159U St. J{ildrt Efectn'c flUltN"I.'! [COL'XCIL.] C07lst1'uct/on Bill.

'Yhile \YC believe that closer settlemf'nt would rapidly increase population, and be the best de-fence a countn' could hayc, we think that before any scheme C~cn('ral Booth may have is seriously co{;.sidered or given effect to, that a yotc of the electors on the Federal Roll should be taken.

The motion was agreed to. The House adjourned at h[11 f -past ten

o'clock.

LEGISLATIVE . COUNCIL. W cdllesday, September 20, 1905.

The PRESIDENT took the chair at eig.ht minutes to ii,'e o'clock p.m., and read the prayer.

AGRICULTCRAL COLLEGES ACT FURTHER A~IEXD~IEXT RILL.

This Bill was received from the Legisla-tive Assemhh', and, on the motion of the Hon. A. 0.' SACHSE, was read a first time.

ST. KILDA ELECTRIC RAfL\VAY CO:\'STRL'CTIOX BILL.

The HOll. J. ~r. DAVIES 11loH'd the second reading of this Bill. He said that the Bill in the machinery part of it was almost the same, clause by clause, as the St. Kilda and Brighton Electric Street Rail-way Act, which was passed last session. This Bill was for the purpose of connecting the line then authorized, and terminating at the Village Belle HoteL with the St. Kild.a Railway Station. 1'he first ne,,, pron-sion w;s that authority was given by clause 7 to cross the tramway. That clause stated-

'Yhere the electric street railway crosscs any (,\.isting tramway .lines on the. level and affects PI' in any wise mterferes WIth su~h tramway I ines or the traffic thereon such crossmg shall be constructed and maintained uneler the superin-tendence and to the reasonable satisfaction of tht" person, corporation, or: comp:my .owning or controllinrr such tramway 1111e, unless 111 the case of such ~onstruction after notice given hy the Hoard of Commissioners fourteen days at least h"fore the commencement of such ,,ork, such snperintendence is refused or withhelc1.

Then sub-clause (2), of clause J T. stai('d-If a single line is first constructed such single

line may at any time he converted intn a double line.

Then there was an alteration of the gauge, not only of the new line, hut of the line that was flrevjously authori7cd. Clause T ~ stated that the said line should 11e con-structed on the gauge of 5 fect 3 inches.

The gauge for the line ~reviousl y author-ized was to be 4 feet 8~- inches. The Bill provided that the St. kilda and Brighton dectric street railway should oe con-structed on a like gauge, namely, that of 5 feet 3 inches. The guarantee was pro-yided for, and it was to be the same as before, namely, 600 by the municipality of St. Kilda, and 300 by the munici-pality of Brighton. These were all the alterations in the Bill, as previous 1 y pass~d by this House. This new line was to start from .the Village Belle Hotel, and thence go along Barkly-street and Gray-street to the St. Kilda Railway Station. Honorable members would see by the map that it was a more direct route than the tramway route, which went along the Es-planade. An objection had been raised to this line bv the Melbourne Tramways Trust, and by the ::\Ielbourne Tramway aIi(l Omnibus Company, and two petitions ha(l been presented to the House. In one of these petitions there was an opinion from Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Cussen, and the pe-tition containing that opinion was read to the House. He wished to speak in refer-ence to that opinion. It commenced by stating-

In our opinion, any person or corporation who commenced to construct a tramway in anyone of the municipal districts enumerated in section 3 of the Tramways Act 1890 could be restraine(l by injunction-as the law at present stunds.

He agreed ,yith that to the full extent. Then it stated-

The section referred to was originally enacte(l as section 51 of the Local Government (Amend-ment) Act 1883 Xo. 786, an Act which was pa;.sed just three weeks after the Act No. 765-the ~Ielbourne Tramwav ;mcl Omnihus Com-pany's ~\ct 1883, which -authorized the construc-tion of tramways undcr the provisions of that Act within the very same municipalities as those \dlich are enumerated in section 51 of No. 786 -the municipalities indeed being named in the Y('rv Same order in the said section C; I, and in the' title and schedules of the Act No.- 76.~. The (lnly exception being- that section 51 does not name the city of Mebourne among the excepte(i municipal districts-inasmuch as such city would not be included at all in the enabling part of the section by yirtue of section 2 of the sai(l Act Xo. 786. .

He fully agreed with that, too. It fur-ther stated-

'Ye think it quite clear that the Courts woul(i construe section SI of the Act No. 7~6-new sec-tion ~ of the Tramways Act I~qo-as prohibit-ing thc construction of tramways by anybody within the municipal districts mentionerl in those sections.

He did not agrep with that at all. He contended that the Act merely did not

St. Kildu Electric Railway [20 SEPT., 1905.J Construction Bill.

authorize the construction of tramways in these municipal districts. There ,vas a great difference between not authorizing and prohibiting. Prohibit meant forbid, but there was no forbidding in that sec-tion at all. Originally, none of the munici-palities were authorized to construct tram-ways. If non-authorization was to be con-sidered as prohibiting, then the prohibition was in ,the original Act, constituting these municipalities, and not in the particular sec-tion referred to. At first none of the municipalities could construct tramw,\ys, and then this particular section authorized all municipalities, except those named, to construct tramways. The whole of the (tpinion was based' on this prohibition. The (;pinion further stated-

We also think that the Courts would hold that it was a necessary inference from the matters we have just referred to that such prohibition was for the benefit and protection of the company or ~:orpora tions authorized to oonstruct 'Itramwa ys nnder the provisions of the Act 1" o. 765, by pre-venting competition with them.

He thought Parliament would be bound by the expressions that were used by those haying control of the measure when before Parlbment as to the object and intention of that particular section. He could find nothing whatever in the debate in l)arlia-ment indicating in any way that the reason why these municipal districts were excepted was for the benefit of the Melbourne Tram-way and Omnibus Company, but he would refer to that matter later on. The opinion further stated-

This being- so, we think that, in the events which have happened under that Act, the Tram-ways Trust und the Melbourne Tramway and Omnibus Company Limited could (until such sec-tion .SI of No. 786 is expressly or impliedly re-pealed) successfully apply for an injunction to reo strain any person from constructing a tramway in anyone of the municipal districts referred to, even without proving special damage. 'We think the case would fall within the principles stated hy Lord 'Wensleydale in Chamberlaine v. Chester and Birkenlzead Railway, I Exch., at p. 877; and st'c Kerr on Iniunctions, 4th Eo., at p. 474.

If special damage could be proved, as we have n) doubt it could, the case would be an a for-tiori one.

EYen iF we were wrong in our view that the Courts ,voulrl holtl that the prohibition in such sertion 51 was for the benefit of the bony con-strurtiJ1[Y tramways under the Act No. 76_~, and that such prohibition is to be treatert as a general prohibition fmmn in a public stntute for no pnr-ticular nerson's henefit, we think that, unon thf' :lllthorities. the Attornev-Genera 1 couln, ann should, intervene ex relatione of some person in-terested. if the facts were established to his satis-f:1ction that a person was doing something which W:-IS a violation of the prohibition contained in n public statute. If the act being done is in fact

a violation of the prohibition contained in a pub-lic statute "e think it is not material to estau-lish that such act is in fact to the public detriment or disadvantage. Parliament is supposed to bt! the best judge of that matter when it enacts the prohibition-see Attorney-General v. London alld: N.W. Ry. H)OI, I Q.B. 78, and Attorney-General v. lIfctrop. Elect. Sup. Coy. 1905, I Ch. 24.

Apart from these views, we might point out that any person interfering with streets or public roads for the purpose of laying down and working an electric tramway thereon without proper legisla-tive authority so to do may very well be herd to be the author of a ,public nuisance, and be con-sequently liable to be restrained from continuing what he is doing.

When an upinion was given and cases were referred to, that fact seemed to strengthen the opinion, but in all the cases quoted thc're was nn express prohibition. In the case of Cltamberlahze v. Cluster alld Bir-kCllltcad Nai!'ll:ay Company-

The ddend:l.llts were erppowered by an Act of l'aliament (I Vict. c. I07) to m:Jke a railw;!\' from Chestt:r to Hirkenhead, terminating at o-r near Grange-lane. The plaintiff was the owner of a ferry across the Mersey, calJed Trunmert', Ferry. There were two other ferries across thl" :Mersey, ('ailed respectively Woodside Ferry an(l BirkenheJd Ferry. The Companies Act, after rec'iting ('crtain facts, enacted, among-st other thing-s, that it should not be lawful for the com-pany to open any railroad or tram road from the station at or near Grange-lane to communicate with the \Yoodside Ferry until a good and con-venient branch railway had been made and opened from the said main line to the ferries called Birkenhead and Tranmere.

There was an express prohibition in that case. The Judge, in g.iving judgment, said-

\Vith respect to the first point, there is no doubt as to the general rule. Where a ~tatute prohibits the doing 0 f a particular act affecting the public, nO person has a right of action against another merely because he has done the prohi. bited act. It is incumbent on the party com-plaining to allege and prove that the doing of the act prohibited has caused him some special damage, some peculiar injury beyond that which he may be supposed to sustain in common with the rest of the Queen's subjects by an infringement of the law. But where the act prohihite(l i~ obviously prohibited for the protection of a par-ticular party, there it is not necessary to allege special damage.

In the two other cases there was express prohihithn. It seemed to him that it was necessary in the opinion to show that the Act was prohibitive in order Ito make thf'se rasps bear on the matter at all. He intended to refer to the l\f elhol1rne Tramwav Com-panv's Act. Section 45 of that Act stated-

Notwithstanding anything in this Ar.t con-tained the company shall not acquire or be deemed to acquire any rig-ht other than tnat of user of any road along or across which it shall lay any tramway.

1592 St. Xlida Electric RU1'lway rCO"CXCIL.] ConS~?'llction Bill.

Yet the right was claimed that no tramway shuuld be made in any street in the muni-cipalities specifIed. That was a prohibi-tilm. Sectiul1 4-7 of that Act stated--

Xothing in this Act or in all)' by-law made under thi" Act sliall take away or abridge the right of the public.; to pass along or across every or any part (If an\' road along or ac.;ross whidl any tramway is iailling. wood, Prahran, Richmond, South Melbourne, lIotham, St. Kilda, Brunswick, Kew, Hawthorn, and Sandridge, when authorized as provided in the second schedule, and all the regulations in SUdl schedule shall take effect as if contained in this Act.

That provision authorized all the munici-pal councils except those named to make tramways under certain specified condi-tions, but that was all. The reason why it would be put this way by the draftsman, " any municipality except" such and such a district, would be because that would he the shortest way to express what was intended. The municipalities authorized "'ere far greater in number than those not a uthorized. I f fewer, the municipalities authorized would have been named.

The Hon. J. BALFOUR.-Why were these not authorized?

The Hon. J. ~r. DAVIES said he could hardly tell the reason, but he should imagine Parliament would naturally think that a system of tramways had been pro-vided that was sufficient to meet the re-quirements of the present, and that there-fore there was no necessity to authorize these municipalities to construct tramways. Rut that was no reason why Parliament, having done that, should be treated as if it had said that at no time whatever were these excepted municipalities to construct a tramway. That was the claim made j it meant that never at any time in the future could there be a tramway constructed in these municipalities. If a tramway were wanted now the ~relbourne Tramways Trust and the Melbourne Tramwav and Omnibus Company had very full powers. Were these municipalities to be de-prived of having a tramway because in some municipalities there was a tramwa y running along one street? That provision ,,"as put in by the Assembly,

St. Itildct Elecl?'/:c Raiiw{(,y [,:?O SEPT., 1905.J Const'ruction Bill. 1593

.and then it came up to the Council. II all-jard rq:orteJ:-

!l.Ir. SARGOOD moved that the new clause lnserte(l by the Assembly, allowing tramways to JJl' constructe![ by the local council in any muni-cipal district (except Fitzroy, Collingwood, l'rahran, Richmond, South Melbourne, Hotham, ~t. Kil(b, Brun!:iwick, Kew, Hawthorn, and Sand-ridge) when authorized by the Governor in Coun-('ii, be amen(leu by inserting after "municipal ,district" the words "including the town of ( ~eelong."

It was to be r{'membered that the Local Government Act did not apply to eithd ~Ielbourne or Geelollg, and, therefore, it \vas necessan', in order to authorize Gee-long to construct tramways, to put that in. Hut ~relbourne was not mentioned in the Lo(~al Government Act.

The Hon. J. BALFouR.-Therefore it ,,'as l'1Ot nec('ssary to except it in this clause.

The Hon. J. M. DAVIES said that it was, howen'r, contended that this clause was a prohibition in hvour of the Tram\yay Company. Hut th(' Tmmway Company could not say that l)('C'ause St. Kilda was 11lohibited. therefore :\Ielbourne was pro-hibited.

The Hon. J. R"'LFOUR.--Melbourne is Jl()t authorized by the Local Government .Act.

The Hon. J. 1\1. DAVIES said that it was, hmvcver. contended that because it .Ii,1 id all the municipalities except those it \ras :l prohibition against those. But :\Iel-l)Ollrne was not mentioned at all.

The Hon. J. BALFOUR.-Because it had H!lt authority, and it was not necessary.

The Hon. J. ::\1. DAVIES said that it \"as contended that, because it was stakel lhat every municipality except St. Kilcla ~uld the others might construct a tramway, 1 herefore St. Kilda was prohibited. Could it be contended that Melbourne was pro-hihited whl'l1 the Act did not touch Mel-1 lourne? I f that claim was correct, it would lle m'cessary to prohibit ~Ielbourne. The report continued -

~Ir. MELVILLE said that he did not see any Ieason why the clause should not apply to all the municipal districts in the colony. 1t was true that the Melbourne Tramway and Omnibus Company had power to construct tramways in the districts t'\:cepted from the operation of the clause, but their power in the matter would die out in a few years.

~rr. SARGOOp suggested that the honorable member might take the opportunity next session, ill connexion with the Amending Local Govern-ment Dill, which it was intenoed to intro(luce, in move the insertion of a clause to allow tram-ways to be constructed by the council of every

municipal district without exceptIOn. In the meantime, no harm could be done by passing the clause in the l:ihape now proposed.

It ,yas to be remembered that Sir Frederick Sargood represented the Government in the Council at that time. Did Sir Frederick Sargood consider that, by passing that clause, there was a prohibition against these municipalities? If so, why did he tell honorable memhers that, in the mean-time, no harm could be done, because it was now plain that harm would be done if Parliament could not authorize the construc-tion of anv tramway within these districts? Was it to be imagined for one moment that when the House, three days before, harl taken special precautions to provide that there might be tramways crossing the tram-ways to be constructed under the Act, it would then annul all that it had provided? --for the contention meant that, if it meant anything. The contention meant that Par-lianll'nt, hy providing that other municipali-ties might construct tramways, obliterated all it did a few ,,'eeks before, and did it on the statement of the represent.ltive of the Government that, in the meantime, the clause would do no harm. If ~Ir. Balfour had ,'oted on the strength of that statement, and then there had been a proposal the following week to authorize the construction of a new tramway in ,the city of Melbourne, and he had been told that 'Parliament was bound in honour not to authorize th.at, what would he have said?

The Hon J. BALFouR.-What was the object of putting these municipalities in?

The Hon. J. l\f. DAVIES said that the object was to do away with the power that Parliament ha!d taken in the preceding clause.

The Hon. J. BALFOUR.-What was the object?

The Hon. J. M. DAVIES said that he could not tell what Parliament intended, but he could say that it was clear Parlia-ment did not intend to obliterate all that it had done. Probably, as he had said before, Parliament thought that, for the time being, the tramways authorized in those districts were sufficient. The report continued-

Mr. MELVILLE remarked that he might not have the opportunity next session of effecting the object he had in view.

The Hon. W. E. HEARN suggested that the clause should be amended so us to provide simply that, subject to the provisions of the Melbourne Tramway and Omnibus Company's Act, tram-ways might be constructed in any municipal dis-trict.

159+ St. Eilda Electric Railway [C01JKCIL.] Const1'tlction Bill.

: f the clause had become law in that form, ]t would never have been contended that there was any monopoly, because the dif-ferent municipalities might at once have pro-ceeded to apply for other tramways that did not conflict with the tramways launched in the same streets by the Tramway Company. The report continued- . -

This proposition was agreed to, and the clause was amended accordingly.

The other amendments made by the Legislative Assembly were agreed to.

The Bill then went to dIe Assemblv and this was all that \vas said about wh~t took place there-

Mr. GILLIES moved that the Assembly dis-agree with the Council's amendment in the ne,.,. clause relating to tramways, mserted by the As-sembly. The clause, as it passed the Assemblv a~thori~ed .the construction of tramways in mun"i~ ;!pal dlstn~ts, except certain districts specified. 1 he CouncIl had struck out the names of those d~stricts, and inserted words making the power gIven by the clause " subject to the provisions of the Melbourne Tramway and Omnibus Company's Act." .

The amendment was disagreed with.

Then it came up to the Council on about the last night of the session, and 1:he Coun-cil passed the Assembly's clause with the town of Geelong inserted. 'Vas there am'-thing whatever in that indicJ.ting that the Council intended to strike out the proviso which it inserted a few days heforp? Besides that there was no-thing \~hate\'Cr said about companies. That proviso was in fa\'our of anv present or future company which migl{t come to Parliament and get a right, and there came in the difference between prohibiting and not authorizing. The municipalities were not authorized. There was a great difference between the two things. Honorable members would recol-lect that there was a Dairy Companies Act originally passed authorizing a large num-ber of dairying companies to come in under its provisions. He believed that there had l~n three or four amendments of that Act authorizing. from time to time. further ~airying companies to come in. The posi-tIOn would have been different if the ori-ginal Act had stated that "the follo\\'ing dairying companies might come under this Act, but every other dairying companv in existence, or to come into existencE'. shall be prohibited from coming under it." Later on other companies came to Parliament, and Parliament authorized them to come in. That was repeated three or four times. He helieved that when the Collingwood Rail-wav Rill was passed-he did not think it was in the House, but in the inquiry by

l! on. ,. M. Davies.

[he Railways Standing Committe('- J. rf'--prese~tatiye of the COmpally-~Ir. Clapp_ he belIeved-gave evidence, and ad\'anced a lot of reasons why the Collingwood rail\\,;.!\' should not be made. If this contentio;l. was right, why should not eyerv munir'i-pality which had been authorized to make a tramway make the same claim, and then the State would not be able to make a rail-way anywhere in those municipalities? Thert~ was nothing whatever that he could see in any legislation. or in anything said bv am honorable member in introducing that -legis-lation, or speaking to it, to prevent the Go-vernment, in good faith, coming to Parlia' ment and asking Parliament to make a railway either along a street or through pro-perty. There was another point he wished to mention. Parliament had authorized the expenditure of money for this line. Par-1i~ment had provided the money for thi~ raIlway, but, of course, that monev wa~ not available unless Parliament autllorizefl the construction of the railwav. When that subject was before the House, he re-ferred to a letter written, he thought. l)\' the. Tramwav Company to the Premlt-r. ii1 whIch the Tramway Company offen'd TO take passengers from the Villagp Belle Hotel to the St. Kilda Railway Station for one penny each, and he said on tha: 0('-casion that no reply had been sent to the letter. He took the precaution to inquire whether a reply had been sent hefore he made that statement, and he was informed' II:hat no reply was sent. He had ascer-t~ined since that a replv was sent. and it SImply acknow~edged the receipt of the letter. He WIshed to clear that up. be-cause he was misled by the information he had got. He thought the House ol1/'Tht to have no hesitation whate\'er in passin~ this Bill. b

The Hon. J. BALFOUR remarked that he was not going to oppose the seconn reading of this Bill, as possiblv some hon-oraLIe members might have - thought he would. from the interiections he had madf'. or the questions he 'had asked. But he did feel that the Attornev-General had not quite cleared up the difficultv that he (\fr. Balfour) had mentioned before as to the competition that would be com~enced be-tween the electric railway now proposed to he constructed and the tramwav that f'xist('cl at the present time. Honorable memhers must recollect thalt the first part of this lim-was to be made. hy authority of Par1i~ment. hetween Brighton and the Village Bellt'. It was a strange thing to stop at the ViI-

St. lliMa Electric Railway

lage Delle, except that there was a tram-way existing to take the passengers on. Even in view of that fact, he thought it a strange thing, and not a good thing I and he believed he expressed his views on that subject to the I)remier, because he felt pretty sure that the new line, instead of being a feeder to the railway, would Le a feeder to the Itramwav. Persons ,,"ho trans-Ferrell from the line to the tramway would, he thought, naturally go on to ~lelbourne "11\" the tramway, and not obtain another tl:ansfer to the "railway. The only ground that Ill> (~Ir. Balfour) could naturally sug-~t;est for that course being taken was that the GO\"crnment thought that, while there was a tramway there, they were not going to compete ,,"ith the tramway, but were going to make a line, as far as they could, 'ritlwut competing-that the intention was to give communication between Brighton and St. Kilda, and not compete with the tramway. That was what he ph. Balfour) thought". I t was proposed now to connect the Village Belle line with the St. Kilda railway. and probably, he supposed, even-tually to electrify the whole business, and make an electric line from Brighton to ~felI )()UfIll', \\"hich would require the alteration (if the c;auge as at first proposed, He thOll'rht it would have Leen better if the first ~)roposal had been complete, and Par-liament had known what it was doing. He had IlO interest in the Tramway Company, not even a sentimental inte:est j but he ,,"anted justice and fair-play to all. If the proposal had been complete in the first instancf', the company could haye made its repr(,St"'l1tations, and Parliament would have l)ecn alllc to do what it had done with its eyes opf'n, and with the opportunity of :;;eeing whether there ,,,as any .real ground on which the company could claim that the 1ine should not be constructed. The At-tonwv-General had made the matter clear from" his point of yie,,". XO doubt, from the strict legal and technical reading of the ~t'(,ti(ll1 introrluced into the Local Go-Vt'rmlk'nt Act, that section did not nro-hihit tIlt' cC)n~trurtion of either a rail~\"ay ('r trJm,yav in ;:lny of the municipalities nam('(l. Hilt he would say one thing before he l'f( '('t'('(led further. He did not think t hat there was :1nything in the argument of the Attorney-General that municipalities ,,"hi('h han the" power of constructing tram-,,"ays could claim that no railway or tr:1m-\\"a~,T (':mId be made through them. That \\"oldd mean a dog-in-the-mangf'r pollry. The ('otllwils wonl(l be represented as saying, "\Ve have the power, but we will not make

Cunst i'uct tun Jj ill. 1595

the lines, yet we ,,"ill not allow you." As to the opposition that was offered to the Collingwood railway, he did net know anv-thing alout that. "He supposed that Mr. Clapp thought it might be advisable to make opposition, but he (~lr. Balfour) did not think that :\lr. Clapp had any right to oppose any railway line which was not to be an electnc nilwav, for an dectric rail-wav couldl be macie a tramway bv stopping at different streets. A' rail-way like the Collingwood line had no analogy to a tramway, and he (lid not knO\\" on what grounds :\[r. Clarr opposed that line, nor would he haYe agreed with him. As to the meaning of the section under consideration, the Attor-ney-General held that it was not a pro-hioition. Strictly speaking, probably it was not; but why was it put in? He (Mr. Balfour) thought that it was not necessarY, except that it ,,,as intended that all these municipalities, in which a large expendi-ture had been made, and was to Le made, for the construction of tramways for the convenience of the public, should be pro-tected to this extent, especially as the muni-cipalities were to own the tramways after-wards, that no sanction was to be giyen to any tramway being constructed in those municipalities in opposition to them. The Attorney-General had menticned the pro-vision about crossing lines with flanged wheels. He (Mr. Balfour) could under-stand that being put in in case of there being a necessity to construct other tram\\"ay~ through these municipalities, not paral-lel and in opposition to the lines alreadv there, but crossing them. But the proposal in this Bill was to make a tramwav that would, in reality, to a large extent" be in opposition to the existing tramway. He understood that it went parallel to two lines of tramway.

The Hon. J. 1\L DAVIES.-Kot parallel - oet,,'een the two lines.

The Hon. J. BALFOVR said, to some extent, the new line would take UD the ground that was served Lv those two "tram-ways, and was not like a J tramway running across them in a different direction. The Attornev-General also said that ~Jelbourne was not included, because ~felbourne \Vas not authorized to make tram,Yays. The reason for that probablv was that ::\fel-bourne was perfectly served, and tllPre ,,"as no chanre of any more lines being constrected in ::\felbournE", hecause cf its being reticu-lated alreadv with tramv."ays. The remark-able thing 'was that those municipalities

1596 St. ]{ilJa Electric Railway [COCXCIL.] Constrllction Bill.

were named in that Act in the or,der in which they \\"{'re named in the other Act. Another striking thing was that they were put in on the motion of the very honoraLle member who had charge of the Tramways Act. There must be, therefore, a close connexion between the tWoO sections in the two Acts, and it was clear that the inten-tion was to give some p:-ctection, though he did not know how much. He would admit that it was not a prohibition, but the intention, it was clear, was to give some protection to the company that was spend-ing such a large amount of money in mak-ing tramways in these municipalities-money which was being borrowed, to a Jarge extent, in the English market on the face of this proYiso.

The Hon. A. O. SACHSE. - Do you think that was put in to facilitate the pas-sage of that measure through the House?

The Han. J. BALFOUR said that he did not think so.

The Han. J. M. DAVIEs.-What did Sir Frederick Sargood mean by saying that, in the meantime, passing this would do no h.arm?

The Hon. J. BALFOUR said that he could understand the representative of the Government, having a Bill to get through, soothing honorable members by saying that, if they passed this provision, and after-wards did not like it, it could be amended the next year. Whether that was the case or not, the municipalities were in the same

St. Kilda Electric Railway [20 SEPT., 1905.J Cons!i'uct;"lIn Bill. 1597

pact, it would not be doing this country any (Tood with investors at Home. They lent fheir money believing that t~eir prope.rty was sacred, and if now, at tl11s late penod of the da v, within a very few years of the time whe~1 the municipalities would take possession of the rroperty, Parliament interfered with those rights, those investors would say as they had often said before, with resp~t to late legislation, that there was no knowing what would happen in Australia, and especially in Victoria. They would say that vested rights were not re-spe-ctecl here and that ~Iini~ters would hunt through Acts of Parliament to find out if it was not possible, by the mere turn of a phrase or by some omission of a word, to upset a contract that was con-~idered sacred, and that was to remain in force until the company ended and the municipalities took possession. Speaking as a ratepayer, he advised the House to set itself directly against any such legislation. He had never held a share in the Tramway Company, and had no interest in it, but .he was living in a city that was very heavIly rated at present. The ratepayers had been looking forward with hope to the time when they would have possession of the tram-ways in order to help them to pay some of tlwir liabilities" or to reduce some of their rates. But if a Government came into power that began a move whose only end could be to destroy the profits and the pro-perty of the company, they were doing a bad thing for Victoria, and would do no good to the credit of Victoria in the old country, because all the money that had been spent here on the tramways was Eng-lish money, and would have to be repaid. The introduction of a Bill like this was 1he thin edge of the wedge. He did not care whethpr legally the Government might he exactly within the letter of the law. Hon-orable memhers knew the maxim that verv often the letter of the law was a monil wrong. A contract was entered into, no matter what the late Sir Frederick Sargood or Mr. Melville said at the time. He read the papers then, and he under-stood that the company had a right to go over certain streets, and certain parts of the metropolis. and that no other com-,panv could interfere with it. Of course, one' could drive a coach and four through any Act of Parliament if one hegan to criticise it. but even iffhe Act did not give the company that right. morally the House ought to see. in its own interests, and the interests of the country, that the company's

rights were not interfered with. People never knew whether the Government were going to make uricks, or stop trains. or take away the rights of the Tramway Com-panv. There was always a new sen3:t-tion: and he wished the sensations woulf}: stop. Even if by straining a point of law the Government could claim the right to interfere with the company, morally tbey ought not to do it.

The Han. D. MELVILLE remarhd that: he was very glad to see ~[r. Embling wcll again. Judging from his speech, the Coun-cil had certainly missl'd him during the last two or three" days. He (~rr. ~relvilk) was never more in accord with the Solicitor-General than he was this eH~ning. Speal~ing from memory, he did not think Parlia-ment. or the late Sir Frederick Sargoo( 1 or the late eminent Dr. Hearn, intenue( { to give a monopoly to the Tramway Com-. pany in the sense now suggested. It seemed extraordinary that 20 years ago he sho~l(l have had some doubt as to the peculIar wav :the amenoing Bill that was hurrie([ thr~ugh then was worded, forbidding the construction of tramwavs in the places named. Apparentl~', however, it occurred to him that it was not quite clear by the Bill that Parliament was safe, and that the company might claim the monopoly which apparently they claimed now. From the assurances given him, both privately and pubficly then. the House would be able: to say what the intention of Parliament really was. If, hO\vc\'er, Parliament had, even" by an accident, given that monopoly. he would ask Parliament to bear th{~ full' responsibility of its action. He was not smoothed down at all at that time, as Mr. Balfour suggested. He must have been given clear evidence that what he was con-tending for was not necessary, and the House certainlv agreed to the resolution to protect the cQuntry from giving a mono-poly. The question was whether Parlia-ment haa given that monopolv. He hafT listened carefully to the legal view put hy the Attornev-General. particularlv that part relating to the right to cross the' company's lines. He had a oistinct recollection on that point. He had no very great feeling in this matter. although he had been adverse to the Bil1s hrought in in those days deal-ing with the Tramway Company. It was pointed out that there were municipalitie~. bevond which would require entrance to the cit", and that the Government would re-fjuire it. ano was the entrance to the city to be finally barred by the C'ompan.y's

1 q~ Sf. KiM(( Electric RaiZ,,'ay [COCXCIL.] Con8[1'lIC/ Ion Bill.

lines? He hac! always supposed that it "as not possiLle to get a tramway into Brunswick, where it had been badly wanted, \ritilont appealing to the Tramway Com-P:ll1Y to make it. He did not wallt to .;uh-ance a word in favour of the tramway monopolY, because he had shmyn that l;e had lx~eil opposed to it all the time. At the time their Act was passed they were a tramway company, but the company subsequentl y transferred all their rights to the trust, which borrowed money on the se-curity of the homes of ,the ratepayers, par-ticul;rh' those who lived in the northern suburbs, and, in the course of time, the tramway properties ,,"ould come into the possessi'on of the trust. This made the position very different to-day, because within ten years tEe ratepayers represented lw the trust would secure this splendid pro-p~'rty free of all charges. The company han put up a reputation for management probahl y not excelled in any part of the worlel. . Thp\' had accomplished a great deal in all tlieY had done in these muni-('ipalitit's. It Iiad been a peacefully man-~tgt'd affair, with no strikes.

Tllt"\ Hon. 'V. J. EVANs.-They had one .;.;trikp.

TIw Hon. D. ~lELVILLE said that .:-;trike -was very short, and probably an un-iust onc. the company deserved every ~Tedit fur management, and tact, and clever-ness on the part of the body of men that had managed their affairs. The company had been an extraordinary example of per-fect management. Hewished he could always ;-;av that of the railways. The proposed r::tllwav between Brighton and st. Kilda was originally simply a Bent railway. It '~3.s brought forward by the .present ~remler simply as the representatlVe ~f Bnghton. That was the Rill he (1\1r. l\feIvIll~) oppos~d t he year before last. It was qUlte a dIf-ferctlt proposal then, and it was proje~ted to run -the line in quite a different duec-lion. The lbilways Standing Committee h:ld ~('ne into the matter and recommended that the St. KiJda line should be the first t~xample of an elertric railway in this State, :l1ld Hhould be continued through Grey-street and round bv 2Vfary-street, and thence to a ('ertain point, -but the idea of the Com-mittee was that it should start from \f el-bourne as an electric line. ~rr. Bent, how-ey"'r, started his own railway project, ar:d ilf'ing :11w3sS a smart and cl.e,cr. fellow m this ki"~d of t:wtlCS, he got h1s BIll thr()ugh ! his HO'Jse. Then the project ,yas found

impracticalJle, so :\lr. Bent fell back on the ycry line recommended by the Railways Standing Committec"-~the one that would be completed by this Bill. The idea uf the Railways Standing Committee was to start froIil ~lelbourne and go round by the beach to get the beach traffic, 3.nd right throud,h ~rary-street. Having changed his opinion, as he sometimes did, the Premier was right at last. This was a railway and not a tramway. When it was before the Rail \rays Standing Committee as a railway there was no OppocltlOn to it. :!.\ oOOdy took up the mongrel kind of thing that was proposed in the private Bill brought forward hy ~rr. Ben I as Ihe representatiYe of Brighton. In the Bill before the House now, the House w0uld be on safe and proper grounds. This railway was to be the first example of an electric railway, with the centralization of the whole suburban system into one power-house and one electric system in view. The stupidity of continuing the present steam system could hardly be described. It would be the greatest piece of folly from an economical point of view, to continue locomotive traction all through the suburbs when the whole thin~ could be done with a troll y wire for an enormous I v decreased cost: He ",as a Socialist to the ex~ent of advo~ating that the Government or the municipalities-the Government if possible --should m"n and work these raihvays. The most remarkable thing in our time was the successful working of the Glasgow mun;cipal electric railway from a socialis-tic point of view. He desired to read from Tlze Fnginecr the following account of it:-

However much we may feel that the work might have well been left to private enterprise, there can be no question, judging from its own report, that the Corporation of Glasgow has so far made a success of its tramways. A copy of the annual report to the end of May last ha~ just reached U3. In it we see that during the year the total income was 764,790 16s. 8d., and the working expenses, including general repairs and maintenance, were 387,r67 9s. 2d., leaving a balance of 177,623 7s. 6d. to be carried, with the addition of 3,II3 5s. interest on surplus revenue, to the net revenue account. The pro-portion of exp::,nses to income works out to some ~o~ per cent. Let us for a moment consider what this would mean were the tramways owned by a company. To actual working expenses there would, of course, have to be added other items of expenditure before the sum available for divi-(lend purposes was obtained. For instance, ,",e find th:1t .t;,434 3S. ,tid. was paid in income ta'X; ;:~,oRo qs. 3d. as rental of the Govan an(J Thro'( tramways; I'r)I~ IS. 4d. to the Paisley District Tramw:tys Comp'my; and 890 18s. 6d. in Par-liamentary expenses. These amount to 12,320

St. Kilda, Elect1'ic Railway [20 SEPT., 1905.J Const1'Uc/ ion Bill. 12S. 6d. Then, again, ,'81,II4 13S. 4d. is written otI for depreciation, and 72,176 19s. IOd. for the permanent way renewals fund. Accepting these three items a!> being what a company would allo cate for the same purposes, we arrive at a sum of 165,612 5s. 8d. Subtracting thi!? .from the net income-38o,736 12S. 6d.-there is a net reo mainder of, say, 215,124. This represents a yield of just over 7~ per cent.

In the case of a private company or a municipality there had to be a depreciation account and a redemption account, but there was nothing of that kind when the Government built a tramway or a railway. The Glasgow tramway had -existed for fi~'e Years. It had halfpenny sections- a man could be rarried a mile for a halfpenny-it ahsolutel y helonged to the people, and after allowing for depreciation, rents, &c., it re-turned a dividend of 7~ per cent. to the pt>oph" To that extent we were all Sorial-ists in the matter of railways or other hig things that could be managed in this way, and give such grand results with such splendid accommodation to the people. He thou!,ht it ,,'as in 1885 that the first electric tramway was started in Americ[I, and how-{"ver late we might be, we should be on right lines here in adopting the electric system. There were some 30,000 miles of electric railways in America alone, and it was found a most luc!ative form of motor power. He war, very glad that a start was being made in the same direction in this country, and he hoped it would not be long before all our suburban lines were run bv electricitv. As honorable members knew, };e had given a great deal of attention to this subject, and had shown that electric traction had proved a great success already, not only on .the continent of Europe and in America, but in other parts of the world. The neighbourhood of Melbourne was an ideal spot for the adoption of an electric system of railwavs, because the ground was verv level. an"d the traffic could be easil~' managed. As showing the advanta!,es of the electric .railway system in other respects, he might read a few lines from articles in the Engz'lleer, showing the effect of the r.ompetition of electric tramways with the railway companies. The writer said-

The c.ompf'tition of the eledric tramway ser-vices, the efTeds of which ,,,"ill probably be ac-centuated in the course of time, has assume'essments upon which the rates are leyietl. It i~ not a question of adding insult to injury, but it seems to be reaching this stage. The fact that the directors of the railway companies an; hecom-in~ aliye to the responsibilities of the ~ituati()n is clearly shown by the speeches delivered by the chairmen in the past fortnight. For instance, :1 t the meeting of the Great 'Western Company, ~Ir. ~\lfred Baldwin stated that the rates and taxe~ showed an increase of over L;l~,OOO in the half-year, and the amount thus paid by the company in the six months was 300,000, or just uuuer 2 per cent. per annum on the ordinary capital. The augmentation, the chairman added, 'Ya,.; almost entirely due to increased poundages, not to increased assessments. The London nnd South-\\' estern railway, as Sir Charles Scotter informed the shareholders, has been compelled to pay an additional sum, exceedin~ . II ,000, the total for the half-year being 134,000. At the meeting of the Great Eastern Company, Lord Claufle Hamil-ton, in referring to the Luge increase in rates anfl taxes, stated that the actual amount f.-aid was 154,000, or oyer 2 per cent. on the :lI

t600 St. Kilda Electric Railway [COUNCIL.] Const1'uction Bill.

discussed in Victoria, the cost of generating the electric current ranged from Id. to about 3d. per Board of Trade unit. To-day he found out in some places the current was produced at a cost of about one-tenth of a penny in large generating stations. The following was an extract from the Engineer for 7th July, 190 5:-

In a modern works with fairly large units, the aver,lge value of the "running cost" per unit generated should not exceed one-fifth of a penny, unless the circumstances are peculiarly adverse. At the Cheltenham \Vorks, which have been running for more than ten years, and which have rather small units, in consequence of both alter-nating and continuous current supply being given, the average value of the "running cost" per unit generated in a certain year was 0.25 pence, according to the second method of estimation described, anrl 0.23 pence according to the third. TIlt' author believes the latter value to be the more nearly correct.

1 t would, therefore, appear that Victoria ,,"as much behind other parts of the world with respect to the adoption of electricity as a motiye power, hut it could not be long lwfore further steps ,rere taken in that (lirection. H'c was glad of this opportunity of bringing the matter once more under the notice of the House .. The mere adoption of electricitv on the St. Kilda line was hardly worth so" much debate, but the subject as ~ whole was most important. The opening of the tramway line to St. Kilda had re-stilted in an irrimediate loss to the Railwav Dt'partment of 10,000 or II,OOO a year on the St. Kilda line alone. It was true that the public got the increased tra-velling convenience, but there was a loss to the country. On the Coburg line there was also a great loss, and the railway to that place was now practically unused by the public, because they were able to travel by tram. In his opinion, all these railway lines could be made to pay by adopting electricity. The present locomotive system on the suburban lines was very wasteful. Parliament appearcrl to be fooling with the question, instead of appropriating the mo-tive power that shoul d be llsed in order to work the railways with advantage to the State. If electricity were used, it was pos-~ible to give the residents of the suburbs a five-minute train service, and the longer that was delayed the greater was the injury to the country.

The Hon. T. C. HARWOOD expressed the opinion that the Attorney-General had lahoured this question to a very considerable extent, and had tried to persuade honorable members that in passing this Bill they were not asked to do something which might oring

a blush of shame to their cheeks. It all came down to the fact that, in the opll11On of that honorable gentleman, section 51 of the Local Government Act did not prohibit these various municipalities from interfer-ing with the rights of the Tramways Trusts. Honorable members, however, should bear in mind the history of this question. A measure authorizing the constitution of such trusts, and! enabling them to go to England or elsewhere in order to raise money to construct tramways, was passed in 1883. It was stated that within three weeks from the introduction of that measure, the Tram-way Co~pany discovered that sufficient pro-tection was not given to it against future op,[osition on the part of other municipali-ties.

The Hon. J. M. DAVIES.-Where is the evidence of that?

The Hon. T. C. HARWOOD said the company would certainly have been very reluctant to go on with the work, and to expend their capital, unless they knew that they were protected against loss by any possible future action on the part of other municipalities. That being so, this particular section was embodied in an amending LocaJ Government Bill which was before Parliament at the time. It was plain to any man,. whether lawyer or lay-man, that that section virtually prohibited anyone from constructing tramways in any municipal district, including the town of Geelong, except as provided by this par-ticular enactment. The Attornev-General seemed to argue that, because the word " prohibited" was not contained in this section, such. opposition was not forbidden by the law; but two eminent ba.rristers had stated emphatically that, in their opinion, there was no doubt on fhe point. They said :-

vVe think it is quite clear that the courts would construe section 51 of Act No. 786 (now section 3 of the Tramways Act 1890) as prohibiting the construction of tramways by anybody within the municipal districts mentioned in thbse two sec-tions.

However. it made very little difference whether that was so or not, because Parlia-ment could come in at any time and remove the prohibition if it really existed. It wa~ not to be supposed for one moment that the hands of Parliament were to be tied for ever, but it was recognised that in legis. lation of this kind Parliament ought to use some kind of protection to aid a corporate body carrying out die particular works in-dicated, so as to prohibit anyone els.e from competing with them until such competition

St. ]{ilJa ElectTlc Railway

became necessary in the interests of the public. If it were then found necessary to alter the law, the original company or cor-poration should be compensated for any loss it sustained. It was only fair that that should be done, and the principle was re-cognised by Parliaments in every part of the world. He did not suppose th~t any honor-able member wished to throw any obstacle in the way of the passing of this particul ar measure, but before long another measure might be brought forward which would be much wider in its scope and encroach on the rights given to these corporations, with the result that eventually their privileges and opportunities might be taken away from them without any reimbursement for the loss the\" had su;tained. No such measure should be passed at all unless the right of compensation was recognised in the event of the rights of property-owners being en-croached upon for the benefit of the public. That was only bare honesty.

The Han. J. M. DAVIEs.-Every honor-able member will agree with that".

The Hon. T. C. HARWOOD said he gathered from what the Attorney-General had said in reply to Mr. Balfour that he himself did not agree with that opinion, and would not recognise it.

The Hon. J. M. DAvIEs.-Because we are not depriving them of any rights.

The Hon. T. C. HARWOOD said the Attorney-General really meant that they had no rights. He (Mr. Harwood) was strongly of opinion that the municipalities were virtually prohibited from competing with the Tramway Company, and that unless that fact were recognised the company would have no encouragement to carryon its oper-ations. Anv measure of this kind should be accompanied by a provision recognising the right of the Tramways Trust to compen.-sation if it could be shown that it was justly entitled to compensation.

The Hon. J. STERNBERG said that he rose to express his con-currence with the principles of the Bill. As a member of the Commission which inquired into. the great question of elec-tricity, and its relation to the r~il;ay ser-vice, he had recognised that in the near future motive power by electricity must have a very material effect in connexion with the railway service. Whilst that was so, he held that it was the duty of honor-able members to protect the Interests of those who had incurred a large expenditure, and undertaken serious obligations to the public in establishing the tramway system, and who had dealt with the tramway ser-

C'onsl1'llction Bill. ItCI

vice in a way that was creditable to its originators and founders. He recognised that the tramway service of ~lelbourne was a real good one, and was not only a con-venience to the public generally, but was a great benefit to the working classes of the community, to whom special facilities for ,transit had been given. It was, indeed, a service of which the citizens were entitled to be extremely proud. At the same time this large commercial concern had not ln~en founded from a purely benevolent motin', but with a view of benefiting the share-holders, and he held that the Tramway Company had no cause for cO'11plaint so far as the particular electric line proposed was concerned. That line wculd not interfere with the present tramway seryice to any degree, and it had to be borne in mind that the Government had to recognise that they had a duty to perform towards the people who would be served bv tbe electric tramway, and a particular duty of the Go-vernment was to make transit as cheap and easy as possible. Turning to Sydney, he found ,that the tramway service there was considerablv cheaper than that of Mel-bourne. This, perhaps, was due to the fact that it was under Goyernment control. At any rate, for a large proportiDn of the sections there, the fare was only T d. Here, whilst the Tramway Company allowed some penny sections, penny sec-tions were not the rule. If it were pos-sible for the directors of the ~Ielbourne Tramway Company to give consideration to that fact, and extend the system of penny sections, they would be conferring a bene-fit on the people of the metropolis, and at the same time would enhance their own income by creating a much increased pas-senger traffic. Of course, he held very strongly that Parliament should not, in the slightest degree, interfere with the vested interests which the l\Ielbourne Tramway Company possessed for a certain time, but it was within a measurable distance when the tramway service would be handed over to the municipalities. K oting that cir-cumstance, he thought that no injustic(~ would be done to the companv by the pass-ing of this Bill. In Committee, the mea-sure might be altered in a slight degree, with a view of making it eyen better than it was now, but he would reserve what he had to say in that regard till a future stage, and would now give way to other gentlemen whom he knew desired to speak~ and who would sl?eak from a practical point of view. He would conclude by saying

a 6uz St. Kilda Electric Railway [C01;~CIL.] Construction Bill.

that he intended to vote for the second read-ing of the Bill.

The Han. W. J. EVANS remarked that he wished to say a few words on the mea-sure. On the occasion when the Bill for the construction of ,the line from Brighton to the Village Belle Hotel was before the

HOUSt~, he opposed the proposal, on the ground that the line would not pay with-out robbillg the Brighton line of a COtl-~ideraLle portion of its receirts, and also became the line, as then projected, would unly act as a feeder to the Tramway Com-pany's system. The Minister in charge of that Hill, of course, made out as good a ('a~e as he possibly could for it, but it \\as allmitted that that line woulll not have Ill'en built had it gone before the Railwavs Standing Committee. The fact that tIle l'stimated expenditure was limited to about 19,000, made it a proposal which was not necessary to go before that Committee. X I..>W the proposal before them was for an ,;::x~f!nsion of that line, and that was onf! 'which, being 111 the interests of the com-Jllunity, honorable members should assist to I lass. - He was pleased to observe that the ;..;auge of the line had been altered from 4ft. 8~in. to Sft. 3in., thus bring-i I1g it into conformit\" with the St. Kilda r:lihray. This was ,,"ise, for if the ne,Y J ille was to oe of any use and value to tlw community generaliy, it had to be con-l1t'I'ted with the St. Kilda railway. This point was the more important, in view of the il1kntion to electrify the, St. Kilda railway I ty "Tay of experiment. An argument use~l ~1 ~;-tinst :the Bill was that it would act detri-l11t'ntalh- to the interests of the Tramwa," Company. Dr. Embling had spoken on 1h!~ subject as a ratel)ayer, and from a l1el-l)j}urne ratepayer's point of view, but hon-(ILl hIe members ought to deal with the qUt:'stion at issue from a higher stancl-llltint, and have regard to what was lwst in the interests of the country at large. To say rt:hat they should allow a larg~ amount of money to be expended in the making of the line from Brighton to the Yillage Belle Hotel. and to allow that line to remain umemunerative, and to merely a('t as a feedl'f to a private tramway com-p~ny, would be altogether out of reason. ?\[r. Harwood had said that the Attornev-Gtneral seemed to labour a great deal in jntroducing the Bill, and to have blushed. If there was to be any blushing, it should 1 If' on the fare of an" one who said that the interests of the countrv should stand aside for the benefit of a private company.

Another point that was made by Dr. Emb-ling was that English money had Leen sunk in our tramways. Did not the honorable member overlook the fact that English money was also sunk in our railways? Surely it was of much more importance that we should see that the money ex-pended on the national railways should prove remunerative, than the monev in~ vested in the tramways. He had nothing whatever to say against the tramwav man-agement; it had been a successful con-cern, and when it was inaugurated it was perfectly up-ta-date. He thought that at present our tramwavs were very far behind when compared wit-h the Q~eensland or Kew South Wales electric tramways. Everv one would admit that the electric tramway's were very much in advance of our tram-ways.

The Hon. J. M. PRATT. - Are we to change the system every year?

The Hon. W. J. EVAXS.-Certainlv net, nor should we stand still because a company had been business-like enough to obtain a monopoly.

The Hon. J. )1. PRATT.-Would you let the contract run out?

The Hon. W. J. E VAX S said he would not do anything jn the way of repudiation, for that would be doing something that would injure the property of the munici-palities. I t was not this particular section of railway that the Melbourne Tramwav and Omnibus Company and the municl-palities had in view so much as the fact that it might be extended, and might cut into their profits. As far as that was con-cerned, he thought they would have a very fair case, because the people must take into consideration the fact that these tram-ways would fall into the hands of the municipalities in eleven years' time. If it was proposed to run electric tramwavs parallel with these lines, and create a co~petition that would be disastrous to both, it would require the consideration of everv member-as to whether that should be done or not. The Bill simply provided for the extension of a line that had already been authorized. Had it been proposed to retain the 4ft. 8~in. gauge, he would have considered whether it would be ad-visable or not to make the extension. It was in the interests of the communitv that the line should be extended, and he thought their interests should be studied Lefore that of a private company, pfiOvided that there

St. ](ilda Etc:ct1'IC Railwa,lf

was no breach of contract, and that no in-jury was done to the private individual. The Atto;:-ney-General had put the matter very fairly before the House, and had put both sides of it. ~lr. Harwood too had made out a very good case. l\lembers could onlv listen to the various arguments, and fornl their own conclusions. He spent an hour and a-half with a gentleman who was a strong advocate for retaining the rights of the municipalities, and left him with the impression that they had a sort of vested right. After studying the matter over sub-sequently, he came to the conclusion, with the . Attornev-General, that, while thev thought the~' had a right, the)~ had n~) right to a monopoly such as thev claimed to have. It was stated bv ~Ir. Balfour that, if the lines were cro~sing, it would put things in a different aspect. These lines would not run parallel, though the prcposed railway would cross the Tramway Company's line. He could not understand why objections could be raised to this pro-posal. He was told bv an hono:-able mem-1 JE'r, who passed the Village Belle repeat-edl v, that he had never seen more than half -a-dozen passengers get in the trams at that place. It was evident that this pro-posed line would not injure the ~relh()urne Tramway and Omnibus Company. vVhen the line was proposed last session, not a word \vas said about the interest of the ~Ielbourne Tramwav and Omnibus Com-panv, bE'cause it wa's evident that the linE', as then authorized, would be a feeder to the tramway.

An HONORABLE ~rE:MBER,-The company did not ask for it.

The Han. W. J. EVAXS said he did not approve of the method in which this I inc was made. If the proper method had been adopted, the line already authorized would not have been authorized. That line, togdher with the extension now proposed, w()uld cost more than the minimum pro-vided by the Railways Standing Committee A.r.t, and should, therefore. have been re-ferred to the Railways Standing Committee. That body would, no doubt, have reported that it was not desirable to construct the line at all. The St. Kilda railway was, at one time, one of the best paying lines in the suburbs; but when the cable tramway \\;\s made to the Esplanade it interfered. "ith the traffic of the railway. A return pre-pared showed that the decrease in the revenue for the St. Kilda railway in 1902-3 'was 21,219, The Railways Standing

Committee reporteu on this mattu, an(1 stated-

~\voiding the "boom" years, .',nu t:~dudillt!: ::\Iiddle Park, whidl i~ not expo~ed to cable tram-way competition, the average pa~scnger receipts for 1884'5 and 18~5-6 on that line were :-Out, ,,,uds 33,329, and inwards 19,05.3, or 52,382 per annum. The outwards pa~senger revellue for 1d tl) ~Ielbourne. If the line 'H're (-'x-tended to Port :\Ielbourne, people wOllld not patronize it, because of the Lreak of gauge, which "'ould compel tlWnl to change at l>ort :\Ielbourne. He ,YOllld support the Bill, but really, if t11t~ inte-rests of the country were considered, t !1e lint' ,,"auld not have bef'n proposed at all.

The Hon. J. ~I. PRATT said he de-sired tv inform the House that neither the ~relbourne Tramways Trust nor the ~re1-bourne Tramway a'nd Omnibus Company' "'ere offering any factious opposition TO the Bill. Thev ('ould understand, if Par-liament desired it, that it was not their duty to stand in the way. The only point was as to w hether injury might not be done to the C'Ompany. Some honorable mem-bprs had argued that, if the company C'Ould show that their interests were material Iv affected by this line, some compensation should Le granted. That was a matter that might arise in the future, and it was within the scope of Parliament to deal with it. The Attorney-General had bn'n arguing in reference to the elmsj ," .. wi if'JI of this line. and as to how the trust ,,-{Hll d stand, Did any honorable gl'nt1em;\ll suppose that the English money lenritT would lend 1,600,000 without some s,'-curity? Did any honorable member Sll')-lx)se that the mere fact of runm!lg tramways up certain streets was sec-unt:-' enough to the money lender? That w::.:

d 60+ St. liild(L Elecb'LC Railway [COUXCIL.] Construction Bill.

the explanation as to why the amendment was made in the Act of Parliament which excluded certain municipalities, and that was only a reasonable and proper thing to do. The power to construct tramways in the streets of the municipalities would not be sufficient to induce anyone to lend this enormous sum of mone~. That was a reason that ought to be well weighed by honorable members. He Lelieved it was l\t[r. Sternberg who spoke about the Sydney tramway svstem. The honorable mem-ber ought t; be wide awake enough to know that the Sydney system was quite different from the 'Melbourne system.

The Hon. J. STERNBERG.-I said so. The Hon. J. 1\1. PRATT said that the

system in Sydney \Vas constructed by the Government, and if there was any defi-dency, the ratepayers had to make it up. There was one thing that the honorable member had not allowed for. The honor-a.ble member said he was quite sure that if the company reduced fares and made cer-tain sections they would earn more money. How could the honorable member offer that opinion when he knew nothing about the matter?

The Hon. J. STERNBERG.-Do vounot issue balance-sheets? .

The Hon. J. ?\f. PRATT said thrut that was correct, but honorable members had to look further than that. The honorable member ought to know that there were certain obli-gations on the trust which must be met. There were certain obligations on the com-pany which had to be met, and which he {Mr. Pratt) had explained over and over again. The company had to make a first charge on its receipts for a sinking fund in order that this matr.nificent property might he handed over to the municipali-ties. The honorable member never thought of that, but appeared to think Ithat the tramways could be run on the same lines as a Government tramway, which had no responsibility to anyone except to Parlia-n1f'nt. If the Svdnev tramwavs had to set aside a sinkin~ fun(( and pay int~rest and m~t all other charges, the honorable mem-ber's tone would be very different, and he would then recognise that the Melbourne Tramway Company was managed on proper lines. and that it was his duty to support it. There was another point. Reference had been made to the arrangements in con-nexion with the competition between the St. Kilda railway and the tramway, and it was said that the tramway had benefited to

the extent of about 20,000 per annum. The honorable member had not that point altogether right. The company had been bold enough to open up the traffic by going to the Esplanade, and they did not require some one else to pioneer those lines. The Government let the private company find out the wav and show how traffic could be ~.ained, and then they said to the company, " We have lost .20,000 through your doing this." But it would be another matter if allowance was made for the natural in-crease of traffic through settlement and other causes. I t was assumed that because the railway receipts had gone back 20,000 the company had taken that money. That was altogether wrong. Middle Park was a new settlement, which had been formed through travelling facilities having been provided. If proper facilities for travelling were provided, the people would soon settle along the line. Were honorable members satisfied that the electric tramway would do this? The question of the construction of jthe line had never been referred to the Railways Standing Committee, and that was the sting of the whole affair. If the matter 'had heen referred to the Railways Stand-ing Committee the committee w~uld have reported as to the population, and what the probable receipts would be. But in 0011-nexion with the Bill it was merely said " Here is a terminus, and here is a starting point. " The line would run through cer-tain streets which were already partly occu-pied by the tramways. He would point out to honorable members that there was a summer and a winter traffic. The winrt:er traffic was no good to anyone. The cab-men would not barely live upon it, much less a tramway. During the summer time the people of the northern suburbs desired to get a sniff of the sea air, and that made them travel to St. Kilda on summer even-ings and nights. The traffic had been en-couraged and huilt up by providing facili-ties for this, and he maintained that in this respect the tramways had benefited the peo-ple. Special fares had been provided for so that people could go ri~ht through from the northern suburbs to the beach. The Tramway Company had virtually developed the traffic, and it was on these lines that the company had done well and ought to do well. He did not think it was necessary to take up much time in discussing the Bill. He had intended to refer to what had been stated by counsel, and the Attorney-Gene-ral's statement with regard to that, but he (Mr. Pratt) was not in the House at the

,')'t. Kilda BlertJ'ic Railway [20 SEPT., 1905.J Construction Bill. 1605

time the Attornev-General read the opmIOn. He unde~stood, however, that the text of wh3Jt the Attorne\'-General Tead would be printed. The Attor-ney-General's opinion and counsel's opinions controverting that ought to be put on record. On the whole, he would say to the Government, "Make your rail-\\'a \'." He supposed it must be called a raihvay. "~Iake your railway j we do not stand in your way." If, however, there \\"ere to be electric tramways or railways running alongside the E'xisting tramways in every street, how was the company to earn ~l return on the creditors' money, and on the money of the shareholders? ' He thought that this was most un fair competition, and competition of a kind that the State should not undertake. The matter should have heen investigated hy the Railways Standing (~ommittee. The Tramway Company would JlDt stand in the \Va", He was sure 'that the company, by prol;t~r management, would alwa\s do well.

The Hon. W. CALX remarked that he was very reluctant to say much on this sub-ject, because he was so intimately connected with the Tramway Company, but he desired to make a few remarks with reference to what had fallen from the Attorney-General. He (~l r. Cain) was a director of the com-pany when the work was first undertaken, and legal opinions were obtained before the neg~tiations for money were entered upon, as It was thought that the security was a litt Ie weak in respect of the opposition which might be broug,ht into the streets. The Attorney-General stated that he en-tirely differed with the opinions of the two counsel that had been submitted to the House. It was said that doctors differed, hut so also did lawvE'rs. It was a case of the Attorne\--Gene~al 's opinion arrainst the ?pinion of two leading counsel, and also ::lgamst, he might say, the honorable gen~ tIeman's legal father-the gentleman, he understood, who had given him his jntroduction to the law. The question of introducing this clause into the Local Go-vernmel1lt Bill was ('onsidered and was well thought over, and it was inserted there spe-ciall y to protect the ('ompany. It was, per-haps. never contemplated that it would be discllssed in the manner which it was now, and from the point of view in which it had heen this evenin;.r.. He would repeat what had heen stated hy other honorable mem-tiers, and that - was that the com-11any were not desirous of following a dog-in-the-manger course, but he

thought that if the company made out a fair case it should be recognised. If this Bill was allowed to pass, it would r~sult. in inroads on the company in other dIrectIons, not that the question affected the company as much as the municipalities, be-cause the company's tenancy would expire in ten years. It was more a municipal ques-tion than a question concerning the com-pany. He did not think it was quite ne-cessarv for the Government to undertake the construction of this line, which they called a railway. If the question ha;1 been investigated by the Rail wa ys Standing Committee, the committee might have asked why it was necessary to run -a line parallel to the Brighton railwav. There was a necessity, perhaps, for;' tramway to con-venience the lowel" end of Brighton, and the sl-,ction. \\-here reclamation works were going on, but to think that there was traf-fic for a railway was absurd. Those localities could be well sen-ed bv the elec-tric tram,,'ay to the Village Belle. It was said that the Tramway Company did not offer any objection to that. The company did not, because the Premier waited oil them, and: asked them to undertake the car-riage of ,passengers. The compan.y felt that thev had a case, and if they had, and it was j10ssibie to recognise it, 'it was de-sirable that that should be done.

The Hon. M. CUSSE~ stated ~hat he did not intend to sav much on this Bill. After hearing that the company was not opposing this line, he thought he need say very little about the matter. From what he could see, the Government, if left in power much longer, would change the whole aspect of the city of Melbourne and its suburhs. If there was to be a surplu~ every year, he did not know what would happen to the city. He knew of parts of the country where a portion of the sur-plus revenue ('ould very well be e:liipend~'d.

The Hon. "V, CAIN.-Income tax sur-plus.

The Hon. )I. C1JSSEN said that the country was prosperous, and there was a surplus, and the Gm-ernment \"ere going to use it to make marvellous Melhourne more marvellous still hy carrying out pro-jects for tramways and electric railways; and, in fact, alterin~ the whole aspect of the citv and suhurbs. He believed that in the cOllrse of three or four years the Pre-mier would make such alte-rations in the city rt:hat it would stand as a monument to hi; glory. There was not a swamp that the honorable gentleman was not filling up,

1606 St. Kildo Ele(~tJ'ic Ruih()(ty [COGXCIL.] COllstntction Bill.

nUll thew ,,,as not a localitv to which he did not propose to ('onstruct -a tramway.

The Hon. T. C. HARWOOD_- -And he- is to do the work with his own bricks.

The Hon. :\1. CUSSEX said that he was not finding fault with the Government, as he understood there was no objection to the Hill. He would like to see the Gm'ern-ment make more rail \Va ys in the countr), and assist the producers out of the surplus revenue, instead of running in opposition to the splendid system of tramways. There ,rere many places in which the Premier ('ould spend money on such projects as this without opposition, and, indeed, with the approbation of the whole countrv, and he therefore might spend the surpl~s revenue in other directions than in running in op-IX)sition to the Tramway Company.

The Hon. E. ~IILLER remarked that it secmed to be the habit of Parliament, dur-ing late years, to 'pass Acts in one session and ignore them in two or three years afterwards. Honorable members were told last session, when they passed the Jirst por-tion of this line, that there was no need to refer the project to the Railways Stand-ing Committee, because the cost would not exceed 20,000. But since the House passed that measure the railway or tramway was to be carried on further, at an addi-tional expense of 8:000 or 10,000. Surely this railway from Brighton to St. Kilda should first of all have had the sanc-tion of the Railways Standing Committee. [n n'!'ll)pet to this matter, the committee seemed to have been entirely ignored. He did not know what the members of the committee would haye to say about 1t. Vvith rl'gard to Act Xo. 786 (t11(' Local Go-n'rnnwnt Art Further Amendment Act), it seemed to him to be as dear as dt'ar coulel ht~ that the intention was that tramways Illig-ht be constructed in anv municipal dIS-trict (~xc{'pt at St. Ki1da- and the other suI'urban municipal districts ",hich were mentioned in section 5 I of that Act. The Gm'ernment now called this tramwav a railwaY, but he did not know whv {t should be called a railway at all. It would 1)f' better if the Government called it an electric tramway. It looked as if th:e object of the Government in calling it a railway was to get over the special provision of the Local Government Act which was framed' with th~ view of protecting the existing tramways of the Melbourne Tramwav and Omnibus Company. The House had passed the Brighton tramway on condition that it ywuld stop at the Village Belle Hotel,

,,-here the Tram,,-ay Comrany 'Hmld takt-on its passengers to the St. K ilda H .. li! \Y~i\ Statj~m. The Gon'mment asked thl' (\; lmllan-\ what the fare would be for this, and a \-er~ low fare, a penny, was stated by th~ coni-pany as all it would charge to conn~y the passengers on to St. Kilda. The matter ,';as supposed to be sdtled, and, '~onSl'(lUently, the Council passed the electric tramway without any objfction. ~ O\y a1l at on,~e they heard that the arrangements \\'(!re to lJ.e ,Put on one side without consult:llg the Tramway Company at all. vVoulc1 it not have been better if the Government had consulted the Melbourne Tram,,-a', Com-pany? If negotiations had gone - on, h~ OIr. :\Iiller) believed that the company would have carried the passengers from the Village Belle to St. Kilda without an\' charge whatewr to the Rail way Departmerit sooner than have this opposition tramway or railway. The Government had consulted with the -brick companies instead of carry-ing out Goyernment brick,Ymks, as ,,,as originally intended, and he (~fr. ?I!il1er) thought it would haye been far better if a similar course had been taken in connexion with the Trawmay Conwany. The Yes ted in-terests of that company, however, had bE'Pl1 entirelv set aside. The Local Gm'emment Act had been read in a way to suit tIle GoYernment, and the {'Qnsequence W:1S that thp.v had brought in this Bill for a so-C"allt'd raihyav which was reallv a tram,Yay. The Tramway Company had gone to vei-~ 1arr:t~ {'xr:ense to construct tl1fir tram lines~ and they had certainly looked UDon the provisiutl in the Local Goyernment Act as !)}-otl~till~ them from opposition. If that proyisinI1 did not exist, would the company have huilt the tram lines? The directors consistt'd of good business men, who would not 1 ak{' :t leap in the dark, and in his (:\lr :\ filler -s) opinion, we would have had no tramW:1',;-; whatcn.r had it not been for the protec6i}:) of the provision in the Local Gm\:rnmel:t Act. The Tramway Company weft- 1l,'W PTfJ-testing against the action of the (;OVeT1l-ment, and no wonder. How could th~ Council pass such a J}ill as this without f] rst repealjn~ or amending that sectio1l? He (:\1r. ::\Iiller) would vote against tl:i~ Bill, unless the Government intended to bring in another measure to repeal the St":-tion in the Local Government Act ,yhich ex-pressly 'protected the Tramway Company against opposition. Dnless something (:f that sort were done, if they went again.~t existing rights and injured a company lib. the Tram,,-ay Company, he certainly thougilt

St. Kild(J, Elect1'ic Rnilway

some acknowledgment should be made to 1J1C company in the way of compensation, t'n~n if it were only a small sum. He did not know whether this special electric rail-way would take very much away from the Tramway Company. He Jid not suppose i1: would, but in any case the company \\ 'lS tntitled to some acknowledgment. Mr. E yans had pointed out that the company, I.v its line to St. KilJa Esplanade, had t~ken a large amount from the St. Kilda rail way, and the honorable member seemed to tllink that the company had been already compensated in that waYl but he ph. '\1iller) would point out that the company took a risk in constructing that line. The Government did not continue the railway to the Esplanade, and the Tramway Company were entitled to any beneflts they had got from the constmction of their line to the Lleach. As this Bill really interfered with the Railways Standing Committee, and also '\ jtlt the vested intef{~~ts of the Tramway (~(jm1)any, he saw a difficulty in supporting j!: :1t- all: -

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

and committed. Clauses I to I I were agreed to. On clause J 2, nrov;ding tha~ the line of

railwav from the St. Kilda Railwav Stat~"_n to the 'commencement of the St. Kilda and Hrighton electric street railway should be constructed on the gauge of Sft. 3in., and that the St. Kilda and Brighton electric --tn'pi railway should be constructed on a 1 ike gaugt', riotwithstanding anything to the (I.ntrary in tIlt' St. Kilda and Brighton }.It'ctrie Street Railway Act 1904,

The Hon. VV. CAIN asked the Attorney-(; .... neral if he could give an\' information why the ga.uge should be comnerted to a ." ft. 3in. gauge? The gauge of the tram-,,-avs in most parts of Great Britain and Arnerica. and in :vIelbourne was 4ft. 8~in. 'He thought that when exto2n~ions and con-'J1t'xions ha.d to be made, the 5ft. 3in. gauge \youlcl be found to be a mistake. Was there any special reason why this should be a Sft. 3in. gauge?

Tho2 Han. J. :\1. DAVIES sJid he llncier-;.;loon t11a.t Sft. 3in. was the gauge of the Yidorian railways, and this electric street r:1.ilway was to be part of the railway sys-tt'm. It was a continuation of the St. Kilda. railway, hut if there was a break of ,i.:a.uge the trains to St. Kilda would not be :11,Ie to run along this line.

The Hon. W. CAlX remarked that if it -"as contemplated to run locomotiyes over

ConstT'llction Bill.

the whole of this line, of course the Sft. 3in. gauge was necessary; but the tramways of Melbourne and the suburbs were on a 4ft. 8!in. gauge. A second gauge was always looked upon amongst railway people with disfavour.

The Hon. J. M. DAVIES.-A second gauge?

The Han. W. CAIN said that this was really a tramway. The Bill might call it a railway, but that was only a misnomer--only throwing dust in the eyes of the lwqple.

The Hon. D. MELVILLE said this line was to be an electric railway, not a tram-way. This electric railwav was a mere ex-ten-sian of the St. Kilda railwa.y, nothing more-the extension originall \' suggestf'd bv the Railways Standing Committee. It was not a tramway at all. The Rail \Ya \ s Standing Committee did not rpcommf~nd -it as a tram,YaY, hut as an extension of the St. Kilda line. As to the runn.ing of lom-motives, the new ellCctrical engineer s:J.id he would be able to run the ordinary loco-motives along this line. This eJect;ic rail-way would be constructed at a very reason-able cost, and it would be a great addition to the railway sen-lce. If it had bf'f'll a tramway, th~re would haye to be regula-tions about fares, &c .. but, as he had a 1-ready said, this was merely an extf'nsion of the St. Kilda railwav.

The Hon. W. CAI~ said that the St. Kilda and Brighton Electric Street R.'lil way Bill which passed last s~ssion prO\'id,~d for the line from Brighton to the Village Belle being on 4ft. 8~in. gauge. X ow it was pro-posed to wipe that out and make the wholl" line a Sft. sin. gauge.

The clause was agreed to, as were also the remaining clauses and the schedule, and the Bill was reported without amendment.

On the motion of the Han. J. M. DAVIES, the Bill was then r-cad a third time, and passed.

FACTORIES LA\V COXSOLIDATIO~ BILL.

On the Orclt~r of the Day for the H'SlFTl,P-tion of t he debate (adjourned f ,( 1m VI' ('d-nesday, August 23), on the Hon. J. ~r. Davies' motion for the second reacLng of this Bill, . The Hon. D. MELVILLE said he ,YOuld suggest that the debate should be resumed next week.

The Hon. J. 1\1. DAVIES said the de-bate had been already adjourned for a fort-night to enable members to read the Bill,

1608 Factm'ies Law [COUXCIL.] Consolidation Bill.

~nd he could not consent to a further ad-journment at such an early hour.

The Hon. D. ~I.EL VILLE said some of the business on the notice-paper had been postponed, and certain members, including Dr. Embling, had gone away. as they were not expecting this measure to come on to-night. Other business could be gone on with.

The PRESIDEKT. - The honorable member is in possession of the Chair in the sl,cond-reading debate.

The Hon. D. MEL VILLE said he had not with him the notes he had prepared on the Bill, still he had no obiection to con-tinue the debate if members wer~ to bl~ pressed into it in this way. He had ex-pected, for a long time, an opportunity of explaining to the House some of the defects of this legislation, but the onl y thing now left for him 'would be to discuss them in Committee. Still he did not hold himself responsible for the Bill in anv case. He heard of a great many more amendments of this Bill coming up as soon as it was passed. If that was so, it would be \\'ell to hold the Bill oyer for a little while longer to ascertain what those amendments were. If the Bill was to be passed right away, and no notice was to be taken of what was coming up afterwards, at any rate it should be made still experimental for another one, two, or three years. The legislation was still in its experimental stage. There were great and heavy complaints about annoy-aI1('es, about inspectors, and so on. He was not prepared to say whether they were corrt"ct or not. There appeared to be con-tinued complaint in some instances.

The Hon. T. C. HARWOOD said that when the Bill was introduced, honorable members were told that it was a mere con-solidation of the existing law, and the de-bate was postponed for a time, to give mem-bers an opportunity of comparing the Bill with the ex:sting law, and seeing that no alterations had been made. He had taken a little trouble, not so much as he would haye liked to take, but so far as he had looked into it, he was bound to say that the Bill appeared to be merely a re-enactmen.t of the law as it stood at present. He had not heard of any great objection on the part of any portion of the public to the re-enactment of an" of the conditions that were put into the exist-ing Acts, but he was altogether with ~Ir. Melville that the Bill should not be passed as a permanent measure. This legisla-tion had been on trial for three years.

Honorable members were told that it was approved of, but they did hear c)m-plaints occasionally from some quarters as to some portions of it, and they heard also of an intention in different qu~rters to bring in further amendments. It would, therefon~, he in the interest of the public to continue to pass this legislation merely as a temporary measure. The time had not arrived for it to be a permanent measure upon the st:t-tute-book. If it was continued for three years longer that would be everytl1ing that could possiLly be required in the in-terest of the public, and would be safe- guarding the position in the event of fresh legislation being introduced shortly after this Bill had been passed.

TIlt' Hon. A. ~IcLELLAX remarked that he was pleased that the Government had brought in a Bill to consolidate th:~ Shops and Factories Acts, :u:td to r bee permanently on the statute-boak the fac-tories legislation. He did not agree with all that apreared in the Factories Acts, as: they existed ~t present. There were some things in them that he would like to see out, and some things out of them that he would like to see in. He dared say that some of those who held very differ~nt opinions from his 'were in the same position. This legislation had been in existence for a num-ber of years now. I t had had a fair tri al and the cdnsensus of opinion among the public generally was that it should be placed permanently on the. statute-book. The Attorney-General had poll1tcd out that there had been no strikes in Victoria siurC' this legislation had been brought into opera-tion, and that, if nothing else, should be a very strong recommendation for its perman-ent enactment. In the butchering trade, with which he was connected, the best of feelings existed between the masters and the men. There had never been in the historv of the trade as good a feeling existing as' at pre-sent. At the annual picnic of the journey-men butchers, the president and other lead-ing members of the ~Iaster Butchers' Asso-ciation were present. and testified to the good feeling existing between them and their employes. Others had told him that they ,,"ould on no account revert to the old state of things that existed prior to the introduc-tion of factory legislation. This applied to other trades as well. It should be a convincing proof to those who had, in tlw past, so persistently opposed legislation of this character. It had been stated in the past by many people, and particularly by memLers of this Hou::.e, that legislation of

Fact01'ies Law [20 SEPT., 1905.J Omsolidation Bill.

this kind had a great tendency to restrict trade by preventing the investment of capi-tal, but it was well known that the number of operatives in different trades in ~reIbourne, under this legislation, had incrt'ased from 40,000 to something oYer 60,000, or by 50 per cent. This proved that this legislation had not had that tendency to restrict trade. He trusted that the mea-sure would be placed permanently on the statute-book, and that later on, this session if possible, there would be an opportunity of having amendments introducer 1 that would make it more in accord with the opinions of honorable members.

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

and committed-the Hon. J. Balfour in the chair.

On clause I, which was as fo11o\\'s-This Act may be cited as the Factories and

Shops Act 1

1610 Factrwies Law [COUXCIL.] Consolidation Bill.

'House would be making a great mistake if i-t did not accept the Bill, and then, if an\' amendment \vere desired afterwards, it could be dealt with on its merits. Th~ Hon. T. C. HARWOOD said the

Attorney-General seemed very anxious il~deed to persuade honorable n1C'll1bcrs that It would be better to pass this Bill as a per-manent measure, so as to keep tbe law exactly as it was previously. As a matter of fact, however, it was not exactly the same Bill as Lefore, because the provision limiting its operation to three years was omitted. In his opinion, it would facili-tate the settlement of the whole question if it were decided that the measure should come up again for review at a stated pe-riod. Referen