Loan Bill. [OCTOBER Ii.] First .l!ligltls Dehaie. 835

some iiew Arcadia. If that be so, I think the Ministry must spare us this heroic remedy of £4,000,000. I wish them to get a portion of it., I have no wish to thwart them in their policy, and I am quite prepared to support them in ad­ministrative measures. At the same time, I am perfectly convinced that, if so large a sum, of money is brought into the country, its introduction must lead to one of two things-and probably both-namely, a great increase of speculation, as the banks having to pay interest on the money will lend it to anyone who will employ it, and, on the other hand, an enormous increase in the price of labour, followed by a tre­mendous collapse. It may be said we can borrow cheaply, and we shall lose a· certain profit if we do Dot borrow at once, but I would ask any business man whether the consequence of the banks lending out £4,000,000 in the next year would not. be to send up the price of labour 1 ° per cent.; and if Government contracts go up to that extent, where will the saving be in gaining 3 per cent. by the negotia­tion of this loan at present? I think all these are considerations which deserve the attention of the Government; and I trust that, when the Bill goes into com­mittee, they will receive amendments ina spirit of conciliation, giving way where they think they can do so without detriment to their policy.

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN.-I wish to say that I think the honorable member who has just spoken and some other honorable members have fallen into some mistake as to what I stated about the Hobson's Bay Railway. It will be seen, by refer-. ring to my remarks, that the £400,000 or . £500,000 I. spoke of incluqed improve­ments in station' and other matters, and. the duplication of some of the lines. I did not say that that sum. was requir'ed for repairs alone.

Mr. LONGMORE moved the adjourn-ment of the debate. .

Mr. R. M. SMITI;l suggested that the honorable member . .for North Melbourne (Mr. Munro). should withdraw his amend-. mente It waS evidently moved under an entire misconception, and, as it was vir­tually a motion of want of confidence, it seriously embarrassed the business discus­sion of the question under consideration.

Mr. MUNRO stated that he had not the least objection to withdraw the amend­ment. The reason he moved it was sim­ply that an important financial Bill was.

passed through all its stages in one night, almost without discussion, in his' absence, and he was determined that he would create a debate on the present Bill. ' The amendment having answered its PQrpose, he begged now to withdraw it.

Mr. MASON objected to the amend­ment being withdrawn, as he desired to address himself to the qU'estion as it was before the House. The honorable mem­ber for North Melbourne (Mr. Munro) had taken the responsibility of proposing an amendment which was really a want of confidence motion without consulting,. at least, many members of the House, and he now appeared unprepared to accept his responsibility.

Mr. ZOX expressed the hope that the honorable member for South Gippsland would not persist in his objection, as, if the only object of the amendment was to

. create discussion, it had answered the most sanguine expectations of its mover.

The motion for the adj<;mrnment of the debate was then agreed to, and the debate was adjourned until the following day.

The House adjourned at six minutes past eleven o'clock.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Wednesday, October 12, 1881.

Position and Emoluments of Officers of the House-Library. Committee-Loan Application Bill-Library, Museums, and National Gallery Act Amendment Bill-Parliament Buildings: Accommodation for Officers of the Council.

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

POSITION AND EMOLUMENTS OF OFFICERS OF THE HOUSE.

The Hon. F. S. DOBSON presented the following message from the Governor, in reply to the address to His Excellency adopted by the House on the 8th March last :-

"NORMANBY, Governor. "In reply to the address from the Legislative

Council, pointing out the anomalous and pre­carious position,' as regards official income, of· the President and Chairman of Committees of that honorable House, and . asking that steps should be taken to amend and enlarge part 4 of schedule D of the Constitution Act, or to other­wise secure permanent provision for the salaries and expenses essential to the maintenance, efficiency, and independence of the Council, the Governor informs the Legislative Council that the Government will be prepared to brin¥ in

336 Public Loan [COUNCIL.] Application Bill.

a measure to T..lake 'permanent provision for the higher class of officers of the Legislative Council, more particularly of the President and Chairman of Committees, that so far each House may be reasonably independent of the other.

"Government House, Melbourne, "October, 1881."

LIBRARY COMMITTEE. The Hon. J. MACBAIN stated that

he desired to be relieved from being a member of the Library Committee and with the leave of the House, he begged to move that the Hon. W. E. Hearn be appointed in his stead.

The Hon. C. J. JENNER seconded the motion, which was agreed to.

LOAN APPLICATION BILL. The Hon. J. MACBAIN moved the

second reading of this Bill. The Hon. W. E. HEARN.-Sir, I

would like to ask the honorable member repr~sentin~ th~ Government whether, by passmg thIs BIll, we shall at all compli­cate matters or commit ourselves with reference to the Bill authorizing the rais­ing of a loan of £4,000,000? It seems to me that there is some difficulty about the measure now before the House, as money has been borrowed for one purpose, and the measure proposes to apply it to a different purpose. I think this is a matter which deserves some little consideration. There is also some uncertainty as to whether the Bill for borrowing £4,000,000 will be carried i?- the Legislative Assembly, at all events m its present shape. Assum­ing that it will not be, I would like to be informed whether the passing of the mea­sure before us will complicate affairs, or embarrass the future action of this House or of the Government?

Mr. MACBAIN.-Sir, I do not think that the passing of this Bill will in any way complicate matters. Certain works are scheduled in the measure, and they are of a~ urgent character, but, if the Loan Bill does not pass, these works cannot be proceeded with. I will draw the attention of honorable members to the 3rd clause of the Bill, whioh is as follows:-

"Before any expenditure shall be made or contract entered into, for the purposes mentio'ned in the schedule to this Act, an estimate of the expenditure proposed to be incurred for the said purposes shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and the aforesaid estimate shall be submitted for the sanction of the Legislative Assemhlyin the same manner as the annual Esti­mates of Expenditure for the public service." Therefore, no money for any purpose con­templated by the Bill can be expended

until an estimate of the proposed expendi­ture is laid before both Houses of Parlia­ment, and receives the sanction of the Legislative Assembly. If the measure is passed now, it will only be a step in ad­vance, to enable the Government to go on with the intended works as soon as possible. The total expenditure which it provides for is £654,000; but, as I have already intimated, if the proposed loan of £4,000,000, out of which it is in­tended to recoup the £654,000, does not receive the sanction of Parliament, the Government will be prevented from going on with any of the expenditure.

. The Hon. W. CAMPBELL.-Mr. Pre­sident, there does not appear to be any urgency for passing this Bill. There is a difference of opinion in another place in reference to the Bill to anthorize the raising of a loan of £4,000,000, and I think it would be well for us to stay our hand until we see what becomes of that measure. A printed document has been circulated giving a somewhat detailed statement of how it is proposed to expend the £654,000 set forth in the schedule to the Bill at present before us, and I find that it is proposed to expend a large sum of money in repairs to, and extension of, the Melbourne and Hobson's Bay Railway. One of the items is for a new bridge on tha t line, across the Yarra, near Flinders­street. I am not an engineer, and therefore I cannot give a professional opinion as to what the cost of such a work should be ; but, while I had an interest in that rail­way, plans and estimates were submitted to the directors of the late Hobson's Bay Company, showing that an iron bridge of very superior construction could be erected for about half the money that the Govern-. ment are proposing to expend, and iron is . no~ much cheaper than itwas at that time. The estimate I refer to was given by Mr. Elsdon, who was then the engineer of the Hobson's Bay Railway Company, and is now Engineer-in-Chief of all the Govern­ment railways. It appears to me that the estimates for the railway works referred to in the Bill are extravagant. I think that the Government are asking for more money than is actually wanted. A large sum-£42,000-is proposed to be ex­pended in doubling the line between Windsor and Brighton. As most of the bridges between those 'places are, I believe, already prepared for a double line, I do not see how such a large sum of money can be required in order to duplicate the rails

Public Loan [OcrOB1<m 12.J Application Bill. 337

for' a distance of four or five miles. I do Dot even think that the work is absolutely necessary. If the railway was managed more economically, the doubling of the line between Windsor and Brighton might. remain in abeyance for some time-until the Government could afford to layout the money necessary for the purpose. I must say that there is a want of economy in the working of the Hobson's Bay Rail­way at the present time. For instance, in connexion with the trains from Mel­bourne to Brighton, a large number of passengers who are only going as far as Richmond or South Yarra crowd into the Brighton carriages, and the conse­quence is that during the remainder of the journey to Brighton the carriages are half empty. If the trains to Brighton did not stop at -Richmond and South Yarra, the running of a number of nearly empty carriages during the latter part of the journey would be avoided, and, instead of the trains consisting of eight or ten carriages, half or a third of that number would be sufficient. I will .repeat that I think, with proper management, the ex­pense of doubling the line between Wind­sor and Brighton might be deferred for some time to come. I may mention that the directors of the Hobson's Bay Com­pany only intended to double the line to Elsternwick, which they thought would' be quite sufficient to meet the require­ments of the holiday traffic. I believe that, with a due regard to economy, fewer carriages-a less amount of rolling-stock -might do for the Hobson's Bay Railway. There are many other details of the ex­penditure in connexion with railways pro­posed by the Bill which appear to me to be extravagant. I, however, take a dif­ferent view in regard t.o the money which it is proposed to expend on water supply works. In many parts of the country waterworks are absolutely required. Some districts-especially the northern areas­have suffered very severely for many years past from want of water, and I think there should be no delay in the expendi­ture of any money necessary to remedy that state of things. The carrying out of water supply works is a very different matter from railway extension. Although I am a great advocate for the construction of railways wherever there is a prospect of their being remunerative, I am afraid that we are extending lines to some places where they will not pay. As the question of the raising of the £4,000,000 loan is

S~s. 1881.-2 A

still under discussion in the Assembly, I would suggest that the second reading of the Bill now before us should be post­poned for a week or so, especially in the absence of Sir Charles Sladen~ who takes a great interest in the measure.

Mr. MACBAIN.-I desire to say, in reply to some of the remarks of Mr. Campbell, that the amount put down for the erection of a new iron bridge on the Hobson's Bay Railway, over the Yarra, is simply the estimate submitted by the Railway department after investigation as to the description of bridge which is abso­lutely necessary for the traffic over the river. Engineers, of course, cannot tell what the exact cost of the bridge will be, and possibly the contract price may be much less than is calculated upon at present. The passing of the Bill will not interfere with the exact expenditure which will be incurred; and I may again remind honorable members that no money can be expended under the Bill until an estimate of the proposed expenditure is submitted to both Houses of Parliament and sanc­tioned by the Legislative Assembly. As to the management of the Hobson's Bay Railway, I would ask Mr. Campbell to bear in mind that a private company can manage their affairs very much more economically than a Government. Although the late Hobson's Bay Railway Company escaped any direct public censure, they were fre­quently cens'ured by people who travelled on their railway. When a Government have the control of a railway, they are bound to meet public requirements. If they do not erect a substantial bridge on the Hobson's Bay line, across the Yarra, and an accident occurs through their fail­ing to do so, they may be put to double the expense of what the cost of a good bridge would be. With respect to the item of £42,000 for doubling the line between Windsor and Brighton, that is also only an estimate, and, when tenders are called for, it may be found that the work can be done for less money. It is likewise estimated that £50,000 of the expenditure contemplated under the Bill will be required for rolling­stock for the Hobson's Bay Railway. Since the late accident at J olimont, and in consequence of the reports of engineers, the Government have had to take a large quantity of rolling~stock from other lines and transfer it to the Hobson's Bay Rail­way. About £33,000 worth of rolling­stock has been so transferred. Another item of expenditure contemplated under

ggg . Public Loan [ASSEM:SL Y.] Application Bill.

ther.measure is £11,000 for a secondllne of way between Richmond and Hawth@rn, which is considered absolutely necessary. There is an urgency for the works which the Bill is intended to provide for, and I hope that the House will consent. to t)le passing of the measure.

Mr. CAMPBELL.--':"'Y, desire to say a few words by way of personal explanation. A great many reflections have been thrown on the management of the late Hobson's Bay Company, but, during the time I had the honour of a seat on the board, the directors were always willing to supply any wants mentioned by their engineer. The company frequently put on new car­riages, and they carried the public safely during a long period of time. There is no justification for the imputations which are frequently made against the company. The accounts of the company were pub­lished half-yearly, and an accurate record was kept of the state of the r.olling-stock and the permanent-way, and of everything connected with the railway. If th~ reports published by the directors from time to time were looked into, it would be seen that the management of the company wa.s not such as it has generally been repre­sented to be. Considering the urgency of carrying out water supply works in certain districts of the country, I will withdraw my opposition to the second reading of the Bill.

The mot.ion was then agreed to, and the Bill was read a second time, and com­mitted:

On clause 2, giving power to advance money out of the Railway Loan Accomit 1878, - Dr. HEARN said that among the items in the schedule to the Bill was a sum of £80,000 for the erection of State schools. The honorable member who moved the second reading stated that.the works referred to in it were of the most urgent character, but he (Dr. Hearn) would like to know what particular urgency there was to apply a portion of the money borrowed by Act of Parliament for railway construction to the erection of State school buildings? The hon­orable member had also stated that the "additional works connected with exist­ing railways," mentioned in the schedule, were matters of urgency for the safety of the passengers; but, if tha.t were so, he thought some explanation sttould be given as to how the railways had got into such ·R dangerous condition. If it were true

that the lines at Maryborough and several other places were absolutely dangerous for traffic, honorable members should be told what had made them dangerous. A very large sum of money had been spent on railway construction, and he' thought the public should know who was really responsible' for the railways being in such a dangerous state at present that Parlia­ment should· be asked to vote in an un­usual manner, and out of an unusual fund, money to do away with the danger.

Mr. MACBAIN observed that the esti­mate of the Education department as to the amount of money required at present for the erection of public schools was £300,000. The fact that the amount pro­posed in this Bill was no more than £80,000 showed that the Government only wished to meet the most urgent cases until a new loan was floated. Of course, the money now asked for would be' recouped out of whatever loan was sanctioned by Parlia­ment. As to the Maryborough station, the Railway department was of opinion that, unless some alterations were made to it, a catastrophe would in all probability occur there. He believed there was some fault in the construction of the station, but he could not say who was to blame in the matter.

The Hon. H. CUTHBERT remarked that the Bill was simply to provide for immediate and necessary works, in con­nexion with some. of which tenders had been already called for, and he could see no object in delaying the passage of the measure. The Government, no doubt, in proposing the railway works referred to in the Bill, had acted on the reports of responsible officers of the Railway de­partment. Before the money was expended an estimate would have to be submitted to both Houses of Parliament, and would have to be approved of by another place, where it would be carefully scrutinized.

The Hon. P. RUSSELL said that, some thne ago, it was stated that the Maryborough station was placed. on the wrong side of the town. He wished to know whether it was - proposed- to alter the site?

Mr. MACBAIN said he believed the money asked for was for additions and alterations to the existing station.

The clause was agreed to. The Bill, having been gone through,

was reported to the House.without amend­ment, and was read a third time- and passed.

.LMiners'Requirements. tOCTOBER 12.J International Exhihition. 339

LIBRARY, MUSEUMS, AND NATIONAL GALLERY ACT

AMENDMENT BILL. The amendment made in this Bill, in

committee, was considered and adopted.

PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS. The Hon. W. CAMPBELL (in the

absence of Sir C. SLADEN) moved-" That the report of the select committee on

the Legislative Council offices be referred to the joint committee of the two Houses of Parliament on the Parliament buildings."

The motion was agreed to. . The House adjourned at twenty-eight

minutes past five o'clock, until Tuesday, October 18.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. Wednesday, October 12, 1881.

Miners' Requirements: Conference of Amalgamated Miners' Association - Melbourne International Exhibition­Cowie's Creek Station Reserve - Police Protection at Ballarat-Railway Department: Ganger Stewart: Station at Ravenswood: Ticket Gates at Spencer-street-RoyaJ. Commission on the Educa.tion Act-Letter Posta.ge-Post and Telegraph Office at Carlton-Mr. Hargreaves-Broken River Water Scheme - Yan Yean Water Supply­Machinery Inspection - Victoria. Racing Club Bill­Management a.nd Conservation of Forests Bill-Electoral Act (Chinese) Amendment Bill-Protection of Anima.ls Bill-Criminal Convictions-Loan Bill: Second Reading: Second Night's Debate.

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

MINERS' , REQUIREMENTS. Mr. R. CLARK asked the Minister

of Mines what action he intended to take to give effect to the resolutions with reference to the following subjects passed at the annual conference of the Amal­gamated Miners' Association of Victoria, held at Ballarat the previous Friday:-

"1. To support eight hours to engine-drivers. "2. Practical miners only to be appointed

inspectors of mines. "3. The use of dynamite, lithofracteur, or

any otp.er explosives injurious to health in the mines to be prohibited.

"4. The Minister of Mines to have the Mines Regulation Statute more thoroughly carried out.

"5. No person to be allowed to vote at a mining board election unless the miner's right has been taken out three months prior to the election.

"6. Immediate action in passing a Mining on Private Property Bill.

"7. No further alienation of Crown lands. "8. The necessity for dealing with the ques­

tion of residence areas, giving the power to Bub-let "?

2A2

Mr. BURROWES stated that with reference to the subject embraced in the 1st item he mentionec. his intentions the previous evening. Both. that and the matter referred to in the 4th item would be considered in connexion with a Bill to amend the Regulation of Mines Statute. He would take care that only practical miners were appointed as inspectors of mines. With regard to the use in mines of dynamite and other explosives injurious to health, preventive measures were taken by the Mining department some time ago, by refusing facilities for storage, and throwing on storekeepers the responsi­bility of the custody of such articles. Instructions had been issued for the strict observance of the Regulation of Mines Statute, but the utmost precautions would not protect miners from the necessary results of their own carelessness. In consequence of recent accidents, he had required the mining inspectors to make a thorough inspection of all mines with the view to see that, in every case, the plant was in thorough working order. It was the intention of the Government to submit a Mining on Private Property Bill to Parliament this session, if possible. He would prevent by every means in his power the alienation of Crown land believed to be auriferous; but a question with reference to land alienation was one which should be addressed to his honor­able colleague, the Minister of Lands. As to gold-fields residence areas, that subject was dealt with in a Bill already before the House.

MELBOURNE INTERNATION AL EXHIBITION.

Mr. VALE reminded the Premier of what transpired in the Assembly, about a fortnight ago, with reference to the wind­ing up of the business connected with the International Exhibition. On that occa­sion the honorable gentleman expressed his willingness to appoint the executive committee of the expiring Exhibition Commission to do the work, but that body had not yet been put in a position to do it. At present it had no status, owing to the fact that the commission had expired.

Sir B. O'LOG HLEN stated that he would take action in the matter at once.

COWIE'S CREEK STATION RESERVE.

Mr. REES asked the Chief Secretary whether he had any' objection to the.

340 Railway Department. [A.SSEMBLY.] Postage.

appointment of a select committee to in­quire into the sale of an improved piece of land at Cowie's Creek, which had been connected with the Railways for the last twenty-three years?

Mr. GRANT suggested that the honor­able member for Grant (Mr. Rees) should give notice of motion.

Mr. REES gave notice for the following Wednesday.

THE POLICE. Major SMITH inquired of the Chief

Secretary whether he would provide increased police protection for the city of Ballarat? He observed that, on the open­ing of the Melbourne Exhibition, police­men were taken from Ballarat and other districts to be stationed in the metropolis; but, although the Exhibition had been closed some time, the policemen taken from Ballarat had not been replaced.

Mr. GRANT, in reply, read the follow­ing memorandum from the Acting Chief Commissioner of Police :-

"For some little time the strength of the police at Ballarat has been one or two men short, as there was some· uncertainty how they could best be replaced, but another vacancy occurred last w:eek, and three constables were on the 10th inst. ordered to be sent up from Melbourne.

"Their arrival will doubtless satisfy the in­quiry. From my own knowledge of the require­ments of the city of Ballarat and suburbs, and from the fact that the returns of . crime there show a decrease of late, there is no reason to think that any further increase will be required or called for."

RAILWAY DEP ART.MENT. Mr. DEAKIN asked the Minister of

Hailways whether he would order an in­quiry into the circumstances connected with the reduction of Ganger Stewart? The Minister had been furnished with an affidavit from a disinterested person, dis­tinctly contradicting the charge upon which Stewart was reduced.

Mr. BENT said he woulJ hear the case himself.

Mr. McINTYRE asked whether the Minister of Railways would inquire into the desirability and necessity of establish­ing a small station at Ravenswood?

Mr. BENT replied that he would do so.

Mr. W. M. CLARK asked the Minis­ter of Railways when, and by whom, were orders given for closing the ticket gates at the Spencer-street pla#orm in the face of persons desiring to travel by sp.burban trains, and whether the public had been

made aware that such a regulation was in force?

Mr. BENT said the official reply which had been furnished him was that the gates were closed when the starting gong was sounded-not before; and that notices to that effect would be posted. He was not aware when or by whom the orders were given, but he intended to inquire into the matter because one gentleman received a little rough handling, the previous day, in connexion with the closing of the gates.

DIAMOND DRILLS. Mr. COOPER asked the Minister of

Mines wbatamount per month was charged for diamonds to the companies who had bad diamond drills within the last three months?

Mr. BURROWES said there was no special charge for diamonds; but' the charge for the use of a diamond drill was £ 1 0 per week, and that covered everything.

PUBLIC INSTRUCTION. Mr. HUNT asked the Premier when

he purposed laying before the House a list of the gentlemen he intended recommend­ing as a Royal commission to inquire into the working of the Education Act?

Sir B. O'LOG HLEN said be would lay the list on the table at the earliest possible date.

POSTAGE. Mr. GARDINER inquired of the

Premier when he would introduce a Bill to reduce the present rate of letter postage to one penny?

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN observed that he believed he was one of those who assisted, . in a former session, in passing a resolu tion in favour of a reduction of the postage on letters. The Government were anxious to see the letter postage reduced to one penny, but at present, in view of the state of the finances, they did not see. their way to propose the reduction. He had received a report from the Deputy, Postmaster­General to the effect that the postal.reve­nue had sustained some diminution from the last reductions in the rates of postage. There was one member of the Government who had given the subject his special attention, and who no doubt would see that the reduction of the letter postage was carried into effect at the earliest possible opportunity, because he was for pressing the matter on the notice of his colleagues both in and out of season.

Mr. Hargreaves. [OCTOBER 12.J Yan Yean Water Supply. 841

POST AND TELEGRAPH OFFICES. Mr. GARDINER inquired of the Post­

master-General whether he intenued to carry out the promise made to several deputations to place on the Estimates a sum for the purpose of erecting a post and telegraph office at Carlton?

Mr. BOLTON stated that the Esti­mates f~r 1881-2 included a lump sum for the erection of new post and telegraph offices, .but he was not yet in a position to say whether any portion of the money would be available for the erection of buildings at Carlton.

MR. HARGREAVES. Mr. McINTYRE asked the Minister

of Mines whether it was the fact that, in 1855, the sum of .£ lO,OOO was recom­mended by the Legislative Council to be paid to certain persons claiming to be the discoverers of gold-fields; that out of that sum only a little more than a moiety was then paid to the said claimants; and that subsequently, in 1861, the whole of the said claimants received the balances of the amount so recommended to them re­spectively with the exception of· one, namely, Mr. Hargreaves; and whether the Minister would now do justice in the matter, by causing the balance due to Mr. Hargreaves to be placed upon an Addi­tional Estimate? The honorable member remarked that, on a recent visit to Sydney, he was brought into contact with several public men 'Who expressed the opinion that it was a reflection on the colony of Victoria that it refused to recognise this long-standing claim of Mr. Hargreaves. It appeared, from a pamphlet which had been circulated, that £2,400 was the amount uue; and, if it were due, 'surely it should be paid at once, considering what Mr. Hargreaves did to develop the interests of Victoria and New South Wales.

Mr. BURROWES, in replying to the question, read the following memorandum from the Secretary for Mines :-

"On the lOth March, 1854, a select committee reported on the claims for rewards for th!3 dis­covery of gold in Victoria. They recommended rewards as under :-Mr. Hargreaves, £5;000.; Rev. W. B. Clarke, £1,000; Mr. Michel and party, £1,000; Mr. Hiscock, £1,000; Mr. Camp­bell, £1,000; Mr. Esmonds, £1,000; Dr. Bruhn, £500.

" On the Estimates, in session 1854-5, appears an item for a 'Gratuity to Mr. Hargreaves, £5,000.' This item was discussed on 3rd April, 1855-the result being that the words' and the discoverers of gold in Victoria' were added to the item, which was then passed.

"The £5,000 was therefore distributed pro rata as follows :-Mr. Hargreaves, £2,381; Rev. W. B. Clarke, £476 4s.; Mr. Hiscock, £476 4s.; Mr. Esmonds, £476 48.; Mr. Michel and party, £476 4s.; Mr. Campbell, £476 4s.; Dr. Bruhn, £238.-Total, £5,000.

"On the 14th May, 1861, a vote of £2,881 was passed in favour of the following gentlemen, being·the balance of the amounts recommended to them by the select committee in 1854-viz.: Messrs. Clark, Michel, Hiscock, Campbell, Esmonds, and Bruhn.

"In this vote, Mr. Hargreaves' name does not appear.

"Mr. Hargreaves' case has been repeatedly before the House, but the motions to grant him any f:urther sum than that already paid have been ·steadily negatived."

In view of the attitude taken up by the House on previous occasions, he (Mr. Burrowes) did not see his way to acqui­esce in the request of the honorable mem­ber for Maldon. He would suggest that the honorable' member should take the opportunity of testing the feeling of the House on the question. (Mr. McIntyre­"It has been decided two or three times.") But only by way of refusal.

BROKEN CREEK WATERWORKS.

Mr. HALL asked the Minister of Public Works whether he would authorize Mr. Davidson, of the Yan Yean depart­ment, on an early day, to accompany the Crown lands bailiff for the Shepparton district to inspect and report upon the Broken River and Broken Creek water schemes?

Mr. C. YOUNG said he had no inten­tion of authorizing Mr.· Davidson to do anything of the kind, nor had he any intention of recognising the Crown lands bailiff as capable of giving information on the subject. The scheme having been carried out, the Government were waiting for the share of the expenditure which the shire council agreed to pay. A s soon as that was paid, the works would be handed over to the shire council, who would be at liberty to consult any person they chose.

YAN YEAN WATER SUPPLY.

Mr. VV ALSH inquired of the Minister of Public Works whether, in view of the probability of a short supply of water from the Yan Yean reservoir during the coming summer, he would give instruc­tions that no further reticulation of new streets or roads be undertaken after the present month, until an additional supply from other than the present sources could be secured?

342 Victoria Racing Club Bill. [ ASSEMBLY.] . Forests Bill.

Mr. C. YOUNG stated that he had received the following reply to the ques­tion :-

"The Superintending Engineer reported, on the 26th July, that it was desirable further extensions of reticulation should cease, pending the obtaining of further supplies to the reser­voir.

"Extensions,requiring about 90 tons of reticu­lation pipes having been approved, these will be completed; but no further applications for ex­tensions will be considered until an increased supply of water shall have been secured." He was glad the question had been put, because it gave him the opportunity of stating that no further reticulation would be carried out. He considered there was not the slightest ground for any scare. With ordinary care, with the observance of proper precautions against waste-and he intended to give instructions to prevent waste-the water in the Yan Yean reser­voir would be ample for the supply of the metropolis.

MACHINERY INSPECTION. Mr. JOHNSTONE asked the Chief

Secretary whether the Government in­tended to introduce a Bill to provide for the inspection and registration of steam machinery?

Mr. GRANT replied that such a Bill was in course of preparation, and, if time allowed, it would be laid before Parlia­ment this session.

VICTORIA RACING CLUB BILL. Mr. ROBERTSON (in the absence of

Mr. R. M. SMITH) moved-" That the Bill intituled ' a Bill to make valid

the grant of an annuity by the Victoria Racing Club to the widow and children of the late Robert Cooper Bagot, and for other purposes,' be referred to a select committee of the Legis­lative Assembly; such committee to consist of Mr. Roberts·on, Mr. Mimms, Mr. Patterson, Mr. Francis, and the mover, three to form a quorum; and that leave be given to print the evidence taken before the said committee." \ Mr. OFFICER seconded the motion, which was agreed to.

FORESTS BILL. Mr. RICHARDSON moved for leave

to introduce a Bill for the management and conservation of State forests.

Mr. VALE seconded the motion. Sir B. O'LOGHLEN observed that it

was the intention of the Government to bring a Forests Bill before the House this session if they had time. He mentioned the matter in order that the honorable membe·r for Creswick (Mr. Richardson) might not be taken by surprise.

Mr. RICHARDSON said, although he was inclined to think that, when his Bill was printed, the Government would be disposed to accept it, he was willing to withdraw the motion, and give every assistance to the Government in carrying their Bill if he found he could support it.

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN expressed the hope that the motion would not be with­drawn. The Bill might as well be intro­duced and read a first time, particularly in view of the doubt whether the Govern­ment would have time to submit their measure.

The motion was agreed to. The Bill was then brought in, and read

a firs t time.

ELECTORAL ACT (CHINESE) AM;ENDMENT BILL.

On the order of the qay for the second reading of this Bill,

Sir B. O'LOG HLEN moved that the order be discharged from the paper. He stated that he did this with the concur­rence of the honorable.member for Stawell, who had charge of the measure, on the understanding that the ohject sought to be accomplished by the Bill would be carried out by means of a clause in the Bill to amend the Chinese Immigration Statute.

The order of the day was discharged from the paper.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS BILL.

The House went into committee for the further consideration of this Bill.

Discussion (adjourned from October 5) was resumed on clause 12, making every person "guilty of an offence against this Act for which no penalty is provided" liable to " a penalty not exceeding £100, or to be imprisoned, with or without hard labour, for any period not exceeding one' year."

The amendment proposed by Mr. Ram­say, substituting" £10" for" £100," was agreed to.

Mr. DEAKIN moved, as a further amendment, that after the ".£10" just adopted the clause should read as fol­IQws :-

"Or to be imprisoned with or without hard labour for a period not exceeding one month, for the first offence; or to a penalty not exceed­ing £20, or to be imprisoned with or without hard labour for a period not exceeding two months, for the second offence; or to a penalty not exceeding £50, or to be imprisoned with or without hard labour for any period not exceed­ing three months, for the third and every sub .. sequent offence."

Protection qf [OCTOBER 12.J Animals Bill. 343

He said his object was to adopt the gradu- ~ was such that it would hardly be possible ated scale of penalties of which'so many to apply them to any but what might be honorable members seemed in favour. called the domestic animals. Again, while

The amendment was agreed to. it would be absurd to exempt from the Sir B. O'LOGHLEN moved the addi- opemtion of such a measure as this such

tion to the clause of, the following pro- a thing as the slaughtering of cattle, it viso:- w,Quld, if the amendment were adopted, be

"Provided always that neither any act done logically necessary to do so. So much. in the process of exterminating rabbits, foxes, for the first portion of the proviso. As wild dogs, or vermin of any kind, nor any act for the second portion, there was nothing done in the hunting, snaring, trapping, or shoot- in: the Bill to prevent "the hunting, ing of any wild animal, shall be deemed an offence under tlnis Act, nor shall this Act apply snaring, trapping, or shooting of any wild to any experiment or to any case of vivisection animal/' But, on the other hand, if SUQh performed on any animal by any legally qualified acts were indiscriminately sanctioned in medical practitioner." the manner now proposed, the effect would He said that, as the 'Bill stood, anyone, unquestionably be to sanction the com­who took particular means to' exterminate mittal of them under circumstances of the rats or mice, not to speak of wild dogs most atrocious barbarity. Besides, the or rabbits, would be liable to be deemed best friends of sport would admit that guilty of cruelty in a statutable sense, there were some sports which no Christian and he therefore proposed, by means of man could countenance. As to the con­the first portion of the proviso, to place all cluding pOl,tion of the proviso, it ought to acts of the kind upon .. a proper footing. be borne in mind that so late as 1876 the The second portion was intended for the British Parliament imposed most severe re­protection of those who hunted wild strictions upon the practice of vivisection, animals. Under the Bill, coursing might in' order to prevent unnecessary cruelty in be construed as "unnecessary cruelty" to connexion with it. If such restrictions the hare coursed, and it, was by no means were deemed necessary in a country so ad­clear that duck shooting would not come vanced as England, on what ground could under the same category; but surely it they be complained of here? For ex­was not intended to make either sport a ample, the English law enacted that every statutable offence. That sort of thing person practising vivisection should regis­would be over-.legislation with a vengeance. ter himself, that no vivisection should take The third portion of the proviso was place unless an anresthetic was used in most important, inasmuch as it could not connexion with it, that every vivisector be denied that it was frequently necessary should keep an exact record of the experi­in the cause· of science, and in order to ments he performed, and the length of arrive at a better treatment of particular time to which he subjected any animal to diseases, to make experiments -that might them, and so on. But to adopt the proviso possibly be deemed to involve cruelty, and would simply lead to unrestrained vivisec­also to practise vivisection. Would it be tion. If vivisection was to be permitted wise to place in the hands of any ignorant by Statute, surely the thing ought to be busybody the means of preventing, on done in the lines of the English law on sentimental grounds, anything of the sort? the subject. (Sir B. O'Loghlen-" Then It was to be observed that immunity with why not incorporate them in the Bill ?") respect to the scientific investigations re- Because the Bill was aimed at something ferred to was to be extended to only' different. It was to be hoped the Pre­legally qualified medical practitioners. He mier would be content with the clause as had been asked by his honorable colleague, it stood. the member for Richmond (Mr. Smith), to, Mr. L. L. SMITH remarked that the insert in the proviso the words" for the English law with relation to vivisection purposes of scientific investigation," and simply showed to what lengths over-legis­he would have no objection to- do so. lation could be carried even in a country . Mr. DEAKIN expressed the' hope that like England. Who were the members of

the amendment would be negatived. In the House of Commons at whose instance the first place, there was nothing in the the provisions the honorable member for Bill to warrant the idea that its provisions West Bourke (Mr. Deakin) referred to would ever be construed in the manner were adopted? Men of an utterly un­suggested by the Premier. On the con- scientific turn of mind-the ,mere "goody­trary, the wording Of the various clauses goodies" ef the Chamber, What was the

344 Protection of [ ASSEMBLY.] Animals Bill.

consequence of legislation of that kind? That all the great discoveries of the day which tended to the prevention or better treatment of disease, and 10 the alleviation of the miseries of humanity, were mad.e not in England, but on the continent of Europe. Why some of Professor Pasteur's discoveries, which were applauded by the whole world, were the result of experi­ments. performed on thousands of animals for the purpose of ascertaining the exact operation of germs of disease. He (Mr. Smith) asked his honorable colleague, the Premier, to insert in the proviso the words "for the purposes of scientific investigation," because he did not wish that any medical practitioner should be enabled to be cruel when no question of science was in vol ved ; but, on the other hand, he thought it would be well if the contemplated immunity was extended to University professors. Of course, scientific experimentation often involved suffering which might be deemed to be cruelty. How could the action of snake poison, for instance, be investigated, or the remedial action of gal v anism have been dis­covered, without cruelty to dogs? But then look at the valuable .results brought about by such means. Was it not through cruel experiments that the true nature of many diseases-pleuro-pneumonia, for instance -was detected? It would have been impossible to achieve the great physiolo­gical and pathological discoveries that had been made of late years without experiments on living animals. . Cruelty was cruelty, but one might "be cruel only to be kind." Indeed, the adop­tion of the proviso as a whole was abso­lutely necessary. Were busybodies or unpleasant neighbours to have a weapon wherewith they could annoy others put straight into their hands? Under the Bill, as it stood, although, perhaps, a person could not be convicted of cruelty for coursing a hare, he might be subjected to immense trouble and vexation. Was the snaring of wild animals to be regarded as an offence? If it was not, why should permitting it be objected to? Outside Parliament, the Bill, as a whole, was regarded as a perfect farce-an utterly unnecessary interference with the liberty of the subject. If it was certain that magistrates would never convict persons of cruelty for acts which ought not to be regarded as cruel, what harm could there be in preventing them from doing any­thing of the kind? I t would be most

Mr. L. L. Smith. ,I •

unwise, in a young country like this, where so little was known of the diseases to which stock were subject, to refuse to adopt the amendment now proposed.

Mr. RICHARDSON hoped the Premier would withdraw his amendment. The whole tenor of the Bill was to leave cases of alleged cruelty to the discretion of the magistrates,and,if that were so, why should their discretion be limited in the particular instances provided for in the amendment? Hunting and coursing were referred to in the amendment, but it had been shown that there could be 'an excess of cruelty in the prosecution of those sports. It was well known that a great deal of cruelty did take place in connexion with coursing, and should not the magis­trates have the discretionary power of saying how far it should go and where it should stop? There was no doubt that a number of men bred and protected hares for the very purpose of being cruel to them afterwards. In fact, hares were originally imported for this particular purpose. It had been ruled in England that hunting did not come within the meaning of the term" cruelty to animals," and therefore there was no necessity for the amendment as far as hunting was concerned. The House of Commons, in passing the Cruelty to Animals Bill, to which the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Smith) had referred, had a large body of evidence before it showing the necessity of such a measure, and his (Mr. Richardson's) ex­perience of the medical profession was that they wanted curbing in connexion with their experiments upon animals. The evidence collected by the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals, which was placed before the House of Commons, exh~bited instances of cruelty to animals in the prosecution of experiments which would harrow the feelings of any honor­able member reading it. He trusted that, if the amendment was not withdrawn, the committee would negative it.

Mr. BOSISTO observed that he would certainly support the amendment. The honorable member in charge of the Bill opposed the amendment, on the ground that only" unnecessary cruelty" was pro­vided against in the Bill; but he (Mr. Bosisto) did not think all magistrates were cap-able of discriminating between neces­sary and real cruelty, and it would be dan­gerous to pass the Bill without the amend­ment proposed by the Premier. He, how­ever, desired to refer chiefl! to the ~ubject

Protection of [OCTOBER 12. ] Animals Bill. 345

of vivisection. He maintained that it was necessary to experiment upon animals in order to understand the nature of poisons and their effect upon the human frame. It must be remembered that these experi­ments were ,conducted with a view to relieve human suffering and to prolong the lives of human beings. The honor­able member for Creswick (Mr. Richard­son) had stated that it was necessary to protect the lower animals from cruelty by medical men; but surely it was not to be a?mitted that the medical profession con­SIsted of men who were addicted to cruelty. Whatever experiments they performed on dumb animals must be of service to human beings, or else they would not undertake them. Since the Act passed in England, five years ago, the subject of vivisection had advanced to such a degree of import­ance that he had not the slightest doubt but that the British Parliament would almost immediately sanction a measure allowing medical men to perform those operations which were necessary for the advancement of scientific knowledge with reference to the diseases of the human family. There were two plants in Queens­land, which were formerly thought to be of no service whatever in curing diseases b · ' ut experIments with them on animals had proved them to be of infinite service in the removal of diseases. One of these' plants-duhiosa myropoides-had, by the experiments on rabbits, been proved to be of infinitely more service than belladonna in certain diseases of the eye. At the late Medical Congress, held in London,

, there was much discussion on this subject, and the leading men of the day spoke strongly of the necessity of vivisection. Professor Fraser said-

" Pharmacology, the science of remedies, must ~e . foun~ed upon experiments performed upon !lvmg am.m~ls. An Act has been passed imp os­l~g restrICtIOns of the most harassing descrip­tIOn upon those who are engaged in such re­search. Only the other day, I experienced the mortification of being refused a licence for per­fo!ming a few ex~eriment.s 0!1 rabbits and frogs WIth a reputed pOlson. If thIS be an active sub­stance, it is impossible to predict what advan­tages might be gained from its use in the treat­ment of disease. That the infliction of pain would be only trivial will be apparent when I s~ate that the only operation for which permis~ s~on was requ~sted was the sub-cutaneous injec­tIOn of the pOlson. If this method of research is denied to us, what means are we to adopt to increase the resources of our art? "

The Lancet also said, with reference to tpe same meeting-

" Professor Virchow made a powerful appeal for perfect freedom in scientific research, and conclusively showed that our present knowledge of life is founded on experiment, and that the only reliable and practicable means of increasing and perfecting it is also experiment. • .'. Nor do we claim the right of vivisection for the mere purposes of demonstration. But we do claim that skilled experimenters-physiologists, patho­logists, and pharmacologists-shall have perfect freedom to conduct experiments on living ani­mals, where such are necessary to the elucida­tion of the problems of health, disease, and therapeutics. We claim that true scientific investigation should be as free as thought."

He thought those remarks were quite suf. ficient to show the necessity of including in the Bill the amendment proposed by the Premier. In a young country like this,' the vegetation of which was not yet thoroughly understood, permission to make tests on the lower animals was specially necessary. ,

Mr. LONGMORE considered that the arguments of the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Bosisto) in favour of the amendment must have convinced honor­able members of its necessity. To obviate any possible objections to it, however, he would suggest that the experiments on animals should be made " under regu­lations to be sanctioned by the Governor in Council." Another reason for the amendment was that he could not under­stand why rabbits, foxes, and wild dogs should not be destroyed at every possible opportunity, instead of being protected from injury. Those who introduced rab­bits, hares, foxes, and sparrows into this colony had done it ,a thousand times more injury than the Kelly gang. He thought the honorable member for West Bourke (Mr. Deakin) should accept reasonable amendments in his Bill, or otherwise he would find great difficulty in getting it through the House at all.

Mr. PEARSON said he desired to propose a compJ;'omise, which he thought both sides might accept. It was that the proviso proposed by the Premier should be altered so as to read as follows :-

"Provided always that neither any act done in the process of exterminating rabbits, foxes wild dogs, or vermin of any kind, nor any act done in the hunting, snaring, trapping, or shoot­ing of any wild animal, unless accompanied with unnecessary cruelty, shall be deemed an offence under this Act, nor shall this Act apply to any experiment or to any case of vivisection per­formed on any animal in a state of insensibility, for the purposes of scientific investigation, by any legally qualified medical practitioner, who shall receive a licence to conduct such experi­ment from the Governor in Council."

346 P"otection of [ASSEMBLY.] Animals Bill.

The honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Smith) had stated that the action taken in Englanu in regard to vivisection was the result of a crotchet of the" goody­goody" portion of the British Parliament. He would point out, however, that amongst those" goody-goody" persons were some of the most eminent names in science­fot instance, Sir William Thomson, who spoke in the strongest manner against vivisection. No doubt, a case might be made out for the performance of experi­ments on animals, and, in view of such cases as Harvey's discovery of the circu­lation of the blood, Parliament should be very slow to say that, under certain ex­treme limitations, experiments conducted with the greatest care might not be justi­nable. It was questionable, however, how far the priuciple was a right one in itself that men should torture dumb animals in the selfish interest, or supposed in­terest, of humanity. Few people had the slightest idea of the kind' of thing that was actually done. In one case, recorded in the Edinburgh ,lJ1.edical Journal, thirty animals were tortured by pouring scalding water on them. (Mr. Bosisto-" Was that don,e by a medical man?") I twas not stated. No doubt, the worst atroci­ties were committed by mere dabblers, but many were also committed by medical men. Wheu he was a medical student, he was horrified by the observation of experiments on lizards, by which the spinal marrow was burnt out. In the Lancet there was also an account of how an editor of a journal complained to the police of the howling of dogs in a dis­secting room. He was informed that he would be no longer troubled; and, on inquiry, he found that to stop the howling of the dogs, while they were being tor­tured, the operators divided their laryngeal nerves. There was one man who had notoriously tortured dogs by the hundred, yet he had never made any discovery of the slightest value, and his name was hardly known to the scientific world, ex­cept with regard to these barbarities. He (Mr. Pearson) believed the condition he proposed, that animals experimented on should be first put in a state of insen­sibility, was very necessary. In" the evidenCE( taken before the English com­mission which inquired into the subject, 42 witnesses against one declared that perfect insensibility could be produced, so that there could be no excuse for cruelty.

Mr. Pearson.

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN considered'that, instead of requiring medical men to obtain a licence to perform experiments, it would be sufficient to provide, as suggested by the honorable member for Ripon and Hampden, that the experiments should be performed" in accordance with any regu­lation that may be passed by the Governor in Council in that respect," and, those words might be added to his amendment. The matter of insensibility might a~so be left to the regulations, because he believed that some experiments had to be performed when the animal was not in a state of-insen­sibility. The licence system was stroI1g1y condemned at home by the Lancet, as the limitations under which licences, were granted, and' the delay attending. the obtaining of anyone of them, practically amounted to little less than prohibition. It had been pointed out to him that his amendment did not apply to the slaughter­ing of animals for the purpose of food, which, as the Bill stood, 'would be 'au offence, and therefore he desired to add to his amendment the words "nor to the slaughtering of any animal for the pur­pose of food." Of course, if a person tortured an animal before slaughtering it, he would still be liable, arid very properly so, to punishment under the measure. He had been charged with seeking to legalize unnecessary cruelty, but his amendment had no such intention or effect. Its object was simply to exclude from the operation of the measure certain necessary and usual acts, or acts which, like experiments on animals, were required for the advance­ment of science. No doubt a great deal of suffering was inflicted by vivisection, but he considered that. if one human life was saved by 500 experiments on animals, the rescue of that life justified all the pain inflicted. The honorable member for West Bourke (Mr. Deakin) stated that the general scope of the Bill did not create such things as hunting or shooting of­fences, but the words of the Bill did, and, in passing new and more stringent legis­lation, it was necessary to be precise, otherwi&e the measure, iustead of proving a blessing, would prove a lluisance.

After some further discussion, the pro­viso, amended so as to read as follows, was agreed to :-

"Provided always that neither any act done in the process of exterminating rabbits, foxes, wild dogs, or vermin of any kind, nor any act done in the hunting, snaring, trapping, or shoot­ing of any wild animal, shall be deemed an offence under this Act, unless such act be done

Protection of [OCTOBER 12.J Animals Bill. 347

under circumstances of wilful and wanton cruelty; nor shall this Act apply to any experi­ment' or to any case of vivisection, performed in accordance with any regulations which shall be passed by the Governor in Council iu that re­spect, on any animal for the purposes of scientific investigation by any legaUy qualified medical practitioner; but no animal shall be subject to vivisection unless under the influence of some anresthetic of sufficient power to prevent the animal feeling pain; nor shall this Act apply to the slaughtering of any animal for the purposes of food."

Discussion took place on cbuse 13, which was u.s follows :-

" No animal shall be permitted to remain in any railway carriage, truck, or other conveyance for a longe); period than 24 consecutive hours without the same being unloaded for at least six consecutive hours for the purpose of rest, water, and feeding. In estimating such period of 24 hours, the time during which the animal has been ·confined upon railroads outside Victoria without being unloaded for the purpose of rest, wat~r, and feeding shall be included as if that confinement had occurred upon the Victorian railways. Every animal so unloaded in Victoria shall be properly fed, watered, and sheltered during such rest by the owner or persou having the custody thereof, or, in case of their default in so doing, by any officer or servant of the Victorian Railway department who, by any rules, orders, or practice of such. department, shall be or be made responsible for their proper custody and control during their conveyance upon the Victorian railways, at the expense of the said owner or person; and the Board of Land and Works and the said officer or servant shall have a lien upon such animal for food, care, and custody furnished, and shall not be liable in damages or otherwise to any person for unloading and detaining any animals for the purpose of rest, water, or feeding which have been in any carriage, truck, or other convey­ance for a longer periQd than 24 hours without being unloaded for the purposes aforesaid. If the said owner or person, or the said officer or servant, shall fail to comply with the provisions of this section, he shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding £ I 00 for each offence. Provided, h'owever, that when animals shall be carried in carriages, trucks, or other conveyances in which they can and do have proper food, water, space, and opportunity for rest, the foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply."

Mr. WOODS remarked that he would be glad to see some provision adopted to prevent the cruelty which was suffered by cattle when conveyed a long distance by railway. He, however, did not see how the clause could possibly be carried into effect. In fact, he regarded it as utterly impracticable. For example, cattle com­ing from Deniliquin ,vould be six or seven hours in the trucks before reaching Echuca, and at Echuca they might have to be kept waiting several hours while a train for Melbourne was made up. Far more than 24 hours would therefore elapse before

they could reach Melbourne. It ' would be absolutely impossible for the officials at any of the stations on the journey to take the cattle out of the trucks for the purpose of giving them food and water, and then put them back again. How could the officials unload a train consisting, perhaps, of 12 or 15 trucks filled with semi-wild cattle? If they let the cattle out of the trucks, they would certainly not be able to get them in again. If the community were willing to pay the cost, trucks could be fitted up so that stock might be watered and fed while they were in transit.

Mr. JOHNSTONE observed that, in several of the states of America, cattle were carried by railway and were fed and watered on the journey, the trucks in which they were placed being specially constructed for conveying animals long distances. He believed that the cost of them was less than that of ordinary trucks. He did not see why the railway officials in this country should not take the cattle out of the trucks at certain stations, if necessary, and put them back again. The duty of seeing that the ani­mals were not kept more than 24 con­secutive hours during the journey without food or water should be thrown upon the owner primarily, and, if he neglected it, it ought to be performed by the railway officials.

Mr. DEAKIN said the clause was taken from several American Acts, but, owing to the comparative shortness of the length of the Victorian rail ways, there was little,danger of cattle being confined in trucks for more than 24 hours. The clause would operate well for the owners of stock sent by railway, as it would com­pel the department to deliver the animals at their destination within 24 hours, unless they were supplied with food and water on the journey. At the same tiwe, he was prepared to accept a modification of the clause, but he thought there ought to be some limit to the time that animals should be kept in the trucks without being fed or watered. (Sir B. O'Loghlen­"Forty-eight hours.") He did not think that the period ought to exceed 36 hours.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY considered that it was a mistake to copy the clause from American Acts. The cattle sent by rail­way in America were very different from the wild cattle carried here. Moreover, in this country the railways were managed by the Government, and, if any case of

348 Protection of [ASSEMBLY.] Animals Bill.

cruelty occurred in connexion with the conveyance of animals, the Minister who was responsible for the proper conduct of the railways could be called to account by Parliament. If the railways were managed by a private company, some such legisla­tion as the clause contemplated would be desirable; but, under existing circum­stances, it was unnecessary, and the clause ought to be struck out.

Mr. ZOX disagreed with the view ex­pressed by the honorable member for Belfast, and regarded the clause as con­taining one of the fund.amental principles of the Bill. It was a well-known fact that cattle, while being conveyed by rail­way, often underwent a great amount of cruelty. No doubt there was considerable force in the argument of the honorable member for Stawell; nevertheless there ought to be some limitation of the time that animals could be kept in railway trucks without food or water. The period certainly ought not to exceed 48 hours.

Mr. ANDERSON stated that the injury cattle received in trucks was not caused by the time occupied on the journey, but by shunting, which knocked t.he animals about consid.erably. Frequently, also, the animals were not removed from the trucks for some time after they arrived at their destination. The latter case would be met by the Railway department framing a regulation to provide that, if cattle were not removed within a certain time, double freight would be charged.

Mr. WRIXON said the clause was pointed against a very great evil. It was a well-known fact that cattle were carried on the Victorian railways in a way dif­ferent from that in which they were conveyed in almost any other civilized country. In many instances, animals were so bruised during transit that when they were slaughtered their carcasses were almost unfit for food. More than one butche~ had called the attention of those who took an interest in the subject to the mischievous effects of the present system of carrying cattle by railway. The clause, therefore, involved not merely a question of humanity to beasts, but also a question affecting the condition of human food. Anyone who had eaten a steak up-country must know that it was very different from a steak in Melbourne. He, however, con­curred with the objection that the cattle trucks could not be unloaded on the journey, and the animals put back again; but he thought some limit ought to be

fixed beyond which it should not be lawful to keep the animals in the trucks. In his opinion, the maximum time ought not to exceed 36 hours. A provision to that effect would be a protest by the Legislature against the unnec'essary deten­tion of cattle in railway trucks, which would not be without its effect upon the Executive Government and the Minister of Railways.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY remarked that a man who sent valuable cattle by railway would either look after them personally or by his agents, and would not leave them tQ be treated in any way the rail way officials thought fit.

Mr. WILSON stated that he would op­pose the extension of the time that cattle might be kept in railway trucks beyond 24 hours. The injury at present done to cattle in t.ransit was caused chiefly by the shunting, dividing, and recoupling of trains, which occurred once or twice on a long journey. The Railway department ought to exercise more care than it did in performing those operations, for it was very important that cattle killed for human con­sumption should be sound and unbruised. In the summer months, cattle ought to be supplied with water at different places on the journey to the metropolis, but it was ridiculous to expect railway officials to give them food. Indeed, cattle that had been accustomed to feed in the open would not look at hay-they would starve before they would eat it.

Mr. FRASER regarded the clause as an absurdity. There was no necessity for such an attempt at philanthropy. Cattle suffered infinitely less by being trucked 200 or 300 miles than they did if they were driven the same distance by road. The leading butchers of Melbourne would bear testimony that this was the case. In South Australia, cattle were trucked a distance of 600 miles, and in Queensland, where the weather was a great deal hotter than in Victoria, they· were conveyed by railway from Roma to Brisbane, a distance of upwards of 300 miles. The engine­drivers and guards of cattle trains ought to be instructed to exercise a little more care than they used at present in shunting and coupling the t.rucks, but there was no necessity for a clause of the kind under discussion. He hoped that the committee would strike out the clause.

Mr. WOODS said the shunting of cattle trucks at road-side stations would neces­sarily continue as long as cattle were sent

Protection of [OCTOBER 12.J Animals Bill. 349

by mixed trains. The principal shunting, however, took place in the Melbourne yard, and this could be avoided by making arrangements for sending the cattle trucks to Newmarket without taking them into the Melbourne yard at all. The necessary accommodation could be provided at N ew­market at an expenditure of about £1,000, and the washing of the whole of the trucks might be done there instead of being done; as at present, between North Melbourne and Melbourne.

Mr. OFFICER said he agreed with the honorable member for Belfast that the clause was not required. It was to the interest both of owners of cattle and of the Railway department that cattle should remain as short a time as possible in rail­way trucks; therefore he thought the matter was one which might safely be left in the hands of the parties immediately concerned. He was not, aware of any instance in which cattle had been left 48 hours in a train. As to the feeuing of cattle, anyone who had had anything to do with cattle must know that they could not be induced to feed while in a truck. He was very glad to be informed by the Minister of Railways that steps were being taken towards the preparation of refrige­rating cars. When refrigerating cars were available, the difficulty as to the carriage of cattle would cease; because cattle would then be slaughtered in the interior-in the neighbourhood of railway termini-and the carcasses would be transmitted to Mel- ' bourne. This would be an advantage in every sense. The expense of transmission would be reduced, and the carcass would not receive the injury that live animals were subject to.

Mr. LANGRIDGE considered that, under all the circumstances, it would be well to withdraw the clause. At the same time, he thought that at such a railway station as Sandhurst, where there was a plentiful supply of water, there need be no difficulty in providing a special platform for the watering of cattle brought from Deniliquin.

Mr. BENT suggested the omission of that portion of the clause providing that the time during which an animal was con­fined upon railways outside Victoria should be treated as a portion of the 24 hours. If cattle were detained for say 19 hours on the Moama and Deniliquin line, the 24 hours would be exceeded unless they could be conveyed from Echuca to Melbourne in 5 hours. As it appeared to be the policy

of the House to be as humane as possible, he would recommend the substitution of " 48" for "24" hours. (Mr. W oods­" That would be not humanity, but aggra­vated cruelty.") Cattle had frequently to be conveyed from places beyond Colae ' into Gippsland, and a journey of that kind would occupy probably more than 24 hours. However, the cattle traffic was now becom­ing so extensive that th~ Railway depart­ment would be able to affol;d to run cattle trains fitted with screw couplings and other appliances which would have the effect of reducing'the bruising of cattle to a minimum. As the honorable member for Dundas had stated, the department was engaged in preparing refrigerating cars, and in consequence people in various parts of the country would be sending to Melbourne not live stock but carcasses. A gentleman who was starting the slaugh­tering of cattle in Gippsland ,had guaran­teed that he would send by railway 25 tons of 'meat per week,. and the quantity was very likely to be increased to 100 tons. Therefore the clause, if passed as it stood, would not affect the Railway department very much. He might mention that the, Loan Application Bill, which had just passed the other Chamber, provided for the carrying out of the very works recom­mended by the honorable member for Stawell.

Mr. DEAKIN stated that, after the expression of opinion which had taken place, he was willing that the clause should be struck out.

Mr. JOHNSTONE observed that what­ever regulations the Railway department might make for transporting meat in the carcass instead of live cattle, there was no doubt that in the conveyance of cattle by railway great brutality was exercised. The matter had frequently been brought under the notice of the Railway depart­ment. As to screw couplings, they were promised when the honorable member for Castlemaine (Mr. Patterson) was Minister of Railways, but he believed no steps were taken towards supplying them. He saw no harm in the clause being 're­tained. Even if it might not have to be put in force against the Railway depart­ment, it might'be the means of preventing such cruelty as had been practised before.

The clause was struck out. On clause 14, providing for the de­

struction, on the authority of any two justices, of "any animal found abandoned or appearing to be diseased, injured, or

350 Protectzon of tASSEMBty.] Animals Bilt.

disabled to such an extent that its exist­ence involves continued suffering,"

Mr. ROBERTSON took exception to the phrase "appearing to be diseased," under which, he contended, any two justices would have power to destroy any beast, no matter how valuable it might be.

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN moved the omis­sion of the words" appearing to be."

The amendment was agreed to. Clause 15, empowering the detention of

animals or vehicles as security for penalty, was amended so as to be limited to offences under the 3rd, 4th, or 9th clauses of the Bill.

On clause 17, making liable to a penalty not exceeding £20 any person obstructing or molesting "any officer, constable, or person" acting under or by virtue of the measure,

Mr. ROBERTSON contended that abuse was likely to arise by the retention of the words "or .person."

Sir B. O'LOG HLEN moved that the clause should read ,,'any officer or con­stable."

The amendment was agreed to. Discussion took place on clause 18,

which was as follows :-" When complaint is made on oath or affirma­

tion to any police magistrate or justice of the peace that the complainant believes and has reasonable cause to believe that the laws in re­lation to cruelty to animals have been or are being violated in any particular building or place, such police magistrate or justice of the peace, if satisfied that there is reasonable cause for such belief, shall issue a search warrant authorizing any constable or police officer to search such buildings or place to ascertain the truth of such complaint."

Sir B. O'LOG HLEN observed that, under this clause, power was given for the issue of a search warrant for a purpose for which it had never been used before in any country he knew of. Great jealousy was entertained by all English communi­ties of justices having the power to grant search warrants except in the case of stolen property. Under such a clause a great deal of annoyance and trouble might be sustained by an innocent person, and he would have no remedy.

Mr. FISHER also objected to' the clause. If a per~on who supposed that something was the matter with a neigh­bour's cattle could, upon carrying his supposition to a magistrate, induce that functionary to issue a search warrant, no end of mischief might be perpetrated. He. (Mr. Fisher) looked with anything but a.

favorable eye on legislation of this de­scription.

Mr. JOHNSTONE said he considered the clause one o£. the most useful in the Bill. Frequently, complaint was made to magistrates that horses or cattle were locked up in a stable without food, and that the owner could not be found; and surely it was no great stretch of power to issue a sear'ch warrant in order that the premises might be entered. Of course, no such warrant should be issued except on complaint made on oath; and that the clause provided for. He did not see that it was more tyrannical to grant a search warrant to prevent cruelty to animals than to issue the same kind of process to recover stolen property.

Mr. MACGREGOR expressed the ap­prehension that the clause might be used by a vindictive person to the annoyance of a . neighbour who was unexpectedly de­tained from home, and whose live stock might suffer in his absence.

The clause was struck out. Discussion too~ place on clause 19,

which was as follows :-"When any complaint shall be made before

any justice against the driver of any vehicle, or any servant, agent, custodian, or other person driving any kind of animal, not being the owner of such animal, for any offence committed by him against the provisions of this Act, such justice may, if he think proper, forthwith sum­mon the proprietor of such vehicle or animal to produce before him the driver or other servant by whom such offence was committed to answer such complaint.

"In case such proprietor or owner, after being duly summoned, shall fail to produce the driver or other servant, the justice before whom such driver or other servant shall be ·required to be produced may, if he think fit, proceed, in the absence of such driver or other servant, to hear and determine the case in the same manner as if he had been produced, and such justice may adjudge payment by the proprietor or owner of any penalty or sum of money and costs in which the driver or other servant shall be convicted.

"Any sum of money which shall be so paid by the proprietor or owner shall and may be recovered in a summary way from the driver or other servant through whose default such sum shall have been paid, upon proof of payment thereof,and of such servant's refusing or neglect­ing to be produced pursuant to the order of the justice, in the same manner as penalties are to be recovered under the provisions of this Act.

" Provided always that if the said justice shall deem it proper, he may, when such proprietor or owner shall fail to produce his driver or other servant without any satisfactory excuse 110 be allowed by such justices, impose a fine of 40s. upon such proprietor or owner, and so from time to time as often as he shall be summoned in respect of such complaint until he shall produce the said driver or other servant."

Protection of [OCTOBER 12.J A,nimals Bill. 351

. Mr. FISHER characterized the clause as defective legislation. Under it, the proprietor of a vehicle might be punished for wilful negligence on the part of the driver. The clause ought to be subjected to considerable modification.

Mr. DEAKIN observed that the clause simply provided 'that a proprietor should be compelled to produce a servant charged with an offence under the Bill. . 'The clause was copied verbatim from an Eng­lish Act.

Mr. FISHER submitted that the 2nd paragraph of the clause 'should be omitted. That paragraph provided that, in the event of a proprietor failing to produce his ser­vant, the case might be 'heard in the ab';' sence of the servant, and the proprietor might be ordered to pay the penalty in­flicted on the servant.

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN remarked that, if the clause had been copied from an Eng­lish Act, it-must be an ,Act relating to another class of offences than those dealt with by this' Bill. 'He considered that the liability of the proprietor to maR.e payment, provided for in the 2nd para':' graph, should be limited 'to any sum of money due' by him to t·he servant.

Mr. LAURENS recommended the in.: sertion, in the 2nd paragraph, of words leaving it open to a proprietor to satisfy t11e justice' that it was not possible for him to produ,ce his driver or servant. , Sir B. O'LOG HLEN suggested that

the objections to the 2nd paragraph might be met by the omission of the words­'~and s~ch justice may adjudge pay~ent by the proprietor or owner of any penalty or sum of money' and costs in which the driver or other servant shall be convicted." . Mr. DEAKIN move,!l the omission of

the words. 0

, The amendment was' a~reed to. , The 3rd, paragraph of the clause was

struck out. ,. Sir B. O'LOG HLEN called attention

to the 4th paragraph, which, in his opinion, went ,too far. Under it, a proprietor or pwner :might pe subj~cted, every week, to a fine of 40s.; but the fine should be limited to the prst time the proprietor or owner was summoned. He begged to move the omtssion of all the words after ~~ fine of 40s. upon such proprietor or owner."

'. The amendment was agreed to. o The whole of the clauses having been

gP~e through,

Mr. WRIXON proposed the addition of the following clause:-

(, In any prosecution forover]oading, it shall be prima facie evidence against the accused that the load (together with the cart or vebicle) if drawn by one horse or bullock exceeded two tons, if drawn by two horses or bullocks ex­ceeded, four tons, and so on allowing two tons for each additional horse or bullock. Provided that nothing in this section shall be taken to pre­vent a conviction for overloading upon other sufficient evidence, though the load shall not be of the aforesaid weight." He said he made this proposition at the instance of the draymen of Melbourne, who unanimously approved of it, and had peti­tioned the House to adopt it. They com­plained that, while it often permanently i.~jured a horse to force him to draw more than two tons, they were often required to undertake such work, and the great com­petition among them prevented them from refusing to do so.

Mr. JAMES remarked that he saw no necessity for the clause. Certainly it would not in many cases in the least pre­vent the overtasking of horses, because, while on some roads a horse could easily draw three tons, on others it would be cruelty to force it to draw as :Qluch as half a ton.

Mr. C. YOUNG stated'that he regarded the clause as uncalled for, useless, and unwprkable. It was well known to be often the case that one horse could draw over two tons with greater ease than another horse could draw a quarter of the weight. A portable steam-engine, weighing over two tons, was often drawn easily by a single horse. Then a great deal depended on the nature of the road a load was drawn over. It would be far better to depend wholly upon the general provisions of the Bill against overloading .

Mr. FISHER thought the clause would work most usefully. It would operate to protect a driver as well as his horse.

Mr. JOHNSTONE observed that to fix the exact weight at which overloading might be said to begin would be of great assistance to magistrates trying cases of alleged cruelty to horses.

Mr . WALSH submitted that the general provisions of clause 3, which left it to magistrates to decide according to their discretion what overloading -was, wouh\ be found amply sufficient for the purpose the present clause had in view.

Mr. OFFICER said he wouJd oppose the clause, partly because he was con ... vinced the draymen were not sincere iu

352 Loan Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Second Night's Debate.

their agitation against overloading. He I frequently committed a great mistake in frequently saw them driving loads of road allowing a railway loan to be fully ex­metal, over two tons in weight, up' the bausted before we made any effort to Houth Yarra road, and sitting on their borrow more money for the same purpose, shafts, which made the load all the more because the consequence was, in each heavy on the horse's back, instead of instance, that the labourers previously walking. employed on our railway work were com-

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN suggested the pelled to leave the colony in search of insertion after the word "bullock" (line other work of the same kind, and that 4) of the words "on any street in any considerable difficulty was experienced city, town, or borougb." Such an amend- before they were got back again. I see ment would meet many of the objections no reason wby, even though it will take that had been offered to the clause, and two years more to spend the balance of also the case of horses drawing loads on the last loan, the funds arising from a new rails. one should not be in full employment

Mr. WRIXON accepted the suggestion. upon fresh railway contracts before another The words in question were inserted, twelve months are out. In many parts of

and the clause, as amended, was agreed the colony still unprovided with railways, to. they are as urgently wanted as any of

Sir B. O'LOG HLEN moved the inser- those now under conRtruction are. Then tion of the following new clause :- I come to the other works which it is

"In this Act the words 'wild animal' shall proposed to undertake with the proceeds mean and include any animal not in a domestic of the new loan. For instance, the water state." supply works for the Northern Plains,

The clause was adopted. upon which th'e Government intend to The preamble was then agreed to, and spend £300,000 to begin with. The

~he Bill was reported with amendments. honorable member for Castlemaine (Mr.

CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS. Mr. WRIXON moved-

" That there be laid before this House a return showing-I. The number of persons presented before the Central Criminal Court and the Assize Courts for the 12 months ending 30th September, 1881. 2. The number of persons so presented who were convicted. 3. The number of persons presented during the same period at Courts of General Sessions. 4. The number of persons so presented who were convicted."

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

LOAN BILL. SECOND NIGHT'S DEBATE.

The debate on Sir Bryan O'Loghlen's motion for the second reading of the Loan Bill, and on Mr. Munro's amendment thereto" That the Bill be read a second time this day six months" (adjourned from the previous day), was resumed.

Mr. LONGMORE.-Mr. Speaker, in starting to say a few words on this Bill, I may as well announce that I intend to support the loan proposals of the Govern­ment. I shall do so for many reasons, some of which have not yet been alluded to during the present debate. No doubt £2,000,000 of the last loan is still unex~ pended, there being many miles of railway to be constructed with it, but I wish to point out that we have in former times

Pearson) expressed himself last night as dreadfully frightened that, if a great amount of employment for labour was

. offered at the present time, the labour market would be too much disturbed. But what was the cause of his alarm? He asserts that if we had a lot of new railways and waterworks going on at the same time, all the floating population of Australia living on railway and similar labour would be drawn to Victoria, and that some day we would not know what to do wi th them. I do not, however, think that the or­dinary laboring classes need have much to do with carrying out the intended water supply works on the Plains, because, if the Government act judiciously, they will let them to the local selectors, who are able to do the work quite as cheaply and as well as any navvies, and the effect would be to keep on the land a large number of those who are now settled there, but who cannot remain so if they have to go on much longer as they are now going on. I am sure everyone who has recently visited the Plains must have viewed with deep regret the existing consequences of the unusually dry seasons· experienced in that district for three or four years past. One might almost say that the selectors in that part of the colony have lately had no fair play from the elements. Cer­tainly the difficulties, from want of rain,

Loan BilZ. [OCTOlmR 12.J Second Nigltis Debate. 353

they have had to contend with are im­mense. At the same time, it is well known that the Plains are not always as dryas they are now. Sometimes they are inundated with rain. One look at the banks of the local streams will show that in reality they are very.subject to floods. Yet a large number of the creek-beds there have not had running water in them for four or five years back. No wonder the selectors who have had to meet this state of things are in great distress. This season the cry comes from them on all sides that hundreds of thousands of acres of their crops will not be worth reaping, and in many cases, not seeing any chance of doing better, they have turned their stock into their corn-fields. Under these circumstances, the one thing to keep them on their farms will be the judicious expen­diture of this £300,000.

An HONORABLE MEl\fBER.-It is far too little .

. Mr. LONGMORE.-I think so too; but the help even £300,000 will afford will come in just in time if the Govern­ment commence to spend it directly the next harvest is over. Let us remember that, the cultivator being the backbone of the country, we ought to do our best to keep him in it. I want to see the Go­vernment set about these waterworks as quickly as they can, letting the contracts out in sections of such a size that the neighbouring selectors will be able to take them up and. work them. I come next to the £250,000 of the loan that is to go for Yan Yean extension. What are the facts? A few months ago, because of the condition of the Yan Yean, the people of the metropolis were being subjected to slow poisoning. People with lively imagina­tions ul:!ed to say that when they watered their gardens they poured water and manure at the same time. The Yan Yean wat~r was offensive to the smell, and unfit for human use. What is required for the reproductive waterworks of the. city is that the water channels connected with them should not run, as thev do in at least one place now, through ~ a morass or bog.

. I assert that the expenditure of this £250,000, in order to supply the city with clear water, will be a most profitable affair for everyone concerned, and also that it ought to be commenced immediately. The Y an Yean reservoir supplies at least 250,000 people, to whom a good and abundant supply of water is a necessary of life. In truth, were the new loan to

SESe 1881.-2 B

be solely on account of. Yan Yean exten­sion, I would vote for it. Of course, my teetotal principles make me all the more earnest in this matter, because I don't want to see people driven to drink their water with whisky from the belief that it is too bad to be taken without. What do the board of inquiry into the Yan Yean tell us? That the city now uses 10,000,000 gallons of water daily, that, in summer, the daily consumption is 20,000,000 gallons, and that, at the same time, the water now daily running into the reservoir is not more than 5,000,000 gallons. I am sure it will not do to let matters ~tand on that footing. When it is borne in mind that the city has paid off all the money originally borrowed for the Yan Yean works, and that, besides, the State has reaped a large profit from them, thete can be little doubt that the consumers of the water ought to be better treated than they are. And now let me come back to the question respecting the money to be devoted to new railways. For my part, I wish to see the whole colony permeated with railways for many important reasons. One is that the accommodation the lines will afford will enable those in occupation of the land in many parts of the country to get their produce to market for half the cost of carrying it along roads. For example, the farmers of East Charlton have to pay 8d. per bushel for the car­riage of their grain 40 miles by road to the Inglewood railway station, while carrying it by rail from Inglewood to Melbourne, a distance of J20 miles, costs them only 5d. per bushel. So that making a railway to East Charlton would be like giving the farmers there 6d. more per bushel for their wheat. Then it is said it will be two years before the new loan can be utilized. I assert, however, that the money ought to be in full course of expenditure long before. If the railway survey staff is not sufficiently numerous to be able to prepare for the construction of the new lines being entered upon at an early date, I say let that staff be doubled. To be speedy in the matter is to be economical also; It will not do to let the proceeds of the new loan lie in the ba.nks at a· low rate of interest. Surveyors are plentiful just now, because the Lands department does not want so many of them as it formerly did, and to put them on railway work would not mean engaging them permanently. In my opinion, if the survey work was set

304 Loa'n Bill. [ASSEMB~Y.J Second Nigh'fs Debate.

~bout properly, the railways to be made linder the new loan could be commenced in less th~n twelve mo~ths' time. Again, ~t is not necessary for the Government to borrow the money they want at the earliest moment. They can bide their time and suit themselves to the market. Moreover, I quite agree. with the honorable member for North Melbourne (Mr. :Muuro) that there is no occasion whatever to go to England for the whole of the loan. Why should not at least £1,000,000 be raised in Australia? When this colony borrowed money last, was no~ most of the loan taken up in Now South Wales within a short date? It will be just as well for us if we keep the interest we pay on our loans to ourselves. Some honorable mem­bers seem alarmed lest we should over­burthen ourselves with debt, but I see no need whatever for any fears of the kind. We cannot feel the burthen of a debt much if we have good reproductive works to show for it. I assert that, instead of

. the labour market being disastrously dis­turbed by carrying on the propos~d new nri?ertakings, it will simply. be beneficially stimulated. Men will come .from the land ~o work on the new railways and water­works, and when their outside employment comes to an end they will return to their farms. There are multitudes of farmers at present who would be very glad of the opportunity of getting remunerative em­ployment. And, even if the laboring man's wages should be raised 6d. a day, I don't think that would be such a dis:­astrous thing for the colony as some honorable members seem to believe. I maintain that the best state of things for any country is an abundance of labour, and labour well paid. The honorable member for, Castlemaine (Mr. Pearson) spoke of the evil effects of Germany receiving £100,000,000 of plunder, and described the great depression that ensued when the money was spent. Such a state of things, however, could never occur in this country. Our people are provided with the means of living; they have got a good start iu the world, and they only want something to help them on, and the expenditure of this money will be at­tended with the greatest possib~e benefit to the country. The honorable member for North Melbourne complained that the Government have not tabled a schedule of the railways proposed to be con­structed out of the loan; but they have

'distinctly promised that; before the Bill M ". Longmore.

is read a thir'd time, the schedule wiil be brought down, an~ it will be within the power of the House to prevent them from completing the loan until the schedule has been supplied and dis­cussed. The honorable member's com­plaint therefore was quite unjust,especially as it is no new thing to bring forward a Railway Loan Bill without submit­ting a schedule of the lines to be con­structed. We know that a great deal of work has to be gone through before the particular lines. are determined on, and ~ think we should be a little generous. The honorable member for North Melbourne also went out of his way 'to tell the House that he had no confidence in the Minister of Railways, but I would like to know whom that honorable member has confi~ dence in except Number One? The fact is that he has such unlimited confidence in Number One that he has very little confi;­dence left for other people. For the last three 01' four months, the Minister of Rail­ways has been exceedingly active, and whenever I have gone to the department on deputations! have always found him attentive to business-a little brusque, as perhaps he ought to be-and showing that he knew something of what he was. about. The honorable member for North Mel­bourne said he would have liked to see some one else'at the head of the Railway department before this expenditure ,took place, and no doubt he would; but there is a gentleman in that position now, and as far as we can see he is likely to remain there for some time. The Minister of Railways has been abnormally active in going round the country, but I will express the opinion that there is almost as much to be learned in the Railway-office and the Lands-office as to the possible and probable

, traffic of any proposed line as there is to be gathered by going round the country. I do not think Ministers of Railways do them­sel ves or the department any good by going out too much. The honorable member for Stawell did a little in that line, the honor­able member for Castlemaine (Mr. Patter­son) did a great deal, but the' present MiniAter of Railways has capped the per­formances of all his predecessors. Cer­tainly, if he goes on as he has been doing for some time past, the turkey will soon become a bird of the past. The public have enjoyed the honorable member's not meagre promises, and in return they have been as liberal to him in the supply of turkeys. A great deal has been made of

Loan Bill. [OCTOBER 12.] Second Night's Debate. a55

the' accident which occurred o~ the Hob­son's B~y Railway, but I do not see why it should have been brought so prominently into this debate at all. In all countries where there are railways there have been occasional accidents, and the colony of Victoria has been as free from. railway accidents as any country in the·world. I have heard engineers state that new steel tires, 24 inch~s thick, after being placed on wheels, have fractured without any apparent cause.

Mr. WOODS.-They were put on too tight.

Mr. LONGMORE.:"'-'No doubt that was the cause. In the present case the tire was undoubtedly worn too thin, and the results of the accident were lament­able; 'but nevertheless I depre~ate all this ~rying out against the rai~way because a slight accident of that sort occurred. Accid'ents occur to omnibuses and cabs, yet people do not cease travelling by those conveyances; ships g'o down at sea, yet people do not hesitate to go on a voyage; workmen are killed by falling from build:.. ings, yet other men ~re not wanting to take their places; men get killed in the streets, yet the streets 'are full of pedes­trians. There is dangei' in every sphere of life, and I maintain that there have been fewer accidents in connexion with the railways than any 'other means of conveyance in the colony. Now a scare is got up, and we are told that the rolling­stock of the Hobson's I Bay Railway is to be condemned. All that is really wanted, however, is to substitute new wheels' for those that are worn too thin. Many of the carriages called in are quite fit for travelling, and' they should be, utilized, although no doubt some slight alterations may be made in the interior arrangements of the older ones. We cannot, however, expect the railways to pay if we spend immense sums in providing luxurious rolling-stock to suit the fastidiousness of people who, when they were driving bul.:. 10,cks or "lambing down" shepherds, were far from being so' 'particular. I repeat that the carriages should be utilized, and, where fresh wh~els are requ~red, they can be got at a small cost. If that is done, the safety of the travellin~ public will be secured without anyenor­mous expense. The Treasurer also stated that every word except the actual word "dangerous" has been used by the engi­neers 'with reference to the railway bridge near the Falls. No doubt that bridge is

2B2

not a very sightly one, and I do not say there should not be a new bridge there very soon, but I would point out that the present structure has been strengthened with fresh piles during the last two or three years, and has been submitted to the severest tests, which proved that it was stronger than ever it had been before. I have myself seen two very heavy trains pass over the bridge, side by side, without causing the slightest vibration. Honor­able members and the Government ought not, through a scare of this sort, to render the Hobson's Bay Railway a very nmcli worse purchase than it is. The road is a safe and sound road for the public to travel, and I do not think the Government ought to spend anything like £500,000 on this railway. Of ' course, it was under­stood, when the railway was bought, that it would require renewing in a series of years-much faster than the more recently built lines of the colony.

Mr. MIRAMS.-Mr. Lyell told the House that all that was wanted to put it in repair was £50,000. He was speaking for the people who wanted to sell it.

Mr. LONGMORE.-I agree with the honorable member that the Government were not allowed sufficient for putting the line in repair. Mr. Higinbotham estimated the amount necessary at £114,000, and he had the advantage of all the engineering talent of the Railway department. I do not thiilk, however, the railway requires all the money to be spent on it that the Government have now mentioned. A great deal has been said about floating a new loan now, and then going to the London market a couple of years after­wards for another loan of £8,000,000 to meet the debentures which will fall due. As regards the latter loan, however, the English capitalists will know perfectly well that it is simply a conversion and not any addition to the burt hens of the colony, and, for my part, I see no need to ,complicate the matter by the proposal of the Treasurer that we should get the pr~sent bond-holders to consent to take the, new bonds. If they will not be our cre~itors, other people will, and it does not matter a farthing to us whether the present bond-holders buy our debentures or whether we borrow from others, and pay the present bond-holders their money. Moneyed men in England are as keen as they are here, and they will know that 'the c9u,rer,f?ion of" the £8,000,000 loan will save 'us' £160,000 It year in interest,

356 Loan Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Second Night's Debate.

without adding to the indebtedness of the colony. Under these circumstances, I do not think, in dealing with the loan now proposed, we need consider the question of' the '£8,000,000 loan at all. As to the amendment of the honorable member for North Melbourne, I think he must have now discovered that he has sprung it a little too soon. He is altogether too old a politician not to know the effect of moving that an important portion of the Govern­ment programme should be dealt with this day six months. How could any Govern­ment, with the slightest self-respect, con­tinue to occupy the Treasury bench if this amendment were carried? They could not do it, and the Treasurer adopted the right course in regarding the amendment as a motion of want of confidence. It is easy to know where the amendment comes from. A certain honorable member moved it, another seconded it, and a third sup­ported it, and, if we look round, we will find all those honorable members within a little coterie in a certain street in Mel­bourne. They are a portion of the coali­tion Government that is to be formed on the wreck of the present Ministry. But I think they will have to "bide a wee" before they succeed in turning the present Government off the Treasury bench. If any further explanation is required, we know that the honorable members to whom I refer are very strongly represented in the press. I tell those gentlemen that we want a liberal Government when the present Ministry are displaced, and not a coalition. If honorable members did nothing else, it would be worth a good deal to prevent this little game from going on, and to let the gentlemen playing it have a little while for further consideration. I am sure they were premature in springing their little trap, but they will have time to think and organize better before they make an­other such move. I have not the slightest hesitation in supporting this Bill, and' I shall vote for it.

Mr. HALL.-Sir, there cannot be two opinions in the House as to the Loan Bill of the Government being of a very tempt­ing nature. It is for the purpose of pro­viding for three very great wants which the country at present experiences. We know that the country districts are anxiously looking for further railways, water supply is another great need, and additional school buildings are urgently required. The necessity for railway ac­commodation is severely felt in the district

I represent, and I believe there is no one acquainted with the Moira district but will admit that there is no other part of the colony which has juster claims for railway extension. The urgency of water supply was also brought under my notice very prominently within the last week at Shepparton, where I was waited on by fourteen or fifteen deputations of farmers who were anxious to know what was going to be done in the matter. They have suffered severe losses from the want of water, in some cases almost to the extent of absolute ruin. Then as to school buildings, I have in my pocket a list of no less than forty applications for the erection of school buildings in the Moira district, everyone of which is acknowledged by the Education depart­ment to be an urgent case. It is all very well for honorable members representing cities and towns in which there are large schools to say we do not want any more school buildings erected. The honorable member for Collingwood (Mr. Mirams) said he wanted fuller information as to the necessity for these schools, but, if t.he honorable member would come with me, I could easily satisfy him on that point. I could take him through different districts where the children are roaming about almost wild, having no 'schools whatever to go to. In some places there are from twenty up to sixty children, with no, school within from five to eight miles of their homes. The farmers pay their share towards the support of the educational system of the colony, and it is unfair that they should not receive the slightest benefit from it. As a matter of justice, their cases should be taken into consideration, and additional school buildings should be erected until all places are provided for. I understood the honorable member for Belfast to say, last night, that the denomination to which he belonged did not receive one shilling benefit from the expenditure which has been going on in connexion with the Educa­tion Act. I would like to know how the honorable member can reconcile that statement with the fact that there are a number of Roman Catholic teachers in the State schools, who share in the expendi­ture just as much as the Protestant teachers do? Not only that, but there are also a great many Roman Catholic chil­dren attending the State schools. Out of fifteen names attached to a petition for a State school, which I recently received, I found, on inquiry, that the large majority

Loan Bill. [OCTOBER 12.] Second Night's Debate. 357

were the names of Roman Catholics, and that they quite approved of the State schools. In fact, one Roman Catholic told me that, if there was a State school a mile away, and a Roman Catholic school across the road, he would prefer to send his ch Hdren to the former for two reasons­first, because they would be better taught; and, secondly, because he would have nothing to pay. As to the propriety of raising this loan, it is admitted that the wants of the country in the respects I have mentioned are extremely urgent, but none of the honorable members who have spoken against the loan have pointed out any other way in which the money req uired can. be provided. Unless those honor­able members can prove that the require­ments of the country can be met more speedily and legitimately in some other way, I shall certainly feel bound to vote for the Bill. Certainly I would have been glad if the Government had brought down their railway scheme when submitting the Loan Bill, and I believe, if they had done so, the Bill would have met with a more hearty support from many honorable mem­bers. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that we all look ont for our own districts, and, if a large sum of' money is to be ex­pended in the district he represents, it would not be very safe for a member to oppose the measure which would bring about that expenditure. As to the amend­ment of the honorable member for North Melbourne, which the Government re­ceived as a want of confidence motion, I do not think they need have much fear on that score. I look upon them as a sort of happy-go-lucky Ministry, who seem to have everything in their own hands at present, and to be able to do almost anything they please. Composed as they are from different sections of the House, they have friends on each side; and, as parties are pretty equally divided, if they want to pass a conserva#ve measure they can carry it with the aid of the Ministerial "corner," and if a liberal measure, with the help of the liberals on this (the oppo­sition) side of the House. If by chance they bring forward a measure on which they cannot secure a majority from either side, then we have the Treasurer blandly saying -" Mr. Speaker, we are in the hauds of the House, and, if the House does not approve of thil:l proposition, we will simply withdraw it." So in any case the Government are quite happy, and I po not think they have anything to fear. \.

For my part, I have no feeling against them, and, as long as they carry out the measures which I am pledged to my con­stituents to support; I shall find no parti­cular fault with them. Although, how­ever, the Ministry seem to be in the happy condition I have described, some honor­able members from their remarks seemed to think that their fate was sealed, and that it was time some one wrote their funeral dirge. In that case, as I gave the Ministry a few lines at the opening of their career, I would suggest, as a sort of warning, that they might rehearse amongst themselves the following, which is slightly altered from the original :-

"We know not what's before us, What trials are to come;

Each day that passes o'er us Brings us nearer to our end."

Mr. C. YOUNG.~Mr. Speaker, the honorable member for Moira (Mr. Hall) has begun to take a more pleasant view of matters. When the Government took office, the honorable member predicted that they would last just three weeks; now he seems to think that they are going on for an interminable period by the support of either one side of the House or the other. The Ministry, however, will only ask hon­orable members to support them as long as they bring forward measures that meet with the approval of the country, and, when the House thinks it can improve on the present occupants of the Treasury bench, they will be quite prepared to take a back seat. In debating the question of the loan, I was rather sorry that the honorable· member for Belfast took an opportunity of dealing with the provisions of the. Water Conservation Bill, because that measure can scarcely be said to be yet before the House. The obje.ction the honorable mem­ber took to the Bill was that the Govern­ment were continuing in it the principle of centralization, but I venture to say that if the particular part of the measure with which the honorable member found fault had been framed in any other way than it has been, he would have been one of the first to condemn it. I do not intend to discuss the Bill at present, but I may say that the Government simply ask that they shall see that the money borrowed from English creditors is expended by the local bodies on reproductive works, and on· works that· are properly constructed. Surely no one can complain that that is an undue interference with the affairs of local bodjes. Unlet's prycautions of that

358 Loan Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Second Night's Debate.

kind are taken, some of the works con­structed might be swept away, and the local body left unable to pay the money borrowed for it by the Government. One objection urged to the Loan Bill is that the money can be obtained in the colony. N ow those who know the money market here will at once admit that, if the Govern­ment were to attempt to borrow £4,000,000 upon long-dated debentures in the Vic­torian market~, they would assuredly fail. At the present time money is cheap, and in the interests of the selectors, who are likely to be borrowers for a long time, I hope it will continue to be as cheap as it is now. If, however, the Government raised a local loan of even £2,000,000 (and I believe that is the maximum amount that could qe obtained) for a long fixed period, not only would they not be able to get the mon()y as cheap as they can do in England, but they would be obtaining money which, I believe, is being put to a far better use in encouraging private enter­prises throughout the colony. It is surely a far better course to bring into the colony English capital obtained at a low rate. It is too early in the history of the colony for us to say we have sufficient capital to lend ourselves for our own public works. Another objection to the loan is that the money obtained will be lying idle; but it will be a considerable time-cer­tainly over twelve months - before it reaches the colony, and I believe that when it does come here ample employment will be found for it, and that it will not lie idle. In the meantime it is proposed to expend £650,000 from the last loan on necessary works, and all honorable mem­bers will agree that there can be no more opportune time to spend money on repro­ductive works than during the coming season, when many farmers will be glad to turn out and earn a little money on public works. I t is a very sad but true fact that numbers of these men are really depend­ing, to keep themselves alive till next March, when the ploughing begins, on what they can make by hiring themselves out at various jobs in the country dis­tricts. The harvest this year with many is simply nil, and, if any means of immediate employment is found for these unfortunate men, it will prove a great relief to them. In fact, unless that is done, many of them will be compelled to dispose of their land for whatever price they can get for it. I therefore sincerely trust that every dispo­sition will be shown by the House to make

Mr. C. Younq.

some of the money available at once, so that employment can be given to this class during the next six' months, until t4e ground gets soft enough for them. to put in their crqps for the following year. I do not mean to say that the farmers throughout the whole colony are in the state I have described. In the Wimmera district they hav~ comparatively good crops -better than for many years past-and I believe that in the Goulburn valley and other districts the crops will be very good~ But to the north of Sandhurst-in the large district of the Terricks, and in the neighbourhood of Swan Hill-the crops will be almost wholly destroyed. . With respect to the proposal for additional 'rail­way communication, I think it is only reasonable and fair that those persons who are living on the outskirts of the present system should at once have the advantage of railway accommodation extended to them. We should not carryon railway extension by doing a little bit in one direc­tion this year, and another bit in another direction next year, but when capital is available at a low rate of interest we ought to try to construct railways as speedily as possible in all districts where they are urgently required. I do not think that the adoption of this course will unduly interfere with the labour market, or cause a corresponding re-action when the money is expended, as the honorable member for Castlemaine (Mr. Pearson) suggested last night. I believe there will be suf­ficient labour available to carryon all the' works contemplated, and, as I have already stated, small farmers and others will be very glad of the opportunity of obtaining employment in connexion with some of the works. As to the amendment which has been proposed on the motion for the second reading of the Bill, I desire to say that I was much surprised to find that an attack on the Minister of Railways came from the honorable member for North Melbourne (Mr. Munro). I was astonished that the honorable member was put up, or put himself up, to make such an attack. I was pleased, however, to hear the hon­orable member for Fitzroy (~r. Vale) say that no possible blame can be attributed to the Minister for the unfortunate accident that recently occurred on the Hobson's Bay Railway. I am sure that view is shared by the great majority of the House, but I certainly think that some other gentleman on the front opposition bench ~hould have expressed his concurrence in

Loan Bill. [OCTOBER 12.J Second Night's Debate. 359

the statement of the honorable member for ;Fitzroy, ~ecause I was very much grieved when I learned that a paragraph which appeared in the A,qe newspaper a day or two after the catastrophe, 'charging the Minister of ;Railways with causing the accident ,by giving instructions for acce­lerating the speed of the, trains on the Brighton line, was inspired by an ex-Mip.­ister of the Crown. Last evening would have been a very fitting opportunity for the gentleman who inspired that para­graph to rise in his place and say that he was sorry he did so, that he acted under a misapprehension, anq that he would now endorse the statement of the honorable member for Fitzroy as to no blame being ,attach,able to the Minister of Railways. But the honorable gentleman did not avail himself of that opportunity.

Major SMITH.-Who is he ? Mr. C. YOUNG.-Did the honorable

member inspire the paragraph? . Major SMITH.-No. Mr. C. YOUNG.-If, in a hasty mo­

ment, the ex-Minister I refer to inspired the paragraph, and afterwards learned that there was no foundation for the statement, ' he should' have acknowledged his error,' and, removed the stigma from the Minister of Railways.

An HONORABLE MEl\IBER.-Did an ex­Minister inspire the paragraph? , Mr. C. YOUNG. - Yes., (Cries of "Name.") , I was info~'~ed o~ Monday' last, by a reporter on one of the papers in town, that the honorable gentleman not only inspired the paragraph that appeared in the Age, but went to the paper which my informant represents, and tried to work the paragraph off there.

Mr. RICHARDSON.-I will put it to the good sense of the Minister of Public Works whether he ought not to state the name of the honorable member to whom he refers.

Mr. C. YOUNG.-Thehonorablemem­ber for Creswick (Mr. Richardson) can make inquiries among his late colleagues, and find out the name of the honorable gentleman. If, after exhausting all the means within his own "reach, he cannot learn who the ex-MInister is, perhaps I will then assist him to find out. All I desire to say On the 'matter is that I think such conduct as that which the honorable member in question has been, accus~d of exceeds the fair bounds of political war­fare, and is" such {t~' very, few people

outside the House~and, I trust, in the House-would descend to. '

Mr. MASON.-Mr. Speaker, I was much surprised, when I came into the Honse last night, at discovering that a motion of want of confidence in, the Gove~~ment was being debated. A few weeks ago, the House agreed to ail address in reply to the Governor's speech inwhich the whole policy of the Government ~as indicated, and since then it has approved of the Treasurer's financial statement. We are now called upon, by the amend­ment of the honorable member for North Melbourne (Mr. Munro), to reject the chief portion of the policy embodied in that financial statement, namely, the proposal to raise a loan for railway and water supply, purposes. It is unfair for the honorable member to invite the House to act in such' an unbusiness-like manner. Let me call the attention of honorable members to the following paragraph in the Governor's speech :-, " The large investments made, during a series of, years, by this colony in public works, es­pecially'in railway construction, is gradually beginning to yield an income approaching the interest payable on the capital iuvested, thus evincing the judicious nature of this outlay. To further carry out this policy, and to meet the pressing requirements of the districts yet unsup­plied with railway accommodation, a Railway Construction Bill will be submitted to you,"

The House approved of the policy indi­cated in this paragraph of the Gov.ernor's speech by the address which it adopted in reply to the speech. Again, the Trea­surer's financial statement was debated at some length, and, during the debate, hon­orable members addressed themselves to the question of the proposed loan of £4,000,000, but nO division was called for by those who on this occasion have supported the amendment of, the hon­orable member for North., Melbourne. I must say I was rather, astonished at the speech of the honorable member for Belf~s·t.' The honorab~e gentleman' is al~ays prepared to ~nd fault with and to knock down' Ministries, brit, ,of. . late years, he has'been'most unhappy .in::r~~ constructing Ministries.' He founa. fa,nIt with the loan proposal~ of' the pre­sent Government, becallse:" th~y co~­tain an item of, £200,000 for building State, schools,' and said he could' not gi~e ,his consent to that' under'any' cii'~ climstaIices. - I have no doubt that' the honorable 'member spoke' perfectly con­scil~ntiously~' and "oelieve-d that he 'was

. _ •.•.• , .' •. t

860 Loan Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Second Nigltt's Dehate.

representing' the feelings of his consti­tuents in giving expression to his views in that direction, but I am afraid that he went too far. I admit that in the cities and towns the Roman Catholics do not avail themselves of, the State system of education-and properly so, from" their point of view-but in the country districts they are unfortunately in the position of being forced to avail themselves of it. The honorable member was, therefore, scarcely correct in saying that the Catho­lics derive no benefit whatever from the State system of education. In cities and ' towns they have to incur a double ex­pense-they have to pay for the education of their own children, and also to con­tribute towards the cost of the education of other children-but in the scattered country districts they are unfortunately compelled, as I have already remarked, to avail themselves of a system of education which is unpalatable to them. The hon­orable member for Belfast also found fault with the Bill we are now considering because the railway proposals of the Go­vernment are not before the House. I think that was unfair of the honorable member-it was disingenuous, to say the least. The speech which the honorable member delivered last night was an old hackneyed speech, such as we have been accustomed to hear from him on many occasions. The honorable member said that the labour market will be disturbed by floating another loan, but the same cry has been raised ever since the policy of railway extension was initiated, ten years ago. The honorable member contended that a Rail way Construction Bill ought to be introduced before the loan is autho­rized, but we have been distinctly told by the head of the Government that the Loan Bill will not pass beyond its second reading until a Railway Construction Bill is introduced. The honorable member raised the same objection in 1878, when the Bill introduced by the Berry Go­vernment to authorize the borrowing of £5,000,000 was under discussion. On that occasion, the honorable member said-

"And now I come to the item of £2,500,000 , for the construction of such State railways and works connected therewith as Parliament may by any Act direct.' It is said that with this amount of money 500 miles of railway can be constructed; but I solemnly protest against this House being called upon to pass a Bill to autho­rize the raising of a loan for the construction of railways without having before it a Bill showing the railways that it is proposed to construct. I consider it an unbusiness-like prQceeding for

Mr. Mason. ,',"'

the House to be asked to 'sanction a loan of £2,500,000 f9r the making of railways when it has not the smallest knowledge as to where the railways are to go, or what districts they are to supply. . . . It is of the first importance that when we go to the London market for money we should go in the best form possible­with a scheme thoroughly understood and sus­tained by the public opinion of the country. That is the way to inspire confidence in the London market." This is precisely what the present Govern­ment propose to do.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-It is not what they propose to do.

Mr. MASON.-I heard the Treasurer's statement in moving the second reading of the Bill, and I think that I am as capable of comprehending it as the honor­able member for Belfast is. We have the' Treasurer's assurance that a Railway Con­struction Bill will be laid before the House before the Loan Bill is advanced a single stage beyond the second reading. That will be a business-like proceeding, and the first time that such a course has been adopted. The honorable member for Belfast opposes the Loan Bill, but only the other day he introduced to the Government a deputation from Belfast asking for railway accommodation and harbour improvements. The honorable member must have known that it was necessary to raise a loan in order to carry out railway extension and harbour im­provements. Was his presence on that deputation a sham, or was he in earnest? Did the honorable member tell the gentle­men who formed the deputation that he intended to oppose the Bill to raise a loan for railway extension and harbour improve­ments? No; but he went to the Go­vernment, in the interests of those whom he represents, to ask for railway extension and harbour improvements. And yet the honorable member is now opposing the Bill to authorize the borrowing of money for these works. Such inconsistency is rarely seen even in this House, especially amongst those who have been so long in the House as the honorable member for Belfast. The honorable member spoke of the proposed expenditt\re under the loan as centralization. Is the expenditure of £2, 700,000in rail way extension throughout the country centralization? Is £120,000 for harbour improvements at Warrnambool centralization? Is £70,000 for harbour improvements at ,Belfast and Portland centralization? Is £60,000 towards effect­ing an entrance to the Gippsland Lakes centralization? Is ,t;300,OOO for w~tet

Loan Bill. [OCTOBER 12.J Second Night's Debate. 361

supply works in country districts, where selectors are being driven from their homesteads for want of water, centrali­zation? It is idle for the honorable mem­ber for Belfast to talk as he did. The only portion of the expenditure of the proposed £4,000,000 which can be con­sidered centralization is the £200,000 for the Houses of Parliament and the law courts. The rest is the very opposite of centralization - it is decentralization. Almost the whole of the money is to be expended in country districts. In many parts of the country it is utterly impos­sible for selectors to remain on their land if they do not get facilities for bringing their produce to market. The Minister of Railways assures me that, during the three months he has been in office, he has been asked to construct no less than 2,000 miles of railway, and I believe that he purposes making 700 or 800 miles out of the £4,000,000. Since I first represented South Gippsland, the number of electors in that constituency has increased from 459 to over 3,400; and what is the cause of that increase? Simply the settlement which has been promoted by the construc­tion of the main line to Gippsland. The Duffy Government determined that the construction of additional railways should form part of their policy, and, from that time to the present, railway extension has been carried on gradually and systemati­cally. Do honorable members think that the railway system' of this country is completed? I am satisfied that we are barely in the midst of it. Men have gone into the country districts, penetrated the forests, and made the land valuable; and it is the paramount duty of Parliament to provide them with every fair and reason­able facility for getting their produce to market. Many men . are being driven off the land in my district in consequence of the want of communication with the metropolis and the sea-board. It would be downright cruelty for the Legislature, after having induced men to take up land in remote parts of the country, to follow the course suggested by the honorable member for North Melbourne and the honorable member for Belfast, and reject the proposal of the Government to borrow money for the construction of railways and other useful public works. There will be a grave responsibility on the shoulders of honorable members if they reject a scheme of such an excellent and business-like c4aract~r as that now before

the House. At the same time, I am not altogether satisfied with the Government, because I do not think that they propose to borrow enough money. I think that the sum to be borrowed for railways and water supply works ought to be much larger than what is at present contem­plated, and I was much pleased to hear the Treasurer say that he would not offer any objection to the amount of the loan being increased if the House thought fit to advise an increase. I may state that I have no desire to prevent the honorable member for North Melbourne from with­drawing his amendment, though I think it would be more satisfactory for the House to divide upon it, so that the coun­try may see who are in favour of it and who are not. With respect to the sug­gestion to borrow money in the colony, I may remark that the adoption. of that suggestion ~ould be all very well for gentlemen at the head of large financial establishments like that which the honor­able member for North Melbourne is connected with, and for bankers and wealthy men, who have capital to lend, and therefore desire to see money dearer, but how would it be for the borrowers­for the selectors of the country? If the Government were to borrow £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 in the colony, money would become tight, and it would be impossible for selectors to get loans. To pursue that course would, in fact, be to play into the hands of the establishments presided over by the honorable member for North Melbourne and the honorable member for Collingwood (Mr. Mirams). The Government ought to borrow money in the English market, so as to bring more capital into this country. I am not loath to see the wages of the working classes of the colony increased. I am not like the honorable members for Castlemaine, who are afraid that the wages of the working classes may be increased 6d. per day if the construction of railways. is proceeded with rapidly. I tell the House candidly that about 10,000 persons have gone into the district of South Gippsland during the last five or six years, in consequence of the construction of the main Gippsland Railway, and if the Government desire to keep those people on the land they must borrow money to give them the benefit of railway accom­modation. Railways must be extended as rapidly as possible to districts where they are urgently required, and the municipal . b9dies in various parts of the country

362 Inspection of Mines. . [ASSEMBLY.] Bullarook State Forest.

must be enabled to construct water supply works. I will merely add that I consider the proposal of the Government is a rea­sonable one. It is simply carrying out the policy which the Premier enunciated to the electors of West Bourke, and which was embodied in the Governor's speech and again foreshadowed in the Budget statement. I am thoroughly satisfied that the country is in favour of the proposal, and that it will express its dissatisfaction at the conduct of the honorable member for North Melbourne and those who have supported him in opposing the loan.

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

The House adjourned at four minutes past eleven o'clock. .

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. Thursday, October 13, 1881.

Inspection of Mines-Police Court at Rokewood-Bullarook State Forest-Government Debentures-Water Conser­vancy Board-Squares in Carlton-Police Magistrates­Railway Department: Ballarat Trains: Mangalore Sta­tion: Land Traversed by Railways: Smoking at Stations -Carlton Gardens-Newspaper Articles: Ex-Ministers­Railways Construction Bill-Loan Bill: Second Reading: Third Night's Debate-Water Supply to Country Districts: Loans to Local Bodies-Water Conservation Bill: Second Reading.

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

PETITION.

A petition was presented by Mr. FISHER, from mine;-owners, miners, and other re­sidents of the Eaglehawk district, praying for the passage of a Bill to prevent engine­drivers in charge of steam machinery work­ing more than eight hours per day, unless in cases of emergency.

INSPECTION OF MINES. Mr. R. CLARK asked the Minister of

Mines whether he would increase the· number of inspectors of mines, in order that the provisions of the Regulation of Mines Statute might be more efficiently carried out? There were only three min­ing inspectors who devoted the' whole of their time to duty under the ~tatute, but there ought to be double the number, be-, cause for want of sufficient inspection the provisions of the law were openly violated, with the result that serious accidents were of frequent occurrence.

Mr. BURROvVES said it was not his intention to appoint any more· inspectors.

There were 14 at present. He was not aware that the mining regulations were not carried out. Hany case of non­observance of the mining,regulations was brought under his notice, he would feel it his duty to interpose.

ROKEWOOD.

Mr. DAVIES asked the Attorney­General whether in view of the increase of population, through the revival of mining in the·district of Rokewood, he would re­open the polic~ court at that place?

Bir B. O'LOG HLEN stated that he had inquired into the matter, and, judging by the ?lJsines~ during the first quarter of tl:;te present year, he saw no necessity for re­opening the court of petty sessions at Rokewood. It appeared that when the place hau a larger popUlation, and when a room was rented for the purposes of a court at a cost of £40 a year, there were only 40 cases in the course of twelve months, so that the rent of the court was equal to £1 per case. The matter was before the late Attorney-General, ~?h.o stated that he did not see any reas<,m why the court should be restored, at the same time intimating that if population in­creased, or any other circumstance arose calculated to induce him to reverse his decision; he would reconsider the 'matter. He (Sir B. O'Loghlen) was willing to give a similar assurance.

BULLAROOK STATE FOREST. Mr. WHEELER asked the Minister of

.Agriculture whether he intended to take any action in connexion with the contra­dictory rep()rts furnished by the officers of his department, 1°e State forests? '

'Mr. C. YOUNG stated that on lopking over the papers he found the apparent contradiction explained by the error of a draughtsman in representing a certain portion of land as excised· from a reserve when in reality it was not so. In conse­quence of this, the land had been treated as excised, by officers of the department, since 1877. He hau spoken to th,e officers concerned, and he did not' think it'wise' to take any further action in the matter. '. .

GOVERNMENT DEBENTURES •. Mr. ·CARTER asked the Treasurer

whetper there wel~e any documents in the Treasury on the subject of the relative au vantages of selling debentures at a pre­mium and at a discount; and, if so, whether there would be any objection, to place

Police Magistrates. [OCTOBER 13.J Railway Department. 363

them in the Library for the perusal of honorable members? He stated that he was induced to put the question by state­ments contained in a letter from the Hon. Edward Langton, published in the Argus a short time since.

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN said there were at the Treasury some documents of the kind referred to. He would have them looked up, and, if the honorable member for St. Kilda (Mr. Carter) would repeat his question a few days hence, he would then be prepared to state what he would do with them. (Mr. Mirams-"Will you not have them printed?") He was afraid they were not of a nature to be printed.

WATER CONSERVATION.

Mr. LANGDON asked the Minister of ' Water Supply whether he would cause: copies of the reports of the Water Con­servancy Board to be furnished to the local bodies interested? "

Mr. C. YOUNG expressed his willing-ness to do so. ' '

CARLTON SQUARES.

Mr. GARDiNER inquired of the Min~ ister of Lands whether he would consent, in conjunction with the City Council, to the throwing open of University-square, Argyle-square, and Lincoln-square, for the use of the public? "

Mr. W. MADDEN stated that he was having inquiries made on the subject, and he would communicate the" result to the House the following week.

POLICE MAGISTRATES.

Mr. KERFERD aSked the ',Attorney­General if he would consult the Solicitor­General as to wheth,ir' the present number 'of police magistrates was sufficient for the work which had to be discharged by those officers? It had been represented to him that some of the police magistrates had districts far larger than anyone man could reasonably be expected to attend to.

Mr. HUNT said, before any reply was given to the question, he desired to mention that, while the public in his district had no reason to complain of the way in which the local police magistrate performed his' dp.ties, there were serious complaints with regard to the warden's courts. A warden's court was held at Kilmore only once a, month, and that was not at all adequate to the public requirements.

Sir B. O'LOG HLEN observed that his own opinion waS that the number of police

magistrates was scarcely sufficient to en­able them to do all the work expected from them by the public. He would have inquiries made through the Solicitor-Gen­eral, as to whether the wants of the public eQuId' be provided for by a redistribution of duties, or whether it was necessary to appoint additional police magistrates and wardens. If the Government were to d~t~rinine upon an increase in the number of ,these officers, he did not know whether Parliament would be disposed to sanc­ti~n the necessary additional expenditure. (¥r. Kerferd-" Of course it would.") If that were so, and if the Government found that' additional police magistrates or warde~s were necessary, they would be glad to aCt accordingly. I

RAILWAY DEPARTMENT. Major SMITH asked the Minister of

Railways whether he would arrange that the night train from Ballarat to Melbourne should not occupy a longer time on the jOllrney than the night train from Mel­bourne to Ballarat? The latter accom­plished the journey in three hours and twenty minutes, although there was a heavy gradient between Geelong and Ballarat, but the former occupied some­thing like four hours. He was informed that the time would be shortened if the tl;ain were ,fi tted with the Woods brake.

Mr. BENT said he beiieved that, if the night train' from, Ballarat were fitted up with automatic continuous brake-gear, the jour~ey could be accomplished in the same time as the journey from Melbourne to Ballarat; and he might mention that tenders for the supply of such brake-gear had been advertised for.

Mr. HUNT inquired whether the Min­ister 'would arrange to keep open the gravel-pits siding at Mangalore for wood traffic as hitherto? The proceeding, he said, would involve the employment of one man for only part of his time, while it would be a great advantage to many local resi­dents, and yield revenue to the amount of something. like £3,000 per year.

Mr. B~~T replied to the question in the affirmative.

Mr. I-U1NT asked the Minister of Rail­ways whether it was true that the issue of a Crown grant to a selector-R. Grodear, of Yarck-had been stopped, because of a proposed railway in the locality, while 1\fr. Stoddart, of Miller's Ponds station, had been permitted to purchase 320 acres on the same route?

364 Newspaper Articles [ASSEMBLY.] , and Ex-Ministers.

Mr. W. MADDEN said he would an­swer the question. The reason why the Crown grant was issued in the one case and not in the other was that in the latter the railway passed through the land, and in the former it did not.

Mr. HALL inquired of the Minister of Railways ~hether he would withdraw the notices prohibiting smoking at country railway stations?

Mr. BENT observed that the regulation about smoking was not initiated by him, but he was told it was a great success. (Cries of "No" and "Yes.") Why he had received bushels of letters from ladies telling him that they could now move about station platforms with comfort. He was informed by the Traffic Manager that it was a grand regulation, and he did not intend to wit,hdraw it. It had been as­serted by some newspapers that passengers had to put their pipes in their pockets while they crossed station platforms on their way to the smoking carriages, but there was no foundation for the statement. The object of' the regulation was simply to prevent smokers loitering and spitting about stations.

CARLTON GARDENS. Mr. GARDINER (in the absence of

Mr. MASON) asked the Minister of Lands whether he would order additional' seats to be placed in the Carlton-gardens, and cause the lakes to be fenced?

Mr. W. MADDEN stated that he had given instructions for the carrying out of the work referred to.

NEWSPAPER ARTICLES AND EX-MINISTERS.

Mr. RICHARDSON said-Last night, the Minister of Agriculture, during his speech on the Loan Bill, made a statement to the effect that some ex-Minister of the Crown inspired a certain article or para­graph in a newspaper. He did not give the name of the ex-Minister, but he requested me to make inquiries on the subject. I have made inquiries, and, so far as they have gone, I find there is no justification for the statement at all; and, if there is no justification for it, it ought to be withdrawn. More than that, I think it is hardly fail', if one ex-Minister has been guilty of anything of the kind, for the whole of the ex-MInisters to be put under suspicion. I trust the Minister of Agriculture will give the information which he withheld last night.

Mr. C. YOUNG.-I don't think I have anything to add to what I stated last night. I told the honorable member for Creswick (Mr. Richardson), last night, to inquire among his late colleagues, and I added that, if he was not able to obtain the infor­mation, perhaps I might assist him in the matter. I may state, for the information of the honorable member, that last Mon­day morning, in the presence of anot.her gentleman, a respectable reporter for one of the Melbourne papers told me that the article in question was inspired by an ex­Minister.

Mr. BERRY.-Name him. Mr. C. YOUNG.-I think that, before

I do anything of the kind, the honorable member for Creswick should first make inquiry among his late colleagues.

Mr. RICHARDSON.-That is not fair. Mr. C. YOUNG.-The honorable mem­

ber must exhaust the means within his own reach before he calls upon me. I repeat that a respectable reporter-and all reporters are respectable-told me that the article was inspired by a colleague of the honorable member, and also that it was brought to the newspaper which the gentleman represented, with the request that it should be inserted or referred to; but, the paper being a respectable one, the request was declined.

Mr. HALL.-No reporter would do such a thing as that.

The subject then dropped.

RAILWAYS CONSTRUCTION BILL.

Mr. BENT moved for leave to intro­duce a Bill to authorize the construction of certain lines of railway by the State.

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN seconded the mo­tion, which was agreed to.

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

LOAN BILL. THIRD NIGHT'S DEBATE.

The debate on Sir Bryan O'Loghlen's motion for the second reading of this Bill, and on Mr. Munro's amendment thereto, "That the Bill be read a second time this day six months" (adjourned fromthe previous evening), was resumed.

Mr. LAURENS.-Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this question, I desire to say that I consider the amendment of my honorable colleague (Mr. Munro) sub­stantially withdrawn from the arena of discussion, though~ as a formal matter, it

Loan Bill. [OCTOB~R 13.J Tltird Night's Debate. 365

is not withdrawn. I disavow any know­ledge that such an amendment was about to be submitted. I knew nothing of it. Its rigorous character took me somewhat by surprise. Therefore I am about to treat the question just in the same way as if the amendment had not been men­tioned. As regards the purposes to which it is proposed the loan contemplated by the Bill shall be applied, there are several to which I cannot .possibly haye anyob­jection; and I venture to take part in the debate chiefly with the view to induce the Government and the Assembly to exercise sotne degree of caution when about to increase the burthens of the inhabitants of this colony. I wish to demonstrate that it is· not always so extremely and immediately beneficial as some hon­orable members have endeavoured to show for the colony to enter upon large liabilities. In doing that, I am not un­mindful of the fact that we are committed to a certain amount of expenditure and to a certain loan. I am entirely with the Treasurer that there must be a loan to some extent; and no doubt the Assembly will sanction a loan for £4,000,000. How­ever, I am inclined to think-in the face of the fact that £2,000,000 of the last loan, which must be applied to railway con­struction, is not expended-that it ought to be a matter for serious consideration whether we ought at once to go to the London market to raise money which cannot be fairly and legitimately expended within a reasonable space of time. With regard to the proposal to dedicate £200,000 of the loan to the erection of State school buildings throughout the colony, it is evident that State school buildings cannot be classified among those works which are called reproductive. I am not unmindful of the fact that a corresponding amount was set apart from the last loan for State school buildings. But while that is the case-while it is the fact that we have expended £1,000,000 or more of borrowed money in the erection of State schools­I should imagine the time has pretty nearly arrived when we must cease to erect such buildings with borrowed money. With regard to the £200,000 proposed to be dedicated to the completion of the Houses of Parliament and the law courts, I think it is inevitable under the circumstances which surround us-whatever wisdom there may have been in venturing upon the erection of such costly structures­that the works should be finished. As to

the other items in the 2nd schedule to the Bill, I don't wish to comment upon them. I desire to mention that I understood from the Treasurer's speech at Lance­field that a portion of this loan of £4,000,000 would be available for the purchase of debentures from debentUl'e­holders in London who might not be inclined to fall into the agreement which they would be asked to consent to relative to debenture conversion; but evidently no portion of the money can be applied to that purpose, for the loan expenditure is strictly limited to the items contained in the 2nd schedule. That being so, it is impos­sible for the policy enunciated at Lance­field, as I read it, to be carried out. Again, while I agree, to a great extent, with some of the items in the schedule, I cannot fail to notice that there is no pro vision that any portion of the money will be ap­plied to the bringing about of a connexion between the Spencer-street railway station and the Flinders-street railway station.

Mr. BENT.-Yes. Mr. LAURENS.-I know what I say,

and I say " No." I repeat that there is no provision in the Bill for the application of one shilling of the £4,000,000 loan to that purpose.

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN.-The 1st item of the 2nd schedule provides" for the con­struction of railways and works connected therewith already authorized by Parlia­ment, or of such other railways and works connected therewith as Parliament may by any Act direct"; and an Act of Parlia­ment may direct that the connexion referred to by the honorable member for North Melbourne (Mr. Laurens) shall be made.

Mr.LAURENS.-If the item were read alone, after the manner that the Treasurer has read it, I might possibly be convinced; but the honorable gentleman has supplied us with another statement called a " Sche­dule of further requirements for works, &c., &c.," one item of which is £60,000 for a "viaduct between Spencer and Flinders streets."

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN.-Tbat statement is merely a document presented for the information of honorable members, in order that they might have something before them to guide them when I moved the second reading of the Bill. There will, however, be no power to expend money for any of the purposes therein set forth unless an Act of Parliament is passed for the purpose.

366 Loan Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Third Night's Debate.

Mr. LAURENS.-Exactly so. When the Treasurer read the various items in the list called a " Schedule of further re­quirements for works, &c., &c .. ," he told the House, unless my memory betrays me, that these works can only be carried out by borrowing another £1,000,000. I think the honorable 'gentleman sajd he was very sorry he had not proposed a loan of £5,000,000, instead of £4,000,000, so that these works might be carried out. My reason for drawing attention to the item of £60,000 is simply that, from a public point of view, I think it is very essential that the Spencer-street and Flinders-street stations should be united, especially as a railway to Coburg is about to be constructed. Until those two stations are connected, the Coburg Railway will be of very little use, for what advantage will it be to the people of', Coburg or Brunswick to travel to Spenc'er-street by railway when they can go' by omnibus, almost from their own door, to the centre of the city? The honorable memb~r for Moira (Mr. Hall) began his remarks last night by saying that the policy presented to us by the Government is very attractive. I have no doubt that it is exceedingly attractive, "and it is the result of Ministers going' about the country, and asking the people in 'one place if they would like a/ailway, a~d in another place if they would like water­works. Of course, the people very na­turally said "Yes." , There is not the slightest doubt that ,a loan of £10,000,,000 would have been two-and-a-half times more attractive than one of £4,000,000. But, without going into the 'question' of the wisdom or want of wisdom in borrow­ing the money, what does a ,£4,000,000 loan mean? It means an additional pay­ment of £ L 60,000 per annum for interest, presuming that the money is borrowed at 4 per cent., and that the debentures are placed at par, without deducting anything in the shape of commission or other ,ex­penses. Now £160,000 per, annum will amount to £640,000 in four years. When honorable members bear this in mind, and also the fact that during the four years the Berry Government were in office the country had to pay £828,002 additional for interest on the public debt, they will see that there is another point of' view from which the glowing picture painted by the Ministry and those who warmly sup­port the proposal for ,a new loan m~y pe looked at. The proposed £4,000,000 loan

means that a reduction of taxation will be impossible. It was, therefore, idle for the head of the Government to go to Lancefield and talk about a reduction of the duty on beer, tobacco, or any other articles. The beer duty is estimated, I believe, to yield a revenue to the extent of about £100,000 per annum, and there­fore, if the additional burthen of £ 160,000 it year which the £4,000,000 loan will entail was not imposed, it would be com­lJaratively easy to reduce the beer duty 1d. 'per gallon; but there is no chance of any such reduction if the loan is authorized. The Government, in fact, will be compelled to ask Parliament to continue both the beer and tobacco duties. When the Ministel' of Railways sat on the opposition side of the House, he opposed every new tax except the land tax, and he did so on behalf of "the poor working man of Brighton," but now that he is on the Treasury bench he altogether ignores the interests of "the poor working man." It mnst be apparent to honorable members that the taxation of the colony cannot be reduced as ,long as we go on borrowing more money, especially with a decreasing land revenue. The Treasurer stated at Lancefield that the £4,000,000 loan will cost the country nothing-that it will not impose any additional taxation on the country-because there will be a large saving effected by the conversion of the existi,ng 6 per cent. debentures into 4 per cent. debentures. Even supposing that a. saving, of 2 per cent. is effected by the conversion of the 6 per cent. debentures when they mature, the Treasnrer is not justified in taking such a favorable view as he does of the result of the operation. The value of the debentures which fall due in 1883 is £3,587,500; in 1884, £812,500; and in 1885, £2,600,000. If these 6 per cent. debentures are all con­verted into 4 per cent. debentures, the annual saving in interest which will be effected in each case will be £71,600, £16,240, and £52,000, respectively; so that not until 1885 will the total saving of interest amount to £139,910 per annum, and even that amount is 'considerably less than £160,000, which is the annual interest that will have to be paid on the £4,000,000. I have also assumed that, as each batch of 6 per cent. debentures become due, the Government will be for­tunate enough to be able to convert them into 4 per cent. debentures at par. Under the most favorable circumstances, therefore,

Loan Bpi. [OCTOBER 13.} Third Night's Debate. 367 . . .

it is quite' clear ih~t 'the £4;900,000 loan will '''llot be anything like free of cost to the colony. ~ desire to call attention ,to the following statement in the Treasurer's ~p~ech at Lancefield :-

"'The Governme~t proposition, then, is, that they l;lhould apply for power to raise a loan of £ 12,000,000 in order to payoff the £8,000,000 coming due, and the £4,000,000 which we want to use in the advance of railways and watersup­ply. Now thi~ may appear a very large trans.; ac~ion, and, from one point of view, it is a very large transaction indeed for this colony. But in the mode in which matters are dealt with financially in London or New York,jt is a very trivial transaction; and what the Government propose to do is to give holders the option of ex­tending the £8,000,000 of debentures cotping due, and to offer them 3!- or 4 per cent., or a xatehereafter to be determined by financial authorities. '. . . Now our Government pro­pose to deal in a similar way with the £8,000,000 coming due, and at the same time to obtain a further loan of £4,000,000. If they obtain, the £4,000,000 loan, then they will have command of the first £3,800,000 which comes due in 1883. We would then be in the position, to say to the debenture-holders-' Weare ready to pay any dis­sentient his money,' and the' consequence would be a very beneficial effect on the public mind."

Now I ask the Tteasurer where he makes any provision to carry out the policy 'announced in this extract from 'his speech at Lancefield?- There is no authority under the Bill we are now considering to apply a single sixpence to meet the case of a dissentient debenture-holder. The, Treasurer, at Lancefield, also said-

" Once the Government is in a position to say to the :first man entitled to be paid-' Weare willing'to give you your ,money, or to extend your bonds at 3!- or 4 per cent.,' nine out o~ ten will pref~r keeping their secnrities, and t.o accept'the market rate of interest."

I tappears to me . that t4e Treasurer .intended 'to imply by these remarks that when the Government raised .the £4,000,000 loan they. would be placed in a positio~to tell the present debenture­holders, when their, debentures became cdu'e, th::tt they could have, their money if they did pot fall in with the proposal to take substituted debentures. If I am wrong, I s~ail, be gla~ t'o b~ ~orrected. ~n ~is Budget spee~h, th~ honorabl~ gentle-

.man stated-,"I;:fI.nd that the revenue from the railways

4as been gradually increasing, and if honorable meml)ers will refer to the paper headed' Finance,' which has been distributed, they will find the additions which have taken place from 1876 to the prese;nt year. For the, year -1876-7 the rail­way ihcome was£1,078,000, whereas the estimate for the qurrent year is £1,575,000, and the income fot the past year was' £1,578,400." ,

While speaking of the increased revenue,

the Treasurer did nO,t say one word about the increased expenditure.' I find that in 1876 the railway expenditure under votes was £562,517, and the interest on the public debt, incurred mostly for railway purposes, was £816,803, making a total of £1,379,320. In' 1880, however, the railway expenditure under votes was £862,728, and the interest on the public debt, incurred mostly for railways, was

'£1,068,223, making a total of £1,930,951, being an increase on 1876 of £551,631. Therefore, whilst the excess of expendi­ture in 1880 over 1876 was £496,200, the increased expenditure, including interest, was £551,631, so that the excess of expenditure over increased revenue was £55,431. To state only the increased revenue, and to make no mention of the increased expenditure, is calculated to create a wrong impression on the public mind,-and to give the finances a glowing colour, which is not warranted. It was only by comparing the year 1880-1 with 1S76-7 that the Treasurer could show an increase of £500,000 in the railway revenue, but it was not fair to fasten upon any particular year for the purpose of making out an increase. The proper way to ascertain whether the revenue is in­, cr~asirig or decreasing is' to take' an average of four or'six years. The Trea­surer, in his Budget statement, likewise, said the 'railways were paying i'nterest at the rate of 4'46 per cent., or nearly 4t per cent., on the capital borrowed for their construction; b,ut, according to the report of the Railway department for 1879" the net railway revenue for that year was only equal to 3'57 per cent. upon the total cost of. construction, while in 1878 it was 3'85 per cent. Under all the circum­stances, I think the House should' pause before it commits itself to a further loan of £4,000,000. I understood the Treasurer to say that i,t was intended to raise the loan immediately the authority of Parliament was obtained, but last night the Minister of Public Works stat'ed-and I heard the statement for the first time­that the money cannot be available for the next twelve or fifteen months. I would like to know which statement is correct? It is all very well to say that the more the country borrows the more it will prosper, but I take it that·we ought to exercise some caution before we autho­rize any further loan. In 1877, when the Berry Government came, into office, the finances were in a similar position to what

368 Loan Bill. [ASSEMBLY.} Thi"d Night's Debate.

they are now. They exhibited an increase of nearly £400,000 on the previous year, but experience showed that that. state of things was the prelude to three or four years of retrogression and depression. What guarantee have we that a similar depression to that which followed 1877 will not happen during the next few years? None whatever. In 1877 the Berry Government based their expendi­ture on the increased revenue of the pre­vious year, but, however justifiable that course appeared at the time, subsequent events proved that it was far from wise. What occurred then may occur again. It behoves us to be careful, thoughtful, and considerate before we sanction a loan which will cast an increased burthen on the colony. Experience shows that fre­quently individuals borrow monev believ­ing that they will be able to meet all the obligations they incur, but when the time comes for them to make their repayments they are unable to do so. What happens to individuals may happen to the com­munity if it borrows money without due care and consideration.

l\fr. R. CLARK.-Sir, I think that the objections urged by the last speaker against the loan ought to have been reserv.ed until the House is in com­mittee on the Bil1. I object to several of the items of the proposed expenditure, but this is not the proper time to discuss matters of detail. Within the last few months, I have accompanied numerous de­putations to the Railway and Water Sup­ply departments, and it is simply impossible to ignore the fact that the people of the country are crying out for more railways and water supply works. Their demands cannot be. satisfied without money, and the only way to raise the money is by means of a loan. In many districts it will be impossible for selectors to re­main on their homesteads without rail­way accommodation and water supply. As to the £200,000 for school buildings, I regard it as a very necessary expenditure. It seems to me, indeed, that the House is, as

. a whole, pretty well agreed-that we are, in fact, quite a "happy family "-and that the amendment of the honorable member for. North Melbourne (Mr. Munro) was moved simply on the spur of the moment to enable that gentleman to have a fling at the Minister of Railways. But, before he entered upon any severe criticism of the present head of the Railway depart­ment, he might have considered the position

c that honorable member has been in during. the last three or four months. For myself, I think ho is deserving of very great credit for the way he has endeavoured to meet the demands recently made upon him. Let honorable members recollect the crowds of deputations that have waited upon him at his office, and how he has travelled over the portions of the colony· where the population are crying out for railway accommodation. It is all very well to talk about the turkeys he has had before him, but look at the journeys he has made. I hardly think any other man in his position would have made them. In fact, I doubt if any other Minister of Railways ever did as much work as he has done since he took his present office. Under the circumstances, I am of opinion that he did not at all deserve the repri­mand the honorable member for North Melbourne endeavoured to give him. I am sorry so much has been said about the Hobson's Bay Railway, and still more sorry that Mr. Elsdon's name has been unneces­sarily dragged into the debate. From my knowledge of that gentleman, I look upon him as' the best Engineer-in-Chief the colony ever had. Why the blame attach­ing to the condition of those lines, and also to the late deplorable accident at J olimont, which it was utterly impossible for him to avoid, should be placed on his shoulders I cannot, for the life of me, see. To my thinking, the greatest mistake ever committed with regard to the management of our railways was the late Minister of Rail­ways forcing Mr. Elsdon to undertake more work than anyone man could possibly do. Why he tried to make him General Manager, Locomotive Superintendent, and Engineer-in-Chief, all in one. The thing was ridiculous, and, individually speaking, I was exceedingly pleased when the pre­sent Minister of Railways placed Mr. Elsdon in his proper position as Engineer­in-Chief alone. And now I have done. Almost my only object in rising on the present occasion was to ask the Premier whether, before this Bill is sent elsewhere, honorable members will be allowed an opportunity of discussing the Railway Construction Bill the Government intend to bring in, and the Water Conservation Bill?

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN.-I assure the honorable member that an opportunity will be afforded for the discussion of the Bills he refers to before the Loan Bill leaves this Chamber.

Loan Bill. [OCTOBER 13.] < Tkird Ni9kt~s Debate. 36

Mr. DOW.-Mr. Speaker, I am very rather anomalous relation to each other. much gratified to notice the "happy Surely even the honorable member for family" way in which the House' seems Ararat will admit that it was wor.th while to be getting on. Why I can hardly moving the amendment, if only because it point to any body of honorable members has forced the Government hand to this sitting together in the Chamber as in any extent, that they have now to proceed way bound together by party feeling. with their Railway Construction Bill and There seems to be no party anywhere in their Water Conservation Bill before the the House. Where, indeed, can we look third reading of the Loan Bill. for party lines when we find the defender Mr. C. YOUNG.-The Government of what has been, more than once, styled said from the first that they would do so. the "larrikinism" of the Minister of They never intended to do otherwise. Railways in the person of the late At- Mr. DOW.-Well, we have now a dis­torney - General? Perhaps, however, I tinct intimation on the subject. I hope must attribute that little arrangement to that, before the Government go much the working of the old principle-" A further, they will pay the subject of in­fellow feeling makes one wondrous kind." creasing the amount to be devoted out of Not that I regard the Minister of Rail- the loan to water supply the attention it ways as a "larrikin." I have· no idea of deserves. N ext in importance to water the kind. On the contrary, I am very are :pew railways, although railways-I much pleased with him. I believe he mean lines costing £5,000 per mile-are has lately shown a very proper spirit, rather of secondary consequence compared and. in my representative capacity, I beg with inexpensive steam tramways, which to thank him for having visited my dis- are greatly wanted in many parts of the trict. As for the loan, I don't object country, as feeders to the main lines .

. to it. I think we are bound to have a Steam tramways will serve many districts loan. . exceedingly well, because the agricultural

Mr. WILSON.-Y et you seconded the population care more for cheapness than amendment. • speed in connexion with their railway

Mr. DOW.-That is quite correct; and accommodation. Upon the whole, I urge I still believe the Government would act the Government to cut down their loan to judiciously if they withdrew their Bill and a smaller amount. There is no necessity brought in a different one. The fact is to borrow £4,000,000 just now. It can­that, when we come to deal in committee not be economical to raise money on loan with the amount ,and objects of the loan, in order that it may lie unused. If we and the way in which it is to be initiated, borrow, let us do so to meet simply the I shall probably have a good deal to say. immediate necessities of the future. I I don't believe in placing £4,000,000 in would have the Government and the the hands of the Government without House recollect that borro wing money knowing upon what the money is to be means paying interest, that paying inte­expended. I don't want to see them rest means an increased demand upon the travelling round the country with a' .revenue, and that that means in its turn £4,000,000 loan to work. the political purely and simply fresh taxation. Now, oracle with. I would object to that sort if I came into the House for one thing of thing in connexion with any Govern- more than· another, it was to procure re­mente I want to know what they are trenchment and a reduction of taxation. going to do with the money before J I may say here in parenthesis that, while give my vote for their getting it. Why I. the Treasurer talks of it being possible to believe that a very large proportion of the take something off the beer tax, I would popularity they have gained is simply due much rather that he took something off to the way they have been running new the tobacco duties, for I find tobacco railways, and especially the water supply generally regarded as the poor man's business. Yet, with respect to the latter, luxury. Moreover, it must not be for­what do I find? That out of the gotten that both the taxes were put on £4,000,000 loan they propose to expend simply as emergency taxes, which were only £300,000 on water. I think it is to be taken off again - to expire by open to me to remind them, without effiuxion of time at an early date. Is offering them any undue opposition, that it not plain that the Government reck­their promises and their' performances in Ilessly rushing into a large new loan must relation to this matter seem to. bear a mean increasing the taxation of the people,

SESe 1881.-2 C

370 Loan Bill. [ASSE~BLY. ] Third Nig hl s Dehate.

rather than relieving them from any of it? . Not tha t I would 0 bj ect to fresh taxation of the proper kind. The head of the Government stands, in fact, more or less committed to a system of· taxation that would make every roan pay his legi­timate share of the expenses of the colony, and I beg to point out to him that it can only be done through a tax on realized wealth. I do not mean a mere property tax or a mere income tax. An income and property tax was once proposed by a former Government, but what was the consequence? 'The plan was regarded as extremely dangerous, and the Government very soon went to the wall. I don't think any Government who attempted to tax in­comes, which would mean taxing industry, would be kept long in power. What I want to see here is a tax like one they have in New Zealand, namely, a tax to a moderate extent-in New Zealand it is td. in the '£l-upon every description of realized wealth up to a certain amount; and I would fix the minimum to be exempted from taxation at something considerable, say £500. I cannot understand why the people who annually derive thousands and thousands from city properties, mining shares, banking shares, and so on, should in no sense be called upon on that account to contribute to the revenue. Coming back to the loan, I beg to urge on the Government the propriety of confining themselv.es for the present to £2,000,000 instead of £4,000,000, and to make up their minds to go in for water far more than they seem at present inclined to do. I am quite sure they cannot do too much in the direction of taking steps to keep the rain that descends from the heavens as much as possible on the surface of the ground, when it would meet the require­ments of the selectors .by rendering their soil more fertile, and also benefit the whole ~olony, by tending, through evaporation, to make the general climate more humid. With more' moistness in the atmosphere, the soil of Victoria would be utterly uneq ualled for richness. Under the cir­cumstances, let us by all means have at least £1,000,000 for water. I cannot under.stand the Government talking so much about water out-of-doors, and then practically crushing it out of their propo-sitions. . : Ml'. McINTYRE.-CarrYing the mo­tion you seconded would stop anything being done for water for six months to 'Come.

Mr. DOW. - As I said before, the amendment simply means a recommenda­tion to the Government to substitute another Loan Bill for the one they propose. I am very glad the amendment wa~ moved, because the effect has been to dispel the impression I was previously under that the Government had no backbone. There is another thing I would urge on their attention in connexion with their loan, namely, the necessity there is for pro­viding a sufficient sum of public money for prospecting purposes. I waut them to appreciate thoroughly the fact that what water is to the selector prospecting is to the miner-that proper prospecting; with free diamond drills, would do for the country what it is most desirable should be done, that if;! to say, it would demon­strate to surrounding nations thatVictorian gold mining is yet in its infancy. Let me tell the Government that I am not ·their enemy. I would just as soon have practical legislation from them as from any other Government. I, for one; am not trying to bring the late Government

. into power again just as they were before, nor am I bidding for office myself. I am simply speaking as "honest Dow." I give notice that any Government that will endeavour to comply with the real legis­lative requirements of the country will have me for an ardent supporter. I want the present Ministry to elevate their water proposals to a proper height, and to give us free diamond drills, to be run on the principle that, until they develop gold, their cost shall be paid by the State.

Mr. WILSON.-But who would get the gold when it is struck ?

Mr. DOW. - I think that could be arranged. At all events, it is useless to expect diamond drills to be put to work where, after all, they are most wanted, if a great sum per month has to be paid to the State for the use of each of them. In many of the districts where their services would be of the greatest possible value there is hardly any population to pay 'for their cost. The plan I suggest is that in each district selected for the purpose the Government should set up a free drill, and work it until the reef is struck, after which they should claim a royalty on all the gold resulting from the discovery. IIi· that way they would be repaid their out­lay, and also probably derive the means of working free drills in other parts of the colony. I sincerely hope the Government will withdraw their present proposals, and·

Loan Bill. CbOTOB,ER 13.J Third Nights Debate. 371

pay to the two subjects I have particularlj that loan before the present Bill has passed dwelt upon the attention they deserve. through committee. I do not pretend to

Mr. KERFERD.-Sir, it is impossible be a financial authority, and I cannot un­for me to doubt that the Government will dertake to say how far our going into the pay every attention to the modest request 'London market and asking the capitalists just made, namely, that they should with- to lend us this £4,000,000 is likely to affect draw their Bill and substitute one to suit the proposal to convert the £8,000,000 the honorable member for Kara Kara. My loan. But this position has also to be first impression from the honorable mem- considered, namely, that we are not in ber's language, when he spoke of the any immediate want of money, and that Gover,nment "running" a water supply it is not desirable that we should expend and other things, was that he looked upon within a very short period the £2,000,000 the Ministry as rival showmen to himself. that we have still available from the last The honorable member once ran a map, loan. Honorable members who have and, the proceeding'having been attended 'experience of the Victorian market with considerable success, he probably know that if we disturb it by any ex­now thinks-" If I did so much with a map, traordinary expenditure, the depression how ,much more could I do with a water that follows, as a natural sequence, is supply scheme?" I imagine the honorable far more disastrous to the colony than member for Mandurang (Mr. McColl) had the temporary prosperity obtained by the better look to his laurels, or else he will exceptional expenditure was advanta­find that the experience and ability in the geous. We may therefore fairly calculate showman line of the honorable member that we shall act most prudently by going for Rara Rara will enable him to cut out on with our expenditure on much the same the "grand canal" scheme altogether. scale that has been found advisable during The honorable member talks of having no the last two or three years. The disastrous ambition for office, but I think I know effect of rushing on Government expendi­what, if he were ou the Treasury bench; ture upon a scale which would seriously he would like to do. For instance, I can disturb the other industries of the colony fancy him asking himself what might not has been illustrated by the experience of corne out of a Bent and Dow partnership, ,New Zealand, where the experiment was the one to do all the travelling and the tried. In that colony large sums were other to conduct the show business? For borrowed, and an artificial prosperity was my part, I think the two together would created for a time by their expenditure, " lick all creation," as the Americans say. but then came relapse and depression, The people would then see a thing or two. which taxed the powers of the statesmen As to the allusion of the honorable mem- of the country to their utmost extent in ber for Rara Rara to the backbone of the order to prevent what I might term na­Government, we all know what a first-class tional insolvency. F·rom the experience authority he is on the su1'lject of backbone. of New Zealand, therefore, we ought to I stated, when the Loan Application Bill draw the inference that it is not wise for was being considered, that affirming that the Government of the day to so inflate Bill, which authorized the appropriation of its expenditure as to seriously disturb the a considerable sum of money, was really labour market and the general industries sanctioning by the House the Loan Bill of the colony. I take it that we have a proposed by the Government, and several reasonable sum to carryon with for a year speakers who followed me adopted the and a half, or possibly two years, at the same view. I take it, therefore, that the present scale of expenditure. I have not, House has committed itself to the second however, the slightest objection to the reading of this Bill. Connected with the Government taking advantage of the pre­floating of this particular loan, however, s,ent favorable condition of the market to there are circumstances which should in- raise this £4,000,000, but I would like to> duce them to give the matter special consi-, understand what is the scheme of conver­deration. Behind this loan of £4,000,000 ~ >s~on they have to propose, and to hear it. there rises the large question of retiring .discussed in the House, so that we may the £8,000,000 loan which will shortly see whether there is a possibility of its: faU due, and I hope the Treasurer will failure. I am bound to confess that the' give honorable members an opportunity of statement shadowed forth by the Trea-' considering the proposals of the Govern- surer, as to the debenture-holders entering' ment with reference to the conversion of into an obligation to take up 4 per cent.,

202

3i2 Loan Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Third Night's Debate.

debentures at the expiration of the term of the present bonds, seems to me very doubtful of realization. Many of the debentures are held by persons who wish to have their securities in such a form that they may be able to convert them to immediate use; but in what position would a man be who had a large sum of Il)Oney invested in 6 per cent. de-bentures, with an obligation on him to accept 4 per cent. debentures three or two years afterwards? How could he turn those debentures to immediate use?

Mr. VALE.-It would not make the slightest difference.

Mr. KERFERD.-The matter is, at all events, worth discussion, and I am only expressing a doubt that strikes my mind, and which may, perhaps, be removed entirely after argnment. The pertinency of these observations lies in their applica­~ion to the proposal to float this £4,000,000 loan, because I would like to see power taken in the Loan Bill to utilize, if the necessity arose, the money raised under it to retire the debentures that came dne.

Mr. VALE.-That is a good argument for the loan.

Mr. KERFERD.-I am not objecting to the loan. I have stated all along that I am in favour of it, but I do not want to see the loan tied up in such a way that the Government might be in the posi­tion of finding that their scheme of con­version had failed, and that they were unable to retire the debentures, while, at the same time, they had this £4,000,000 perhaps not realizing the interest they were paying on it. I think these are strong reasons why we should have 'the whole scheme of the Government before us. Honorable members who know the difficulty of managing loans, and the dis­astrous consequences that will follow the failnre to obtain a loan, are always very anxious about matters of this kind. This colony could not find itself in a more un­fortunate position than that of not having the means to meet its debentures when their dne date ani ves, or being unable to raise money in the London market except at a rack price. Selling a loan is not like selling wool, grain, or any other staple commodity for which you have the open market of the world. In raising a loan, you are in the hands of rings or syndicates of persons banded together for financial operations, who con­trol the investment of very considerable sums of money. I have frequently, when

in office, considered the policy of placing this country in the hands of the asso­ciated banks, and I confess that, although at first I had a strong prejuilice against the system, the experience I have had of the advantages which the colony has ac­quired through that connexion has led me to the belief that we have no other agency of such service to us as the associated banks in connexion with our loans. On many occasions we require advances, and we need the assistance of these banks to prevent the possibility of the failure of a loan. The ten associated banks have a financial interest in our success beyond the mere commercial transaction of nego­tiating a particular loan, because they are interested in the prosperity of the colony, and they know that any disaster to it would re-act upon themselves. If it so happened, for example, that a difficulty arose in floating this proposed loan­owing to. circumstances that the colony could not foresee or control-there are the ten associated banks, which, by subscribing £400,000 each, could render the loan a success. What other agency can we select 'that could render· the colony the same sub­stantial service should the emergency arise to require it? In conclusion, I desire to say that the first and paramount duty of the Government is to see that the country shall be in a posit.ion to retire-whether by conversion, or by means of another loan-the £8,000,000 long before it falls due, because the credit and prosperity of the colony, and the stability of our insti­tutions; will depend upon our success in dealing with that financial operation. I have offered these observations .in the most friendly spirit towards the Govern­ment, and simply from a desire that we may grapple with the first great financial transaction we have yet bad to deal with in such a manner as to ensure success.

Mr. R. M. SMITH.-Sir, the few ob­servations I have to make on this subject will be rather in the form of suggestions than objections. Indeed, the opposition to the proposals brought forward by the Government has, I may say, disappeared. The honorable member for North Mel­bourne (Mr. Munro), who made the some­w hat hasty proposition that the Bill be read a second time six months hence, has undertaken to withdraw his amendment if allowed to do so; and the honorable member who seconded the amendment, after rising, I presume, to show reasons why £4,000,000 should not be borrowed,

Louh Bill. [OCTOBElt 13.J Third lVigllt's Debate. 373

concluded by requesting the Governmellt to bOI;row another million in addition. All we are asked to do in passing the second reading of this Bill is to affirm that, at some time not specified, we should borrow, in some way not yet precisely indicated, a sum not exceeding £4,000,000. That is a proposition to which, I conceive, no one is likely to offer any serious objec­tion. The great part of the remarks made during this debate have been prompted apparently by the notion. that those who have any objections or observations to offer on the subject of the loan are really opposed. to a loan altogether. But that is an untenable position, because it is perfectly clear that we have entered upon a system of great public works, and that we shall probably, if our credit continues

. good, and our population and resources continue to increase, borrow in the next cycle of years much larger sums than that now proposed. The money we have already borrowed we have, on the whole-I do not say in each particular case-invested very fairly. We are at all events, as the honorable member for Fitzroy (Mr. Vale) pointed out, in a very different position from the mother country, which has a larger debt, representing nothing but ex­penditure in a no doubt useful but not remunerati ve direction. Our debt, on the other hand, is practically represented by ~o.t only remunerative works, but works which are growing in remunerative power, and, therefore, as far as continued bor­rowing by this colony is concerned, I fancy no one can have any objection. Nevertheless, I think it is worth while calling the attention of the House to the objects for which we are proposing now to borrow, and for which we have bor-

. rowed before. The colony is undoubtedly at present in a very prosperous condition, but;as the honorable member for Colling­wood (Mr. Mirams) has pointed out, there is an accumulation of circumstances which has produced that result. Not long ago, we were in a very different position­caused, as I have always admitted, to a great extent by circumstances beyond the control of any Ministry, ·partly by bad seasons and partly by the pressure at horne re-acting upon this colony. During the last couple of years there has been a return of prosperity. Money has been cheap at home, and an enormous amount has been poured into this and. the other colonies from various private sources. Further, we have had splendid harvests

and two magnificent wool clips, and, while our wool was sold at high prices, more than average rates were also received for our crops. Moreover, we have borrowed· £5,000,000 witbin the last few years, and New South Wales and South Australia have also been large borrowers. All these circumstances coming together have un­doubtedly tended to produce the great prosperity we now experience. It is well, however, even on a sunshiny day, to take

. out an umbrella, and perha.ps it is well also, in the midst of prosperity, to be careful as to borrowing on the strength of. that prosperity. It was· in a year of England's very great prosperity that Mr. Gladstone called attention to the necessity for economy. He pointed out that the "easual resources" of the coun­try had come to an end, Rnd that the people had t.o rely upon t.heir general resources, which might from deficient harvests be decreased. The case is some­thing the same with us. We can hardly expect to have, at any time, a greater accumulation of favorable circumstances than we enjoyed during the last year, and, therefore, if we are, as far as we can see, at the height of prosperity, it is worth while to consider whether it is judicious to go on borrowing for purposes which not only do not remunerate us, but which should be provided for out of the general revenue. As the honorable mem­ber for Castlemaine (Mr. Pearson) pointed out the other night, there were several reasons which formerly justified us, pos­sibly, in spending loan money on such works as schools and public buildings. We were called upon to incur a. sudden and great expenditure for permanent pur­poses, and, therefore, I do not, any more than he did, make any special objection to our borrowing at that time for schools and for public buildings. But in the schedule to the Bill one of the items of expenditure is for rolling-stock for the rail ways, and I cannot consider that we are justified in looking upon that as a permanent investment. Noone can say that rail way carriages are permanent works. It is plain that. rolling-stock wears out and has to be renewed-though we make no provision for its renewal...:... and, therefore, it ought not to be treated as a permanent investment. Further, there must be some point at which the expenditure on schools from loans ought to be stopped. A very large sum of bor­rowed money has been already· spent on

374 Loan Bill. [ASSEMBLY.]' Third Night's Debate.

sc~ools, we 'now propose to spend another large sum, and we are told that an annual expenditure of £50,000 will be required ; and we cannot hope, as the population increases, that that expenditure will de­crease. There must be some point, how­ever, at which we shall have to make up our minds that all future school accommodation shall be provided for out of the general revenue, and the same thing will have to be done with regard to public buildings. We must recollect that the present state of prosperity will not always exist, and we ought to address ourselves to the task of equalizing our income with what really is our genuine expenditure, and not deceive ourselves into the belief that we are doing so, while we are spending from capital what should be charged to revenue. Then, with regard to this loan, it appears to me that those who are urging the immediate raising of the money lose sight of the fact that, however many millions we may have at our command, we cannot, under ordinary circumstances, spend more than a certain amount in Government works. From the returns laid before us some time ago, we seem to have been spending about £800,000 or £900,000 a year in public works out of loan money, and that appears to be about the limit of our ordina,ry expenditure in that way. We have somewhat complicated our loan accounts during the last two or three years by the process of applying money bor­rowed for one purpose to another purpose; but of course it is evident that the money cannot be spent on both purposes at the same time, at least in the ordinary course of our expenditure. Having authorized the construction of certain railways, and so undertaken that they should have pre­cedence, we nevertheless find now that certain other works are of such urgent necessity that they must be done at once. In the ordinary condition of the labour market, we cannot execute both works at once, and one or other must be post­poned. If we determine by extraordinary efforts to increase the public expenditure in order to perform both simultaneously; we run the risk of altogether disturbing' the labour market. It is not, as the honorable member for South Gippsland put it, simply a question of raising the wages of the labourer 6d. per day, which would not be objectionable in 'itself, but of raising his wages temporariJ~y 6d. per day, and creating a factitious em,ployment which undoubtedly must termina te at the

Mr. R. M. Smith.

end of the extraordinary Government ex­penditure and re-act on the persons em­ployed. Private expenditure is different from Government expenditure in that respect. Extraordinary Government ex­penditure creates an impression that, in some way or other, the Government is bound to find work - and remunerative work-for the population of the country, and no worse feeling than that could pos­siblyenter the minds of the people. It is certainly most dangerous to hold that the Government are in any way bound­except in a sudden and unforeseen emer­gency - to provide employment for the people. If that law is transgressed in a great number of instances, still it is surely not judicious that we should, with our eyes open, create such a state of circumstances as will bring about that emergency-we could not then call it unforeseen. 'Doubling the expenditure on railways and public works, and creating factitious employment, must result eventually in distress and dis­appointment, and should not be lightly undertaken. Thus honorable members who, like the honorable member for South Gippsland, urge the immediate borrowing of £5,000,000 must meet one of the two difficulties I have mentioned; the works they want undertaken must either take the place of others which the House has deliberately determined shall have pri­ority, or we must create a factitious, demand for labour with the results I have described. Even now, by trans­ferring to other purposes one-third of the whole £2,000,000 available for rail­ways already authorized, 'we are doing an injustice to persons who have claims on the Legislature. according to the law of the land; and already I have seen it complained, with regard to one railway, that the Minister of Railways, by his own personal will, had overridden the three estates of the realm. Although the Minis­ter was perhaps not to blame in the matter, there was justice in the complaint, because the Legislature has appropriated one-third of the money provided in a previous Act of Parliament to other pur­poses than those defined in that measure. For these reasons I certainly do not consider that it would be judicious, under ordinary circumstances, to effect this loan at once. Further, we have got a sort of idea that, because the present is a' favorable time for borrowing, we should go into the market at once, and borrow 'as much as our resources will

Loan Bill. [OCTOBER 13.] Third Night's Debate. 375

permit; but we must recollect that, owing ~o the very plentifulness of money, we shall not be able to get anything like the same interest that we ourselves pay from the banks for the amount of the new loan lying unexpended; and that, therefore, in borrowing, we shall suffer a consid~rable loss in point of interest. There is, how­ever, one respect in which I grant that this loan may be profitably floated during the next twelve or eighteen months, namely, in connexion with the convers~on of the £8,000,000 loan, concerning which the honorable member for the Ovens (Mr. Kerferd) has made some very sensi­ble observations. There is no doubt that in connexion with that conversion it will be of the utmost use to have on hand a considerable sum of money. Two plans of immediate conversion have been pro­posed - one by the Treasurer, and the other by the honorable member for Col­lingwood (Mr. Mirams). I must say that the voluminous and accurate calculations of the latter appeared to me to amount only to this-that if you borrow the whole money now, not only to pay the principal of the debt due two years hence, but also the interest, you simply capitalize your interest - you escape paying so much interest by giving up the capital accolmt, and that does not strike me as being a reasonable style of finance .. The diffi­culty of both the propositions-that of the honorable member for Collingwopd and that of the Treasurer-is that we are not dealing with money which we can call up at any time, but with sums of money which we cannot ask the debenture­holders to receive unless they choose to do so; and men are not generally dis­posed to disturb an arrangement which is to last for the next two years, unless they receive some palpable advantage for doing so. Therefore, unless the benefit of borrowing now, even for the purpose of conversion, is very great, as compared with the price at which we can borrow two years hence, we shaH make a losing transaction in buying off the debentures now, as we shall have to go to the de­benture-holders and induce them to take the money. Looking at the position of the State by the analogy of that of a private individual, it appears to me that, if I were a person wishing to payoff a mortgage due eighteen months hence, I would endeavour to secure two things, nrst, to be amply prepared for any con­tingenqy that .might occur, and, in the

second place, to put myself in such a position that the. mortgagee might have to come to me, and not I to him. If we go to England to float f1 new· loan at, the same time that we are seeking to convert an old one, w~ place ourselves in the position of a mortgagor who asks the mortgagee not only to continue to . lend him the same sum of money, but also an additional sum. In that position, of course, the mortgagee will naturally ,ex­amine 1Dor~ closely than usual.the security offered . before he consents to grant the larger sum. Looking at the matter in that light, it appears to me that, so far as the conversion and the new loan are concerned, it would be a judicious course - but I make the suggestion without any speqial knowledge, and with great diffidence-to amalgamate the two loans, and to give the Govern­ment pow~r to float the whole amount, raising the money in such sums as they may require for the payment of such portions of the old loan as will not be renewed, and also for the discharge of such liabilities as we may incur from time to time for public works. I am disposed to think that the danger of going often into the London market for money is some­what exaggerated. The great object of borrowers like us, whose credit is good, should be to make the lending public thor­oughlyunderstand.th.e circumstances under which we are borrowing. Investors, as a rule, are not altogether ordinary people, but men acquainted with financial matters; and, if they once thoroughly understand the purposes for which we are going to borrow, and the general resources and credit of the colony, they will be disposed to deal with us on favorable terms. If, then, we amalg!tmate these two proposi­tions, and take the means of raising from time to time such money as wt;l require, and if, at the same time, we keep a cer­tain sum on hand as a sort of reserve, we shall probably be able at the due time­and I would wait till then-either to renew on very favorable terms the loan which already exists and float such portion of the new one as we may require, or else by means of the reserve to discharge the claims of any bond-holder dissenting to continue his loan. The advantage of this arrange­ment would be that we would not have to make any proposition requiring the con­sent of the bond-holders, and to which we could not compel them to assent. We would be in the favorable position of being

376 Loan Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Third Night's Debate.

able to discharge their claims if they chose, or, if they desired it, to give them fresh' securities extending over a certain number of years. There are two other points which we have learned by previous experience with regard to matters of this kind. One is that bonds at a discount Bell much better than bonds at a premium, always recollecting that there is a limit to this rule, and that there is a point at which the lending public might think we had no right to borrow. Having ascertained that limit, however, it is well understood that bonds at a discount sell better than bonds at a premium; and the reason is not far to seek. Trustees do not like to make a sinking fund year after year; and, besides that, we know that careful men who invest rather prefer to cheat themselves into the belief that they have an income of 3! per cent. when really they have only 3:1 per cent., or 4 per cent. when they have only in realit.y 3~ per cent. In the second place, the experience of the New Zealand Govern­ment has shown us that it is preferable to issue what is called inscribed stock rather than debentures. In the' conver­sions carried out so successfully by Mr. Gladstone, he introduced a clause into the new stock which, instead of fixing any exact period for the payment of the loan, provided that the' interest should not be reduced until a certain date. N 9W, if we floated a certain amount of inscribed stock with the interest-say 4 or 3A per cent.­fixed up to a certain date, we would be in the position, when that date arrived, that, if the rate of interest in the market was equal to or greater than that we were pay­ing on the stock, we could continue t.he loan, and the lender could not demand the payment of the principal. On the other hand, if the market rate of interest was lower, we could either make such a reduction in the interest as the market would afford, or else payoff the stock­holders with money raised at the lower rate. In adopting that course, we would be following the precedent of the best financier of the time, and it seems to commend itself to the consideration of the House. If this loan is floated, I trust it will be raised with a due regard to the fact that we cannot really operate upon it with respect to public works, without causing disturbance in the labour market, until some considerable period has elapsed, but that we may operate on it with very great advantage in carrying out the scheme

Mr. -R. M~ S1{fith~

of- conversion, and by that means achieve a great and legitimate saving to the colony. As I have already said, the great thing is to let the public thoroughly understand the circumstances under which we are borrowing. Colonial securities have, for several years past, been gaining in public appreciation-a result n~t to be wondered at when we consider the severe experience English investors have had in connexion with foreign stocks; and if, by careful attention to economy, by limiting-and, as far as we can, stopping-our borrowing for purposes not connected with the per­manent resources of the colony, which should be matters of ordinary expenditure, we succeed in increasing the belief in the security of our investments which now obtains in England, we shall, I hope, be able, at no very distant date, to borrow at a rate very closely' analogous to that at which the mother country issues its stock.

Mr. FRANCIS.-Mr. Speaker, I think the importance of the question now before the House a sufficient justification for the

'debate which has taken place, though I consider that the honorable member for North Melbourne (Mr. Munro), in moving " That the Bill be read a second time this day six months," jumped too early and too high. A more reasonable course-a course which perhaps might have been attended with some advantage - would have been to seek to prevent the debate on the measure being pressed to a conclu­sion until we had some explanation of the projected railways in which the money it is now proposed to borrow will be invested. I regard with considerable respect the remarks thrown out by honorable gentle­men who have addressed themselves purely to the financial part of the Govern­ment proposal. At the same time, I don't realize the advantage that would arise from the adoption of the suggestion of the honorable member for Boroondara, that the two loan schemes of the Government should be amalgamated, and submitted for immediate legislation. I agree with the honorable member that there is nothing more sensitive than the money market, and I think that sensitiveness is a sufficient justification for the course which the Government propose to pursue. I am disposed to approve of the practice adopted in New South Wales. Two or three years ago, when a loan was authorized by the Legislature of that colony, the time for floating the loan was left entirely to the discretion of the Government. The

Loan Bill. [OCTOBER 13.] Third }-.Tigltt's Debate. 377

result of that policy was that the loan was placed on the London market at the most favorable opportunity possible, and that the colony realized a profit of from 7! to 12 per cent. I think that exarpple may well be followed here. Certainly I am not favorable to the loan contemplated by the Bill being forced upon the market in connexion with the conversion of our 6 per cqpt. debentures. Provision for that operatIon may be deferred, I think, until early next session, when the subject can be approached with more careful· consi­deration, a ripened judgment, and a clearer knowledge of what the .outcome is likely to be. At present the condition of the

. London money market is not so satisfac­tory or bright as when the Treasurer made his speech at Lancefield, and there­fore I think that, before throwing the whole £12,000,000 on that market, due time should be taken to consider the second branch of the question.

. Mr. BERRY.-Sir, I don't know that there is much to be gained by continuing this debate, and I don't think I would ha ve risen to address the House but for the turn given to the discussion by the last three speakers. I cannot help think­ing how different would have been the tone and tenor of the addresses of the honorable member for the Ovens (Mr. Ker­ferd), the honorable member for Boroon­dara, and the honorable member for Warrnambool, if it had been my duty to propose a Bill of this character. In­stead of mild warning and advice, I think we would have had outspoken and straight opposition to the proposal. I think no one could have listened· to the honorable members I refer to without being impressed with the conviction that they really are opposed to this loan on true financial grounds, although for poli­tical reasons, and consideration for the Government, they intend to support it. The Government regard the amendment " That the Bill be read a second time this day six months" as a motion of no-confi­dence, and yet they are now ad vised by their friends, although the House may pass the Bill, not to proceed to carry it out for six months. Whether the latter proposal be more acceptable to the Ministry than the former, I leave to their own consideration. It strikes me as strange, in connexion with this Bill, that so little attention has b~en given to the purposes for which the loan is to be floated. Certainly a chief point for consideration is whether the

purposes specified in the schedule to the Bill are legitimate purposes. Are they urgent ? Can they be carried on side by side with other loan expenditure already authorized? These are the real questions which this House should con­sider. Looking at the question from that point of view from the first, I was loath to take part in the discus­sion, because almost until to-night the feeling that seemed to pervade the House was that a loan was like a gift of money -it meant a large expenditure, and there­fore it did not do to scrutinize it. Money could be obtained easier in that than in any other way, and there was a chorus of cheers when the suggestion was raised that the l~an should he increased by an­other £1,000,000. I don't think I am doing an injustice to honorable members who indulged in those cheers when I say that r think they meant not that the total amount of the loan should be increased, but that certain expenditure was either not provided for or was insufficient; and I submit that that difficulty might be met by an alteration of the scbedule by which the total amount would not be increased, although the distribution of the money might be somewhat different from that proposed by the Governm.ent. In fact, the real issue in connexion with a Loan Bill is the schedule. There is very little use in discussing anything else. The amount of £4,000,000 is only an estimate; and if the House increases or decreases or strikes out certain items, the loan may be either for £3,000,000 or £5,000,000 by the time the Bill comes up for third reading. With £2,250,000 for rail ways still unexpended, I fail to see either the financial or political reasons for a loan for further milways. Several railways authorized by Parliament are not let at present; and the Legislature has never been asked before to authorize a railway loan until all the railways autho­rized by a previous Railway Bill have been commenced, if not completed. Of the proposed loan, the Government con­template dedicating £2,250,000 to new railways, but we have already in hand £2,250,000 for that purpose, which will take us eighteen months or two years to expend; and any practical man must see the folly of borrowing £2,250,000 for rail­way construction when a corresponding amount for the same purpose is in hand, and must be expended-and that expen­diture, according to the Treasurer, will occupy a year and nine months-before

378 Loan Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Tltird Night's Debate.

(me penny of the other £2,250,000 could I quickly into the London money market be touched. Then again, it should be re- except for conversion purposes; and that eollected that while the proceeds of the makes it all the more necessary that we last loan are deposited with the banks at should be careful as to the purposes to :scarcely any loss-the merest percentage which we apportion this loan-that they ~rifle of loss-the probabilities are that, in should be purposes which will do the connexion with the new loan, there will country most good. This brings me to be a loss in interest of something like another part of the subject. I don't think 2 per cent. Indeed the Government will the Government will be disposed to agree be fortunate if they can deposit at 2 per with the honorable member for the Ovens cent. the loan moneys which they borrow that this loan should be floated not tor the at 4 per cent. purposes set forth in the schedule, but . Mr. R. M. SMITH.-But the price ob- in order that the Government may have tained for the loan in London will be com- £4,000,000 in hand twelve months before mensurately good. If, owing to money they want it to redeem £4,000,000 of de­being cheap, we do not get as much bentures which fall due in 1883 and the interest here, we get a larger principal in subsequent year. No doubt if the pro-. London. ceeds of the loan-whatever the amount

Mr. BERRY.-That is a very funny of it, as finally settled in committee, may interjection to answer. Although we be-are in the hands of the Government, may be able to float a -:I: per cent. loan so it will be a wise precaution, next session, that it shall bring a premium of 1 or 2 for the House to authorize the Govern­per cent., is that any argument why we ment, if necessary, to use the money for ~hould have the loan money in our posse~- the conversion of any debentures which sion two years before we require it? It fall due, supposing the conversion loan has is a curious idea that the price which a not been floated at that time-an arrange­loan may fetch in London should have ment which would prevent. the country any relation to whether we are going to from being placed at the mercy of any lIse the money immediately or in two years' " ring," or suffering from any panic. That time. The loan, whenever it is floated, is one of the best arguments for the loan will be floated with reference to consider- that I have heard. In fact, I suggested it in ations purely of a monetary character in private conversation two or three days ago. the market in which it is floated. I am I think we must have a loan-I am not not making a party speech. I am disposed particular whether it is for £2,000,000 to give the Government support; and, if or £4,000,000-but I consider we ought the schedule is not altered, I will sup- to strike out the item for new railways, port them in their whole policy. But the and that we ought to increase the amount proposal to borrow £2,250,000 for new for water supply. The probabilities are railways, when we have already that that the Government are now relieved amount in hand for the same purpose, and from f{)ar that there will be any attempt when we know that with respect to any to jeopardize their position, or to lower further moneys we may borrow we shall them in their own estimation or in that of be fortunate if we do not lose more than the country. I have no wish to do any-2 per cent., appea,rs to m~, as a financial thing of the kind; and therefore I would operation, to show such little practical' point out to them that although as a Go­wisdom, that I think it will be well, when vernment, and in the preparation of Bills the Bill is in committee, to consider and schedules, they are supposed theoreti­whether it is desirable to sanction the cally to possess all the wisdom of the railway expenditure contemplated by the country, never making a mistake, it is 1st item in the schedule. At the same time, possible that, after listening to the debate I think it probable that the House will on this Loan Bill, they may be induced, be disposed to increase the amount for calmly and quietly, to see that there is water supply. I don't regard £300,000 as little reason to oppose the suggestion a sufficient sum to have at, command when which I offer that the 1st item of the entering upon a national' system of water schedule should be reduced so as to be conservation and irrigation, with the in ten- limited to the repayment of moneys ex­tion of dealing fairly with all the country pended on railway works already autho­districts that require assistance in that rized, leaving the borrowing of further direction. I don't think the country is moneys for new railways until some sub­disposed to approve of our going very sequent period. I will not stop to discuss

Loan Bill. [OCTOBER 13.J Third Night's Debate. 379

the other purposes for which it is proposed to borrow money. I take it that the House is disposed to borrow inoney to complete the Parliament buildings and the law courts, to build more schools, to construct water supply works, and to give the different ports, other than Melbourne, the opportunity of utilizing their natural advantages by artificial means. Taking it for granted that all these purposes are legitimate and proper, and that the I-louse is about to endorse them, I would suggest that, if the loan is floated, it should be floated atonceand used, contemporaneously with the existing railway loan, for all those purposes that would then be left in the schedule, because it would be playing with the House to schedule a lot of pur­poses, and raise a loan without the inten­tion of expending it in addition to the railway loan already in the hands of the Government. The only justification for this loan is that the Government, while pushing on railways as rapidly as that particular kind of work -.-which has to wait for surveys, plans, and specifications ' -can be pushed on, see their way also, and at once, to go on with all the pur­poses for which they propose to borrow this money. If that is done in good faith, it will increase the expenditure on labour by the Government. I ca,n understand that gentlemen who hold very strong con­servati ve opinions may see in, the dim future, when money raised by loan has been 'consumed in non-reproductive ex­penditure, and interest has to be met, that taxation is looming; and then the great battle ,will take place whether property should not have to pay something more like its fair ehare of taxation than it h~s hitherto dorie. ,

Mr. KE:ij,FERD.-Here is a new cry. Mr. BERRY.-When we get" peace,

progress, and prosperity," by the help of this loan and the other. means which the Government have carefully conceived­and no doubt the expenditure of loaus and other moneys on public works will in­crease the prosperity of the people and add to the value of property-the natm:al outcome, at some future period, will be increased taxation; and surely my con­servative friends will not always expect to have the advan~age of a large expendi­ture on railways, waterworks, and port improvements, ,by which the value of their property is increased, without making some return. In the meantime, what I would urge upon those with whom I have

influence is that to a Government willing to go on with the real practical work re­quired by the country we should give all they demand in the direction of money which can be advantageously employed within a reasonable period. If that is kept before the minds of honorable mem­bers when dealing with the schedule to the Bill, they may, without increasing the aggregate amount of the loan, but pro­bably decreasing it, secure for works for the water supply of country districts at least a million of money; and if the Go­vernment acquiesce in that course they will raise themselves in the estimation of the country, they may command the sup­port of honorable members on this (the opposition) side of the House, and probably they will develop into a thorough liberal Government. .

Mr. WILSON.-Sir, I have no desire to prolong the debate, and therefore I will confine myself to a very few remarks. It appears to me somewhat strange that those who assisted to float the present Govern­ment into existence should object to accept their scheme for the borrowing of money for progressive works, and for converting the present 6 per cent. debentures into 4 per cent. debentures. I cannot sympa­thize with the honorable member for Boroondara, who seems to take a sort of dO.leful view about the borrowing of more money. I am perfectly with the honor­able member so far that we ought not to borrow more moner except for reproduc­tive purposes. Let me ask, what would the colony have been if we had not taken advantage of. the opportunity of borrowing from capitalists in England portions of their accumulated wealth at such a rate of interest that we could make a large profit out of the loan, at the same time that we took a great step in the development of this country? What Riverina was 25 years ago she would have been to-day but for the wealth accumulated by Victorians being borrowed by enterprising settlers at reasonable rates of interest, and dedicated to the development of the resources of that region. Melbourne has now become the financial centre of the whole of the Australian colonies. No big financial transaction takes place between the Gulf of Carpentaria and Cape Otway that Melbourne bankeri:! and financiers have not a finge~ in. People' ,come from all parts to buy their wool in Melbourne, because Melbourne has become established as the cheapest place for dealing in that

380 Loan Bill. [ASSEMBL Y.] Tldrd ,lWgltt's Debate.

commodity. Melbourne is also the centre of an financial transactions carried on from Australia with London. It is to our inter­est that that position should be maintained and continued. With regard to the sug­gestion of the honorable member for Boroondara, as to the floating of one loan for £12,000,000, I agree with the position taken up by the honorable member for Warrnambool, whose opinions on this sub­ject are entitled to respect, because he has had considerable experience as Treasurer of the colony, he has been long connected with a financial institution in Melbourne, and he has some knowledge of the London money market. I concur with him that it is better for the Government to float a £4,000,000 loan, and float it separately, leaving the question of the conversion of the' 6 per cent. debentures to be dealt with by itself. When we undertook our first loan liabilities-when we borrowed the £8,000,000-we had no position or character to boast of, and consequently we had to pay interest at the rate of 6 per cent., but now that our position is assured we can borrow money at 4 per cent. We are somewhat in the position of the private speculator who, borrowing in the dear times, had to pay 10 or more per cent. for the money advanced to him. The period for which he borrowed the money having expired, he discharges his in­debtedness with the help of money borrowed at a considerably lower rate of interest. I have po doubt that the £8,000,000 of debentures, when placed on the market, will float easily and well ; and the transaction, instead of adding to our indebtedness, will actually be a benefit to us. One objection of the honorable member for North Melbourne (Mr. Munro) to the £4,000,000 loan is that there is plenty of money in the colony, and that we can borrow in the local market all the money that will be needed for public works for the next two or three years. I say that to act upon the honorable member's suggestion would be suicidal policy at the present conjuncture of affairs. It is not two years since the clamour arose that selectors were being driven from the land, and that miners were paralyzed, because they could not obtain capital on reasonable terms, no matter what security they might have to offer; aud I say that too short a time has elapsed since that scarcity to warrant us in taking advantage of the present plethora in the Victorian market-which may be only for a

Mr. Wilson.

short time-to use it in the way the honor­able mem berfor North Melbourne proposes.

, Two years hence, when the first of the 6 per cent. debentures fall due, how easy it will be, if we are successful with this loan and money continues cheap, to float a couple of millions of tb~ eight millions, and take up the debentures ourselves. And that would strengthen our position in the London market, by showing how anxious we are to carefully weigh our own financial position. Under all the circum­stances, I cannot see how the Government are censumble for proposing a loan of £4,000,000, but I think that a vote of no­confidence in them might fairly have been passed if they had not submitted the loan. Had they not introduced the measure, they would have played fast and loose with the country, and would have failed to carry out the policy which they enunciated when they took office. The 2nd schedule to the Bill, setting forth the works to be undertaken with the £4,000,000, will, of course, form the subject of uiscussion when the measure is in committee. If it is shown to be desirable to reduce the sum for railway extension by £500,000, and add that to the amount put do\vn for water supply' works, no doubt the Government will agree to the alteration. As to the floating of the loan we must place confi­dence in the Government, who necessarily have better means than the generality of honorable members for obtaining informa­tion as to the most suitable time for bor­rowing the money. No doubt the Premier is anxious to be as successful as a Trea­surer as ever he was as a barrister, and I trust that he will be fortunate in his first great financial operation.

Mr.CARTER.-Mr. Speaker, I think that the country will be glad to read the speech of the honorable member for Gee­long (Mr. Berry), because it is a sign that this question, at all events, is not to be treated as one of party, but that both sides will unite in endeavouring to get the pro­posed loan floated in the most advantageous manner possible.' Both sides seem to think it desirable that the loan should be floated, but I apprehend that the Government do not expect honorable members to be bound to all the details set forth in the 2nd s<ihedule to the Bill. I presume that when we go into committee on the measure the Government will be prepared to accept amendments with regard to various items on which a wide difference of opinion may, exist. Again, whether the money should

Loan Bill. [OCTOBER 13.J Third }tigltt's Debate. 381

be borrowed at 4 per cent. interest, or at a higher or a lower rate; whether the de­bentures should be payable in 25 years or in any other period; whether the loan should be floated in the nsual way, through the agency of the associated banks, or through the Bank of England, as was done by Sir Julius Vogel with a New Zealand loan; and whether any of it should be floated here or all of it in London, are all subjects on which I trust the Government will allow honorable members to act in accordance with their individual opinions, and I hope tl~at they will be content to be guided by the decision of the majority. Upon one point I think there cannot be any difference of opinion, namely, that there would not be the slightest difficulty in raising £ 1,000,000 of the money in the colony; and if the debentures were made payable either here or in London, on giving six months' notice previous to their matu­rity, I believe that the Government would get a very high price for them, for the simple reason that the debentures would be made use of by the public for remit­tances both ways. A person wishing to send money home could not have a more con venient method of doing so than would be afforded by a debenture which would be bearing interest during the time occupied in its transmission, and any one coming to the colony and wishing to bring money with him would find the debentures equally convenient for his pur­pose. Provided that the amount is not too large, it will be very desirable, I think, to float a certain portion of the debentures in the colony. Several honorable members have cautioned the Ministry that they must be careful how they attempt to float the loan. No doubt the Government are perfectly aware of the fact. If we look at the result of the last three loans-Mr. Service's, in 1874, Sir James McCulloch's, in 1876, and Mr. Berry'S, in 1878-we shall find 'that there is no comparison be­tween the success of SirJ ames McCulloch's

. and that of the other two. I do not mean it to be inferred that the success or non­success of those loans was entirely due to the judgment or want of judgment on the part of the gentlemen who floated them, because a number of contingent circum­stances-such, for instance, as the relative price of money-influenced the result, bu t no doubt there were other circumstances besides the state of the money market which bad an effect upon the floating of the loans. Mr. I::)ervice's loan was

floated at 91~, and on the 30th July last was quoted at 10211; Sir James McCulloch's loan was floated at 96k, and on the 30th July last was floated at ] 02.g. ; and Mr. Berry's loan was floated at 99, and on the 30th July last was quoted at lO7!. The two former· were 4 per cent. loans, atld the latter was a 4! per cent. loan. The profit made by the investor was therefore as follows:-On Mr. Service's loan, £11 5s. per cent.; on Mr. Berry's, £8 lOs.; &11<.1 on Sir James McCulloch's, £6 lOs.

Mr. KERFERD.-Have each set of debentures the same period to run ?

Mr. CARTER.-They have not, but that will not account for the remarkable difference between the price at which they were floated, and the price on 30th July last. Whatever the investor made, the colony must have lost that sum by the transaction. It will therefore be seen that the particular times chosen for the floating of these loans and the method in which they were floated made a considerable dif­ference to the colony. One point which honorable members ought to consider' when the Bill is in committee is whether it would not be advisable to change our mode of floating loans, and float the new loan through the Bank of England, as Sir Julius Vogel did with the New Zealand loan. I believe that the Bank of England charged a very small sum for the business -about £600 per £l,OOO,OOO-and the operation was a very successful one. The sum asked for was £2,500,000, and tenders were received to the amount of about £10,000,000. The 'honorable member for Boroondara said it was a truism that it was better to float a loan at a dis­count than at a premium. It may be a truism to the honorable member and to other financiers, but I am afraid it is not a truisni with the generality of the public, who look more at the price that a loan realizes than at the interest which will be saved if the debentures are floated at a discount; that is to say, they are apt to consider a low price a loss and a high price a gain, rather than to take into account any saving of interest which may be effected by selling the debentures at a low price. A letter recently appeared in the Argus from Mr. Langton, a former Treasurer of the colony, which puts the matter very clearly, and I am indebted to that gentleplan for drawing my attention to the subject. If honorable members would look at the Investors' Manual, which shows the rate of iuterest realized

382 Loan Bill. [AsstMBLY.] Third Nigkl s Debate.

on every description of stock sold in the London market, they will be as astonished as I was to find how remarkable it is that every stock bearing a low rate of interest, and selling at a discount, is sold on more advantageous terms to the borrower of the money than stock floated at a premium. Stocks bearing a low rate of interest appear to yield the investor less interest for his money than: similar stocks bearing a higher rate of interest, and are therefore in favour of the borrower. For instance, on the 30th July last, 3 per cent. consols yielded interest at the rate of £2 19s. 6d. per cent., while 2! per cent. consols yielded £2 16s. 9d. per cent., consequently there was a difference of 2s. 9d. per cent. in favour of the lower-priced stock; or, in other words, showing that the lower-interest bearing stock yielded less interest to the borrower. The Metropo­litan Board of Works, in England, have borrowed some £10,000,000 from 1869 up to the present time. They used to float their loans at 3t per cent. interest, but, though they originally started by sell­ing their stock at a discount, by degrees the stock rose till it reached a premium; and when the board found their stock was selling at a premium, they reduced their interest to 3 per cent. The result of the transaction, as shown by the Investors' Manual, is that the 3t per cent. stock yields £3 4s. 8d. per cent: interest, and the 3 per cent. stock yields £3 Os. 4d. per cent., or a difference of 4s. 4d. in favour of the lower-priced stock. What do we find is the case in regard to our own de­bentures? The 4~ per cent. Victorian debentures yield £4 3s. 5d. per cent. inter­est, and the 4 per cents. £3 18s. 1d., show­ing a difference of 5s. 4d. per cent. in favour of the lower-price debentures. All these examples show that lower-interest bearing stock yields the least interest to the buyer, and is therefore in favour of the seller. For some reason or other the public prefer it. In the first place, it is more useful to the speculator, because there is more chance of a rise on a low­priced stock. than there is on a high-priced stock-in fact, there is more room for it. If it is a terminable stock, there is a posi­tive certainty that there must be a rise in its value when it falls due if it has been sold at a discount, whereas there is an equal certainty that there must be a fall if it has been sold at a premium. Again, trustees are almost debarred from investing in stock sold at a premium, for the simple

Mr. Carter.

reason that they may become personally liable for the premium which they pay for the stock. A case waf:! recently decided in England in which a trustee had to forfeit £7,000, simply because he had bought debentures at a premium and received that amount less for them when the time came for them to be redeemed. In order to make' good the amount of the capital of which he was trustee, he had to recoup, out of his own pocket, the pre~ium he had paid for the debentures, because he could not debit that to interest account, the will having directed that the corpus and the interest were to be kept separate. In floating the new loan, the Government oughtto bear in mind that if the capitalized interest saved by floating the debentures at a discount will exceed the loss on the princi­pal, the operation will be in favour of the borrower. If we sell a 3t per cent. loan with 25 years' currency at £94, it will require 2s. lld. per cent. per annum to be set aside to meet the ultimate payment of £100 when the debenture matures. That sum added to £3 lOs. per annum for interest will make £3 l2s. lId., which will leave, as compared with a 4 per cent. loan issued at par, a net saving of interest of about 7s. per cent. per annum, which, on £4,000,000, will amount to £14,000 a year. The capitalized value of this sum for 25 years, at 4 per cent., is £218,400. The same remarks that I have made about English stocks and Victorian debentures apply to the French rentes and to the American stocks. I have ·not noticed a single instance recorded in the Investors' Manual in which the lower-priced stock does not appear to be in favour of the borrower and against the investor. I therefore trust that the Government will not in any way bind the House to vote for the 4 per cent. mentioned in the Bill. I presume that honorable members will be at liberty to amend the measure in regard to the rate of interest to be paid and the mode in which the loan is to be floated. There is nothing said in the Bill as to when the money is to be borrowed. That, I suppose, is a matter to be left to the discretion of the Govern­ment. If the Bill is passed, they are not likely to rush at once into the market, borrow the money, and lend it to the banks until they can otherwise employ it, as suggested by the honorable member for Geelong. I do not suppose that they have any such insane intentions. I pre­Bume they will borrow the money when the

Loan Bill. [OCTOBER 13.J Third Nl,ght;s Dehate. 383

timefor so doing seems to be advantageous. If proper negotiations were opeued with the Bank of England, I believe it would be found that we could get what money we wanted, as we wanted it, and on very favorable terms-op terms which, as far as I can juuge, would leave a profit to the country of something like £100,000 as compared with the rates we have been in the habit ofpaying to the associated banks. Although I shall vote for the second reading of the Bill, I hope it will be under­stood by the Government that any member is at liberty to' differ from the details of the measnre.

Major SMITH.-Sir, it is my inten­tion to vote for the second reading of the Bill, and I think it would be far better if the Government would at once increase the amount of' the proposed loan to £5,000,000. The sum proposed to be ex­pended for water supply is altogether too small. In many cases, if the Government construct railways without first providing water supply to the districts which the lines are intended to traverse, they will simply be carrying railways into mere deserts. .

Mr. MASON.-We must not decrease the sum for railways. , Major SMITH.-The sum of £300,000 for water supply to the country districts is altogether insuffiCient. I think that the amount should be increased to at least £1,000,000. In many parts of the colony water supply is more 'urgently required than railway accommodation, and, if the Government do not take power to borrow sufficient money to be able to devote at least £1,000,000 to water supply purposes, they will not have another chance of doing so before 188601' 1887. I therefore trust that the Government will consent to the amount of th!3 proposed lo;:tn being increased' to £5,000,000. It· will not be necessary to borrow the whole amount at once. The Gover,nment can follow the example of the Berry Ministry in connexion with their '£5,000,000 loan. That loan w.as floated in two portions - first, £3,000,000, and ,then £2,000,000-and the arrangement was found to be most sati~factory, for the £2,000,000 brought a higher price than the £3,000,000 floated in the first instance. I had an interview with the Government Statist this morning, a.nd I obtained from him a return showing that the colony has already expended upwards of £39,000,000 on public works. The amount of our debt is about £22,500,000

and the difference between that sum and the £39,000,000-£16,500,000-is the amount which has been expended on public works out of the general revenue. In addition to this sum, £8,000,000 has been spent on public works by the local bodies, which added to the £16,500,000, makes a total of £24,500,000 expended out of the general revenue, or apart from loans, on public works in the colony. From a cal­culation I have made, I find that we are now being paid interest at the rate of 4 per cent. on something like £15,000,000 of the money which has been laid out on public works. That £15,000,000 conse­quently cannot be called debt, but the difference between it and the £22,500,000 -namely, the small sum of £7,500,000-represents the real debt of the colony. I am glad to see that such an important Bill as the one now before us is to be dealt with free from party, and with ,a view only to the future progress and interests of the country. I desire to repeat a suggestion which I made during the debate on the Budget, namely, that, after the conversion of the £8,000,000 of debentures, a sinking fund should be established for the purpose of paying off our indebtedness .. That principle is pro­vided for under the Local Government Act, in connexion with loans raised by municipal bodies, and it has worked well in connexion with those bodies, and also in other countries. I therefore strongly commend it to the consideration of the Government. I have been furnished with a calculation showing that a sum of £100,000, paid at the commencement of each year into a sinking fund, would, at 4 per cent. per annum~ accumulate' as fol­lows :-In 10 years, to £1,248,640; in 20 years, to £3,096,920; in 30 years, to £5,832,834 ; in 40 years, to £9,882,654 '; in 50 years, to £15,877,377; and in 58 years, to £22,700,000; or sufficient to payoff the whole of the present debt of the . colony.

Mr. R. M. SMITH.-Do you know what Sheridan said to Pitt about a sinking fund ,? "How can I pay you unless you lend me the money?"

Major SMITH.-I am not concerned with what Sheridan said. I dare say the honorable member for Boroondara will be glad to make a point against the establish­ment of a sinking fund, whether he is right or wrong. I submit that the scheme I suggest would be a good one. The money paid into the sinking fund would

384 Loan Bill. [AHSEMBLY.] Third Night's Debate.

be kept in the colony, distributed over various works, or invested in municipal debentures, and it would be a guarantee to the people who have lent us money that we were making provision to repay them. I know that some self-styled financial reuthorities prefer to go on bor­rowing and never paying. That, of course, is a fine thing for this generation, but not for the future of the country. I don't think that it is good for the country, any more than it is for individuals, to go on renewing bills perpetually. There must be some limit to that kind of thing, and I hope that the Government will see the propriety of providing for the establish­ment of a sinking fund ..

Mr. DEAKIN.-Sir, I don't think I would have troubled the House with any remarks but for the concluding observa­tions of the last speaker, for it seems to me that his arguments do not in the least meet those that have been offered in favour of floating at least a portion of the new loan in the colony. The honorable mem­ber seems, in fact, to be under the impres­sion that not offering colonial capitalists a. particular local investment for their money would compel them to employ it in other ways in the colony, such as in the promotion of its industries. But does not he know that money is like water, in so far that it will always find its own level, and will only be invested in Victoria when it can be made productive of at least the same amount of interest that is procurable elsewhere; and that when the point has been reached at which only less interest is obtainable the capital now here is bound to go elsewhere? Do not the banking returns inform us that at the present moment capital, if not being exported wholesale, is undoubtedly leaving the colony to find elsewhere the profitable investment it seems to fail to find here? How, then, can we expect to reduce the rate of interest here by not employing, in a particular way, money which if not so employed will leave the colony altogether? For my part, I greatly hope that a certain portion of the loan will be floated locally, in order that the interest we shall have to pay upon it may be kept among ourselves. I heard with regret some of the honorable members who support the Government speak to the effect that the amen'dment of the honorable member for North Melbourne (Mr. Munro) must necessarily be regarded as hostile to the Ministry, because I don't think that

view a justifiable one. Is it not evident that some of the honorable members who spoke in support of the amendment did so from no hostility to the Government? Indeed 'I may say that there is a strong desire in this part of the House (the op­position corner) to assist them as much as we can, and certainly to give them the fair play in carrying out their policy which has often been denied to previous Ministries. I feel sure that much of the support given to the amendment simply arose from a feeling that it would be wise for the House to consider well the con­dition of the colony, and what is best to be done for the development of its resources, before the proposals of the Government are absolutely sanctioned. Under these circumstances, I think the Government ought to give much calm consideration to some of the suggestions that have been thrown out to them. Has not nearly every honorable member who has devoted himself to finance-I allude to such hon­orable members as the honorable member for Belfast, the honorable member for Boroondara, the honorable member for Geelong (Mr. Berry), and the honorable member for Collingwood (Mr. Mirams)­expressed disapproval, to some extent, of some portion of the Ministerial proposi­tions? For my part, I cannot but concur in the remarks we have heard from dif­ferent quarters of the House, to the effect that the provision in the Bill for water supply for the country districts is alto­gether inadequate; and indeed I will go so far as to say that, had the schedule contained an item of £2,750,000 for water, and one of £3,000,000 for new railways, the ineasure would have been far more acceptable to honorable members and the country than it is. It seems to me that to make railways to some districts before they are supplied with water will be superfluous, if not ridiculous, and that a. better plan will be to construct them only to those parts of the colony where a spe­cial water supply is not needed. But I am against water supply works on any scale until the House has considered the whole question in all its bearings, and resolved upon the adoption of some consistent and systematic scheme in relation to the subject. But I need not dwell longer upon a topic that will come before us better when the Bill is in committee. As for new rail­ways, I beg to protest against any bor­rowing at the present moment of money that cannot possibly be expended for some

Water Supply. [OCTOBER 13.J Water Conservation Bill. 385

time to come. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that we shall soon want all the new lines the Minister of Railways intends to propose. I imagine that nearly every honorable member is in favour of a loan; but the amount to be borrowed, and the terms on which it ought to be raised, will have to be very seriously considered in committee, when I hope the Government will meet honorable members in the same spirit they themselves have been met during the present debate, that is to say, that the subject will be dealt with on all sides fully, fairly, and impartially, and without regard to party.

The amendment " That the Bill be read a second time this day six 'months" was negatived without a division, and the original motion was agreed to.

The Bill was then read a second time, and committed.

The preamble having been postponed, Sir J. O'SHANASSY asked when the

Bill for the conversion of the 6 per cent. debentures would be introduced?

Sir B. O'LOG HLEN replied that the Government' intended to press on in the first place with the Water Conservation Bill, the Railways Construction Bill, and the Land Acts Amendment Bill, but he hoped to be able to introduce the Bill the honorable member for Belfast alluded to in about a fortnight.

SirJ. O'SHANASSYinquired whether the Government would for the present deal further with the Loan Bill ?

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN stated that the Loan Bill would not be further proceeded with nntil the Railways and Water Con­servation Bills had been considered.

Progress was then reported.

WATER SUPPLY. LOA.NS.

The House having resolved itself into committee,

Mr. C. YOUNG moved-" That the estimate of the expenditure which

the Board of Land and Works proposes to incur during the year ending 30th June, 1882, under Act No. 608, 2nd schedule, be agreed to-

"Item lO.-Loans to municipalities and other corporations for water supply in country districts. Loan to the mayor,councillors, and bur-

gesses of the borough of Daylesford £6,000 Loan to the mayor, councillors, and

burgesses of the borough of Hamilton 3,000. Loan to the :president, councillors, and

ratepayers of the shire of Huntly ... 500 Loan to the mayor, councillors, and bur-

gesses of the borough of TarnaguUa 500

£10,000 SESe 1881.-2 D

He said the several sums would come out of the unexpended balance of the last water supply loan.

Mr. LAURENS asked whether the money would be expended strictly upon water supply works?

Mr. C. YOUNG replied in the affirma­tive.

The motion was agreed to. The resolution was then reported to the

House.

WATER CONSERVATION BILL. Mr. C. YOUNG moved the second

reading of this Bill. He said-Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt that there is in the House a general opinion in favour of water supply to the country districts of the colony being regarded in the light of' a necessity, and I think that there is also no doubt that, if the rainfall of the colony was properly conserved, it would be ample for the crops, for domestic requirements, and for all other purposes of the kind. Perhaps the rainfall of the last few years has not been quite so great as it usually was previously, but nevertheless the average supply from that source appears to be fully equal to the demands I allude to. What is wanted is some scheme by which the water now allowed to run to waste and escape to the sea shall be pre­vented from doing so, and so preserved as to be capable of application to irrigation, as well as to domestic and other uses. No one can go through certain parts of the country without contrasting in a very significant way the great sufferings' in dry seasons of many of the settlers on the land with the vast volumes of water that flow down the Goulburn, Loddon, and other rivers. The hon­orable member for West Bourke (Mr. Deakin) argued this evening that it would be proper for the House to adopt some general and comprehensive scheme in relation to water supply, but the Govern- . ment are of opinion that it is not at all necessary that that should be done. The prin,ciple of the Bill is that the various local bodies of the country who desire to avail themselves of the loan for water supply should devise water schemes for themselves, and submit them to the Government for approval. Local self­government has worked so well here that the Government desire to extend it fur­ther, and they think that that could not be done better than in connexion with water supply, because the situation, character,

386, Water Conservation Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Water Conservation Bill. "

and wants of each of the districts into which the colony is divided are necessarily, in the first place, often widely different, and, s~condly, best known to themselves. Certainly the waterworks hitherto con­structed by the Government have not, with one or two exceptions-notably that of the Yan Yean waterworks-been a very great success; and, this fact, coupled with other experience in the past, goes to show in a very strong way that the wisest plan the Government could adopt in carry­ing out water schemes in the future would be for them to associate themselves in the matter with the various local governing bodies who represent the ratepayers of the several districts concerned. So strongly is thi~ view held in some quarters that serious objections have been offered to the Governor in Council taking power, as is done under the Bill, to veto any particular scheme a local body might submit. It is thought, in fact, that the Government, having raised money for water supply purposes, ought to simply hand it over to the local bodies for them to spend it as they might think proper. But, surely, ideas of that sort are very much out of place, because, when the Government borrow the money on their own responsi­bility, and lend it to the municipalities at ~he lowest possible rate of interest, it is only fair ~nd rational that they should secure to themselves the power of seeing that it is expended judiciously-that is to say, upon works calculated to yield a re­turn for the money invested, and also of a character so substantial that the first heavy flood would not wash them away, No doubt some honorable members would very much like the Government to adopt a particular scheme of water supply, and make it a part of this Bill; but I beg to point out that there are many insuperable reasons against such a course. In the first place, it would be entirely inconsistent with constituting each local body con­cerned a party to the water scheme for its district, because, while one local body might be quite willing to accept the plan adopted by the Government,another might .have very strong objections to offer to ,some of its details as utterly unsuitable to its wants and peculiar character. At the same time, the Government will give the local bodies every information they have at their command with respect to suitable water schemes. For instance, there are ,the three or four schemes for different parts of the colony which Messrs. Gordon and

Mr. C. Young.

Black have prepared, and which, I believe, meet the approval of both the last two heads of the Water Supply department, namely, the honorable member for Man­durang (Mr. Williams) and the honorable member for Sandhurst (Mr. Clark). Moreover, when, about a week ago, I visited one of the localities for the benefit of which one of those schemes was devised} I found a universal feeling in favour of its adoption. I may also draw the atten­tion of honorable members to the highly successful way in which the local bodies of Ballarat have carried out a truly magni­ficent system of water supply, as a proof of the freedom with which we may rely upon other local bodies to take up the water question in a proper way, and with a proper spirit. But I feel that it is not at all necessary for me to enlarge upon this part of my subject. As for the necessity there is for taking up the water question, it is within my knowledge that, unless the selectors to the north of Sandhul'st soon obtain some sort of water supply, a large proportion of, them will be utterly unable not only to get anything like payable crops, but even to live on their farms. Why, at the present moment, summer not having even begun, they are carting water 8 or 9 miles. Again, I recently visited a dis­trict of West Bourke where I found the inhabitants wholly dependent for water for domestic use, and also for their stock, upon two small water-holes. Other in­stances of the sort are really too numerous to mention. Part 1 of the Bill relates to the mode of obtaining the appointment of waterworks trusts. It provides that when' any local body, or any number of associated local bodies jointly, desire to have waterworks constructed in their neighbourhood, they must cause to be pre­pared a general description of the water­works they have in view, an estimate of their cost, a complete plan of the lo~ality, and full particulars of the land and rate­able property in the district to be supplied with water. These plans and documents will have, in the first place, to be sub­mitted to the Governor in Council; and, secondly, to be exhibited in the shire hall or other principal hall or room of the municipality or each of the· municipalities concerned, so that they may be seen by everybody interested, and that, if anybody objects to anything in them, he may be able to communicate his objection in proper form to the Governor in Council.

Water Conservation Bill. [OCTOBER 13.J Water Conservation Bill. 387

If the construction of the waterworks ap­plied for is approved of-of course alter­ations may be required to be made in the plans, &c.-the Governor in Council may forthwith issue an order constituting a waterworks trust, and stating the amount that will be granted to it as a loan, the interest it will have to pay for the money, the limits to which its autho­rity will extend, and, generally, upon what the money may be expended. Part 2 of the Bill relates to the con­stitution of waterworks trusts, and pro­vides that each trust shall consist of one or two commissioners to be elected from time to time by each of the mUlllCl­palities concerned, with whom will be associated one commissioner to be ap­pointed by the Governor in Council. I may point out that the responsibility of carry­ing out each water scheme will rest with the trust connected with it, with this ex­ception, that in every case the plans will have to be approved of by the Government, who will also appoint an officer to super­intend the construction of the works, his certificate being required before any money ~an be paid for any portion of them. I think honorable members generally will approve of the latter arrangement, because, although in many cases what will have to be done will be of such a character that the engineering officials of the trust will be quite able to carry·it out, ill other instances the work to be constructed may be of considerable magnitude. For ex­ample, the key of a particular system might be, say, a weir over the Goulburn costing at least £12,000, the construction of which would demand not only the utmost care and. attention, but probably the exercise of greater engineering ability than is likely to be at the command of any trust, and it is only natural that, before a large amount of State money is expended upon any such work, the Government should insist upon having some guarantee that it will be of a substantial character and fitted to with­stand any possible flood. Part 3 pro­vides for the auditing of the accounts of every trust by an officer appointed by the Crown, and for the annual sub­mission . of them to the Minister of Water Supply. Part 4 is probably the most important portion of the Bill, for it deals with the "powers and duties of waterworks trusts, and persons within waterworks districts." Perhaps some honorable members may' regard these

powers as too extensive, but I think that, upon reflection, it will be recognised as impossible to carry out a water scheme of any great magnitude unless very large powers are given to those to whom the carrying out is intrusted. As a sample of what I am referring to, I will mention that clause 38 empowers a trust to enter upon any land described in its plans, and if necessary to appropriate it, and also to construct such work!:! as weirs, dams, drains, &c., ample provision being made that any person injured by any such pro­ceeding shall, first, be able to object to it,and, secondly, receive full compensation. For the latter purpose the Lands Compen­sation Statute will be incorporated with the Bill. Part 5 vests in each trust the various pieces of land taken up by it for its pur­poses, clause 49 providing that all its waterworks shall be exempted from mu­nicipal taxation, a not unfair arrange­ment when it is remembered that all the land occupied by a trust will be liable to be rated according to its value. An attempt was once made to rate the Bal-' larat waterworks at an amount altogether unfair, and I believe the effort will be repeated, but I venture to say the only result will be that the waterworks in question will be exempted altogether from rating. Part 6 relates to the loans and rating powers of trusts. It provides, in the first place, that loans made to a trust shall be secured by a mortgage on its works, clause 52 enabling the Board of Land and Works, in default of the pay­ment of the interest due to the Crown, to step in and levy in the same way as it can unde~ the existing Waterworks Statute, that is to say, to levy an annual rate not ex­ceeding 2s.in the £1 upon the water district until the demands of the State are satisfied. Clause 52 gives a waterworks trust power to levy rates upon all lands and tenements within its district, for the purpose of paying interest on its loan, maintaining its waterworks in an efficient state, and extending them as the Governor in Coun­cil may authorize. It is only reasonable that those who benefit by waterworks should contribute to pay interest on the money borrowed for their construction. In order that there should be perfect fair­ness in the transaction, clause 54 directs that the rate levied may be either uniform in amount on all the rateable property in .the district, or may vary in amount accord­ing to the valuation of the various rate~ able properties, or according to the be~efit

•

388 Water Conservation Bill. [AS SEMBL Y. ] Water Conservation Bill.

derived by the owner or occupier of the property rated. So far as I have gone, the Bill relates only to waterworks con­structed by local bodies formed into a waterworks trust. I now come to part 7, which relates to "power to confer cer­tain limited powers on private persons." It provides that any five or more persons may, under certain conditions, and subject to the consent of the Government, con­struct waterworks at their own expense. The fact is that it often happens in a muni­cipality that some part of it is peculiarly favorably situated for obtaining water for irrigation or domestic use, and that, at the same time, it is extremely unlikely that the local governing body will undertake the work-that is to say, undertake a small local scheme for the benefit of only a por­tion of its ratepayers, but on account of which it would have to mortgage its rates ,generally. This portion of the Bill is designed to enable the inhabitants of a municipality interested in such a scheme to undertake it themselves. They have to deposit plans and give all the informa­tion required under other portions of the measure, but by clause 71 the Governor in Council is restricted from extending to private persons constructing these water­works the large powers conferred on water trusts with regard to the vesting of Crown lands, the granting of loans, the levying of rates, the appropriation of penalties, or the power to take possession of land. Part 8 provides for pumping leases, enabling per­sons to erect centrifugal or other pumps on the bank of a river, so as to water 2,000 or 3,000 acres of land. This provision will be found extremely useful in several places along the Murray.

Mr. McCOLL. - People can erect pumps now.

Mr. C. YOUNG.-But they have no power to take the water across the shire roads. The Bill extends the 'limited powers at present existing. Part 9 con­sists chiefly of clauses which are neces­sary to render the measure workable, such as provisions to prevent the destruction' of works, the diversion of water, and the like. I have now given the substance of the measure, and I am very glad to find that the House recognises that the demand of the country districts for water must be met, and that the principal fault found wi th the Loan B ill has been that the amount proposed to be borrowed for water supply purposes is not sufficient. I see lio objection myself to power being taken

to increase the amount to be lent to local bodies to £500,000, if the House thinks that £300,000 is not sufficient; but it will be admitted that £300,000 is a tolerably large sum to begin with. The best se­curity we shall have for the proper and successful expenditure of the money will be the fact that the persons borrowing it will have to pay interest on it, which will render them cautious not to enter on works unless they are pretty certain to be of a reproductive and beneficial character. I w.ould also point out that the expenditure of £100,000 under this measure in the flat districts-what may be called the dry northern area,s-will go very much further than a similar expenditure in hilly country, in which our principal waterworks have hitherto been constructed. Of course, I am not now speaking of gigantic affairs with ships sailing on them, but of works such as those approved of by Messrs. Gordon and Black. For instance, there. is the Goulburn scheme, or the Loddon scheme, in which the construction of weirs can be carried out at comparatively small expense; £750 is, I believe, the amount estimated for the Loddon weir. The principal thing re­quired is to get the water up over the river bank by means of a weir, and then it can be conducted with ease over the plains. The experiment has been successfully tried in the Wimmera district, where a magnificent weir leads the water over the plains for a distance of 30 or 40 miles, at a very light expense, the natural water­courses being taken advantage of. I have only to say, however, that if a larger sum than £300,000 is required, it will be cheerfully devoted by the Government to the purpose of water supply, because they recognise that the se~ectors - the most hard-working class of the population and those who deserve the most consideration -must either be supplied with water, or else they will be compelled to sell their land for whatever they can get for it. In con­clusion, I trust honorable members will recognise the urgency of the matter, and, while duly criticising the Bill, will not long delay its passing into law, so that the selectors may be able to take advantage of the benefits it will confer on them.

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN.-Mr. Speaker, after the clear and practical way in which the Minister of Water Supply has explained this measure, I should not think of troubling the House with any observations, but that there are a few legal matters involved in the Bill which

Water Conservation Bill. [OCTOBER 13. J Wate,. (lonservation Bill. aS9

I wish to touch upon for the assistance of honorable members, who will no doubt examine the measure thoroughly between this and Tuesday, when the Government wish to proceed with it. ,The Bill may be considered as divided broadly into two parts. The first part refers to waterworks trusts, and, in fact, it may be said that this is a general Bill, conferring on the, Governor in Council power to pass'private Bills applying to specific districts, instead of compelling every waterworks trust to come to Parliament for a private Act.

SirJ.O'SHANASSY.-That is entirely unconstitutional.

SirB. O'LOGHLEN.-The House will see that if the promoters of every small scheme required in this colony had to come to Parliament for a private Act, it would take ten, twenty, or thirty years before the colony could have the advan­tages of water supply. Every precaution is taken in the Bill to protect the rights of third parties. Under the measure, municipal bodies requiring waterworks can form trusts for the construction of such works, but it will be seen by sub-clam,e b of clause 14 that the Governor in Council, in every order approving the construction of any proposed waterworks-

'I Shall proclaim the limits of the lands, whe­ther within or without the municipal districts of the council or councils applying for the pro­posed waterworks, within which such trust shall have authority to be called a waterworks dis­trict."

So that the waterworks districts will not be coterminous with the municipal dis­tricts, and the trust will only have juris­diction in the district so allotted to it. If the waterworks district is comprised wholly within one municipal district, the trust will be composed of the members of the local council, together with one com­missioner representing the Government; and if it extends over more than one municipal district, it will consist of repre­sentat.ives of the councils of the munici­palities affected, together with one repre­sentative of the Gover'nment. Power is

,given to the trust of a waterworks dis'trict to enter upon private lands, but it will have to make compensation to the owner of the land, and it is liable for any damage caused. The security which the Govern­ment will have for any money they may advance to these bodies will be a mortgage on the waterworks of the trust and on the rates. By clause 52, if the interest on the loan is not paid, the Board of Land

SES. 1881.-2 E

and Works will have power to levy a rate not exceeding 2s. in the £1 for the payment of the interest and the expenses incidental to the maintenance and management of the works. The money is to be loaned out to the trusts at ~ per cent. more than the Government pay for it,' 80

that if the Government borrow at 4 per cent. they will charge the trusts 4§ per cent., the additional ! per cent. going to cover the' expenses connected with the administration of the Act. The second portion of the Bill (part 7) relates to associated individuals-what might be called, in fact, water companies, or water co-partnerships. Five or more owners or occnpiers of land may join together, with the permission of the municipal council, for the purpose of carrying out a scheme, and these companies may receive from the Governor in Council certain limited powers. They will be enabled to enter upon lands in order to take the water over them, but they will have no power to take possession of or appropriate land except so much as may be necessary for a channel, and in all cases they will have to make full compensation. Moreover, the Governor in Council may at any time restrict, modify, or revoke any of their powers, so that they will be entirely under the control of the Governor in Council. Clause 75 provides power to grant pumping leases. At present there is only power to grant a licence, and there is a great difficulty as to whether a licence can be grauted within a tempo­rary or permanent reserve along the bank of a river. The clause gives the Gover­nor in Council power t.o gl:ant a lease for an area not exceeding three acres, at a rent of not less than £5 per annum, for the purpose of erect.ing pumping machinery. With regard to the miscellaneous clauses of the Bill, I may remind honorab~e members that in the Land Act 1869, and several successive Land Acts, there it'! a provision preventing the owners of private lands from diverting any water or stream that may flow through their land. By the 79th clause of this Bill, however, it is provided that any order of the Governor in Council, approving of the construction of any waterworks, will enable the water trust or company, of land-holders to divert such streams as far as the Governor in Council may approve. Again, under the Land Act 1869, there is no power to grant licences for races for water supply ,purposes, although there is power to grant

390 Controverted Elections [COUNCIL.] (Council) Bill.

thelil for mill purposes, and the 80th clause of the Bill proposes to give power to the persons authorized to construct waterworks to obtain licences and cut races over Crown lands. In fact, every conceivable matter connected with the subject has been, dealt with' in the Bill, and the legal difficulties that may arise have been attended to. It has been objected that the measure is uncon­stitutional, but I have shown honorable, members that it is nec~ssaryto have a gene­ral Act on this subject, just as the Lands Compensation Statute is a general Act dealing with the rights of parties affected by Railway Acts and other measures for the construction of public works.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-The Governor in Council is not in any of those Acts.

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN.-The Governor in Council is simply the machinery by which this measure is to be brought into play. It may be said that there is no necessity for this Bill, as we have already an Act relating to the construction of waterworks by local bodies. No doubt we have, but it is not an Act which em­braces the whole question, as this Bill does. The existing Act can remain in operation­it works of itself as far as it goes-but the measure now proposed will be the general Act on which future waterworks trusts or companies will be founded. No doubt the measure is merely a framework, and will be capable of improvement from time to time; but it is necessary to start with some prac­tical general system under which all the waterworks trusts will be able to work.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY moved the ad­journment of the debate.

Major SMITH suggested that, before the Bill was read a second time, at least a week should be given to the local bodies to consider its provisions, as they were vitally interested in the matter.

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN observed that the Bill had been circulated since Tuesday morning, and a summary of it was published in the press on that day. He would point out that the Bill did not in any way affect the rights of local bodies, but conferred additional powers and privileges on them, which they would be at liberty to accept or reject. He had no objection to the adjourn­ment of the debate, and he had given instructions for the circulation of the Bill among the local bodies, but the Government would have to press on the discussion of the Bill on Tuesday. The debate might last three or four nights, which, owing to the time allottod to private members' business,

really meant nearly a fortnight, and there would thus be ample time for the local bodies to offer objections to the Bill if any, of them were disposed to do so.. .

Mr. RICHARDSON remarked that in Messrs. Gordon and Black's schemes" mai~ drains" and "secQndary drains, " were referred to, and he desired to know. wliether the estiD;lates of cost given included the secondary drains? , ' , .

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN said that Messrs. Gordon and Black's plans were not con­nectedwith the Bill, beyond the fact, that they might be adopted by the local bodies; but, he had no doubt, the Minister of Water Supply would take an opportunity of furnish­ing the honorable member for Creswick (Mr. Richardson) with the information he desired.

Mr. GILLIES inquired whether it was contemplated by the Government to carry out Messrs. Gordon and Black's schemes?

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN replied in the negative.

The motion for the adjournment of the debate was agreed to, and the debate was adjourned until Tuesday, October 18.

The House adjourned at two minutes past eleven o'clock, until Tuesday, October 18.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Tuesday, October 18, 1881.

Assent to Bill-Con~roTerted Elections (Council) Bill-Land­lord and Tenant Bill-Library, Museums, a.nd Na.tional Gallery Act Amendment Bill.

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

ASSENT TO BILL. The Hon. F. S. DOBSON presented a

message from the Governor, intimating that, at Government House, that day, His Excellency gave his assent to the Loan Application Bill.

PETITION. A petition was presented by the Hon.

J. GRAHAM, from the Bishop of Melbourne, acting on behalf of the clergy and laity of the Church of England in Victoria, in favour of the Church Property Trustees Bill.

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS (COUNCIL) BILL.

The Hon. W. E. HEARN moved· the second reading of this Bill. He said the measure had already been twice before the

Landiord and [OCTOBER 18. J Tenant lJiU. 391

House, and passed by it, after reCeIvmg very great consideration, with the result that it had assumed its present form. He

. imagined that the prospect of the Council soon obtaining a large addition to its num­bers made it more desirable than ever to attempt to secure the adoption of the prin­ciple it was now sought to establish, and which he hoped would be deemed by the country generally as acceptable as it had already proved to be to the House. That principle was that matters relating to con­troverted elections should be decided by a properly constituted tribunal, such as the Supreme Oourt, rather than by an irregular lay tribunal, such as the Elections and Qualifications Committee. At present, the Bill was limited strictly to controverted elections for the Oouncil, but, if it was ever thought desirable to make it equally appli­cable to both Chambers, a very slight alter­ation of its terms would meet the case. Honorable members had ample experience of the injustice of the existing system with relation to disputed elections, and he be­lieved that giving jurisdiction with respect to them to the Supreme Court would prove an effectual remedy. .

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

and passed through committee without amendment.

LANDLORD AND TENANT BILL. The debate on the Hon. W. E. Hearn's

motion for the second reading of the Land­lord and Tenant Bill (adjourned from Tues­day, October 11) was resumed.

The Hon. H. OUTHBERT said-Mr. President, on Tuesday last, when the honor­able member who introduced this Bill to the House fully explained its provisions and the objects to be accomplished by it, he made it perfectly clear that it proposes some very great and serious alterations in the law of landlord and tenant. Of course, it is for the Council to decide how far they will entertain the question, but for the present I will invite them to consider whether the landlord and tenant system which has been in force in the colony for so many years has not upon the whole worked well. At the same time, whatever decision honorable mem­bers may come to in the matter, there can be no doubt of the ability and industry my honorable friend, Dr. Hearn, has devoted to the subject. He very properly told us that in these later days-in this .very practical age-the law relating to landlord and tenant ought to be founded not on the principle

2E2

that prevailed in the old feudal times, namely, service, but on contract, and, as I under­stand the Bill, he proposes to carry out that view by abolishing distress for rent. That will be a very important alteration of the law. The system of distress for rent is one that has existed for many centuries. It was formerly exercised in a most arbitrary, unjust, and tyrannical way by the barons of old and their successors; but what has been the consequence? That Parliament has, from time to time, so interfered to prevent landlords from acting in such a manner that I think it may be said now that the object has been altogether 'accomplished. I consider that the existing law protects the tenant so thoroughly that it is almost im­possible for his landlord to do him injustice by the exercise of the right of distress. But my honorable friend will say-" If you ad­mit that the law of contract should prevail between landlord and tenant, why should the landlord be placed in a better position with regard to his tenant than the butcher or baker ?" Well, I think there are differ­ences between the relations of a man with his landlord and those of a man with his butcher and baker that call for distinction. For example, his contract with his butcher or baker is terminable at a moment's notice, but it is not so with his landlord. The owner of a farm, desirous of a good tenant, often finds it necessary to let his property for a period extending over several years, and, generally speaking, if he desires to serve his tenant, he makes his rent payable after harvest. I know many landlords who never think of calling upon their tenants for their rent until after harvest. The result is that the tenant has the enjoyment of the property rented for about twelve months before he pays rent for it, while the land­lord feels safe because he is protected by the right of distress. That being so, and the arrangement being thoroughly beneficial to both parties, will it be judicious or wise for the House to interfere and alter the law? If it could be shown that the landlords of the colony act in an unfair way towards their tenants-that they exercise tile right of distress in a harsh and unjust manner­no doubt a case could be immediately set up in favour of depriving them of the privi­lege, but there has been no attempt to de­monstrate anything of the kind. Instances in which the right of distress is abused are extremely rare in this colony, and for very good reasons. One is the complete· way in which a tenant is surrounded by safeguards against injustice on the part of

392 Landlord a'lld [COUNOIL.j Tenant Bilt.

his landlord. If the latter attempts to touch his tenant's property before his rent is due, what is the effect? That, having committed a wrongful act, he is liable to pay for it. On the other hand, if he makes an excessive levy, he is again answerable to his tenant. Further, the costs allowed to a landlord, when he exercises his right of entry, are so low as to place him at a very great disadvantage. He must remain five days in possession, and the amount allowed by law to those he employs in the business is fixed at no higher than 4s. per day per man. Here i,s another discouragement and drawback to him in resorting to his great remedy. The consequence is that he is almost invariably very slow to distmin except on an emergency-when he feels compelled for his own protection to do so. Under these circumstances, would it not be excessive legislation on our part to abolish the right of distress, simply because we admit that the relation of landlord and tenant ought to be one based on contract? For myself, I think that, in the interests of the tenant, the right of distress should remain as it is. If it were abolished, the tenant would undoubtedly suffer, because what, under such circumstances, would the nature of a tenancy probably be?' One of from week to week or month to month. Moreover, the landlord, when the right of distress was taken away from him, would probably insist upon his rent being payable in advance. VV ould a state of things of that sort be advantageous to the colony? Then the abolition of the right of distress contemplated in the Bill would not apply only to leases issued after the passing of the measure into law. Clause 43 lays it down that-" After the passing of this Act no distress for rent shall be made." Would not that be, in effect, retrospective legis­lation of a most decided kind-a most improper interference with the rights of landlords who have given leases for long tirms, perhaps with the stipulation that their tenants need pay rent only once a year? Then as to placing the landlord in the same position with relation to his tenant as the butcher 01' baker. In the first place, such an arrangement is simply impossible. Take the case of a tenant whose rent is payable half-yearly. vVhatever his position might be, until his rent fell one month in arrear his landlord would be unable, under the terms of the Bill, to do anything against him. His butcher or baker could go to the local police-court, get a judgment against him for what he owed him, and

Ron. H. Cuthbert.

sweep away all his property, while his landlord could only look on and do nothing. So far, then, the Bill would place land­lords in a thoroughly false position. I think if my honorable friend had, in place of seeking to repeal the whole of the exist­ing law relating to landlord and tenant, simply confined his attention to the amend­ment of that law in certain directions which he has embodied in several clauses-very valuable ones-of his measure, he would have done very much better, and, certainly, he would have gained me as a supporter of his propositions. For example, there is clause 18, which is drawn up in accordance with the most recent decisions on the sub­ject it refers to, namely, the right to fixtures of an improving tenant. That is a matter which has given rise to innumerable dis­putes, but under the clause, which is framed in favour of the improving tenant, the law would be rendered perfectly clear. The clause is as follows :-

"Where personal chattels, engines, and ma­chinery, and buildings accessorial thereto are erected and affixed to the freehold by the tenant at his sole expense, for any purpose of trade, manufacture, or agriculture, or for ornament, or for the domestic convenience of the tenant in his occupation of the demised premises, if they be so attached to the freehold that they can be removed without substantial damage to the freehold or to the fixture itself, and if they have not been so erected or affixed in pur­suance of any obliga.tion or in violation of any agreement in that behalf, and if the contract of tenancy do not otherwise specially provide, such matters and things as aforesaid may be removed by the tenant or his executors or administra­tors during the tenancy, or, when the tenancy determines by some uncertain event, and with­out the act or default of the tenant, within two months after such determination: Provided that the landlord shall be entitled to reasonable com­pensation for any damage occasioned to the premises by such removal." I assert that that clause ought to be found in our existing law .. Then there is clause 20, relating to sub-letting. Under the pre­sent law, where the landlord consents to sub-letting, the sub-tenant is liable not only to the tenant, but, under certain circum­stances, to the landlord as well; whereas under the clause he could under no circum­stances be held liable for more than was actually due from him-for what he, in fact, agreed with the consent of the landlord to pay. Clause 33, which relates to the pre­vention of waste by a tenant, is an equally advantageous amendment of the law, be­cause it is framed to remove what has often been found a· source of hardshjp, namely, t~e difficulty landlords have in obtaining, under particular circumstances, redress

Landlord and [OCTOBER 18.] Tenant Bill. 393

against a tenant. Fora long time it· has been almost impossible for a landlord to take steps to prevent his tenant from committing waste or injury, say by cutting down trees, and so on. His only plan was to obtain an injunction from the Supreme Court, a very expensive proceeding, whereas the clause would enable him, upon the production of proper affidavits in support of the applica­tion, to obtain an injunction from a justice of the peace. In that way a tenant could, without mucp. trouble or expense, be promptly restrained from injuring his landlord's pro­perty. Clause 38-" destruction of subject of the lease to determine tenancy" -is another good clause. Many persons lease a house for twelve months, and agree to keep it in repair, without realizing what their liability is. Supposing the place were accidentally destroyed by fire during the period of the lease, the tenant would not only be liable for the rent but for the restora~ tion of the premises. This clause, however, provides that where there is no special agreement about keeping the premises in repair, if the property is destroyed by fire or other accident, the tenant, on paying up all arrears of rent, may give up his lease, and the landlord is bound to accept it. I think that is a fair and just provision towards both parties .. Clauses 39 and 40, relating to covenants implied on behalf of the land­lord and tenant respectively in every lease unless express provision is made to the con­trary, are also useful clauses which will tend to shorten .the instruments very much. I have pointed out the clauses which commend themselves to my mind, and I trust the House will give them some consideration, because I believe' that if the Bill is altered so as merely to amend the existing law the country will be much benefited by it.

The Hon. F. S. DOBSON.-Sir, I re­gret that I am not able to support this Bill even to the extent that Mr. Cuthbert has expressed his approval of it. My reasons, however, for not being able to support the measure do not so much depend on the sub­ject-matter of it as upon the state of politi­cal business at the present moment. The House will remember that the Premier, in his speech at Lancefield announcing the programme which the Government intended to carry out, mentioned a large number of measures to be dealt with. Many of those are' matters of great urgency, and, as the Government have a full knowledge that it will be impossible to deal with even all those questions during the present session, they <-19 not'intend to go beyond their programme.

The question which has been brought for. ward by Dr. Hearn is not one which can be disposed of in an hour or two's debate. To deal with it will require a whole review of the present law of landlord and tenant, em· bracing questions that have elicited very grave discussion in modern times., J\fr. Cuthbert has referred, for instance, to the proposed abolition of the well-known remedy of distress for rent, which is often supposed by those who have not very deeply consi. dered the subject to be all in favour of the landlord. Many writers, however, have pointed out that, owing to the existence of that remedy, landlords are able to give much better terms to their tenants-and, at the same time, feel themselves perfectly secure­than they would be able to do were this some· what summary remedy taken away from them. Again, the peculiar legislation which this measure seeks to introduce was meant to meet special circumstances, the greater part of the Bill being a copy of an Act passed in England for the express purpose of amending the law of landlord and tenant in Ireland. We know, however, that the question of landlord and tenant in Ireland has never been discussed in a quiet philo­sophical spirit, and at the present moment it is almost creating a civil war between England and Ireland. I do not think it would be wise for us to hastily adopt legis. lation which was found necessary to pacify the turbulent spirits among the tenantry of Ireland, when the tenants, in this colony are apparently themselves quite satisfied with the law as it at present exists. It seems to me that it is no part of the duty of a second Chamber to initiate legislation for which there is no demand outside. No doubt; the fact of making the. law of land. lord and tenant rest upon contract, and not upon tenure or service, would assist in faci­litating the codification of the law which Dr. Hearn is anxious to bring about; but for the sake of that theoretical advantage I hardly think it is desirable for the Legislative Council to rush into a breach where it is said there is no breach, to stop a gap where no gap has been demonstrated to exist, and to suggest what might improve the con· dition of tenants when the tenants them­selves have not been aware of having any grievance. I confess that, owing to the pressure of public business, I have not been able to give this subject the attention so grave a matter would ne~essarily require; but I would point out that one or two clauses which have met with the approba­tion of 1\11'., OuthbElrt fleem objectionabl~\

394 Landlord and [COUNCIL.] Tenant Bill.

One is that which deals with the case of ~ present form would meet with the active the subject-matter of the tenancy being hostility of the Government, some of its destroyed during the currency of the lease. clauses would,under other circumstances, At present, both landlord and tenant take receive their approbation; but I can hold good care to protect their respective inte- out no hope of the measure, even in a modi­rests by covenants on one side and the fied form, being got through the Assembly other. If the tenant wishes to preserve during the present session. himself from the payment of rent during Dr. HEARN.-Perhaps the House will any part of the time that premises de- allow me to make a very few remarks in stroyed by fire are being restored, he is at reply to the observations of Dr. Dobson. perfect liberty to do so; but, of course, in The PRESIDENT.- The honorable such a case there must be a quid pro member is not entitled to reply on an quo, and the landlord, of course, requires order of the day which he himself has a higher rent. These are matters which moved. I cannot allow him to do so, as it can safely be left to the parties themselves. would be contrary to the rules of Parlia­By the 38th clause of the Bill, however, in ment. case of a fire accidentally destroying the The Hon. J. BALFOUR.-I would have premises, the tenancy would be absolutely made some remarks on the subject of the Bill at an end, even though the lease might -much on the same lines as the observations have twenty years to run. I submit that of Mr. Outhbert and Dr. Dobson-but that such a clause' would be most unfair to the I understood from the course of the debate landlord, and often even to the tenant. that, probably, there would be no desire to Take, for instance, the case of that much- proceed further with the measure this ses­abused individual, the absentee landlord. sion than to read it a second time, and Suppose a gentleman, after letting a large commit it pro forma. place to a respectable tenant for a long The Hon. J. BUOHANAN.-I think, term, leaves the colony, and shortly after- after the remarks that have fallen from two wards a flash of lightning destroys the pre- legal members of the House with regard to mises. Is it fair that such an occurrence the Bill, it might, perhaps, be a little should absolutely determine the tenancy? dangerous to accept it as we have received Such a provision would introduce a state of it from Dr. Hearn, but, considering the uncertainty which would be extremely un- great amount of attention he has given to desirable, either for landlord or tenant. the measure, I think it would be very dis­Anyone acquainted with the hiring of a courteous to him not to allow it to be read house in Melbourne is aware that, in the a second time. The law of landlord and usual printed forms of lease, there is a tenant is in a very confused state, especially provision that, in case of accidental destruc- with regard to the question of distress, and, tion of the premises by fire, the rent shall if we can simplify it, it will be well worth abate until the premises are put into a habit- the time of the House to do so. I shall able state again; and that, if they are not vote, at all events:, for the second reading repaired within a certain time, the tenant of the Bill. has the option of declaring off the contract The Hon. J. MAOBAIN.-I have no altogether. That seems a reasonable and objection at all to the Bill being read a business-like arrangement. It might be second time-while I do not commit myself against even the tenant's interest to termi- to its principles-'-providing that the honor­nate the lease; yet under this Bill a able member who has charge of it will be new lease would have to be entered upon, content with its only going into committee and, rents perhaps having gone up since pro f01·ma. A number of people have the original lease was drawn out, the land- expressed to me their disapproval of the lord might insist on an .increase of rent. measure. One authority informed me that In my opinion, this clause is highly unde- it was simply an adaptation of the Irish sirable. I agree with Mr. Outhbert that law of landlord and, tenant, and there has the 18th clause, relating to fixtures, is a been no satisfactory reason given why that good one. But, as I said before, I am not law should be introduced into this colony. in a position to go through the clauses of The Bill is, in fact, simply commencing, an the Bill seriatim, and I trust, after what I agitation in this Ohamber on the question have said about the state of public business, of landlord and tenant, while outside Par­Dr. Hearn will see that nothing will be liament there is no agitation on the subject gained by proceeding further with it than at all. Now I do not think the Legislative the second reading. While the Bill in its Oouncil should commence such an agitation,

Hon. F. S. Dobson.

Landlord and [OCTOBER 18.] Tenant Bill~ 395

Qnd I may tell the honorable member (Dr. Hearn) candidlY' that I have no particular desire to transfer the landlord and tenant law of Ireland to Victoria, especially as I am not 'aware that the tenants of this c<;>lony wish for such an alteration of the law as this measure seeks to' bring about. Of course it is very unpleasant to a tenant when a distraint is made upon him for rent, but the clause of this Bill which is sub­stituted for the remedy of distraint would, in my opinion, place the tenant in a much worse position than he is in at present. We know what distraint is, but we have not been a.ccustomed to ejectment absolutely­to men being ejected from house and home within a very short period. The whole question is a very large one, and, until a public necessity is shown to exist for an alteration of the law, I think Parliament should be very chary of accepting a radical change like that proposed in the Bill. I notice that the 40th clause, which gives a list of covenants implied on behalf of the tenant, commences as follows:-

"Every lease of lands or tenements made after the commencement of this Act shall (un­less otherwise expressly provided by such lease) iD?-Ply the following agreements on the part of the tenant for the time being, his heirs, execu­tors, administrators, and assigns, with the land­lord thereof."

From the words "unless otherwise ex­pressly provided" it would appear that the ~hole ordinary law of leasing can be set aside by a contract entered into by the land­lord and tenant; but, jf that is the case, what is the necessity for altering the exist­ing law? I have never heard any objections from landlords as to the existing law, and I feel satisfied, as I have said, that the tenants in this colony are in a better posi­tion now than they would be in under this measure.

The motion. for the second reading of the Bill was agreed to, and the Bill was read a second time.

On the question that the Bill be com­mitted,

Dr. HEARN said-I wish to take the .opportunity of saying a few words in reply to the observations of honorable members ,on the Bill. As I have explained before, the Bill consists of two parts. One of them is simply a transcript of an Imperial Act, and the other is a proposition for the aboli­. tion of distress, which has been made by myself without the sanction of such an au­thority, but which has beeil borne out by the opinion of many writers and thinkers on the . subject, and also by a recent resolution of

the House of Commons. It would appear, however, th~t the public mind in this colony ~s not yet prepared to accept that proposi­tion, a\ld I have not the least desire to force it upon the public mind. The time, I con­ceive, will come when it will be accepted, and I am perfectly content to wait till then. If both landlords and tenants are content for the present with the existing state of things, I, for my part, am perfectly content also, and therefore I have not the least ob­jection to give up that part of the Bill which -relates to distress, at least for the present. But in the main part of the Bill I have a special interest, and I hope to enlist the support and sympathy. of the House in regard to it. Now that we have some prospect of obtain­ing, before many months, something like a general code of law, we must really be prepared to consider some of those practical difficultfes which arise in relation to the form of the law, especially in the matter of real property. We have substantially assi­milated the law of real property to that of personal property, but we have not made all. the consequential changes which it was necessary to make. While we have removed the foundations of the law, we have not cleared away all the relics of the elder system. It is a matter of very considerable importance, for instance, whether we are to declare that the law of landlord and tenant shall be merely the law of contract between party and party, or whether it is to continue under the old law as based upon tenure. I believe that in this country it is absolutely necessary to say that the law of landlord and tenant should be simply a contract, like a contract on any other subject. If we arrive at that decision, then, of course, in a contract between party and party, you have to state certain implications of law, because, in the event of the parties not expressing themselves distinctly as to what they desire, the law has to interpose and say what was to be understood. These implications of law, however, can always be altered by the express declaration of the parties. I think this explanation will show the reason of the words in clause 40, which appeared rather to startle Mr. MacBain. But it is very neces­sary, in the first instanqe, that we should declare on what basis the law of landlord and tenant shall rest. If it is to rest on the re­lation of contract, then certain consequences follow, but if on tenure or services certain quite different consequences ensue. It is absolutely necessary, for my guidance in the work I am doing, that I should have a dis­tinct expression of the opinion of the House

396 Landlord and [COUNCIL.] Tenant Bill.

as to the nature of the relationship between landlord and tenant, because such an indi­cation is required in any attempt to reduce the present complicated law into anything like a~ system. Of course, I regret that we are not to have the sympathy and support of the Government in this matter, but I do not conceive that this House is bound by any declarations at Lancefield or any other place. I conceive it is doing its duty to the country if it quietly-as it has time to do­considers a difficult and very important question of law with the view of getting rid of the complexities which at present exist. Even if' it be not possible to carry the Bill into law during the present session, I do not· think the time of the House will be wasted by carefully going through it in com­mittee. I would therefore ask the House to go into committee on the Bill, and to let it take its chance. of becoming law. If it fails to do so, the responsibility of failure will not rest upon us; and, as I have said before, I am quite content to strike out those clauses which do not appear to com­mend themselves to the better judgment of honorable members who have had more practical experience in the matter than I have had.

Dr. DOBSON.-I am sorry that I must oppose the committal of the Bill. It appears from the honorable member's (Dr. Hearn's) own showing that he wishes to convert this House into a sort of debating society. He appears to think that it is the duty of the second Chamber to discuss points which may afterwards be brought forward as the subject-matter of practical' legislation. I absolutely dissent from such a view. We are not here to discuss theories which may be more or less sound. Weare here as practical men to deal with the prac­tical legislative wants of the country, and not to speculate-and to set others specu­lating-as to whether theoretically it is desirable that the law of landlord and tenant should be based on contract rather than tenure. That may suit a debating society, but it is not desirable, I submit, for the members of this House, until ques­tions are brought practically before th~m, to suggest difficulties in the existing law of the country. It is time enough for us in the performance of our functions, as a chamber of review rather than of initiation, to deal with intricate questions of this kind, which are only of philosophic interest,' when they are brought before us in the usual way. To call upon the House to adopt a philosophical theory of this sort, which Can

have no practical effect on the law, at any rate this session, is to place it, I will not say in a ridiculous, but at least in a some­what questionable position. We have fre­quently heard the question asked in this House in regard to measures sent up from another place~" Who demands this?" and' I might certainly ask who is demanding the change proposed by the honorable mem­ber who has introduced this Bill? When I assure the House that there is no possi­bility of the Bill becoming law this session, I will ask them whether, in the absence of any request for the measure from a single individual in the country except the honor­able member himself, who tells us it will dovetail in with some philosophical treatise on which he is engaged, they are prepared to proceed further with the Bill this session? For these reasons, I feel bound to oppose the Bill being committed. .

The Hon. J. A. W ALLACE.-I hope that the House will not go into committee on the Bill. I have heard a great many persons outside the House express opinions against the measure, and several have asked me to oppose it. I have not hea'rd a single individual outside speak in favour of it. No doubt, Dr. Hearn has devoted a great deal of time to the pr~paration of the Bill, and that is the reason why I did not object to the second reading; but I think the honorable member would do well to with­draw the measure. The pE;lople are perfectly satisfied with the present law relating to landlords and tenants.

The Hon. J. GRAHAM.-I also have heard an expression of opinion in reference to this Bill from many persons outside the House, and it has invariably been in oppo­sition to the measure. There is no demand for an alteration in the law relating to landlords and tenants. Everything goes on quietly and satisfactorily under the pre­sent law, and to pass the Bill will simply be to raise trouble in the future. The pro­posed abolition of distress for non-payment of rent is specially objected to. To do away with the easy mode of enforcing payment of rent by distraint will render necessary the employment of solicitors, and will cause delay, litigation, and expense. I join with other honorable members in asking Dr. Hearn to withdraw the Bill.

The Hon. T .• J. SUMNER.-I voted for the second reading of the Bill as a com­pliment to Dr. Hearn for the indefatigable energy and zeal which he has displayed in the preparation of this and other measures that he has s~bmitted to the House; bqt,

Victoria Racing Club Bill. [OCTOBER 18. ] Railway Department. 397

knowing as I do a great deal about tenan­cies in this country, though I am not a landlord, I feel perfectly sure that there is not the least necessity for a measure of this kind to regulate the relations between land­lords and tenants. Such a Bill may become necessary at som~ future period, but when the necessity arises will be time enough to deal with the measure. To interfere in this colony at the present time with the relations between landlords and tenants, when the subject is causing such agitation in Irel~nd and other countries, would simply serve the purpose of those discontented democrats who desire something to "spout" about.

The question "That the Bill be com­mitted" was put and negatived.

LIBRARY, MUSEUMS, AND NATIONAL GALLERY ACT

AMENDMENT BILL. On the motion of the Hon. F. S. DOB­

SON, this Bill was read, a third time and passed.

The House adjourned at six o'clock, until Tuesday, October 25.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. Tuesday, October 18, 1881.

Victoria Racing Club Bill-Assent to Bill-Forests Bill­Railway Department: Cattle Trucks: Land Required for Ra.ilways-Geelong Water Supply: Stony Creek Reservoir -Booroopki: Publicans'Licences-Postal Department: Promotions-Royal Commission on Education-Disease in Vines-Diamond Drills-Water Supply: Loans to Local Bodies-Water Conservation Bill: Second Reading: First Night's Debate-Library, Museums, and National Gallery Act Amendment Bill-Importation and Examination of Tea Bill.

The SPEAKER took the chair at half-past four o'clock p.m.

VICTORIA RACING CLUB BILL. Mr. R. M. SMITH brought up the report

from the select committee on this Bill. The report was laid on the table.

ASSENT TO BILL. Sir B. O'LOG HLEN presented a mes­

sage from the Governor, intimating that, at Government House, that day, His Excel­lency,gave his assent to the Loan Applica­tion Bill.

FORESTS BILL. Mr. C. YOUNG presented a message

from the Governor, recommending that an approp~'iation be m~de of royalties, fees, and

penalties for the purposes of a Bill to pro­vide for the care, management, and control of the forests of Victoria.

The message was ordered to be taken into consideration next day.

RAILWAY DEPARTMENT. Mr. McLEAN asked the Minister of

Railways if, in view of the great losses sustained by stock-owners through defective rolling-stock on the State railways, he would consider the desirability of effecting the following improvements in cattle trucks :-1. The substitution of proper screws for chain couplings. 2. The padding of trucks by means of leather bands, about 18 inches wide, padded with straw or other suitable material, and placed at a sufficient height to prevent cattle being bruised and injured, as at present,' against the hard side of the trucks. 3. The division of trucks by means of flat iron rails. And also if he would issue such instructions as would prevent unneces­sary delay, at intermediate stations, between the time of trucking and delivery of stock, and likewise prevent unnecessary jolting in stopping and setting trains in motion? The honorable member said that the division of trucks into two compartments would prevent the cattle swaying backwards and forwards. The alteration would involve the necessity of having two doors, instead of one, to each truck, but the, expense would be trifling compared with the advantage that would be gained by reducing to a minimum the risk of injuring cattle. The Minister might, at all events, try the experiment with a few trucks. As to the necessity for adopting the suggestions contained in the last ques­tion, he might mention that he had receiv~d a letter from a ,gentleman in Gippsland, whose son bought 100 cattle at the Flem­ington yards, on the previous Wednesday, to send to Gippsland. He was told' by the railway officials that the animals must be trucked that night, although the train was not to leave until the following morning. Consequently the cattle were kept twelve hours in the truck before the train started. vVhen it arrived at Rosedale, two of the animals were dead, having been trampled to death, and a large number of the others were seriously injured. The sender, besides the loss he sustained, had to pay full freight and the cost of burying the cattle that were killed on the journey.

Mr. BENT said he had asked the heads of two of the branches of the Hailway de­partment to report on the subject of the honor;tble member's questioIls, From Mr,

398 Railway Department. [ASSEMBLY.] Geelong Water Supply.

Mirls, the Locomotive Superintendent, he had received the following report :-

" The cattle trucks upon the Victorian Rail­ways are as good as any upon the leading rail­ways in England; the last constructed were approved of by some of the leading gentlemen sending cattle to Melbourne. Screw couplings are now used for coupling these trucks, which will prevent jolting at starting or stopping. The padding of trucks with stuffed leather would be impracticable, in con seq uence of the necessity of washing the trucks out under high,.pressure hose after each time of carrying cattle. The division of the trucks into two compartments would make the trucks useless for carrying mer­chandise. It must be remembered that these trucks are extensively used for carrying wool, wheat, and general merchandise; the cattle trade only employs them about two days a week. The use of screw couplings, and more care in loading the' waggons, and in the shunting of the trains, will obviate any real cause of complaint."

Mr. Anderson, the Traffic Manager, re­ported that-

" Screw couplings are used. The cattle trucks in use at present are a very useful kind, as when not being employed in cattle traffic they are engaged in goods traffic, which during the busy season is a matter of very great importance. Cattle, as a rule, are only carried one day in the week, Tuesday. If the description of truck suggested were obtained, they could be used only for cattle. This would involve immense loss to the department in having 200 trucks, the capital value of which would be very large, standing idle for the remainder of the week. As far as practicable, delay during transit is avoided; but when a large traffic has to be conducted on a single line, numerous trains, passengers and goods; running both ways, detention at shunting places, and at stations where the trains have to be divided, is unavoidable, but the time is as limited as possible, having due regard to safety. Instructions have been issued to all employes that every care possible is to be taken to prevent injury to live stock. Taking into consideration the many thousands of animals carried, many of them being very wild, the number injured is not large. The injury is often caused from circum­stances over which the department has no con­trol, such as cattle being over-driven long dis­tances ; 'being weak from want of food before being trucked, they get down in the trucks and are inj ured. Many of the cattle are very wild, become frightened in the train, and injure them­selves and others."

The following by-law, providing for the cleansing of cattle trucks, was framed under the Railway Act 1863 :-

"The slides and rebates of the doorways of all waggons to be kept free from dirt, and sheep and cattle waggons must be well scoured and washed with chloride of lime after every journey when carrying sheep or other cattle."

He desired to supplement the departmental memoranda which he had rcad, by stating that the cattle traffic on the railways was increasing so much that he thought it would be wise to senel cattle trains alone,

Mr. Bent.

and he intended to carry out arrangements for that purpose, if practicable.

Mr. HUNT asked the Minister of Rail­ways if it was true that the department over which he presided prevented the issue of a Crown grant to a selector-R. Grodear, of Yarck-because of a proposed railway in the locality, whilst Mr. Stoddart, of Miller's Ponds station, was permitted to purchase 320 acres on the same route?

Mr. BENT, in reply, ead the following memorandum :-

" 'The line, as surveyed to Mansfield, passed through Mr. Grodear's selection, allotment 16A, parish of Yarck ; the issue of the grant was objected to on that account. Mr. Stoddart's land, allotments 40 and 41, same parish, is on the opposite side of the road to the surveyed line of railway; the grant was allowed to issue for this land subject to special railway condi­tions." The Minister of Lands had handed him a plan of the land in question, and the hon­orable member for Kilmore could see it, if he desired.

GEELONG WATER SUPPLY.

Mr. JOHNSTONE asked the Minister of Water Supply whether he was aware that in 1867 a survey was made, and the lines permanently marked, to test the possibility of diverting a portion of the head water of the Werribee into the Stony Creek reservoir, in order to meet any possible contingency, should the sources of supply now relied upon prove insufficient; and, also, if. he had any objection to lay before the House plans and sections of the survey?

Mr. C. YOUNG read the following memorandum in answer to the question :-

"Yes; a survey was carried out, and some plans and sections made thereof, which can be laid upon the table of the House, if desired. The original height of the Upper ~tony Creek dam was 84 feet. About eight years ago, it was re­duced along half of its lengt.h by removing 8 feet off the top, and the by-wash was lowered 28 feet, because the dam showed signs of giving way. The original capacity of the reservoir is stated to have been 950 million gallons. Its present capacity is 166 million gallons. Some time previously, a discussion had arisen as to the sufficiency of the capacity of the Upper Stony Creek da.m, and a supplementary reservoir lower down the creek had been suggested, but nothing had been done towards its construction. When, however, the capacity of the upper reser­voir was reduced, as above stated, the construc­tion of the lower reservoir was unc1ertaken. The capacity of the lower reservoir is 141 million gallons. The catchment area of the upper reservoir is 3,462 acres. That of the lower reservoir is not known. The works to bring t.he water from Wallace's Swamp into the reservoir were commenced about eleven years ago,.and a sum of £5,233 expel\~~d ~her~on. They were,

Postal Department. [OCTOBER 18.J Promotions. 399

however, stopped upon its being found that the character of the country through which the race was being cut was such that the works in hand, which had been let for £5,890, would cost at least an additional £10,000, and that the total cost of the project would be about £35,000. Colonel Sankey afterwards emphatically con­demned the works as proposed by this scheme. An alternative project was submitted afterwards by Mr. Henderson for bringing water from the swamp, partly by means of pipes, for £16,000 j

but nothing was done. A survey has also been made of a race to bring the water from the Werribee river, but no estimate appears to have been made of the probable cost of the works necessary for the purpose. The Geelong works have already cost £325,000. The gross revenue is £7,000 per annum, and the net revenue (after providing for maintenance and management) is £4,600 per annum."

Mr. JOHNSTONE remarked that, be­sides the abandonment of the construction of an aqueduct from Wallace's Swamp after nearly £6,000 had been spent on it, other )Vorks in connexion with the Geelong water supply were abandoned after £30,000 had been expended on them. However, his object in asking the question which he had put to the Minister was simply to ascertain whether it was practicable to divert a por­tion of the head water of the vYerribee into the Stony Creek reservoir, in order to supply any deficiency in the event of a drought.

Mr. C. YOUNG said the Stony Creek reservoir would contain water enough for the supply of Geelong for eighteen months, even if there was no rain in the meantime.

BOOROOPKI. Mr. O'CALLAGHAN asked the Attor­

ney-General if he would cause the township of Booroopki, in the Wimmera district, to be gazetted as a place where new licences under the Publicans' Act might be issued? . Sir B. O'LOGHLEN stated that the request would no doubt be granted if the honorable member would bring the matter before the Solicitor-General.

POSTAL DEPARTMENT. PROMOTIONS.

Mr. BOWMAN asked the Postmaster­General if it was the fact that a Mr. Mork­ham, an officer in the Postal department, had been appointed to the 3rd class over 43 4th class officers, who were senior to him; and also by whom the appointment was made? To enable him to bring the matter fully under the notice of the Postmaster­General, he begged to move the adjourn­ment of the House. The facts of the case were set forth in a printed document, a copy of which, he believed, had been sent to every member of the House. [The honorable

member here read a copy of the document.] It appeared that Mr. Morkham was junior to 43 officers in the 4th class in the head office in Melbourne, and also junior to some 20 officers in the country offices; nevertheless he had been placed in the 3rd class over the heads of the other 63, and the arrangement was made to take effect from the 1st July last. He (Mr. Bowman) protested against this appointment on the ground that it was a violation of the spirit of the Civil Service Act, which provided that officers should be promoted according to seniority, and also because it was a gross injustice to upwards of 60 men in the Postal department. In fact, he regarded it as nothing short of a crime, and he wished to know who was responsible for it.

Mr. BOLTON said it was true that Mr. Morkham had been appointed over 43 other officers in the department who were senior to him and in the same class. The pro­motion was made by the late Postmaster­General (Mr. Langridge). The matter was brought under his (Mr. Bolton's) considera­tion some time ago, and it was his inten­tion, if he found that an injustice had been done, to remedy it as far as possible.

Mr. FRASER remarked that, if the Postmaster-:-General would inquire into the facts of the case, he would find that Mr. Morkham possessed special qualifications for the position to which he had been pro­moted. He hoped that the honorable gen­tleman would make every inquiry into the circumstances before he interfered with the action of his predecessor.

Mr. LANGRIDGE also requested the Postmaster-General to make careful in­quiries into the facts of the case. The answer which the honorable gentleman had given to the question that had been put to him was different from what he (Mr. Lang­ridge) expected, because it was on the recommendation of the Deputy Postmaster­General and other officers of the department that he promoted Mr. Morkham. He knew nothing of that gentleman personally, and he was not aware that he ever saw him more than once in his life. When the applica­tion for promotion was made, he was in­formed that Mr. Morkham was doing special work-accountant's work, in fact­that he was also examiner of all candidates for employment in the Post-office, and that he likewise prepared the whole of the esti­mates of the department. vYhen he saw the question of the honorable member for Maryborough (Mr. Bowman) on the notice­paper, he expected that these facts would be

400 Postal Department. [ASSEMBLY.] Promotions.

mentioned in the reply given by the Post­master-General. He thought there was some great mistake as to the number of officers over whom Mr. Morkham was appointed, because no one could be more careful than himself not to do an injustice, and, before making the appointment, he inquired if the promotion would put Mr. Morkham un­fairly over the heads of any other officers, and he was informed that there were five or six officers senior to that gentleman, but that none of them were capable of perform­ing the duties of the position for which he was chosen.

Mr. BOLTON stated that he received the information which he gave in reply to the question of the honorable member for Maryborough (Mr. Bowman) from the Deputy Postmaster-General, who told him it was quite true that Mr. Morkham was appointed over the heads of 43 senior officers in the department.

Mr. A. T. CLARK said he thought it would be very unwise if any wide-spread feeling of dissatisfaction were to arise be­cause one officer was promoted over 43 other officers to a position for the duties of which he had special ability. One great fault in connexion with the Government service for many years past had been that men in the service were moved as if they were skittles, whether they were fit for promotion or not. I t was idle bunkum to talk of the business of the country being conducted properly while promotions in the public service were in all cases regulated solely by seniority. The honorable member for Collingwood (Mr. Langridge), as every honorable member must admit, would be the last man to do any injustice in connexion with any appointment that he mad a while Postmaster-General. For the Rouse to take up the view that it was improper, in any case, to appoint one officer over the heads of others would be to demoralize the whole of the civil service. The proper course to adopt, in making a p­pointments in the service, was to pick out men of ability-men who were fit for the positions which required to be filled. A Minister who pursued that course should not be howled at, but ought to be applauded for having the courage to leave the beaten track, and to endeavour to place the public service on something like the footing it ought to occupy.

Mr. McKEAN remarked that, in his professional capacity, he had had a good deal to do with various Government de­partments, and he could fully endorse the opinion expressed by the honorable

member for Williamstown as to the ad. visability of not promoting members of the civil service merely on the principle of seniority. He could refer to two or three departments in which that course was adopted, and the public service suffered severely in consequence. Merit, and merit alone, should guide a Minister in making promotions. An important position ought not to be given to a man simply because he had been 20 or 30 years in the service, if there were junior officers better qualified to perform the duties of the post; but, of course, if there were two officers possessing equal qualifications to choose from, the preference ought to be given to the senior. From what he. had heard of the case in question, he believed that Mr. Morkham possessed special qualifications for the position to which he was appointed by the late Post­master-General, and that the honorable

,gentleman was perfectly justified in promot­ing him. If the present Postmaster-General thought differently, he could exercise the discretion which was vested in him.

Mr. MIRAMS considered that there was no reason for discussing, in connexion with the matter mentioned by the honorable member for Maryborough (Mr. Bowman), the whole question of promotions in the civil service. According to the last speaker, there was no occasion for a Civil Service Act at all; but that Act was passed in order to prevent unfair promotions by one

, political Minister as against another j and the inference naturally was that those who had been longest in the service were those who should he first promoted, provided they were fitted to discharge the new duties re .. quired of them. What he desired to call attention to was that the Rouse had not been furnished by the gentleman who made the promotion in this case-his honorable colleague in the representation of Colling­wood-with the reasons why the promotion was made. No doubt the honorable merp.­bel' had good reasons. (Mr. Langridge­" The promotion was made on the recom­mendation of the permanent head.") Re did not suppose his honorable colleague would have promoted an officer over the heads of 43 seniors unless he had good reason for taking that course '; but the Rouse 'Was entitled to have that reason placed before it. The Rouse ought to be informed whether the qualifications of the officer promoted to do the particular work which he was called upon to perform were far superior to those of anyone of the 43 seniors' over whom he was promoted. If

Royal Commission [OCTOBER 18.J On Education. 401

they were, the promotion was justified. If they were not-and the document which had been circulated among honorable members implied that they were not-his honorable colleague was wrong in making the pro­motion. That was the point which should be settled.

Mr. MASON stated that it seemed a dangerous thing to promote an officer over the heads of so many seniors, but he had been told that Mr. Morkham possessed special qualifications, and, on the whole, he considered it unwise for the House to criti­cise too closely the action of Ministers in making such promotions, because the House

. was supposed to have confidence in Ministers for the time they were in office. Oertainly the present Postmaster-General was the last man in the House who should complain of the promotion of juniors. The honorable member, although Postmaster-General, was a junior member of the House, and he was not the only Minister who was a junior member. It thus appeared that the pro­motion of Members of Parliament to the position of Ministers was not based upon seniority. Old members like himself (Mr. Mason) had reason to feel this. At the same time, he admitted that junior members who had become Ministers had shown themselves in every way qualified for the position. What he objected to was that ex-Ministers were not 24 hours out of office before they commenced caballing to replace the men who had succeeded them.

Mr. BOLTON mentioned that he had raised no objection to Mr. Morkham's pro­motion.

Mr. PATTERSON thought that no better proof than the present discussion could be furnished of the necessity for adopting some such regulation as that re­commended by the Standing Orders Oom­mittee with reference to motions for the adjournment of the House. The discussion was an utter waste of time. The course to pursue, if any honorable member wanted to. complain of any appointment by the late Ministry, was to move for the production of the papers in the case, when the whole matter could be ventilated. Oertainly the question was not one of urgency; the ap­pointment referred to was made some time ago; and honorable members ought not to be I called upon to discuss such matters without notice, to the delay of the business which stood on the notice-paper for con-sideration. "

Mr. FISHER expressed the hope that the Postmaster-General would uphold the

action of his predecessor in office unless there was something about" it of a very disgraceful nature indeed. That was the proper constitutional stand-point .. The ap­pointment complained of was made by the late Postmaster-General, who, having retired from office, was no longer a respo~sible Minister, and ought therefore to be allowed to rest in peace. He (Mr. Fisher) had some sympathy with those who considered that all promotions in the public service should not be by seniority. There must be occasions when an officer of exceptionally brilliant talents, or possessing some peculiar qualifications, should be promoted quite apart from seniority .

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

PUBLIO INSTRUOTION. Sir B. O'LOGHLEN laid on the table

a draft of the proposed Royal Oommission on Education. He stated that he proposed to leave the document on the table until the following Thursday week, in order that the House, if it thought fit, might express an opinion on the matter. In the event of the House expressing no opinion, the com­mission wo:uld be passed by the Governor in Oouncil on Monday week. The recital of the commission-which was an echo of the words contained in the address adopted by the House, at the commencement of the session, in reply to the Governor's speech­was as follows :-

"Whereas the Governor of our colony of Victoria, with the advice of the Executive Council thereof, in view of the yearly increase of expenditure necessitated by the extension of the existing system of public instruction, and, further, in view of the alleged grievances of a portion of the population, has deemed it ex­pedient that a Royal commission should forth­with issue to inquire into and report upon the whole administration, organization, and general condition of that system, with the object of" ascertaining its deficiencies, improving its work­ing, and, while retaining its efficiency, providing the most economic modes of further extending its operation." The chairman of the commission was Mr. Francis Ormond, and the other members of the commission were Mr. George Meares, Mayor of Melbourne; Mr. J. W. Rogers, Q.O. ; ,Professor McOoy, Dr. W. H. Outts, Mr. H. J. Henty, Mr. Edmund Keogh, Mr. H. N. Loughnan, Mr. Duncan Love, and Mr. vVilliam Peterson~ten gentlemen in all.

Mr. WRIXON suggested that the docu­ment should be printed.

On the motion of Sir B. O'LOGHLEN, an order was made to that effect.

402 Wale'J' Conservation Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Fi'J'st Nigllls DehatIJ.

NEW RAIL WAYS. Mt. BENT laid on the table a return to

an otdel' of the House (dated October 11), showing the cost of land required for the Hawthorn and Lillydale Railway and the Daylesford extension.

DISEASE IN VINES.

Mr. LEVIEN moved-" That there be laid before this House a return

showing-I. The acreage of vines destroyed in the Geelong district. 2. The area remaining and ordered to be destroyed. 3. The area not ordered to be destroyed. 4. The acreage de­stroyed in each vineyard, and the amount paid to each owner."

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

DIAMOND DRILLS. Mr. WILSON moved-"That there be laid before this House the

contracts lately entered into by the Government for the manufacture of diamond drills, and all plans, drawings, specifications, and other papers connected therewith."

Mr. LONGMORE seconded the motion. Mr. BURROWES stated that it would

be impossible to lay on the table all the documents referred to in the motion, but every facility would be given for their in­spection, by honorable members, at the Mining department.

The motion was withdrawn.

WATER SUPPLY .. LOANS.

The resolution in favour of granting loans to the amount of £10,000 to certain municipalities for water supply in country districts (passed in committee on Thursday, October 13) was considered and adopted.

WATER CONSERVATION BILL. FIRST NIGHT'S DEBATE.

The debate on Mr. C. Young's motion for the second reading of this Bill was pro­ceeded with.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-Mr. Speaker, I have endeavoured, with the time at my disposal, to give the question now before the .f\.ssembly as large an amount of considera­tion as I possibly could, because I view the departure, as it were, which we are called upon to make this session as something the like of which we have not had to deal with in the past history of this country. I would wish members of the House, in dealing with the question, to deal with it as an Assembly--eliminating from its considera­tion all idea of politics or party, and all

desire to serve the interests of any mere class. The matter is one of vast impor­tance, and I feel it will be difficult indeed, without fuller information than that which has been furnished, to estimate in a com­prehensive manner the probable effect, in a financial point of view, of a scheme of water conservation, or to realize the manner and the scale on which it should be carried out. I find that we are not supplied with one particle of information on the subject of the science of irrigation as applicable to this country. As a House, we are without a single line of evidence to guide us. There­fore I say it is useless for us to talk, either in the abstract or the concrete, of water supply for irrigation purposes. India, Spain, France, and Italy all bear testimony, in a greater or less degree, to the great advantages which flow from a supply of water to land; but that is a question which we are not called upon, by the Bill before us, to discuss now. I think it would have been well if we could have had practical legislation on the subject this session; but, as it appears we are not to have anything of the kind, I will dismiss the question of irrigation from my mind. With regard to the schemes recommended by Messrs. Gordon and Black, the Minister of Water Supply, on my recommendation, has placed on the table a map which shows at a glance what those schemes will lead to if they are carried out uniformly, and what portions of the country will be affected by them. Of those gentle­men I have no personal knowledge, but I know that Mr. Gordon was brought here from India, and I believe that, by tJ:.1e help of his plans and reports, we may devote our time profitably to the consideration of his schemes .. Here, however, I may venture to remark that the Local Government Act was never intended to operate in the direc­tion of supplying water to the various dis­tricts of the colony, or, as the Bill proposes, of providing "for the conservation and distribution of water throughout Victoria." The Local Government Act gives munici­palities powers with regard to waterworks -powers to raise money and so forth-but no powers like those contemplated by the . scheme embraced in the map on the table. Neither do I find that the Act which authorized the last loan of £5,000,000, and provided that £100,000 of the money should be set apart for" works in connexion with· water supply in country districts," contem­plated anything at all like the proposals now before us. The difficulty I experience is that the Bill does not confine itself to

Water Conservation Bill. [OCTOBER 18.J First Nig hi s Debate.

the five or six schemes recommended, by Mr. Gordon and Mr. Black. It does not propose to carry out those schemes in al;Y way: whatever. _.', "

Mr. 0., YOUNG.-It proposes no sch~me. I

, '~?r J.' O'SHANASSY.-Exactly; and that is 'where the House, when it comes to consider the matter, will find itself at sea. The Bill, proposes no scheme, and conse­guently the matter is left in an indefinite position. Inasmuch as' there is to be no provision by law, the matter will be left, more or less, in the hands of the Executive of the day.

Mi·. O. 'YOUNG .-In the hands of the local bodies.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-In the hands of the local bodies and the Executive com­bined. Now I say that if 'there had been attached to this Bill a schedule embracing the five or six schemes about which we have authoritative evidence to go upon-engi­neering testimony upon which we can rely­the House would have been in a better position to deal with the water conservation question practically this session than it can be with the Bill as it stands. These schemes are all before us-estimates are furnished as to their cost-and if the Bill proposed that they should be carried out by central authority or by local authority, or by a combination of the two, the House would know exactly where it was going. But the Bill asks for authority for "the conservation and distribution of water throughout Victoria" without providing any means for the accomplishment of the object. I doubt whether it was ever in the contemplation of this House or of any Government to deal with the question of water supply to the whole colony. Olearly there is no urgency, at the present moment, for a measure of such magnitude, nor are the financial means at our command at all sufficient for such a purpose. Therefore I say the Bill is defective. It does not give us a clear idea of what we are wanted to do, how far it is proposed to go, what is the probable cost of the works contemplated, or how they are to be carried out. I t may be said that the plans and recommendations of the engineers employed by a former Go­vernment-whose surveys and other labours have cost the State a considerable sum­can be taken up by local bodies and utilized; but~ a's far as this Bill is concerned, there is not the slightest guarantee that the uni­formity shown on the map and in the en­~ineers' reports will be observed. Under

the Bill, the municipality that first applies to thb 'Gover~mentfor' assistance in carry­jng out, schem-es for water supply-and, as far as I can see, it may be a municipality that requires no water at all-if it succeeds in getting the ear of the Executive, may absorb one-third, or one-half, or even the whole of the £300,000 which it is proposed shall be available out of the new loan for water supply purposes. But that is a state of things which the House cannot be ex­pected to sanction. I observe, by the sum­mary attached to Messrs. Gordon and Black's reports, that in the' arid country known as the Northern Plains, there is a population of about 50,000, which means, on the assumption that the average number of a household is '4* or 5, that the number of families is abouf 10,000. It would appear that each head of a family holds on an average something like 434 acres; and I say that, for reasons of public policy, we should endeavour to keep that class on the land they have selected. Oertainly we should not allow them to be forced away, if, by means of small aid from the State, they can be kept in their holdings. Whether we approve or disapprove of the policy or wisdom of the selectors who took up land on the Northern Plains, it should be recollected that they went there under the authority of the law. They are there now, and the question is how to deal with them now they are there. I wish to dissociate that part of the colony from any other part, because no other part is in so distressed or bad a position. I think Messrs. Gordon and Black have made a great error in assuming that the land on the Northern Plains will yield 12 bushels of wheat per acre. The thing is not prac­ticable at the present time; and therefore to base rating on such an exaggerated valuation would be entirely fallacious. The thing shows that engineers, however good they may be in their own profession, know little as to the growing capacity of land. So far as I can see, the Bill deals only with the supply of water for domestic purposes and for stock.

Mr. R. OLARK.-Irrigation also. Mr. O. YOUNG.-For any purpose that

may be desired. Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-It is useless

to tell me that the scheme contemplates irrigation. The ,labours of the engineers so far have been limited, as they themselves state, to "the feasibility of providing water for domestic purposes and the use of stock." They h~ve not yet dealt with the question of irrigation. The present scheme may

404 Water Conservation Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] First Night's IJebate.

ultimately grow into one of irrigation, but, for the present, honorable members may as well leave the question of irrigation alto­gether out of their consideration. Another mistake which Messrs. Gordon and Black have fallen into is that the Northern Plains Will carry one sheep to the acre. That means that the entire area could carry 5,000,000 sheep. But that is practically impossible. Why the largest number of sheep we have had in the entire colony at one time is 11,000,000'; and since then, owing to the quantity of land selected, the number has fallen to 8,000,000. I say that to base calculations as to rating and revenue on the assumption that land yields 12 bushels of wheat or carries one sheep to the acre is a thing which we ought to dismiss from our minds as erroneous. I have taken the trouble to look up the laws which have been passed with reference to public improvements in England, Ireland, and Canada, and, I find nothing whatever in them to justify the proposals contained in tIns Bill. The Minister of Water Sup­ply, the other evening, expressed some regret that I thought fit to describe the Bill not as a local government measure, but as a centralizing Bill. During the debate on the Loan Bill, I dwelt upon the evil which has grown up in this country of centralizing public affairs in the Govern­ment, and I cited, as cases in point, muni­cipal matters, public education, charities, and the police; and I say that still more centraliza tion will be practised under this Bill. I have carefully compared the Bill with the English Consolidation Acts, and with the Canadian and Irish laws, and I find in none of those measures any model for this. Therefore, I say the Bill is a novel and st!ange measure. Its provisions are couched in general terms; and it leaves the Governor in Council practically master of the situation. The Bill contains 94 clauses, and I find that 44 of the number place everything they deal with solely in the hands of the Governor in Council. If that is not centralization, I don't know what is. Practically, not a single movement can take place under the Bill except under the control of the Governor in Council. This House is entirely ignored, and its powers are trans­ferred wholly to the Government.

Mr. C. YOUNG.-It is the same under the existing Waterworks Act.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY. - I assure the Minister of Water Supply that that is not the case. The existing law provides dis­tinctly that, when a grant to any local

body or bodies is decided upon by the G6-' vernment, the sanction of Parliament must be given to the arrangement before it can come into operation. In every similar case in England, the House of Commons has to be applied to before the Government can give any assistance, or, at all events, some­thing has to be done which prevents the affair being one of simple arrangement between the Government and the parties interested in the carrying out of the works. In fact, the objection I take to this Bill cannot possibly lie against the law in England or Canada. Hitherto, in this country, the rule has been that, whenever Parliament has been asked to sanction the principle of Government aid to a local improvement scheme being simply an affair between the pa.rties interested and the Go­vernor in Council, the proposition has been scouted all round the Chamber. But, under the Bill,· the Governor in Council might give £50,000 to one locality, £100,000 to another, and refuse any grant to a third, without Parliament being consulted, or able to interfere in the smallest degree. I don't say the measure is designedly so framed, but the fact that it is so framed is unde­niable, and I cannot think that Parliament will be content to see its powers superseded in such a way-to lose, directly the Bill becomes law, all control over water supply works carried out by local bodies. Inas­much as we have no large experience with respect to matters of water supply, except perhaps with relation to the Yan Yean and one or two other schemes, ought we not, as rational men, to endeavour to be guided by the example set us by countries more fami­liar with the subject? Here, for instance, Rre reports from English and Irish com­missioners with respect to similar works. Can we not derive from them some fair idea of what should be the relations between the local bodies carrying out affairs of the kind and the Government assisting them ? I assert that the Bill really embodies no plan under which local bodies could carry out waterworks with Government assistance. What it does embody is simply an attempt by the Government to intermeddle without power to control. In the first place, look at what the local bodies are to pay as in­terest on the money advanced to them-at least t per cent. more than the rate payable by the Government. At the same time, no statement is made as to the rate at which the Government will borrow the money. There is, therefore, really no knowing what interest the local bodies will have to pay.

Water Conservation Bill. [OcrOBER 18.] Firle Night's De6ate. 405

Then under the Bill the rule will be first come first served. Nowhere is any uni­formity of design insisted upon. I can understand a few local bodies, wiser and more active than the rest, taking advantage of its conditions to secure the possession of head waters, and so stopping other local bodies from getting any water supply at all. Then as to pumping leases, what Will there be to prevent a single set of pumping les­sees putting up centrifugal pumps capable of throwing several thousands of gallons per minute, and thereby, in the first place, monopolizing the entire waters of the river pumped from; and, secondly, enabling them­selves to sell their surplus water at their own price? Again, no provision is made which would induce companies to undertake the improvement of land-a work often undertaken in other countries. Upon the whole, it behoves us to be extremely cautious in dealing with this measure. I may be asked what could be done to bring the water supply question to a practical issue. Well, I will reply that the subject is .very greatly complicated on account of the disorganiza­tion now existing among honorable members, and also because the Government, being an entirely new one, can hardly have paid much attention to it. Therefore, I do not wish to be understood as casting, on the present oc­casion, much blame upon them. The matter before us is an intricate and technical one which requires the devotion of a great deal of time to its study before it can be treated with any great success, and Ministers simply have not been able to give it any time worth speaking of. Under these circumstances, I think it would be wise for us, when the Bill has been read a second time, to refer it to a select committee chosen from all sides of the House. If such a course is taken, the Go­vernment will have a great amount of valu­able work done for them, and be enabled to get on in the meantime with the many other practical and much-needed measures they have on hand. To attempt to amend the Bill in committee of the whole House would be useless, because the plan would not work. The Bill would not be amended, but mangled and destroyed. I trust my remarks will be received in the spirit in which they are uttered. My desire unmistakably is that Parliament should provide for the selectors now on the N orth­ern Plains what it is in our power to give them. To refer the matter to a select committee, or a commission, would not only facilitate matters, but disentangle the whole question from many of its present political

SES. 1881.-2 I?

encumbrances. Besides such a body would be enabled, acting under engineering advice, to establish harmony between different local bodies with water schemes of a conflicting character. In Ontario, certain distinct steps have to be taken in every case of the kind, in . order to ensure uniformity among the local bodies, and prevent rash political action in other quarters. For example, if, a grant to a local body having been made, it is shown to the House of Assembly that the works they have in view cannot or ought not to be carried out, the Order in Oouncil making the grant is cancelled. Precautions are also taken to ensure that the lines of drainage shall be continuous. The .Bil1, however, as I have already pointed out, provides for the adoption of no particular scheme, not even those recommended by Messrs. Gordon and Black. Neither does it provide, as I think it should, that the rate­payers specially interested in certain pro­jected waterworks should have some voice in the election of the commissioners to carry them out. Again, a manifest defect in the measure is the absence of any provision by which a municipality, having lost the pos­session of certain waterworks, through non­payment of interest, could recover them. In England and Oanada, provision is made for this and every other possible contingency. For instance, in Oanada a municipality which has lost waterworks, through the non-pay­ment of interest, can recover them by paying, within a certain period, the money due with 10 per cent. added. In conclusion, I invite honorable members to consider the sugges­tions I have made, and the views I have thrown out, in a non-party and business­like way.

Major SMITH.-Sir, I think the Go­vernment will be wise if they adopt the sug­gestion I made to them last week, namely, that the discussion of the Bill should be delayed until the whole of the local govern­ing bodies of the country have had an opportunity of studying the measure and expressing an opinion upon it. For my part, I have gone over it most carefully, and I find that in several important particulars it is exceedingly defective. First, there is no provision as to how or when the works are to be constructed, or as to the rate or proportion in which the money for them is to be advanced. Yet some of them will, in all probability, take years to construct. Then as to the payment of interest. I remember that, when I was Minister of Mines, it was found impossible for the local bodies concerned to pay interest on

406 Waier Conservation BiU. t ASSEMBL Y. ] First Night's Dehate.

progressive works-I speak of such progres­sive works as those of Talbot and Stawell were at the time-but, inasmuch as it v{Quld have been ruinous to stop them on that account, no one thought of doing anything of the kind. Nevertheless, under the Bill, the Governor in Council are empowered, and therefore practically called. upon, to stop such works and take them into their own hands if the interest on the loan made on their account is not regularly paid up. It is not as though the measure was a pressing one. The money for the works is not yet bor.rowed, indeed the Loan Bill is not yet passed, and, in all probability, it will be fully twelve months before funds for the purpose are in hand.

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN.-Parliament has already placed us in a position to lend £150,000 to country districts for water­works.

Major SMITH.-Well, then, to talk of devoting only £300,000, in the whole, to water supply is something babyish. The Go­vernment have obtained an immense amonnt of kudos by their .promises of waterworks, for, according to what they said a few weeks ago, 'the northern country was to be inundated 'a.lmost immediately, but what does every­thing that fell from them on the subject now amount to? To nothing more than that by­and-by, should this Bill and the Loan Bill be carried into law, the paltry sum of £300,000 will be devoted to waterworks for the entire colony; while, in view of what has to be done for the conversion of the 6 per cent. debentures, nothing like a really sufficient sum for water supply can possibly be avail­able before 1886. If the Government really want to attend to public business and· promote the public interest, why do they not go on with a measure dealing with mining on private property? That is a matter of urgency, if you like. Another thing I notice is that, the Government hav­ing gone to a vast expense to obtain certain reports and plans with relation to water supply, they don't intend to act on them at all. All they say they will do is to let the local bodies act on them, if they like to do so. Then I regard the rating powers the local bodies will have under the Bill as altogether exorbitant. They will be able to strike a water rate of 10 per cent. on the annual valuation of the property rated, whereas we know that for ordinary munici­pal purposes they never, as a rule, adopt a rate of more than Is. in the £1. I intend, when the Bill is in committee, to try to get some of its faults rectified.

Mr. GILLIES.-Mr. Speaker, I intend to raise a totally new issue with respect to the present question. When Messrs. Gor­don and Black were appointed to undertake certain work with the view of meeting the great cry that has been raised for years for a water supply to the northern districts of the colony, the instructions issued to them were as follows :-

"First, to inquire and report as to the feasi­bilityof providing, at a reasonable expense, a supply of water to the Northern Plains for domestic purposes, and the use of stock; and, secondly, as to irrigation."

The result was a report from those gentle­men dealing exclusively with water supply under the first head. The state of affairs is, then, that a number of water supply works of a particular character have been reported upon by Messrs. Gordon and Black as useful and feasible, and as such as ought to be undertaken by-it may be presumed­the Government. What, however, do I find on reading the Bill? I was never more surprised than when I first ascertained its character. Sir, the Bill is simply, with two exceptions-parts 7 and 8-a consoli­dation of the existing law relating to water­worlq3 undertaken by local bodies. That law provides that water districts may b~ created by the Governor in Council, that the local bodies therein may carry out water­works with money loaned to them by the Government, that they may levy water rates, that penalties may be imposed and appro­priated, and so on. Well, what are the first twenty clauses of this Bill ? Merely a string of provisions relating to the forma­tion of water districts, the election of officers, and so forth, all of them taken from the Waterworks Statute of 1869. Another series of clauses are similarly taken from the Public Works Statute, and also the Waterworks Act of 1880. So that nearly the whole of the Bill is a mere reproduction of the existing law. If nothing more than a consolidating Bill was required I could perfectly understand the measure, but it seems to me that, in view of the urgent need there is just now for water supply, a Bill like the present hardly meets the case. I fancy that if we want to lend money for water to the local bodies with as little delay as possible, we would find the law, as it stands, sufficient for our purpose. Further, I notice that in some of the clauses taken from previous Acts important alterations, of which I think the House will scarcely approve, have been made. For example, clause 39 is as follows :-

W titer Conservatzon -Bill. [OCTOBER 18.J

',,' In the exercise of it! powers each trust shall do as little damage as can be, and, in all cases where it canbe done, shall.provide other water­ing places, drains. and channels for the use of adjoining lands in place of any such as may be taken away or interrupted by it, and shall, if required, make full compensation to all parties interested for all damage sustained by them in consequence of any land being taken possession of and appropriated by any trust in the exercise of such powers, and for the use of any lands through which any water may be directed by the trust by artificial means." But while this clause, up to the words "make full compensation to all parties interested," follows closely the verbiage of section 191 of the Public Works Statute, it omits the words that follow there imme­diately afterwards, namely, "for all damage sustained by them through the exercise of such powers." What is the effect of this omission? To completely alter the scope and meaning of the provision for compensa­tion, and to enable a waterworks trust to divert a whole river, without the persons who reside along the dried-up channel below being able to obtain, under the Lands Com­pensation Statute, one farthing of recom­pense on that account. That that change in the law is intentionally made is rendered obvious by the wording of clause 41, which commences as follows :- .

"No waterworks trust shall be liable to make compensation for the damage (if any) sustained for or in respect of the taking or the diverting of water either permanently or temporarily from any lake, lagoon, swamp, marsh, river, creek, or water-course." . Here is not only an entirely new principle laid down, but one under which a whole

l\ district might be ruined. Another impor­tant change proposed is practically the establishment of a system of differential rating under which a waterworks trust could levy upon one man within its district a rate of 2s. in the £1, upon another one of 3d; in the '£1, and so on at its own sweet will and pleasure. I may say that I never before in my life heard of any differential rating of that character being seriously regarded as feasible. The differential rating that local bodies have often asked for is something quite different, namely, that in the case of a public work carried out for the benefit of a particular ward or riding, the ratepayers in that portion of the munici­pality might be subjected to a rate that would not affect the ratepayer~ in other portio,ns. I say, however, that the prin-

. ciple of even rating is one that should not be departed from, and therefore 1 regard the proposal I refer to as an innovation of which. the House ought not to approve.

2F2

Having already alluded to parts 7 and 8 of the Bill as new matter, I ask honorable mem­bers to direct their attention to the former. It proposes to give powers to five or more private individuals forming a company to construct waterworks. Under clause 70 it is proposed to give as extraordinary powers to these private individuals as it is proposed to give to the water trusts. By clause 41 the water trusts are not liable for damages if they divert streams or water-courses, and by clause 70 the same power is proposed to be given to private individuals. That is to say, five or more private individuals can apply to the Governor in Council for per­mission to construct waterworks, and if the Governor in Council approves of their plans and specifications, and gives them the per­mission asked for, these persons can pro­ceed with the construction of the works, and can divert water-courses, streams, and rivers without any responsibility whatever for damages in that respect.

Mr. FRASER.-They have to get the consent of the municipal council of the district.

Mr. GILLIES.-The five persons might be members of the council themselves, and they as private individuals would be able to do this without affording any compensation at all. What would have been said if at the time of the construction of that great national work, the Yan Yean, it had been proposed that persons who were on the Plenty below the point of diversion were to have their properties ruined - the water diverted from their mills-and were to re­ceive no compensation whatever? Of course, everyone knows that under the Public Works Statute all those persons did receive compensation, and, in the opinion of many honorable members, some of them received too much. However, to propose that the rights of private individuals are to be taken away in the manner provided under the 70th clause of this Bill is a proposition of which this House will not, in my opinion, approve. I come now to the real question which the House will have to consider in the construction of the waterworks re­quired - namely, whether some of these waterworks ought not to be constructed by the Government instead of by the local bodies, with the responsibility upon them of having to pay interest upon the cost of the con~truction of the works. Now, if I under­stand anything about the public expecta­tions at all with regard to the supply of water to the northern areas, I must say that the proposals in this Bill, which are

408 Water Conservation Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] First Night's Debate.

practically the existing law, are certainly not the kind of proposals the public have anti­cipated. What they have anticipated was that certain of the works reported upon and recommended by Messrs. Gordon and Black -if Parliament and the Government be­lieved that they could be constructed at a reasonable price and for the benefit of the districts affected-would be constructed by the Government and at the Government expense. I believe that has been the expec­tation that has passed through everybody's mind when the present Government and previous Governments have been speaking about grantjng water supply to the country districts, because, when we come to consider the ability of these districts to meet the engagements which it is proposed to place on their shoulders, we shall see that the thing is impossible. To whom have all the loans in the past been granted for the con­struction of waterworks? They have been granted to cities and towns-in nearly all cases to large centres of population. These large centres have, of course, owing to the aggregation of people in a small area, special facilities for raising considerable sums of money by means of rates. But the districts which it is now proposed to supply with water are large sparsely-peopled areas, which are in a totally different position, with regard to the power of paying interest, from large centres of population. Yet, even in the latter, we know that the results of lending money for the construction of waterworks have been very unsatisfactory as regards the payment of interest. Why the principal districts supplied in this way have scarcely attempted to pay any interest at all. Ararat has paid almost nothing, although it has been lent £35,000. Beechworth has paid about half, Ballarat has paid very little.

Mr. VALE.-Twelve years' interest out of fourteen.

Mr. GILLIES.-The schedule I have in my' hand shows that it has paid a com­paratively small amount on the £325,000 advanced to it. Clunes, on the £70,000 advanced to it, has paid next to nothing. Beaufort has paid about half. Stawell has had £108,000, and has paid little or no­thing.

Mr. vVOODS.-Because the works are not finished.

Mr. GILLIES.-And yet a number of years have elapsed since the money was lent. In the same way, Geelong does not pay 2 per cent. on the money invested in waterworks there; and the Coliban does not pay 1 per cent. Now all these large

sums have been advanced to supply cities and towns, which, if any places are able to pay, ought to be able to do so. Yet they have not paid the interest on the money advanced to them, and it is not pretended that they are to be forced to do so. No doubt, the Board of Land and Works have power to take over the waterworks, and to levy a rate up to 2s. 6d., but would the Government dare to try to do that? Would they dare to sue, perhaps, some poor widow, and turn her out of her home for the non­payment of her water rates? Is it not a gigantic sham-this coming to Parliament, and pretending to lood local bodies money at 4~ per cent. or 6 per cent. when we know they will not, and, in many cases, cannot, pay the interest? When not one of the large centres of population has yet· paid the interest on the money advanced to it, are we going to repeat the farce in another direction, and apply the rule to sparsely-peopled districts? When £10,000, £20;000, or £40,000 has been expended on some of these schemes, will it not be im­possible to enforce a rate which goes up to

,10 per cent., or 2s. in the £1, to pay the interest? The districts cannot pay it, and the Government cannot enforce it.

Mr. C. YOUNG.-Then give them no money.

lVlr. GILLIES.-That is one of the questions to which I wish to invite the atten­tion of the House. I hold it to be the most sheer imposture for us to go on playing the farce we have been playing, and that, unless we have the utmost confidence that the'local bodies which borrow money for the construction of waterworks will be able to pay the interest, we have no justification in the face of the experience we have already had to impose on ourselves any further. It may be said-What justification have the Government for borrowing money to carryon these extensive and important public works unless they see their way to their being pro­fitable? Now there are two ways of looking at a thing as profitable. Some things are profitable by returning a reasonable per­centage on their cost, but I assert that the Government of this country, from the time of its constitution, has been expending, year by year, large sums of money on work which has been highly profitable, from a public point of view, but which has never returned a penny of interest on the money invested in it. Only a few years ago-in 1874-the municipal subsidy was increased to £310,000, and there was then an under­standing th?-t the various specific votes

Water Conservation Bill. [OCTOBER 18.] Fi"st Night's Debate. 409

which used to appear on the Estimates should cease. Has that understanding been carried out? Have we not allowed it to be a dead letter? On the present Estimates there is no less a sum than £126,000 to go to various local bodies for roads, bridges, and works of a similar kind, which, as far as their national character is concerned, are not to be compared with the provision of water supply to the northern districts of the colony.

Mr. C. YOUNG.-The money is in lieu of tolls.

Mr. GILLIES.-It cannot be in lieu of tolls, because some of it is granted to local bodies in districts where there have never been any tolls. We have, year by year, been voting large sums-on an average £100,000 a year-to local bodies, for local works in various districts. I do not say those works are not necessary or important, or that the Government ought not to assist the local bodies; but I say that, in national impor­tance, there is no comparison between these works and the construction of the water­works required in the northern districts. If we are justified in spending those sums without expecting to receive a farthing re­turn in interest, surely we are justified in looking at the question of water supply from a higher stand-point. Are not these water­works necessary, as the Minister of Vl ater Supply himself said, the other evening, to keep on the lands of the colony the people whom we have induced to settle on them? And if these people cannot provide them­selves with water supply, I say it is the duty of the Government to undertake such rea­sonable schemes, not involving too large an expenditure, as will be useful for the purpose of keeping them on the soil. To say that the Government must have their "pound of flesh" is the simplest non­sense. If the local bodies do borrow this money, will the Government tell us that they will require each local body applying for money to carry out a scheme to prove to their satisfaction that, if the scheme is 'carried out, it will pay 4i per cent. on the money invested? If they do not insist upon that evidence, the provision about the payment of the interest is a farce; and, on the other hand, if they do insist on the evidence, and find it cannot be given, are the Government going to say, as the Minister for Water Supply said just now­" There shall be no money expended"? vVill they say to the people of the arid districts of the colony-" Gentlemen, for the last three months we have led you to believe that we meant to ~ring in a big

'water scheme to supply your wants, but now we tell you that, unless you can prove that you can pay 4t per cent. on the money ex­pended on your waterworks, we will not lend you a farthing or construct a single £1 worth of these works, although you may starve in the meantime"? That is the alternative the Government will have to face. I ven­ture to assert that, if the Government say what I have stated, they will be told throughout the northern parts of the colony that up to the present moment the people have totally misunderstood their intentions. The Government have the opportunity of doing an important publ~c work now. They have a large amount of information supplied by Messrs. Gordon and Black; and there is a large proportion of that work which there would be no difficulty whatever in commencing to undertake to-morrow. I do not object to the Government passing this Bill, but I say it is no good for the purpose I want and the northern parts of the colony want. They don't want the local bodies to be put in the position of being required to prove to the Governor in Council that they will be able to pay 4i per cent. interest, because I am satisfied they will not be able to do it. But I am satisfied also that, although the districts in which these works would be constructed

,could not pay 4t per cent. interest, the public advantage which would be derived by the residents on the lands being pro­vided with water supply would immeasurably transcend any little advantage of getting 4~ per cent. out of the works. Of that I am perfectly satisfied, and I sincerely hope that when this Bill goes into committee there will be an expression of opinion from the committee in that direction. The posi-, tion is that the Government must either do the work, or it must remain undone; and I ask the Government-Are they prepared to take the responsibility of saying that this work shall remain undone unless a returil of 4t per cent. is guaranteed? I am satis­fied that they will not say that, because what everyone has understood was that, while the Government would borrow money for water supply, it would be with the view, wherever they possibly or reasonably could, of seeing that they themselves constructed these works as rapidly as possible. If they can obtain a return, well and good; but if they do not, the amount of public advan­tage they will confer will be far superior to the consideration of the payment of 4t per cent. interest. I maintain that they have no justification on public grounds for saying

410 Water Conservation Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] First Night's Debate.

that they will, year by year, grant £100,000 . for paltry works in local districts without asking a farthing of interest, and yet refuse to perform great national works of this character. These are the views I hold on this question, and, while I do not object to the Government passing their Bill, I say they must be called upon to do a far different work from that proposed in the measure.

Mr. RICHARDSON.-Mr. Speaker, I have carefully looked into this Bill in order to find something in it deserving of sup­port, but I regret to say that the remarks I have to make on it will be very similar to those which have fallen from the honorable member who has just sat down. I give the Government credit for being anxious to supply the country districts with water, and I think we are all agreed as to the necessity for providing such a supply, but I look in vain in this Bill to find that supply. Neither the Minister of Water Supply nor the Premier informed us in their speeches how the Government intend to carry out the promises they have made of supplying the selectors with water. This Bill is simply an ena bling Bill, providing the machinery for the formation of water com­missions, but it provides no water supply, and I do not know how the Government have come to deceive themselves that such a measure as this will satisfy the wants of the country at this particular time. The Bill appears to be based upon the reports of Messrs. Gordon and Black, in which they give the various constitutions of different water commissions, and enumerate the various' methods they have of raising funds. The modes of providing capital to which they refer are as follows :-lst, by an asso­ciation of owners or occupiers of land who are to be benefited by the undertaking; 2nd, by a local loan guaranteed by the Government; 3rd, by a loan from the Government on the security of the rates; 4th, by outside capitalists, or a joint-stock cQmpany; and, 5th, by the Government providing the funds either in whole or in part as grants in aid. The 1st of those methods, which is provided for in the 7th part of the Bill, is simply that of a co­operative company, and the honorable mem­ber for Rodney (Mr. Gillies) has so fully pointed out the evils that would follow the adoption of such a proposal that I need hardly dwell further on them. Take, how­ever, the case of a large estate, occupying the frontage or a river, which has been accumulated by four or five persons mem­bers of the same family. These m~n, with

the consent of the Governor in Council­w mch means the Minister-can form a company, can divert the stream, and can thus obtain an even more complete monopoly of the water than they now have of the land. I do not think such a proposal as that will find any favour in the House or the country, and I trust that, when the Bill goes into committee, the 7th part will be struck out altogether. The third method of raising capital referred to by Messrs. Gordon and Black is provided for in the 6th part of the Bill, the first and third methods being the only ones referred to in the measure. It seems to me there is something peculiar about the constitution of the water supply districts as proposed in the Bill. If a water supply district is a portion of a shire or por­tions of two shires, I do not see any reason why the residents within those portions should not elect their own representatives, instead of the water commissioners being chosen from the municipal councils, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, who also appoints one commissioner. Defects of this kind, however, can be remedied in committee. Again, provision is made for striking a rate, upon the security of which the water commission may borrow money. The rate is not to exceed 10 per cent. on the annual valuation of the property, and it is not to be below lOs. in amount, but, under the arrangement proposed in this Bill, a selector holding 320 acres of land may have to pay £3 4s., or he may have only to pay lOs. But, as I have said, all this is merely enabling machinery; it does not pro­vide water supply to the country districts. No doubt the Bill may be revised and amended in committee, but even when that is done what will be the result? Will water supply to the country districts be any nearer because this Bill is passed? I venture to say it will not, and that the result will be that described by the honorable member for Rodney. The selectors, having exhausted all their own means, come to the Government and ask the Government to give them water supply, so that they may remain on the land. The only· reply by the Government to that request is to offer them this Bill, which is simply an enabling measure. In fact, the Government say to the selectors-" Take this Bill; it contains machinery for getting water supply; if you cannot use it, your successors may." And this is all the result of the distinct promise made by the Premier, when announcing the policy of his Govern­ment, that he would provide water supply to the country districts!

Water Conservation Bill. [OCTOBER 18.J . First .lVight's Debate. 411

Mr. C. YOUNG.--He said he would enable the local bodies to provide water supply.

Mr. RICHARDSON. - But what did that promise imply? What has the.coun­try understood-what have the selectors understood-by the Premier's promise to give them water supply 1

Mr. C. YOUNG.~They al'e quite satis­fied with this Bill.

Mr. RIOHARDSON.-I venture to say that not a single district in the colony will be in any way satisfied with this Bill. If the Minister of Water Supply, in moving the second reading, had pointed out any way in whioh the Bill will affeot the selectors beneficially, he might be in a, position to say that they would be satisfied with it; but he did not do so. The present and two pre­ceding Governments have had Messrs. Gordon and Black drawing up reports and maturing schemes, and, this being known to the selectors, they expected that they would blil provided with water supply. Moreover, the estimated cost of the works contem­plated by Messrs. Gordon and Black is £272,000, and the amount of the loan which the Government have proposed to devote to water supply for the country dis­tricts is £300,000, or just the amount re­quired to cover the estimate of the officers. The Minister of Water Supply appears to think that it is a most reasonable thing to expect the selectors to be satisfied with this measure-that they should take advantage of the Bill, and get water and pay for it in the manner prescribed; but I tell the hon­orable member that it is the most unreason­able proposal that could be made, because it is impossible for it to be carried out. The selectors are justified in asking the Govern­ment to fulfil their promise, and propose some general plan which will give water supply to the country districts. The selec­tors are now in a very peculiar position. ·They have had several bad seasons in suc­cession, they have had to borrow from the monetary institutions, and the interest they nave to pay on those loans is paralyzing to ·them, and how then can they take advan­~tage of a measure of this kind to get water :supply? The Minister of Water Supply ,stated that he knew of his own knowledge .selectors who would have to leave their land -if they were not supplied with water, and I can 'corroborate his statement. Within the last fortnight I have known a selector at Lake Marmal, who was obliged to leave .his selection and bring his cattle into my 'own neighbourhood, because there W-3S no

wa ter for them to drink. Tha t is an in­dication of the position of many of the selectors, yet all they are offered is tllls machinery Bill- this enabling Bill- a measure which, as the honorable member for Rodney pointed out, would be a boon to those people who live in towns or vil­lages wher,e water is required as a conve­lfience of life, but which is inadequate for the purposes .of the selectors who require water to enable them to conduct their business, and to remain on the land which they have selected. Indeed, the selectors ask Parliament to give them water as a part of the land policy of this country, and they will not permit their representatives to get away from that point. But, indepen­dently or that, I would ask honorable mem­bers to consider the question more generally, and I have no hesitation in endorsing the position taken up by the honorable member for Rodney when he said the Government must carry out this water supply. I have shown that it is unreasonable to ask the selectors to carry it out, and I propose to show that the Government alone can do it. Any water supply for the country districts must be carried out as a whole, and up to a certain point that can only be done by the Government. If the reports and plans of Messrs. Gordon and Black are to be consi­dered as information necessary to the dis­cussion and carrying out of this measure­and they have been distributed with the Bill as information bearing on it-it will be seen that they propose to lay the foun­dation of a water scheme which must be carried out by the Government. Messrs. Gordon and Black have taken special care to point out that their various schemes are, somehow or another, associated together, and that they are only the foundations of a water supply to this country. They lay the foundations, and carry them to such a point as will afford water supply to the selectors for domestic purposes and stock. They say in the introductory letter to their reports-

"The present reports deal exclusively with the subject of supply under the first head, viz., , the feasibility of providing water for domestic purposes and the use of stock'; and the prin­ciples and considerations which governed our views as to the best method of accomplishing this object are fully explained in the first section of the fourth report; but we desire it to be clearly understood that, while recommending provision to be made for the present urgent wants of the country, we have steadily kept in view its probable future requirements, and have sought to lay the foundation of a general system of supply, capable of ultimate extenSion, as future wants and experience may suggest, to the utmost limits the physical character of the

412 Water Conservation Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] First Night's Dehate.

country and the resources of the several rivers will admit of.

• * * * * * * "The works described in these reports are chiefly in tended to meet present requirements, but the sites of the principal weirs and off-takes have been selected with a view to future exten­sions as being the best, whether the quantity of water to be diverted be small or large.

* * * * * * * "The scope of the several schemes as now proposed is limited to bringing a supply for domestic purposes and the use of stock within a maximum distance of about three miles to every part of the country comprised in the several schemes, and the approximate estimates of the cost have been ca.lculated on the basis of a system of races and tanks at intervals of six miles." The honorable member for Rodney will therefore see that the differential rating pro­vided for by the 54th clause is intended to apply to the very schemes submitted by Messrs. Gordon and Black. A man who resides say three miles away from water supply works cannot get the same benefit from them as one who lives close to them, and the 54th clause is intended, I presume, to meet cases of that kind; but I agree with the honorable' member that it will be impossible to put the clause in operation if the Bill is passed in its present shape. If. honorable members look at the plan of what is known as the Goulburn scheme, they will see that from the weir there is a contour line crossing the country, as if it is intended that the channel shall be cut to carry the water, but there is nothing in the proposals of Messrs. Gordon and Black as to the various secondary channels which it will be necessary to cut in order to distribute the water. It appears to me, in fact, that Messrs. Gordon and Black contemplate that the secondary channels shall be cut by the local bodies, and this Bill will, of course, enable them to do that work, by giving them the power to borrow money for the purpose,and to strike a special rate to repay the loan. It is, however, clearly intended by the reports of Messrs. Gordon and Black that the secondary channels to be cut by the local bodies shall be supplied with water by the Government, and I will be glad to hear the Government say that they propose to apply to that purpose the whole of the £300,000 put down in the 2nd schedule to the Loan Bill for water supply to country districts. Even if that amount .is expended by the Government, and secondary channels are made by the local bodies, there will be a vast extent of country where, in many places, the people will be some. miles away from water supply. Messrs. Gordon and Black, in their fourth report, say-

Mr, Richardson, .

"It Is to be presumed that, when a supply of water has been brought into any district, most landowners will, at their own expense, provide for the storage of sufficient water for their own requirements, at all events in ordinary seasons, and the number of public tanks which may be required will, in a great measure, depend on how far individual exertion is carried out in this direction, and also on the natural facilities for the storage of water in the locality; but, as a rule, we consider provision should be made for public tanks of a permanent character, say of a capacity from 2,000 to 4,000 cubic yards, placed at intervals of about six miles, and so situated as to be easily accessible to the travelling public, as well as to local settlers in times of scarcity." It will therefore be seen that these officers contemplate that local waterworks trusts will be constituted after water supply has been furnished by the Government, and yet the Government have made no provision for giving water supply to any district. They leave that to be done by the waterworks trusts themselves. I submit that it is unfair and· unreasonable to ask the local bodies to do that work; in fact, it will be impossible for them to carry it out. I have examined the various schemes projected by Messrs. Gordon and Black, and I have no hesitation in saying that their reports and plans have been prepared with very great care. I believe that the Government are anxious to secure water supply for the country districts, and I wish to do anything I can to assist them in the matter; but I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that the object desired will never be accomplished by the Bill as it stands. If honorable mem­bers look at what js called the Lower Avoca. scheme, they will come to the conclusion that not only would it be wrong to expect a local body to undertake that work, but that it must be carried out by the Govern­ment, or otherwise the settlers on the Lower Avoca will suffer the deprivation which has been referred to by the honorable member for Rodney; that is to say, the people higher up the river will .take the supply of water that now goes down into the Lower Avoca in times of flood, and the people on the Lower Avoca will be deprived of it. That will undoubtedly be the case if the different localities are left to obtain a supply of water for themselves. I put it to honor­able members whether it is likely that, if a. waterworks trust was formed at East Charl­ton to get a supply of water for that muni­cipality, the. commissioners would consider the claims of the people residing in the neighbourhood of Lake Marmal ?

Mr. C. YOUNG.-Theywould be bound to do so. There are restrictive clauses in the Bill,

Water Conservation Bill. [OCTOBER 18.J First Night's Debate. 413

Mr. RICHARDSON.-The honorable member for Rodney has pointed out that it will be impossible to carry the restrictive clauses into effect. What I desire to show is that the whole of the schemes suggested for the benefit of the Northern Plains by the officers appointed by the Government to report on the subject are only the foundation of a water supply, and that the Government must lay that foundation themselves. It will not do to allow water supply works to be carried out in patches. by local water­works trusts in such a way that some portions of the country will suffer while others are benefited. The necessity for the Government undertaking the works as a whole will be clearly understood by a perusal of the report of Messrs. Gordon and Black in reference to the Lower Avoca scheme. The river Avoca rises in the Amphitheatre, and the floods that occur in that part of the country only extend as far as Bael Bael on extraordinary occasions. In the country adjacent to the Avoca the evaporation is 3 feet 3 inches more than the rainfall, so that the lakes and swamps on each side of the river are only filled in flood times-when the river overflows its banks. It has been proposed to erect a weir on the river near East Charlton, and to divert the water so as to fill Tyrrell Creek and Lalbert Creek; and, when those two creeks are filled, it is proposed to cut a number of tanks by the side of the river. Many of them will have an opening into the river, so that when there is an ordinary flood they will be filled. In a very large portion of the Lower Avoca country the lakes are only filled after a succession of floods, so that the consequence of diverting the water from the higher part of the river into Lake Tyrrell and Lake Lalbert-the former a distance of 80 miles-will be that the sup­ply of water which the Lower Avoca country obtains at the present time will be entirely cut off. Messrs. Gordon and Black make certain suggestions to obviate such a con­tingency, and if honorable members read their report on the Lower Loddon scheme they will see the care those officers have taken to consider the position in which the selectors on the Lower Avoca are placed and the valuable suggestions which are made to the Government on the subject. From per­sonal observation of the country, I can endorse the opinion of Messrs. Gordon and Black. If the Government, after the evidence sup­plied to them by those officers, expect that the passing of the Bill will give a supply of water to the settlers on the Northern

Plains, they will be guilty of culpable negli­gence. Merely to pass this measure will be to inflict a great wrong upon the country. Messrs. Gordon and Black, by the infor­mation contained in their reports, caution the Government, and caution this House, not to allow their schemes to be meddled with, as they will be if the carrying out or water supply works is left entirely to water­works trusts. There can be no question that, if beneficial schemes for supplying the country districts with water are to be carried out, they must be undertaken as a whole, at all events up to a certain point, by the Government. I ask the Government to do 'that. I ask them to take water to the districts, and then let the people in each locality, by' means of waterworks trusts, distribute the water supplied by the Go­vernment. The selectors have a right to expect that Parliament will furnish the Government with enough money to enable them to supply water to the country dis­tricts. I have no objection to assist the Government in passing the Bill, if the obstacles I have pointed out are removed; but I say that this measure alone will never give water supply to the country districts. I believe it is the intention of the Govern­ment that country districts shall obtain water supply, and hence I have contributed my share to the debate, with the view of inducing the Government to consider the whole question in the light I have put it. After the clear statement of the honorable member for Rodney, I think they must admit that they are not doing as much as they intended to do, and certainly not as much as the selectors and the country gene­rally expect them to do. I hope that they will see their way to adopt a different course, and supply the country districts with water, so that the selectors may be able to remain on their land.

Mr. BENT.-Sir, I think that the Go­vernment must, at all events, be pleased with the manner in which the House has received the BilL The honorable member for Belfast has paid the highest compliment to the Bill that any man could bestow upon it, because he said that, after comparing it with the Water Supply Acts in force iIi India, California, Canada, and other coun­tries, the only fault he could find with this measure is that it contains too much" Go­vernor in Council."

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-Did I say that was the only fault? I think the honorable member must have been out of the House when I spoke.

414 Water Conservation Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] First Night's Debate.

Mr. BENT.-At all events, the principal objection which the honorable member ,raised against the Bill was that there are 44 clauses in it referring to the Governor in Council; but if the honorable member looks at the Local Government Act he will find :at least 54 sections in that Act in which the Governor in Council is alluded to. I have marked 54 sections, but I dare say there are 108, in which the Governor in Council is mentioned in almost the same words as in this Bill. Indeed, the same policy runs through both measures. The great desire of the Government is to give water to the country districts, and if honor­:able members are generous enough to want' the money for that purpose to be given to the local waterworks trusts without interest -if that is the unanimous wish of the House-of course the present Gover,nment mll distribute the money as well as anybody else. If it is the unanimous wish of the House that the Government should provide water supply to the country districts accord­ing to Messrs. Gordon and Black's plans, and without charging the localities any in­terest on the expenditure, the present Minis­try, I am quite sure, are prepared to go as far as any other Government in that direction.

Mr. VALE.-If you did that, you would have to remit the rates charged for supply­ing water from the Yan Yean.

Mr. BENT.-All that the Government wish to do is to enable the country districts to obtain water supply. They propose to raise a loan, out of which they will advance money to any local waterworks trust that may be established. The Government can bon'ow the money cheaper than any local bodies, and for the advances which they make to the trusts they will charge a trifle higher interest than they themselves pay­just sufficient, in fact, to cover office ex­penses and the cost of distributing the money. As to the reports of Messrs. Gordon and Black, the credit of engaging those two gentlemen to inquire into the subject of proyiding a supply of water to the Northern Plains belongs to a former Minister, the honorable member for Sand­hurst (Mr. Olark). It is now for the House to determine whether it wishes the Government to carry out the schemes sug­gested by Messrs. Gordon and Black or to endorse the policy indicated in the Bill. 'The Government have so much confidence in the people of the country and in local govomment that they are willing to leave each locality to carry out such water supply works as it thinks will best suit its own

requirements. If any district can show that the construction of a tank or any other water supply )Yorks will be of benefit to that p~rticular locality, the (iovernment are willing to advance the money for that purpose to a local waterworks trust, and to charge the lowest possible amount of interest for the loan. The honorable member for Rodney (Mr., Gillies) spoke of certain dis­tricts not p~\.ying interest on the money advance!). to ~hem for water supply works, but I can, tell him of one or two that are paying interest.," The people of Melbourne are paying a large sum of money for wat~r from the Y an Yean. The Y an Yean is one of the most successful water supply schemes that was ever carried out. But little or nothing" has hitherto been done towards giving the, country districts water supply. The Goverlll;nent are, however, deter­mined to make a start in that direction. They admit that the Bjll can be improved, ::tnd in committ~e they will be prepared to accept, any reasOl),able amendment, proposed in a friendly ma,nner, which will be likely to make the measure more comprehensive and perfect. The honorable member for Rodney took some objection to the pumping clauses, but those clauses are really for the benefit of places in his district. When I was at Echuca, the other night, the mayor of that town told me that, if the Govern­ment would provide for allowing persons to pump from the Murray, water might be pumped from that river across the flat, por­tions of the adjacent country and used for irrigating thousands of , acres <;>f land. " The pumping clauses were accordingly put in.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-Did the con­versation take place the other night?

Mr. BENT.-Well, a fortnight or three weeks ago. The honorable member for Rodney also complained of the provisions conferring certain powers on private persons. That part of the Bill was framed to suit the requirements 6f a portion of the district of Bacchus Marsh. The Bill, in fact, has been revised and perfected, as far as the Government were able to perfect it, up to the latest date. The Government believe that the people in each district are the best quali­fied to judge as to the waterworks which they require, and the proper persons to carry out the works; ::tnd that is the main principle on which the Bill is founded. As to the differential rating clauses, I think they are perfectly just, for, as the honorable member for Oreswick (Mr. Richardson) has pointed out, a man living near the banks of a river may benefit from the water supply works to

Wa.ter Conservation Bill. [OCTOBER 18.] . First Night's Debate. 415

a far greater extent than one residing miles away. The press of the country has been unanimous in declaring the Bill a grand one. At all events, it shows a desire on the part o~ the Government to give the country dis­tricts water.supply, and it is founded on the principles of local government. I don't think that it could be based on better principles. As the House seems to be en­tirely in favour of the measure, I hope that it will become law in a very short time. I am sure that no selector will object to pay a rate of one halfpenny an acre for water supply, when he now often loses a whole day in going a distance of 10 or 15 miles to get a cask of water for domestic purposes, and a couple of days in driving his cattle or sheep ·to a river or water-hole and back again. I hope that the Bill will be passed as soon as possible, for in some parts of the country it is absolutely necessary that water supply works. should be commenced at once.

Mr. WRIXON.- Sir, I was glad to hear the Minister of Railways address the House in the tone he did, for it shows that the Government are open to receive amend­ments to the Bill in committee. It is only n~tural that they should be, because, from the short period they have been in office, it is not to be expected that they have been able to prepare an absolutely perfect mea­sure for water supply. It appears to me, however, that the Bill does not carry out the principle which the Minister of Rail­ways has laid down, and which he states he is very anxious to see adopted, namely, the principle of local control over, and local execution of, the works that are to be con­structed under the measure. The trusts cc;mstituted under the Bill, unless the mea­sure is amended in committee, ,vill be the mere creatures of the Minister of the day who has the general administration of the Act. The Governor in Council-and the Minister is really the Governor in Council --;-is to have the power of nominating one commissioner on every trust. That will at once involve the Government in a liability for everything the trusts do. The proposal is that the Governor in Council shall ap­point not an architect or a surveyor to look after the works, but a member of each trust. The fact of there being a Government com­missioner on each trust will, I repeat, dra.g the Government into responsibility for what­ever the trusts do. . Mr. GILLIES.-vVhat about the Mel­

bourne Harbour Trust? The Government appoint commissioners, and that involves no responsibility.

Mr. WRIXON.-There is a great dif­ference between that case and what I am now talking about. Under the Bill, not only do the Government start with having their nominee on each trust, but they take power to dismiss any member of a trust or the whole of the members. Clause 18 provides that every commissioner, whether elected or appointed, the Governor in Council may remove from office. So that each trust will really be the creature of the Govern­ment, not merely because the Government will have a nominee upon it, which is an important point, but because they can dis­miss the whole body. And when a trust is constituted, how is it to proceed? It cannot take a single step without the con­sent of the Minister who, for the time being, administers the Act. Plans of its works must be prepared and sent to the Minister to be considered; and the Minister may alter or add to them, or he may disapprove of them altogether. And after works are in progress, according to plans approved of by the Minister, the accounts relating to them must be submitted to the Minister and have his approval.

Mr. BURROvVES.-Under the Local Government Act, officers are appointed by the Ministry to examine municipal accounts.

Mr. WRIXON.-There is a great dif­ference between the two cases. Clause 17 provides as follows :-

" All accounts whether for principal works or not intended by any waterworks trust to be charged to any such loan shall be subject to the approval of the Minister, who may disallow such of them or such items of any of them as he may think fit, and no such account or items of an account so disallowed shall be deemed to be a charge or chargeable against any such loan."

Thus it appearE) that a trust will not be able to incur a single expenditure unless with the approval of the :Minister. He may disallow any single item he likes. There­fore, it is a delusion to suppose that the principle of local government will be carried out by these trusts~ The trusts will really be the mere creatures of the Minister. Here is another clause (the 78th) which is very inconsistent with the possession of any local power :-

"The Governor in Council may from time to time give any general or specific direction to any waterworks trust ~or the purpose of more effec­tually enforcing the construction, maintenance, and continuance of the waterworks within the waterworks district of such trust in accordance with the plan thereof and the provisions of this Act. If such waterworks trust shall refuse or shall neglect or fail within a reasonable time after such direction to comply therewith, the

416 Water Conservation Bill. [ASSEMBL Y. ] First }light's Debate.

Governor in Council may order such direction to be carried out by the Board of Land and Works."

Here is a general sweeping provision that the Minister, at any time, may issue a direction to a trust to carry out any par­ticular thing in the manner which he thinks proper; and if the trust does not comply with the direction, the Government can carry out the works themselves and charge the cost against the loan. Thus, while the Government do not take the works into their own hands, which I would be sorry to see them do, they do not leave matters to local control or superintendence. The trust is a mere blind. Behind everything is the Minister. The honorable member for Rod­ney (Mr. Gillies) has asserted that the Government will never recover the interest on the moneys they advance. I don't see why they should not. I don't see why water should be supplied to country dis­tricts, any more than to Melbourne, for nothing. At the same time, I say that the money will never be obtained if the works are carried out as the Bill provides for, and if everything is to be under the control of the Governor in Oouncil. It will be im­possible, under such circumstances, to en­force the payment of interest. If the matter is made a really local matter, and the trusts are invested with proper control, rates may be levied, and the interest be forthcoming; but if the matter is left in the hands of the Governor in Oouncil, rates can't and won't be levied. I have thus indicated my ob­jections to the Bill. If the Government see their way to adopt the suggestion of the honorable member for Belfast, and remit the Bill to a select committee, I shall be glad; but if that course is ob­jected to, I hope we shall be able, in com­mittee of the whole House, so to amend the Bill as to obviate the defects of which I have spoken. It seems to me that the better course would be to place the proposed waterworks under the control of some inde­pendent body standing between the Govern­ment and the localities. If they are placed under the control of a responsible Minister, as provided for by the Bill, nothing effectual will be done, for the reason that no Minister can look after the necessary details, or en­force or exact rights, whetl;ter the payment of interest or otherwise. Here I would refer to what was the original idea connected with the creation of the Board of Land and Works. When that board was first consti­tuted, the intention of the Legislature was that it should be a thoroughly independent

Mr. Wrixon.

body, and that it should deal with matters of detail such as those which bristle in this Bill, which now overwhelm' Ministers, and which cannot be considered on their merits because of the pressure of political influence. Section 12 of the original Act under which the Board of Land and Works was consti­tuted provided as follows :-

"The board shall consider and determine all matters and questions relating to the adoption of any plans and specifications for public works, and shall consider and deal with all requisitions for buildings, furniture, or repairs, and shall decide upon the acceptance of all tenders for such works,'buildings, furnitUl'e, or repairs, and the terms and conditions on which the same shall be accepted, together with the nature and amount of security to be given for the perform­ance of any contract arising out of the same, and all other matters and questions relating to or concerning the public lands, works, and buildings of the colony."

That plan would have worked admirably but for the fact that the Minister of Lands for the time being was made a member of the board. Of course, the Minister would not allow himself to be overruled byany­body who might sit next to him at the board; and in consequence the other mem­bers became merely the Minister's creatures. As a matter of fact, the Board of Land and Works is nothing, but the Minister is everything. The Minister sits at the board, and beside him are two officers who are simply his servants and who do whatever he tells them. So that the object of the Le­gislature in constituting the board has been lost sight of and forgotten. Now I would suggest that when we are opening up a new branch of great public works which, if they are to accomplish their object, must be of wide extent and vast importance, we ought, instead of casting everything on the Min­ister as provided by tIllS Bill, to revert to the common-sense plan of having some board of commissioners that would deal with all the practical questions-the matters, of detail-inseparable from the undertaking •. By this arrangement, Ministers would be relieved from work which now they are not able to do, and which prevents them attending to their proper, duty, and at the same time the proposed water schemes would be placed under the control of a simple business body that would deal with them simply on business principles.

Mr. R. CLARK.-Sir, I am much pleased to hear the expression of the wish that this question should be discussed alto­gether free from party considerations. The matter is one of general interest, and it is of especial importance to the people on the

Water Conservation Bill. [OCTOBER 18.] First Nigltt's Debate.' 417

'Northern Plains. I have recently visited that portion of the colony, and I know for a fact that the scarcity of water in that region, during the last twelve' months, has been felt intensely. I approve of what the Government propose to do, though I think the machinery they contemplate employing is exceedingly clumsy. There seems to be nothing but "Governor in Council" from the beginning to the end of the Bill. The

· Minister of Railways, alluding to the ob­jection of the honorable member for Belfast

· that. the· Bill contained 44 clauses which referred to the Governor in Council, men-

· tioned that the Local Government Act contained· 54 clauses having a similar reference. But it should be recollected that for the 94 clauses in this Bill there are 532 clauses in the Local Government Bill, so that there is no analogy whatever between the two cases. Then again, the cities, towns, and boroughs constituted under the Local Government Act have vastly different powers from those which it is proposed to give to the trusts which will be created under this Bill. One extraordinary feature of the measure is that whereas people living in the part of the country brought under its operation will be liable to be rated as high as 2s. in the £1, they will not have power to create their own trust.

Mr. L. L. SMITH.-They will have the power.

Mr. R. CLARK.-N o. The Governor in Council must appoint one trustee; and the honorable member for Portland has pointed out that the Government of the day will have great power over the trusts. With regard to the objection of the honorable member for Belfast, whom I must compli-

, ment for treating this subject in the fairest possible way and for the valuable informa­tion he has furnished the House, I may mention that the object which the Water Conservancy Board had in view, in cormexion with the Northern Plains, was not so much irrigation as the immediate supply of the people with water. Messrs. Gordon and Black, addressing the Minister of Water Supply on the 10th September, say-

"The scope of the several schemes as now proposed is limited to bringing a supply for domestic purposes and the use of stock within a maximum distance of about three miles to every

. part of the country comprised in the several schemes, and the approximate estimates of the cost have been calculated on the basis of a system of races and tanks at intervals of six miles."

. During the last summer, settlers in that part of the country had to take their stock for water a distance, in some cases, of 12 or

14 miles; so that if we can bring wat~r within easy distance-something less than three miles-we shall do a very good work. Further on, Messrs. Gordon and Black state-

"·We think it is wise not to rush into expen­sive projects with the risk of financial failure, but rather so to layout the works that they can be gradually developed as the demand for water increases, or as the profitable application of it to the land becomes apparent; for all experi­ence goes to show that it is only by the teaching of actual experience, and the patient study ot' all the conditions under which such works can be economically carried out, that success can be assured."

It has been said that £300,000 is not suf­ficient for the carrying out of the works embraced in Messrs. Gordon and Black's scheme; but I believe it will be ample. If it is not, there will be nothing to prevent the House granting a further sum. I may mention that these gentlemen, while deal­ing with the question of water conservation, have not overlooked the question of irriga­tion. On the contrary, they have kept that question constantly before their minds. For example, here is what they say in one of their reports :-

" From observation and the careful considera­tion of available data, it is manifest to us that, taking the division of the colony to the north of the dividing range, the yearly discharge of most of the rivers which flow northward to the Murray, combined with the local rainfall, would be far more than sufficient to supply the wants of the several localities through which they re­spectively flow with water for domestic pur­poses, and the use of stock, if the winter flood waters could be secured and made available for distribution and local storage against the dry periods of the year, and it seems to us that in most cases this may be done by a system of local works at a cost not disproportionate to the benefit to be derived therefrom'; at the same time, such works may be so designed that the chief part of them would fall in with and form an integral part of any extended system of irri­gation should it be deemed expedient to enter upon such an undertaking after due inquiry as to the practicability and cost of obtaining and storing a sufficient supply of water."

So I submit that in carrying water over the Northern Plains~in running as many streams as we can through that arid region -we are taking steps in the direction of irrigation. What I regret is that in connexion with the Water Conservation Bill brought forward by the Government the reports of Messrs. Gordon and Black are not even mentioned. I contend that they should have formed schedules to the Bill. They are of infinitely more impor­tance than the Bill, and, if they were ap­pended to the measure, it would be known

418 Water Conservation Bill. [ASSEMBLY. J First Nighls Dehdte~

in what direction the £300,000 proposed to I much benefited. I consider the question of be dedicated to water conservation would be water conservation one of most pressing applied. Let honorable members consider urgency, and for that reason I regret I can­the vast amount of territory which would not agree with the principles enunciated in be benefited if Messrs. Gordon and Black's the Bill. I look at the map which has been recommendations are carried out. It em- placed on the table, and I find that, on it, braces East Loddon, Swan Hill, Marong, various schemes have been marked out, Stawell, St. Arnaud, Huntly, Waranga, including the Broken River, the Goulburn, Benalla, Yarrawonga, and Shepparton- the Campaspe, the Huntly, the Loddon, altogether nearly 5,500,000 acres, or 8,560 the Gunbower, the Lower Avoca, and the square miles; and the cost of the works is Wimmera schemes. We have a Govern­estimated at £272,122. If the passage of ment department which has had the adminis­the Bill will be the means of securing a tration of water supply business in its hands, permanent water supply to that territory, and which has done very little hitherto. what better can the House do than to pass However, I presume the Water Supply de­the measure? I have said that the machinery partment has existed for some good practical of the Bill is somewhat clumsy; but that purpose. I presume, indeed I believe, that can be rectified in committee. However, I competent hydraulic engineers have gone concur with the honorable member for about Victoria, and framed schemes by means Rodney (Mr. Gillies) that there will not be of which water supply may be provided for much use in passing the Bill if we insist the whole country. That being so, why are upon getting from local bodies 4t per cent. we to take a departure of the kind now pro­on the money loaned to them for water posed? Why are we to let slip, as it were, supply purposes. In view of the fact that the whole control of the water supply of the the State grants £310,000 per annum by country from the Water Supply department, way of municipal subsidy, and that the and to intrust it, in a way we have no concep­Estimates for the current year provide for tion of, to some few local bodies. Allusion roads, bridges, and other local works to the has been made by the honorable member for tune of another £100,000, I don't think Belfast to the circumstance that, under the £300,000 is too much for the State to spend Bill, the Governor in Council will have too in water conservation works over the extent much power over the local bodies. That of territory I have just referred to. Let certainly is an objection to which the Bill it be recollected that, unless water is taken is open, regarded from one point of vie"w"; to the farmers, many of them will have to but the point of view from which I regard give up the land they now hold. Certainly the measure is that it will have the effect the creation of a weir costing something of setting people in country districts by the like £15,000 or £20,000 should be regarded ears. Clause 5 provides as follows :-as a national work-a work that a poor "For the purpose of enabling the council of district, with a sparse population, cannot any .~uniciJ?al .dist~i?t or the councils of any be expected to construct out of its own mUlllClpal dlst.nc~sJollltlyto prepare the ge~eral

plan and descnptIOn of any waterworks reqUIred, resources.

Mr. FISHER.-Sir, I quite agree with the honorable member for Belfast that £300,000 is a small amount to dedicate to the purpose of water conservation. In my humble judgment, three or four times that sum would be scarcely sufficient to carry out the great object we have in view. I yield to no honorable member in realizing the neces­sity for furnishing water to the Northern Plains and the country adjacent. I am aware of the disabilities under which the set­tlers in those parts suffer. I am acquainted with many of those settlers; and I know that it is a matter of life or death to them whether they shall hold on to their selections. I do not intend to oppose the Bill; but I do not see that, under the provisions of the measure, the selector on the Northern Plains, or anywhere else, will be very

any such council may by themselves or their officers, surveyors, engineers, agents, or servants enter at all reasonable hours in the day-time into any lands, whether within or without such district or districts, and make any surveys and take any levels which may be deemed necessary without being liable to any legal proceedings on account of such entry."

Mr. L. L. SMITH.-That is done in the case of railways.

Mr. FISHER.-The policy of this country has been to keep all the railways in the hands of the Government. We acquired the Hobson's Bay Railway for that particular reason. But I apprehend that the policy with reference to water supply is based on another footing altogether. My own opinion is that, as matters stand, water supply should be in the same category as railways. At the same time, I don't approve of what is called centralization. I would like to see

Irater Conservation Bill. [OCTOBER 18.] First Night's Debate. 419

decentralization; but I don't think that, in the case of water supply, we can adopt the decentralization principle with success. -Now, referring to the clause I have quoted, we know what the small councils in various parts of the· country are. Many members of those councils have lasting feuds with the neighbouring landowners; and I say this 5th clause will give one or two persons the opportul).ity of indulging their private grudges. All sorts of manceuvres will be resorted to in order to harass people with whom one or two of these men ~ay not be on good terms. And what redress will the landowners have? None whatever, although any amount of damage may be done to their land. I find that the most extraordinary powers are to be granted to the waterworks trusts contemplated by the Bill. According to clause 37, every such trust is to have" the exclusive control and management of the various lakes, lagoons, swamps and marshes, rivers, creeks, and water-courses specified in the Order or Orders in Oouncil authorizing the proposed waterworks;" and clause 38 empowers it to enter upon lands, "and take the levels of -th,e same, and se~ out such parts thereof as it thinks necessary, and dig and break up the soil of such lands or trench the same, and remove or use all earth, stones, trees, or other things dug or gotten out of the same." I find that clause 39 provides that each trust" shall, if required, make full compensation to all parties interested for all damage sustained by them in conse­quence of any land being taken possession ,of and appropriated;" b~t then clause 41 says-

"No waterworks' trust shall be liable to make compensation for the damage (if any) sustained for or in respect of the taking or diverting of water."

utterly inconsistent. The one requires each waterworks trust to make compensation, and the other says that no compensation shall be granted unless it is claimed within two months. Then there is clause 43, about which my mind has been very much exer­cised. It is as follows :-

" In default of the owner or occupier and the commissioners agreeing upon what bridges, fords, or other means of crossing; or what drain­age works or embankments, it may be necessary to so construct, either party, on giving notice to­the other, may have the matter determined by any two justices, of whom a police magistrate shall be one. ~uch determination shall be final and conclusive on all parties."

Now what are two justices, "of whom a police magistrate shall be one," to know about these things? I consider the provi­sion utterly absurd. I could understand such matters being referred to competent officers of the Lands department, who wonld give a decision in accordance with what ought to be right. But I deny the compe­tencyof any ordinary police magistrate or justice of the peace to decide upon matters in connexion with water supply.

Mr. O. YOUNG. - What about the Fencing Act? They have to decide dis­putes arising under that measure.

Mr. FISHER.-The Fencing Act is a. very different measure from this. It is much simpler. Everyone knows what a fence is, and the great point to be decided under the Fencing Act is one of boundaries. But to decide what bridges or embankments might be necessary in connexion with water supply works, two justices-although one of them might be a police magistrate­would be a most incompetent tribunal. Occasionally there might be a magistrate who knew something about the matter; but, as a rule, the chances would be 10 to 1 against a proper decision. According to

Mr. BENT.-Read on. clause 44, each trust will have" the control, Mr. FISHER.--:....The clause states fur- supervision, and guidance of all officers,

ther- servants, and persons" whom it employs, "No waterworks trust shall be liable to pay but" subject to the approval of the Governor

,any'compensation uuder the provisions of this in Oouncil." So that, after all-as the 'Act unless the same be claimed in writing within 1 I ,two months after the trust shall have taken the honorab e member for Port and has pointed steps or commenced to do the thing in respect out-these waterworks trusts will not be -of which the claim accrued or would have trusts. They are to be something else-accrued." something completely under the Governor But· how does that alter matters ? in Oouncil. With regard to the penalty

Mr. L. L. SMITH.-The clause is, word prescribed for damaging waterworks, or for Wo~d, a transcript of a section in the diverting or polluting water, I find that it Public Works Act. is limited to a fine of £5. But I call that

Mr. 'FISHER.-That may be. There utterly absurd considering that such damage are many Acts which are. very imperfect, in some cases might not be repaired for less and this may be one of them. There can than £10,000. Then I wish to direct at­be -no -doubt that clauses 39 and 41 are I tention to clause 50, which provides-

420 Water Conservation Bill. [ASSEMBL Y. ] First Night's Debate.

"No waterworks trust shall be liable to any penalty or damages for not supplying water if the want of such supply arises from unusual drought or othE)r unavoidable cause or accident."

But who is to decide the question? As I have said, one or two members of the trust may not live on amicable terms with their neighbours, and may join to cut off their neighbours' water supply. What is to be done to them if they choose to act in that sort of way? The Bill contains no pro­vision by which they may be got at and compelled to do their duty. Much more objectionable, to my mind, than any other portion of the measure are the clauses con­ferring certain almost ~nlimited powers upon a small body of private persons. It is true such a body will be subject to various re­strictions on the part of the Governor in Council, but, nevertheless, part 7 of the Bill will place them in possession of authority equal, in many respects, to that of a muni­cipal council. Also, I notice that in case the affairs of such a body have to be wound up, the Governor in Council will be able to appoint successors to them. So that, vir­tually, the Minister of Water Supply will have full control over the whole arrange­ment. I would say, however, that if he is to hold a position of that high sort, he ought to usc it in the proper way. What I mean is that I would have him act on the schemes propounded by Messrs. Gordon and Black, by carrying them out on his own responsibility. The present shuffling off by the Government of the responsibility properly attaching to them is an ignoble proceeding. Sir, while I regret that I cannot approve of the provisions of the Bill, nor consistently vote for its second reading, I yield to no one in my intense desire that a water supply should be established for the Northern Plains, and I trust the House will insist upon Ministers boldly tackling that matter themselves, instead of endeavouring to thrust it upon others. .

Mr. FRASER.-I am glad to notice that every honorable member who addresses the House is emphatic in expressing the view that we really must have a great sys­tem of water supply, because ideas of that sort cannot be entertained too strongly. The question we have to discuss just now is, I think, whether we will make the nor­thern farmers a present of a certain expen­diture upon waterworks, or whether we will adopt the Government scheme, which calls upon the local governing bodies to under­take such works for themselves. I have no hesitation in stating that the Government

scheme is sound in principle-no other scheme equally sound can be brought for­ward-and therefore I shall support the second reading of the Bill, without attempt­ing to cavil at defects in it, which will be best dealt with in committee. No doubt there will be a serious difficulty in making the farmers interested in a particular loan for water supply responsible for the interest upon the money, but I think it will be met if we display a proper liberality, and on national grounds reduce the interest payable by them to say 2 per cent. instead of 5 per cent. Such terms would not be too liberal from a national point of view. As for the report of Messrs. Gordon and Black, I re­gard it as most valuable. What do those gentlemen recommend? The carrying out of seven water schemes, covering a vast expanse of country-one may say almost the whole of the northern part of the colony -the total cost of which they estimate at no more than £272,000. For my part, I would deem it an act of only fair liberality if the House were to say that those seven schemes should be at once carried out by the State, the Government looking to the advantages arising from the works contem­plated in them as a sufficient return for the expenditure. I am quite sure those ad­vantages will be very great, because I find that one of the schemes, which applies to my own district, means the creation, for £44,217, of a new river, 72 miles in length, beginning at a weir, thrown across the Goulburn near Murchison, and ending at the Campaspe, a little below Rochester. On the other hand, I have no belief what­ever in "hifalutin" schemes like that of the honorable member for Mandurang (Mr. McColl). I infinitely prefer to pin my faith to men of scientific research, who speak from say a quarter of a century's training, rather than to men who have no practical knowledge or experience to guide them. I bear in mind that, while it may be easy to force on the State to spend millions of money in a particular direction, if that ex­penditure proved unsuccessful there must come a day of reckoning, in which the working classes would be the· first to suffer. With such ideas in. my mind, I say that no honorable member with the interests of the colony at heart ought to dream of advocat­ing any haphazard scheme of water supply. With respect, however, to carrying out Messrs. Gordon and Black's schemes, there is this to be said that, even in case of utter failure, £272,000 is not more than the colony can afford to lose over works of

Water Conservation 1J.ill. [OCTOBER 18.J First Night's Debate. 421

the sort. Indeed, if it is found possible to maintain any very serious objections to the Bill, I would urge the Government to aban­don it altogether, and carry out the Gordon and Black schemes for themselves. One word as to the remarks of the honorable member for Belfast concerning the effect of water supply upon the stock-carrying capa­city of land. I am satisfied that every farmer supplied with water under any of the schemes I refer to will be able to keep more stock than he does at present. The point is by carrying stock any great distance to water you impoverish them, whereas by carrying water to them you enable them to live on very little grass. All my experience goes to prove that, in time of drought, sheep and cattle die rather from want of water than from want of grass. Therefore I regard the argument of the.honorahle member for Belfast as unsound. The honorable member for Creswick (Mr. Richardson) was rather energetic in de­nouncing the Bill as unrighteous, and so faultily framed that nothing could be ac­complished under it; but I would point out to him that if it can only be a dead letter there can be no harm in passing it. I, however, believe that, when it is carried into law, it will be made the means of much good. For example, I know a shire council most anxious to undertake one of the Gor­don and Black schemes; and, be it remem­bered, the shire councils in my part of the country are chiefly composed of hard-headed industrious men, who are in no hurry to tax themselves in order to carry out a visionary idea. I say that, when such men are willing to put their hands in their own pockets in order to undertake a rational and well ap­proved system of water supply, the Legisla­ture would be false to its position if it did not encourage and assist them. With all this before me, I see no reason why we should not read the Bill a second time, leaving its faults to be corrected in com­mittee. Whether it will or will not accom­plish all it is intended to accomplish, one thing is certain, that we are not likely to gain much by lingering over such a scheme as that of the honorable member for Man­durango Indeed I don't know, in the least, where the capital required for carrying it out could be obtained.

Mr. McCOLL.-I will tell you to-mor­row night.

Mr. FRASER.-I will stake any repu­tation I possess that it will not be forth­coming from capitalists of the ordinary kind. I urge honorable members to be, on the one hand, reasonable' and cautious,

SES. 1881.-2 G

and, on the other, really in earnest in en .. dea vouring to meet the demands of the country for a comprehensive system of water supply.

Mr. PEARSON.-Sir, I confess I am a little amused at the defence to the Bill offered by the Minister of Railways. From what he said, it would seem that the measure was drawn up chiefly from happy thoughts that occurred to him at a banquet at Echuca or else from suggestions casually made to him at Bacchus Marsh; and my confidence in it was not increased when he told us that if any honorable member would suggest a better Bill he, for one, would adopt jt. That is not quite the way in which one expects measures intended for the consideration of Parliament to be drafted. At the same time, I am very much interested in the Bill, and extremely relieved to find that the ob­jections offered to it are not such as need in the least, as far as I can see, prevent us from going into committee upon it, or seriously interfere with our adoption of its provisions. Indeed, one or two of those objections are more apparent than real. For instance, the honorable member for Belfast observed-if I rightly understood him­that inasmuch as the Government were in possession of approved water schemes, drawn up by two able engineers selected for the purpose, which would cost nearly £300,000, or nearly the whole of the amount intended by them for water supply, there was incon­sistency in their bringing in a measure en­abling the municipal councils of the country, as water trusts, to spend an equal sum of money. I gathered that it seemed to him as though the Government, with every reason to spend a particular sum of money in a particular direction, were taking steps to divert the expenditure into another direction. But, if that is a difficulty, an easy way of getting out of it, and one which I would recommend myself, would be very much increasing the amount of money to be devoted to water purposes. I assert that if the Government would be courageous enough to strike £2,000,000 off their intended expenditure on railways, and add £500,000 to their outlay on water­works, they would find their proposals much more acceptable and popular. An­other objection of a similar kind to the Bill is that offered by the honorable member for Rodney (Mr. Gillies), who contends that the measure will confer no new powers­in fact, that it contains nothing not prac­ticallyembodied in existing Acts. But it seems to me that contention simply amounts

42~ Water Conservation Bill. t ASSEMBL Y. ] First Night's Debate.

to tiils, that the Bill proposes to carry out by somewhat different means, and in more carefully couched phraseology, provisions now spread over several portions of the statute-book. At the same time, the honorable member himself pointed out that it contains important particulars not in­cluded in the existing law. Much more serious. are the objections urged by the honorable member for Portland, because there is no doubt the Bill does confer enor­mous-I think exorbitant--powers on the Government of the day; but, nevertheless, it seems to me that it will be perfectly possible to amend all that sort of thing when we are in committee. On the other hand, the Bill appears to embody three or four very sound principles, besides indirectly meeting a great national want which we cannot postpone dealing with. In the first place, it provides for the local initiation and local management of water schemes, which is all the more important because it will be impossible to expect irrigation to pay unless it is applied with extreme ~lConomy. I find that a water commission appointed in California speak of £1, or at most £2, per acre as the utmost that can be expended upon irrigation works without danger. According to that view, £300,000 would only provide irrigation for a very small proportion of the agricultural area of the colony. However, so far as I can see, what we want is not large or costly waterworks, so much as waterworks in almost every direction, all under the management of local men able to practise the economies in con­nexion with them that, on the one hand, are so necessary, and, on the other, can only be known to men of local experience. Looking at the Bill in that light, many of its pro­visions deserve great credit. In the next place, it is most important, when we are approaching the subject of what may be a costly branch of public expenditure, that we should try to make the works constructed under it, as much as possible, reproductive. On this point I will say, with regard to the Coliban scheme, that though it is in many respects a singularly costly failure, yet it has, with all its faults, been the means of keeping hundreds of men in profitable em­ployment in Castlemaine, and, I believe, in Sandhurst too. Of course, for such a national advantage, the country generally may be expected to pay something; but, at the same time, the reproductiveness I refer to ought to be steadily aimed at, and I think that the Government should be praised for their endeavours to carry out, in that

Mr. Pearson.

direction, a thoroughly sound policy. We must also take into account that the rating powers conferred under the Bill-whether they are sufficient we may consider iIi com­mittee-will doubtless have the effect of diverting the application of a large portion of the country from pastoral to agricultural purposes. For instance, in the case of a mixed area, in the local governing body of which the farmers have the majority, the effect of the rating adopted in their interest may very possibly be to induce the pastoral holders of land to devote it to agricultural purposes, in order to enable it to make. a return equal to the demands upon it. What we shall have then will be the land supporting men, women, and clilldren, instead of sheep. Again, I think we may regard the framers of the Bill as indirectly, and perhaps quite unconsciously, strengthening a wise prin­ciple already existing in our legislation. The powers they propose to give to trusts under the Bill, ·to take possession of lands for waterworks purposes, constitute a new assertion of the doctrine that we on the liberal side have long steadily contended for, namely, that the State has inherent rights over all lands, and that they are not to be treated solely in the interests of their in­dividual owners. I am delighted to think the Bill contains provisions like those in clauses 37, 38, and 39. No doubt they already exist to some extent in other por­tions of our legislation, yet their presence in a new form will probably make an exten­sion of them, when we come to deal with mining on private property, very much easier. For all these reasons, I decline to look, at the present stage, at any faults of detail there may be in the Bill. I prefer to dwell on the great necessity there is for passing it rapidly into law, and the sound general principles involved in it, and I will vote with the greatest pleasure for its second reading.

Mr. R. M. SMITH.-Sir, I am greatly impressed with the change-it is one of the results of the advent into power of the present Ministry-under which I find myself cordially agreeing with the last speaker. Certainly, .uP to a late period of this evening I thought the cheerful confidence expressed by the Minister of Railways hardly had" much foundation. That honorable gentle­man thanked the House for the support given to the measure, but at that time I had hardly heard anything said in its favour. However, the honorable member for Rodney (Mr. Fraser) and the honorable member for· Castlemaine (Mr. Pearson) have relieved us

1Vater Conservation Bill. [OCTOBER 18.J Fi'J'st Nig III s Debate. 423

. of that difficulty. Inasmuch as the Bill is founded on a good principle, I think that, with such alterations as we may fairly expect to see made in it in committee, it will go further to achieve the result with respect to water supply we all have in view than anything done yet. In fact, I have been struck, while listening to the debate to-night, not only with the difficulties in the way of carrying through properly any busi­ness like that before us, but also with the circumstance that the arguments urged by various honorable members against the measure were really not only contradictory to, but absolutely destructive of, one an­other. At the same time, a very large pro­portion of them were such· as ought to be submitted only in committee. The objec­tions to the Bill offered by the honorable member for Belfast were entirely of that character, and I may add that I expe­rienced far· more difficulty than usual in ascertaining his drift. His remarks, when he addressed himself to the rate of interest to be charged to local governing bodies, related purely to a matter of detail. I perfectly agree with the honorable mem­ber for Oastlemaine that one object we ought to keep steadily in view is that the intended waterworks should be made, as far as possible, remunerative. While I differ from the honorable member for Bal­larat West (Major Smith) so far as to regard the Bill as one of real and great urgency, I do not believe, .for a moment, that the selectors in want of water who ask us to come to their aid have any notion of doing so as beggars-that they want us to confer upon them a great pecuniary and social advantage without proposing to pay anything for it. Yet, if I understood properly the arguments of the honorable member for Oreswick (Mr. Richardson) and the honorable member for Rodney (Mr. Gillies), they certainly led almost up to that conclusion. At the same time, I don't think those honorable members are quite ready to face the logical results of their contention. I scarcely imagine they will go so far as to say we ought to construct these waterworks for the selectors free of cost to them. Indeed, when I find an honorable member of the intellectual calibre of the honorable member for Rodney descend to the worn argument that the widow and orp~an would not be able to pay rates, I take it for granted he must be going upon a very weak case. Even the widow and the orphan have to pay the ordinary rates of a municipality as well as anyone else.

2G2

Indeed, there is no reason why every holder of property within a municipality should not contribute to its revenue. But I will not dwell on this, because I don't think either of the honorable members I refer to would like to push his argument to the length I am alluding to. At the same time, I quite agree that, 'while the water rate of everymuni­cipal body constructing waterworks ought to be a remunerative one, it should be kept as low as possible commensurate with there being no actual loss on their expenditure. Furthermore, it appears to me desirable that we should, as contended for by the honorable member for Rodney, establish a maximum proportion of interest to be paid by any local governing body, beyond which its rating could not go. I am also willing to have it understood that if, after water­works are constructed, a reasonable contri­bution from the inhabitants of the district interested is found insufficient to pay interest on the money borrowed for the purpose, neither the House nor the country will deem it necessary to exact the "pound of flesh." No such thing has been done in other cases of the kind. Nevertheless, I wish to be regarded all along as thoroughly respecting the view taken by the Government that the contemplated waterworks should be self­supporting. I deeply regret when hon­orable members of the standing of the honorable member for Oreswick and the honorable member for Rodney convey, through their speeches, the idea that any section of the inhabitants of the country ought to get their water for nothing. I don't believe that, at the present time, a feeling of the sort is at all prevalent, but there is no knowing how quickly it may be fostered into activity by observations of the kind I refer to. Then I come to the argu­ment adduced by the honorable member for Belfast and the honorable member for Port­land, that the Bill provides for too much Government control. Putting aside the point that the question is one of detail, and consequently for consideration in committee, I do not think it will do to ignore the source of the first cost of the intended waterworks. Surely, if the Oentral GQvern­ment find all the money for the purpose, which could hardly be obtained through private or municipal enterprise at anything like a reasonable rate, the Administration of the day should be held clearly entitled to a fair share of controlling power. There is also this much against the argument, that it is knocked over by the other argument against the Bill that it . will

424 Water Conservation Biil. [ASSEMBLY.] First Night's Debate.

permit of the clashing of rival schemes. When various municipalities are deciding upon their respecti ve schemes of wa ter supply, what would prevent them clashing more easily or effectually than control exer­cised by the Central Government, upon the advice of the scientific and trained officers at their command? It seems to me that for this, if for no other reason, ample Go­vernment control is particularly desimble. Another point urged against the Bill was directed towards its provision for differential rating. But that arrangement, although it may have its difficulties, is founded on an element of justice. Surely those who re­ceive special benefits from a public work ought to contribute specially towards its cost. As to the precise mode to be adopted for the adjustment of such a rating, that may well be considered in committee. As far as I can see, the Government aim at aiding local enterprise by every means in their power,. especially by that financial assistance which the State can frequently render, not only without loss to itself, but with considerable advantage to the portion of the community who receive it; and what do they want in return? Merely the amount of control necessary to prevent money from being wasted, rather through ignorance than deliberate misdoing, and also to be represented upon each trust. At the same time, how far their control ought to extend, and what liberty of action ought to be allowed the municip3:1 bodies concerned, is a question for the House in committee on the Bill to determine. Personally, I would not be sorry to see the whole subject referred to a select committee, because there will have to be considered in connexion with it many matters upon which the House will not be able to readily decide. But whatever the Government may do in that direction, I congratulate them upon having taken a great practical step towards supplying a great practical want. .

Mr. vVILLIAMS.-Mr. Speaker, I have gone carefully through the Bill, and I do not think, in view of the pressing necessity there is for waterworks, especially in the district I represent, I would be justified in voting' against its second reading. In fact, I regard the measure as especially framed to carry out. a certain thing that is greatly wanted, and I believe that, in spite of all its drawbacks, which may easily be amended in committee, it will work satisfactorily, and to the advantage of the community. One drawback is that if a man's land is cut up by. races or other obstacles which

may possibly depreciate its value there is no provision for him receiving compensation, although perhaps his neighbours' lands may. be very largely advanced in value by the deterioration caused to his property. This matter, however, can be dealt with in com­mittee in common with some other small points which seem to me to need amendment. The honorable member for Rodney (Mr. Gillies) referred to people being deprived of their riparian rights by the diversion of a stream, but the Bill provides that before such works are entered upon the persons affected shall have an opportunity of laying their objections before the Governor in Council, and the Governor in Council will certainly take care, before' any scheme is carried out, that the interests of other parties are not sacrificed. I cannot see that the Bill as drafted deserves the comments that have been made on it by some honorable members.

. It has been said that the money expended in obtaining the reports of Messrs. Gordon and Black has been entirely thrown away because they are not adopted by the Government, but I would point out that this Bill reserves the power in the hands of the Governor in Council of approving only of such works as may recommend themselves to his judg­ment, and, if the Government believe that Messrs. Gordon and Black's schemes of water conservation are useful and valuable, nothing will be easier than for them to see that no local scheme is carried out which will destroy or interfere with the general utility of those schemes. If that is done, I venture to say that the water supply for domestic purposes and stock which is projected by Messrs. Gordon and Black will answer all the tem­porary purposes that this House has in view at the present time. The water supply proposed by Messrs. Gordon and Black is distinctly limited to domestic and farming purposes, and is not intended for irrigation. In fact, irrigation cannot be carried out on the li)1es or their reports. Whatever neces­sity there may be for irrigation-and I believe that, if properly carried out, it would cause the land to yield perhaps fifty-fold-I cannot see how the country can possibly have a scheme of irrigation for years to come, and, if we wait until that time before providing a supply of water for domestic and farming purposes, we shall be inflicting a permanent injury and wrong on the people of the Plains. The proposals of Messrs. Gordon and Black will give a permanent supply of water to nearly every farmer on the Plains, and there is not a farmer who would grudge to pay £1 a year to obtain a permanent supply of

Water Conservation Bill. [OCTOBER 18.J First Night's Debate. 425

water for his family and stock within a reasonable distance of his selection. As to the proposal to allow the establishment of private companies under certain conditions, I think it would be well for the Government to strike out that portion of the Bill. I can readily see that the system might work a good deal of harm if it were carried out to any extent, but, on the other hand, the Executive are given such large powers over these companies that I do not think any company would embark upon the construc­tion of waterworks when, at the caprice of the Governor in Council, theiI; powers could be altogether revoked and their work ren­dered null and void. I think, therefore, it will be best to omit the provision from the Bill altogether. With regard to the pro­posal of differential rating, I thoroughly agree with the Government. Surely it, would be monstrously unjust to require a man who resided six miles away from an aqueduct to pay the same rates as the selector whose land immediately abutted on it. As to the payment of interest by the water trusts, I would ask honorable mem­bers how many of the waterworks already constructed pay the interest on the money expended on them? Why, leaving out the y an Yean, there is scarcely one that pays 2 per cent. upon the' capital invested in it. The Coliban scheme has been called a great failure, and no doubt it is so far as return­ing interest on its cost is concerned; but, on the other hand, in respect of supplying the wants of the communities of the arid district of Sandhurst and Castlemaine, it is an inestimable blessing. Besides, if that scheme had been economically carried out--if there had been no great engineer­ing blunders in connexion with it--the cost, instead of being £947,000, would not have been more than £300,000 or £350,000. Some of the best engineering authorities have inforrp.ed me that they would undertake to carry out the scheme for the latter sum. As the works at present yield £17,000 or £18,000 a year, it will thus be seen that with economical construc­tion they might even now be returning handsome interest on their cost, and the reticulation is extending every day. The Stawell waterworks have already cost £110,000, and £20,000 or £30,000 more is required to complete the scheme. With all respect for Stawell-which is not nearly as large as the borough of Eaglehawk-I must express the opinion that, unless it be­comes a great deal more prosperous and populous than it is now, it will never be

able to pay 1 per cent. on the outlay on its waterworks. Seeing, however, what has been the practice in the past, I do not think such a host of objections should be raised to this Bill because we are not sure that 4!per cent. will be obtained in each case on the money lent for the construction of water­works. I do not regard that objection as worth a moment's consideration when we consider the great advantages that will be derived from the people on the Plains being supplied with water. It is my desire that the people should get water, and that they should pay according to their means and to the benefits they obtain from the scheme of water supply. The great power that is to be exer­cised by the Governor in Council over the proposed water trusts has been objected to by seveml honomble members, but I main­tain that it is perfectly right for the Govern­ment to have a representative on every trust to see that the money advanced is properly and legitimately expended. In fact, instead of the supervision proposed to be exercised by the Governor in Coun­cil over the proceedings of the trusts being a blemish to the Bill, it is, to my mind, one of the greatest merits, and I believe the majority of honorable members will take the same view. I cannot under­stand how any honomble member, who knows how much the farmers are in need of water, can possibly object to the second reading of this measure. No doubt it is not perfect-no Bill ever is when first sub­mitted to the House-but I believe that by care and attention in committee we can make it a most valuable measure, which will be the means of bringing joy and glad­ness to the hearts of thousands of farmers in this colony. I think the Government deserve credit for introducing such a mea­sure, and I sincerely hope that they will have a substantial majority in favour of its committal. For my own part, I can say that I will heartily assist the Government in rendering it as perfect as possible, a.nd, as it is of a most urgent character, I hope no unnecessary delay will take place in passing it into law.

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

LIBRARY, MUSEUMS, AND NATIONAL GALLERY ACT

AMENDMENT BILL. This Bill was received from the Legis-,

lative Council, and, on the motion of Sir B. O'LOGHLEN, was read a first time.

426 Importation and [ASSEMBLY.] Examination of Tea Bill.

IMPORTATION AND EXAMINATION OF TEA BILL. Mr. GRAVES moved the second read­

ing of this Bill, the object of which, he ob­served, was to prevent the importation of injurious or exhausted tea. The measure was almost an exact copy of the portion of the English Sale of Food and Drugs Act which referred to tea. The importation of adul­terated tea into this colony was brought under the notice of the House in July last, but the difficulty which the Government had experienced in dealing with the matter was that they could get no chemist or expert to declare that the tea was actually unwholesome or deleterious to health, and hence, under the present law, they could not prevent it from going into consumption. The Bill provided that all tea imported into Victoria should be subject to examination, and that any tea shown by the Government Analytical Chemist to be unfit for food should be forfeited. Provision was also made to prevent exhausted tea from going into consumption.

Mr. R. M. SMITH inquired why .tea should be singled out for special legislation, when the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, from which the present Bill was taken, dealt with a large number of other articles of food or consumption?

Sir B. O'LOG HLEN remarked that tea was made the subject of special legislation in. England, being dealt with in a separate part of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act. The rcason of this was that tea was seldom adulterated in the country into which it was imported; it was imported in an adulterated state, and hence, if it was examined on im­portation, safety was secured. Honorable members would recollect that some time ago a quantity of bad tea was imported into this colony, but, being prevented from going into consumption by the then Government, it was taken to other colonies. It was sent back from those colonies, which had complained of Victoria allowing tea to be exported to them which the Government of this colony would not permit to go into consumption here. Moreover, a vessel had recently arrived in Hobson's Bay with a ~argo of tea which had been seriously damaged by sea water. This tea had been publicly exposed for sale, and had been bought as low as sixpence per case. The Government had no power at present to prevent exhausted tea from being mixed with good tea, and thus going into con­sp.mption, so that the Bill was a matter of urgency The measure was first framed

at the suggestion of the honorable mem­ber for Maryborough (Mr. Bowman), who repeatedly brought the matter under the notice of the House and the Govern­ment. He believed the honorable member was now anxious that coffee, cocoa, and other articles of food should also be dealt with in the Bill; but he would point' out that, this being a Bill affecting trade, no other matter could be now introduced into it, beyond the subject on which the House originally went into committee prior to the introduction of the Bill.

Mr. FISHER expressed the opinion that the subject of adulteration should not be dealt with in this piecemeal fashion. Why should the Government have singled out the article of tea, and omitted dealing with the other matters of adulteration provided for in the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, from which the present Bill was copied? He considered that piecemeal legislation of this description was beneath the dignity of the House, and that the whole subject of ,adul­teration should be dealt with in a compre-hensive measure. .

Mr. L. L. SMITH observed that the object of the Bill was to prevent a wrong being done, and surely if, by passing it, they protected their fellow colonists from being poisoned by adulterated tea, they were justi­fied in doing so. As for introducing a general measure on the subject of adultera­tion, he would remind the House that it took something like 12 years to pass the English Sale of Food and Drugs Act. A Royal commission had to be appointed, who were assisted by a large staff of analysts in inquiring into the different kinds of adul­teration that were practised. While a matter of urgency like the importation of adulterated tea was requiring legislation, surely it could not be asked that the Government should delay dealing with it until a general measure like the English Act was prepared. The general public were crying out for this Bill, and he hoped it would not be obstructed by any honorable member merely because it was confined to one subject.

Mr. BOWMAN said he quite agreed as to the urgency of passing some measure dealing with the adulteration of tea. It was now a very difficult matter to get a pure genuine tea from China, because two-thirds of the low-class teas that came from that country had already been drunk by the Chinese, the exhausted leaves being then re-dried and re-fixed. When it was remem­bered that there were 400,000,000 of people

Importation and [OCTOBER 18.J Examination of Tea Bill. 427

in China, that tea was their principal beve­rage, and that there were regular establish­ments for the purchase of exhausted leaves, it would be seen that there was every facility for the export of worthless tea. Such tea would not be allowed to enter England or the United States, and hence it was sent to these colonies. The other day a sale of China teas took place at Fraser and CO.'s auction rooms, and the ATgUS gave the following account of what took place before the tea was put up for sale by auction :-.. "Before the sale commenced, Mr. Everard asked permission of the auctioneer (Mr. Fraser) to direct the attention of the trade to the fact that libels of a groBs character were being uttered against Chinese teas. These libels had now assumed such a serious form that they (the trade) ought to take action in the matter. The la,test statement of the kind appeared in the Argus of that day, under the heading of 'Adul­teration of Food,' in which it was said by Mr. l"', Dunn, of the Laboratory, that" previous to the introduction of Indian and Ceylon tea leaves, a pure tea was a rarity in the retail trade of Melbourne.' He (Mr. Everard), after an ex­perience of over 21 years, and having tasted samples of nearly all the teas imported during tha,t period, declared the' above remarks to be untruthful, and a libel on Chinese tea. He pro­posed the following resolution, viz. :~' That ~he P!1ragraph regarding tea in this day's Argus IS unJust tu the merchants and traders, and un­truthfuL' This was seconded by Mr. Whiting (Messrs. Peterson and Co,), spoken to by Mr. Jackson (of Messrs. Rolfe and Co.) and others, and carried unanimously. Many of the trade spoke in terms of condemnation of the repeated and wholesale libels which they said had recently been circulated in regard to teas imported from Qhina. After this episode, the tea, comprising 2,921 packages, was submitted to competition, when the auctioneers succeeded in disposing of 2,250 packages at up to Is. 4{d." Now what was the character of the tea which was thus eulogized by a broker of 20 years' experience? Five samples of these particular teas were analyzed at the Techno'­logical Laboratory, and the result was that all the teas, three lines of which were bought by Mr. Everard himself, were found to be adulterated. Mr. Cosmo Newbery, in his report, stated-

" All of the samples contain exhausted leaves, and in most the tea is in a very broken conditiun, .excess of stalks being very marked in lot 351, ~hich are faced with plumbago. Perished leaves are plentiful in lots 323, 352, and 347. The latter contains foreign stems. 348 also contains foreign stems. 323 contains rice husks and foreign stems." 'Of the lines mentioned in this report, Nos. ,347, 348, and 351 were bought by Mr. Everard himself. While, however, recog­nising the necessity of legislation de~ling with the importation of tea, he saw no teason why all the other articles embraced

in the English Sale of Food and Drugs Act should not also be dealt with. The Minister of Customs had copied the present Bill from that Act, and he believed that if the honorable gentleman would go still fur­ther, and introduce the whole of the English measure, it would be passed unanimously by the Assembly. There was one defect in the English Act, namely, that it did not make provision as to how the quality of tea should be tested. It was impossible to determine whether tea was pure simply by tasting it. The Tea CycloplEdia, which was published during the present year, con­tained the following statement :-

., The time is probably not far distant when the tea trade will buy entirely by analysis, sup­plemented, in a few cases, by a ' taster's' report. An experienced palate will detect particular flavours which analysis may fail to show; but a fairly complete chemical examination of tea is of the highest value, whether as a guide to the purchaser, or merely to show its freedom from adulteration."

It was recognised as a standard in England, although not provided for in the Act for the prevention of adulteration, that wholesome tea ought to contain at least 30 per cent. of extract and a certain proportion of theine. He hoped the Government would adopt his suggestion to withdraw the Bill and bring in a measure similar to the Imperial Statute, so as to put a stop to the adulteration of other articles of food and drink besides tea. The analysis made in the laboratory of the Technological Museum, by Messrs. N ew­beryand Dunn, showed that the adultera­tion of milk, coffee, mustard, and other articles was carried on to a great extent in this country.

Mr. ZOX stated that he thoroughly agreed with the view expressed by the hon­orable member for Maryborough (Mr. Bow­man), that the passing of a Bill of this character would be piecemeal legislation. He did not see that any advantage would be gained by legislating specially with the view to prevent the adulteration of tea. The Government would act wisely, in his opinion, if they consented to the withdrawal of the Bill, and introduced a measure similar to the English Act, dealing with the adul­teration of all kinds of articles of food and drink.

Mr. COOPER said that, if there was a difficulty in dealing with the question of adulterated tea, there would, of course, be much greater difficulty in legislating against the adulteration of a number of articles of food. Therefore, if a more comprehensive Bill was intto4uced, delay would probably

428 Sehastopol Plateau [ ASSE~BL Y. ] Drainage Bill.

be caused, and the measure might not be­come law this session. He understood that, at the present time, there was a quantity of tea on board a ship in the Bay which was unfit for consumption, so that legislation to prevent the sale of adulterated tea was urgently required. He hoped that the Bill would be proceeded with promptly.

Mr. RIOHARDSON thought that the Government were justified in limiting the Bill to the article of tea, because there was a special urgency for legislating to prevent the sale of adulterated tea, and it would scarcely be possible to prepare and pass this session a measure applicable to all articles of food and drink. He, however, considered that in some respects the measure was not sufficiently explicit. The last clause said-

"In this Act, tea to which the term' exhausted' is applied shall mean and include any tea which has in the opinion of the analytical chemist been deprived of its proper quality, strength, or vir­tue by steeping, infusion, decoction, or other means; and 'analytical chemist' shall mean the Government Analytical Chemist or any otber analytical chemist who may be appointed by the Governor in Council to make examinations of tea for the purposes of this Act." The Government ought to define the stan­dard by which the purity of tea would be determined, or otherwise there would be a dif­ficulty in some cases in getting adulterated tea confiscated owing to a conflict of opinion between two analytical chemists. There also seemed to be no provision for destroying any adulterated tea which a merchant had in stock.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was reaq. a second time, and committed pro forma.

The House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past eleven o'clock.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. Wednesday, October 19, 1881.

Oontagious Diseases Hospital-Sebastopol Plateau Drainage Bill-PostaJ Department: Promotions-Admiralty Juris­diction Extension Bill-Motions for the Adjournment of the House: New Standing Order: Second Night's Debate -Protection of Animals Bill-Employl!s in Shops Bill­Cowie's Creek Station Reserve-Wa.ter Conserva.tion Bill : Second Reading: Second Night's Debate.

The SPEAKER took the chair at half-past four o'clock p.m.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES HOSPITAL.

Mr. A. T. CLARK called the attention of the Chief $ecr~tary ~o t4~ announcement

that the Oentral Board of Health contem­plated the erection of a Contagious Diseases Hospital at Fisherman's Bend. He thought that, if the whole colony were searched, a. more undesirable or unsuitable site for such an establishment could not be found. Moreover, it was surrounded by a large population. . He hoped that, if the Ohief Secretary had any control in the matter, he would interpose to cause the hospital to be erected elsewhere.

Mr. GRANT stated that instructions had been given for another site to be looked .for.

SEBASTOPOL PLATEAU DRAINAGE BILL.

Mr. FINOHAM said-I rise to make a. personal explanation, and also to ask the honorable the Speaker to answer a question which I am desirous of putting to him. It will be recollected that a Bill of consider­able local importance to the district I repre­sent was recently before this House. At a. public meeting, held the night before last,

. it was stated by a member of this House­a colleague of mine-that, owing to the action which I took, the Bill was absolutely lost. I would not have taken any notice of that statement had there not appeared in the local journal to-day an article reflecting upon me individually, and alleging that the Ballarat district has lost a valuable measure entirely in consequence of the factious action I was guilty of. My anxiety is not so much for myself as that the high position which you, Mr. Speaker, have the honour to fill may at any rate, in public estimation, be free from any suspicion. Sir, it has been asserted that you privately stated to my col­league that, but for the action which I took, the Bill would have been permitted to go on, and become the law of the land. This implies that you yourself, Mr. Speaker, would have winked at a breach of the regu­lations of Parliament. I am sure you have too much respect for the exalted position you occupy to be guilty of anything of the kind. So well aware am Iof your desire on all occasions to do what is right and straightforward that I am satisfied you could not have made such a statement. Therefore it is I make the present appeal to you, in order that my constituep.ts may know that it was from a desire that the Bill should be put in a position that it could not fail on technical grounds that I took the early action I did.

The SPEAKER.-I have no hesitation at all in saying that it is the duty of the Speaker to see that the law of Parliament is

Motions for Adjournment. [OCTOBER 19.J Standing Order. 429

carried out. On a previous occasion I felt I the promotion to the 3rd class, in the Postal called upon to apologize to the House department, of a Mr. Morkham, over 43 for having failed to detect in the first senior officers in the 4th class. The Post­instance that the Bill which has been re- master-General, when he replied to the ferred to was a private Bill. My atten- question, held in his hand an official memo­tion having been directed to the fact - randum from the Deputy Postmaster­not, in the first instance, by the honor- General, giving a full explanation of the able member for Ballarat West (Mr. circumstances of the promotion, but that Fincham)-I felt it my duty to stop the document the honorable gentleman failed further progress of the measure, and to in- to read. Had I been in the honorable form the honorable member in charge of it gentleman's place, and a question of such (Major Smith) the proper course for him importance, affecting the character of my to take was to have a petition lodged, which predecessor in office, had been put to me, I would be referred to the Examiners of Private would have given every explanation possible. Bills (the Chairman of Committees and the I naturally imagined he would do the same. Clerk of the Assembly), who would report But he did not do so. Had the document to the House whether the standing orders been read, it would have shown that what I had been complied with, or whether, in did was done in good faith, for the benefit of their opinion, compliance with any of them the service, and on the recommendation of the ought to be dispensed with. The House permanent head of the department. I now would then have the· facts properly before beg to ask the Postmaster-General, if he it, and would be able to deal with the has the memorandum I refer to in his pos­measure as it thought fit. When a matter session, to read it to the House. of the kind is properly before the House; I Mr. BOLTON.-I was not aware that and the officers of the House are relieved the honorable member was going to mention from· any further responsibility. the matter to-night, or I would have brought

Major SMITH.-Perhaps I may be the document with me. allowed to say that I am relieved from all Mr. LANGRIDGE.-Will you bring it difficulty in connexion with the Sebastopol to-morrow? Plateau Drainage Bill, because the head of Mr. BOLTON.-If the honorable mem-the Government has undertaken to make ber wishes it. some slight amendments in the Drainage of Mines Act which will satisfy the wishes of the promoters of the Bill.

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN.-I believe the ob­ject sought to be accomplished by the Sebas­topol Plateau Drainage Bill may be secured by an amendment of the Drainage of Mines Act. I may state, however, that the Bill, because of certain of its provisions, could not have been treated other than as a private Bill.

Mr. FINCHAM.-Mr. Speaker, you have not answered the question whether you stated to my honorable colleague that the Bill would have passed but for the action which I toolc.

The SPEAKER.-I would have taken the course of preventing the further progress of the Bill even if the honorable member for Ballarat West (Mr. Fincham) had not called my attention to the matter.

POSTAL DEPARTMENT. PROMOTIONS.

Mr. LANGRIDGE.-Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a personal explanation. Last night, the honorable member for Mary­borough (Mr. Bowman) asked the Post­master-General a question with reference to

PETITION.

A petition was presented by Mr. LAURENS, from William Mitchell and David Newell, or the city of Melbourne, contractors, praying for the insertion in the Protection of Ani­mals Bill of a clause saving contractors, during the currency of contracts already existing, from prosecution for driving a dray to which' may be attached, by a sufficient rein, a horse drawing another dray.

ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION EXTENSION BILL.

Mr. FISHER (in the absence of Mr. QUICK) moved for leave to introduce a Bill to extend Admiralty jurisdiction to County Courts.

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

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

MOTIONS FOR ADJOURNMENT. STANDING ORDER.

The debate (adjourned from October 5) was resumed on the question that the fol­lowing resolution be adopted as a standing order of the House :-

430 Motions for Adjournment. [ASSEMBLY.] Standing Order.

"No member, unless he be a Minister of the Crown, shall be allowed, prior to eleven o'clock, to move 'That the House do now adjourn,' unless, on his rising to make such motion, six other members shall rise in their places and require the motion to be proposed. The names of such other members shall be taken down by the Clerk, and entered on the Votes and Pro­ceedings. The member moving the adjournment shall state the subject that he proposes to speak to, and the debate shall be strictly confined to the subject so stated."

Mr. BERRY.-Mr. Speaker, I was not present, the other evening, when this ques­tion was debated, and I know only from reports the position in which the matter stands. Although I cannot agree with the proposal in all its details, I think the House will do well to give it a trial. We all know that the public time has been wasted to a large extent in discussions on the question "That the House do now adjourn"; and I regard this as a very mild attempt to remedy the evil, because, whenever it is necessary that any important matter should be debated, it will not be difficult to induce six members to rise in their places and require the motion for adjournment to be proposed. The resolu­tion will not prevent any organized political party from taking that action. It will only interfere with the proceedings of a member who fancies he has a grievance, and insists upon pressing that grievance upon the House, without regard to the public time or the conyenience of his fellow members. Still, I don't see why the operation of the proposed ,standing order should be limited to the period of each sitting" prior to eleven o'clock." I think a motion for adjournment submitted after eleven o'clock is likely to be more obstructive to business than the same motion submitted at an earlier hour ; and, therefore, I would be glad to see the words" prior to eleven o'clock" struck out, so that the same rule would be in force as long as the House sits. In fact, we all know that a motion for the adjournment of the House is never carried unless it is made by a Minister of the Crown; and no good arises out of the discussion upon it, which is simply a waste of time. The latter part of the resolution, requiring the member moving the adjournment to state the sub­ject he proposes to speak to, and limiting the debate strictly to that subject, I regard as most objectionable, because to state the subject-matter of debate is one way to secure a debate upon a question without notice. As I stated when the matter was before the Standing Orders Committee, a better course than that would be to take away the right to

move the adjournment of the House from every member unless a Minister of the Orown. I know the objections there are to the altera­tion, in any way, of the rules and regulations under which Parliament is governed. At present, on the motion" That the House do now adjourn," many subjects are frequently debated, and possibly a certain amount of information is thereby conveyed to Minis­ters ; but if only one subject is to be de­bated for the future the whole characteristic of the motion, without notice, "That tho House do now adjourn" will be done away with. A motion for adjournment will be submitted without notice, on a distinct issue, and the Speaker will then be called upon to keep the debate as strictly to the question so stated as though the subject appeared on the notice-paper. I can under­stand a difficulty arising eyen in the stat­ing of the question. When a question is printed-is on the notice-paper-we know exactly what it is; but an honorable mem­ber might obtain the support of six other members to a motion for adjournment on the verbal stating of a particular question, and, when the question was stated in writing for the information of the Speaker, a diffi­culty might arise as to whether the ques­tion, as stated in writing, was the identical, question which the six members were willing to haye debated on the motion for the ad­journment of the House. I say again that I think that part of the resolution should be struck out. I, consider the motion, limited to the first part, making it neces­sary that six members should join in the motion" That the House do now adjourn," will be a slight check upon a useless waste of time. Probably the remedy will not be found, on trial, to be altogether efficacious. If so, it will be competent for the House, on a future day-if it is in a practical1)1ood, and desires to get on with business-to make the resolution still more stringent. I am disposed to support any alteration of the standing orders which will be the means of facilitating the transaction of business with­out taking away any of the inherent rights which honorable members possess. It is clear that, with the House in the humour and temper that it is in this session, such an alteration as that now proposed is not urgently required. Its proposal was rendered necessary by the course followed last session, and in one or two previous sessions, when obstruction to business be­came almost systematic. I think it would be as well that the operation of the proposal should be limited to the present session.

Mo«onsfor AdJournment. [OCTOBER 19.J Second Night'S Debate. 431

By that arrangement, the standing order could be re-enacted next session in the event of it, being considered beneficial, or it could be allowed to drop through in the event of any practical objections arising out of its operation. Probably no one has had greater experience than I have had of the forms of obstruction which can be used in Parliament to prevent the proper conduct of public business. In order to prevent the Government of which I was the head from succeeding in carrying legislation, so that they might afterwards be charged, as they were charged, with not obtaining the passage of certain measures which the country demanded, obstructions of all kinds were practised with a great deal of skill, and a vast amount of success. As against party tactics of that kind, a modification of the standing orders in the direction now proposed would be of no avail. I am not particularly sanguine as to what will be the effect of this, the first, attempt to grapple with the evil of needless talk. I don't think honorable members need be afraid of the stringency of the proposed order. There is scarcely any grievance which an honorable member desires to make public that cannot be brought before Parliament either on a substantive motion, submitted after due notice, or on the order for the House to go into Committee of Supply, or, i,n committee, on motions to report progress or for the Chairman to leave the chair. Therefore, the stoppage of a member's power to propose" That the House do now adjourn" will not operate as a barrier to the proper discussion of any real grievance -to a discussion which is to have any practical result. A wide latitude is allowed in connexion with the putting of questions to Ministers of the Crown; and I proposed at one time, though my proposal was not accepted, that such questions, instead of being asked at the commencement of busi­ness, should be asked at the latter part of the evening. I made that proposal because I considered that two-thirds of the questions which are asked are perfectly needless­simply a waste of time. They could be asked and answered in the public offices without Parliament being troubled on the subject. Although I have been a Member of Parliament twenty years, I don't think I have put six questions to Ministers during the whole of that time. Very frequently the motion "That the House do now ad­journ" bas been moved simply because a member has not been satisfied with the answer he has received to a question put by

him to a Minister. I have spoken some­what in the dark as to the precise position of the resolution before the House. If it can be amended by striking out the pro­vision requiring the member who moves the adjournment of the House to state the subject he proposes to speak to, I shall vote for such an amendment, because I think a provision of the kind will alter the whole object and meaning of the motion" That the House do now adjourn." The moment that motion is limited to a particular ques­tion, its whole meaning will be taken away, and therefore it would be better, as I have said, to altogether abrogate the power to move "That the House do now adjourn" except by Ministers, who are responsible for the proper conduct of public business.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-Sir, I was not present when the recommendation of the Standing Orders Committee was first brought under the notice of the House, but I think the question received the most careful con­sideration of that body. The members of the Standing Orders Committee are experienced men, and they had no other object in making the recommendation than that of facilitating public business. The proposal that a member who moves" That the House do now adjourn" should state the subject he wishes to discuss, and that the discussion should be limited to that one subject, 'was made in committee, but was withdrawn in deference to the generally­expressed desire that the committee's report should be unanimous. Therefore I cannot understand what appears to me a change of tone on the part of the honorable member for Geelong (Mr. Berry).

Mr. BERRY.-The words I object to were added to the resolution by the House.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-Then I with­draw what I just said. It is quite clear that what is aimed at by the resolution is the adoption neither o,f the French system, nor the American system, nor what was rendered necessary recently in connexion with legislation in the Imperial Parliament. What has been forced upon our attention is an abuse of our own local system. A member can rise at any moment and move the adjournment of the House in order 'to bring forward a matter which concerns only himself or his constituents, disregarding altogether the other 85 members who are anxious to proceed with t.he proper business of Parliament-their feelings, their time, and the interests tbey are sent here to repre­sent. But, having aired bis grievance, a number of other members take advantage

432 Motionsfor AdJournment. [ASSEMBLY.] Standing Order.

of the fact that the adjournment of the I emergency arises, and an honorable member House is moved to ventilate a number of desires to bring a subject of importance questions altogether different from that before the House without notice, he will alluded to by the mover of the motion. have no difficulty in getting six other Nothing more ridiculous can be conceived. members to co-operate with him for that The only wonder is that sensible men have purpose, but the discussion will have to be not endeavoured, long before this, to put confined to the one subject brought forward some check on the proceeding. Any honor- by the proposer of the motion. That re­able member who really wishes to bring any striction, I think, is very desirable. For matter of importance before the House has instance, if an honorable member moves the ample opportunities for doing so without adjournment of the House to call attention resorting to the motion "That the House to the fact that there is small-pox at the do now adjourn." No decision is arrived Heads, it is absurd that a number of other at, and the result is simply a waste of time. members should be allowed to take ad­If we cannot stop that practice altogether, vantage of the motion to talk about harbour we may certainly try an experiment in order works at Portland, at Belfast, or in Gipps­to check it. I had nothing to do with the land, or a variety of other subjects. As an obstruction offered to the Government of old member, I have for some years su.ffered, the honorable member for Geelong (Mr. without complaint, punishment caused by Berry), nor any other Government; and I the abuses in connexion with motions for have never moved the adjournment of the the adjournment of the House, and I believe House in order to ventilate any grievance. there are other honorable members who also

Mr. BERRY.-Nor I either. consider that they have been unnecessarily Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-I do not see and improperly punished in the same way. I

why we should not endeavour to check the have, therefore, great pleasure in supporting abuse of the present system, which does no the adoption of the proposed standing order. practical good, but makes Parliament look Sir B. O'LOGHLEN.-Sir, it will be ridiculous in the eyes of the country. There remembered that, when the motion was be­is no shadow of ground for opposing the fore the House a fortnight· ago, an agree­first portion of the motion, and I shall ment was come to that an honorable mem­support it with great pleasure. It does bel' should be allowed to move the adjourn­not propose the extreme course which has ment of the House on the demand of " three" been adopted in the Imperial Parliament, or other members, instead of "six," as pro­in France, or in America, but merely applies posed by the Standing Orders Committee, what may be called a very mild remedy. As but the question that the word" six" should to the second part of the motion, I consider stand part of the original motion was car­that is the most valuable portion of the pro- ried by surprise. The following words, posed standing order. It aims at putting a however, were added to the motion :-stop to what is a very great abuse. Fre- "The member moving the adjournment shall quently, when a motion for adjournment state the subject that he proposes to speak to, is proposed, as I have said, a number of and the debate shall be strictly confined to the honorable members take advantage of it to subject so stated." discuss all sorts of subjects besides the ·one Subsequently the honorable member for brought forward by the proposer of the Rodney (Mr. Gillies) pointed out that this motion. I remember, for instance, that portion of the proposed standing order wuuld when an honorable member moved the ad- work prejudicially, and the view of the honor­jo~rnment of the House in order to make able member commended itself so much to the some remarks in reference to the Moran House that, in place of passing the motion inquiry, ten other subjects were brought as amended, it took time to further consider forward by different honorable members the matter, and adjourned the debate. Per­before the motion was disposed of. Surely sonally I am opposed to the original pro­that is an abuse of a grosser character than posal, which prevents an honorable member any individual member was ever guilty of in from moving the adjournment of the House exercising the right, which he at present pos- except with the consent of six other mem­sesses, to move the adjournment of the House. bel'S, and I agreed to the compromise to I think that the proposed standing order, as substitute" three" for" six," but by some a whole, will work beneficially. It will be mistake that compromise was not carried. fair to all members. It will not give an The House is now in the position that advantage to one member over another, nor it cannot amend the motion, except by to one political party over another. If any adding further words to it-it cannot strike

Motionsfor Adjournment. [OCTOBER 19.J Second Nigltt's Deba.te. 433

anything out of the motion. The honorable member for Geelong (Mr. Berry) has an objection to the latter part of the motion, and so also have several other honorable members. If ,that portion of it is distaste­ful to the House, the best thing to do, per­haps, will be for some honorable member to limit the operation of the motion to this session, as an experiment only, or some honorable member may move the previous question, which, if carried, will give time for further consideration. With the feeling now prevailing in the House, it is evident that there is no necessity at present for any standing order of the kind, whatever necessity there may have been in the past. A necessity for it may arise at some future time, but there is no need now to limit the privilege which each honorable member pos­sesses of moving the adjournment of the House, as apparently there is no desire on the part of any honorable member to ob­struct business, and it will be as well to let the matter lie over. If it is the wish of the House, I will propose an amendment to limit the new standing order to the present session, as an experiment, or I will move the previous question, so as to give time for fur­ther consideration of the subject. To test the feeling of the House, I beg to move that the word" sessional" be substituted for" stand­ing." The effect of the adoption of this amendment will be that the new rule, instead of being made a standing order, will be simply an order limited to the present session.

Mr. L. L. SMITH.-Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask whether you can put from the chair a motion which is intended to restrict the freedom and liberty of speech that hon­orable members of this House at present possess? The effect of this motion, if car­ried, will be to override the constitutional privileges under which we are elected; and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that you cannot­in fact, that you dare not-put a proposition of this character.

Mr. WILLIAMS.-The House is the master of its own proce~ure.-

Mr. L. L. SMITH.-But the House cannot destroy the fundamental principles under which it exists unless it receives dis­tinct authority from its constituents to do so. ' We have no power to deprive a member of the right of free speech.

Mr. FRANOIS.-Wecan expel a member. Mr. L. L. SMITH.-A member can be

expelled for bribery, corruption, or other improper conduct.

Mr. MUNRO.-He can be expelled for nothing.

, Mr. L. L. SMITH.-But the adoption of this motion will deprive members of their rights and privileges while they continue to be members.

Mr. WILLIAMS.-The House can pass a resolution that a member be not heard.

Mr. L. L. SMITH.-Only under certain circumstances. If, however, this motion is passed, it will be tantamount to an expression of want of confidence in honor­able members, who are sent here to represent the views of their constituents and to remedy grievances. At present an honorable member has the right to move the adjournment of the House for the pur­pose of ventilating a grievance, but this motion is intended to deprive honorable members of that liberty. It is therefore an infringement upon the rights and privi­leges of Members of Parliament. Whatever may be the result of the motion, I protest against suchan innovation. It is wrong to pass it unless we first obtain from our con­stituents authority to do so; and I again respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that you have no power to put such a motion.

The SPEAKER.-I have no doubt that I have power to put the motion.

Mr. FISHER.-Sir, I will support the motion in its entirety, mainly because it emanates from a committee whom we have chosen for the express purpose of dealing with matters relating to the conduct of business in Parliament. I have perfect confidence in the members who form that committee, and I am quite satisfied that the rule, which they propose, will not operate injuriously. The honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Smith) has spoken with con­siderable warmth against depriving Members of Parliament of freedom of speech, but there will be no danger of losing our free­dom of speech if we adopt the motion. The new rule will only be an experiment, and if the House does not like it, or finds that it does not work satisfactorily, it can rescind it. I would also point out that, even if on any occasion an honorable mem­ber who desires to move the adjournment of the House should be unable to obtain the support of six other members to that course, he will only have to defer his remarks until after eleven o'clock, when he will be at liberty to address the House on any sub­ject to which he desires to direct attention. I don't think we need have any hesitation in adopting the proposal as an experiJ.11ent.

Mr. LEVIEN.-Mr. Speaker, I would like to know from you whether a sessional order can nullify a standing order? It

434 Motionsfor Adjournment. [ASSEMBLY.] Standing Order.

appears to me that if the proposed resolution is to have the force of law, it will destroy the effect of an existing standing order. I therefore ask if a sessional order can nullify a standing order.

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN.-I admit the force of the honorable member's objection, and I will thererore withdraw my amendment to substitute the word "sessional" for " standing," and move that the following words be added to the motion :-" to be in force during the present session."

Mr. HALL.-I am sorry that, on the last occasion the motion was before the House, there was a misunderstanding as to the compromise which I understood was then arrived at. I proposed an amendment to the effect that an honorable member should be at liberty to move the adjournment of the House if he obtained the consent of " one" member, instead of "six," but I did not press the amendment, because the honorable member for Portland consented to substitute " three" for" six," and I understood that compromise was accepted. However, through some mistake, the compromise was not carried into effect, and I now feel in some difficulty as to the course which I should adopt. I approve of the latter portion of the proposition, which is intended to confine the discussion on a motion for adjourn­ment to the one subject brought forward in the first instance, but I am not in favour of making the consent of six other members necessary to enable an honorable member to move the adjournment. At the same time, the adoption of the proposed new rule will not restrict freedom of speech, as the hon­orable member for Richmond (Mr. Smith) contends, for members will still be at liberty to move the adjournment of the House after eleven o'clock, and there are also other ways in which they can ventilate grievances. I shall therefore vote in favour of the motion.

Mr .. BENT.-I would be exceedingly sorry to allow the motion to pass without entering my protest against it. It is all very well to complain of the great annoy­ance caused by motions for adjournment, but the discussion on such motions cannot oc­cupy much time unless a number of hqnor­able members take part in it. On the other hand, there can be no doubt that the privi­lege at present possessed of moving the ad journment of the House affords an oppor­tunity to honorable members to ventilate grievances, and by the exercise of that privi­lege more good has often been done than by the long speeches made on other occasions. The present proposal is merely an attempt

to pass a dilettante resolution, and it ought not to be accepted by any practical man. I am surprised that those honorable members who in years past spoke strongly against the "iron hand" should be among the first to advocate the passing of this motion. It is really an embodiment of the" iron hand."

Mr. FISHER.-It is a "kid glove." Mr. BENT.-No, itis a regular "knuckle­

duster." I shall vote against it. I have always been against restricting freedom of speech. Even in the local council with which I have been connected for many years, when­ever such a restriction has been proposed, I have always said-" Never, never, never!"

Mr. ZOX.-The motion may be called the "iron hand," but I labour under the im­pression that it is one of the most practical propositions that has ever been submitted to the House. Many hours have frequently been occupied with discussions on motions for adjournment, which have, of course, proved barren of any results. It is certainly desir­able to endeavour to prevent such waste of time in the future, and that is the object of the new rule proposed by the Standing Orders Committee. I do not see that any harm can possibly accrue from adopting the proposal; and it has my hearty support.

Mr. NIMMO.-I believe that the motion is in opposition to our constitutional privi­leges, but, as those constitutional privileges have been abused in times past, I think it is necessary that a remedial measure should be applied. I regret that the motion is so general in its character. There is no neces­sity for such a motion when the liberals are on this . (the opposition) side of the House. According to my experience, it is only when the conservatives are in oppo­sition that the practice of "stone-walling" measures by moving the adjournment of the House is had recourse to. At the same time, as the proposed new rule is only to be made an order for this session, I shall vote for it as an experiment. In doing so, I wish to state distinctly that I view the spirit of the motion as contrary to our constitutional privileges, and that I vote for the proposal only as a remedial measure, and in consequence of those privileges having been abused.

Mr. GARDINER.-I intend to vote against the motion, because I consider that such a rule as the one it provides for is not required in this House. Not only does it declare that no member shall move the adjournment unless six other members rise in their places and ask that the motion shall be put, but the names of the six members

Motions for Adjourmnent. [OCTOBER 19.J Second Nights Debate. 435

are to be taken down and entered on the Votes and P1·oceedings. That, I consider, is altogether unnecessary and uncalled for. For what earthly reason should those hon­orable members who, to oblige a fellow member, rise to support the 'proposal of a motion for adjournment have their names recorded in the Votes and Proceedings? Again, I agree with the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Smith) that the passing

. of the resolution would almost amount to a vote of want of confidence in the members of this House. Why should liberty of speech be denied in 1881, after having been allowed in all the previous years that this Legislature has been in existence? At any moment, in a colony like this, an im­pOl'tant question may arise outside the House, and is an honorable member to be debarred from bringing it before Parliament, because, on entering the House, he omitted to obtain the support of six other members? Many honorable members who acquire im­portant information outside do not desire to divulge it to others until they bring it publicly before the House and the country. If the information were imparted privately to other honorable members, the honorable member who had acquired it might fre­quently find his position" jumped," and he might lose the prestige of bringing an im­pOl·tant matter before the House. A stand­ing order of this kind may be desirable in Legislatures' where the members have no respect for their Speaker or their parlia­mentary institutions, but I am glad to say that in this House we have 'respect one for the other, and regard for the procedure of Parliament, and therefore I consider such a proposal as the present to be altogether unnecessary. .

The House divided on the question that the word~ "to be in force during the present session" be added to the motion-

Ayes ... 38 Noes ... 25

Majority for the amendment 13

Mr. Anderson, " Bent, " Berry, " Bolton, " Bowman, " Cameron, " , Carter, " Fincham, " Francis, " Fraser, " Gardiner, " Gillies, " Grant, " Graves,

AYES.

Mr. Hall, " James, " Johnstone, " Langdon, " Laurens, " Levien, " Longmore,

Sir C. Mac Mahon, Mr. W. Madden,

" Mirams, " Nimmo, " O'Callaghan,

Sir B. O'Loghlen, Mr. Ramsay,

Mr. Richardson, Major Smith, Mr. Tucker, " Vale, " Wallace, " Williams,

Mr. Woods, " C. Young.

Tellers. Mr. Burrowes, " L. L. Smith.

NOES.

Mr. Bell, Mr. Pearson, " Bosisto, " Rees, " Cooper, " Robertson, ,. Davies, " Shiels, " Deakin, " R. M. Smith, " Fisher, " vValsh, " Harris, " Wilson, " Langridge, " Wrixon, " McLean, " A. Young, " Munro, " Zox. " Officer, Tellers.

Sir J. O'Shanassy, Mr. Barr, Mr. Patterson, " W. M. Clark.

The SPEAKER then put the motion, as amended :-

" That the resolution reported to this House by the Standing Orders Committee, viz., 'No member, unless he be a Minister of the Crown, shall be allowed, prior to eleven o'clock, to move" That the House do no,v adjourn," unless, on his rising to make. such motion, six other members shall rise in their places and require the motion to be proposed. The names of such other members shall be taken down by the Clerk, and entered on the Votes and Proceed­ings. The member moving the adjournment shall state the subject that he proposes to speak to, and the debate shall be strictly confined to the subject so stated,' be adopted as a standing order of the Legislative Assembly, to be in force during the present session."

The House divided-Ayes ... 52 Noes ... 11

Majority for the motion 41

Mr. Anderson, " Bell, " Berry,' " Bolton, " Bosisto, " Bowman, " Burrowes, " Cameron, " Carter, " Cook, " Cooper, " Deakin, " Fincham, " Fisher, " Francis, " Fraser, " Gillies, " Grant, " Graves, " Hall, " Harris, " James, " Johnstone, " Langdon, " Longmore, " McLean,

, Sir C. Mac Mahon,

AYES. Mr. W. Madden, " Mirams, " Munro, " Nimmo, " Officer,

Sir B. O'Loghlen, Sir J. O'Shanassy, Mr. Patterson, " Pearson, " Ramsay, " Richardson, " Robertson, " Shiels, " R. M. Smith, " Vale, " Wallace, " Walsh, " Williams, " Wilson, " Woods, " Wrixon, " C. Young, " Zox.

Tellers. Mr. Barr, " W. M. Clark.

436 Protection of [ASSEMBLY.] Animals Bill.

Mr. Bent, " Gardiner, " Langridge, " Levien, " O'Callaghan, " . Rees,

NOES.

Major Smith, . Mr. Tucker,

" A. Young. Tellers.

Mr. Davies, " L. L. Smith.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS BILL.

The amendments made in this Bill, in committee, were taken into consideration.

Mr. LONGMORE drew attention to new clause B:-

"In any prosecution for. overloading, it shall be pri1llujacie evidence against the accused that the load (together with the cart or vehicle) if drawn by one horse or bullock, on any street in any city, towp, or borough, exceeded two tons, if drawn by two horses or bullocks exceeded four tons, and so on allowing two tons for each additional horse or bullock. Provided that nothing in this section shall be taken to prevent a conviction for overloading upon other sufficient evidence, though the load shall not be of the aforesaid weight." He remarked that he had made inquiries as to this clause among carriers in Melbourne who owned a number of horses, and who were as much interested in keeping them in good condition as the Hous.e could be. They informed him that the ordinary load for a reasonably well-kept horse, including the cart, was 2 tons 5 cwt., and that a horse could draw that load very well. In many instances, a much heavier load was put on, but they considered that if the load for one horse provided in the clause was fixed at 2 tons 5 cwt. it would. meet all ordinary purposes. Of course there were poorly-fed horses who could not draw such a load, but that would be a matter of evidence in any prosecution. He begged to move that the words "and five hundredweight" be added to the words "two tons" in line 5 of the clause.

Mr. CARTER observed that he agreed with the remarks of the honorable member for Ripon. By way of illustration, he might mention that between Goldsbrough's wool stores and the Spencer-street railway sta­tion, the road being down-hill and the dis­tance only short, a horse often drew three tons without difficulty. He would also point out that, while for years past people had been endeavouring to breed the finest horses in order to draw large weights, it was absurd to legislate in the direction of bringing down superior horses to the level of inferior animals. The brewers and wool­brokers had the finest draught horses, and surely they were the best judges how to use their own animals without injuring them. He considered the Bill a most mischievous

one. The present law provided that any one guilty of an act of cruelty should be punished for it, but for Parliament to de­scribe what was an act of cruelty seemed to him to be going beyond its functions. If a limit, however, was to be fixed, it was as well to make it as wide as possible.

Mr. ZOX remarked that he could not see why there. should be any weight fixed at all. The weight a horse could draw depended upon the condition of the horse and the state of the road. The 3rd clause of the Bill imposed a penalty for· "over­loading," and that was quite sufficient without any particular weight being fixed.

Mr. W. M. CLARK expressed the opinion that it was as absurd to fix the weight a horse should draw as it would be to fix the pace at which he should travel. If riding a horse beyond a certain pace was to be considered cruelty, then horse-racing would have to be stopped.

Mr. HARRIS suggested that the whole clause should be struck out, as provision was already made in the Bill against over­loading. Some horses could draw from three to five tons ..

The amendment was negatived. Clause B was then struck out. The other amendments were adopted. The Bill was then read a third time and

passed.

EMPLOYES IN SHOPS BILL.

Mr. GARDINER said-Mr. Speaker, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time, and I do so with feelings of sorrow and regret for the circumstance that, in this century of prosperous civilization, it is found necessary to enter upon legislation of such a character. One would have thought tha;t the spread of knowledge and the teachings of science in relation to health would have long ere this rendered anything of the kind utterly uncalled for. But we have to consider that everything in the shape of moral means that could possibly influence the public to act as they ought to do in connexion with the subject with which the Bill deals has already been resorted to withQut avail. For some years past, a. society called the Early Closing Association have made strenuous efforts in that direc­tion; and, latterly, the Salesmen and Assistants' Union have also made similar endeavours, but with what result? Public meetings have been held throughout the length and breadth of the colony, particu­larly in the city and suburbs of Melbourne, but, notwithstanding the fervent appeals of

Employes in [OCTOBER 19.J Shops Bill. 437

many of our most eminent men, and of the most prominent members of this House, no decided ad vance has been made towards the great object in view, namely, the shortening of the hours of labour for employes in shops and other retail business establishments. I thoroughly believe in appeals to the public on questions of this kind, but, when they are found to fail in bringing about the desired result, I regard the arena of Parlia­ment as the fittest place for further action. I believe with Grattan when he uttered the following memorable words :-

" The parental sentiment is tbe true principle of government. Men are ever finally disposed to be governed by the instrument of their happi­ness. The mystery of government, would you learn it? Look on the Gospel, and make the source of your redemption the rule of your authority; and, like the hen in the Scripture, expand your wings and take in all the people."

Upon the present occasion, I wish this House to expand its wings and take in all the people. By'political combination in the past the workmen of the colony have obtained for themselves the boon and privi­lege of the eight hours system, which no one dares to attempt to upset, because he knows he .would have half the colony against him; and now it is desirable that another class of employes should enjoy equal privi­leges. Let us remember the oft-quoted words of the great Burke-" Government is useless unless it makes good men, good women, and good citizens." Well, in order to carry out that idea, it is necessary we should pass a Bill like the present, which is intended to remedy a growing evil, and to gain for employes in shops a concession which it is not too much to say has received the approval of, every portion of the com­munity. Let me refer to some of th,e attempts that have been made to gain by persuasive means the object which it is now sought to achieve by legislative means. Not only have numerous public meetings been held, but a house-to-house as well as a shop­to-shop c,anvass has been made throughout the city and suburbs, with the view of enlisting the sympathies of both the public and the keepers of shops on behalf of shorter hours for shop business. What was the outcome? That at last the Salesmen and Assistants' Union, having already published thousands and thousands of handbills on the subject, issued a great number of posters, which were placed in a multitude of shop windows, announcing that on and after the 20th June last each establishment in which one of them was displayed would be closed at seven o'clock on five days of the week, and at

SES. 1881.-2 H

ten o'clock on Saturdays. I recollect well how, when those announcements appeared, thousands and thousands of hearts beat high with expectation, and thousands and thousands of salesmen and assistants looked confidently forward to be relieved from the long hours of labour from which they suffered. At first there was some success. A general attempt was made by the shop­keepers of the metropolis to close at seven o'clock, and it was strongly supported in the press. The Argus stated as follows :-

" The early-closing movement has made great and gratifying progress in the suburbs. The aspect of the principal streets about Melbourne has already been completely changed, so that to be open after seven o'clock is now not the rule, but the exception. The shopkeepcrs have been approa.ched in a right spirit by the assistants, for the latter have named terms which the proprie­tors can fairly accept with due regard to their business interests."

But I am sorry to say the success did not last. Many shopkeepers began to keep open after seven o'clock, and it was evident that, if matters went back a little further, they would soon be no better than before. Un­der these circumstance~, the Salesmen and Assistants' Union decided to hold a mon­ster meeting at the Melbourne Town Hall, on the 14th September last, in order to make a final appeal to the public on their behalf. Great things were anticipated from that meeting, for I know many shopkeepers were induced to continue the short hours system until it took place, in order that the employes might have every chance. I am alluding now to shopkeepers who sympa­thized with the object in view, but feared they would be compelled, by undue and unscrupulous competition, to go, in self­defence, against it. Well, the meeting took place, and I will read one of the resolutions carried at it, which I think will go to show that all that could be done by way of moral suasion to bring about the object the Bill has in view has been done. It is as fol­lows :-

"That the Salesmen and Assistants' Union, in' asking that their hours of labour be ended at seven o'clock in the evening, five days in the week, and ten o'clock on Saturday night, are making a reasonable demand, which deserves the entire sympathy and support of the public."

The meeting was presided over by the Mayor of Melbourne, and was addressed by some of the most eminent men in the colony. And it was brought home to every one there that the Salesmen and Assistants' Union represented the whole of the em­ployes in shops in the colony. One of the

438 Employh in [ASSEMBL Y. ] Shops Eill.

speakers was the Bishop of Melbourne, who said-

" Am I my brother's keeper? All people are their brother's keeper." And he went on to argue that, if the object of the meeting could not be achieved by the means then used, it was desirable that other means should be tried. Another speaker was the honorable member for Boroondara, who expressed himself as follows :-

"When he looked over the resolution, it appeared to him to be so self-evident a pro­position that it was almost beyond the reach of argument. The advisability of the matter had long ceased to be a subject of discussion, and within limits the shortening of the hours of labour was not only gratifying to the persons employed, but was in the long run remunerative to the persons who employed that labour." Recollect that this statement, made before the assembled thousands in the Town Hall, came from a gentleman whose, ability to speak with authority on the question before the meeting, and also on questions of legisla­tion, is acknowledged throughout the length and breadth of the land. Surely it ought to have its due weight. He also said-, "The force of competition was so great that they could not expect any isolated individual in a community of shopkeepers to close his shop if he knew that his neighbour, who kept his shop open, was supported as well as he was himself." The object of the Bill is not to close shops at a certain hour, but simply to procure for employes in shops exemption from labour after a certain hour. , ,Of course every shop-, keeper may keep his shop open as long as he likes. I don't believe we could legislate that all' shops should close at a particular hour, but no doubt legislating against em­ployes being compelled to work in them after a given time would have the effect of inducing many of their owners to shut up earlier. Another speaker at the meeting was the honorable member for Portland, who made the following remarks :-

"He felt sure the appeal made that night would not be in vain, and that this most desir­able reform of shortening the hours of labour would be achieved. The Legislature could not deal with the subject; it was a matter purely in the hands of the public, or perhaps it would be more correct to say the wife of the public, for it was the wife who usually did the shopping." Yet, after all this, employes in shops still labour under their old grievance; and now, every means of moral suasion ,having been resorted to in vain, this House is appealed to. I asked the late Chief Secretary to bring in a Bill to deal with the subject, and he promised he would do so at the earliest opportunity, but he left office too soon after­wards for him to have any opportunity at

Mr. Gardiner.

all. I then lost no time in' requesting the present Premier to let me propose legisla-' tion in the matter, and he at once acquiesced, the result being the present measure. It has been delayed to the last moment, in the hope that it could be done without, but it cannot. Under these circumstances, I feel that what I am now doing is a duty lowe to the young people of the colony, who are suffering from a great injustice. They could hardly live under a greater grievance. I am sure the future of the colony will be affected for the worse if the employes in shops do not have shorter hours of work. I also believe that people can be made good citizens by legislation. Some people say. differently, but I think they don't know quite what good legislation will do. At all events, many and varied are the reasons why, legislation on the present ,question should be attempted, and they vastly preponderate over the reasons, on the other side. The Age' says-

"Is the Union to rely solely upon moral pres­sure and the influence of public opinion, or should it endeavour to get an Act of Parliament passed limiting the working hours of retail, employes? Something may, no doubt, be said on either side of the question. It is desirable that a social movement such as this should be

, enforced by public opinion rather than by legal I enactment, but unfortunately the selfishness of a few who are prompted by a greed for gain at the expense of their neighb0urs may thwart its effectual accomplishment."

At the same time, the great work in :view , could have been accomplished without legis­lation but for t~e greed and selfishne~s of some of the shopkeepers·' of the city and suburbs. One thing is certain, namely, that if the Bill is not passed this session it will be passed some time or other, and' the whole of the employes of the colony will then be in the position of having short hours of labour. I will not touch closely upon the clauses of the Bill. I ask honor­able members to recollect that the matter' they have before them is not one of party,. but one affecting the moral welfare of the community, and I' sincerely trust they will' give it every consideration.

Mr. COOPER.-Sir, I have only just looked over the Bill, but I have seen suffi­cient in it to lead me to think that the hono~able member for Carlton has hardly glanced at it himself, it is so unworkable., For example, clause 3 is as follows :- .

"No person shall be kept employed as a manager, clerk, foreman, apprentice, shopman, i

salesman, porter, messenger, or servant, or as assistant of any kind in any shop, or wholesale' or retail trading establishment, later than the,

tOCTOBER 19.J Shops Bill. 439

hour of six o'clock' in the evening on any Mon­day, Tuesday, Wedp.esd&y~ Thursday,.or Friday, nor later than ten o!clock III the eve,nmg on any Saturday."

But, surely, the honorable member knows that in all moderately large draperyestab­lishments it would be impossible for the employes to leave at SL.-x: o'clock, which, I suppose, would be the shutting-up hour. In the first place, there 'would always be, at that time, a large amo~nt of work to be done in putting things straight, and pre­paring for the following ~ay: W~at. would happen in .such an establishPJ,ent If It were a penal offence-I see the Bill mentions a penalty of £5-to pre~ent the young men in the place from troopmg off the moment the clock struck six, leaving the counters covered with exposed goods, ~nd. all. the departments disarranged? The BIll IS so unworkable and so dangerous th~~ we can­not be expected to pass' it, and I there~ore suggest to its mover that he should WIth­draw it and recast it.

Mr. HARRIS.-Mr. Speaker, the pro­visions of the Bill seem impracticable, inasmuch as they would operate to close all druggists' shops, fish and oyster saloons, hotels, restaurants, and other establishme~ts which are now, in the interests of the public, kept open in the evening. Besides, how would cabmen and railway employes ,bE,) affected? The measure seems based on the notion that people can be made good by Act of Parliament, which is absurd. Fot us to consider it at all will be a waste of time.

Mr: NIMMO.-Sir, the argument of the 'last: speaker would be very forcible if the whole. community was made up of keepers of oyster and' fish saloons, and so on.i b~t the Bill is intended for general apphcatIOn to every section of the community. Possibly to carry it into ,law would inflict a sort of hardship on SOnie people, bu,t, on the oth~r hand, it, would greatly relieve eI?ployes generally, by giving them op~ortuIllties for rest recreation, or mental Improvement, whi~h they do not now enjoy. I say the object of t~e Bill is good, its main principles are sound and just in their character, and I trust honorable members.will support it by every means in their po~er. P.erha1?s some of its details may reqUIre modIficatIOn,' but I think a great deal is ,met by clause 5, which is as follows :- '

"In' order to meet the exigencies of trade, such as stock-taking or other cases of a~solute necessity, the Chief Secretary:~ay' from tIme to time suspend, upon s~ch cond~ti?ns ·and for s~ch period as he may conSIder reqUISIte, tl).e operatIOn

2H2

of this Act in such shops or wholesaie .and retail trading establishments as shall be speCl~ed by him in writing under his hand, after makmg such inquiry as he may deem expedient."

I t will be easy to enlarge these terms, and make them suit almost every case in' which the other provisions of the measure would otherwise act injuriously.

Mr. WALSH.-Mr. Speaker, I desire to express my sympathy with the object the honorable member who introduced the Bill has in view but I don't think the end he seeks to gain' will be accomplished by the means he proposes. I may remar~{ ,that, some thirty years ago, I took an actIve part in promoting the early closing moveme?-t in England but it was not thought desIr­able then to appeal to Parliament in its support. Its success was great, but it wa~ accomplished by mor~l ~eans-by a ppea~s to the public. A SImIlar movement, III

which I was deeply interested, took place here some years ago, and I am glad to say that it has operated to shorten the hours of labour in a great many instances. Let me remind honorable members that at the late Town Hall meeting, although the Bishop of Melbourne and other speakers expressed hearty approval and exercised all their pO'Yers of eloquence in suppo~t of the object in view they nevertheless pomted out that the cas~ was not one for the interference of Parliament. In fact, one of their ,chief arguments was that the people who shopped late-one speaker dwelt on the fact that, generally speaking, it is the wife wh? does the shopping-were the proper partIes to appeal to for assistance i~ the matter. Therefore, if I oppose the Bill because of the way it is framed and on other grou~ds, it must be understood, at the same tIme, that I am strongly in favour of any reason­able arrancrement under which the shops that are n~w kept open until late would be closed early. No one was more, pleased than I was when a number of large drapery and other establishments in Melbourne, which were previously not closed until eight or nine o'clock at night, began to be shut at six o'clock, and I am delighted to think that that rule is still followed. But all that, and the Saturday half-holiday as well, was ::tccomplished not by l~gislation but by m~ral suasion. I take credit to myself for bemg one of the first in Victoria to adopt the early closing principle, and I have never had cause to regret doing so. I Imo~ t~e plan benefited my employes, and I think It, benefited me also. But I am afraid many of the clauses of the Bill will not stand

440 Employ€s in t ASSEMBLY. ] Snops Bill.

argument, and I suggest t,hat the honorable member for Carlton should withdraw the measure, or allow it to be read a second time this day six months.

Mr. FISHER.-Sir, there is a great deal to be said for the Bill. Besides, I think the arguments put forward in favour of moral suasion are a little overstrained. Let honorable members look through our Acts of Parliament, and ask themselves how much moral suasion they find there. Do we think of moral suasion when we legislate about beer drinking, the manage­ment of public-houses, Sunday observance, or with respect to acts of criminality? Indeed we do not. Probably the time will come when moral suasion will have every sway, but that will be when the millennium arrives. For my part, I will support the Bill. A good deal has been said about clause 3, but I do not think it will operate quite in the way some honorable members suppose. For example, I do not imagine it can be interpreted so as to prevent em­ployes in a shop from being kept a few minutes after six in clearing the counters and putting things straight. Moreover, the whole thing is susceptible of management. I have noticed that in the great Bourke-street drapery shops, such as Buckley and Nunn's and Robertson and Moffat's, the moment the clock strikes six out troop all the employes. They have a way, between half-past five and six o'clock, of so managing business and putting away stock that the employes troop out, as soon as six o'clock arrives, with the utmost punctuality. I don't think the slightest difficulty need be appre­hended in connexion with the 3rd clause. Even with a literal and legal interpretation of that clause, a shopkeeper who keeps open his place of business a few minutes after six o'clock in order that his employes may put the material in his shop to rights will not be liable to a penalty. I may mention that the Bill contains a provision enabling the Chief Secretary, from time to time, to suspend the operation of the' measure" in order to meet the exigencies of trade, such as stock-taking or other cases of absolute necessity." I desire also to mention that under the Bill an employe may work a great many more hours than eight per day. Although employes are to stop work at six o'clock p.m., the measure says nothing about the time when they are to begin work. They may have to begin at a very early hour. I don't know that the community would be at all injured if shopkeepers were to .com­mence business at a somewhat earlier hour

than they do at present. At one time, Paris shopkeepers commenced business at four o'clock in the mor~ng. I don't sup­pose anything. of that kind will be resorted to here; but it is possible that shopkeepers will take advantage of such a Bill as this to get a deal of work out of their employes at an early hour of the day. I trust hon­orable members will agree to the second reading of the Bill, and that they will then bend their minds to make it, if not a perfect, at all events a satisfactory measure.

Mr. WRIXON.-Sir, I think the object of the Bill is excellent. It is directed against a real evil-an evil for the existence of which there is' no need. It is entirely owing to the caprice of the public that the evil exists at all. But, while I think the object of the Bill good, I doubt whether the clauses are effectual for carrying out that object; and I think it will be a pity if an object so good is spoilt by machinery which may be ineffectual. Therefore I think that, if the House agrees to the second reading of the Bill, the honorable member for Carl­ton should take steps to have the measure referred to a select committee. On that committee I would be happy to serve.

Mr. LONGMORE. - Mr. Speaker, I hope the Bill will be read a second time. I think that, with the help of honorable mem­bers, the ·measure may be made good and useful for the purpose intended by the hon­orable member for Carlton. It is notorious that young men and women are kept on their feet behind counters, in manyestab­lishments, from seven and eight o'clock in the morning until eleven and twelve o'clock at night. (" No.") Certainly it is the case on Saturday night. In Smith-street, Collingwood, on Emerald Hill, and other places, employes in shops are kept at work until eleven and twelve o'clock on Saturday night. I think that perfectly intolerable. I have not the slightest doubt that the mechanics and operatives of the city and suburbs, who are able to engineer their own difficulties through, are great sinners in this matter. They could do their shopping earlier, and so not make it worth the while of shopkeepers to keep open their places late at night. I don't believe in moral suasion having the effect which some honor­able members attribute to it. Until covet­ousness is met by a stronger power, it will continue to work the very energies out of such as those in whose interests this Bill is brought forward. Under the circumstances, I hope the honorable member for Carlton will persevere with the measure. I don't

Emp~o!les in [OCTOBER 19.J Shops Bill. 441

think there is any need to send the Bill to a select committee. I consider the House quite able to make the few alterations which may be necessary in the measure.

Mr. McKEAN.-Sir, the principle of the Bill has been carried out by the Go­vernment for the last ten years. It was inaugurated when I was President of the Board of Land and Works, and has since been carried out in connexion with all Go­vernment contracts; and if the hours of labour, in connexion with all Government contracts, can be shortened to eight per day,

, I don't see why the arrangement cannot be carried out in connexion with all public matters. There is every reason in favour of the standard working day being limited to eight hours. The ordinary Government official works much less than eight hours. In passing through the Government offices this morning, about half-past nine o'clock, I was astonished to find the large number of rooms without clerks; and yet at five minutes to four o'clock in the afternoon the Government employes have their "wigs" combed and their clothes brushed prepara­tory to leaving their work for the day. At the same time, I believe eight hours' labour per day quite sufficient for a country like this. Although my own work is not limited to eight hours, I do not wish those who are in my employ to work more than eight hours. I am only sorry that the time which the eight hours' labour people have at their disposal for purposes of re­creation is not spent in a much better manner than it is in some instances.

Mr. CARTER.-I fully sympathize with the object which the honorable member for Carlton has in view. At the same time, I feel that this Bill will not meet the diffi­culty. U ntH the public think proper to assist employers in reducing the hours of labour, by making their purchases earlier in the day than they do, what will be the practical effect of this Bill if it is carried into law? Simply this: that, instead of one clerk or one salesman, there will be two; and, in consequence, either the salaries of those employes must be correspondingly reduced, or'the price of commodities to the public

, will be correspondingly increased. Either that must be done or the employer will have to seek refuge in the Insolvent Court. I quite agree that eight hours' work in this hot climate is quite sufficient for a laboring man, but there are a number of employ­ments in which eight hours' work is a mere trifle, because a great deal of the time is' spent by the employes in sitting still and

doing nothing. Then again, there are businesses the operations in which cannot be brought to a close at six o'clock p.m. I refer to such establishments as breweries, malt-houses, and brick factories, the work at which is carried on at night. To those businesses the Bill will be utterly inappli­cable.

Mr. GARDINER.-Olause 5 will meet such cases.

Mr. OARTER.-Then again, it should be recollected that, although boot and clothing factories are open only eight hours, employes take work home and are paid for it by the piece-so that they work a great deal more than eight hours per day. And let honorable members consider the incon­venience which the public would sustain if chemists' shops had to be shut at six o'clock in the evening. Again, how would they like to do without their sodawater and lemonade in the summer? Because those things have to be manufactured at night. Then again, let me refer to harvest opera­tions. Is a farmer who requires his employes to work while daylight lasts, in order that his crops may be saved from an impending thunder-storm, to be liable to a fine of £5 for every man who works for him? The honorable member for Oarlton points to his Bill. But what time would the farmer have to apply to the Ohief Secretary to suspend the Act in his favour, as provided for in clause 5? The thing is utterly absurd. Then again, take the daily newspaper offices. How can the employes in those establishments knock off work at six o'clock in the evening? If they were to do so, honorable members would find that their speeches were not reported in the public journals. The intention of the honorable member for Oarlton is admirable; but the reform he seeks, like a number of 'other reforms, must come from without and not from within Parliament. It can be effected only by educating people to under­stand that it is unfair and unjust of them to expect any section of the community to work more than a certain number of hours per day. To attempt to do it by legislation is simply to invite failure. People will not be made virtuous by Act of Parliament. I will add that to pass the Bill will be to place an immense difficulty in the way of a number of industries which have been established in the colony.

Major SMITH. - Sir, the honorable member for St. Kilda (Mr. Oarter) appears to forget that the principle of eight hours' ~~~~:)Ur ~as ahead,)' a place on the &t~.tlJ.~~.

442 Employes in [ASSEMBLY.] Shops fJill.

book. In 1873, I managed to obtain the passage through Parliament or an Act" for the supervision and regulation of work-rooms and factories, and the employment of females therein." That Act has been the means of securing better ventilation and greater clean­liness in factories, and larger and more convenient work-rooms. To meet the case of establishments the- work in which could not possibly be limited to the hours pro­vided for by that Act, the measure contains the following provision :-

" In order to meet the exigencies of trade, the Chief Secretary may, from time to time, suspend the operation of the 3rd clause of this Act in such factories or work-rooms, to be specified in writing under his hand, as he, after due inquiry, may deem expedient, upon such conditions as he may consider requisite." A similar provision appears in this Bill. I may mention that, although the Act of 1873 has worked satisfactorily on the whole, yet complaints have been made, both in Melbourne and Ballarat, that it has been violated from time to time. I have been informed that during busy times, at Bal­larat, young people have been kept at work until midnight, and sometimes until one or two o'clock in the morning.

Mr. FRANCIS.-Of what use is the Act then?

Major SMITH.-Officers are wanted to enforce the Act. The police are supposed to enforce it, but they don't; and it is a very difficult matter to induce the young people themselves to lodge a complaint. I hope the honorable member for Carlton will go on with his Bill. The moral suasion spoken of by the honorable member for East Melbourne (Mr. Walsh) has done a great deal, but there are tradespeople who want to be subjected to a little legal pressure, such as can be brought to bear under this Bill-persons who will not fall into any general arrangement for early closing, sim­ply because they want to take advantage of their fellows.

Mr. ZOX.-Mr. Speaker, I think great credit is due to the honorable member for Carlton, even if the Bill does not produce more than the present discussion. I have a very lively recollection of having had, in my boyhood, to work something like fifteen hours per day. 1 did not like it; and yet I say it is almost a matter of impossibility for the Legislature of any country to step in and interfere between employer and employe. If a man chooses to utilize his labour to the best of his ability for the purpose of getting as much money as he possibly can for the benefit of himst;}lf and

his family, why should the Legislature interpose? I admit that, in a country like this, eight hours' labour per day is sufficient for any man or any woman. But what about the females who are employed in public-houses and restaurants from some­thing like eight o'clock in the morning until midnight? One of the worst features in connexion with this question is that men who, while employes in warehouses and factories, agitate for a reduction in the hours of labour, if they are able to become employers utterly ignore the doctr.ines they previously preached.

Mr. LA URENS.-That is an argument in favour of this Bill.

Mr. ZOX.-I mention it to show that there is no sincerity in the movement. I desire, as far as I can, to shorten the hours of labour; but I feel it is a matter of impos­sibility to accomplish by legislation the shortening I desire. My honorable col­league (Mr. Walsh) has spoken of the importance of educating the public mind on these matters, and I will cite a case illus­trative of the beneficial effect of the pro­ceeding. A few years ago, there was hardly a place of business in Collins-street that was closed on the Saturday afternoon; but a certain amount of pressure was brought to bear, people were educated to realize the advantage of the Saturday half-holiday, and the result is that hardly one large house of any repute in Melbourne is open after two o'clock on Saturday afternoon. And here let me ask who are' the chief supporters of the shops that keep open late? Why the very people who agitate for a shortening of the -hours of labour. It is not the ladies of the country, but the working men and working women or the country, who shop late. That being so, :what good is there in saying to trades­men-" You must not keep open after dark" ?

Mr. WOODS.-Tax them if they do. Mr. ZOX.-I think that is the best

suggestion which has been made in con­nexion with this question. Without some provision of that kind, legislation will not be sufficient to secure early closing. While I am as anxious as the honorable member for Carlton to have the hours of labour cur­tailed-while I would be happy to co-operata with the hoilOrable member, and to propa­gate, by advocacy on the public platform and in other ways, the views he desires to see adopted-I am unable to give myadhe­sion to his Bill, because I believe it cannot be carried into effect.

,Employes in [OCTOBER 19.J Shops Bill 443

Mr. MUNRO.-The honorable member for East Melbourne (Mr. Zox), while willing to go a great way in one direction, seems ·indisposed to go any distance in the other ,direction. He is quite willing to appear on ,the public platform to advocate what he is not prepared to vote for here. If the Bill 'does not carry out the intentions of the honorable member who has charge of it, the ,better course will be to adopt the suggestion of the honorable member for Portland, and 'refer the measure to a select committee, by 'whom all the objections which have been 'raised in the coruse of this debate could be 'carefully gone into, and the Bill be altered so as to be made effective. The two honor­·able members for St. Rilda are very anxious to impress upon the House that men cannot

,.be made moral by Act of Parliament; but I would remind them that there is in exis­tence a' law known as the Police Offences .Statute, under which those who sin against .the community, when caught, are put in :gaol and prevented from doing more harm ,than can possibly be helped. We have, in this country, Acts of Parliament which .enable men to do wrong, and we want a .few more Acts which will be an assistance to those who are engaged in doing right.

Mr. VALE.-Mr. Speaker,'the speech .of the honorable member for East Mel­.bourne (Mr. Zox) would have compelled me to vote for the Bill, even if I had not been previously disposed to do so. The -honorable member admits that the principle of the Bill is right-he believes in it-and yet, he says, the measure cannot be carried out. And why cannot it be carried out? ·Because certain employers, who can take .their ease at their country houses or rural .farms, are selfish enough to overrule, the desires of their fellow tradesmen of more limited means to curtail the hours of their assistants' labour. Really the lack of legis­lationon this subject enables the more power­ful tradesman to overrule the desire of hi s fellow tradesmen of limited means to do what is right. I may mention that it took from twelve to fifteen years'· steady persis­tent ,agitation on the part of the majority .of those who were engaged in the book trade at Ballarat before the whole trade consented to close business at six o'clock; but, ever since that arrangement was effected, those engaged in the trade have had a reasonable and comfortable amount of leisure every night in the week except Saturday. The honorable member for East Melbourne says we cannot limit the hours of labour. That was the cry, at one time,

.in England, with reference to the factory operati,:,es. Nevertheless, legislation did limit the power of selfish factory owners to ,employ labour to the destruction of human health. With regard to what the honorable member has said as to females employed in restaurants, I must express the belief that no portion of the trading operations. of Mel­bourne is more discreditable to it than the amount of labour exacted in restaurants from female attendants, who are subjected to a harsh brutality unpardonable in a British community.

Mr. BOSISTO.-Sir, I have very much sympathy with the object of the honorable member for Carlton in bringing forward ·this Bill, but I cannot help thinking that the principle of the measure is not correct. The principle seenis to be that a person who keeps a shop and employs hands is to' be punished because a customer comes into his shop. But ought not the public to be punished for late shopping rather than the shopkeepers? If there were no people to patronize the shops, the shops would not be open. J I agree with the honorable member for Fitzroy (Mr. Vale) that there is a vast amount of suffering in many departments of business in this colony, and particularly with respect to the employment of females. Possibly more females are employed in business in this colony than in any other country. Only lately, an American assured me that females were not employed in the hotels and houses of public entertainment in his country. But here females are at work in such establishments from early in the morning until late at night. I consider ·it quite necessary we should have legislation on the subject; but I don't think the pro­visions of the Bill will compass the object which the supporters of the measure have in view. Still I am not for opposing the second reading. I hope either that the Bill will be sent to a select committee, or that it will be so amended in committee of the whole House that the matter with which it deals may be placed on a better basis than it stands on at present.

Mr. RICHARDSON.-I hope that the Bill will not be referred to a select com­mittee, because there is no reason why it should not be dealt with in the ordinary way. The only objections which have been raised to the measure are that something has been left out of it, or that there is something in it which ought to be omitted. If it be necessary that something should be inserted in the Bill or that something should be struck out, the amendments can be

444 Employes in [ASSEMBLY.] Shops Bill.

made in committee of the whole House. 48 hours a week, he will take care that that The object of the measure is to protect a state of things shall exist no longer. helpless class of the community, who suffer Mr. BENT.-Yes. from an evil the existence of which is Mr. JAMES.-I am very glad to hear generally acknowledged. It is admitted the statement, because I think that, when' that persons employed in shops and ware- the honorable gentleman makes inquiries, houses are kept at work for a greater num- he will find that there are men employed on bel' of hours than is good for them, or than the railways who are working 10, 12, and they ought to be employed. There is no even 14 hours a day. force in the argument that the Bill will be Mr. JOHNSTONE.-I think that every inoperative-that we cannot legislate to honorable melll;ber must sympathize with prevent the state of things at which the the object which the honorable member for measure is aimed. When men conduct Carlton has in view. Many of us have long their business in such a way as to do a been connected with the movement for physical injury to the persons whom they shortening the hours of labour in shops and employ, the Legislature has a right to inter- warehouses-I myself have been associated

. fere to prevent such injury being done. with it for many years-and experience Every honorable member who has spoken shows that moral suasion is not sufficient on the question has acknowledged that the to secure the end desired. What is required principle of the Bill is a good one, and, if is that the Legislature shall pass some the principle is good, the House should not practical measure which, while reducing the. hesitate to legislate on the subject. There hours of labour of the employes, will inter­is no necessity to wait until public meetings fere as little as possible with trade ; and I are held in favour of the Bill, for the evil think the best course to accomplish the which the measure is intended to remedy has object will be to refer the present Bill to a. already been condemned by the public. select committee.

Mr. JAMES.-I shall oppose the Bill Mr. LAURENS.-There is, no doubt, going to a select committee, unless for the considerable difficulty in the way of legis­purpose of broadening the basis of the lating successfully on the subject-matter of measure. If, however, that is what is in- this Bill, and I think the introducer of the tended, I don't think that the honorable measure would do well to accept the sug­member in charge of the measure will object gestion to refer it to a select committee. to it being referred to a select committee. Any persons who consider that they may I. think that the provisions of the Bill be injuriously affected by such legislation should be broadened, and made to embrace will have the opportunity of representing the employes in Government departments. their views before the committee, and the The Minister of Railways frequently poses whole matter can receive full, fair, and here, and sometimes elsewhere, as "the honest investigation. Every honorable poor working man's friend"; but I would member who has spoken has, to some ex­ask the honorable gentleman, who at pre- tent, expressed his sympathy with the ob­sent has more persons under his charge ject of the Bill. No one denies that there than any private employer of labour in this is something in connexion with the number country, whether the men engaged on the of hours that persons in shops and ware­railways have not to work more than 48 houses are employed which requires to be hours in a w~ek? remedied, and that moral suasion. is not

Mr. BENT.-There is no overtime in sufficient to effect the remedy. It is pre-the Railway department now. sumed, in some quarters, that the provisions

Mr. JAMES.-Will the honorable mem- of a Bill of this character are ·adverse to bel' say that no man in the Railway depart- the interests of the employers, but I do not ment shall be required to work more than think so. My experience leads me to the 48 hours each week? conclusion that many shopkeepers would

Mr . .BENT.-I have made a memoran- be glad to close their places of business dum to the effect that there shall be no at an earlier hour than they do now, if overtime in future, and I consider eight they were not afraid that the result of earlier hours a day sufficient for any man to be closing would be that some of their eus­employed. tomeI'S would be drawn away to rival estab.

Mr. JAMES.-Then I understand that lishments. They are therefore obliged, in if the honorable member finds there are self-defence, to keep late hours. Very often men in the Railway department who are the business done in some shops after a employed ~~ore than eight hOll:rs a day, or . certain hour is not sll-fii,cient to :pay the

Cowie' 8 Creek [OCTOBER 19.] Station Reserve. 445

cost of gas during the extra time that the shops are kept open, but the proprietors dread that they may permanently lose some of their customers if they close their places of business during hours when other ,estab­lishments are kept open. If the Bill is referred to a select committee, we shall probably get all the facts elicited which are necessary to enable us to frame a useful and unobjectionable measure.

Mr. LANGRIDGE.-Great credit is due to the honorable member for Oarlton for introducing the Bill, but there are difficulties in the way of passing such legislation which, I am afraid, are almost insurmountable. I therefore think the hon­orable' member will act wisely by accepting the suggestion to refer the measure to a select committee.

Mr. W. M. OLARK.-I think that 'Parliament will be over-legislating if it enacts, as the Bill proposes, that shops and warehouses shall be closed at six o'clock on five evenings in the week. It will be quite sufficient to provide that no person em­ployed in a shop or wa~ehouse shall work more than eight hours per day, without fixing when the eight hours shall begin or end. If that is done, the business of many people, who cannot close their shops at six o'clock, will not be interfered with.

Mr. O. YOUNG.-In my opinion, all employes, except young people, in the different trades and callings in this country are quite capable of making such arrange­ments as will suit themselves, and therefore any attempt to interfere between them and their employers will be inoperative-it must fail. One of the clauses of the Bill seems to me to be particularly objectionable. I refer to the 5th clause, under which a shop­keeper will not be able to take stock-at all events, not to employ anyone in taking stock after six o'clock in the evening­without the sanction of the Ohief Secretary.

, Surely those honorable members who object to the Governor in Oouncil having powers under the Water Oonservation Bill will not 'consent to a provision of this description.

Mr. LEVIEN.-I feel that I would not be doing my duty if I voted for the second reading of this Bill, and, if a division is called for, I shall record my vote against it. If carried into law, it will certainly press very harshly on many trades and businesses. I agree with the last speaker that legisla­tion is not required in this country to regu­late the hours of labour of adults, although there is some need of legislation in regard' to the employment of children, Eight

hours per day of ordinary hard labour is quite sufficient, but there are manyemploy­ments carried on, both in cities and in country districts, in which eight hours would not be an adequate day's work. If persons want to keep their shops open after six o'clock at night, why should they not be permitted to do so? Eight hours are recognised as a day's work for artisans, and no doubt the eight hours' system will spread in every direction in which it is necessary that it should be extended. Public opinion, expressed through the press and in other ways, will do more to induce the early closing of shops than any legislation that can be enacted. In my opinion, the passing of this Bill would be an undue interference with the liberty of the subject.

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

Mr. GARDINER.-I shall be very glad to accept the suggestion of the honorable member for Portland, as the object with which I brought forward the measure will be gained by referring it to a select committee. I therefore beg to move that the Bill be committed to a select committee.

The motion was agreed to.

OOWIE'S OREEK STATION RESERVE.

Mr. REES moved-"That a select committee be appointed to

inquire into and report upon the circumstances connected with the sale of certain improved land at Cowie's Creek, forming portion of the rail way reserve, and planted with wattles, without the usual valuation for improvements; and also upon the conduct of a former land officer in Geelong."

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

WATER OONSERVATION BILL. SECOND NIGHT's.DEBATE.

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

Mr. McOOLL.-Mr. Speaker, before I enter into the principles embodied in the Bill, I will give a brief history of what has been done on this subject in years past. In 1843, the question of irrigation was brought before the people of Tasmania and the dis­trict of Port Phillip (now Victoria) by the Oottons, in a series of lectures and papers which were received with a great deal of favour. Some 25 years ago, Oaptain (now Sir Andrew) Olarke, who was at that time the Surveyor-General of this colony, expressed the opinion that a hydrographic survey

446 Water Conservation Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Second Night's Debate.

should be made, with a view to irrigating the· Northern Plains, and I have a letter from him in which he regrets that pressure of business prevented him taking steps to carry' out such a survey. About 21 years ago, the following motion was proposed in this House by the present honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Smith) :-

"That, in the opinion of the House, no water supply scheme should be adopted unless based upon such a plan of construction as would ~fford permanent advantages to the community at large, and which would be capable of exten­sion iu accordance with future requirements, which, without causing unnecessary delays for temporary works, would bestow proportional benefits on the mining, agricultural, pastoral, and other industrial and manufacturing interests of the community. That a committee be appointed with a view to inquire into the best mode of constructing such works, and to take evidence on the engineering and financial re­quirements as to the best, most useful, and economical means of irrigating this colony."

Mr. LANGRIDGE.-Was that motion carried?

Mr. McCOLL.-It was not carried. Fifteen years ago, a committee of the Assembly was appointed to take evidence as to the damming of the Murray, with a view to irrigation, but it did not lead to any practical result. Ten years ago, the original plan of the N orth-Western Canal scheme, now on the table of the House, was prepared at the request of the Government, and that scheme has never been altered since. I may mention that the pegs of the schemes projected by Messrs. Gordon and Black, whose reports the honorable member for Sandhurst (Mr. Clark) has suggested should be attached as a schedule to the Bill, commence at the very spot where the pegs of the N orth-Western Canal scheme begin. At the time that scheme was pro­jected, very few acres of the 225 miles of country which the canal would traverse had been alienated from the Crown, but now every acre has been alienated from the commence­ment of the canal to Lake Hindmarsh. In carrying out water supply schemes, it is liecessary that there should be uniformity, but uniformity cannot be secured without the collection of proper evidence. It is utterly impossible that the House can enter into the minute details that are necessary to be considered before coming to any de­cision as to what must be done to give water supply to the Northern Plains. I may men­tion that on one of Mr. Gordon's plans the point where he starts on the Goulburn is put down as 402 feet above the sea level, and the extremity in Lake Hindmarsh, 225 miles

distant, as 248 feet above the sea level. On the Government rna ps the level of Lake Hind­marsh is put down as a little over 230 feet; but, taking Mr. Gordon's'levels as correct, there is a fall in a distance of 225 miles from 402 feet to 248 feet---:the very fall necessary to secure a flow of living water the whole distance. I am glad that at last the Government provided £500 for a contour survey. In 1871, the ablest surveyors in Vic­toria agreed to make tlus survey at from £1 7s. 6d. to £1 18s. per mile. I intend, in a night or two, to ask the Minister of Water Supply what stage the survey is in, for it ought to have been completed before this time. I now come to what is my chief objec­tion to the plans of Messrs. Gordon and Black. vVhat would be thought of a Government that made a railway say from the Goulburn to the South Australian border, and allowed each shire to have its own gauge? One shire would go in for a narrow gauge and another for a broad gauge, and the whole line would be such a complete absurdity that the proposal would not be listened to for a moment. An objection, even stronger than that project would be open to, . applies to the water scheme of Messrs. Gordon and Black; and I am sorry that the Govern­ment seem to shirk their proper responsi­bility in the matter. It is said that the scheme of Messrs. Gordon and Black is to be the basis of a canal or channel for irri­gation; but I cannot see any connexion between their proposal and a scheme that will supply irrigation. I hope that a select committee will be appointed to take evidence on the subject, with'the view of framing a report which will form the basis of a Water Supply Bill that will be generally acceptable to the whole country. There is ,not an engineer worthy of the name in Victoria­and there are 400 of them altogether-who can be brought forward to approve of the scheme of Messrs. Gordon and Black when contrasted with the scheme for a surface canal, which alone can give irrigation to the Northern Plains. ,

Mr. C. YOUNG.-There is nothing about a scheme in the Bill.

Mr. McCOLL.-But the tendency of the feeling of the Ministry and their supporters is in favour of Messrs. Gordon and Black's scheme.

Mr. C. YOUNG.-You are a supporter of the Ministry.

Mr. McCOLL.-If a person was perish­ing for want of water, and I could not give him a jug-full, I would give him a spoonfull if I could. Like the Scotch beggar, I am

Water Conservation Bill. [OCTOBER 19.J Second Night'S Debate. 447

prepared to be thankful for small mercies. Proud am I that the honorable member for Belfast, the Nestor of this· House, said that the Bill ought to go to a select committee; and I am proud also that the honorable mem­berfor Boroondara and the honorable member for Rodney (Mr. Gillies) also take the same view. Under the circumstances, I think I do not request too much when I ask the House to refer the measure to a select committee. I may state that I went to Sandhurst this morning, and saw scores of my constituents at the agricultural show. They told me that they look upon the attempt to force the scheme of Messrs. Gordon and Black ~lpon them as an absolute ,insult. They .regard it as perfectly monstrous. The hon()rable member for Rodney (Mr. Fraser) spoke of this' channel becoming a river. But how will it become a river? By erosion. And what will become of the dams and the tanks, and of the swamps which are now filled with water after a flood? As much mud as water will be brought into the dams and tanks under Messrs. Gordon and Black's scheme, and the swamps will be filled up with earth. I hold in my hand a report received from California in which the people there are warned not to allow any of these cheap channels to be cut, because, it is pointed out, their effect is to destroy places which were valuable receptacles for water before. The honorable member for Belfast, last night, applauded the Canadians for providing precautions to secure uniformity in the construction of their railways, and seeing that each scheme dovetailed into the other. But how much more necessary is homogeneousness in dealing with water schemes; and if this Bill were passed, and each shire council were allowed to construct its own little scheme, how could uniformity be secured? The carrying out of one of these little schemes might involve the ob­struction of water coming down the Goul­burn sufficient to irrigate millions of acres. Such a thing, I repeat, is monstrous, and will never be submitted to. Again, this channel scheme will require the Goulburn to be barred, and Mr. Gordon states that the barrage of the channel so as to create the inland lake he proposes will cost £12,000. I maintain that it will cost not less than £50,000. It is impossible, how­ever, to prove. such a statement in debate in this House; it can only be done before a committee where practical engineers and surveyors can be examined. And so with all Mr. Gordon's figures. They are at variance altogether with the figures that

have been proved by eminent engineers and checked by one of the ablest mathematicians in Victoria-Mr. Owen, of the Govern­ment Statist's department. The Minister of Water Supply, in moving the second reading of this Bill, used the word " irriga­tion" half-a-dozen times, and spoke of " irrigating" cheaply, but what irrigation can be carried out under the scheme of Messrs. Gordon and Black? The only way of irrigating cheaply is by carrying the water at a certain height over the Plains, and by syphon pipes letting it flow by gravitation. It will never pay private individuals, as a rule, to pump it. No doubt it pays Mr. Andrew O'Keefe on the Campaspe to do so, but his is an excep­tional case, as he has over 200 milch cows and a cheese factory. As to the beggarly statements about supplying water to the selectors for nothing, I say there is no necessity for such a thing. Adopt a proper plan, and allow a company to come forward bringing its own capital, selling the water to whoever wants it, and forcing it on no man, and you will find that there is no necessity for all this Government fostering and coddling. There is too much of that kind of thing in the colony already. . With regard to the suggestion to refer this Bill to a select committee, it has been said' that "committees are funeral parties, to bury good measures" ; but I am sure that such a statement will not apply in this case, because, I am happy to say, we are all of the one opinion, that water is a necessity for the Plains, and for irrigation. This is no party question-it is a patriotic ques­tion; and if the Government will add the patriotic scheme I advocate to their pro­gramme they will deserve the thanks of the country, and I hope will keep their offices for years. They are already entitled to gratitude so far, that they are the £l·st Ministry who have taken positive action on

. this subject; from previous Governments we have had only promises. But let them not offer the boon with one hand and take it away with the other. Let their scheme be homogeneous, and not heterogeneous-an harmonious whole, and not an aggregation of discordant elements. The honorable member for Rodney (Mr. Fraser), although he advocates Messrs. Gordon and Black's proposals, is connected with an association which adopts a very different principle as its basis of operations. Its emblem is the proverbial bundle of st~cks tied together, and its motto is "Unity is strength." Let every shire go in for its own little scheme,

448 Water Conservation Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Second Night's Debate.

and the result must be confusion. The Government of to-day may not be the Government of to-morrow; and who knows what schemes a Minister might not autho­rize under this Bill? If, however, the Bill were referred to a select committee, and that committee brought up recommendations, embodying proposals which would suit the wants of the country, then the people could come in and invest their capital under the calm cOl~trol of law, and not subject to the individual inclinations of any Minister for the time being. That is what I am and have always been seeking for; and when honorable members talk "hifalutin" about my advocating "gigantic schemes" and "visionary projects," they simply betray their own ignorance of what they are talk­ing about. So great is my faith in the canal which I advocate being carried out that I have resolved to touch nothing in the shape of spirituous liquor until I can water it with water from the canal.

Mr. C. YOUNG.-Then you will be a teetotaller for life.

Mr. McCOLL.-The Minister of Water Supply has stated that he was present at an enthusiastic meeting, attended by ladies, which was unanimous in favour of going in for this channel scheme of Messrs. Gor­don and Black; but, if I did not know that the honorable member was a teetotaller, I would be much inclined to say that it was after dinner he heard all those enthusiastic speeches. The very shire in which the meeting he referred to took place was one of those which sent delegates to the water conference at Echuca, and that conference was unanimous in declaring that Messrs. Gordon and Black's scheme will not suit the Plains, and that what is required is a scheme to carry the water on the surface between banks. And I maintain that the surface canal scheme will be the cheapest in the long run, as well as the best. Two banks are constructed on the surface to a height of 12 feet; between these the water flows, there being a sufficient fall, and it costs no more to construct the banks 340 feet apart than 50 feet. Moreover, as irrigation requires drainage as an essential, that is provided for by the outside excava­tion, which forms a drainage channel that drains the land after the water is put on it. Of course, we know that to plit water on the land without providing for drainage would simply be to destroy its growing power instead of increasing it. Our scheme of canalization for irrigation and motive power is perfect in all its details. It is well known

that a fall of 12 feet through a turbine wheel will grind wheat, cut chaff, saw tim­ber-in fact, do· all that a steam-engine can do-and this at the sole cost of the water flowing by gravitation and afterwards going on the land. Surely a fact of that kind ought to arrest men's attention, and bring them to look at this matter practi­cally. Something was said last night about the promoters of the canal scheme knowing nothing about engineering, and about scien­tific men having given their dictum that it was impracticable. Who are the scientific men? I remember Professor Johnstone telling me that one of his lectures was attended by a young lad, a farmer's son, who took the deepest interest in it. When he went home he was full of the subject, and at last he said to his father-" Feyther, science has come to such a pitch of perfec­tion that you will soon be able to go into the field and put manure on it out of a snuff-box." I say there is not a human being who, after giving an hour's close and impartial attention to the canal scheme, would not be as strong an advocate for sur­face canalization as I am. I will now point out another reason against the scheme of Messrs. Gordon and Black. Mr. Gordon states, in one of his reports, that his dams are to be from 9 feet to 12 feet deep. On the plains of Rodney, however, the clay is only 5 feet or 6 feet thick, and the dams of the squatters are constructed on the surface between banks. They are about 900 feet in circumference and 300 feet across, and the water is pumped in from a swamp. If they broke through the clay surface to form a dam, not a drop of water would remain in it when made. For the same reason we are compelled to carry the water· on the surface in the canal, because, if the clay foundation were broken through, it would be utterly impossible to retain the water. There is also a clay foundation everywhere in the western district, and if it is broken through the water cannot be held. Further, a gen­tleman from Penola, whom I met at Hamil­ton, told me that, in his district, they exca­vated a number of dams, but when the rain came the water did not remain in the dams an hour, and the result was that they had to throw back all the clay they had taken out, and form a dam on the surface. Mr. Gordon's proposal to construct dams 12 feet deep is quite impracticable in the Rodney district. I do not believe he could get such a depth of clay in the whole district. Why is there no mallee in the Rodney district? Because of the poorness of the soil, and the

"rater Consert'ation Bill. [OCTOBER 19.J Second Night's Debate. 449

shallow character of the alluvial. As you go west, 'and the depth of the alluvial in­creases, the mallee grows l,arge, until, from the clay being 5 feet or 6 feet deep in Rod­ney, it reaches a depth of 60 or 70 feet. For the reasons that a uniform plan cannot be carried out by this Bill-every shire being left to follow its own inclinations­that the Governor in Council is not the proper authority to have control in these matters until a law is passed that all can come in under, and that the water cannot be conserved in dams or carried along in drains, I cannot support the proposals con­tained in the measure. I would stultify my past action if I did not agree to the second reading of a measure on this subject, but, in consenting to the second reading of this Bill, it will only be on the distinct understanding that it will be referred to a select committee to take evidence, with the view of bringing up a measure which will meet the wants of the country. Is it not something that civilized men should be ashamed of that the very existence of the people should depend on the fall of an inch of rain while countless quantities of water are flowing past their doors? This is a serious matter. Every speaker has admitted that, if water is not provided, the Plains will be depopulated. The distress is something frightful. We are all agreed as to the water being wanted, and that the people shall pay for it; and the only difference is as to the means of pro­viding it. But I maintain that the running of these channels of Messrs. Gordon and Black will neither answer the wants of the people on the Plains nor pay in a remunera­tive sense. At the Shepparton show, the otherday,sevengentlemenlivingon the banks of the Broken Creek assured me that for nine months not a drop of water had passed through the Nathalie district, consisting of ten parishes. I do not blame the Minister of Railways for the mistake that was com­mitted in connexion with the diversion of the Broken River into the Broken Creek. From his warmth of heart, and his desire to give employment, he sent, men there to do the work, but he never looked at it him­self; and, owing to the blundering that took place in the construction of the weir, and through the gates being left closed when a flood came, damage was done to the extent of £700. In connexion with this matter, I may mention that the request made last week by the honorable member for Moira (Mr. Hall), that the Minister of Public Works would authorize Mr. Davidson to accompany the Crown lands bailiff for the

Shepparton district, to inspect and report upon the Broken River and Broken Creek water scheme, was simply madeat theinstance of the seven gentlemen to whom I ha ve already referred, and the Crown lands bailiff had no more to do with the matter than Mr. David­son had. To return to the Bill, however, I would remind honorable members that mil­lions of. money were formerly spent in this colony upon the construction of roads. Had anyone imagined that our railways would be extended in every direction as rapidly as they are being, do honorable members imagine that that vast expenditure would have been incurred upon road construction? Why you may travel twenty ,miles along some of those roads and not meet a cart or a human being. The expenditure of that money served its purpose for the time being, but it is absolutely wasted now that the rail­ways are started. The Government are now proposing to start a water project, tell­ing us at the same time that it is to be but the foundation of a larger scheme which will irrigate. But the irrigation scheme will give you all that the channel scheme will give, and a great deal more besides; and why throwaway a million of money­because that is more like the amount than £300,000, which will merely provide for the main channel--on a channel scheme which will still leave irrigation unprovided for? I feel a sense of burning indignation when I look at the plans of Messrs. Gordon and Black on this map. They form a nice picture, but there is nothing tangible in them. One line carries the water of the Goulburn to near Rochester by a route 72 miles long, whereas it can be taken across in 40 miles, passing through scores of selections. Messrs. Gordon and, Black's line carries it through only a few selections, but they take it through the estates of three large land­holders.

Mr. McKEAN.-The Argus reporters have cleared out.

Mr. McCOLL.-For my part, I think it would be better if there were no reporters in the gallery at all than that honorable members should be reported the way some of them are. I hope the day will come when the people will have a Hansard to read from which they will be able to see who are really working and laboring to ad­vance the interests of the' colony. An honorable member, with his heart and brain full of sterling motives, delivers a speech in this House that, if reported, would fill two columns, and next morning he finds it repre­sented in the Argus by an inch, and that

450 Water Conservation Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] _ Second Night's Dehate.

accompanied by a sneer. Personally I do not mind such treatment. I feel that I have a mission to accomplish, and until it is accomplished I hope to be allowed to assist in carrying it out. When it is com­pleted, I will retire into the shade, and let men of mark and standing take my place. The people are now crowding down from the country into Melbourne; but if the land were properly irrigated, the selectors, instead of having to leave their selections, would flourish, and there would be ample employ­ment everywhere. Let us have irrigation, and we shall have a similar state of things to that in California, where a family cannot manage more than twenty or thirty acres of land between them owing to its fertility. Every selector would then be able to let off three or four farms of fifty acres each, and there would be a state of prosperity and activity throughout the country such as can hardly be conceived at present. Why should our soil not yield 45 or 50 bushels of wheat to the acre as well as that of other countries where irrigation has been carried out by canals? Why does the shipping at the port of San Francisco, or connected with it, take a page of a newspaper to record? I maintain. that all we require, in order to bring about a similar state of things, in this colony is men at the head of affairs capable of grasping the whole sub­ject, and with courage to carry out their ideas. I believe that, individually, the members of the Government cannot but sympathize with every word that has fallen from me, and I ask them to come out of their shell and they will win and deserve the gratitude and continued confidence of the country. Once more I repeat that it is impossible to keep the selectors on the Plains without irrigation. The other day I was on the banks of the Loddon, and, while the river was brimful of water, there was not a head of stock on the Plains fit to go to the butcher-most of them were like mere frameworks of animals-or a crop fit to be reaped. There was the water, but of what use was it to the selectors ? Yet Messrs. Gordon and Black state distinctly that their scheme is not for irrigation, but merely to supply water for stock and domestic purposes. They further propose, in one of their reports, that, to save expense, some of the channels should be run along the public roads. What would be the effect of such a proposal? Some time ago, I called the attention of the Minister of Railways to a channel at Epsom, near Sandhurst, which was cut some five years ago, 3 feet by 3 feet,

Mr. McOoli.

but in which two bullock teams could now go abreast owing to the erosion caused by the passage of the water. Perhaps that is the kind of new" river" to which the hon­orable member for Rodney referred in his speech last night. Surely such an i1lus~ tration as that is sufficient to show that Messrs. Gordon and Black's proposed channels would prove a curse instead of a blessing to the country. As I have already pointed out, not only would all the pollution of the Plains be washed into those channels, but the earth carried away by the action of the water would fill up every tank, dam, and swamp in the country. A great deal has been said about Lake Cooper and Lake Waranga. Now, in the plan of the canal scheme, which was made years ago, it is pro­posed to turn Lake Waranga into a reser­voir to catch the flood waters. If honorable members will look at the plan of Messrs. Gordon and Black they will see that it is an exact copy of ours. Surely it is most unfair, when men get £4,000 for doing a certain work, that they should merely copy a plan that was published eleven years ago; and do it without the slightest aclmowledg­mente

An HONORABLE MEMBER.-Is that the fact?

Mr. McOOLL.-The very shape of the Waranga reservoir and the number of acres are the same in each, yet no credit is given to the original designers. Mr. Gordon says it is impossible to carry water for irrigation across· the plains north of Lake Oooper; but what is our plan? When the canal comes to the brink of the hollow of Lake Cooper, we simply dam the lake, and can then carry the water away on to Rochester and through the Plains. With regard to the supply of water for the canal scheme, I may mention that Mr. Angus Mackay, when Minister of Mines-and a great deal of the pertinacity with which I have stuck to this scheme is due to him--caused every river to be gauged at its highest and lowest level, and he found that there is abundance of water to keep such a project as ours supplied all the year round. The records which prove this 'are in the Mining department, so that the question of the sufficiency of water to supply the canal need never be raised. Again, the railway time-table will show any honorable member that from N agambie to the Murray there is a fall of 428 feet, and a bar or dam on the Goulburn would consequently be sufficient to send a stream of water by a surface canal through the Moira district, irrigating an area of ten miles on each side, and at ~he same'

Wate1' Conservation Bill. [OCTOBER 19.] Second .LVigkt's Debate. 451

time to carry a stream away to the west all the distance to Lake Rindmarsh. Moreover, various places have been already selected, at which reservoirs can be made at a small cost. Again, I was told a short while ago by Mr. Donald Cameron, of Lake Meering, one of the oldest settlers in the colony, that, so long as there was water in the lakes in that part of the country, there was no drought; but that, since they dried up, there has been no rainfall in the locality worth speaking of. I have a plan of those lakes, and it shows that at a very small cost the Murray could be made to flow into them, and serve the selectors in its neighbourhood, who are now clearing off as fast as they possibly can. I remember well how often the late Mr. Doyne, one of the ablest engineers this colony ever knew, used to tell me that no engineer in the world could give a definiteopinioh as to a water scheme until all the levels connected with it were taken. I do hope that the work of taking levels. will be gone on with as quickly as possible. I have no doubt Messrs. Gordon and Black's drains will be invaluable where they are carried along hill sides, because then they will be available for irrigation. Be it remembered that the scheme we on our side propose is one of canalization that is bound to be carried some day into Riverina. Indeed, I am at the present moment invited by a leading states­man of New South Wales to lecture in Sydney upon the best means of canalizing the Riverina plains. But nevertheless, from the bottom of my heart, I wish to see Victoria take the lead in such works. . As to funds for our scheme, had we listened six years ago to the offers then made to us, all the money we could need would have been subscribed long ago. I have been informed by a relation of my own, who is the junior partner of a large English firm, that, when­ever we get our Bill passed into law, amply' sufficient money to complete our seheme will be available in London within twenty- . four hours. I am perfectly sure that that is the case. But, on the other hand, one of the oldest settlers in Riverina has written to me, expressing the hope that we will never dream of floating our bonds in London, because there are gentlemen in the western district who would gladly take them up. They know well that the water we would carry to them would raise the value of their land from £3 to £10 per acre. I will not say more, except to urge honorable members to bear in mind that there can be little use in providing. water for stock unless you apply it to the growth of grass. Let honorable

members ponder on what I have told them, and something will come of it.

Mr. 'tV ALSR.-Mr. Speaker, I listened with much interest to the speeches that have been made on the Bill, which I regard as a distinct extension of the local govern­ment principle for the purpose of supplying water to different localities for domestic purposes and for stock, although not for irrigation. In that light I thoroughly ap­prove of it. The only difficulty in con­nexion with it seems to arise with regard to the control to be exercised over the trusts. The very first time I read the measure through, it struck me that it left a great deal too much power in the hands of the Government. Some honorable members have combated this idea by urging that, inasmuch a~ the Government provide the money for the works, they ought to be allowed. a large share of management with respect to them, and no doubt there is much to be said for that view. But, nevertheless, the objections urged by the honorable member for Portland on the other side of the ques­tion are very serious, and deserve attention. As I read the clauses of the Bill, no trust can be established, or, if established, per~ form a single important act, without the consent of the Minister of Water Supply. What does that mean? I need not parti­cularize events or individuals when I assert that it is patent to everyone that in times of political excitement and agitation the power I refer to might, and very probably would, be very greatly abused. Underthese circumstances, I would hail with satisfaction any arrangement in the Bill which would vest the control in question in a board of say three competent persons who would per­form the duties intrusted to them-among others, that of examining the differClit schemes proposed by the trusts-without any political bias. Such a board might be, with respect to waterworks, what the old Central Road Board was with respect to roads. Perhaps almost every honor..; able member recollects that the Central Road Board was a non-political body in~ trusted with the distribution of the money voted by Parliament for road purposes. What I refer to is all the more important because the £300,000 set down in the Loan Bill for water purposes doubtless really means the commencement of a great water scheme, the carrying out of which will in.:. volve the expenditure of millions, and under such circumstances we ought to watch most carefully what we do, lest one false step should most seriously involve us by-and~

452 Water Conservation Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Second Night's Debate.

by. Upon the whole, however, the Go­vernment are to be congratulated upon their measure, which must, I think, except with respect to the one point I have parti­cularly alluded to, commend itself not only to the House but to the country generally. There is, however, a little matter upon which I would like some information. Certain water sGhemes for the Northern Plains having been recommended by Messrs. Gordon and Black, will it be competent for any water trust to undertake waterworks irrespective of those schemes, or that would conflict with t4em? However, that is after all a matter of detail, which, like my sug­gestion in, favour of a water board, we can consider in committee. I shall vote for the second rm~ding of the Bill.

Mr. NIMMO.-Sir, I listened to the speeches which have been delivered during the present debate with a great deal of pleasure, and I may add that I paid par­ticular attention to the remarks of the honorable member' for Mandurang (Mr. McColl). My conclusion is that what is called the " grand canal" scheme need not be regarded as in any way conflicting with the provisions of the Bill, which is simply one to empower municipal bodies to collect qnd distribute water in their respective districts. No doubt there are imperfections in the measure, but I scarcely think one was hit upon when it was complained that surveyors and engineers would be authorized to enter private lands for survey purposes. Do we not remember how, in the early days of railways, all manner of difficulties were placed in the way of surveying new lines, and the harm that frequently resulted from such con­duct? Sir, the quality of every water scheme depends almost entirely upon the surveys on which it is based. Often and often has an artificial water-course been found defec­tive simply because of the obstructions offered to the engineer who laid it out. For my part, I would never object to sur­veyors and engineers exercising the powers the honorable member thinks too great. Another of the honorable members for Mandurang (Mr. Fisher) submitted, last night, that a bench of magistrates would not be a fit tribunal to hear cases under the Bill; but surely justices of the peace, if not experienced in technical matters of engi­neering, are perfectly capable of eliciting evidence with respect to them, and deciding accordingly. I look forward to the system the Bill will establish expanding in the future just as extensively as the municipal system has expanded in the past. One

valuable feature of the new arrangement will be that the Oentral Government, as well as the municipal bodies, will have the advan­tage of advice and assistance from . local engineers. As far as I can see, the Bill is sound in principle, and we cannot go wrong in supporting it.

Mr. LANGDON.-Mr. Speaker, I take a deep interest in the question embodied in the Bill, because it has long been the sub­ject of one of my pet studies. In fact, I think I can almost claim to be the father of the Gordon and Black'schemes, inasmuch as they are the fruit of the agitation for water supply to the Northern Plains which I have for many years past helped; in no slight way, to carryon. I was sorry to hear them attacked, as they have been, during the present debate; but I don't ·think they will be much injured in conse­quence. I may mention that, as soon as I could, after Messrs. Gordon and Black's re­ports were published, I sent them through­out the length and breadth of the northern. areas, and I have since received a large number of letters from shire engineers and others familar with the localities concerned, speaking in the highest terms of the recom­mendations embodied in them. If honorable members look at the map which illustrates the Gordon and Black scheme to which the honorable member for Mandurang (Mr. McOoll) most objects, what do they see? That the intended water channels spread out like the veins at the back of a man's hand; the water gradually working its way along in a thousand directions un til it reaches the Murray.' What good would the people whom that scheme will benefit derive from water'taken from the Goulburn, the natural dip of the country being towards the north? The fact is the Gordon and Black scheme follows the laws of nature, and therein lies its great value. I dare say the Bill will get a rough knock or two in committee, but I feel assured honorable members generally will give it every consideration, in order that it may be made as effective as possible. There are one or two points to which I would like to direct particular attention. One is the importance of arranging so as to prevent different water schemes from clashing. For my part, I think that would be best done by laying out the several water districts so as to correspond with the Gordon and Black plans. There would then be no radical differences between any of the trusts. I hope also that the proposed differential rating will be closely looked into. I call upon honorable members to put their.

Melbourne Harbour Trust. [OCTOBER 20.J Railway Department. 453

shoulders to the wheel, and do their best to carry the Bill into law at the earliest pos­sible moment. . On the motion of Mr. QUICK, the debate was adjourned until the following day.

The House adjourned at eleven o'clock.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. Thursday, October 20, 1881.

Railway Junction at Albury-Charitable Institutions-Mel· bourne Harbour Trust: Deposit of Silt in Hobson's Eay-Geelong Water Supply-Railway Department: Freight on Colonial Tiles: Grain: Gatekeepers: Inquiry Offices-Police Commission-Sir Charles Mac Mahon and Mr. Fincham - Navigation Laws: Provision for Safety of Passengers-The Destitute-Personal Explanation: Mr. Eowman-Royal Commission on Education: Notice of Motion by Mr. Ramsay-Yan Yean Water Supply­Adulterated Food-Expenditure under Loans-Cost of the Polioe Commission-Wattle Planting-Eullarook and Womba.t State Forests-Viotorian Exhibitions Aot Amendment Eill- Water Conservation Eill: Second Reading: Third Night's Debate.

The SPEAKER took the chair at half-past four o'clock p.m.

RAIL WAY JUNCTION AT ALBURY.

Mr. WRIXON asked the Minister of Railways when he expected the junction at Albury of the Victorian and New South railways would be completed, and the through line opened for traffic?

Mr. BENT said he caused a letter on the subject to be transmitted to the New South Wales Government about six weeks ago, but he had not yet received any reply.

CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS. Mr. ZOX inquired of the Premier when

he intended to lay before Parliament the reports of Mr. Nealon charitable institu­tions?

Sir B. O'LOG HLEN . said the reports were being printed. They would be laid on the table as soon as possible.

MELBOURNE HARBOUR TRUST. Mr. A. T. CLARK called attention to

the fact that the honorable member for Mary­borough (Mr. Barr) had on the notice-paper a motion affirming that it was most undesir­able to allow the deposit of silt in Hobson's Bay; and that he (Mr. Clark) had given notice of a contingent motion on the same subject. He begged to ask whether the Premier would aflord the honorable member for Maryborough an early opportunity of submitting his proposition to the House?

SESe 1881.-2 I

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN said this was the fir.st time the matter had been brought under his notice. He would give it consideration. He was inclined to think that the best time to bring forward the motion was when the Melbourne Harbour Trust Act Amendment Bill was under consideration.

GEELONG WATER SUPPLY. Mr. JOHNSTONE inquired whether the.

Minister of Water Supply would lay on the table a return showing the quantity of water supplied to Geelong and its suburbs for manufactories, stand-pipes, and purposes other than for domestic use during the year ending the 1st October, 1881 ? .

Mr. BURROWES (in the absence of Mr. C. YOUNG) replied to the question by reading the following memorandum :-

"The quantity of water used by measure at Geelong, for other than domestic purposes, for the twelve months ending 1st October inst. was 33,262,000 gallons. The supply from stand-pipes is not given by meter, and the quantity used from them is not known."

RAILWAY DEPARTMENT. Major SMITH asked the Minister of

Railways if he would take into consideration the propriety of reducing the freight on colonial-made tiles.? Tiles made at Sand­hurst were largely used in the Ballarat dis­trict, but, under present arrangements, 1,350 tiles, which cost in Sandhurst £7 7s. 6d., were not conveyed thence to Ballarat for less than £4 17s. 9d., being at the rate of 5d. per ton 'per mile.

Mr. BENT said he was much obliged to the honorable member for Ballarat vVest (Major Smith) for putting the queRtion. The rates referred to had been charged for years. However, the freight table had been revised recently, and alterations had been made which only awaited the assent of the Cabinet to be brought into force. The revi­sion included the reduction of the freight for drain-pipes and tiles to l~d. per ton per mile. He had also arranged for the con­struction of a siding at Epsom.

Mr. DOW inquired whether the Minister of Railways would say wha~ he was going to do with regard to grain?

Mr. BENT remarked that the freight for grain would be brought before the Cabinet during the following week. The new traffic charges had been settled except so far as grain was concerned, and he believed a satis­factory settlement with regard to that article would be arrived at.

Mr. O'CALLAG HAN called attention to the fact that the gatekeepers on the

454 Si,. Charles Mac Malton [ASSEMBL Y. ] and Mr. Fincnam.

Ballarat and Stawell Railway were paid 2s. per day while the gatekeepers on the Stawell and Horsham Railway were paid only 6d. per day, and asked whether the Minister of Railways would increase the wages of the latter to the ordinary standard?

Mr. BENT stated that there were five different rates of wages for the men and women employed as gatekeepers. The rates varied from 6el. to 6s. and 7s. per day. He had requested the Traffic Manager to prepare a list of the gatekeepers employed on the railways, in order that he might see whether the wages paid them was commensurate with the duties which they had to perform.

Mr. ZOX asked the Minister of Railways whether he would establish inquiry offices in connexion with post-offices, or in such other way as might be deemed expedient, to enable the general public to obtain information as to the arrival and departure of trains, fares,&c.?

Mr. BENT replied in the affirmative.

POLIOE OOMMISSION. Mr. KERFERD asked the Ohief Secre':'

tary when the report of the Police Oommis­sion, which had just concluded its labours, would be distributed ? (An Honorable Mem­ber-" The commission has not concluded its labours.") He referred to the second progress report recently presented to the House. He was anxious to see the terms of the commission, because it appeared to him that the commission had taken a most extraordinary. course in recommending the disrating of officers who had not been subjected to any charges, and who were not heard by the commission at all. In the Beechworth district, from which he had just returned, the greatest amount of indignation had been evinced on account of the condem­nation, by the Police Oommission, of men unheard. Under these circumstances, he hoped the Ohief Secretary would not act upon any of the commission's recommenda­tions until honorable members had had an opportunity of considering the report.

Mr. GRANT said he laid the report on the table on Tuesday, and he was informed by the Olerk of the Assembly that copies would be circulated among honorable mem­bers, with the parliamentary papers, the following morning. It was not the iritention of the Government to take any action on the report until honorable members had had full opportunity of considering it.

Mr. V ALE inquired whether the evidence taken by the commission would be circulated -with the report?

Mr. GRANT replied in the affirmative.

SIR O. MAO MAHON AND MR. FINCHAM.

Mr. FINOHAM said-Mr. Speaker, I desire to bring a matter before the House; and, in doing so, I think every honorable member will consid(3r I am taking a right course. An honorable member has grossly insulted me. I refer to the 'honorable member for West Melbourne (Sir O. Mac Mahon). I gave him the opportunity of reconsidering the terms which he addressed to me with reference to the report of the Police Commission--

An HONORABLE ME.M:BER.-This is a private matter.

Mr. FINOHAM.-It is not a private matter. The honorable member for West Melbourne, speaking of the report of the Royal commission of which I am a member, said to me-" Fincham, how were you got at? " At first, I took the matter as a joke, and said-" Surely you are not in earnest?" The honorable member replied-" Yes, I

. am." "Then," I said, "if you repeat the language, I shall certainly report it." Whereupon the honorable member again said-" How were you got at?"

An HONORABLE MEi\1BER.-Oh! It must be a joke.

Mr. FINOHAM.-It is not a joke; and I say that when an honorable member un.: dertakes a responsibility such as that o~ acting on a Royal commission, he· has n~ right to be insulted, especially in this House; in connexion with the performance of his duty. I ask the protection of the House.

Sir O. MAO MAHON.-If honorable members think it necessary that I should afford any explanation, I am prepared to do so.

Mr. FINOHAM.-If the honorable member will say that he did not mean what he said, I will be satisfied.

Sir O. MAO MAHON.-I will not say I did not mean it. I did not say that the honorable member had been" got at," what­ever my opinion may be. What I said to the honorable member, and I said it jooularly, was-" How is it that you have come, in that Police Oommission, to the conclusion you have, seeing that, when you spoke to me, you took an altogether different tone?" What I intended· to convey, and what I shall express when the debate on the subject comes on, was that the honorable member's opinions had totally changed since he spoke to me. If the honorable member thinks he can take advantage of his position in this House to silence me, he is quite mistaken.

Sir Clla'fles Mac Mahon tOCTOBER 20.] 455,

The honorable member is entirely wrong in reporting to the Speaker something which took place privately; but, as far as I am personally concerned-as I told the honor­able member when he threatened to do so­l don't care a rap about the matter.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-I submit that this is not parliamentary business.

Sir C. MAC MAHON.-Certainly not. The honorable member was spoken to not as a Member of Parliament, but as a member of the commission.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-A private con­versation between two honorable members is not a parliamentary matter. Such a thing as an assault might become a parliamentary matter, but I submit, Mr. Speaker, that a mere private conversation does not come within your province.

The SPEAKER.-If a member considers himself personally insulted by another mem­ber, I think he has a right to bring the matter before the House. At the same time, if honorable members choose to indulge in private conversations, it is scarcely fair for one to call attention to what another may say. I understand the honorable member for Ballarat West (Mr. Fincham) to com­plain that he was addressed in what he considered to be an offensive manner by the honorable member for West Melbourne (Sir C. Mac Mahon), and I would suggest· to that honorable member that he should give the ass,urance that he meant no personal offence.

Sir B. O'LOG HLE-N.-I am sure the honorable member for West Melbourne (Sir C. Mac Mahon) will say he meant no personal offence. I think it must be plain to the House 'that what the honorable member said he intended as a jocular remark. Many of the remarks made by honorable members one to another, through their being accustomed to meet together, are not intended seriously; if they were, we would have a number of unpleasant scenes. I venture to say the honorable member for West Melbourne never meant anything offensive to the honorable member for Ballarat W~st (Mr. Fincham). I am sure he had no intention of insulting the honorable member.

Major SMITH. - I certainly think that honorable members ought to be pro­tected within the precincts of the House, and that if ;:tn honorable member makes an offensive observation to another, the least he can do, as a gentleman, is to withdraw iL I think that whatever action honorable members may take as members of a Royal

2"12

commission, they should be protected, at all events, from offensive observations in this House. I hope the honorable member for West Melbourne (Sir C. Mac 1\1:ahon) will see that it is only fair that after having addressed to my honorable colleague (Mr. Fincham), unprovoked, in the presence of gentlemen, an offensive observation, he should either express regret and withdraw it, or take an opportunity of substantiating what he said.

Sir C. MAC MAHON.-The honorable member who has just sat down has thought fit to use a remark which I don't understand. The honorable member said that if an hon­orable member, referring to me, made: use of an offensive observation, he ought, as a gentleman, to withdraw it.

Major SMITH.-I say so now. Sir C. MAC MAHON.-The honorable

member says so now; and, to show my opinion of the honorable member's gross

, expression, I will not withdraw one word I said. I repeat that I did not ask the hon­orable member for Ballarat West (Mr. Fincham) how he had been" got at."

Mr. FINCHAM.-Yes, you did. Sir C. MAC MAHON.-The honorable

member is mistaken. The SPEAKER.-Is it not easy for the

honorable and gallant gentleman to say that he meant no offence, and that the honorable member for Ballarat West (Mr. Fincham) is mistaken? I am anxious to preserve the order of the House.

Sir C. MAC MAHON.-I am prepared distinctly to assert that I never asked the honorable member for Ballarat West (Mr. Fincham) how he had been "got at." What I said to him, and I said it jocularly, was in effect-" I don't know how you have changed your opinions so suddenly." By that I meant nothing more than the suppo­sition that the honorable member had changed his opinions. But that is a very different state of affairs from what the hon­orable member (Major Smith) referred to when he said that, as a gentleman, I should do so-and-so.

The SPEAKER.-I think the honorable member for Ballarat West (Major Smith) deserves every credit for supporting his col­league, and especially considering that. they sit on different sides of the House. The honorable member spoke hypothetically. I am quite sure he did not intend to reflect upon the honorable member for West Mel­bourne. No one could suppose that for a moment.

456 The Destitute, [ASSEMBLY.] Personal Explanation.'

Mr. FINCHAM.-I have no wish at all to be offensive to any honorable member; and I am the last man to take offence without occasion. The honorable member for West Melbourne (Sir C. Mac Mahon) now says that he did not intend his remark in the sense ill which I understood it. Therefore I will permit the matter to drop. At the same time, I must express my thanks to my honorable colleague (Major Smith) for the course he has taken.

The subject then dropped.

NAVIGATION LAWS. SAFETY OF P ASSENGEns.

Mr. KERFERD asked the Premier when he would afford him an opportunity of bring­ing forward a contingent motion, of which he had given notice, in favour of an amend­ment of the Passengers, Harbours, and Navigation Statute in the direction of com­pelling ships and steamers to carry more efficient appliances for securing the safety of passengers than were provided at present?

Sir B. O'LOG HLEN stated that he was entirely at one with the honorable member for the Ovens (Mr. Kerferd) as to the necessity for an amendment of the law in the direction referred to. In fact, he took action, on a former occasion, with the view of compassing the same object. He believed the House would agree to the resolution, and also to a further resolution, "\yhich the honorable member contemplated moving, to invite the co-operation of the other colonies in the matter, but he could not state, at present, when an opportunity could be afforded for debating the question.

THE DESTITUTE.

to the Inspector-General, the proceeding had the tendency to increase largely the criminal statistics of the colony, to subvert prison discipline, and to make the penal system inore costly. It was of importance that gaol regulations should be uniform, and yet it was cruel and unjust for persons committed to gaol for circumstances over which they bad no control to be subjected to the same discipline and surveillance as criminals. These circumstances induced him to ask the Chief Secretary the question of which he had given notice, and also to inquire whether, in view of the large amounts annually voted for charitable purposes, the Government would provide some other refuge than a gaol for the destitute persons alluded to? .

Mr. GRANT stated that this was not the first time the Inspector-General had called attention to this subject. A similar report was made in 1877. The carrying out of the recommendations of the Inspector­General would involve the establishment of poor-houses in the colony, which was not at all desirable. He (Mr. Grant) had not yet brought the report under the consideration of his colleagues, but he would take an early opportunity of doing so.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION. Mr. BOWMAN.-Mr. Speaker, I desire

to make a personal explanation. Some tea importers have taken umbrage at what I am reported by the daily newspapers to have said in this House on Tuesday night, during the debate on the second reading of the Importation and Examination of Tea Bill. What I intended to say, and what I believe I did say, with regard to the adulterated and low-class teas which come into this market, was that two-thirds of such teas as those, sold recently at Fraser and CO.'s auc­tion room, and bought by Mr. Everard­of which I gave analyses-are liquored and drunk in China, and that the leaves are then dried and re-fired, and exported to this colony. Certainly I did not intend to say that two-thirds of the China teas which come here are adulterated.

PUBLIC INSTRUCTION.

Mr. JOHNSTONE asked the Ohief Sec­retary if the Government intended" to take into consideration the report of the Inspector­General of Penal Establishments, in which he calls attention to the fact that in all the Victorian gaols there are inmates who are there on no other grounds than their weak­ness and destitution; that the majority of those who dio in gaols are persons whose cases are hopeless when received, and con­sequently are not accepted as hospital patients, and are also unable to find shelter in any charitable institution; and that, in order to Mr. RAMSAY gave notice of motion prevent their dying in the streets, they are "That the proposed Education Commission humanely committed to prison"? The does not meet with the approval of this majority of the prisoners in the Geelong House," and subsequently asked the Premier Gaol-of whom, on an average, there were what evening he would set apart for the 120 males and 50 females-were committed debate? under the Vagrant Act "for having no Sir B. O'LOG HLEN.-Sir, I was just visible means of subsistence." According I going to ask the honorable member for East

R,oyal Commission [OCTOBER 20.J on Education. 451

Bourke whether this motion is meant as a vote of want of confidence in the Govern­ment? I must also ask the leader of the Opposition whether the motion has his sanction. Of course, if it be intended as a vote of want of confidence, the business at present before the House must be put on one side, in order that the debate on the motion may be proceeded with either now or on Tuesday. If the motion be not intended as a vote of want of confidence­( "Hear, hear," from several honorable members)-the Government will give an early day for the discussion of the question. But I want a distinct understanding on the point, because, if the Government have not the confidence of the House, the sooner another Government take their places the better.

Mr. RAMSA Y.-I think the Premier ought to be the best judge of the matter. As far as I am concerned, I have no wish that the motion should be treated as a vote of want of confidence. I have given notice of the motion because I believe the Govern­ment are making a serious mistake. I must say, as one who has hitherto supported them, that I cannot allow myself to be dragged through the mire, even though I have the greatest possible regard for some members of the Ministry. I cannot say anything beyond this.

Mr. BERRY.-I don't know that it is necessary for me to add anything to what the honorable member for East Bourke has said. The motion is not a direct motion of no­confidence-if it were, its terms would be un­mistakable-and therefore it is one which the head of the Government must interpret for himself. But whether the honorable gentleman takes it as a motion of want of confidence or not-whether he adjourns the business of the House to-night or not-it is all-important, in the face of the draft com­mission which the Premier has laid upon the table, and his intimation that the commission would issue unless some action were taken by the House before this day week, an inti­mation which renders prompt action neces­sary, that the motion of the honorable mem­ber for East Bourke should take precedence of all other business next Tuesday. How the motion should be regarded is, I say, a matter entirely for the consideration of the Government. I don't think anyone wishes to urge it as a vote of no-confidence; but I believe that all those who approve of the motion desire to negative absolutely the commission which the Premier has laid on the table.

Mr. KERFERD.-I don't think this is a matter either for the Government or the Opposition. The address adopted by this House in reply to the Governor's speech, at the commencement of the session, contained a paragraph with reference to the Educa­tion Act-a very distinct statement that the House would be perfectly at liberty to deal with that question. I say, as far as the House is concerned, that we are seised of the matter, and purpose dealing with it, in­dependent both of the Government and the Opposition. If the Premier says that was not the understanding arrived at, let him consult Hansard, and he wHl see what I state is correct. Oertainly I have no such motive as the displacement of the Government in dealing with the education question.

Sir O. MAO MAHON.-I think the Premier has made a mistak:e in assuming the motion of which the honorable member for East Bourke has given notice to be a mo· tion of want of confidence. With the hon­orable member for the Ovens (Mr. Kerferd), I understood that one of the items of the Governor's speech, at the commencement of the session, was an undertaking that a commission of an impartial nature, should he appointed to inquire not into the question of secular and religious education, but into the question whether the administration of the State school system in this country is properly economical, and not marked by unnecessary expenditure. The honorable member for East Bourke, as an ex-Minister of Public Instruction, and from having taken a warm interest in the education question, has thought fit to table a motion without consulting ~ny member on this (the Minis. terial) side of the House, or, I believe, on the other.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-Nonsense; it is all arranged.

Sir O. MAO MAHON.-I am utterly ignorant of the circumstance. I go further, and say that I have no sympathy with any gentleman whose name appears on the draft commission. At the same time, I consider that to take the motion as a test vote-as a vote of want of confidence-would be any. thing but fair. I don't believe it is the wish of the honorable member for East Bourke that the motion should be taken as a vote of want of confidence, and I think it a great mistake of the Premier to accept ii as such. The honorable gentleman must be perfectly aware-considering the different denominations and persuasions, and the different ideas prevailing with regard to education-that, if treated as a party

\1:58 Royal Commission [ASSEMBLY.] on Education.

matter, there is little chance of the Govern­ment obtaining a majority on a question of this nature. Then why should we not deal with it impartially?

Mr. MUNRO.-I rise to a point of order. May I ask what business is before the chair?

The SPEAKER.-The honorable mem­ber for East Bourke asked the Premier when a certain motion could be brought before the House, and the Premier intimated that his answer would depend upon a statement of the intentions of the honorable member and the leader of the Opposition. Both those honorable gentlemen having responded to the appeal, it remains only for the Premier to give his reply to the original question.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-Mr. Speaker, may I call your attention to the fact that 'the honorable member for the Ovens (Mr. Kerferd), who is neither the leader of the Opposition nor the head of the Government, has made a speech also, and that it i~ only right that the same privilege should be accorded to the honorable member for West Melbourne (Sir C. Mac Mahon).

The SPEAKER.-I think the honorable member for West Melbourne has already made a speech much longer than that of the honorable member for the Oven$. At pre­sent there is no question before the chair; but on an occasion such as this-when notice is given of what some honorable members regard as a want of confidence motion-the Speaker must allow a reason-

. able latitude. . Sir C. MAC MAHON.-I would be the

last member of the House to attempt to infringe the rules of order, but ~nasmuch as the Premier has accepted the intended motion as one of no-confidence--

The SPEAKER.-I did not understand the head of the Government to do anything of the kind.

Sir C. MAC MAHON.-Well, I beg to urge the Premier not to take such a OO11.rse, especially at this stage, when it would be

. most injurious to stop the ordinary course of business.

Dr. MADDEN.-Sir, the subject be­fore us is one of such universal interest that per~aps aJitt!e latitude may be claimed in dealmg WIth It.

The SPEAKER.-There is no qu.estion before the House.-

Dr. MADDEN.-I am q1.l.i~ecO'Il~cio~s that I am speaking only Wiilt il1ti indtu.; g:ence of the House~ but I cle~ir.e1 ti ,~ake a smgle, remark. ~ h,e ~r?~:\9); aS~(yll_tl}~ honor.tble member for East B611.rke a Cel·tam

question, and I venture to think the honor­able member did not reply to it in his usual very candid manner.

Mr. RAMSAY.-I rise to order. I am not very sensitive, but I object to being called uncandid.

The SPEAKER.-I hope the language of the honorable and learned member for Sandridge may be taken as complimentary to the honorable member for East Bourke, because he spoke of him as being unusually candid as a rule.

Dr. MADDEN.-I am glad to have succeeded in conveying that impression to the Speaker, at all events. I am sure I have no desire to give offence to the honor­able member for East Bourke, for whom I have the greatest regard. What I wish to say is that I think the position taken up by the Premier is the proper one. The motion of which notice has been given does not necessarily imply a direct expression of want of confidence, although it is un­doubtedly couched in terms that might be . deemed to have that meaning; therefore the Premier was right to ask with what inten­tion it was tabled. But how was he an­swered? In effect, that the motion might be accepted as the Government chose. ' The honorable member for the Ovens (Mr. Ker­ferd) then asserted that honorable members were informed some time ago that the Education Commission would be left to the approval of the House-that the House insisted, at the beginning of the session, that that course should be taken.

The SPEAKER.-The honorable and learned member is now interpreting what other honorable members have said.· I beg to remind him that there is nothing before the chair.

Dr. MADDEN.- Under the circum­stances, I am entitled. to proceed with my remarks until some honorable member objects.

Mr. MUNRO.-I see no use in the standing order we passed last night if we are to have this debate.

Dr. MADDEN.-Do you object to my speaking?

Mr. MUNRO.-I do. Sir B. O'LOGHLEN.-I understand

the honorable member for East Bourke and the leader of the Opposition to say that the motion tabled is not meant as one of no­oonfiqenqe, and I accept the statement. The language of the motion being doubt­ful, I felt compelled to ask what its nature was. Inasmuch as there appears to be a general desii'e tliat the subject 'shou:Id: be

Royal Commission [OCTOBER 20.] on Education. 459

discussed on an early day, I beg to state that if honorable members wish to take it up on Tuesday next they can do so.

Mr. VALE.-Sir, I intend to move that the House do now adjourn.

Several HONORABLE MEMBERS.- You cannot do that.

Mr. VALE.-The new standing order is not yet in force. However, in the mean­time, I will ask the forbearance of honorable members for a moment.

Mr. BOvVMAN.-Mr. Speaker, I rise .to order. I object to one honorable member being allowed to speak when another honor­able member is not permitted to do so. , The SPEAKER.-The honorable mem­ber for Maryborough (Mr. Bowman) is not in order in interrupting the honorable and learned member for Fitzroy. :. Mr. VALE.-I am willing to move the adjournment of the House. I simply want to say that I recognise the motion tabled not as one of no-confidence in the Ministry, ,bllt as a distinct utterance to the effect that the House has absolute confidence in the Education Act, and believes that. that feeling is shared by the country.

Mr. R. M. SMITH.-I beg to ask the' Speaker on what ground he held the honor­able member for Fitzroy (Mr. Vale) to be

'in. order? The SPEAKER.-A question of that

'sort is hardly compatible with my position as Speaker, unless the honorable member

"putting it seeks to remove me from the · chair. If he does not, he can scarcely be in . order.

Mr. R. M. SMITH.-I beg to assure -the Speaker that I simply ask for informa­tion. I do not understand why the honor­able' member for Fitzroy was allowed to speak, and the honorable member for Sand­ridge was not permitted to do so.

The SPEAKER.-The honorable and learned member for Fitzroy could hardly be ruled out of order before it was known what he was going to say.

· Mr. BOWMAN said-Sir, I desire to know in what position honorable members

· stand. Why was I just now told from the chair that I was interrupting the honorable member for Fitzroy (Mr. Vale) when I had simply risen to a point of order which I was not allowed to explain? Why was the honorable member for Fitzroy allowed to speak at all, seeing that he did not, as he said he would, move the adjournment of the House? If such favoritism is to be shown-- (" Oh!") Well, it looks as

though favolU was shown to the honor­able member for Fitzroy, although I don't say it was done intentionally. I do say, however, that the privilege allowed to one honorable member should also be allowed to other honorable members.

Mr. NIMMO.-I protest against lan­guage imputing favodtism to the Speaker. Perhaps I have not so much parliamentary experience as some honorable members, but a more impartial Speaker than the honorable member now in the chair I never knew.

The SPEAKER.-I am sure the honor~ able member for Maryborough (Mr. Bow­man), who has always been a friend of mine in my position of Speaker, could not mean to impute what the honorable member for Emerald Hill protests against. I under­stand him to wish to be informed why I did not call the honorable and learned member for Fitzroy to order. But I cannot presume, when an honorable member rises to speak, that' he does so for no sufficient reason. I must have some knowledge of what he is going to say before I can interpose to stop him in saying it.

The subject then dropped.

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

Water Supply whether he was prepared to execute the works recommended by the Mel­bourne Water Supply Board in their last report; and, if so, when tenders would be called for? He said the late rains had added only a few inches to the height of the water in the Yan Yean reservoir, and it was therefore urgent that the works in ques­tion should be undertaken without delay.

Mr. C. YOUNG replied that it was his intention to adopt the portion of the report alluded to which recommended the bringing in of water from Wallaby Creek. The plans of the work· were almost completed, and tenders would be called for the first half of it in about a week, and for the second half in about a fortnight.

FOOD ADULTERATJON. Mr. MASON asked the Attorney~'Ge~e­

ral if he was aware of the large quantity 'of adulterated food that was being consumed in the colony; and, if so, whether he would take steps to appoint a board of experts to inquire' into the matter, with a view to an amendment of the law relating to the public health? He said he V{aS informed by Mr. Mel VOl', one of the best chemists the country had ever known, that it would be of no use amending the law in question unless the

460 Victorian Exhibitions [ ASSEMBL Y. ] Act Amendment Bill.

subject was previously inquired into by com- . petent men.

Sir B. O'LOG HLEN stated that a Bill dealing with the adulteration of food had been lying for the last three years in one of the pigeon-holes of the Crown Law-offices. It was drafted by the present Under-Secre­tary, and, if an opportunity for the purpose was afforded, it would be introduced to Parliament before the session closed. It contained all the English legislation on the subject, up to the date at which it was pre­pared, and it would be easy to add to it

'that which had been adopted since. When the honorable member for South Gippsland saw the measure, he would probably admit that it provided for all he wanted in the matter. He (Sir B. O'Loghlen) had recently noticed in the newspapers a number of analyses of food, made by a very superior and competent analyst, Mr. F. Dunn, and he regarded legislation with respect to food adulteration as of very great importance.

Mr. MASON suggested that the Bill should be introduced at once, so that the newspapers might get hold of it, and the subject be publicly discussed.

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN stated that he would have the Bill revised and brought up to date, which could be done in a couple of weeks, and then circulated among honorable members.

Mr. NIMMO submitted that the Bill ought to deal with the adulteration of drink as well as of food.

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN remarked that he was of the same opinion.

WATER SUPPLY. Mr. BURROWES presented an estimate

of further expenditure proposed to be in­cUl'red during the current financial year under the Loan Act No. 608.

The estimate was ordered to be taken into consideration on Tuesday, October 25.

RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION. Mr. BENT presented an estimate of ex­

penditure proposed to be incurred during the current financial year under the Loan Acts Nos. 608 and 701.

The estimate was ordered to be taken into consideration on Tuesday, October 25.

POLICE COMMISSION. Sir C. MAC MAHON moved-

" That there be laid before this House a return of Lhe cost of the Police Commission, showing in detail thc various items, including salary of l5ecretary, shortballq writjng? printing, travelling

expenses, cost of witnesses; also, a return of the salaries of officers suspended from duty, and every otber expense whatsoever."

Mr. RAMSAY seconded the motion. Mr. JAMES stated that, although the

motion was set down as "unopposed," he felt bound to object to it.

The motion was ordered to be placed in the ordinary list.

WATTLE PLANTING. Mr. FRASER moved-

" That there be laid before this House a return showing t.he cost of ploughing, cost of seed, and who certified to the expenditure for wattle plant­ing; the names of persons to whom money was paid, and the total cost, including supervision."

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

BULLAROOK STATE FOREST. Mr. COOPER (in the absence of Mr.

WHEELER) moved-"That there be laid before this House copies

of all the plans, papers, and reports in connexion with the blocks of land in Bullarook· and Wombat State forests recently gazetted open for selection."

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

VICTORIAN EXHIBITIONS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

Sir B. O'LOG HLEN said that honor­able members would recollect that, last week, when he was interrogated respecting the power of the Exhibition commissioners to wind up the affairs of the late. Exhibi­tion, he replied that the matter would be settled by the issue of a new commission. However, when the preparation of the com­mission was entered upon, difficulties, arising from the peculiar wording of section 5 of the Victorian Exhibitions Act, were found to stand in the way. Under these circumstances, he thought the best plan would be to bring in a short Bill to amend the section in question by inserting, after the words "the commissioners shall have exclusive control of all matters connected with the said Exhibition," the word" build­ings." The effect of the amendment would be to give the commissioners all the powers necessary to enable them to finish their work before the end of March next, when their authority would expire. As the matter was one of urgency, he begged to move for leave to introduce the Bill forthwith.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was brought in, and read a first time.

The Bill was subsequently passed through its remaining stages. .

Water Conservation Bill. [OCTOBER 20.] Tltird Nigllt's Dehate. 461

WATER CONSERVATION BILL. THIRD NIGHT'S DEBATE.

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

Mr. QUICK said-Mr. Speaker, there are several considerations which induce me to invite the attention of the House to a few observations on the subject of this Bill. In the first place, I have the honour of being one of the representatives in this Chamber of the city of Sandhurst, which stands on the margin of the vast plain country, stretching from the Goulburn to Lake Hindmarsh, whereon most of the agricultural settlement of the colony is

. located. That settlement is the result of various Land Acts framed to carry out the policy of putting a population upon the soil, and encouraging the pursuit of agri­culture .. Unfortunately, however, the cli­mate of the colony has proved so adverso to the settlers that there is now danger that, unless something is done to assist them, the legislation which brought them into their present position will be utterly thwarted. Of course, man is so far the creature of circumstances that he cannot control the laws of nature, but nevertheless he can invent means and methods by which those laws can be rendered much less disastrous and antagonistic to him. For example, he can neutralize the adverse effects of climate upon soil of a certain kind by means of irrigation-by providing it with a system of water supply that will render it comparatively independent of rain from the heavens. I propose now to point out what, I think, ought to be the policy of the country with respect to water supply legislation. It is said by some that the portion of the colony to which it is proposed to apply a system of irrigation is not designed or qualified by nature for an agricultural popu­lation, and that the unfortunate settlers we are now asked to relieve ought never to have been allowed to take up land there. I beg, however, to join issue with that statement, and, in so doing, to appeal for support not only to .the knowledge of hon­orable members whose experience is wider than mine, but also to the pages of history, which show that regions very similar to the Northern Plains were once the nursery of civilization and also the great centre of the agricultural industry of the period. If we wish to find the earliest records of ci viliza­tion, and of the most successful agriculture, where have we to look for them? Not in

countries amply watered by noble rivers­not by, the banks of the Danube or of the Mississippi-but in the rainless regions of Egypt, Babylon, and Peru. Dr. Draper, in his great work, remarks that history affords no more important instance of human progress than the fact that the most successful agriculture the world has known originated in the dry plains permeate4 by the Nile or the Euphrates, that success arising from the judicious foresight exercised by the inhabitants of those districts, when they se­cured to themselves a continuous and plentiful supply of the waters that poured down to them from the higher portions of the continent. In this way the imperfections of the climate were obviated, and a previously barren waste became converted into gardens and fields where men could live and prosper. These facts furnish, I apprehend, a complete an­swer to those who hold that the irrigation of our Northern Plains is a visionary idea, a scheme that reasonable men cannot under­take. Under these circumstances, I deeply regret that my honorable friend, the member for Mandurang (Mr. McColl), whose name has for Jllany years been associated with the question of watering those plains, is made the object of altogether unmerited obloquY4 It is painful to me to hear, night after night, his views greeted with laughter, and ridicule brought down upon his head. I don't say he has advocated his scheme with the ability he might have employed, or with the judicious sagacity that ought to have been exercised in connexion with it, but I don't think his propositions deserve to be treated in the way they have been treated by certain honorable members of this Cham­ber and a certain section of the press. I have devoted considerable attention to the books and documents relating to water supply which he has in ~uch quantity that they almost constitute a library in them­selves, and I fancy that on the present occasion we may well devote a little atten­tion to the fundamental . principle upon which his propositions are based. That principle is virtually surface canalization. I don't say for a moment that I am here as the advocate or representative of, or even that I am a full believer in, the Grand North-Western Canal Company. I have nothing to do with it, and I know little about it. But I am nevertheless prepared to say, after some study of the subject, that the principle of surface canalization is a very sound one; that it was the only one found to act successfully in connexion with the irrigation schemes of antiquity, which

462 Water Conservation Bill. [ASSEMBL Y. ] Third Night'S Debate.

were applied to country exactly correspond­ing to our Northern Plains, and that, what­ever may be the improvements of modern times, or the experience of modern engi­neers, we have to go to antiquity for a considerable portion of the knowledge we possess with respect to water supply. In that respect I am extremely conservative, because the experience of past ages ought not to be disregarded, even amid the inno­vations and revolutions of the present. In studying ancient schemes of canalization and water supply, I have learned that they are founded on the surface canal principle. The 'waters of the Nile, which used to supply the want of rain in the empire of Egypt, were made to flow over the surface of that country by means of surface canals. Those canals were constructed, made use of, and supervised by the Central Government, and the proprietors of the land through which they passed had to pay a certain rate upon their property. That fact may be of some use to us in considering the details of the present Bill. I may state that although the system of Egyptian canalization was so successful that Egypt became the granary of the world, and used to supply Rome and Greece in the palmy days of those nations, yet, so small was the area actually irrigated, the House will per­haps be surprised to learn that only 2,444 acres in the whole of Egypt were irrigated as arable land. Nevertheless that small quantity of land supplied grain for a popu­lation of 4,000,000 people in Egypt itself, besides meeting the vast demands of an export trade. So strongly was the import­ance of water recognised in those days that Thales, of Miletus, on returning to Greece after visiting Egypt, promulgated the great dogma that water was the first principle of nature, which Dr. Draper states is not only

, philosophically but facetiously correct. No doubt the honorable member for Mandurang (Mr. McColl) also believ~s that water is the first principle of nature, even in these modern times. In ancient times, water supply was' not only considered of essential importance, but it was intimately connected with demo­cratic systems of government and with forms of taxation. Besides referring to Egypt, I may allude to a neighbouring empire-the ancient empire of Babylon. It: is stated by Mr. Myers, in his Rw:ns of Ancient Empires, that during his progress from Bagdad to Babylon he saw that the whole of the region was intersected with a network of vast tanks, which remain to the present day as vestiges of surface canals

M,', Quick.

in that wonderful, and wealthy country, Babylon. So that this idea of a surface canal is no new-fangled notion. It is a notion which met with the approval of ancient nations, and it has been endorsed in modern times by eminent engineers, as shown, for instance, by the celebrated irri­gation scheme in the valley of the Moselle, in France, where meadows are irrigated on a most extensive scale, and by the more gigantic irrigation schemes of California. Without my quoting the numbers of autho­rities which I have in my possession, I think the House will take for granted that the statements I have made are correct. Those statements are based upon incontrovertible evidence, and upon the experience of ancient and modern times. It will be seen from them that there is more importance to be attributed to the idea and to the principle of a surface canal than is attached to it by members of this House and by public writers in this colony generally. I desire most earnestly to impress upon honorable members the urgent importance of recognis­ing the truth of this principle, not .only theoretically, but also, if possible, in a practical and substantial way, by embodying it in the Bill now before the House. This brings me to the real and, in fact, the only objection which I have to the reports of Messrs. Gordon and Black and the scheme which they propound, namely, that their scheme recognises channels dug through the surface of the soil-through the sub-soil. Now the obvious disadvantage of that pro­posal is that the water can only be carried through the lower parts, and that' it will be unable to recede to the higher parts, and be distributed over the surrounding country, unless by the appli,cation of some extra­neous force or agency which will materially increase the cost of the scheme. The ad-

~ vantage of the surface canal systcm is that it can be carried along the higher ridges of the country in gentle undulations, and from thoso higher elevations the lower country can be irrigated by means of syphons. Therofore, not only as to cost of construc­tion, but also as regards the ultimate utility, of the work, more good can be done to the whole of the surrounding country by the surface canal scheme than by gutters or channels. The latter will not only be ex­pensive to construct, but will' also be liable to wear out, and to wear themselves into deeper channels, if not ultimately into deep rivers. It may be said that we want deep rivers, but the country already possesses rivers. What we want is irrigation, and we

Water Conservation Bill. [OCTOBER 20.J Third Night's Debate. 463

cannot have irrigation unless we conduct the water from those rivers on to the surface. It has been said that the cost of a scheme of canalization for the Northern Plains would be more than the interests of those concerned are worth; iu other words, that the income which would be derived from the canals which I so earnestly. advocate would not pay interest on the outlay. That is a very tradesman-like argument; in fact, it is no argument at all. An irrigation scheme is not a mere matter of paying in­terest-it is a matter of keeping people on the land. I can mention an instance of water supply works which do not pay in­terest on the cost of their construction, and yet they have been the very salvation of a large traCt of country. I refer to the Coliban water scheme, which has cost the

'Government nearly a million of money; but will any honorable memqer say that that scheme should never have been carried out? If it had not been undertaken, Sand-

'hurst, Castlemaine, and mo~t of the inter­vening country, instead of being, as they are 'now, the scenes of industry and wealth,.and 'the happy homes of a large population, would, perhaps, at this time have been altogether desolate. As one who has been connected with Sandhurst for 25 or 26 years, I don't' hesitate to assert that that city would almost have been swept off the face of the earth, instead of now having a popu­lation of 28,000 people, had it not been for the Coliban water scheme. I remember

·that in one memorable season-I think it was in 1865-the people of Sandhurst had

: to get water by railway ·from Runnymede, a .distance of between 30 and 40 miles, in

. order to save themselves from water famine. The population of Sandhurst now pays a large sum in water rates, and contributes such an amount to the general revenue in other forms as fully justifies the expenditure

, on the Coliban scheme, and the wisdom of those who authorized that scheme. I have not the slightest doubt that the time will come ,vhen such a scheme of water supply

'as I now advocate, though at present it may be looked upon by many honorable members as wild and visionary on the ground that it will not pay, will be justified in the same way that the Coliban scheme has been justified-by experience. Various details of the Bill may be improved in com­mittee, and I leave the matter to those who are more experienced in the work of

, moulding [md m:nending Bills than I am, hoping that they will see their ",yay, if pos­

. sible, to give some expression in a legislative

form to the principle of surface canalization. In some respects the scheme of Messrs. Gordon and Black is applicable to regions such as the Sheepwash and other hilly dis­tricts, where surface canalization is impos­sible, or perhaps it may be used as a portion of a more general scheme; but it is impor­tant to remember that we should not legis­late by ·patchwork on this subject. We ought first to recognise a definite principle and a definite scheme, so that whatever water supply is carried out may dovetail with and form part of a national plan, and that we may not in future have to undo portions of an expensive scheme, as has been the case in California. Some portions of Messrs. Gordon and Black's scheme may be approved of as giving local supplies~ but it does not in any way tacHe the greater and more radical question of a national system of irrigation, and therefore I think it is defective. I hope that the leader::; of the Rouse, and those who have been mem­bers of it for years, will devote an earnest attention to this important matter, and endeavour to carry out some such plan as I advocate. If they do not, they will neglect the permanent interests of the country, and they will leave to a younger race of poli­ticians the work which they ought to do themselves.

Sir C. MAC MARON.-Sir, I desire in a few words to state the practical experience which I have gained on the question of water supply. I find that the large waterworks which have been con­structed in Victoria in the past have been, comparatively speaking, of little advantage to the country generally, their benefits being confined to cities, to'wns, and large mining centres. The object of the present Bill, as I understand it, is that farmers and others in· the country shall be assisted by the Go­vernment to obtain a water supply. The great drawback of the colony is the absence of any large amount of water scattered over its whole area. Large works like those of the Coliban may be very advantageous to the city of Sandhurst and to towns in the immediate vicinity, but they do very little good to the scattered population of the country. The question is how can we give that population the supply of water which they so much require? The proposal of the Bill is that the work shall be undertaken by local bodies, and that the Government shall lend those local bodies, at a moderate rn.te of interest, Ruch ::m amount of m01Jf~y as 'will enable them to provide a water supply in their respective districts. But I thiuk

464 Water Conservation Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Third Night'S Dehate.

it must be apparent to everyone who has considered the subject that the security which local bodies offer to the Government is absolutely nil, and that it will be impos­sible to recover from them anything like a sufficient interest on the money lent. If honorable members desire to benefit the whole country, and especially the farming community, I would ask them whether it would not be well to try the system which was adopted in Ireland at a time when it was necessary to provide employment for poor people who were without the means of support; that is, to lend money to indi­viduals? I believe that if we were to enable the farmers, by lending them money at a moderate rate of inter~st, to construct dams or form water areas on their holdings, an incalculable benefit would be done to the country-far more than can be accomplished by enormous and expensive waterworks in one or two districts. The dams or water areas, of course, would have to be con­structed under the supervision of a Govern­ment surveyor, and the money lent and its interest would have to be made a first charge Oli the property. At the present time, a farmer occupies say from 300 to 600 acres of land, which is supplied with water from some little water-hole that becomes perfectly dry at certain seasons, and the consequence is that his cattle die from want of water. By a loan of money from the Government the proprietor of the land might be enabled to provide such an area of water as would keep up a constant supply for his stock. If that system were generally adopted all over the country, there is very little doubt that it would make a complete alteration in the climate, and we would have fertility where at present there is only aridity. The point arises as to whether it is safe for the Government to lend money to individuals, and I assert that it is much more safe to do so than to lend to corporations. Indeed, there would be no risk if the principal and interest were made a first charge on the properties, irre­spective of the claims of any mortgagee. Moreover, the properties would be enhanced in value by the expenditure of the money. There is a clause in the Bill which provides for private waterworks being encouraged, but it does not provide for what I suggest. My proposal is simply this: if any indi­vidual chooses to apply to the Government for an advance of money to construct a dam or area for the conservation of water, it should be granted to him on condition that the work is approved of and supervised by

Sir C. Mac Mahon.

a Government inspector, and that the money, with interest, be made a first charge on the property. If that system were generally adopted, we would have water scattered over the whole colony, and that is really the great thing we require. I have come to the conclusion, from experience, that large isolated patches of water do little or no good, and that even a comparatively limited supply scattered over an extensive area will be more beneficial to persons engaged in agricultural pursuits and to the country generally.

Mr. V ALE.-Sir, I really do not view with much favour the proposa.l that the Government should lend money to private individuals. If they lent money to farmers for the purpose suggested, residents in towns would have a good argument why they should also borrow money from the Go­vernment, at a low rate of interest, to enable them to improve their dwellings or to live in more convenient houses at the same rent that they are now paying. Several state­ments have been made during the debate which are to a great extent misleading. The honorable member for Rodney (Mr. Gillies) said that none of the large bor­rowers for water supply works have paid interest on their loans; but Ballarat has to all intents and purposes paid interest on the money lent to it. Ballarat commenced to borrow considerable amounts about the year 1866, and it paid the interest regularly until it undertbok a large new work at a period of very great depression. It kept up its Is. rate, but its expenditure was beyond the amount of the loan obtained from the Go­vernment, and, after absorbing a portion of its annual income on the new. work, it asked that the interest not paid to the Government should be added to the capital. This was done about eighteen months ago, and from that time Ballarat recommenced paying full interest, and forming a sinking fund. During the past year it paid £18,000 into the sinking fund on account of its loan of £324,000. Where could there be a more remarkable instance to justify the Govern­ment relying on local bodies to recoup the loans advanced to them for water supply works? Take another case. In the early days of the Yan Yean, it was said that scheme would prove a total loss, but what has been the result? Why the Yan Yean is one of our great national assets. I am not at all inclined to view with disfavour any scheme for the extension of water supply, for I have been much struck, in travelling through the country, with the necessity for

'Water (Jonservation Bill. [OCTOBER 20.J 465

water supply and the lack of appreciation of that necessity which exists in many places. Many years ago-I don't wish to say how many- I contemplated farming, and, on arriving at the spot where I intended to carryon operations, I found a bush-fire raging all round. I had to send miles for water for domestic purposes until my men and myself sunk a water-hole, and I had the pleasure 20 years afterwards of drinking water out of that hole. Why do I mention this? Because the present Bill does not provide for carrying out the grand schemes which have been put before the country, but simply proposes that local bodies shall have the advantage of borrowing money at a cheap rate for the construction of any rea­sonable water supply works. Under the measure, for instance, the great shire of St. Arnaud could borrow say £20,000, and with that sum, the interest on which, at 4;­per cent., would only cost them about £900 a year, the local council could dot the whole shire with about 200 tanks, each of them capable of holding about 500,000 gallons of water. Some honorable mem­bers are apt to forget that, whatever may be done in the way of large schemes of water supply, it is scarcely possible to take water right to every man's door. To a great extent, individuals must store water for their own ordinary necessities. All that the Government or local bodies can be expected to do is to place within the reach of individuals an absolute certain pro­vision, accessible without any very great difficulty in times of drought. For in­stance, if on the Northern Plains a sheep­farmer could be assured that, by the expendi­ture of about an hour's labour a day, he and a boy could drive his sheep to a water-trough supplied by one of the tanks furnished by the local water trust, he would be saved from all risk of loss of stock from drought. I listened to the speech of the honorable member for Sandhurst (Mr. Quick) with great pleasure, and was glad to find him impressed with the tho­rough necessity for water supply. However much we may be disposed to laugh at the earnestness with which the honorable mem­ber for Mandurang (Mr. McOoll) advocates his own water supply scheme, and however much we may diffCl~ from his views, we must at least feel that he is one of those men who have got hold of the conviction that they have a mission, and that he works his mission with an energy and determina­tion which are much to be admired. I, however, cannot help thinking that the

carrying out of his theory of building 'up canals, so to speak, above the surface of the soil is fraught with difficulties under the circumstances of our civilization which had no existence in ancient times. Both the honorable member for Mandurang and the honorable member for Sandhurst ignore the fact that if we were to raise canals upon the surface of the land, wherever our roads went over those canals they would have to run up steep inclines, and our railway. sys­tem would have to be re-set, as it were, in the districts where the canals were constructed. Another objection, it appears to me, is the difficulty of getting a sufficiently high level to start from. The Bill proposes to put into the hands of local bodies the power of doing what they think they can do well and wisely in the direction of water supply, and that is a policy which has always com­mended itself to my mind. At the same time, I think it is very unwise for those honorable members who are favorable to water supply to ignore the necessity for railway extension. The two things should go on side by side. The success which has already been achieved by our great public works of a reproductive character should encourage this House to be liberal in carry­ing on works of that character, and should induce public men to recognise the fact that any reasonable expenditure on such works is sure to have the confidence of wise men in the present, and that best reward which comes from benefiting the colony while not unduly oppressing the people with taxation.

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

Discussion took place on clause 2, which was as follows :-

" When the council of any municipal district, or the councils of any two or more municipal districts jointly, desire to have waterworks con­structed in or for such district or districts, such council or councils shall cause to be prepared a general plan and description of such waterworks as may be proposed by such council or councils."

Mr. RICHARDSON asked if the Go­vernment intended to make provision so that any trusts formed for constructing waterworks on the Northern Plains would be required to adopt the schemes of Messrs. Gordon and Black?

Sir B. O'LOG HLEN said it was very desirable that the schemes of Messrs. Gordon and Black should be carried out as a whole; but, on the other hand, he thought that the matter should be left to the dis­cretion of the local bodies concerned. He apprehended that they would realize the great care and attention which had been

466 Water Cons13r1)c1tion Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Water Conservation Bill.

devoted to the preparation of Messrs. Gor­don and ]31acl\:'s schemes, and, in the dis­tricts to which those schemes were appli­cable, the local bodies would probably unite to carry them out.

Mr. RICHARDSON considered that the adoption of the schemes of Messrs. Gordon and Black ought not to be left entirely optional with the local bodies. He would therefore suggest that a provision should be inserted in the Bill to the effect that,. before the Government advanced money for water supply works in a locality to which any of those schemes was applicable, the municipalities concerned should form themselves into a waterworks district, and the local bodies unite together to carry out the scheme. If something of the kind was not done, one waterworks trust in a district might carry out a portion of a scheme of Messrs. Gordon and Black, and interfere with a supply of water to other parts of the district.

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN remarked that he thought it would not be desirable to fix by the Bill the particular schemes to be carried out in certain districts. If that was done, the schemes proposed might be objected to by the very districts concerned. The option of adopting them ought to be left to the local bodies. The policy of the Govern­ment, in administering the measure, would rio doubt be to have carried out, as far as they could, the plans which had been pre­pared at great expense, but it was not desirable that those plans should be forced on any particular district.

Mr. R. M. SMITH considered that it would be desirable to give effect to the suggestion of the honorable member for Creswick (Mr. Richardson) if it was prac­ticable to do so, but he agreed with the Premier that its adoption would interfere with the whole purpose of the Bill. It would inflict an obligation on the local bodies which they might not be ready to undertake. Without going to the extent of compulsion, perhaps some recommenda­tion or suggestion as to the value of Messrs. Gordon and Black's schemes might be con­veyed.

Mr. C. YOUNG stated that he appre­ciated the value of Messrs. Gordon and Black's schemes, but he did not think it desirable that the borrowers of money should be actually tied down as to the particular kind of waterworks they were to construct.

Mr. RICHARDSON considered that it would be necessary to include Messrs. Gor­don and Black's schemes in a schedule to the Bill, in order to secure ~hat each scheme

should be carried out as a whole. Unless. that was done, a water trust might be formed by the people in the neighbourhood of a source of the water supply, and the water cut off from the people further away. For instance, the Wimmera scheme depended entirely upon one or two outlets from the Wimmera river, and, if in the immediate vicinity of those outlets a small area of country was constituted a water supply dis­trict, the water would be cut oft' from the selectors on the outlying area, who were as much entitled to it as those nearer the. source of supply, It was therefore neces­sary that each scheme should be carried out as a whole, and that the commission which had charge of the source of supply should have charge of the entire area pro­posed to be embraced by the particular scheme. He believed it would not be undue interference with the local bodies to require that in the formation of a water trust the boundaries should be so fixed as to include the whole of one of Messrs. Gordon and Black's schemes. The Government, however, ~ould have no right to insist on such a condition unless these schemes were made part' of the Bill. Otherwise a local body might say­"'Ve are taking advantage of the Act; we have to pay interest on the money we bor­row from you; and you have no right to compel us to enter into a liability we do not want to undertake," and then proceed to carry out only the portion of the scheme that would more immediately serve them­selves and give the best return. If, how-' ever, the carrying out of Messrs. Gordon and Black's schemes were provided for in the Bill, the local bodies could have no sense of hardship, as the execution of these schemes would be part of the law under which the water trusts would borrow the money. Another illustration of the desir­ability of adopting this view was afforded in connexion with the Goulburn scheme. Under that scheme a weir was to be situ­ated a few miles above Murchison; and a short distance from the weir there were some large private estates. If part 7 of the' Bill, under which private water companieEf could be formed, became law, the holders of those estates might be able to get control over the outlet from the river, and cut off the water f1'Om the portion of the district beyond. All these considerations showed the necessity for the body which had the control of the outlet having also the re­sponsibility of supplying all the inhabitants throughout the district embraced by one ot Messrs. Gordon and Black's schemes.

Water Conservation Bill. [OCTOBER 20.J Water Conservation Bill. 467,

Mr. C. YOUNG observed that, as the local that the local bodies would be voluntary bodies would be voluntary borrowers for the borrowers. purpose of carrying out a scheme of water- Mr. BARR remarked that, under this works submitted by them to the Governor clause, municipal districts needing water­in Council, it would be scarcely fair to force works were required to prepare plans, but upon them a scheme which they might not he believed that the districts most in want choose to adopt. There was a clause in the of water were those which were least able Bill providing that each scheme must be to go to the expense of preparing plans, or approved of by the Governor in Council, to provide the guarantees required by the and it was not at all likely that the Minis- Government with regard to the payment of ter having charge of the administration of interest. Those districts would not take the Act would permit any district to be the initiatory step of preparing plans, be­deprived of a supply by the formation of a cause they knew that they would be unable trust at the point of outflow which would to pay the interest required by the Govern­monopolize the water. The Government mente He thought it was the duty of the were fully impressed with the value of the Government to step in and help districts of plans of Messrs. Gordon and Black, and this kind until they were in a better position. considered that they were, so far, the best Mr. KERFERD drew attention to the ~hat had been, proposed for the water fact that the clause provided for the joint supply of the districts they severally preparation of plans by two or more ll1uni­included. In exercising the discretion cipal districts, whereas, under the Local vested in the,m by the Bill, no doubt they Government ,Act, municipal councils' had would act upon that opinion in considering no power to devote any of the local funds any scheme submitted, but, at the same to such a purpose. Corporations were time, it was too much to ask that the local creatures of a Statute, and could only make bodies should be bound down by a hard and contracts as far as they were permitted by fast rule to carry out Messrs. Gordon and that Statute.' The Local Government Act Black's schemes in every detail. As' to gave municipalities power to contract with part 7 of the Bill, it had already been each other for various purposes, but that, mentioned that it was not originally a por- mentioned in the clause was not among tion of the measure, bl;lt was inserted to them, and therefore, in order to render ,the meet a particular case at Bacchus Marsh, clause operative, it would be necessary to: which was brought under the notice of the empower municipalities to expend the local Government. , There was no, probability funds in the joint preparation of plans. \vhatever of private parties being allowed Mr. DEAKIN expressed the opinion' to monopolize the water supply of a district that not only had the local bodies no power: in the way suggested by the honorable to expend the local funds on the prepara­member for Oreswick (Mr. Richardson). tion of joint plans, 'but they had no power,

Mr. LAURENS expressed the opinion 'under the Local Government Act, even to that in view of the admitted value of, apply any portion of their, funds to the Messrs. 'Gordon ~nd Black's plans, and preliminary expenses of the establishment their cost to the country, more than ordinary of a water trust within their own boundaries. deference should be paid to them. In fact, It would, therefore, be necessary to provide' he would like some provision inserted in 'for this point also, as well as that referred' the Bill by which the Minister would be to by the honorable member for the Ovens almost committed to seeing that those plans (Mr. Kerferd). were carried out by the local bodies. Sir B. O'LOGHLEN remarked that the

Mr. R. M. SMITH understood that the 446th and 447th sections of the Local Go,­Minister of Water Supply had agreed to vernment Act gave municipal councils power the suggestion of the honorable member to construct waterworks. (Mr. Kerferd­for Creswick (Mr. Richardson), as far as it " But not to contract with other municipal was possible for him to do so, by indicating councils to prepare plans.") He admitted' that every means short of compulsion would the difficulty pointed out by the honorable' be ,used to induce the local bodies to adopt member, and would make provision to meet Messrs. Gordon and Black's schemes. (Mr. it. O. Young - " Yes.") The Government Mr. FISHER observed that the 447th would always have the power to veto any 'section of the Local Government Act gave particular scheme at variance with the local councils power to levy a rate for the general plan of tJlOse gentlemen, and ~hat construction of waterworks, and, as plans was as far as they could fairly go, seeing were necessary for the construction of such'

468 Water Con$ervation Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Water Conservation Bill.

works, the difficulty raised by the honorable member for th"" Ovens (Mr. Kerferd) might be got over by a rather wide interpretation of the section.

Mr .• JAMES remarked that some of the local bodies might not have sufficient professional talent at their disposal to en­able them to prepare plans for waterworks, and, as it was highly desirable that there should be as uniform a system as possible, he would suggest that, when local bodies applied for water supply, the Minister should cause the plans to be prepared by proper professional talent.

Mr. C. YOUNG said it might be re­garded as almost certain that the plans already prepared by Messrs. Gordon and Black would be adopted by all the shires on the Northern Plains. (Mr. McColl­" By not one of them.") He knew five or six local bodies who were already prepared to adopt those plans, having signified their intention of doing so to the Government. (Mr. McColl-" Name one.") The Dun­munkle shire and the shire adjoining it were two. Many of the shires embraced in the Goulburn scheme had also signified their assent to Messrs. Gordon and Black's proposals, and others, no doubt, would come in when the Bill was passed. He would point out to the honorable member for Bal­larat East (Mr. James) that the expenses incurred by the local bodies were allowed to be made a charge against the money bor­rowed, and that was as far as the Govern­ment could fairly be expected to go. If the suggestion of the honorable member were adopted, the Government might go to great expense in preparing plans, and then the local bodies might decline to accept them. (Mr. Barr-" Where are the local bodies to get the money to prepare plans? ") The Premier intended to propose a new clause which would enable the local bodies to use their funds for the purpose, and the expenses would be recouped out of the loan when the money was borrowed to construct the works.

Mr. FRASER remarked that the cost of preliminary plans, such as were referred to in the clause, would be small, and he did not see why it should not be borne by the shire council in case the council had" a difficulty with the Government, and would not carry out Messrs. Gordon and Black's scheme.

Mr. BARR expressed the opinion that the expense of preparing plans might be considerable, as, under clause 4, the Minister could require the councilor councils desiring

waterworks to furnish details of "weirs, dams, sluices, bridges, cuttings, tunnels, channels, drains, and other works, and all levels, and any other information that the Minister may think fit." He would also point out that, unless the plans were pre­pared according to some general scheme, there would be no uniformity, and one shire might construct its waterworks at such a level as would interfere with a neighbouring shire in obtaining water.

Mr. McCOLL observed that the honor­able member for Maryborough (Mr. Barr) had "struck the right nail on the head" in referring to the necessity of a general scheme. When he (Mr. McColl) asked the Minister of Water Supply to name any of the five or six local bodies which he said had agreed to adopt Messrs. Gordon and Black's scheme, the honorable gentleman only named the Dunmunkle shire, which had simply to construct a weir to run the water of the Wimmera into the Dunmunlde Creek. The Minister had not named any of the shires in the Goulburn district. (Mr. C. Young-" I can do so.") He held in his hand the report of a conference at­tended by delegates from all the northern shires, and it showed that they were gene­rally opposed to Messrs. Gordon and Black's scheme being applied to the Goul­burn Valley or the plains along there. It would be utterly useless for any shire to prepare plans until the levels were taken between the Goulburn and that shire. The remarks of various speakers led him to the conclusion that the plans of Messrs. Gordon and Black would have to be the basis of whatever water schemes might be carried out. No doubt the Government could and would urge upon the shires concerned the adoption of those plans. He objected to the clauses being rushed through; and, in view of the fact that none of the shires could send in plans until the general levels necessary to secure uniformity had been taken, h~ begged to move that the Chairman report 'progress.

The motion was put and negatived. " Mr. LANGDON stated that,ifnecessary,

he could mention half-a-dozen shires that thoroughly approved of the plans of Messrs. Gordon and Black.

Mr. WILLIAMS observed that, in view of what municipal bodies had done already, under the Local Government Act, in the way of constructing waterworks, he did not think there would be any difficulty in the way of their preparing the plans and speci­fications contemplated by the clause. Why,

Water Conservation Bill. [OCTOBER 20.J Water Conservation Bill. 469

during the last eighteen months, the shire of Swan Hill had expended £6,000 in making weirs and constructing dams for the conservation of water.

Sir B. O'LOG HLEN said, in order to meet the objection raised by the honorable member for the Ovens (Mr. Kerferd), he would move the addition to the clause of the following words :-

"And for such purpose may, from time to time, contract one with the other or others." I

Mr. BARR inquired whether plans pre­pared at the instance of local bodies who joined together for the purpose would have to be submitted for the approval of the Minister? In view of what had happened in the past, he considered it absolutely necessary that such plans should be subjected to the scrutiny of the vVater Supply department.

Mr. C. YOUNG explained that this was provided for by the next clause.

Mr. vVALSH remarked that a great deal of the discussion had relation, not to the clause now before the committee, but to subsequent clauses.

Mr. McCOLL repeated that no plans could be prepared until the levels were taken of the district through which the water had to be carried from the Goulburn. State­ments had been made to the effect that the northern shires were in favour of Messrs. Gordon and Black's plans. But this was not the fact, as was shown by the following extracts from an article on " Northern Plains Water Supply Schemes," and embodying the views of the Northern Shires conference, published by the Age newspaper that day :-

" What the conference wishes is, in a word, to obtain authoritative ,data; that levels and cross sectiops be taken, in order to arrive at a definite conclusion upon the practicability or otherwise of their proposals. There are not a few local residents who have taken a profound interest in the water supply question. Some of these favour a scheme solely for stock and domestic purposes, but merely bel!ause they are of opinion that irrigation by canalization is impossible on the Plains, owing to the flat character of the country. They admit the immense value of irrigation, but the absence of reliable data places them in the ranks of those opposed to ad vocating hair­brained schemes.

II No proofs are yet to hand indicating whether an extensive scheme of irrigation can actually be carried into effect on these large plains. The cost of obtaining this information from a reliable source is a mere trifle compared with the great interests involved. It is inexplicable why the small request urged by the Water for the Plains Conference duriug the last twelve or eighteen months has not long since been complied with, and the undeniably important question set at rest for all time: Is a comprehensive system of irrigation a possibility on the Northern PlaiDS of Victoria? .,

SES. 1881.-2 K

The CHAIRMAN.-I must remind honorable members that the question before the committee is that the words proposed by the Attorney-General be added to the clause.

Mr. NIMMO observed that, as far as he could gather, the amendment provided for the very thing desired by the honorable member for Mandurang (Mr. McColl). He objected to works being proceeded with until proper levels were taken; but he understood that the clause, amended as proposed, would enable municipalities to unite in securing a comprehensive survey of their districts.

Mr. RIOHARDSON considered there was no necessity for the amendment. Muni­cipal bodies might join together to construct works, but there was no necessity for them to join together to make plans. The plans might be expensive, and, when made, the Minister of Water Supply might refuse to accept them. According to the assuran'ce which had been given to the honorable member for Boroondara, influence would be exercised by the Water Supply department to cause the plans of Messrs. Gordon and Black to be carried out. Yet power was now sought to cause local bodies to enter 'upon the work of making fresh plans. (Mr. C. Young-" Where there are no plans.") No plans need be made for loca­lities for which plans had already been executed. (Mr. Fraser-" But there are no details.") Levels had been taken, con­tours rUll, and estimates framed; and no engineer could give an estimate without having plans of some kind, because he must take out his quantities. The Government had stated that the plans of Messrs. Gordon and Black were the plans which they de­sired to see adopted; they were for exer­cising departmental influence to induce the shires to accept those plans; and yet they refused to have the plans made part and paroel of the Bill. More than that, by the clause before the committee, they asked for power to enable local bodies to make plans when plans had been made already. (Mr. C. Young-" If they desire to do so.") But why should local bodies desire to make plans when plans had already been made? It was one of the most unbusiness-like things that had ever come under his notice.

Mr. FRASER remarked that the only thing in the shape of a plan which had been submitted to the committee was a general plan-a sketch plan-not a plan for contractors to work by. Before any contract could be entered into, specifications and detailed plans must be prepared.

410 Water Conservation Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Water Conservation Bill.

Mr. C. YOUNG stated that the estimates which had been supplied to the Govern­ment were only approximate. No estimates based upon a bill of quantities, or plans and specifications, had yet been framed.

The amendment was agreed to. Mr. BARR moved the addition to the

clause of words providing that the plans should be prepared in the Water Supply department.

Mr. LAURENS observed that, with such an addition, the clause would contradict itself.

Mr. KERFERD said the amendment could not be made, because it involved a vote of money, and therefore required a Governor's message.

Mr. JAMES considered that for the pur­pose of securing uniformity in the plans, and consequently the success of the works, it was highly necessary that the Water Supply department should have something to do with the preparation of the plans.

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN remarked that, if the plans were to be prepared in the Water $upply department, the staff of that de­partment would have to be considerably in­creased, or the carrying out of works under the Bill would be materially delayed. It would be far better for the plans to be pre­pared by the waterworks trusts. No doubt they would be prepared by competent sur­veyors and engineers, and, before they were accepted by the Government, they would have to undergo the scrutiny of a competent officer in the Water Supply department.

Mr. BARR explained that his object, in proposing the amendment, was to secure uniformity in the general scheme of water­works-to prevent it becoming "a thing of shreds and patches."

Mr. BENT observed that the policy of the Bill was decentralization, but that policy would be departed from if the amendment were adopted. Moreover, in the preparation of plans, local knowledge was a, great advantage. To send Government surveyors round about the country for this purpose would be a mistake. His advice to the honorable member for Maryborough (Mr. Barr) was to stick to local government, and not to seek to centralize everything in the Ministry. (Mr. Barr-" I want a general scheme.") But let it be prepared by local men.

Mr. MACGREGOR supported the amend­ment for the reM on that, in initiating a national scheme of water supply, care should be taken that the surveys dovetailed with each other ..

Mr. C. YOUNG remarked that, although it was proposed that the plans should b~ prepared by local officers, those plans would have to be endorsed by the best engineering talent at the disposal of the Water Supply' department. The levels would be checked if necessary. The course contemplated by the Government was similar to that which had been pursued in connexion with drainage works in Ireland. In that country, there were 42 drainage trusts. Each trust pre­pared its own plans and specifications, which, however, were not carried out until they had been approved by Government engineers.

Mr. McOOLL thought it would be ne­cessary to adopt the principle of the amend­ment in connexion with plans for carrying water say 150 or 200 miles, because such a work could only be undertaken by several municipalities.

Mr. VALE said the honorable member for Mandurang (Mr. McOoll) appeared to see difficulties which had really no existence. The clause provided that a number of municipal councils might join together, and that, of course, meant that they would be able to jointly adopt plans that would meet their mutual wants, bringing to bear upon them the united engineering talent at their command, just as they would in connexion with a jointly constructed bridge. Probably, under such circumstances, the Govern­ment would not require more from them than plans of a general character. Un­questionably experience showed that local engineering talent was the best and cheapest to employ upon these matters. Besides, there was another view to take. Of the population of the 'colony, some 70,000 lived in towns or villages, each representing a population of 2,000 or 3,000, who might often want some little inexpensive water­works of their own. Would it be wise to burthen every little scheme of the kind with conditions involving all sorts of applications to Government, and all manner of expense which could otherwise easily be avoided? He would oppose the amendment.

Mr. W. M. OLARK said he quite agreed with the views expressed by the honorable. member for Fitzroy (Mr. V ale).

The amendment was negatived without a division.

Discussion took place on clause 3, which was as follows :-. "Such general plan shall be prepared on a scale of not less than two miles to an inch, and shall show the character and extent of the works proposed; and such description shall clearly set forth the object and purpose of the proposed waterworks, and the mode in which it is desired

Water Conservation Bill. [OCTOBER 20.J Water Conservation Bill. 471

to obtain funds for their construction, and shall contain an estimate of the cost thereof, and a statement of the annual value of the rateable property to be benefited thereby; and both shall be forwarded to the responsible Minister of the Crown for the time being administering this Act (hereinafter called' the Minister') with an application that the same be submitted to the Governor in Council for his authority to con­struct, maintain, and continue the proposed waterworks."

Mr. FISHER moved the omission of the words" and the mode in which it is desired to obtain funds for their construction" (lines 6 and 7). He said that mixing up financial plans with plans of water supply works was a thoroughly objectionable ar­rangement.

Mr. O. YOUNG explained that the words the honorable member objected to meant little more than that the plan and description of the waterworks sent in by any municipal body should include mention of the sum it proposed to borrow.

The amendment was negatived. Mr. WALSH moved the substitution for

the words "responsible Minister of the Orown for the time being administering this Act" (lines 11:-13) of the words" board of water conservation." He said he took this step in order to carry out the views he expressed in his remarks upon the second reading of the Bill. What he wanted was that applications from municipal bodies in connexion with water supply should be dealt with not by a political officer, but by a board of competent men appointed totally apart from politics. He imagined that the change he proposed would serve two good ends­it would . relieve the Minister of Water Supply from needless responsibility, and remove water schemes from the political arena. Besides, the report of a board com­posed of professional men-say of hydraulic engineers-would surely be of great value to the Minister of Water Supply.

Mr. FRASER observed that he was afraid the plan embodied in the amendment would not act well in practice. Inasmuch as there must be a Minister of Water Supply responsible to Parliament, would it not be best that he should be guided by his own officers?

Mr. FISHER said he was glad to un­derstand from the remarks of the honorable member for Rodney (Mr. Fraser) that he did not believe in irresponsible boards.

Mr. O. YOUNG thought the plan of having a "board of water conservation" would not work. In the first place, it was absolutely essential that the Minister ad­ministering the. Water Supply department

should be responsible to Parliament for everything in connexion with it. Secondly, how could such a board decide what the amount of each loan should be? For his part, he was unable to conceive of a case in which it would be possible for political feel­ing to prevent any district applying for waterworks from receiving justice. Besides, would not the Minister of Water Supply practically deal with each case that came before him upon the report of qualified offi­cers, whose reports would be on record, and what more could be done under a board?

Mr. ZOX said he agreed with much that had fallen ~rom his honorable colleague in the representation of East Melbourne, but still he could not help regarding the amend­ment as somewhat unseasonable. His own idea was that in connexion with not one but every department of the State a board should be appointed to manage its patron­age, because it was impossible for a Minister to avoid political bias in such a matter.

Mr. L. L. SMITH expressed the hope that the time was far distant when the colony would have a single body of the kind proposed. Nothing was more shocking to the liberal mind than the idea of giving power to an irresponsible board.

Mr. WALSH said he had no notion of asking the committee to agree to the ap­pointment of an irresponsible board. All he desired was that the Minister of Water Supply should be relieved from a particular description of work, and that water schemes should be put outside politics altogether.

Mr. GILLIES thought that to adopt the plan proposed by the last speaker would take too much responsibility from the Go­vernment. He would suggest that the clause should be amended so as to provide that, before any money could be expended under the Bill, a schedule of the proposed expen­diture should be presented to the House for approval, in the same way as a schedule of money intended for railway construction.

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN remarked that there was a great difference between money intended for railways and money intended for water supply, because the latter would be spent by the local bodies who borrowed it and who would be liable for the interest. Besides, were the plan suggested by the honorable member for Rodney (Mr. Gillies) adopted, it would be impossible to enter upon the construction of new waterworks when Parliament was not in session.

Mr. GILLIES observed that, inasmuch as the Government laid great stress upon every water scheme being approved by their

472 Water Consert'ation Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Water Conser'vation Bill.

own officers, they might easily go a little further, and attach equal importance to the approval of Parliament. As for delays arising when Parliament was not in session, it would be a very simple arrangement for the Minister of Water Supply to submit at the close of every session a schedule of waterworks that would carry him through the recess. He (Mr. Gillies) certainly in­tended to urge the committee to force upon Ministers the construction of some of the works of which they already had the plans.

Mr.' C. YOUNG asked if the honorable member for Rodney (Mr. Gillies) wanted the Government to present to the House for its approval a separate schedule in con­nexion with every portion of ,vater supply expenditure?

Mr. GILLIES remarked that he simply wished the Government to adopt the same plan with waterworks that they adopted with railway works.

Mr. BENT stated that clause 3 of the Loan Bill contained exactly the provision the honorable member for Rodney (Mr. Gillies) wanted.

The amendment was negatived. Mr. FISHER inquired. the meaning of

the word" continue" at nearly the cnd of the clause? Supposing one local body adopted a scheme which deprived another of its water supply, would it be incumbent upon the former to "continue" its wrong­doing?

Sir B. O'LOG HLEN said that the word " continue" was necessary to meet cases where works forming part of an authorized scheme might already be in existence.

Mr. FISHER stated that he was con­vinced the word" continue" was not wanted. The words " to construct and maintain the proposed waterworks" would be quite suf­fi.cient, and he would. therefore move that " continue" be struck out. The retention of the latter word would empower local bodies who had impounded water unfairly to continue to do so to the injury of other districts.

Mr. McINTYRE pointed out that the danger feared by the honorable member for Mandurang (Mr. Fisher) was provided against by the 39th and 40th clauses. .

The amendment ,was negatived. Discussion took place on clause 4, which

was as follows :-"If so required by the Minister, such council

or councils shall also furnish details of the weirs, dams, sluices, bridges, cuttings, tunnels, channels, drains, and other works, and allle.els, and any other information that the Minister may think fit."

Mr. QUICK moved that, after the word "drains," the words "aqueducts, surface canals," be inserted.

The amendment was agreed to. Mr. RICHARDSON asked the Go­

vernment if they thought the clausp. was necessary? In his opinion, it was not required, and the effect of it, if retained, would be to throw unnecessary expense on the local bodies. He could understand the propriety of requiring a local body to submit a general plan of the waterworks which it proposed to carry out, in order that the Government might judge of the extent and character of the scheme, but it was absurd to require details to be furnished. It had been argued that the local bodies would have the best engineering skill at their disposal, and, if that would be the case, they certainly ought to be allowed, after their general plans were approved of, to carry out their works in their own way. To throw on the local bodies the onus of carrying out the work, and yet to demand that they should supply the Minister with details of what they proposed to do, was altogether inconsistent.

Mr. C. YOUNG said the clause was necessary, as the local bodies would have important works to construct, and, if they sent in details of them, the Government could, through their engineers, ascertain whether the works could be successfully carried out according to the proposals of the local bodies. Instead of this being a disadvantage to the local bodies, it would be an advantage to them. They ought to be very glad to have their plans submitted to the best engineering skill at the disposal of the Government, so as to be perfectly sure that the scheme was correct and prac­ticable. The Government would have to lend the money, and it was therefore incum­bent' on them to see that the works were properly planned and executed.

Mr. FISHER objected to the clause, because it called on the local bodies to do an impossibility, or to do what would be ex­tremely inconvenient. For instance, in order to furnish the details of a bridge, they would have to bring up the bridge to the Water Supply department piece by piece. The verbiage of the clause was utterly absurd.

Mr. FRASER observed that anybody could understand the meaning of the clause, though it would perhaps have been better if the words "plans of the" had been inserted before " details."

Mr. WILLIAMS remarked that the clause proposed nothing more than what

I had been the practice for years.

Water Conservation Bill. [OCTOBER 20.] Water Conservatioh Bill. 473

Mr. BURROWES said it would be altogether to the advantage of the local bodies to be able to get details of their proposed water supply schemes submitted to Government engineers, for by that means they would ascertain whether there were any weak points in connexion with the plans.

Mr. BELL supported the clause, believ­ing that it would be a benefit to local bodies to have the plans of their proposed waterworks submitted to the inspection of Government engineers. He was surprised at the exception taken to the phraseology of the clause by the honorable member for lVlandurang (Mr. Fisher). Any man who had ever been engaged in building contracts would thoroughly well ulldcrstand the mean­ing of the language.

On clause 6, requiring a notification that the general plan of any proposed waterworks had been forwarded to the Minister should be advertised for at least three weeks" in some newspapers generally circulating in the municipal district or districts in respect of which the application is made, and in every municipal digtrict through which flow or in which arc situated any of the rivers, creeks, water-courses, lakes, bg'ool1s, swamps, or marshes sought to be affected"; also "in the Government Gazette, and in one of the Melbourne daily newspapers,"

Mr. QUICK expressed the opinion that the extent of advertising contCluplatcd by the clause would involve the local bodies in unnecessary expense.

Mr. ROBERTSON remarked that, if the announcement was advertised in anv of the Melbourne daily newspapers, h~ thought it ought to appear in all of them. He, however, did not think it was necessary that the proposed works should be adver­tised in the Melbourne newspapers at all. I-Ie, therefore, begged to move that the words requiring an advertisement to be inserted. in one of the Melbourne daily newspapers be struck out.

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN observed that the Government Gazette was not seen by every one, and a local paper might also not be read by persons interested in the proposed waterworks. In order to ensure the greatest amount of publicity, the advertisement shoulcl also be inserted in one of the Melbourne morning papers.

Mr. JAMES contended that it was alto­gether unnecessary to insist on the local bodies advertising in a Melbourne morning newspaper. The metropolitan journals sel­dom found their way into some parts of the colony.

SES. 1881.-2 L

Mr. McINTYRE stated that in some country districts the local paper was not gener~lly read, but a Melbourne morning paper was. The metropolitan journals were frequently more seen up-country than the local papers.

Mr. BELL observed that, if the advertise­ments were limited to the Government Gazette and the local papers, they would not meet the eye of many persons who

" would be likely to tender for the execution of the works. It was therefore desirable, in the interests of the local bodies them­selves, that the advertisements should appeal' in one or more of the Melbourne news­papers.

Mr. C. YOUNG considered it was essential that the "advertisements should be published in at least one of the metropolitan journals.

Mr. FRASER expressed a similar opinion. He would rather that the adver­tisements were inserted in all the Melbourne daily newspapers than in none.

Mr. ROBERTSON said he would with­draw his amendment, and propose that the latter words of the clause be amended so as to read as follows :-" in one at least of the Melbourne daily newspapers."

This amendment was agreed to. On clause 9, providing that every signa­

ture to any petition other than the common seal of a municipality should be verified by the solemn declaration of some person signing such petition,

Mr. QUICK asked what was the meaning of the words " solemn declaration" ?

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN replied that he believed the words were taken from some existing Act.

Mr. FISHER said he thought the words " solemn declaration" objectionable. They were unknown in legal phraseology. He moved that "statutory" be substituted for " solemn."

The amendment was agreed to. Discussion took place on clause 18, which

was as follows :-"Each waterworks trust shall consist of one

or two (as may be determined by the Governor in Council) commissioners, to be elected from time to time by the council of each of the muni­cipal districts which will, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, be directly benefited by the proposed waterworks. and which sball be specified in the Order in Council approving the construction of such waterworks or in. any sub­sequent order, and of one other commissioner who shall be appointed by the Governor in Council. Every such commissioner so elected or appointed the Governor in Council may remove from office."

414 . Water Conservation BUt. [ASSEMBLY.] ,Wate'l'Conse1'vation Bill.

:Major SMITH said he thought it would not be found to work satisfactorily jf the choice of the commissioners who were to be elected was left to the councils. It would be better to provide that they should be elected by the ratepayers instead of by the

. councils. Sir n. O'LOGHLEN remarked that he

agreed with the hOl19rable member for Bal­larat vVest (Major Smith) as to the prin­ciple that all local corporations should be

'elected by the ratepayers, but he would l)oint out that the new waterworks trusts proposed to be established would be bodies springing 'from the existing municipalities, and therefore, in the inauguration of the system, it would be advisable to adopt the mode of election proposed in the clause in onler to have the co-operation of the muni­cipal councils. He had no doubt, however, that, at some future time, when the water­works trusts were fairly established, Parlia­ment would make the ratepayers the body who should elect.

·Mr. FRASER expressed the opinion that, if the suggestion of the honorable member for Ballarat VV cst (Major Smith) were car­ried out, the waterworks trusts woulll be quite independent of the local councils, and the two bodies would be liable to come into conflict. As the councils '1ould be respon­sihle to the ratepayers, and would know all about the waterworks schemes required by the respective districts, he could see no reason why they should not elect the 'mter­works commissioners.

Mr. McCOLL objected to the Governor in Council haying power, as proposed in the clause, to remove commissioners elected by the local council. The Governor in Council should have no power to remove any com­missioners except those appointed by him­self. He begged to move that the words " elected or" (line 12) be struck out.

Mr. LAURENS supported the amend­ment. A municipal councillor was elected f0l' three years, and no interference by the Government was found necessary in regard to snch officers. The tenure of office of a waterworks commissioner was only to last for two years, and, while he could under­stand the authority that elected a commis­sioner having power to depose him from his position if he misconducted himself, he could see no reason for the Governor in Council interfering in the matter.

Mr. GILLIES observed that strong reasons might ari,'3e for the removal of a commissioner elected by t.he local council, and it was desirable that there should be

some power of removing commissioners so elected. He would suggest that the Go­vernor in Council should have power to remove anelectecl commissioner, but only at the request or the local council.

Sir B. O'LOGHL:EN said he agreed with the views of the honorable member for Rodney (Mr. Gillies), and he begged to move the following addition to the clause:-

"Provided thn.t ))0 elected commissioner shall be removed from office except on the application of the council who elected him."

Mr. McColl's amendment was withdravm, and the amendment of Sir Bryan O'Loghlen was agreed to.

On clause 21, providing, inter alia, as follows:- .

"The commissioners to be elected by the councils shall be so elected by a majority of the members of each of such councils respectively,"

Mr. ROBERTSON moved the addition of the following words to this portion of the clause :-

"And shall be members of a shire. or borough council within the waterworks district."

Mr. GILLIES observed that there was a good deal of reason in the amendment. Unless some such provision were adopted, as the boundaries of a waterworks district would not necessarilv be coterminons :with the shire boundaries, the water commissioners elected might be men who lived outside the waterworks district, and were not interested as to whether the water rate was only Is. or the maximum of 2s. in the £1. It was reasonable that a councillor who was elected a commissioner should represent the riding in which the waterworks district was situated.

Mr. LAURENS pointed out that some boroughs were not divided into wards, so that the amendment in its present shape would prove unworkable in such cases.

Sir B. O'LOGHLEN suggested that the word "ratepayers" should be substituted for" members" in the amendment.

Mr. ROBERTSON accepted the sug­gestion.

The amendment was altered accordingly, and was then agreed to.

On clause 22, providing that the com­missioners elected oy the councils should hold office for two years,

Mr. ZOX suggested that some arrange­ment should be adopted to avoid the simul­taneous retirement of all the waterworks commissioners, so that there should be always on f1 'waterworks trust a number of members thoroughly conversant with the business to be transacted.

Companies Stat-ute 'COCTOBER 20.] .' Amendment Bill.

. Mr. C. YOUNG remarked that there would be great difficulty in carrying out the suggestion of the honornble member while the commissioners were elected by the local councils, but when the ratepayers were con­stituted the electors of the waterworks trusts, as wQuld probably be done in some future amendment of the present measure, the arrangement proposed could be carried out.

Mr. WILLIAMS pointed out that there would always be on'the trusts the perman­ent member appointed by the Governor in Council, and he could give any information required by new commissioners.

On clause 31, which was as follows :­"All questions at any meeting shall be de­

. cided by a majority of the votes of the commis­sioners present, and in case of an equal division of votes the chairman, shall have a second or

, casting vote, in addition to his vote as a com-missioner," '

Mr. ZOX expressed the opinion that it would be dangerous to give the chairman of a waterworks trust both a deliberative and a

,casting vote. At a s111all meeting the possession of two votes would virtually place

, the whole' control of affairs in the hands of the chairman.

Major SMITH observed that chairmen of such bodies were always given the voting power proposed in the clause:

The committee having advanced as far as clause 3Ci, progress was reported.

The House adjourned at two minutes past cleven o'clock, until Tuesday, October 25.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL'. Tuesday, October. 25, 1881.

Victorian Exhibitions Act Amendment Bill-Protection of Animals Bill-Controverted Elections (Council) Bill­Companies Statute Amendment Bill,

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

VICTORIAN EXHIBITIONS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

This Bill was received from the Legisla­tive Assembly, and, on the motion of the Hon .• J. MACBAIN, was read a first time, and was afterwards passed through its re­maining stages.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS BILL. This Bill was received from the Legisla­

tive Assembly, and, on the motion of the Hon. J. LORIMER, was read a first time.

2L2

OON~ROVERTED ~LECTIONS (OOUNOIL) BILL.

On the motion of the Hon. VV. E. , HEARN, this Bill was read a third time and passed.

COMPANIES STATUTE AMENDMENT BILL. The House went into committee for the

consideration of this Bill. Discussion took place on a series of new

clauses submitted ,by the Hon. ",V. E. Hearn.

Dr. HEARN explained that the effect of adopting the clauses would be that the Bill would embody not merely the portion of the English law relating to companies

, which the Government sought to enact, but the whole of it.

The Hon. J. LORIMER inquired if the Government accepted the intended additions to the Bill, and would become responsible for their being in accord with the English law?

The Hon. .J. MACBAIN stated. that the Solicitor-General had informed him that the clauses proposed by Dr. Hearn had been copied from the English Act, and that the Government had no objection to their being incorporated with the Bill.

Clause D, giving power to any company, with the approval of the Registrar-General, to change its name, was amended by sub­stituting for the 'word" Registrar-General" the word " Governor in Oouncil."

On clause Z, which was as follows .:- ' " A company shall, on the application of the

transferror of any share or interest in. the company, enter in its register of members the name of the transferree of such share or interest in the same manner and subject to the same cob. ditions as if the application for such entry were

. made by the trans ferree," ' Sir 0. SLADEN moved the insertion,

after the word "company" (line 3), of the following words :-

" after the transfer of such share or interest shall have been accepted by the transferree by his signature appearing on the instrument of transfer." He observed that by the clause as it stood a transferror might 'put the name of a trans­ferree on the register of a company without his knowledge or consent, and thus render him liable for the paYJilent of calls, &c.

Mr. lVIACBAIN expressed the opinion that the amendment was unnecessary, as no person could become a " ti-ansferree," within the meaning of the clause, unless he ac­cepted the transfer of the shares.

Mr. LORIMER observed that, as the Bill was copied from the English Act, it would be as well to adhere strictly to the