since one can always see a big town more or less like Melbourne, whilst
the scenery of Sydney Harbour is almost unique of its kind, if I were
obliged to see only one of the two places, I would rather see Sydney. But
although, Sydney is poorly laid out, it must not be imagined that it is
poorly built. On the contrary. Its buildings are put in the shade as
regards size by those of Melbourne but if you had not seen Melbourne
first, you would certainly have been surprised by the number and size of
the public buildings of Sydney. The rich man loses his sense of the
proportionate value of moneys. But Sydney has the great advantage of
possessing superior building material in a red and grey sandstone of
great durability, which forms the substratum of the whole district in
which it is built, while Melbourne has mainly to rely on a blue stone
found at some distance, and has to import the stone for its best
buildings from either Sydney or Tasmania. I must confess too, that I
prefer the general style of architecture in Sydney to that most common in
Melbourne. First and foremost, owing to the more limited area of the
business part of the town, the Sydney buildings are much loftier.
Melbourne and Adelaide always look to me as if some one had taken his
seat upon the top of them and squashed them down. Sydney is taller and
more irregular. It climbs up and down a whole series of hills, and
protrudes at all kinds of unexpected points. The city proper has no very
definite boundaries, and you hardly know where the city begins and the
suburbs end.

Of the public buildings of Sydney, the handsomest are the Treasury, the
Colonial Secretary's office, and the Lands Office, each four or five
stories high, and close to the water's edge. The Colonial Secretary's
office is only second to the Melbourne Law Courts amongst the completed
buildings of Australia. It is lofty, massive, and dignified outwardly,
elegant and spacious inside, although it has been fitted up in the most