"

of its population; yet this party believe that their salvation depends upon seizing the lands that a few hundred of their population have taken up. They justify it by saying that all the good lands near the centres of population are gone into private hands. The object of the "Single Tax League of New South Wales is declared to be: "To abolish from time to time existing systems of taxation and to gradually substitute for the manifold taxes now in operation a single tax levied upon the bare value of land, exempting from taxation. all improvements, until the annual value which attaches to the land from the needs and growth of the population is ultimately absorbed by the Public Treasury to be administered for general public purposes." Their organ is a well-printed paper of eight pages, published monthly, and full of facts and figures, such as Single Taxers love to set forth all the world over. I shall afterwards have something to say as to the awkward position that this party finds itself in, when summoned to join the advance of the whole line Socialistic.

Both Houses of Parliament were sitting while we were there. The Assembly, or lower house, is elected by manhood suffrage, while the Council, or upper house, consists of members nominated by the Ministry in power and appointed by the Governor. The Secretary of State for the Colonies has laid down the rule, as a general one, that in accepting these nominations, the Governor simply acts upon the advice of his Ministers, as in the usual course of constitutional government. Being a nominated chamber, it has little direct popular power in the country, but it presents what has been described by a high political authority "as the physiognomy and aspect of a grave legislative body" even more completely than does the ruling chamber. The Legislative Assembly of New South Wales may be taken as a fair type of the Australian Legislatures. If they cannot lay claim to the culture that used to mark the House of Commons, they are free from many of

the conditions that enfeeble the local Legislatures of America. Perhaps I may be allowed here to take the opportunity of giving some account of them.

The House of Commons is described as being composed of bankers, merchants, shipowners, brewers, railway directors, men known in literature and science, lawyers, doctors, country gentlemen, colonial governors, soldiers, sailors, and working men. Our small communities could not supply this variety; but we have lawyers, doctors, journalists, storekeepers, farmers, business men, mining managers, and working men. Lawyers have generally been numerous in popular assemblies, notwithstanding the prejudice against them. In the States-General of France that struck the keynote of modern democracy in 1789, there were 374 lawyers! In the United States they predominate in several lines of political life; but they are not so numerous in our Legislatures. Briefly, our Assemblies may be described as middle-class bodies. The poorest are represented there, but do not domi. nate. The other end of the social scale can scarcely be said to be directly represented at all, though indirectly they may have influence. We can lay no claim to the culture or polish of aristocratic Parliaments. You cannot combine the political advantages of a past age with those of the present, nor join in one assembly the merits of both aristocracy and democracy. This is not peculiar to politics; it applies to other phases of life, public and private. The political is only one aspect of the social state-perhaps the liveliest and most prominent; also, the closest scanned. In all, equality and the inrush of members gives breadth and vigour rather than elevation. But if our legislators are plain men, they need not fear comparison with aristocratic bodies in the matter of personal honesty, while they naturally feel more concern for the wants of the people with whom they are identified.

The many functions undertaken by our Governments, and the large measure of assistance that they

render to districts out of the general revenue, enfeeble the position of the representative, and impair the public spirit of the constituencies. Each locality naturally seeks to get as much as it can, and for this purpose wants rather an agent to look after its interests than a statesman to take care of those of the country at large. The representative is harassed by a divided duty. This I take to be the greatest impediment to statesmanship in our ranks, and the more Socialistic Governments become the greater is the danger that Burke's prophetic fear may be realized, and "national representation degraded into a confused and scuffling bustle of local agency." The forbearance of many constituencies towards a member whom they respect upon public grounds, and the sense of duty to the State of members, have so far done something to mitigate the worst results of this principle. Many years ago, when in the Victorian Legislature, I had the difficulty that I speak of brought home to me practically. I-perhaps with more zeal than knowledge-actually proposed to do away with local representation altogether and to adopt Hare's system of proportional representation applied to wide divisions of the colony. My resolution ran thus: "That the representation of localities is foreign to the principle of manhood suffrage, and moreover, by the special duties and obligations to each locality that it imposes upon members, taken in conjunction with the power of the Government over the expenditure from the general revenue for local purposes, has a tendency to impair the position of the representative and to endanger the true character of Parliamentary repre

sentation."

The House gave a very fair hearing to the proposal, but considered it to be outside the range of practical politics. Yet we all feel the burthen of local work, and how, at times, it conflicts with public duty.

This position of our Governments naturally promotes the formation of small parties in the Legislatures to secure what they consider justice for the interests they

represent. Thus we have amongst us country parties, mining parties, and all the interests that look to State protection of industries; while our powerful Public Service associations have often made their weight felt both inside and outside the Parliament. The cities are always and naturally combined, and able to conserve their own interests. They return the members of the Labour Party. Our Parliaments are sometimes blamed for their hasty and varying legislation, and it is not to be denied that all popular legislation is experimental, changeful, harking back upon itself. Look at the Imperial legislation on bankruptcy. The State of Maine amended its liquor law forty-six times, and then it did not answer its purpose. But the legislation is experimental, only because it actually reflects from time to time the varying feelings of the community, as they are prompted by impulse or warned by experience. With us, as with all democracies, there is impatience under any inconvenience, a disinclination to submit to any evil, or supposed evil, for ever so short a time, joined to a simple belief that you have only to get an Act of Parliament to set it right, whatever it is. Are the hours of labour too long, or the shops open too late; is there too much gambling, drinking, or general immorality; are the banks obstructive in business, or the share brokers too sharp, or the lawyers too free with their tongue; nay, does that most ancient of wantsthe want of money-make itself again generally felt, the first cry is to Parliament, Right this wrong! And some new law is accordingly made, sometimes with good effect. But as it is the most difficult thing in the world to frame the principles of a law wisely, and then to express them accurately, frequent alterations are required; while at times, the object to be attained being really impracticable, the Act quietly becomes inoperative. For laws, with us, to be real laws, must commend themselves "all the time," as the Americans say, to the people. If unsuitable they are tacitly ignored. Experience is picked up quickly. Hence looking back

to the legislation of even a few years ago is like walking through an old armoury full of curious weapons and quaint shields quite unsuited to to-day. But in all this the Legislature can only be blamed for too faithfully reflecting the popular will.

Looking at this Parliament in Macquarie Street, Sydney, one finds carefully reproduced the practice and procedure of Westminster. It is the same in all the Australian provinces. We are as observant of precedent as the English themselves. The Speaker is in gold-embroidered silk and full-bottomed wig upon great occasions; in silk and wig at all times in the chair. A silver-gilt mace, richly ornamented, an exact copy of that at Home, lies upon the table when the House is sitting, but is hurried underneath when the Speaker leaves the chair and Committee begins. A few years ago ours in Victoria was stolen from the Parliament building, under the belief, it is supposed, that it was gold; and it now having gone to the thieves' meltingpot, we have to content ourselves with a small wooden one, which, however, proves equally potent as a symbol of authority. The useful rule of referring to members by the place they represent is observed. Any title that can be given to a member is carefully given. Any one connected with the militia is termed the "hon. and gallant member;" any one with the law in any of its branches, "hon. and learned member;" any one connected with medicine is "the learned doctor;" if there is a Baronet among us, he is always "the hon. Baronet,' We have never got to the length of calling one "the hon, and rev. member," as Lord Palmerston did John Bright, though we have some gentlemen in our Parliaments who occasionally preach to bush congregations that might be otherwise untaught. With all our love of equality, we relish these little distinctions; like the Americans, who began by a resolution to allow no title to their President, but to send papers to "George Washington" simply, and have ended by having "Honourables" and "Colonels" innumerable.