diately. Though seventy-five years of age, M. de Lesseps continued to take the most active interest in his undertaking, and was even more sanguine of success than he was of the Suez Canal. He calculated that 8,000 men might construct the canal, which will be forty-six miles in length, in six years (the Suez Canal is 110 miles in length), the necessary machinery occupying a year and half to make, and there being no engineering difficulties in the way of construction. Others estimated twelve years. Opinion differed as to whether this great enterprise was likely to pay eventually, but time and the development of the South American Republics can alone solve the question. It will no doubt bring this country into more direct communication with New Zealand and the Fiji Islands; the dangerous navigation of the Southern Seas will be avoided; and it will open up commerce along the western coast of America. It is not so certain, however, that the Panama Canal will divert the general stream of traffic between England and the Antipodes from its present course; for, whilst the distance between London and Sydney is nearly the same via Panama or via Suez, the steamers of the Orient Company now perform the voyage round the Cape in as short a time, and avoid the heavy charges of transit through the Canal. The immediate effect of commencing the Canal will be to give an impetus to trade in Mexico, Central America, the neighbouring South American States, and the West Indies, and advantages will follow from the attraction of labour and capital to the scene of operations.

At the close of the year most of the low-priced South American securities were in favour in the London market, and the projected Panama Canal was already spoken of as full of promise.

CHAPTER X.

AUSTRALASIA.

I. VICTORIA.

THE political history of Victoria during the past year was marked by such extraordinary fluctuations in public opinion that we have to look beyond the questions immediately before the constituencies for some explanation for the inconsistencies which appear on the surface. For the last seven years the question of Constitutional Reform had more or less occupied attention; and the necessity of preventing, if possible, the recurrence of deadlocks by bringing the Upper House, or Legislative Council, more into accord with public opinion, had been admitted by the leaders of both parties. Mr. Graham Berry, and the party he represented, were returned at the General Election in 1877 by large majorities, for the special purpose of settling this question. Ineffectual attempts had been made to obtain the consent of Parliament to a Bill by which matters at issue between the two houses should be submitted to a plebiscitum, and early in 1879 an embassy, consisting of Mr. Graham Berry and Professor Pearson, a member of the Legislative Assembly, was dispatched to England with a view of conferring with the Imperial authorities upon the subject, and to obtain, if possible, an enabling Act by which certain alterations in the Constitution of the Colony might be effected on the sole authority of the popular branch of the Legislature. This mission proved a failure, the Home authorities declining to interfere in what they deemed a purely party question, and one which the responsible Government of the Colony was bound to deal with in a legal and constitutional manner. Parliament reassembled on June 20, 1879, and the Governor's speech notified that at the earliest possible moment the Ministry would again submit a measure dealing with the question of Constitutional Reform. The object of the Bill would be to secure the final adjustment of the legislative functions of both Houses of Parliament, and thus terminate the frequent recurrence of deadlock and protracted legislative delays, which in the past had proved so disastrous to the prosperity of the Colony. The Bill was brought in on July 22, the Premier explaining its principal provisions: viz., 1st-that immediately a resolution from the Committee of Supply had been reported to and adopted by the Assembly, the money granted by the resolutions should be legally available; 2nd-that the Constitution of the Council should be so altered as to render it a nominated instead of an elective chamber; and 3rd-that in all cases when a Bill had been passed by the Assembly and rejected by the Council in two consecutive annual sessions, it should then be submitted to the

people for their decision by means of a plebiscitum. After a lengthened debate, the second reading of the Bill was carried on September 25, by fifty to twenty-eight votes. In committee, the clause defining when money should be legally available was amended by the insertion of a proviso that an Appropriation or Supply Bill must first be rejected by the Legislative Council or left unpassed for one month before a resolution could be proposed in the Assembly to render money voted legally available. The third reading of the Bill was carried by forty-three votes to twentyeight, but as the absolute majority of the House was required, the measure was practically lost, and was withdrawn by the Government. Mr. Berry then applied to the Governor for a dissolution, which was granted, on the understanding that the appeal to the country should be made with no unnecessary delay.

It was under these circumstances that the year opened and Parliament reassembled after Christmas, on January 20, and, having passed the Estimates and Appropriation Bill, was dissolved on February 9. The elections for the New Parliament took place on the 28th of the same month. The programmes submitted by the party leaders differed on material points, but the question of Constitutional Reform was recognised by both as the test question before the electors. Mr. Berry's programme included the withdrawal of the nominee principle proposed in the Bill of 1879, the plebiscitum and the claim under which money might be made legally available by the vote of the Assembly alone being the initial features of the new measure. The Opposition leader, Mr. James Service, contented himself with denouncing the introduction of the plebiscitum as dangerous and foreign to the ideas of a British Constitution, and affirming that the second portion of Mr. Berry's scheme could only be regarded as a proposal to establish a financial despotism in favour of a partisan majority in the House, ignoring at the same time the claims of the Council and the minority in the Assembly. The result of the appeal to the country was the defeat of Mr. Berry's Administration, the Opposition securing forty-nine seats as against thirty-seven won by the Ministerialists. One member of the Ministry-the Attorney-General, Sir Bryan O'Loghlan,-only was defeated. Immediately the results of the polling became officially known Mr. Berry tendered his resignation, and Mr. James Service, the leader of the Opposition, formed the following Ministry: President and Treasurer, James Service; Chief Secretary and Minister of Education, Robert Ramsey; Attorney-General, G. B. Kerferd; Minister of Justice, John Madden; Minister of Railways, Duncan Gillies; Minister of Lands, John Gavan Duffy; Minister of Public Works, Thomas Bent; Commissioner of Customs and Postmaster-General, Henry Cuthbert; seats in the Cabinet without office, J. G. Francis and R. S. Anderson. Some surprise was expressed by both parties at the personnel of the Service Administration, but their re-election was unopposed. The Premier, in addressing his constituents at Malden

early in March, indicated the policy he intended to pursue on the Reform question. The plebiscitum was to be set aside, and harmony of action between the two Chambers would be sought by endeavouring to popularise the Upper House by reducing the qualification of electors and members. A rather startling statement was made at the same time with regard to the position of the finances, Mr. Service computing the deficiency in the estimated revenue at no less than 644,000l., or equivalent to about 33 per cent. of the entire revenue derived from taxation. Parliament did not meet immediately after the elections as first intended, nor was it convened until May 11. This apparent reluctance on the part of the new Ministry to face discussion was decidedly unpopular; their short tenure of office may be traced to a want of tact rather than to grave mistakes. The postponement of the meeting of Parliament in face of a large declared deficit in the revenue was an instance of the former. On the date mentioned, the new Assembly was sworn in, Sir Charles MacMahon was elected Speaker, and on the 12th the Governor delivered the usual speech, announcing that the Reform Bill would be immediately introduced, and promising certain other measures of local importance. On May 20, Mr. Service brought in his Reform Bill, the chief features of which were a reduction in the franchise to 10. for freeholders and 20l. for leaseholders, and of members of the Council to a freehold property of an annual value of 150l. in lieu of 250l. as previously in force. The existing provinces were to be subdivided, and the number of members of the Legislative Council increased to forty-two, and the period of office for new members to be for six instead of ten years. A Bill for the payment of members was introduced into the Assembly by a private member (Mr. H. R. Williams, one of the representatives of Mandurang), which obtained on its second reading a majority of fourteen. The measure was subsequently "stonewalled" in Committee and lapsed. The second reading of the Service Reform Bill was moved on June 1 by the Premier, and after a discussion which lasted until the 25th, was negatived by a majority of two-forty-three members voting against the Bill and forty-one for it. The Ministry decided to recommend that the Assembly should again be dissolved. His Excellency the Governor, after requiring that the reasons for this advice should be reduced to writing, accepted the advice of his Ministers, and Parliament was prorogued on the 26th, and the Assembly dissolved on the 29th. One of the conditions upon which the dissolution had been granted was that the new Parliament should meet as early as practicable. The nominations were fixed for July 9, when seven members, all belonging to the Ministerial party, were returned unopposed. The general elections took place on July 14, and resulted in a complete reversal of the popular vote of the February previous, the Service party securing only thirty-five seats, including the seven members returned unopposed, out of a House of eighty-six members. The defeat of

the Ministerial party was due without doubt, in some measure, to the Catholic vote being given for their opponents; but as their success in February arose from their having the support of that body on that occasion, their weakness in the country without it was apparent. The withdrawal of Sir John O'Shanassy, the acknowledged leader of the Catholic party in Victoria, was due to the refusal of Mr. Service to make certain concessions in the existing Education Act, which from a religious standpoint the Romish priesthood considered prejudicial to their freedom of action in the matter of education. Contrary to the practice now usually adopted, Mr. Service, instead of at once placing his resignation in the hands of the Governor when the country had decided against him, decided to meet Parliament, which was opened on July 22 by Commission. Immediately after the election of Speaker (Mr. Peter Lalor, Minister of Trade and Customs in the previous Berry Administration), and prior to the delivery of the usual Governor's speech, Mr. Berry, the leader of the Opposition, gave notice of a motion of want of confidence, and despite the efforts of the Ministry to show that such a proceeding was unconstitutional and without precedent, the majority of the House decided that the question should be discussed on the following day. A short sitting was accordingly held at the time appointed, and a resolution to the effect that "the House takes the earliest opportunity of informing His Excellency that his advisers do not possess the confidence of Parliament," was carried without a division. No notice was, however, taken of this resolution by Mr. Service, who regarded it as irregular; and on the 28th Parliament was opened in the usual way, the only difference being that the Governor's speech was simply of a formal character. On the Address in reply an amendment was moved, which was carried by forty-eight votes to thirty-five, and on the following day the Service Administration resigned. The Governor having sent for Mr. Berry, great efforts were made to effect a coalition between the Liberals and the moderate Conservatives, with a view of forming a stable Government which would give satisfaction to the general community. These efforts, however, proved fruitless, the hostility of the irreconcileable faction of the Conservatives on the one hand, and the demands made by the Catholic party on the other, tending to keep alive those party animosities which the majority of people desired in the welfare of the country to see buried. The failure of negotiations between the Moderates resulted finally in Mr. Berry being obliged to select his Cabinet exclusively from his own party with the following result: Chief Secretary and Treasurer, Mr. Graham Berry; Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Mr. W. M. K. Vale; Minister of Education, Major Smith; Minister of Railways, Mr. J. B. Patterson; Minister of Lands, Mr. R. Richardson; Minister of Public Works, Mr. G. D. Langridge; Commissioner of Trade and Customs, Mr. A. T. Clark; Minister of Mines, Mr. H. R. Williams; Cabinet Ministers with portfolios,