THE ERA OF EXTRAVAGANCE 277 



incomplete statement of loan expenditure, the true position of the 

 finances was rarely understood either by Parliament, the public or 

 the press. The state of those finances was vigorously discussed in 

 the daily papers about the beginning of the year, and Mr. Service, 

 Mr. Murray Smith and Mr. Langton pointed out the defective 

 nature of the information given and suggested desirable reform. 

 But the subject was caviare to the general, and their laudable efforts 

 awakened little support. To realise the extent of the ignorance on 

 this subject, it is only necessary to read the debate in the Assembly 

 on the Gillies budget in August, 1890. It covers more than 120 

 columns of Hansard filled with the riotous use of undigested figures, 

 contradictory deductions from the same premises, and the most 

 opposite opinions as to what really had been done, or was going to 

 be done. It is possible that in some cases the taxpayer, nurtured in 

 the belief of general prosperity, was not particularly anxious to know 

 the real position. Certainly some Ministers were often undesirous 

 of obtruding it, and a happy-go-lucky impression that it would come 

 out all right in the end sufficed for the rank and file of the House. 

 Apart from the question of finance there was growing up in 

 the Assembly a party antagonistic to Mr. Gillies. It was not an 

 opposition upon organised party lines, for there was really no 

 distinct political question dividing the House. It was largely a 

 vague impression that he had held office long enough and that a 

 change would be beneficial. He had perhaps become a little im- 

 perious ; for all that, he was acknowledged to be a fair and courteous 

 debater, yet the continued nagging at his administration probably 

 affected his natural suavity. The recognised opposition was led by 

 Mr. James Munro, an energetic and somewhat voluble Scotchman, 

 who upon the strength of having successfully managed the largest 

 building society in Melbourne, having started two or three financial 

 institutions, and having just returned from England whence he had 

 attracted a considerable supply of British capital for his companies, 

 posed as an expert critic of the Treasurer's financial proposals, and 

 somewhat harassed his official career. Mr. Munro lost no oppor- 

 tunity of letting it be known that his sympathies were with the 

 working man, and he had his reward by being able to secure their 

 vote when he wanted it. Mr. Gillies was believed to have leanings 



