furnished conclusive evidence that great prosperity is not incompatible with self-sacrificing public spirit. The Australian was distinguished from the American by a greater love of holiday and a keener enjoyment of life, and—if I might venture to say so—a juster idea of the relative value of money and happiness. The new Government had found the public finances in a disastrous condition, a serious debt had been created by our predecessors, and they predicted that at the end of the financial year there would be a deficit of £200,000, but before popular hope and unwonted confidence in the Government these difficulties disappeared. There would not be a deficit of 2½d.; on the contrary, we would end the year with a surplus. This was the business of to-day, but we projected, as we were bound to do, not only for to-day and to-morrow, but for the far future. We did not forget that Victoria was bound to set an example to the other colonies which would facilitate the coming of the time when they would be united together, and become the centre of a system of states yet unborn the three dozen Victorias for which there is space on the surface of Australia.[1]
The comments of the Press in Australia and England on these banquets would fill a volume, but I am content always to cite only the verdict of opponents.
The correspondent of the London Standard in Melbourne who saw the men and transactions close at hand, and whose political sympathies were adverse to those of the Government, wrote to his journal:—
A banquet has been given to the Ministry at a place called Creswick, at which Mr. Duffy made an exceedingly able speech. I begin almost to believe in Mr. Duffy. It is difficult to refrain from admiring the consummate skill—different entirely from anything I have otherwise seenhere—
- ↑ A welcome tribute came from my old home and my old friends. John O'Hagan, then a leader of the Equity Bar of Ireland, wrote:—"I heard of your promotion as far back as Circuit, when Sir Colman O'Loghlen, coming in to Mess, said, 'Duffy is Prime Minister of Australia,' and I greeted it with a hoch lebe. I read both your speeches with the deepest interest and admiration, and the feeling uppermost in my mind was what I am sure must be in your own—Davis's line about Sarsfield—'Oh, that this were for Ireland!' It is certainly a proud thing for you to have won your eminence by your own right hand, in the teeth, as I can see, of the bitterest National and religious prejudice; and to have extorted from envy itself its reluctant tribute. Your Sandhurst speech has in truth excited my brain, and I could not go to bed without writing to you."
