of Pat1'onage.

where the disease was known to exist. Again, the Argus, in an article on the 23rd December, 1880, condemned inoculation as useless, while a few weeks afterwards -no doubt having received letters of re­monstrance in the meantime from owners of stock-it stated in another article that inoculation was known to be a preventive " not only by the authorities but by the humblest cow-keeper in the colony." He thought no weight could be given to t~e views of a jOlll'l1al which, within a few weeks, uttered such contradictory opinions on a subject. Another reason for urgency in legislu,tion was the existence of the disease known ,us tuberculosis amoug stock. This was perhaps the worst of all diseases in stock, because it communi­cateu itself to all animals-bipeds as well as quadrupeds. A member of the Upper House bau informed him that a number of pigs which, had eaten cattle slaughtered on account of this disease all dieu from the same complaint, and there was little doubt tLat it might be communicated even to the human subject. He (Mr. Smith) begged to produce a specimen of the disease, from which honorable members would see its malignant cha.racter. He also desired to know from the Chief Sec­retary what course was taken by the Intercolonial Conference with regard to united action by the different colonies as to diseases in stock? The report of the select committee recommended such action, and he understood that Mr. More­head, one of the Queensland representa­tives, brought the matter before the conference. He further desired to ask the Minister of Public, Works what had been done by the board which had been appointed to inquire as to the cause of the offensive and injurious state of the Yan Yean water? It was a dire necessity that the public should be prevented from being poisoned by drinking that filthy com­pound. He was certain that the stench from the water was caused by animal matter; and, if so, the presence of snch matter was a great deal worse than if it were simply vegetable matter. He hoped no further delay would occur in dealing with this question, which was of vital importance to the health of the Melbourne public. .

Mr. FISHER stated that tho patron­age question, as it had been brought before the House, appeared to him to be outside the province of the Assembly. A sound constitutional writer had laid down

the principle that questions of the admin­istration of departments ought not to be dealt" with by popular assemblies. The writer went so far as to say that, if ques­tions of departmental management were dealt with even by such an assembly as the House of Commons, the result would be the greatest possible mismanagement. His (Mr. Fisher's) view was that, if there were any specific instances of improper exercise of patronage or of mismttnage­ment which could be addllced, it was quite right to bring them before the House, and the ;\>Iinister would have to answer them; bnt he submitted that discussions such as had arisen that afternoon were outside tbe business of the Assembly. Ql1o!:!tions of public policy wore the questions that ::lhould bo dealt with by the Honse, and not matters of dep~Ll·tmental management, the frequent discussion of which would' soon derogate the functions of the As­sembly to those of a parish vestry.

Mr. PATTERSON observed that he understood it was the general feeling of the House that political influence should, as far as possible, be kept out of appoint­ments to the public departments, but there seemed to he a snspicion that the system he had adopted might not be fairly exer­cised-that there might be back .. door in­flnence used. He did not think, however, that any :Minister would dare to state publicly that he had handed his patronage over to the permanent head of his depart­ment, and then proceed to, exercise pa­tronage in an underhand manner. No Minister who ventured to act in that man­ner could occupy his position for a day. When he (Mr. Patterson) had the patron­age of the Railway department, he found it a most difficult thing to handle, and he now found it a very difficult thing to get l'id of, but, 'at the same time, he was per­fectly clear that, as far as the public were concerned, they did not desire the time of their representatives to be taken up in trotting to the Rail way department to ask for appointments in the public service. It would take the Minister of Railways from morning to night to answer all the applications received for appointments, and there was not the time to spare for that purpose. There was a great deal of public work to be gone on with -the surveys of new railways and the letting of the contracts for their con­structiori-and the Minister must have time to deal with these important matters. He thoroughly agreed with the honorable

Railway Depifrtment. [PEBRUARY 22.J Exercise oj Pah'onage. i503

member for Mandurang (Mr. Fishor) that if some bad [Lppointment uncler the now system could be pointed to it should be brought before the House, and he (Mr. Pn,tterson) would be responsible. Mr.

. Elsdon exercised the patrona,ge of the Hobson's Bay Railway with great judg­ment. No complaint was ever made about him then; on the contrary, he received praise from all quarters; and 'vhy should any objection be raised to him being clothed with the same authority at Spencer-street? Honorable members should at least allow the new system to go on and see how it would work. Certainly he would be most unwilling to resume the patronage he had handed over. Moreoyer, he Vi'ould point out, in answer to honorable members who had referred to other departments, that the Railway department was in an entirely dif­Jerent position from the other depal'tments, because there was scarcely ~Ll1y patronage in any of t,he other departments. This was 110t the first time he had taken action in the matter of patronage. When' he was nt the head of the Post-office, he plainly laiu down the principle that no political influence should deprive a man of the promotion to which he was entitled, and for that action he had received his reward from the men themselves. Of course the system he had adopted at the Railway depfirtment could not be expected to be perfect at first, but it would be made more perfect if honorable members would only render him their assistance in carrying it out by getting rid of the most unpleasant part of their public duties-namely, of listening to their supporters who pleaded that, because they gave them a certain support at the elections, they were entitled to be paid for it in the shape of an appoint­ment under the State. That was a rotten state of things, no matter by which party it was indulged in. It was the system of thrusting so many persons on the public service in that manner which rendered Black Wednesday necessary, and if hon­orable members wished to prevent the re­currence of large dismissals in the future they should allow men to be appointed only when the'y were wanted. More men were not wanted at the Railway depart­ment at present, and he hoped the House would assist him in preventing a whole host of applicants from pressing themselves, on the department and taking up valuable pu blic time. He was glad to see that the general feeling of the House was in favour of assisting his efforts in that respect.

51\!2

Mr. G A UNSON remarked that the Minister of H.ailwa),s spoke of applica­tions by Members of PnrJbment on behalf of their constituents for employment in the Ra.il way depa,rtment as "the most disagreeable part of their public duties" ; but~ if it was a part of their public duty at all, the whole of this discussion had proceeded on erroneous grounds. It had been said that there should be an under­standing that members should not go to departments and ask for appointments for their constituents; but the idea of any such understanding, whether expressed or implied, was a simple abslll~dity. As long as it was the duty of a Member of Parlia­ment to speak on behalf of his constitu­ents-both collecti vely allel incli vidually­in so far as he did no wrong, it was ricli­culons to talk about any" understanding" which was contrary to tho custom of the realm. It would be only when a Member of Pa,rliamont was debarred by law from speaking on behalf of any constituent­a state of things which could never arise -that he could be considered as doing his duty in refraining from going to the vari­ous departments for that purpose. If one of his constituents desired him (Mr. Gaun­son) to get him employment in say the locomotive branch of the Railway depart­ment when there was a vacancy, and if he kI1ew the applicant would, if appointed, return the State good service for the pay­ment he received, upon 'what principle should he (Mr. Gaunson) be debarred from advocating the views and wishes of that constituent? He gave the Minister of Railways full credit for acting in what he thought to be the public interest in this matter; but there was no doubt that the Minister, in tmnsferrillg the patronage to MI'. Elsdon, had placed that gentleman in a false position. Members would now simply have to go to Mr. Elsclon-one of the paid servants of the permanent staff -with, figuratively speaking, their caps in their hauds, instead of to the Minister, and it was degrading to the office of a representative that there should be any stepping-stone between him and the Min­ister, who himself was merely a repre­sentative and nothing more. He· sub­mitted that there was no foundation, either in logic or fact, for the assertion that Members of Parliament had no right to go to the various departments and speak on behalf of their constituents; and in support of his view he could quote the example of one of Enghmd's greatest

1504 Rait-way iJepaNment. [ASSEMBLY.] Exercise of Pllirtmage.

political philosophers and statesmen­Edmund Burke. When speaking at Bris­tol, Burke, a man of the most irre­proachable character, iu replying to the objection that he had not visited the town since he was last elected by it or personally canvassed the wants of the electors, said-

"My canvass of you W:1S not on the 'change, nor in the county meetings, nor in the clubs of this city. It was in the House of Commons, it was at the Custom-house, it was at the Council, it was at the Treasury, it was at the Admiralty. 1 canvassed you through your affairs, and not your persons. I was not only your representa­tive as a body-I was the agent, the solicitor, of individuals. I ran about wherever your affairs would call mc, :1nd in acting for you I often appeared rather :1S a ship-broker than :1S :1 Member of Parliament. There was nothing too laborious or too low for me to undertake."

When the great Edmund Burke considered it his duty to act in that mauner, it was

. cer~ainly putting on mock modesty which did not suit them for members of the Victorian Assembly to pretend that they shonld not go to the public departments. Although, no doubt, such attention to the wants of their constituents seriously inter· fered with the time which honorable mem­bers could devote to the study of political questions, the system was inseparable from the political machine; and, whilst they occupied the high and honorable position of representatives, and received the pay attached to the office, they must also accept the Ii ttle incon veniences that were . also connected witJ:t the position.

Mr. COOPER observed that the honor­able member for Ararat had argued that, . because the great Edmund Burke did not consider it beneath his dignity as a mem­ber of the English Parliament to go to various departments on behalf of his con­stituents, it followed that Members of Parliament in this colony ought to become mer'e agents for their constituents in trying to get billets for them. The hon­OI'able member, bo·wever, bad overlooked the fact that at the time of Burke the principle of competitive examinations had not been adopted in England, and that at that period political and party influence operated in all appointments. (Mr. Gaun­son-" Would you establish competitive examinations. for working men?") He hardly thought the honorable member troubled himself much in going to the departments to get employment for a man at breaking stones, or at pick and shovel work. The honorable member's game was a little higher than that, and he did not

trouble himself greatly about the men who carried swags on their backs. This colony, however, professed to be a democratic community, and the principle of a demo­craticcountry was that oue man was as good as another-that there should be a fair field and no favour for all. How was that principle to be carried out if the rich man could obtain a billet for his son by button-holing a Member of Parliament, while the poor man could get no one to speak for him? The principle that should obtain ina real democratic community was that every man should be dealt with on his merits, and, instead of reverting to the old practice of England in the time of Edmuud Burke-a period when the grossest jobs were perpetrated-it would be much better for the colony to follow the more enlightened modern practice of the mother country, and to let competitive examinations be the test of admission to the public service. He thought the Minister of Railways was to be com­mended rather than censured for the course he had adopted. He (Mr. Cooper) must take exception to the remarks of some honorable members who seemed to imply that, because the Minister had been complimented from the opposition side of the House, he wa.s therefore in collusion with those honorable members in con­cocting some deep and dark design to overthrow the Ministry. Surely honor­able members had not so far degenerated as to decline to approve of any wise prin­ciple simply because it was introduced by an opponent. For his part, he con· gratulated the Minister of Railways on the course he had taken, and he only hoped every honorable member on the Treasury bench would adopt a similar plan. If the Ministry did that, and also laid before the House every month a list of the appointments made in the public service, some guarantee would be afforded that the departments were efficiently mn.nned and officered. As to Mr. Elsdon, he believed that gentleman was about the best man to whom the Minister of Rail­ways could have intrusted the patronage of the department, because he was a hard­headed man of large experience, and emi­nently suited to fulfil the peculiar duties which devolved upon him. .

Sir J. O'SHANASSY stated that he did not quite understand what action the Minister of Railways had taken in this matter, and the subject could not be pro­pedy considered in the absence of full

Railway Department. [FEBRUARY 22.J Exe1'cise of Pat1'onage. 1505

information, He wished to know whether the Minister had handed over all appoint­ments in the Railway department-in­cluding those of clerks, book-keepers, &c. -to Mr. Elsdon, and not merely appoint­ments in the branch under the charge of the Engineer-in-Chief? He (Sir J. O'Shanassy) had a very high opinion of Mr. Elsdon's ability in his own particular profession, but he did not know that Mr. Elsdon professed to have the qualification for employing all classes of men engaged in the various branches of the Railway department. In the discussion which had arisen, however, on the general question of patronage, there was one important con­sideration which honorable members ap­peared to have wholly overlooked. The constrllction and maintenance of railways by the Stat.e was a purely commercial enterprise, and to say that patronage in the Railway department should be on the same footing as in other departments was a confusion of ideas. The Government having eutered on a commercial entel'­prise in this country, in order to prosecute it successfully it must be carried out on commercial principles. As one of those who floated the first railway loan for the colony, he had always been of opinion­and he believed the public mind would come round to the same view-that as soon as the Government could divest themselves of the management of the railways, and hand them over to be con­ducted on purely commercial principles, not only would the railways be better managed, but a better retul'll would be

. received from the capital invested in them, while at the same time the Assem­bly would be freed from discussions of the present character. Owing to the special circumstances of the Australian colonies, the Governments of the various colonies had had cast upon them the peculiar func­tion of railway construction, but he noticed tlutt tfiere were indications that there was to be a limit to that system. Queensland was now adopt.ing the pIau of giving grants of land to induce capitalists to construct railways in that colony. The solution of the problem of railway rr:anagement did not lie. in the Minister merely handing over his patr.onage to the Engineer-in­Chief. What guarantee was there that this would remove· political influence from appointments in the department? How would Mr. Elsdon, a mere Govern­ment employe, be able to withstand fL

large number of Members of Parliament

desiring to influence him in favour of ap­plications from their constituents? There was no doubt that Mr. Elsdon would be placed in a false position in the matter, whether he refused or granted such appli­cations. If he granted them, and his condllct in some other respect came under the discussion of the House, the members who received the favours would be in­clined, as a quid P1'O quo, to support him, whereas, on the other hand, if he refused them, members would naturnlly be some­what biafled against him. The Minister, he thought, had therefore adopted a very superficial mode of dealing with the ques­tion, and its only true solution w1ts to plaee the Railway department under com­mercial mana.gement ns soon as possible.

Mr. RICHARDSON remarked that in the Argus of the previous day the state­ment made, the other night, by his honor­able colleague in the representation of Creswick (Mr. Wheeler) that he (Mr. Richardson) was t.he owner of 100 acres of land ill the Blll1al'ook forest was re­peated, ana he was called upon by that newspaper to vindicate his reputation. He had already said that he was not the owner of the land in question, but only the mortga.gee, and he had now simply to repeat tlHLt statement. Another charge made was that he had something to do with 60 or 70 acres of adjoining land. That land was granted to the holder in January, 1880, under the Amending Land Act 1878, which provided for the issue of a licence for six years, so that it was im­possible the land could be dealt with for fi ve years to corne. He would be glad to show the papers relat.ing to the matter to any honorable member who desired to see them.

Mr. ZOX asked the Minister of Lands how it was that his name appeared on the register as the owner of the 100 acres?

Mr. RICHARDSON said, if the honor­able member examined the register for himself, he wonld see that he (Mr. Richard­son) only held an ordinary security as a mortgngee·. It was true that the entry stated in t.he Argus appeared upon the register, hut if the person who made the search had gone a little further he would have Reen that there waR a further contract, on his (Mr. Richardson's) part, to release the land upon payment of the amount lent. He was told that the ordinary course iu registering a mortgage had been followed. The matter was left in the hands of his solicitor, Mr. Cuthbert, and if thG Ar[Ju$

1506 Lands Department. [ASSEMBLY.] lIfr. D. H. Weir.

or any honorable member desired any fur­ther illforma,tion they wore at liberty to apply to that gentleman for it.

Mr. vVHEELER said he was quite willing to accept the explanation. He never accused the Minister of Lands of having done anything wrong. He would remind the Honse of the circumstances under which he first mentioned that the honorable gentleman possessed some land in the Bnllarook forest. In addressing a deputation, the Minister referred to the fact that he (Mr. Wheeler) ltad secured land in the forest, and he (Mr. Wheeler) stated in the House that, if it was a crime for him to hold land in tho forest, the Minis'tor himself was also guilty of the same crime. As to' the 60 or 70 acres, he never said that the honorable gentle­man had anything to do with getting it, but t,hat his tenant secured it. The state­ment as to the 100 acres was based on the register, where 99a. 31'. 35p. of land appeared in the name of Richard Rich~rd­SOil, of Newlyn. (Mr. R.ichardson-" I have stated that there is another contract registered.") He had no desire to mis­represent the facts in any way.

Mr. RICHARDSON intimated that he would discuss the matter again, on a future occasion.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY asked the Min­ister of Railways to amnver the question he had put to him in reference to the matter of patronage.

Mr. PATTERSON stated that all appointments in the Railway department which were of a minor character, whether they were in the traffic, ]ocomot,ive, or clerical branches, were left in the hands of Mr. Elsdon; but any appointment of the va,lue of over £150 per allnum was submitted to the Cabinet for approval. At present there were no appointments of the latter kind to make. The clerical staff reqnired reducing instead of increas­ing, and any new appointments that were mado were those of boys, at lOs. or 12s. a week, who gradually worked their way up.

lVIr. BENT l'emarked that, notwith­stalllling all the explanations of tho Min­ititer of LalHli3, tho fact still remained .. hat a quantity of In,nel worth £15 an aero was to 00 distributed amongst the honorable gentleman's own followors. If the Honse liked to allow the Minister to eli viele that la,ntl amongst 11is political friends, of conrse it could do flO. With respect to the exercise of patrQl'wge in the H.ailway

department, Mr. Elsdon was a great fla,t if he had undertaken to do all the thiugs he was credited with, because no man could perform them satisfactorily. By the way, an appointment had been founu for poor Tytherleigh, who did good service for his party on one occasion. Three or four men had been turned out of the Govern­ment Printing-office to make room for Tytherleigh, who, when he had saved money enough, would doubtless try t@ enter Parliament again, and would come forward as a candidate against him (Mr. Bent) or some other member of the Oppo­sition. The honorable member for Maldon seemed to think the Minister of Railways had done a meritorious act in divesting himself of patronage, but the fact was that the Castlema,ine men were now all in the Government service, the Chief Secretary's family were all in, and Tytherleigh was provided for. Who, then, could there be left? Under the circnmstances, the Go­vernment patronage might very well be given up for a month or two.

The motion for the adjournment of the House was then put and negatived.

LANDS DEPARTMENT.

Mr. McLEAN asked the Minister of Lands if it was his intention to take any steps to give Mr. D. H. vVeil', of Newry, a title to the land received by him from the Crown in exchange for other lands surrendered by him to the Crown for road purposes in the parish of Stratford?

Mr. RICHARDSON said he regretted it was out of his power to issue a Crown grant for the land referred to.

Sir B. O'LOG HLEN asked the Minis­ter of Lands jf he was aware that any dismissed officer in the Lands oepm'tment, who attempted to enter on any business during the month covered by his month's notice to leave, was informed that he could not do so while in the pay of the dljpart­ment during such month? He under­stood that three cases of the kind h~td occurred.

1\11'. RICHARDSON stated that Mr. Walstab dosired to enter lIpon some busi­ness as a Itwd agent, but, on appearing at the Lands-office in that capacity, he was informed by the Secretary that he wns still in the pay of .the department, and could not be allo·wed to practise there as an agent. lIe (Mr. Hichardson) was not aware of any other C~tse of a similar character.

Reform Bill. [FEBRUARY 22.] Second Reading. 1507

W ARRENHEIP A.ND GORDONS RAILWAY.

Mr. JAMES (in the absence of Mr. BROPHY) asked the Minister of Railways if it was his intention to provide platform and other accommodation on the Warren­heip and Gordons Railway; and, if so, when?

Mr. PATTERSON replied that he would inquire into the matter.

GIPPSLAND RAILWAY.

Mr. MASON asked the Minister of Railways if he would take early steps to supply additional trucks for the accom­modation of persons engaged in the fire­wood and timber trade in Gippsland?

Mr. PATTERSON said additional trucks for the firewood and timber traffic would be provided as soon as the pressure of the wheat traffic was over.

GEELONG RAILWAY PIER. Mr. JOHNSTONE asked the Minister

of Railways if he would cause lamps to be erected on the railway pier at Geelong?

Mr. PATTERSON promised to comply with the request.

YAN YEAN WATER SUPPLY.

Mr. TUCKER moved-" Thnt there be laid before this House n return

showing - 1. The totnl cost of the Yan Yean water supply works. 2. The cost of manage­ment and repairs each year up to this dnte. 3. The amount of gross revenue received each year since the opening of the works. 4. The estimated net proceeds from water supply paid into the consolidated revenue each year, and the amount that such revenue would reach if invested at 4! per cent. compound interest."

Mr. W. M. CLARK seconded the motion, which was agreed to.

REFORM BILL. SECOND NIGHT'S DEBATE.

The debate on Mr. Berry's motion for the secoml reading of the Reform Bill (adjourned from February 17) was re­sumed.

Mr. FISIIER.-Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is fortunate for me that the recording angels in the gallery have not placed on record, in that famous speech-book of 1878, any utterance of mine in regard to the first Berry Reform Bill. It ll1n.y be remembered by the reaoers of Trist1'am Shandy tbat wilen Uncle Toby, the bost and kindest of men, used a very strong ejaculation, the accusing spirit flow IIp to heaven with. the oath, and tile recording

angel, as he wrote it down, dropped·a tear upon the word and blotted it out for ever. I think it must occur to several honorable members that it would be well for them·if no recording angels had taken down their past speeches on the question of reform, or if the reports of them could now be obliterated out of existence. However, I must confess that when I went before the electors of Mandurang, about twelve months ago, I made a liberal use of the famous speech-book of 1878, and I plainly put before the electors of that extensive constituency the merits of the 6th clause and the merits of the plebiscite. When I again went before my constituents, in July last, I did not shrink from telling them that the liberal part.y had departed from the 6th clause and the plebiscite, and had determined upon the scheme of reform which is embodied in the Bill now before the House. It is due to the electors of Mandurang to say that they must have approved of the change of programme, because they then returned not only myself but two other members for the purpose of carrying the present measure of reform. In February, last year, they elected only one liberal. to support the plebiscite and the 6th clause, but in July last they returned three lib'erals to carry the scheme of reform embodied in the present measure. I feel assured that the second reading of the Bill will be passed, and I trust that eventually -possibly with some ehanges-the mea­sure will become law. On Thursday even­ing, the present leader of the Opposition, whom I will take the opportunity of con­gratulating on his newly-acquired dignity, stated that the Assembly seemed to be treating the Council with disrespect in ini· tiating a Bill for the reform of that Cham· bel', instead of dealing with the particular measure which the Upper House has passed for the reform of its own constitu­tion. I join issue with the leader of the Opposition on that point. I submit that, under the Constitution Act, the Assembly has legally a right to initia,te any measure for effecting a reform of the Upper I-lonse, and I considel' that it is acting with por­fect propriety by doing so in this instance. I do not sec how we are treating the Upper House with any disrespect by taking this course. As I understand the leader of the Opposition, he contends that we ought to deal with ihe measure which has been sent to uS from the Council,

I make sneh amendments in it as we desire, and then return it to tho Upper House,

1508 , Reform Bill. [ ASSEMBLY.] Second Reading.

instead of passing our own measure. Now I say that to amend the Bill of the Upper House out of existence-as i.t must be amended to make it conform with the principles embodied in the Govern­ment measure-would be treating the Upper House with far more disrespect than by adopting the method we are now pursuing. Moreover, I think it would also be inconsistent with our own dignity to adopt any other course than the one we are now taking. I think it is incumbent upon this House firs't to carry its own measure-to show conclu­sively what changes we desire to make in the constitution of the Legislative Council -and then to send the Bill to the Upper House for the consideration of that Cham­ber. Mention has been made of a con­ference. It would be altogether beneath the dignity of this House to ask for a conference at this stage. To do so would look as if we had no confidence in our own Bill-as if we were not satisfied with it. It would be leaping before we came to the st.ile. vVhen the Bill has passed the Assembly and gone to the Council, if the Upper House asks for a conference, then, I think, this Chamber may fairly grant a conference. I do not believe very much in conferences .. Expe­rience shows that they do not often effect great results, as members enter upon them with their minds made up to a certain course, and no other. At the same time, I believe that, if the Upper House were to ask for a conference with regard to the present Reform Bill, it would be the duty of the Ministry and the Assembly to flccede to the request; and that the mem­bers appointed to take part iu the con­ference, while careful not to abandon any

, fundamental principle, ought not to obsti­nately insist on their own particular views prevailing. I do not agree with some honor­able members in deprecating all opposition to the Bill. It would be a most suspicious circumstance if the Bill were allowed to pass through the Assembly without argument. Now the question of reform comes to be considered under various aspects. I have said that the liberals, in former sessions, propounded two mechanical contrivances -the 6th clause and the plebiscite. The conservatives also, in the measure which they submittecllast session, proposed 'two mechanical contrivances-tho elimination clauses and the double dissolution clause. And with mechanical contrivances pro­posed by both sides, I say there is a good

Mr. Fisher.

prospect of securing a modified reform. However, the people declared, at one elec­tion, that they would not have the 6th clause or the plebiscite; and they declared, at another election, that they would not have the elimination clauses or the double dissolution. I would put the whole matter in the shape of an equation. I would place, on the one side, the 6th clause and the plebiscite; and, on the other, the elimination clauses and the double disso­lution. The 6th clause and the elimination clauses destroy each other. The double dissolution and the plebiscite destroy each other. Then what is left? The popularization of the Legislative Council. That is the known quantity. Honorable members in opposition proposed a certain amount of popularization of the Council. They were prepared to go for a £10 fran­chise for the voter, and to reduce the qualification of members to the possession of a £150 freehold. That was going a gl'eat way; but we on this (the Ministerial) side are prepared to go further. ,Weare pre­pared to go to the ratepayers' roll on the one hand, for the voters, and to say that there shall be no qualification for members whatever except that of being a ratepayer. I think it is only natural that members on this side should not be satisfied with the amount of popularization proposed by the other side. When I went before the electors of Mandurang in July last, I plainly submitted to them the merits of the elimination clauses and the double dissolution, and I stated clearly that, if they sent members to Parliament to sup­port those provisions, they would do their very best to make the Legisla­tive Council supreme in the affairs of the colony. By the elimination clauses, the Council would be made supreme in the matter of Mouey Bills; by the double dissolution, the Council would bo made supreme in the matter of general legislation. I also told my const.ituents what the Service Bill proposed with re­ference to the reduction of the qualifica­tion of members and electors, and I intimated that I would like to soe the qualification reduced still further. And what is it that members of the Upper House have to fear from the lowering of the qualification of members, even with the 30 electorates contemplated by this Bill in place of the few electorates which now exist? I venture to say that the expense of contesting a seat for the Legis­la,tive Council, if this Bill becomes la,w,

Reform Bill. [FEBRUAUY 22.J Second f.ligltt's Debate. 1509

will be so great as almost utterly to debar any liberal from becoming a candidate. I know of one case in which I think a liberal will have a chance under the Bill. I refer to a poor liberal, who is known to be upright and talented, and as having given his attention to constitutional sub­jects. It is just possible that one of the electorates constituted under the Bill may say to such a man-" Come forward, and we will pay your expenses." But in no other case that I can think of will it be possible for any other than the present holders of sents in the Legislative Council to. obtain a seat in the Upper House. The way in which a seat in the Legisbtive Council is now obtained reminds me very much of a "knock out" at an auction. Three or four gentlemen are candidates for a vacant seat; and what do they do? As a rule, they are all conservatives, and instead of rushing off to canvass the province, as candidates for seats in the Legislative As­sembly do, they meet qnietly at Scott's Hotel, and decide which of them shall have the seat; anfl then an arrangement is made as to which call11idate shall have t.he next vacant seat, and which the next.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-Does not the Reform Lengue do the same thing for the Assemhly?

Mr. FISHER.-The honorable member for Belfast, who knows so much of the .world, and so much of constitutional pro­cedure, shows that he is slightly ignorant of the practice of the Reform League. However, the honorable member will pardon me for informing him that, at the present moment, I do not belong to the Reform League.

Mr. FRANC1S.-They turned you out, then?

Mr. FISHER.-No. Before I became a member of this House, I always COll­

tended that members of this House ought not also to be members of the Reform League, for the reason that a Member of Parliament who is a member of the Reform League seems to h::we an undue influence which may be brought to bear against his brother members. I don't attempt to dictate to the honorable member for Ripon, the honorable member for Collingwood (Mr. Mirams), or any other honorable member as to what course he should pursne with regard to the Reform League or any other matter, but I have my own views, and I act upon them. I say that I maintained the opiuion I have expressed long before I became a member of this

House, and on the first suitable opportunity after I became a member, from the chair of the Reform League, I told that body that in all probability it would be the last occasion upon which I would ap­pear before them in any capacity until I ceased to be a Member of Parliament. Now it has been argued from the opposi­tion side of the House, first, that to pro­ceed 'with the Bill is to show disrespect to the Legislative' Council; and, secondly, that the measure will make the Council supreme over this House. But surely to make the Council supreme over this Chamber is not showing disrespect to that House. It has also been argued that to alter the Constitution so as to place the Council almost on a level with this Honse is calculated to provoke, rather than pre­vent, dead-locks, and all sorts of contests between the two Chambers. The leader of the Opposition urged that it is cal­culated to make the two Houses fight and worry each other to death like two dogs. Bnt I tnke exception' to that, simile .. If 11Iy idea of the Reform Bill be correct, it constitntes the people the nltimate rrfcree. The people will have to deal with members of the Upper Hons·e at short intervals of two years' distance only. If the people are able to bring their influence to bear on mem bel'S of the Upper House-and Mem­bers of Parliament, in either House, can be only what the people make them, neither better nor worse-1 accept the simile of the two' dogs; but I would rather compare the rnnning of t.he two Houses to that of two thorough-bred horses trained by the same trainer, owned by the same owner-the people-and drawing t.he same State coach. That is the simile which I think ·will be applicable, in the future, to the matter of legii31ation by the two Houses. During the debate, some things have been stated by honorable members on this side of the House w hieh I cannot altogether agree with. For inst.ance, the honorable member for Castle­maine (MI'. Pearson)-to whose historical learning and gre:tt literary acquirements I pay profound respect-alluded to what he called 1,800yea,rs of English history and tradition which the liberals were surren­dering. But I scarcely understand thnt historical alJusion. If I go back 1,800. years, I get to a time when Enghnd was known nothing of, and when the English were not known or dreamt of. I go back to a time when the na,tives of Brita,in

1510 Reform Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Second Reading.

were ruled by J nlius Agricola. a general of the Roman Empire-of Vespasian, of Titus, and of Domitian. I don't think we surrender anything of what took place at that remote period of time. If the honorable member meant to allude to sacrifices on the part of the libemls, it would have been competent for him to have gone back just half a century for the most illustrious example not only of self­denial but of sp.lf-sacrifice which none of us can scarcely allude to without the deepest reverence. Roman Catholic eman­cipation might indeed be called a surren­der of English history and tradition; but, if it was, it was the justest surrender that ever took place. .And if there be a sur­render of English history and tradition in the course we are now taking, so long as it is ill the interests of the people-so long as it will bring the reform agitation to a close, and thus conduce to the pros­perity of the country -let us have it. For my part, I consider that the real difficulty which has existed between the two Houses is traceable to the fact that they were never in harmony. .And why were they never in harmony? Simply for the reason that while this House has a wide electorate-while it is elected by all the ratepayers and the manhood suffrage vote-the Uppel' House is elected on a limited franchise. I believe there are only some 30,000 voters for the Upper House. Consequently the Upper House represents a class. Now, if I understand the people aright, they have determined that classes shall not rule in this colony more-that the whole people shall have a haud in the making of the law. If it be the fact that on former occasions the Council wielded only the power given them by the Constitution .Act, but wielded it influenced by class prejudices because they were elected by ollly 30,000 voters, I think the very best argument is adduced for extending the franchise for that House not only to the £10 voters, whom honorable members in opposition are willing to con­ccde the franchiso to, but to all tho rate­payers in the colony. If it is right to givo a vote to tho occupier of property rated at £ I 0 per year, why should the fi'anchise be withheld from the man who is rated at only £9 19s. pCI' year? Why should the ·distinction exist? There is not 011 the face of the earth a bettcr educated people, politically speaking, than is to be found iu Victorin.. That being so, why should not every ratepayer in the colony have a

Mr. }'ishcr.

vote for the Council ?-why should the number of voters be restricted to 30,000 ? Will anyone have the hardihood to assert that the 130,000 more men who make up the 160,000 ratepayers of the colony will not add to the weight, ,vhatever it may be, that the 30,000 may have carried before? Will not election by a portion of a constituency of 160,000 persons mean something greater for the man who is elected-the exercise of a greater amount of intemgence-than election by a portion of a constituency of 30,000? Political enfranchisement, j Ilst like travel, is an education of itself. .And, let me ask, what about the education of England in this respect? What dire results have come from the Reform .Act of 1832? Why the very men who have secured further reform in England have been conservatives. Yot they were the men who spoke about the reform of 1832 being a "leap in the dark." Experience has shown t.hat, whether it was a "leap in the dark" or not, it was a proper leap; and wo know that tho con­servative leaders in England have mado sundry leaps since. This reminds me that the present Bill has been referred to by honorable members ill opposition as a "leap in the dark." If it be, the dark­ness is not such darkness as characterized the leap which the conservatives were prepared to make in July. The darkness in which we take our leap may be the darkness of a dim twilight, but I can only compare the darkness in which the conser­vatives were for taking their leap in July to the very blackness of Ereblls. Certainly the leap which we, on the liberal side, are now making does not in vol ve any of the danger which would attend a leap from a Swiss alp or a leap into a Norwe­gia.n fiord. The leap of the conservati ves on the 14th July was a leap of' the nature described by the author whom the hOlLor­able member for Brighton loves to quote in this House as the

"Vaulting ambition,· which o'erleaps itself." The honorable member for Sandridgo has refo1'1'eo. to the absence from the Bill of any provision for an educational fmncltise as a.n important omission. Now if I thought that education or intelligence would not be reprcsented in the vote for the Coullcil I would be the last to snpport the men.­surc. Bnt I compa,rc the circnmstances of the country now with what they wcro some 25 years ago. The doctors, barri::;­tel's, n.tt.orneys, clergymen, and schoolmas­ters tlJCll in the colony-men of high

Reform Bill. [FEBRUARY 22.J Second Night's Debate. 15 Il

attainments and intelligence-Lad no fixed homes of their own, and therefore it be­came necessary to have an educational franchise. But all that has been changed. What doctor now has not a grand man­sion where he interviews his patients? "Vhy his house is part of himself.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-Did he live in the open air before?

Mr. FISI-IER.-I don't know that he did.; bnt he lived in a place where he did not pay rates, and t.herefore he was not a ratepayer. Now he lives in a place where he pays rates, and therefore the educa­tional franchise is not required. Every clergyman has his parsonage, presbytery, or manse. All t.hese are rated. Indeed I scarcely know any edllCat.ed man who, in the present condition of the country, has not some sort of house, office, or chambers for which he is rated.

Mr. FINCHAM.-But what about a bachelor vl'110 is not a householder?

Mr. FISHER. - He may keep his "bachelor's hall" and pay rates; or he may belong to a club all the members of which have votes. These gentlemen don't reqnire an educational franchise; and, under present circumstances, I say that an educational franchise in the Bill would be quite superfluous. The Opposition complain that the Ministry and their supporters have gone away from the 6th clause and the plebiscite. I admit that, for the present, we have abandoned them. But I ask my conservative friends, if they were on the Treasnry benches to-night, would they dare to bring forward a mea­sure of reform containing the elimination clauses, and providing for the don ble dis­solution? They would not. They would only bring in a Bill to popularize the Legislative Council. Indeed, the honor­ttble member for Sandridge said as much. He said they were perfectly sincere in going to the country with the elimination chwses and the double dissolution clause. I give my friends, the conservatives, the lltmost credit for being sincere. They were not at all insincere when they went to the country. They were quite as sin­cero as Rehoboam when he threatened the people of Israel with whips and scorpions. The consel'vati ves wcnt to the country with the whip of the elimination clauses, and the scorpion of the double dissolution, but the people would have none of them. The honorable member for Sandridge said further that, if the conservatives had I chosen to abandon the elimination chwses

and the double dissolution, thp,y would have carried their Bill, and been still on the Ministerial benches~ I gmnt they would. But if the conservatives had not t.honght that the time was ripe for their going to the country-if they had not thought that the passions of the people had been so worked up. by invective and vituperation, against Mr. Berry and his party, that the time had arrived for carrying an extreme measure of t.he kind-would they have gone to the country? They would not. Ho,vever, they did go, and we know with w hat result. Then what nse is there in this recriminat.ion? Why should the conservatives twit us with doing what they themselves would have done? The honorable member for Belfast has touched npon what I regard as a blot in the Bill. Dnder the measure, the members of the Upper House will go to the country ill batches of ten every tvYO years; and the honorable member for Belfast argues that it will be very difficult, by this arrange­ment, to ascertain what the opinion of the country is. I concur to a great extent in that objection; and yet I don't see how the thing is to be remedied. I may men­tion that I have an objection to the way in which the constituencies that will be created by the Bill are grouped. I find, by the 2nd schedule, that the constituencies are arranged in three groups of ten each. In the first group there are five town and five country constituencies; the second group is arranged in the same way; but in the third group I find there is only one town constituency to Hine country con­stituencies. I think the groups should be so arranged that, when the elections for any group take place, the D pper House will go, to a certain extent, to the whole colony, so that there may be a fair test of the opinion of the country generally. But I regard as a still greater difficulty the provision that when the Bill becomes law the present Legislative Council will be disbanded and sent to the country. I think that will be a very hard nut for the D pper House to crack. There is no use in shutting 0111' eyes to the difficulties which will attend the passage of the Bill. We must not suppose that it will be all smooth sailing; and therefore it is important that, before the measure comes up for third reading, every hOllomble member should use his best endeavours to ascertain in what way the Bill can be improved without any departure from the prin­ciples on which it is based. Heference

1512 Reform Bill. LASSEMBLY.] Second Reading.

lIas been made to the fact that, whereas the Bill fixes the age at which a person l)ecomes entitled to vote in the election of members of the Legislative Council at 21, the age at which a person becomes entitled to sit as a member is 30. The honorable member for Belfast has sbught to show that there is an inconsistency in this a,rrangemen t, and has argued th~t if a lllan is able to yote at 21, he is also competent to become a member at that age.·

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-I mentioned the matter to show that you had departed from t.he programme which you put before the country.

Mr. FISHER.-If we have departed from the programme, we ought to fall back upon it. It is to the programme which was submitted to the country that I desire to adhere. I see no reason why a man should have to' wait nntil he is 30 years of age to become qualified for a seat in the Upper House. Pitt, ,,,hen he first became a member of the House of Com­mons, was only 21 ; and, though I don't wish to flatter t.he young men of the colony, still it is not at all impossible that in the future there will be illust.rious young colonists who, at the age of 21 or shortly after-certainly some time before they reach the age of 30-will be well qualified to sit in the Legislative Council. Therefore, I shall not at all object to the age being changed from 30 to 21. As reganls the increase in the number of electoral provinces, I t.hink that is a mani­fest improvement.. Clearly the effect of having only a few provinces mnst be to keep the power of being elected within the hands of a small class. But by in­creasing t.he number of provinces, the better chance will there be of men of liberal opinions-such a man as the poor, upright, and talented liberal of whom I spoke earlier in my address-obtaining seats in the Council. With regard to the reform question generally, I think the country will consider not what this side of the House or the other House may have done in the past, bllt what we are prepared to do now in tho present and for the future. I think the country will not care w 11ether those who now carryon the government depart slightly from the old lines of party demarcation, provided that they are animated by a desire to give body and effect to the aspirations of the people-to make the people, and not the representatives of a limited class, supreme;

and, therefore, I believe the country will gladly accept this measure of reform. The honorable member for Boroondara says that democracy "never gives back any­thing," and may I 110t retort that con­servatism keeps back everytbing? The honorable member capped his. sentiment about democracy by a quotation from Horace -" Vestigia nulla retrorsum." Will the honorable member allow me to remind him how the words he quoted are employed in the text from ,,,,hich he took them? Is it not better to be like the lion that never looks beiJind than like the wary fox? How does the honorable member apply the simile of the wary fox? What, indeed, is the simile most applicable to the people of the colony who have made it what it is, and who keep it what it is ? Look, for example, at the cheerful way in which they submitted, the' other day, because the exigencies of the State de­manded the sacrifice, to taxation equal to £200,000 per annum, and compa,re it with the grumbliug of the richer classes over the la,nd tax, t,he annua.l amount of which is scarcely half as much.

~lr. ANDERSON.-The beer and to­bacco taxes weigh equalJy on every class of the community, whereas the land tax presses upon only a section.

Mr. FISHER.-All I say is that we on the liberal side of the House may well be proud of the people, seeing how much they are willing to bear with hardly a murmur. Then, if ·t.he great burthen of taxation falls upon the main body of' the commnnit.y-if it is the people of the country who have to pay for the adminis­tration of its affairs-I say let the people have that administration, and also the making of the laws, in their own hands. Let them have a voice in the election of not only the Lower House but the Upper House also. They deserve it because they have ,yorked well for it, and shown in a thousand ways that they are thoroughly capable of properly exercising it. I ad­mire - I almost reverence-t.he people. That indeed is the prevailing sentiment of the liberal party. Why do the conserva­tives so doubt the people? Why are they afraid to intrust them with votes for the 'C pper House? Why do they not rather look npon them as they are-a politically enfranchised and a politically educated people? It is impossible t.o find a better politically and generally educated people than that of Victoria. If that be so, then I s~ty the simile properly applicable to

Refo1'1n Eilt. [FEBRUARY 22.j Second Nigltt;s Debate. 1·113

them is. not that of the satirical Horace; employed by the satirical member for Bo­roondal'a, but rather that of the great father of verse-

'wIClavoio, il; oiJ7T'Ep 7raVTE!;' 7rOTaJlo"i, leaL 7ru(J'a (M'Aa(J'(J'a, K:al 7ra(J'aL K:pijvaL, leaL I/lpEiaTa JlaK:pa vaoV(J'L.

Mr. FR.ANCIS. - Sir, if we wanted proof that the question of reform is now pretty well worn out, we could easily find it in the empty appearance presented within these walls-by the absence of the anxious and eager faces that used, on similar occasions, to fill the strangers' gallery, as well as by the Ministerial benches being only half filled, and those on this (the opposition) side not much better off-and also in the way in which the various speakers refe1' to almost every subject under heaven but the one properly before them. The honorable member who has just addressed us talked of the way in which he was returned to the House. No douut he, and his two colleagues, were sent here by a respectable majority, but I think he would do well to recollect that an honorable member often' owes his seat not so much to the favour of his consti­tuents as to their antagonism to his opponents. The honorable member also commented on the fact that my friend, the· honorable member for Boroondara, ob­jected to a Bill of this kind not being originated in the other branch of the Legislature. But surely he will not dis­pute the general principle my honorable friend laid down, namely, that we ought by rights to be dealing with the reform we have now in view, rather in connexion with the Reform Bill sent to us from another place than with one originated here. Do we not show a spirit of very. scant courtesy when we attempt to reform the Upper House through a measure of our own, rather than by means of the Reform Bill they themselves have adopted, which we allow to lie still-born on the table, although there is not one among the provisions we are considering that might not appropriately appear as an amendment .upon the Council's proposi­tions? Surely the present Ministry ought to be the last to claim an exclusive right to. originate proposals on the subject of reform, seeing that those they now make resemble the proyisions of the Council's Reform Bill infinitely more than any pre­viously introduced by themselves. The honorable member also told us that he succeeded in obtaining his seat in this

Chamber mainly because he always ex­pressed himselfas adverse to the Assembly' merely registering the decrees of the Council. But is it not perfectly plain that if evel" we had introduced here a Bill to render the Upper House more potent than before, it is the present one? Does not the honorable member, in fact, when he states that he will support that Bill, practi­cally tell us that he is abont to deviate fi'om the policy that secured his election? As for myeelf, I admit frankly that I intended at first not to join in the. present debate, but simply to express my feelingi! by my vote, and to let that be very much influenced by the toue and effect of the' discussion. In fact, although I have given the Bill very serious consideration, I have not actually settled in my mind in what direction I will give a decisive vote upon it. It seems to me that it is so capable of being moulded into something very acceptable indeed, that I had better, before I determine respecting it, wait and see the shape it is allowed to assume in committee. I have, however, been in­duced to speak, first, by the feeling on my part that, considering the position in which I have stood, at various times, in relation to reform-the various Govern­ments proposing reform of which I have been a member-X ought not to give a silent vote on the subject; and, secondly, by the wholesale assertion, by the honor­able member for Belfast, that every Go­vernment who have hitherto attempted to deal with reform have brought forward the question as a stalking-horse-with a view to gratifying their ambition, and in­creasing their hold upon office, rather than from any great interest they themselves had in the question. But, sir, I don't think that accusation can lie against the Government of which I was the head, and which was in power from 1872 to 1874, when the honorable gentleman was a member of another Chamber. Was not the absolute necessity of adopting a mea­sure of reform that would avert dead­locks then so forced upon the attention of both Houses that it seemed impossible for. ordinary legislation to go on until it had been disposed of? Did not the Government, in 1873, specially urge the Assembly, which was then moribund, to pass as much useful legislation as the Upper House could be expected to as­sent to, in order that the succeeding Pa.rliament should' be able to devote the whole of its energies to dealing with the

15i4 Reform Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Se'cond Reading.

reasonable measure of roform which we , would introduce, and upon which we would stake our political life? With all this in view, I cannot but think that, when the honorable member asserted that no Government had ever proposed reform excopt in order to perpetuate their oflicinl existence, he said more than he intended to say.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-If the honor­able member will read the Hansard re­port of my speech, he will find that he has made a mistake-that there is nothing in what I said to justify his complaint. What I really did say I will repeat. It was to the effect that it appeared to me, from the reform legislation t.hat had been proposed to US in late years, that the public would probably come to regard the question as one belonging to trading politicians. I alluded in no way to the sincerity or other­wise of previous Governments.

Mr. FRANCIS.-I was convinced at the time the honorable member made his speech that he did not really mean that reform had never been mooted except for only party purposes; but I thought his words conveyed some statement of the kind, and I could not let it pass without a pro­test. To come back to the su bject I was dealing with before I referred to the hon­orable member, namely, the serious diffi­culty I have in making up my mind how I will vote upon the Bill, I say that although the measure has decided disadvantages, it is not without many corresponding advan­tages. Also I am bound to admit that the question of reform is one that stops the way in legislation, and therefore must be dealt with. It is for that reason, and that reason only, indeed, that we are in session at this most unusual and inconvenient period of the year. Why was the subject not disposed of before? Let the honor­able members on the Ministerial benches answer the question. Was it not because they attempted to obtain extreme reform by forcible means rather than to imitate the moderate views of this side of the House, and also of another place? At the same time, when I speak of the modera­tion of the Upper House, I am bound to be very outspoken about a certain portion of their conduct in the past. Had not this House a just right, in 1873, to feel extremely annoyed at the conduct of the Council towards the Single Electorates Bill-familiarly termed the "One-horse Constituency Bill" - which was intro­duced by the Government of which I was

the head, which in no way tonched the other Chamber or its intorosts, but which in a most abrupt way they threw out ?- ' I always regard the action the Council took then as subjecting the Constitntion of the colony to the se\7erest strain it has ever known. I do not mind adding that, in my opinion, cnrrying that Bill into law would have greatly advanced the poEtical pro­gress of the country. I held that opinion in 1873, and I hold it still. That feeling is, I may mention, one of the reasons why I regard the present proposition to cut up the 'Gpper Honse provinces into thirty such electorates with great favour. I consider a single electorate system as infi­nitely preferable to one under which con­stituencies returning two members often neutrnJize themselves by returning one member to sit on the Ministerial benches and say "Yes," and another to sit in opposition and say " No." I also consider it a merit in this Bill that it extends the Council franchise. It is a favorite plan with the liberal side to speak as though an extension of that kind was something exclusively advocated by themselves, but for them to set up such a claim is simply absurd. There is not a single honorable member on this side who has not urged an enlargement of the Coun­cil franchise. Under these circumstances, honorable members will perhaps under­stand why I find great difficulties in the way of voting against the measure, and refusing to wait and see how far it may be amended in committee to meet the real wants und suit the real requirements of the country. At the same time, I will not deny that my conviction is that the Bill goes a little too far, and proposes too sudden a change; or that I am very strongly inclined to agree with the words of Edmund Burke, quoted la.st June by the honorable mem­ber for Portland, namely -" When you introduce a new thing, you never know how it will, work, and for that reason alone you ought to be afraid of it." For instance, I regard the extension of the franchise the Ministry propose as quite too sudden a leap. We want re­form; we don't want revolution; we don't want to "shoot Niagara." Therefore, I say, let us try the tentative process, and adopt the gradual, moderate, and rational rate of advance that has placed England in her present position, and made her the envy of the civilized world. Therefore, also, while I 'would regard an extension of the franchise to a £ 10 freehold nnt! a

•

l1eJorm Bill. [:u11mRUARY 22.J Second Night's Debate. 1515

£20 leasehold as manifestly a right move, I consider that to go down at once to simply the ratepayers' roll would be a dan­gerous step. What I desire is that the I

intended extension should be accompanied by something that would act in the way of a check upon possible abuse. Are we not entitled to fear that the adoption of the ratepayers' roll as the electoral basis of the Council would encourage a practice not unknown to England, namely, the manufacture of fagot votes ? Would it not be perfectly easy, under the Bill as it stands, for any owner of property to pay rates upon individual portions of it in the names of friends upon whose votes, when election time came, he could rely? I don't say that such a practice would necessarily be followed under any circum­stances, but I assert that if the Bill be­came law in its present shape there would be nothing to prevent tactics of that kind being practised. Another excellent point in the Bill is its proposal to shorten the tenure of office in the Council to six years. I know that that proposition was also made in the Service Reform Bill, but it is none the worse on that account. I have now mentioned all the merits of the mea­sure, and explained that they constitute so many reasons why I feel compelled to pause before I register a vote in its dis­favour. Let me next state the objections which I entertain towards it. The primary one is that the Bill contains no provision for averting the dead-locks which we are all so desirous of avoiding in the future. It does not even profess to contain such a provision. On the contrary, it increases the dangers attaching to dead-locks. To put the two Houses upon something like an electoral equality would undoubtedly tend to intensify rather than alleviate any quarrel arising between them in the future. N or is there anything in the Bill to render the recurrence of a dead-lock in the least less likely than it has been during the past fifteen years. On the contrary, there is bound to be an abundance of ground for disputes and battles between the Cham­bers. Moreover, it will be well to bear in mind that we have not here what they have in England, namely, a distribution of the great offices of the State between the two Houses. That has naturally an immense effect in softening the disputes that occasionally arise between them as to privilege and precedent.

Mr. LONGMORE.-How about the L~r<ls and t.he Irish Land Bill ?

Mr~ FRANCIS.-I do not wa.nt to go into that matter now. I 'am, however, perfectly satisfied that, if the two I~ouses of Victoria had only exhibited from tHe first the spirit of mutual forbearance and moderation that is invariably displayed by the Imperial Houses, we would never have had the political conflicts that have distinguished the past 15 years of our life. I also wish to point out that under the Bill the Upper House will undoubtedly become the stronger portion-the superior branch-of the Legislature. Why will that be the case? Because it will have a longer natural life, and not Le subject to dissolution like the Assembly. Returned by an electorate comprising four-fifths of the voters of the country, it will repre­sent more than four-fifths of the power that will guide the elections for both Houses. In other words, it will represent the classes of the community who are in some degree possessors of property. Who can doubt, if the compromise of a £ to franchise is adoptell, that the electors whom the Upper House will represent will be the industrious portion of the community, and that their political influ­ence will overwhelmingly exceed that of mere idlers who sleep in gas-pipes? I say, give me 40 per cent. of the electors within the £10 ratepaying limit, and I will be bound they will have more political weight than 60 per cent. of the population as a whole, reckoned with­out any distinction whatever. There­fore not only in respect to the policy proceeding from itself, bu t also in the control it will have over the elections for both Houses, the Legislative Council will be the higher and more potent branch of the Legislature. Moreover, it is idle to sa.y that the Council will have no power pver finance, when we have felt in times past that it has not only held the power but has exercised it.

Mr. LONGMORE. - Unconstitution­ally.

Mr. FRANCIS.-Whether unconstitu­tionally or not, the power has been exer­cised to the mortification of this Honse and the temporary checking of the peace and progress of the country. Moreover, it is of no use saying that the power was exercised unconstitutionally when it is in the text of the Constitution that the Council can reject not only ordinary Money Bills but the great Money Bill­the Appropriation Bill for the year. Pos­sessing such a power, how can it be said

1516 Re/m'm Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Second Reading.

that the Council is not co-equal with this Chamber? Indeed, not only has it proved itself a co-ordinate power, but also, as the Assembly has been made to feel, a greater power, and, under the suffrage pro­posed to be conferred with so prodigal a hand in this Bill, it will be a much higher power than ever it has been in the past. I am glad to see' single electorates provided for in the Bill, but I would also like to see the other House treated with justice at the same time. It must be admitted that from time to time we, in this Cham­ber, have encroached upon the rights and privileges of the Council and have brought pressure to bear on it in order to induce it to pass legislation which it did not approve of, and which was against its instincts, and which it agreed to merely for the sake of peace and quietness. The Land Tax Act was an instance of that. While I believe in the imposition of taxation on all kinds of property-and even. admit that there is a great deal in favour of the view that the principle should be applied even more stringently to land-there can be no doubt whatever that the Land Tax Act was grossly unjust in its incidence, and that the Upper House consented to it, not on its merits, but simply to avoid a dead­lock, and the consequent disaster which would follow. Therefore I think that, conjoined with the adoption of the system of single electorates, an act of justice should be done to the other Chamber, by increasing the number of its members in some proportion to the increase which has been made in the members of this House. Such an increase would bring about a fairer and fuller, and at the same time a closer, representation, by decreasing the size of the single electorates. If, while the Assembly consists of 86 members, the number in the Council were fixed at say 40 or 43, the electoral machinery of both Chambers might be made to .work very harmoniously together, while the Upper Chamber would be made a more represen~ tative body. Some scheme might be devised, for example, by which two con­stituencies for this House might form one province for the Council-a system which might be made to greatly smooth election arrangements. This proposal, however, is something of a novelty, and I would not be disposed to press it at present, un­less I met with a considerable measure of support; bu t there are other amendments, of a more important character, which I will certainly 'wish to see introduced

Mr. Francis.

into the BiH. I maintain that to reduce the electoral franchise for the other Cham bel' to the ratepayers' roll would be . a most dangerous thing to do, unless care is tnken that the power thus given to the Council is checked by one of two things, or both-I refer to the joint sitting and the double dissolution. I have made up my mind that I will certainly vote against the third reading of the Bill, unless one or other of those checks is included in it. With the Upper House elected on such a wide basis as that pro­posed, there must be some means provided. of imposing on it equal responsibility with this House. The Council ought not to be able to sit back in their seats, with their six years of office, free from any fear of dissolution on extraordinary occasions, while the Assembly would only be elected for three years,.and would be liable to be dissolved. Therefore, at least the double dissolution should. be included in the Bill ; and I confess I would also like to see - I merely say like to see - some machinery' for a joint sitting; but, with­out one of those checks, at all events, I will not be in a position to vote for the third reading of a Bill increasing the electoral power of the Council to such an extent as this does. Indeed, before voting for the second reading, I shall be glad to have some indication from the Ministry of their intentions in this respect, as we shall then know whether the second read.ing of the Bill is only to be accepted as a means to an end-that of obtaining a settlement of the reform question by a reasonable conference with the other House. I would be very much more inclined to vote for the second reading if the Government gave an intimation of this kind, rather thau if they have made a hard and fast determination to repeat their procedure of two or three years ago, in first refusing a conference, and then appointing a con­ference committee the result of whose meeting with the committee from the other House WfiS a foregone conclusion. Of course I accept the constitutional prin­ciple that, as a rule, the majority has a right to nominate its representatives in a conference, but I would repeat now the words which I used on October 22, 1878, namely:-

" An essential element in all political matters is compromise. . . . I venture to say that the House of Commons would approach a con­ference' of this kind with a disposition, by com­promise, to bring about accord. It is the spirit of compromise which has maintained the balance

Railway [FEBRUARY 23.j Depatimenl. 1517

of the British Constitution, and makes that Constitution the admiration of the world. If we are not to approach the conference in a spirit of compromise, it is absurd for the head of the Government to propose a conference at all."

I hope yet, however, to see, if not the two Reform Bills, the whole broad ques­tion of reform submitted to a conference of the two Houses. If that course is taken in a fair spirit, I believe that, with the milder toue now prevailing and the nearer approach in feeling existing between the two Chambers, the reform question will be satisfactorily settled. There cannot be a doubt that the country has become sick of the question, and that both sides of the House wish, as the greatest desideratum, to get it out of the way. Even if the reform that is agreed to fails, it cannot produce a worse state of things than has been existing hitherto in the country being kept in a stnte of uncertainty and agitation on the subject. I am sure the reform question must be with honorable members when they go to bed and when they wake, and I believe that Ministers must have it on their chests and dream of it during the night. Even if there is no precedent for such a conference as I have suggested, at all events the question is one of sufficient importance within our own arena to justify us in establishing a precedent for our­selves.

On the motion of Mr. WRIXON, the debate was adjourned until next day.

The House adjourned at a quarter to eleven o'clock.

LEGISLATIVE ASSE1VIBLY. Wednesday, February 23, 1881.

Railway Department: Unlocked Carriages: American Car­riages: Gippsland Traffic: Lavatories, &c., in Trains­Queenscliff Railway Station-Public Instruction: Com­plaint against an Inspector: Fitzroy-street (St. Kilda) School-Conservation of State Forests and other Public ReRerves: Mr. Bowman's Motion: First Night's Debate -Reform Bill: Second Reading: Third Night's Debate.

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

RAILWAY DEPARTMENT. Mr. BOWMAN (in the absence of "Mr.

BARR) asked the Minister of Railways whether he intended to run railway car­riages on up-country lines with unlocked doors, and whether he would direct some

2ND SES. 1880.-5 N

of the American carriages to be placed on the Sandhurst line?

lVIr. PATTERSON stated that it was the intention of the department to adopt the system of unlocked doors on all the lin~s of railway as soon as it could be carried out at a reasonable cost. For tpe present, the arrangement would be limited to the suburban lines. There was no objection to the placing of American car­riages on the Sandhurst line, though he might mention "that the trial which they had had on the North-Eastern line had not been successful, travellers preferring the other carriages. "

Mr. LEVIEN inquired whether the Minister of Railways would consider the propriety of extending the Gippsland traffic to Sandridge? He referred particularly to the firewood traffic. He had received a letter from a person who had despatched firewood from Warragul to Melbourne. The cost of doing so was 32s.; but the additional expense of getting the load from Melbourne to Sandridge was 21s. 6d.

Mr. PATTERSON said the ordinary goods traffic already ran from Gippsland to Sandridge. He would make inquiries as to the expediency of including timber traffic in the arrangement, which he con­sidered highly necessary, and believed could be done if a suitable place was available as a timber depot.

Mr. GAUNSON suggested to the Min­ister of Railways the propriety, when enter­ing into contracts for the building of new carriages, of providing for lavatory and other accommodation which was needed on long journeys. Not only this accommoda­tion, but sleeping cars, were provided on the New South Wa,les railways.

Mr.P ATTERSON"stated that he would see if the conveniences referred to-which were furnished in the American carriages -could be provided in any hew carriages which were built. As to sleeping car­riages, they were not needed so much in Victoria as in New South Wales, where a rail way journey might occupy 350 miles.

" QUEENSCLIFF RAILWAY STATION.

Mr. LE VIEN asked the Minister of Railways when he hoped to be in a posi­tion to call for tenders for the erection of a railway station at Queenscliff?

Mr. PATTERSON stated that he hoped to be able to call for tenders in a week or two.

1518 Conservado1t oj LASSEM13LY.] Public Eese'l'ves.

PUBLIC INSTRUCTION. Mr. GRAVES asked the Minister of

Public Instruction if he would place in the Library the papers connected with the complaint of Mr. Baker, teacher of the Blind-creek State school (No. 1280), against the district .inspector ?

Major SMITH replied in the affirma­tive.

Mr. CARTER inquired when the new State school in Fitzroy-street, St. Kilda, would be commenced? The foundations had been in some time, but nothing further had been done.

Major SMITH observed that no funds were available. A list of schools urgently required, including that referred to by the ]lOllorable member for St. Kilda (Mr. Carter), ha.d been drawn out, and he in­tended to ask the Treasurer to transfer from the Railway Loan Account a suffi­cient sum to enable him to undertake the erection of those buildings.

CONSERVATION OF PUBLIC RESERVES.

Mr. BOWMAN moved-"That, in the opinion of this House, the

reserves gazetted for revocation and open for selection or sale shall be withdrawn for the present, and that no reserves in the future be revoked before a schedule has been submitted to Parliament setting forth the rcasons for such revocation and the sanction of this House for such revocation has been obtained."

He said - Mr. Speaker, I submit this motion in no hostile spirit to the present Minister of Lands, but for the benefit of the country at large. The various public reserves throughout the colony belong to the people, and this House is the proper custodian of the rights of the people; and I think I am not only doing my own duty, but relieving the Minister of Lands of a great difficulty, in bringing forward the motion. Whenever the Ministry are in a financial strait, they always try to raise money by the sale, wholly or in part, of public reserves. What a contrast does this conduct present to that of phil­anthropists in the old country who are frequently buying properties covered with buildings, which have to be removed, in order that the land may be presented to the people for recreative purposes! A dis­cussion, with reference to the necessity for conserving our State forests and other public reserves, took place in this House a few nights ago. According to the Minister of Lands, it was the res·ult of a

preconcerted arrangement; but I can assure the honorable gentleman that I knew nothing of any preconcerted arrange­ment, or of the dispute which it appears has arisen between him and his honorable colleague in the representation of Cres­wick (Mr. Wheeler). I was aware of the intention of the honorable member for Ba.llarat West (Mr. Fincham) to ask a qnestion on the subject, and, when the question was asked, I t.hought the Minis­ter of Lands gave an evasive reply, and in consequence I was impelled to move the adjournment of the House. The argu­ment of the Minister of Lands, that forest lanel should be alienated when dcnuded of timber, is one of the lamest I ever heard: If such land is denuded of tim bel', it is the duty of the State to fence it in for the protection of the young timber that will spring up. If forest reserves are to be alienated as fast as timber is removed, the natural result will be that no reserves will be left when all the timber is cut down. The land I now refer to is land which used to supply the timber wanted for mines at Maryborough, Majorca, and Talbot. Not only are the Government for reducing the dimensions of the State forests, but they are for depriving the cities and towns of their local reserves. The Powlett-street reserve, East Melbourne, is gazetted for sale. But the land all around that reserve was sold by the Government in 1857, with the Powlett-street reserve shown as a reserve on the plan. The people who bought that land did so in good faith that the reserve would be preserved intact. The reserve was fenced in, planted, and drained, and other improvements were made, costing a great deal of money, to adapt it for recreative purposes. I believe it is the only exercise ground available for the vohmteers on ·the north side of the Yarra. As was stated on a previous occa­sion, the public reserves are the lungs of large towns; and, if the public are de­prived of their reserves, they must go a distance from home to get fresh air. In other directions the Minister of Lands has been encroaching on the people's "rights. I find that, on Friday last, an indignation meeting was held at Inverleigh to protest against selections being allowed on the town reserves of Inverleigh, Shelford, and Teesdale. One of the speakers at that meeting (Mr. Clark, of Teesdale) made these remarks :-

" Mr. Duffy, when Minister of Lands, on the case being represented to him, gave an emphatic

Conse1'vation 0/ promise that no selection would be allo\ved on the Inverleigh reserve. The present Minister, however, had been got at, and influenced to ignore his predecessor's ruling in the interests of a few persons, but to the injury and against the wishes of the great majority of the resi­dents. United action by the people of Inver­leigh, Shelford, and Teesdale wonld have such an effect as would lead the Minister to recon­sider and reverse his decision in reference to selection on the township reserves."

Another speaker (Councillor Farrar, of Shelford) submitted the following state­ment :-

"If these selections were allowed, the injury that would be done to the present and future generations was something that the Minister of Lands had no' conception of, or he would not act as he was doing. It was for the people to pro­test against this infringement on their rights, and, if they could get no redress by appealing to the Minister, it was their duty to bring their grievance before Parliament, and compel him to listen to reason and to act justly."

I don't wish to detain the House unneces­sarily; but I desire it to be understood that I intend to press the motion to a division, in order that the House may have the opportunity of declaring that no Ministry shall have the power of interfer­ing with and selling reserves set apart for the health and convenience of the people.

Mr. BOSISTO.-Sir, I beg to second the motion, which, I think, may be viewed under two aspects-first, as a matter of local concern; and, secondly, as a matter of general or national importance. Look­ing at.the subject locally, I say it is one which, at the present moment, affects part of my own constituency, because the Minister of Lands has announced his in­tention to sell what is known as the Pow­lett-street reserve. I may mention that when people bought land around that re­serve, they took the word" reserve," as it appeared on the map, as being something of a permanent character. Under that impression they paid an extra price for the land. Now it seems that' in this case, as in many others, the reservation was really not permanent but temporary; and my constituents, in consequence, labour under a serious grievance. They consider themselves injured by the fact that the Gover.nment propose to sell, as sites for residences, a public reserve which they had been led to regard as sacred. For my part, I consider it is the duty of this House to see that public reserves are not to be regarded by the Govern­ment as pieces of land available for sale whenever there may be a deficiency in the revenue. The Powlett-street reserve

oN2

Public Reserves. 1519

has hitherto been appropriated. to volun-. teer purposes. It bas been used by the

volunteers for drill. The residents in the neighbourhood, in conjunction with the volunteers, subscribed sufficient money for t.he fencing and planting of trees in the reserve; and the place has been kept in a good condition. The corps of volunteers that make use of the ground are those of East Melbourne, Collingwood, and Hich­mond, so that the question is one which affects not merely East Melbourne but other suburbs. I am inclined to think that, if the Minister of Lands gives these facts his careful consideration, he will see the propriety of at once withdrawing the reserve from sale. The motion applies not merely to Melbourne r.eserves, hllt to reserves throughout the colony; and I sympathize with the honorable member for Mm:yborough (Mr. Bowman) in his desire that those reserves should be kept intu.ct. Year after year, the Crown has parted with quantities of land well adu.pted for forest purposes, and this course should be stopped. Matters should be so arranged that our forest reserves may be kept intact for all time. If that be not done, I venture to say that the State will be placed in the position, at some future day. of having to buy land from private individuals for forest purposes. Where­ever we find valuable timber growing, that land should be reserved for that par­ticular timber growth. If that be not done, we shall have, some time, to go out­side the colony for products which we now possess. The question' is one of vast importance to the future of the colony; but I believe that, until this House takes upon itself to decide the question, succeeding Ministries will make use of the public reserves to supply defi­ciencies in revenue utterly regardless of the ntilitarian and other purposes for which they should be maintained.

Mr. BAHH.-Sir, this question is of much more importance than may appear at first sight when viewed. in connexion with the alienation or curtailment of one particular reserve. It is something like twelve years since I sat upon a board, which included Mr. Hodgkinson and other Government officials, appointed to ascer­tain the best way of preserving timber for mining purposes. A great many of tbe recommendations of that board were car­ried out. One was the placing of a large tract of country, thickly timbered, in the neighbourhood. of Maryborough, under the

1.120 Conservation of CASSltMBtY.] Public Reserves.

52nd section of the Land Act, so that the cutting of small timber was prohibited; another was the gazetting of a series of reserves for the sake of the timber they yielded for mining purposes. Honorable members must be aware that unless timber is available at a reasonable rate, mining ca.nnot go on-the capital invested in it becomes unproductive, and labour drifts away to other districts. I know a number of. mines which would have been remu­nerative, though not rich, that have had to be stopped because of reserves being dennded of timber. Formerly the timber required in my district was obtained from Dunolly; more recently it has had to be sought for further away; and now a por­tion comes fr<?m Bealiba, but the greater part is brought from Bullarook. The question for honorable members to con­sider is whether we are to grow our own timber, or whet.her we are to adopt the idea of the Minister of Lands, and send to Gippsland for it.

Mr. RICHARDSON. - I never said that.

Mr. BARR.-I understood the honor­able gentleman to say, on a previous occasion, that timber could be procured from Gippsland; but I may inform him that miners cannot afford to pay the car­riage of timber from Gippsland. It is dear enough to get timber from Bullarook, because that timber has to be brought to Maryborough by way of Malmsbury or Woodend. It appears that reserves which were intended originally to be permanent have become temporary, and they have been curtailed, one way or another, to such an extent that many of them are now very much less than one-half the size they were. I submit that the forest lands should be not only permanently reserved, but per­manently fenced. The superintendence which the Lands department has exercised over the forests has been more in name than anything else. There has been a forest ranger appointed to a di"strict as large as a country electomte returning two members to Parliament, and it has been utterly impossiLle for him to exercise proper supervision over the cutting of timber within the whole of that area. I have made reports, over and over again, to the Lands department, as to the wholesale slaughter of young trees-trees from 4 to 6' inches in diameter-which have been cut down in t.he same way as corn. Why, with a rensonable amount of protection, all that young timber might have been

saved, and the difficulty we have now to contend with might have been avoided. The sticks have been taken away to serve as pales for fences;. but, if they had been allowed to grow, in the course of a year or two they would have become valuable props for mining purposes. I think the motion now before the House is one which the Minister of Lands might very well accept in a friendly spirit. I consider that the adoption of such a motion would be an assistance to the honorable gen­tleman. It would enable him to say, whenever application is made for the cur­tailment of a timber reserve-" The House must be consulted, and plenty of publicity must be gi"ven to the application, so that opportunit.y may be afforded for the lodging of any reasonable objection ~o the proceeding." I am very much afraId that many slices of land have been taken away from public reserves in a manner that would scarcely bear the light. I don't mean to blame the present Minister of Lands or any previous Minister, but I know the immense amount of representa­tion, and sometimes very improper repre­sentation, which takes place.

Mr. JAMES. - Is that your expe­rience?

Mr. BARR.-It is. I have found it necessary, before submitting stat.ements which have been made to me to the Minister of Lands, to test their accuracy. Seeing that Members of Parliament have to depend upon the good faith of theil­informants-that they" cannot always in­vestigate for themselves the representa­tions made by constituents-it is not at all surprising that public reserves should have been subjected by successive Minis­ters of Lands to considerable reduction. I support the motion,' not in any party spirit, nor from any desire to embarrass the Minister of Lands, but really with the view of strengthening his hands.

Mr. FlSHER.-l think it is incumbent upon me to take up a position antagonistic to this motion. I am as fully alive as any honorable member can be to the necessity for maintaining the public reserves, but I consider that the mode in which the ques­tion has been brought before the House is very objectionable. The motion as it stands, in fact, involves two affirmations. The first is-

"That, in the opinion of this House, the reserves gazetteu. for revocation, and open for selection or sale, shall be withdrawn for the present."

Conservation of [FEBRUARY 23.] Public Reserves. 1521

I admit that that is distinctly a matter with which the House is perfectly com­petent to deal. If the Minister of Lands has been throwing open reserves which, in t.he opinion of the House, ought to be maintained inviolate, the subject is a very proper one for the House to express an opinion upon. If there has been any flagrant and wanton alienation of what may be called public property, it would be a very proper thing for the House to take the matter into consideration, and, if the charge were proved, to pass a vote of want of confidence in the Ministry for their action. But I apprehend the second part of the motion refers to something with which this House would be very loath to deal. I t sa ys-

" And that no reserves in the future be 1'e­voked before It schedule bas been submitted to Parliament sett.ing forth the reasons for such revocation, and the sanction of this House for such revocation has been obtained."

What is the meaning of that but practi­cally that this House is to take into its hands the administration of the Lands department? (Cries of "No.") With all respect for the opinion of honorable mem­bers on both sides of the House who say "N 0," r submit that for this House to say to the Minister of Lands-" You are not to throw open any reserves in future unless· you first bring down a schedule and ob­·tain the assent of the House thereto" would be for it to take a course altogether away from the usages of parliamentary government. What is parliamentary go­vernment? Is it not that a majority of the House, agreeing on certain qnestions of public policy, intrust a select body, who are called the Ministry, with the dis­charge of certain fnnctions-among others, the administration of the public depart­ments? If in any department there has been any maladministration, it is perfectly competent for the House to call upon the Minister concerned to explain the cOUrse he has been taking. If he has been pur­suing a wrong course, it is perfectly open to the House to express an opinion to that effect; and then it is for the Government, as a whole, to elect whether they will staud by that Minister or go on without him. But for the House to take into its own hands the administration of a depart­ment is, I submit, a departure from the true method of parliamentary government. If a Minister of Lands is not to be allowed to pursue a particular course with regard to the lj.dm~nistr~t~p~ qf his department

without coming to the House to obtain its sanction for each particular act, it· seems to me that his functions as a Minister are virtually abrogated. As I have said, I have no desire to see any encroachments made upon the public reserves. I wish, on the contrary, to see them kept intact, and not to be interfered with even in favour of selectors. At the same time, there is a proper method of dealing with the matter, and this motion-certainly the second part of it at all events-is, in my opinion, altogether at variance with the system of parliamentary government. I beg to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the motion does not, as it stands, vir­tually involve two motions, as it contains two affirmations with regard to the adop­tion of two different courses?

The SPEAKER.-I am not acquainted· with any rule preventing the motion from being put in its present form. It is also quite competent for the House, if it thinks proper, to divide it or to amend it by striking out the· latter part.

Mr. R. CLARK.-I think there are not many members on either side of the House who will endorse the proposition laid down by the honorable member for Mandurang (Mr. Fisher) that the Minister of Lands should have absolute and perfect control .over the Lands department to do just as he likes. It might as well be sug­gested that the Minister should have abso­lute control of the squatters' leases. If such a dictum were to be accepted, the Minister of Lands. might, during a recess, throw open the whole of the forest re·serves of the colony, and by that step deal a very serious blow to the mining and other industries of the country. I can hardly understand the honorable member for Mandurang supporting such a view.

Mr. FISHER.-I strongly objected to your Government abrogating the Long­more regulations.

Mr. R. CLARK.-I think we have had altogether too much government by regulation in this colony. There has been altogether too much power vested in the various Ministers of the Crown by means of regulations. I consider that it is a very dangerous thing that the re­serves of the colony should be entirely at the disposal of the Ministry of the day, whoever they may be; and I am very glad that the honorable member for Mary­borough (Mr. Bowman) has submitted this motion, because it will afford the !lonse an opportunjtr of clefl,ling with this·

1522 Conservation of [ASSEMBLY.] Public Reserves.

matter finally. vVho is in a better posi­tion to deal with such a serious question as the State forests of the colony, and to afford the Ministry of the day information on the subject, than the Parliament of the coun try? It is alleged that these reserves were thrown open to secure money, be­cause the Government are short of funds, yet who does not endorse the practical remarks of the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Bosisto) as to the abso­lute necessity of maintaining the reserves for various reasons? The honorable members for Maryborough referred to the demand for timber in the mining districts. A great muny people imagine that it is only the round kind of timber that is re­quired for mining, but I would impress on the Minister of Lands the fact that at Sand hurst mostly sawn timber is now used. It is the kind of timber that is got from this forest reserve that is now chiefly in demand, aud to injure the forest would be a serious blow to mining, not only at Sandhurst, bnt in all the various districts in the neighbourhood of the forest. What is the object of a Land Bill at all except to provide how the lands are to be dis­posed of? And yet the honorable member for Mandurang maintains that the Minister of Lauds should have complete power to do as he likes! I do not offer these remarks in auy antagonistic spirit what­ever to the Miuister of Lands, but simply with the object, which I believe we have all at heart, of promoting the interests of . the country. If tbe House, which has now the' matter brought within its con­trol, decides, in face of the facts which were stated during the discussion of last Wednesday, to allow the forest reserves­where there is now a lot of young timber coming up-to be interfered with, it will deal a severe blow to the mining industry of the colony. I trust tbe Minister of Lands, before this motion is put, will see his way to declare that he will not allow any forest lauds to be throvi'Jl open at all.

Mr. FINCHAM.-=l regret that the honorable member for Mandurang (Mr. Fisher) should have thought proper to regard this motion as in any degree a motion of want of confidence in the Go­vernment. I certainly take quite an opposite view, and consider it as baving been tabled in order to obtain an ex­pression of opinion from the House, so as to fortify the Minister of Lauds to take a stand to prevent the reserves of the colony from being alienated for any

purpose whatever without the authority of this House. That is distinctly the nature of the motion, and I certainly never heard so far-fetched an objection-even from a lawyer-as hfts been urged by the honorable member for Malldurang in op­position to it. I certainly expected that he, as one of the representatiYes of a large mining constituency, would have co­operated with other honorable members to prevent not only the timber reserves, but those included in tllQ pink areas, from being alienated from the Crown. I con­tend that it is highly undesirable, under any circumstances, to allow a single acre of land that has been reserved for a specific object to be disposed of. We know that people have, ere now, obtained valuable land for the purpose of extracting terms from miners that have proved dis­astrous to the mining interest, and have prevented a large development of mining' that would otherwise have taken place. I regret that the honorable member did not accept the motion in the friendly spirit in which it was meant, and leavo party considerations ont of the question altogether. Surely both sides of tbe House may bury their prejudices for the time being, and co-operate on such' a question as that of preventing important interests from being sacrificed. The mo­tion refers to reserves of all kinds, and r may say, as to town l'eserYes, that it is absolutely necessary to prevent one inch of the land that haR been reserved in towns from being alienated under any pretence whatever. I refer not only to the large towns, but to the small ones, which we hope will in time grow as large as Melbourne is now. With respect to the forest lands, I regret that any feel­ing should have been manifested during the discussioJl that took place on this question last week. My only desire in bringing the matter forward was to secure that the Minister of Lands should not permit a single ncre of the forest reserves to be alienated under any circumstances. Of course it is argued that because persons went on these reserves-knowing them to be reserves -and spent money in culti­vating the land, they should be allowed to obtain it. But those persons, in settling on the forest land, knew they were poaching on a reserve tbat was not open for selec­tion, and I confess I fail to see how such people can claim any rights whatever. They have actually been guilty of at­tempting to obtain land to which they

Conse1'vation of [FEBRUARY 23.J Public Reserves. 1523

had no right - beca\lse they knew the • great force in the ohjection of the. honor­land was prohibited from being devoted able member for Mandura,ng (Mr. Fisher) to any other purpose than that for which as to the form of this motion. It seems, it was reserved-and therefore it is simply on the face of it, to be a direct assumption nonsense to preach the idea that these of execut~ve duty by the House, but I men are entitled to sympathy. No doubt think that objection would be met by it is true that, as has been urged, an amendment to which I believe the many of the lands have been obtained by honorable member for Maryborough (Mr. men who occupied them under similar Bowman) is willing to agree. I beg to circumstances, but that. is no reason for move, therefore, as an amendment on the increasing the evil. We have no right motion-to sanction what has been, after all, an "That, in the opinion of this House, there attempt to obtain land 'by means of false should be no further curtailment of the public pretences, for these men mnst have known reserves till the subject is dealt with by fresh that they could have ~o right to the forest legislation." lands as long as the regulations remained I think that proposition will meet every­in force. I, on several occasions, remon- thing that is necessary until the new Land strated-I am sorry to say vainly-with Bill is before us, and in that Bill we can the honorable member for Ripon, when then, of course, insert what provisions we he was Minister of Lands, for parting please on the subject. The amendment with reserves simply for the purpose of is no interference with the Government, obtaining revenue in an emergency, and and is not in any way aimed at the Minis­I siricerely trust that such a course of tel' of Lands. It simply expresses the action will be finally put a stop to. We feeling which honorable members on both know that in all the forest reserves, when sides entertain-whether they be town or the heavy timber has been cleared off, an country members-that the curtailment of undergrowth arises, and, if the Govern- the public reserves should be put a stop ment employed a few men to thin this to. This sort of thing has been going on out, very valuable young timber would for many years past. I recollect, thirteen grow up to supply the mining industry. years ago, a valuable reserve being sold, If timber for mining is not to be had, and then we were assured that that would except at too great cost, the industry must be the last time such a thing would occur, eventually die out, and I am sure we all and that regulations would be framed to desire to avoid that result. In the Ballarat deal with the matter. Year after year, and Maryborough districts, even at pre- however, reserves are being sold, for the sent, timber of this class has to be brought sole object of gathering a few thousands a distance of 20, and even 40 miles, at to meet some immediate want, and areas very great expense. I would urge on which are emphatically the property of the Minister of Lands the desirability of the public are thus becoming lost to them. his accepting this motion in a friendly Surely a more unstatesman-like and un­spirit. If it is couched in language that business-like policy could not be pursued. is not acceptable,I am sure the honorable If we have the interests of the public at member who proposed it would have no heart, we ought to act promptly and de­objection to amend it to the extent that cisively in this matter. Honorable mem­it should affirm only that none of the bel'S representing mining constituencies reserves at present existing shall be iu have pointed out how nearly the curtail­any way (kalt with by the Minister uutil ment of the forest reserves touches the the "new Land Bill is passed into law. working miner, and, if we look at the The Honse cau then provide in that Bill reserves of the city, we find that the for regulations which will prevent any persons mainly interested iu their preser­Administration from interfering with the vation are not the capitalists, but the resorves in a manuel' injurious to the mass of the public-the poor clerk or iuterests of the colony. the artisan who has a little cottage iu a

Mr. WRIXON.-Seeing that both sides terrace, and wauts some place into which of the House are agreed as to the wisdom to send his children. These reserves are of stopping the proposed curtailment of not only of great importance, as recreation reserves, I think it would be a pity that grounds, to the people, but they are lungs we should be prevented by any technical to the city, and the question is-Are we {)bjection from giving a decision on the to allow Governments to go on, year after subject. N 0 dOlLLt~ however, there is· year, cutting away this public pr9P~rty

1524 Conservation of , [ASSEMBLY.] Public Reserves.

for the miserable mess of pottage of a few thousands for the treasury? I trust the Government will offer no opposition to the amendment.

Mr. BOWMAN.-I am willing to accept the amendment if the Government will do so.

Mr. V ALE.-Oh ! no. Mr. LAURENS.-I beg to 'second the

amendment, and I would desire to see it include not only all existing reserves, but also what are known in the Lands depart­ment as "proposed l'eserves." I hold in my hand ,a return ordered by the House at my instance on the 21st August, 1878, showing the amount derived by the Go­vernment from the sale of land at Hotbam marked as proposed reserves for public squares and gardens prior and up to 1872. }~rom that return it appears that in the small town of Hotham alone-which contains only 500 acres-various Go­vernments in the past realized from the sale of proposed reserves no less a sum than £22,770, although of that amount not a single shilling was received from the sale of any actual reserve. Honor­able membel's, therefore, will see that there is a vast difference between reserves and what are known as "proposed reserves," and, in my opinion, it would be desirable to include the latter also in this amend­ment. I happen to be personally a victim of this course of procedure, because I owned the land opposite one of those proposed reserves, and I had built my residence there in the faith that I was building opposite what would be a reserve for all time. In spite, however, of my remonstrances, the land was sold for £4,476. Four other reserves were from time to time sold subsequently, realizing respectively £1,379, £12,956, £1,716, and £2,242, and some others have been disposed of since t.he date of the return. I trl1st the amendment will be agreed to, and that it will have the effect of stopping the curtailment of public reserves which has been going on for years past.

Mr. J AMES.-I do not see my way exactly to snpport either the motion or the amendment. It seems to me that the motion would tie the hands of the Go­vernment, and it is questionable whether the Government should have their hands nbsolut'ely tied in a matter, of this kind, so that under no possible circumstances could they deal with any reserves. If that were done, the Government of the dar would, l think, be invQlved in very

considerable diffiCtllties. How is it pos­sible for this House to understand all the intricacies which may be connected with the throwing open of a portion of a re­serve in any part of the country? It may happen sometimes that a municipal council makes application to the Minister of Lands for the excision of a certain portion of a reserve. Of course, before the application is granted, the Minister, under present arrangements, takes care to become tho­roughly acquainted. with the circumstances of the case with the aid of the responsible officers of his department, but, if it is necessary for the Jpatter to be brought before this Chamber before any action can be adopted, may not endless trouble be involved ( May not the matter even resolve itself into a party question when it is brought before the House, and the ends of justice thereby be defeated? In my opinion, it is not advisable to tie up the hands of the Government as the carrying of the motion would do, and as even its adopt,ion in the form in which it is proposed to be amended might possibly do. In regard to forests, I think they are already snfficiently limited, and that it would be very injudicious to allow them to be further alienated. Indeed, I believe that where forest lands have been denuued of trees the timber should be allowed to be reproduced, and that where that cannot be done without labour fresh trees should be planted. Under all the circumstances, I would suggest that the Government would act wisely in accepting it as the opinion of the House and the will of the country that, as a general rule, all re­serves should be conserved and kept intact, and that they should act very cautiously before they allow any portion of any reserve to be alienated.

Mr. HARRIS.-I hope that the Min­ister of Lands wiiI accept the motion of the honorable member for Maryborough (MI'. Bowman), for I am quite certain that, if there is a division upon it, it will be carried. Not long since, the Govern­ment of the day sold part of t.he Albert­park, and now the present Ministry are threatening to sell a portion of a reserve in East Melbourne. It will, therefore, be for the benefit of the community for the Legislature to declare that there shall be no further alienation of any public re':' serves. In regard t.o the other portion of the subject under discussion, the proper conservation of the forests can only be ca~rie(l Otlt by the appointment of a forest

Conservation of [FEBRUARY 23.J Public Reserves. 1525

beard, fer it has been shewn that the department ef Lands and Agriculture is net cempetent to. deal with the matter. The soener a ferest beard is appeinted the better. .

Mr. WOODS.-Sir,I regard this Heuse as the preper custedia~ ef the public re­serves, and I will suppert any metien to. prevent these reserves frem being sacri­ficed. I will peint eut to. the Minister ef Lands hew, if he wants meney, be can easily raise £120,000 witheut trenching either en ferest er recreatien reserves. There are six acres ef magnificent land at the Spencer-street statien which can be dispesed ef at £20,000 an acre. This land .has been reserved fer railway pur­peses, but I am prepared to. shew that it is net enly useless fer railway purpeses, but is a censtant danger and menace to. life and preperty. The Williamstewn geeds-shed has been erected en this greund, but every geeds t.rain going to. the shed has to. cross the passenger traffic ill a mest monst.reus way. The Railway department does not want this land.

Mr. P ATTERSON.-Every inch cf it. Mr. WOODS.-Net a bit cf it. The

Minister ef Railways scarcely knews what he is talking about when he says that the department wants this land, and he must be very badly advised if he is infermed that the department requires it. By the plans and medel ef the statien improve­ments which I had the .heneur to. submit when Minister ef Railways, and which were approved ef by beth Heuses-twe Acts of Parliament being passeLl, each sanctiening the expenditure of £75,000 tewards carrying out the prepesed im­provements-this land is excised frcm the statien area. I repeat that I can shew not merely that it is net necessary fer railway purpeses, but that it is a standing danger to life and prcperty.

Mr. LONGMORE.-Mr. Speaker, the forest q uestien is ene which this Heuse eught to. carefully censider before it comes to. any reselutien upen it. I had a geed deal to. de with the matter when I was in office; and, when I attempted to censerve the ferests, I was flegged in the Heuse at. the instigation of interested parties, just as·the Minister ef Lands is being flegged new. The House ought net to. attempt, upen insufficient infermation, to. tie up the hands ef the Gevernment ef the day in dealing with ferests. A large pertien ef the Bullareek ferest has been reserved fer saw-mill cwuers, and ther hu,ve get nll

the benefit ef the timber. Seme ef them have made £20,000, £30,000, or £50,000 eut ef it; but the public have get no benefit frem it. Honerable members say­"Save the ferests," and so. say I. As much as £40, .£50, and £60 an acre has been paid fer land in the Bullareek ferest after it has been cleared, and the preduce that is grown upon it is werth the timber ten times ever: It has kept hundreds of pecple in comfert and happiness. The questien raised in cennexien with the ferests is simply a question ef trees agains.t pepulation. The ·henorable member for Maryboreugh (Mr. Barr) says that seme ef the ferests have been denuded ef yeung timber fer the purpose ef providing the selecters with rails to. fence their land. W euld net the henerable member be the first man to demand that the selecters sheuld be able to. get timber to. fence their land if any attempt was made to. prevent them? This timber weuld last frem six to. ten years for fencing, and thereby enable selecters to. keep possession ef their land. Is it not, therefore, absunl to. argue that it sheuld net be used fe]' this purposo? The henorable "member fer Ballarat West (Mr. Fincham) sta.ted tlmt Bullaroek ferest is ta.ken up' by peachers. In the same sense it may be said that Ballarat is taken np by peachers. The whole ef Bal­larat has been tak.en up by men who. went en the land when they had no. right to. it, and defied the Gevernment to. turn them eff'. What justificatien is there fer putting the ceuntry to. an enermeus ex­pense in loeking after the ferests in the special' interest of the miners? The miners are net entitled to. greater privi­leges than any other class. At the pre­sent time, there are large landed pro­prieters who. are pleughing land-300, 400, or 600. acres-which is sewn with timber seeds. In process ef time-say ten years-they will receive a mest prefitable return. It weuld pay any land-holder in the neighbeurheod ef a gold-field to. culti­vate timber. Timber is very little clearer now than it was ten yem's ago. It was stated, the other night; that I, when ~in­ister ef Lands, gave 1,000 acres ef ferest land to a saw-mill ewner, but I want the House to. understand that the saw-mill preprieter is only getting the use ef the timber until he clears the land. The Argus has also. stated that I dreve the splitters eut ef the fcrest to. make room fer the saw-mill ewner, but I teek care to previde th~t po. splitter sheuld 'be

1526 Conse'l'vation of [ ASSEMBLY.] Public Reserves.

disturbed on the 1,000 acres for which the licence was issued to the mill-owner. The splitters had a right to go all through the area; and the object of granting a licence for 1,000 acres to the saw-mill proprietor was to conserve the forest by confining him to that area, instead of allowing him to cut down timber anywhere he liked. At Echuca, some of the saw-mill owners tried to maintain a monopoly. One of them took a party of 100 axemen a distance of 25 miles, and cut down all the timber around a rival saw-mill. He did so simply to compel the proprietor of that saw-mill to keep up prices. ,I interfered, and limited the first mill­owner to an area of 1,000 acres, for which act I was flogged in the House, in the same way that' the present Minister of Lands has been flogged. At-

- tention has been drawn to, the dispute between the Andersons and Crowley and Fitzpatrick. The honorable member for Rodney (Mr. Gillies) was dealing with that case just before "I succeeded him in office. To save Crowley and Fitzpatrick from utter ruin, and to conserve the forest, a licence was issued to them to 'cut timber over 1,500 acres. A flaw was discovered in the licence, and, when it was called in for rectification, Anderson Brothers rushed the land and tried to ruin Crowley and Fitzpatrick before their amended licence could be gazetted. I refused Anderson Brothers a licence when they applied for one, until they made compensation to the men they had injured, and they kept their mill idle for six months before they would consent to comply with that condition. Honorable members ought to bear in mind, when they are asked to adopt a motion like the one now before the House, that various intricate phases of the forest ques­tion arise from time to time, in regard to which the Minister of Lands ought to have some discretionary power. There must be confidence reposed in the Minis­terial head of the Lands department. If the honorable gentleman acts wrongly, this House can turn him and his colleagues out of office. This is the pure and simple doctrine of responsible government. As to the Macedon forest, when the proprietor of the Age and a number of his frionds obtained the best of t.he land there, a.nd cut down the timber upon it without re­striction, Jlot a word was said against the sale; but immediately I attempted to dis­pose of 2,000 acres of Crown Jands, in 15 and 20 acre allotments1 to small holders,

Mr. LongrltOl'e.

an outcry was raised by the Age which was as dishonest as anything that ever appeared in that paper. With regard to the case ofW. B. Jones, whom the honor­able member for Brighton, the other night, said that I favoured--

Mr. BENT.-I did not say that the honorable member did anything for W. B. Jones, but I stated that W. R. Jones and others were the real squatters of the country. I also said that the Govern­ment gave allotments to Miller, Danks, and others on the south bank of the Yarra.

Mr. LONGMORE.-I never dealt with Mr. Jones, nor assisted him 'in any shape or form. I never said a word in his fa.vour, but simply gave an order for the land that he occupied to be sold in the same way tha,t lands held under similar circumstances were sold, except that I put a higher price upon it than on any other land in the same locality. Some honorable members say that the Government ought to fence in the forest reserves. A former Ministry incurred great expense in fencing in some Crown land uear Sandhurst, and one night the fence was cut in a hundred places. It was repaired, and again it was damaged in a similar way; and, though the matter was placed in the hands of the detectives, the offenders co.uld not be discovered. Considerable money is being expended by the Government at the present time in looking after the forest reserves, but I think it would be a mistake to enclose the reserves in the way suggested. If fenced in, more destruction might be caused to a forest in four hours on a hot-wind day than would be done in ten years by people cutting timber in it. Those who propose to fence the forests only wish the land to faU into the hands of the pastoral tenants. I say conserve the forests, but I also say let it be done in a business-like way. I hope honorable members will accept the ussurance of the Minister of Lands that he does not intend to disturb the forests in any appreciable degree. There is, I believe, more land being added to the forests at the present time than is being taken from them. It is for the interests of the country that people should be allowed to select good land wherever it can be found. I ask honorable members not to press the motion to a division, but to leave the matter of forest conservation in the hands of the Government to be dealt with by them in a business-like way. There is other important work for the Government

Reform Bill. [FEBRUARY 23.] Second Reading. 1527

to do, and it is our duty to keep them in office until they have done that work.

Mr. ANDERSON.-It is a well-known fact that the forests of the colony have for some time past been gradually passing away. The honorable member for Ripon and Hampden tells us that the area of forest lands, instead of diminishing, is being added to ; but I think it will require something more than the honorable mem­ber's eyes to see where the addition is. I do not regard the motion before the House as intended to censure the Minister of Lands. If carried, it will simply prevent the alienation of any reserves without the sanction of Parliament. It is a great injustice to sell reserves after people have been induced to pay the State a high price for laud because the reserves were shown on the map at the time that the land sale took place. Some reserves have been alienated in a very peculiar way. A curious case occurred in my own locality. A township was surveyed, and some of the allotments were sold at a pretty high figure. Subsequently it was thought that it would be au advantage to change the direction of a certain road, and in the meantime a portion of the township was used as a common. At the end of last year, a telegram was sent to the Lands department, asking whether the land used as a common would be open for selection, and a reply was received in the negative. Notwithstanding that answer, I under­stand that licences are now being pr~pared iu the department for the. alienation of this reserved land. I don't blame the Minister of Lands for this-indeed, I am sure he is sorry that the thing has occurred -but I cite the case as an instance of the injustice which may be perpetrated even against the wish of the Minister. No reserve ought to be alienated without the consent of this House, and the object of the motion is to render it necessary for that consent to be obtained in every case before a reserve can be trenched upon. As long as the power of alienating reserves remains in the hands of the Minister of :Lands for the time being, it may be used either to help his friends or to punish his foes. I trust that the motion will be carried. Whenever a good . case can be made out for interfering with any reserve, no doubt the House will give its sanction to the proposal.

MI'. FRASER.-There is not a more honorable and respectable man in the colony than Mr. McIntosb, the saw-mill

proprietor at Echuca, to whom the honor­able member for Ripon and Hampden has

. referred. He also emp'loys more labour than any other saw-mill OWller.

Mr. LONGMORE.-pid he not send his men to cut down all the timber around a saw-mill belonging to another pro­prietor?

Mr. FRASER.-He did nothing of the kind. I am surprised at the virtuous in­dignation whic~ the honorable member has assumed when I recollect his action in another case. The policy pursued by the honorable member in the Goulbnrn valley forest was very different from his policy in the neighbourhood of Echuca. On several occasions when the honorable member was Minister of Lands, I accom­panied deputations representing persons who were anxious to select land in the Goulburn valley, but he allowed the whole of the land there to be held by two or three licensees, and would not let the intending selectors take up any except at an isolated spot, where the land was not fit for settlement.

On the motion of MI'. BOWMAN, the debate was adjourned until next day.

REFORM BILL. THIRD NIGHT'S DEBATE.

The debate on Mr. Berry's motion for the second reading of the Reform Bill (adjourned from the previous day) was resumed.

Mr. WRIXON said-Mr. Speaker, in asking the attention of the House to the important question before us, I will offer no apology for addressing myself to it at length, because the present occasion seems to be the first we have had for years on which we could expect to do something practical in the way of reform legislation. Therefore, wearied as we may be with reform discussions-tired as we may be

the various proposals to am.end the Constitution that have been from time to time put before us-I think that now, when an opportmiity of really doillg some­thing is within our grasp, we should endeavour to avail ourselves of it to the ntmost, by going into the subject calmly and thoroughly, and without being fright­ened at the "damnable iteration" which is bound to attend the proceeding. Cer­tainly it would be .an extremely unfor­tunate circumstance if, after attempting to deal with reform so often and so ineffectually, we failed, when we came at

1528 Reform Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Second Reading.

Jast to do something with it, to do the right thing. We would then resemble the badly-trained athlete who, in spite of all the practice and exercises he had previously gone through, when he came to the test jump made a muddle of it. So much the more reason why, in ap­proaching the question of reform once more, we should not fail to do so with due deliberation. One thing highly favorable to our action at the present time is the circumstance that all parties are agreed that something in the way of constitu­tional reform ought to be done. The Government have brought down their Reform Bill; the leader of the Opposition has given it what I understand to be a not unfriendly reception; and we have on the table a Bill from the Council that asks, in its turn, that a definite step in a reform' direction should be taken. Under these circumstances, we naturally ask-" What are we to do?" As for my own opinion on the point, I have often expressed it, and I do not now hesitate to reiterate that it is that the true reform for us would be the constitution of a nomiuee Council. I cannot see any weight in the objection offered to that course that the Govern­ment of the day are not to be trusted to make the nomination, when I bear in mind that we are not in the least unwilling to trust them with the nomination of every officer of the State, paid or unpaid, in the country-from the judicial bench downwards. Why should we, more than any other dependency of the British Crown, set ourselves agaiust a nominee Upper House? At the same time, I acknow-' ledge that, in politics, as in any other science or business, the best thing is the best thing we can get; and I recognise that both the great parties into which the colony is divided have refused to entel'tain the nominee Council proposition. It is then, for the present., for all practical purposes, cleared out of our path. If the country will not have a nominee Council, it is of no use our debating the subject. When such a House was proposed by the liberal party, the idea was denounced by the conservatives; and it was never popular with the people. I admit I think one cause of that unpopularity is that they have too much in their minds the old nominee Legislative Council, of which the honorable member for Belfast was a member.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.---That is not ~t all the cause,

Mr. WRIXON.-I will not waste words on that point. What I wish to draw at­tention to is the fact that our having a nominee Upper House is now out of the question, and that, consequently, no alter­native is left llS but to have an elective Upper House, that is to say, either one representing a class or one representing the general public. That may be a choice of evils, but it is the only choice left to us. Then the question before us is-Which kind of Council will we have? Unques­tionably we could adopt no worse plan than that of having what we have now, a Lower I-louse elected by popular suf­frage side by side with an Upper House elected by a class. Therefore whatever change we make is bound to be an im­provement. I acquit the founders of our Constitution of having committed the fatal mistake of giviog us a Constitution of that kind. As a matter of fact, they did nothing of the sort. The Constitution they adopted was one under which the electol's of both Houses were required to possess a property qualification. That was an intelligible arrangement. But, what have we done? We have made our Lower House representative of the people as a whole, and left our Upper House representative of only a class. It is a significant fact, often overlooked, that we are the only British community in the world that have a Legislature so arranged.

Mr. R. M. SMITH.-How about South Australia? . .

Mr. WRlXON.- South Australia is the nearest approach to us, but its case is not analogous to ours. In that colony the Upper House is elected by the whole country as one constituency. Besides, the people are practically in a bucolic state. There is no great settlement-no large towns-and the community has not been tested as we have been by the fires of demo­cracy. That doubtful approach toourcaseis the only exception I know of to the rule I al~ude to, and the point is one that ought to be strictly borne in mind, because, when people wonder how it is that we have been distracted by political convulsions, that we set class against class, and have class hatreds, and that the institutions on which our good government, as in other civilized communities, is supposed to rest are occa­sionally somewhat shaken, they generally fail to look at the important fact that our Constitut.ion, as it stands, provides for class distinctions-that it starts by putting one

Reform Bill. [FEllltO AllY !23. J Tlti1,d Night's Debate. 1529

portion of t.he community into antagonism with another. What is there surprising in a people so susceptible of obvious ideas as ours learning the lesson their Constitution teaches them when it ordains that they shall rule in one Chamber of Legislation, while the other shall be controlled only by electors possessing a property qualifi­cation? Before I go further let me, for greater accuracy, recount the different British dependencies possessing constitu­tional government, in order to" show that in every instance they have avoided the falal error into which we have fallen. In the Cape Colony, the members of both "Honses are elected by the same voters. In the United States (I mention that case for the sake of extending my list of ex­amples), the general and state Legislatures have substantially the same electoral basis. In the Dominion of Canada, t.he Upper House is a nominee one. I may stop a moment here to point out" that a nominee House need not be a class House. If appointed by the whole of the people, as embodied in the Central Government, and if its members might be rich or poor, who could point a finger at them, and say that they represented only one class, or were selected because they were the possessors of a certain amount of landed property? New Zealand has a nominee U ppet House, and so have New South Wales and Queensland. In Tasmania, both Houses are elected by votes carrying a property qualification. South Australia I have already alluded to as possessing an Upper House more nearly like our own than that of any other British community; but their. example is hardly one for us, because we have yet to see whether the South Aus­tralian Constitution will bear the strain of democratic pressure to which it will doubt­less be subjected when the population of the colony is more developed. Victoria, then, is the only British community under constitutional government that possesses a class Chamber opposed to a popular one, and how has the al'ra1,1gement worked? In 1861, our Upper House represented 16,000 voters, while the Assembly repre­sented 165,000 voters. That being con­sidered too great a difference, an Act was passed extending the Council franchise. But what is the case at the present mo­ment-twenty years subsequent to the period I last referred to? 'Ve find that now-in 1881-our Legislative Council represents 32,000 voters, while the Legis­lative Assembly represents something like

200,000 voters. Then look at the circum­stances under which the biennial elections of members of Council usnally take place. Take, for example, the election of .1878, when six seats were vacated, and only two .were contested. On the rolls for the two provinces contested there were 17,512 electors, but only 7,487 of them voted, so that, allowing for minorities, only about 5,000 electors effectively expressed their opinion as to the changes the country was then passing through, while at the last general election for the Assembly no less than 119,739 persons registered their votes. I wish honorable members to glance for one moment at the necessary effect of snch an arrangement. For my­self, I don't profess to be attached to any extreme liberal or conservative views, but I regard polit.ical matters from the stand-point of one interested on behalf of good and stable government. What must unquestionably happen under a Con­stitution which allots to a Chamber re­specting the action of which only 5,000 or 6,000 electors at a time-once in two years-express an opinion, the place of a curb 01' check upon a Chamber which represents the recently expressed views of 200,000 electors? Naturally, under such circumstances, a.n antagonism is created between the two Chambers, and one is set against the other. The outcome is that, whenever an honorable member anxious, as I am, for good government goes to the country, however sound and reasonable the views he puts forward may be, he finds, if they are at all identified with the cause of the class Chamber of the colony, that he has not only to vindi­cate their intrinsic justice, but to carry the Council on his back as well. I appeal to honorable members all round the House whether they have not, as a rule, found that state of things one of their greatest obstacles. It is not in connexion with abstract political topics that election ,can­didates find themselves most embarrassed, but their chief difficulty arises from every other political question being jammed up by that arising from the class character of our Upper Honse. On the one side, they have the shrill and eager cry of class setting itself against class, and, on the other, a voice like that of many surging waters expressing the feelings and views of the general public. No arrangement more fatal to the cause of good govern­ment could possibly exist than one vesting the legislative power of the country, on

1530 llejo1'm Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Second Reading.

the one hand, in a class Chamber, and, on the other, in the people as a whole. That being so, does not our true course of reform lie in the direction of terminating the class character of the Legislative Council? It is said that if we abolish our Upper House we shall lose a valuable safeguard for good government, and against excess in legislation. The Humuer of those with whom I have conversed who enter­tain that view is utterly surprising, seeing that, as a matter of fact, the Council are nothing of the kind. They have not, for instance, during the last twenty years, been able to check, or delay, or modify any of the legislation of which those who hold the opinion I speak of usually com­plain. Can any honorable member point out a single measure of national impor­tance, upon which the people have set their hearts, which the Legislative Council have been able to modify, or even seriously delay?

Mr. LONGMORE. -There is the Mining on Private Property Bill.

Mr. WRIXON.-The example of that Bill is always cropping up. But I am surprised to find the honorable member for Ripon ready to afford a defence to the Chamber I have so often heard him attack. Why has the Mining on Private Property Bill been delayed by the Council? Be­cause the country does not care one bit about it.

Mr. BURROWES.-The mining com­munity do.

Mr. WRIXON.-If they do, it is sur­prising they have shown so little anxiety on the subject. Certainly there is no strong feeling with respect to it throughout the community as a whole. There could not be a more potent instance of what I am referring to than what took place in connexion with the Land Tax Bill. The country was excited in its favour, and con­sequently, although the Council strongly objected to it in every particular, they could neither modify nor delay it. Let the country de.termine with equal energy in favour of the Mining on Private Pro­perty Bill, and the Council would be no more able to stand in its way than a ridge of sand would be able to stem the flooding tide. Moreover, I don't think those who set a high value upon our Upper House fully realize the fact that it is utterly voiceless in all affairs of executive government. Yet, in a country like this, it is a matter of the highest im­portance that there should be some power

to modify or impede the administrati ve action of the Government of the day. Why is the Council so utterly weak in that direction? Because, uuder our Con­stitution, the executive authority of the day is concentered in the Chamber which appoints the Ministers of ·the day. So much for the value of the Council as a safeguard. A Government may corrupt the judicial bench, or demoralize the public service, or relax the administration of the laws, but our second Chamber is, under the Constitution,. impotent to interfere. J\1atters standing thus, is it not the trufl conservative policy to endeavour, by every possible means, to control the forces that govern the Chamber in which the execu­tive power is concentered? If you bri!lg control of that kind to bear, you do every­thing; if you do not, you do nothing. Our case is quite different from that of the United States, where the Executive is kept apart from either House, and it is eomparatively a matter of indifference how far one Chamber controls or delays the other. The Legislative .Assembly of Vic­toria appoints those who govern the com­munity, and who, in their turn, give tone to the community and its laws, and I might almost say to its customs and manners also. It has been said-" Let me make t.he bal­lads of a conn~ry, and I will let who will make its laws," but I will parody that by saying-" Give me the administration of a country, and I will let who will make its laws." In fact, if the affairs of a com­munity are properly administered, it mat­ters little from whence its laws are derived .

. Well, t.he administration of the affairs of this country lying in the .Assembly, the Council can no more interfere with the grossest and most corrupt acts possible on the part of that administration than can the City Corporation. Under these circum­stances, I think we may face the question of modifying the character of our second Chamber not only without dismay, but with a considerable amount of equanimity. The Council is not in any case an institu­tion absolutely essential to us, and if we modify it so as to assist and improve gene­ral legislation we shall at the same time feel that we are not doing away with any existing security to any particular extent. If that be so, we ought, I think, to be ready to accept any reform which will make the Upper House generally repre­sentative of the people. For myself, providing that end is gained, I am not for hair-splitting about the means to be

Reform Bitl. (FEBRUARY 23.] Thi1'd Night's Debate. 1531

8hlployed to gain it. We are, too, in this fortunate position that both the Govern­ment and the Opposition are not unwilling to accede to a proposition of that nature. The Government propose to extend the Council franchise to the ratepayers' 1'011-

that is what I believe in myself, because I regard the vote of the people generally as the most satisfactory-while the Oppo­sition seem to prefer the £10 limit which formed a feature of the Service Reform Bill. Well, inasmuch as I am not aware that that limit is regarded with any particular disfavour by any large section of theHouse, I think its adoption, as a compromise, would be a very fair settlement of our diffi­culty. Nobody could regard an Upper House based upon such a franchise as one l:Bpresenting a class. If we arrive at that conclusion, I do not think we shall see afterwards any insuperable obstacle iu our way, that is supposing we really wish to settle the question before us. Un­doubtedly, if we inquire into the constitu­tion of the differeut ratepaying rolls of the country, we shall find that an enor­mous majority of the ratepayers come within the £10 limit. There is indeed no substantial difference between adopting the ratepayers' roll as a whole and taking it in the restricted form suggested by the Opposition. I repeat that I would rather follow the former course, but I must con­sider that we have to conciliate another place. Under these circumstances, I say without hesitation that if we find, after a conference with the other Chamber, that adopting the £10 limit would afford a basis of agreement between the Houses, it will be unquestionably our duty to accept the compromise, and so get the reform question out of the way. It was said, last night, by the honorable member for W arrnambool that the Bill would not be acceptable, even with the £10 limit, unless it cont.ained provision for curing dead-locks in the future-that conflicts be­tween the Houses would necessarily accrue, aud that unless the Bill provided means whereby they could be brought to a termin­ation it would be an imperfect measure. It seems to me, however, that my honor­able friend has not quite sufficiently·con­sidered the whole of the surroundings of the question. In the first place, with regard to the other Chamber possibly claiming to divide financial power with this House, let me remark that, so long as we preserve the English Constitution amongst us, such a claim can never be

maintained. It is a matter not of argu­ment, nor of constitutional precedent, but of necessity. The House that has to carryon the government-the adminis­tration of affairs-must necessarily control finance. If we had the American Con­stitution, under which the Executive is outside both Houses, both might claim a share in finance; but, under a Constitution upon the English basis, any claim on the part of the Upper Chamber to exercise financial power must of necessity be futile.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-Not neces­sarily.

Mr. WRIXON.-What! would the honorable member for Belfast cut the government into two? ""Vould he make it like a man going down the river in two boats-with a leg in each boat? Shak­speare has said that, if two men ride the same horse, one must ride behind; and I assert, without hesitation, that with two Chambers of Legislation the government must rest with one or the other. By en­larging the electoral basis of the Council, and making it more representative of the people, you do not in the least mitigate the necessity that will always exist, so long as our Constitution retains its Eng­lish character, for the government being with one Chamber or the other. It has never been divided between the two Houses of the Imperial Parliament. There the government has always been concen­tered iu the House of Commons. If that were not the case, who would pay the· public creditors or enter into contracts? How could you have finance half in one House and half in the other?

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-They have something like that in France.

Mr. WRIXON.-My argument is based on our maintenance of the English system. In France, matters are managed in a totally different way. It is not now proposed to alter the English character of our Consti­tution. Considering how strongly the honorable member for Belfast has in­veighed against our adoption of foreign constitutional methods, such as the Nor­wegian scheme, I imagine he would be the last to ask us to adopt the French Constitution. Unquestionably a Govern­ment divided between the Houses would result in all kinds of maladministration, and land the country in confusion, insol­vency, and, possibly, repudiation. As long as we retain the English form of government, one House must provide for the payment of the .public creditor, and

1532 Reform Bill. [ASSEMBL Y.] Second Reading.

the means of mising money for the pur­pose. But, to return to the argument I was dealing with before the honorable member for Belfast interrupted. It is urged by the leader of the Opposition, as well as by the honorable member for vVarr­nambool, and also the honorable member for Sandridge, that under the Bill con­flicts will arise, between the Houses just as they did formerly. But, if that conten­tion be well founded, what does it imply? Surely we would then have good reason for pausing-for not going on with the Bill at all-because for us to have con­fl icts between the Houses, both being re­presentative of the public generally, would be most disastrous., Hitherto we have been able to go on but very imperfectly, owing to the fact that this House indisput­ably represents the whole people, while the other House represents only 11 few. If the other House, when representing the public I1lmost equally with this, were to engage in these conflicts, a dangerous state of things would arise; but I deny there is rel1son for supposing thl1t conflicts will follow. Let us be a little candid as to what was the origin of the contests be­tween the two Houses. I 'say those con­tests arose because combats were sought after, and matters of attack were seized, by this House-because this I-louse posi­tivelyassailed that I-louse on more than one occasion. It may be said that that House, representing merely a class-l1n oligarchy, as it has been termed-chafed and irritated this House, representing the whole public, until positive causes of I1ttack were sought out.

'Mr. LONGMORE.-The Council said they would not pass the Tariff.

Mr. WRIXON.-They may have said it; but, no one, looking back on our history, can deny that the causes of I1t­tack and controversy were selected by leaders of this House for the express purpose of reducing the other House. I think it is impossible to look back on our history and tntthfully to deny that the other House, representing merely a few­an oligarchy-presented a natural object of attack to those who led this House; and accordingly it was attacked.

Mr. GRANT. - The Council com­menced.

Mr. WRIXON.-I will first follow out my own view, and then I will deal with that of honorable members who may differ from me. According to my view, the other House, representing only a few,

was selected for attack, from time to time, for the purpose of reducing its oli- ' ga'rchical pretensions. But supposing the other view--that of the honorable mem­ber for Ripon and the honorable member for Avoca (Mr. Grant)-be correct, that the Council sought out a cause of attack, and attacked this House, I say that state of things won't exist now, because the two Houses will represent substantially the one people~ T~lere will be no induce­ment to leaders of this House to reduce the other, because that House will re­present the public as well as we do; and, for the same reason, there will be no in­ducement on the part of t.he Council to excite a quarrel. It would be as natural to expect two Houses elected by the same people to war against each other as to expect that a man would kick one of his legs with the other. The people will have their representatives in the other Honse as well as in this House, and there is no reason to suppose that the antagonism which has hitherto existed will be con­tinued. That being so, lam quite pre­pared to give my vote for the second reading of the Bill as it stands. I think the Legislative Council, constituted as the Government propose, will be infinitely bet­ter than any class Chamber; I1nd, if I can get nothing better than the Government plan, I prefer it to having no change at all. At the same time I feel bound to point out that there are some points in the Govern­ment scheme which I hope, when the Bill goes into committee, to see amended. I think the proposal to have 30 consti­tuencies for the Upper House, each returning one member, fraught with ,con­siderable danger-I think it a proposal calculated to give effect to the gloomy prognostications which more than one honorable member on the opposition side of the House has been oppressed with. What is wanted is a certain difference between the two classes of representa­tives. If the same class of men be returned to this House and to the other, there is more danger of conflict than if a different style of men be returned to the other House from what are returned to this. If the other House is merely a ditto of this House, you constitute a sort of legislative tandem which it will be diffi­cult to drive properly. Therefore, I think that without constituting any class House, wit.hout creating any class distinction, the difficulty may be obviated by the adoption, in committee, of the amendment of which

llejorm Bili. [FEBRUARY 23. ] Third N~ghis Debate. i533

I have given notice. If the constituencies for the Upper HOllse were to consist of large provinces returning a few members each, the probability is that the members of that House would be old politicians, men of large experience, who might be more safely intrusted with the powers of the Council than gentlemen who are simply duplicates of ourselves. That would be n decided improvement. The objection which I hn ve heard urged against it is that the canvassing of such large districts would be expensive, and therefore the re­present.ation would be confined to persons of property. But I, deny this, because, if the districts are made sufficiently large, an end will be put to canvassing. It will be rendered unnecessary, and par­ticularly if I can induce the House to adopt what is known as the proportional system of voting. Any public man, by an address published in the newspapers, would be able to appeal to the general sense of the constituency, and be returned without any of the expense which he would be subjected to in contesting a small electo­rate. The more the proposal is reasoned out, the more will it be found to be the true solution of the difficult.y. The ques­tion as to the re-election of Ministers representing such large constituencies can be got over by providing that a member of the Upper House should be enabled to take office without absolutely going to his constituents. The only way of keeping the Council a representative House, and preventing it from being a class House, is to have large constituencies electing members-in fact, nominating member&. A House constituted in that way will be the nearest approach to a nominee House that has been dev!sed, the public at large being the nominating power. If the whole colony could be one electorate I would be glad, but there are difficultiea in the way of carrying out that idea, owing to the pre­ponderating power which would be placed in the hands of the towns. I say I would divide the country into a few great districts, and thus obviate the expense and diffi­culties of a canvass. In this way the mem­bers of the Council would be men elected by the general voice of the public, and not the mere representati ves of districts, as we must necessarily be. Certainly I think the question is left in some difficulty if it be provided that there shall be 30 con­stituencies for the Upper House. Why the 30 members representing those COll­stituencies would have their local wants

2ND SES. 1880._5 0

and their local pressure to bear, and thus might be provided the means of possible conflict, though I do not apprehend it would aSSllme the serious proportions which some members seem to anticipate. I would be glad to see the Bill amended so as to provide that the members of the other House should be public men -national men-and, if that be done, I am perfectly willing that they should be elected by ratepayers. As to the question of property qualification, I have always held the opinion that any such qualifica­tion is an utter mistake. It seems to me that, if the electors are properly quali­fied, they should be allowed to select anyone they like. If the members are to have any qualification, I would ask whether it is wise to retain, as It

special qualification, that for a person to become a member of the other House he must be a landowner? According to the present Constitution, and according to what is proposed in the Bill sent down by the Council, a man who owns a bank, or a fleet of steam-ships, or a mine bringing in a princely revenue, is not entitled to a seat in the other House unless he is a landowner. What is the meaning of such a qualification-what common sense is there in it-unless it be intended to stamp members of the Council with a cha­racter not very popular with the masses­the character of landowners? Is there any intelligent party in any Assembly in the world that stands by such a quali­fication ? The truest conservatives in England threw it over long ago, and one reason for their doing so was that, what­ever qualification might be prescribed, persons who did not possess it would get into Parliament. But is it to be said that any great party in this country would really make a stand for a landed qualifica­tion for members of the other House? Could such a thing be consistently or usefully maintained? I think not. Cer­tainly I would be glad to see it abandoned. It appears to me that there will be little difficulty in dealing with the reform ques­tion if we only look at it in a practical way, and endeavour to come to some solution. I think the Government are entitled to have their Bill read a second time, and we should endeavour, in com­mittee, to amend the defects of the mea­sure. I shall do my best to have some of those I have pointed out amended. Then, when the Bill is sent to the Upper House, as far as my voice and vote go, I would

1.534 Reform JJiU. rASSEMBLY.] Second Reading.

above all things urge that an endeavour should be made for a conference, because I think it is in that way that we are most likely to arrive at a settlement of the reform question. In connexion with that conference, I would ask the Government not to be tied down by any technical rule that members should be nominated alto­gether from one side of this House. I ask the Government to deal with the question in a spirit above party. It is fatal to the Sllccess of reform to treat it as a party qnestion. I appeal to the Opposition as well. I have no reason to doubt that they also will deal with it as a question above party. If the conference be started by the nomination only of gen­tlemen who hold one part.icular set of ideas, I am afraid the thing will fail altogether. The ma,tter has to do not with this party or that, but with the country generally, and will have to do with the country when we have gone and left it. Therefore, I say, it ought to be dealt with in a way different from any other ques­tion, and altogether above and outside the lines of party. I urge upon the Govern­ment and this House to be ready and willing for a conference with the other House, and for its committee to be com­posed of men taken from different parts of the Chamber who will represent most truly the general opinions of the whole. I say it would be a lamentable thing if, after all the years we have been strug­gling, fighting, and arguing-now that we are so near doing something-we were to let the opportunity slip. I know there are some few persons-I don't say in this House-who are not anxious to see the matter settled. On the one hand, it is said-" The Council is our safeguard, don't touch it." On the other hand, it is whispered-" Leave the Council alone, for that is the surest flag by which, at any time hereafter, to rally popular feeling and popular excitement." I do not sup­pose, for a moment, that such a feeling actuates the honorable members I address. I am quite sure that we are more pa­triotic-that we look more to the interests of the country than to the mere transitory interests of one class. But I repeat that, if the present opportunity is allowed to slip, it may be long before such a chance of settling the difficnlty arises again. It is said that the public are sick of the question-that popular opinion about it is dead. I say that such a time is the time for settling the question most satisfactorily.

Mr. Wriol'on.

When public excitement rages, when public enthusiasm is aroused, it is almost impossible for the two antagonistic ele­ments which unfortunately are embodied in our Constitution to come together. It is only in a time of quiet that we can expect ' to get afloat the stranded ship of the Con­stitution; and, if we wait until the tem­pest again arises, we shall never get it afloat at all. Therefore I appeal to hon­orable members on all sides to unite in adopting that course which may seem the wisest in order to settle the question. If, from party feeling or to serve party pur­poses, the settlement is delayed or hin­dered, the country will judge, and we will find it impossible to acquit ourselves when we stand before the bar of public opinion.

Major SMITI-I.-Mr. Speaker, I find myself in a somewhat difficult position owing to the fact that, on a matter of public policy of such vast importance to the people of this country as the reform of the Constitution, even from members in opposition there has not been one speech which can fairly be said to be antagonistic to the Bill now under con­sideration. Indeed I find that, on almost all the main provisions of the measure, oppo­sition speakers are agreed. For my own part, I am in this very happy position that all through the contest respecting reform, as is well known to members not only of the present Ministry but of others with which I have oeen connected, I have uniformly been in favour of broadening the basis of the Legislative Council. I have believed all along that that is the best and most popular direction in which to amend the Constitution. Nevertheless, when the majority of my colleagues decided upon a different line of policy, I loyally assisted them, as far as I could, in carrying it out. I fought the question with them in this House, on the public platform, and at several general elections. At the same time, I think I shall be able to show that, in expressing the opinions I now do, I am expressing opinions formed many years ago in my own district, which has always stood in the forefront of liheralism. The most direct charge which has been made against the Ministry in this debate is that they have stolen the apparel, or rather the principles, of the present Opposition. In reply to that assertion, I have to say that, if we have done anything of the kind, we have only followed their ex­ample. Why it is well known that the main features of the Service Reform Bill

Rejo1'm Bill.

previously formed the basis of a proposal made by a gent.leman who is a member of the present Ministry, and represents it in the Upper House. That gentleman took his plan to members of the Opposition,

• and the honorable member for Maldon proposed the subs~ance of that plan, with the exception of one item, as an amend­ment on the last Berry Reform Bill. Even my honorable colleague was not alto­gether original in the matter, for I find, on diving into the archives of a former liberal association, a. programme, which was issued in my own district 15 years ago, and which em braces the outlines of the scheme which is now under our con­sideration. That programme was adopted as the platform of the liberals of Victoria at that day, and has since been Hteadily adhered to. I have the document here, antI it shows that one of the state­ments which have been frequently made with regard to the liberal party is not altogether correct. It was recently stated that the liberal victories have been barren victories, but I will show that the statement has no foundation in fact. The document I have here is the "liberal reform programme of Ballarat West and Ballarat East for 1869," and it contains II items. The 1st is secular and compul­sory education; and the 2nd is a Land Bill, the leading feature of which should be the settlement of the people. Well, we have obtained the 1st and part of the 2nd. The 3rd is a Bill to regulate mining on private property, which we have not got yet. The 4th is payment of members, which has been carried. The 5th is mining reform, including the reduction of the rent of mining leases, and that has been partially carried, because the rent of mining leases has been reduced. The 6th is a Workman's Lien Bill-and a measure of that kind was carried in this House, though it failed to pass the other Cham­ber. The 7th is protection to native industry, which has been carried. The 8th is the revision and redistribution of electoral districts, which has been adopted. The 9th is the extension of local govern­ment, including the supervision of the public charities, and that has been partially adopted. The 10th is the abolition of State aid to immigration-a principle which I commend to my friend, the Min­ister of Railways; and the II th and last, which I commend to the honorable mem­ber for Collingwood (Mr. Mirams), is the establishment of a national bank. So that,

502

'1'ilird Nigllls Debate. 1535

instead of the liberals gaining barren vic­tories, a.s many as 4 of the II proposals I have mentioned have been carried into law, while others have been partially adopted. But, notwithstanding the liberals have been able to carry so much of what they have set their hearts upon, still they want reform in order that the people may be enabled, without having the country thrown into a state of turmoil-without the bitterness attendant upon such things as two general elections within a. few months - to have their opinion, when fairly ascertained, carried into law. They want the Constitution so amended that a fair and reasonable reflex of their views may be fonnd in the Upper Chamber. The honorable member for Warrnambool, in the course of the very temperate speech which he delivered last night, stated that he agreed with three or fonr of the main principles of this Bill. He approved of the reduction of the franchise, of the reduction of the tenure of members from ten to six years, and of the single elec­torates. I am one of those who have always advocated single electorat~s for this Chamber. I was' one of those who strongly supported the honorable member for Warrnambool when he brought for­ward a Bill for creating single electorates for the Legislative Assembly. That mea­sure met with the concurrence of a large majority of the members of this Chamber; and when we are told that we ought not to interfere with the constitution of the other Chamber, those who .tell us so should recollect that the Bill providing for the election of this House by single electorates was not only interfered with, but was rejected, by· another place. On this point I must join issue with the honorable member for Portland, although I admit that honorable member treats public questions with great fairness and great consideration to all parties. That honorable gentleman seems to think that the electoral provinces for the Legislative Council should. be even larger than they are now. I have assisted, on several occasions, in contests for seats in the Upper House, and I assert that, no matter if the qualification of electors be the rate­payers' roll with manhood suffrage added, reform will have no effect in liberalizing the Council if the provinces remain as they are. The present provinces are as large as a small European kingdom­they are so large that a man of mode­rate means cannot venture on contesting

1536 Reform Bilt. [ASSEMBLY.] Second Reading.

one. Such candidates are frightened out of the field. It is impossible for any but wealthy men to contest them. The result is that, at present, members for the Legislative Council are elected ac­cording as they are nominated in the Melbourne Club, the Chamber of Com­merce, or some counting-house in Collins­street. And yet the honorable member for Portland would make the provinces larger than they are. I strongly support single electorates for the other Chamber, because I believe the arrangement would secure community of interest-the repre­sentation of all parts of the colony. I agree with the honorable member for Warr­nambool that an electorate returning two members, one of whom is on one side in politics and the other on the other, is virtually disfranchised so far as leading public questions are concerned. I would rather have a higher franchise with single electorates than enormous electorates, how­ever liberal the franchise might be. In a single electorate a man stands upon his own merits, and, once elected, he is, com­paratively speaking, master of the situa­tion. At all events, it takes a great deal to turn him out. So long as he acts fairly by his constituents, he has a reasonable grasp upon them. And when a contest arises he knows whom he has to face. But in the case of a dist.rict like that of Ballarat West, returning three members, a candidate may arise and say-" I don't want to disturb you, Major, hut I want to put out Fincham." I think that, under all the circumstances, the majority of members of this House fully realize the advantage of single electorates. The honorable mem­ber for Portland is strongly in favour of proportional representation I which means the representation of minorities; but I venture to say that minorities are repre­sented in this Chamber. Let me 1ake the case of the honorable member for East Melbourne (Mr. Zox). Will anyone say that that honorable member does not, on all material questions with the exception perhaps of one or two of an extreme character, represent the minority as well

. as the majority of his constitueuts? Take my own case. Will anyone say that after an election is over, save upon such an extreme matter as that of reform, I do not represent, to a large extent, the minority in Ballarat West? Why I am frequently introducing Ballarat conser­vatives to members of the Ministry; in fact, as a rule, so far as the accompanying

Major Smith.

of deputations is concerned, I do more for conservative friends than for liberal sup­porters. I contend that, for all pmctical purposes, minorities are represented in this House. Then again it should be recol­lected that the minority of to-day may· become-by the diffusion of its principles, and the education of public opinion through the press-the majority of to-morrow. I venture to say that all this talk about pro­porLional representation, and the getting rid of the good ancient principle that majorities should rule, does not find favour among a large number of the people of this country. In only two respects do I understand the honorable member for W nrrnambool to differ from the Bill. The honorable member disapproves of taking the ratepayers' roll as the franchise for the Upper House, because he thinks the pro­ceeding too radical altogether, and yet, at the same time, he argues that it would be the means of increasing the power of the other Chamber. I must say that I scarcely understaud how the two things agree. Then again, the honorable member states that unless some machinery is introduced for the prevention of dead-locks-such machinery as the power to dissolve the Upper House as well as this-he will hesitate to vote for the third reading of the Bill. But let me point out that the operation of the Bill, if it becomes law, will commence with the dissolution of the two Houses. The one House will go to the country, and so will the other. And I, as a public man, am ready to say that I will do my best to secure the re-elec­tion of those old members of the Legis­lative Council who assist to settle the reform question on n fair and reason­able basis. Certainly I don't think those members will have very much to fear. I venture to say that honorable members who endeavour to grapple this question now, and to deal with it in a fair spirit, will experience the gratitude of the coun­try. Although the people appear passive, I believe they are watching with the greatest possible interest and anxiety the manner in which the question is being dealt with. Having conceded so much to Illeet the objeclions which have been urged in another place, I feel certain that, if it is found that by any unfair means this Bill is not brought into a shape to be passed, those who assist in retarding it will find their constituents against them.

Mr. MIRAMS.-Is it not in a shape to be passed now?

Reform Bill. [FEBRUARY 23.] Tltird Nigltt's Debate. 1537

Major SMITH.-As far as I can ascer­tain, it appears to be acceptable, except in some small points, to all parties. I have heard scarcely any substantial objection urged against it. Returning to ,the objec­tion of the honorable member for Warr­nambool, the Council would, as I have said, be dissolved to begin with. Then in four years afterwards two-thirds of the Chamber would either have been re-elected or replaced by fresh members. Now sup­posing that no conflict took place for eighteen months after the new Council has been elected, and then a dispute arose between the two Houses towards the end of the second year, what would happen? Under this Bill one-third of the members would have to go before their constituents within six months, and another third within the next two years. In other words, there might be a change to the ex­tcnt of two-thirds of the members within two years and a half. I think that would give the people of the country a fair and reasonable control over their representa­tives in the other House, and I believe in practice the system would be fonnd to render dead-locks impossible. One of the strongest objections urged to the Bill is that it is broadening the basis of the Council too greatly to go down to the ratepayers'roll. But what are the facts? During the last two elections for the As­sembly parties were pretty evenly divided, and in going over the absolute number of votes recorded I find that the majority returned on popular principles only ob­tained 6,000 more votes than the other side. The total number of electol'S for the Assembly is 200,701, and of this num­ber 40,342 are on the general roll. Now, if a majority of 6,000 votes can place a Government in power and enable them to carryon practical legislation, what would be the result if the 40,000 on the general roll were struck off from the list of those having votes for the Council? I think it may be fairly estimated that of the 40,000 voters on the general roll 30,000 are on the liberal side.

Mr. MIRAMS.-Not more than half. Major SMITH.-If that be so, of course

the argnment I was about to put would not apply. I believe, however, that out of those 40,000 votes, the liberals have at least a majority of 10,000, and yet, in an election of 86 members for the Assembly, the liberals only obtained 6,000 votes over their opponents. Under such circum­stances, need honorable members opposife

fear the result of adopting the ratepayers' roll for the Legislative Council? I think it will be found in practice that the nearer both Houses are brought to each other, both as regards the suffrage and the size of the electorates-providing that, as we propose,. the Council are given a reason­ably longer tenure of office than the Assem bly - the more they will work in harmony, and I do not anticipate any of the evils which honorable members oppo­si te imagine will follow the adoption of this measure, Then the honorable member for Belfast stated that, if the Bill became law, it would be necessary for the Government to have a mlljority in both Houses, but I can tell the honorable member that there is no popular Chamber in the world that permits the Upper House to dictate what the policy of the count.ry shall be. The honorable member referred to the French Senate, which recently raised some objec­tion to the policy of the Ministry-for the first time, I think, during a vast number of years-and the Ministers tendered their resignations. But what was the result? The President refused to accept them, and ignored the Senate altogether.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-The French Senate deals with finance.

Major SMITH. - Can the honorable member point to one instance in the whole history of the British Constitution in which a'resolution passed by the House of Lords had the slightest effect on the House of Commons? It is perfectly ridi­culous to suppose that any popular Cham­ber will ever permit the other House to interfere with them in the constitution of the Government. I do think, however, that, if this Bill passes, the Council might be conceded two members of the Govern­ment. I have long held the opinion that we should adopt in this country the Eng­lish system of political under-secretaries, because I think myself that it is perfectly absurd that a private member should sud­denly jump into the position of a principal member of the Government. If we had five principal Ministers and five under­secretaries-also members of the Govern­ment-:-I think the system would work exceedingly well, the departments would be better managed, and there would be more care bestowed on the general policy of the Government. In the last Reform Bill submitted to the House I stated that there were four principal blots, and I venture to say that in the present measure erery one of those blots has b'3eIl re~?v~~l

, '

1538 Refo1'1n Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Second Reading.

or very much modified. vVe have taken of the Upper House-a proposal with away the power that was proposed to be which I agree-it must be remembered given to the other Chamber to deal with that, unless some check is provided, the finance, :ll1d we have modified the Bill more powerful the other Chamber is made with regard to the franchise. Indeed I the more determined will be any struggle t.hink I may say that since I have been a that occurs. It is of no use argt1ing that, mem bel' of the House· there has never been because the two Houses will be elected by a reform measure submitted upon which nearly the same people, they will at all all parties have shown a better disposition times agree. We find that even one con­to come to a final solution of the question stituency is sometimes divided npon poli­in a thoroughly friendly spirit, and, if that tical matters, returning, as in the caso of spirit is m[tintained in eommittee, I have the electorate I represent, one member no doubt whatever that a settlement will who sits on one side of tho House and be effected. If honorable members oppo- another who sits on the opposite side. I site assist in perfecting this measure with- hold that no reform of the Constitution out being unduly aggressive on popular will be satisfactory that will not afford feelings, I for one will be prepared to meet some power of bringing the Council into them as far as possible. I believe, too, .. harmony with public opinion. One means that if they take that course they will not provided in the last Reform Bill to bring only gain a great feeling of friendliness in about that result was the double dissolu­the country, but their access to office will tion, which, however, was only to take be hastened and their tenure of power will effect after the elimination clause had be of a more permanent character when come into operation. I hope to see those they have obtained it. The time is very two clauses added to the present Bill in opportune for removing this vexed subject committee, and I am quite sure that if from the arena of controversy, and I trust that is done the measure will go flying that in committee we shall be able, in a not only through this House but also the friendly spirit, to arrive at a fair and rea- other. When I first read this Bill, I was son able solution of the question. . forcibly reminded of an incident that

Mr. ANDERSON.-Sir, I desire to occurred when I landed on these shores. ·express my gl'eat pleasure at the calm, At that time the garb of the savage was temperate, and deliberative spirit in which nothing but an opossum rug, and a lady this important debate has been conducted. of my acquaintance was anxious to Such a toue, in my opinion, augurs well employ one of the blacks, but she wished for a satisfactory settlement of the reform to have him more decently attired. question, which has done so much to dis- Accordingly she gave him a suit of tract the people and alienate them from her husband's clothes, including a good each other. Considering, however, the black hat. The blackfellow, however, hearty manner ill which I supported the when he threw away his opossum rug,. did last Heform Bill, it cannot be expected not care to put on the clothes, and so he that I should be able to swallow this one made his appearance solely in the black quite easily, because the absence of those hat. The present Reform Bill goes about provisions which the Minister of Public as far to reform the Constitution as the hat Instruction was pleased to call "blots" did to clothe the savage in the garb of in the last Bill I look upon as defects in civilization. I trust, however, that in com­the prescnt measure. What has caused mittee we may be able to fit on some other the necessity fur a reform of the Consti- garments to the measure and make it more tution of this country at all? I believe decent. As to the broadening of tho that, if we had had temperate men in both franchise of the Upper House, I think Houses, and if the Assembly had not been that is fi step in the right direction. My so anxious to force measures down the only difficulty in accepting the ratepayers' throats of the other Chamber, we would roll is the fear that it will enable capi-

. have had none of those disastrous dead- talists to create fagot votes. The ob­locks to which the country has been sub- jection, howe\,er, is not a very importaut jected, and from which it hns suffered. one, and I am quito prepared to waive it, The difficulties that have arisen between as I told my constituents tha.t I was will­the two Houses have not occurred npon ing to accept either the £10 franchise or questions of finance pure and simple, but the ratepayers' roll as the basis· for the to a greatel' extent upon questions of pri- other Honse. I also entertain some·objec­vilege. Therefore, if we broaden the basis tion to the proposal to have" one-horse"

Refo1'm Bill. [FEBRUARY 23.J TMrd Night's Debate. 1539

constituencies for the other House. Under the proposed system it would be four years before an electorate could have a voice in returning a member to the Council, and we know that in this country political opinions change rapidly not only among Members of Parliament bu t among the people themselves. If there is no means of bringing the Upper House into har­mony with public opinion, I am afraid that we shall ere long find them too ready to reject measures, and we shall have once more to amend the Constitution. I do not agree, however, with the remarks of the honorable member for Portland in favour of large constituencies. There is no doubt that though a rich man might not be able to canvass a very large district personally he would be able to 'canvass it through agents, and he would have the further advantage over the poorer candi­date of being able· to provide means for conveying voters to the polling-places. The direction in which I would like to see the Bill amended would be to increase the number of members of the Council, decrease the size of the present provinces, and allow two members to each province. I think that would be a better solution of the difficulty. I trust that the calm spirit which has characterized the debate so far will be continued to the end, and that, now both parties are pretty well agreed on many points, a speedy settlement of the reform question may be attained by means of a joint committee of both Houses in which .both sides of the Assembly will be represented.

:Mr. MIRAMS.-Mr. Speaker, I would not have addressed myself to this question on the present occasion-the fourth time during the period I have been a member of the House-had it not been that the hon­orable member for Boroondara, the leader of the Opposition, did me the honour, the other evening, of quoting from one of my former speeches, with the object of making it appear that the position I am taking up at the present time in relation to the reform question is .inconsistent with that which I have maintained on previous occasions. I think I shall be able to show that, while the honorable member only attempted to prove the inconsistency of honorable members on this (the Ministerial) side of the House, he fully succeeded in demon­strating his own. We may congratulate ourselves on the fact that honorable mem­bers opposite can find so little to say against the measure now under consideration that

they have to fill up their speeches by the introduction of all sorts of extraneous matters which have nothing whatever to do with the question in dispute. For instance, the leader of the Opposition devoted a portion of his remarks to charging this side of the House with having caused the commercial depression of the colony, resulting from the political turmoil during the last two or three years. What, I may ask, has the question who is responsible for that depression to do with the present Reform Bill? But, even if the question is a relevant ono, do we not know that it was honorable members op­posite who deliberately set themselves to work to oppose the proposals of the then Government, and to prevent them from being carried into law? No doubt they were justified in such action-though not in all the tactics they pursued to accom­plish their end-and they attained the object they had in view; but, having b,een successful so far, it is a little too bad for them now to charge t.heir opponents with the results which flowed from their own tactics-even supposing that thE? depression referred to did result from political causes. I am free to deny, however-and I challenge the honorable member for Boroondara to prove-that very much of the commercial depression that existed was due to politics at all. Every 'one knows that it was brought about by a great many causes, but whatever portion of it was attributable to politics was the result of the action of honorable members opposite. The turmoil to which the honorable member referred was not the result of any action to secure the passing of a certain scheme of reform, but the result of the action taken to prevent the passing of that scheme, because, if it had not been for that turmoil and trouble, the plebiscite would have been law three years ago. But why should that question be brought into the. present debate at all? The q nestion now under consiueration, I take it, is whether the present proposals of the Ministry, which have l'ecei ved the approval of the country, and which will receive the ap­proval of this House, will be passed by another Chamber, and, if not, what steps we shall then take. Then, the leader of the Opposition, also in a strain entirely t:mlike his usual course of proceeding, took it upon himself to make a small joke at my personal appearance. Things have come to a pretty pass inueed when the leader of the Opposition, the pink of

1540 Reform Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Second Reading.

politeness, the pattern of propriety, finds it necessary to fill up a gap in his speech by making a small joke, and raising a small laugh from the small people around him at my personal appearance. The thing is beneath notice when it appears in the columns of a vituperative press, but, when the leader of the Opposition intro­duces it on the floor of this House, it is time to take some notice of it. We may not all be gifted with the graceful form and the elegant carriage of the honorable member for Boroondara, but I have yet to learn that personal appearance has any­thing to do with mental acquirements. The honorable member also quoted from a speech of mine, and tried to make it appear that I had been guilty of a very great amount of temerity in venturing to reply to "the giant of Belfast." He altogether failed to show, however-what would have been more to the point­that my speech was not a complete answer to the giant against whom it was uttered. I am now going to be temel'arions enough to answer even the honorable member himself, and, no donLt, ill his opinion, that will be exceeJillg in temerity eveu the attempt to answer" the giant of Belfast." The honorable member sought to prove that the Chief Secretary and myself were inconsistent in proposing and supporting a measure like the present Reform Bill, because it differs from a proposal which we were supporting some months ago. The honorable member, ifhe really thought I was inconsistent, must have overlooked a great deal of what I have said in relation to this question, because I don't suppose the honorable member picked out the passage he quoted at haphazard. I pre­sume he looked through most of my speeches, in order to fiud what would tell against me most severely.

Mr. R. M. SMITH.-No, I didn't. Mr. MIRAMS.-Then I have been

giving the honorable member more credit than he deserves. Surely it is beneath the position of an honorable member who claims to be the leader of a great party to come down to the House and attempt to prove an opponent's inconsistency without having taken the trouble to know what that opponent had said on the matter in question. What I have always stated is that there is a great deal of difference between the essentials and the incidentals of the reform question. The essential question is-vVhich of the two parties in the countr, is to be supreme? the whole

people, or a section of the people? I and those who act with me are determined that, as far as we can secure it, the whole people shall be supreme; the honorable member for Boroondara and those who act with him have been determined, up to the present time, that a section of the people only shall be supreme. On a former occasion, in endeavouring to make this point absolutely clear, I said that we were in the position of a man who, being on one side of a lake, desired to reach a goal on the other side, and had no means of crossing the water. He must take either one or other of two roads ; there could be no compromise in that. There might~ however, be a great deal of compromise, I said, as to the mode of conveyance, and, while I was not open to make any conces­sion as to the road that was to be taken, I was open to make any amount of conces­sion as to the means of conveyance. That was the position then, and that is the posi­tioll now. The particular mode of COll­veyance proposed by the party of which I am a member, three years ago, and ap­proved of by the great majority of the conntry, was the plebiscite. That would have taken ns along the road which leads to the supremacy of. the whole people. Now we offer another mode of conveyance which I admit I do not think so good as the first. Indeed the honorable member for Boroondara himself, and nearly every member who has spoken in this debate, have proved that it is not so good. The honorable member, in the course of his speech, adduced the very strongest argu­ment in favour of the plebiscite being adopted to settle the great questions of difference that arise in a commuuity like this, and which it is almost impossible to. settle at a general election. He denied that the general election which took place in July can be taken as conclusive upon the question of reform-although the Ministry did everything they could to make that the leading question-because, as he said truly, the election was influenced by a nnmber of side issues. He' complained that the election went against the Service Government not so much upon their reform scheme as upon the trumped-up charge, as he called it, about the late Premier having said that "men could live comfortably in a tent on 5s. a week." The honorable member declares that we are not authorized to deal with the re­form question by the election. we have just gone through, because its result w~s

Befm'm Bill. [FEBRUARY 23.J Tltird Nigltt's Debate. 1541

influenced in the manner he described. Could there be a better argument used in favour of the plebiscite than that? N ever­theless, I would remind the honorable member that he is scarcely fair in his argument that we are not competent to deal with the reform question after one election. When he sat on this side of the House, he was quite willing that it should be dealt with after one election. More­over, while the present Bill is identical in its provisions .with the proposals cate:' gorically submitted to the country by the liberal party at the last election-the only single difference being that the age at which a man is qualified to become a member of the Upper I-louse is changed from 21 to 30 years-I would remind the honorable member that he supported the Service Government in putting into their Bill two most important proposals that had never been submitted to the country at all. Nevertheless if, by hook or by crook, that Government could have ob­tailied a bare statutory majority for their Rill in this House, we would have heard nothing about one election not being snf­ficient to justify them in dealing with the question, and we would have had a mea­sure of reform thrust upon the country hy the vote of one man, dealing with the privileges of this House and the people in a manner that had not even been put to the country by the gent.lemen who claimed to represent the country. And now a member of the party who were prepared to do that has the effrontery to tell us that we are not competent to deal with this question because we have only had one election upon it. We have had three elections upon it. The honorable mem­ber and his friends have for the last two, years been begging and praying members on this side of the House to come to some compromise on this question, in order that the country might settle down, and that there might he a return to peace and pros­perit,y; yet immediately the liberal party take them at their word, and give up two of t.he principal items for which they have been contending for a long time past, how are they met? We say to the Opposition -" We are willing to meet your views so far as to ghre up our fight for the suprem­acyof the Assembly in matters of finance, and for finality in matters of ordinary legislation, according to the methou we have hefore proposed, and we ask you to compromise the question with us on the lines we now la! down"; 1et; immedia,tel,

we show a disposition to come to the com­promise for which they have been asking so long, they turn round and charge us with inconsistency. Is that the proper spirit in which the proposals of the Min­istry should have heen met on this occa­sion? I venture to say it is not. To return to my position in relation to this question and the charge of inconsistency, I may remind honorable memhers that in 1877 we went to the country with a clear and distinct issue. We told the country that in the matter of reform there were two points at which we aimed, and which we believed must be obtained in order to secure peace and quietness in the country -namely, finality in ordinary legislation and supremacy for the Assembly in mat­ters of finance. We submitted to the country the exact mode hy which we sought to secure the first point-namely, the plehiscite-hut we did not submit any machinery by which supremacy for the Assembly in finance was to be obtained. We left ourselves open as a paTty to adopt any proposnl which in the wisdom of our leaders might be thought desimble and effective to sccme that object, and what was the result? In one of the Bills bro11ght in by the Berry party there was a proposal' to repeal that clause of the Constitution Act which gives the Coun­cil the right to reject a Money Bill­that was one proposal to secure finan­cial supremacy for the Assemhly-and the plebiscite was also proposed in accordance with our promise and the wishes of our constituents as expressed in our return. That Bill did not meet with the favour of honorahle gentlemen opposite. In the next Bill, we still re­tained the plebiscite for finality in ordinary legislation, but we altered our mode of securing financial supremacy for this House by proposing the 6th clause. That mea­sure also failed to meet the views of the Opposition. The result of it all was that we went before the country, and what did we then find? Part.ly through the tactics of honorahle members opposite, who had for three years prevented any real legis­lation taking place, we found that the country were beginning to get tired of the conflict, as they na,turally would do.

, We found also, I venture to say, a great deal more support drawn away from us by side issues than the Service Government lost at the July election by the one side issue to which the honorable member for Boroomlara referred. The whole country

1542 Reform Bill. [ A.SSEMBLY.] Second Reading.

was flooded with reprints from the Argus newspaper of what was called" A History of the Berry Ministry," which was chock­full of exaggerated statements of facts, misrepresentations of other facts, and downright lies. That so-called "history" was sown broadcast over the country. It was sent through the post to every elector, or thrown over his fence. The Argus itself published it as a supple­ment two or three times. And what was all this done for ? Was it to obtain a clear expression of opinion on the reform question, which honorable members oppo­site pretended to be so anxions about? Not at all. It was done in order to choke off the support which they were afraid the people would give to the reform question if they were allowed to consider it on its merits. The tactics of the Oppo­sition were' resorted to in order to get rid of the Berry Government and of reform, and they succeeded, for the result of the election left the Ministry in a minority. That minority, however, soon became converted into a majority. I ask the honorable member for Boroondara if he expected, or if any man in his senses could expect, that, when the Berry party again went to the country in July, they would be compelled to go with the re­form scheme which had been refused by the country in February?

Mr. R. M. SMITH.-I did not expect that they would go with a diametrically opposite one.

Mr. l\1IRAMS.-It was not a diame­trically opposite one, as I will very sOOli show. What would have been the use of' putting the same issue to the country in ,J uly that had been put to the country in February and refused? Could any other result have flowed from that course except bringing the conservative' party back into office? If that is what the honorable member for Boroondara und his friends desired, let them say so plainly, but don'~ let them pretend to be disgusted at the "change of front" of the'liberal party. Let them acknowledge at once that it was impossible for any party, conserva­t.ive or liberal, to go to the country in July with the same issue as that which they had been defeated upon in February. The honorable member for Boroondara· admits that he did not expect the libentl party would take that course, but he says he did not think they would go to the country with a diametrically op­posite scheme of reform. I repeat that

the present measure is not diametrically opposite to the one which the liberal party submitted to the country in Feb­ruary. It may be diametrically opposite in machinery, but in principle it is abso­lutely the same, so far as it goes. It may not go so far as the 'other proposal went -and it may be some years before we get a measnre of reform to the extent that the other proposal went-but it goes on ex­actly the same road. As I said before, there are two roads, and two roads only, in connexion with reform, one leading to supremacy for the whole people, and the other to supremacy for a section of the people. The object of the Opposition is to give supremacy to a section of the commnnity. When compelled by circum­stances to make a show of liberality­when compelled to put on an appearance of a desire to meet the popular will-the conservative party have brought in pro­posals to reduce the franchise for the Council, and to increase the number of electors for that Chamber; but they have always endeavoured to do what, in their euphonious language, they call" maintain the balance of the system," which means, by the aid of a little hanky-panky ma­chinery, to place the whole final power in any dispute between the two Chambers in the hands of that section of the people who are represented in the Council.

Mr. BOSISTO.-It is a great mistake to say so.

Mr. MIRAMS.-It is the fact. It is plain and palpable on the face of it. Honorable members who sit on the op­position side of the House have, up to the present time, attempted, either knowingly or unknowingly-possibly some of them unknowingly, simply following their leaders-to keep the final power to settle any dispute between the two Chambers in the hands of a section as against the whole community. The whole community are represented in this Chamber.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-They are not. Mr. MIRAMS.-As a matter of fact

they are not, but in theory the Legis­lative Assembly represents the whole people. I am free to admit that it ought to represent them more fully, because, though there are 260,000 male adults in the colony, only 200,000 of them have votes. The Council represents only a section of the community, while the As­sembly-in theory, at all eVClits-repre­sents the whole people. The point in dispute is whether the whole people or

RcfQ1'm Bill. [FEBRUARY 23.J Third Nigllt's Debate. 1543

a section should have the final power of arbitrament. There is no getting away from this fact. The efforts of the con­servative party are directed to keeping the final power in the hands of the Coun­cil, as representing a section, instead of allowing it to be in the hands of the Assembly, as representing the whole com­munity. The proposals now before the House are in accord with the proposals I supported two years ago, in so far that they will make the Council representative of the whole people, so that the fioal power will be in the bands of the whole people antI not of a section. The hon­orable member for Sandridge talked glibly, the other night, about maintaining "the balance or the system." 'Vhat has been the system in the past of which the honorable member wants to maintain the balance? A system leaving the ultimate power in legislative matters in the hands of another place. Are we not told on the floor or this House, and in the con­servative press, that even the Bill we are now discussing, after rour years of turmoil, will not be accepted elsewhere? Is 110t that absolutely saying that the Upper House has got full power in its own hands, and can do what it likes?' The hon­orable member for Sandridge stated, that he is opposed to the measure because it pro­poses to give the franchise for the Coun­cil to the whole of the ratepayers. 'Vhat is that but saying that he wants the final power to be in the hands of a section of the people? I don't care how large he may desire that section to be; the very fact that the honorable member and those who think with him are opposing the Bill because it will give the franchise for the other Chamber to too many electors is an absolute proof of the truth of my asser­tion that they desire that the final power shall be in the hands of a Council which represents a section instead of the whole of the people. I say that the Reform Bill now before the House is thoroughly in accord with the previous proposals of the liberal party. It is on the same lines. It is going by the same road, but it is not travelling by so fast a vehicle. It "will not get to the goal so S0011, but it is no step backward .. It is no departure from the position I have hitherto taken up; it is absolutely consistent with all that I have before saia on the question of reform. Having proved this to my own sa,tisfaction, at any rate, ana to the satis­faction of the eOllstitlleney that I have the

honour to represent, I care not whether I have proved it to the satisfaction of the honorable member for Boroondara. I maintain that the measure is absolutely in accord, so far as it goes, with the view which I have always held on the question of reform. I will now try to show that the honorable member for Boroondara was altogether at sea when he attemptell to make me out to be inconsistent, and that he actually proved himself incon­sistent in the conrse of his remarks. The honorable member objects to the Bill because it does not contain any provision for the final settlement of disputes-the elimination clanse, or joint sitting. When the· Service Reform Bill was debated, the honorable member said-

"I admit that I was. . . strongly opposed to the proposi.tion for a joint sitting of the two Houses, and I don't like it now."

Mr. R. M. SMITH.-Hear, hear. Mr. MIRAMS.-And yet the honor­

able member finds fault with the present Bill because it does not contain a pro­vision which he dia not like when it was in the Bill introduced by the honorable mem­ber for Maldoll. In relation to another provision of the same Bill, the honorable member remarked-

"'With reference to the fourth proposition­the joint sitting-I at once acknowledge that I feel great misgiving as to its complete success."

Mr. R. M. SMITH. - That is my opinion now.

Mr. MIRAMS.-Jf the honorable mem­ber has no stronger grounds of opposition to the Government Bill than the fact that it does not contain two provisions which" were in the Service Bill, to one of which he objected and as to the ultimate success of the other he entertained great misgiving, he has certainly got a very poor case indeed. With regard to the e1iminatio~l clause the honorable member stated, when the Service Reform Bill was before the House-

" I allow that the power is one which it would be far more desirable should be exercised by some tribunal outside the House."

Mr. R. M. SMITH.-So I said the other night.

Mr. MIRAMS.-'What better tribunal does the honorable member want than the whole people? Does the honorable mem­ber mean to say, or does he mean to in­sinuate-for I don't think he dare say it openly, either on the floor of this House or elsewhere- that the manhood of the coloH! is not able to take care of itt) own

1544 Reform Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Second Reading.

affairs, and that it wants the honorable member and his colleagues in the Chamber above to come in and manage them for it? If the honorable member means that, let him say so plainly, instead of beating about the bush and pretending that we want some tribunal outside this House which we have not got. vVe have got a tribunal which is good enough for Eng­land, and surely it ought to be good enough for us. The tribunal which the Bill pro­poses is the ratepayers of the colony. Will the honorable member prove the genuineness of his professions by accepting that tribunal? Towards the close of his speech the other night, the honorable member said he hoped that the measure would be remitted to a joint committee of the two Houses; but I trust that it will not. "Vhen discussing the Service proposals, only a few months ago, the honorable mem bel' said-

"I would be very glad if the subject of a reform of the Constitution could be dealt with by a select committee, but that is no longer pos­sible; and the reason why it is not possible may be easily traced."

If six months ago it was no longer pos­sible to refer the question of reform to a select committee, what has transpired since to make it possible, except the fact that the honorable member and his friends have had to leave the Ministerial benches and sit on the opposition side of the House?

Mr. R."M. SMITH.-Theabandonment of your former principles.

Mr. MIRAMS.-I have not abandoned a single principle. The honorable mem­ber must be able to distinguish between principles and the machinery for giving effect to them; but, for party purposes, he refuses to recognioe the distinction. The liberal party have abandoned no prin­ciples. We have been fighting all along for the same object that we are now fighting for. I challenge the honorable member, or anybody else, to show that we are sacrificing one single principle by "supporting the Bill now before the House. The proposal- is to give the whole power to all the people. The honorable member says that is not the proposal, because the Bill extends the franchise for the Council only to the ratepayers' roll and not to the general roll. My reply to that argument is that the general roll is only a reflex of the ratepayers' roll. It does not represent a different class of people. The honorable member for Villiers and lIeytesbury (Mr.

Anderson) argued that fagot votes would be manufactured for the Council under this Bill; but what is the case at present? Does the honorable member not know that fagot votes are manufactured for the Assembly-that people" are put on the roll by virtue of a property qualification?

Mr. ANDERSON.-Every man has the right to a vote.

Mr, MIRAMS.-I am not talking of the right, but of the fact. The distinction drawn between the ratepayers' roll and the general roll is a distinction without a difference. There would be a difference if t.here were no persons on the general roll but manhood" suffrage voters-if, for instance, the general roll was composed of 40,000 manhood suffrage electors who were not ratepayers and who could not be ratepayers. But people are put on the general roll by virtue of a propert.y quali­fication when they are already on the ratepayers' roll for other places; and by this means theil' electoral power and influ­ence is multiplied. There are almost, if not quite, as many names on the general roll representing property as there are under manhood suffrage, so that, virtually, the ratepayers' roll may be taken as representing the whole colony. Unless it Cain be shown that the Bill will not admit the whole people, as we understand the expression, to a voice in the election of the Council, it is idle to assert that, in supporting the measure, we are departing from the principle we have always advo­cated, namely, that the supreme power must be in the hands of the whole people. We have been asked to consent to a com­promise on the question of reform. I would like to hear from some member of the Opposition what more compromise they expect from the Ministerial side of the House? I gather, from the course of the debate, that they want us to take the £10 ratepayers, instead of the ratepayers' roll, as the basis of the franchise for the Council. Sir, I for one will not accept that compromise; and I assert that there is not a member on the Ministerial side of the House who has the right or the power to consent to it, unless he first goes to his constituents. When the honorable member for Maldon went to the country, in February of last year, he took care not to bind himself to lower the franchise for the Council to any specific amount, but left himself perfectly free to adopt a £15, a £10, or a £5 rating; bnt the present lVIinistry and the liberal

Reform Bill. CFEnRUARY 23.] Tllird llig III s Debate. 1545

party are in a different position. .At the July election we put to the country, as distinctly as any issue could possibly be put, that the ratepayers' roll should be the basis of the franchise. We are here to vote for the ratepayers' roll and for not.hing else. .Any honorable member elected as a supporter of the Ministry who attempts to depart from that basis without first going to his constituents is a traitor to those who have elected him. So far as a compromise of the kind suggested is concerned, it is out of the power of honor­able members to consent to it. The ma.tter ha.s been taken out of our hands by the country. Unless honorable members are justified in getting elected in support of a. certa.in proposa.l and then turning round and supporting something else in its place, there is not a member on the Ministerial side of the House who has any liberty of choice in regard to the franchise of the Council, because the rate­payers' roll was submitted to the country at the la.st election as the principal point in the reform programme of the liberal party. This has been alluded to by some honorable members as a matter of detail, but I say that in it is involved the prin­ciple of which I have spoken. If we draw the line at any point above the rate­payers' roll, we shall place the power in the hands of a section of the people as 3gainst the whole community. By voting for the ratepayers' roll as the basis of .the franchise for the Council, I shall act thoroughly in accord with the principle I have always maintained, namely, that the power should be given to the whole people. If I voted for a £10 franchise, I would be fairly open to the charge and taunt of inconsistency. I have no intention to lay myself open to that charge, either now or at any future time, if I can help it. .Are we to compromise on any other point? If further compromise is wanted, now is the time for honorable gentlemen opposite to l~t us know exactly what it is they desire. Is it to give up the proposal that there shall be no pro­perty qualification for members of the Upper House? Why the proposal to abolish the qualification has been accepted by some of the leading members of the Opposition. The honorable member for Sandridge was returned to this House in favour of that principle on the first occa­sion that he was elected. The honorable member presented himself as a candidate for a constituency for the first time in

1874, on the occasion of Mr. Francis going to the country with the Norwegian scheme. The honorable member was supposed to be a staunch supporter of that proposal, but, in his speech on the second reading of the Bill, he stated that he ·could not conscientiously vote for it, because, in his opinion, it would entirely annihilate the Upper House. The other night, he op­posed the proposal to adopt the ratepayer8' roll as the franchise for the Council, on the ground that it would make the Upper House too strong. The honorable mem­ber is therefore very hard to please. What I desire to draw special attention to is the fact that a gentleman who was returned to support a Ministry, the head of which-Mr. Francis-was a personal friend of his, voted against the Bill, gave rise to ~ passage of arms which extended over several nights, and that, in his speech on the second reading of the measure, the honorable member for Sandridge, who then represented 'IV est Bourke, found it necessary to defend himself from the charge of having obtained his seat under false pretences. In the course of the debate, the honorable member gave a quo­tation from a speech he delivered at Rom­sey during his election canvass, a portion of which I will read. Referring to the removal of certain difficulties in the way of legislation of which he had previously been speaking, the honorable member said-

"He considered that this could be done by adopting, as the means of reform, the abolition of the property qualification of members of the Upper House, and reducing their period of membership to five years, instead of their pre­sent term of ten years." It may be said that the honorable mem­ber did not go in for reducing the q II ali fi­cation for electors of the Council to the ratepayers' roll. He did not do so in express terms, but he implied, in an­other portion of the Romsey speech, that he had no great objections to that course. In debating the motion for the second reading of Mr. Francis' Bill, the honorable member also gave expression to the same views. He said he would take away the qlJjtlification for members of the Council if not for electors, thus showing that even the abolition of a qua­lification for electors of the Council was at that time a moot point in his mind. The honorable member likewise referred to the two points to achieve which reform is necessary, namely, finality in ordinary legislation, and the supremacy of the

1546 Refo1'J1Z Bill. C.ASSEMBLY.] Second Reading.

Assembly in matters of finance. He pro­posed taking away the qualification for members of the Council, and reducing the tenure of their seats to five years, in order to accomplish the first object­finality in ordinary legislation-and, in re­ference to giving the Assembly supremacy in matters of finance, he remarked-

"Both electors and members of the Upper House having already, in their electoral capa­city, a voice in respect to Money Bills, I do not see why they should have anything further to do with them. I would, in fact, take their sepa­rate voice as to Money Bills away from them by the most convenient mode I could find." This was the utterance of the honorable member for Sandridge in 1874. At that time the honorable member said he would take the separate voice of the Council on Money Bills away from them by the most convenient mode he could find, and yet he is now one of the most prominent and persistent opponents of the proposition of the present Ministry to accomplish the same object. There are members of the Opposition who stand up and preach to us about consistency-who prate to us as if they were the embodiment of all that is right, just, proper, and consistent, and as if we were the very opposite! It only requires members to go back to the history of the past, and see what those gentlemen have said under other circumstances, to find out how hollow and what a sham all their protestations of consistency are I 'Ve have now before us a proposal which the country has accepted, and I' for one will not be a party to alter it unless the country is consulted on the subject in some mode or other-either by another election, by a plebiscite, or in some other method which the House may devise. I maintain that honorable members sitting on the Min­isterial side of the House, having obtained their .seats by pledging themselves 'to the propositions contained in the Govern­ment Bill, would betray their trust if they now sacrificed any part of them to please any section of the community either in this Chamber or out of it. The hon­orable member for Portland has stated that only a small number of electors would be excluded from the Council fran­chise by the substitution of a £10 rating for the ratepayers' roll. Does the honorable member forget that the honorable member for Maldon, during the discussion of his Reform Bill, laid on the table a return showing that there are only 190,000 rate­payers in the colony, and tha~ very few more, if any, than 100,000 would get a

Mr. Mirams.

'\'"ote for the Council under his proposal? It is true that Mr. Service's proposal was a £10 franchise for freeholdct,s and a £20 franchise for leaseholders-persons who pay rent, but do not live in their own houses-and that if the qualification was reduced to a £10 rating in all cases the number of persons who would obtain the franchise would be somewhat greater. Even in that case, however, a very large number of ratepayers would be excluded. It is nonsense to say that this is a small matter. With reference to the suggestion that provision should be made in the Bill for a joint dissolution of both Houses, I would ask honorable inemberswhat would be the use of a joint dissolution unless provision was also made for a joint sitting of the two Houses afterwards? If two Houses, returned upon virtually the same basis, disagree before an elec­tion, they are almost certain to disagree after it. The only way to provide for the contingency would be to have a joint sitting.

Mr. ANDERSON.-Hear, hear. Mr. MIRAMS.-I don't think that we

need take these two steps. Honorable members opposite have hitherto charged the liberal party with wanting to go too far, but now their complaint seems to be that we don't go far enough. It will be better to leaye such matters as a double dissolution and joint sitting to be settled at a future time. If we get a reformed Upper House elected upon the basis pro­·posed by the Bill, we shall be in a far better position to get any difficulties settled that may arise between the two Chambers than we are with the Upper House constituted as it is at present. With respect to the elimination clause, that provision killed Mr. Service's Bill; and, however much honorable members opposite may wish to see the present Bill strangled by the S:;lme means, I can say, speaking for myself-and I think I express the sentiment of a good many other members -that there is not the slightest chance of the elimination clause being introduced into the measure. It has. also been sug­gested that the Bill should be referred to a joint committee of the two Houses. If that suggestion were adopted, we would have an exact illustration~ in a small way, of what would have been the operation of the joint sitting of the two Houses, sup­posing Mr. Service's Bill had be~n carried into law. The committee of the Assembly, to have any weight, would of course have

llejo1'm Bill. [FEBRUARY 23.J Tltird Niglds Debate. 1547

to be composed of gentlemen from both sides of the House. The result would be that in the conference the conservative representatives of the Assembly would unite with the delegates from the Council, and a report would be brought up which would not be at all acceptable to the majority of the Assembly.

An HONOHABLE MElnBER.-W e need not adopt it.

Mr. MIRAMS.-But to agree to a con­ference and not to adopt its report would simply give our opponents in the press and on the platform a nice little weapon with which to thrash the liberal party when next we went before our consti­tuents. They would be able to taunt us with refusing to give effect to the recom­mendations of a committee of our own appointing. This, in my opinion, is the only result which the appointment of a committee of conference could possibly have. The question of reform has been thoroughly thrashed out, and, the Opposi­tion having failed to induce the country to reject the Government Bill, the measure ought now to be passed as endorsed by the electors. Sir, I trust to see it carried through this Chamber, and sent to the Council; and that then, in the event of their rejecting it, we shall be prepared to tnke whatever steps are necessary to secure its passage into law.

Mr. WALSH.-Sir, in addressing the House on the important subject under consideration, it is not my intention to discuss the different reform schemes that have previously been submitted and re­jected. I hoped, at the outset of the debate, that the calm and deliberative spirit that seemea to animate the House would enable us to arrive at a specific settlement upon the matter, by passing a measure that would be acceptable elsewhere; but I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that many speeches like that delivered by the last speaker would entirely defeat every object of the kind. At the same time, I am satisfied that the people out-of-doors have, after the three or four years of agitation they have gone through, reached a frame of mind in which one of their greatest desires is that the question of reform should be speedily disposed of. During my recent candidature, I found a general feeling among the electors that a reform of the Legislative Council is, at the present time, something absolutely necessary ; and the more I discussed the matter with them, the more I found that

the reform they want comprises the follow­ing principal points ;-a widening of the basis of representation, an increase of the number of provinces, and also of members, and an arrangement that would bring mem­bers more frequently before their constitu­ents. Under these circumstances, I think it a fortunate thing that we have before us a Bill from another place that gives an insight of their views of what reform is required; and I am satisfied that it is worth our while to compare their measure

'with that proposed by the Government, because we must never lose sight of the fact that no Reform Bill that fails to receive the Council's sanction can pass into law. For that reason it cannot be too often repeated that the two Houses ought to approach the present subject in a spirit of compromise and conciliation rather than one of antagonism. In some salient features the two Bills coincide, hut in others they undoubtedly ·differ. For example, the Council's Bill increases the number of provinces from six to twelve, and the number of members from 30 to 42, while the Assembly's Bill pro­poses not to increase the n.umber of members at ali, but to divide the pro­vinces into thirty electorates, each return­ing one member. Then, in the matter of tenure of office, both Bills alike provide that the period shall be six years, and they also both allot a period of two years between each ordinary election, when ten members will go to their constituents. The main point of difference between the measures is with respect to the qualifica­tion fQr electors and for members. One serious defect in 'the Government Bill lies in its system for the rotation of the elec-' tions. How can Ministers contend that, under that arrange~ent, the opinion of the country will be obtainable through a bien­nial election? I argue that, with single elec­torates, to send only one-third of the mem­bers of Council to their constituents is to obtain only one-third of the opinion of the country. For myself, I would gladly see the number of provinces increased to four­teen, each returning three members, so that when a biennial election occurred, one member for each province would go to his constituents. Under such an adjustment, the result of each hiennial election would show the opinion of the whole colony. As for the electoral franchise of the Council, honorable members on the Ministerial benches seem to think it ought to be co­extensi ve with the ratepayers' roll; but I

1548 Reform Bill. (ASSEMBLY.] Second Reading.

would like to see it go no further than the £10 ratepayers. It appears to me-I speak, however, with great diffidence­that to make the ratepayers' roll generally the electoral basis of the Council would virtually leave both Houses to be elected by the same constituency, because I don't think the manhood suffrage roll for the Assembly elections could make a material difference. I am pretty well convinced that a very large proportion of the electors on the latter roll usually consist of rate­payers whose names have, from some cause, been omitted from the ratepayers' roll, and who have therefore had to take out electors' rights. "VeIl, both Houses being elected by practically the same body of electors would I think, in the caso of a conflict between the Chambers, lead to very serious results, and greatly inten­sify the evils arising from a dead-lock. Eacn House would claim to be in sym­pathy with the country, and would natur­ally refuse to give way. Another serious

. defect in the Bill is that it makes no pro­vision for securing finality in legislation, and contains no machinery by which a dead-lock could be averted or brought to an end. It is my impression that, if the two measures were referred to a joint committee of the Houses, they would consider the question how to obtain legis­lative finality and avoid dead-locks the most important part of the business they had to deal with. In conclusion, let me say that, in my opinion, the time has now arrived-and it is a singularly opportune one-when the question of reform should be settled. I think the people of the colony are disposed to accept any reason­able legislation that would put the matter to rest for some years to corne. They are heartily sick of continually hearing reform talked of, and, now that a spirit of con­cession and compromise has been evoked in both Chambers, I hope the leaders on both sides will come to such terms as will allow the subject to be satisfactorily dis­posed of.

Mr. McCOLL.-Mr. Speaker, it is my experience that, when opposing parties set themselves quietly and fairly to under­stand what they each want, they are ap­proaching the end of their differences, and are extremely likely to come to a mutual agreement. Consequently, I judge, from the spirit of conciliation and forbearance, ·and desire to see the present question dis­posed of, which appear to exist on both sides of the Chamber, that we are not far

from a satisfactory settlement on the long­vexed subject of reform. Under these circumstances, I think it would be a grace­ful act on the part of the Opposition if they wore to drop their individual notions and pet theories, and adopt the reasonable compromise afforded by the Bill, the main principles of which are, after all, nearly identical with those of the Reform Bill sent us from the Conncil. As for the Service Reform Bill, I suppose we shall never see it in this Chamber again. It must not be forgotten that when it was proposed there were not, among the whole body of its supporters outside the Minis­try of the day, more than three of them, namely, the honorable member for Villiers and Heytesbury (Mr. Anderson), Mr. Andrews, and Mr. Walker, who went in for the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. There was not another pri­vate member on their side who did not take some exception to it. I am convinced that nothing sent the party to the country to support the measure in its entirety but the iron rod of their master. I believe, from what I have heard to-night, that this debate will end in the adoption of the Bill before us, and that that result will not only satisfy the country, but prevent the Opposition, for many years to come, from having the smallest chance of sitting on this (the Ministerial) side of the House. Since I have alluded to the Service Reform Bill, let me ·say that nothing struck me during the elections of last July more than the great good sense of the people, who would not be led astray either by priests or renegade liberals, but who saw through the arguments they were pestered with, and eventually sent the Service party to the obscurity from which I hope they will never again emerge. As for Mr. Service himself, I hope to see him return to Victoria renewed in health and strength, but also to find politics in such a position that he will never again care to come here. After all, what do we want reform for but as a means to an end-as something that will enable us to deal with the work of practical legislation? Is it not practical legislation that the country is crying for? For some days past I have been travelling north and south through the colony, getting information which I hope will some day be useful to the House, and enable me to speak with authority, and what did I find? A state of things few honorable members can be aware of. In one place I found an area fully six

Reform Bill. [FEBRUARY 23.] Third Night's Dehate. 1549

miles square from which, duriug the last four months, no less than nineteen families had removed-why?

Several HONORABLE MEl\1BERs.-From want of water. .

Mr. McCOLL.-It was my intention . to speak to-night without making the

slightest allusion to water, and to have given the gentlemen of the .press, in that way, a fair opportunity of doing me jus­tice. Because what, as a rule, do I get from them? I have hardly ever spoken in public in Melbourne without finding in next morning's paper a paragraph to the effect that" Mr. McColl, as usual, made a long speech about his water canal." How­ever, water having been brought into my speech, I will go on to say that these nineteen families were driven from their homes, from which they took everything thoycould turn into money-even. the wire out of their fences-by nothing else than famine. 'Vh[tt led to that famine? The fact that the enormous reRources of the country are, ,in a vast number of in­stances, rendered useless by our neglect of means that are availed of in every other civilized hot country in the world. For example, look at the lakes west of Kerang, which were full in 1870, partially full two years ago, and are now dry. How is a farmer to hold his own against two years of comparative drought, and then the rabbit nuisance to finish him? I think honorable members will now see what I mean when I speak of passing the Reform Rill as enabling us to take practical legislation in hand. The Oppo­sition have to understand that upon that Bill they must give way, and I hope their patriot-ism will calise them..to do so with­out delay. Then we will conle to prac­tical legislation, because the land question 111uSt be settled, and water we must have. What is our present policy with respect to water? A vile scheme, initiated by a cabal, and conducted by a man who was formerly dismissed ignominiously from the public service on account of not the causes that led to Black Wednesday, but his own incompetence. I speak of the man Gor­don, who, when Colonel Sankey sent him here, had been turned ou t of the ci vii service of India, and who has-as his own reports show-done that for this colony which is calculated to be destructive of its prosperity. I say that, when we come to practical legislation, we will be able to have water carried to heights from which it cail flow into the plains, and enable

2ND SES. 1880.-5 P

every farmer there to employ ten men for everyone he keeps now. What could settle the immigration question better than that sort of thing? Mr. Speaker, I meant to have said more, but the hour is late, and I will conclude .

On the motion of Mr. QUICK, the de­bate was adjourned until the following day.

The House adjourned at five minutes to eleven o'clock.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. Thursday, February 24, 1881.

Williamstown Railway-Yan Yean Wa.ter Supply-Hobson's Bay Railway-Banquet to Mr. Service-Irregularities of an Official Assignee-Diseases in Stock Act-Personal Explanation: Mr. W. M. Olark-Land at Footscray­Parliament House-Railway Employ tis : The Exbibition -Parks and Gardens-Railway Returns-Mining Depart­ment: Classification of Officers-Oakleigh Railwa.y­English Mails-Railway Department: Sale of Tickets: Station at Bullarto-The Moran Inquiry-Motion for Adjournment: Brake Vans and Railway Brakes-Saw­mill Licences: Mr. Robert Henderson - Reform Bill: Seco~d Reading: Fourth Night's Debate - Ways and M.eans: Excise Duties on Tobacco: Snuff.

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

vVILLIAMSTOWN RAILWAY. Mr. W. M. CLARK asked the Minister

of Railways if he would place on the Supplementary Estimates a sum of £500 for repairing the culvert under the Wil­liamstown line at Nicholson-street, Foots­cray, in lieu of the amount voted last year, which was allowed to lapse? The honor­able member mentioned that, unless the repairs were carried out immediately, serious danger might be apprehended, in­asmuch as the cuI vert had been undermined by floods.

Mr. PATTERSON said he was not aware under what circumstances last year's vote lapsed, but he would inquire into the matter.

YAN YEAN WATER SUPPLY. Mr. L. L. SMITH asked the Minister

of Public Works whether he had received any report as to the condition of the Yan Yean? If the board recently appointed by' the Minister had not yet reported, the omission was highly blamable. Already one woman had died, and a family of seven were suffering from typhoid fever, owing, it was believed, to the use of 'yan Yean' water, and, unless remedial measures were taken, he believed that about one-half the people would be poisoned.

1550 Yan Yemi CASSEMBLY.] Wate1' Supply.

Mr. LANGRIDGE said he questioned whether the honorable member for Rich­mond (Mr. Smith) really believed that a woman had been poisoned by the use of Yan Yean water. However, the pre­vious Friday week, in order to allay the alarm which might have arisen from re­marks made in the Assembly and state­ments published in the newspapers, he ap­pointed a board of three experts to inquire into the condition of the Yan Yean water, " the cause of its bad odour and discolour­ation, and the best means of securing its purification. He had not yet receb-ed any report from those gentlemen, but he was expecting one every day, and he had no doubt that, when it was sub­mitted, it would be found to be of some value. He "would take this opportunity of cflIling attention to the following state­ment with reference to the Yan Yean water published by the Herald newspaper the previous eveniug":-

"It is true that some of the residents state that, quite recently, they saw as many as six or eight native cats floating in the reservoir, near the inlet; that the corpse of a retriever dog was observed on another day; and that it is not at all uncommon to find the bodies of wallabies, native cats, and other animals in the lake. If this be true, it indicates gross carelessness; for there is a grating at the inlet which ought to be always closed, so that offensive bodies can be excluded. . . . During the summer before last, there was a long season of dry weather, and the level of the water in the reservoir became lower than it had been for some years. Just prior to this, the officer who had had charge of the works for years had been replaced by another, who became alarmed at t.he lowness of the water, and when heavy rain came he turned the first flood waters into the reservoir, instead of excluding them and sending them down the natural course of the Plenty, as had previously been done. This indiscreet act, of course, resulted in the water being discoloured and a large quantity of impurities being de­posited in the reservoir."

It was only fair, after the publication of a statement of this kind, that the officers of the department should be heard with reference to the subject, and therefore he had pleasure in laying before the House a memorandum from Mr. Davidson, the energetic engineer of the Y an Yean works. With regard to the report pub­lished recently as to the filth exposed in the country above the reservoir, it was not likely, even if rain were to fall next day, that that filth would find its way into the reservoir, because the officers of the department did not allow any water to enter the reservoir until the whole country had been thoroughly cleansed. That the

disagreeable taste and smell of the Yau" Yean did not arise from that" cause was proved by the fact that, for nearly two months, not a drop of water had gone into the reservoir. Mr. Wilson, the in­spector at Yan Yean, reported that there had been an improvement in the water, which he thought might be attributable, to some extent, to the change in the weather, the water being" quite palatable, and free from what is now known as Yan Yean odour." In order to allay the alatm likely to attend the circulation of a statement made in the House, the pre­vious week, by the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Smith), he requested the Government Statist to furnish him with a return of the death rate in Melbourne and the suburbs during the last three months, and he found from the document which had been supplied that the death rate during those" three months was con­siderably less than during the correspond­ing months of the previous two years. He would conclude by reading Mr. Davidson's memorandum, which was as follows :-

"The article on the Yan Yean water which appeared in the 1I erald of yesterday purports to give a number of facts, many of which, if true, would be highly discreditable to the depart­ment. For the information of the honorable the Minister, I therefore beg to state that I am in a position to give It positive denial to those allegations, which are calculated, if uncontra­dicted, to excite disgust and fear in the minds of Y an Yean consumers.

"It is false that the bodies of native cats, dogs, and wallaby are to be seen floating about the inlet as described. The grating in the inlet is a fixture, and cannot be otherwise than closed. ThE' lake is constantly being traversed by the workmen in the boat or barge; the resident in­spector is careful and energetic; and so far as attention can be effective in protecting the water from pollution, it is so protected.

"Reference is also made to the mode of in­take. The Herald writer is wrong in the date at which discolouration was first" noticed. It began in April last year, not two years ago. It was alleged in May last that the discolouration was owing to the indiscreet orders issued as to the admission of flood water. It is said in the Herald-' It now seems that a statement made at the time, but to some extent officially con­tradicted, was as near the truth as possible.' In my memorandum dated 31st May, and pub­lished in the Argus of 2nd June, 1880, I gave an entire and unqualified contradiction to such statement, and proved beyond aU doubt that the first flood water had not, as stated, been allowed to enter the reservoir.

"The official records of intake to the reservoir are in existence, and will substantiate my asser­tions.

"WIlL DAVIDSON,

"Superintending Engineer. "February 24, 1881."

Banquet to Mr. Service. [PEimUARY 24.j Diseases in Stock Act. 1551

EighteeI~ months ago (added Mr. Lang­ridge) a board, appointed to inquire into matters cOllliected with the Y::m Yean water supply, reported upon the neces­sity for constructing an aqueduct above the present Yan Yean i'eservoir, by which arrangement all the defilement of the water that could possibly take place would be done away with; but that report had not yet been adopted.

HOBSON'S BAY RAILWAY. Mr. BENT inquired of the Minister of

Railways when he would duplicate the line from Windsor to Eisternwick ?

Mr. PATTERSON stated that the desire of the department was that the line referred to should be duplicated, and that necessary works should ·be carried out at the Swan-street crossing as soon as funds could be raised for the purpose, by a loan or otherwise.

Mr. DUFFY asked when the Windsor station would be improved?

Mr. P ATTER~ON replied that plans were being prepared with a view to the construction of a new station as soon as possible.

·PETITION. A petition was ptesented by Mr. BELL,

from the Ballarat Mining Board, praying that the State forests might be preserved intact, and placed under the management of local boards.

BANQUET TO MR. SERVICE. Mr. McCOLL inquired of theAttorney­

General .(in the absence of the Chief Secretary) whether it was desirable for the House to meet at all on the following Tuesday, seeing that an arrangement had already been made that, if the House did meet, it would adjourn at half-past six o'clock?

Mr. VALE said if there was a full understanding that honorable' members would assist the Government to finish the debate on the Reform Bill, so that the division on the second readiug might take place on Thursday, he saw no objection to the House adjourning over Tuesday. To test the feeling of honorable members on the point, he begged to move that the House, at its rising, adjourn until Wed­nesday, March 2.

Major SMITH seconded the motion, which was agreed to.

OFFIOIAL ASSIGNEES. Mr. DEAKIN called attention to a

statement in the Age newspaper, alleging 5p2

that an official assignee had levied black­mail on an insolvent debtor, and asked the Attorney-General·whether he intended to take any steps in the matter?

Mr. VALE stated that he did not feel justified, on a mere newspaper statement, in writing to half-a-dozen gentlemen hold­ing responsible situations in the service of the State, asking them whether they had been guilty of the thing imputed to one of them. The charge was that a certain official assignee had taken from an insol­vent an lO.U. for £5, payable within two months' after the certificate was granted; and if he were furnished with a copy of a document of the kind, he would deem the matter one calling for prompt and rigid inquiry.

DISEASES IN STOCK ACT. Mr. L. L. SMITH asked the Attorney­

General what action the Government intended to take witli regard to the amendment of the Diseases in Stock Act?

Mr. V ALE stated that there was no reasonable chance of a Bill of the charac­ter recommended by the select committee on the Diseases in Stock Act being passed during the present session, which it was necessary to bring to a close as soon as possible after the Reform Bill had been dealt with.

PERSONAL EXPLA.NA.TION. Mr. W. M. CLARK mentioned that

the daily papers contained a contradiction from the Traffic Manager of the Railways of the assertion made by him (Mr. Clark), the other night, that an officer had been removed from the Yarraville station to make way for a boy from Castlemaine. When he first saw the statement, he felt

. he owed an apology to the Minister of Railways, but, on making inquiries at the station, the boy himself said he came from Castlemaine. The only conclusion he could arrive at was that the boy ·was so young that he did not know anything about the matter, and that Mr. Anderson must know better.

LAND AT FOOTSCRAY. Mr. W. M. CLARK asked the Minister

of Lands if he would withdraw the land near the old powder magazine at Foots­cray, advertised for sale by auction, until it had been reclaimed and made suitable for residence sites?

Mr. RICHARDSON stated that the withdrawal ha,d already taken place.

1552 Pm,its and Gardens. [ASSEMBLY.] haZlway Returns,

PARLIAMENT HOUSE. Mr. COOPER asked the Minister of

Public Works whether tenders for the completion of Parliament House had been accepted?

Mr. LANGRIDGE replied in the affirmati vee

RAILWAY EMPLOYES AND THE EXHIBITION.

Mr. HALL asked the Minister of Railways whether he would grant a holi­day to the railway employes to enable them to visit the Exhibition?

Mr. PATTERSON observed that the railway employes had regular holidays, and additional holidays could not be granted without detriment to the service. To relieve 4,000 or 5,000 employes from duty all at once was a proceeding which would be fraught wit.h great danger. It would never do to leave the railways in the hands of inexperienced· people.

PARKS AND GARDENS. Mr. FINCHAM asked the Minister of

Lands why it was that this year's vote in aid of public parks and gardens was not being distributed on the plan on which the vote had been distributed in former years? The vote formerly was for" fencing and improving"; now it was distributed only on account of "fencing and planting."

Mr. RICHARDSON stated that the only difference in connexion with the dis­tribution of the vote was that certain places which had left off planting trees were excluded from participating in it.

Mr. FINCHAM inquired whether the same restriction was in force with respect to the reserves under the control of the Melbourne Corporation?

Mr. RICHARDSON replied in the affirmative.

Later in the evening, Mr. COOPER called attention to the

matter. He complained that, by the sub­stitution of the word" planting" for" im­proving," a large number of towns which had hitherto participated in the vote would be shut out from that privilege. It was not because municipal councils had ceased planting and now dedicated the money at their disposal to the erection in public parks of buildings for the use and enjoyment of the public that it could be said of them that they did not carry out the intention of the Legislature in mal,ing the vote. More­over, it should be recollected that, whether the planting of trees was continued 01'

not, the parks and gardens requi~ed Coli· stant attention, and that without that atten­tion the trees would die and the former expenditure would go for nothing. U oder these circumstances, he hoped the Minister of Lands would revert to the old regula­tions.

RAILWAY RETURNS.

Mr. WOODS called attention to the fact that returns ordered by the House, at his instance, on the 1st, 21st, and 22nd September, and the 11th November, had not yet been furnished. He was particularly anxious about the return ordered on the 21st September, which would show the cost of constructing all the lines of rail­way built since 1871, the working expenses of .those lines, and the revenne which they yielded. It was important that the information which such a return would afford should be in the hands of honorable members before the construction of any further railways was proceeded with.

Mr. PATTERSON stated that the motion for the return in question was allowed to pass " unopposed" on the assurance of the honorable member for Stawell that the information would take little time to prepare; but it appeared that the preparation of the document had been engaging the attention of four or five offi­cers of the department, and would not be completed until the lapse of six or eight

·months from the time it was ordered. Had he been at all aware that the prepa­ration of the return would have involved such an expenditure of time, labour, and money, he certainly would not have al­lowed the motion to go unopposed.

Mr. FRANCIS remarked that it was the duty of honorable members, before ordering such expensive returns, to see that a strong case was made out for their production.

MINING DEPARTMENT. Mr. GRAVES asked the Minister of

Mines whether he intended to classify certain senior officers of the Mining department, and thus place them on an equality with those who were classified last year? It appeared that on the 3rd February, 1880, the honorable memher for Richmond (Mr. Smith) called attention in the Assembly to the propriety of classify­ing four officers of the Mining department, who had been twelve years in the service. In reply, the then Minister of Mines (Major Smith) said he would favorably

Jlining Department. [FEBRUARY 24. ] English Mails. 1553

consider the application, because the four officers referred to did most of the work of the Mining department. In the recess following, two of the four officers were classified, and the question which he (Mr. Graves) now put related to the two who remained unclassified.

Mr. WILLIAMS remarked that there was no doubt that if officers should be classified they were the officers referred to, whose classification had been delayed, he believed, simply because the Govern­ment proposed, at an early day, to deal generally with the question of chtssifica­tion. However, if it was the strong deire of the House that the officers should be classified, he wonld bow to that desire.

Mr. SERVICE inquired whether the office'rs referred to couhl be classified legally?

Mr. WILLIAM S repliecl that he thought so. They had passed the Civil Service examination, and also the matricll­lation examination.

Mr. FRANCIS said that did not touch the question.

Mr. SERVICE oLservcd that the House should not be allowed, under a mistaken apprehension of the circum­stances Of the case, tacitly to sanction the atloption of the suggestion which had been made. No one would rejoice more t.han he to see deserving oflicers classified, provided it could be done legally; and he would like to know from the Attorney­General whether the officers in question, if classified, could be placed in a higher class than the 5th?

Mr. VALE said the Government could not consent to a special classification of officers of the Mining depart.ment-and he did not think the Minister of Mines under­took anything of the kind-which was not extended to equally deserving officers in other departments. Indeed anything of the sort must form a part of the gene­raj policy of the Government which would have to be unfolded in the next session of Parliament.

Mr. L. L. SMITH mentioned the case of Mr. Tobin, of the Mining department, vl'110 had been in the public service 16 years, after passing the Civil Service and matriculation examinations, but whose classification had been unintentionally omitted, and asked the Minister of Mines whether he would take steps to have the omission repaired?

Mr. WILLIAMS said he had been given to understand that the facts were

as stated by the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Smith). He believed there were, in the Mining department, three or four officers who deserved classi­fication as much as any officers in the service of the State; but, seeing that the Government were going to deal with the general question of classification at an early date, it was undesirable, in his opinion, to make any classification in the meantime, and accordingly he would not feel justified in doing anything of the kind unless directed by the House.

GIPPSLAND RAILWAY. Mr. KERFERD asked the Minister of

Rail ways if he "{QuId direct that similar trains, in proportion to the traffic, should run on the Oakleigh line as now ran daily on the other lines under the Hobson's Bay mana,gement? (Mr. lrVoods-" That means Sunday tra,ins.") Among others. He did not see why one man should be prevented from travelling to Toorak or Malvern on Sunday while another could go to St. Kilua or Sandridge. He might mention that great inconvenience was ex­perienced, in hot and rainy weather, at Murrumbeena and other stations, oViring to the fact of'the platforms being uncovered.

Mr. PATTERSON ouserved that an extra afternoon train and also an evening train would be run on the Oakleigh line on and after the 7th March. The ques­tion as to whether Sunday trains would be run on this railway was a matter for the consideration of the Cabinet. The accommodation at Murrumheena station would be improved as soon as possible.

ENGLISH MAILS. Mr. J\llcCOLL asked the Postmaster­

General if he would cause the letters by the English mail for the western and north-western districts to be landed at Portland, instead of being brought to Melbourne and taken back again ?

Mr. LANGRIDGE remarked that this question was frequently brought under the notice of pa.st Governments by a former member for ·Portland (Mr. Spensley), but no arrangement could be effected for the purpose in view. The matter had been recently again under the consideration of the Postal department. The directors of the P. and O. Company, however, objected that it would be unsafe to take the mail steamers into Portland at the present time, but if a light-house was erected at Cape Nelson-a mat.ter which would come under

1554 Railway Department. [ASSEMBLY.] Railway .l3rahes.

the consideration of the House next year -probably the company would consent to waive their objection.

RAILWAY DEPARTMENT. Mr. HALL asked the Minister of Rail­

ways if he would enlarge the apertures at the principal railway stations for the sale of passenger tickets? Great inconveni­ence was occasioned, especially at excur­sion times, in obtaining tickets at the small pigeon-holes at present provided.

Mr. PATTERSON remarked that he believed ample accommodation was pro­vided at all large stations for the sale of tickets. If, however, the honorable mem­ber brought any instance to the contrary under the notice of the department, it would be rectified. , Mr. COOPER (in the absence of Mr. 'VHEELER) asked the Minister of Railways when he would be in a position to call for tenders for a railway station and goods­shed at Bullarto ?

Mr. PATTERSON observed that the uepartment were doubtful whether the accommodation referred to was required at Bullarto, but further inquiries would be made.

THE MORAN INQUIRY. Mr. COOPER asked the Attorney­

General (in the absence of the Chief Secretary) when it was proposed to have the papers in the Moran case printed?

Mr. VALE said the Government ha.d no objection whatever to the papers being printed, but no order had been made by the House for printing them. The Go­vermnent would allow a motion for the printing of the papers to go as an "un­opposed" motion.

RAILWAY BRAKES. 1\11'. NIMMO asked tho Minister of

Rail ways tho following questions :-"1. If the passenger trains on the Williams­

town line are running without brake-vans? " 2. And, if so, is such a practice not a violation

of an order or direction of the Board of Trade for regulating the dnties of engine-drivers?

"3. What security is there for passengers in the absence of the usual brake?

"4. Is ~anger to passengers or property to be apprehended from running passenger trains without the protedion of the ordinary brake?"

Mr. PATTERSON observed that pas­senger trains were being run without brake-vans on the Williamstown line. WLero tho continuous brako was used, it was not necessary to have also a bmke-van

with a screw brake. The vans, however, had been only temporarily removed from the Williamstown trains in oruer to be used on the wheat trains.

Mr. vVOODS asked the Minister of Railways whether he could point to any other part of the world in which passenger trains were run without brake-vans?

Mr. PATTERSON remarked that he supposed the honorable member for Stawell only wanted to say another word in favour of Woods' brake, and he presumed the House did not wish to have any more debate on the subject.

Mr. WOODS (who, to put himself in order, moved the adjournment of the House) observed that he would make the matter important to the House, and he would not allow the Minister of Rail­ways or anyone else to walk off with false colours in a matter of this sort. The other night, the honorable member went out of his way to attack him (Mr. VVoods) in a most uncalled for, ungenerous, and untruthful manner.

The SPEAKER.-The honorable mem­ber is not in order in using the word" un­truthful."

Mr. WOODS said he would withdraw the word "untruthful," as the Minister might not have known that Lis statements were not true. This was a matter that concerned the whole travelling public of the colony, and he (Mr. "Voods) asserted that, with his 1raduced brake, passenger trains with 400, 500, and even 600 pas· sen gel's were now being run with regu· larity, safety, and comfort without a brake-van, and that was a thing unknown in railway history. After all the vilifi­cation the brake had been subjected to­merely to get at its inventor-he thought he was justified in asking the question he put to the Minister of Rail ways. If people wanted to blaspheme the brake, let them take it oft' and find a better one if they could; but let them not traduce it and at the same time 11se it without pay­ing for it. Such conduct was cowardly and mean. To show the capabilities of the brake, he might mention that the Board of Trade, which exercised super­vision over railways in England, issued instructions to drivers, one of which was that no continuous brake should be relied on when crossing junctions or entering terminal stations, but that on such occa­sions the ordinary brake should be used. Abundant evidence of the necessity for this cautioll was supplied in a return

Railway Brakes. [FEBIWARY 24.J Railway Brakes. 1555

Which the Board presented to the Imperial Parliament; which showed the number of times any continuous brake in use on the English railways had failed or acted im­properly during the last six months of ~879. The return showed that in that period there had been no less than 600 failures or improper actions of the West­inghouse brake, and ,127 of an infinitely better brake-Smith's vacuum. It must :he remembered that the failure or i~­proper action of a power brake-a brake applied by power and not by hand­lllight involve most disastrous conse­quenGes. For example, not long since, a t.rai,n fitted with a Westinghouse brake got ~tuck in a tunnel in England. The auto­matic action of the brake came into opera­tion unexpectedly, and, there being no p,ower to release the brake from the wheels, the train could not go on. The cpllsequence was that, after remaining in the tunnel 20 minutes, the train was run it;lto by an express. It was the occurrence of such failures as that which very properly caused the Boar<J of Trade to caution dri vers against using a continuous brake at junc­tions or in entering terminal stations. Yet on t4e Williamstown line no hand brake was now being used on passenger trains, and reliance was altogether placed on his 'brake, which was fitted to the engine and carriages. The guards' brake­vans had been taken away-as they were al,so last year-to work the wheat trains, and the Williamstown trains were being run with his brake alone, not only into terminal stations but over three junctions, ,travelling nine miles in 30 minutes, in .. clusi-ye of seven stoppages. He asserted that such a thing could not be paralleled in the railway world; yet, when he asked the Minister of Railways whether he could furnish the House with any information of similar work being performed elsewhere, he was accused of puffing his brake! The brake that was doing t.his work safely and satisfactorily was being traduced and scandalized-why? "Vas it because the traducers thought the brake was bad? ~o, but because it was his. vVhy had they not the manliness to stand up and say the opposition was to John Woods and not to the brake, instead of adopting the crawling, cringing, contemptible course of hitting at him through his invention? Of course the opinion of the MInister of Railways 011 the Woods brake could have no effect in the colony itself. The criti­cism of the present Miuister of Rn,ilways

on automatic continuous brakes, as a scientific criticism, or an addition to the scientific literature of the colony, would be about on a par with the criticism of Chinky-Chinky-Chopsticks on the. doc­trine of the Atonement. When the late Minister of Railways was in office, there was a gentleman at the head of the Rail­way department. The honorable member for Rodney (Mr. Gillies), no doubt pro-

,perly from his point of view, did not want a liberal to have the credit of having invented the greatest brake in the world; but he took a manly course. He aske(l his officers in writing to tell him all about the brake, and the answers of the officers were all written down in a State paper and presented to the House, and by tqat State paper he (Mr. Woods) would stand or fall. The late Minister of Rail­ways did not crawl round and say-" They say this, and they say that, and they say the other," but acted in a thoroughly straightforward manner to a consistent political opponent. (Mr. L. L. Smith­"What did the present Minister do ? ") The present Minister had tried to damn the brake with faint praise. He could not do it, as far as this colony was con­cerned, where the value of his opinion on the subject was known, but in other countries of the world-America, Europe, Africa, and India-where a company had spent money in taking out patents for the brake, it might be thought that the opinion of a Minister of Railways meant some­thing. Here, of course, it was known that it meant nothing. People knew that a political accident might jerk anyone into the position of Minister of Railways in this country. Honorable memJ:>ers knew that even intrigue and impudence were sometimes rewarded, and that a political accident rnight at one time make a tailor a Minister of Railways, at another a coffee-grinder, and at another a some­thing from Chewton or Castlemaine. It did not matter, therefore, in this colony what opinions such persons expressed, hut it was a different thing in other countries; and it was a scandalous and a cowardly thing to slander this brake in the way that it had been slandered unless it could be beaten and a better one produced. Could the Minister of Rail ways point to a better apparatus, or one that was more efficacious in saving life, and time, and property? Let the Minister of Rail ways -since whose advent to office the R,ailway deprtrtmcnt hn,d beeu turned intp _ ~ )mge

1556 Railway Brakes. [ASSEMBLY.] Railway Brakes.

butcher's shop-show something better, and he (Mr. Woods) would have nothing ~o say; but he wanted fair play-to which every Briton was entitled-and nothing more. He did not believe that even hon­orable members on the opposition side of the House would like to see his invention stamped out of existence in this cring­ing kind of way. He would not have risen but for the remark of the Minister of Railways, and he might remind that honorable member that the Railway de­partment would shortly have to pay a bill of £5,000 for the accident - or rather smash-at Lara, which could not have occurred if the train that caused the collision had been fitted with the traduced brake. As to the Beaufort collision, he would make no reference to it, as it WitS

sub judice, beyond saying that a train fitted with his brake might approach a station at three times the speed at which the driver of the goods train said he was going, without there being the slightest danger of a collision occurring.

Mr. DOvV (who seconded the motion for adjoul'llment) saiu he uesireu to enter his protest against any member of the Min­istry, at a time when conciliation was especially required to secure the passage of an important measure like the Reform Bill, doing anything to exasperate mem­bers of the House. He considered that the behaviour of the Minister of Railways with regard to the honorable member for Stawell and his brake fully deserved the castigation it had received.· (Mr. Patter­son-" I did not feel it.") He did lIOt expect the honorable member to feel it, and he wished to say that he was now speaking apart from personal consider­ations alt.ogether, because the Minister of Railways knew that he had a very high respect for him personally. The remarks of the Minister, however, appeared to be a part only of a good deal that was going on with reference to the honorable mem­ber for Stawell. The other day, it was stated in the newspapers that the gentle­men who had charge of the departmental working of the Railway department had determined upon having a competitive trial of the Westinghouse and Woods brakes, owing to there being great doubts about the effectiveness of the latter. It was even inferred-though not stated directly-that the late accident on the Williamstown line had been caused by this

. brake, because, it was said, if the train had not been fitted with the Woods brake

it would not have rushed into the station in the way it did. How utterly despicnble was all this! Was it not an insult to the intelligence of sensible men to infer that the "'vV oods brake caused the accident, when it was apparent that the train might have entered the station as slowly as pos­sible if the driver had not put on the brake at all? Such charges might legitimately come from the Opposition during the bent of an election conflict. As the honorable member for Maldon said, in addressing his constituents the previous night, there was great efficacy in a phrase, and no doubt in party warfare accusations were made from both sides. How· much capital had been made by the Opposition out of the Woods brake altogether apart from the merits of the invention itself? It was said that the inventor corruptly appropriated money as Minister of Railways, in order to obtain a trial of his brake, which he would not have obtained had he been a humbler iildividual and not a Minister. (Mr. Carter-" And he refused to allow Milligan a trial.~') No doubt that was one of the charges, and a great deal hnd been rnaue of it. The Oppositiuu, of course, were at full liiJerty to lllake charges of that kind, but for them to come from one's own fi'icnds was a very different thing. Liberals did not expect the cry against Woods and his brake to be taken up by one of the leaders on their own side of the House. They would st.and up and support the man who was fight­ing on their side and for their principles, and would demand that he should be cour­teously treated by the Minister when he asked a question, instead of being sneered at. He recently saw it stated, in a nev{spaper article, that a considerable depreciation in the price of wheat was caused by the want of proper accommodation for storing the grain after it reached Melbourne from the farming districts. The honorable mem­ber for St.awell, when Minister of Rail­ways, submitted a scheme for providing cellarage at the Spencer-street station for all the wheat brought by railway, and, if the phtn had been carried out, thero would h.ave been accommodation for storing the various consignments of wheat in a me­thodical manner-in a similar way, in fact, to that in which wool was stored in the warehouses of Messrs. Goldsbrough and other large brokers. Buyers would thus have had all necessary facilit.ies for inspecting the wheat, and the farmers would have got 3d. or 6d. more a bushel for it than they were obtaining at present,

Railway Brakes. [FEBRUARY 24.J Railway B1·akes. 1557

owing to the grain being tumbled about and damaged, in consequence of there being no accommodation for storing it.

Mr. PATTERSON called attention to the following intimation on the notice­paper:-

"Sir B. O'LOGHLEN: To ask the honorable the Commissioner of Railways when will the department be in a position to have the con­tinuous and automatic electric railway brake, now shown and tried at the Exhibition, and known as Milligan's, tested in a practical manner on the Victorian Railways."

Notwithstanding that this question was to be asked, and that the Milligan brake was to have a trial in the course of about three weeks, the honorable member for Stawell thought it was fair play for him to stand up in the House, in his capacity as a re­presentative of the people, and puff his own brake. vVas it right, when it was mentioned there was to be a trial of the Westinghouse brake, or the Milligan brake, or any other competing brake, that the honorable member should take advantage of his pusit.ion to thrust his brake upon the Government of the day? If the hono1'­aLle member did not know his position as a representative of the people better than to ma,ke use of it for his own commercial bOllefit, he ought to be made aware of it. If there was olle thing which would make the Rail way department hesitate about the Woods brake, it was the fact that there were so many politicians connected with it and wrapped up with it. How was it that the brake, which had been known to the department for three years, was not generally applied before he (Mr. Patterson) took office? He had only Leen Minister about six months, and yet, for­sooth, he was called upon to extend the use of the brake. It was pushed forward by the honorable member for Stawell in season and out of season. vVho was running down the brake? He knew nothing about the brake, though he understood that it was a very good one, but he also thought that the Government should get a better one if they could. The other night, he said the Government would test the West­iughouse brake side by side with the Woods brake, and what did the honorable member fear from a fair competition if his brake was all that he stated it to be? (Mr. "\Voods-" I am not afraid.") Did the honorable member want to squeeze the brake politically on the Government of the country? It was indecent, to say the very least, that a man occupying the posi­tion of a representative of the people

should seize every opportunity, in season and out of season, to thrust his invention on the Government. They would take their own time about the matter. They would have a fair test and a fair trial. They would get the best brake they could for the public money, and they would not, merely because it happened to belong to a member of the Legislative Assembly, at­tach any more importance to the Woods brake than it deserved.

Sir B. O'LOG HLEN stated that, in gi ving the notice of question in reference to the Milligan brake, he had no intention to cast any reflection on the Woods brake. When he was Chief Secretary, he felt the necessit,y for having the best and cheapest brake which could be obtained, and, after making investigation, he came to the con­clusion that, as far as he could j uelge, the brake of the honorable member for Stawell was the best to be had. He therefore urged that it should be applied to other trains. besides those running on the Williamstown and Ballarat lines, in connexion with which it was first tried. In the opinion which he formed about the Woods brake he was snpported by authorities in New South Wales of great practical experience. In fact, those authorities had set the seal of their ap­proval on the VV oods brake. His whole object in giving notice of question about the Milligan brake was to obtain for that brake a trial on' the Government rail­ways. He understood it was not the brake which the honurable member for Stawell, when Minister of Railways, con­demned, but a new one altogether. (Mr. W oods-" The other is dead.") The other was virtually dead; but the new one had been tried, and successfully tried, at the Exhibition. A practical test on the railways was, however, required for it, and that was the reason why he had put the question on the notice-paper. As to the Westinghouse brake, as f:u as he could ascertain, it was far dearer than the V\T oods brake-he believed three times as expensive-and not so effective. At the same time, the honorable member for Stawell would admit that, if a better and cheaper brake tlmn the Woods brake could be obtaineu, the Government ought to adopt it.

Mr. MASON remarked that, uuring the past month,_ the Minister of Rail­ways had been continually denouncing the Woods brake. The honorable gen­tleman, in fact, had most unfairly taken

1558 Railway Bl'aRes. [ASSEMBLY.] Railway B'l'anes.

advantage of his official position to rob the honorable member for Stawell of the credit due to - him. in cOl1nexiol1 with the brake. The honorahle gentleman knew that a jury at the Exhibition were experimenting with this and some other brakes, and he should have waited until: they arrived at their decision before ven­turing to say anything in disparagement of the Woods brake. Within the last day or two the jury had recommended that a prize, which was the highest ever given atany Exhibition in the world, should be awarded to the honorable member for .Stawell; and yet the Minister of Railways had cast aspersions upon the invention. Public decency, good taste, and courtel:iY to a former colleague demanded that the Minister should have refrained from using such extravagant language in denouncing the Woods brake. The other evening, in answering a question in reference to a fatal accident at the North Williamstown mil way station, the hono~able gentleman evidently intended to convey the impres­sion that the fatality was caused by the train being supplied with this brake.

Mr. PATTERSON explained that what he stated was that the coroner's jury added a rider to their verdict, sug­·gesting that drivers of engines should not be permitted to run trains into stations so rapidly as was the case with the train which killed a woman at the North Wil­liamstown station. The knowledge that. they had this powerful brake rendered them reckless.

Mr. MASON said the Minister's pre­vious statement certainly left the im­pression on his mind that the death was caused by the use of the Woods brake. Surely, however, it was no detriment to tbe hrake that it enabled the driver to pull up so quickly that a train could enter a station at a rapid pace. The fact of a train being fitted with this brake was no reason why the driver should not exercise caution when approaching a station. He might mention that the vVilliamstown newspapers, which knew all about the facts of th e case, en tirel y disagreed wi t.h the rider to the verdict of the coroner's jury-. Personally he had no earthly interest in. the brake, but he was pained and gdeved at the castigation which the Minister of Hailways had administered to the honor­able member for Stawcll. ·When the honorable member for Rodney (Mr. Gil­lies) was Minister of Railways) he made an offi.cial inquiry as t.o the merits of the

Woods brake, and addressed 13 specific questions on the subject to Mr. Mirls, the Locomotive Superintendent. The 13th question was-

"Give particulars of the experience of the department as to its working."

The answer to this 'vas-" The brake has been working satisfactorily."

The hono·rable gentleman, apparently not content· with this, submitted a further series of questions to Mr. Mirls about the brake, and, in reply to one of them, that officer reported of the brake that-

" It enables the suburban passenger tmins to keep time and run at higher speeds than for­merly. and with greater safety; it has saved several lives and collisions; it enables the speeds of trains to be controlled in descending the steep inclines on the main trunk line."

Surely the present Minister of Hailways must have been unconscious of this re­port, or he would not have traduced or thrown cold water upon such an important invention as the "Toods brake. The least the honorable gentleman should have done was to regard the merits of· the brake as sub judice until the Exhibition jury gave their decision as to the Woods and other brakes.

Mr. R. M. SMITH observed that the Minister of Railways bad taken a plain business-like view of the matter. The honorable gentleman was not a practical judge of the merits of the ·Woods brake, but he wished to have it tested and com­pared with others. He (Mr. Smith) must confess that he did not think the honorable member for Stawell, when Minister of Hail ways, was justified in applying tests on the railways to his own brake which. he refused to apply to other brakes.

Mr. WOODS said there appeared to be a great misapprehension on this point in some quarters. When Minister of Rail­ways, he was charged with the duty and responsibility of looking after the safety of the travelling public. He found a brake in use on the rail ways which, to his knowledge, had been ill existence for over 40 years, and which had no cont,rol over the trains. He therefore replaced it with the best brake within his knowledge. He applied that brake; he did not test it; there werenoexperiments. He adopted the brake in the execution of his duty to the public~ He instructed the Locomotive Superin­tendent to go to the expense of £100 in applying the new brake to tV{O carriages, and stated that he (Mr. Woods) would be responsible if the thing was a failure. So

Railway Brakes. [FEBRUARY 24. ] Railway Brakes. 1559

far, however, from being a failure, the two carriages had been running from that da,y to the present without anything more having been done to them. 'While he was Minister, he received a note from Mr. Milligan, asking for an interview with

.him in reference to a brake which that gentleman had patented. Lest Mr. Milli­gan might think that he was applying a test to'. his own brake and refused to

· allow any other to be tested, he referred that gentleman to two engineers connected with the, department-he believed they were the two best railway engineers in the colony-and they made a report to him. He forgot whether the report wa,s

·in. writing or not, hut he know that it advised him not to touch the Milligan

· brake under any circumstances, ris it vio­lated the fundamental principles laid down by railway engineers. (Mr. Mason­" Has Mr. Milligan given up that brake ?") That brake was daacL Milligan and Wheeler's brake was a totally new thing, and was not automatic.

Mr. R. M. SMITH thought the 1I0nor-.able member for Stawell must surely see that he could not play the double part of inventor and judge. A trustee could not lend money to himself, although he might be perfectly conscious of the goodness of the security; and an inventor could not be the judge of the merits of his own invention. He understood that the pre­sent Minister of Railways merely proposed to have a fair test made of the merits of the various brakes. He proposed to care­fully separate Mr. Woods' the inventor

· from Mr. Woods an ex-Minister of Rail­ways, and also from the present honorable member for Stawell. That was just and proper conduct, and even the honorable member for Sta,Yell and his friends must allow that it was the right course to adopt. As an inventor, the honorable member was perfectly justified in obtaining all t.he advantages of his invention, but he was not entitled to get auytbing more for it because he ,vas a member of the House and had been Minister of Railways', The present Minister would, 110 dOl~bt, have the Woods and other brakes submitted to a fair test by the best scient.ific autho­rities w hose assistance he could obtain, and abide by the result.

Sir J. O'SI-IANASSY stated that the ablest men in the House of Lords recently devoted themse~yes to an iuquil'y into the subject of railwa.y brakes, with the result that they were llOt aule to recommend any

particular one for adoption on the English l'ail ways. If the House of Lords, aftor hearing the evidence of the best scientific men in England, was not able to arrive at a decision on t.he question, how was the Minister of Railways going to make the Westinghouse brake the sole test, or nearly so, of the merits of a brake for this country?

Mr. PATTERSON said its efficiency was proved by its adoption in England. (Sir J. O'Shanassy--" By whom?") By nearly all the principal railways.

Mr. 'VOODS remarked that it was nonsense t.o say that the Westinghollse umke had been adopted by nearly all the railways in England.

Sir J. O'SI-IANASSY said the inquiry by the House of Lords would not have takeJl place if the VV' estinghouse brake was considered satisfactory by the people of Engla.nd. There had been a great deal of controversy with respect to the Woods brake, bnt the honorable member for Rodney (Mr. Gillies), when Minister of Railways, appeared to be perfectly satis­fied with it, on the report of the best authorities in the department. He (Sir J. O'Shanassy) was at one time prejudiced against the Woods brake, but he changed his opinion about it after reading what was said in favour of it by the Engineer­in-Chief of New South Wales, a gentle­man of high professional standing. (Mr. Kerferd-H Has he adopted it ?") Such a q nestion could only arise in the mind of u. lawyer. The real point was whether, as a professional engineer, he had certified to the utility of the brake. It might be altogether out of his power to induce the Govel'llment of New South vVales to adopt it. The honorable member for Stawell had stated that when he became Minister of Railways he found an obsolete description of brake-one that had been iu existence for over 40 years-in use on the Victorian Railways, and that he applied his own brake. vVhether the honorable member did so properly or im­properly, if the brake was beneficial to the working of' the railways, the country might be very well satisfied to get it. I-Ie (Sir J. O'Shanassy) believed that the late Mr. T. Higinbotham, when Engineel'-in­Chier, objected to the brake, not because it was useless, but because it was too gcod. He thought the men in charge of it, knowing its strength, would become careless, and allow too milch time to elap:-;e before applying it. But surely the

1560 Railway Brakes. [ASSEMBLY.] Railway Brakes.

Goyernment conld frame regnlations for the proper "working of the brake, so as to olrvittte any objection of that kind. Some questions had been asked as to whether the trains on the Williamstown line were not being run without a brake-van, but the Minister of Railways had not given a complete answer.

Mr. PATTERSON stated that a brake­van was not necessary in connexion with t.he trains on the Williamstown line, because the brake was worked from the engine, and applied itself to all the carriages.

Mr. KERFERD said he understood that the Minister of Rail ways had stated that he was determined to test the West­inghousc and Milligan brakes-··and, itwas to be supposed, any other brake that oc­cupicd an equally prominent position in the railway world-be.fore he committed the country to the adoption of the 'V oods or any partieular brake. vVell, were he (Mr. Kerferd) the in ven tor of a brake, he would not feel the smallest sense of griev­ance because that course was to be taken. It appeared, indeed, to be a course so directly in the interests of the public that it ought to be supported on all sides. What then were some honorable members driving at? Why had so many questions touching railway brakes appeared on the notice-paper? Was there any intention to press the Minister of Railways in con­nexion with the matter? Was it sup­posed that, in a purely departmental affair of this sort, he would not do t.hat"w hich was right and proper? So far as he (Mr. KerfeI'd) was concerned, he had no preju­dice whatever against the Woods brake, but if he had he might have been disposed, the previous day, to express a hope that it would never be applied to a carriage in which he travelled. He was then in a Williamstown train, and, whenever the Woods brake was applied, the vibration was so strong that his feet, and those of his fellow passengers, were involuntarily lifted from the floor of the carriage. Pos­sibly, however, the person who applied the brake did so improperly. But, whe­ther the machine worked well or ill, he had always thought the honorable mem­ber for Stawell did not act wisely when, ,,,hile he was Minister of Railways, he had his brake made in the railway work­shops at the State expense. There could be no doubt that, before the Government adopted any brake, they should obtain the fullest possible evidence of its value by. subjecting it, and all the best known

brakes, to the strictest practical tests, and also seek the opinion of tLlC House on the subject. (Mr. Woods-"There are about 300 different railway brakes.") Possibly that was the case, and possibly there was such a resemblance between some of tho brakes that there vms very little to distin­guish them. Persons had been heard to say that the Woods brake was partly the Westinghouse brake. (Mr. W oods­"It is not.") ,The honorable member ought to be glad of the opportunity of contradicting the rumour which he (Mr. Kerferd) had afforded him, and also to rest satisfied with" the statement of tho l\1inister of Railways that no injustice ' would be done to him. If the Woods brake was found on trial to be the best, the Government ought to be strongly sup­ported in adopting it. The honorable member for South Gippsland had men-

"tioned that the Exhibition jurors awarded it a prize never known before in any part of the world. Well, that Wight be the case; but it was worth while asking whether any other brakes were at the time brought iuto competition with it. (Mr. Woods-" An exhibit getting a 1st prize from the Exhibition jurors is not. necessarily a matter of competition.") But competition was bound to mak~ an immense difference. It was to be hoped the debate would go no further.

Mr. VALE remarked that it seemed to hurt the feelings of the Opposition to find that there was, on the liberal side of the House, not only a Minister who had actually had £1,000 to lend, but also an inventor. But what found­ation was there for the unreasonable prejudice that was so frequently "enter­tained against colonial inventions? Quite lately, when he was in Sydney, he heard of a working man, once a resident there, who, having invented a machine for split­ting leather, offered it to the leading tanner and currier of the city-with what result? The tradesman refused to look at it. Well, the inventor took his invention to England, and n1l1de a great success with it; and, sixteen years afterwards, the Sydney tan­ner had to send home for the ml1chinel'j he formerly despised. He (Mr. Vale) was not a judge of rail way brakes, and it was not outside the knowledge of honorable members that he was not sup­posed to be particularly friendly with the honorable member for Stawell, but neVel'· theless he felt bound to point out that the Woods brake was being somewhat unfairly

Railway B1'akes. [FEBRUARY 24.J Railwdy Ilrakes. 1561

found fault with. For example, the hon­OI'able member for the Ovens (Mr. Kerferd) complained that it once caused him to lift llis legs from the floor of the railway car­riage he was in. But how did the West­inghouse brake work? Why, on one occa­sion, when he (Mr. Vale) was travelling in London, directly the Westinghouse brake was put into operation his legs were lifted up not only with his consent but without it, while another portion of his person rc­ceived a most uncomfortable bump. Did not most honorable members recollect the bumping they used to get in Cobb's coaches when the apparatus of leather and iron that was in those days used as a brake was brought into play? Besides, another aspect of the case must not be overlooked. Supposing the railway authorities found that the best brakes they could discover were two, one of foreign and the other of colonial invention, and that they were of almost equal excellence, would it not be right to give the benefit of the doubt to the colonial inventor? That was the policy of the Government with respect to the matter, and he was sure the Minister of Railways would accept it with cor­diality and sincerity~ Certainly there was on the Treasury bench no wish to snuff out the Vi{ oods brake, but, on the contrary, a strong desire to test its merits; and if they were found sufficient to en­title it to adoption by the l~ail way de­partment, the country would doubtless be glad to pay a proper and legitimate price for it.

Mr. ZOX observed that, whatever other good qualities the Woods brake might have, it could not, in view of the enormous quantity of time that had been wasted. by the House in talking about it, be regarded as economical. Surely it ought to have been taken, long ago, out of the arena of political discussion, and d.ealt with in the proper commercial way, namely, upon its merits. Of course, it was very pleasing to know that it was the invention of a Victorian; but it was nothing like so agreeable to remember that, when its inventor was Minister of Railways, he persistently refused to allow Milligan's brake to be tested by the department upon the same terms that he allowed himself when he got his own brake tested. Why even the honorable member's then political chief expressed, to an influential deputa­tion that waited upon him in reference to the subject, his regret that Milligan had been so treated.

Mr. WOODS mentioned that he had, in the absence of the honorable member for East Melbourne (Mr. Zox), explained that he refused to allow a tes t of Milligan's brake because the rail way authorities reported to him that it viola.ted the first principles of railway engineering. What had been the consequence? At the pre­sent moment, that particular brake was utterly abandoned. What was now called Milligan's brake was a totally different invention.

Mr. ZOX stated that no one would be more pleased than. himself if the Railway department found that the best brake they could get was one of Victorian invention. At the same time, he begged to point ont that giving the Woods brake an unfair advantage was bound to injure its reputa­tion. Everyone must agree with the action with respect to it. which the Minis­ter of Railways was about to take, because it appeared as though he was going to treat it justly, and upon its merits, without undue favour.

Mr. MIRAMS' said he regarded the Minister of Railways as entirely respon­sible for the present discussion, and the waste of time it had caused. It was all very well for the Opposition, in referring to the honorable member's intention to have the "Voods brake tested in competi­tion with other brakes, to express the opinion that he was acting fairly. All honorable members were agreed that such tests ought to be applied. Had not even the honorable member for Stawell said, over and over again, that he wanted no­thing in the shape of favour for his brake, and that he was willing to have any test applied to it, so long as it got fair play? But what he (Mr. Mirams) and other honorable members objected to was that, before those tests were applied, the brake was being subjected to adverse criticism on the part. of irresponsible officers of the Railway department. Did not the Min­ister of Railways, last week, read to the House an official report indirectly con­demning the brake? The publication of that report, whoever wrote it, was an insult to the intelligence of the House and of the country. Because what was its effect? That the brake was actually so good that it occasioned the death of a young woman at the Williamstown Junction; - that the engine-drivers on the Williamstown line knew so well they could depend upon the brake that they brought up their trains too rapidly. Were the

1562 Railway R1'ahes. [ASSEMBLY.]

drivers of engines who had the brake at command compelled to run their trains faster than they otherwise would? If they drove into stations too fast, was it not open to the Minister of Railways to check the practice, and order t.hem to pull . up at a moderate pace? (1\11'. Patterson -" Such instructions have been given.") Then why diu the honorable member read out to the House a report which implied that the faulty practice of the engine­drivers ·was really attributable ,to the VV oods brake? He (Mr. Mirams) tra­velled twice a day on ~he Williamstown line, and experienced no inconvenience whatever from the brake. Besides, was not the fact that for the last fortnight every Williamstown train had travelled without the ordinary brakeuvan simply a proof that the railway authorities had such confidence in the Woods bra,ke that they were re:1uy to intrust the safety of their passengers solely to its working? The general rule was to attach a brake­van to every train, without exception, as a protection in case of emergency, but it seemed that the railway officials were now completely satisfied that with the Woods brake no emergency would arise. Without such a conviction on their part, for them to rely solely on the Woods brake would be unnecessarily and crimi­nally risking the limbs and lives of the public. He (Mr. Mirams) repeated that the report produced, last week, by the Minister of Railways was a strikingly un­fair one, and he believed that had the Minister fa,irly and straightforwardly an­swered the question put to him by the honorable member for Emerald Hill (Mr. Nimmo) about the way brake-vans were being dispensed with, the present discus­sion would never have arisen.

Mr. CARTER remarked that, after a long period of liberal government, the presen t occasion was, he believed, the first on which he had been able to say, on behalf of his constituents, that he approved of the conduct of a leading member of the Ministry. At the same time, the discussion that had arisen ought to teach the Minister of Railways that if he wished to keep in with the great liberal party he must thoroughly distrust the maxim that honesty was the best policy. He refused to give special coun­tenance to the invention of one of the principal supporters of the Government­hence these tears. The honorable mem­ber for Collingwood (Mr. Mirams) tried

to make a kind of capital out of tbe fact that brake-vans were not now attached to any Willia,mstowll train; but he (Mr. Cartel') was led to understand that the cause of the new arrangement was slightly different from that which the honorable member meut,ioned. It was openly statecl that the reason why brake-vans were <lis­pensed with on the Williamstown line was that none could be spared for use there, the honorable member for Stawell having, when he was Minister of Rail­ways, stopped the construction of new ones. Reference had been made by the honorable member for Belfast to the fact that Mr. R. H. Burnett, the locomotive engineer of the 'New South Wales Rail­way department, had reported strongly in favour of the Woods brake. Now upon that subject he (Mr. Carter) thoroughly agreed with the bonorable member for Boroondara that everyone in the House would be proud and glad to learn that one of their fellow members had done something to raise the fame of the colony. But, at the same time, facts were facts. What was the sum total of Mr. Burnett's recom-

. mendatiolls? They were as follows :-" In order, therefore, to establish beyond ques­

tion the only point which, as it seems to me, can possibly be raised as not being established with exactness between the Westinghouse and Woods systems, namely, the greater reliability of the latter over the former, I would recommend­more especially if it be considered essential to continue the use of automatic brakes on our railways-that the trains of the Northern lines, where no continuous brake has yet been gene­rally adopted, be fitted with the Woods brake.

" Further, that the application of the Westing­house brake be confined, in the meantime, to the Western and Southern 'through,' and the Sydney' suburban' (American) trains, and that, when the relative reliability of the two systems has been conclusively established, the least effi­cient be abandoned in favour of the other."

How could this be said to be a clear decision in favour of the Woods brake? I~lsewhere in his report Mr. Burnett ex­pressed the opinion that the Victorian invention would be found more reliable than the other, but he also pointed out that it would be more expensive. More­over, it was impossible to lose sight of the opinion generally entertained among scientific men that, except upon emer­gency, the use of an automatic brake was very undesirable. As Mr. Burnett's report showed, the application of such a brake always put under strain not only the per­manent way but also every fibre of the carriages. (Mr. W oods-" But my brake is a continuous one.") It was not at ·all

Railway Brakes. (FEBRUARY 24.j Railway 13rahes. 1563

clear that" that circumstance altered the case. (Mr. W oods-" Yes, it does.") At all events, it was to be hoped the Railway department would consider well before they finally adopted an automatic brake except for use upon emergency. The honorable member for Stawell made one remark that evening which was worth attention. He said he never experimented with his brake at the expense of the State, but simply, as Minister of Railways, ap­plied it. Surely the responsibility attach­ing to the application of a brake without experiment was a very grave one. (Mr. Woods - " Well, I took the responai­bility.") But how could the honorable member say there were no experiments with his brake when the House had heard of his employing the late Mr. A. K. Smith and Mr. Zeal, and others, to make them? (Mr. Woods -" They only tested its power.") Was not that practically ex­perimenting? He (Mr. Carter) might add that he looked at the return which had been furnished to the House of the cost of experimenting with the Woods brake with the gravest suspicion. Unquestion­ably some of the information contained in the document could not be correct. Pro­bably the officials who prepared it were terror-stricken. (Mr. W oods-" It was prepared while Mr. Gillies was Minister or , Railways.") Doubtless the men had their fears notwithstanding. There could be little question that the money spent on the brake, in the first instance, was far more than it was acknowledged to be. However, if the honorable member for Stawell had really invented something superior to anything else of the kind, he (Mr. Carter) would be delighted to claim him as a Victorian genius, and, if the thing turned lout a" financial success, to congratulate him. But there could be" no doubt the Minister of Railways haa taken ,a proper course in putting all inventors on one footing; ,and in not al.:. lowing one man, because he happened to be a Member of Parliament, to enjoy privileges which were denied to another person who did not occupy such a posi­tion. The honorable member for Stawell had elicited so much hard speaking against himself simply because, when he was Minister of Railways, he allowed himself a very different right from that which he allowed to any other member of the com­munity. As had been well said by the honorable member for Boroondara, a trus­tee could not lend trust moneys to himself,

and a Minh;ter of Railways had no right to make experiments for his own benefit, at the expense of the country, no matter how successful the result might be.

Mr. W. M. CI.JARK stated that he had had an experience of three years of vVoods' brake-he had been in the habit of riding in trains to which it was attached foul' times a day-and he had never experi­enced any of the shocks of which the honorable member for the Ovens (Mr. Kerferd) complai~led. "The honorable member's complaints reminded him of certain gentlemen who, on alighting from a train one day, thanked God that 'V oods' brake was not attached to it, while there it was all the time. The recent accident at the 'Villiamstown J unction was not attributable to the brake in any way; it was caused by a girl jumping from a part of the plat­form to get to the other side of the line, just as the train was approaching. Two lives were lost, in a similar way, at the Footscray station a few years ago. A sub­way was then constructed, and since then there had been no accident at Footscray, although trains approached that station at a quicker rate than they approached any other station on the" Williamstown line. He recollected, on one occasion, two little children playing on the" railway near the Saltwater-river Bridge just as a train was approaching ;" the train was pulled up so close that it almost touched the children's clothes, but with no other power than that of Woods' brake could the stoppage have been made so quickly. Only the previous Monday, he saw a woman at­tempting to cross the line at North Wil­liamstown station, just as a train was in motion. Station-master, policemen, and passengers rushed to save her, but their efforts would have been unavailing i~ Woods' brake had not been attached to tlie train. As it was, the buffer of the engine brushed the woman's"dress.

Mr. LAURENS observed that honor­able members in opposition, while profess­ing great regard for Woods' brake if it could only be proved superior. to every other brake, seemed to exhibit a wonderfhl deal of prejudice about the matter. He was on the trial trip when the brake was first tested so far as its application-so far as ascertaining the time at which a train travelling at various rates of speed could be stopped-was concerned; and when the strongest test possible w"as Hlp­plied,. he did not receive as great a shock

1564 Rdilway Brahes. [ASSEMBLY.] Railway Brahes.

as he received every time he came to town from North Melbourne in a cab. Much of the time of the House had been wasted in disparaging Woods' brake, but novel' had a disposition been shown to give it anything like a fair tria], or to speak of it as something worth a fair trial. However, it was a matter of great significance that, in the report just read by the honorable member for St. Kilda (Mr. Carter), there was no trace of any attempt to disparage the merits of the invention. The only question which that report raised was whether Woods' brake was on a par with what had hit.herto been known as the best brake in the world. (Sir J. O'Shanassy -" No.") At all events, it was a brake of great repute. Whether Woods' brake waS equal to that brake of great repute or better, whatever might be the outcome of any further inquiry, it must be a brake worthy of some little consideration; and therefore he was not disposed to take exception to ~he honest course which the present Minister of Rail ways proposed to adopt.

Mr. BENT said he thought the honor­able member for Stawell ha.d good reason to complain of the honorable member for North Melbourne (Mr. Laurens). It was three years since the honorable member took the cheap trip he had referred to-a trip which cost him nothing-and yet, until now, the honorable member never advertised. Woods' brake. The honorable member never dreamed of advertising it when he (Mr. Bent) was interested in the brake as a shareholder. He was not interested in the concern now, because he sold out when he took office, but he thought the honorable member for North Melbourne ought to send a donation to the Hospital as a return for that cheap ride. For his own part, he always believed in Woods' brake. He considered it a good machine, and he believed that it was only want of business tact on the part of the inventor that prevented it becoming one of the best machines in the world. There were members of the House whom he could not help calling low hypocrites,

- who had never invested a shilling in the invention, and haa never done anything to help the honorable member for Stawell to get his just rights, but who now got up and praised the machine simply be­cause it furnished them with an oppor­tunity of having a slap at the Minister of Railways. He would like to know the little" move" that was "on." Why had

so much indignation been got up ? Was there any intention to expel the Minister of Railways from the Ministry? Had he been too honest on the patronage qilestion for those who sat with and behind him, and were they going to turn him out? Or were they afraid that, when Mr. Berry was turned out-and that would take place before long-Mr. Patterson would be supreme? The At­torney-General had talked about protec­tion to native industry. What did that mean ? Was there to be a row in Cabinet next day? Was Vale or Patterson to be master? The one, as Minister of Rail­ways, said-" I will have this machine tested on business principles," while the other declared-" I will take care, on behalf of the Government, that justice shall be done to this machine." This state of affairs was sufficient to provoke the inquiry-" Who is the real gaffer or boss to-night?" It was his belief that the discussion which had taken place on this occasion was raised, as discussions on previous evenings had been raised, to prevent progress with the debate on the reform question, which, it would appear, the Government did not want to get on with. They wanted the debate inter­fered with night after night, in order to prevent quotations from former speeches on the question of reform, until the arrival of Thursday night, when there would be a call of the House, and a division would have to be taken on the second reading of the Government Bill. If they could succeed in that object, they would laugh at the thought of each little flare-up they had caused, and ask each other-" Did we not work that nicely?"

The motion for the adjournment of the House was put and negatived.

Subsequently, Sir B. O'LOG HLEN inquired of the

Minister of Railways (pursuant to hif! notice of question) when the department would be in a position to have the con­tinuous and automatic electric railway brake known as "Milligan's" tested in a practical manner on the State railways? Milligan's brake was at the Exhibition, and had been experimented upon by several practical men who· thought highly of it, but the jurors were resolved not to come to any decisive verdict with regard to railway brakes until Milli­gan's had been tried on the railways, if that could be done within a reasonable time.

Reform Bill. [FEBRUARY 24.J Second Reading. 1565

Mr. PATTERSON stated that if after the pressure of business to which the rail­ways were at present subjected-say in about three weeks' time-Mr. Milligan was disposed to make, at his own expense, experiments with his brake, the Railway department would afford him every facility.

Mr. KERFERD suggested that Mr. Milligan should be allowed, in this re­spect, the same advantages that Mr. Woods had enjoyed.

SA W -MILL LICENCES. Sir B. O'LOGHLEN asked the Minister

of Lands whether he would place in the Library the papers connected with the granting of a saw-mill licence, and ofa special area of 1,000 acres, to Mr. Robert Henderson, of Wombat Creek, Daylesford?

Mr. RICHARDSON said he had no objection to the honorable member in­specting the papers if he would call at the Lands department.

REFORM BILL. FOURTH NIGHT'S DEBATE.

The debate on Mr. Berry's motion for the second reading of the Reform Bill (adjourned from the previous evening) was resumed.

Mr. HALL.-Mr. Speaker, in the ab­sence of the honorable member for Sand­hurst (Mr. Quick), at whose instance, last

. evening, the debate was adjourned, I desire to make a few remarks on the Bill now before us, and on some of the criti­cisms to which it has been subjected. The report which has gone abroad that the country is opposed to the Bill is, I believe, most untrue. So far as my own district is concerned, I can say that, at the last general election, it was made fully ac­quainted with the Service Reform Bill, and with Mr. Berry's proposals, and the result was that the latter were generally accepted, while the former was condemned and rejected. Honorable members who support the Ministry have been frequently taunted by honorable members on the other side and by the press with a change of policy on the question of reform. I, for one, think that we can afford to bear those taunts without doing ourselves any great injury, because our motives have been of the best. We have desired to place before the country something which would be generally accepted; and we have made concessions with the view of bringing our opponents to our way of thinking, in order that the question may

2ND SES. 1880.-5 Q

have speedy settlement .. One amusing allegation against the Ministry in con­nexion with their Reform Bill is that they have. stolen the most popular part of the Service programme. I was not aware that there was much in the Service pro­gramme worth· stealing. According to the Minister of Public Instruction and other honorable members, whatever there was in the Service programme worth anything at all was pillaged from a former liberal programme. Therefore, I don't see where the stealing comes in. But assuming that we have been guilty of stealing, I think honorable members on the other side ought to be grateful to us for the proceeding, because, if they say what is correct, we have simply taken the wheat and cast away the husks, and so sought to carry what they themselves found it impossible to pass. If they grumble at that course, I can only say they are much like the. dog in the manger­what they themselves have failed to do, they are determined no other party shall accomplish. I don't know that that is the case; I would rather try to think it is not so. The debate has been carried on, so far, in a very good spirit-on the principle of bearing and forbearing-and I trust that spirit will continue to the end. Therefore I do not wish to say any­thing harsh with respect to any honorable member. The fact that we have made so many concessions seems to be treated as a sin by the other side, but much trouble is not required to show that, on this question of reform, several honorable gentlemen opposite have made a complete ohange of front. Not long since, some of those hon­orable members were favorable to the ratepayers' roll being taken as the basis of the franchise of the Legislative Council. N ow they totally object to it ; they con­tend that a £10 rating should be the lowest qualification. Before charging their political opponents with inconsis­tency, honorable members opposite should recollect these things; they should bear in mind that for people who live in glass houses it is not a safe thing to throw stones. The objection of honorable mem­bers opposite to the ratepayers' roll as the franchise is that they fear that the Upper· Honse may become too popular; at the same time, they say that concession should be made, and that absolutely there is no difference between a £10 franchise and the ratepayers' roll, or rather that there is a distinction without a difference. If that

1566 [ASSEMBLY.] Second Reading.

be so, they might as well give way grate­fully and gracefully. Another objection is that the Bill does not come here from the Upper House. The honorable mem­ber for Boroondara stated, the other night, that he considered that a serious objection. I believe that, with the honorable member, it is not only a serious objection, but it is the objection. Had the Bill come from the other House, I have no doubt hon­orable gentlemen opposite would have swallowed it word for word and clause for clause; and that without a wry face. However, I would like to know why the Upper House should mono­polize the power of initiating a Re­form Bill? If I am rightly informed, the Legislative Council have asserted several times that no reform is necessary. If their conviction is that no reform is necessary, what sort of a Reform Bill is it that we could expect to receive from them? It would amount to "as you were, my boys." It is not reasonable or natural to expect that the possessors of power will limit or curtail that power by voluntary action on their part. Therefore I think it very reasonable and rational that a Reform Bill should emanate from this Chamber. Reference has been made to the propriety of the question being settled by a confer­ence between the two Houses, and I would not object to that course of action if I could be sure that the conference would be properly and fairly constituted. But supposing the conference consisted of six members from the Upper House and the same number from this House, it would never do for the representatives of this House to be taken half from this (the Ministerial) side of the Chamber and half from the other. Under such an arrange­ment, the state of parties in the confer­ence would be very much like three as against nine. The liberal party have been frequently and untruly charged with making the reform question a stalking­horse at all elections, but, if the Opposition would now only show the same disposition to dispose of the question as honorable members on this (the Ministerial) side of the House do, it would soon cease to be a stalking-horse for any party. The liberal party do not rest on the reform question alone to secure the support of the country; they have other subjects to rely on which are qnite as popular. For instance, a liberal land law is wanted by the country, retrenchment of the civil service is also demanded, and liberal legislation generally

Mr. Hall.

is required by the people. I can assure the House that in the country districts the Reform Bill does not occupy the same importance in the minds of the people that it does in the minds of some honorable members. I did not agree with those members in the Ministerial corner who, a few weeks ago, urged the Government, with a certain amount of indecency, to bring on the Reform Bill when they had other important work to do. I fully admit the desirability of sett.ling the question and putting an end to the dispute which has been going on so long, but I find from conversations with my constituents and other electors that they did not at all participate in the feeling of the corner members in rushing the Reform Bill hastily through the House. The questions I hear asked by the electors is not" When shall we get reform?" but "When shall we get railways to our towns?" "When shall we get cheap carriage for our pro­duce ?" "When shall we get schools for our children?" and" When shall we get a new Land Act? " Those subjects are of more importance in their minds at the present time than' reform. Only a short time ago, when I was in conversation with a number of my constituents, several ques­tions were asked me with great interest upon those subjects, and when at length one of them ventured to ask" What are you going to do about the Reform Bill?" another retorted, in not very refined language-" Blow the blooming Reform Bill; let us have bread and butter." I am inclined to think, however, with some honorable members on the other side that, now the country has cooled down on the question, a good opportunity is afforded for getting it speedily and satisfactorily settled. I sincerely hope that result will be achieved, on the present occasion, and that honorable members on both sides will combine to secure its accomplishment.

Mr. CARTER.-Sir, I believe that the remark of the honorable member who has just sat down, that the warm interest formerly felt by the country in the reform question has to a great extent died out, is perfectly correct. Indeed the present position of reform reminds me very forcibly of a story which appeared in an American paper about a dog that belonged to a man named Cooney. A neighbour of Cooney's poisoned the dog when it was on his land, and then threw it over the fence into Cooney's yard. Cooney did not want a dead dog, and .consequently threw it back .

Reform Bill. [FEBRUARY 24.J Fourtlt Night's Debate. 1567

again on his neighbour's land. The neigh­bour again threw it into Cooney's yard, then Cooney threw it back again, and so the game was kept up, until at last there was nothing left of the dog but the tail. I think contending parties have b,rought reform into a very similar position-there is nothing left of it but the tail, so far as the original proposals of the great liberal party are concerned. The conduct of the liberal party on the reform question also reminds me of another American story which I read the other day. A tramp in America was getting out of a back window, with all the family plate, when a constable laid hold of him, whereupon the thief cried out-" Unhand me, servile minion of a corrupt Government; what we want is reform." Now I notice that the great liberal party, when they have the spoons in their pockets, and the constable, in the shape of the Opposition, lays hold of them, immediately cry out-I' What we want is reform; that is what the country is pant­ing and longing for, and that is what we are fighting for." Notwithstanding the Chief Secretary's" iron frame," however, he has not yet been able to carry reform as a party measure, and I am delighted to find that, at last, gentlemen on both sides of the House have come to the conclusion that it is time the question was settled, not as a party, -but as a national, ques­tion. I myself have maintained that view 1111 along, and on the very first Berry Reform Bill I stated that -a con­ference between the two Houses was the proper course to take to settle the question.

Mr. LAURENS.-A conference did take place.

Mr. CARTER.-Yes, and the honor­able member knows how it took place. It took place in such a way that nothing could possibly come of it. The committee appointed by this House was a party committee, selected with a party object, and without the slightest desire to-achieve a settlement; and it had the result in­tended. I ventured to predict at the time that the Chief Secretary, instead of pass­ing reform, would go to England, and he did, as I anticipated. Therefore the allusion of the honorable member for North Melbourne (Mr. Laurens) to a conference was an allusion to a thing of which his party should be very much ashamed, and should wish to bury in oblivion. I hope, however, that tbe next I conferenCf} will be of a very different

nature, and that men will be appointed to it from the Assembly who really do desire to see the question settled. At the time of the first Berry Reform Bill, the honor­able member for Evelyn, Mr. Lyell, Mr. McIntyre, and myself were the only four members of the House who ventured to advocate the popularization of the Upper House, by lowering the franchise and making the Council liable to dissolution, and it must be gratifying to the other three gentlemen, as it is to myself, to find that that is the species of settlement which is now likely to take place. The Oppo­sition, at the time, were just as unwilling to go in that direction as the Government, but by-and-by "a change came o'er the spirit of their dream," and the honorable member for Maldon brought in a Bill which, to a, very great extent, would have met the wishes of the country. I re­gretted at the time that the honorable member, in the machinery by which finality was to be arrived at, rather went out of his way to invite opposition, but still the Bill contained the fundamental principles of the joint dissolution and the lowering of the franchise to £10. Those were the two principles which I have alwa.ys advocated, and desired to see car­ried out. As it has been decided that this country shall be governed by the people, it is utterly ridiculous to have one House elected by the whole people, and the other elected by only a s~all portion of the people. Two such Chambers are bound to come 0 iuto collision. We 'must tTlist the people, and give them'the right to govern, and then, if they govern wrongly, they will have to suffer for it. The result will not fall upon one class more than another, for the wealthy will always have at least this to their advantage-that if they find the government of the country becoming very objectionable they can leave it. The honorable member for Port­land compared government by two elec­tive Chambers to a mttn rowing in two boats, with one leg ill each, but surely government by one elective and one nominee Chamber would be still worse, because of the different construction and speed of the boats. To apply the honor­able member's own simile, it would be like' a man having one leg in Noah's -ark, nnd the other in an Orient steamer. For mv part, I fail to see why the Governme~t should not be represented in both Houses­why there should not be Ministers in the Council as well a::; the Assembly. I hope-

1568 Reform Bill. [A.SSEMBLY.] Second Reading.

the conference, if there is to be one, will consider not merely the two or three points in this Bill, but will take a much wide~ range, and deal with the whole question of reform in a statesmanlike manner. No doubt they will, among other things, consider the propriety of increasing the number of the Ministers of the Crown. At present, Ministers are surrounded by such conditions that they almost lead the life of dogs, for there are so few places, and so many aspirants, that immediately a Government is formed those left out set to work to oust the Ministry, and get themselves into office. If, however, there were more Ministers, the Government would absorb more of the members, and there would be fewer private members left dissatisfied. Moreover, it must have often been noticed how exceedingly incon­venient it is that one gentleman in the other House should be required to take charge of all the measures that leave this Chamber. It is placing anyone man in a very unfair position to expect him to master the details of all the Bills that are sent up to the Council, so as to explain them to that House. There are various Ministers in the House of Lords as well as in the House of Commons, and .though in this colony we might leave the execu­tive portion of the Government in the Lower Chamber, the Ministry ought cer­tainly to have, at least, accredited repre­sentatives in the Upper House as well as the Assembly. I also hope the system of proportional representation will be taken into consideration. I am thoroughly op­posed to the proposal of single consti­tuencies, which simply meallS thn,t the minority will be utterly unrepresented. It would be far better to have constituen­cies returning three members under a system of proportional representation. Under that plan, any large minority would always be secure of returning one member, and the majority two members; and that I think would be a fairer division of representation than exists at present. I hope also that the conference, if it is held, will consider another point, namely, the alteration of the present law by which a majorit.y of the two Chambers can amend the Constitution. In the United States, an alteration of the Con­stitution req uires a two-thirds vote of both Houses, and I think we may very well adopt a similar provision. Let us make this proposed reform a thorough reform as far as we are able, and then let

Mr. Carter ..

us have done tinkering with the Con­stitution. We have half ruined tho country in disputing over reform for the' last few years, and we should put it out of the power of any Government without a two-~hirds majority in both Houses to raise the question again. Of course, how­ever, these remarks are based on the assumption that both Houses under the new Constitution would be thoroughly representative. Then it must also bo quite clear that to give representation in the other House _to the people would be a very poor boon unless it was accompanied by responsibility on the part of the repre­sentatives. What is the use of enabling the people to elect a number of repre~enta­tives unless you also give them the power of dealing with those representatives in case they fail to represent them? Sup­posing a collision took place between the two Houses under the new system, and the Government of the day hnd no power by which a dissolution of the Upper House could be brought about, would not the dead-lock be worse than any past ono ? Why the country would be very much in the position of the man out of whom seven devils were cast-the last stage would be worse than the first. Again, I shall cer­tainly oppose the proposal to do away with the qualification of members of the Upper House. While giving the people the right to govern, those who have any­thing want to feel that property is to some extent protected, and the only protection -beyond the good sense and judgment of the people-remaining, after the reduction of the franchise, would be the retention of a property qualification for members of the Cound!.

Mr. JrINCHAM.-How much? Mr. CARTER.-That is a matter of

detail which could be settled by the con­ference, though I myself have never seen any advantage that would be gained by reducing the qualification. To abolish it, however, as proposed in this Bill, would be to incre.ase that want of confidence which has so unfortunately existed during the last two or three years, and which has been the cause of the depression that has existed in every branch of industry through­out the country. vVhat we want to do now is to restore confidence, so as to induce capitalists to invest their money in the colony, instead of in Riverina and other places; and we know that confidence is a very delicate plant. It takes a long time to grow, it is very easily destroyedJ and,

Rejorm Bill. [FEBRUARY 24.J Fourtlt flight's Debate. 1569

once destroyed, it is very difficult to get it to spring up again. In this colony, during the Jast few years: I am sorry to say, we have done a great deal to destroy it, and the working classes have been the sufferers. Another point in the Bill is the pro­posed immediate dissolution of the present Council. Personally, I do not feel very strongly on t.he point, but I think the proposal is one not likely to meet with acceptance in another place. If the Coun­cil proposed a scheme of reform under which the Assembly was to be dissolved next week, would it be likely to receive any support in this Chamber? "Ve must judge others by ourselves, and I do not think it is at all reasonable to expect that the other House will agree to this propo­sition, notwithstanding the assurance of the honorable and gallant Major, last night, that the Government would exert its infl uence to secure the return of those members who supported the Bill. The invitation sounded too much like" Dilly duck, dilly duck, come and be killed," to prove very acceptable. If it is .to be understood that there will be a conference between the two Houses, then I hope the Assembly will pass the second reading of the Bill unanimously, after an assurance from the Government to that effect. If, however, there is not to be a confer­ence, I think every independent member, wherever he sits, will be fully justified in voting against the measure. We want a set.tlement of the question, and a large majority of the 'House, as far as I can gather, are agreed that the only way that settlement can be obtained is by a confer­ence. Moreover, if we pass the second reading of the Bill without a division, I think we shall be far more likely to get what we want from the Council than if there is a close division, even supposing the Government are able to secure a ma­jority on the second reading.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-It would not carry them any further.

Mr. CARTER.-Quite so. Besides, what have the Government to gain by refusing a conference? As I said on the occasion of the proposed conference on the first Berry Reform Bill, if the Govern­ment consent to a conference they do not put themselves in any worse position. On tLe contrary, they put themselves in a better position, because if they go to a conference, even if they are defeated, the country will say-" At all events, they tried to settle the question." It is true

the country did not say so on that occa­sion, but that was because such strong partisans were appointed on the confer­ence committee of the Assembly that it was known there was no intention of settling the question. But if a fail' com­mittee is appointed, which will represent both sides of the House, and not merely one side-a committee of men who desire to secure reform-and then, if the Upper Honse refuse to come to terms, the coun­try will, at all events, "give the <!overn­ment credit for having done their best.

The SPEAKER.-There seems to be a misapprehension in the minds of several honorable members regarding the proper time for appointing a conference. There cannot be a conference on this Bill until" it has gone to the Upper House, and been amended by that House.

Mr. KERFERD.-Is that a ruling, Mr. Speaker, or an opinion?

The SPEAKER.-It is not a ruling. The case has not yet arisen for a ruling. I am giving my opinion from memory of the law of Parliament, in order that mem­bers may not be led into a false position. As the honorable and learned member differs from me, I should be glad if he would produce an authority to support his view.

Mr. KERFERD.-With all deference, I submit that this House can ask for a conference on any subject it likes to name, and so can another place.

The SPEAKER.-Snrely the honor­able member must be aware that there is a special rule regarding conferences on the amendment of Bills. If there is to be a conference on this Bill, it must be on the amendments made in it by the other House. If the Upper House agrees to the Bill, there will be no need for any conference.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-I think there bas been a great confusion of terms in the references which lla ve . been made to a "conference." I believe the real object which tbe gentlemen who advocate this course have in view is a joint committee, and in speaking of a conference that is really what they mean. A joint com­mittee would practically amount to a con­ference, while it would be in accordance with the rules of Parliament.

The SPEAKER.-That is quite a dif­ferent proposal from that of a conference.

Mr. VALE.-I think it is as well that the position should be understood. There

.1570 Reform Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Second Reading.

is no doubt that the Speaker is perfectly right. The Bill must pass through the Assembly and be sent to the Council, and then will be the time for a conference on it if necessary. Of course, if the leader of the Opposition wishes for a conference of the two Houses to consider reform in­dependent of any measure, it is quite competent for him to submit a motion to that effect, and put the present Bill aside if he can. The proper course, however, is for the Assembly to express its opinion in the 'shape of a Bill, and then it is for the other House to ask for a conference if they desire one.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-I beg to point out that it is perfectly within the province of any member to move, as an amendment on the motion for the second reading of the Bill, that it be referred to a select com­mittee with the view of asking for a similar committee of the other House.

Mr. R. lVI. SMITH.-I think it is hardly desirable to discuss the question of a conference at the present stage. I am not aware that the honorable member for St. Kilda (Mr. Carter) was out of order in alluding to the matter in his speech.

Mr. CARTER.-The honorable mem­ber for Belfast has correctly indicated the course which I wished to suggest. I simply desire to see this question settled satisfac~orily, .and I do not want to see any party victory won. again~t the Govern­ment. On the conti-arY", ~y suggestion would enable them to retreat, if n~~ess,ary, from any position they had taken up with flying colours. If they wait until the Bill has passed through all its stages in this House, they, and the House itself, might feel less inclined to be moved from the position they had assumed than if a joint committee were appointed before matters reached that point. Speaking for myself and for many other honorable members whose views I know, I must say th~t, much as we desire to see the reform question settled, I do not think it will be possible for us to vo~e for the passing of this Bill in anything like its present shape. It would bc better to have no reform than that this measure should become law as it stands. Assuming that the Governmen t really and honestly desire a Reform Bill to be passed-and I may be wrong in the assumption-supposing their Bill is 110t sanctioned by the other Chamber, how much further shall we be than we were three years ago? I do not think that there is one honorable mcmber in the House

who dare go before his constituents and say he objected to the joint dissolution.

Mr. MIRAMS.-I dare. Mr. CARTER.-Then the honorable

member wishes to deny his constituents the right to make their representatives in another place responsible to them. If that is liberalism, it is liberalism of an extraordinary kind. I say, let us have a conference of the two Houses, and, as far as I caD, I will assist in passing a Reform Bill founded on their proposals; but if it is to be "the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill," as desired by the honorable member for Collingwood (Mr. Mirams), then I must vote against the present motion. There is no more chance of the Bill as it stands becoming law than there is of my flying away to the moon, and thero will simply be a renewal of the olel fight on a different grouncl. Is it not a sad and cruel thing for this young country, which contains everything cal­culated to make us prosperous and happy, that, instead of taking ad vantage of the natural wealth of the colony, we must be perpetually wrangling? I believe that, if Parliament could only be shut up for seven years, the country would go ahead. Again I would urge on the Government that, if they wish to settle the reform question, they must open the door to con­ciliation with another place. That Cham­ber sent us down a reform measure; but what has been done with it? It has been laid aside, and not even looked at or con­sidered. If we deal with a Bill from the Couhcil in that manner, what right have we to' expect: that. they will treat our measure differently?-· :Ins.teacl of "raiting until the ridiculous position is i'eached of the Assembly having a Reforni Bill fro'm the Council and the Council a Reform Bill from the Assembly, neither of which will be considered by the Chamber to which it has been sent, would it not be infinitely better to have a fair and reasonable con­ference, and have the matter amicably settled? The Chief Secretary cannot. surely be wedded to this particular Bill, because, the other night, 11e told us that, while the country had rejected his previous measures, he himself did not believe in this measure. Indeed, we know he would never have brought forward the Bill at all had it not been for the pressure of the honorable member for Collingwood and his friends, who thought the lame old horse "Reform" should be trotted out once more. In conclusiol~, I repeat that

Reform Bill. [FEBlWARY 24.J Fourth flight's Debate. 1571

if the Government will only Jeal with the question fairly and honestly, and with a desire to get a settlement arranged, they will meet with every assistance from the independent members of the House; but if they are obstinate, and determined to have the whole Bill, merely to please the honorable member for Collingwood, they will prove themselves far more short· sighted than I give them credit for being. I am afraid that a great deal of this pro­fessed ardour for the Bill, on the part of that honorable member, is simply a desire for the" spoons." When he says-" What I want is reform," like the tramp in the story, what he really wants is to see the Government .out of office so that he may step in. That is the secret of his egging on the Government to be obstinate and firm, because he knows that if they only stick to the Bill they are certain to be beaten.

Mr. TUCKER.-lVIr. Speaker, I have a very vivid recollection of the scene that was exhibited in the last Parliament when the honorable member for St. Kilda (Mr. Carter) and another gentleman, who is not now a member of the House, sat in the Ministerial corner very much dis­satisfied that they had not been included in the Service Government.

Mr. CARTER.-I rise to order. I give a distinct and emphatic contradiction to the honorable member's statement. If he can find any person to whom I ever ex­pressed one word which would warrant his assertion, I will gi ve £500 to the Mel­bourne Hospital.

Mr. TUCKER.-Of course I must ac­cept the honorable member's denial, but nevertheless it was a matter of notoriety and wonder on the liberal side at the time that those honorable members had become very liberal indeed, an9. thought the rate­payers' roll was the proper franchise.

Mr. CARTER.-I went in for the rate­payers' roll when the first Berry Reform Bill was before this. House three years ago.

Mr. TUCKER.-The honorable mem­ber; in his remarks upon the Bill, seemed to have forgotten the fact that only a few short months ago we went to the country on the principles of the Bill, and were re­turned in a majority to carry it into law, whereas the hybrid measure submitted by the late Government-and which was not even believed in by the mass of their own supporters-was altogether repudiated by the people. No doubt the discussion of

the reform question has become some­what monotonous. This is the sixth time in seven years that the House has been called upon to consider a Reform Bill. The consel'vative party have in­troduced three measures, on which they have been defeated, and we have been defeated on two. This is our third Bill, and surely, if. the conservatives have had three trials, it is only fair that we should have a third trial also. It seems to be forgotten that, in 1873, before the N 01'­

wegian scheme was propounded, a Reform Bill was laid before the other House simultaneously with the submission of an Electoral Bill to this House by the Go­yernment of which the honorable member for W arrnam bool was the head, and of which the honorable member for the Ovens (Mr. Kerferd), the honorable mem­ber for Rodney (Mr . Gillies), and the honorable member for East Bourke were members. That Reform Bill was read once by the U ppor House, and was then withdrawn. What were its provisions? It reduced the qualification for both electors and members of the Council to a £25 rating. It also divided the present six provinces into twelve, and reduced the tenure of seats from ten years to six. Instead of proceeding with that Bill, the conservative party-who taunt the liberals with not adhering to their reform scheme -introduced another measure in 1874, which did not provide for any dissolution of the Upper House, or any alteration of the qualification of members of that Chamber. Instead of containing provisions like those in the former measure, it pro­vided for a joint sitting of the two Houses to deal with any Bill which was rejected by the Council in two succeeding sessions. What an astounding change this was which was made by the conservative party in a few short months! The next con­servative Reform Bill was the measure introduced by Mr. Service last year. Under that Bill the Council was given an indirect power to dissolve. the Assembly, power to refuse its assent to taxation almost indefinitely, and indirectly to effect amendments in the Appropriation Bill. The measure also provided for the Gover­nor's active interference between the two Chambers, and enabled the Speaker of the Assembly to overrule this House by his own authority. The three Reform Bills brought fOl~ward by the conservatives all totally di:ff~red from one another, but the same principle. underlay everyone of the

1572 Reform Bill. [ASSEMBLY.J Second Reading.

three measures introduced by the liberals, namely, that the people should rule. We have had the 6th clause and the plebiscite proposed, and now we have a proposal to extend the franchise for the Council to the ratepayers' roll. The ratepayers' roll is, I believe, somewhat more democratic than the general roll. Mr. Lyell, who formerly represented Emerald Hill, attributed his defeat at the last election to the voters on the ratepayers' roll, and not to those on the general roll. I think that, all things con­sidered, the step now taken by the party with which I am allied is a right one, and is in direct unison with their two previous efforts at constitutional reform. The question has apparently narrowed itself down to a matter of detail. In fact, the only great point of difference that there now is between the contending parties is the extent to which the franchise for the Council should be lowered. In connexion with the proposed reduction of the quali­fication for members and electors of the Upper House, it may be well to point out that the Assembly has been continually re­forming itself and bringing itself more into accord with the people. In 1857, a year or so after the Constitution Act was passed, the property qualification for members of the Assembly was abolished. In 1858, the number of members was increased, and the duration of the Assembly was reduced from five years to three. While these and other reforms of a minor character affect­ing the Assembly have been passed, the only alteration made in the constitution of the Council has been a reduction of the qualification for electors and members of that body to one-half of what it was originally. At the very inception of the Constitution Act, however, one of the committee (Sir John O'Shanassy) by whom the measure was framed proposed that the qualification for both electors and members should be· a £20 rating, and at that time a £20 rating was certainly not more than equivalent to a £10 rating at the present day. Those who are afraid of extending the franchise for the Council to the ratepayers' roll are really afraid of the people of the country. The difference between the liberals and the conservati ves is this: the liberal party believe in the people, and are prepared to trust them; but the conservatives have not sufficient faith in their intelligence to give them votes. We are told by the opponents of the Bill that, if the measure becomes law, a class of men will be returned to the Upper House who

Mr, Tucker.

will make a raid on property, and tha.t it is the special function of' that Chamber to represent and to protect property. The weakest point in the constitution of the Legislative Council seems to me to have al ways been the fact that the members of that House have represented only a few people, and that their avowed mission was to guard the wealthy against the masses of the community. I venture to say that if the Council is elected as proposed by the Bill-if this new foundation is placed under its constitution-it will become a much stronger House for good, and cer­tainly none of t.he usefulness which t.he cons~rvatives attribute to it at the present time will be diminished. I would ask those honorable members who say that we must not extend the franchise for the Council to the" fierce democracy" of this colony-What has conservatism ever done for the people in the old country? The Reform Bill of 1832, the subsequent ex­tensions of the suffrage, vote by ballot, the reform of the criminal law, the aboli­tion of slavery, the removal of restrictions on. the press, the abolition of purchase in the army, and the establishment of national education-everyone of these things­had to be fought for against the con­servatives in the old country. Still further reforms are looming in the imme­diate future, such as an improvement of the land tenure, the abolition of the law of entail and primogeniture, and a greater extension of the suffrage. The educa­tional status of the people of England, however, falls very far shoi,t of that of the people of this country. The per­centage of educated persons in Victoria is, I believe, as high as, if not higher than, in any country on the face of the earth. We have made special efforts to prevent any child growing up ignorant, that all shall have a fair start in the battle of life, and that none shall be handicapped by the want of an ordinary education. What objection can there be to the widest extension of the franchise in a country with an educated and intelli­gent people like the people of Victoria? I believe that the true secret of the con­servative opposition to any liberal measure of reform is that the mass of the people are at present taxed to the tune of £1,700,000 per annum, while only £200,000 a year is wrun.g from property. An Upper House based on the suffrage of the whole body of the ratepayers is unpalatable to the conservatives, because

Reform Bill. [FEBRUARY 24.] Fourth ivigltt's Debate. 15'3

it nieans a reform of the incidence of tax­ation. If the Assembly had been unani­mous in insisting upon its rights and privileges during the constitutional strug­gle of 1867 and 1868, there would have been no need at the present time to reform the constitution of the Upper House; but the question of reform must now be got rid of, for it stands in the way of the national progress like a huge boulder. The whole difficulties in the past arose because neither House seemed to under­stand its functions. The Upper House was evidently intended to be a mere court of revision, and a check upon hasty legislation, so as to prevent mistakes; but it has arrogated to itself the absolute power of veto. The Assembly, on the other hand, has yielded from time to time, the first symptom of weakness shown by the liberal party being when they allowed the item for payment of members to be taken out of the Appropriation Bill. If the Government had insisted upon keeping that item in-if the Assembly had insisted upon maintaining its undoubted rights and privileges-the question of reform would have been settled in a proper manner. The reason why the Government have now to bring forward a Reform Bill is simply that the Assembly has never asserted its rights in the same way that the House of Commons has always done. I believe that this Reform Bill will be carried, because the Opposition will not dare to go to their constituents, and acknowledge that they were afraid to trust them with the franchise of the Upper House lest men should be elected to that House who would make a raid on property. Property-owners will always have a certain amount of influence in the country if they have acquired their pro­perty in a proper manner, and if they are good citizens; but there is some kind of property in this country which is a dis­grace to the owner of it. There is pro,· perty which is dummied land, representing false declarations, and the suborning of men to commit perjury and to sell their birthright for a mess of pottage. Property obtained by such means is simply a badge of disgrace. I would remind those hon­orable members who object to the aboli­tion of a property qualification for the members of the Upper House, and who, at the same time, wish our Constitution to be based on the lines of the British Con­stitution, that there is no property q uali­fication for the House of' Lords, nor is

2ND SES. 1880.-5 R

there any for the members of the Upper House in several states of Europe, or in the United States of America.

Mr. ANDERSON.-Is the House of Lords an elective body?

Mr. TUCKER.-It is not, but it is an obstructive body. The House of Lords has never yet willingly passed any measure for the benefit of the masses in England or of any part of the British Empire. I can point to the speeches of leading states­men in England to show that, in their opinion, the House of Lords is an effete institution-that it is merely a court of registry, without the slightest power in the State except that of obstruction. It can only obstruct so long as the House of Commons is not sincere and in earnest about its measures. What will the House of Lords say to Mr. Gladstone's Irish Land Bill ? It will not dare to persevere in obstructing that mea'sure. But our small Upper House has persevered in rejecting measures against the wish of the people. It has virtually driven this Assembly to the country time after time; and when a new Assembly has been elected, almost unanimously, in support of a particular measure, the Council has laughed in the face of the members of this Cham­ber. I think it is high time that the Upper House received its quietus, and that we should start in an altogether different direction. There will be no peace in the colony until the reform ques­tion is settled. I cordially agree with the spirit of the remarks of the honorable member for Portland. I am not disposed to concede very much to the other side, but I am willing to enter upon the discus­sion of the matter in a spirit of concilia­tion. I feel that the country is being ruined by our political dissensions-that we are going back fast in a career which ought to be one of progress and prosperity by leaps and bounds. I would, therefore, like to see a unanimous vote for the second reading of this Bill. It is idle to say that a House elected by the whole of the rate­payers would be antagonistic to the As­sembly. The ratepayers are a body of men of whom we may be proud. The present quietude on the question of reform is more imaginary than real. I believe that, if this Bill be rejected, there will be such an awakening throughout the length and breadth of the country as will make those honorable members who count on the apathy of the electors very much wonder at the mistake they have fall~n into. The

1574 Reform Bili. [ASSEMBLY.] Second Reading.

people . are quiet now because they feel in­stinctively that the measure is going to be passed. The interests of the colony, I re­peat, are bound up in a settlement of the. question of reform. I hope that the Opposition will for once. sink party feel­ing, and join with honorable members l:Iitting on the Ministerial side of the House in passing the Bill. I confess that I belong to the straight liberal party, and that I am ready to support a Government which, on the whole, I believe in, even when they do some things which I do not altogether approve of. That, I think, is the proper line of action for a Govern­ment supporter to take. On the other hand, if I were sitting in opposition I would. want to criticise every act of the Government that I did not agree with, and to try and get them out of office by every possible means. That is the role of a party man sitting on the opposition side of the . House. But when one army is fighting another, there is generally a third party, who hang about the skirts of the two armies, and enter the battle-field when the fighting is done, in order that they m~y plunder the dead and stab the living. I don't say that is the case at present. Honorable members must either be for the Bill or against the Bill. I trust there is no party waiting on the outskirts to see what the issue will be. Indeed, as I have already said, I hope that both sides will vote for the Bill. In conclusion, I would again urge upon the House the necessity for united action in the matter, in oruer that the vexed question of reform may be disposed of.

Mr. BENT.-Sir, the honorable mem­ber for Fitzroy (Mr. Tucker) admits that he sometimes votes against his own con­victions, and he only illustrates the charac­teristic behaviour of the party to which he belongs. Not more than six months ago, the honorable member was pledged against the principles of the Bill which he now supports, and he voted against the Service Reform Bill from which this measure has been stolen. Indeed, the honorable ·member plainly says that it is the duty of a party man to vote with his party right or wrong, and that is the doc­trine of neltrly every member of the so­called liberal party. Liberal indeed! They are radicals. The Government did not want the reform which they are now proposing; they were driven to bring it forward by their radical supporters. The expression as to people hanging about an army applies

to most of those who opposed the Service Reform Bill, which was the only one that gave power to the people. The honor­able member for Fitzroy spoke of dummy­mongers, but has it not been shown within the last few days that the Minister of ~ands is a dummy-monger? The Attor­ney-General talked to-night about native industry, but, though the honorable gentle­man professes to be a staunch protectionist, he wen t to England to be made a bar­rister. To be a mere colonial barrister would not suit him at all. The Minis­terial party care nothing for protection nor for the interests of the people in any way. All they seek is their own interests. For the sake of appearances they must say they are liberals, but in their hearts they are the direst hypocrites unhung. Which of them cares about reform ? Not one of them. If the people could see how few of them have remained in the House during this debate, they would know that reform is used by them merely as an election cry. If honorable members would only behave towards the Upper House as gentlemen behave towards each other in private life, there would be no necessity for reform. We have got a very good Constitution, but there are members of this Chamber and other gentlemen who want to get elected to it who try to keep up a constant feud between the two Houses, and pmte that liberal measures cannot be carried unless a Reform Bill is passed. When Mr. Berry first introduced a measure of reform, he undertook to provide for finality of legislation, and have a cure for dead-locks; but the present Bill is silent on those two points. The honorable member for Maldon would have carried his Reform Bill if he had consented to some compromise, but he was too honest to do so. I admit that I am even more liberal than Mr. Service in regard to the extension of the franchise for the Council. I would be prepared to adopt the manhood suffrage roll ~s the franchise for that House. Why a man may dummy a piece of land, put a kero­sene tin on it, and by that means get his name placed on the ratepayers' roll. The real cause of' the defeat of Mr. Service's Bill was that certain members vot.ed against it, not because they disapproved of it, but because they thought if the Service Government were defeated they would get office themselves. The Service Government were defeated when they

Re/orm Bilt. [FEBRUARY 21.] Fourtit Nignt's Debate. i575

appealed to the country, nut because the people did not approve of their Reform Bill, but because lying statements were circulated in the Age to the effect that Mr. Service had stated that a working man ought to live in a tent on 5s. a week. The late Government, in fact, were lied out of office. The cards have been shuffled since then, and certain honorable mem­bers who expected that they would be Ministers are greatly chagrined to find' they were not taken into the Govern­ment. The present Chief Secretary, when he commenced the reform agitation, was going to lick creation and bring the Upper House under his heel, but the Council simply laughed at him. Not only did they refuse to pass the first Reform Bill, but they compelled the Assembly to divide the Payment of 1\1embers Bill into two measures, and then rejected the one for payment of members of the Council, and passed the one for payment of mem­ben! of the Assembly. TheReformBillnow before us provides only for two things­/,he reduction of the qualification for mem­bers and electors of the Upper House, and the reduction of the tenure of seats. There is nothing in it to prevent dead­locks or to secure finality of legislation. The Attorney-General has said " No" to the question whether the Govern­ment would send the Bill to a con­ference between the Houses. Doubtless he is afraid that, if a course of that sort is taken, reform would be carried. As a matter of fact, the liberal party don't want reform ; they only want to remain in office. It was to get back to office they lied the Service Government out of it. They had no other plan to follow. They could not condemn the Service Reform Bill, because it gave the people the power, so they circulated most shameful calumnies about the late Premier having told a deputation that a working man could live- on the half of lOs. per week. And what are they doing now? There are simple people-people with such gen­tlemanly instincts that they are slow to think their neighbours are hypocrites­who fancy that, when Ministers go about the country to visit this or to open that, they are energetic over their departmental business. But the fact is as different as possible. When Ministers are out like that, they are simply touting. I know that I would never allow a Minister to visit my district, no matter what his pretended errand, was, unless I was there too, and I

5R2

wish other opposition members would fol­low my example. We found out last July what letting a lie get a fort6ight's run ahead c'ould do. If a leading Ministerial man goes to any place in my constituency, I will be there to watch him and unmask him. If he goes to preach, I will be there to hear. I know how passages of even Scripture can be made to serve a political purpose. Why once, when I was opposed at Brighton, I went to hear my opponent preach. ,

An HONORABLE MEMBER.-Who was he?

Mr. BENT.-Well, without saying too much, I may mention that Mr. Allen was opposing ine. I want our people to understand how all these little things are done. However, I don't wish to take up the time of the House. I don't suppose that, since I have been on my legs, I have talked much ,about the Reform Bill. Why should I? There is nothing' in the Bill about reform. It is nothing but a sham from end to end. The 3rd clause shows that it was never intended to pass the Upper House? Can the Council be expected to dissolve themselves? What would happen to them if they did? Is not a certain member of the Upper House not game to take office in a constitutional manner because he dares not face his_ constituents? Is it likely the radical liberals would all be ready now to support what a few months ago they went dead against, if they did not think that what they are doing will get up a row with the Council? How can honorable members elsewhere be expected- to turn traitors to their constituents? If anybody wants to know the stuff some people are made of, let them look up Hansard, and.read what the Minister of Lands has said about the Assembly having the power of the purse, and then turn to the Bill and see how it does not in the least give the Lower House the power of the purse. The whole thing is an abortion, and I will say no more about it.

On the motion of Mr. ZOX, the debate was adjourned until Wednesday, March 2.

EXCISE DUTY ON TOBACCO. The House having resolved itself into

Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. A. T. CLARK moved-"That, in lieu of the duty of customs nmv

charged on the article undermentioned, the fol­lowing duty shall, on and after the 25th day of February, 1881, be charged thereon on importa­tion into Victoria by land or sea, viz. ;-

" Snuff, 3s. per lb."

1576 Personal Explanation. [ASSEMBLY.] Yan Yean Wdter Supply.

He said the object in view was to pre­vent disputes arising in connexion with the Customs, in consequence of it having been thought, when the Tobacco Duties Bill was before the House, in December last, that the word "tobacco" included "snuff." It was now considered advis­able that "snuff" should be dealt with specially.

The resolution was agreed to, and was reported to the House.

Mr. A. T. CLARK moved-"That the Commissioner of Trade and· Cus­

toms be authorized to take such measures as may be necessary for the protection of the revenue, with reference to the duty proposed to the committee this day."

The motion was agreed to. The House adjourned at three minutes

past eleven o'clock, until Wednesday, March 2.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. Wednesday, Marclt 2, 1881.

Representation of Maldon: Resignation of Mr. Service­Personal Explanation: Mr. Mason-Yan Yean Water Supply-Motion for Adjournment of the House: Com­plaint against the Argus Newspaper-Diamond Drills­Railway Employes: Sunday Labour - Conservation of State Forests and other Public Reserves: Mr. Bowman's Motion-Completion of Parliament House: Municipal Endowment-Railway Department: Fire at Windermere -Discharged Prisoners-The Avoca Gold Robbery: Mr. Elliston-Public Instruction: State School Scholarships -The Savage Torpedo - Immigration - Ballarat East Electoral Boundaries Bill-The Moran Inquiry-Hobson's Bay Railway-Daylesford Railway-Reform Bill: Second Reading: Fifth Night's Debate.

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

REPRESENTATION OF MALDON. The SPEAKER announced that he had

received from Mr. Service the resignation of his seat as mem ber for Maldon, and that the necessary steps had been taken for the issue of a writ for the election of a new member to supply the vacancy.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION. Mr. MASON said he desired to make

a personal explanation in reference to a paragraph in the Argus newspaper of ·Wednesday, February 23, purporting to give an account of what he said in the House, the previous day, as to the case of an ex-artilleryman who applied to the Railway department for employment. The parliamentary report given of his remarks

in the Argus was fairly accurate, but the paragraph was untrue, and appeared to him to be intentionally so. The portion of the paragraph to which he would call attention was as follows :-

" As to Mr. Elsdon's explanation, published in the press, that he is assured that no such dis­courtesy was shown' to Mr. Mason's friend, the honorable member says that it is 'a false and lying statement.' " He made no such allegation. He had read the parliamentary report of his speech in Hansard, und also in the Argus, and neither of them said that he charged Mr. Elsdon with making a false and lying statement. He regarded Mr. Elsdon as a most capable and efficient officer, and an ornament to the Railway departmen t. .

YAN YEAN WATER SUPPLY. Mr. L. L. SMITH called the attention

of the Minister of Public Works to the report of the board recently appointed to inquire into the condition of the Yan Yean water, and especially to the follow­ing paragraphs:-

"The samples collected have· one common character. They have a turbid opalescence, and are unsightly. They have a mawkish taste, and a repulsive and unpleasant odour.

"The land traversed by the water channel includes the Whittlesea town common, on which, on the occasion of our visit, cattle were grazing, and even standing in groups in the water-courses and fouling the water. The banks of the Bruce's Creek, under the road bridge, bore evidence of customary use as a retiring­place. We need not enlarge."

These were alarming statements, seeing that hundreds of thousands of persons drank the Yan Yean water, and that the smallest germ of albuminoid matter en­tering the human system was sufficient to destroy life. He begged to ask the Minis­ter if a new paved aqueduct would be .formed, or if the Government would pur­chase the Whittlesea town common, so that it might no longer be used for grazing cattle? (Mr. Woods-"Bank it out; one hundred men could bank it out in a week.") Unless something was done at once, in all probability a terrible plague would break out in the city of Melbourne.

Mr. LANGRIDGE said he fully re­cognised the importance of prompt steps being taken to prevent the pollution of the water supply to the city and suburbs. He intended to visit the Y an Yean works on the following Friday, accompanied by members of the Water Supply Board and competent officers of the Public Works

Newspaper Charges. [MARCH 2.J The "Argus." 1577

department, and before the end of the present month he would be in a position to recommend some definite scheme to the House for improving the water supply. After all, it was only a question of money which scheme should be carried out. Delay had occurred in consequence of the time required to make the necessary survey for a scheme to obtain a supply of water from the Watts river, but that survey was now completed. With regard to the pollution of the Yan Yean, the board which had recently reported on the matter had re­commended, amongst other things, that 15 miles of the watershed beyond the inlet to the reservoir should be fenced in, and he would undertake that that would be done at once. The area he alluded to was low-lying country, bad soil, and most of it private property, so that the officers of the department could not exercise full control over it. However, when he re­turned from Whittlesea he would state fully to the House what steps he intended to take.

THE" ARGUS" NEWSPAPER. Mr. MASON (who, to put himself in

order, moved the adjournment of the House) said-Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Chief Secretary has recovered from his recent illness, and is now able to appear in his place in Parliament, as I desire to call his attention to an article in the Argus of Saturday last, accusing the Government and also a pri vate member of this House of bribery and corruption. The article commences as follows :-

"Government by corruption having been re­duced to a system in Victoria under the present regime, jobbery of some sort or other may now be looked for in every transaction to which the State is a party, no matter how innocent an appearance it may bear outwardly." It then goes on to say that the contract for completing the west front of Parlia­ment House was let the other day to a certain gentleman in the city, and it alleges, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that there has been jobbery, not as be­tween the Minister of Public Works and the contractor, but as between the Govern­ment and the honorable member for Stawell, Mr. Woods. I want to know if the Chief Secretary intends to take any action to free himself and the honorable member for Stawell, and also the majority of the House who keep the Government in office, from the aspersions cast on them in this newspaper article? If not, can he expect honorable members to continue to

support a Government who quietly allow themselves to be charged with corruption and jobbery? The article further states-

" If there is any collusion in the matter, it is not between the two parties to the contract, but it may possibly be between the Government and the honorable member for Stawell. It is not yery difficult to imagine the terms of such a bargain, or the inducements to enter into it. In return for a display of favoritism, the Ministry would look for a consistent and unquestioning support from the member favoured. Party sup­port has always been held by Mr. Berry and his friends to be an adequate consideration for an expenditure of public money. Mr. Woods, on the other hand, would naturally be disposed towards a compact of the sort. Any arrange­ment which, while strengthening his seat, might stimulate the active gratitude of his constituents could scarcely fail to prove attractive. But whether a bargain has been struck by the Minis­try with Mr. Woods and his constituents, or whether the settlement of the business is merely a sop thrown by the Cabinet to the protectionists generally, in order to rekindle their ardour and call forth their devotion, is of little moment. No one, we think, can have regard to the facts with­out perceiving that a job has been perpetrated which involves the squandering of public money, and, as the radicals object as strongly as Falstaff to damn their souls gratis, we may be sure that the Cabinet has arranged for a return of some kind."

The Argus has, for some time past, been slandering honorable memoers and the Ministry, and I want to know how long the Government are going to stand this, and how long the majority of this House are going to stand it? If it be true, as the Argus states, that the present Min­istry are governing the country by cor­ruption, then a most improper state of affairs exist, and it behoves honorable members to try and put a Ministry in office who will not govern the country by corruption. If, on the other hand, the Government are innocent of the serious crime laid to their charge, it is their duty to tell their supporters what they intend to do with a newspaper that dares to speak of them in such terms as they are addressed in the Argus of Saturday last. So far as I am concerned, and so far as I know, the statement that the l\1:inistry are governing the country by corruption is perfectly untrue and slanderous, and it is a gratuitous insult to the party in power. IVi'ish to know what course the Chief Secretary is prepared to take in the mat­ter? An enlightened and leading paper in one of the up-country townships has suggested that the Attorney-General should institute a criminal prosecution against the writer of the article. Will the Government adopt that course? I hope the Chief Secretary will not sit

1578 Newspaper Charges. [ASSEMBLY.] The "A1·gUS."

quiescent under the stigma which theArgus has cast upon the Government and hon­orable members by whom they are sup­ported, but that he will be prepared to state what action he will take in the mutter.

Mr. BERRY.-Mr. Speaker, I will second the motion for adjournment to enable me to offer a few remarks. I have stated on many occasions that, within my knowledge of the history of the political party with which I am connected, not a single member of it has ever asked for anything from the Government that might not have been asked for either in this House or loud enough for the whole colony to hea.r. I have hitherto treated with silence all the attacks which have been made upon this Government and upon the liberal party by disappointed journalists and disappointed politicians. I believe that the two are almost synony­mous-that most of the writers on the Argus are men who have endeavoured to gain the confidence of the country, and to obtain seats in this House, but have failed. They have now for a long time past systematically exceeded all bounds' of fair criticism. With regard to the statements which they choose to make about the pre5ent Government and the liberal party, I believe that they have not had the slightest effect upon the mind of the people of the colony. As to the article to which the honorable member for South Gippsland has called attention, 110 doubt it goes beyond the ordinary style even of the A1'gus-a style which has challenged attention in other colonies and also in England. It is there deemed unaccount­able 'that a Victorian journal should ap­pa,rently set itself the task of lowering this colony and injuring it as much flS it possibly can. When I WftS in England, the almost universal question put to me by gentlemen whom I met was this­H \,Vhy does the Argus systematically endeavour to injure the colony in which it circulates ?"

Mr. FINCHAl\1.-Because it pays best.

Mr. BERRY.-There is indeed, a feeling growing up that the interest of the Argus is much greater in New South Wales than it is in. Victoria. Speaking from my recent visit to New South Wales, I can say that public men and writers for the press there are posi­tively ashf!lm.~d of what they have said ancl written about tho liberal party in t.his colony upon th.e n~it4 of n,rtioles which

have appeared in the Argus. When they came in personal contact with me, when they heard my views, and when they saw what kind of a man the Chief Secretary of this colony was, it was not once, twice, or thrice that they expressed the all but disgust they felt at the way they had been deceived for years past by the writers in the Argus. A reaction of that kind tells in favour of men who are doing their duty to the country, 110 matter how.they are slandered. It is hard to bear these things, but time rights everyone. I believe that the liberal party of Victoria now stands, in the estimation not only of this colony, but of every country in the world where the English language is spoken, and where an interest is taken in our affairs, higher than it ever did at any period in our history. Under these cir­cumstances, and with the necessit.y for bringing the session to a close as soon as possible, and bearing in mind the matters of great public importance which we have to transact in a short period of time, I shrink from dealing with this newspaper -gross as the outrage has been-in the ordinary way, by bringing the publisher to the bar of the House. Moreover, we have always found, unfortunately, that party spirit in this House has been too strong for anything like joint action to preserve the corporate honour of the House. With regard to the remedy alluded to by the honorable member tor South Gipps­land, I think it is one which was originally suggested by myself.

Mr. FINCHAM.-What remedy? Mr. BERRY.-To direct a prosecution

in the Supreme Court against the Argus. Mr. LONGMORE.-Y ou would not

get a verdict there. Mr. BERRY.-Pel'haps not. I know

it has been considered that so strong is party feeling in this colony that, even in the Supreme Court, there is no protection for men who hold the views which are held by the representatives of the majority of the people. I am quite sure, however, that a great alteration has taken place in the tone of public opinion generally, and perhaps the time has arrived when it would be possible to prosecute the Argus in the Supreme Court with every prospect of obtaining not only a verdict, but also substantial damages. I am not sure whether this would not be the more dignified course for the House to t,ake in the first instance, and if, unfortunately, the surmise of some

Ne1.()spape'1' Clwrges. []\{ARCH 2.] Tlte "Argus." 1579

honorable members that this course will not be effective should prove to be correct, it will be time enough then to deal with the newspaper in this House. The moral effect of a verdict in the Supreme Court would be tenfold greater than any action which a majority of this House might take, unless. a state of feeling prevailed which would bring about a union of both sides in dealing with a journal that goes so far beyond fair criticism as to risk injuring not only the individuals of a party, but also the prestige and position of this country in the eyes of the world. All that I have to say further is that, since the article in question appeared, the Attorney-General has been very severely indisposed. He has been confined to his· home, and he is not here to-night. I hope to see him to-morrow, and I intend then to obtain the best legal opinion in regard to the article; and if I am a.dvised that a prosecution will lie against the Ar'gus, I will take steps to institute it.

Mr. R. M. SMITH.-I would be sorry for the Chief Secretary to suppose that party spirit could carry us so far that we would not, under any conceivable circum­stances, join in reprobating a newspaper criticism on either the majority or the minority of the flouse. Without referring to the particular article to which attention has been called, I think that if we were' to cull some of the flowers of eloq nence from various papers on both sides of politics, we would probably find equally severe pieces of criticism. I trust that the House will pause and consider care­fully before entering into a conflict wit.h the press unless honorable members are quite certain of ultimate success, not merely in bringing a publisher to the bar of the House and locking him up in a cellar, but in getting public opinion in their favour. I do not say that the time mny not come when it will be necessary fo1' .this I-louse to assert itself agttinst the pres~, bnt I think it is very unlikely to arise: I agree with the Chief Secretary. that the moral effect of n verdict in the Supreme Court-where this House would not be absolute, but would have to stand' its chance like a private indiviUual­would undoubtedly be very much greater than would be produced by merely sum­moning the publisher of a newspaper to the bar of the House; but I think it may fairly be questioned whether it would be wise, unless ill a very extreme case, to risk defeat in the Supreme Conrt.

Mr. LONGMORE.-I hope the Chief Secretary will not fora moment attempt to transfer the privileges of this Ho:use to the Supreme Court. Hitherto, though we have not strictly enforced them, we have at all events always kept them in our own hands. The article in the Argus to which attention has been called is clearly a fore­runner showing that a dissolution is ex­pected. The Argus is following exactly the same policy that it pursued before the last two general elections, and is evidently preparing the way for another dissolution. It wants to lie the character of honorable members out of existence, because that is the only means by which it can get a party into this House sufficiently strong for its purposes. We have no right to play into the hands of the Argus. The leader of the Opposition attempted to draw a red herring across the trail when he said that honorable members should cull flowers from other newspapers. What have we to do with other papers ? We have merely to do with the article to which our attention has been called. Honorable members ought to npproach the mntter fairly and justly. The simple question is~Is the article in the Argus a slander upon this House or is it not? I ask the Chief Secretary, if he means to deal with the case, to deal with it in this House, and in the way in which the Housa has always dealt with such matters up to the present time, although we know that in some instances we have not been as successful as we might have been. V\T e know that a judge of the Supreme Court, in ve1;:y great haste and with very bad law, allowed. a prisoner to escape from custody, and that judge is capable of doing the same thing again. . I assert that that judge showed no hesitation whatever in going against the whole popular feeling of the colony on one occasion. I ask the Chief Secretary not to allow the privi­leges of this Honse to ih,ll into the hands of anyone man or any court. We are quite able to take care of our own privi­leges, and I hope that we will do so.

Mr. ZOX. -I think this debate has taken a most extraordinary turn. Un­doubt~dly no greater slander was ever perpetrated than the assertion that it is impossible for any man to go to the Supreme Court of this colony and obtain just.ice. The Chief Secretary and the honorable member for Ripon and Hampden have both said that it is a matter of im­possibility to get justice in the Suprem~

1580 Newspaper Charges. [ASSEMBLY.] TIle "Argus."

Court, and have thus condemned not only the judges but also the jurymen.

Mr. BERRY.-That is misrepre~enting what I said.

Mr. LONGMORE.-And what I said. Mr. ZOX.-I will be only too glad to

resume my seat and allow the Chief Secre­tary to explahl what he did say, because it is a disgrace to this country for the judges and jurymen to be slandered as they have been slandered by the Chief Secretary and the honorable member for Ripon. I, at all events, will never regard an attack upon this House as a party question. If the Argus, or the Age, or any newspaper in the colony does wrong, the House can protect its corporate honour. The press certainly assumes a great deal of latitude, but if it publishes articles which bring public men into contempt it can be made amenable to the law in the same way that private individuals are. If honorable members have any complaint to prefer against the press, let them pro­ceed in a proper way, but do not let them come to the House and make such slander­ons accllsations as have just been made against the judges of the Supreme Court and also against the jurymen of the country.

Mr. BERRY.-As the honorable mem­ber for East Melbourne (Mr. Zox) con­"tinued his remarks in the same tone after the intmjection I made that he adopted before, I desire to explain what I stated. What I said was in reply to the honor­able member for Ripon and Hampden. I said it had been held by a good many persons that ill a political trial jn the Supreme Court it was impossible for any one professing the views entertained by the liberal side of this House to obtain a verdict. That statement was no reflec­tion on the judges. The judges would probably direct the jury properly, but the jurors, or rather the class from whom jurors are chosen, are of that character that, if a majority of them are not abso­lutely opposed to the political views of honorable members on the liberal side of the House, there would at least be a sufficient number of them on a jury to prevent a verdict being obtained. I do not think any honorable member on the liberal side of the House would spend a large sum of money on a trial in the Supreme Court arising out of a political affair, to endeavour to right himself, because he would probably find that the result would be a failure of justice. The

very fact, however, that the Government intend in the present case to refer the question to the Attorney-General as to whether they should prosecute a journal in the Supreme Court shows that they have no deep-seated feeling against the judges.

Mr. BOWMAN.-The honorable mem­ber for East Melbourne (Mr. Zox) has laid down a false principle in his remarks about the Chief Secretary and the honor­able member for Ripon and Hampden. It will be in the recollection of the honor­able member that juries have been tam­pered with. Benches of magistrates have also been packed, especially in the great Stevenson case, about which the honor­able member probably knowi::! something .. In that case we had magistrates paid to come and sit on the bench. Magistrates came from Collingwood.

Mr. ZOX.-Mr. Speaker, I rise to order. Is the honorable member for Maryborough (Mr. Bowman) justified in saying that I know a bench of magistrates was packed?

The SPEAKER.-An honorable mem­ber is not ont of order in saying that a bench of magistrates was packed.

Mr. BOWMAN.-The honorable mem­ber for East Melbourne wants to make us believe that the judges of the Supreme Court are perfect. I do not say that the judges will not do justice, and put a case properly to the jury, but the jury may bring in a verdict contrary to the evidence. In the notorious Stevenson case, about which the honorable member for East Melbourne knows as much as any other member of this House--

Mr. ZOX.-What does the honorable member mean?

The SPEAKER.-It is not out of order for an honorable member to say that an honorable member knows as much about a matter as any other honorable member does; but I hope the honorable member for Maryborough will not make use of lan­guage which others deem to be offensive.

Mr. BOWMAN.-It is not my inten­tion to make any offensive remarks. The honorable member for East Melbourne, however, wishes to put into the mouths of the Chief Secretary and the honorable member for Ripon what they did not state. The honorable member took a deep interest in a man who, two or three years ago, was convicted of one of the greatest crimes that any man can commit, namely, that of attempting to bribe a jury; and the honor­able member asked me to assist him

Newspaper Charges. [MARCH 2.J 1581

to get that man released from gaol exact truth, because its statements not before the proper time. I declined to do unnaturally get coloured by its politi­so, and said that I hoped the man would cal views. It is simply ridiculous for a not be allowed to come out until he had public man to be so thin-skinned as to completed his sentence. uphold that that sort of thing really scan-

Mr. CARTER.-Sir, I think it would dalizes him. If he has any feeling of the be advantageous if, before we begin to sort, he ought never to ve~ture beyond throw stones at other people's houses, private life, where he wonld be unmo­we were to look well at our own. For lesteu. I have no doubt that if the hon­example, the honorable member for Mary- orable member for South Gippsland were borough (Mr. Bowman), who seems very a member of the press, he would be just as much affected by the newspaper accusa- severe upon political men as anybody else. tion-- My opinion with respect to press attacks

Mr. BOWMAN.-I never once referred is that, upon the whole, we had better grin to a newspaper. and bear them. If once we begin to inter-

Mr. CARTER.-I am bound to pre- fere with the liberties of the press, we sume, from the tone of the honorable shall never know where to stop. Indeed, member's remarks, that he sympathizes if those liberties did not exist, there would with the feelings expressed by the honor- be nothing to prevent the grossest cor­able member for South Gippsland with ruption and ty:ranny. Under these cir­respect to the newspaper charge that the cumstances, I say of the two evils we are Ministry are carrying on "government conscious of let us choose the least-let by corruption"; but what has he himself us endure that which it would be most done? Has he not accused a number of dangerous to touch. Therefore, I am honorary magistrates with having been thoroughly opposed to any proceeding of paid to give an erroneous uecision? It the kind tho Chief Secretary has alluded is all very well for us to talk of our pri- to. As for an action at law against any vi leges, but what right have we to slander newspaper, if one would lie let it be men outside the Chamber who are unable brought, for I have always the utlllost to say one word in their defence? It confidence in a jury of my countrymen. I seems we don't act like other men, who, look upon all the insinuations that have when they have an accusation to bring, been uttered to-night against jurymen as bring it in open court, but we take advan- utterly fallacious. With regard to the tage of the shelter our privileges afford us, judges, let me point out that they don't in order to attack the character of those decide cases of libel at all-the verdict to whom we are opposed. N ow I think always rests with a jury. I am abso­that, before we show extreme sensitive- lutely certain that if the Chief Secretary ness about our own reputations, we should hau a good case against a newspaper, and notice what our conduct is towards other brought it in the usual way, a Supreme people's reputations; otherwise the people Court jury would do him full justice generally may come to the conclusion totally irrespective of his political views. that the sooner our privileges are done Mr. BARR.-Mr. Speaker, I regret away with the better. On the other that a question of such magnitude as that hand, we all know perfectly well that one practically under our consideration should of the chief sources of the liberty we come before us in such a manner, because enjoy at the present day is the liberty of it incidentally opens up one of tho largest the press. We also know that a free fields of inquiry we can possibly enter press can .hardly exist without running, upon, namely, whether this House is or is on many occasions, into gross licence, and, not the people of Victoria, and whether, moreover, that if one newspaper slanders as the high court of justice of the country, men on the Government side, another it is not competent to protect its privileges newspaper slanders men on the other side. and its members. For myself, I may say That is something within the experience that I would take up the subject in a of every public man. very different way from that suggested

Mr. BOWMAN.-Let all the news- by the last speaker. I assert that the papers tell the truth. That is what I character of public men in Parliament is wish. the character of Parliament, and that

Mr. CARTER.-Probably in most cases attacks upon it should be dealt with by of the kind I am referring to neither . this House, and this House alone. I can­newspaper tells the truth, or rather the' not recognise the propriety of delegating

1582 llewspaper Cltarges. [ASSEMBLY.] The "Argus."

to any court of law whatever the task of deciding whether the House is or is not corrupt. I would like to know, indeed, in what way tbis Chamber could, in its cor­porate capacity, defend its position by bringing an action in the Snpreme Court? Everytbing points to the fact that we ourselves are the proper judge in every case of the kind. I appeal to the honor­able members in opposition, who in a short time may be in occupation of these (the 1\iinisterial) benches, to say whether, when the corporate character of the Assem­bly is impugned, it ought not to exercise the privileges the House of Commons have always insisted upon, and refuse in the most decided way to allow the subject of its rights to be dealt with tJefore an inferior tribunal? I say the proper tri­bunal is within these walls~that we are the proper judge, a,nd the people of the country are the proper jury. If we don't insist upon our rights, as the embodiment of the country, will not those behind us assuredly soon bring us to book? If, when a charge is made against a single honor­able member, we appoint a select com­mittee to inquire into it, why should we not deal in a corresponding spirit with a charge agaim:;t Parliamen t as a whole? Why should we send the graver of the two accusations to an outside tribunal? :Moreover, I think the time has come when party warfare ought to be kept 'within its proper limits, and that the un­founded statements we see in the press, imputing motives to different Members of Parliament., and putting upon their con­duct the ,Yorst construction it could pos­sibly bear-I don't say the newspapers on one side offend a bit more than those on the other side-ought to be brought under the law of libel. If it was open to news­papers to attack men in a private position us they do men in a public one, who would escape from them? I assert that the newspaper charge we have now under our attention is practically one against the House generally, and one we should take into our own hands. For the Chief Secretary to appeal in the matter to the Supreme Court would be derogatory to both himself and the I-louse of which he is the leader.

Mr. L. L. SMITI-I.-Sir, I don't think there is very much in the newspaper charge alluded to, or that anybody has got anyt.hing to do with it bllt the Go­vernment and the honorable member for Stuwell.

Mr. WOODS.-I treat it with con­tempt. It will not influence one person in Stawell.

Mr. L. L. SMITH.-Well, I would do the same if I were in the honorable member's position. The article simply refers to collusion, not between the two great parties of the conntry, but between the Governruent and the honorable mem­ber for Stawell, and I think the honor­able member for Stawell takes up a proper line in the matter. .As for myself, I have never got up to complain about the newspapers, except when they failed to report me ; and what they did in that way, when I first came into Parliament, was perhaps the best thing that ever occurred to me. Why I have been called a ClIttle fish, but I made no complaint on that score. If, on the pre­sent occasion, no honorable member feels personally aggrieved, why should there

. be any talk of' the honour and integrity of the House generally being involved ? Then we have before us what the Chief Secretary has said 'with regard to juries. I know what sort of thing they are perfectly well. Did not I suffer oncs in that quarter merely on account of my politics? In fact, the affair cost me something like £2,000. But I took matters calmly and philosophically. Every man who enters public life knows that he has got to be calumniated. As to newspapers, where is the difference between them? Look at the Age for example. The Age will calumniate and vilify just as much as the Argus will. Papers get their living by that sort of thing. If they did not publish spicy articles, nobody would read what they publish at all. If you do notice a news­paper, notice it, I say, in the way the Sydney Bulletin was noticed the other day, when it got touched for £1,000. Why that £1,000 and the £1,000 for the Leiclutrdt relics will pull it down a bit. That is the way to do the thing. If an honorable member feels his honour hurt and wishes to vindicate it, let him go in for substantial damages .. However, I did not rise to talk in this strain so much as to refer to something else. I should feel n coward if I did not reply in some way to what the honorable member for Maryborough (Mr. Bowman) just now said against the honorable member for East Melbonrne (Mr. Zox) with respect to the David Henry case. I say the latter honorable member took a just,

}';ewspaper Cltarges. [MARCH 2.J The "Argus." 1583

honorable, and humane part in tbat affair-:-a part that would become any man in the world. He went to the then Attorney-General about the business, and I accompanied him. He afterwards appealed to His Excellency.

Mr. BOWMAN.-Did he act in the cause of justice?

Mr. L. L. SMITH.-Yes, he dill, and, if his conduct is reprobated, I must share in the reprobation. What is Henry's case? I don't say his sentence was not just, although perhaps a little severe. Indeed, not long ago, a Hobart judge, when deal­ing with a' similar case, said he would not imitate the great severity displayed here, and he sentenced the prisoner be­fore him to only six months' imprison­ment. What happened to Henry shortly after he was imprisoned? He was struck down with paralysis. For many months he has lain in gaol more like an animated corpse than anything else. I think a man punished like that might be left to him­self. Then look at how Henry'S young son has been los t because of the enormous exertions he made to keep his father's business together. He brought himself down so by what he did to save the affairs of the family from ruin that, when he was attacked with typhoid fever, he soon sank under it. Then we ought to note that Henry's offence was the first of the kind ever known in the colony, that he has paid a penalty of £500, and that eyery other person connected with his crime­there is no question of its heinousness­has been let off. Everything considered, I think justice has been vindicated, and that the time for mercy has come. Should the honorable member for Maryborough ever be placed, by untoward circumstances, in a pORition at all resembling that of

. Henry, I hope he will find friends like those who have sought to restore Henry to his family.

Mr. FISHER.-Mr. Speaker, I regard the present question as one on which honorable members on both sides of the House onght to express themselves as clearly as possible. I understfLIld the Premier to contemplate asking the Attor­ney-General whether some steps cannot or ought not to be taken in order to pro­secute a certain newspaper. Well, I th ink the matter may safely be left at that point. I <1on't suppose the Attorney­General eveL' will :ulvise that the steps referred to should be taken. I am satis­fied that no Ministel'-I don't care what

his party might be-would ever succeed, or deserve to succeed, in an action in a court of law against a newspaper. If, however, an individual who had been maligned were to attempt, in his own personal. capacity, to gain satisfaction in a court of law, no doubt he would receive sterling justice. I may say I was somew hat grieved to hear the remarks that have been made in a particular quar­ter of t.he House with respect to one of the j lH.lges of the Supreme Court. For many years I have observed very care­fully the proceedings of that learned judge, and I must say I tlon't t.hink it possible to find throughout the whole colony a man of more thorough and upright honesty. He has had a very great ileal of experience, and that experience he brings carefully to bear upon the court over which he presides. At the same time, I differ from him, as a political man, toto emlo. Moreover, I don't think political mat.ters ought to be brought before the judges at all. I would, for instance, be one of the last to recom­mend that they should have the functions of the Elections and Qualifications Com­mittee. That course has been adopted in England, but I disapprove of it. I think the furtber 'we keep our judges from poli­tical matters, the better it will be for the people, and also the judges themselves. Several remarks have also been made about jnries,and I think somewhat harshly, although perhaps harshness was not in­tended. We must remember the peculiar circumstances in which juries are often placed. Take, for instance, the- case of a jury composed of twelve men who can bring no legal or specin1 knowledge to bear upon the subject before them. How can they htllp being ~nfiuenced by the tactics of the counsel on both sides, whose training hn,s given them great power to influence the minds of those to whom they address themselves? Surely if a jury so circumstallced give a wrong deeision, we ought to regard their conduct in the most merciful light possible. I would be very sorry to see a.ny attack upon Ollr jury system, because I a111 satisfied that, between our judges and our juries, the people of the ccrlony who go to the Su­preme Court receive ample justice there. But to come back to the course that ought to be adopted with respect to the Argus. I find that two plans are suggested. One is a prosecntion for libe1, and the other is bringing the representative of the offend­iug newspnper to the bar of the House.

1584 Newspaper Charges. [ASSEMBLY.] The "Argus."

But supposing the person put forward as the representative of the newspaper-that is to say its publisher-was brought to the bar, and that, after devoting a lot of valuable time to an investigation of the case concerning him, we ordered him to be imprisoned, what then? Why that is all we could do. The person appearing before us need not be-in 999 cases out of 1,000 he would not be-the person who wrote the offending article. He would simply be an outside person suffering vicariously for the misdeeds of some one else. Then, on the other hand, supposing the Government to bring an action against any newspaper-I don't care which-for libel, and to get a verdict, what would be the result? Merely an award for dam­ages. And if the damages amounted to several thousands of pounds, what then? To a newspaper corporation made up of a number of wealthy individuals, and sup­ported as the proprietors of the Argus are supported, a few thousands would be comparatively a mere flea-bite. The tre­mendous difficulty of obtaining a verdict at all must also be looked at. See how the community differs in politics, and how im­possible it would always be to get a jury composed altogether of either liberals or conservatives. Therefore my idea is that the subject brought up by the honorable member for South Gippsland, having been ventilated, ought to be allowed to rest. For myself, I find that even one year's experience in Parliament has wonderfully hardened me as to what is said about me in the press. I know that I can afford to pass such things by, because I am sure my conduct will turn out in the end to be right. If it does not, it will be from my own fault. If that doctrine is true with respect to an individual, it is bound to be even more completely so with respect to a compact body like the Ministry, whose conduct is peculiarly open to public re­view?

Mr. MIRAMS.-Sir, I simply rise to ask the Chief Secretary to very carefully consider the present matter, and determine the course he means to adopt. I don't think he can escape the responsibility of taking some action, unless he is prepared to allow the party he leads in the House and the country to be once more lied out of power, and almost out of existence, as they were in February last year. Everyone who knows the history of that period knows that Lhen, as well as during the six months preceding, a systematic course of lying-

both directly and by implication and mis­representation-was adopted by the lead­ing journal of the country, and carried out byits satellites throughout the colony, with the result that the liberal party was lied out of power. .

Mr. FRANCIS.-I thought the liberal idea was that the Age was the leading journal of the country.

Mr. MIRA.MS.-I am speaking of the journal called the Argus, which claims to be the leading journal. So far as lies are concerned, it is undoubtedly the leading journal. What I wish to draw attention to is that the same thing is beginning again. Whether that is because the Argus has an idea that a general election is looming in the future, or not, I cannot say. Only within the last few days, we had a sample of the tactics I refer to in the way the Minister of Lands was treated. Everyone who reads the Argus attacks upon that gentleman and his action with respect to B ullarook forest must come to the conclusion that that journal is deter­mined to assail the liberal party, man by man, as opportunities for the purpose occur; and that, if they do not occur, it will make them. That is to say that, if there is nothing already against the per­son it sets itself to attack, it will in vent something. It is obvious that an attempt is being made to carry out once more the systematic course which proved successful twelve months ago, and that the Ministry is to be again, if possible, lied out of place and power. If the leader of the liberal party is content to sit down quietly, and allow that plan to be accomplished, all I say is that he is not worthy of his position. If he is not content to do so, he will at once carefully consider and determine what he will do in the interests of not only himself but those who look to him as their leader and in some sense their protector. It is, of course, impossible for every mem­ber of the party to stand up for himself. As for what the honorable member for St. Kilda (Mr. Carter) has said about juries, it is no wonder he is content with them, and considers himself safe to receive jus­tice at their hands. Does he not belong to the portion of the community from which special juries are taken? If I felt as perfectly confident as he does about special juries, if I felt secure of jus­tice at their hands-because a special jury would have to try the case-I would enter an action against the Argus to-morrow morning, on the ground· of the article

Newspaper C/largeSt [MARCIl 2.J The "Argus.;! 1585

which appeared in its columns a few days ago, which stated, without the smallest foundation, or attempt to show any, that I was the most unscrupulous of party agents. Now I challenge the Argus to adduce any single act of mine in connexion with any party to which the term unscru­pulous could by any possibility be applied. With that remark I leave the subject.

Mr. GAUNSON.-Mr. Speaker, I would not attempt to occupy the time of the House but for the attack of the hon­orable member for Maryborough(Mr. Bow­man) upon the honorable member for East Melbourne (Mr. Zox) about the Henry case. When that matter was brought before the House nearly two years ago, I joined in the application that was made in the man's behalf, and therefore I regard the action with respect to it of the honor­able member for East Melbourne and the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Smith) as that of humane men. As to the honorable member for Collingwood (Mr. Mirams) and the Argus, I may say, inas­much as I always enjoy that journal assail­ing me, that I don't think the honorable member ought to be vexed with it. If he lets it be, it will only advertise him.

Mr. MIRAMS.-I would not care for the Argus if it would only publish the truth.

Mr. GAUNSON.-Of course. At the same time, I will point out that naturally the honorable member would scarcely want much inducement to enter an action against the Argus if he could make sure of a verdict in his favour. As for the Argus charge to which our attention has been specially called, it affects not so much the public or private character of the honor­able member for Stawell as the character of the colony at large. It is not a libel against this House, because the House is not accused; but the Government, who have the character of the colony in their keeping, are accused. It is perfectly true what the Chief Secretary says, namely, that it is the universal opinion of the colony-even among the gentlemen who, because they happen to be supplied with a little more of this world's gear and the comforts of life than other classes, inva­ria bly describe themselves as "well in­formed "-that the Argus has done more to damn the prospects of the country than the rest of the conservative press put toge­ther. It is well known that it has fallen off in circulation and in influence. It is powerful outside the colony, but not inside.

I have before now called attention to the monstrous licence of the whole press of the count.ry, the Age as well as the Argus inclusive. The proper way for the House to deal with offenders of that sort is to bring them to the bar and to fine them. We are a court of record, and though par­liamentary fines have not been inflicted for some time past, we have a right to inflict them, as I can prove. Sir Edward. Coke, in 1621, speaking of the House of Commons, said-

"No questio~ but this is a. I-louse of record, and that it hath power of judicature in some cases." And he exclaimed-

"I wish his tongue- may cleave to his mouth that saith that this is no court of record."

It is true that fines have not been inflicted by the House of Commons for hundreds of years, but they once were inflicted, and I hope resort will be had to that old practice by this House. Fine these fellows-they have no right to the name of gentlemen­who have no decency of feeling, and who would stab you in your private rela­tions of life, sending the most infamous stories into the bosoms of your families! The particular libel under notice, how­ever, is not a. libel upon the House, but upon the Government, and I hope the Government will institute a prosecu­tion in the Supreme Court. As to the judges, I have always maintained that the judges go outside their province when they charge the juries not only on the questions of law but on the questions of fact. The juries are the proper judges of the questions of fact, and it is a subversion of the rights of juries when a judge charges them on questions of fact. N ever­theless, while maintaining that view as a matter of principle, I am bound to express my belief that the judges of this colony are, in the performance of their functions, animated solely by the sincerest love of public duty, and I think the same thing may be fairly said of the juries generally. No doubt here and there outrageous ver­dicts may be given, but in the main I believe that the juries do their duty hon­estly, and according to the best of their judgment. As to the Stevenson case, which has been alluded to, I thoroughly believe that a failure of justice did take place in that case. The honorable mem­ber for St. Rilda (Mr. Carter) takes objection to the observations that have been made with regard to the justices of the peace who adjudicated on that case;

1586 New sp apei' Clt.arges. [ASSEMBLY.j The "Argus.;;

hut it is a fact that one of those justices, . Mr. P. P. Carter, wrote to the A1',QUS that, whilst he sat on the bench as a magistrate whose duty it was to decide honestly be­tween party and party, "he trembled for the defendants as he listened to the evi­dence." I quote that ext.raordinary sen­tence from memory, but I am sure I have correctly given its purport. There is no doubt whatever that cases do occur in this colony of justices going on the benc1~ when they ought not to go t.here. I trust, if the House ever has occasion to bring any of the" gentlemen of the press" be­fore the bar, it will fine them in a round sum such as will be felt; ana, if the fine is contumaciously unpaid, I hope the Honse will go on inflicting the punishment of imprisonment, session after session, until the authority of the Assembly is vindi­cated. As regards this particular libel, the Government ought to prosecute the Argus in a court of law. Once a verdict is recovel~ed in a criminal prosecution flgainst the Argus, its power to defame the insti­tutions and interfere with the progress of the colony will be gone for ever.

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN.-I wish to say a few word.s on two of the topics that have been alluded to in this discussion. I do not agree with the' obs'ervations of the honorable member for Maryborough (Mr. Bowman) regarding the conduct of the honorable member for East Melbourne (Mr. Zox) and the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Smith) respecting the case of David Henry. On the con­trary, I think those honorable members acted in a most praiseworthy manner. The criminal had been visited with a most serious afIliction from the hands of the Almighty, and he had suffered in other ways. He had spent a long period of his term of punishment, and I think the time had come when the prerogative of mercy might be extended to him. As to the matter of the Argus article, I think I am in u position to be able to speak fairly on the subject, as I hold a neutral position. I anl certainly not enamoured of the Go­vernment, and I am not over-friendly with the Argus. Having read the article complained of, I find in it no personal libel and no matter that could be taken cogni­zance of as an attack on this House. The matter is one which) if taken notice of at all, must be criminally prosecuted in the Supreme Court; and I would ask the Go­vernment to pause and consider well before they enter on a political prosecution-

because that is the light in which theili

action will be looked upon-and turn the proprietors of a paper like the Argus into political martyrs. I doubt the policy of such a course, because I apprehend that public opinion in this country would be against a political prosecution. Person­ally I think that, during the last three or four years, the press of this colony has lost a great deal of its power-and is losing it every day-by reason of its continuous libellous attacks upon various public men, and for the Government to initiate a poli. tical prosecution would only have the effect of giving the press increased power by placing it in the position of a political martyr. At home, where newspapers have been prosecuted by the Government of the day, the result has certainly not been such as the Government expected. The effect, on the contrary, has been to lift the pro­secuted journal into a position of political power and authority instead of the owners being properly punished. Even when a conviction has been obtained, the result has been to give the newspaper greater power and authority than before. For these reasons, I would advise the Govern­ment to consider carefully what would probably be the result of a political prose­cution in this country.

The motion for the 'adjournment of the House was then put and negatived.

DIAMOND DRILLS.

Mr. BARR asked the Minister of Mines if he would, in accordance with a promise made by the Mining department a year or two ago, send a diamond drill to Mary· borough? . Mr. WILLIAMS observed that he had ascertained from the Minister of Public Instruction that such a promise was made, and, as there would soon be two drills available, one of them would be sent to Maryborough.

CONSERVATION OF PUBLIC RESERVES.

Mr. BOWMAN asked the Chief Secre­tary when an opportunity would be afforded of continuing the debate on his (Mr. Bowman's) motion with respect to the conservation of public reserves?

Mr. BERRY intimated that before any of the reserved land that was proposed to be alienated was disposed of, the honorable member would be given an opportunity of testing the opinion of the House on his motion.

· t'arliament 11ouae. [MAROH 2.J "Avoca;' Gold Robbery. 1587

RAILWAY EMPLOYES. Mr. FISHER asked the Minister of

Railways if he would allow the employes on the suburban railways to have every second Sunday off duty?

Mr. PATTERSON remarked that, though the employes engaged on Sundays were paid for every Snnday, they in no case worked more than alternate Sundays, and sometimes only one Sunday in three.

PARLIAMENT HOUSE. Mr. LONGMORE asked the Minister

of Public Works whether any delay had occurred in signing the contract for the completion of the front of the Parliament House; and, if so, what was the cause of it?

Mr. LANGRIDGE observed that there had been a slight delay in connexion with the clause of the contract relating to the carriage of the stone, but the matter had been arranged, and the contract would probably be signed next day.

Mr. DOW expressed the hope that the signing of the contract would be delayed until the question of the municipal subsi­dies had been settled. He believed his district had not been justly treated in the reduction of the endowment, and, as the completion of the Parliament Houses would involve the expenditure of a very large sum of money, he hoped the closing of the contract would be postponed until the House had had an opportunity of con­sidering the endowment question.

Mr. BERRY remarked that the mu­nicipalities could obtain no relief from the non-completion of the Parliament Houses, because even if the contract was not entered into there would not be another shilling available on that account 'to in­crease the municipal endowment. The ex­penditure under the contract would come out of a loan incurred expressly for that particular work, whereas the endowment was paid out of the general revenue, and the two funds were quite distinct.

FIRE AT WINDERMERE. ,Mr. BELL asked the Minister of Rail­

ways, what he intended to do with the claims of those persons who suffered by the fire caused by sparks from a railway engine, on the line at Windermere?

Mr. PATTERSON observed that the Railway department did not admit that the fire was caused by sparks from 'a rail­way engine.

DISCHARGED PRISONERS. Mr. ZOX asked the Chief Secretary if he

would give instructions to tho head of the Police department not to unduly interfere with discharged prisoners, in order to give them an opportunity of earning an honest Ii velihood ? The Discharged Prisoners Aid Society (the honorable member re­marked) was doing a vast amount of good, but its usefulness was impeded by the fn.ct that, in many instances, detectives had in­terfered with discharged prisoners endea­vouring to earn their living, by informing their employers that they had been in gaol. Several complaints of such inter­ference had been made, and he hoped the police would be instructed to discontinue the practice, a.s it tended to prevent dis­charged prisoners from leading honest lives.

Mr. BERRY stated that he called tho attention of the Acting Chief Commis­sioner of Police to the honorable member's question on the' subject, and he was in­formed that no instances of such interfer­ence were known. There could be no desire on the, part of the Police depart­ment or of the Government to prevent discharged ,prisoners from getting employ­ment, and he would be glad if any honor-

,able member, who became aware of any specific c~se of undue interference, would communicate it to him, and he would have it at once inquired into.

THE " AVOCA" GOLD ROBBERY.

Mr. R. M. SMITH asked the Chief Secretary whether he had yet arrived at any conclusion on the subject of making some compensation to Mr. Elliston, who was wrongfully accused of a tobbery of gold from the mail steamer Avoca?

Mr. BERRY observed that he under­stood that, in accordance with a suggestion he made when this matter was last men­tioned in the House, the honorable member and the U nder-Secretary-he regretted that he himself was not able to be present at the time-went through the papers in the case, and that both were of opinion that some compensation was due to Mr. Elliston, to whom an inadvertent injustice was done. He (Mr. Berry) could not say that he did not concur in that opinion, although he felt the necessity of extreme caution in the creation of any such pre­cedent.

Mr. LONGMORE remarked that, if compensation was given to Mr. Elliston,

1588 State School Exhihitions. [ASSEMBLY.] The Savage Torpedo.

it would have to be given to a hundred others.

Mr. BERRY said that was the difficulty he felt in the matter. At the same time, he did not think a community should do proved injustice to any man. He thought the best course would be for the honorable member for Boroondara to take the re­sponsibility of tabling a motion for an address to the Governor in favour of a grant of £500 being placed on the Esti­mates for Mr. Elliston, and the Govern­ment would afford every facility for the motion being brought on. There was no doubt that Mr. Elliston, who appeared to be absolutely innocent of the crime im­puted to him, had suffered a great injus­tice, his prospects in life in fact being blighted. It appeared from the papers that he was just about to be appointed to a lucrative and honorable position in Eng­land at the time the telegram went home communicating the charge, and of course he lost the appointment in consequence. No doubt all cases of injustice done in the prosecution of justice could not be righted, but when an exceptionally severe case like the present occurred the House might take it into favorable con­sideration.

STATE SCHOOL EXHIBITIONS. Mr. WOODS asked the Minister of

Public Instruction when the exhibition, won by a 'boy named Mulcahy, of Stawell, would be accorded to him? He observed that the boy, who was the son of a hard­working shoemaker, entered the competi­tion for the exhibition under the printed regulations of the Education department, and when he had won the exhibition the departmental officers put questions as to his age which they ought to have put two years before. It was the duty of the de­partment to have satisfied itself as to the boy's age before allowing him to enter for the exhibition, and not to raise the ques­tion after his family had subjected them­selves to privation in order to keep him at school work for two years. When the father was interrogated as to the boy's age, he answered according to the best of his knowledge at the time, but it was subsequently found on searching the regis­ter that the boy was a few days too old to entitle him to the exhibition. The case was one of exceptional hardship, and he hoped the Minister would reverse the re­fusal of the department to allow the boy the prize he had won.

Major SMITH acknowledged that an injustice had been done in the matter, and, if correct information had been given by the father as to the boy's age, he would have been. prepared to overrule the regu­lations in the case. The regulations re­lating to exhibitions provided that-

"No competitor will be permitted to attend the examination who will have completed his fifteenth year before the 1st day of January succeeding the examination."

The departmental minute of the case was as follows :-

"L. W. Mulcahy was admitted to the exhi­bition examination in DecQmber last on his father's certificate that his age on the 1st No­vember, 1880, was 14 years 9 months. He now admits that his certificate was incorrect, and declines to furnish a certificate of birth. Under these circumstances, the department purposes withholding from him the benefits of the exhi­bition, and the Crown Solicitor is of opinion that he has no legal rights to them."

He admitted that an injustice had been done to the boy, because the department ought not to have allowed him to enter the examination without proper proof that be was within the age required by the regulations, and he (Major Smith) had given instructions to prevent anything of the kind occurring again. (Mr. Mason­"How much too old was he ?") The boy was five days too old. (Several Honor­able Members-" Oh, let him have the exhibition.") He refused an exhibition to a boy in the Creswick district who was found to be only one day beyond the pre­scribed age. (Honorable Members-" Let both have the exhibitions.") He under­stood that it was the opinion of the House that the department should have satisfied itself in the first instance that the regula­tions ~ere complied with, and therefore he would overrule the regulations in these particular cases.

THE SAVAGE TORPEDO. Mr. L. L. SMITH asked the Chief

Secretary if it was his intention to give the torpedo known as the" Savage tor­pedo" a trial as a means of defence for the colony?

Mr. BERRY replied in the negative.

IMMIGRATION. Mr. TUCKER asked the Chief Secre­

tary whether the speech of the Minister of Railways at Yea might be taken as an indication that the Government favoured a system of immigration at the expense of the State? He observed that the

Ballarat East Electoral [MARCH: 2.J Boundaries BUl. i589

Minister of Railways had privately told him that he did not consider the speech in question would bear the construction

. that either the G.overnment or the Min­ister himself favoured assisted State immi­gration, but an impression to the contrary had gone abroad, and it would be as well for the Chief Secretary to publicly deny that the Government were favorable to such a policy.

Mr. BERRY stated that he was glad the honorable member had ascertained from the Minister of Railways that a wrong construction had been placed on his speech. ' Of course he (Mr. Berry) was aware that the Minister of Railways would not think of publicly advocating a system of assisted immigration; but he was glad of the opportunity of saying that there had been no change in the policy of the Government-nor did he believe that there had been the slightest change in public opinion-upon the ques­tion. As long as he had the confidence of the House, he certainly would not pro­pose the expenditure of a single shilling on assisted immigration.

Mr. HUNT suggested that as he spoke at the meeting referred to, and his remarks had a tendency in favour of assisted im­migration, possibly they might have been confused with those of the Minister of Railways. He (Mr. Hunt) was strongly of opinion that the colony required in­creased population, and he believed there was no other system by which that result could be better achieved than by a system of assisted immigration.

GEELONG RAILWAY STATION. Mr. PATTERSON (pursuant to an

order of the House, dated September 22) presented a return relating to the· cost of alterations at the Geelong railway station.

BALLARAT EAST ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES BILL.

Mr. JAMES moved for leave to in­troduce a Bill to amend the electoral boundaries of Ballarat East. He observed that the Bill, which was submitted in accordance with the wishes of 'the local town council, simply proposed to include the whole of the town of Ballarat East in the electorate of that name.

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

The Bill was then brought in, and road a first time.

,2ND SES. 1880.-5 S

THE MORAN INQUIRY. Mr. COOPER moved-" That there be laid before this House all the

papers connected with the charges made against Constable Moran for neglect of duty in July last, and for making false statements to the honorable the Commissioner of Lands in July and August, together with the evidence taken before the board of inquiry."

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

HOBSON'S BAY RAILWAY. Mr. MASON (in the absence of Mr.

MIRAM:S) moved-"That there be laid before this House a re­

turn showing-I. The income of Hobson's Bay Railway for the eighteen months ending 31st December, 1880. 2. The expendit'Qre divided under the heads management, interest, repairs, and new works. 3. The rate per cent. of the profit upon the transaction."

Mr. L. L. SMITH seconded the motion, which was agreed to.

DAYLESFORD RAILWAY. Mr. KERFERD (in the absence of Mr.

BENT) moved-"That there be laid before this House a re­

turn of the price paid, or agreed to be paid, for land required in the Daylesford extension, and the names of the persons holding such land, together with the quantity of land takenby the department."

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

Mr. KERFERD then moved-"That there be laid before this House all

papers, plans, sections, memoranda, and reports from officers of the Railway department in re­ference to the extension of .the Daylesford terminus to Raglan-street."

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

REFORM BILL. FIFTH NIGHT'S DEBATE.

The debate on Mr. Berry's motion for the second reading of the Reform Bill (adjourned from Thursday, February 24) was resumed.'

Mr. ZOX. - Mr. Speaker, whatever treatment this Reform Bill may receive at the hands of this House, the measure will never be effaced from the recollection of the people of this country. And for two reasons. One is that the provisions of the Bill have already been argued time after time, with what result the House and the country know. The other reason is that there is not a single clause of the measure

1590 [ASSEMBVY.] Second Reading.

which' has not received the unequivocal condemnation of every member of the present Government. By quotations fro~ fdr'mer speeches of members of the Min­istry I will prove unmistakably, out of their own mouths, that they have not the slightest confidence in the Bill that they now propose shall become the law. When the Chief Secretary moved the second reading of the Bill, his language was in marked contrast to that which he used in bring­ing previous Reform Bills before the House. He asked honorable members to " let bygones be bygones." He said, in . effect, to the Opposition -" You have tried your hands at const.itutional reform; the Government of . which I was recently the chief tried its hand several times; every. trial was attended by failure; therefore we ask yon to let bygones be bygones, and swallow the Bill which we now submit." For my par.t, ~ pannot, "l~t bygones be bygones'." I say it is matter for surprise that the . Chief Secretary,

. w~o usually plUlne~~himself upon his con­sistency,' should bring down. a Ref9rm Bill containing clauses wbich . he and 'his supporters, have unif(>'r~ly condemned. I c~n,' lJIlagiue th~t,. befor,e' determining tQ, : propound the" measure, ·some such rionyersation as.· the following must have taken place in the Cabinet :..:-" What are. we. to.' do? We are .pushed into' a cornel'; we have propounded reform schemes of, ~lmost ,every description, and they hav!3. aU proved abortive; 1Ye will now. propose a' scheme three-fourths of which emanated from the Opposition, and, as we know, from past experience, that they are consistent-that they will be true to the principles which they havc avowed -they wi1l, of course, vote for. the mea­sure." And, so far as certain clauses are concerned, -I am bound to give the Bill my support. However, I say that the Go­vernment have no right,to take credit for the scheme; because ~t is not theirs at all. The scheme, in, its main principles, was that which Mr. Service propounded when he sat on the Treasury bench, and upon wh,ich he lost office. But that gentleman had the courage of his opinions; he ad­hererl ,rigidly and tenaciously to the views he laid' before the country ; and the men who assisted in placing him in a minority because of the views whic.h he advocated now appropriate those "iews without com-' prinction. Under these circumstances, h(rw can I "let bygones be bygones"? I will now make a quotation or two from

Mr. Zor.

former utterances of members of the Go­vernment, and I think they will he suffi­cient to show that it is very unwise to follow such leaders blindfold. Here is what the Chief Secretary said in July, 1879:-

" All the disturbances which have occurred in this country have arisen because the Legislati~e Council is too powerful now. If we make It more powerful, we will equalize the combat be­tween the two Houses, and it will continue the contest. . . . What advantage would be de­rived from having two Houses elected on the same basis that does not now exist in having one Chamber elected in the way this is? . . . If we widen the basis of the Legislative Council, we can no longer retain the exclusive privileges of this House. We should have to give up the 'sole control of the finances, allow the Council to amend Money Bills, and in fact have a state of things unprecedented under responsible govern­ment." These sentiments were uttered by the present leader of this House-a gentleman who is responsible for the good govern-1.Ueni'qf this country-and yet he has since so modified .his views that he submits to Pai'lia~ent a Bill the very antithesis of what he proposed befol'e. Again, in August of the' same year, the present Minister of Railways stated-

" I look. upon any attempt to extend the basis of the ot.her Chamber as a deliberate attack upon nlanhood suffrage. If the qualification for the electors of the Council were reduced to a £10 rating, that Hou'se would virtually be create.d the Legislative Assembly, and the whole affaIrs of the country might as well be handed over to its control." I ask the 'Mini~ter' ~f R~ilways, who ought to have some regard for his own political convictions, how he, after enun­ciating the views I have just· quoted, can now so turn his back upon himself as to assist in bringing forward this Bill? I say that if political action like that of the Government is endorsed by this House and the country, political consistency is a thing of the past. Talk of teaching our children who desire to enter public life that consistency is requisite for a poli­tician, why the idea should be thrown to the winds. Events show that the way to maintain place is to be inconsistent. Then again, what did the honorable member for Castlemaine (Mr. Pearson) say about the same time? He spoke as follows :-

"If the Council were elected by the rate­payers of the country, we would have nothing more nor less than two Houses of the same character. That seems to me taking the duties of the Council off their hands. We want a second House, not to coincide with all our actions-to echo our opinions-but to criticise

HS, anc1look at everything we send up to them from a different point of view, only without the power of thwarting ~s for all time." -

And then he went on to suggest the fol­lowing as the future constituency of the Council:- . . "Let it be composed say of some 500 of the chief taxpayers, together with all past and _pre­sent members of the Assembly, all mayors of towns, and all university graduates. That would. make a constituency of about 1,000. It would be one not accessible to bribes."

Sentiments. like these .hav~ng been ex­.pressed by the honorable. member for Castlemaine; I am at' a loss to under­stand how the honorable memher, hold­ing the opinion he does, can give his adhesion to the Government Bill. Why there is- such a gross amount of in­consistency about the present action of the Ministry that I -am' astonished that public men, having any regard for _their political reputation, can indulge in it. I have always been in favour of a . reduction of the franchise for the Legislative Coullcil, and a shortening of the tenure of. seats ; at the same. time, I have ever considered that members of that House should possess a certain amount of property qualification. The Government Bill provides that the basis

. .of the franchise for the Upp,er House shall be the ratepayers' roll, and that any one who is qualified to vote shall also be qualified to sit in that Chamber. By that arrangement, the Upper House will be made a counterpart of this Chamber, be­cause the manhood· suffrage vote does not amount to more than 20 per cent. of. the voting power for the Assembly. But is it not class legislation to provide only for the

. representation of ratepayers in the Upper House? Why, under this Bill, members

-0£ the learned professions, who are only lodgers, who don't happen to· be rate­payers, will 1;>e precluded from' sitting in the Uppe,r House. .Thus the choice of the electors .will be. limited; but the people will not relish this limitation, because they desire to be re.presented by first-class ·men. I am as anxious for reform as any man. I am fully alive to the evils which are accruing owing to. the question re­mn.ining unsettled. I represent one of the largest commercial· constitq.encies ill thet colony, and some' of my warmest supporters have urged upon me, as their representative, to 8.0 all I can to get the question settled; but I cannot get the question settled by means of this Bill. The measure does not provide for any

582

Fifth bTight's jjehaie~ i591

finality. In fact, it is a most ridiculous measure; it. is an abortiOll; it certainly cannot answer the object of the Govern­ment. And yet this is all the outcome of the quarrellings and bickerings we have had. At the same time, I say that the Bill contains, certain principles which, as a consistent politician, I am bound to vote for; and that statement is to be accounted for by the fact that the Government have, to a great. extent, stolen their Bill from us. Several clauses of the. measure have been stolen by the Ministry, and utilized for their own purposes for the time being; and yet I have no hesitation in saying that, if the Bill were rejected, and the Ministry had to go before the country to-morrow, they would submit another Bill as opposite to the present mea­sure as that measure is to those which ha:ve gone before. This evening, the honorable member for Boroondara has tabled a motion in favour of the appoint­ment of a select committee to confer with a committee of tlie other House on the question of reform; and I sincerely hope that honorable members on all sides will. ,see their way to.accept that motion. I know no means so well calculated to help .to the solution of t~18 reform difficulty as a conference between the two Houses .

Mr. MACGREGOR.- Sir, I must take ex~eption to the allegation of the honorable. member for East Melbourne (Mr. Zox) that the Ministry have stolen part of Mr. Service's Bill. Let the saddle be put upon the right horse. Whence did Mr .. Service, get thQse clauses of

· his measure which are embodied in the ,Bill. pow before us? Why, long before Mr. Service took office, the principle of tp.ose clauses was. enunciated by a mem­ber of the Upper House-the Hon. R. D. Rei,d. More than that, I am prepared to

· say that the country has again and again affirmed o~e or another of the propositions contained in .the Ministerial Bill. Where then does the stealing from Mr. Service's Bill come in? I regard the present Bill as immeasurably superior to Mr. Service's BilL It is simplicity itself, and it should be carried if the~e is any desire for the settlement, this session, of the reform question. At the general election, I had the temerity to enunciate beforo the elec~ors of Emerald Hill several proposi­tions with regard to reform which were

· not. at all like those contained in Mr. · Service's Bill, and the. people of Emerald Hill, . by returning me, to this House,

1592 lleform Bill. [ASS~MBLY.J Second l1eading.

declared that the propositions which I enunciated were correct. I advocated, 1st, t.hat members of the Legislative Council should be elected on the ratepayers' roll ; 2nd, that the tenure of office should be three years; 3rd, that there should be 30 members, with 30 single electorates, and no property qualification. Those propo­sitions, with the exception of the tenure of office, are given effect to by this Bill. The leader of the Opposition objects to the Bill because it provides no educational franchise. I grant that the Bill framed by the Legislative Council, which has come down to this House, gives the fran­chise to members of the University, to professional gentlemen, and to matricu­lated students, whether they possess pro­perty or occupy houses or not; but I believe that all such classes are covered by the ratepayers' roll, and that with the franchise based on the ratepayers' roll there is no occasion for an educationalfran­ch18e. I may mention that Mr. Service's Bill did not provide for an educational franchise. MI'. Service, shrewd and long­headed politician as he is, saw there was

. no necessity, with the reduced franchise which he proposed, for providing for an educational franchise. Then why should it be provided for in this Bill? I may say that the educational element is begin­ning to show itself on all sides; and that there are evidences· on the part of the young men now growing up of the pos­session of a spirit of thorough patriotism and attachment to the country in which they have been born and bred. The native element will be an important factor in all future elections. There is arising in the colonies a national life which is more likely to bring about a federation of Australia than all the tall· talk which has recently been indulged in. I believe the native element is purely conservative. It will take good care to conserve the indus­tries, the mines, and the lands of the colony, and it will stick fast by the free system of education which has been estab­lished. Then what cause is there for the jeremiads in which' the Argus newspaper -the organ of the Opposition-indulges? According to the conservatives, our great democracy is not to be trusted, but the liberals trust it thoroughly, and they have good reason to do so. Look for a moment at what is taking place around us. There are no less than 300 students of the U ni­. versity of Melbourne, and, when they go forth from their alma mater, they will

Mr. Macgregor.

exert a powerful influence upon public affairs. There are some 1,000 candidates for matriculation annually, and they are beginning to make their power felt in the land. Then there are about 1,000 pupil teachers, and they are helping gradually to increase the ranks of the ratepayers. La~tly, there are some 700 school-teachers -persons of great intelligence, many of them possessing high attainments. Why, instead of having any reason for dis­trust, I consider there is not such an enlightened democracy anywhere in the world as there is in Victoria. In the pro­posals of the Legislative Council with regard to the reduction of the franchise, a distinction is drawn between leaseholders and freeholders, but I think the distinc­tion is one which should not be made. I find, on analyzing the ratepayers' roll, that some of the best men in the colony are leaseholders. They are men who pos­sees substantial interests in the colony­who own banking, mining, and gas shares -but, because they do not choose to invest in real property, the Council require from them a higher rating for qualification than they do from freeholders. But I see no reason for the difference. The fact that the difference has been proposed is, in my opinion, a further argument for taking the ratepayers' roll as the basis of q ualifica­tion. I may mention, for the information of the honorable member for Boroondara, that I am willing, in connexion with the matter of educational test, to go so far as to provide that every man who cannot read or write shall be deprived of his vote. I have seen men of property, when· brought· up to poll, unable to read the ballot-paper-not knowing which name to score out. If I could, I would deprive such men of their votes. With regard to the property qualification, I was surprised to hear the honorable member for Sand­ridge state that, while willing to acquiesce in a reduction of the franchise, he must hold by the property qualification. I can­not understand how the honorable gentle­man, who is a distinguished member of the University, should be in favour of debarring the admission to the Legislative Council of a man, who may possess the highest educational acquirements, pro­vided he has not the requisite amou%-t of pounds, shillings, and pence-provIded he has not landed property rated at £150 per year. I think this distinction should be swept away; and that in the election of members of the Upper House there

Reform Bill. [MARCH 2.J Fifth Night's Debate. 1593

should be "a fair field and no favour." Then as to the size of the provinces. The honorable member for Portland is for enlarging the existing provinces. Why the Central Province is so large already that, when a contest takes place, it is impossible for a candidate to ap­pear before all the electors. He never thinks of visiting Emerald Hill, although that municipality contains a population of 27,000, but he contents himself with addressing one or two meetings in the city of Melbourne. Now, if the pro­vinces are divided, as this Bill proposes, into 30 electorates, each returning one member, candidates will be brought face to face with the electors, and I believe that by this means the Upper House will b~ composed of men who will help to make the relations of the two Chambers to each other far more harmonious than ever they were before. Another objection to large provinces is that they can be contested only by wealthy men-by men who are prepared to pay from £1,000 to £2,000 in expenses. The leader of the Opposition asks what will be done in the event of disagreement arising between the two Houses? I venture to say that, liberal­ized as the Council will be by being elected on the ratepayers' roll, differences will be of rare occurrence-they will disappear altogether. But it may be mentioned, as a means of comfort to those who consider that disagreements will necessarily arise, that one-third of the members of the Council will go to their constituents every two . years, and the feeling of the electors of the Upper House with regard to any question at issne will be sufficiently indicated, as the feeling of ratepayers at municipal elec­tions is indicated, by the men they elect. There is no doubt that the men who are returned will be men abreast of the times. For my part, I would like the whole of the members of the Legislative Coun­cil to go to their constituents every three years, but, as that proceeding may be re­garded as ultra-liberal, I am prepared to accept the plan provided for in the Bill. It is admitted on all hands that the time has arrived for the reform question to be settled, and I ask honorable members in opposition to unite in reading the Bill, which unquestionably is a fair one, a second time. The measure can then be considered in committee, and improved if possible. It should then be sent as quickly as pos­sible to the Le~islativ~ Qouncil, and! if

we can accept the amendments which that body may choose to make in the measure, by all means let us do so. The probability of the question soon receiving a settle­ment is having its influence on every hand. Already there is a revival of min­ingenterprise, and, connecting this circum­stance with the facts that the harvest is a bountiful one and that money is abund­ant, is it not a natural conclusion that if the country can only have political peace and rest, general prosperity will be sure to follow? I cannot accept the opinions of the honorable member for St. Kilda (Mr. Carter) as to the distrust which has pre­vailed in commercial circles owing to the political differences of the last few years. Why dul'ing the existence of those differ­ences some of the finest structures in Melbourne have been erected; and more building is now going on within the municipality of Emerald Hill than has been the case for years. Confidence has not been destroyed; it endures, and will be materially strengthened if the reform question is settled by the passing of this Bill. About that result I anticipate no difficulty, inasmuch as the measure is a moderate one, and moderate men and moderate views are what the colony is· in favour of. I support the Bill in its entirety, and I hope it will pass as it stands. Certainly I am opposed to a conference of the two Houses, because I believe a proceeding of the kind would be the means of shel ving the. measure .

. Sir B. O'LOGHLEN.-Mr. Speaker, I feel great difficulty in speaking in sup­port of the Bill, as it is founded on a prin­ciple to which I have always been entirely opposed, namely, the elective principle for the Upper House. I have always sup­ported the nominee principle, because it is the one which, in my judgment, is most in consonance with the British Constitu­tion, and affords the only chance of suc­cessfully working a Constitution that recognises two Houses of Legislature .. At the last general election, however, it was necessary for the liberal party to choose a definite line of action on which they would unite in order to defeat a Bill that was loaded with provisions highly inimical to liberty. The Service Reform Bilt pro­vided for a double· dissolution and for a joint sitting of the two Houses. It also contained the elimination clause, and other provisions which rendered it injurious to the best interests of the country. The liberal party accordingl, decide~ to ~ink

1594 Reform Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Second Reading.

all differences and go in for a measure founded on the lines of the 'present BilL I opposed the adoption of that course as long as I could, but, finding that the ma­jorityof the liberal party were deterinined upon it, I for the time placed my own views and principles in abeyance, and agreed to the Bill as a compromise. I will therefore vote for its second reading, and I would urge the conservative party also to support it,because I look upon it as in reality a conservative measure. It is not my idea of what it liberal' nleasure ought to be. 'I have merely consented 'to it in a spirit of compromise, and I think it would be wise policy on the part of the conservatives if they vote(1 with the Go­vel'llment and accepted the Bill. In con­senting to place my own views and prin­ciples iu abeyance, I have not done so for all time. If the reform question is not settled this session, or as soon as pos­sible, I shall hold myself at liberty on a future occasion" to advocate a measure based on the nominee principle; and I shall also take an opportunity, when the present Bill is in committee, of moving that a 4th and 5th part' be added to it. The 4th part will embody the declarations as to the financial powers of this House which were contained in the first two clauses of a Reform Bill that I had the honour to frame for the late Berry Go­vernment, and also the practical provision for remedying dead-locks which was em­bodied in the sixth clause. The 5th part will contain provision for an appeal to the general roll-to the whole people-in case of disagreement between the two Houses. No doubt the Bill is legitimately open to the ohjection which has been raised against it that it contains no provision 'against dead-locks. The adoption of the amend­ments which I intend to propose will remove that objection, and will also pro­vide' a final arbiter between the two Houses when they disagree on matters of general legislation. In proposing these amendments, however, it is not my inten­tion} if they are not carried, to vote against the third reading of the Bill, for when I gave in my adhesion to the Bill­when I consented to place my own views in abeyance, and, in a spirit of compro­mise, to vote for a measnre based 011 what I conceived to be a radica.lly wrong prin­ciple, and the chief cause of all our P9li­tical evils, namely, an 'elective Up~er HOllse-I 'did so loyally and fully. If, therefore, the amendments I intend to

Sir B. O'Loghlen.

propose in committee are not carried, I shall vote for the third reading of the Bill in its present shape,'

Mr. NIMMO.-Sir, I am very glad to observe that a spirit of moderation pre­vails 'iIi this House. I think that the principles of constitutional government have been as well debated here during the last three years as ever they were during any formel' three years since the Parlia­ment of Victoria bad an existence. The honorable member for West Bourke (Sir B. O'Loghlen) still ~lings to the 6th clause of the last Berry Reform Bill. Well,;' I believed in that clause, and I believe in it still ;butthe question which arises in my mind is this-" Can I carry out my belief?" Politics, as I under­stand, is to a certain extent a science of compromise. No man can get everything his own way in any department of life. In connexion even with what we call the exact sciences-matters which we mfght think could be determined by exact mathematics - we find that there are differences of opinion; but when we come to wider questions, involving moral philo­sophy, we know that there are great divergences between the views of one thinker and those of another. Six Reform Bills have been submitted to tbis House at djfferent times-three by the conserva­tives and three by the liberals. The honorable member for East Melbourne (Mr. Zox) taunted the Chief Secretary and other members of the Goyernment with having abandoned their principles, but he forgets that they submitted the principles which they formerly professed to their 'constituents, and, their con-

, stituents told them emphatically that they di(l not believe in some of those principles. The present Bill, however, has passed through a most important ordeal, to which sufficient importance has not been attached by previous speakers. The Bill itself was submitted to the COll­

stit.uencies at the last general election. It was submitted in contradistinction to the Service Reform Bill. The people, were asked to say which of the two measures they approved of, and they said-" We approve of the programme submitted by Mr. Berry." They accordingly returned a majority to carry that scheme into law. Now, although I -may be very much at­tache1d to the 6th clause (the plebiscite I never did believe ill, though I was pre­pared to accept it as part and parcel of a meaSUl'e of reform) I cannot ignore the

Reform Bill. [MAUCH 2.J Fiftl" Night's, Debate. 1595

fact that the people have pronounced in favour of the present Bill. What impor­tance should we attach to that fact? :Are we a representative Chamber? If so, whom do we represent? The people. As one of the members for Emerald Hill, I could not consistently go to the electors of that constituency and say to them­" Gentlemen, I announced to you a cer­tain programme when you did me the honour of placing me at the top of the poll at the last election, but I have voted for other principles than those I go~ retltrned upon." I must stick to this Bill. As to the motion which the honorable member for Boroondara intends to propose in favour of referring the measure to a con­ference of the two Honses, I believe that the honorable member is animated with a sincere desire to get the reform question settled, but the adoption of his proposition ·would not effect that object. Suppose that three members on each side of'this House were appointed a committee to meet six members of the other Chamber, what would be the result when the conference came to a vote as to whether a £10 rating or the ratepayers' roll should be adopted as the franchise for the Council? Why there would be nine votes in favour of a £10 l'ating, and only three for the ratepayers' roll. We know beforehand that such would be the case, and thu,t the conference would result in no good. I say the country has pronounced definitely and emphatically in favour of the present Bill, and we dare not go behind its pronounce­ment unless we are prepared to violate our pledges. Moreover, I undertake to show that even members of the Opposi­tion have pleadetl for the very principle for which the Government are now con­tending, namely, that the ratepayers' roll should be made the basis of representation for the Upper House. On the 9th of June last., during the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Service Heform Bill, the honorable member for Kyneton said-

"I believe the proper course would be to adopt the ratepayers' roll as the basis of the franchise of the Council, and I hope before the debate closes the Government will declare their Willingness to go to that extent. I believe it will only make a difference of 10,000 or 15,000 voters, and, for the sake of that number, it is not worth while making a distinction between the ordinary ratepayers' roll aud the proposed roll of electors for the Council. I have no hesi­tation in stating that it will give the greatest satisfaction throughout the country if the rate­payers' roll is made the basis of the 80uncil.

Even admitting that there are other parts of the Bill, which are objectionable, I ~ ask honorable members w)lether it does no~ go a considel'Jt1;>le way in the right direction? .In fact, is not this proposal to reduce the franchise'for the Conncil the solution ·ofthe difficulties with which"we have been confronted? .; . . My own opinion is that, if the Councp were elect~d on the rate­payers' roll, and the provinces su bdi vide~ as proposed, these proposals alone would be' suffi­cient to solve the difficulty, and dead-locks would be heard of no more." , .

This is an extract from a speech of one of the rank and file of the present Oppo-sition. .. , Mr. CQOPER.-A, very good' speech,

too. . . Mr. NIMMO.-A splendid speech. I

believe in . every word of it. I' could not wish for any better speech to be made in support of the Bill at present before the House. The honorable member for 'Bor".. oondara, the present leader of the Opposi­tion, made the following remark.s during the debate on the Service Reform Bill :-

"I regard the :first two propositions-the rating qua1i:fication for electors of the Upper House, and the property qualification for members-as matters of detail, practically involving no prin­ciple under our present circumstances."

If the honorable member is of the same opinion still, Hnd regards these matters as of no importance, while the Ministerial side of the House attach great importance to them, surely he will vote for the pro­posals concerning them which are in the present Bill. It may be said that there are some members on the Ministerial side of the House whose opinions on the ques­tion of reform are now rather inconsistent with the. views they expressed when the Service Reform Bill was debated. There are others, however, who cannot be charged with inconsistency, and I claim to be one of. them. At the conc] llsion of my speech on that occasion, I said-

"I sincerely hope the Government will see their way to remodel their proposals by striking out their offensive features. W ere they to confine their measure to extending the electoral ba,sis of the Council, they would receive from all sides, both here and outside, a large and . liberal support"

The present measnre contuins the very principle which I contended for when the Service Reform Bill was before the House, and its adoption would be a solution of the vexed question of reform. We will never get all politicians to agree· as to any of the various specifics for dead-locks which have been proposed from time to time. The Minh,terial patty have been taunted with being too (:tjiiceited it1 their own

1596 Reform Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Second Reading.

OpInIOnS, and with putting their foot down too firmly; but I would remind honorable members who make that charge that the late leader of the Opposition, when asked, in calm and temperate language, to submit his Bill to a con­ference, said he would die before he would do such a thing-that he would rather commit political suicide. It therefore comes with very bad grace from gentle­men on the opposite side to talk to the Ministry and their supporters about moderation, and to tell us to be con­ciliatory. We have been very conciliatory. We have adopted, to a certain extent, the very principles of the Service Reform Bill. The Opposition, however, were not the originators of those principles. They were first propounded by the only liberal member in the Upper House. We did. not claim originality for them-at any rate, I did not-at the last election. We found that it was necessary, as a political party, to go to the country with certain principles on the reform question, by which we would be prepared to stand or fall, and we adopted the principles em­bodied in the Bill now before the House. Upon those principles we were elected, but we are now practically· asked by the leader of the Opposition to turn our back on our principles, and submit them for revision to a committee consisting of a certain number of members of each House. The honorable gentleman is shrewd enough to know that we see beforehand what would be the result of such a conference. I am not prepared to agree to a conference, nor am I prepared to depart in any way from the principles that I enunciated on the platform to my constituents at the last general election, and which were embodied in the mani­festo then submitted by the liberal party. I would be delighted if both sides of the House agreed to support the present Bill. The Ministerial party have given up many things. We have given up the plebiscite and the 6th clause; and honorable mem­bers opposite have given up the double dissolution· and one or two other articles of their political faith. Both sides may, therefore, I think fairly unite in passing the present Bill. The measure proposes that the Upper House shall in future be elected on a different principle from that on which it has hitherto been elected. What is that different principle? It just means that the members of the Upper House shall have a new spirit breathe<.l

Mr. Nimmo.

into them. I regret that we ever had a written Constitution. Our Constitution, as I have repeatedly said, ought to con­sist of two words-" English practice." That is all the Constitution I want. I want the Legislative Council to follow the example of the House of Lords, and. the Legislative Assembly to follow the example of the House of Commons. Our present Constitution Act provides for that very well, to a certain extent; and if our legislators had all been animated with a sincere desire to promote the best interests of the community, there would have been no difficulty in interpreting the Constitu­tion in that light. Unfortunately, how­ever, the Upper House, up to the present time, has not represented the spirit and genius of the people of Victoria, but has lagged behind, and hence. the quarrels that have arisen between the two Cham­bers. The Upper House has on certain occasions interfered with matters that it had no right to meddle with. It has interfered with the initiation of Money Bills.

Mr. GILLIES.-No. Mr. NIMMO.-Yes. Oil one occasion,

before the Estimates for the year were submitted to the Assembly, the Upper House adopted an address to the Governor asking His Excellency to restrain the Government from putting a certain item on the Estimates. That was interfering with the initiation of a Money Bill in a rude, offensive, and unconstitutional manner. Such a thing was never <.lone by the House of Lords. I defy honorable members to point to a solitary precedent in English history for such a proceeding. I would also remind honorable members that, on one occasion, a conference was held between the two Houses with the view of trying to frame a measure of reform out of two Bills, one of which had been passed by the Assembly, and the other by the Council. The representa­tivet:i of the two Chambers could not come to any agreement, and the Chief Secretary then proposed that the two measures should be submitted to the people, and that e~"tCh House should bind itself to accept the one which the people ap­proved of. The committee representing the Council would not consent to that proposition, and the conference came to an end. I would, however, like bygones to be bygones. We have now before us a Bill containing two or three principlet:i which I think will cure the defects in the

Reform Bill. [MARCH 2.J Fifth Nig ht' s Debate. 1597

Constitution and prevent dead-locks. As for constructing machinery to cure dead­locks, I do not think we will ever have dead-locks again. I believe that they have departed never to return. I think that the Upper House has received a lesson during the last three or four years which it will never forget. At any rate, I have received one, and I will do nothing, if I can help it, to cause another dead­lock. I will certainly do nothing to trench on the privileges of the other House in any shape or form. That is my fixed resolve as a member of this House; and I trust that the Council will be equally care­ful not to invade the privileges of the Assembly. In conclusion, I will express a sincere hope that the Opposition will assist in carrying the present Bill into law. If they do not take advantage of the opportunity now afforded for having the vexed question of reform settled, I am afraid that the settlement of it will be postponed indefinitely; and perhaps the next proposals will be more offensive to the other side. I give the leader of the Opposition credit for sincerely desiring the good of the colony, though I differ widely from some of his political views. I know he is a gentleman of great power; and I trust he will bring. his persuasive eloquence to bear, not only upon his own supporters, but also upon honorable gen­tlemen in another place, in order to secure a settlement of the question of reform on the principles laid down in the Govern­ment measure.

Mr. R. CLARK.-Sir, I think there is a general consensus of opinion that the time has arrived for the "burning ques­tion" of reform to be settled. I am as pleased as the last speaker at the ·moderate tone of this debate, and I hope that the spirit of conciliation which has .been manifested will lead to a successful issue. There is, however, one i?peech which I listened to with a great deal of disappoint­ment and regret. I refer to the speech of the honorable member for Portland. I never heard anything more contradictory of itself. The honorable member com­plained bitterly of the defects in our Constitution; but it is wonderful to observe what rapid strides the colony has ·made under the Constitution during the 25 years it has been in operation, notwith-

. standing the various political dispute.s and turmoils which have occurred during that period. When the Constitution Act was passed, the population of the

colony was only 340,000, but now it is 900,000. The annual value of the rateable property of the colony was then only a little over £3,000,000; now it is £86,000,000. No country in the world has built up freer and more noble institu­tions in the same space of time than Vic­toria has done. Let honorable members consider some of the things which have been achieved under our Constitution. When it was inaugurated, there was a property qualification for members of the Legislative Assembly, which is now abolished. We have secured manhood suffrage and vote by ballot; we have abolished State aid to religion, and we have established a system of education which I believe is advantageous for the people of the colony. We have also established the freest system of municipal government; we have extended railways in a marvellous manner to most parts of the colony; and no doubt before many years hence there will be a grand scheme of water supply for the country districts. I am sure the honorable member for Man­durang (Mr. McColl) will be very glad to see such a scheme carried out. The remarks of the honorable member for Portland about the Constitution have no weight in my mind,and I think we have every reason to be thankful for the institutions under which we live. The honorable member says he is in favour of the no­minee principle for the Upper House, and yet he says he will vote for an elective Upper House based on the ratepayers' roll. How the honomble member can support both propositions I do not understand, for the two are diametrically opposecl to each other. One reason the honor­able member gave for advocating the nominee principle is that the Govern­ment ought to have the power of nomi­nating members of the Upper House because at the present time they appoint certain high officers of the State; but no person can be appointed to the position of a judge unless he possesses certain qualifications. There would, however, be no such restriction in regard to the ap­pointment of members of a nominee Upper House; and, though the Government of the day might be anxious to appoint none but proper persons to be members of such a body, political considerations would neces­sarilv influence their choice to a certain exte~t. In fact, the great danger of having a nominee House is that the Government of the day, in appointing

1.598 Ref01'Jn Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Second Reading.

members of it, would be swayeu by party motives. In other colonies the principle of a nominee Upper House h~LS been tried, and has failed. It has not succeeded in New South Wales. Some time since, Sir Henry Parkes, in speaking of the nominee principle, said-

" Twenty":seven years ago I believed the prin­ciple to be unsound, ana every year since has added to the proofs of its unsoundness. Though I have through my political life been opposed to a nominee Upper Chamber, I have been equally as zealous in my support of two Chambers." I think that considerable weight ought to be attached to the opinion of such an ex­perienced politician as Sir Henry Parkes. Sir George Grey, the late Chief Secretary of New Zealand, bas strongly advocated the abolition of the nominee principle in that colony. I have always opposed the nominee system. For the last 16 or 17 years-in fact, ever since I have had any­thing to do with politics-I llave always supported the principle of an elective l" pper House, because I belicye that prin­ciple to be right ::1lld sound. The most extraordinary remark made by the honor­able member for Portland was tlu1t, ·whilst he woultl support the ratepayers' roll as the basis for the election of the Council, he wonld not support the provision for single electorates. The larger the electorates nre, the fewer will be the candidates who '" ill offer themsel ves for elec t ion as illembers of the Council. I believe that the people will never be properly repre­sented either in this House or the other until there are single electorates.. So far as I a.m concerned, I shall certainly snpport the adoption of the ratepayers' roll us the basis for the election of the Upper Honse. I have always been in fn-VOllI' of that proposal .• and I :tin now. The Bill, however, contains no provision for the cure of dead-locks, although it will make the other House a great deal more powerful than it is now. Surely this is n. very grave omission. All the past dis­putes between the two I-lonses have arisen 011 matters of finance, and the Council will still be able to set the Assembly at defiance in regard to finance. The measure in no wa.y touches that aspect of the question. It is true that in the Reform Bills the Chief Secretary brought forward in the last Parliament bnt one, he tried to deni with tbis very subject, but let me remind Jtim, with respect to the first of tiJem, tlmt it was only his refusal to allow the plebiscite to apply to Money Bills that

Mr. R. Clark;

prevented the measure from becoming law. His next Bill was a totally different affair, for it contained two principles, namely, that of a nominee. Council and that of the 6th clause, to which I am utterly opposed. Moreover, they have proved so un popular with the country that they have ever since been dropped entirely. That brings me 011ce more to the point that what we want in this Bill is an arrangement to cure dead-locks, which, with· two nearly equal Houses, will naturally be more likely than ever to arise and to be attended with bitterly angry feelings. How can dead-locks be cured? The honorable member for Boroondara has tabled a motion on the subject which I sincerely hope will be carriell. As for the Bill in its present stn,te, do honorable members· on the l\1inisterial beuches believe in their hearts it will ever become law? I am sure they do not. Why, then, shonld we not sink pa.rty differences, at least for a time, and send reform to a joint committee of both Houses, in whose hands the whole question would, I feel sure, a,rrive at an amicable settlement? r do not mean to say that there is very much that is wrong in the Bill as far as it goes, becanse I believe in the adoption of the ratepayers' roll for the Council franchise. On the bther hand, however, I don't believe in the proposed plan of biennial elections. With single electorates-a principle I quite endorse-unless the Council goes to the country altogether, and not once in two years, it will never become a truly representati ve Chamber. The main thing I contelid for is that it is of little use our passing a Reform Bill that will not make the Upper House distinctly amennble to public opinion. For instance, there is no doubt, to my mind, that the Governmen t ought to have provided for a double dissolution. Parliament as a whole ought always to acknowledge the source of th,eir power. If we, ill the Assembly, should always be liable to meet our constituents, honorable mem­bers elsewhere should be in the same position. When matters are once put on that basis, :m immense step towards cur­ing dead-locks will have heen taken. .Why I specially advocate the double dis­sollltion prillciple is to some extent be­canse it is strongly supported by the dictnm of a leauillg English statesman, and also bv that of the late Governor of the colony. For example, Sir Michael

· Reform Bill. [MARCIl 2.J Fiftlt Night's Debate. 1599

Hicks-Beach, in his celebrated despatch, stated as follows :-

"If, however, it should be felt that the re­spective positions of the t"vo Houses in llIat­ters of taxation and appropriation can only be defined by an amendment of the Constitution Act, there may be other points, such as It pro­posal to enact that a dissolution of Parliament shall apply to the Legislative Council as well as the Assembly, that might usefully be considered at the same time." We have here then a statesman of emi­nence, far removed from the scene of our turmoils, and utterly uninterested in our party differences,' professing himself un­mistakably in favour of the double disso­lution, because of his belief that it may be safely 'embodied in our Constitution. Sir George Bowen, ·our late Governor, has also expressed himself as equally ill favour of the same idea. In addition, it has received the sanction of the present head of the Government. Only a .few months since, the Chief Secretary uttered the following :-

" Well, the idea that a possible dissolution of the Legislative Council might help to mend matters is one that has commended itself to the judgment of many men for many years past. There would be nothing unconstitutional in such a plan-no departure from the ordinary lines of any Constitution framed on the model of that of Great Britain."

Why then should we be afraid of adopting the principle? Why should not both Houses, when they differ, appeal to the tribunal from w hence they del:i ve their power? Do we not see that a Council elected upon a ratepaying franchise to sit for six years, only one-third of their number going to the country every two years, could set the other branch of the Legislature at complete defiance? They would be positively prevented from keep­ing pace with public opinion. But what would a uouLle dissolution do? In the first place, I dare say the principle would never be brought into plny; but none the less would the fnct of its exis­tence be a whip in our hauds. Besides, it would be n safety-valve of much the same character as that which exists in England in the power of the Crown to create peers. I do hope the spirit of conciliation, that seems at the presen t time to pervade the House, will continue to the end. I am sure that a little giving and taking on both sides is all t.hat is reqnired to place a benefici[Ll Reform Bill on our statute­book. Under these circurnst:1nces, I re­commend tho suggestions that have beon made by honorable members in opposition to the coilsideration of the Government,

earnestly hoping that they will adopt them, and so bring this long-vexed ques­tion to a peaceful settlement.

Mr. JAMES.-Sir, I think it will be admitted on aU hands that never, since the question of constitutional reform came before us, has. it been approached by both the House and the country in so moderate a tone ~LS that which now seems to prevail. At the same time, I notice that we have had an unusual amount of advice kindly tendered us from the opposition benches, and the last speaker vms no exception to the rule. He has urgod that the Govern­ment should pay attention to the sugges­tions that have c.ome from that quarter, and has represented that they are offered with the best possible intelltion. Well, so far as the honorable member is concerned, I give him nllpossible credit for honesty and sincerity. But I am, nevertheless, nfraid that the action taken by the leader of the Opposition, in connexion with his notice of motion, will altogether nullify the good spirit in which the debate has hitherto been conducted. I fear that the honorable. gentleman ha!3, by attempting to anticipate the action of the Government with regard to the measure before us, taken up a posi­tion of antagonism to this (the Ministerial) side of the House. Because what is the effect of his step? Does he not practi­cally dispute the ability of the Assembly to dispose of the Bill at all? Docs he not ask us to give np the idea of dealing with it on its merits, and to senel it in­stead to a joint committee of both Houses? For my part, I think the honorable gentle­man is very ill advised. I find the honor­able member for West Bourke (Sir B. O'Loghlen) stating that, although he if:) still in fi1VOur of nomineeism, he will a.ccept the Bill ns the best mea,sure that can Le got at the present time, bnt he considers that it ought to provide a cure for dead-locks. Bnt a, cure for dead-locks is not provided in the measure for at least one very good reason. As a matter of fact, there is no lleed wbatever for it to contain any such provision. Does not the caucus resolntion, to which so much refer­ence has been made, clearly lay down that we shorilcl, in the matter of power over finance, follow the English principle? Is not the only tbillg required in that direc­tion that tl.lis House sbould carry out the finan cial practice of the House of Commons, and that the other Honse shonhl yiel(l on the pqillt? Looking at the qllestion in thaL light., what lleed is there for any of

1600 Reform Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Second Reading.

the suggestions honorable members in op­position have been so ready to make? I was very much amused at the extreme left-handedness of the compliment paid this evening by the honorable member for East Melbourne (~1r. Zox) to his own side. He first complained of the Ministry steal­ing t.heir Bill from the Opposition, and then, immediately afterwards, urged that the measure should be sent for amendment to, a joint committee of the two Houses. vVhat can that mean but that the reform scheme originally put forth by the Oppo­sition is so imperfect that it must be submitted, for revision and alteration, to the superior wisdom of another and non­representative place? The admission on the honorable member's part that there are wiser heads in the Council than in the Opposition is a very curious one. Upon the whole, I am afraid that the end of the present discussion will not find this Chamber undivided in opinion. In the first place, I fancy the country has pretty well made up its mind that the Bill is to become law. That is, I think, a foregone conclusion. At the same t.ime, I am not going to say that we must necessarily adopt the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. If that sort of thing were insisted upon, parliamentary government would, of course, be re­duced to a simple nullity. Should it be found, when the Bill is in committee, that there are in it, here and there, in­accuracies, little defects, or weak points that require amendment to make the whole thing perfect and workable, I sup­pose the Government will not stand in the way of something of the sort being done. At the same time" I apprehend that they are bound to be so far fait.hful to the people who sent them here as to refuse to allow It single fundamental principle of the measure to be interfered with, by either the Opposition or another place. As for requesting that the Bill should be sent to a conference between the Houses, that is asking for altogether too much. I hope the Government will not dream for a moment of taking any step of the kind. Such a plan might be a good one to follow

'were this Chamber at all evenly divided upon the Bill, or if public opinion on the subject were at all fairly balanced.

Mr. FRANCIS.-There is a second R'eform Bill before this Chamber at the present moment.

Mr. JAMES.-I know that circum­stance, but let me mention with respect to

it that, inasmuch as both Bills were intro­duced, one here and the other elsewhere, and read a first time, on the same day, it is only a natural and proper arrangement that we should' give precedence to our own measure, and regard it as standing, for the present, entirely in the way ,of the other. Furthermore, the manifesto on which our Bill is based was issued to the country, and adopted by the electors in no uncertain way, long before the Council Bill had any existence. In fact, what we have now to do is simply to obey public opinion, by embodying it in a legislative enactment. The liberal party of the country having sanctioned the Bill before us, nothing remains but for us to pass it into law. That fact entirely removes any responsibility we may have with respect to dealing with the Council's Bill, which in many parts differs essentially from ours. It must never be forgotten that public opinion on the reform question was tested wben the various resolutions that were agreed to on a certain occasion by a large number of liberal representatives, who met together for the purpose of drawing up a political programme, were placed before the constituencies of the country, who unmistakably rejected the Service Reform Bill, and accepted the liberal manifesto which the present mea­sure embodies. I think it unwise for us to go, on the present occasion, into lengthy recriminations as to how far the Bill differs from propositions some of us for­merly gave our adhesion to. Have not all of us found ourselves utterly unable to carry into operation principles we once ad vocated? What, then, is the use of raking up Hansard, in order to show that many of u~ have departed to a certain ex­tent from what we thought it of no pre­sent use to stick to? Have we not all been inconsistent in the way of abandon­ing, at all events for the time, views to which we were powerless to give effect? Are we to stand still while the world progresses? However, we may be quite certain, first, that the people of Victoria have studied the question of constitutional reform to an extent probably never reached by the people of any other young country, and may, therefore, be credited with understanding the subject ,tolerably well; and, secondly, that, whether we choose to keep pace with public opinion or not, we cannot fail to see that the con­stituencies of the colony insist upon the electoral basis of the Upper H<;mse being

Reform Bill. [MARCH 2.J FiJI!t Nig!tt's Debate. 1601

considerably enlarged. I admit that years ago I held a different view, but, with the opinion of the majority of the community against me, whut good would I do by adhering to myoId idea? . Is it not plain that if we, who are advancing in life, refuse to keep with the times, the young blood of the country will rise up and take the reins of government out of our hands? It may possibly be true that, when the Bill is passed into law, we shall not have reached absolute perfection; but, on the other hand, if we wait until we get abso­lute perfection, I am afraid we shall wait for ever. Undoubtedly, however, the measure. is a step in the right direction. It is also certain that when we have taken that step it will be open for us to make another forward movement, and so obtain, stage by stage, a Constitution that will be perfectly workable, bring both Honses into comparative harmony with each other, and enable the community to progress in comparative peace-at all events in greater peace than we have experienced for mrmy years past. I hope that, in any case, we shall never see a repetition of the political antagonism we witnessed some years back, when, between the political parties of the country, it ,vas war to the knife-when old friendships were torn asunder, busi­ness of almost every kind was interfered with, and the whole social compact was more or less jeopardized. I am thankful the time has come when political antago­ni~ts can shake hands; and I hope both the Opposition and Ministerial supporters will take advantage of the opportunity now afforded them of joining together to seize a modicum of the reform the country so much needs. In conclusion, let me re­peat that, inasmuch as concessions have been made on both sides, the personal recriminations on the subject of consis­tency, of which we have heard ·so much

. in the past, ought to be no longer resorted to. What do the concessions we ha ye each made mean but that our political prejudices are not so strong as they were, and that we are coming more to our senses? At the same time, while I ad­mit that the liberal party is not so strong as I would like to see it, and t.hat possibly the balance of political power in this Chamber may be some day disturbed, I contend that so long as the liberals are in the ascendant, and have the responsibili­ties of government upon their shoulders, they ought to be allo.wed to carry out the work they have begun. As for their

change of front, in what way does it differ from the changes we have all of us, from time to time, felt bOUllll to make in order to keep up with the advancing opinion of the country ? What does Lord Macaulay say in his essay on William Pitt? He tells us-

" A man ought no more to be called an apos­tate because his opinions alter with the great body of his contemporaries, than he ought to be called an oriental traveller because he is always going round from west to east with the globe, and everything that is upon it."

Well, having travelled, in our political affairs, from one point to another, for some years, we find ourselves at last in this position: that we mnst stand up for the measure the country has called upon us to carry; and I greatly hope that in a short time our efforts will be crowned with success.·

Mr. McLEAN.-Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to say much about the Bill, seeing that it contains no feature or princi­ple that has not been frequently and fully discussed here on many previous occasions. Nevertheless, inasmuch as the main ques­tion with which it deals, or pretends to deal, is one of the utmost importance to the people of the country, I imagine that a few brief remarks upon it will not be considered out of place. First, I think honorable members on both sides may be congratulated npon the tone of moderation that has, with a fewexcoptions, character­ized the debate up to the present moment; and I trust that tone will be continued to the end, because a state of things of that sort will go a long way to justify us in expecting a really satisfactory settlement of the vexed question of reform, upon a basis of mutual compromise and concilia­tion that cannot but meet with the appro­bation of the great bulk of the people of the colony. One other feature of the debate that has impressed itself on my mind is the entire absence of anything like enthu­siasm on behalf of the Bill, or even a lively interest in it on the .part of either honorable members or the people outside. That seems to prove that it has, as it stands, very few strong opponents and very few ardent supporters-a state of things probably caused by the extremely negative character of the proposals it em­bodies. Indeed, were the Bill to become law, I fancy we would be very much like the Hibernian who, hav:ing found a ram­rod, cried out that he only needed a stock, lock, and barrel in order to possess a whole gun. In fact, the Bill bears about

1602 Reform 13iU. tASSEMBLY.] Second Reading.

the sn.me relation to n. complete men.sure of reform that a ramrod docs to n. pCl'feet gnl1. It may constitute a uesirn,ble portion of the reform we want" but it cloes not deal with a single one of the defects in our Constitu­tion tbn.t hn.ve r~nt1cl'ed reform nccessary. For example, if we look at our past bis­tory we are bound to see that our Consti­tution has failed because it does not define the functions of either branch of the Legislature, and makes no provision for prc\-enting or determining any serious collision between them. Unquestionably every dead-lock we have had in the past has arisen upon a qnestion of pl'ivilege­on account of tbis Chamber insisting on its right to attach to the Appropriation Bill some rneasure involving a question of policy, and the other House insisting on its right to reject the Appropriation Bill until that measure was detached from it. Wbat have been the disastrous conse­quences that have flowed from our dead­locks? A suspension of payments to the public creditor, and, consequently, an al­most complete paralysis of our legislative system, during which the people of the country have had to stand helplessly by until one Chamber or the other came down from the pedestal on which it had taken its stand. Every" previous Reform Bill brought before us has contained some means whereby dead-locks could be averted or determined. For example, in the first two Berry Reform Bills the party now on the Ministerial benches proposed the adop­tion of, first, the plebiscite, and, secondly, the 6th clause and a nominee Council; and each measure was firs t opposed by the party now in opposition, and subsequently rejected in effect by a majori ty of the people of the country, on the ground that if the plan it embodied would cure one evil it would create another much greater. For instance, the plebis­cite might bring a dead-lock to a termi­nation, but it would destroy the principle of responsible government. In fact, its effect would necessarily be to render this Chamber almost totally irresponsible. N ow I contend that supreme power with­out responsibility is perhaps the most dangerous engine it is possible to place in the hands of any body in the world. As for a nominee Council, I would pot object to nomineeism as a principle, but what kind of nominee Council did the second Berry Reform Bill propose? It was to be· chosen not by the veople of the colony, nor by any independent tribunal,

Mr. McLean.

but by the nine gentlemen who might happen, because of their partisan pro­clivities, to hold seats at the time on the Treasury bench. Such a position of affairs would resemble one in which those who have charge of accounts would be enabled to elect their own auditors. The Service Reform Bill also provided for the determination of dead-locks-but how? By means of a liberalized Council, the elimination clause, a double dissolution, and, as a last resource, a joint sitting of the Houses. What was the opposition to those proposals? It was offered chiefly to the elimination clause and the joint sitting, but more particularly, I think, to the latter. It was asserted by those who set themselves against the measure that a joint sitting "wuld be most disastrous to the best interests of the people, because it wOllld enable a majority of the Council to combine with a minority here to over­ride the will of the country. But what are the facts of the case? A joint sitting could only be called by the Governor in Council, who would necessarily be able beforehand to count heads and ascertain what the result of the amalgamation would be. How then could the majority in this Chamber be overridden against their will by the vote of a joint sitting? I could understand opposition to the joint sitting coming from the Council, but not from those who call themselves the friends of the people. Again, it was insisted upon by the opponen ts of the Service Reform Bill that under it, notwithstanding the moderating influence of the libemliza­tion of the Council and the double dissolution, the joint sitting would have, of necessity, to be frequently resorted to. While the supporters of the Bill argued that the power of calling a joint sitting would only resemble the latent power of the Crown in England to create peers, the other side contended that it was something that would infallibly be often brought into operation. But if the honorable members who now sit on the Government side of the House were sincere in their professions on this head-if they truly believed that, in the face of the liberalization of the Council and the other safeguards of the Service Reform Bill, the joint sitting would have to be often had recourse to­how can they be sincere now in asserting that liberalizing the Council would prevent the disputes which alone could give occa­sion for a joint sitting? As to the Bill before us, I have no objection to its leading

Rejol'm Bill. [MARCIl 2.j Fifth Nigld's Debate. 1603

feature. I have always been an advocate for liberalizing the Council. Indeed, I have gone so far as to state to my consti­tuents that, provided there were sufficient safeguards to the functions and privileges of the several Chambers, I would not object to even a ratepayers' roll franchise. vVith regard to tenure of office in the Conncil, I am quite ready to support the proposi"tion of the Government; and I am also willing to reduce the size of the provinces; but I will not go the length of single electorates. I don't object to single electorates as a principle, but such a system would be greatly inconsistent with other portions of the Bill. For instance, how could the feeling of the country be itScertained by an election which took place only once in two years, and then extended to only one-third of the Council electorates? Sur',3ly it would be more fair arid .reasonable-nay, more libera.l.,--

· that an appeal to the country should mean one to the whole of tp-~ electorates of the country. The plan I laid before my con­stituents, and which I would now support, is that there should be three m'embers for each province, so that at each 'biennial election each province would express its opinion by returning one, member., In conclusion; I will say that my only serious objection to the Bill is what I mentioned at the outset of my remarks, namely, t.hat it does not in any way define the respec-

· tive privileges of, the. Housef:\, nor make any provision against dead-locks. Have we

· not been cautioned by the Chief Secretary · as to the danger of liberalizing the Council without making some provisionoffhat sort? That honorable m81uber said, when the Service Reform Bill was under considera­tion-

"The Premier dwelt upon the proposed ex-· tension of the franchise for electors of the Legislative Counc'il; but do no't the honorable member and his colleagues know that the liberal

, party have always objected to the Council -being popularized until a definition was obtained 9f the relative powers of the two Houses?" Now if. that objection could possibly apply to the Service Reform Bill, which did define the privileges, of the two Houses, and contained a means of ter-

· minating disputes, with how much more force does it apply to this Bill which, contains no definition whatever of the powers and privileges of the two Cham­bel's? I think that as the. two parties

. have now ap.proached so near, to each other that the present Bill, as far as it'l goes, is .to a great extent acceptable to

honorable members on this side of the Honse, and more especially as both par­ties have submitted to the country pro­posals which have been rejected, the time for a settlement of the qnestion apart from party politics may be considered to have arrived. The honorable member for Ballarat East (Mr. James) based all his arguments for the Bill on the assumption that, as the present proposals were sub­mitteu to the country simultaneously with the Service Reform Bill, the people, in rejecting t.he latter, accepted the former. But surelv that does not follow at all. I-lave not the people a right to reject the proposals of a Government. without ac­cepting the counter proposals of the Op­position? If an amendment is moved in this House on a motion, cannot we vote against the motion without binding our­selves to accept the amendment i~ th,e form in which j t is proposed? Cannot we propose f\lrther amendment~ ou it? It would be just as reasoJ?able to contend that the people, in rejecting the last BetTy Reform B.ill; neqessarily accepted the pro-posals of Mr., Service., ., ,

Mr. MIRAMS.-That is exactly what was said.

Mr~ McLEAN.-In conclusion, I would certainly urge the desirability, seeing that both parties are now in a moderate frame of mind, of the Government, at this stage, removing the reform question frol)lth,e arena of party politics and referring it to a joint committee of the two HouseR. I have not the slightest doubt but that, if such a course is taken, such alterations will be suggested in the Bill as will be acceptable to both Houses and to the people; and, so far from the GovernmeQ.t compromising themselves by such action, I believe they will strengthen their.position .both in the House and the country.

Mr. QUICK.:-Mr. Speaker, I wo~ld not have troubled the House with any remarks on this question but for the fact that I have the responsibility of repre­senting a very large and important con­stituency, and I deem it my duty to my constituents not to give a silent vote on this Bill. I have observed the course of ,political even,ts iu this colony for the last 15 or 16 y~ars with considerable interest. In .fact, all my personal knowledge of constitutional government, beyond what I l~ave. gathered from study, has been. de­rived from my. observation of the working of its machinery here, and it can be readily understood that my appreciation. ,of the

1604 Reform Bill. [ASS~MBLY.J Second Reading.

Constitution under which we live has been deepened by the fact that, under it, I have been able to emerge from a com­paratively obscure position in life and to become a member of this House. Strug­gles on constitutional questions have been going on in this colony since 1864. Those struggles began when the Legislative Assembly included amongst its members some of the ablest politicians who have appeared in Victoria; and, in the various severe crises and contests which have since taken place, no doubt troubles very detri­mental to the permanent interests of the colony have occurred. Nevertheless, as a young liberal, and the youngest member of this House, I am here to say that, con­sidering the manner in which those contests have directed the attention of the people of this country to great political issues, and to the great questions which have occupied the consideration of this House, I, for one, do not regret that those con­stitutional struggles have occurI~ed. It was inevitable in the nature of things that struggles would occur in a country like this, where interests are so divided, where parties are so opposed to each other, and where the Constitution with which we were endowed by the Imperial Parlia­ment will admit of doubtful interpretations. Moreover, very important results have been derived from those struggles. Parties have been defined, principles have been discussed, constitutional government has been tested-and I venture to say not found wanting-and the people have had an opportunity of seeing that they are not nonentities in the political fabric. They have learned, on the contrary, that they are real factors within the pale of the Constitution, and, by the very exercise of thefranchise which was conferred on them, they have been rendered fit and capable for constitutional government. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that when Mr. Higinbotham sat in this House, he asserted that there was no country on the face of the globe in which the people ",ere more qualified for the exercise of constitntional government than in Victoria. And why is that so? It is because the people have had their attention almost constantly directed to political issues, and have been made to feel what are their interests, and what are the interests of those who are opposed to them in the social fabric. What has been the question in dispute during the whole of these years? I venture to say it has been, not what the Constitution ought

Mr. Quick.

to be, but what the Constitution is. All, I presume, are agreed that the Constitution of this country ought to be, or at any rate was intended to be, on the lines of the British Constitution-t.hat the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly were intended by the framers of the Con­stitution to occupy positions corresponding with those of the House of Lords and the House of Commons respectively. If that proposition be true-and I think I will prove conclusively the intention of the framers of the Constitution before I sit down-it follows that there is no necessity for any alteration of the Constitution; in other words, that the machinery given us and the procedure. provided are quite sufficient to prevent those dead-locks which, it is complained, this Bill contains no provisions for settling. The question as to the relative positions of the two Houses was not raised until 1864, when the popular party· in this colony proposed a Tariff for the protection of native indus­try. That Tariff led to a conflict with the Upper House, and the Upper House then, for the fil~st time, set forth the arro­gant pretension that it was not merely intended to occupy the po'sition of the House of'Lords, but was a second House of Commons. That proposition-that there were two Houses of Commons in this colony, or at any rate, one House of Com­mons sitting in two chambers-may be called the Serbonian bog of all our politi­cal difficulties. But for that pretension set up on behalf of the Council-and sup­ported, I regret to say, by certain mem­bers of this House-the whole of the struggles of the last 15 years would have been avoided. Had the Council been con­tent to accept their position under the British Constitution, probably none of the five Reform :Bills that have been sub­mitted to Parliament would ever have been heard of. I confess that for a long time I could not rightly understand the constitu­tional question that was at issue. I could not for a long time bring myself to believe that the Legislative Council, with certain members of this House, were not satisfied to accept the Constitution of the old country-a Constitution that was not the work of a select committee or a revolu­tionary tribunal, but a Constitution that is the result of ages of growth, which has developed a system of checks and balances corresponding with the advancing compli­cated interests of Great Britain, and which

"has moulded itself to suit the requirements

llejorm .13ill. [MARCH 2.J Fifth Night's lJehate. 1605

of the nation. That Constitution has survi ved the shocks of centuries, the at­tacks of prerogative, and the pretensions of the oligarchical classes as well as of popular fanaticism-it has stood those storms like the pyramids of Egypt-and I venture to say, therefore, that there can be no dispnte as to the desirability of it prevailing in this country. Nevertheless, we find the contention that that Constitu­tion does not exist in this colony, even though it is admitted that it onght to do so. .Two radical objections have been urged against this Bill-first, that it does not provide for the prevention of dead-locks and for finality in legislation, and, secondly, that it is calculated to increase the powers and pretensions of the Legislative Council. N ow I venture to say that, if the proposi­tion that the Legislative Council occupies the position of the House of Lords, and the Assembly that of the House of Com­mons, be accepted, there is no necessity whatever for any provision against dead­locks, because the Constitution as it exists in England already provides ample provi­sion for preventing dead-locks. The rule there is that in matters of finance, which admit of no delay, the will of the House of Commons must prevail, whilst in mat­ters of ordinary legislation - which do admit of delay, of debate, and perhaps of compromise - the two Houses have to settle the matter between them subject to the national will. It is by the ob­servance of that very simple and natural proposition that the Constitution of Eng­land has evaded conflicts in the past, and will continue to evaue them in the future. There is no mechanical means provided in England for the settlement of ordinary legislation except by the will of the people. Take the Reform Bill of 1832. The House of Lords resisted that Bill for two or three years, but ultimately had to succumb to the national will, other­wise the nation would have united to bear down its opposition. Another great and memorable example of the same kind was the disestablishment of the Irish Church -a measure which was a very bitter pill indeed to the House of Lorus, but. to which it yet had to assent. Then, as to matters of finance, I would remind honor­able members of the manner in which the great question of the repeal of the paper duties was settled. In that case the House of Lords attempted to dictate to the Ministry of the day and to the popular Chamber the way in which means should be provided . 2ND SES. 1880.-5 T

for carrying on the public service of the country, but the House of Commons soon silenced the pretensions to assume any such position. Mr. Gladstone brought in a second Bill, in which he incorporated 'the repeal of the paper duties with the general Ways and Means Bill, and in that form sent the measure to the House of Lords, and it was passed. Those instances are sufficient to prove that the machinery provided by the British Constitution­which we were intended to inherit-is adequate to settle disputes of a similar kind when they occur in this country. I now propose hriefly to show that it was the intention of the very short Imperial Act which is, I might almost say, the charter of our liberties to gi ve to this coloDY the Constitution of England. I venture to say that our Constitution is not a written Constitution, although that has been so often said. The Act that is called a written Constitution is merely an Act bringing into force in Victoria all the pre-existing common law provisions of the Constitution of England. At the utmost, it is merely an Act stating that we are to have a Constitution in Victoria on the model of the Imperial Parliament; and the details of that model can only be found on reference to the practice and precedents of the Imperial Parliament. How did we get constitutional govern­ment in this colony? Before we obtained the Constitution Act, there was a. nominee Legislati ve Council in this colony, and the Governor was his own Prime Minister. There was then no responsible Minister. How, t.hen, did we get responsible govern­men t ? It is not to be found in the Constitution Act. Responsible govern­ment means that the administration of the public affairs is carried on by servants competent to sit in Parliament, and w hose retention of office is determined by their retention' of the confidence of Parliament. How was that system in­troduced into Victoria? Not by the Con­stitution Act, but alongside of the Act, merely by a short alteration in the Go­vernor's instructions, intimating that in future certain servants of the Crown were to hold office subject to the confidence of Parliament. In the same way, I ask the House to consider that a great many of the provisions of parliamentary govern­ment which are adopted on the floor of this House are not within the four corners of the Constitution Act. They came in alongside the Act, not in the Act. They

160~ Rejorm Bill. [ASSEMBLt.J Second Redding.

necessarily flow from the relations of the two Houses-the status, I may say, of the two Houses-as created in that Act. The only difference between the powers and functions of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, capable of exact defini­tion, is that mentioned in the 56th section of our Constitution Act, which provides that all grants, aids, and supplies to the Crown shall originate in the Assembly, and that the Council shall b@ able to pass or reject, but not to amend, a Bill of Aid or Supply. That section is merely the statutory enact­ment of the common law provision of the British Constitution. The House of Lords in matters of ordinary legislation has as much power as the House of Commons, but it has no power to alter a Money Bill. It can reject one, though it has not don~ so for over 200 years, but it has no more constitutional power to alter a Money Bill than the Crown has to veto an ordinary Bill presented for the Royal assent. The one power is as extinct constitutionally as the other. This leads to the consideration of the exact definition of the difference between the Council and the Assembly. The fact that all Money Bills must ori­ginate in the Assembly, and may be passed or rejected, but not ameuded, by the Council, appears to me to show that the Constitution has already provided against dead-locks, and that if the Assembly were to insist on the 56th section of the Con­stitution Act being adhered to there would be no possibHity of any dead-locks in this country. If the Assembly would insist upon that grand principle "Redress of grievances before Supplies," which has been the great instrument by which the House of Commons has worked its way to its present power and prestige, there would be no dead-locks in this country.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-Would you give the Assembly the right to tack?

Mr. QUICK.-I would not. I am not here as an apologist for the mistakes of the liberal party in the past, nor am I here to defend the Legislative Council, because I consider that the most disastrous conflicts that have occurred in this country were caused by straining the powers of the Constitution, and that had there been a desire to keep within the true spirit of the Constitution on the part of this House as well as on the part of the Council there would have been no conflicts in the past. I, for one, object to tacks, properly so called, because undoubtedly they lead to collisions and great disasters. I nm bound

to say that, in my opinion, the inclusion or the Tariff in the Appropriation Bill was a tack, although high authorities, includ­ing the Speaker of the Assembly, held at the time that it was not. Returning, however, to the proposition which I wish to establish-that the Constitution which we have been granted is based on the lines of the British Constitution-I would remind honorable members of two cases which seem to me to establish conclusively the supremacy of this House in matters of finance. The first is that of Steven­son v. The Queen, in which an action was brought against the Crown to recover certain duties that had been collected on the authority of the Assembly. The disputed point, whether resolutions of this House are sufficient to legally authorize the collection of duties, was brought before the Supreme Court in that case, and the court gave judgment against the Crown, holding that it was not It privilege claimed or exercised bv the House of Commons to authorize the" collection of duties on its own resolution, and that therefore it was not a privilege possessed by the Legisla­tive Assembly of Victoria. But another case occurred which showed that that judgment of the court had led matters into a cul-de-sac. In Alcock v. Fergie, the court decided that the Crown Remedies Act was not an Act of special appropriation, and hence that verdicts given against the Crown under that Act were absolutely abortive, because there was no money available for the Crown to liquidate the judgment. Consequently it followed that although actions might be brought to recover duties collected by virtue of a resolution of the Assembly, and verdicts obtained, yet those judgments were practically useless unless the Assem­bly itself passed a Bill to allow the judg­ments to be liquidated.

Mr. GAUNSON.-That judginent of the Supreme Court was utterly unsound.

Mr. QUICK.-I accept it as correct for the purposes of my argument, a,nd it follows from it that moneys collected by virtue of a resolution of this House cannot be recovered by the parties who made the payments, unless this House chooses, out of its own supreme will, to make provision on the Estimates for the repayment of the moneys. Is not that a conclusive proof of the supremacy of the Assembly in matters of finance? There is another important point to be considered in con-: nexion with this branch of the subject.

Reform Bill. [MARCH 2.j 1607

The 34th section of the Constitution Act gives both Hou.ses power to make standing orders. By VIrtue of that section the Legislativ~ Counc~l passed standing orders, one of whICh provIdes that in all cases for which no provision was made in those standing orders resort should be had to the practice of the Imperial Parliament S? far as it.was applicable to the Legisla~ tive CouncIl. Standing orders were also made by the Assembly, and you will re­member, Mr. Speaker, that, by virtue of the 274th and followinO' of these at the . f 0 , opemng 0 every session the portion of the ~overnor's spee?h referring to the grant­I~g o~ SupplIes IS read by you, and provi­SiOn I~ made for the appointment of a Committee of Supply and a Committee of Ways and Means. The House subse­quently goes into Committee of Supply and grants Supply to the Crown' and it is .not unti~ Supplies have been ~oted by thIS CommIttee that the House goes into Committee of Ways and Means. Now those forms provided for by the standing orders of thIS House are founded on the model of the House of Commons. No such provisions are to be .found in the standing orders of the CouncIl, nor are such provi­sions in the standing orders of the Houile of Lords .. Again, the various stages ~hrough whICh a Money Bill goes before It becomes law are generally set forth in the preamble, which preamble in fact vir­tually. sums up the rights and privileges of thIS House. You will recollect, Mr. Speaker, that, some short time ago, I broug~t under your attention a question referrmg to the form of a preamble to one of the Excise Duty Bills. I took that cou.rse on .account of a speech which was delIvered ~n. the Assembly some years ago by Mr. Hlgmbotham, when the question of preamble was under discussion. In fact, one of the causes of the dead-lock was that this House insisted on a free-gift pream ble to certain Bills, and the Council rejected several measures mainly, or at least partly, because they contained a preamble setting forth what were really the stages gone through by this House in order to lay the foundation of a Money Bill. The preamble to a Money Bill is as follows­I quote from the Appropriation Act passed on the 6th December, 1878 :-

".We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal ~ubJect~ of the Legislative Assembly of Victoria, In ParlIament a~sembled, towards making good the Supply .whlC~ we .have cheerfully granted to Your MaJesty 10 thIS session of Parliament have resolved to grant unto Your Majesty th~

5T2

sums hereinafter mentioned, and do therefore most humbly beseech Your Majesty that it may be enacted, and be it enacted by the Qneen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council and the Legi~lative Assembly of Victoria in this present ParlIament assembled and by the authority of the same as follows." That is the preamble to an Appropriation Bill. N ow take the preamble to the Stamp Duties Bill, which was passed on the 17th December, 1879. It says-

".vYe, YonI' Majesty's most dutiful and loyal ~ubJects.the Legislative Assembly of Victoria 111 ParlIament assembled, towards raising the nece~sary Supplies to defray Your Majesty's publ~c expenses, and making an addition to the publIc reve~ue, have freely and voluntarily resolved to gIve and grant unto Your Majesty the several duties hereinafter mentioned." I submit that the form of those pre­ambles, which is based upon the standing orders passed by virtue of the 34th section of the Constitution Act, shows that the power of this House in mat­ters of Supply is absolutely supreme. The Upper House has merely a last and most dangerous power of rejection, and t,hat power is to be exercised under a full consideration of the responsibility which the Council incurs in doing so-under a full consciousness that by such rejection it leaves the public servants unprovided for and the public creditor unpaid. That power .of rejection, which was given to the CounCIl as a last resort by the Imperial Parliament, was intended to be exercised only on grave occasions, and only under a sense of the gravity of the situation and the very alarming consequences which might follow therefrom. The final and most conclusive argument to support the proposition that this colony received a C?nstitution on the English model is sup­phed by the report of the select committee which framed the Constitution Act. In interpreting a contract, it is but reasonable to examine the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the parties in order to interpret those portions, at any rate, of the contract which are ambiguous. Now the following is one of the re~olutions agreed to by that select committee :-

" That all Money Bills should originate in the' House of Assembly. The Legislative Council to have the power of refusing or returning them for reconsideration to the House of Assembly but not the power of altering them." ,

Sir ~. O'SHAN~SSY.-The power of returmng Money BIlls was not put in the Constitution Act.

M~. QUICK.-The power of rejection only IS a smaller power. The power of

.. , • t I

1608 lleform Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Second Reading.

returning Money Bills would have been almost equivalent to the elimination clause of the Service Reform Bill, or to the power of amending. The name of the honorable member for Belfast appears on this select committee, and I hope that he, the only survivor of the committee ill this House, will not only uphold the report of the committee, but also the interpretation of the Constitution Act I am now ventur­ing to submit. Again, the committee further resolved as follows :-

" Being convinced that nothing could be more impolitic than to legislate against the spirit of the age-viewing the universal tendency throughout the world towa.rds the spread of popular institutions-they are prepared to re­commend that the franchise for electing the House of Assembly should be placed on as widE! a basis as possible. They have, therefore, pro­posed practically to include all whose permanent settlement in Victoria renuers them justly entitled to it.

" On the House of Assembly they propose to confer all the rights and powers of the House of Commons.

"To the Legislature, composed of the Crown, represented by the Governor, and of these Houses, respectively possessing the powers of the Lords and the Commons Houses of Parlia­ment, your committee would intrust all legisla­tion on matters of colonial interest."

of that body will not be increased, but it will be brought more into harmony with the rest of the community. In the first place, although the franchise of the Legis­lative Council may be increased, the func­tions of that House will remain the same as ever. As I have suggested, the ma­chinery of Supply may be brought into action in order to resist any attempt on the part of the Council to encroach on the privileges of this House. It is almost impossible to suggest anything that the Council will do in the future in the way of an attempt to usurp the privileges of this House more arrogant or more audacious than they have done in the past.

Mr. R. M. SMITH.-What are they? Mr. QUICK.-The assumption of the

powers and privileges of a second House of Commons, which, according to the report of the select committee on the Constitution, and according to the pro­visions of the Constitution Act, is alto­gether unwarranted by law, by the inten­tion of the framers of the Constitution, or the requirements and exigencies of the people. A second argument in favour of the proposition that the powers of the

One of the great objections to the present Legislative Council will not be increased Bill is that it does not provide for finality is' that, by the extension of the franchise, or against dead-locks; but what, I ask, is we may expect to see returned to the the use of talking about the necessity for Council men who have had some expe­providing for finality in matters of Supply rience of political life, who understand when we have a Constitution which and appreciate the nice and delicate me­already provides that in matters of Supply chanism of constitutional government, the will of the House of Commons is who have undergone a training in this supreme? In other words, this Assembly, House, and who go to the Council, as occupying the position of the I-louse of perhaps in the evening of life, in order Commons, has already got the power of that, while still mixed up with public refusing Supplies-of exacting reforms on affairs, they may enjoy some portion of the principle of "Redress of grievances that tranquillity which is properly the b~fore Supplies." I venture to say that if due of age and experience. If that be so, th'e libeI'al party in the past had adopted the future members of the Legislative tHe course. follo:wed by the House of Council will be men who know the CpmlJlons to'enfoice i.ts ~'ights, by refusing powers of this House, and the temper to' grhnt SupplleSt until 'Ways and Means and tone of Victorian society, and will w¢re' pJovided,' in~tead of. ta~kinK the not dare to rush into a treme~dous crisis Tariff 'tb th~ .App~·opriaW)li' Bill, 'the in order to carry out some pet theory. dead.Jock q'uestion Would soon 'have bclEm' I.An.d ,here I am reminded of an exam­settled. I will no'w briefly 'refer Ito l

, the' ! pIe' of arrogant and most extraordinary ~c;lcond:argpment, uis~Q,"against this: Bill- pretensions ~n th.e part of the Council. *-,~~ly,. tll~t 1t is; caIc~l~ted to i~crell;s~, I Some ~ears ago;. ;the Council actually thf}; powerl of the LegislBitive, ;CounciL: wan.ted ,the rep.eal 9f tp~ export duty upon 1'11 at, I believe,. i3. the only l~seriottsl gold, ~hich W~s,pl'.Ovidea for in a,Gustoms q~jection .tq ,the ~Ai).l( ,¥e1! J:v~nture. ,to l)ut~e~ BiU,.ro.~de the s!lbj{3ctof a s.eparate t11~nk :t.tie;~ are so!.Vt~~,ill1port~nt~ :con~i.- BiH,.on;~he.:groun'd ~~t:th'e ~inpo~~ 'Y~s derations ll1 favour of th~· ~rgun;t~n,t . .that,: ~ot. ~aCllg~01;na:· 9.uty .\mt .. a·,r.oyalty tb"the ~y J?oPlularlzillg ~~d ~~tendipg. t~·~ f~l1h- 0r()'iyn~ ~.·.~t~ch ·.prete~s;i.on~ .~ yep,ture'.:to q~ise. or ~~e l1Elgisla~i~e:90qllcil, th~ p.or.~r I say, JVIV :!1evet b,e . ppt. f.or'Wl;\r~: b~ the

Mr. "",uick. ; .... '.

Reform Bill. [MARCH 2.J Fifth Night's Debate. 1609

Council when reformed as this Bill pro­poses-when it will be composed of men of worldly wisdom and sagacity, meri who know the danger of exacting too much. An accession of numbers to the House of Lords has never been ~onsidered as in­creasing its strength; .on the contrary, the proceeding has ·always been: regarded as having the tendency, if not of swamp­ing the Chamber, at all events of reducing its power. Some years ago, when the proposal to create life peerages was first made - by the elevation of Mr. Baron Parke to the peerage as Lord Wensleydale -the ·whole of the House of Lords was alarmed. It was contended that by the creation of life peerages the usefulness of the House of Lords would be extinguished, and that it would be tbe prey of any Ministry that might come into power; yet now, although life peerages are a re­cog'nised institution, the House of Lords is as strong as ever it was before the passing of the Reform Bill of 1832. Learned judges are admitted to the House of Lords by virtne of patents for life, and t.he proceeding has not been found to inter­fere with the prestige, dignity, usefhlness, or pretensions of the Chamher. Follow­ing out the conclusions which naturally flow from what I have already said, 1 venture to assert that the Bill now before us will inflict a good stout blow upon the Legislative Council. In that aspect I shall be prepared to support it as far as my leader, the Chief Secretary, thinks it advisable to go. For my part, as a young politician, I would hardly ventur~ to say what I would do in the way of departure from the franchise provided for by the Bill. I certainly am disposed to think that to limit the franchise to something above the ratepayers' roll would be ex­tremely dangerons. To limit the fran­chise to a £10 rating might be sufficient to turn the scale in favour of the wealthy classes and of vested interests. I have shown what I think the Bill will do, and I will now venture' to explain what it will not do. The honorable member for Boroondara, iu opening the debate, declared the Bill to be a "leap in the dark." But the same thing was said of the Reform Bill of 1832, which admitted thousands of householders in England to' the fran­chise. The conservative party in England gasped for breath at the extent of that innovation. And yet the Bill was no such great revolutionary instrument as was anticipated. On the contrary, at the

next general election, some of its leading supporters failed to find seats in Parlia­ment, and the Duke of Newcastle, one of the leaders of the tory party, found, to his great surprise, that he could still manipu­late some of his nominee boroughs-that he could still" do what he liked with his own." It was at t.hat election that Mr. Gladstone was returned for N ewal'k as one of the nominees of the Duke of New­castle. However, an agitation for a further extension of the franchise went on, and, in 1867, the Imperial Parliament passed another Reform Bill extending the franchise to almost every householder in England and Scotland. That Bill was carried through the House of Commons by Mr. Disraeli, t.he leader of the conser­vative party in that Chamber, who, I may remark, has done more in the way of extending the francbise than the leader of the liberal party, Mr. Gladstone. It is true that when the Bill reached the House of Lords, the Earl of Derby, although the head of the Government, said he confessed the measure was a "leap in the dark." Yet it was passed, and the nation has survived; and I venture to think the nation will survive the admission or so many people within the pale of t.he Con­stitution, and their recognitioll as real factors in the State, and not mere dummies to be legislated for and taxed without being represented. The fact is that the admission of so many people within the pale of the Constitution, and their educa­tion in political matters, has rendered the national life more elastic, and helped to create a higher tone and better feeling among all classes throughout the United Kingdom. And I venture to say that the extension of the franchise for the Council to every ratepayer will have a similar effect in this colony. The country will be bene­fited, because the Council will become a better reflex of public opinion; it will be more amenable and sensitive to the under­currents of political thought-it will be more susceptible to those natural ten­dencies which go on below the surface of society-than it has been in the past. I say this Bill is not a "leap in the dark." It is neither some i1~felix monstrum of classic lore, nor some Trojan horse filled with armed men bent on conflagration and ruin. The country cannot be fairly described as standing, as it were, on the brink of an abyss. Honorable members will recollect the scene in King Lear, where the artful Edgar endeavours to

»

1610 Reform Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Second Reading.

make the blind Gloucester believe that he has fallen over a precipice-

"Ten m:tsts at each make not the altitude Which thou hast perpendicularly fell : Thy life's a miracle."

Yet, shortly afterwarcls, the old man finds that he has not fallen at all-that there has been no leap; that, on the contrary, he stands on firm ground. In the same way, I venture to hope that this Bill, if it becomes law-if so many more thousands are admitted to the franchise for the Le­gislative Council-will not be a "leap in the dark," but that the country will be as safe as it was before. I must here express the hope that the present occupants of the Treasury bench will ever be faithful and loyal to the privilegos of this House­that they will see that those privileges are never barterecl away. For adhering to the ancient ways and practice of the glorious Constitution which we have inherited from our ancestors, I am conservative enough; and I say that, as long as the Ministry keep within the four corners of the Con­stitution, they shall have my support. I venture to trust that DO Ministry will be other than faithful to the privileges of this House, and that such things as the attempt to pass elimination clauses, or to swamp a majority of this House by a minority coupled with a majority in another place, will always be looked upon with extreme disgust and impatience. I am here, I hope, as the representative of a new order of thinking. I hope that, for the future in our political contests, more moderate counsels will prevail than have prevailed in the past. As a young member, I would say to the new leader of the Opposition that, as he has begun a new career, he may very well take aclvantage of the opportunity to make a new departure. The honorable member can learn from the lessons of the past that he may do for his party what Earl Beaconsfield did for the eonservative party in England. Earl Beaconsfield educated his party in a liberal direction. His policy was to go in for more reform than his opponents did, and, though in so doing he may have sold his party, the nation is under an obligation to him for obtaining an extension of the people's rights and privileges. The reason why the conservative party has never ruled in this country for years is that its atti­tude has always been one of extreme hostility to the people. It has always despised that which is the real funda­mental principle of goverllment in this

Mr. Quick.

country-the chief feature, the Alpha and the Omega, of the liberal creed. I refer to universal suffrage. So long as the conservative party maintain their pre­sent attitude of distrust in the people, they can never expect to rule in this country, und I apprehend they never will. It has often been said that the liberalism of this country is a sham. It is said to be a "bastard liberalism," whatever that may mean. But I venture to assert that the liberalism of Victoria, as represented by the present Chief Secretary, is a prolongation of the liberalism of Mr. Gladstone and the liberal party in England. The only difference is one of method. The principle of the liberal party is trust in the people, qualified only by prudence. The principle of the conservative party is jealousy and distrust of the liberty of the people, qualified only by fear. (Laughter from the Opposition.) Honorable members in opposition may laugh, but the laugh indicates only superficiality on the part of some politicians who have no faith iu the general progress of thought. I think the I~egislative Council may be reminded, at this time, of the remarkable words of Burke, that it is well to know the time and place of yielding that which can no longer be withheld. There can be no doubt that the time is ripe for reform. The social forces of the national life are on its side. As the late Rev. Canon Kingsley says, in Alton Locke, if a certain class cultivates the aspiration of being represented in the Constitution and enjoying the franchise, the time will inevitably come when that class will obtain its desires, no matter how much it may be opposed or despised. There can be no conservati ve re-action. Reform and legislation must go on in the line of least resistance, and that line of least resistance is only to be found where reform and legislation are in harmony with the instincts and wishes of the majority of the people, and is consistent with the process of natural growth, de­velopment, and evolution. In conclusion, let me remind honorable members that the first Parliament of Charles II was de­scribed by Lord Clarendon as " the Heal­ing Parliament" because it passed an Act of Indemnity and Oblivion in order to silence the animosities which prevailed at that time; and I hope that this Parliament will be known, in the history of Victoria, as "the Healing Parliament." I hope it will be able to settle the constitutional

Stony Creek Reservoir. [MARCH 3.J lIfining Leases. 1611

question, and that then we will bury in the past a great deal which no doubt ought to be buried. Let us then take a new de­parture in politics; let us erect a Temple of Concord instead of bequeathing to the fu ture a legacy of trouble.

On the motion of Mr. COOPER, the debate was adjourned until the following day.

The House adjourned at eight minutes to eleven o'clock.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. Thursday, March 3, 1881.

Stony Creek Reservoir-Duke of Edinburgh Gardens, North Fitzroy - Marney's Swamp - Mining Leases: Sandhurst and Eaglehawk- Sandhurst Water Supply-Imported Freestone-Seymour Railway Station-Coranderrk Abori­ginal Station-Gera)1gamete Swamp-Mr. Thomas Cat­tanach - Hobson's Bay Railway: Brighton Trains­Reform Bill: Second Reading: Sixth Night's Debate: Call of the House: Mr. Murray Smith's Motion for a Joint Committee.

The SPEAKER took the chair at half­pa,st four o'clock p.m.

STONY CREEK RESERVOIR. Mr. KERNOT asked the Minister of

Mines whether he had received any report as to the condition of the by-wash of the Stony Creek reservoir, and if there was a necessity for immediately effecting any repairs?

Mr. WILLIAMS stated he had received reports with regard to the damage done by flood, last year, to the by-wash at the reservoir. He had also visited the place, and ascertained, by personal inspection, the real nature of the damage. The damage was not as serious as he had been led to believe; yet it should be repaired as soon as possible, and he had given instructions accordingly.

FITZROY REOREATION GROUNDS. Mr. TUCKER inquired of the Minister

of Lands whether he would take early steps to permanently reserve the cricket and recreation grounds at North Fitzroy, known as the Duke of Edinburgh gardens?

Mr. RICHARDSON replied that steps had already been taken to make the reser­vation permanent, and the same steps would be taken with respect to a,1l reserves originally intended for recreation pm'­poses.

MARNEY'S SWAMP. Mr. ANDERSON asked the Minister

of Lands whether he would allow the selectors of Marney's Swamp to take im­mediate possession of their selections, and to effect improvements pending drainage arrangements?

Mr. RICHARDSON observed that the land had not been granted to the parties referred to, who had, as yet, only lodged their applications. So much evil had arisen through permitting persons to make selections where they were unable to live, owing to the presence of water, that he had determined that selectors should not take possession of Marney's Swamp until it was drained. He did not think it wise to allow persons to select where they could not reside. He had promised the honorable member for Dundas that he would ask the Assembly for a sum of money to enable him to drain the land.

PETITIONS. Petitions were presented by Mr. BARR,

from miners and other residents of Talbot and Amherst, against the Mining Boards Abolition Bill; and by Mr. QUICK, from licensed publicans of Sandhurst, praying for an alteration in the law relating to the sale of liquor on Sunday.

MINING LEASES. SANDHURST AND EAGLEHA. WK.

Mr. R. CLARK asked the Minister of Mines whether he would have prepared a plan showing the different lines of reef in Sandhurst and Eaglehawk, with the vari­ous leases and the names of the lessees marked thereon? He explained that a similar plan was prepared some ten years ago, but Rince then alterations had been made in the leases, owing to the amalga­mation of companies and other circum­stances, and these alterations rendered the prepamtioll of a new plan necessary.

Mr. WILLIAMS stated that the pre­paration of the plan meant an expenditure of £400 or £500, because the work could not be executed uncleI' some months, al­though it might engage the attention of several officers ; and in view of the state of the treasury he could not incur such an expenditure without the authority of the Honse, which could be obtained only by motion.

SANDHURST WATER SUPPLY. Mr. R. CLARK inquired of the Minister

of Mines ,,,bethel' he would place in the

1612 The Aborigines. [ASSEMBLY.] Mr. T. Cattanaclt.

Library the papers showing the names of the streets in Sandhurst for the reticula­tion of which application had been made but had not been -complied with?

Mr. WILLIAMS stated that it would be impossible to prepare a return of the kind indicated unless it was limited to some definite period-say the last two years. (Mr. R. Clark-" That will do.") Then the return should be prepared.

FREESTONE. Mr. MIRAMS asked the Chief Secre­

tary whether, with a view to develop Victorian quarries, he would introduce a Bill for imposillg a duty on all imported freestone?

Mr. BERRY stated that he did not in­tend to introduce such a Bill this session. If a duty on freestone were thought de­sirable, it would have to be considered in connexion with a future amendment of the Cus toms Act.

SEYMOUR RAILWAY STATION. Mr. GRAVES asked the Minister of

Railways whether his attention had been called to the inefficiency of the refresh­ment accommodation at the Seymol11' railway station? A large number of passengers, and particularly New South Wales passengers, depended upon getting breakfast at Seymour, but, last Monday, the passengers were three deep at the refreshment counter, and one-half of them could obtain nothing..

Mr. PATTERSON observed that Sey­mour was an important junction, and the station accommodation was not at all sufficient for the requirement.s of the place. Steps had already been taken to enlarge the refreshment-rooms, so that the lessee might not be prevented, by want of proper accommodation, from com­plying with the public demands. The conditions of the lease were sufficiently stringent to keep the lessee up to the mark in attending to the public, and the incon­venience llOW complained of had arisen onlv since excursion trains, on account of theW Exhibition, had been running. The public appeared to be sufficiently attended to so long as the rail way was used only by ordimlry travellers.

THE ABORIGINES. Mr. ZOX asked the Chief Secretary

whether he intended to make any altera­tion in the management of the aboriginal station at Coranderrk ?

Mr. BERRY stat~d that he was not in a position to give a definite answer. In the first place, there was in existence a board, created under an Act of Parliament, which controlled the management of the aborigi­nal stations, and that board should not be interfered with unless the Act under which it was constituted was repealed. It was only fair to mention that the board had always recommended the abolition of Coranderrk, but there had been a great protest against the proceeding on the part of the natives, who had become ac­customed and attached to the place, and regarded the idea of removal to any other station as -a hardship. His own opinion was in the direction of removing them further away from the whites, proximity to whom led to great demoralization; and he believed that, if the dislike of the aborigines could be overcome, it would be the proper course to take.

GERANGAMETE SWAMP. Mr. O'HEA inquired of the Minister

of Lands whether he would give selectors who had taken up land abutting on the -Gerangameto Swamp facilities to drain that swamp?

Mr. RICHARDSON stated that the inq uiry opened up a very large question. The swamp referred to was supposed to have been a river, and therefore legal difficulties, as well as selectors' difficulties, existed in connexion with the matter. He was for permanently reserving river front­ages as far as possible, and he had done so. However, if any land could be re­claimed from the swamp, it would- be made available for selectors.

MR. T. CATTANACH. Mr. DEAKIN asked the Minister of

Public Works whether he would cause compensation to be paid to Mr. Thomas Cattanach, late an inspector in the Public Works department, in accordance with several precedents in his office?

Mr. LANGRIDGE stated that he did not understand the allusion to precedents. He believed tha,t, during a period extend­ing over a great number of years, there had been about eight cases of compensa­tion, and all of them either came before the Assembly or were dealt with by the board appointed in 1874, of which Mr. R. M. Smith was ehairman. Mr. Cattanach had not been connected with the Public Works department since 1876; when he was employed it was only temporarily,

Reform Bill. [MARCH 3.J Second Reading. 1613

and, according to the departmental regu­lations, temporary assistants were em­ployed only from week to week, and they were subject to a week's notice of dis­missal, without having any claim for re­appointment or compensation. If he (Mr. Langridge) were to answer the question of the honorable member for West Bourke (Mr. Deakin) in the affirmative, a large number of persons, a list of whom he held in his hand, would be entitled to similar consideration, but he did not see how it could be extended to them in view of the circumstances under which they entered the Government service.

HOBSON'S BAY RAILWAY.

:Mr. BENT called the attention of the Minister of Railways to the fact that the last night train from Melbourne to Brigh­ton was frequently 16 or 18 minutes late in reaching its destination, owing to a detention at Elsternwick in order to await the last up train from Brighton, and asked if t,he mntter would be inquired into?

Mr. PATTERSON replicd in the affir­mR.tive.

~EFORM BILL. SIXTH NIGHT'S DEBATE.

The debate on Mr. Berry's motion for the second reading of the Reform Bill (adjourned from the previous evening) was resumed.

Mr. COOPER.-Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to follow the honorable mem­ber for Sandhurst (Mr. Quick) through the whole of the speech which he made last night. I think I may fairly congratu­late the honorable member on the thought and care which characterized his address; at the same time, I believe a very few words will be sufficient to meet the princi­pal point of the honorable member's argu­ment. He submitted, as I understood, that the present Constitution Act contains within it all that is necessary to secure to this Chamber supreme control over the public finances, and consequently the pre­vention of dead-locks. But if the Consti­tution does invest this Homie with that pqwer, somehow or other the power has never been exercised in the past. We have had dead-locks and difficulties be­tween the Houses of Legislature, and, in consequence, repeated efforts have been ma.de to bring abol:lt an amendment of the Constitution, so that it might harmonize with the thoughts, feelings, wishes, and desires of the people. The

late Berry Government laid it down that so serious were the defects in the Constitution that it would be absolutely hopeless to expect this Assembly to transact any ordinary and necessary legislation for the welfare of the country until the Constitution Act had been so amended as to enable the wishes of the people to be enrolled upon the statute­book. But if the leaders on the Minis­terial side of the House endorsl;l the statement made by the honorable member for Sandhurst last night, that the Con­stitution Act is all we can desire, why have we had all the furor and turmoil, the outpouring of angry passion and lan­guage, which have marked the last three years? The honorable member for Bal­larat Ea~t (Mr. James) has stated that he considers he is in duty bound to accept, in its entirety, the Bill submitted by the Government, for the reason that it has been submitted to and endorsed by the country. I think the honorable member for Collingwood (Mr. Mirams) has given utterance to a sentiment of a ~illlilar kind. Now I contend that we may fairly can­vass the statement that the country has prollounced emphatically upon the Bill. Why, at the general election in July, issues were put to the country altogether outside and apart from the question of reform, and those issues no doubt in­fluenced a large number of votes, and led to the return to this House of some mem­bers who would not have been returned but for those outside influences.

Mr. MIRAMS.-Was it not the same in February?

Mr. COOPER. - I am not saying whether it was so or not. I am simply endeavouring to show, in reply to the honorable member for Collingwood, that the people, at the general election in July, did not pronounce emphatically in favour of the Reform Bill which is now before us.

Mr. MIRAMS. - Then the country never can pronounce.

Mt. COOPER. - I am not saying whether it can or not. I am simply deal­ing with the arguments submitted to this House in the course of debate. vYhat happened in February cannot be held to have any direct effect upon this Bill, because the measure was not submitted to the country in February. Then again, if the country did pronounce in favour of the Bill, how did it pronounce? Creswick returned two members - my honorable

1614 Refo'l'm Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Second Reading.

colleague, Mr. Wheeler, and myself-in favour of the Service Reform Bill. So did Sandhurst. Richmond returned one member in favour of tlie same measure, and so did Ballarat East. Under these circumstances, I say that when honorable mem bel's ask the House to accept this Bill, in globo, because the country has pronounced in favour of it, we should clearly understand what they mean when they talk of the country pronouncing. It would appeal' that all these state­ments about the· country pronouncing in favour of the Bill must be taken in a Pickwickian or parliamentary sense. Mr. Speaker, I think it must be matter of congratulation both to yourself and to the House, and also to the country, that this debate has been carried on with a temper which ought always to charac­terize debates in Parliament. There has been little indulgence in the personal feeling and bickering which were imported in to former debates; and I trust this may be taken as an indication that in transact­ing the business of the country we will deal with it as practical men, and not as fiery partisans striving for the victory of their own particular party. There seem s to be a general consensus of opinion that this is a favorable time for settling the reform question, owing to the fact that there is now an absence of the angry passion which seemed to animate honorable members at one time. Then again, it is the fact that each of the leading parties in the State has failed in its efforts to accomplish a reform of the Constitution; and therefore I say it is the duty of both parties now to unite wi th all the other independent members of the House in an endeavour to" carry a measure of reform that shall be broad in principle, commensurate in its dimensions,

"and calcnlated to settle the question for many years to come. I am glad to find that members on both sides of the House are agreed that" something ought to be done in this direction without further delay; but it seems to me that, if the Government were thoroughly sincere in their desire to settle the question, there were two ways open to them. First, I think a settlement could have been secured by remitting the whole question of con­stitutional reform to a committee of both Houses. By that arrangement the hest minds in Parliament could have brought their knowledge, intelligence, and experi­ence to bear upon the question, with the

lYIr. Cooper.

view to a settlement, on a broad and gene­rous principle, which would meet the requirements of the country without refer­ence in any way to party. The committee I desire is not a committee composed of extreme members on the Ministerial side of this House, and an equal number of extreme members from the other House. Such a committee would be a very great mistake. I don't wish the question to be remitted to a party committee at all. I don't want the matter dealt with by par­tisans. I want it approached by "leading public men who have large practical and political experience, who have hearts big enough to take in the requirements of the people, and who are anxious to sink party and personal feeling, with the view to produce a large and comprehen­sive measure of reform solely and purely for the benefit of ~he colony at large. I say, if we want to obtain a good reform of a good Constitution, let us get the best men we can in both Houses to do the work. When a man wants to have an intricate and complicated piece of ma­chinery made, he goes to a person with sufficient knowledge, skill, and experience to produce t.he article. He does not go to the village blacksmith. I ask, then, if we require an intricate and complicated piece of political machinery to regulate and control our political organization and Constitution, is it wise for us to call in haIf­a-dozen village blacksmiths and to ask them to manufacture an article which it would require the skill of the best politi­cal engineers to prod nce satisfactorily? If the Government had adopted the course I snggest, and remitted t.he whole ques­tion to a comprehensive committee, in­cluding the best men in both Houses, we might have had a measure of reform de­vised which would settle all our difficulties and meet all our requirements. But there was another way open to the Government if they were sincere and anxious to settle the question. A Bill has been sent down from the Council dealing with the consti­tution of that Chamber. How has that Bill been treated in this House? The measure is admittedly, as far as it goes, practically on the same lines as the pre­sent Bill. If the Government had wished to settle the question once and for all, could not they have taken up the Council's Bill, bronght it }mder the consideration of this House, and had it amended so as to make it suitable to the requirements of the country? But the Government have

Reform Bill. [MARCH 3.J Sixtl" Night'S Debate. 1615

wholly ignored that Bill. Let me ask how would the Government like the Coun­cil, when this measure goes up to them, to practically lay it aside and take no notice of it? Naturally both the Government and the Assembly 'would feel that a slight had been cast upon them if the Council took such a course, and surely, if that be so, have not the Government virtually cast a slight on the Council by refusing to allow the measure sent down from that Chamber to receive the consideration which might have resulted in a settlement of the ques­tion? The Government have refused to take either of those two courses, and have chosen a way of their own. I trust their way may prove successful, by the intervention of' the motion of the honor­able member for Boroondara, but I venture to say that, unless the Government accept bis proposition, there is uut small hope of our having the question of reform settled within a limited period. I now come to the Government Bill, and what do I find? It has been said by members on that (the Ministerial) side of the House that the members on this side­the terrible conservatives-are so afraid of the people that they dare not trust them with the franchise for the Council ; but what are the facts? Whence did a practical proposition to enfranchise the people for the Upper House emanate but from this side of the Assembly? Mem­bers on this side of the House·-at any rate some of them-have been auxious for many years that the basis of the Legis­lative Council should be considerably enlarged. In 1865, in an address to the electors of Ballarat West, for which con­stituency I was then standing, I said-

"I am convinced that a reform of the Council is absolutely essential to secure its harmonious working with the popular branch of the Legis­lature, to secure which, I think, the qualifica­tions, both for electors and members, should be reduced by one-half. I am also in favour of reducing the term of office, and I would give the Governor power in extreme cases to dis sol ve the Council, so that its members may be brought before their constituents to explain why they have checked the liberal aspirations of the people, and clogged the chariot wheels of pro­gress."

Again, in 1871, in addressing the electors of Creswick, I said, in answer to a ques­tion-

" I would be in favour of reforming the Legis­lative Council, so as to be elected every five years by household suffrage, and give the Go­vernor power to dissolve that House."

Those were my feeling~ and senti~ents in

1865 and in 1871. Let us now see what were the sentiments of the Chief Secre­tary as late as 1879-whether the terror of giving the people votes for the Council has always emanated from the dreadful conservatives. The honorable gentleman, in moving for leave to introduce his Re­form Bill of that year, said-

" I know that another proposal has been pro­minently brought forward by the leaders of the Opposition und the opposition press. I don't know whether that proposal has been favorably received by the Legislative Council. Most likely it has been, because the Council's Bill of last session, which this House declined to deal with, was largely based on the same principle, namely, of increasing the power of the Council by widening their basis of election. But I am assur<:d that the more honorable members of this House consider that proposal, the more they will feel that it cannot be accepted. Why all the disturbances which have occurred in this country have arisen because the Legislative Council is too powerful now. If we make it more powerful we will equalize the combat between the two Houses, and it will continue the contest. If the proposal to widen the elec­toral basis of that Chamber only went the length of still retaining a substantial repre­sentation of the minority of the country in the Legislative Conncil, the same conflict would go on in the future as has gone on in the past, and the same objections would exist with regard to the Council obstructing the will of the people as expressed by this House."

Now let me ask the special attention of honorable members to the following re­marks which succeeded :-

"If, on the other hand, it is proposed to extend the basis of election for the Council to the same degree as exists with respect to the election of members of this House, what gain will there be from such a proposition? What ad vantage would be derived from baving two Houses elected on the same basis that does not now exif;t in having one Chamber elected in the way this is? The moment a contest or dead­lock took place between the two Houses, an election might follow. Now it must be remem­bered that an election is largely influenced by the confidence which the electors repose in the man."

So that, according to the Chief Secretary, members at the last general election were not returned solely on the reform question, as the honorable member for Ballarat EaRt and the honorable member for Colling­wood contended, but, to a large extent, on "the confidence which the electors re­pose in the man." The Chief Secretary continued-

" There might under that proposal be a disso­lution of the two Honses on the same basis, and the same members might be returned to each House to fight the dispute over again. There wonld be no finality unller snch a system. Another thing is inevitable, namely, that if we widen the basis of the Legislative Coullcil, we

1616 Reform Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Second Reading.

can no longer retain the exclusive privileges of this House. We should have to give up the sole control of the finances, allow the Council to amend Money TIills, and in fact have a state of things unprecedented under responsible go­vernment. There is nothing like that in England or elsewhere in Europe. There is said to be something like it in America, where the Upper House is elected on a wide basis. But they have not responsible government there; the Executive is there elected by the whole com­munity, and holds office in spite of one or both Houses. That proposition therefore, I submit, provides no solution of the difficulty. The more popular we make a second Chamber, the more we depart from the lines of the British Constitution."

In view of those remarks by the present Chief Secretary) I ask honorable members opposite who is it that fears the people­is it the conservatives or is it the Chief Secretary, who declares that if we widen the basis of the Upper House we shall in­crease the probabilit.y of dead-locks, that we shall inevitably have to gi ve the Council control over finance, and, in fact, make them practically a second House of Commons? I apprehend no such result, but no doubt the Chief Secret.ary be­lieved what he said. If he did so believe, I confess I do not know how he can believe in his present Bill, unless his con­science, like the old lady's, is "a very elastic one." We were told by the honor­able member for North Gippsland (Mr. McKean) that the Chief Secretary wished to go, to the election in July without a Reform Bill at all. He thought it would be better for his party merely to go to the country, and pull Mr. Service~s Bill to pieces without proposing any scheme of their own. Several honorable members, however, who have usually supported the Chief Secretary, no doubt very anxious to have the question dealt with fairly, put up their backs, and there was a scene in the caucus. The honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Smith) and the honor­able member for North Gippsland, as they have informed us themselves, practically said to the Chief Secretary-" Why you led US to believe that reform was the grand question which the liberal members were elected to settle, and how can we make the people believe that we are anxious for reform when we have no Reform Bill to propose to them?" The result was that the caucus decided to have a Reform Bill, and then came the great question what sort of a Bill should it be ? What a delightful picture for Punch I-an excited caucus manufacturing a Heform Bill, a measure to alter what we ma,y call

Mr. Cooper.

the key-stone of the arch of liberty in Vic­toria. I venture to say that a more peculiar phase of constitutional government has hardly ever been presented. I don't know who submitted the propositions, but we know that the honorable member for Fitzroy (Mr. Tucker) sat at the table and sketched out the programme as it was prepared. The whole proceeding reminds me very much of a meeting that was once held by certain gentlemen to decide which should stand for a certain constituency in this colony. The first questiou asked was "What is the most popular ticket to stand Oil ?"-not "What politics does the country require?" or "What politics do you believe in ?" I am informed that one of the gentlemen was deputed to go to the ·constituency, and he did so. He went first to one part, then to another, inquiring from the electors at each place-" What is popular here?" and, having taken his bearings accordingly, he laid down his political platform and was elected a mem­ber of this House. That is exactly the position the Opposition in the late Par­liament'sought to take up. They wanted to know what was popular-what would win the election-and in that spirit they set themselves to devise a constitutional reform scheme that was to revolutionize the country and establish the liberal party firmly in power. I am not aware, as I have said, who submitted the proposals adopted by the caucus, but the honorable member for West Bourke (Sir B. O'Logh­len) has told us that he certainly could not support some of the propositions laid down. No doubt he said at the caUCllS­"I believe in a Reform Bill with a nominee Upper House and a substantial 6th clause." "Oh no I" no doubt cried other honorable members, "that would not suit the country at all." Then came the question-" What will suit the country?" Whereupon some astute gentleman pro­bably exclaimed-" Don't you see Service has proposed a £10 suffrage for the Upper House? that proposal is popular; let us outbid him, and go the whole hog." In fact, we may imagine there was a sort of political auction-" Shall we go £10 or the ratepayers' roll, or shall we take in the whole people and propose manhood suffrage for the Council?" Ultimately, we are informed, the ratepayers' roll was determined on, and thus the very gentle­men who had assured the people of Victoria that to enlarge the basif:> of the Upper House would be to kill manhood

Reform Bill. [MARCil 3.J 1617

suffrage decided to adopt as their platform the very principle which, a short time before, they had asserted would ruin the liberal party and destroy manhood suffrage and democracy in this colony. With a Bill so manufactured they went to the country; but, I ask, can honorable mem­bers opposite say they were elected on this Bill? I assert that they were not ~ected on the merits of their Bill. In my own constituency a card was sown broadcast that talked about" the half of 1 Os. a week in a tent for a wprking man," and about farmers' wives and daughters llaving to take menial occupations to earn their bread if the Service Government got a majority; and that card had more to do with the return of one of my colleagues than this Reform Bill which we have been told by the honorable member for Collingwood the country pronounced so emphatically in favour of. I have not the slightest hesitation. in saying that I and my colleague (Mr. Wheeler) went to the country on the Service Reform Bill. We laid the principles of that Bill clearly and fairly before the electors; and what followed? Why that the principles of the Bill made such an impression on the Roman Catholics in the district that they actually, in defiance of the wishes of their priests and their bishop, said-" We can't go against these men; we will vote for them because they are honest and because they support a good Reform Bill." There is another peculiar circumstance to which I would like to direct the attention of honorable members. I believe it was on the 1st. January, 1880, that an organiza­tion called" The Liberal Association of Victoria" was established in Melbourne, and issued a programme. What did that association propose with reference to reform? Its platform on the question was as follows :-

"To reform the Constitution on the basis suggested by Mr. Munro in the Legislative As­sembly in 1878-by reducing the qualification of electors and members 6£ the Legislative. Council, and the size of the provinces j shorten­ing the term for which members are elected; dissolving the Legislative Council as well as the J,egislative Assembly in case of a serious dis­agreement between the two Chambers j and pro­viding that, should the disagreement continue after such dissolution, both Houses meet as one, and give a final vote."

There we have the back-bone of the Ser­vice Reform Bill. If a lawyer was re­quired to put those proposals into the shape of a Bill, could he have done so in:hetter or clearer language than was

adopted in the Service Reform Bill? I contend that that Bill was a clear embodi­ment of the principles laid down ·by the Liberal Association of Victoria. Now what is the fact? The present Minister of Mines was a member of that association. He and I-to use the words once patheti­cally employed by.a former member for West Melbourne (Mr. Andrew) with regard to the late member for Carlton (Mr. Munro )-" took sweet counsel to­gether" about the proposals of that asso­ciation. We were present when t.he foundations were laid, and the honorable member helped to by them and to dress every stone of them, and be believed in the whole structure. Further, when the Service Reform Bill was issued­containing, as I contend it did, the re­form programme of the Liberal Associa­tion-the honorable member said, speaking of the Bill, in the presence of myself and other honorable members, "It is perfect in its parts, and creditable to the builder." Moreover, on the very night of the division on that Bill, I asked the honorable mem­ber how he could possibly vote against the measure; remembering the lines we had laid down in the programme of the Liberal Association; I wanted to know, if he believed that the principles laid down by the association were wise and good, how he could word any portion of the Bill differ­ently, so as to give effect to those principles. Nevertheless, I do not want to take part in the hue and cry against the Minister of Mines because he thought fit to join a Government that acted differently from the principles he formerly believed in. I will not say that the honorable member is the worst sinner that ever dwelt in Jerusalem. Nay, I believe that there are other sinners quite as bad as he, and that some of them are sitting on the Trea­sury bench. I will not, therefore, help to hound him down because he took a course which he may have thought to be right, although in the judgment of others it was wrong. What were the leading principles of the Service Reform Bill? They were three in number. It gave, practically, the control of the finances to this House, it provided against dead­locks, and it provided for finality in legis­lation. Now those are three principles which the liberals have always contended hitherto that no Reform Bill could be satisfactory without containing. It may be asked-H How could the liberals su pport the elimination clause ?" but what is the

1618 Reform Bill. r ASSEMBLY.j Second Readin(j.

fact? A great deal of virtuous indigna­tion was indulged in against the Service Bill on account of that clause, but, imme­diately after the so-called liberals them­selves regained office, when the Legislative Council asked this House to divide the Pnyment of Members Bill, they straight­way swallowed the pill, box and all. They agreed to the application of the Council­which virtually amounted to an exercise of the elimination clause-at the request of the leader of their own party, and no doubt they have been gratified ever since that they did so. And that is not the only case of the kind that has occurred. On two distinct occasions since I have been a member of the Assembly, the leaders of the liberal party have allowed the Council practically to tell this House how it should act in matters of finance, and the Assem­bly has followed the course suggested. I ask therefore what possible sincerity could there be in denouncing the elimination clause of the Service Heform Bill when the denouncers themselves have allowed the Council to actually exercise the power proposed in that clause? As f01' the present Bill, I am not going to cry it down. I am willing to admit that, as far as it goes, it travels to a certain extent in the right direction. As I have shown, in 1865 I advocated the reduction of the franchise for the Council by one-half, and in 1871 I was prepared to accept the ratepayers' roll, so that personally I have no objection to the suffrage proposed in this measure. But I want to know, if we are to have a Heform Bill, and if this is supposed to be a proper and convenient time for getting a Heform Bill, why not, in the words of an old writer, "have a plaster that will cover the whole wound"? If the wound is large, where is the' use of a plaster that will only half cover' it ? It cannot be contended that this Bill will cover the whole of the wound under which our Con­stitution is suffering. As to the adoption of the ratepayers' roll, I may point out, however, that a practice has lately sprung up in certain parts of the colony which may invalidate that roll as a basis of suffrage. At a recent group-meeting of municipal representatives at which I was present, a rate collector informed the meeting that it was a common thing in his shire for three or four persons to claim to be on the ratepayers' roll because they occupied a slab or bark hut. Now, in pro­posing to adopt the ratepayers' roll, do we wish to propose that four men shall have

Mr. Cooper.

votes for the Council by virtue of their occupancy of a bark hut? Do we wish to place inducements in the hands of un­scrupulous men of either party to manu­facture fagot votes? That is a question the Assembly will have to consider when it comes to decide as to the adoption of the ratepayers' roll, pure and simple, as the suffrage for the Council. Then the Bill provides for the total abolition of the qualification for members of the Upper House. I may say, at once, that that proposal does not accord with my views. I do not think it is at all desirahle that we should have persons' occupying the highest legislative positions who may not have a single interest or tie in connexion with the colony for which they legislate. I think there should be a guarantee of some kind or othe.r required, and, as the Bill does not propose to adopt a literary qualification of any kind, I am certainly of opinion that it would be unwise and imprudent to abolish the propertyqualifica­tion. I am quite prepared to admit that if, as suggested by the honorable member for Portland, the colony were divided into only a few constituencies which none but a man of wealth could canvass, the property qualification for members of the Council might be dispensed with; but, if single electorates of reasonable size are adopted, some other qualification must be required from a candidate than merely the possession of a glib tongue. Personally, I am in accord with the Bill in the pro­posal of single electorates, subject to the condition I have mentioned, because I believe they would give men of moderate means an opportunity of contesting a seat for the Council without any extravagant waste of money. As to the number of the members of the Council, the point is one on which I do not feel at all strongly. I do not think it matters much whether the Council consists of 30, 40, or 50 members, so long as the members of it are good men, who feel anxious for the welfare of the country. I find, however, that in many other countries the principle has been recognised that the Upper House should contain at least more than half the number of members in the Lower House, although I do not say that that is an in­flexible principle that should be adhered to in this colony. In England, the House of Lords consists of 538 members, and the House of Commons of 658. In France, the Senate contains 300 members, and the Lower House 532. In Italy, the Upper

Bejo'l'm Bitt. [MARCIl 3.J 1619

House has 270 members, and the Lower 508. In the N ethel'lands, the Upper Honse contains 39 members, and the Lower 86; and in Sweden there are 136 members in the Upper House, and 204 in the Lower. Those ngures show that in the European states there appears to be a general feeling that the Upper House should contain at any rate more than half as many members as the Lower Ho'use. There is one important result that must follow the constitution of the Upper House on the basis of the rate­payers' roll, which will have to be fac,ed if this Bill becomes law. ' We shall un­doubtedly have to be prepared either to pay the members of the Conncil, or else to abolish payment of members altogether. We could never, for very shame, take pay­ment in this House, and allow the mem­bers of the other Chamber, elected on practically the same basis as ourselves, to do their work without payment. So far then-as a believer in the ratepayers' roll, with certain regulating influences, for the Council franchise, and in single electorates-I am prepared to give in my adhesion to the Bill. But at the same time I will afford my hearty support to the motion tabled by the honorable mem­ber for Boroondara.

An HONORABLE MEl\:IBER.-Which, if carried, would spoil reform.

Mr. COOPER.-How can remitting the question of reform to the best minds in both Houses spoil reform? If honor­able members on both sides of this Chamber are in earnest, if they are not shamming, if they really mean business, surely they will be ready to allow those who avowedly have the best judgment in such matters to entertain the question what is the exact reform our Constitution most requires. I am persuaded that there is throughout the country a strong feeling in favour of a conference between the Houses. The people everywhere say­H We want the question of reform settled, and we want it settled well, not on party lines" nor for party purposes, but on a broad generous basis." If proof of that were wanting, it would, to my mind, be sufficient to refer to the applause with which the proposition for a conference, as a means of settling reform, has been received by the Creswick electors, espe­cially on one particular occasion. There is aJ,lother potent reason. why the plan I advocate should be adopted. I ask the' Government' how are they going

to settle the question of reform? In order to arrive at such a settlement thore must be two parties to the contract. Does any honorable member on the Government side of the House-does any Minister-think that the Bill in its pre­sent form will pass the Council? Does any reasonable man suppose that there is the slightest chance of its adoption by that body ? Would such an expectation be in accordance with common sense? To come closer, I ask whether there is a single honorable member on the Minis­terial benches who thinks the Bill can possibly become law without a conference? If there is no such chance, what is the good of trying' to hoodwink the people on the subject? I assert that 'we all know there is only one mad through which we can arrive at a settlement of reform, and I beg honorable members all round to unite heartily and cordially in supporting the resolution of the honorable member for Boroondara, and so remove the question that has so long vexed us from the minds of both the Parliament and the people of the country. I repeat that I ask honorable members to take that course becanse it is one eminently ac­ceptable to the community generally, and because it will procure us reform without much delay in the best and indeed the only way possible.

Mr. O'CALLAGHAN.-Sir, I have listened to the debate throug hout wi th much pleasure and a good deal of interest-with, pleasure because of the absence of the acri­mony which characterized similar debates in the past, and with interest because of the tolerant spirit displayed on both sides of the Chamber, which gives promise of an early settlement of the important question b~fore us. It is to be hoped, too, that the stereotyped opposition of another place will be abated, and relegated to the pages of history. Sir, after the country has for years clamoured for a reform of the Con­stitution, submitting the while to the dictum of a reputed oligarchy with a degre'e of forbearance worthy of a law­abiding people; after statesman after statesman has had to trim his sails, and pander to the prejudices and assumed power of an irresponsible party, with scarcely any representative character at all; after the frame-work of society ha3 surged and swayed until the Rubicon of endurance was well-nigh crossed, are we now to be told that this moderate measure, this last compromise, based-I call special

1620 Reform Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] ~econd Reading.

nttention to that-on the lines of the latest Imperial despatch, is not to be accepted? I am constrained to ask the Opposition-Do they wish for any reform at all? That question I am authorized by more than 2,000 honest electors to put, and the whole country demands that to it there shall be to-night an emphatic response. If the honorable members in opposition will continue to resist the repeated demands of the people, it is best that the fact should be known without delay, so that the public agony of suspense may not be prolonged, nor the present flagrant mockery continued. Unlike the honorable member for Brighton, I do not desire to quote Scriptnre, nor to draw my inspiration from Shakspeare, but, as we are now entering upon the Ides of March, I may be permitted to predict that, if this Bill be rf'jected, a disappointed and indig­nant people will take their remedy into their own hands. The honorable member for Boroondara, the leader of the Opposi­tion, tried to amuse the House with a little bantering metaphor by telling us that the Chief Secretary had stolen the clothes of the late honorable member for Maldon. Well, sir, there is not much in that, for the clothes were a misfit, as the tailor discovered to his cost. Of course the honorable member for Boroondam intended _ to imply that the Bill is a fac-simile of the rejected Bill of the late honorable member for Maldon, but, if that is so, why do we have now the opposition of the Opposition? Is it because what is orthodox and virtuous on the opposition side of the Chamber is rank blasphemy on this (the Ministerial) side-because nothing good can come out of Nazareth? If that is the logic of honorable members opposite, the mask is torn from the conservative face, and con­servatism stands before the country con­victed of insincerity. But, sir, tho Bill before us is neither a Service Bill nor a Berry Bill. It is an emanatioll of the wisdom and patriotism of a majority of the trusted representatives of the people in this House, and it is gratefully endorsed by the country. Again, the honorable mem­ber for the Ovens (Mr. Kerferd), with the singular consistency peculiar to himself, accused the Chief Secretary of having abandoned the plebiscite. Has the hon­orable member himself never exhibited a change of front? Why, if the records of the House are to be relied on, no chameleon ever displayed a greater variety of colours than the honorable member has done in a

Mr.O'Callaghan.

political sense. Had the Chief Secretary selected the honorable gentleman as a col­league, there would have been no chasm too wide for him to jump. He would have swallowed protection with all its reputed ills, with Collingwood thrown in, and might now have been a shining light in the National Reform League~ Then we have the honorable member for St. Rilda (Mr. Cartel') uncorking his little vial of sarcasm, the efiluvium from which is seldom very odorous. He told us about Mr. Cooney's dog, and thereby did a tail unfold, but, had he pursued his illustration a little further, he might have defined the position of his party in this House by citing the case of another proverbial dog, who occupied a manger, and, not being able to eat the hay there, would not allow the horse to eat- it. The dogged opposi­tion of the honorable member to the Bill may please the conservative poodles of -St. Kilda, but the dogmatic arguments advanced by him will not find favour with the people. As to the Service Reform Bill, it is now well known that the late Cabinet were not at one upon the measure, and that several of Mr. Service's col­leagues differed from their chief, so far as not only to urge that the Council franchise should embrace the ratepayers' roll, but also to object to other items of the measure. Sir, I appeal to those honor­ablo gentlemen to now preserve their consistency by voting for the present Bill, and I promise them that they shall forfeit nothing by the proceeding, because the effect of it will be to win back to them the favour of their con­stituents, and -perhaps to-morrow may see two fatted calves killed, one in Brighton and the other in Sandhurst. I ask the honorable member for Brigh ton and the honorable member for Sandhurst (Mr. Clark) to shake the conservative dust fr.om their feet, and breathe their normal atmosphere on this side of the chamber. Also I call upon the great political Goliath, the skilled Cabinet~ maker, the architect of our Constitution, the whilom master-mariner of our State ship-I mean the honorable member for Belfast-to remember the days of his youth, and take his proper place in the forthcoming division. He did Service in July, let him now follow up his success by assisting us to consolidate the people's empire. Let honorable members recollect that important issues are contingent upon the passage of the Bill, notably the final

Reform Bill. [MARCH 3.J 1621

settlement of our land system. Reject this Bill, and land settlement and all liberal land legislation will be deferred to the Greek kalends. Pass the Bil1, and you will restore to the country the har­mony, tbe prosperity, and the loyalty of the people.

Mr. BOSISTO.-Mr. Speaker, honor­able members on the opposite (the Minis­terial) side of the Chamber have asked us if we on this side are in earnest in seek­ing for reform. I think we are. I think we have endeavoured, to the best of our ability, during the last seven years, to assist in bringing to pass a measure of con­stitutional reform which would be satis­factory not only to thi:3 House but to the country also. Under these circumstances, I say now that I am disposed to view the present Bill in a favorable light, and to do my utmost towards making it the means of settling the question that has so long troubled the country. But, sir, whilst I say that much, I am bound to have regard to what some of the honorable members opposite seem to overlook, namely, the necessity that exists for approaching the subject in a spirit of compromise. The honorable member for Emerald Hill (Mr. Nimmo) and the honorable member for Ballarat East (Mr. James) both intimated last evening that no conference is needed, and that we ought to consult, with respect to the measure, neither another place, nor any other body than ourselves. But I am under the impression that unless we con­sider the mind and views of another place along with our own mind and views we shall never get the Bill passed, despite the hilarious way in which honorable members all round have expressed their satisfaction ,with it. Well, sir, believing that we shall arrive at no successful conclusion upon the measure unless we deal with it in a spirit of conciliation and compromise, I will do all I can to bring such a spirit to bear upon the question. Also, I am fully satisfied that we have discussed the matter long enough-that, notwithstanding the readiness of honorable members to deliver themselves of utterances on reform, suffi­cient has been said about it to enable us to go at once to the vote upon it. The Reform Bill which was set before the country by Mr. Service during the last general election was one I no doubt acqui­esced in, and I strove at the time to show the electors that the general princi pIes embodied in it were such as we all recog­.nised, and that it contained, in addition,

!lND SES. 1880.-5 u .

provision for finality in legislation. As for the latter, I well remember how honor­able members opposite, and more 'particu­larly the Chief Secretary, used to contend not only for constitutional reform of a particular kind, but also that it was abso­lutely essential, in connexion with. any scheme of reform, that it should include a finality clause. For my part, I believe in that doctrine, and I maintain that, unless finality is contained in this Bill, it will be of no great service to us, because under it the same disputes between the Houses that we have had in the past will assur­edly occur again. One difference between Mr. Service's measure and the present one is that, whereas the former provided for the Council franchise em bracing £ 10 free­holders and £20 leaseholders, the Govern­ment Bill goes further, namely, to the extent of the ratepayers' roll. On this point I desire to say that I am quite in accord with those who advocate the rate­payers' roll, and that although I professed myself, in connexion with the Service Bill, to be in favour of the comparatively limited franchise it proposed, I did so simply because I thought another place would accept that limit as a compromise, while they would steadily refuse to go lower. I say so not that I knew the Council would accept the £10 limit, but that I, in common with many others of the commu­nity, believed they would, and that we had very good reason for 'the belief. I also advocated the enlargement of the franchise to that particular extent, because it was undoubtedly a step in the right direction. However, now that the rate­payers' roll is proposed, I do not hesitate to accept it; but I wish to say, at the same time, that should the Council be un­willing to go quite so low, and insist upon stopping a little short, I would regard it as a very serious question whether we should not meet their wishes rather than throw over reform altogether.

An HONORABLE ME~IBER.-·No. Mr. BOSISTO.-But will the honor­

able member who int8ljects "No" bear in mind that we have no power to pass the Bill into law without the assistance of another place, and that, if we wiH make no concession whatever to honor­able members elsewhere, we can hardly expect them to meet our views?

An HONORABLE MEM:BER.-We have conceded.

Mr. BOSISTO.-Well, I don't know ill what way we have conceded. I want

1622 Reform Bili. CASSEMBLY.] Second Readinr}.

it clen,rly understood, however, thn,t, as far as the ratepayers' roll is concerned, I am, in accord with the Bill. I am not Olle of those who aro ready to avow at one time a principle by which they will not, at another, heartily abide; and, if the views I put forward now, or on the public platform, are not in accord with those of my constituents, it is high time they set me aside. I do not-I never did - believe in class legislation, but, inasmuch as a reasonable amount of reform will open the door to a variety of other useful measures, I think the spirit of compromise should be amongst us, and that we should exercise it in a fajr and decisive manner. I dwell on this, although I know other honorable mem­bers, far more capable than myself of speaking to the question, are waiting to do so, because I want to show that, although we on the opposition side are not called liberals, we have, undoubtedly, as truly liberal sentiments, and as st.rong a desire for the advancement of the country and for the benefit of the people at hu'ge, as anyone can have. With refer­ence to th<} qualification for members in another place, I find the Bill provides that no one shall be capable of elec­tion to it unless he is 30 years of age, although being 21 years of age is a sufficient qualification for members of this House. Well, I don't demur to that arrangement, because a man being 30 years of age usually means that he has somewhat of the tact, industry, ex­perience, and knowledge of the world that are essentially necessary to enable him to fully and fairly consider the measures that are brought before Parlia­ment. At the same time, I cannot help thinking that if we don't extend this rule in some way, we shall commit an error. What, I would like to propose­I make no doubt the Minister of Pub­lic Instruction will support me-would be that graduates of the University should be able to take a seat in the Council, even though they had not reached the prescribed age of thirty. What better class of men could we have to do the particular kind of work it is the especial function of the Council to perform than those who have received a thorough education - who understand the art of logic, and whose minds are trained to grasp the principles of a measure as soon as it is placed before them? I also think we would be in error if we diel not provide

Mr. Bosisto.

for a dissolution of the Upper House III the case of a dispute between them and the Assembly being prolonged over two sessions.· Unless the constitutional re­form we go for contains a provision of that sort, I don't see how it can be decisive and thorough, and consequently beneficial to the country. I am not for compelling 'the Upper House, after dis­puting with the Assembly during two sessions, to come into accord with us; but I do say that to require both Houses, when they find, after two sessions, that they cannot agree, to go to the country would have a truly excellent effect. I do not propose to say anything more about the Bill. I shall support its second reading, and, when it is in committee, I shall endeavour, as far as I can, to get it amended in the way I have indicated. If~ however, I am thwarted by the firm determination of the honorable members on the Ministerial benches to have the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill, I shall seriously consider whether I ought to vote for the third reading. At the same time, I trust every reasonable man ill the House is bv this time con­vinced that whatever do~bts may exist as to the earnest desire of the Government for reform, there can be none as to that of the Opposition. No honorable member will vote for the second reading of the Bill with more pleasure, or vote against its third reading, if that course is forced upon me, with more regret than I shall.

Mr. LA URENS.-Sir, in addressing myself briefly to the measure before us, I desire to state that the manner in which the debate has been conducted gives me great satisfaction, and I am sure the praise is deserved by the last speaker as much as by anyone here. If all other honorable members would only exhibit the courteous manner and forbearing spirit he displayed, I would be uncommonly pleased. I wish to pay the same compliment to the honorable member who is the leader of the Opposition. Sir, we have heard a good deal of charges of inconsistency, which have been levelled principally against this (the Ministerial) side of the Chamber. Well, they were" generally speaking, put forward in a good-humoured way, and I am not at all inclined to take exception to them. The fact is, I believe, that all of us are, more or less, open to be charged with inconsistency. I allude, however, to acts which, although they may bear the aspect of inconsistency, can'

llejorm Bill. tMARCH 3.j 1623

hardly, when all the surrounding circum­stances are taken into consideration, be said to be so. But I will not go into that subject further. What I want to express is the extreme gratification I feel in staud­ing up in this Chamber, for the first time, to ad vocate a measnre which I know I pIn.ced thoroughly before my constituents as the one I intended to support. There can be no doubt that what 1 laid before the electors of North Melbourne is em­bodied in this Bill. For example, I hold in my hand one of my election cards, and I find there the following :-

"Messrs. Laurens and Story are in favour of-

" 1. The powers of the Legislative Assembly in finance being in accordance with the usage and practice of the House of Commons."

Well, I see nothing in the Bill running counter to that proposition. I know that, on the other hand, I may be told that the measure contains nothing bearing on the point. But were we not assured by the leading members of the Opposition, when. the second Berry Reform Bill was under discnssion, and we were dealing with the portion relating to the Assembly having the exact powers of the House of Com­mons, t.hat a declaratory resolution on the subject would be of no use whatever? That mayor may not be a true doctrine. For my part, I am inclined to give but little weight to it. Therefore I will say that, should it be thought advisable, when the Bill is in committee, to import such a declaratory resolution into the measure, I shall have no objection whatever to that course being taken. Then my political programme went on as follows :-

"2. The extension of the franchise for the Legislative Council to the ratepayers' roll.

"3. The qualification of members of the Legislative Council to be the same as that of electors for that body.

"4. Shortening the term for which members of the Legislative Council are elected to six years, one-third retiring every two years.

,; 5. Subdividing the six provinces into thirty electorates, each returning one member.

"6. Having the Council elected on the present narrow basis dissolved after the passing of the above reform measure, so as to enable the whole of the ratepayers to then elect a new and truly liberalized Council." Who will denv that what I have read is the cream of the Bill before us, which the Government have been so often charged with stealing? But by whom was the liberalization of the Council ever proposed before?

An HONORABLE MKl\fBER.-It was in the Service Reform Bill.

5u2

Mr. LAURENS.-That Bill liberalized the Council with its left hand, and wit.h its right took away all that that liberaliza­t,ion would confer. The present Bill does not go in for keeping any of the old leaven in the Council at all, whereas the object of the Service Reform Bill was to pre­serve as much of it as possible. My opinion is that, directly the Council fran­chise is altered, we are bound to set about electing a new Council upon the new electoral basis. If the past political strife is mainly dne to the fact that the Council has been elected by too high a franchise, then there can be no complete reform uutil the present Council is dissolved for the purpose of electing one on the enlarged basis. The clause providing for the division of the provinces into 30 electorates is a very wise one. To illus­trate what the effect of it will be, I may mention that the same area which forms the electoral district of North Melbourne for the Legislative Assembly' will con­stitute a province for the Legislative Council, whereas under the present system the electoral district of North Melbourne forms a portion of what is known as the Central Province-a province which com­prises about 17 of the Assembly electorates. To obtain a right conception of the cost of contesting an election for the Council in a province like that, it is necessary to mul­tiply the cost of an ordinary election for the Assembly by 17. If £500 or £600, or even £300, be multiplied by 17, the product will amount to some thousands of pounds; so that if a man, who might have served in this Chamber for many years to the satisfaction of his constituents, desired to enter into a contest in the Central Pro­vince for a seat in the Council, he could not do so unless he was possessed of a mine of wealth. If, however, the present Bill becomes law, a man will be able to contest a seat for the Council just as easily as he can now contest one for the Assembly. It is very desirable that an alteratiou of this kind should be made. It is one which is calculated to ensure an infusion of new blood into the Counci1, and perhaps change the character of that Chamber altogether. The Bill pro­vides that the ratepayers' roll shall be the basis of the franchise for the Council, and also that the qualification for members of the Council shall be the same as the quali­fication for electors. As to the latter pro­posal, although it has been objected to, I notice that no member of the Opposition-

1624 Reform Bili. tA.SsEMBL Y.] Second Reading.

not even the leader of the Opposition, who, when the question of reform was dis­cussed on a previous occasion, was very fond of quoting authorities-has quoted a single constitutional authority to show that the Upper House should be elected upon a different basis from that on which the Lower Chamber is elected. All con­stitutional authorities argue that it is neces­sary there should be two Chambers lest government by one Chamber should make the one House become despotic and tyran­nical, but none of them contend that there should be anything like an essential dif­ference between the franchise for one House and that for the other. The pro­gramme of reform which I submitted to my constituents met their views to such an extent that I was returned by a majority previously unknown in the constituency which I have the hOllour to represent. I was opposed by a gentleman of high social position] who has resided in and carried on a large trade in the constituency for the last 25 years-perhaps a stronger opponent could not be selected-and yet I headed him at the poll by 1,100 or 1,200 votes. Therefore, though the honorable member for Ct'eswick (Mr. Cooper) says that the country has not endorsed the Bill we are now discussing, I at least can claim that the constituency which I have the honour to represent has fully endorsed it. We have been taunted with having stolen the measure of our opponents­with having stolen the clothes of the con­servative party and spoilt them in the wearing. N ow I desire to say that the conservati ve reform coat was to my mind of such bad material, and such bad work­manship, that I never had the slightest desire to wear it, and consequently no wish to steal it. Moreover, I will point out that the Reform Bill which the liberal party have. introduced this session does not resemble the conservative measure in one single particular. The Service Re­form Bill proposed that the qualification for a member of the Legislative Council shourd be the possession of freehold pro­pertyof the annual value of £150. Have we stolen that? Is that to be found in our Bill? Certainly not. Again, the conservatives proposed that the qualifica­tion for electors of the Council should be a £10 rating for freeholder~ and a £20 rating for leaseholders. We have not stolen that provision. We do not draw a line between one class of ratepayers and another. The conservative Bill proposed

Mr. Laurens.

to increase the number of members of the Council from 30 to 42. We have not stolen that feature. It also proposed to increase the number of provinces from six to twelve, and to give nine members to the Central Province, while each of the other provinces was to have three mem­bers. Have we stolen these proposals? Is anything of the kind to be found in our Bill? Certainly not. Again, the con­servatives, by their Bill, provided that some of the members of the Council should hold their seats for eight or ten years after the passing of the measure. We do not provide for any such thing ; we have not stolen that feature of their Bill. While the conservatives proposed that the Governor should have power to dissolve the Council, they enabled the Council to prevent any dissolution. In fact, w hile profes~ing to give power to dissol ve the Upper House, they very art­fully-not to use a more offensive term -provideq that in no case should that Chamber be dissolved within six months of the period at which the Assembly would expire by effluxion of time, and that might be the very period during which there was a dispute between the two Chambers. Therefore, as far as concerns the dissolu­tion of the Council, what the last Reform Bill professed to give with the one hand it took away with the other. It also empowered the Council to order the As­sembly to strike any or every item off the Estimates. Have we stolen that provi­sion? No; it was certainly not worth stealing. Again, the conservative Reform Bill, while purporting to provide that measures in <lispute between the two Chambers should be remitted to the people for their decision, in reality provided that they should be remitted to two different authorities-a ,proceeding altogether at variance with the British Constitntion. In England, if there is an appeal on a question .in dispute between the two Houses of Legislature, the only tribunal to which it is made is the constituencies of the House of Commons. The Reform Bill which was before us in the last Par­liament provided for a joint sitting of the two Houses after each Chamber had ap­pealed to its constituents, and also pro­vided that at the joint sitting the measure on which the appeal had been made might be altered. We have 110t stolen those prOVIsIOns. There is no provision for a joint sitting of the two Houses in our Bill. In fact, the present measure is not

Refo'l'm Bill. [MARCH 3.J Sixth Night's Debate. 1625

at all the same Rill as the one rejected last session. The only thing in which there is a resemblance to it is the proposed reduction of the tenure· of seats in the Council to six years; but, as I have al­ready stated, in the Service Bill that was marred by the fact that the then members of the Council were to hold their seats until the period for which they were elected expired, which in some cases would not have been for eight or ten years. In no one particular, therefore, doos the present Bill resemble the measure that we dealt with last session. One objection to the Bill is that it is not like the one previously advocated by the liberal party. It would, however, have been a rash, if not a wicked, thing to have brought back to the Chamber a Bill which was thrown to the winds by the constituencies in February of last year. We submitted the present measure to the constitnencies in July last, and a majority of the members of this House have, I believe, been returned in support of it. It is said that, instead of proceed­ing with our own BiU, it would have been fairer, Illore proper, and more con­stitutional to have taken up the Heform Bill sent down to us by the Legislative Council and dealt with it.. That reason­ing, I submit, has little or no weight. In the first place, we, the members of this House, are fresh from our constituents, and we represent the whole country. Eyery man in the country has a vote for this Chamber if he chooses to avail him­self of it. In the next place, the ontlines of the Government Bill were clearly laid before the constituencies, in every news­paper, for a fortnight prior to the elec­tion. Under these circumstances, it is far more proper to proceed with the con­sideration of our own Bill than to take up the measure sent to us by a Chamber whose members never as a body go before their constituents, and who, if they did, would go before only a very small section of the community. Even if the Council had, as a body, gone before their consti­tuents in July last, their measure would not have equal claims upon the considera­tion of this House to our own. I thinl<:, on the grounds I have stated, we are quite right in discussing our own measure rather than the Council's. Another rea­son why I think so is that in the despatch of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, in reply to the representations made to him by the embassy which went to England on the

reform . qnestion, I find the following statement :-

"The course of action which Her Majesty's Government might adopt should this hope unfortunately be disappointed--

That is the hope of a settlement of the dispute between the two Houses. "must, in a great degree, depend upon the circumstances which may then exist; but I can hardly anticipate that the Imperial Parliament will consent to disturb, in any way, at the instan·ce of one House of the Colonial Legis­lature, the settlement embodied in the Constitu­tion Act, unless the Council shall refuse to concur with the Assembly in some reasonable proposal for regulating the future relations of the two Houses in financial matters in accord­ance with the high constitutional precedent to which I have referred, and should persist in such refusal after the proposals of the Assembly for that purpose, an appeal being made to the constituencies on the subject, have been ratified by the country, and again sent up by the As­sembly for the consideration of the Council."

It will be seen that Sir Michael Hicks­Beach speaks of the Council concurring with the Assembly, not of the Assembly concurring with the Council. He .states, in fuct, that what the constituencies of the Assembly declared to ue right the Impe­rial Parliament would probably, under certain contingencies, pass into hnv, evon without the consent of the Legislative Council. I think I have now given some good reasons why it is right and constitu­tional that we should deal with our own Bill rather than with the Council's. We have been to~d that one great objection to our Bill is that it provides for a dissolution of the Council the moment the measure becomes law. It is said that such a pro­vision is harsh and oppressive, and that we cannot expect the Council to fall in with it. Is it necessary to remind the Opposition that in February, 1880, the members of this Chamber were elected presumedly for three years, and that only five months afterwards they were sent about their business? Let me call atten­tion to tho 35th section of the Local Go­vernment Act, which is as follows :-

"When any order is made whereby the num­ber of councillors in any municipality is altered, or any municipal district is subdivided or resub­divided, such order shall Dot affect the council, or the filling up of extraordinary vacancies therein, until the conclusion of the next annual election, when all the councillors shall go out of office."

According to this law, to which the Upper House gave its assent, municipal councillors elected for three years may be seut about their businoss in the following

1626 Re/orm Bill. LASSEMBLY.] Second Reading.

August in the event of a certain altera- must be aware that the feeling ,of the tion of the divisions of the municipality Upper House in regard to any measure which they represent. The members of about to be sent to them is generally the Upper House did not consider, when pretty well known beforehand. ""Ve read they passed this law, that it would inflict every day that they will not pass the any hardship on municipal councillors; present Reform Bill; indeed, it has been aud why should. they object to the Reform stated. two or three times in the course of Bill because it proposes that their Cham- this debate that they will not pass the ber shall be dissolved for the purpose of measure. In 1865, this Chamber, wisely fairly and truly liberalizing the Upper or unwisely, thought proper, in the exer­House, so that political conflicts such as cise of its extreme rights, to attach the have occurred in the past may be avoided Tariff to the Appropriation BUl, and the in the future? I hope that, when the Upper House laid aside the Bill. The time comes for them to deal with it, the dispute between the two Chambers then members of the Upper House will not took the shape of a question of privilege, view the proposal to dissolve the Council but if the substantial matter of the Tariff in the same light that honorable members had not been involved the question of opposite regard it. As to the omission privilege would never 'have arisen. In from the Bill of any provision for a dis- 1~77, a dispute arose between the two solution of both Houses in the event of Houses over payment of members. It an irreconcilable dispute between the two was prett,y well known-in fact, clearly Chambers, it has always appeared to me ascertained-that the Council would not that a dissolution of the two Chambers, pass a measure for payment of mem­for the purpose of appealing to two bel's; and, as the honorable member for different constituencies, is entirely at Emerald Hill (Mr. Nimmo) pointed out variance with the principles of the British last night, they went beyond their func­Constitution. It would be more in hal'- tions by adopting an address to the mony with that Constitution to provide Governor requesting His Excellency not that, in t.he event of a dissolution taking to allow payment of members to be pro­place, the measure in dispute should vided for on the E!:!timates. The members become law, even wit.hout the consent of the Assembly had passed a land tax, of the Council, if a certain proportion of and therefore the other Chamber deter­the members of the Assembly-say 48 mined they should be punished by being out of 86-were returned in favour of it. deprived of £300 a year as reimbursement The honorable member for Boroondara for their parliamentary expenses. The said that all the disputes which have necessary provision for payment of mem­hitherto occurred. between the two Houses bers was placed on the Estimates and have arisen on questions of privilege. embodied in the Appropriation Bill, and The honorable, member was right to a consequently the Council rejected the certain extent, but this statement was Appropriation Bill. The question of only half the truth. The first dispute privilege was then raised, but, if there had occurred in 1865, in consequence of the not been a difference of opinion between protect.ive Tariff illtroduced by the Go- tho two Houses on the other very material vernment of tho day. Tho Council woro matter, the qnestion of privilege would thoroughly opposed to that Tariff. It llever lmve Hrisen. The Bill now before wa!:! known beforehand, and well ullder- us aims at popularizing the other Cham­stood, that they were dotermined it should ber in the truest sense; and I think not pass. we have reason to believe that, if it be-

Mr. R. lVI. SMITH. - I think the comes law, disputes between the two honorable member is wrong. I am not Houses, either on questions of privilege or aware that there was any public or official matters of general legislation, will, in utterance by the Upper House of an in- future, not occur anything like so fre­tention to throw out the Tariff. They quontJy as they have done in the past. I novel' had an opportunity of considering it am one of those who believe that they before it was tacked. to the Appropriation will not arise at all. Before I sit down, Bill. I will express my earnest hope, in the

Mr. LAUR.ENS.-I did not say that presence of the leader of the Opposition, the U ppel' House stated in a pu1.>lic or that we all mean bllsiness on this occasion. ofIicialtuanneL' that they would. not pass I am not going to assert anything. I the Tariff, but the honorable gentleman I take it that some of t.hose who sit around

Reform Bill. [MARCH 3.J Sixth ])light's Debate. 1527

me' hn.ve perhapsbeen too positive ill their assertions. I do not wish to vaunt whn.t I will do under certain contingencies; but I will endeavour, as far as in me lies, to have some fruition from this debate-the last, I hope, on the reform question. I trust that the present measure-perhaps with some modification-will find a place on the statute-book.

Mr. LONGMORE.-Sir, the liberal party hn.ve been taunted with having for­gotten all the principles for which we fought for years; and I must say, in sor­row, that we have been compelled to abandon one position after another during the last four years. I ask honorable mem­bers clearly to understand that the other branch of the Legislature has succeeded in keeping this House absolutely at bay after three or four years of the greatest possible turmoil. I don't acknowledge the right of 30 gentlemen, nominally repre­senting 30,000 persons, but in ren.lity the nominees of 1,000, to stop business for all time. Those gentlemen have not to go for re-election to their constituents. If anyone attempts to win a seat from them, he is punished very severely for his temerity. The Melbourne Club and Scott's Hotel nominate the men who are to be elected to the Council, and no other men can get seats there. How does it become those honorable members of this House who have fought for the other branch of the Legislature, and have succeeded in defeating our efforts to get the country governed by the people for the people-

. how does it become them, I ask, to cast slights at us because we have not been successful ill our attempts? Believing, as I do, that the great mass of the people

. ought to have the governing of the colony, I agreed with the first Berry Reform Bill, which prevented-directly and absolutely prevented-the other branch of the Legis­lature from interfering in any way what­ever in money matters. 'vVe have got that power under the Constitution Act, but it has been given away by cravens in this Chamber, and we canllot have it and ex­ercise it unless we are sure of the men on the Treasury bench. The first Reform Bill was lost. It did not interfere with the eonstitution of the other Chamber, but it gave the power to that Cham­ber, when it came into conflict with this House, t.o ask t.he people whetber the COllllcil ·was rigllt or the Assembly was right. Tha.t was au enOl'mOllt; conces­sion to the conservatives-to the 11000

men who have secured territory in the colony. The Council, however, knew full well the answer which would be given by the people in such a case, and consequently it rejected the measure. The Berry Go­vernment brought in another Reform Bill, which provided, in a mueh quieter way, for the prevention of dead-locks. It pro­posed that if the other branch of the Legislature-representing, as I have said, 1,000 people who have seeured territory­stopped Supplies, and interfered with the appropriations for the year, this House could deal with the matter afresh, and pay the moneys upon its own vote. Surely it was reasonable that the peopleshonld have the right to pay their own moneys as they liked; but the 30 gentlemen in the other House, representing the Melbourne Club and Scott's Hotel, said "No." Honor­able members sitting on the opposition benches in this Cham bel' also said "No," for they have always acted and spoken in unison with honorable members of another place. That Bill also provided that the nominee princi pIe should be applied to the Upper I-louse, and I say that is the right system to adopt. I have always held that if tbe Constitution of this colony is to be on the lines of the British Constitution, the Government must have the right of nominating the members of the Upper Chamber, just as in England the Govern­ment haye the right of appointing mem­bers of the HouF:le of Lords. We were anxious to get our Constitution framed, as much as circumstances would permit, on the lines of the British Constitution, be­cause that is the Constitution which has lasted longest in the world. I do not say it is the best Constitution; indeed it is the Constitution which has enabled the land­lords of Great Britain and Ireland to wring the life's blood out of the cultivators of the soil. Yet I was willing that our Constitution should follow the lines of the British Constitution; and the adop­tion of the nominee system for the Upper House was . perhaps the best mode of accomplishing that object. \Vhel'e is the nominee system now? It is gone where James Service now is. It is "a gone coon "-it is "up a tree." That having been laid aside, we also gave up the right of appeal to the people in the last extre­mity-the plebiscite. Honorable members opposite say that the plebiscite is un­English. \IVe kllow it is. Vote by ballot was nn-English when it was a.dopted in this colony, but it became English when

1628 Reform Bill. [Af'SEMBLY.] Second Reading.

England followed in our footsteps. For­merly chartists, who demanded liberty for England, were sent to Van Diemen's Land and to Botany Bay for their temerity, but the very things they demanded are the law of the land at the present. moment.

An HONORABUi} MEl\fBER.-All but one.

Mr. LONGMORE.-And that one will very soon be law, I hope. I have now given a short sketch of the troubles we have gone through in trying to serve our masters in another place, because, after all, that is what we have been doing. We have been allowed at any time to pass any legislation which did not touch property, but if we touched property with the tip of our finger we could do nothing -we could not get our measure passed into law.

Mr. R. M. SMITH.-What do you call the land tax ?

Mr. LONGMORE.-Oh, the members of the Council thought, by throwing that sprat, to catch a mackere1. They had their own ends in view when they passed the land tax, and they have regretted it ever since. We have been twenty years trying to pass a Mining on Private Pro­perty Bill, and the other House has kept us at bay all that time. I don't acknow­ledge the right. of the Council to do any such thing, and it ought not to be per­mitted to do any such thing. Well, we have now adopted the view which seemed to be particularly well liked by some members of the Opposition. We propose by the present Bill that the ratepayers' roll shall be the basis of the franchise for the Council. Gentlemen very anxious to pose before the public as advanced liberals often spoke in favour of the ratepayers' roll when they knew that gentlemen in another place were determined not to consent to it, but now they are caught iu their own net, and they cannot vote against the proposal without being guilty of the greatest inconsistency. We will accept their votes on t)1is occasion. We will have their votes in spite of themselves. They will be compelled to vote for some­thing which they never expected wonld come on the tapis. They are so kind, oblig­ing, and complimentary at present ! We are all the happiest fa,mily in creation for the nonce, but it is only for the present mo­ment allow me to tell honorable members. It is. not necessary for me to enter on the merits of the Bill fra,med by Mr. Service. The elimination clause which he proposed

would have placed. this House under the feet of the Legislative Council for all time. That was what he intended to do, and what he has got his ovations for, even though he was not successful. However, Mr. Service could not leave the colony without another kick at the "so-called liberals," as he terms them, and then he bolted before anybody had the time to reply. Mr. Service stated, at the Town Hall, the other evening, that" larrikinism in politics" ought to be put down; and I .say it is time that turncoats in politics were turned out of public life. Why Mr. Service commenced his political life as a chartist, and he ends it as an obstructionist of the worst possible character. I am sorry the honorable member for the Ovens (Mr. Kerferd) is not in his place, because, when I interjected a word or two the other night, he said that, although I voted against the elimination clause, in the most crawling manner I voted for dividing the Payment of Members Bill. But the fact is that I did not vote for the division of the BilJ, and, had I been in the Honse at the time, I won Jd not have voted for it for more reasons than one. So that t.he honorable member was "barking up the wrong tree." Honorable members may think that they are now going to have a nice calm pleasant time-that we are all agreed about the necessity for settling the reform question-but have they not seen the little cloud, not bigger than a man's hand, raised by the honorable mem­ber for Boroondara, the other night, when he asked this House to hand over the Government Reform Bill to a committee of this Rouse and a committee of the Legislative Council? That was as much as asking this Rouse to give up every. one of its privileges at once. Who ever heard of snch a thing as a Bill brought before this House being submitted to the other branch of the Legislature before it could be discussed here? The honorable member for Boroondara is true-as true as a magnet to the pole-to his instincts in favour of the other Chamber, and the treading down of the people's rights in this Honse. Let me tell honorable mem­bers that this calm is the calm before the storm-that they will never get this Bill through the other branch of the Legis­lature. The first move has been made. The Council's Bill lies on our table, and they are demanding a conference before this Bill passes this House. vVbat for? To eliminate clauses, involving the rights

Reform Bill. [MARCH 3.J Sixth Night's Debate. 1629

of the people, from our Bill, and to insert other clauses instead. I say, Mr. Speaker, that these are things for honorable mem­bers to look closely into. I assert that the conspiracy is only just now going on-that it will burst upon honorable members, like a thunder-cloud, when they least expect it. I say that these men in the other branch of the Legislature have no more intention of giving up their hold upon the people's rights than they ever had; and all the talk about modera­tion comes from a beaten party, that can do nothing but say-" Oh! you have whipped us"; be moderate if you please."" Where was their moderation when they sat upon the Treasury benches? From the time of Sir James McCulloch's" iron hand" down to the present moment" when­ever the conservatives have got on those benches,nothing has been heard of mode­ration. Notwithstanding all the fine say­ings of the Minister of Railways about moderation, let us do our duty, as he will be forced to do his duty. He will find thl-lt there is no moderation on the other side-that the cry is one simply to throw us off our gnard until they can get con­cessions which will enable them to SllftP

their fingers at us. The Council's Bill makes provision of that sort in a way which shows that they intend to hold their power with the tightest possible grasp. A return has recently been laid before the Legislative Council, at the in- " stance of Sir Charles Sladen, showing the ratepayers of different classes in the colony-those rated under £10, those rated at from £10 to £15, and so on up to £150. The total number of rat.epayers on the rolls of the colony is from 160,000 to 180,000, but those rated at £150 and upwards number only a very few above 4,000. The Council's. Bill provides that freeholders whose property is rated at £150 at least, and is free of all encum­brance, shall be eligible for seats in the Upper House. Let honorable members try to realize the meaning of that. The Council will have no objection to liberalize the franchise for that House so long as the electors have no other choice, with regard to the men to be elected, than they have already. I think it is a moderate estimate to take 2,000 out of the 4,000 who are rated. at £150 and upwards as men who have encumbrances on their pro­perties; Etnd of the 2,000 left it may be said that only 1,000 will cnre anything about politics. Thus we are left with 1,000

I men who have seized the territory; and they are determined that they alone shall have seats in the other branch of the Legislature. On this basis, the proportion of freeholders eligible for seats in the Council would be, in Ballarat city, 1 in 90 ; in Ballarat East., 1 in 150; and in Buninyong, 1 in 237. But take Colac, where we come among the very men I speak of. There the proportion of eligible men would be 1 in 9. In Dunmunkle, the proportion is 1 in 7 ; but in Geelong West it is I in 30. In the shire of Glenelg the proportion is 1 in 8, and in the shire of Hampden, which I have the honour of represen tiFlg, the proportion is 1 in 10. It is not necessary to go further into this matter, but I assert confidently that under the Council's Bill, the 1,000 men who" have seized the territory of Victoria can hold three-fourths of the seats in the other Chamber in spite of all the country can do. Sir, it suits these men to call us "larrikins "--to talk about a liberal Go­vernment as a curse to the colony. It may snit a mnn who presided over a con­servative meeting, during the time the Service Ministry were in office, to say that "now we have a respectable lot of men in, and not a. band of ruffians." That was Dodgshun, the softgoods man, who, if he had his deserts, would by this time have been in Pentridge.

Mr. FRANCIS.-Shame ! Mr. LONGMORE.-Why that man got

men to swear falsely to secure land for him; and a board that I appointed to in­quire into the matter took away the land from him because he had offended against the Land Act. Of courRe, they are bound to keep up their own respecta­bility when they talk about "larrikins" on the side opposed to them. We are "larrikins" if we say one word against them. I warn honorable members on the Government benches that we have given up as much as ever any liberal in the colony should give up for t.he sake of peace, only to be taunted with want of consistency. I say that our present Con­stitution, under proper management by proper men, is better than an amended Constitution nnder which we give up everything. vVe have given up every item that we could possibly give up with honour. We have gone even to the verge of dishonour in attempts to conciliate men who "will not be reconciled to anything but the people's money in their pockets; and I say it is our duty to stand by the

1630 Refm'm Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Second Reading.

Bill now before the House, and seo that it becomes law. If we consent to any alteration, we will take upon. ourselves a very heavy responsibility.

'.Mr. BARR.-Mr. Speaker, I am very much pleased to be able to congratulate the Honse upon the tone in which the debate has been conducted up to the present. Yet I think the honorable momber for Ripon must be right in his prognostications about the coming storm. Already the rnutterings of thunder are heard, and by-and-by, I dare say, we shall experience the full force of t.he gale. But, recently, there has been a great deal of talk about moderation. "Ve have heard of it from the pnblic platform and from leading articles in newspapers; and I 'waut to know whether this moderation is to be practised on Olle side only or on both, and whether the millennium is about to arrive, when the lions and the lambs will lie down together in peace? I would also like to kuow whether it is moderation to accuse the Government of corruption; or to refer to a politicn.! party-as the Argus diel on the 24th February - as " snakes"? Is it moderation for gentlemen appointed to decide between the claims of two rival candidates, in the conservative interest, to choose a gentleman who for­merly represented Sandhnrst, and who, while he occupied a seat in this House, if he acquired nothing else, acquired a

'repntation for" nagging" ? Mr. BURROWES.-He is not present. Mr. BARR.-As far as bis private

character is concerned, I like the gentle:.. man I refer to as well as I like a great many others; but I say that, as a member of this House, he WitS not a model of moderation. As a sample of the modera­tion advocated by honorable members in opposition, we are asked to send the Reform Bill, before we have dealt wit,h it ourselves, to a joint committee of the two Houses. But "'ere those honorable gentle­men influenced by the same kind of mode­rn,tion when they sat on the Ministerial benches? Where was the moderation of the la,te leader of the Opposition when, on it being suggested t.hat his Reform Bill should be sent to a joint committee of the two Houses, he refused point-blank, and declared he wonld sooner loso his posi­tion. The honorable member for Cres­,yick (Mr.Cooper), who has 1.he faculty of yeiling his thoughts in peculiar Ja.nguage, wants a Rett]ell1ent of the rel'orm ques­tion that shall be "commensurate in its

dimensions." My education has been so fa.r neglected that I am unable to realize what this phrase amounts to. I suppose the honorable member means that a thing is "commensurate in its dimensions" when it is "all square." The honorable mem­ber suggests that the Reform Bill should be remitted for settlement to a joint com­mittee of the two I-louses; but if that idea is a good one, and can be carried out in its entirety, I don't see why members shonld sit 1Iere at, all. Why should not six of our number be appoint;d to perform the legislation devolving upon this Honse, and the other mem bei:s be allowed quietly to enjoy their rest at home? I mnst congratulate the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Bosisto) upon having made a discovery in connexion with one provision of the Bill-a discovery which I think ought to be placed on record. The honorable member referred to the pro­vision that a member of the Legislative Council must be 30 years of age, and expressed his approval of the provision on the ground that a man, after living so long, ought to possess considerable tact. If that argument be sound, and if tact increases witLt age, I can point out an oM gentleman who is said to be over 100, and who would make a capital repre­sentative. I may say that I was one of those who supported the proposal of the plebiscite which was conta'1ned in a former Reform Bill. I believe in a public ques­tion about which the two Houses fail to agree being remitted for settlement not to conferences or joint committees, but to the people themselves. I believe any question about which the Houses may differ can be placetl before the people in a few simple words, for them to say simply " Yea" or "Nay" with respect to it. And, believing thi~, I am sorry the Bill does not recognise to a greater extent the power of the people. Yet I fully realize the wisdom of the maxim that mortals must creep before they run, and I con­sitler it better to have instalments of reform tilan no reform at all. Therefore the prudent course is to take all you can get, and always be grasping for more. On that principle, I say let us have what reform it is possihle to obtain, although it may not include the plebiscite. The Bill does not altogether please me, and yet it contains mn,ny things which I feel bQllnd to support.. One is the pl'ovision for the creation of 30 clec­torates, eneh returning one member. I

Rejol'm Bill. [MAUCII 3.J Sixtl" Ni,r; Itt's Debate. 1631

consider that a great step in ndvance. I regard it as calculated to bring the Legislative Council more under the con­trol and supervision of the people; and. I shall be only too happy to assist in carrying ont a similar arrangement in connexion whh elect.ions tor this House. I approve also of the provision abolishing the property qualification for, the Upper Chamber. Why should there be any qualification for that Honse? Is it to restrict the choice of the electors to such au extent that none but wealthy men shall be their representatives? . If we intend to liberalize the Legisla,tive Council, one of the best steps to tnke is to cut aw:ty the property qualification altogether. With regard to the qualification of electors for the Legislative Council, I don't see why the proposal contained in this Bill should not be accepted by the Upper House. One feature of the measure passed. by the Legislative Couucil for its ,'own reform is the reduction of the qualification for electors. They propose to draw the line at a £40 rating; Mr. Service vms for going still lower; and we propose the ratepayers' roll. Let me .ask what dif­ference will it make whether the elect.ora,l qualification be a rating of £10 or £9 lOs.­~f £50 or £20-so long as the person elected must have a property qualificat.ion? The man with a low rating m~Ly be as good a citizen as the mun with, a high rating, or even a better; he may. be as well educated, and he may have a much greater interest in the well-being of the country and the ultimate success of its institutions. Therefore I go in for making the rate­payers'roll the basis of representation in the Upper House, and, considering how far honorable members in opposition and honomble members elseYl'here have gone in reducing the qualification of electors, I cannot see how t hey arc prevented, by conscientious scruples, from adopting the Government proposition. If honorable members in opposition a.nd honorable members of another place are in en,rnest in their desire that the burning question of reform shall be removed from the notice­paper, and that peace and qnietness shall be restored to this country, I call upon them to give the Bill a unanimous support.

Mr. GARDINER.-Mr. Speaker, at the commencement of this debate it was not my intention to take any part in it, bnt SOBle of the speeches delivcl:cd hy ,honorable loembers on tbe opposition .side ;;of tbe House have led me to cbange my

mind. In those speeches, and particularly in the speech delivered by the honorable member for Boroondara, allusion is made to this Bill as a rapid stride in a demo­cratic direction. Says the honol'able member for Boroondara-

" Democracy never goes back, though it may go on to re\'olutionary changes, with results that extinguish both liberty and democracy. Democracy is eminently consernl.tive, in respect at least of never going backwards; and it is fot: that reason above aU others that it behoves us to be cautious in adopt.ing all these democratic changes in a hurry-to be careful in making what is, to a certain extent, a leap in the dark."

The honorable member for the Ovens (Mr. Kerfel'd) is disposed to take a similar view. He remarks-

"Once tbe Legislative Council is re-created on the basis proposed by the Ministry, it will be utterly impossible to provide mechanism for adj usting differences."

He contends that the present is the time to provide means for adjusting differences between the two Chambers, and he adds-

"To take advantage of the opportunity will be to prevent a blunder which not only will be an injury to ourselves, but which will leave to future generations a difficulty which will try the country seritmsly, and may be the means of plunging it into a civil war."

Phrases such as " a leap in the dark" and " civil war" are calculated to make honor­able members, and especially young mem­bers, consider carefully the effect of the vote they are a.bout to give. For my part, I entertain no gloomy anticipations as to the future of the colony .. even if this Bill be adopted, and become a part of the Constitution of the colony. I believe that the democratic principles embo<.lied in tl~e scheme of reform submitted to the country, and reproduced in this Bill, did more to secnre the return to this House, on the 14th Jlliy, of a liberal mn,jority than a.ny­thing else in the libeml programme. It has been stated that the late Ministry were "lied out of office" - tha.t their defeat was brought about chiefly by the circulation through the country of false reports, and particularly the report attri­buting to Mr. Service the statement that a working man could live in a tent on the half of lOs. per week; but I contend that what helped most to bring political ruin on the late Premier and the conservative party vms Mr. Service's ueclaration, when in ofHce, with regard to his own measure of reform, that he wonld have" the Bill, the whole 13ill, and nothing but the BilL." It is clear tlw,t, with all liis shrewclness

1632 Call of tlte House. [ASSEMBLY.] Reform Bill.

and political experience, Mr. Service mis­took the signs of the times. He evidently thought that the victory which he and his party gained on the 28th February would bo augmented by the general election on thc 14th July, and no one could have been more disappointed with the result than himself. .And now I desire to offer a word of warning to honorable members on this (the Ministerial) side of the HOllse. There is a great deal of cooing and wooing on the part of honorable members in oppo­sition, in order to induce the majority to consent to the Bill being remitted to a committee of the two I-louses; but I hope honorable members with whom I am associated will not throwaway the present chance of carrying a reform of the Constitution, which I believe will be beneficial to the country and its people. The political honour of the liberal party is at stake, and also its political life. Indeed the party might say with Mow­bray, Duke of Norfolk, in the play of Richard tlte Second-

" Mine' honour is my life; both grow in one; Take honour froll me and my life is done."

The liberal party have been returned in a majority to the HOllse, and it is their duty to stick to their pledges to the country and not to be misled by any cajoling from the other side.

CALL 'OF THE HOUSE.

The order of the day for the call of the House having been l:ead,

Mr. BERRY moved--" That the House be called over."

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

Mr. BERRY moved-"That the SerjeaDt-at-Arms do go to the

places adjacent; aDd summon the members there to attend the service of the House."

This motion was also agreed to. The Serjeant-at-Arms went accord­

iugly, and, having returned, the House was called over.

Eighty-three members answered to their names. The absentees were MI'. McLean and Mr. Story, who were excused.

REFORM BILL.

The debate on the Reform Bill was then continued. .

Mr. GILLIES.--lVlr. Speaker, I desire to say a few words on this Bill, and I can assure honorable members that it is not my intention to occupy their time to any great extent. The character of the present

debate is very different from that of any previous one in this House with reference to reform, and it is quite unnecessary, as honorable members have practically acknowledged by the brevity of their speeches, to discuss the present Reform Bill in the same exhaustive. manner as the three previous Bills were dealt with. I wish, nevertheless, before this Bill is read a second time, to say a few words not only on the Bill·itself, but with reference to what has led up to it. It is not my intention to make any quotations from the speeches of honorable members on pre­vious occasions, because I think it has been acknowledged on all hands that if we were to look in this Bill for the views previously expressed by the honorable members who support it, we would fail to find them re­produced in it. In dealing with the Bill, I think if we are to understand it proper1y~ and to determine how we ought to treat it, we must take a short glance back to recall how the subject of reform has been brought upon us. I am sure there are no members of the House but will acknowledge that the way in which constitutional reform

. was pressed upon the attention of Parlia­ment was in consequence of well-known difficulties that arose between the two branches of the l-,egislature. Those diffi­culties originated principally in differences on the subject of Money Bills, but the differences were not confined to that q ues­tion, and extended also to matters of im­portant general legislation, and I think honorable members will admit that up to the present time this is the first occasion on which the Assembly has been called upon to discllss the question of reform apart altogether from the origin of the circumstances under which it was first brought under the consideration of the Legislature. The first Bill submitted to this House with reference to constittitional reform, which really proposed to deal with the difficulties which both Houses had ex­perienced in dealing with important public questions, was the Francis Bill. That Bill, as everyone knows, was not merely a measure to alter the constitution of the Legislative Council by simply reducing the franchise. It had a far higher and more important end in view, and that was to prevent dead-locks, and to obtain some solution of the difficulties that had oc­curred between the two Houses on sub­jects of general legislation. That was its primary object. The Bill failed to pass the Legislature, but the subject

8t!cond Reading. [MARCil 3.J Slxtlt Nigltt's Debate. 1633

which it primarily dealt with was not lost sight of either by Parliament or the country, because when the next difficulty cropped up between the two Chambers another Bill, having the same object, was submitted by the present Chief Secretary in his first Reform Bill. That measure also proposed to solve difficulties with respect to money questions and subject.s of general legislation. It also failed to become law; but on the next opportunity the honorable member had of dealing with the question-in his second Reform Bill-the same main principle was not lost sight of. He sought to deal with the ques­tion of constitutional reform from exactly the same stand-point as before-namely, to find a solution for the settlement of the difficulties between the two Houses in some mechanical manner. Now the great difference between the present and all the preceding Reform Bills is that this Bill ignores altogether the origin of the diffi­culties that have occurred between the two Houses, and proposes a solution not of those difficulties, but, it may be, of difficulties that may arise in matters of ordinary legislation. I confess candidly that I have some difficulty in under­standing what the honorable members who submit and support this measure are driving at.· I could understand, and have nnderstood from the beginning, that it was desirable to make some provision by which the two branches of the Legis­lature would not come into collision in such a manner as to create dead-locks, and would not have a permanent difference on matters of general legislation. All hon­orable members who have discussed pre­vious Reform Bills have contended that until some provision of that kind was made it was utterly impossible to carry out the very proposals now contained in this Bill. The Chief Secretary over and over again pointed out, even when the Service Reform Bill was before Parliament, that it ought to be the very last act of the Legislature to widen the franchise of the Council until some provision was first secured for settling difficulties and dead-locks. Now the Government, and notably the Chief Secretary, has been asked what is the meaning of this complete change of front for which no reason has been assigned ? If we are to believe the utterances .of honorable members opposite in times gone by, the great difficulty constantly staring us in the face was, as they asserted, the usurpation of authority by the Legislative

Council in matters of finance. Yet now the Government do not propose to deal with that question at all, although no later than last Parliament we had the present Chief Seeretary, as the mouth­piece and leader of the Opposition, laying down the dictum that until the question of the authority of the Assembly in finance was settled it would be impossilJle for the liberal party in this coun try to agree to widen the suffrage of the Council. What I want to know is, am I anu are other honorable members to understand, with reference to the present Bill, that that claim has been abandoned? Because there is no getting away from this position -that either that contention of .the Chief Secretary, when leader of the Opposition, was a wrong one, or else this Bill is a wrong one. The honorable member then contended in the most unmistakable manner that to broaden the basis of the Legislative Council before the financial difficulties between the two Houses were first settled would be the greatest pos­sible blunder that the Legislature could make. N ow there is a complete change of front, and the honorable member pro­poses to do that which he and his friends so strongly condemned in the last Parlia­ment. I want to know what are we to understand by that change? We all know that· the honorable member for Maldon, when head of the Government, while he did all he could to widen the basis of the Legislative Couneil, at the same time accompanied his proposals for that purpose with other provisions which he believed would settle the financial difficulties be­tween the two Houses and those on matters of ordinary legislation and wouILl prevent dead-locks; so that his Bill also recognised the originating cause of the differences between the two Houses. In fact, up to the present time no party in this colony has ever for a moment con­tended that it was necessary to materially alter our Constitution unless there was an effort made to deal with the difficulties that have arisen between the two branches of the Legislature. Up to the introduction of the present Bill, all parties were at one on that subject. No doubt they were not at one as to the best means that could be adopted to bring about that result, but as to the indispensable necessity of securing the result as soon as possible all parties in this House l;tnd the country were agreed. That being so, I am justified in saying that we must consider this Bill as

1634 ilejorm Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Second Reading.

a very remarkable depa.rture from the I this Bill is only like some of the other reform that has hitherto beon recognised Reform Bills th:1t wero submitted by tho as necessary by all parties. Tho first present Chief' Secretary, and which wore intimation of this new departure took supported by honorable members who sub­place in a very peculiar manner. In the sequently declared that they did not believe debate on the Service Reform Bill, the in luost import.ant portions of them, then, proposal to widen the franchise of the I say, that kind of support is not the Council was denounced by any number of honest support which Members of Parlia­members who are now sitting on the ment ought to give ~o an important public Government side of the House and sup- measure in which they have faith and porting the very principles they then con- confidence. I am perfectly certain that if demned. I do not say this merely for the honorable members had only had the purpose of pointing out the inconsistency courage of their opinions in discussing of honorable members. That is not my past Reform Bills, the question of reform object at all, and is n matter of com- would have been settled in a reasonable paratively little importance. I want, if and moderate manner ere now, and we possible, to get at the reason which has need never have been troubled with the caused the change in those honorable present Bill. If we are going to repeat members' minds. Is there any rea.son the fatal experiments that have been for it? going on in this country during the last

Mr. NIMMO.-W e want to change the three. years with regard to reform, I see spirit of the other House ·altogether. no hope of a substantial reform being

Mr. GILLIES.-The honorable mem- carried at all, because the difficulty is ber appears to forget that tbat was the that" honorable members opposite have very proposal that was denounced by bis submitted so many Bills and altered their party until the first desideratum was se- proposals so many times that it is impos­cured-namely, wbat honorable members sible to arrive at what they really and called the control of finance by this branch honestly believe in, and think ought to be of the Legislature. I grant that certain passed for the welfare of the country. honorable members of that party intimated :Thfr. TUCKER.-You never altered that they quite approved of the extension yours at all. of the frBtnchise of the Council, when the Mr. GILLIES.-I do not 'say that an Service Bill was before Parliament. but honorable merp.ber is not justified in alter­the bulk of the argument from the le~ders ing his views. All I say is that if honor­of tbe party was that until we had first able membera who supported previous secured full control of financial matters Reform Bills, totally opposed to this one, for this House, either by an aclmowledg- have'really changed their opinIons, it is ment from the Council itself or by legis- desirable that Parliament should know it. lation, it would be folly, and worse than Returning to the occasion upon which folly-it would be a crime-for tbe liberal tbis complete change of fl;ont was made, party to agree to popularize the Upper honorable members will recollect the House in any way whatever. Now bas strong condemnation which the proposed this cbange of front been caused by a broadening of the basis of the Council in radical, real, and honest alteration in the the Service Reform Bill met with from sentiments of the gentlemen who so re- the then Opposition. But does not every cently entertained the opinion I have just honorable member know that, whatever mentioned? I am justified in asking the might be said of other portions of the question, for oil the answer to it depends Service Bill, that proposal was beyond all the manner in which this Bill ought to be question poplliar in the country? There regarded. If there has not been an bonest was not a solitary public· meeting in the change of opinion, then the Bill is a sham; country at which the broa~ening of the and if there has, then, I say, those gentle- franchise for the Council was not hailed men who have honestly changed their 3S a great boon by the people. Bu~ that views on the subject of reform ought to feeling did not accord with the vie~s ~d­have the courage to avow that change. vocated by the present Chief Secreta.ryas If they only said-" We believe we were leader of the Opposition. He w~~ de­mistaken in the past, and we have now nouncing the proposal while the people come to think differently," then we would were supporting it. While l.be public out­be in a position to see eye to eye, and, of-doors were clamouring to be permitted possibly, to work hand in hand. But if to have the right to vote for members of

Reform Bill. [MATICH 3.J 1635

the Council, the honorable member and his friends were assailing the proposition in this Honse as an interference with the right of the Assembly not only to control in finance, but to' deal with the general legislation of the country almost in de­fiance· of the Conncil.

Mr. L. L. SMITH.-That was the Chief' Secretary, not the party.

Mr. G ILLIES.-The Chief Secretary and a number of others. The opposition was not confined to him at all, and, more­over, as leader of the Opposition, he was the mouth-piece of the party for the time being. vVhat was the result of that strange state of things-the Chief See­retary and his friends denouncing the extension of the franchise for the Council, and the people outside supporting it? vVhen the Service Reform Bill failed to obtain a majority in the Assembly, and. it was known that Mr. Service had ob­tained a dissolution from the Governor, then, for the first time, did we hear from the party opposite a number of proposals somewhat similar to those contained in the present Bill. A caucns was held, and beyond doubt it was pointed out at that caucus by several astute members· that it would never do to go to the country opposed to the popularization of' the Legis­lative Council-that it would be simply ruin to oppose the most popular proposal in that Bill, as we are told the present Chief Secretary wanted his friends to do. Then came the sudden change of front. Then, for the first time, came this proposal to popularize the Council from the gentlemen who had resisted it io the utmost only a week or two previously. All these circumstances, I say, must be borne in mind in order that we may be able to understand whether this is a sham Bill, or whether it is a real honest proposal 'from the Government as a solution of the question of constitutional reform. Let me now come to the proposals that were submitted after that caucus by the present Chief. Secretary, as leader of the Opposi­tion, to the electors of the colony. As was pointed out by the honorable member for Belfast the other evening, the very first proposition set out in that address, and the most important principle which the liberal party have always contended for-namely, the complete supremacy of the Assembly in matters of finance-finds no echo whatever in the present Bill. If

·that proposal was considered important enough to be .given the. first place ·in the

programme of the liberal party, I ask how is it that the present Bill does not contain some proposition of the kind? As it does not, I maintain that it is idle to say that this is the Bill that was submitted to the country. I unhesitatingly assert that this Bill was not submitted to the country. I can understand that the proposals con­tained in the manifesto to the country might bo perfectly consistent with the claims advocated by the honorable mem­ber when in office and when in oppo­sition. If he had first secured financial control and then proceeded to hroadon the basis of the Council, that would not be inconsistent with the views he has always hitherto expressed. But according to his own acknowledgment he has in this Bill " put the cart before the horse." In his own langnage, he is placing a weapon in the hands of the Council which will make them far more powerful for resistance than they ever were before. The Service Government, as has been pointed out, were all along in favour of broadening the basis of the Council, but at the sarno time they believed it 'was ~tbsolutely necessary to provide for the settlement of dead-locks, if they ever occurred, and, if possible, to prevent them occurring.

Mr. BERRY.-Your Bill would have gi ven the Council all they ever asked for.

Mr. GILLIES.-There.is a difference of opinion between the honorable member and others on that point, and I venture to say that the amount of support which the proposal to prevent dead-locks received in the country even at the last general election must have startled the honorable gentleman himself. We were told that the whole of the people would rise almost as one man to defend what the honorable member was pleased to call the especial privileges of the Assembly. .

Mr. BERRY.-The elimination clause was never mentioned until after the elec­tion.

Mr. GILLIES.-I am referring to the last general election, when the question was undoubtedly submitted to the country by the late Government, after their defeat in Parliament. What was the response of the country? Was it an overwhelming majority in favour of the present Chief Secretary? No. Even this Bill tells that tale.

Mr. V ALE.-" Moderation." Mr. GILLIES.-I am not going to say

anything against moderation, I assure the

1636 Reform Blll. [ASSEMBLY.] Second Reading.

Attorney-General. But what Parliament and the country have a right to ask of the Chief Secretary is-Has he seriously changed his views on this subject? Or, if he has not changed his views, what are we to think of this Bill? No doubt some honorable members, such as the honorable member for Emerald Hill (Mr. Nimmo) and the honorable member for West Bourke (Sir B. O'Loghlen), candidly con­fessed that the Bill was not exactly what they liked. The latter said he sacrificed a large amount of his convictions in agreeing to the resolutions adopted at the caucus? I ask him where is resolution No.1, that was to give the power in finance to· the Assembly? Are we to come down to this House time after time, session after session, and to be changing front so constantly that the result is that the people of the country cannot believe a word we say-cannot believe tbat we have really and honestly considered the subject, and arrived at honest and con­scientions convictions upon it? I say such conduct has done more injury to the Legislative Assembly, and to parties in Victoria, than anything else. No one can deny but what it is one of the worst things any Parliament can be

. charged with, yet some honorable mem­bers are found constantly changing front on the most important public questions, and this is on.e of them. Perhaps I am justified in saying that the Chief Secre­tary and some other honorable members on his side of the House have really changed their opinions on the subject of reform, but yet we have heard other hon­orable members denying that there has been any alteration in their views, and declaring that they were simply prepared to accept this Bill as a stepping-stone to another. I give everycl'edit to those honorable members for that bold enuncia­tion of their views, but I venture to say that no Government will ever dare again to submit such a Reform Bill in the Vic­torian Assembly as the first Bill proposed by the present Chief Secretary. It has been acknowledged by the honorable mem­ber for Castlemaine (Mr. Pearson) that the Government were beaten on their Bill at the February election, and that the country did not approve of the Bill. Is that nothing gained?

Mr. BERRY.-But at what cost? Mr. GILLIES.-At the+ cost of the

better judgment of the country. Surely the electors of the colony are justified in

changing their views on better considera .. tion, as well as the Chief Secretary. When the honorable gentleman intr<?duced his first Reform Bill, it was pressed down our throats, not only as the best measure that could be submitted, but as a Bill that was supported by the great body of the people of the country. That Bill passed away, and then exactly the same thing was said of the second Bill, and it also disap­peared. And now we come to a third Refol'm Bill, still more diametrically opposed to the first than even the second was; and we are treated, with respect to it, to the old assurance, namely, that it has been sub­mitted to the country, that the country have approved of it, and that, therefore, honorable members on all sides of the I-louse ought to support it. Can we imagine a more complete and frequent change of front than that which honorable members opposite have indulged in with­out even offering any. justification for their conduct? Of course, if they would simply state they have changed their views, I would have nothing more to say, except to ask them not to be so very positive about any other Reform Bill they might introduce in the future. But when we find Ministers of the Crown, and especially the Chief Secretary, wbo has led so many Administrations, and commanded, more­over, the largest party by which any Government in this country has been backed, again making the old confident assertions about the views of the general public and the support afforded by them to the propositions that come from the Treasury bench, what are we to say? As a matter of fact, we have absolutely no confidence that tbis Bill has any more the support of the country orit-of-doors than the first. Berry Reform Bill had, or the second either; and have we not the testimony of the honorable member for Castlemaine (Mr. Pearson) that no sooner had the latter measure been laid before the country than it became necessary to put it on one side? Then, if this Bill is not the one which the leaders of the party now occupying the Ministerial benches submitted to the country at the last general election, and which honorable members opposite believe the country endorsed, surely they are free to vote against it, or against portions of it, as they think fit. 1 bave heard honorable members say, in justification of the sup­port they give to the Bill, that they will vote for it, not because they believe in it,

Reform Bill. [MARCH 3.] Sixtl~ Night's Dehate. 1637

but hecause they deem. themselves bound by it. For instance, the honorable mem­ber for Emerald Hill (Mr. Nimmo) told us that, inasmuch as he went to the country and was returned upon the Bill, he would be a traitor to his constituents if he did not give his voice for it. But, nevertheless, there is the fact that the Bill is not the measure the honorable member supported before his constituents.

1\1r. NIMMO.-All except one clause. Mr. GILLIES.-All except the begin­

ning, the middle, and the end. Why the contention respecting reform of the honor­able member's party has, for the last three years, been most distinctly that the popu­larization of the Upper House is quite a secondary consideration, and indeed-to use the Chief' Secretary's own words­not at all material. Did not the Chief Secretary also protest, in the name of the liberal party, against the reduction of the Council franchise below the £ to rate­payers?

Mr. NIMMO.-The provision relating to the financial powers of·the Assembly, which has been excised from the Bill, is already contained in the Constitution Act.

Mr. GILLIES.-It is curious to find the honorable member going so far away to discover a reason for his vote. If his statement is correct, what have we been fighting for all these years? What need was there for the first two Berry Reform Bills, or the programme submitted by the Ministerial party at the last general elec­tion? Why has the country been troubled to adopt this and that method of arrang­ing the relations hetween the Houses? I repeat to the honorable members who contend that they are compelled, whether they are willing or unwilling, to support the Bill, siinply because they pledged themselves to it before their constituents,

. that this is not the Bill they pledged themselves to, or upon which their con­stituents returne.d them; and, furthermore, that the Chief Secretary has over and over again declared that under no circumstances would he consent to the extension of the Council franchise unless provision were at the same time made for completely secur­ing to the Assembly absolute control over finance. Has he not said, more times than we can recollect, that he saw no reason or justification for two Legislative Chambers substantially elected on the same basis, because if there was to be only one elec­torate there need be only oue Chamber?

2ND SES. 1880.-5 X

I, too, have always held the opinion-and the more I have thought of the subject, the more my view respecting it has been strengthened-that it is not desirable that the second branch of the Legislature should reflect exactly the same body of opinions as the first. I know many hon­orable members on this side of the House have advocated the lowering of the Council franchise to the ratepayers' roll, but there is nevertheless no question that a Council so elected would, to all intents and purposes, exactly resemble the Assembly. Both bodies would be, as nearly as possible, elected by the same persons. Then I come to the arguments addressed to the House, the other evening, by the honor­able member for Portland, which, I think, were advanced without sufficient consi­deration. The honorable member was good enough to say-not for the first time -that the Legislative COmlcil has been of no good whatever as a stop-gap to any legislation this House had set its heart upon. But had he thought over the matter thoroughly, he would have become perfectly aware that his statement could have no true foundation. Un­questionably, if his contention is correct, there can be no need for any consti­tutional reform whatever. It may also be contended that, if whenever the As­sembly has made up its mind to insist on a thing it has always had its way, there can be no occasion, in a constitutional point of view, for any Council at all. Moreover, what valid charge can, under such circumstances, rest against the Coun­cil? As a matter of fact, we know that the Legislative Council has, over and over again, rejected measures which the Legislati ve Assembly had adopted by very strong majorities. Is it not that very state of things that has led to all these proposals for altering the Constitution so that it should be possible for the Council to be overruled ?

Mr. WRIXON.-Name one such mea­sure.

Mr. GILLIES.-Look at the various dead-locks we have had. It is amply sufficient for my purpose that the honor­able member was reminded the other night, to his evident surprise, of the Coun­cil's repeated refusal to pass a Mining on Private Property Bill. Then glance at how the first Berry Reform Bill was car­-ried here by an overwhelming majority, and how it was treated elsewhere. In order to render the honorable member's

1638 Rejorm Bill. tASSEMBLY.j Second Reading.

contention a well-founded one, that mea­sure should be now upon our statute-book. One of the strongest reasons why the second Chamber ought not to be an abso­lute reflex of the first is that, if it were so, it would not be able, with respect to any measure of importance, to afford that delay-that time for re-discussion and re­consideration-which is often found to be of extreme value to the community. For example, there is the Reform Bill I last alluded to. No Government will ever attempt to bring in such a measure again. That is complete proof that in dealing with the Bill the Council exercised its true func­tion, whi.ch is not to resist the moderately and deliberately expressed opinion of the country, but to give the country time to digest its views, and so bring them to maturity. Indeed, our constitutional his­tory contains no better instance of the value of a second Chamber than that afforded by the Council when it resisted the action of the Government with respect to the Reform Bill of 1878, supported though it was by an overwhelming majo­rity of the popular branch of the Legisla­ture. Because what was it the Council resisted? An attempt to overcome our Constitution altogether, and to hand over to any Government in office, that had a majority of the Assembly at their back, the rights, privileges, and liberties of the people of this country. I assert that at none of the public meetings I have addressed t~roughout the length and breadth of the colony have I ever found any considerable body of the electors ready to consent for a moment to handing over to one branch of the Legislature sole and supreme con­trol over the national affairs of the colony. We must not forget that the fundamental principle of the measure I allude to was not only that this Chamber should be supreme in finance, but that the Assembly should be able to declare any Bill a finan­cial Bill, and that, if the Council refused' to pass it, it could be made law over their heads. It is one satisfactory result of the power of resistance possessed by the second branch of the Legislature that that Bill, like its successor containing the 6th clause, has found its way to the waste-paper basket. Furthermore, we must not lose sight of the circumstance that the action of the Council to which I refer was fully supported by that of the electors in February, 1880. However much we may condemn the course taken by the Council on different occasions-I

Mr. Gillies.

have myself frequently expressed objec­tion to its proceedings-it stands on the records of Parliament that our Upper Chamber rendered valuable service to liberty and freedom when it prevented the establishment of government by one House of Legislature. While we have heard many objections, on the ground taken up formerly so strongly by the Chief Secretary, to lowering the Council franchise to the ratepayers' roll, we have scarcely had one solitary argument put forward in answer to the remarks of the honorable member for Belfast when he pointed out the complete change in our Constitution the alteration would effect. The honorable member for Portland did not attempt to touch the view the honor­able member for Belfast expressed. All he . did was to pooh-pooh it-to throw ridicule upon it. But let honorable mem­bers consider for a moment the position in which the second branch of the Legisla­ture would be placed if it was elected 011-

substantially the same basis as the first branch. In the· first place, it would doubt­less frequently pass measures sent up to it from the Assembly on which the country would like more deliberation. Then upon other occasions it would probably say­"Why should we not, considering the ex­tended character of our basis of repre­sentation, contend with the Legislative Assembly for control over finance?" Is there any reason why it should not, under the circumstances, set up such a conten­tion? Again, is it not extremely likely that it would insist more strongly than ever it has done before upon the Govern­ment being more largely and more fairly represented in the Council? For years past, honorable members elsewhere have complained of not receiving fair attention from the Government-of the Ministry being insufficiently represented in their Chamber-but when once they find them­selves elected by the great body of the people, and backed by an . electorate very nearly as large and substantial as that behind the Assembly, may they not take a stronger course than mere complaint? Why· should not they not only demand a larger representation of the Government in their branch of the Legislature, but also quietly and continually feel their way towards claiming almost as much power under the Constitution as that possessed by the

. Assembly? What would be the impassable barrier against them? What would be the insuperable obstacle in theirway? Under

ileJorm Bill. [MARCH 3.J 1639

existing circumstances, the Assembly claim supreme power over finance, and I recog­nise-I have always recognised-that it is impossible for two Chambers to deal satis­factorily with the general financial affairs of the country. But if we create a legis­lative body substantially as powerful as we are, is it not extremely probable that it will attempt to claim financial authority almost equa.l to ours? That, I say, is where difficulties of a most important character are likely to begin. Unquestionably, were snch a claim made, the manage­ment of financial affairs would become fiu more embarrassed than ever it has been in the past. Hitherto honoro,ble members elsewhere ho,ve never arrogated to them­selves any right to interfere in the general financial arrangements of the country, but, when they are elected upon a franchise practically the so,me as our own, they will at once feel that their powers and pri\'Ti­leges stand upon a totally new footing. Suppose, for example, the reformed Coun­cil declined to support the Government on some particular meo,sUl'e of importance, and insisted instead upon a better repre-

. sentation ·of the Ministry in the Upper House, and that their request was refused -wha.t would probably follow? Both the Chambers would appeal to their con­stituencies, but mark how different that appeal would be to anything of the kind we

. have known up to the present time. U n­der existing circumstances, the Assembly appeal to the great bulk of the people, a large majority of whom, having no interest in the Council, naturally prefer to stick up for their own representatives rather than consider the merits of the question upon which the Houses happen to be at dis­pute. But under the Bill, all that would be changed, because each House would appeal to an equally powerful electorate. Might not the Council then say to the electors-" The Assembly is elected by men not one whit better than you are; and we ask you, as your representatives, why should we not have some of the authority the Lower House exercises; why, at all events, should not the Ministry be more largely represented in the Council than they now are?" Moreover, candi­dates for the Council would be able to point out many instances in which popular and valuable legislation has been delayed or destroyed from the mere fact of the Government of the day not having a suffi­cient number of representatives in the Upper House to aid and secure the passing

5x2

of Ministerial measures. Surely to ridicule arguments of that sort is not to answer them. I say to carry the Bill as it stands into law would so alter and change the circumstances and relative position of the two Houses that it is quite impossible to forecast the result that would ensue if, each having practically the same electoral basis, they came into collision. I would like to ask the Government, and especially the Chief Secretary, upon what principle they have changed t~eir views with re­spect to some of the other matters con­tained in the Bill. For example, when the Chief Secretary submitted his last Reform ,Bill, although he proposed a nomi­nee Council he did not offer to abolish the property qualification for members of that body. How is it that his ideas on tho,t point have altered? Neither did the honor­able gentleman then propose what I ven­ture to say will never become law, namely, that the moment the present Bill takes the form of a Statute the existing Council should be turned out of doors-that that dissolution should apply equally to those members of the Upper House who, a few months ago, went to vast trouble and expense to secure their election as to those who have less than two years of office remaining to them. Ago,in, some of the propositions in this Bill appear to show that the Government can have no real belief that there is any pro­bability of it becoming law. Indeed, one of the first points upon which they are required to enlighten the House is­Is the Bill to be relied upon? Do tbe Go­vernment mean it to be a sham? Although I believe their proper course was to in­clude in its provisions some method of pre­venting dead-locks and securing finality in legislation, yet, at the same time, if they don't see their way to bring those points under discussion at the present time, I am perfectly willing to deal with their measure as one that has in view simply the popularization of the Legis­lative Council. But, nevertheless, I warn them that they must so far take the House generally into their confidence as to let us know whether they are really in earnest. Because what do all these changes of front on their part give rise to? If they persist in pressing on the House two or three points to which hitherto they have been bitterly opposed, must not the pro­ceeding inevitably occasion suspicion of their bona fides? I warn them that, if they have any honest intention of passing

1640 [ASSEMBLY.] SutJ1td Reading.

a measure substantially popularizing the Legislative Council, they must make con­siderable changes in their proposals. In the first place-Have they any hope or expectation of being able to carry through Parliament a Bill basing the Council franchise on the ratepayers' roll? I scarcely believe they have. If they have not, how can they be justified in insisting upon keeping their measure in its present shape, especially in view of the fact that only a very few months ago the Chief Secretary denounced the idea of a Council elected by the rate­payers of the country without limit, and expressed himself as extremely doubtful whether an extension of the fmnchise of the Upper House to the £10 ratepayers could possibly be permitted? I am will­ing to vote for the second reading of the Bill in order to get a chance of amending it in committee, but if the Government take up with respect to it the same posi­tion they took up with respect to their former Reform Bills-that is to say, if they refuse to allow a single line or word of any of the material portions of the measure to be altered-what can we expect but that this Bill will share the fate of the first two Berry Reform Bills, namely, find its way to the waste-paper basket? Is the farce of the former Bills to be repeated once more? Are we not to be taught by experience?

An HONORABLE MEllIBER.-Byour ex­perience of the Service Reform Bill.

Mr. GILLIES.-Yes, let us even take that lesson to heart. I say, let us learn from experience, and pass a sonnd sub­stantial measure of reform that will in­clude in the electorate of the Council the grent body of the manhood of the colony -the persevering, saving, thrifty, and industrious portion of it. If we do that, we sh~ll take a grand step in advance. We shall have then a Legislative Council which will exercise the true function of a second Chamber, which is to give time for thought and deliberation-for the people to make up their minds-instead of allowing ill-considered measures to be hurriedly and impetuously rushed into law.

Mr. V ALE.-Sir, if intelligence and good oratory obt.ain their due reward ·in the ranks of the Opposition, I suppose we shalt have, before long, the pleasure of hearing that the last speaker has met with something like his deserts. I am now paying a compliment which, after twenty

years' political warfare, was never better deserved. The utterance of the honorable member for Rodney (Mr. Gillies) was astute and clever, although perhaps it appeared all the more so because of the honorable member's evident consciousness, first, that he was delivering tho ablest speech that had come from the opposition side of the Chamber; and, secondly, that he would much rather be championing the Bill the Government have presented. Certainly throughout the whole of Ilis deliverance one interesting feature con­tinually presented itself, namely, the fact that he does not like the Bill, and his party do not like the Bill. But he has not' told us what Reform Bill he or his party would like. He assured us that it would be dangerous to have two Chambers between whom a conflict for the control of finance might arise, and that one of the results of the Bill would be to enable the Council to insist upon a larger amount of Ministerial presence in their Chamber than they now enjoy; but is it not a fact that, within the last twelve months, the honorable member supported a Bill which, by means of a certain elimination clause, would undoubtedly confer upon the Upper Honse a distinct share of authority over the finances of the country? I beg the honorable memuer to most particu­larly bear that circumstance in mind. Of course the most astute portion of his speech was that where he addressed him­self to the task of endeavouring to detach from the Government interest certain influences and certain votes. That was not his stated object, but it was none the less his deliberate purpose, and he tried to effect it by charging the Govern­ment with inconsistency. But what does the history of reform in this country tell us? I think it is within my memory that, twenty years ago, there was not a more ardent advocate for bringing the Council into accord with the Assembly than the honorable member was. Have we not also in our recollection a number of im­portant measures, such as the State Aid Abolition Bill and the Mining on Private Propert.y Bill, which have since then been time after time passed by this House and rejected elsewhere? Is it indeed possible for any constitutional alteration to produce a Chamber more defiant of the Assembly than the Council has been during the last eighteen years? Of course I do not charge the honorable member with incon­sistency. Doubtless he believes himself,

Refo1'm Bill. [MARCH 3.J Sixth Nig Itt's Debate. 1641

with certain mental reservations, to be absolutely consistent. But, when the late Parliament was only some sixteen or seven­teen days old, was not the Government of which he was a member asked to make certain concessions in the matter of their Reform Bill, with respect, for instance, to the elimination. clause and the joint sitting? 1;Vere they not told that if they would. concede on those points they would carry their measure? What was their reply? "The Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill.". If the honorable· member wishes to be acquitted of incon­sistency, must he not feel himself driven to say that t.hat answer was given con­trary to his advice? Is he prepared to nssert that he, as an individual member of the Service Ministry, was not willing to make concessions ?

MI'. GILLIES.-I am not prepared to make any statement of the kind.

Mr. V ALE. - Then the honorable member accepts the full responsibility of the situation. It seems to me that charges of inconsistency are .often brought in this Chamber, against individuals, in a very thought]ess way. There is scarcely a single Member of Parliament of fifteen or twenty years' standing who has not been inconsistent, so to speak, for various reasons. Indeed, there is, no doubt, a sort of apparent inconsistency in the present measure, when it is contrasted with former liberal Bills for the reform of the Legislati ve Council. That is a confession I am quite prepared to make. But, while the Opposition talk of the three Reform Bills that have come from the liberal side, they seem to forget the fact that they also have produced t.he same number of measures of a similar character. The first was the Francis Reform Bill, introduced in the Council by Mr. Fraser, in 1873, and which proposed an extension of the Council franchise to the £25 rate­payers; the second was the Norwegian Bill of 1874; and the third was the Service Reform Bill. So that; during six or seven years, the conservative party have put forward no less than three dis­tinct measures of reform. Is that quite in accord with the character for con­sistency they are so eager to arrogate to themselves? To come to the present Bill. There was a considerable amount of adroitness displayed by the honorable member for Rodney when he endeavoured to show that the measure is not on the lines of the speech the Chief Secretary

deli vered upon· the dissolution of the Parliament that sat for only nineteen days; but let us examine the statements the honorable member for Rodney made. A good deal has been said as to the way the platform on which the Bill is built was framed. Call it a caucus or what you like, the point is-Is it at all surprising that the party which describes itself as liberal (let the other side describe them­selves as they will), when they suddenly, almost without expectation on their part, found themselves face to face with a gene­ral election, sought to meet together in consultation? It cannot surely be thought that we would have gone to the consti­tuencies wi th. a variety of cries. We knew, on the one hand, that with certain concessions the Service Reform Bill ,vould have been law, aud, on the other, that we, as liberals, had always contended that the only basis of true representative go­vernment ,vas that the ulLimate appeal should lie to the people. No doubt that is a sentiment that commends itself to the judgment of the honorable mem­bel' for Rodney, and even of that antique whig, the honorable member for Boroondara, seeing that it was the especia,l contention of one of his model statesmen -Lord John Russell. We proved what our convictions were when we endorsed the plebiscite, and with respect to this Bill we took very much the same view of the situation. I know the difficulty that attaches to leaving out of the Council fran­chise the portion of the population who are unpossessed of the holding or property that would qualify them to appear on the ratepayers' roll. I know that to that ex­tent the Bill is open to the charge that it recognises property rather than manhood, and may be described as so far faulty; although we may remind ourselves of the peer of France who, after being for many years a Crown Minister, found, when called upon for a vote, that he bad not the property which would entitle him to one. U n­doubtedly I believe that it would be much be iter to recognise manhood rather than property as a qualification for the Council franchise-that the mere possession of 30 or 40 head of cattle shonld not outweigh other and more potent considerations, as the Service Heform Bill would have enabled it to do.

Mr. FRASER.-That Bill provided for a property qualification.

Mr. VALE.-Nevertheless the honor­able memner will find that I am right.

1642 Reform Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Second Reading.

But at the time we met we could not invent a better plan than that which we adopted; and it is certain that, whatever the shortcomings of the scheme may be, when the Chief Secretary proposed to constitute the rate rolls of the country the electoral basis of the Council, he diverged in no degree from his former statements. There has been a good deal of talk of the absurdity of leaving out a property qualification for members, but I challenge the Opposition to deny that a very large number of those who have entered this Chamber without a property qualifica­tion - to whom a property qualification for members would have acted as an insuperable obstacle - have eventually shown themselves the most active in sharing the responsibility attaching to carrying on public business, and foremost in guiding and directing the general affairs through this Chamber-that, in short, the best and most capable men amongst us have been almost invariably those whom a property qualification would have kept out of the House altogether? That is a large concession to force from honorable members opposite. In England the property qualification for a seat in the House of Commons has now been abolished for something like a quarter of a century. Lord John Russell expressed the opinion that it had never in any way tended to the introduction of good men into the House of Commons-that it had never proved a barrier to dishonest men evading the qualification-that it had only put an obstacle ill the way of capable but conscientious poor men. It was abolished by the general consent of both political parties. There never was a pro­perty qualification in Scotland for a seat in the House of Commons, and yet Scot­land, from the days of the union, has returned men whose business-like tact, wbose enduring courage, and whose poli­tical foresight threw around the Imperial Parliament both the power of business capacity and the grace of the loftiest eloquence. The present Bill provides that men who are simply ratepayers shall be qualified to be candidates for seats in the Council. vVhat is the history of British legislation in the House of Com­mons during the year 1880? If there is one electoral institution in connexion with which a propert.y qualification may be thought necessary, jt is when men are elected to the management of local affairs, where all the interests are purely the

Mr. Vale.

interests of the property which has to pay for the works that are undertaken by the local governing body, and yet the Imperial Parliament, at the commence­ment of last year, absolutely brought the qualification for members of all local bodies in England and Ireland down to the same qualification as for voters. These facts are interesting and important. I think there is great force in the obser­vations of the honorable member fot' Ripon and Hampden as to the ·lim itation of the choice or candidates for the Coun­cil if a property qualification is insisted on. No doubt there is greater freedom in the possession of landed property in this colony than in almost any other country in the world; but there is another feature of the case which might be some argument in favour of a property qualification in Great Britain that does not exist here. In Great Britain there is a sort of sanctity in the possession of property. Men, it may be said, are there married and buried from the same house in which they are born; the same house and the same land are held by ono family for many generations. But in this country property in land is merely a thing which men hold to trade with. There is no feeling of ancostry, no feeling towards posterity-nothing around which the finer sentiments of human nature can be said to gather-connected with the possession of landed property in this country. Land in this country is a mere article of trade, just like wool or cattle.

lVlr. FRASER.-That is a new doctrine on your side.

Mr. VALE.- It was recognised 18 years ago, when a law was passed pro­viding that if a man died intestate his landed property and his personal estate should all go into one common fund-that his land should be treated as personalty for all purposes of division. I have now dealt with two matters which are abso­lutely on the lines of the Chief Secre· tary's speech to his constituents. The next question is the duration of the Legis­lat,i ve Council. It is proposed that the tenure of seats shall be six years, and that one-third of the members shall retire every two years. This process, I think honorable members will admit, provides for thut which appears to me to be the main and only tangible argument for a second Chamber-delay. I don't think any man, calmly reviewing the history of bicameraJ legisla.tioll, will say that any

Reform Bill. [MARCH 3.J Sixth Night's Debate. 1643

power in a second Chamber beyond that of reasonable delay can be fraught with anything but danger to the body politic.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-That may de­pend upon how the second Chamber is elected.

Mr. VALE.-I don't think it makes the slightest difference to my argument how the members of the second Chamber are elected. If they are elected from a smaller body than the electors of the other House, there can be no motive for the existence of a second Chamber but delay; and the same remark, it appears to me, will apply however the second Chamber may be constituted. At all events, I think I am correct in saying that the most forcible argument-in fact, the only reason­able argument-in favour of two Chambers is that the second Chamber may retard legislation until it has had full and calm consideration, or may, at a period pos8ibly of sudden passion itt one Chamber, prevent legislation until the deliberate opinion of the country has been taken upon the matter under dispute.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-The present Upper House has done so.

Mr. VALE.-The present Upper House has done nothing of the sort. It has said, not that it would delay legislation until the opinion of the country had been ex­pressed, but that it would dispute the opinion ()f the country-that it would sneer at it and scorn it. The Upper House has done that in consequence of the encouragement which it has received from honorable members opposite.

An HONORABLE MElVIBER.-When? Mr. V ALE.-I have mentioned two or

three measures which have been rejected by the Council about ten times.

Mr. R. M: SMITH.-What are they? Mr. V ALE.-The Mining on Private

Property Bill and the Bill for the Aboli­tion of State Aid to Religion. I repeat that I recogLlise it as the duty and privi­lege of a second Chamber to req nil'e reasonable consideration and delay in con­nexion with legislation; and I submit that the 3rd portion of the Bill, which provides for a full re-election of the Legislative Council at three different stages, at in­tervals of two years each, gives a fair opportunity for delay.

Mr. R. 1\1:. SMITH.-You ought to join us.

Mr. V ALE.-That is what I say-you ought to join us. You had your inningR, and you knocked your own wickets down~

and bolted, or rather you appealed to the umpire and he told you you were clean out. You thought the umpire would not see it, but he did. Now that we are at the wickets, I hope that honorable mem­bers opposite will let us play our own game. It is said that our measure does not provide for the settlement of disputes between the two Houses. I admit that it does not pro-\ride a rapid and instanta­neous mode of settlement, such as the plebiscite, but it provides that one-third of the members of the Council must go before their co~stituents within two years of the time of any dispute arising between the two Houses. I venture to say that if a provision of that kind had been in ex­istence in 1865 the whole cause of the dead-lock which then arose would have passed away. The party who introduced the Tariff of 1865 were quite prepared to accept the burthen of a general election on condition that the Council would pass the measure if the country approved of it; but under the present constitution of the Council no general election ever finally settles a matter in dispute between the two Houses.

Mr. R. M. SMITH.-A general elec­tion settled the Tariff of 1865.

Mr. V ALE.-After a lot of by-play, which was very unsatisfactory, and brought a great deal of suffering on per­sons who ought not to have been involved in the conflict in any way. The Bill before the House provides that the rate­payers' roll shall be the qualification both for electors and for members of the Council ; that there shall be an election of one-third of the members of the Council every two years, so that the whole body will go before their constitu­ents in three divisions every six years; and it provides that there shall be a dis­solution of the present Council and an entirely new election on the amended franchise as soon as the measure comes into operation. It also proposes that there sha.ll be 30 electoral provinces. If one thing has astonished me more than another during this debate, it is the fact that honorable members who inva.riably seek single electorates themselves don't seem to like single electorates for the Legislative Council. The honorable member for Belfast, during a parliamen­tary life of nearly 30 years, has, I think, always represented a single electorate when he could do so. I may therefore take from the honorable member's long

1644 Reform Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Second Reading.

experience and, well-known shrewdness an argument that single electorates are the best for all parties.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-I don't say so. Mr. V ALE.-Thev have been the best

for the honorable me~ber's party-a party of one.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-You would not have been where you are without me;

Mr. VALE.-If I have been indebted to the honorable member during the last seven months, I am guilty of gross in­gratitude. It is certainly somewhat strange that honorable members who oppose the principle of single electorates for the Council house themselves in single electorates. The four principles of the Bill to which I have alluded are on the lines of the Chief Secretary's speech, and honorable members on the Ministerial side of the House are bound to support them. We have been told to be mode­rate, and our moderation has produced the present Bill; but the same moderation has not been shown by the Opposition. Our measure was challenged at the very outset of the debate by the honorable member for Boroondara raking up the nasty simile with which Benjamin Disraeli attacked Sir Robert Peel in 1846. We have. been charged with having stolen the clothes of the Opposition. If we have stolen any of their clothes, we have stripped off .the Brummagem buttons-the double dissolution and the elimination clause. I am confident that by leaving out the double dissolution we have rendered the measure more palatable to the other branch of the Legislature. The honor­able member for Rodney has asked if we are sincere in bringing forward the Bill. If the Opposition desire to test our sin­cerity, let them join with us in passing the Bill, and sending it to the Upper House. This is the sixth attempt which has been made to deal with the qnestion of reform. We think this Bill is a calm and careful endeavour to secure as great a measure of liberal reform of the Council as it is possible to obtain. We believe in the policy of the Bill, and we believe in the advantages which are likely to accrue from it, though of course it is not possible for any man absolutely to foresee the results that it will produce. I think that even a comparative decay of the power of this Chamber is not a loss too great to face if it should be the outcome of a mea­sure which will bring about the not too dis­tant recognition ef the popular will in the

legislation of the country. If this Bill will produce that result, and prevent long series of years being wasted in angry and unseemly turmoil, it is not for us to scan the outcome of it too clos~ly with prophetic eyes, but rather, in the words of John Bright, seek to do that which. is right, in the assurance that, in doing right, light will come across our path as we need it to guide us in t.he future. For my own part, I went to the country with this Bi11, and I feel that in supporting it I am ful­filling my pledges. I commend the mea­sure with confidence to the votes of mem­bers on both sides of the House. I believe that, if passed, it will relieve this branch of the Legislature from difficulties which lead to a large waste of valuable time­from unnecessary political turmoil and bitterness-and leave us free to deal with many pressing measures of public policy which will demand the exercise of all our powers and talents. I believe also that it will leave the main government of the country to that party which shows that it has real constructive ability-which can grasp the necessities of the State and meet those necessities by prompt and equitable legislation.

Mr. W. MADDEN.-Sir, I desire to say that I shall vote for the second read­ing of the Bill because I consider it a. step in the right direction, but I reserve to myself the right to vote for the motion which the honorable member for Boroon­dara intends to propose, and also to vote against the third reading of the Bill if certain alterations which I wish to see in the measure are not made in committee.

The motion for the second reading of the Bill was then put, and carried with­out a division.

The SPEAKER.-As the Bill amends the Constitution Act, it is necessary to ascertain whether the second reading is carried by an absolute majority of the House.

Honorable members having taken sides, the Clerk counted the members OIl the right of the chair, after which

The SPEAKER said -I have to in­form the House that the scconu reading of the Bill has been carried by an abso­lute majority.

The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed.

Mr. R. M. SMITH.-Sir, I think it will be in accordance with the forms of the House if the proposal of which I have given notice, to refer the Bill to a joint

Reform Bill. [MARcn 3.J Sixtlt Nig Itt's Debate. 1645

committee of the two Honses, be now submitted as a substantive motion.

Mr. BERRY.-Mr. Speaker, I rise to order. The House has ordered the Bill to be committed, and the next question to be put from the chair is-" That the Bill be now committed." The honorable member for Boroondara cannot interpose with any substantive motion to prevent that question being pnt. He can only propose an amendment.

The SPEAKER.-A similar course to that which the honorable member for Boroondara desires the House to adopt was taken this session in connexion with the University Constitution Amendment Bill ; that is to say, after that measure was read a second time and ordered to be com­mitted, it was resolved that it should be

. referred to a select committee. I will ask the Clerk to read the record in the Votes and Proceedings relating to the matter.

The CLERK read the following extract from the Votes and Proceedings of Sep­tember 22, 1880:-

"UNIVERSITY CONS'.rITUTION AMENDMENT BILL.-The oder of the day for the resumption of the debate on the question-That this Bill be now read a second time-having been read,

"Debate ensued. " Question-That this Bill be no w read a

second time-put and resolved in the affirmative. -Bill read a second time.

" Mr. PEARSON moved, That this Bill be now committed.

"Question-put and resolved in the affirma­tive.

"Mr. RAMSAY moved-That this Bill be committed to a select committee.

" Debate ensued. " Question-put and resolved in the affirma­

tive."

Mr. WRIXON.-I will call attention to the 233rd standing order, which is as follows :-

"A Bill, having been read a second time, may be ordered to be committed to a committee of the whole Honse, or in certain cases to a select committee."

Mr. BERRY.-I don't dispute that a Bill, after being read a second time, may be referred to a select committee; but the proposition of tIle honorable member for Boroondara is to refer this measure to a joint committee of the two Houses. No such course has ever been taken by this Chamber.

The SPEAKER. - I understand the Chief Secretary does not say that a mo­tion for referring the Bill to a select com­mittee cannot be put from the chair, but I he contends that it is not competent to

submit a motion for remitting the measure to a joint committee of the two Houses. Since the honorable member for Belfast, the other evening, raised the point th~tt there is a distinction between a joint com­mittee and a conference, I have looked into the matter, and I have arrived at the conClusion that the Bill can be referred to a joint committee of the two Houses. The 8th, 9th, and 10th joint standing orders apply to the appointment of joint committees of the two Houses. The 9th standing order specifically provides that there shall be three joint committees ap­pointed each session, one to manage the Library, another to control the Refresh­ment Rooms, and the third for the manage­ment and superintendence of the Parlia­ment Buildings. The 10th joint standing order is as follows :-

"Every proposal for a joint comnlittee not provided for in these rules shall be by message; shall state the object of such committee, the number of members to serve thereon, not less than 10 or more than 15; and the number of members to form a quorum thereof; and the House whose concurrence shall be desired shall name the time and place of meeting."

This joint standing order seems to con­template and provide for the possibility of the appointment of such a committee as is now proposed. On looking into May, I find that instances of Bills being re­ferred to a joint committee occurred in the House of Commons in 1695, in 1864, and in 1873. The proposal to refer a Bill to a joint committee is a new one in this House, and I shall be glad to be guided by the decision of the House; but I have no doubt that the motion of the honorable member for Boroondara is in order.

Mr. R. 1\1:. SMITH then moved­"That the question of reform, and the Bills

relating thereto which are now before the House, be referred to a. joint committee of the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly; and that this resolution be transmitted by mes­sage to the Legislative Council, and their con­cnrrence desired therein." At this late' hour of the night (said the honorable member) I do not propose to de­tain the House at such length as I might otherwise have done in stating the reasons which have induced me to propose this motion. The Speaker has correctly in­formed us that on several occasions the appointment of a joint committee of the two Houses of· the Imperial Parliament to discuss Bills bas been acceded to by the House of Commons. I may mention that in 1864 a resolution was passed, on

1646 Reform Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Sixtl~ Nig llt' s Debate.

the motion of Mr. Milner Gibson, for referring certain railway schemes then before the House of Commons to a joint committee of both Chambers; and on an­other occasion Mr. Chichester Fortescue, then a member of the Government, moved that the question of railway extension and a Bill then before the House be referred to a joint committee of the Lords and Commons, and the proposal was adopted. There are several other in­stances of the House of Commons agree­ing to refer Bills to a joint committee. Therefore, not only as a question of order, but also as a matter of practice, there is nothing unusual in the course which I now propose this House shall adopt. Further, I would urge that the peculiar circumstances attending this Bill specially require that it should be treated in the way I suggest. Extraordinary modera­tion of tone has characterized the whole of the debate on the second reading of the measure, with the exception of the praiseworthy attempt, from his point of view, of the honorable member for Ripon and Hampden to stir up the fire of by-gone controversies, and the way in which the honorable member's remarks were received proves how useless it is to make any efforts in that direction. The moderation displayed by both sides­so different from any previous reform dis­cussions-shows how desirable it is to now endeavour to come to a peaceful solu­tion of the difficulty. I take it that there is a desire on the part of all honorable members that the question of reform may be finally f5ettled; and once more I repeat that the only way in which it CfLll be so settled is by a mutual spirit of concilia­tion, not only between members sitting on different sides of this House, but between those who, after aU, are the real parties to the dispute, namely, the Legislative As­sembly, or a statutory majority of it, and 1he members of the Legislative Council. During the debate on the second reading of the Bill charges of inconsistency were made against various honorable members. As I was the first to set the ball rolling', I cannot complain if it was turned in the direction of my own feet; bu t, on behalf of the Opposition, I would simply say, in regard to the charges of inconsistency made against us, that throughout the debate we acted as our convictions guided 11S, and we allowed the second reading of the Bill to pass without a division, inas­much as we are in accord with what we

Mr. R .• "t!. Smith.

understand to be the main principles underlying the measure, namely, popnlar­izing and strengthening the Upper House. We cannot be accused of inconsistency in supporting those principles, because they have been the opinions and the intentions, I may say, of the constitutional party ever since the reform agitation began. Our adversaries having now come round to the principles which we have always advo­cated, there is really nothing in dispute between us so far as regards the geneJ;"al principles on which reform should be based. We allowed the second rending of the Bill to pass without a division, I repeat, because we approve of the principles of the measure; but at that point the general accord between the two sides of the House begins to fade away.

Major SMITH.--Let the Bill go into committee.

Mr. R. M. SMITH.-If the Bill is dealt with in committee in the ordinary manner we shall, in all probability, dis­cover that there are many differences between us on matters of detail, and that the third reading will not receive the almost unanimous approval of the House as the second reading has done. I there­fore urge the committal of the Bill at this stage to a joint committee of both Houses. Surely it will be admitted that the Council will have to be consulted as to the final settlement of the measure which deals solely with the constitution of that House. The reason why I strongly urge a con­ference at this stage is that this House has both Bills before it at the present time -the Council's Bill and the Government measure-and the proper time has now arrived for referring them both to a joint committee, in order to obtain a settlement of the question on ,a peaceful basis. I am Dot speaking from a party point of view, but with an earnest desire to arrive at some settlement of the question. We have heard it stated by certain honorable members that every jot and tittle of the Bill is to be adhered to; but I attach little importance to declarations of that sort, which are always made in connexion with measures of this description. I appeal to the Chief Secretary and his colleagues, who have the responsibility of this mea­sure, with whom will rest the blame if it fails, and with whom-and this is no slight consideration-will rest the credit if they sncceed in arriving at a solution of the reform question on a sound and tolerably permanent basis. I appeal to them not

Reform Bill. [MARCH 3.J Sixth Night's Debate. 1647

to be driven on to the rocks by their excited and indiscreet followers.

Mr. MIRAMS.-Heal', hear. Mr. R. M. SMITH.-The honorable

member for Collingwood (Mr. Mirams) has not yet, at all events, the responsi­bility of office. He speaks with perfect freedom, and perhaps in his secret soul he would not be altogether disappointed if the Ministry did fall on the rocks I allude to. I trust the Ministry will not be guided by the honorable member. I hope they are disposed to accept the gravity of the situ­ation, and to endeavour to settle the q nes­tion peacefully, and, with that disposition, to listen to the proposition which, in no party spirit, I now urge upon them­namely, that the question be referred to a joint committee of both Houses in order that it may be settleu on a permanent basis.

Mr. FRANCIS (who rose amid cries of "Divide" from the Ministerial benches) said-Sir, in rising to second the pro­position, I beg to assure the House that my desire is to put the question of reform out of the way as speedily as possible. I am not entirely satisfied with the Bill submitted by the Government, and I think we ought to adopt the motion as an act of just consideration to the other branch of the Legislature, which is entitled to be consulted in the matter of an amendment of the Constitution. (" Divide.") If there is a question the consideration of which should be marked by conciliation and temperance, it is a question of this char­acter. Long experience of Parliament has convinced me that if this House in­sists too rigidly on its rights, those rights are likely to harden into wrongs. I con­sider that the Bill, as it stands, gives too much power to the Legislative Oouncil; it will make the Upper House a much more potent body in the State than it is now. However that may be, I think the proposals should be subjected to a calmer discussion anu review than they' seem likely to obtain in this Chamber. (" Di­vide.") The question is one which espe­cially demands calm deliberation, and that calm deliberation should not be withheld merely because of the impatience to "di­vide" manifested by a small minority on the Ministerial side. The delay in set­tling the reform question is seriously im­peding the progre:5s of the colony, but the question cannot be sa.t.isfn.ctorily soWea unless it is approached in a spirit of com­promise and fajr pby. I appeal to the

Chief Secretary to seriously consider the matter.

The SPEAKER.-If the House agree to the motion for the appointment of a joint committee, the number of the com­mittee from this House, according to ancient practice, should be double the number 'of those appointed by the Legis­lative Council, although this rule was not followed on some recent occasions.

Mr. GAUNSON.-Mr. Rpeaker, there is, at this moment, a feeling springing up which, if persisted in, will be fatal to the progress of thi s Bill. When the first Berry Reform Bill was before this House, I said the proper way of dealing with the question was by means of a select com­mittee. I said the same thing with re­gard to the second Bill. . I said precisely the same thing when the Service Bill was under consideration. Since then the Op­position have learnt wisdom, as shown by the proposition now submitted by their leader. With that proposition before us, I ask the Ministry to recollect the words which they themselves placed in the mouth of Sir George Bowen when open­ing the session in which their first Reform Bill was introduced-words inyiting the two Houses to treat reform, not from a party point of view, but as a great national question.

Mr. JAMES.-Who makes it a party question?

Mr. BENT (pointing to the Ministerial corner).-lt comes from there.

Mr. GAUNSON.-I don't care whence it comes-I must be consistent before all things. (Laughter.) The laugh is en­tirely on my side: because I have stated uniformly that the proper way of dealing with the reform question is by means of a select committee. I beg, in the most earnest way possible, that the Chief Sec­retary will consent to an adjournment of t.he uebate on this motion. We don't want to lose the Bill; and I hope the Ministry will not allow any wretched miserable feeling to deter them from win­ning the great victory which honorable members in opposition appear willing for them to win. With these remarks, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. WRIXON.-I second the motion for the adjournment of the debate; and I must seriously ask the Chief Secretary, as the leader of the House, whether it is decent or becoming to hurry 011, withont discllssion or deliberation, the detcrminn.­tion of a mn,tter which means whether we

1648 Reform Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Sixtlt Nigltt's Debate;

shall have reform or not? If honorable members come to a hurried vote at half-past eleven o'clock at night, before they have debated or discussed the motion, they may give a blind vote, but their decision will not be satisfactory either to their own legislative consciences or to the country. Whether anything will be done in the way of settling the reform question depends upon the manner in which we deal with the proposition now before us. If reform is shipwrecked-and the present seems to be the best chance we have had for years of getting the difficulty ont of the way­those who now rush a decision without waiting for the deliberation which is ne­cessary and is desired will stand without answer, or chance of answer, before the country. Honorable membel's may think they are right, but they will not decide rightly if they decide without discussion or deliberation.

Mr. LONGMORE.-Divide. Mr. WRIXON.-Does the honorable

member for Ripon mean to say that a matter on which a large number of mem­bers who cannot rightly be accused of party spirit feel strongly should be deter­mined without discussion or deliberation? Is that the position the honorable member takes up? I hope not. Therefore I ask the head of the Government to allow an adjournment of the debate.

Mr. BERRY.-Sir, honorable members in their anxiety-no doubt, their earnest anxiety-to settle this question, are pro­posing a course which is not only uncon­stitutional, but I think altogether unpre­cedented-a course which, in my opinion, would do more to defeat every chance of passing reform than any other course which could be suggested. Sir, are we likely to make the will of the country respected by sacrificing the just dignity and prestige of this House? Are we to consent to a Bill which has only been read a second time, and which has not been considered hy a committee of this House, being now submitted for the opinion of another House? That is the proposition before us. We are asked to remit the 13ill not to a select committee of this House, but to a joint committee of the two Houses. Let me ask the honorable member for Portland what, in the event of the motion being carried, he is prepared to do? Would he, as a member of this House, accept the decision of a joint committee? Is this House, in committee of the whole, merely to record its approval of what

may be settled by a joint committee else­where? Where, in the whole range of English history, do we find precedent for such a course? Sir, it would be abdicating all our functions, it would be tantamount to saying that we do not represent the country, Hnd that we are not anxious to settle the question in the way our con­stituents told us to settle it, if we were to remit it to a joint committee to take the place of the country in the estimation of this House, with the understanding that the decision of that committee should be binding. (" No.") If it is not binding, what is the good of it? Surely the honorable member for Ararat must see the difference between this proposition and the propositions submitted in connexion with reform discussions in past Parlia­ments to remit the matter to a select committee. It is a curious fact that every Government, no matter what they may have said when in opposition, have refused to abandon the functions of Government to any select committee. The Govern­ment are a select committee of this House.

Mr. DUFFY.-They never could pass a Reform Bill.

Ml'.BERRY.-Neithercould the honor­able member; but there is something of more consequence even than the passing of a Bill, and that is adherence to consti~ tutional usage. I say we should not abandon the regular safeguards of parlia­mentary practice. Before thinking of such a course as reference to a join t com­mittee, we should take this Bill through all its stages in this House in accordance with the invariable custom of the House of Commons. But, while I say this, I yield to no man in a most' earnest desire to settle the reform question. The Bill is admitted to be a large compromise-a great departure from the views held by many members on this (the Ministerial) side. It is a concession which has been met by 110 concession on the other side.

Mr. ZOX.-Why the second reading has been carried without a division.

l\'lr. BERRY.-I am not referring to honorable members on the other side of this House; I am referring to the other branch of the Legislature, whose Bill is identical with the Bill which they passed three years ago. There has been, on their part, no alteration, 110 concession, no advancement, whereas the party with which I am associated have, for the last three or four years, been most anxious to

Refo1'm 13ill. [MARCH 3.J Six/It lSTz'gltt's Debate. 1649

make every concession they possibly could consistent with obtaining a reform which would be of any value to' the country. We don't want .reform merely in name; we want reform which will give the people a better control over their own affairs; and I say this Bill gives it. The motion which is now before us I regard as a most extraordinary one; a parallel to it cannot be found· in the records of the House of Commons.

Mr. R. M. SMITH.-It is word for word the same as a resolution of the House of Commons.

Mr. BERRY. - But a Bill of the character of the Bill now before us was never remitted by the House of Commons ·to a joint committee. The honorable member for Warrnambool has argued that the Bill concedes too much to the Legis­lative Council-that it makes that body too powerful. But do honorable members who advocate a joint committee suppose that, if the Bill gives too much power to the Legislative Council, that body will give their assistance in reducing it?

Mr. R. M. SMITH.-You complained, just now, that they would make no con­cession.

Mr. BERRY.-I think the honorable member for Boroondara., by his inter­jection, shows that he has no faith in his own proposition. This is no joking matter. We are asked to do an unprece­dented thing. The move on the part of the Opposition may be an astute one, but they have shown that t.hey qare not, in the face of public opinion, call for a division on the second reading of the Bill. Not being able to attack us in front, they attack us in flank, and endeavour, by a plausible pretence, to secure a victory. If I felt the motion had any practical value, I would accede to it at once, or willingly allow an adjournment of the debate; as it is, I ask honorable members, whe­ther they sit on one side or the other, to deal with the question quickly. The whole thing is in a nutshell; we don't want debate upon it - no argument is necessary. The question is - Are we going to abdicate our functions as a Legislative Assembly by remitting a ques­tion, upon which the country has pro­nounced, to a joint committee of the two Houses? When we come to the point at which a conference is logical, reasonable, and usual, I shall be as prepared as any man to meet the Legislative Council. At the proper time, if there is a reasonable

probability of success, I shall be as well prepared as any man to take any step which may be necessary, ill accordance with constitutiunal usage, to have the Bill, or any differences which may arise be­tween the two Houses with respect to it, remitted to a conference. When we have dealt with the Bill, and the measure has gone elsewhere, if any differences arise between the two Houses with respect to it, t.hen, I say, a conference may be legitimately held. But, to-day, I would be false to the position I occupy if I did' not raise my voice to urge upou the House to stand by constitutional usage, its own dignity, and the best interests of the country.

Mr. GILLIES.-Mr. Speaker, theCbief Secretary has just told us that he objects not only to an adjournment of this dis-

. Ctlssion, but absolutely to the remission of the large q nestion now before us to a joint select committee of the two Houses. He talks of what he is willing to assent to at a later stage, but, at the stage to which he refers, it is not likely that any question of constitutional reform could be remitted to ajoint select committee, though the question of the differences between the two Houses on this Bill might be referred to a conference. But that is a totally different question altogether. This evening, when addressing the House, I asked the Chief Secretary to show-to prove, by deeds, and not words-that the Government are in earnest. The Chief Secretary says that, if we agree to a joint select committee, we will abdicate our functions. That has been said before; but the statement was as far from the fact as is the statement of the Chief Secretary now. In what way shall we abdicate our functions? Is it not more likely that· the two Houses will come to an agreement at the present stage, before either of them has beyond all doubt committed itself ?

Mr. BERRY. - We have got the Council's Bill here.

Mr. GILLIES.-Ifthere is any rational meaning in that interjection, it must be that, in the opinion of the Chief Secretary, the Bill of the Council represents t.heir unalterable determination to have no other, and that the Bill of the Government repre­sents their determination to have no other than theirs. (Cries of "No.") I am to understand that is not so. Then what is the use of the Chief Secretary referring to the Bill of the Council? If we are really in earnest ill desiring to obtain

1650 Be/m'm !Jill. [ASSEMBLY.] Sixtlt .Night's Debate.

some substantial reform, what we ought to uo is to have au amicable meeting, to talk the matter ovel; before either party or either Honse is committed irrevocably to any measure. The Chief Secretary alluded to refusals to refer Reform Bills­to what? Not certainly to a joint com­mi ttee of the two Houses, bu t to a select committee of this House, which is a very different thing. When the Chief Secre­tary refused to refer his last Reform Bill to a select committee of the Assem bly, he gave, as his reason, that the question had been submitted to the country, that the Bill was the outcome of the judgment of the country, and that therefore he was determined to submit it to the Legislature without the intervention of anv select committee of this House. In the same way, when the Service Reform Bill was presented to the Assembly, we refused to refer it to a select committee, because we contended that the principles of the Bill had been submitted to the country, and that, therefore, a select committee would only be a waste of time. I could under­stand, therefore, the Chief Secretary re­fusing the present proposition if it were a proposition to refer the Bill to a select committee of the Assembly; but that is not the proposal at all. Is it to be said that we have gained nothing by all our· experience? Now that a totally new Bill is submitted, and one on which there is a chance of arriving at some agreement, are we to have no chance of a conference with the other House- before each Chamber commits itself beyond redemption to certain views -to ascertain whether we cannot come to some agreement that will enable a Bill to be passed that will be for thebenefi t of the country? I will undertake to say that, if the spirit in which the Chief Sec­retary has just spoken is to be maintained throughout, there is no reform possible at the present moment. He has intimated that this Bill has been submitted to the country, and that we are bound by it. If that be so, then what is the use of talking about sending the Bill to any committee? I maintain, however, that the whole sub­ject of constitutional reform can now be opportunely referred to a joint committee of the two Houses. The two Reform Bills-that of the Council and that of the Assembly-can be remitted to it and discussed by it, and the practical value of that discussion will be that the committee will be able to arrive at a conclusion as

Mr. Gillies.

to the possibility of a compromise before either House commits itself beyond reco­very to the one proposition or the other. Surely that will be a valuable step, and no objection to it on the ground of dignity ought to come from a Government anxious to pass a Reform Bill. Of course if the Government have made up their minds that they will only submit a Bill of such a character that there is not the slightest chance of carrying it into law, then we may as well be told that in the first instance.

Mr. BERRY.-There is every chance of carrying it just as it is.

Mr. GILLIES.-The honorable gentle­man said the same thing as confidently with reference to his previous Bills, and, if we are to judge of the present from what we know of the past, very little de­pendence can be placed on the confident assertion he has just made. I ask again, are we to learn no lesson from the past? Surely we have had sufficient failures to make us cautious. If the Government have a real, honest, sincere desire to pass a reasonable Reform Bill that will do good to the country, they have their opportunity now. But if they flout the country and the second branch of the Legislature merely with the object of maintaining the appearance of dignity, then they will fail miserably. They are not justified, COll­

sidering their past conduct and their past measures, in dealing with the reform question now as they have dealt with it in the past. They will get the assist­ance of every .member on this (the opposition) side of the House in any attempt to obtain a reasonable and sub­stantial measure of reform-a measure of reform which, I will undertake to say, will be hailed throughout the length and breadth of the country as a real and tan­gible benefit. The Government have a right to consider that fnct, and I say it ill becomes them to stand in the way and prevent an amicable ~ettlement of the question. The responsibility-the serious responsibility-will rest upon their shoul­ders if they refuse the opening that is now offered them of securing such a set­tlement before either branch of the Legis­lature has too far committed itself.

Mr. P A TTERSON.-I think the Oppo­sition are very unreasonable in this matter. The statement of the Chief Secretary was not that the Government would refuse a conference-in fact, he did not show his hand as to the future at all-but that it was premature, at the present st~ge, to

Reform Bill. [MARCH 3.j Slxth Night's Debate. 1651

remit the Bill to a conference; and surely that is common sense. Are we to admit the incapacity of this House to deal with the Bill, and to bring it to the same stage as the Council brought theirs to? The Council's Bill has passed through all its stages in that House, and this Bill must do likewise in this House. Then, if the question of a conference arises, it will be considered, but it is premature to make such a proposal now. If the Bill were sent to a joint committee of the two Houses, it must come back and go through committee of the Assembly, and the whole affair would be a farce. Who would be hound by any finding of the joint com­mi ttee? Moreover, when the Bill has passed this House) and been sent to the other Chamber, how do we know that the Council won't agree to it? What intima­tion have we had to that effect? Surely it will be time enough to treat with the Council when they ask us to come to terms with them. 'Why should we rush into their arms before we are invited? Then the honorable member for Rodney (Mr. Gillies) talked about rerriitting the whole question of constitutional reform to a joint committee. Does the honorable member forget the last election, and that the party on this (the Ministerial) side of the House were returned committed to a certain scheme? "Are we to learn no­thing from the past," as the honorable member himself said? Surely the past has taught us that we have reached a certain stage, at any rate. Are we to commence de novo, and consider the sub­ject of reform as though we had not travelled a single yard in that direction? The course proposed by the Opposition would be such a complete confession of incapacity on the part of this House that it is utterly unreasonable to ask for any such concession at the present stage.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-I did not in­tend to take part again in this debate, but I must say that to dispose of a matter of so much importance' as the present-a question affecting the making of a'law of a, permanent character which will affect the people for many years, perhaps all time-with such violence of manner, lan­guage, and feeling as have been exhibited on this occasion, seems to me to 'be pro­ceeding in anything but the proper spirit. The Chief Secretary, speaking as if he still had 60 or 70 members behind him, has made an appeal of the most violent character, but I ve~ture to tell him that

the time has gone by in this country and in this House for that mode of H rallying the party."

Mr. BERRY.-Don't you believe it. The people will not give up their prin­ciples.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-I would be very sorry to ask the Chief Secretary to give up his principles, as it is well known that' that is a thing he is incapable of doing. Nobody ever accused him of doing such a thing. Everyone knows that he has never abandoned any principle to which he committed himself. I fail to see anything unreasonable, however-any­thing to get excited about-in proposing at midnight to adjourn the debate on the propriety of having a joint committee. There are a number of gentlemen who want to speak on the question', and surely it is not unreasonable that they should be allowed an opportunity of doing so at an hour when the press will be able to report them. In any case, would it be judicious to proceed with this discussion wllile the House is in the sta,te of white heat it is in now? The Chi~f Secretary, in opposing the pro­posal for a joint committee, said he would not give up the constitutional privileges of this country. and that it was unusual to have a' joint committee in relation to a matter of this kind. But I would remind him that we are not now dealing with a matter of ordinary legislation, but with a fundamental change of the Constitution, and that in relation to the second Chamber; and I ask him if he can point to any country in the world where the course he proposes to take has been followed in dealing with such a subject? In a matter of ordinary legislation I agree with the view of the Chief Secretary; but the case is very different with respect to a funda­mental change in the Constitution, which will affect the permanent welfare of the country. The Canadian people, although living under the British system and as well instructed in constitutional law as we; are, did not think it beneath their dignity to forma committee from all the provinces to prepare a Constitution for Cant,tda, and that committee in' four days. -a work the Chief Secretary has not been able to do in four years-drafted resolutions on which the present Consti­tution of Canada is founded.

Mr. BERHY.-That was Federation. Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-It was a

Constitution for the people-a Consti­tution which will affect the interests of

1652 Re/orm Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Sixth }light's Debate.

the whole of Canada for all time. I saw the Bill founded on those resolutioI!s pass through the House .of Commons; and does anyone say that the people of Canada gave up their constitutional pri­vileges by the course they adopted? On the contrary, they went deliberately and wisely to work to prepare an Act which was to be of a permanent character. Again, was the Constitution of the United Stntes made in the way the Chief Secre­tary proposes a fundamental change in our Constitution shall be made?

Mr. BERRY. - They were separate independent states. The course the Op­position propose has never been taken in any country like this.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-Even in any of the separ~te independent states, have they ever followed the course of passing a Bill to alter the constitution of the second Chamber in. the Lower House, and then forcing the other House to have it ? Such a course can never result in. anything hut failure. It bas failed in tbis colony for four years, as I predicted it would, and tbe present attempt, if it is persisted in, is likely to be as great, if not a greater, failure than any previous one. To show that the course I am urging is not being urged from any party point of view, I will call the attention of the House to a resolution which I myself moved as a member of the Legislative Council, in 1868. That resolution was carried and sent down to this House, and what it asked was that a joint committee should be formed to take into consideration all the amendments required in the Constitu­tion. The Assembly, however, refused the request, and, in looking over the list of those who voted for the refusal, I find that, out of 38, more than 24 are no longer members of this Honse. The fault therefore of what has followed does not lie with the Council, who twelve years ago enunciated the principle of a joint committee in order to adopt the common-sense course of amending the whole constitutional instrument, and not merely a part of it, so as to render it symmetrical as a whole; but the guilt or crime lies with those who have persis­tently endeavoured to settle the constitu­tional question from a party point of view. Observations have been made to-night which indicate that this desire is not yet abandoned, but I venture to say that the country is perfectly sick of this mode of attempting to settle the question.. As

far as I can gather, public feeling is entirely against the course which the Chief Secretary is pursuing. Of course I admit that a joint committee will be per­fectly useless if the members appointed on it from this House are selected from a party point of view. According to the Speaker's ruling, the Assembly will be represented in the proportion of two to one on the committee, and, if the Chief Secretary and seven or nine of his friends are to meet half that number of members of the Upper House, of course no advance will be made. But if the committee is chosen fairly from the whole Assembly, and not merely from a part of it, I think there is every probability tbat they will bring .back a Bill that will be satis­factory to both Houses. The Council, however, have so far been treated in the matter of reform with the grossest disrespect. I have shown how their overtures in 1868 were refused by the Assembly, and we know further that they have sent down two Bills to this Chamber showing practically their views with regard to the amendment of their body. Their last Bill has now been lying for months before this House without the smallest notice having been taken of it. Is that the way to treat the second branch of the Legislature-as if they were a pack of thieves rather than Members of Parlia­ment, duly elected under a written law which has been in force for 25 years, and which many of the gentlemen who are now attacking it have been obligecl to confess is better than any of the proposals they have made to amend it? Assuming this joint committee is appointed, and it consists of 15 members, there will be 10 from this House, and 5 from the other. They will set to work deliberately, sitting round a table, without passion or excite­ment, to frame a series of resolutions to meet the defects in the Constitution in the same way that a select committee framed the resolutions on which the existing Constitution is based. Is nothing likely to be gained from a fair committee of that kind, and doing its work in that way­reviewing the Constitution not merely from one point of view, but from all points of view? All the Constitutions that we know of in the world are neces­sarily the result of compromise. I have heard it stated that this Bill is a compro­mise, but I would ask with whom was the compromise made? The compromise was made in the Age office, but was it made

Reform Bill. [MARCH a.] Sixth Night's Debate. 1653

with the other parties to the contract-t.he Council? With whom were the terms made? Nc.3ver with anyone I have met.

Mr. BERRY.-I think you were at the caucus.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-The honor­able member is wrong. He knows I was

" not there, arid he knows the reason I was not there. If I had been there, I would have been able to give him more informa­tion as to how to draw up his resolutions than he appears to have possessed. The honorable member took good care not to invite me, because he knew I could set him rigbt.

Mr. BERRY.-You were there after­wards.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-I was there afterwards, and therefore I am liable for what was dono before. There is a Chief Secretary for you! I assume that this joint committee, if appointed, will abandon the present measure alto­gether, and quietly discuss the whole ques­tion of reform on its merits. I have never pledged myself; and never will pledge my­self, in favour of single electoral districts for the Council. The Attorney-General argued that because I chose a single elec­torate as my constituency for the Assem­bly, therefore I must now support single electorates for the other Chamber. What value is there in such an argument as that? I do not believe in single electo­rates for the Assembly, much less for the Council-a different institution altogether -but is that any reason why I should not represent a single electorate established "under the existing law? Returning to the que~tion, however, might I ask is there any member of the House who has the smallest hope that he will be able to make the slightest change in this Bill in com­mittee? I have heard members scores of times say-" I will vote for the second reading of the Bill, but I will amend such and SUC~l a clause in committee."

Mr. BERRY.-But they never do. Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-Exactly. It

is perfectly futile for any member to hope to make changes in a" political measure when it gets into co~mittee, because those )Vho have charge of it will not consent, as the symmetry of th~ir design would be broken. Therefore I submit it would be worse for the Government to pass this Bill through committee and commit the ma­jority to each clause, because, if a confer­ence is subsequently held, in order to achieve any result they will have to

~ND SES. 1880.-5 Y

abandon principles to which they have bound themselves. On the other hand, if a joint committee is appointed, and the Government find t.hey cannot accept the committee's propositions, they will be in exactly the same position as they are now, and they can then proceed with the Bill if they like. Of course, if the propositions of the committee are not reasonable for both si"des, they will have no effect, but, on the other hand, without a joint committee, is "there any possibility of the Government passing a Reform Bill into law? They know very well that there are not two members of the Coun"­cil who would vote for this Bill as it stands, simply because it would be an act of self-destruction for them to do so. They are asked to kill themselves, and is it to be expected that they will do such a thing? I hope the Government will allow this motion to be debated in a proper spirit on Tuesday next, and not dispose of it in this hurried and violent manner. Some allusions have been made to various elections, and to honorable members being elected, on this Bill. The gentlemen who indulge in these state­ments know as well as I do that they were not elected on any such basis. I tell them that, and the statement has been drawn from me by the offensive remark of the Attorney-Gen:eral, who alluded to myself as forming a "party of one." I may tell the honorable member that he may thank his· stars and the "party of one" for the opportunity of being made Attorney-General. I have a right to resent , suc~ a remark, which has not been provoked by any conduct of mine since Parliament assembled. I trust we will lay aside per­sonal feelings, and make the experiment, for the first time, of dealing with the reform question from a non-party point of view. I tell the Chief Secretary that, if he will not do that, he cannot carry the Bill into law. There is no possible hope of his doing so. I also tell him that the feeling of the country is against his continuing this agitation. So that if he will not yield, and join in the compromise of a joint com­mittee, he will be answerable for any mis­chief that may follow his holding out. It will be of no use for him to say hereafter -" Why does the Council not come to a conference?" He will have put ~them in the position that they could not come to a conference. I assure him he is incurring a serious responsibility in the interests of the country. I have no party object to

1654 Reform l1ill. (ASSEMBLY.j Sixtit Nigllt's nebate.

serve when I speak in this strain. When he is asked-" By what method will you ensure the Bill you will not send to a joint committee becoming law?" what is his reply? Practically, that he has no such method. If he tries an appeal to the country-l doubt his being allowed to do so; if he gets the opportunity I will not be sorry----what can he expect to gain? I venture to say the Attorney-General should not have alluded to my "party of one," because after all the" party of one" will be able to meet him. To whom but to the "party- of one" does he owe his position? Can the honorable member for "Vest Bourke (Mr. Deakin) say he is dif­ferently placed? I warn the Chief Sec­retary that he cannot escape through a dissolution~ nOl" through' an embassy, nor through force, nor through 'any other change of . front. Under these circum­stances, the Government, would do well first to adjourn the debate, and afterwards appoint a joint committee.

. 1\11'. FISHER.-Mr. Speaker, I venture to. assert that the amendment of tho hon­orable member for Boroondara is out of order. In the first place, I draw attention to the following standing orders:-. "230.-0n the order of the day being read for

the second reading of a Bill, the question shall be put, 'That the Bill be now read a sccond time.'

"231.-Amendments may be moved to such questions by leaving out 'now,' and inserting , three months,' 'six months,' or any other time; or the Bill may be negatived.'

"232.-No other amendment may be moved to such question, unless the same be strictly relevant to the Bill." . ,

Surely the honorable member for Boroon­dara's amendment cannot be described as strictly relevant to the Bill.

The SPEAKER.-In this case the objection raised by the honorable member does not exist, as there was no amendment moved to the second reading.

Mr.FISHER.-But the 233rd standing order states :-

" A Bill, having been read a second time, may be ordered to be committed to a committee of the whole House; or, in certain cases, to a select committee."

Now ~he amendment proposes to send the Bill .not to a committee of the whole, nor to a select committee, but to a joint com­mittee. Furthermore, let me remark that, although we are bound by the practice of the House of Commons np to the date of 9llr Constitution, the practice of sending a Bill to a joint committee was unknown to the Co,mm~ns for 150 years. ~efol'e that

period, and was not revived until 1864. I submit that the proper time to raise the question of a conference upon the Bill will be when it has been before the Upper Hous~; and I beg to remind the honorable member for Boroondara that, if he is anxious for a conference at once, it is open to him to move for one in con­nexion with the Council's Reform Bill now on the table ..

Mr. DEAKIN.-Sir, I rise to express the opinion that the honorable member for Belfast's allusion to the Attornoy­General was not justified. I distinctly remember that, so far from the Attorney­General being returned for Fitzroy by tbe party of the honorable member for Belfast, it objected to him. There is indeed every reason to suppose that he fought tho olec~ tion in the face of the party's bitterest opposition.

Sir J.O'SHANASSY.-If he got the opposition, he deserved it.

Mr. DEAKIN.-As for the honorable member for Belfast's harsh allusion to myself, I will not reply to it. I do not, however, imply thereby that I cannot reply to it. The honorable member asked how the Bill could be called a compromise when it was framed in the Age office? Well, I am not aware that it is impossible to frame a compromise in the Age office. As a matter of fact, however, the Bill was not framed in the Age office. Moreover, it is so much of a compromise that our (the Ministerial) party are charged with stealing it from the other side, who in that way practically assert that it is not our measure but theirs. I regret that the former conciliatory tone of the debate has not been maintained, but itmight very easily have been maintained. The fault does not lie with our side. Every contention that has come from our benches has been couched in proper and amicable language, which evinced a desire to settle the ques": tion. After all, we only dispute the pro­posed method of arriving at a settlement. The Chief Secretary specially gual'deq himself by saying that his objection to the motion of the honorable member for Boroondara was that the present stage was not the proper one for a joint committee; If the two parties in the House differ only on a point of detail like that, surely there is no reason why either of them should display nnusual animosity. After all, the question in dispute is simply one of method" If, as I honestly believe, both sides are earnestly desirous to settle the question~'

tJ..tftce1·s of the Council. [MARCH 8.J Posztion and i'nioZuments. 1655

and believe that it would be only right to send it to-a joint committee, why ShOllld we import strong feeling into the dis­cussion whether the sending should take place at the present or at a future stage? Undoubtedly there is great force in the Chief Secretary's argument that the pro­Geoding\vill be premature until this House has expressed it.self decidedly as to the variolls proposals the Bill embodies. Until the prevalent feeling iu this Cham­ber npon each of t.hose poiuts is ascer-1ailled, what would a joint commit.tee have to go upon? However, 1 need not say more now. Inasmuch as it is evident we are entering upon a quest.ion that ean­not be disposed of in a few minutes, I think. the Government ought to consent to u,n adjournment of the dehato.

Mr. MASON.-Sir, I regret as much as anyone can the warmth that has been <1ispl!Lyed this evening. At tho same time, I thillk the request for ~n adjournment of the debate a not unreasonable one.

1\11'. BERRY . ...,...I belieye it will lead to a waste of -time to carry the debate over to a future day, but, if hoi~orable members all round are in favpur of an adjournment, I will not stand in the way.

The motion for the adjournment of the debate w~~:s agreed to. , .

The debate was then adjourned until the foHowing Tuesday.

The House adjourned at thirt.y-foilr minutes after midnight, until Tuesday, March··8.

LE.G ISLATIVE COUNCIL. Tuesday, lJlarcll 8, 1881.

Retrenchment: Officers of the House-Mounted-Constable Gleeson-Law of Obligations Bill - J~oan Application (Water Supply) Bill: Amendments Recommended by the Governor-University Constitution Amendment Bill.

The PRESIDENT took the chair at twenty-five minutes to five o'clock p.m., and read the prayer.

POSITION AND EMOLUMENTS OF .OFFICERS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir C. SLADEN moved-" That an address be presented to His Excel-.

Iency the Governor, praying him to ca.use a Bill to be introduced into Parliament for amending and enliuging part 4 of schedule D of the Con­stitution Act, so as to embrace all the salaries and expenses necessary for permanently securing the efficien<'y and independence of t he Legislative (Jounei!:"

5y2

This motion (said the honorable meIT!-ber) arises ont of the report of the select COllJ­mittpe.on parliamentary usage in matters relating to the position and emoluments of officers of the Honse, '\vhich was brought up and adopted by the Coullcil shortly before the Christmas recess. I may men­tion that what led. to the nppointment of t1la t. committee was the receipt, hy the President in October la.st, of the following letter from tho Under-Secretary:-

"Sir,-I am directed by the Chief Secretary to inform yon that he regrets that the necessity for retrenchment in the public expen(Hture has compelled the Government to reduce tilt? salary of the President of the Legislative Council to the sum of £800 per annum. The reduction is to take effect from and :tHer the 31st December

next. (Signed)" W. H. ODGlmS," That letter, togethel' with another, haying been laid upon the table by the Presidellt, I took it upon myself to move that the committee should be n.ppointed, amI the proposition was agreed to. In the course of -the committee's inqnilies they found, in the first place, that the salaries of the higher officers of the House of Commons are regulated by special legislation, and are, therefore, fixed and permanent; and, in the second pla.ce, that when, on one occasion, it was deemed necessary to reduce them, other special legislation was introduced to meet the case, and it was distinctly provided, with respect to every reduction; that it should only take effect from lho time the existing occupant of the office concerned ceased t.o hold it. It would appe::tl' from this that the Impe­rial Legislature have laid down the prin­ciple that the higher officers of Pnl'liament ought to have permanent snln.ries assigned to them, and that 110 subsequent reduction of their incomes should affect the officers at the time in receipt of them. But the contrast .presented in this country is so stril,illg as almost to create alarm lest, the. independence of this branch of the Legis­lature should be seriously threatened. I could perfectly understand the step taken by the Government if they had, in ·the first inst.::tllco, given some intimation to this Chamber thvt, ill consequence of the low state of the finances, a necessit.y for reduction IUllI ::trisen, and that it was desiraLle the Council should concur in some scheme to moet it. Undoubtedly we might then have been induced to ::tgl'ce with another place in recommending that the salaries of the principal officers of the Council should be l'e<l11ced. But, unfor­tunately, the case is widely different, amI

1656 Officers of tile" Council. [COUNCIL.] Position and Emoluments.

we have the President of the Council treated precisely in the way any officer of the civil service would be treated. Indeed the lowest officer in the civil service would naturally expect as much notice of a re­duction of his 8alary as that which has been given to the head of the Upper House of Parliament. I may mention that, for some of the officers of this Cham­ber, permanent provision is made under part 4 of schedule D of the Constitution Act, by the appropriation in Her Majesty's civil list of the sum of £5,000 for the "Clerk and expenses of the Legislative Council." Prima facie, that arrangement was supposed to provide incomes for the President and the Chairman of Committees of the Council, but the construction of" law appears to be that, as the" Clerk" is mentioned, the appropriation cannot apply to any officer of higher rank. No doubt that is a correct legal interpretation. Under these circumstances, the select committee brought up the following recommendation :-

"We therefore recommend that an address should be presented to the Governor, praying him to cause a Bill to be introduced into Parlia­ment for amending and enlarging schedule D, so as to embrace all the salaries and expenses necessary for permanently securing the efficiency and independence of the Legislative Counci1."

In accordance with that recommendation, I take my present course.

The Hon. J. GRAHAM seconded the motion, which was agreed to.

On the motion of Sir C. SLADEN, the following members were appointed a com­mittee to prepare the address :-The Hon­orables W. Campbell, H. Cuthbert, W. E. Hearn, J. Lorimer, R. D. Reid, R. Simson, and Sir Charles Sladen.

The committee retired, and were absent some time. On their return, they brought up the following report, which was read by the Clerk :-"To His Excellency the Most Honorable George

Augustus Constantine, Marquis of Nor­mallby, Earl of Mulgrave, Viscount Nor­manby, and Baron Mulgrave of Mulgrave, all in the county of York, in the Peerage of the United Kingdom; and Baron Mulgra.e of New Ross, in the county of 'Vexford, in the Peerage of Ireland; a Member of Her Majesty's Most Honorable Privy Council ; Knight Grand Cross of the Most Distin­guished Order of Saint IVlichael and Saint George; Governor and Commander-in-Chief in and over the Colony of Victoria and its Dependencies, &c:, &c., &c.

" May it please Your Excellency-"We, Her Most Gracious Majesty's most

dutiful and loyal subjects, the members of the

Legislative Council of Victoria, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to approach Your Excel­lency with renewed assurances of loyalty and attachment to the Queen, and of respect to Your Excellency.

" During the present session the President of the Legislative Council received from the Under­Secretary the following letter :-

'" No. 6616. " , Chief Secretary's Office,

'" Melbourne, 11th October, 1880. '" Sir,-I am directed by the Chief Secretary

to inform you that he regrets that the necessity for retrenchment in the public expenditure has compelled the Government to reduce the salary of the President of the Legislative Council to the sum of £800 per annum. The reduction is to take effect from and after the 31st December next.

" 'I have the honour to be, sir, " , Your most obedient servant,

"'\V. H. ODGEHS.

" 'The Honorable Sir William H. F. Mitchell, '" President of the Legislative Council, &c.' "The salary of the President was originally

£1,200 a year. In 1861 it was reduced to £1,000. " Although provision has been made for the

Clerk and expenses of the Legislative Council by an appropriation in Her Majesty's civil list of the sum of £5,000, it bas been held that the words of that appropriation cannot apply to officers of higher rank than the Clerk.

"The salary of the President is provided for in tbe annual Appropriation Act.

" What has been said of the President applies equally to the office of Chairman of Committees of the Legislative Council:

" We desire to invite Your Excellency's atten­tion to the precarious position, as regards official income, of the principal officers of the Council, alike inconvenient to them and affecting the independence and efficiency of our House.

" In the Imperial Parliament, permanent pro­vision is made for the higher class of officers by special legislation. When it has been desired to reduce any of such salaries, the reduction has been made also by special legislation ; but it has always been prospective, so as not to affect the then holder of the office.

"We believe it may be stated without fear of contradiction that, to be of lasting use and benefit,.in a country having a Legislature con­sisting of two Houses, each House should be reasonably independent of the other.

"The letter above quoted has demonstrated the danger threatening the independence of the Council when the official income of its highest officers, to whom in a great measure it should owe its efficiency, is subject to be reduced, or perhaps withheld, without the wishes of the Council being considered or its opinion even asked.

" Appended hereto, for Your Excellency's in­formation, is a copy of the report of a select committee of the Legislative Council, appointed 'to inquire into and report upon parliamentary usage in matters relating to the position and emoluments of officers of the House,' and which was submitted to and adopted by the Legislative Council during the present session.

" We pray that Your Excellency will be pleased to give this subject your careful cOIisideration, and that you will, after having had the anomalous and precarious position of the President and Chairman of Committees brought under your

University Constitution [MARCH 8.J Amendment Bill. 1657

notice, if the course now recommended should meet Your Excellency's approval, cause such steps to be taken as Your Excellency may be ad vised are necessary for amending and enlarging part 4 of schedule D of the Constitution Act, or otherwise securing permanent provision for all the salaries and expenses essential to the maintenance, efficiency, and independence of the Legislative Council."

Sir C. SLADEN moved the adoption of the address.

The motion was agreed to, and the ad­dress was ordered to be presented to His Excellency in the usual manner.

CONSTABLE GLEESON. The Hon. W. ROSS moved-"That all papers and correspondence con­

nected with the removal of Mounted·constable Gleeson from the Leigh Road station, in October last, be laid on the table of thi.s House."

The honorable member remarked that he had two objects in view in desiring the production of the papers in this case. In the first place, he wished to ascertain whether the police force was really under the management and control of it.s duly­nppointed officers, or whether, as had been frequently alleged, the representations of persons altogether outside the department were allowed to exercise an influence which must be highly detrimental to the discipline of the force by tending to neutralize the authority of the officers. In the second place, he had reason to be­lieve that this man Gleeson had been very unfairly treated-if not indeed made the victim of revenge for doing his duty. No doubt reasons would be assigned in the papers for his removal; but whatever charges had been brought against him, he (Mr. Ross) believed he was correct in saying that, in the opinion of t~e late Chief Commissioner of Police, they did not justify his removal, and the removal was ordered not only without the sanction but against the wishes of the late Chief Commissioner. If the efficiency of the police force was to be maintained, it was absolutely necessary that discipline should be preserved; and if the pa pel's now asked for indicated that anything like sys­tematic interference with the authority of the officers of the police had prevailed, some light might be thrown on the cause of the disorganization of the force about which so much had been heard.

The Hon. R. D. REID, who seconded the motion, observed that the Government had not the slightest objection to the pro­duction of the papers.

l'4e nlQtiop. was agreed tOr

LAW OF OBLIGATIONS BILL. The Hon. W. E. HEARN moved for

leave to introduce a Bill to declare, consoli­date, and amend the law of obligations.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was brought in, and read a first time.

LOAN APPLICATION (WATER SUPPLY) BILL.

The message received from the Legis­lative Assembly on February 22, inti­mating that they had agreed to certain amendments in this Bill recommended by His Excellency the Governor, and inviting the concurrence of the Council in the same, was taken into consideration.

On the motion of the Hon. R. D. REID, the amendments were concurred in.

UNIVERSITY CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT BILL.

The House went into committee for the consideration of this Bill.

On clause 4, which was as follows :-"Until a faculty of arts is established in the

University, the powers hereinafter conferred upon such fliculty shall be exercised by those professors and lecturers who lecture upon sub­jects included for the time being in the course for the degree of bachelor of arts or in the school of engineering, and also of all members of council WIlD are masters of arts in the University of Melbourne. And until a faculty of engineering and practical science is estab­lished, the powers hereinafter couferred upon such faculty shall be exercised by the faculty of arts,"

The Hon. 'V. E. HEARN observed that there were no "powers hereinafter conferred" ou the faculty of arts iu the Bill, and therefore this clause was un­necessary. He believed the original Bill did propose to confer certain powers on the faculty of arts, but the clauses con­ferring these powers were struck out in another place, and the necessary conse­quent.ial amendments were not made in the Bill. He begged to move that the clause be struck out.

. The clause was struck out. Discussion took place on clause 5, which

was as follows:-" The council shall consist of 24 members, of

whom three shall be appointed by the Governor in Council, one in each year, and 21 shall be elected by the senate: Provided always that one member from the teachers in each faculty shall first have been chosen, and that no one shall be ineligible because he belongs to the teaching body."

Dr. HEARN remarked that this was the illpst important cluqse. in the :Pill,

16.58 University Constitution [COUNCIL.] Amendment Bill.

and if the Council came to an understand­illg upon it, most of the difficulties with 'regard to the measnre wonld be removed. He thought it was pretty plainly indicated, when the second reading of the Bill was uuder consideration, that there wns a very strong feeling among honora.ble members against the Government of the day being given the power of appointing any mem­bers to the conncil of the University. He himself entirely coincided with that view, although, under certain circum­stances, he would not have considered the matter one of snch vital importance as to il1l1nce him to oppose the Bill. There was no donut, however, t.hat the proposal was clearly objectional)le, and, in his opinion, no case whatever bad been made out for it. The history of the proposal was rather cm·iolls, and not altogether ullinstrl1etive. The commissioner who inquired into the subject of education some time ago (Mr. Pearson) proposed in his report t.hat there should be £32,000 a year granted to the University, and he also recommended-as a sort of eqniva­lont for that, or at least as a recognition of t.he assistance rcmlered by the Govern­ment-that the Government of the day should appoint two members to the cOllIlcil of the Ulliversity. vVhen the proposal, however, came to be considered in another place, this curious problem in political arithmetic prewnted itself :-" If £32,000 is worth two members, how much nre six members worth? " Anll the an­swer was immediately and unanimously-" N ot.hing at alL" Then it was resolved, as a curious sort of compromise, that the Goyernment should be given the power of appointing three members to the council of t.ho Ulliyersity~ hut. all tIle correspond­ing cOllsitleratioll "which hall accompanied the original proposal was left out. There "wus, ill fact, a total failure of considera­tion in the transadioll, and therefore it might be very fairly said that, ipasmuch as there was to be no additiol1r~1 mOLley whatever givell to the University, there was no necessity at present for nny addi­tioll to the members of the conncil. He concei ved that the best course wonld be to lea,ve matters pretty much as they wero. No doubt it was urgelltly required that there should be some represl'ntatives of the teachers of the U ni \rersity in the govern­lllent of the institutioll. He believell that the University of Melbourne was nlmost the Oldy one in Hel' Mnjesty'H domillions I whe~'e tile pI'ei;ellt Ul'l'augcUleut cxi.steti,

Hon. l V. E. Hea1'1l.

and it causeu so lllany difficulties t.hat it was, he believed, conceded by every per­son connected with the University that there should be some representation of the teaching body on the council. The only question was how the proposal could be best carried out. THe Bill proposed that one member frol11 each faculty should first be chosen j but he llid not think it was de~irable that the Legislature should recognise by law the existence of fncul­ties. That was a matter of the internal arrangement of the University business which was better left to the Universit.y it self.' For a long time there bad been no facnlties whatever in the University; now there were t'vvo, and pl'obalJly there would Le more hereafter j but he did not think it would be advisable for Parliament to interfere with such a snbject of Uni­versity domestic management. There was a discussion, some time ago, in the senate of the University upon the present Bill, and the view generally expressed-which was also carriel.l out in some degree in the Bill when it was first introduced-was that a cert,ain small number of representa­tives of the teaching body should neces­sarily be elected to the conncil, and that the senate should be allowed its discretion to choose others if it thought fit. For his part, as he stated in the senate, he would be perfectly content if the matter was left absolutely in the hands of the senate, and no restriction whatever was placed on their choice of mem bel'S of the council. He was aware, however, that there were a 'great number of gent.lemen whose opinions were entitled to respect who thought differently, and be would be quite prepared t.o meet their views to the extent of propo~ing that a small number -he thonght two wonld be quite suffi­cient-of the teaching body should ncces­sarily be elected to the conncil, and that the senate might elect others if it t.hought fit. With tha,t. view, therefore, he begged t.o move tha.t clause 5 be stl'1lck out, in order to substitute t.he following new clause :-

" The conncil shall be elcct.ed by the senate of the University of Melbourne (hereiua.fter ca.lIed the senate) and shall consist of 20 mcmbers, of whom two shall always be elected from the dea.ns of faculty, the professors, lecturers, or examillers in the University. Provided that as soon as 11l:1y be after the passiug of this Act, and as often t hereafter as occasion m:!,y require, the senate shall elect two sneh officers a.., aforesaid to be 1I1clllhers of the conneil in adtlitioll to the exist­ing menlhcrs, anc! that no vacancies among the ollwr lllcllluers uf the council ~halllte fi~led until

University' Constitution [MAReRS.] , 'Amendme')lt Bill.. ' 1659

the entire number of the council is reduced to 20. Provided also that, notwithstanding any law to the cont.rary, no person who is a salaried officer, as aforesaid, in the University shall on that account be incapable of being elected and of serving as a member of the council."

He believed that clause would meet every­thing that was required, and that to a certain extent it represented the views of at least the majority of the senate.

Clause 5 was struck out. ' The Hon. H. CUTHBERT observed

that Dr. Hearn's new clause would leave the constitution of the council almost as it was at preseJlt, and the honorable m~m­ber's remarks showed that he himself was, to a great extent, in favour of leaving things in statu quo. Looking at the constitution of the University, and re­mewberillg how adI1ljrably it had workel;l during the last tweqty years; he (Mi. Quth-' bert) certainly t,hought that grave con~ sideration was required as to, the necessity for maJdng anJ considerable cbange in the council. 'A gentleman, sinQe deceased" '" IW occupied the high position of Chan­cellor of the University,' gave' evidence oef<;>re the select committee 'of another plaee which inquired into the Bill, and his opinion was entitled to great weight, yet if t.here was' one point upon which he expressed himself more strongly than another it was on t.he undesirability of th,e teaching staff of the University being re­presented on the council. Sir Redmond Barry said-

" Next, the general opinion of the body of the council is this, that the teaching staff should be made eligible, with restrictions as to the number to be elected, and the power of voting if elected. I feel bound, in bringing that under the notice of the committee, to say that I dissent from that. I am of opinion that the teaching body ought not to be upon the council, and, while I know that it is the case that members of the teaching body have of late years been introduced iilto the governing bodies of many universities, SOllie of the highest and most venemble included, I am wholly opposed to it upon many grounds. They are not w[tnted at the council to hegin with-there is no occasion for their being there. It has been said that it is convenient to have them, in order to instruct the council from time to time upon matters which the council may not be well-inform ell upon, and, moreovcr, it woulll save time by the council being informed of what the wishes of the teaching body may be. '1'0 that there are several answers-the first is that the professorial board shall furnish to the council such information as may from time to time be required-that is in the stalutes, chapter iii, section 8, Next, the member of a faculty at the board i, to be a delegate of the faculty, he is not a representative of the faclllty ill the strict sense, cannot be, for the faculties then ,,"oulll be ull at variance one with the other;

each faculty is subservient to the cO!lncil, and it' cannot be, supposed that the representative of the faculty is to represent the fac'-!-lty alone­how can he know what the views of his col­leagues are?" If there are eight members of the faculty at the table, they are members of the council, and the two who represent each faculty may vary in opinion as to the subject discussed before the council at the time they are present -one may consider himself qualified or entitled to give the information which the rest Qf. ~tbe councillors desire, and the other may differ from him toto ereZo. Until, therefore, they consult the bodies from which they emanate they cannot advise the council, and the council refer now to faculty as a body consisting of professors and lecturers, and that as a body communicates the opinions of the majority or their unanimous opinion to guide the council. It is said there is delay-there will be more delay now if this Bill be passed, for there must be a reference from the two representatives to the faculty to hring back the opinion of the faculty. It will not aceele,~'ate ,business in the slightest. degree,

, it appears ,to '~e tQ encufi;loer' busines~~ and, moteO\'el', I do not, in- my individuaFopinioti, c~nsider it at all desb:ab-Ie th!l:t·ap~!.son ~hqulq ~it at: two boards~he must, upless' he be a man of nio~t a,stonishing prudence anq of singular reti­cence, probably involve at'each board the'mem­bers whom they represent either: carefully, or mistakenly, or accidentally, but the opinioT!s of the, majority may be on the other side. I have had experi!')nce of that in avery remarkable manner. I have known members of the 'council

, vote for one proposition, and I have known the same members go into the other chamber and vote diametrically the opposite way. Theymay justify both votes;' but it does not appear to me' convenient that that kind of thing should occur. ,I do not think it is at a.ll convenient that we should have members of this lIouse go up to the other House and vote in a way different from what they voted here, and it is only by comparing small things with great that a true analogy is to be tested." He thought that this statement was en­titled to a great deal ,of weight from, the fact that it was the 'carefully-considered opinion of the late Chancellor, who had many years' experience of the working, of the University, and took a deep interest in its welfare. There were serious objec­tions to salaried officers of the University being made part of the governing body of the institntion. No doubt, questions might arise before the council with which no persons except the professors at the U ni­,;ersity were practically a.cquainted; but by inquiry, and by communicat.ion with tho professors, the members of the council could easily mako themselves thoroughly au, fait with such matters. Part of the fUllctions of the council was to fix the remuneration of the professors, and see that they pet-formed their academical duties faithfully and diligently; but, if some of tho professors were members of the council, it would be ditlicult for that

1660 University Constitution [COUNCIL. ] Amendment Bill.

body to have the unfettered control over the teaching staff which it ought to be able to exercise.. Having attentively considered what had been said on both sides of the question, he was convinceu that it would be for the interests of the University to keep the council altogether free from, and independent of, the teaching body~

Sir C. SLADEN expressed the opinion that the senate of the University ought to be allowed the opportunity of electing one or two members of the teaching staff as members of the council if they thought proper, but that they should not be com­pelled to do so. Before discussing that question, however, he thought the com­mittee ought to decide whether the council should consist entirely of men, or whether it might be composed partly of women. He would be very sorry to say anything which would give displeasure, or cause any pain' whate\'er, to the ladies. He believed that, in many instances, ladies had 11 special capacity for organization, management, and even government; in­deed, so much did he value the ladies that he would much regret if any of their influence in society was oe~troyed by their being brought into abrupt contact with mon in the management of an insti­tution like the University. He believed that it would be highly incongruous for men aRd women to act together as mem bers of the council. Ladies might be ambitious to attain honour arid distinction as students of the University, and, if they succeeded in doing so, nobody would be more pleased than himself; but, though they might succeed in becoming graduates, he thought it was undesirable that they should be allowed to take any part in the government of the institution. He there­fore hoped that honorable members would concur with an amendment which he would now move, namely, that the word " male" be inserted after "20" in the portion of the clause providing that the council" shall consist of 20 members."

The Hon. J. A. WALLACE said he would take the part of the ladies by opposing the amendment. It would be a very good thing, in his opinion, if there were two or three ladies in each House of Parliament. He believed that some of the scenes which had been witnessed in the Assembly would not have occurred if a few ladies had been members of that Chamber. He was never a student at a llnivefsity~ but QU Plaul oCCaSiQllS in m.en'§

society he had seen the great advantage of the presence of ladies; and he did not know any reason why ladies should be debarred from being members of the U ni­versity if they were in other respects qualified.

Dr. HEARN observed tbat, if the right of taking degrees 'at the University was conceded to ladies, it seemed to be a foolish thing to refuse them the legitimate consequence of their degrees. He could understand arguments being urged against admitting ladies to take degrees at the University; but, if they obtained degrees, it would be a very hard thing to say that they should not be allowed to have a voice in the government of the institution. After all, the question raised by Sir Charles Sladen's amendment was merely a specula­tive one. Even if ladies who graduated at the University were eligible to be elected members of the council, it was not likely that any would be elected for many a long year to come. They would only be elected, he presumed, when there was some de­mand for their services-when, for in­stance, there were a considerable number of women students at the University. Why, under such circumstances, should they not be entitled to be chosen as mem­bers of the governing body of the U ni­versity? Ladies had been elected members of the London School Board, and he be­lieved that they had been very successful -that they had done good' work. He wi-shed there was a chance of obtaining the assistance of any such persons in the management of the Melbourne University, but he did not expect to live to see any lady elected a member of the council of that institution. There was, however, no valid reason why the senate should be absolutely prohibited from electing ladies as members of the council. The effect of such a restriction might be to exclude desirable persons-to prevent, in fact, some lady being appointed a member of the council to whom public opinion pointed as peculiarly eligible for the position. He thought that the senate ought to be in­trusted with the discretionary power of electing la-dies as members of the council if ever they thought it desirable to do so.

The committee divided on the amend­ment-

Contents 6 Not-contents... 7

l\1a~ority against the ~lUe~dm~nt l

University Constitution [MARCH 8.J Amendment Bill. 1661

CONTENTS.

Mr. Cuthbert, " Lorimer,

Sir C. Sladen.

Teller. Sir W. H.F. Mitchell, Mr. Russell, Mr. MacBain.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Reid, " Fitzgerald, " Wallace.

Dr. Hearn, Teller. Mr. McCulloch, Mr. Ross.

Mr. CUTHBERT moved the omission of the words" of whom two shall always be elected from the deans of faculty, the professors, lecturers, or examiners in the University."

Dr. HEARN said it was the .opinion of a large majority of the council of the University-although the late Chancellor held a different view-that it was desir­able there should always be some mem­bers of the teaching staff on the council. Speaking from his own experience of the working of the institution, which was a very long one, he believed it was absolutely necessary, if the constitution of the U ni­versity was to remain as it was, that the teaching body should be represented at the council board. There was scarcely any university in the United Kingdom in connexion with which some provision for such a representation was not made. Many of the graduates of the Melbourne University were desirous that there should be a much larger representation of the teaching .staff on the council than the clause proposed; but, personally, he would be content if the present dis­qualification were simply removed, and the senate allowed to elect to the council any members of the teaching body that it might think fit to appoint. Under all the circumstances, he considered it woulLl be a reasonable compromise to require that the council must include in its ranks two members of the teaching staff. He be­lieved that the provision would, in many respects, work very satisfactorily; and that, as long as the present constitution of the University was maintained, it was extremely desirable, in the interests of the public, that there should constantly be some of the teaching body on the council. Amongst the class from whom it was exceedingly likely that other members of the council would continue to be recruited were gentlemen whose interests were not always identical with those of the University, and it was advisable, for many reasons, that a counteractin~ jnffHepce shpuld be brou~ht to be~r!

Sir C. SLADEN remarked that it would be a very bad principle to render it compulsory for the senate to elect two members of the council from a certain class. He thought it was desirable that the senate should not he prohibited from appointing two or three of the teaching body members of the council, if they thought proper to do so; but to make it compulsory to have two of the professors on the council would be likely to work prejudicially and injuriously. He, there­fore, supported the amendment. He also strongly objected to the first proviso of the clause. He was not disposed to put any pressure on the senate as to the men they should elect to the. council. They ought to be left entirely free as to whether or not they would appoint any of the teach­ing body.

The Hon. J. LORIMER stated that he concurred with the views expressed by Sil' Charles Sladen. Feeling the great importance to the colony of such a valu­able institution as the University, he was anxious to know the real reasons for making such a change at the present time as was contemplated by the Bill.' He confessed he had not heard any satis­factory grounds for effecting a radical alteration in the constitution of the coun­cil. He had read all the evidence taken before the select committee of another place; and he agreed with Mr. Cuthbert that the opinion of the late Chancellor of the University was entitled to great weight. At the same time, many other witnesses examined before the committee, whose views deserved attent.ion, thought that the teaching body oaght to he repre­sented on the council. After giving the subject the best consideration he was capable of bestowing upon it, he had corne to the conclusion that, under certain circumstances, it would probably be an advantage to have some members of the teaching staff on the council. There should be no compuLsion, however. The senate ought to he free to exercise its own discretion. The 14th clause, defining the powers of the cOllncil, declared that-

"They shall have the entire mnnagement and superintendence of the affairs, concerns, and pro­perty of the Univer!>ity; they may appoint and dismiss aU professors, lecturers, exnminers, officers, and servants of the University; they. shall fix the number, stipend, tenure of office, and manner of appointment and of dismissal of such professors and persons aforesaid."

It would, he thought, be very inconvenient to 4ay~ too ~arge a represeptation of th~

1662 Personal Explanation. [ASSEMBLY.] Contract SU'rveyol'.

professorial body on the council. He was, therefon~, in favour of the addition to the clause of a proviso to t.he effect that not more than two or three of the staff should at any time be members of the council. Witll that restriction, he wonld simply remo\'c tile existing disability which pre­vented any of the teaching staff being elected members of the council, and not hamper the senate in any way.

The amendment was agreed to. , On the motion of Sir C. SLADEN, the

first proviso was strnck out. Mr. CUTHBERT proposed the addi­

tion to the CIa'use of the following words :­" Provided also that the number of such offi­

cers, at the same time, shall not exceed three."

The amendment was agreed to. The new c1au-se, amen Jed to read as

follows, was then inserted in the ,Bill :-" The council shall be elected by the senate,

and shall consist of 20 members. Provided that, notwithstanding any lu w . to the con trary, no person who: holds uny salaried office in the U lid varsity as a dean ,of facultyj professor, lcc­turer"or examiner shall on that account be in­ca pable of being elected Ulld of serving us a member of the council. Provided also that the number of such officers,' at the same' time, shall not exceed three."

At this stage, progress was reported. The House adjoui,'ned a't' thirteen.

mm-ates to seve'll o'clock, mltil Tuesday, l\1al'ch 15.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. Tuesday, March 8, 1881.

Personal Explanation: Mr. Bowman - Complaint against Contract Surveyors - Yan Yean Water Supply - «'atal Torpedo Explosion - Railway Department: Alighting from Carriages: Fatal Accident: Gatekeepers: Acci­dents at Level Cr02sings: Travellers for Educational Purposes - Foot and Mouth Disease: Importation of Cattle - North Melbourne Drainage Works-Fires caused by Locomotives - Public Instruction: State School Exhibitions - l\Iining Department - Hobson's Bay Railway: St, Kilda. Line -Mining Lcases-Geelong Railway Station-Coal in Gippsland: Diamond DriIls­l\Ir. L, L. Smith and the A,Qe Newspaper-Naval Forces -Reform Bill: Seventh Night's Debate: Mr, Murray Smith's Motion for a J'oint Committee.

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

PERSONAL EXPLANATION. Mr. BOWMAN.-Mr. Speaker, I rise

to make a personal explanation in regard to a letter which appeared in yesterd~Ly's A1·/lllS. ""Vhen the qnestion arose last week aLout the Ar.qus, I spoke in reference to the corruptioll which sometimes exists

amongst juries and amongst mn,gistrates on the bench, and I mentioned the case of L. Stevenson and Sons, in which I think every person outside this I-louse believes that corruption did take place. I received a letter from L. Stevenson and Sons at noon on Saturday last, just as I was leav­ing my office for the day. I intended to reply to thn,t letter when I got to my office on Monday morning; but the first thing I saw thut morning WflS the same letter in the Argus. Am I to carryon a correspondence with the A,'.qUS or with L. Stevenson and Sons?, I desire to say

, t.hat I have no intention of doing either. . If L. Stevenson and Sons will ask for a • select committee, I will support the ap­, pointment of one. We all know what , bribery is; and if touting and treating

those magistrates is 1l0tbriL0ry, there is

I· no bribery~ I under-stand that treating

comes 111H1er the Act. If ,L. Stevenson ! and Sons will make an affidavit, or a statu­

:1' tory,declaration (and sq bring themselves , within the pale of the law), that they

have not participatetJ in any money or I profits derived from defrauding the Cus­I toms, I will give them.a full explanation , of "\V,hut I said in this House the ot,her I night; but" not untif then; -. I think I am

putting the matter very fairly. If they are so immacnlate and so pme, it is a very

, easy thing for them to make a statutory declaration to that effect. I understand there are only two members of the firm, and that they are now both in the colony. If they obtain the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the statement I made in the House, I will undertake to substantiate what I said, and abide by t.he result.

CONTRACT SURVEYOR. SALE.

Mr. l\1cLEAN asked the Minister of Lands if the statement contained in a let.ter published in the Argus, of the :23rd February, to the effect that t.he contract surveyor for the Sale district had been absent from that district for some time­the selections meanwhile being surveyed by a gentleman who did not possess a certificate of competency as a surveyor­was true?

Mr. RICHARI)SON said the Assistant Surveyor-General reported that he was not aware that Mr. Allan, the contract surveyor for Sale, had been n bsen t from his di'strict, and that no complnint had been made to the department aLont the officer.

}Tan Yean [MARCH 8.J Wat~r Supply. 1663

YAN YEAN WATER SUPPLY. Mr., L. L. SMITH askcu the Minister

:of PU'blic Works if he was in a position ,to ,give any explanation as to the cause oil the impurity of the Yan Yean water, and whether there was any remeuy for it?

Mr. LANGRIDGE saiu he visited the Yau Yean reservoir on the previous Fri­day, but, before stating the result of his visit., he desired to remind the House that in 1878, in consequence or a portion of a bridge ovor the ri vel' Plenty boing washed 'away by floods, a board was appointed " to inquire into the canse of the accident and the meallS whereby a similar calamity might be prevented; likewise to inquire into the water supply generally, with a view of preventing in future the city and suburbs being at any time deprived of water." The boaru reported that the best means of repairing the damage was to construct a large iron flume across the Plenty, which was accordingly uone. If the report of the board had been laid be­fore the House, it would have been seen that it also contained many of the sugges­tions which had been made about the Yan Yean tIuring the last few weeks. The board commenced an inspection of the sources of supply to the Yan Yean reservoir, anti found that they passed through private property and swamps, and likewise through the drainage area of the township of vVhittlesca. Tbe board therefore considered that, to prevent the pollution of the water before entering the reservoir, it would be necessary to COI1-

struct an aqueuuct above Yan Yean, for the,purpose of carrying the castern antI western branches of the Pleut.y river, Bruco's Croek, anel Jack's Creek direct

,from the ranges. This, it was fonnd, would involve tbe sacrifice of a large portion' of the catchment area. It was, of course; avery inopportune time to cut off any: p9rtion of the water su pply area, which ought to be increased rat.her tha.n dimin­ished, consillering the growing population, of Melbourne and. tbe suburbs. \Vhcn the Yan Y can works were first constrllcted, Melbourne was a city of only about 70,000 illhabitants, but the, population had steadily increased year by year since that period. To illustrate how much larger was the quantity of water now required, he might mention that 'within the last two years tllPrc had becn sufficient additional 1'e,­ticnlat.ioll pipes Jaill down ill Melbourne and the suburbs to supply the wlwle ,of a

town like Ballarat. The board. had plans and estimates prepRred of the scheme to which he hnd already alluded. They also carefully considered the Watts river scheme. They found that a beautiful supply of pure water could be obtained from the Watls, the Graceburn, Badger's Creek"l1nd oue or two small streams, and be brought by an aqueduct to the Preston reservoir. The surveys, levels, and esti­mate of the cost of a work of this magni­tude necessarily required a good. deal of tin18 to prepare, l)l1t they were now com­pleted. It was estimated that to provide a supply of 24,000,000 gallons uaily, with­out a r'eservoir, woulu cost about £500,000. To carry ont the othel' scheme, which woullI cut off n considerable portion of the catchment area, and reduce the supply of water by olle-half, woulu cost something like £300,000. The whole matter was at present under consideration, and. a i'eport OIl each scheme would be ready in a few weeks, when the House would be placed in a position to determine which of the two ought to be auopted. During the last few weeks the Yan Yean water had be­come very bad; there ,had been great com­plaints of its disagreeable taste and ouour. The week before last he appointed a special board, consisting of Mr. Brady, engineer, and Messrs. Cosmo N ewbery and Foord, analytical chemists, to inqnire into the matter. They furnished a report, but, unfortunately, they did not suggest any remeuy for the evil. On Friuay last, as he had already mentioned, he visited the Yan Yean works, accompanied by the board, together with the Chief Engineer for Water Supply, the superintending ell­gineer, and Mr. J o11nson, the Govel'l1ment Analytical Chemist. A reprosentative from each of the :Th1elbol1rue daily news­papers was also invited. The wholo of t,he works under the control of the depart­ment were found to be in fit'st-class order and condition .. A cqmplete tour was made round the lake, and also of the drainage area of Dry Creek. On inspecting Dry Creek, he noticed what he thought was one of the sources of the discolouration of the water. To his surprise he fonnd there ,was a farmers' common, containing an area of about 20,000 acres of land, on which. a large nnmber of cattle were depastm;ed, and which was also used as a camping ground for travelling stock brought dowl\ 1he country. The drainnge of, the greater portiol\ of that area wen t iuto Dry Creek, allll from thero iuto the

1664 Yan' Yean [ASSE.MBLY.] Water Supply.

Yan Yean reservoir. Unless the pollu­tion from the farmers' common could be stopped, there would be no way of reme­dying the nuisance it caused except by carrying the storm-water through a tunnel to Arthur's Creek, away from the reser­voir altogether. Weirs and dams were at present in process of construction in Dry Creek, for the purpose of preventing silt entering the lake. He might also mention that an alteration would have to be made in the foreshore of Bear's Flat, and that he had set a number of men to work to clear off the rnshes and sedge, &c., and had given instructions for the spalling or metalling of the banks of the lake to be continued wherever it was necessary. Since his return, he had sent up a diver for the purpose of making a thorough examinat.ion of the bed of the lake, and he hoped in a few days to be in possession of aU the information that could be obt~tined as to the cause of the disagreeable smell and taste of the water. Cont,inuing the aCl'ount of his inspection on Friday, he might mention that on leaving the reservoir and passing along t.he sources of the supply, he saw what he believed was another cause of t.he pollu­tion. Immediately outside the flood-gates, where the Plenty river was diverted, there was a large accumulation of sand and silt, which constantly had to be cleared out. By a slight alteration, which could easily be effected, though it would in­volve the purchase of about an acre and a half of land, the current of the river could be diverted so as to carry it beyond the entrance' to the inlet, and then, by the erection of a weir, an immense quantity of sand and filth would be prevented from passing into the reservoir. Proceeding further along the Plenty, he found another cause of the discolouration and disagreeable state of the water in the fact that the river passed through private land, and was therefore open to cattle. He had since recei ved a, report from the Government Analytical Chemist, which he would read to the House. It was as follows :-

"Referring again to the present condition of the water in the lake, I have not the least doubt it has been brought about by the continual scouring of the Whittlesea flat lands, mainly caused by the treading of cattle, such scouring consisting of all kinds of animal filth being re­moved, and eventually retained in the lake itself, where it has no doubt gone on increasing in amount, until the quantity became,so large as to putrefy during hot weather, and so produce all the inconveniences complained of. It is my opinion, however, that if due precautions are

Mr, Lanpridpe.

taken in future not to admit Whittlesea pollu­tion, that the water in the lake will presently purify itself, as it is indeed now doing, the un­pleasant gases arising being nothing more nor less than the filth contained in the water being got rid of. The process resembles what is well known to take place at sea, fresh water taken in from port presently putrefying when out at sea a few weeks, but after a time becoming pure again."

Mr. ,\VOODS remarked that there was no foreign matter in that water.

:Mr. LANGRIDGE stated that thero must be a good deal of foreign matter in water which came out of the Thames. Mr. J ohuson concluded his report by saying-

" No doubt the addition of lime to the lake itself would go a long way towards curing it, but then the quantity required would be so enor­mous that I cannot ad vise its use on the ground of expense." The population of Whittlesea was about 140 persons, and he supposed that there would be about 500 head of cattle and horses belonging to them on' the town common. He had gi ven instructions for the common to be fenced in at once, so as to prevent the pollution of the water from that source. He also intended to put labourers on to clear out tho bed of Bruce's Creek, a,nd dress the slopes of it; but, as this would be through private landS, it would be necessary to make provision, by erecting pumps, troughs, tanks, &c., to supply water for the use of the inhabitants and their cattle. He also found that, by the purchase of a few chains of land for the length of a quarter of a mile, he could divert ~rnce'·s Creek from the Plenty alto­gether. At the junction of Bruce's Creek and the Plenty the river water was quite clear, while that from the creek was dirty and defiled. He must admit that some of the statements which had appeared in the press about the pollution of the water were not at all exaggerated. Bruce's Creek and Scrubby Creek were, in his opinion, the fruitful sources of pollution, and his present efforts would be confined to cleaning those creeks, and rendering the water comparatively pure. He was loath to go to the expense of cutting off a great body of the water, and afraid of the danger there might be of shortening the supply. He therefore did not, at present, intend to do anything beyond what he had mentioned. He believed that with the steps which bad been already taken, and with what was intended, to be done, and by strictly en~orcing the by-laws, the quality of the w~ter would b.f? {!q~sicler~bl,

Fatal Torpedo Explosion. C MARctt 8.J Railway Department. 1665

improved. It must not, however, be under- , stood that a complete and effective remedy would be obtained by the means he had indicated. If that were the case, tho pro­jected works on the Watts river would not be necessary; but the steps already determined upon would tend greatly to ameliorate the present condition of the water.

Mr. GRAVES asked the Minister if he was aware that there was at present in Melbourne an experienced French hydraulic engineer, thoroughly acquainted with similar works to the Yan Yean, and who had brought with him credentiald from the French Government; also whether it was the intention of the department to avail itself of that gentleman's advice?

Mr. LANGRIDGE intimated that he had appointed a day for having an inter­view with the gentleman alluded to by the honorable member for Delatite.

FATAL TORPEDO EXPLOSION. Mr. ZOX called attention to the fact

that, the previous Saturday, a boat be­longing to the Cerberus was blown to pieces, off Queenscliff, by the explosion of a torpedo, and five men were killed; and asked the Chief Secretary if the Government intended to have a searching investigation made into the cause of the accident?

Mr. BERRY replied that it was his in­tention to appoint a board of scientific men

, to inquire thoroughly into the matter.

RAILWAY DEPARTMENT. Mr. BOWMAN called attention to the

fact that, the previous Sunday, a woman was killed at the Melbourne station of the Hobson's Bay Railway, in conse­quence of falling between the train and the platform as she was stepping out of a carriage while the train was in motion; and asked the Minister of Railways if it was his intention to apply some auto­matic brake on the suburban lines, so that the trains might be brought to an imme­diate stand-still on entering a station? On the underground railway in England the trains ran into the stations without slackening speed, and, being fitted with an automatic brake, they were at once brought to a stand-still, and no accidents occurred. The slow pace at which the trains entered stations on the suburban lines in this colony was calculated to mis­lead the passengers and induce them to alight while the carriages were in motion,

and thus incur groat risk of accident. He did not care what brake was used-­w hethor the VV oods brake, the Westing­house brake, or any other-=-so long as the suburban trains were fitted with some automatic brake whereby they could be pulled up promptly if they entered a sta­tion at an ordinary rate of speed.

Mr. PATTERSON said the Engineer­in-Chief was in favour of trains entering stations at a slow speed, believiug that was the safer method. It was, however, the intention of the department in future to stringently enforce the by-law prohibit­ing persons from jumping from a carriage while the train was in motion, and to prose­cute the silly people who werc guilty of that practice.

In reply to Mr. FISHER,

Mr. PATTERSON intimated that he would, if possible, allow gatekeepers to have the same relief from Sunday occupa­tion as other employes on the suburban lines.

Mr. W. M. CLARK asked the Minister of Railways if he would issue regulations prohibiting, and making a punishable offence, the use of level crossings near stations on suburban lines when trains were within a given distance?

Mr. PATTERSON stated that,if the practice referred to were to be made a punishable offence, a law would have to be passed for the purpose. He might mention that every possible precaution against accident was taken by the Railway department.

Mr. DEAKIN inquired whether the Minister of Railways would introduce a differential series of passenger rates for persons travelling periodically upon the railways' for educational purposes only? He explained that the concession asked for was merely an extension of that which· already existed on the Hobson's Bay lines in the case of children attending school.

Mr. PATTERSON observed that chil­dren attending school, U ni versi ty students, and youths learning trades were allowed to travel on the suburban lines at reduced rates, and he did not see why a similar concession should not be made with regard to the other portions of the railway system. If the honorable member for West Bourke (Mr. Deakin) would submit to the department the precise cases in which he desired the concession to be made, the representation would Le taken into consideration.

1666 Diseases in Stock. [ASSEMBLY.] Ph'cs by tocomotive,~.

Mr. BURROWES mentioned that one of the lecturers at the Salldhnrst School of Mines had .to travel from Melbourne every week.

DISEASES IN STOCK. :Mr. L. L. SMITH asked the Chief Se­

cretary whether, in view of tho fact illat the foot and mouth disease was in nearly every district in England, and that a viru­lent disease had broken out in America amongst pigs and horses, he would at Ollce appoint n, competent inspector at the Heads to board all ships before they en­tered the Bay, n,nd thus prevent the intro­duction of disen,se into this colony?

MI'. BERRY said he hnd received the following report from the Chief Inspector of Stock, in reply to the honorable mem­ber's question :-

"1. That at the present time all stock which arrives here from outside the Australian colo­nies is, without unnecessary delay, either de­stroyed on board, removed from the harbour, isolated on a hulk, or placed in quarantine at Point Nepean, and that in the last two cases it has to undergo a veterinary examination ill addition to the usual inspection. 2. In view of this treatment it seems to me that Mr. Smith's proposal must have been made ill ignorance of what is being done, as there can be no security like slaughter, which usually results, and cer­tainly it would not be long before the veterinary inspector at the Heads and the veterinary in­spector at the wharf would come to disagree­ment. 3. Under these circumstances, I fail to see that any additional security can be obtained except by shortening the time during which stock are left Oll board at the wharf uudealt with, and I would recommend, in view of the outbreak of disease in Great Britain, that the time fixed should be ,reduced, when practicable, to six hours, Sundays included. 4. During several weeks I have drawn the attention of the Stock departments of the neighbouring colonies to the outbreak under consideration, in the hopes that united action might be taken, but I am not aware that anything has been done."

Mr. L. L. SMITH remarked that the animals ought to be inspected on ship­board, at the Heads, before they cameu p the Bay.

Mr. BERRY stated that he brought the subject of the importation of stock before the recent intercolonial conference at Sydney, but he found no desire on the part of the delegates from the other colo­nies to open up the question. Queensland n,nd New South Wn,les appeared to be thoroughly satisfied with their existing regulations, which were very similar to those in force in this colony. At one time cat.tle were not allowed to be imported into Victoria from other parts of the world, but that reguln,tion was 'recently relaxed.

Since then, however, the privilcge of im­porting cattle hat1 not been availed of to the ext.ent that it was previously asserted it would be, and the question arose whether it was worth while, merely for the advan­tage of a few breeders who might wish to iHlport stock, to nUl the risk of introducing cattle affected with disease. He would endeavour to obtain further information on the subject; and, if it was fonnd neces­sary, the Government would revert to the old regulation prohibiting the importation of rattle.

Mr. L. L. SMITH explained that what he wanted was an inspection at Port Phillip Heads, so t.hat the risk attendant on the bringing of diseased animals to wharfs in Melbourne might be avoided.

Mr. BERRY remarked that the honor­able member for Ric,hmond (Mr. Smit.h) was anxious for n, regulation with regard to animals which was not considered neces­sary in the case of human beings, because vessels now came to Hobson's Bay with­out passengers being inspected by the Health-officer. However, if more strin­gent arrangements than those now in force were found to be necessary, they would have to he adopted, even if the law had to be altered for the purpose.

NORTH MELBOURNE DRAINAGE WORKS.

Mr. WOODS asked the Minister of Public Works whether he intended to take any steps to abate the nuisance caused by what were called the North Melbourne drainage works?

Mr. LANGRIDGE stated that mea· sures were being tn,ken to abate the· nuisance referred to without delay.

FIRES CAUSED BY LOCOMOTIVES. Mr. LAURENS n,sked the Mi~ister of

Railways whether he was aware that sparks from the foUl' o'clock down train, on the 15th J n,nuary last, set fire to a paddock situated on the Sandhurst line,_ nine miles from Melbonrne, owned by Mr. Isaac Gidney, of Hotham, whereby 230 aCl'es of grass were destroyed; also, whether he had read Mr. Gidney's letter, of the 24th January, to the department,' req uesting the damages to be assessed, and compensation made for his loss?

Mr. PATTERSON said it was Hot sufficiently clear thn,t the fire referred to was caused by sparks from n, locomotive; n,nd, inasmuch as the claim was not ad.: mitted, the depart.ment would not proceed-

Stale ScllOol Exltibitions. [MARCIl 8.J Mining Leases. 1667

to assess the damages. \Vhen the depart.:. ment was perfectly satisfied. t.hat a fire was caused by a locomotive, it paid tho damages at once without dispute.

Mr. LAURENS inquired how a person whose grass bad been set on fire by a locomotive was to satisfy the d.epartment that he ought to be compensated?

Mr. PATTERSON remarked. that it was the business of all engine-drivers, line repairers, and the other employes of the department to report the existence of fire alongside any railway line, when the promptest inquiry was made into all the circumstances. In the event of the Rail­way department resisting any claim for compensation, the only way of settling the matter was by the claimant taking it into court.

Mr. HALL asked the Minister of Rail­ways what decision be had arrived at with respect to the claims of persons residing near Arcadia, on the Goulburn Valley line, who had suffered by fires caused. by the railway engines?

Mr. PATTERSON said the Railway' department uenied all liability in the matter.

STATE SCHOOL EXHIBITIONS. Mr. WALSH asked the Minister ~f

Public Instrnction whether it was true t.hat the State school exhibitions had not been awarded to cerutiu boys who com­plied with the legal regulations relating to the awards of such exhibitions?

Major SMITH remarked that this matter was brought before the House, the previous week, by the honorable member for Stawell, wheu itwas stated that two boys who had successfully passed the examina­tions for exhibitions were aftei'wards found to be disqualified, owing to the discovery that the regulation as to age had not been complied with. In order that these boys should not suffer, owing to the certificate of their birth being forthcoming after instead of before the examination, and in order that no injustice should. be done to the two boys who stood next in order' of merit, it was his intention to provide two extra exhibitions this year.. .

MINING DEPARTMENT. Mr. ZOX asked the Minister of Mines

whether he would place on the Supple­mentary Estimates an amount sufficient to pay the unclassified officers of the Min­i.og' department the increment in salary

apptovecl by the late Minister of Mines from the 1 st July, 1880?

Mr. WILLIAMS replied in the nega­tive.

HOBSON'S BAY RAILWAY. Mr. NIMMO asked the Minister of

Railways whether he intended to erect a landing platform between the St. Kilda and Albert-park stations, in order to COll­

venience those persons who had purchasetl land and erected dwelling-houses in the locality?

Mr. PATTERSON expressed his wil­lingness to have a site marked out, so that the accommodation asked for could be provided when the traffic became suffi­cient to justify the expense.

MINING LEASES. Mr. QUICK inquired of the Minister

of Mines whether his attention had been called to the decision of th~ Chief Judge of the Court of' Mines on the special case of Robertson v. Samuel, stated by the 'Var­den of Sandhurst, affirming the validity of the leasing regulations, and :w4ether: he intended to return to the practice of direct­ing inquiries into the performance of the covenants of mining leases to .be held by wardens, and. to give the forfeited leases to successful complai;nants ? .

Mr. WILLIAMS stated that his atten­tion had been called to the decision referred to, and he intended to revert to the prac­tice formerly pursued with regard to 'the forfeiture of leases.

Mr. BURRO"VES asked the Minister of Mines if he wo~ld place. in the Library the papers connected with the applications of Mr. Whelan and Mr. J .. G. Weddell for leases to mine on the ground. known as' the police reserve, Sandhurst ? .

Mr •. WILLIAMS replied in the affirma­tive.

GEELONG RAILWAY STATIO~. Mr. LEVIEN asked the Minister of

Railways the following ques.tions :-:-"1. What is the cellarage capacity for storing

wheat at Geelong station? . "2. What has been realized for storage since

the station was built? .. ,' . "3. What is the price charged: by the depart­

ment per ton'per week?"

Mr. PATTERSON, in reply, r.ead the fo1l9wing . memorandum from the Traffic. Manager :- .

." Area of cellar available f()i' storage, lO,38~ superficifi.l feet. .

," .The <;:ellar~vri,s adve,rtisedfo.r lease, but no. tenders were ~·eceh·e<l. . About 20 feet of it was

1668 Pe1'sonal Explanation. [.ASSEMBLY.] lrIr. t. L. Smith.

let' for a few months for 20s. a month, but the department has never stored goods in it, the cost of handling-i.e., putting the goods down and taking them out again- being too great. Grain dealers object to the asphalt floor." Wheat and flour (added Mr. Patterson) were very sensitive, and would be ruined, he was told, if stored in the cellar. (Mr. Kerferd-" 'What did the cellar cost ?") He had not the particulars with him, but

,the cellar would be utterly useless for storage until the asphalt flooring was dug out.

DI.AMOND DRILLS. Mr. MASON asked the Minister of

Mines if his attention had been called to the fact that, some short time ago, the Railway department accepted tenders for the removal of the diamond drill from the Moe rail way ,station to the coal-fields at Moe, and that some considerable expense ,was incurred by the same department ill erecting and fitting-up tents, for the ac­commodation of the ,men who were to be employed on the works; and if he wonld see that early steps were taken to test the coal seams in the locality in question, and thus prevent the money already expended from being absolutely thrown away?

Mr. WILLIAMS stated that he could not find among the papers in the Mining department the smallest trace of the con­tract referred to by the honoraLle member for South Gippsland. Until recently, the diamond drill in question was entirely under the'control of the Railway depart­ment. Since the drill had been handed over to the Mining department, it had been sent to Kilcunda, and it was now being used in exploring for coal ill that district. He thought it would be v~ry undesirable to shift the drill from that part of the country until the exploration on which it was being used had been com­pleted. Until the additional drills which had been ordered were supplied, the de­partment would have to be careful as to where this drill went, lest there should be an outcry on the part of districts that wanted the use of the drill, and were pre­pared to pay the entire expense connected with its working.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Mr. L. L. SMITH said-Mr. Speaker, I rise for a personal explanation. The Age newspaper, in its attempt to turn the politics of this country into a reHgious feud, has thought fit to make an improper use of my name. In a leading article

which it published yesterday, referring to the honorable member for Belfast, it said-

"He failed, three months ago, when he made Mr. L. L. Smith his catspaw, because the Catholic liberals of the Assembly were true to the pledges which they had given to their con­stituents." I wish to give this statement a total denial. It is a thorough lie. In the act.ion which I took three months ago, I was not in the slightest degree instigated by the honor­able member for Belfast. Why on three occasions I rose in this House and warned the Ministry that, unless they brought forward their reform measure, I would table a no-confidence motion against them. The article I refer to contains this further statement :-

" The leader whom they had trusted was pre­pared to sell them still more cheaply, and actu­ally entered into a secret contract with Mr. L. L. Smith to do so. Will Sir John O'Shanassy deny that he then offered to forego the Catholic claims eyen more entirely; that he agreed to allow a Royal commission to be appointed, with the understanding that it should protract its investi: gations for two years, and thus secure as long a life for his Ministry as possible?" Now I say that 51 honorable members can give a decided denial to this. "Vhy it was known in caucus that I and several o/,her gentlemen went to the honorable member for Belfast, and stated as distinctly as possible that we trusted he would not insist upon the Catholic claims with regard to education; but that if he would be satisfied with, a Royal commission, we would give him that Royal commissiou.

Mr. V ALE.-No. Mr. L. L. SMITH. - The Attorney­

General was not there. Mr. VALE.-I was there on one occa-

sion; and I say "No." Mr. BERRY.-I say" No" also. Major SMITH.-And I. Mr. L. L. SMITH.-I totally deny that

I or anyone of the 51 members who assembled in caucus had any" secret con­tract" with the honorable member for Belfast. I repeat that the reason why I brought forward my motion in December last was to prevent the House going into recess without first dealing wit.h the ques­tion of reform.

NAVAL FORCES. Mr. W. M. CLARK called attention

to a newspaper statement that the com­mander of the Cerberus had issued a memorandum intimating that any mem­ber of the naval forces discovered giving

Refo1'm .i3Ul. rMARCH 8.J Seventh Nigltt's Debate. i669

information to the members of the press would be summarily dismissed, and asked the Chief Secretary whether he ,,,ould extend the functions of the board ap­pointed to inquire into the circumstances attending the recent accident, so as to enable them to investigate the discipline of the Victorian navy?

Mr. BERRY stated that he thought that any inquiry wbich the board might consider necessary to institute with regard to naval discipline would come properly within their functions.

REFORM BILL. SEVENTH NIGHT'S DEBATE.

On the order of the day for resuming the debate (adjourned from Thursday, March 3) on Mr. R. M. Smith's motion for referring" the question of reform, and the Bills relating thereto wllich nre now before the House, to ::t joint committee of the Legislative Council and tho Legislative Assembly,"

Mr. MIRAMS said-I rise to ::t point of order. It ::tppears to me that the pro­position of the honorable member for Boroonc1:;tm is altogether on t of order, for two or three reasons. According to the Votes and P1'oceedin,qs of last Thursday, a copy of which I hold in my hand, Mr. Berry moved that t.he Heform Bill be committed. That motion was carried, and, having been carried, the Bill, as a matter of course, has been committed to a committee of the whole House.

Sir J. O'SHAN ASSY.-No. Mr. MIRAMS.-I am stating my own

opinion; and taking a common-sonse view, a view free from quibhle, I say that when the House has determined, without divi­sion, to commit a Bill, the measure is of necessity committed to a committee of the whole I-louse. If tho honorable member for Boroondara desired any oth~r com­mittee than a committee of the whole House, he should have moved as an amend­ment on the motion "Tbat the Bill be committed," "That it be committed to a joint committee." The honorable mem­ber failed to do that, and t.he Chief Secre­tary followed up the order "That the Bill be committed" with a motion "That the Bill be now committed." It was upon that reso] ntion, which merely fixed the time when the committee shoilld be held, that the honorable member for Boroondara interposed wit.h his proposition-which, if it be entertained at all, should be dealt with as an amendment on the Chief

2ND 8ES. 1880.-5 Z

Secretary's motion:-entirclyaltering the constitution of the committee under the guise of altering the time when the committee should be held. I hold that the proposition of the honorable mem ber for Boroolldara cannot be submitted as a sub­stantive motion at this stage, because, as is laid down by May, a proposal for re­mitting a Bill to a select committee can be moved only as all am'endment upon the question "That the Bill be now com­mitted," or upon the succeeding question "That the Speaker do now leave the chair." ,It is competent for the House, if it thinks desirable, to pass a resolution instructing the committee to consider any matter over and above the Bill itself. Such a resolution can be moved on the reading of the order of the day for going into committee on the Bill, but surely the honomble member for Boroondaradoes not wish the House to suppose that his proposition is an instruction to the com­mittee, because it alters the constitution of the committee entirely. But over and above these technical objections, I con­tend that the wbole proposition is out of order for the reason that it remits to a select committee a Bill we are not con­sidering with a Bill which we are con­sidering. ""Vith regard to the cases which you, Mr. Speaker, cited the other evening as giving colour to this mode of proceeding, a,nd indicat.ing that we are only following English precedents, I would ask honorable members to give their attention to those cases as they are reported in the JOU1'nals of the House of Commons.

1\1:r. KERFERD.-I don't like to inter­rupt the honorable member, because the discussion may be of advantage to the House; but I must submit, as a matter of pure order, that the honorable member is out of order. The honorable member I cannot question the Speaker's ruling, be­cause the motion of the honorable member for Boroomlam has been stated from the chair, and the House is in possess,ion of it.

The SPEAKER.-I may mention that, according to the decisions of two former Speakers of this Hom,e, the proper time for q nestioning a ruling from the chair is UpOIl the consideration of a notice of motion for disagreeing with it. I do not concur in that decision. I consider the correct time for reviewing a ruling by the Speaker is when it is given. I would be slow to prevent any honorable member from taking that course even now, as this is the first time the subject has been

lle/orm Eilt. [ASSEMBLY.] Seventlt Night's Debate.

brought prominently under the considera­tion of the House. I presume the hon­orable member for Collingwood (Mr. Mirams) intends to close his remarks with a motion, asking the House to dis­agree with the ruling in question.

Mr. MIRAMS.-Surely it will be open to me to move that the House do now adjourn. When I was interrupted by the honorable member for the Ovens (Mr. Kerferd)--

Mr. BERRY.-Allow me one moment. Surely the honorable member will only be in order if he submits, before he sits down, a motion that the Speaker's ruling be disagreed with. But I scarcely think he is prepared to take that step. It would be a very serious one to adopt, especially without consultation. Under the circum­stances, I suggest that the honorable mem­ber should allow the motion of the honor­able member for Boroondara to be dealt with on its merits.

Mr. MASON.-I think there is some misapprehension as to the Speaker's rul­ing, on Thursday night, which was in effect that the Assembly can do almost anything it likes with respect to commu­nications between the Houses. I will say that I regard it as a very proper one. But I think the honorable member for Colling­wood (Mr. Mimms) means to raise another point of order, namely, whether, in view of the fact that the Bill has been committed to a committee of the whole House, it is competent for the honorable member for Boroondara to move that it be committed to a joint committee.

The SPEAKER.-I may inform the House that several honorable members, including the honorable member for Col­lingwood (Mr. Mirams), stated to me to­day that they thought of calling my ruling of Thursday night in question, and I said I could have no possible objection to that course. I find that, on one occasion, in this Chamber, when the Attorney­General of the day had moved that a certain Bill-a Mining Bill- be com­mitted to a committee of the whole House, it was moved by the present Minister of Public Instruction, as an amendment, that the Bill be referred to a select committee, and the amendment was agreed to. As a matter of fact, in most cases of the present kind, both here and in England, the practice has been to move that a Bill be referred to a select committee as a substantive motion. Therefore, as far as I am able to form an opinion, I think the

ruling I gave the other night, on that part of the question, was perfectly correct in the light of both English and colonial precedents. Nevertheless, this is the first time the point has been raised here, and I would be glad of the assistance of honorable members on the subject. I also hope honorable members will deliberate on the matter without any feelings of delicacy towards me.

Sir J. O'RHANASSY.-Will it be fair to proceed, without notice, to discuss the ruling the Speaker gave on Thursday night in the absence of several honorable members who were then present?

Mr. MIRAMS.-When I was inter­rupted, I was about to show that the pre­cedents cited by the Speaker on Thursday night are not on all fours with the case now under discussion. I understood the Speaker to. state that he relied upon a single Victorian precedent and three Eng­lish ones. But as to the former, namely, that of the U ni versity Constitution Amend­ment Bill, I beg to point out that a select committee of this House is one thing, and a joint committee another. No doubt, however, each of the English cases men­tioned refers to a joint committee of the two Houses. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the circnmstances surrounding those cases differ largely from those surround­ing the present one. W'hat, for example, was the motion carried by the House of Commons in 1864? It was as follows :-

"That a select committee be appointed to join with a committee of the Lords, to consider the best method of dealing with the railway schemes proposed to be sanctioned wi thin the limits of the metropolis, by Bills to be intro­duced in the present session, and to report their opinion whether any, and, if any, what, schemes should not be proceeded with during the present session."

That was a proposal to consider what Bills, "to be introduced," containing a variety of schemes for railway communica­tion, should be sent to a joint committee. What similarity can there be between a case of that sort and that of a Reform Bill which we have ,already read a second time and committed to a committee of the whole House? Then, in the English case of 1867, no Bill at all was involved. There was simply a message from the Lords asking the Commons to concur in a joint committee to consider two Acts of Parliament in relation to the deposits to be paid by parties to private Bills. What analogy to our case can there be in a pre­cedent of that sort? Then we come to

Reform Bill.

tbe precedent of 1873, which approaches nearer than any of the others to our pre­sent position. In 1873 it was proposed in the Commons to have a joint commit­tee to consid61' about thirty different Rail­way Bills then before the Lower House, nearly all of which had been read only a first time; and the Commons appointed three members, and asked the Lords to appoint three of their members, to form u joint committee to determine which of the measures should be gone on with that session. But, supposing all of them had passed their second reading, will honorable members here put a measure, involving a great public policy, on a par with a lot of trumpery Railway Bills, affecting only private individuals? On these grounds I consider that if we agree to adopt, with relation to a Bill of the importance of the Reform Bill, the course of procedure we are now asked to follow, we shall set a dangerous example. It is well we should remember t.hat it has heen questioned in this House by no less an authority than Mr. Higinbotham, when he was Attorney-General in 1865, whether we have power to appoint a joint committee at all. On the occasion I refer to there occurred the following :-

"Mr. O'SUANASSY moved the adoption of the report from the select committee on the address to Her Majesty on the snbject of the national defences.

"Mr. IJEVEY would ask the honorable mem­her for Killllore if it was intended to request the co-operation of the Upper House in the matter?

" Mr. O'SHANASSY did not know that he was called upon to enter into this discussion now; but, as far as his personal feelings were con· cerned, he should be very glad if on all subjects like this, which were of a general and not of a political character, there could be harmonious action between the two branches of the Legis­lature. He had, indeed, at first suggested joint action on the part of the two Houses; but, on consulting the Attorney-General on the point, he was informed that there was no power to appoint a joint committee. . . .

"Mr. HIGINBOTHAM wished to remark, with reference to what had just fallen from the hon­orable member for Kilmore, that the opinion which he gave was given in the course of conver­sation, and was based upon an opinion which he thought he had heard expressed by the Speaker when the Justices Bill was being considered.

" The SPEAKER said that the appointment of joint committees for managing the Library, &c., was provided for by the standing orders, but in all other cases where the Legislature wished to take joint action, a committee must be ap­pointed in each House."

vVith all this before me, I can only come to the conclusion tbat the motion of

5z2

the honorable member for Boroondara is altogether out of order. I beg to move-

" That the House disagree with the ruling of Mr. Speaker on the 3rd inst., as to the propriet.y of proposiugthe above question to the Assembly for consideration."

Mr. LONGMORE.-I beg to second the motion. I do so, not from any desire to disagree with the Speaker's ruling, but ill order to draw attention to the following passage in lJtI ay :-

" While a Bm is pendi~g in the other House, it is irregular to demand a conference concern­ing it."

I also wish to present a view of the ques­tion which does not seem to have received due consideration. Supposing we agree to the honorable member for Boroondara's motion, and the Conncil refuse to appoint a committee to meet our committee, what will happen? The Bill will be lost.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-Not at all. Mr. LONGMORE.-Where will the

Bill be ? Mr. FRANCIS.-Here. Mr. LONGMORE.-It seems to me

the House will then have parted with its power to deal with the measure.

Mr. O'HEA.-Sir, I think, speaking from recollection, that the honorable mem­ber for Collingwood (Mr. Mirams) has correctly stated the practice of the House of Commons. A general question, such as how far certain extensions of the rail­way system should be carried out, or whether the educational system should be cheapened or altered to suit Catholic views, may perhaps be properly referred to a joint committee; but when the House is seised of a Bill, it can only deal with it in one of two ways-either pass it through all its stages, or abandon it altogether. In my opinion, for us to sub­mit to another place a Bill that has not passed through all its stages here would be contrary to parliamentary practice. For example, supposing we submitted a Bill that we had not completely disposed of to a joint committee, and that they returned it to us with amendments of an important character, to which a majority of this Chamber were not prepared to assent.

The SPEAKER.-This House could refuse to agree to the amendments.

Mr. O'HEA.-Bnt cui bono? When we have done away with the alterations of the joint committee, of what value will the Bill be? The pl'oper time for joint action is aftet· we Lave passed the Bill

1672 Reform Bdl. (ASSEMBLY.] Seventlt }{ight's Debate.

through all .its stages here, and then the Upper House can, if they think fit, ask for a conference upon the matter. To send the Bill now to a joint committee would be illogical, and also contrary to the usages of Parliament. I will cert.ainly vote against any snch course being taken.

Mr. FISHER.-I think I see the diffi­culties under which some honorable mem­bers labour with respect to the Speaker's rnling of Thursday night. It seems that, after the Bill was ordered to be committed, a motion that the Bill be '" now" com­mitted ought to have been moved-that is to say, a particular' period for the com­mittal ought to have been fixed.

Mr. MIRAMS.-And the motion that the Bill be "now" committed was actually submitted.

Mr. LONGMORE.-I heard the ques­tion put.

Mr. FISHER.-For myself, I may say I dis tinctly heard the Premier use the word" now." At all events, the leader of the Opposition was allowed to move his motion. Perhaps I may be permitted to make a .few remarks on the subject, which I offer with great diffidence. As to the 10th joint standing order, all that it pro­vides is that there shall be such a thing as a joint committee. Then let me ob­serve that the precedent of 1695 relates to a purely j udicia.l matter, t.he point in question being whether it would not be best to put the witnesses in a certain case upon oath, which the House of Commons by themsel ves were not empowered to do. As for the precedent of 1864, the proposi­tion for a joint committee, which was then made by Mr. Milner Gibson, met with considerable opposition in the House of Commons, where Lord Stanley described the intended proceeuing as an antiquated novelty -something that had fallen into disuse for 150 years. Moreover, it was then distinctly stated that the object of the joint committee was "to consider the best method of dealing with the railway schemes proposed to be sanctioned within the limits of the metropoli~ by Bills to be introduced during the present session."

So that this inquiry of the joint com­mittee was to be merely a preliminary one. Undoubt.edly, some of the Bills to be referred 'to the joint committee had not then reached the second reading stage. Lastly, we come to the precedent of 1873, but I find that" acconliug to the statement of Mr. Dodson, all that was then designed was that a joint committee should consider

and report, so that it would be for each House to decide afterwards what should be done. I submit that the time for remitting the general question of reform to a joint committee is past and gone, and that we cannot take such a step now without a seI:ious loss of dignity.· So that we can only go on with the Bill. May says-.

"Every stage of a Bill, being founded upon a previous order of the House, is passed by means of a recognised formula, and may be postponed or arrested by acknowledged forms of amend­ment."

I also maintain that the question now be­fore the House ought to be-in the words of the Speaker-" That I do now leave the chair," upon which the leader of the Opposition might submit his proposal as an amendment, by moving the omission of all the words after "That." May states the practice to be as follows :- .

" When this question (' That this Bill be com­mitted ') has been agreed to, a day is named for the committee. . • . When the order of the day is read in the Commons, for the House to resolve itself into a committee on the Bill, the Speaker puts a question, 'That ldo now leave the chair.'"

With this in view, I cannot but conceive the business paper for to-day to be wrongly formulated. It may be snid that the mo­tion of the honorable member for Boroon­dara having been put from the chair, the House is in possession of it, and must deal with it. But with regard to that, May lays down the following :-

"If any motion or amendment be offered in contravention of the rules and orders of the House, the Speaker will decline to put the ques­tion, or will call the attention of the House to the irregularity, as if the question had already been decided in the same session • • • or were otherwise out of order."

Under all the circumstances, I contend that we are drifting out of the constitu­tional course, and that our next business should be to fix the time when we will consider the Reform Bill in committee. I don't wish, however, to be regarded as casting anything like censure on the Speaker, of whose learning and ability, as well as that of the Clerk and Clerk­Assistant, I have a very high opinion.

The SPEAK ER.-'l'he honorable mem­ber for Pol warth and the honorable mem­ber for Collingwood (Mr. Mirams) seem to think that every question sent by the House of Commons to a joint committee has been rather one of a general character than one. directly relating to Bills ~hat had been reau a second time. But I will read a li:it of the Bills which were referred to .

Reform Bill. [MARCH 8.J Set'enelt Nigllt's Debate. 1673

the joint committee of 1873, calling par­ticular attention to the dates at which they had previously been dealt wit~l, and premising that the resolution referring them to the joint committee was passed by the Commons on February 21, that on February 25 the Lords' concurrence was communicated to the Commons, and that on May 1 the Bills were referred to the two committees. The Bills were as follows :-

Title of Bill.

London and Lancashire Rail-way Bill

Midland and Glasgow Rail-way Bill

Llanelly Railway and Dock Bill

Newent Hailway Bill Ross and Ledbury Railway

Bill Swansea and Caermarthen

Railway Bill Waterford and Limerick Rail-

way Bill

Read first time.

----Feb. 11

Feb. 11

Feb. 11

Feb. 14 Feb. 11

Feb. 11

Feb. 11

Read second time.

---Feb. 25

Mar. 3

Mar. 17

Feb. 19 Feb. 17

Feb. 24

Apr. 21

The two Bills which were read a second time on February 17 and 19 respect.ively were, on the same dates, ordered to be committed.

Mr. O'HEA.-But the reference of the Bills to the joint committee was in order that the question how they should be dealt with generally should be properly disposed of.

The SPEAKER.-I may add that, in endeavouring to administer the law of Parliament, I am guided by one general principle, namely, to leave as much power as possible in the hands of the House.

Mr. BENT.-I beg to point out, as an additional case in support of the Speaker's ruling, that the Pharmacy Bill, introduced by the honorable member for Ricbmond (Mr. Bosisto) in this House, was referred to a select committee after it had passed its second reading, and even, I believe, after one clause had been dealt with in committee of the whole House. I under­stand, however, that the honorable mem­ber for Collingwood (Mr. Mirams) intends to withdraw his motion, so that there is no necessity for pursuing the discussion.

Mr. COOPER.-Before the motion is withdrawn, I wish to point out that the cases quoted by the honorable member for Collingwood (Mr. Mirams) from the journals of the House of Commons-par­ticularly t.he last one wjth regard to the reference of certain Raihvay Bills to a

joint committee-instead of showing that the course proposed by the honorable member for Boroondara is unconstitu­tional, absolutely support the Speaker's ruling, because we find that the House of Commons did refer several Bills which had arrived at exactly the point reached by the present Bill to a joint committee of the Houses. The honorable member for Collingwood argued that those Rail­way Bills were of comparat.ively little importance, whereas this Reform Bill is of paramount importance, and that hence there is a distinction between the cases. But the question is not o"ne of tho relative importance of the Bills, but whether the House of Commons did, at this particular stage, refer Bills to a joint committee. The honorable member himself has shown that it did, and therefore his argument faUs to the ground.

Mr. MASON.-Some honorable mem­bers appear to wish to give a pnrty aspect to this question, but the question is one purely affecting the House itself. I agree with your ruling, Mr. Speaker, to the ex­tent that this House is master of its own functiolls, and call, consistently with the standing orders, one of which provides for joint ·committees, consult the other branch of the Legislature on any question or Bill at any stage or time it thinks fit. There is another point, however, to which I wish to direct atten tion. The proposition of the honorable member for Boroondara is, you have ruled, not an amendment but a sub­stantive motion. Now, the other night, the question "That this Bill be committed" was put from the chair and carried, and what was the meaning of that order unless that the Bill should be committed to a committee Qf the whole House? The honorable· member for Boroondara's pro­position, therefore, I submit is simply a motion to negative what the House has already determined on, and any motion to rescind a resolution arrived at by the House must be given notice of, and come 011 in the ordinary way for debate. The proposition is not an amendment on the motion to commit the Bill, because that motion has been already carried. It seems a most singular proceeding if, when the Honse has already decided that the Bill shall be committed to a committee of the whole House-when, in fact, the Bill is practically now before a committee of the w hole-a motion can be proposed to refer it to a joiut committee of the two Houses. If that motion Le adopted, what then

1674 Reform Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Seventh Night's Debate.

becomes of the committee of the whole House to which the Bill has already been referred? May snys-

" When it has not been determined until after the second reading to commit a Bill to a select committee, the order, or order of the day, as the case may be, for the committee of the whole House is read and discharged, and the nill is committed to a select committee."

There is, or rather ought to be, an order of the day on the notice-paper for the consideration of the question" That this Bill be now committed," which is the motion that always follows the carrying of a motion to commit a Bill. Seeing that this Bill is pract.ically before a committee of the whole House, I submit that it is not competent to propose a motion to refer it to a joint committee of both Houses.

The SPEAKER.-The point raised by ihe honorable member for South Gipps­laud is exactly the same as that raised by the Chief Secretary on Thursday night, on which I then gave my ruling. (See p. 1,6-15.) vVhether the proposition of the honorable member for Boroondara be sub­mitted as an amendment, or as a substan­ti ve motion, appears to me to be of little material consequence, but I have en­deayoured to follow the practice of the HOllse. The course proposed in the hon­orable member's motion has frequently been followed in this Hou:::e, and i.ll the House of Commons.

Mr. MIRAM S.-'With the leave of the House, I will withdraw my motion. In reply to the honorable member for Cres­wick (Mr. Cooper), who endeavoured to show that I was out in my reckoning in t.he cases I qnoted, I would remind the House that the q llestion is not whether the Ra,ilw~Ly Bill~ in the Honse of Com­mons were referred to a joiut committee, but wLether the mot.ion to so refer them was made at the sante sta.ge and under the same circumstallces as the motion of the honorable member for BOl'oondara.. If the honorable member for Cl'eswick can prove that the motion to refer those Bills to a select committee was interposed uetween the proposal "That the Bill be committed" and the proposal ,. That the Bill be now committed," I will admit that I am wrong. If not, he is altogether at sea himself.

The SPEAKER.-The honora,ble mem­ber cn,nnot withdraw his motion without the consent of the seconder. As the hon­orable member for Bipon and Hampden, who seconded tIle motion, is not present, I will put the question to the HOllse.

Mr. Mirams' motion was negatived with-on t a di vision. "-

The debate on Mr. R. M. Smith's mo­tion was then resumed.

Mr. GAUNSON.-Sil', I desire to say a few words on the question that this matter be referred to a select committee with the view of having a similar com­mittee from the other Chamber. I confess that the discussion which has gone on to­night as to the irregularity of the proceed­ing proposed has inspired me with some apprehension as to whether, under the circumstances, that is the best course to adopt; but as to the ad visability of refer­ring the subject in some way to the COIl­

sideration of bot.h Houses-not sitting in their respective Chambers as we are sitting here now-I have never had theleastdoubt. The Premier said, the other evening, that no Ministry had ever consented to send the reform question to a select committee, no matter what they might have said when in opposition. To that I reply that no Ministry ever refused to do so but was requested by the people to leave office. r opposed strenuously the first and second Berry Reform Bills, and the people did likewise, and nothing came of them. I also opposed the Service Reform Bill, and Jet me here say that every jot and tittle of the able and elaborate speech, the other night, of the honorable member for Rodney (Mr. Gillies) against the Berry Reform Bills was applicable to the Service Bill. The leader of the Opposition-acting wisely, I think, in not moving his proposition as an amendment on the motion that the Bill be read a second t.ime, and therefore giving the matter a party aspect--has, after the second 1'0ading of the Bill, snbmitted a motion that the fittest way of. settling the reform question is not to treat it as a party question. But whilst I think that is tlta correct course to follow, I would ask what was the course adopted by the very same gentleman when supporting the Service Administration? He desired to cut short my political life as well as that of some others-among them members of the pre­sent Ministry-who promised that if he would have a select committee, by which we understood a meeting of representatives of the t.wo Houses, we would vote for the second readiug of his Bill.

Mr. R. M. SMITH.-I was not a member of the Government.

Mr. GAUNSON.-No, but t.he houor­able m0mhcl' was more-be was the whole Govel'llwcut rolled iuto olle. He was its

Reform Bill. [MARCH 8.J Seventh Night's Debate. 1675

govei'nor and its guide. Mr. Service only wanted two or three to have a statutory majority for the second reading of hie Bill, and I have already in this House given the names of several gentlemen who promised to vote for the second reading if the Government would agree to refer the Bill to a select committee. The pre­sent Minister of Public Works, the hon­orable member for Fitzroy (Mr. Tucker), the honorable member for Belfast, the honorable member for Portland, and the honorable member for Delatite all gave that promise; and, as for myself. I gave a positive pledge that if the Ministry would refer their Bill to a select com­mittee-the course I had always advo­cated-I would vote for its second reading. But what Mr. Service wanted wa,s not so

. mnch to pass his Reform Bill as to get a good working majority, and he thought that if he went to the country, and raised the cry of "traitors" against myself and other honorable members, he would be able to secure his object. The real fact was, however, that Mr. Service himself, in opposing the second Berry Reform Bill, actually proposed, a.nd pressed to a divi­sion, a motion (for which I voted) that the proper way of settling the reform question was by a select committee, and upon the previous Reform Bill of 1878 he formu­lated the eame views. In fact, in the last Parliament I quoted the then Premier's own language and actions against him, and told him that if he was prepared to carry out the views he had expressed when in opposition he would have my vote. As to the statement that the Ser­vice Reform Bill was the Bill that had been before the electors in February, if that was the case was it not a work of supererogalion to shut up Parliament for two months to "mature" a Bill which, according to Mr. Service, had been already passed by the country? The Bill brought down to tlie House contained serious addi­tions of a most dangerous character which had neyer been before the country at all. In the first place, it proposed that the joint sitting of the two Houses, instead of merely having power to pass or reject a Bill submitted to it, should have power to amend any Bill that came before it. That was a power of which no one could see the end-a power the exercise of which might prove most dangerous to the true liberties of the people of this conntry. The Bill also proposed-another thing which had neyer Lee11 heard of nt the

general election-that the Council shol,lld have the right to send down an authorita­tive request-really a command-to the Assembly to take out of the Estimates any item which the Council thought proper to name.

Mr. R. CLARK.-A request only. Mr. GAUNSON.-A request which

must be complied with. The 20th clause of the Bill provided that the Council could make the request; but the 19th provided that, when the request had been made, it should not be lawful for th~ Assembly to proceed further with the Appropriation Bill containing the item objected to. The use of the word "re­quest," therefore, was nothing more than a contemptible attempt to throw dust in the eyes of the people, for a simple "request" implies the power of refusal. The first and second Berry Reform Bills proposed to make the As­sembly despotic, and I do not believe in having even the two Houses of Parlia­ment and the Queen despotic if it could possibly be avoided. No doubt, as Hallam points out, in theory the three branches of the Legislature, the Sovereign, Lords, and Commons, are despotic; but, at the same time, the nation at large relies upon the sound common sense of Parliament to prevent the Legislature from ever be­coming despotic. But, if the two Berry Reform Bills proposed to make the As­sembly despotic, the Service Reform Bill was infinitely worse, because it proposed a despotism over Parliament by the Min­istry. It said the Governor might call the" Two Houses" together, which really meant that the Ministry might call them together-or might not-and it also pro­vided that the Governor might dissolve the meeting when he pleased, which ne­cessarily meant that the Ministry might dissolve the joint sitting when they t.hought fit. And now with regard to the present proposal for a select committee­by which of' course is meant a rapproclte­ment of the two Houses-what are the facts? Let me again briefly summarize the history of the reform question during the last three or· four years. The first Berry Heform Bill was passed by this House and rejected by the Council. Then there was the embassy, and then the Min­istry brought in another Bill, virtually abandoning the first.. The second Bill was lost in this Chamber on the third read­ing for want of one yoto. The Ministry went to the country, and here again I.must

1676 Refo1'm Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Seventlt J\7igltt's Debate.

quote history to the disadvantage of the other side. When the dissolution on that Bill was about to take place, the Opposi­tion compelled the Government to bring down a written statement from the Gover­nor, in which they practically pledged them scI yes to meet the House at the earliest possible moment after the general election. Yet, notwithstanding that, no sooner were the 1\1 inistry defeated in the country, and honorable memb~rs opposite had got into office, than, by a course of conduct which cannot be stamped as that of statesmen or reasonable beings, they shut up Parliament for two months, further proroguing it to the anniversary of the glorious 11 th of May-no doubt as a gentle reminder to a large party who were suffering under defeat. Was that becom­ing conduct? Was it not a puerile insult, calculated to make the blood boil? Then came the Service Reform Bill, which the Government were asked to refer to a select committee, but refused. I was then of opinion that the proper mode of settling the reform question was by a select com­mittee to bring about a communication between the two Houses, and: as I am of the same opinion still, what answer should I make to any honorable member if he challenged me with not upholding my convictions? This is not a matter of consistency as far as J am concerned, but a matter of common decency, as I stHl hold the same oDinion that I al­ways have done. The~'e is no cowardice in a change of opinion, though thf'1'e is the rankest cowardice in failing to acknow­ledge that change of opinion when it is honest and sincere. Now I believe the present Premier does not care very much about tbis Bill, and woulU prefer to bring on the board ~gain one of those former Bills of his which have been rejected. I thiuk, however, the argument of the hon­OI'able member for North Melbourne (Mr. Laurens) was conclusive against that conrse, for, as the honorable member nsked, those Bills having been submitted to the country and rejected, on what prin­ciple could they be intl'ouuced again after a fresh election? I agree with the hon­orable memLer tbat the Premier could not cOllsistently do so. It hns been said that this Bill was framed simply for the pnr­pose of ontbidding the Service party by taking the ratepayers' roll instead of tlie £10 fbllchise; but it is a curious thing that on the 22nd June, 1880, when speak­ing on the Service Reform Bill, I suggested

!lfr. Gaunson.

the whole of the lines of this Bill, after which the Age came out with the leadiug art.icle which has been referred to by the honorable member for Belfast.

Mr. FINCHAM.-So you are really ·the father of the Bill ?

Mr. GAUNSON.-I am merely stat­ing the simple facts. I stated that I believed in the nominee principle, bnt that if the country was thorougbly wedded to the elective system, a better plan than the Service Bih would be for members of the Upper House to be elected on precisely the same basis as the Assem­bly, and to hold office for six years. The Premier. has not proposed the manhood suffrage roll as the basis of election for the Council-although the majority of his party would support him in the proposal -but has stopped at the ratepayers' roll, and in doing so I consider he has shown a feeling of conciliation towards the Council. For my own part, I look npon the mere machinery of election as pnre twaddle; I consider it perfectly immatel'ia,l whether the Council are elected by one man or a million.

Mr. ANDERSON.-Where is the ne­cessity for a change then?

Mr. GAUNSON.-In my humhle opinion, there is not the slightcRt neces­sity for a change. Why did the good folks on that (the opposition) side insist on the chango, and cut their throats with a golden knife by insisting on a dis­solution? Simply because they thought they were going to have everything their own way, but they have found out their terrible mistake, and have really tIIl'llst themselves from. power for a very long time to come. It has been said over and o\'er again that this Bill has Leen sub­mitted to the country. It is trne the proposals in it were so submitted, but there was also one proposition submit.ted about which nothing is said in 1.he Bill, and that proposition I contend is the very foundation of any Reform Bill, namely, that I his Honse, claiming and having the righ t to dt) so, shall assert all the finan­cial powers of the House of Commons, Lut llothing IJeyond them. Of late years I have come to tIte conclusion that it is bett.er to have two Houses than one; but I ba ye al ways maintained that it is of no possiblo usc"having a Reform Bill unless there is some definition of the relative fnnct.iolls of tbe two Houses in matters of finance. The despatch of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, in reply to the embassy,

Befm·m Bill. [MARCH 8.J Seventlt Night's Debate. 1677

recognised this. It virtually said-" All you require is a better definition, and if both Houses of Parliament would be con­tent to abide by the practice of the Lords and Commons respectively there would be no danger." There can be no question thnt the real reason why all these difficul­ties have been brought upon our heads is that the Council has in financial questions asserted that it is not a House of Lords, but a second House of Commons. The secret despatches of Lord Canterbury, which are to be found among our consti­tutional papers, show that conclusively. The honorable member for the Ovens (Mr. Kerferd) himself on one occasion stated that, had the Upper House always acted as it should have done, there would be no necessity for a Reform Bill. I have already said that I suggested a Bill which is exactly on the lines of this Bill. Then the Age came out with a leader propound­ing the same scheme, with some additions which were in themselves paltry and ridi­culous. And here I don't hesitate to say, all~ I say it advisedly, that if there be one thing which this country is thoroughly cursed by, it is the bossing of the press­the opposition side being bossed by the Argus, ~nd the Ministerial side by t.he Age. When debating the Service Bill, after expressing myself in favour of a nominee Upper House, I said-

"Supposing the country to be so wedded to the elective system as to refuse to adopt any other, are we bound to choose the plan em­bodied in the Bill? Can no one suggest a better? I think I can. I say let the term of office for members of the Upper House be six years, and their elective basis be precisely the same as that of the Assembly. Abolish every invidious class distinction of the kind the Government seck, under the present measure, to establish. As for the number of which the Upper House should consist, I would have it remain at 30 ; I see no necessity for increasing it to 42. Again, let the Council electorates he all single electorates; let there be no qualification for members save fit­ness, in the opinion of the electors, for office; and let us have a rotary scheme under which fire members would go to the country every twelve months."

"Abolish e\'ory invidious class distinc­t.ion" I remarked; but 'the present Bill certainly does make a class distinction. It draws a distinction between taxpayers who are ratepayers and taxpayers who arc not ratepayers. With regard to the qualification of members, let me observe that a peor of England, no matter if he be 1undlcss, and without a rag to cover his back, can take his place in the House of Lords as soon as he arrives at the age of

21. Yet, according to the legislation which has been in force here, and which the Bill proposes to perpetuate, a man has no sense, brains, ability, character, or honesty until he is 30, and, according to the Service Bill, unless he possesses landed property worth £150 per year. The thing is preposterous. Now what is the state of the case at the present time? The Ministry have won a victory such as no Ministry ever won before. There was no division at all npon the second reading of the Bill. Has ever such a thing hap­pened before? Why, as a matter of practice, if the Speaker had chosen to insist upon it, he could have counted the honorable member for Boroondara and every other member in opposition as voting for the second reading, and had their names recorded accordingly in the journals. Under these circumstances, if this be a genuine attempt to settle reform, why cannot the two Houses meet together? Why should there be the bitterness of feeling which appears to prevail between members of the two Houses? How many members of the Assembly are there who know, by sight, the members of the Council, and vice versa? How many members of the Assembly are there who ever hold a conversation with members of the Council ? We feel that, by reason of their wealth, those gentlemen are not simply exclnsive, but they look down upon members of this Assembly, and hold them in contempt. (" No.") It is an absolute fact; and in consequence a feeling of hatred is engendered towards members of the Council. Until that feel­ing, which ought not to exist between two great parliament.ary bodies, is smoothed away, we shall . never arrive at the right spirit in which an amended Consti­tution for the country should be framed. I do not speak of this matter in a personal sense, as regards members of the Council, because some of them I do know, and whenever I have had occasion to speak to them about .any matter, whether in or out of Parliament, I have found t.hem as they shonld be found-reasonable and proper­minded gentlemen. Therefore, I say that if by means of a mere resolution of this House we could rub shoulders, and have a little conversation with these bloated aristocrats, these unearned incre­ment gentlemen, these bullock drivers­to use some of the terms of endearment which are frequently applied to them-1 believe we could come to some reasonable

1678 Re/orm Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Seventh Night's Debate.

solution of the reform difficulty. The reference of the Bill to a joint committee is advocated on all sides. I don't see why 1hat course should not be taken; but, if the Ministry object to it, the same end can be obtained by an amendment on the motion before the chair, for referring the Bill to a select committee of this House, with power to confer with a select com­mittee of the other House. On the subject of joint committees, May says-

" A modification of the practice of appointing joint committees may be effected by putting. committees of both Houses in communication with each other. III J 794, the Commons had communicated to the Lords certain papers which had been laid before them by the King, in rela­tion to corresponding societies, together with a report of a committee of secrecy; and on the 22nd May, 1794, the Lords sent a message to acquaint the Commons that they had referred the papers to a committee of secrecy, and had gh'en power to the said committee to receive any communication which may be made to them, from time to time, by the committee of secrecy appointed by the Honse of Commons; to which the Commons replied that they had given power to their committee of secrecy to communicate, from time to time, with the committee of secrecy appointed by the Lords. And similar proceed­ings were adopted upon the inquiry into the state of Ireland, in 1801, which was conducted by secret committees of the. Lords and Com­mons communicating with each other; and again, in 1861, power was given to the select committee on the business of the House to com­municate, from time to time, with a select com­mittee of the House of Lords upon the same subject."

I believe that unless the question be re­ferred either to a joint committee or to a select committee of this House with power to confer with a select committee of the other Chamber, this Bill will go through committee of the whole without the altera­tion of a single line. We know, with reference to bygone Bills, that the Ministry never permitted the alteration of a single word, and there is reason to suppose that this Bill will be rammed down the throat of every individual member. It has been said-" The Bill has been placed before tho country, and you are pledged to it." That statement I emphatically deny. Why of the first resolution adopted in caucus there is no trace in this Rill. Yet that was submitted to the country.

An HONORABLE MEl\IBER.-It is in the Constitution Act.

Mr.GAUNSON.-Weknowthat; but the Legislative Council have always al­legcd, as I hold incorrectly, that they arc a second House of Commons; and here is a Bill which, without giving any definition as to their powers, will make them so

strong that when a quarrel takes place on a financial question we must inevitably be slaughtered. At the same time I want to see this wretched "burning question"­this miserable sham, as I believe it to be-out of the way. When before my const.ituents, I had printed the whole of the resolutions agreed to in caucus, and intimated that they' were a sound and reasonable basis for a settlement of the question. And so they are-a basis, and nothing more. But without a defining clause the scheme is without the trunk which gives life-blood to the whole. It will strengthen the Upper House. If I were a member of that Chamber, I would assist to pass the Bill without alteration, exclaiming"':-''' The Lord hath delivered them into our hands." Talk about the Bill being a bid for popularity, I am reminded of the story of Caius Gracchus, the Roman tribune, who, whenever he proposed any measure for the benefit of the people, was always outbid by his colleague, Livius Drusus, who was in the pay of the patri­cians. Here the astute conservatives have found themselves out-generalled by the Chief Secretary. Now let me ask honor­able members, snpposing the Bill goes to the Legislative Council and t.hey reject it, what will be the position of affairs? Is the measure on the lines of the despatch of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, which may be said to be, so far as this colony is con­cerned, the Bible of the Constitution. The Ministry refuse to go to a select com­mittee now, but they say they are willing to go t.o a select committee at some future time. Is not that showing weakness of which the Upper House will inevitably take advantage? Then again, how is it possible that that Chamber will quietly consider this Bill in view of the fact that it ·has sent to. this House three separate Bills which, though exactly alike, provide for a great improvement iu t.he const.itu­tion of that body, and which have been treated by the Assembly with ca.valier coldness and contempt? Why, according to the practice which prevails in England, this Bill ought, in common courtesy, to have originated in the Upper House. I took that stand against the Service Bill, and why should I not assert it as agaiust this Bill? I consider the present a most appropriate time for the appointment of a joint committee of the two Houses on the reform question, because now there is no existence of hot blood with reference to the subject; and therefore there is the

Reform Bill. ,[MARCH 8.J Seventh ~7igltt's Debate. 1679

greater chance of dealing with tIle ques­tion in the manner recommended by Sir George Bowen to Parliament, three years ago-in a national spirit and not from a party point of view.

Mr. WRIXON.-Mr. Speaker, I don't think I have ever addressed the House with a greater feeling of anxiety than I experience on this occasion. The reason is that I am perfectly convinced that success in dealing with the reform question depends upon the vote which honorable members give on the motion no,,, under consideration. Ii we adopt the course which we have beel1asked by the :Thlinisterial side-and it seems to me somewhat hurriecUj- to adopt, I fear we shall shipwreck the cause of reform altogether. There are one or two consi­derations which I think have not been sufficiently weighed, if I may judge by the heat displayed the other evening, and the applause given to some of the observa­tions made by the Chief Secretary. The Chief Secretary seemed to Jay down that it was a sort of concession on our part, a sort of surrender of our rights, to go to a conference. If, there were any truth in that view, I would not ask the majority in this House to sacrifice in any respect their prestige as a majority, nor would I ask the Government to sacrifice their prestige as a Government. But what is the fact? Honorable members are deal­ing with the quest.ion of the reform of the other Chamber, not of this Chamber, and yet there is lying on the table of this House a Bill containing the matured pro­posals of that House for its own reform. To that ~ill honorable members have not given the slightest consideration. Thoy llave not youehsafed to give it even the dignity of a debate. N ow is it to be said that, by adopting the motion of the hon­OI'able member for Boroondara to send the Bill to a joint committee of this and the other Honse, we are conceding something-that we are taking a course inconsistent with the prestige and the privileges of a majority of this House? Can anyone, on consideration, truthfully say that tlJat is a correct view to maintain? Sir, the honorable member for Aramt has truly said tiJat" according to English pre­cedents, this Bill shonld have been intro­duced in the other Honse; and I ask, when the Legislative Council bave sent ~lown their proposals for reform-proposals matured after long consideration-which we have allowed to lie on Ollr table withollt

taking the slightest notice of them, how can it be said that we are giving way in asking them to discuss with us a matter concerning the constitution of their own body? Supposing the House of Lords had sent to the Honse of Commons a Bill to reform its' constitution, would the most ardent and decided liberals have been for adopting the course we are asked now to pursue ? Would the I-louse of Commons have sought to pass a measure of its own without taking the slightest notice of the Bill received from the House of Lords? v.Vonld Bright or Gladstone countenance snch a course? It is not becanse many of us condemn the constitution'of t.he other I-Ionse, as most certainly I do, that it is less entitled to the courtesy which one legislative body ought to show to another. I say that propel' regard for the courtesy which should exist between the two Honses not only justifies, but compels, us to consider the Council's proposal for their own reform, and particularly as there is no radical difference between their proposal and ours. They propose to reduce their franchise to a certain limit; we propose another limit; and what is necessary to be done is to get over the gap between the two. If we do not desire any conflict between the two Houses, how are w~ justified in ignoring the Council's propo­sals, and in treating them as waste paper -as not containing anything worth con~ sideration? I ·say there is nothing in thQ view hastily thrown out, the other evening, that to assent to the appointmeI).t of a joint committee would be an undue con­cession on the part of the Government or the majol'ity of this House. I would ask the Governn)ent to bear ip. ll?-ind t4at, as mentioned by the honorable m~m:, bel' for Ararat, their Bill has beeu read triumphantly, a second time, by this I-louse. That is no trifling concession. If honorable mmnbers who don't quite believe in the Bill had chosen to have dealt with the matter in a different aspect -to have treated the Bill as an ordinary measure-apd pressed tJle ;motion for second reading to a division, the motion would no doubt have been carried by ~ majority, but by no means a large ma­jority. Instead of that, their Bill has been accorded an honour which I believe was never conceded before to any reform proposal snumitted to this Legislature. Therefore, I sn)' it is idle for the majority in tllis Honso, or the Government, to stand upon their digltity, as it WCl'e. A further

1680 Reform Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Seventlt ])'~igllt's Debate.

reason which ought to influence honorable members is that this Bill is not an ordi­nary measure; it is not like a Fencing Bill, an Impounding Bill, or a Land Bill­it is a Bill to make a new Constitution, which is practical or it is not. If it pass, it will alter the Constitution-the Consti­tution now existing will become another. I believe the position taken up, the other night, by the honorable member for Bel­fast is perfectly correct-that no country in the world, pretending to make a new Constitution, has proceeded about the work in the way in which we are proceeding. It has never been done, and I believe never will be done. Let me call atten­tion to the course of proceeding in some of the American states. In the first place, I will take the highly demo­cratic state of N ew York. When the people of that state became dissatis­fied witli their form of goverement, and concluded that another was required, what did they do? Both one House and the other pasRed an address to the Governor of the state asking him to appoint a com­mission to inquire into und report upon the whole subject. A commission of the most eminent men was appointed, with Mr. Evarts, now Secretary of State, as president; and that commis~ion was en­gaged for eighteen months in carefully considering the entire matter, and investi-. gating all the bearings o~ the question, with the result that it brought up a valu­able and comprehensive report. I have not been able to discover that either one House or the other suggested that, by this proceeding, it.s privileges and prestige were lost. The people of Now York, although they may be democrats, are men of common sense, and they knew perfectly well that they would not get a new Con­stitution if they made it a matter of party warfare or legislative conflict. Pennsyl­vania also, a few years ago, found a new Constitution necessary; but it never oc­curred to the legislators of that state that it should form the subject of a struggle between the two Houses. A general con­vention of the best men of the st.ate was called to discuss and consider the whole matter; and that convention drew up a Constitution which was ultimately adopted. I say, in reply to the objection that Par­liament is asked to depart from the course of procedure usually followed with regard to such a measure as a Land Bill, that the circumst.ances nre unusual. We are engaged in framing a new Constitution,

Mr. llT rixon.

and I submit that, seeing that the measure is quite out of the range of the common, instead of hesitating, or standing· upon a matter of punctilio, we ought willingly to adopt a: different method. in dealing with the question from that pursued in connexion with an ordinary matter of legislation. For the last ten years we have been endeavouring to amend the Constitution by the method pursued with regard to ordinary legislation-by send­ing Bills to the other Chamber-and without result. The honorable member for Warrnambool framed a Bill which went through this House triumphantly, but was rejected by another place and forgotten.

Mr. V ALE.-It did not go through this House.

Mr. BERRY.-It never went to the other House.

Mr. "TRIXON.-I distinctly recollect Mr. Francis' Electoral Bill, which was a Bill for the reform of this House, and not of that, going to the Legislative Council, and being thrown out there. But if you want a closer analogy, it is not difficult to find. Within the last four years, w hen the Premier wag at the head of the strongest Government ever seen here, when he could command some 60 yotes in this House, he brought forward reform measures which he declared the people had endorsed at the ballot-box. Honorable members know what became of them. And, let me ask~ what prospect is there now, with a House divided, the Govern­ment themselves not caring much for the Bill they have introduced, and no one pretending that the COUll try is enthusiastic about it, of reform being carried? There has been failure before; do honorable members suppose there will not be failure now?

Mr. PATTERSON.-With this House unanimous?

Mr. WRIXON. - I have admitted already that the second reading of the Bill has been carried by a unanimous vote; but we have only to read the speech delivered by the Premier, when moving the second reading, to see that not even the majority care much about the measure. I speak as one prepared to vote for the third read­ing of tbe Bill whether it is amended or not, because I consider it a large im­provement on the present Constitution; but I am calling attention to the difficulty which will have to be faced if honorable

Reform Bill. [MARCH 8.J Seventlt Nigltt's Debate. 1681

members insist on treating the Reform B ill as an ordinary Bill.

Mr. DO W.-W e must do our duty what­ever the result.

Mr. WRIXON.-Our duty is to do the best we can for the country, and not to shipwreck reform. I repeat that because the Bill is an unusual Bill-something quite out of the common-to deal with it at all successfully, we must deal with it in an unusual way. That view is partly agreed to, as I understand, by the Premier, and certainly by the Minister of Rail ways. Both honorable gentlemen admit that at some subsequent period it wonld be a very good thing to have a conference. The only question is when. There can be no doubt that now is the proper time for a conference, and not after we have passed the Bill; because if we go to a conference now, not only shall we go be­fore feeling is excited, and before mem­bers are pledged to a particnlar view, but we shall go with a united front. We shall be able to say to the representatives of the other Chamber that our Bill has been read a second time unanimously­that it has received what no other Reform Bill ever obtained in this House, namely, a unanimous second reading.

Mr. MIRAMS.-We shall be able to say that under any circumstances.

Mr. WRIXON.-But what will be the position of the Bill if it is dealt wit.h as a matter of ordinary legislation, by being discussed in committee and read a third time before we go to a conference? I say, unhesitatingly, that during the dis­cussion in committee, there will be re­vealed the' widest differences of opinion in this House in regard to the measure. It will be proved to demonstration, by division after division, that we are by no means agreed amongst ourselves on several of the cardinal principles of t.he measure. For instance, on the question as to whether the ratepayers' roll or the £10 franchise should be adopted, it will be found that there will by no means be a large majority on the Ministerial side' of the House as against the opposition side; and I apprehend that there will be tolerably close divisions on the proposal which the honorable member for Colling­wood (Mr. Mirams) intends to submit as to plural voting, and on that of the honorable member for West Bourke (Sir B. O'Loghlen) as to the plebiscite. When the division on the third reading comes, no doubt it will show a majority

for the Bill, but also a considerable mino­rity against it. Do honorl),ble members think that after those divisions we will be in a more satisfactory position for nego­tiating with the Upper House for a com-. promise than we are at present? Why, after we have gone through committee and shown that we are not agreed as to its provisions, we shall be in a much worse position for negotiating with the Council than we are now. Our only chance for negotiating with them successfully is to go to them, as we can do now, with a tolembly united front. Some honorable members have interjected that this Bill has beeu voted by the country, and that therefore we are bound to take it as it stands.

Mr. MIRAMS.-Hear, hear. Mr. WRIXON.-If that is the view

which this House takes, I admit that it is a 'very good reason against agreeing to a conference now, but it would be au equally good reason against agreeing to one at any other time.

Mr. MIRAMS.-Hear, hear. Mr. WRIXON.-But that is not the

position which the Government take up. Mr. MIRAMS.-It is my position, at

any rate. , Mr. WRIXON. - That is an intelli­

gible position for those who say "The Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing Lut the Bill" to take up; but that is not what the Government and the majority say, and it is to them I appeal. If the country has voted this' Bill-if it is determined to have this measure and nothing else~it is useless to talk of a conference, and I say it is also useless to talk of any reform at all, because we know perfectly well that t.he Upper House will not accept this Bill as it stantIs.

Mr. MIRAMS.-How do we know it? Mr. WRIXON.-Because the Council's

Bill is now on the table of this House, and contains the embodiment of their

. views on the question of reform. Every dictate of common sense tells me that if the position taken up by the honorable member for Collingwood is insisted upon we will have no reform at all. I appeal, however, to the Chief Secretary and to the majority" who admit that they con­template a conference hereafter, not to insist upon a conference being delayed until it is of no use. The honomble member for Collingwood may tell us that the country has approved of this Bill, but

1682 Rejo1'm Bili. r A.SS:f£MBLY.] 8eventft Nig/is Debate.

tho fact is that tho country does Dot care about it; there have been no public meet­ings or petitions in favour of it ; and if this House shows that it is di vided on the Bill before going to a conference, how can we expect that the Upper House will give up its views on the question? To delay the conference is, in short, to wreck the cause of reform altogether. I would like honorable members to look a little ahead, and see how the matter is to be worked out if we adopt the course sug­gested by t.he Government, namely, dis­CllSS the Bill in committee, read it a third time, and then send it to the Upper HOllse. Suppose-and this is not at all an un­reasonable supposition-that the Upper House either reject the Bill or take no notice of it, or, at any rate, do not ask for a conference, what are we going to do then? What step can we take? There are only two courses; either the cause of reform will have to be abandoned, or the Assembly will have to be dissolved. (Laughter on the Ministerial benches.) A dissolution of this House is the only alternative. Honoritble members may talk of the resignation of the Government, but a, new Ministry will not ad vahce a settle­ment of the question in the least. Let honorable members only look two months aheftd, and they will see that, if the course proposed by tho Government is adopted, they will have to put up with another defeat at the hands of the Council, or else have a dissolution for the pur­pose of again testing the feeling of the country. I presume that the head of the Government must necessarily get a dissolution if he asks for one, after the precedent set in grant.ing a, dissolution to Mr. Service; but a dissolution will be fatal to reform. I say unhesitatingly that those who are in favour of a radical reform of the Upper House will be returned weakened to the Assembly. The country is tired of the question. The people have been so disappointed and disgusted by the failures iri the past that they are no longer enthusiastic on the subject, and the Go­vernment, by obtaining a dissolution of this House, will be leading the cause of reform on to failure and defeat. Although a period of public quietude is the best time to effect a rational compromise be­tween the two Houses on the question of reform, it is the very worst time in which to make an appeal to the country on the subject. Besides the want of any enthu­siasm to appeal to, many questions will

Mr. Wrixon.

influenco the elections, llllc1 contribute to the result that those who are anxious for radical reform will come back to the House weaker than they are at present. Suppose- that tho other course is followed -that the question of reform is simply shelved-what then? Well, we will go on quietly for two or three years passing some ordinary legislation, until public ex­citement is aga,in ronsed on the question of reform, and then anolher conflict, a renewal of class hatreds, and a distracted condition of things will be again expe­rienced. I therefore urge that now, when there is no public passion, but a good deal of public thought, is the time to enter into negotiations to bring about a termination of the conflicts which we all deplore. .A grave responsibility will lie at the doors of those who reject the COllrse proposed by the Opposit.ion. The honorable mem­ber for Copingwood says that the country has endorsed this particular Bill, but I don't know how he can ani ve at that conclusion when he has made the same statement about other Reform BiIIs which have been abandoned. I say that even the honorable member for Collingwood, and those who think with him, will incur a grave responsibility if they reject the most likely means of settling this question. If I Slity this of the honorable member for Collingwood, what shall I say of the Government, who do not pretend to be much enamoured of t.heir Bill-who do not assort that it is the true scheme of reform, and that it will be the saving of the country-but who have brought it forward for lack of something better, and who admit that they will compromise to some extent afterwards? What will be said of them if on a mel'e point of punctilio-a mere matter of legislative etiquette-in regard to which they are altogether wrong, they refuse to enter into a conference while it can be fruitful, and delay it until it will be absolutely barren?

Mr. PEARSON.- Sir, I am parti­culnrly delighted with the speech of the honorable member for Portland, because he spoke in a tone of honest conciliation, which I can assure him is fully recipro­cated on this (the Ministerial) side of the House. The great majority of the House, indeed, are, I believe, earnestly desirous of seeing the reform question settled. With regard to the proposal at present under discussion, I do not think I can express myself better than in the language used by the Chief Secretary the other

lleform hiil. tMARCH 8.J Seven tIt ~Nig Ill! s Debate. 1083

night. I will quote the honorable gentle­man's exact words :-

" When we come to the point at which a con­ference is logical, reasonable, and usual, I shall be as prepared as any man to meet the Legis­lative Council."

It is precisely because we have not come to the point when we can logically appoint a committee to meet a committee of the Legislative Council that we ought incon­tinently to reject the present proposal; and I confess that I hope to win over the honorable member for Portland to my view. The honorable member urged, in the first place, that the Bill ought to have originated with the Council, but I think it is a little too late at this time of day to argue where a Reform Bill should origin­ate. The necessity of dealing with reform was forced on the country and the As­sembly three years ago. The honorable member also said that the Council have sent us down a Bill of their own, but I will remind the honomble member that it is not the mere draft of a Bill-it is not a measure which has only been read a second time. They have sent us a Bill which has been read a third time, after being examined and scrutinized clause by cl::mse in committee. We know exactly what the Council wish. We know with something like certainty what we may expect will find support in the Council and what we have no right to suppose they will agree to. Although the main principles of the Government Bill have, as the honorable member for Portland said, been affirmed by the unanimous voice of this House, the measure has not yet had what the country has a right to demand, namely, the criticisms of the Opposition on the details of the Bill. Will it not be an advantage to the country and to the Council, if we are to have a con­ference on the Bill, to know exactly what the feeling of the Assembly is as to each individual part of the measure? Is the committee of this House to go to a committee of the other House with the Bill, and say-" This is our rough draft, our happy thought, so to speak, but we really have no idea whether the Assembly is particularly tied to the ratepayers' roll, or whether it insists very pertinaciously on the abolition of the qualification for mem bel'S, or attaches much importance to the division of the provinces into 30"? The honorable member for Portland has spoken of the diversity of views which will be revealed if the Bill is discussed in

committee of the whole Assembly, but my opinion is that a discussion of the various provisions of the measure will be most instructive. I think the honorable mem­ber will be astonished at the support which the first cardinal point of the Bill, namely, the adoption of the ratepa},ers' roll as the franchise for the Council, will receive from honorable members sitting on the opposition side of the House as well as from those on the Ministerial side. I anticipate that a large number of the Opposition will vote for that proposition; and I am certain that if we get a three­fourths or four-fifths majority on this prin­ciple in committee, it will have weight wi th the Council if ever there c·omes to be a conference on the Bill. The honorable member for Portland intends to propose an amendment in committee, and the honor­able member for West Bourke (Sir B. O'Loghlen) has given notice that he will propose one or two; but, nnle~s the House goes into committee on the Bill, th03e amendments will be absolutely lost.

Sir J. O'SHAN ASSY.-There will be nothing to prevent their being submitted to a select committee.

Mr. PEARSON.--In tha.t case the honorable members, presuming them to be members of the Assembly's committee,

. would speak for themselves only, and not for 40 or 50 members as they might do if the proposals were first discussed in a committee of the whole Assembly. In the one case there would be great signifi­cance attached to the proposals, but in the oth~r there. would be absolutely no weight. I put it to the House whether it will be doing its duty to the count.ry if it deprives any honorable member of the right of proposing amendments in the Bill? Why should even the most ob. scure member of the House be deprived of that right? If the House goes into committee on the Bill, who can say that anyone member will not propose some amendment which will be accepted by the House generally as a great improvement? We are not now asked to go to a con­ference with the Upper House, but we are asked to appoint a joint committee. A joint committee differs essentially from a conference. Having consulted Halsell, May, and other authorities, I fiud that there are only eight instances of a joint committee having been appointed by the House of Commons before 1695~ After that, the practice was given up, and was not revived until within the last

1684 Reform Bill. [ASSEMBL Y. ] Seventlt Night's Debate.

30 years. The mere fact that the Impe­rial Parliament allowed the practice to fall into disuse is a strong proof that there was some great reason a.gainst it. During the warm conflicts of the time of Charles II, a joint committee was not once resorted to, and never was there a question of privilege, or a question affect­ing the constitutional powers of the two Houses, remitted to such a body. For instance, it was never proposed that the Reform Bill of 1832, which is a case exactly analogous to the present, should be referred to a joint committee. One reason which caused the institu­tion of a joint committee to fall into disuse was that the Commons claimed the right to appoint twice as many members as were appointed by the Lords,

. which, as May says, rendered a joint committee distasteful to the Lords. The Speaker has told us that, if the proposal for a joint committee is carried, we may claim to appoint twice as many members as the Council. I do not think it would make much practical difference whether that course was adopted or not. Sup­posing we had a joint committee of ten representatives from the Assembly and five from the' Council. In that case, undoubtedly a fair number would be chosen from the Opposition, and they would probably vote with the Council delegates, who would unite as one man against any change in their own Bill. On the other hand, do honorable members think that if the Council delegates were overpowered by the representatives of the Assembly, the other Chamber would be any readier to submit to a compromise? Would a compromise be possible if we carried a feud into the committee? On the contrary, we would only have snatched up an instrument for compromise which would break in our own hands. The fact is that a joint committee cannot and ought not to be employed on such delicate matters as parliamentary reform. The honorable member for Portland has warned us against the danger of allow­ing things to proceed to extremities. Surely the danger is one which the honorable member has himself conjured up. It is not proceeding to extremes to follow the usage of the English House of Commons, and of the Victorian Legislative Assembly, by considering the Bill in committee of the whole House. Let us revise our draft Bill. At present it is not really the Bill of the House,

Mr. Pearson.

as only its main principles have been affirmed. We desire to do our work in as thorough a manner as possible. We do not believe that the fact that the second reading of the Bill has been car­ried by a unanimolls vote will greatly impress the Council, because we have not yet considered the details of the measure. The Council have set us an example. They have sent us down a Bill, and invited us to consid'er it. When they found we did not consider it, it rested with them, by constitutional usage-by a right which the House of Lords had exercised-to remind us, if they thonght fit, that the Bill was in our possession. They have not done so, for, I believe, the best of reasons. They appreciate the state of affairs. They understand it is far better, if ever we are to come to a compromise with them, that they should know thoroughly what we have to offer­that we should be able to show t.hem what i8 the feeling of this House, both on the principles and on the details of our measure.

Mr. DOW.-Sir, I regret very much that the leader of the Opposition should have brought forward a motion like the one which he has proposed, because there is a strong desire throughout this House for a settlement of the vexed question of reform; and, in my opinion, a proposal of this kind is not the way to facilitate a settlement of the matter. I think I can claim not to have gone in for extreme measures in the past. I have been willing that the question should be settled almost by any means consistent with honour. About eighteen months ago, I made a strong appeal to the Governm€;nt of the day to settle reform on the lines of the measure now before the House. I im­plored them to consent to a motion for the recommittal of their Reform Bill-

"With the view of substituting for parts 1 and 2 prbvisions for lowering the qualification for electors and members of the Legislative Council, shortening the term for which members are elected, and reducing the size of the pro­vinces."

The Government of the day, however, would not consent to that course. Nothing but extreme measures would satisfy them. The next Government took up a similar stand, and insisted that their Bill was the· only panacea for the reform difficulty. They were not able to carry it, however; and, on appealing to the country, they found that the people were decidedly opposed to the measure. The idea of a double disso­lution of both Houses in order to settle

ReJorm Bill. [MAUCH 8.j Seventh Nig},is Dehate. 1685

a question in dispute between the two Chambers fairly exasperated the people. I had only to refer to that feature of the Service Bill to excite an almost unani­mous feeling against the measure amongst my constituents. Well, the Service Min­istry resigned, and were succeeded by the present Government, who have brought in a moderate measure. I was 18 months ahead of the Government in supporting the moderation ticket, for, in 1879, I said-

"The people of Victoria are a moderate people, and they wish to get the'question of re­form settled in a moderate way. They want the Government to cure the fil,l.w in the Constitution, not to pull down everything in order to recon­struct as they please. They don't want their elective rights tampered with."

Who is now standing in the way of a settlement of the reform question? The honorable member for Boroondara, who has submitted a motion by which he asks me, as a member of the Assembly, to give myself an unnecessary slap in the face. I cannot understand how any members of this House can indulge in special pleading on behalf of the other House, and even ask that we shall grant the other House what it does not ask for. The other House does not ask us to do om business in the .unconstitutional way proposed by the honorable member fol' Boroonaara. The honorable member for Rodney (Mr. Gillies) talked of the danger of clothing the members of the Council with more power by broadening the electoral basis for that Chamber; but, if the present Bill becomes law, we shall still have the 56th section of the Constitution Act intact.

. The object of the Bill is to modify the constitution of the Upper House-to get a class of men in that Chamber whose views will be more in unison with public opinion than those of the present members -and thereby decrease the prohability of disputes occurring in the futme. But the measure does not give away any of our powers. We shall still possess all the powers' of the House of Commons in the event of any conflict arising between the two Chamhers. I have always been averse to any tampering with the section of the Constitution Act which clothes this House with the only power it has over the other, namely, the power of the purse. I cannot understand why the Opposition should ask us to depart from the usual course in connexion with this Bill. . It is said that we ought to deal with the Reform Bill which the Upper House have sent

2ND SESe 1880.-6 A

down to us. All such arguments are, in my opmlOll, altogether beside the issue. It must be remembered that the question has been before the country again and again, indeed so often that I humbly submit that for us to take up the Council's Bill (for the sake of courtesy towards those gentlemen, I wonld be willing to do everything I could) would be dealing in rather a treacherous manner with the people who support us, and to whom our duty is owing. Undoubtedly we are, at the present moment, as nearly in posses­sion of the views of the public outside on the question of reform as is possible; why then should we break through the usual procedure of this branch of the Legisla­ture ? We have 110W read our Bill a second time, and obtained a unanimous expression of opinion here in its favour. Why should we assume that. when we are in committee upon it, we shall not make every amendment in it that is fairly de­sirable? As for the argument of the honorable member for Portland, that if we don't. ask for a joint committee on the Bill the only outcome will be a dissolution, I see nothing in it. On the other hand, if honorable members elsewhere ask us for a conference on the Bill, I for one will be willing to accede to the request. I say that if we go on in our regular course, and honorable members in opposition are as much in earnest for reform as honorable members on the Ministerial benches are, we are as near a settlement of this vexeel matter as we could almost hope to be.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-Sir, I am greatly afraid the honorable member for l{ara Kam has not troubled himself much to look at· the effect of the course he advises, because, if he had, he courd not but see that it can only lead to failure. He says that when the Bill has gone to the Council, if they ask for a conference upon it, he will be willing that one should be granted. But he will never be able, under such circumstances, to consent to a conference .upon the Bill at all, be­cause it will be utterly impossible that one should, take place. A conference between the Houses can only take place when one House has amended a Bill sent from the other, and then the amendments are the only points the conference can consider and deal with. A glance at the

. authorities on parliamentary usage will show him at once that what he professes to have in view is something impossible to attain.

1686 . Reform Bill. t AS SEMBL Y. J Seventh Nig Itt's Debate.

Mr. bOw.-It was attained over the Payment of M~mbers Bill.

Sir J. O'SHAN ASSY.-And probably would be again with respect to a measure on all fours with the Payment of Members Bill, which the Government Reform Bill is not, .and cannot possibly be. The conference on the Payment of Members Bill was enabled to deal with the sole point of difference between the Houses; but that could not be the case with a conference upon amendments in the Re­form Bill. It must be [l.lso borne in mind that the Council have sent us a Reform Bill of their own; but they have never sent us - they could not Bend us - a Payment of Members Bill of their own. Having two Reform Bills before us places uS,on the present occasion, in an extra­ordinary position. One evidence of that is the talk that comes from the Ministerial benches about constitutional usage. "Let us," honorable members there say, "abide strictly by ordinary constitutional usage," thereby meaning that they will not vote for a joint committee; but where is their observance of constitutional usage in con­nexion with the Council's Reform Bill ? That lies on the table, and they will not do anything with it. So far, then, the Assembly have put themselves com­pletely in the wrong. Another thing shows the confusion that exists in the minds of Ministerial members with respect to a conf~rence. They are always speaking of one as though it would settle every­thing; but what would it be likely to settle? It is clear, as I haye already intimated, that a conference can deal with nothing but the actual matter of amend­ments made by the Chamber to which it is sent. What, then, can arise out of the Council making amendments in our Bill, while we make no amendments whatever­do not touch the measure, in fact-in their Bill? The whole thing is absurd. Are we to expect, as a matter of course, that the Council will overlook our having done nothing with their Bill? Then imagine our Bill sent to the Council; in what shape will it go? Are we not sure that, so far as this Chamber is concerned, no amendment that does not exactly suit the Government will be allowed-that, for all practical purposes, not a line of the mea­sure will be altered in committee? Is it not, therefore, all sham to talk of what may possibly be done in that direction? Then, supposing the Bill to go to honor­able members elsewhere, not importantly

touched in a single line-I believe that, if it goes at all, it will go in that 8hape­~nd they refuse to look at it, on the ground that we have refused to look at their measure, what may we expect to happen? If we were unanimous, what could we do ?

Mr. McKEAN.-Send home another embassy.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-Would anem­bassy lead to anything? I don't think it would. How could we compel the Council to adopt our Bill? How could we make them amend it in any WH,Y? Is the re­presentative of the Government in the Conncil, who dare not take office because he cannot secure his re-election, likely to lead honorable members there to do any­thing? Surely, if the Government had really meant all along to carry reform, they would have adopted a very different line in the past. For instance, they wonld not have allowed everyone of the last biennial elections for the Council to go by default. Why did they not contest them?

Mr. McKEAN.-They could not do it. Sir J. O'SHAN ASSY.-I remember

what was done when I was at the head of the Government, and could not get a cer­tain Bill carried through the Council. Seven elections for the Council took place. They were all contested in the interest of the Assembly. This House secured six seats, and the Bill became law. But the Government have by their action so strengthened the position of the Council that it is now, in the opinion of its con­stituents, more impregnable than ever. Then, when the Government and their supporters find themselves perfectly power­less to move the Council, what will they do with respect to the public opinion they refer to so forcibly? The honorable mem­ber for Portland suggested that if the Bill were not touched elsewhere a dissolution would follow; but how many dissolutions on the question have we had already? Have they hitherto afforded any solution of our difficulty? How much money has the wrongful method of endeavouring to change the· Constitution which the Go­vernment have adopted so long cost the country? In the first place, every general election is a charge upon the Treasury of at least £10,000. What the expenses of the candidates are I need not refer to any more than I need allude to the turmoil, the disruption of society, and the feeling of instability with regard to property and industry that have followed the various

Reform Bill. (MARCH 8.J Seventh Night's Debate. 1687

a,ttempts of the party of which the Go­vernment are the head to alter the foun­dations of our constitutional fahric by means of utterly false propositions. And now as to whether t.he honorable member for Castlemaine (Mr. Pearson) was quite correct wit.h respect to the action of the Honse of Commons concerning joint com­mittees. He mentioned that they were long disused and have been revived. Per­haps he will pardon me if, with regard to that particular point, I cite fin authority the House will respect. 1I1ay has the fol­lowing:-

"There are several early instances of the appointment of joint committees of the two Houses, but until 1864 no such committee had been appointed since 1695. A rule similar to that adopted in regard to conferences, that the number on the part of the Commons should be double that of the Lords, obtained in the consti­tution of joint commit.tees, and was inconsistent with any practical union of the members of the two Houses in deliberation and Toting. The principal advantages of a joint committee were tha.t the witnesses were sworn at the bar of the House of Lords, and that one inquiry, common to both H01lses, could be conducted preparatory to any decision of Parliament; but the power pussessed by the Commons of out-voting the Lords-their right to meet their lordships with­out the respectful ceremonies observed at a conference, and their share in the privilege of taking the evidence of sworn witnesses-natu­rally rendered a joint committee distasteful to the House of Lords, by whom no power or facili­ties were gained in return. At length, in 1864, the chief obstacle was overcome by the appoint­ment of ,a joint committee, of equal numbers, representing both Houses, on the railway schemes of that session, affecting the metropolis. This important proceeding, which originated with Mr. Milner Gibson, was eminently suc­cessful."

Mr. PEARSON.- I admitted the re-vivaI.

SirJ. O'SHANASSY.-Did the honor­able member mention that the revival has been an "eminently successful" one? Surely that is a rather important aspect of the matter. Tho passage continues HoS

follows :-"The Commons, having appointed a commit­

tee of :five members, r.equestcd the Lords' to appoint an equal number of Lords to be joined with the members of this House.' The I"ords accordingly appointed a committee of five Lords to join the committee of the Commons, and pro­posed a time for the meeting of the committee. The committee of the Commons received power to agree in the appointment of a chairman," &c.

I need quote no more. And ilOW" assum­ing that we follow the Imperial practice, and appoint a joint committee, let us glance at the difference' between such a body and a conference. 'What have joint committees done in England? We have

6A2

before us the statement of the Speaker that not long since the House of Commons sent a whole series of Bills, some of which had been read a first time only, while others had reached their second reading, to a joint committee. So that we have modern practice for our guide. For any honorable member to say that to send a Bill that has been read a second time to a joint committee is against constitutional usage is simply useless. vVell, snpposing we decided upon a joint committee of, according to ancient practice, five mem­bers of the Upper Honse and ten members of the Lower, or that we adopted the more commOll-sense plan of equal nnmbers, how would the body be constituted? Would not this Honse pick out for the purpose the honorable members who have the largest intelligence and experience in matters of the kind? Would not the Council do the same thing ? Well, the men so chosen would sit together with the two Bills before them, and they would have it in their power to deal with the whole subject of reform from beginning to end. But a conference would have no such power. There is the immense differ­ence between the two bodies. Another point is that, if a conference were resorted to, neither this Chamber nor the other would be able to do anything while it lasted. Have the honorable members who talk of a conference as preferable contem­plated that difficulty-that interruption to the business of the session-which possibly might be by no means a small one?

Mr. DOW.-The conference might sit while the Houses are in recess.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-The honor­able member is wrong again, because that plan would be contrary to the regular practice. The honorable members who talk of' a conference seem to have not even considered their own proposal. The point I direct attention to is that a joint com­mittee would be able to bring about the amendments that are required in the Con­stitution as a whole-a subject a confer­ence would be powerless to take in hand. Supposing a joint committee constituted, what would they do? Let us imagine their course of procedure. They would meet and choose their chairman. Then, the two Reform Bills being brought before them, they would propose to themselves to turn all their material into one Bill. How would they set about that? Natu~ rally they would say, in the first place­" We know the views of the Assembly,

1688 [ASSEMBLY.] Seventh Niglzt's neb ale.

they want financial control; well, we have no objection to that. Let us there­fore proceed to arrange machinery for the purpose." N ext, coming to the rate­payers' roll, they would say-" Oh! let us accept that." Here, then, would be an altogether new starting point, and it would be fairly open to the committee to make it the foundation of a large and suitable superstructure. Will any honorable mem­ber tell me that the financial powers of the Assembly and the franchise of the Coun­cil being settled, there would be nothing left to settle afterwards-no principles to lay down, no machinery to provide, no flystem to arrange? Wby there are innumerable other constitutional points that req uire amending treatment. Besides, the Council representatives might say­"We sent you down a Bill setting forth our views about the division of the colony into provinces, why did you not deal with the subject, and that of educational repre­sentation also, in some way or othel', in­stead of merely offering us a plan of single electorates?" Is not, educational repre­sel1tation a question worth dealing with? Would it be unfair of the Council repre­sentatives to urge that to add another member to the 42 provided for in the Council's Bill would make the number of the Upper House exactly half that of the Lower House-the proportion adopted in the Constitution Act? It would be open, too, for the joint committee· to remedy another constitutional defect. What that defect is will be best described by pointing to the fact that the present Government cannot get a member of the Council to accept office, and that previous Governments have been in the same posi­tion. Do we know of any other country similarly placed ? Would it not be per­fectly legitimate for the jo~nt committee to consider-the point could not possibly come before a conference-whether, in view of the widened electoral basis of the Council, the representation of the Govern­ment in that Chamber, by the presence there of at least two Ministers, should not be insisted upon and provided for? I could enumerate some twenty or thirty other im­portant points that could be dealt with by a joint committee, but not by a conference. For example, there are the questions re­lating to tenure of office in the COllncil. I observe that the authorship of the proposal that the tenure should be six years is in dispute in various quarters, but, in fact, the plan was proposed by myself during

Sir J. 0' Shanass!J,.

the sittings of the Const.itution committee. Will any honorable member say that such a delicate operation as arranging the rota­tion of seats, or fixing electoral boundaries -mechanical work which it is impossible to do properly without aid from the Sur­veyor-General's department-can be suffi­ciently supervised when we deal with the schedules to the Bill? Do not our minds suggest a variety of arrangements in de­tail which a joint committee could settle, but which could not be properly touched in any other way? Need I add to the list I have presented the question of the re­lations between the Houses-how they ought to stand with respect to each other in the future- a matter to which the Bill makes not the smallest reference? Then as to where ·financial control ought to lie. For myself, I have maintained all my life that financial control can only rest with one branch of the Legislature.

Mr. McKEAN. - We don't interfere with that in the Bill. The qup-stion is settled by the. Constitution Act.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-But has not the question been already the basis of in­numerable disputes between the Houses. What is the use of saying it is settled by the Constitution Act, when it has been all along a prominent point in every discus­sion we have had on reform? Are we now to leave untouched what is alleged to be the cause of all our dead-locks? I warn honorable members that, unless we deal with the matter in a distinct way, we shall leave all our present difficulties exactly as they are. But I will not dwell further on the various subjects which a joint committee might beneficially take in hand. The topic is so extensive that it would occupy too much time. I come next to the assertion we have often heard made in certain quarters, that the Upper House have no desire for reform. Why the direct contrary can be proved. Le~ me mention the step I took in 1868, when, having returned from England, and being disabled by· illness from taking a seat in the Assembly, I sat for a while ill another place. I had seen the misery, aris­ing from the dead-locks OTer the Darling grant and other matters, which the couu­try had passed through, and I sought to make provision against a similar state of things in the future. Accordingly I brought forward the following resolution :-

" That, in the opinion of this House, the time has arrived when it becomes the duty of Parlia­ment to review the Constitution of Victoria as

Reform Bill. [MARCH 8.J Seventlt l\~igllt's Debate. 1689

it exists, with the view of amending its proved defects, enlargiug its scope and powers, and defining accurately the functions to be per­formed under it, more especially in relation to the following chief heads =-(1) The Goyernor, (2) the responsible Ministers, (3) the judiciary, (4) the two Houses of Parliament, (fi) the repre­sentation of the people in both Houses of Par­Jiament, (6) the qualification and number of representatives, (7) the compensation (if any) of representatives, (8) a court of appeal, (9) im­peachment and procedure thereon, (10) the power to enter into contracts and render them effectual with the Governments of the Austra­lian colonies on general. subjects, such as (1) defence, (2) postal, (3) immigration, (4) customs or tariffs, (5) reciprocity in civil and criminal jurisdiction."

What was the consequence ? Not the slightest advance. The Assembly were invited by the Council, in no party spirit, to take up the whole question of constitu­tional reform, but what was the answer? There was'no answer whatever. There­fore the Assembly were the aggressors in refusing the offer made to them. The honorable member for Castlemaine must now see, with respect to bis charge that the honorable member for Boroondara is the advocate of the Council, that long before that honorable member entered Parliament the Council endeavoured to bring about a settlement of the difficulties between the Houses in a r~asonable and constitutional manner. In leaving this part of the subject, let me observe, ill conllexion with t.he point to which the Government have reduced their whole stand, namely, that they will not ask for a joint committee, but that at a future stage they will be ready to consent to a conference, that I have shown that their intended course is irrational, and must lead to ill results. If they persist in their refusal to go to a joint committee, they will be entirely responsible for the conse­quences. Supposing a joint committee sat and drew up an amended Bill embracing all the points I have enumerated, would this House, as a whole, be committed by the result of their labours? Not in the smallest degree.

An HONORABLE MEMBER.-Then what would be the use of them ?

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-In the first instance, to kill party spirit; and, secondly, to bring before us the fruits of the 'work of qualified men-men whose knowledge and experience have given them a good understanding of what reform really means-after they have sat at a table in a calm way to consider the whole subject apart from anything in the shape of the

political action of this Chamber.' It is under circumstances of that kind-when men bring their views fairly to bear upon each other, and thoroughly investigate and thrash out the subject before them­that, unless they are prcpan·J to retain everything, they filLd themselves able to give away to each other far enough to arrive at a common agreement on fair and moderate grounds. I never yet sat on a committee in which I did not meet with men who, after the calm and searching investigation and argument which a committee-room facilitates, were not ready to modify or give up, in a fair and honest way, some of their preconceived ideas. Furthermore, putting the reference of re~ form to It joint committee outside and beyond any question of the inflnence their deliberations might have npon Parliament, I say let snch a body bring up a Reform Bill, fra.med from their point of view, and let us see what the feeling of the people of the country generally would be towards it. Taking for granted that such a Bill wonld provide for a fair balance of power between the Houses, I would like to hear any Ministerial candidate at a fnture gpneral election say, on t.he plntform­"'We will have our own Bill; we will adhere to our own vieviTs." I am satisfied that if the Government were to carry such a cry to the country, after the next dissoln tion they would never suc­ceed. Why not? Because the practice I, for one, am urging upon them is that of all civilized nations under similar circum­stances, and is bound to protluce the same effects here that it has produced elsewhere. It is followed in the House of Commons 'and in Canadn. J n the latter country it was resorted to when the Constitution of the Dominion was framed. In refusing to recognise it, what sort of example will the colony of Victoria set? As for assert­ing that to follow the lead of the Govern­ment in the matter is to fall back on constitutional usage, that is simply a ridicu­lous idea. I would like to know whether proposing to abolish a second Chamber is in accordance with constitutional usage. Eyery rational man out-of-doors can see that the Government don't want reform to be carried. The charge that will lie before the country against the honorable members who oppose the motion will be that when they had an opportunity of settling reform, thoy deliberately missed it. I agree with tho honorable member for Portland that if tho present chance of dealing successfully

1690 Reform Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Se·venth Nigltt's Debate.

with the differences between the Houses is thrown away because of party feelilJg­to gain a short-lived party triumph-all prospect of obtaining constitutional reform, so far as this Parliament is concerned, is thrown away.

Mr. KERFERD.-Mr. Speaker, I don't suppose I can add very much to the able speech just delivered by the honorable member for Belfast; but I would not like the debate to close-I understaud the Government are anxious that it should come to an end to-night-without offering a few observations upon the present phase of the reform question. Indeed, I would be very sorry if the aspect in which ihe subject is now placed failed to receive very earnest consideration. I am sure the more honorable mem bel'S ponder the effect following the plan of procedure now pro­posed would necessarily have in leading to a solution of the difficulties surround­ing reform, the more they will come to the conclusion that an opportunity is now afforded them which they ought not to lightly cast aside. After listeuing atten­tively to the debate, I have gathered, as far as I can understand, that the honor­able memuers opposed to the motion of the honorable member for Boroohdara, as well as those in favour of it, are satisfied that sooner or later a joint committee, or a conference, in some shape or another, must be resorted to before the two Houses can come to an agreement on the subject of reform. It seems that the Government themselves admit-the honorable member for. Castlemaine (Mr. Pearson) put that clearly-that such a course will have to be followed before the Bill can be disposed of. Therefore, the point for consideration is nalTowed down to t.his-Is this a pro­per time to take the step which both sides agree must at some time or another be taken? It is also worth notice that we are approaching the consideration of the ques­tion of reform under entirely novel circum­stances, because it is the first time we have been enabled to discuss the subject apart from strictly party considerations. Neither sille of the House can say they are en­deavouring to place upon the statute-book the views of their own particular party in politics. . The Government frankly own that this is not the measure they would, if they were going on party lines, seek to carry. In fact, the Bill before us is tho olltcome of the discnssions of many years -the fruit of propOf3als which have been brought fOl'ward in the past by different

. sides. That being the case, upon wllat grounds can the Chief Secretary refuse to take, at the present stage, the only step which is sure to lead him to success? The proposition before us is different from any proposal submitted by any party before.

Mr. MIRAMS. - No; it was made eight months ago, and you objected to it.

Mr. KERFERD.-I repeat that the proposal now made is entirely different from any previously submitted to this Chamber. What is it? Not one for a reform of the Constitution-reform of the scope and kind hitherto contended for as necessary by bOLh parties in the House­but one for a reform of a particular branch of the Legislature, to wit, the Upper House. The Bill does not pretend to provide for the curing of dead-locks, or against the recurrence of the difficulties between the Houses we have experienced in the past. It is confined purely and simply to altering the constitution of the Legislative Council. Now I had the honour of being a Member of Parliament many years ago, when the only proposal to alter the constitut.ion of anothet' place that bas been made since the Constitution was inaugurated was placed on the statute­book, but from whom did it emanate? From the Council, and it was dealt with by llS in a remarkably short space of time. I think those who were then at the head of affairs-I allude to such men as Mr. Higinbotham and Sir James McCulloch­were as jealous of the powers of the Upper House as anyone here can be, but w hat position did they take up? That reform of the upper branch of the Legis­lature, being a matter peculiarly relating to themselves, ought to originate in that Chamber. Let honorable members reverse the present. picture, and suppose that instead of the Assembly proposing that the Council, HS it stands, should be sud­denly dissolved, that its franchise should be utterly changed, and that the provinces should be redivided and placed on an entirely different basis, the Upper House, in its tnrn, proposed similar alterations in the constitution' of the Assembly, and that directly they came into force this Chamber should be dissolved? I can fancy the feelings with which tbis House would view snch a proposal, and yet is there a single mom bel' in any part of the House who can say that within the foul' corners of the COllstitution Act

Reform Bill. [MARCH 8.J Seventlt Night's Debate. 1691"

the Legislative Council has not exactly the same power to make such a proposal with regard to the Assembly as the Assembly has with regard to the Coun­cil? The position is unanswerable. If we in the Assembly would resent with indignation an attempt to interfere with us in a matter peculiarly affecting the constitution and privileges of our own Chamber, are we to suppose that similar feelings will not be entertained in another place? Seeing that we are now limiting reform to the Council, have we any justi­fication to dictate to that House, and to say that we will give it no voice at all. in the matter until we send our proposals up to it in the form of a Bill? If there ever was a time in the history of the colony when this question might be settled in an amicable manner, it is now, and the Government will bear the responsibility if they refuse the opportunity held out to them. What is the answer to the suggestion of a joint committee? A member of the Government said this Bill was a rough draft. Certainly I

. have never previously heard a Minis­ter of the Crown venture to designate a Bill which had been matured by the Cabinet, and which had passed its second reading in this House, as only a rough draft. We know well that in all Bills of this description, as has already been pointed out by the honorable mem­ber for Belfast, the Government are masters of the situation. A private member cannot alter a line in their Bill unless with their concurrence; and we know by experience that the alterations ever made in a Bill of this importn,nce in committee are practically nil. No doubt in this Bill alterations will necessarily have to be made, because, if it were passed into law in its present state, it would not work. For example, it pro­vides that only ratepayers of 21 years of age and upwards are to have votes for the Council, but yet there is no machinery either in the Local Government Act or the Bill to determine the actual age of any person claiming to vote. The Bill must, therefore, be altered by the Government; but, as to amendments proposed by other honorable members, they will be hopeless unless the Government consent to them. If the Chief Secretary is really desirous of bringing the reform question to a con­clusion, and of having it settled satisfac­torily, I maintain that, considering he has now come to limit his proposals to an

alteration of the Council alone, and con­sidering that the Upper House, except in the one matter of finance, is a co-ordinate Chamber with the Assembly, he cannot justify even to his own judgment the rejection of the means proposed by the honorable member for Boroondara of set-

. ding the question. He is not justified in his refusal, either by parliamentary usage and practice, or on the ground of courtesy to another Chamber which is ft power in the Constitution of the country. More­over, I would point out that this House has alreftdy placed itself in an extraordi­nary position. A Bill dealing with this subject has been passed by the Council and sent down .to this Chamber, but the Assembly has never condescend.ed to take the slightest notice of it beyond placing it as a matter of' form on the notice-paper. On the other hand, the Government, while utterly neglecting that Bill, have intro­duced another dealing with the same ques­tion. I ask, what would we do as men if we were members of the Council, and the Lower Chftmber, having treated our mea­sure in that way, sent us up another Bill on the same question? l'V ould. we not lay the Bill aside, or postpone its considera­tion until the Assembly had dealt with our proposals?

Mr. DOW.-We did not go to the country on the Upper House Bill.

Mr. KERFERD.-No, nor on this Bill either. How can any honorable member say this is the Bill he went to the country on when the kernel of the whole scheme has been dropped out? There is no pro­posal in the Bill whatever for dealing with dead-locks, and how then can honor­able members on the Ministerial side of the House, remembering the first resolu­tion passed by the caucus, deceive them­selves into believing that this is the Bill that was submitted to the country? I venture to think that, if a joint committee of the two HOllses were appointed to con­sider the question, they would feel that the possibility of the occurrence of dead-locks was so disastrous that they would endea­your to find some means of preventing them. As I pointed out on the second

. reading, if this Bill becomes law without containing some power of sending the Council to the ratepayers who elect them, difficulties will be almost certain to arise; and, when they do arise, they will prove much more disastrous than any we have yet haa. In fact, I consider that it wonld Dot be sa,fe in tho iuterests of the people

1692 Reform Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Seventl" 1{ignt's Debate.

to give them the power of electing a Chamber which, when elected, they would be powerless to control. It would be a monstrous injustice to the people to create such a Chambel', anu certainly its creation would not be in accordance with the views .which the gentlemen who call themselves liberals have hitherto always expressed. Once more I repeat that the time has now come when the question can be set­t.led; and, seeing that the proposals now apply only to one Chamber, I maintain that the only way in which we can arrive at a solution of the question is by inviting the co-operation of another place.

Mr. BERRY.-Mr. Speaker, I think anyone who was unuer the impression that a spirit prevailed which was likely to afford some chance of settling the con­stitutional question this session must have abandoned the idea after listening to some of the speeches which have· been delivered to-night .. The honorable member for Bel­fast gave us a list of additional su bjf>.cts which he considered ought to be incorpo­rated in any Bill before Parliament, and he dwelt with great unction upon the vast difference between a conference and a joint committee. I was going, if the honorable member had not done so, to point out the same difference, but with a tot.ally differ­ent result. I intended to show· that the conference was better than the joint com­mittee, because the conference was con­fined to those points of difference which had arisen between the two Houses, and, as an ancient parliamentary practice, was likely to result in something practical, whereas the honorable member pointed out, apparently triumphantly, that a joint committee could rove over the whole ques­tion, frame a new Bill, and deal with a lot of subjects not in the present Bill at all. Now let it be taken for granted that the joint committee could do that, and that the honorable member, as far as he had any influence on the committee, would be anxious to take such a course, what chance, let me ask, would there be of settling the reform question not only in this session but even probably in this Parliament?

Dr. MADDEN.-The two Bills are on the same principle.

Mr. BERHY.-The motion of the hon­orable member for Boroondara is that the whole question of reform shall be remitted to a joint committee, and the honorable member for Belfast has read a whole list of subjects-the questions of financial control, of the relations of the

two Houses with the Governor, the right of dissolution, t.he positiou of the judi- . ciary, and a whole host of other matters -which he considers ought to be embo­dieu ill a Reform Bill to render it satis­factory to both Houses. All those are questions not touched upon in the Bill at all. I was under the impression that the Bill was a somewhat ambitious effort in the direction of reform which might be beneficial to the country, leaving to some future time the development of other wants and reforms that might possibly arise out of the provisions of the present measure, and its subsequent working. The honorable member for Belfast, how­ever, has a whole string of slibjects which are to he embodied in a new Bill to be constructed by this joint committee. vVhat then becomes of the argument of the hon­orable member for Portland, who said that the great ad van tage of the pre­sent time was that the Assembly was unanimous on-what? This Bill which we have before us. Because we are unanimous on the Bill, now is the time to go to a joint committee! "If you go into commit.tee," sa.id the honorahle member, "you will develop differences; on the third reading there will certainly be a division, and, although you will have a majority, you will not have the same vantage ground as you have to-night when the House is unanimous." vVell, I admit that would· be unanswerable if the House was in ear­nest, in going to a joint committee, to insist on the principles of this Bill in the same way that the Government, having charge of the measure, would insist on its principles in passing it through committee of this House. But if that is not intended -if it is intended to re-open the whole question as has been indicated by the honorable member for Belfast and the honorable member for the Ovens (Mr. Kerferd)-then where is the advantage of the unanimity of·this House on this parti­cular Bill? It is hardly necessary to say anything from this (the Ministerial) side of the House on the subject, because honorable members opposite have answered each other. The bonoraLle member for Portland spoke in a frank and generous spirit, and I do not doubt in the lea.st but that he has a .sincere belief that the course he is ad vocating will further the possi­bility of placing a measure of ref()rm on the statute-book this session. But what chance does he think there can be of effecting a satisfactory measure of reform

Reform Bill. [MARcn 8.J Seventlt Nigllt's Debate. 1693

if the whole question is to be re-opened before a joint committee in the spirit and to the extent which has been advocated to-night ? Would it not be Letter to bring in the Appropriation Bill at once, and prorogue Parliament? I would pass over the unusual character of this proposal; I would waive altogether the objections I urged, on Thursday night, to what I believe to be, at all events, an unusual course, and one dangerous to establish as a precedent;

,I would waive .. for the sake of settling this question, the ordinary feelings properly entert.ained by a Government with regard to having the control of a measure of this importance-I would not allow any of those considerations to stand in the way­if honorable members opposite had con­vinced me in the slightest degree that the course they propose to take would result in a satisfactory measure of reform, or advance the question one bit.

Mr. CARTER.-How far will your course ndvance it ?

Mr. BERRY.-That remains to be seen; but, at all events, if we fail we do not disgrace ourselves. Th,ere is some­thing more important than begging. for some kind of a Reform Bill without any regard to the pa.rticular form it may take, and that is the maintenance of the independent spirit and the true dignity of this Chamber. If we fail while pursuing the ordinary way, although showing every amount of conciliation which it is possi­ble far a majority in this House to show, in order to get this question settled, at all events we are on the lines of the Consti­tution, and following the course that has been invariably followed in England, and followed in this colony, no matter which party was in power. If we fail after we have done all that men can do to place this. measure on the statute-book, then, I say, the responsibility will not be with this Chamber-it will not be with the majority-~ut with those who from any false feeling, either of pride, dignity, or rebellion against the popular will,. refuse fair consideration to this question. Honorable members, during the debate on the second reading of the Bill, taunted this side of the House again and again upon the concessions they had largely made to the views held by the Opposition. Indeed, so large were those concessions that honor­able members opposite were not able, in the face of their recent utterances, to divide upon the second rending of the Bill. Yet with the knowledge that tho majority in

this Chamber representing the majority in the country had made all those conces­sions, while there has not been one attempt at concession from another place, the Opposition are asking that the concession shall again come from the party who have concecled already rather tban from the party which has not yielded one inch. I feel as much as anyone the difficulty of the task of reform in this country. Here is a Government that has practically had the control of the affairs of the country for four years, yet it has only been able to obtain one representative in the Council, and that represent.ative has not seen his way to accept office in the Government because of the diametrically opposite opi~ nions which prevail in the constituencies. of the Council.

Mr. ZOX.-That shows the country is with them.

Mr. BERRY.-The country! I am speaking of the constituencies of the Coun­cil. Those constituencies are so large in extcnt-thollgh the constituent body itself is so small-that they can only be con­tested by wealthy mell, and, as tho wealthy men in this country are all of one mind, there are no contests at ~ll. The mem­bers elected to the Council are, in fact, the mere norninee~ of a single class in the community, and to such an extent is that the case that the party which is acknow­ledged to have the full confidence of the country cannot obtain one member out of the 30 to represent it fairly in the Upper House. In the face of ·that fact, we are asked still further to humble uot ourselves but the people of this country, and to put them at the feet of the oligarchy which has stood in the way of every possible reform for years. And we are asked to do that without the slightest advance from the other Chamber. Even if this House was weak enough to consent to the message which the leader of the Opposition pro­poses shall be sent to the other Chamber, we might receive an answer which, so far from being an acceptance of ·our proposal, might be the very opposite, and we might have made our request in vain.

Mr. DUFFY.-Then we would support you against them.

lYlr. BERl~Y.-I do not want the sup­port of the honorable member; I know what his support is. But, as I have already said, all these considerations I would have passed over if honorable members had shown me that by this join t committee we could ael vanco the reform

1694 Riform Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Seventh Night's Debate.

question one iota. What did the honor­able member for Belfast say? He said­"'Vhen you get the result of the joint committee, it won't bind you; you need not take it if you don't like." But what did he say direct.ly afterwards? " When a Bill is drafted by the joint committee, if it is put to the country, I would like to see the man who wonld stand on a plat­form and say he would not accept that Bill." There we see the fix in which the honorable member would like to place this House. .

Mr. FRANCIS.-If the Bill was in accord with the country, why should it not be accepted?

Mr. BERRY.-The honorable member for Belfast did not mean that the country would approve of the Bill, but that it has grown so weary of the question aft~r the long discussion that has taken place, and the elections that have occurred, that it would say-" Settle the question any­how; take this Bill, which we can get, rather than refuse it, with the chance of getting no other."

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-I did not say anything like that. I said public opinion would be in favour of the Bill.

Mr. BERRY.-Let me now ask honor­able members to think what would be the result of this motion if it were adopted. Of course, in a conference we all know what is done. The majority of the Assem­bly-the men who have passed the mea­sure in question-see that the members who are elected to serve on the conference are all chosen from the majority, and the same is done in the other House.

Mr. FRANCIS.-They are not neces­sarilyall chosen from the majority.

Mr. BERRY.-It has invariably been done. The honorable member himself did it when he was in office; when he was in office, he never would do anything else. The representatives of the two Houses would then meet, and the question would be discussed in a free conference. There could be no di vision-no mixing of parties-in such a meeting. The repre­sentatives of each House would speak for their House, and be responsible to their House for what they said; and then, if an arrangement can be brought about, the two Houses would consider it separately and agree to it. If an arrangement can­not be made, then the conference ends, and nothing is effected. But what would hap­pen in tho proposed joint committee? One of the first things that would be said, if

this motion were carried, would be-" Of . course it is of no use taking all the mem­bers of the committee from ODe side of the House; as there is to be a joint committee to discuss the whole question of reform, all opinions must be represented." Then suppose there were ten members from this House, and ~hat the Council even con­sented to be represented by only five­which t,here is not the slightest guarantee they would do-let us see what n trap the Assembly would be led into. Of the five. Council members of the committee at least four, if not all, would be of the same opinions as the minority of this Chamber, so that the Bill which is now in the hands of the majority of this House would be taken out of their hands, and placed in the hands of a majority of another place. Then if any report was brought up this session at all, I ventnre to say that it would be substantially the Bill which the Legisla­ti ve Council has sent down to this House three or four times. Perhaps there would be a little further lowering of the franchise, but substantially the ot.her provisions of the Bill would be insisted upon. And then would come in the astute policy of the honorable member for Belfast, who says-" Only let us get the report from this joint committee., aud with that vantage ground we will defy the majority of the Assembly, because they know the country is tired of the question, and they won't dare to go to the country again." More­over, remember that whilst we, who are amenable to public opinion, having gone so far as to agree to a joint committee, would be undoubtedly constrained to some extent, against our better judgment, to accept anything that was at all like a reasonable proposal for a settlement of the question, how different would be the case if the recommendation of the committee did not please the majority of the Council ! Would they be amenable to public opinion? Would they accept a report which did not agree with the opinions of the majority of that Chamber? In other words, if they did not secure the Bill which for four years they have persistently sent down to this House, would they not repudiate any other decision at which the joint committee might arrive?

Mr. ZOX. - This House would be unanimous.

Mr. BERRY. - So it was the other night, and we see now what the unanimit.y amounts to. It was simply an astute move on the part of the Opposition, who, rather

Be/m'm Bill. [MARCIl 8.J Seventh Nigllt's Debate. 1695

than divide against the second reading of this Bill, in the present temper of the public, allowed the second reading to pass, and thought it better to join issue with the Government and the :Ministerial side of the House upon the question of a joint committee, because there appeared to the unthinking an element of' concession-an appearance of a desire to settle the ques­tion-in that proposition which, instead of rendering them unpopular in the consti­tuencies, might be expected to be received with approbation.

Mr. KERFERD.-Your colleague said you are going to propose it yourself later on.

Mr. BERRY.-That was never said. What was said was that, when the pro­per time arrived, if differences arose between the two Houses, there would be no objection on the part of the Govern­ment to a conference. The Government were bound to say that in view of the debate that has arisen, though I do not think it was wise to force the hands· of the Go­vernment in a matter of this kind, even to that extent, at the present stage. Why should we be called upon to make such a concession? We, in this Assembly, are representing the whole country. The honorable member for Belfast and the honorable member for the Ovens were simply misleading the House when they talked of two co-ordinate Chambers. No doubt the two Houses are, with certain limitations, co-ordinate in their powers of legislation, but they are not co­ordinate in expressing the will of the ~ountry." They are not co-ordinate as regards the weight of their opiniolls on the question of reform. "Do honorable members know that a proposal was made to deal with the reform question, by means of a joint committee, once before? In 1868, a message was received from the Council, asking that a joint committee might be appointed to consider the question of reform. The proposal, at that time, was far more in order and far more fair than it is now, because the Council had not passed a Bill on the subject, but had simply affirmed, by reso­lution, the necessity for reform. They appointed a select committee, and the com­mittee brought up a report recommending that there should be a joint committee of the two Houses to consider the question. vVhat 'va"s the result? vVhen the mes­sage of the Council WftS received in this House, was there one solitary member

who supported t.he proposal for a select committee, though made under circum­stances much less objectionable than the present? Why even the honorable mem­ber for the Ovens himself said that the proposal could not be thought of for a moment, but, instead, he urged the Go­vernment of the day to bring in a Bill­the very thing we have done! Why should there be these constant alterations of opinion? Sir James (then Mr.) McCulloch, the Premier at the time, in discussing the proposal of the Council, used almost identically the same language as I used on Thursday night, and have repeated to-night. He said-

" I certainly cannot recommend the House to accept the in vit-ation from another place. . . . Supposing this proposal to appoint a joint com­mittee to take into consideration so important a subject were entertaineu, and supposing that the joint committee should bring up a report recommending an alteration in the Constitution of this country which this House could not accept-an alteration, it may be, thoroughly opposed to the views of a majority of the members of this House-I think we should be placed in a very awkward position indeed, for the reason that we should be bound to recognise to a certain extent the opinion of that joint committee."

That is exactly what I say. You cannot have this joint committee without being to a certain extent bound by their report, and the report of the joint committee must be-cftnnot be otherwise than-that of a majority from the minority opposite and the majority elsewhere. It is the Norwegian scheme upon a small scale. Better let the two Houses meet in fair discussion in one Chamber than that we should have legislation by a joint com­mittee which, as Mr. McCulloch at that time pointed out, was practically altering the Constitution which gave us two Houses and virtually attempting to legislate with one House. The honorable member for the Ovens on that occasion said, alluding to a previous speaker-

"That honorable member, as I understood, did not find fault with the position taken up by the Chief Secretary-a position which I presume must be concurred in by honorable members generally - namely, that the course recom­mended by the Legislative Council is unusual, and that no good can be expected to flow from it."

I believe, with the honorable member, that " no good can flow from it." At all events we, the Government, are not disposed, as long as we ure supported by a majority of the people's representfttives, to abandon our functions, and to give up this Bill out of onr hamls into the hands of ft joint