Crimina2 Code Bill. [ZS SEPTEYBEB.) Criminal Code Bitt. 181

CRIMINAL CODE BILL. COMMITTEE.

Clause 1 put and passed. On clause 2-“ Establishment of Code ”- The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Hon. A.

Rutledge, Murnnon) moved that after the‘Tord “hundred,” on the 8th line, the words and one” beinderted. That only meant deferling the commencement of the operations of the Code until the 1st January, 1YO1. The Bill provided for the making of certain general rules by the judges, and the time was too short between now and the end of the year in which to carefully prepare those rules. I t was therefore desirable to give a longer time for this work.

Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, put and passed. Clauses 3 , 4, 5, and 6 put and passed. On clause 7-“Offender may be prosecuted

under the Code or other statute”- Mr. L E A H Y (Bulloo) asked the kttorney-

General what was mea1.t by the words or other statute ” ? Did i t mean future legislation?

The ATTOENEY-GENERAL explained that probably the House would pass statuteson various occasions which would contain provisions with regard to penalties for the infringement of those statutes, and i t was impossible to take into con- sideration, in this Code, the effects of further legislation. The object of the clause was that no person should be punished except under this Code or under some statute hereafter to be passed.

Clause put and passed. On clause 8-“Contempt of court”- Mr. DUNSFORD (Chartew Towers) a.sked the

Attorney-General if i t would still remain in the power of a judge to punish a person summarily for contempt of court, the contempt having taken place in his court. Would the law in that respect be the same as it was t o day? They had sometimes heard of cases where judges, perhaps in a fit of anger on account of something a person had raid-

Mr. JACKSON : Biliousness ! Rfr. 3 U N S F O R D : Yes. I n cases like that

persons had sometimps been sentenced for contempt of court, and he thought it placed the judge in a very false position.

The ATTORNEY - GEXERAL : It had always been recognised that a judge must have power to restrain and punish those acts which were known and understood by everybody as contempt of court, and the section proposed to leave the law in that respect just as i t was a t present. He did not know that any abuse was likely t u take place under this section any more than had taken place under the existing law- this was really the existing law-but if a t any time any jndge should be found so far abusing the authority the law reliosed in hini in regdrd to contempt of court no doubt Parlinment would take summary steps for preventing a repetition of the abuse.

Clause put and passed. Clauses 9 and 10 put and passed. On the 1qt schedule--“ The Ciiminal Code of

Queensland ”- The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : Some hon.

members in discussing the Bill nn the second reading expressed disagreement with some of the provisions contained in the Code with respect to the matter of punishment, and i t was his desire to facilitate the discussion of any amend- ment which any hon. member might desire to propose upon any clause in the schedule. He, therefore, proposed, on learning what clanses hon. members desired to amend, to ask the Chairman to put the question that so much of

the Pchedule as was contained in all the clauses preceding the one to be considered do stand part of the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Grimes, O z t e p ) : I may point out to the Attorney-General that schedules are dealt with exactlv in the same wav as clauses, and having made a“n amendment ih any part of the schedule a e cannot go back to any ])receding part.

TheATTOINEY-GENERAL: Amendments would be taken in their proper oider, he prb- sumed.

Mr. DUNSFORD (Charters Tosers) : There might be some cases in which i t might not strike hon. memheis that amendments were advisable until the clauses came actually before them, and he thought i t would facilitate business for the hon. gentleman to postpone the consideration of the schednle and go on to the different clauses.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL did not think that would be desirable, because postponing the schedule meant pofitponing the whole thing.

Mr. JACKSON : Could you not postpone the index par t?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : He did not object to tha t ; but hon. members must know the particular sections which they wished to amend, and there was no need to postpone the whole schedule. Of course if any amendment was madein any other part of the schedule i t would be necess’ary tn recommit the Bill for the pur- pose of amending the tablr of contents.

Mr. DUNSFORD : The Code could not be all considered under one motion. Was not the hon. member going to take it clause by clause?

The RTTOliNEY-GENERAL : That would take too lung. It would be easy to fix upon those parts of the schedule objected to, begin- ning with the emliest, and after they had been dealt with the Chairman would put the schedule as a whole, including amendrrients if they were made. The Chairman getting up and putting clause after clause of the schedule would result in a large consumption of time for which there was no neressity.

Mr. DUNSFORD conhidered that the only satisfactory way would be to put the Code clause by clause. Xohody could say he had properly analysed the Bill in going through the second reading. They did not know exactly whab amendment might fit in with every portion of the Code, but by taking i t clause by clause, though it might occupy a little time, would be found much more satisfactory than taking the schedule as a whole.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : Hon. mem- bers must bear in mind that the second reading waq nroved this night week, when he had drawn attention to the seTersl features of the Code, and he did not think it was fair that lion. members should leave the whole thing till its progress throngb committee before finding out whether there was anything in i t which they wanted to amend. If any hon. member omitted something which might be in the schedule, ahd liked to draw his attention to i t afterwards, he should not have 1 he slightest objection to re-committing the Bill for the purpose of having that particular matter thoroughly discusxed.

Mr. DAWSOSJ (Charters Towers) believed it would be within the Standing Orders to tak the 708 clauqes in one motion ; but, a t the same time, it would be rather a large order. He did not think the Attorney-General wished to rush through any particular clause to which members had an objection, but he might very well give members a little more time so that they might indicate in what direction they intendea to move amendments. He would remind the hon. gentle- man that it had been the practice for some years to circulate amongst members any amendments it was intended to propose; but here the

182 Criminal Code Bill. [JLS~EMBLP .I Criminal Code Bill.

Attorney-General was asking them to take 7C8 clauses in one motion, and that those who objected to any particular clause or any particular line in one of the clauses should do i t hy verbal amendment. H e did not think that was a fair thing. Of course, he did not presume to dispute the wisdom of the legal gentlemen who drafted the Bill : vet i t was posaible for them to have made a mistake. H e had taken the Bill to a legal gentleman whom he looked upon as one of the most eminent men at the bar in Queensland, and asked him to go care- fully through it, and make marginal notes of what he thought were defects. That gentleman had had the Bill for a week, and it had not been returned to him. If an eminent legal man required over a week to go through it, how much more time would an ordinary layman need? There were RO many questions involved that a yeat deal of time and attention required to be

evoted to it before giving a pronouilced opinion. He did not think there was any need for undue haste, but was of the opinion that the Attorney- General might very well adjourn the 1st schedule until members had had a little more time to look into it and indicate in plain terms in what direc- tion amendments would be made.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not wish to unduly hasten anythin but, as he pointed out the other night, if the %de was to be passed into law this seesion, it must he pushed on with at once. Members would not be adopting a dangerous course in following the suggestion he had made, because the gigantic measure known as the Merchants Shipping Act, 1894, whichcon- tained over 700 clauses, was passed through com- mittee in the House of Commons i n four minutes. W h y ? Because the House had committed the Bill to a committee of men supposed to be more competent to deal with it than the Hvuse held itself to be. The House said, “ W e mast take it on trust. If these men are not competent to deal with it, we are not.” As he had pointed out, the Code contained, for the most part, definitions and declarations of the common law, and he could not accept the dictum of any legal gentleman, however eminmt he might be, as in

, the least, degree ehaking the conclusions of the Royal Commission that had dealt with the subject so carefully. But there were other qnes- tions that hon. members were as competent to deal with as the Commision, such, for instance os the amount of punishment to be awarded. H e was quite willing tha,t hon. members shonld have an opportunity of discusbing anything which was new. Perhaps it would facilitate matters if, instead of moving t,he schedule as a whole, and clause by clause, i t was taken chapter by chapter.

HONOURABLE MEMBERS : Hear, hear ! The CHAIRMAN : The Standing Orders

placed in my hands are the Standing Orclers which should guide us, and where they are d e n t we should consult the procedure of the House of Commons. There is no cape that I can find where anything of the kind has been done, and if it is to be done, it must cume as an instruction direct from the Committee.

Mr. LEAHY: I think it waR done in the case of the Standing Orders themselves. W e took them in chapters.

The HOME SECRETARY : W e did it under the old Standing Orders, which were different and allowed it.

Mr. LEAHY: I think they are silent on the point.

Mr. FISHER (Gympie) thought that if the Attorney-General attempted to put the Bill through in.the way he suggested he would find i t would take a l o ~ g e r time than i f he proceeded in the usual way.

The HOME SECRETARY : Is that a threat ?

Mr. FISHER : No, this was not a matter affecting this side of the House or that side of the House, but one affecting the procedure and standing of the House. There were points in different parts of the Bill on which hon. mem- bers would like to expre>s their opinion if they did not desire to alter a clause. He emphatically entered his orotest against any other proposal . - than to take‘the Bill & U P ~ bv “clause.

The HOME SECRETARY (Hon. J. F. G. Foxton. Curnarvon): What waa pro-

[7’30 p.m.1 posed to be done was rierf&tly in accordance with the S tandng

Orders. If it was proposed to depart from the Standing Orders the hon. member would be justified in the attitude he took up, bnt nhen the Standing Orders did not support his view, it was somewhat bold on his part t o threaten the Committee, as i t were, unless the Standing Orders were departed from to suit his conveni- ence. H e did not say it would not he con- venient to take the schedule clause by clause but i t would occupy a very long period and would be largely a wasteof time. Surely hon. members had had the Bill before them for a;ufficient length of time in one form or another bo enable those who took any interest in the question to make up their minds in what respects the Code did not meet their view@, and where it required amendment-if i t required amendment. If the Code was taken by chapters, hon. memberscould indicate which cluuses they wished to discuss. The Chairman had pointed out that even if it was taken by chapters it would be departing from the Standing Orders, ancl that some inst.ruc- tion might he given to the Committee by the House to enable that departure to be made. Thesuggestion was a guod one if it could be adopted. It would save time, and would afford hon. members every opportunitv of bringing for- ward any points which they wished to discuss or amend.

The ATTORWEY-GENERAL: For tbesake of example he would refer to clause 18 of the schedule, which set out the kinds of punishments that might he inflicted under the Code. Hon. nitmbera might get what they wanted by moving an amcndrr. lit in respect of some matters set out in that c?ause. That wou!d probablygreatly facilitate matters. If an amendment was made in the clause, consequential amend- ments would hxve to be made through the Bill ; bnt they could be made as they went along, and if anything escaped notice the Bill could he recommitted. All the clauses preceding clause 18 were definitions and statements of the law which could not be challanged. Supposing an hon. member moved an amendment in respect of any of the various forms of punishment prescribed in clause 18 and was defeated, if he pointed out that while that punishment might bo inflicted for certain offences, it shonld not be inflicted in certain other cases, they could discuss the question again in relation to the particular offences in which i t was considered it shonld not, be imposed. EIe understood clause 18 would raise a great deal of the question which was the ground of objection to eome parts of the Code on t.be r a r t of some hon members.

Mr. LESINA (Clerrnont) : Hon. members on that Ride weie very thankful to the Attorney- General for the advire he had given as to the manner in which amendments could be dealt with ; but probably hon. members on that aide were just as well acquainted with the forms of the House as the hon. gentltman, and as capable of saying how amendments should be moved. If they were to take the advice cif the hon. gentleman as set forth in the illustration he had given, they were to legislate in a hurry-to pass panic le islation. There was no necessity for that. d e hon. gentleman had mentioned 8 very

Criminal: Code Bill. PAt3 SEPFENBEB.] Criminal Code Bill. 183

large Bill which had been passed by the House of Commons in four minutes. H e always believed hon. members 011 the other side objected to panic legislation, and the Constitution pro- vided a second Chamber to prevent hasty legisla- tion. The Code was the 2nd schedule to the Bill, and he was satisfied they had a right to deal with every clause of that Code.

The ATTORKEY-GENERAL : Bnt the Standing Orders do not allow it.

Mr. LESINA was satisfied that the Standing Orders would a1lo;v them to take the Code clause by clanse. The Constitulion under which they were to live for all time had formed the 2nd schedule to the Federation Enabling Bill, and although it had been passed without amendment, and practically without discussion, i t was solely because the Premier had told them that any amendment would wreck the Bill. H e main- tained that they had the right to alter every clause in the Code.

The HOME SECRICTSRY : No one has disputed that.

Mr. LESINA undewtood an attempt was being made to deal with the Bill by chapters, but he maiutained they had a right t o deal with i t clause by clause.

Mr. GIVENS (Cuims) had an objection to dealing with the Code in the wholesale manner suggested by the Attorney-General, because, although they might effect no great improve- ments in the Bill, i t would be an objectionable precedent to establish. Further than that, i t would be a usurpation c)f the rights and privileges of hon. members, because the Bill proposed to make amendments in the existing law, and those amendments had been effected practically by the commission of judres. If they passed the Code merely on the suggestion of the jndges, they would be givingup their ownrights as legislators, and transferring those rights to a commission of judges. That would not be in accordance with the dignity of Parliament. H e did not claim to be an authority on the Standing Orders. but, i t appeared to him that every hon. member had a right to moveany amendment hechose in any line or clause as they went alOhg, and he believed, from the ruling just given, that that was also the ,opinion of the Chairman. That being so, i t would facilitate mat.ters very much if they pro- ceeded with the Bill in the usual way. H e would very much like to see the Code passed, because i t would not only make the law more easily understood, but it would be much easier t o amend the criminal law in, the future if they had it in a codified form than if it remained in i ts present unsatisfactory and uncertain con- dition. A t the same time, he was not prepared, in order to get the Code passed, to hand over their rights and privileges to the judges, no matter how learned in the law or how worthy they might he. That House, in connect.ion with the Upper H o u s ~ , was the only properly consti- tuted body to effect legislation, and he did not think they should give up any of their privileges to a commit,tee of judges or anybody else.

The ATTOKNEY-GENERAL : If that was the hon. member’s difficulty, he would indicate, as they s e n t along, what were the amendment^ in the law as recommended by the Commiasion and adopted by the Government. All the rest was the existing law, stated in language which had received the most carefnl scrutiny. But how they were to get through the schedule taking i t clause by clause he could not see. The Chairman had declined to allow him to put it chapter by chapter. H e did not want to rush hon. members, or to ask them to do anything they considered improper, but he did want to see the Bill carried within the short time allotted to the House that session.

Mr. KIDSTON: Why should the Code be prpsented to the House in the form of a schedule a t a l l?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : Became the 1st part of the Bill did not contain the statute law; it wau an enactment of certain things contained in the Code itself. The Code stood by itself, but was, of course, open to the fullest discussion.

Mr. DAWSON thought the Att,orneyGeneral had mistaken the Chairman’s meaning when he mid he would be unable, under the Standing Orders, to put the Code chapter by chapter. The 8t.anding Order was not clear, and i t was a matter entirely i n the discretion of the Chairman. According to the practice of the Chamber schedules were generally taken item by item, That was done in the case of the Customs Duties Bill in 1896. If it was the pleasure of the Com- mittee, instead of taking the 708 clauses on one motion, they could take the Code by chapters. I n his experience there had been only one Eingle occauinn where a schedule .containing a number of clauses had been put as one motion. Thab exception was the Commonwealth Eill, which was attached as a schedule to the Enabling Bill. What he wished to say was that as the Code was a very intricate document, and one that would require tt great deal of consideration, a reasonable time ought to be given to enahle hon. members to indicate in what direction they wished to move amendments, and those amendments ought to be printed and circulated amongst members before they were moved, so that they might be in a podition to make up their minds as to whether they would support or oppose them. He objected absolutely to important amendments being moved straight away, when the first knowledge hon. members had of them was when they were read out by the mover. H e believed t,he best way to get over the difficulty that had been raised was to t,ake the Codeinchapters, with a distinct understanding that if anyt.hing ha,d been overlooked in passing the Code in chapters, the Attorney-General would a t a later sta e aoree to its recommittal.

%e ATTORNEY-GESERAL said he would be very glad to adopt the suggestion If the Chairman was willing to modify his construction of the Standing Order, or if i t came as an instruction from the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN: I have given my con- struction of the StandinK Order, but if i t is the wish nf the Committee that this schedule should be taken chapter by chapter, the Committee takes the responsibility and I carry out their wiah. I now put i t to the Committee whether they wish the schedule to be taken in that way.

Mr. STEWART : No. Mr. B E L L thought the Chairman wag ado )t-

ing a rather unusual course in removing t i e responsibility from himself and placing i t on the shonlders of the Committee.

Mr. 8 T E WART (Rockhctmpton Noith) thought it mnst be evident to the Government now the very peculiar position in which they had placed themselves in connection with this Code. According $0 the Attorney-General and the Premier the sespion was expected to end about Christmas. They had about three months to colisider one of the largest and most important measure8 that had ever been brought before the Chamber. If this was not an attcmpt a t hasty legislation he did not know what i t was. The whole criminal law was before theni, and i t was their duty to consider the Code clause by clanse. Hedid not qu~st ion the capacity of the gentleman who formed the Royal Commission to deal with the Code, but the responsibility for the law of the country rested, not with the Commission, but with Parliament. H e supposed that the hon. gentleman a t the head of the Government

186 Wntinal Oods BW. [ASSNMBLY.] aiminat cfoch Bill.

imagined that he was going to get the Committee to vote for the measure piecenieal ; but he con- tended that if any measure that had ever been brought before the Parliament of this colony required to be digested clause by clauseit w&s the one now before the Committee. He knew

erfectly well when the Government proposed to E ring in that measure that there was not the slightest chance of its passing during the present session.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : Why not? Mr. STEWART: How, in the name of

conimon sense, s e r e they going to pass like that a number of other Bills which the hon. gentle- man had foreshadowed in the Speech from the Throne this session ? Were they going to force them through, six abreast? Were they going ’to do the whole work of the country-which usually took about six months-in three months? Were they going to work double time, or scamp legislation? He would not consent to anything of the kind. H e would not consent to the Code being taken chapter by chapter; he would insist upon it being taken claiipe by clause, because the lives and libertiesof the peopleof the country were a t stake in that measure. As to the Commission having comisted of judges and lawyers, he did not think that lawyers were always the best men to deal with the length of sentences, or the kind of sentences that should be awarded offenders, for they generally looked upon criminals as a sort of wild beasts to be hunted down. He was glad to see that a more humane idea of treating criminals was abroad now than used to he the case ; but he was not prepared to swallow this Digest and take it on trust. I t would take a whole session to deal with the measure, and where was t,he necessity for the House rising at Christmas? They were paid to work for twelve month$, and he was quite willing to Bit for twelve months, but he objected to twelve months’ work being done in three months, and that a measure of such impor- tance as this should be rushed throughin this perfunctor fashion.

The AJTORNEY-GENERAL thought the hon. member was mixing up two things-the Bill now before the Committee, and the desire of the Government to have it passed into law, with some foregone conclusion with regard .to the duration of the existing session. Those two thin s werequite distinct, and i t would be for the &Ouse to say when they came to Christmas whether they would then cease their sittings, or prorogue and meet again in the new year ; bot hon. members need not trouble themselves with that matter a t the present stage. Hon. members talked about humanitarianism, but if they blocked the passage of this measure they would continue to keep on the statute-books two capital offences which the Code proposed to wipe nut. As he said before, it would be open to hon. members to move some modification in the puniehment proposed in the Code if they so desire4 it, and theiramendmentcoiild bediscussed. The hon. member for North Rockhanipton said it would take a whole session to discuss that Bill. That meant that they wonld never pass i t into law, because the H o u s ~ conld never afford to have a whole session devoted to one measure. H e had only spoken about tbe Commission of experts to assure hon. members in regard to two matters-definitinns of the law and declarations of the common law. Hon. mfmbers could not improve on the work of the Commirsion in t,hose matters, but in regard to the duration of puniah- ments and other matters they could moveamend- ments. H e moved now that the schedule be put chapter by chapter.

The CHAIRMAN : There is already a ques- tion before the Committee, that schedule 1 stand part of the Bill, and I shall have to put

the motion of the Attorney-General to get an expression of the opinion of the Committee how to consider the schedule.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : With the leqve of the Committee he would withdraw the original motion. The old Standing Orders he used to serve under were better than the present ones.

Mr. DAWSON did not think that course was necessary at all. The rules governiuq schedules were not imperative in any way ; the matter was entirely in the hands of the Committee. I t was not a mattor forthe Chairman, but for a majority of the Committee to decide. The Standinq Order Raid distinctly “if a schedule is proposed. There had been no proposal beforethe Committee. The Chairman said there was a question, but he drew attention to the fact that there had bean no proposition made by any hon. member.

Standinx Orders. Mr. DAWSON : No. The practice had grown

U since lS94, and it hsd not been challenged.

make a proposition before i t was put from the chair. The latest addition to the Standing Orders was based on the idea t h t before the Chairman pot a question an hon. member should rise in his place and make a proposition. That was the idea that was in the minds of thoee who amended the Standing Orders on the last occasion. If the schedule was proposej it had to be put, but it was well within the rights of any hon. member to say whether the schedule should be put as one motion, or as half- a-dozen separate motions. H e thought it would be entailing an unnecesaary amount of labour on everyone concerned to put the schedule clause by clause. Putting it chapter by chapter would be a much more convenient form, and the promise of a recommittal a t a later stage would mean absolute safety. So that judging the matter by the standards of convenience and safety the hon.

The kl’TORNEY-GENERAL : That is in the new

P he old practice was that an hon. nienibershould

gentleman should make a general proposition that the schedule be taken cha.pter by chapter.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : The hon. member wasquite right as far as the old practice was concerned. When he was in the House before i t was always the practice for the person in charge of a Bill to move that clause so-and-so stand pert of the Bill. Of course he had not moved that the schedule be the schadule of the Bill, and in view of that fact he now moved as a separate motion that the schedule be taken chapter by chapter.

The CHAIRM+N : I would point out that I am required by the Standing Order to put the question that the clause, as read, stand part of the Bill, and in accordance with that Stmding Order, I put the question that the schedule- treating it as a clause-stand schedule 1 of the Bill.

Mr. DAWSON : If that was so, then he would like to know if the Chairman had read the schedule. If, it was going to be taken as one clause, he insisted that it should be read-only 705 clauses.

The C I I 4 f R M A N : I t has always been the rule to say That clause, as read, stand part of the Bill.’’ Under the old Standing Order the marginal note only was read.

Mr. GROOM (Zha~/ton and Toowoornba) : Thought the Committee ought to extend some little consideration to the Attorney-General bemuse anyone who was familiar with the old Standing Orders would see at once that there had been a complete change. The new Standing Orders were a comproniise between the House of Commons Standing Orders and those of New South Wales adapted to meet colonial require- ments. Under the Standing Order the Chairman had no alternative but to put the motion. A

186

chapter was merely a subdivision of the schedule. The Chairman having, according to rule, put the uestion, “ that the schedule stand part of the

%ill, ” i t was then open to any member to move amendments on every line of the schedule. That was as clear as possible and wa8 confirmed by the new Standing Order 271, dated 12th September, 1893. H e could see a good deal in what the Attorney-General had said a b Jut taking these Bills on trust, but hon. members must remember that they had fallen into very serious errors in the past by taking things on trust. The Attorney- General must know that the matter was of some importance, especially when in the absence of many legal minds from the House, and he thought the hon. gentleman would help his cause if he pursued the ordinary procedure-that was, that the question should be that the l a b schedule stand as the 1st schedule of the Bill.

The ATTORNEY-GENNRAL thought that Standing Order 72 met the case. That order read-

The Rouse may order a complicated question t o be divided. H e had made the same suggestion in the begin- ning of the debate as the hon. member for Toowoomba had just made ; that was, that the schedule be moved as a whole, leaving it open to hon. members to move any amendment they wished. But i t was thought that they would not have sufficient opportunity, in following this course, to indicate what their particular amend- ments were-that they might overlook something. The hest way out of the difficulty was that the original question should be allowed to stand, and that the schedule should be proceeded with chapter by chapter.

Mr. KIDSTON: Why not omit the words “first schedule,” and then deal with the schedule chapter by chapter ; that wouldovercome the diffi- culty without any violation of the Standing Orders.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : That uould be only a subterfuge, as the sections in the Bill did not correspond with the sections in the schedule. H e reiterated his proposition that the schedule should stand part of the Bill, and then the chapters could be taken seriatim.

Question-That the schedule be considered chapter by chapter-put.

Mr. MCDONALD (FZincZers) asked the Chair- man’s ruling as to whether that would be in order ? H e would like to find out where they were, as he did not think any hon. member knew exactly where they were.

The CHAIRMAN : I am endea\ouring to get the sen38 of the Committee. It is for the Com- mittee to decide on their course of action.

Mr. McDONALD did not think i t wise to override the Standing Orders in the way pro- posed. The difficulty was not that the Standing Order was bad on this point, but whether the manner of the introduction of the Bill wals not bad. The Rill comprised 216 pages and 700 odd clauses, most of them in the form of four schedules, three of which were very short, and the Bill itself merely contained ten covering clauses. It would be taking away a great num- ber of the rights of the Committee by dealing with the schedule as a whole. That schedule should have b e n brought in in the form of a Bill, and dealt with in the ordinary manner. H e hoped the Committee was notgoingtooverride the Standing Orders merely for the sake of getting over the difficulty.

Mr. BELL (Dalby) : Whether the Bill had or had not been brought in in proper form, i t was certainly too late now to discuss the matter with any practical result. As the Bill now stood, the Attorney-General had a right, according to the Standing Orders and the usual practice, to move that the 180 schedule stand par6 of the Bill. As

the method advocated by the Attorney-General has been challenged by the members of the Opposition, if the Minister was not prepared to fight the matter nut, he should po3tpone further business and get an instruction from the House. H e objected to any rough and ready way of taking the voice of the Committee, in order to facilitate business, as it would he setting up a most dangerous practice which would sooner or later react against the members of this House.

The P R E M I E R : Hon. members seemed to have forgotten that when the Standing Orders of 1892 were introduced they were taken chapter by chapter, and he did nct see why a t the present time they could not proceed upon the same lines. What was desired was to pass the Rill through, and he would regret to see its passage delayed! because, unless i t could be got thrnugh in the early part of the session, the pnasibility was cer- tainly remote of being able to deal with it when the barder work of the seseion came on. The Code would render much more intelligible to the lay mind the subtleties and intricacies of the law, and he thought they were justified in adopt- ing the expedient to which he had referred under the new Standing Orders.

Mr. KIDSTON (Roeliharfipton,) agreed with the hon. member for Dalby and the hon. member for Flinders that it would be setting a very bad precedent to override the Standing Orders simply by a motion of the Committee, and do the buqiness in the way they found convenient. If such a course were followed they would not be working under their Standing Orders, but under the will of the majority for the time being.’ A t the same time i t was eminently de-irable that there should be a revision of the whole criminal law of the country, and it should not be passed through en bloc. Nobody ques- tioned tne capacity of the men who prepared the Code, but i t was desirahle that the repre- sentatives of the people in that Chamber should carefully go over the Code and see whether it accorded with what he might call the newer public sentiment in regard to the law. After the Code was once adopted i t would be extremely inadvisable to make amendments in it, and there was probably no matter of legislation more deserving of careful considera- tion, clause by clause, than this Criminal Code. The only way out of the difficulty ;as to strike out the words “ The first schedule, and to deal with the Code not as a schedule to the Bill a t all. H e hoped the Government would not attempt to force the whole Code through in one motion, but would consent to getting over the difficulty in such a way as to admit of full consideration being given to each part of the Code as i t went through.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought the difficulty that had been raised was more imaginary than real. H e could not find any- thing in the Standing Orders which absolutely conipelled the adoption of the course of putting the whole schedule in globo. The Standing Order dealing with the point was quite general. No. 285 said-

When a Bill has been committed to a Committee of the whole House, the preamble, if any, should be post- poned until after the clauses and schedules of the Bill bnve been considered. I t had simply been a matter of practice to put the schedule i n globo, and the Committee had an inherent right to regulate its own procedure a s long a18 that promdnre did not in any way offend against the express provisions of the Btauding Orders. He challenged any hon. member to point out anything in the Standing Orders which forbade the splitting up of a schedule into parts and dealing with those parts separately.

Mr. F I S H E R (Gympie) : He did not get up to accept the challenge thrown down by the hon.

ld6 Criminal Code Bill. (ASSEMBLY.) &iminal Code Boll.

gentleman, but to express his ple-sure that the hon. gentleman had seen the advisability of not putting the schedule in. globo. This was perhaps the most import,.int document that had ever come before that Assembly, and as it was desir- able thao people should know the meaning of the va,rious clauses, he thought they should be discussed by hon. members as mnch as possible for the education of the people who would have to live under the Code. If that were done it would give the hnn. gentleman a name he would well deserve for teaching not only one class but the whole community the laws under which they lived.

Mr. HARDACRE (Leichhnrdt) having just looked a t the Standing Orders, had

[8’30 p.m.1 come to the same conclusion as the Attorney ~ General. H e had also

looked through “ May,”and had found that they were both absolutely silent as to whether a schedule should be taken in. globo or clause by clause. It ha4 been the custom to pass schedules in globo because, as a rule, they generally consisted of figures or tables ; but whsn they came to a large schedule like this, it was reasonable that they fihould take them clause by clause a s if they had been an ordinary part of a Bill,

Schedules to a Bill are Considered, as a rule, after new clauses are disposed of, and they are treated in the same manner as clauses. Then Standing Order 128 said-

Questions which arise in Committee of the Whole Rouse shall be decided bj’ a vote of a majority of the members present, not including the Chairman. Therefore this was a question on which the Standing Orders said nothing at all, and as the Committee was not dning anything against the Standing Orders, i t had the right, under Stand- ing Order 158, to decide what i t should do as far as this particular question was concerned.

Mr. BELL intended to respond, as far as he could, t o the challenge that had been thrown ont by the Attorney-General. H e bad been in accord with the hon. gentleman’s previous position-that the schedule should be moved en bZoc. But he challenged t h e contentionof the hon. gentleman under Standing Order 263, which haid-

A clawe or schedule, proposed to be added i n com- mittee, shall be read a first time without any question put. The hon. gentleman’s oriqina,l position-when he moved the schedule as a whole-was the proper procedure, so that the House might make amendments as i t went along; and if that was not carried, then the only thing would have been to have gone to the House and got an instruc- tion that the schedule be taken in some other way.

Mr. T U R L E Y (Brisbane Sou$,) argued that under the Standing Orders and May ” a clause added to a Bill was exactly the same as a schedule, and a schedule exactly the same as a clause. It was the same with a schedule. Conseqzently the question must be put from the Chair, That schedule 1 be schedule 1 of the Bill ” The Chairman was perfectly right in his contention that the other motion would be out of order, and i t seemed to him that the position taken up by the hoff. member for Toowoomha was the only procedure which could be followed-that the motion be put, and any hon. member who had an amendment could move an amendment in every line in every clause in the whole of the schedule. * The amendments had to bs con- sidered first, and if any of them were carried, then the snhstantive motion from the Chair would be “That the schedule be the schedule of the Bill.”

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : The other side objected to that courm.

“May,” at page 462, said-

Mr. TURLEY: I am not in accord with thosd who objected.

The CHATRMAN : I think my previous ruling has hem misunderstood. I ruled that the schedule should be treated exactly the same as a clawe. By Standing Order 256 I put it a s a question. It may be, as hon. members have pointed ont, that there is no definition as to how we should treat a Rchedule specially ; but I may call attention that, accnrding to “May,” we have to treat a schedule exactly the same as a clause. My mode of procedure is this-I putt,he question, “That schedule 1 stand part of the Bill.” It is then competent for any hon. memher to move any amendment on any line of that !phedule, and if it is carried, I put the question,

That schedule 1, as amended, stand parc of the Bill,” and so on to the end of the schedule. That does not deprive any hon. member of moving any amendment he likes, as long as it is relevant to the suhject-matter of the Rills.

Mr. HARDACRE: It was laid down on page 462 of ‘‘May,” that-

Schedules to a Bill arc considered, as a rille. after new clauses are disposed of, and they are treated in the same manner as clauses. On the preceding page it was laid down that-

The Committee may divide one clause into two, or decide that the first part of a clause, or the first part of a clause with a schedule, shall be considered as an entire clause. Our own Standing Orders did not cover this at all, and where they were silent we had to con- sult “May,” who laid it down that they could divide the schedule and take it clause hy clause.

The CHAIRMAN : There seems to be a con- sensus of opinion that this schedule should be taken in chapters. If the Committee carry this motion, and consider i t chapter by chapter, we can get on with the husiness.

Mr. GIVENS : Do you rule that the motion can be put?

The CHAIRMAN : It can he put. Mr. BELL : Why not adhere to the original

proportal of the Attorney-General? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : Because I want to

oblige hon. niemhers. The C H a I K M A N : I will put the question

again-That schedule 1 be considered chapter by chapter.

Mr. McDONALD : If you rule tha!‘that can be put, I shall move as an amendment that the schedule be considered clause by clause.”

The CHAIRMAPU’ : I can only put the qnes- tion as it haa come to me.

Mr. KIDSTON (h’ockharnpton) asked the Chairman whether he had not given the Com- mittee to anderstand that such a motion was a t variance with the Standing Orders, and if so, was it in order to put the motion?

The CHAIRMAN : It is in order to put the motion.

Mr. KIDSTON : If it is a t wriance with the Standing Orders ?

The CHAIRMAN : It is not at variance with the Standing Orders.

Mr. KIDSTON : H e had understood the Chair- man to state that the reason for pntting the niotion was because the Standing Orders neces- sitated the putting of schedule 1 in one motion. The Attorney-General had then muved a motion which, according to the Chairman, would prac- tically override the Standing Orders. If it was overriding the Standing Orders, was it in order to put the motion?

The CHAIRMAN : There is no infringement of the Standing Orders in putting this motion.

Mr. KIDSTON : What was the need for the motion if it was not a violation of the Standing Orders ?

The CHAIRMAN : This is a motion to get the sense of the Committee wit.h reference to the way

dfrinzinal Code .&U. [25 SEPTEYBEB.~ Cri:ninal Code Bill. 187

in which we shall deal with the schedule, and I shall be guided by the decision of the Comnlittee in the matter.

Mi-. KIDSTON : Then a catch opinion of th: Committee could override the Standing Ordera : Either the motion was B violation of the Stand. ing Orders, or i t was not necessary. That seemed quite clear.

Mr. GIVENS: Seeing that the Chairman ruled that the motion could he put, he moved as an amendment the omission of the words “chapter by chapter ” with the view of inserting the words “clause by clause.” I t would estab. lish a very dangeroua precedent to follow the practice now proposed. Any Government, in order to rush through important legislation, would merely have to bring in that legislation in the form of the schedule to a Bill, and insist that it should be taken chapter for chapter, or, perhaps, aa one whole. H e decidedly objected to that sort of thing. The Code proposed t c make some important changes in the criminal law, and it would be impossible to subject those alterations to close scrutiny unless they con. sidered the Code clause by clause. He had nc desire to block the passage of the Bill, but thref or four sittings might reasonably and profitahlq be devoted to the consideration of such ar: important measure. He decidedly objected to a Bill making such important changes in tht whole of the criminal law of the colony being rushed through in one lump, and without adequate discussion.

Question-That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question-stated.

Mr. BELL said there was nothing in the proposition of the Attorney-General to prevent the fullest discussion of the schedule. If, as he understood, hon. members opposite had their amendments ready there was nothing to prevent the one who had the earliest amendment getting up a.nd moving it. H e saw no reason for departing from the usual practice, and he would enter his protest against any proposal to decide their procedure for their own convenience on the spur of the moment.

Mr. FISHER thought the proposition to con- sider the schedule chapter by chapter would lead to nothing but confusion. It was possible that 100 amendments might be moved, and some hon. members unfamiliar with the procedure might lose their chance of moving them.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: A t that rate it wonld take about twelve months to get through the 708 clauses.

Mr. HIGGS hoped the Attorney-General would accept the amendment of the hon. member for Cairns. As the hon. member for Gympie had said, to take the schedule chapter by chapter would lead to no end of confusion. Suppose they had reached clanse 200, and B member who had intended to move an amendment in clause 100 happened to be out of the Chamber a t the time clause 100 was called, he would be unable to move it a t all.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I have agreed to recpmmit the Bill if there are any bond fide omissions.

Mr. HIGGS : HOW many recommittals are we likely to have?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : One recommittal will do for the lot.

Mr. HIGGS : Hon. members who had amend- ments to move would have to be present during the whole course of the discussion, and responsi- bilities would be placed upon them which they would not be able to fulfil. If taken clause by clause the schedule would not be very long in getting through. The non-contentious clauses, which were by far the greater number, would pass as rapidly as the Chairman could call them.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that if they took the schedule clause by clause, and he had to give an explanation of every clause, they could not expeot the Bill to pass t l k session.

Mr. T U R L E Y asked whether the motion and the amendment now before the House were in order?

The CHAIRMAN : If the hon. member had been in the Chamber all the time he would have heard me state more than once that they are both in order.

Mr. TURLKY: H e might he charged with being a sticklcr for the Standing Orders, but he would move that the Chairman’a ruling be dis- agreed to. He was of opinion that they should abide by their Standing Orders, and the Com- mittee ought not to he permitied to put them aside at any time they chose to anit their own convenience. Or if that was thought advisable a new Standing Order should be passed to that effecb.

Question-That the Chairman’s ruling be dis- agreed to-stated.

Mr. McDONALD (Flindem) : The original question before the Committee was that sche- dule 1 stand part of the Bill. Now that had been wiped out altogether. A motion had been

made that the schedule he taken [9 p.m.1 chapter by chapter, and as an

amendment on that the hon. mem- ber for Cairns had moved that the echedule be takep clause by clause. Then they had the further motion of the hon. member for Brisbane South, that the Chairman’s ruling he disagreed to. H e should like to know what had become of the original question.

The A~TORNEY-GENERAL : I t is withdrawn. The SECRETARY F0.R PUBLIC LANDS :

The question was still, in what way was the original question to be dealt with-whether they should take i t chapter by chapter, or clause by clause, or line by line. The Chairman had given a ruling that it could be put chapter by chapter, and the question as to how the schedule should be put was the secondary question they were now endeavouring to determine.

Mr. McDONALD contended that the motion by the Attorney-General, that the schedule should be taken chapter by chapter, should have been put a s an amendment on the orininal qurs- tion-“That schedule 1 stand part 2 the Bill.” The further amendment by the hon. member for Cairns was an amendment on the amendment moved by the Attorney-General. The motion of the hon. member for Brisbane South, that the Chairman’s ruling be disagreed to, dealt with another question that they knew nothing about.

Mr. TURLEY : Yes ; a ruling has been given that the amendments are in order.

Mr. McDONALD: The Chairman did not rule a t all.

The. CHAIRMAN: Is the hon,. member speaking to the question that my rnhng he dis- a.greed to, or on the general question before the Committee ?

Mr. McDONALD : I want, to know where we are.

The CHAIRMAN.: We are in exactly the same position as if it had been moved that clause 15 stand part of the Bill, and after that it hadbeen moved that arulingwhich had beengiven by the Chairbe disagreed to, the originalrjuedinn would remain in abeyance. So in this case the question “that schedule 1 stand part of the Bill” will remain in abeyance until the Committee 3ecide in what way the schedule is to be con- sidered.

Mr. McDONALD: Was he to understand ;hat in the event of a motion being put that ;he clause stand part of the Bill, and another

18s Oriminat Oods Bill. rASS.%MB~Y.] Criminal Cods Bill.

queesion came along, the original queetion could be put a t one side until the second question had been decided ?

The CHAIRMAN : Yes, in such a case as the one before the Committee. If the schedule is dealt with in the way proposed, I shall after- wards put the question, ‘‘ That the schedule stand part of the Bill,” but in the meantime that question will be in abeyance.

Mr. McDONALD : With all due respect to the Chairman, he thought that was really an extraordinary statement. They could not lose sight of she original question ; they might add or omit words, but they could not lose the original question. Whatever amendments might be made in the schedule, there must still be before the Committee the question that schedule 1 stand part of the Bill.

Mr. HARDACRE was surprised a t the hon. member for Flinders getting mixed up in that way. The procedure they had followed was perfectly correct. The first proposal was that “schedule 1 stand part of the Bill,” and the second proposals were only details as to how they should take the schedule, whether chapter by chapter, or clause by clause, and i t was distinctly proiided in the Standing Orders that an amendment might be made in a proposed amendment. The contention of the hon. mem- ber for Bridbane South was that the Chairman was wrong in permitting those motions, but he (Mr. Hardacre) held that there was no Standing Order which would prevent them ordering their own procedure for their own Convenience. Over and over again the Committee when dealing with lengthy clauses had taken them in sections.

Mr. BELL : When wa8 th& done? Mr. HARDACRE : H e could not say when,

but he had it distinctly in his mind that they had sep?rated lengthy clauses for their own con- venience. If he remembered rightly, i t was done in the caRe of the Fencing Act of 1894. Every consultativebody hadan inherent right toorder its own procedure with regard to matters within its jurisdiction, and they would also find that their own Standing Orders gave them the right. I t was not only the unwritten law, but the written law also. Standing Order 158 said-

A l l questions arising in Committee of the Whole IIouse should he decided by the votes of the majority of the members present. The Committee therefore had a right to decide what their procedure should b e ; and then another Standing Order said that in all cases not specifically provided for recourse should be had to the Standingr‘Rules and Orders of the House of Commons. May” laid i t down distinctly that they could deal with schedules exactly as they could deal.with clauses; and he stated with regard to clauses that they could be divided up and the different sections treated as Beparate clauses. He contended that the Chairman was absolutely correct, and i t was incumbent upon any rneniber who disputed his ruling to point out the specific clause of the Standing Orders that was being violated.

The TREASURER (+n. R. Philp, Tornms- vi&) could give three dintinct cases where the Committee dealt with Bills in the way now pro- posed. When the present Standing Orders went through, twenty or thirty clauses were put a t a time. When the Constitution Bill for North Queensland went through, a number of claiises were taken together ; and on the Mining Bill of last year he had split up certain clauses as being the most expeditious way of dealing with them. If they were going through 750 clanres clause by clause they would not finish by this time next year. It certainly would facilitate matters if the schedule were divided into chapters. The Bill had been well debated by the judges, and they were unanimously of opinion that i t was a

good measure. Re did not think the House could improve very much on the measure if they sat a t it for twelve months.

Mr. McDONALD (FZindcrs) : The hon. mem- her for Leichhardt took exception to the stand he took on the two questions before the Com- mittee.

The CHAIRMAN: I wish to remind the hon. member that the question now before the Committee is that the Chairman’s ruling be disagreed to.

Mp. McDONALD: That was what he was coming to. The hon. member in referring to his remarks said that was merely an amendment npon an amendment, thereby admitting that there must be an original question-the same conclusion that he himself had come to. He still contended that the original que-ition was before the Committee, and instead of the amend- ment being put as an original motion it should be put as an amendment on the original motion. Standing Order 83 said-

A question having been proposed, may he amended by omitting certain words only, hy omitting certain words in order to insert or add other words, or by inserting or adding words. The fact that the Chairman put the motion from the chair was the same as proposing it. Some six years ago it was the cuRtorn for the member in charge of a Bill to move that the clauseor schedule stand part of the Bill, and that wa9 repeated from the Chair. That practice waq afterwards dropped and the Chair put the question. That was what he was contending for when the hon. member for Leichhardt practically stated that his statement was ridiculous. The hon. member also said the Committee could make its own rules and regula- tions. If that was so, he wantpd to know what was the use of the Standing Orders? Under such circumstances whatever Government was in power could alter or override all their Standing Orders.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : Suimosina there is ._ I no Standing Order?

Mr. McDONALD : But he contended that there was a Standing Order. The Chairman himself pointed out that his position as Chair- man was such that when a question was pro- posed he was compelled to put it to the Com- mittee, and he had put i t in the ordinary way “ tha t the schedule do stand part of the Bill.” H e dia not know whether the Chairman backed down frnm that position. If he receded from that position and asked the leave of the Coni- mittee to put the question, he could understand it. But he failed to understand exactly where they were a t present.

Mr. DAWYON asked if the amendments had been seconded ?

Mr. L E A H Y read Order 159, which says a motion or an amendment made in committee need not be seconded.

Mr. DAWSON : The term “ House” was used for convenience, and, if section 84 did not govern Committee, how could hon. members say that section 95 governed the proceedings in committee ?

The CHAIRMAN: I would ask the hon. member to keep to the question before the Com- mittee-that is, that the Chairman’s ruling be disagreed to. I must ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to that question.

Mr. DAWSON : H e was not speaking tu the question before the Committee ; he was merely asking a question, and he believed that was per- missible. Speaking to the motion proposed by the hon. memher for Brisbane South, he viewed the matter in the same light as the hun. member for Leichhardt. The Chairman’e ruling violated no Standing Order, and he agreed with the lion. member for Leichhardt that when a member moved that the Chairman’s ruling be disagreed

Criminal Code Bill. [28 SEPTEMBER.] Criminal Code Bill. 189

with he should point out the particular Standing Order violated by the ruling. He contended again that no Standing Order said that a schedule shall be taken as one motion, or anything to the effect that i t shall not b4 taken as twenty motions. It was merely a matter for the good Rense and wisdom of the Committee, who were the absolute judges of the most convenient pro- cedure. Unless the hon. nienlber for Brisbane South could point out any violation of any Standing Order by the Chairman’s ruling, he could not support the motion.

Mr. T U R L E Y (Brisbane South) understood when he moved his motion that the schedule in the Bill would have to he dealt with as clanses in the Bill were dealt with. Where the Stand- ing Order3 did not provide in plain language the exact procedure, May’s Parliamentary Practice had to be referred to. The question must be put from the Chair. “That the schedule be the schedule of the Bill.” After that he contended that i t was not competent for the Committee to take the schedule piecemeal, but any hon. mem- ber might move any amendment he chose. If this practice was indulged in, what was the good of the Standing Orders, as the hon. member for Flinders said. If i t was necessary to suspend the Standing Orders, notice had to he given, and in this case notice had not been given, so the Standing Orders and the usual practice should be followed. As the leader of the Opposition stated, there was no Standing Order which specifically eaid that such and huch a thing could he done, hut the question should be put from the Chair in the manner he had indicated.

Mr. HARDACRE (Leichhnrdt) thought they would have got to a solution of the difficulty, only there was a slight irregularity in the way the Chairma: put the question. The original motion wag, That the schedule be the schedule of the Bill,” since which i t had been moved by way of amendment, “That tF,e schedule be taken chapter by chapter, after which there was a further amendment, “That the schedule be coyidered clause by clause.” The amendment, That ,the schedule be taken chapter by chapter, was nut of order, because i t had no connection with the original motion. The correct procedure was to put the question, “That the first chapter of the, schedule be the first chabter of the schedule, instead of the schedule being taken as a whole. It had frequently happened that subsections of a Bill were held over for subsequent discuszion, and the same could be done with a schedule. With regard to the Committee having the right to override the Standing Orders, no one pro- posed to do that ; i t was only proposed to follow the usual practice, in accordance with the Stand- ing Orders.

Mr. L E A H Y (Bulloo): The Committee seemed to have got into a tangle, and the

[9‘30 p.m.1 best thing they could do was to get out of it a8 quickly as possible. After

listening to the discussion [in the point of order he was inclined to agree with the hon. member for Flinders, but he thought they could get out of the difficulty. I t seemed to him that there were two motions before the Committee even before the motion of the hon. member for Bris- bane South was proposed. The second wag not in the nature of an amendment, but more in the nature of a point of order, thou h ib was not put in that particular form. T f e original question was that the 1-t schedule be the 1st schedule of the Bill. Then . a point of order arose, and the Chairman expressed his willingness to take the opinion of the Com- mittee, and be guided by it as to whether the schedule should be taken chapter by chapter or clause by clause, or how i t should be taken, Of

course when the Chairman gave his ruling i t would be competent for any hon. member who was not satisfied with that ruling to move that i t be disagreed to. If the Chairman would tell the Committee what conclusion he had arrived at after hearing the opinicns expressed by hon. members the Committee would be guided by that ruling unless i t was disagreed to.

Mr. TURLEY : The amendments must be with- drawn.

Mr. L E A H Y : Yes. He would suggest that the amendments be withdrawn so that the Chair- man might have an opportunity of expressing his opinion as to the proper mode of procedure as gathered from what had been said during the discussion by hon. members. He thought that would get over the difficulty. The second motion was out of order because there could not be tw3 substantive motions before the Com- mittee unless one of them was a motion that the Chairman’s ruling be disagreed to. He thought i t was time the common sense of the Chamber should assert itself and that they should get on with the business.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was very pleased to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Bulloo. I t was time they left off playing with legislation. I t was not worthy of the intellect of the Committee that they should spend over two and a-half hours in debatinga subject of this sort. What they wanted was a modicum of common sense brought to bear on the business. He did not move the motion “ tha t the schedule stand part of the Bill” because it was not in accordance with the usage of the present day. Then the question arose as to whether there was a motion by him before the Committee ‘* that the schedule stand part of the Bill ” or not. If there was a motion by him before the Committee, he offered to withdraw it, and if that could not be allowed he was prepared to let it be amended 80 that the schedule mipht he considered chapter by chapter. Thenit wasobjectedthatit would not hein accord- ance with thestanding Orderstoadopt that course, and the Chairman’s ruling was challenged. Then there was a lull, and somebody moved as an amendment on what he thought was his original motion, “ tha t the schedule be taken clause by clause,” and the hon. member for Brisbane South, after ascertaining the Chairman’s ruling, moved that /the ruling be &agreed to. Why not allow the difficulty to be solved by the appli- cation of a little common sense? Why not regard his motion that the schedule be taken chapter by chapter as the original motion, and the motion that it be taken clause by clause as an amend- ment on the original motion? The opinion of the Chairman had been asked, and i t was com- petent for the Committee to take a division a t once if the hon. member for Brisbane South de- sired to press his motion to a division. They should not waste any more time over the matter.

Mr. ANNEAR (Muryborough) did not think the time had been wasted in discussing this question. The hon. member for Drayton and Toowoomba (Mr. Groom) had this evening regretteJ that there was not more legal ability in the Chamber to give hon. members the benefit of their advice, but. he was sure that every hon. member who had heard the clear exposition of the Standing h i e r n given by the hon. member for Leichhardt, would say there was no want of legal talent in the Chamber. (Laughter.) He scarcely knew what was the question before the Committee. (Laughter.)

The CHAIRMAN : The question before the Committee is that my ruling be disaqreed to.

Mr. ANNE-4R: He agreed with the hon. member for Flinders that the chairman’s ruling

190 Criminal Code Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Criminal Code Bill.

was in accordance with the Standing Orders, and such being the case he wouldsupport the ruling. Standing Order 256 said-

The Chairman shall put a question on each clause of the Bill-That the clause as read stand part of the Bill. No. 257 said-

proposed to the clause- Such qugstion being proposed, amendments may he

1. To omit words. 2. To omit words in order to add or insert other

words instead thereof. 3. TO add or insert words.

And sucll amendments ahall he dealt with as in the House iiself. Clause 263 distinctly stated that a clause or schedlile proposed to be added in committee should be read by the Chairman, who should then put the question that the clauw or schedule stand part of the Bill ; and the cls.use or schedule might thereupon be amended or otherwise dealt with as in every other case. He believed the Standing Orders of this House compared favour- ably with the Standing Orders in use in any of the Parliaments of Australia, and he hoped members would adhere to them. He believed the business of the House would not be delayed if the Standing Orders were strictly obeyed.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: We can make amendments as we go along.

Mr. MoDUNALU (Flinders) : There was another little point, or, rather, question. That was-What was to become of the motion if i t was ca.rriPd? Was it going to be embodied in the schedule? Were they going to carry the motion nr the two amendments? Why not with- draw them, and let the House get to business ? The two amendments now before the Committee had not come down from the House. They had originated hrre, and were foreign altogether to the subject matter of tbe Bill. H e should like to hear the Chairman exvlain what was to be done with either of them if they were carried.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL suggested that hon. members might aaree to withdraw their amendments, and get an expression of opinion - a ruling-from the Chairman as to whether i t was competent for the Committee to take the schedule chapter by chapter.

The CHAIEMAN : The hon. member for Flinders has asked what will be done with the amendments if they are carried. They will appear in ‘.‘ Vntes and Proceedings ” as a direc- tion to the Chairman-as an expression of opinion from the Committee-as to how we will proceed with the schedule. I cannot undertake to express an opinion for the Committee. After the motion that the Chairman’s ruliug be dis- agreed to had been dealt with, then it could be moved that the schedule be considered chapter by cha.pter, or clause by clause.

Mr. McDONA1,D was not going to allow that form of procedure. The Attorney-General had laid down a very sensible and reasonable mode of procedure which he thought should be adopted. The idea of the Chairman of Coni- mittees that, after a motion or amendment had been carried by the Committee, i t could merely be lilaced in “Votes and Proceedings,” was simply ridiculous. There was no power to do it. H e should like to know where the Chairman got such drastic power. He hoped the Committee would have the good wnse to adopt the suggestion of the Attorney-General. It was the only way of getting nver the difficulty.

Mr. HARDACRE thought the hon. member for Mnryborouqh had pointed out the course which bhould be adopted-that the Chairman put the motion that schedule 1 stand part of the Bill, to which members woul: then be ab1.e to move that all the words after that ” be omitted with a view of inserting that chapter 1 of the schedule be chapter 1 of the schedule to the

Hill or any other words that they liked. If the motion was carried-“That chapter 1 of the schedule be chapter 1 of the schedule,”-it would go into the Bill, and then they could proceed to deal with all the othrr chapters in turn till they came to the end of the schedule. But in order to do that they would have to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Bnlloo, and withdraw the various motions and amendments as well as the motion that the Chairman’s ruling he disagreed with, and come back to the original question.

Mr. TURLEY: If i t was the understanding that the smendrnent which had been moved on the original question and the amendment on that amendment would be withdrawn, he would withiraw his motion that the Chairmnn’s ruling be disagreed to.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : I will withdraw. Mr. GIVENS: H e had not withdrawn his

amendment, a,nd he did not intend to withdraw i t until he knew what was going to hnppen. If both the motion of the Attorney-General and his amendment were withdrawn, and the Chair- man ruled that the schedule could be taken chapter by chapter, what conrse would be left open to him who desired to see i t taken clause by clause ? Seeing that the Standing Orders were silent on the point, it was competent for the Committee to decide what course i t would pursue. The two substantive motions before the Com- mittee had nothing to do with the contents of the schedule.

Mr. LEAKY : You cannot have two substantive motions before the Committee a t the same time -that is the point.

Mr. GIVENS : H e took it that there could be two substantive motions before them, and in that he was supported by the Chairman. Sup- posing that was the case, and the Attorney- General moved that chapter 1 of the schedule stand part of the Rill, and that was carried, i t would prevent him from moving anything after that.

The TREASURER: But the Attorney-General has withdrawn his amendment.

Mr. GIVENS wanted an explanation on that point brfore he would withdraw his amendment, because he wanted the schedule discussed clause by clause. I t would greatly facilitate business if that course was followed. Seeing all the great authorities, including the hon. member for Leichhardt, had been a t loggerheads all the evening, he was afraid that they might turn out to be as greatly mistaken again, and he wanted a definite statement of the position from the Chairman, who was the only person in a position to give an authoritative opinion. As the Chair- man had ruled that the amendments were in order, the proper course was for the Committee to divide upon the motion of the hon. member for South Brisbane that the Chairman’s ruling be disagreed to.

Mr. LEAHY : The Chairman qualified that by Ravine he would be guided bv the ouinion of the

.?

Committee. The CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for

Bulloo is toistaken in thinkina that I have with-

I

I

drawn my ruling. Mr. LEAHY : I understood yon to say that you

would be guided hy the opinion of ’the Com- mittee.

Mi-. GIVENS : The only way to get out of the difficulty was to divide upon the motion of the hon. member for South Brisbane. If the Standing Orders did not make provision for such a case, the sooner they took steps to get a definite expression of opinion on the point the quicker they would get on with hu8iness.

Mr. DACVSON thought the hon. member for C.%irns was suffering under a mistaken notion. They had been discussing the matter for about

Criminal Code Bill. [28 SE:

three hours, and almost everyone in the Commit- tee had come to the conclusion that they hadgot into a tangle. A very sensible way ont of the difficulty had been sugpested-that the motion that the Chairman’s ruling be disagreed to be withdrawn, as well as the amendment of the Attorney-General and the amendment of the hon. member for Cairns-and that they should s tar t afresh. H e understood that the question then would he-“That schedule 1 be schedule 1 ‘of the Bill.’’ I t would then be quite csmpetent for the Attorney-General to move that the schedule be taken in chapters, or for the hon. mcmber for Cairns to move that i t he taken clause by clause. B,y withdrawing his arnend- ment now he did not forfeit his right to move i t a t a later stage. When the way was clear again i t would be for the ChairKan to rule whether i t could be taken chapter by chapter or clause by clause. Then any hon. member could move that his ruling be &.;agreed to.

Mr. M a l ~ o ~ a r , u : That is not the ruling at all. Mr. DAWYON : He underdood the Chair-

man had decided that the Standing Orders meant that the schedule must be taken as one. H e presumed that when he put the question again, he would put the whole 708 clauses as one question. Then it would be competent for any hon. member to question that ruling or amend it.

Mr. B E L L : The Chairman’s ruling was exactly the oppusite - that the

[lo p.m.1 schcdule should be taken not en bloc, but seriatim.

Mr. DAWSON : Supposing he did, i t was quite competent for any hon. member to move that i t bedisogreedto. Matters hadgotvery much involved. The present position was that the hon. member fnr Brisbane South and the Attorney-General were willing to withdraw their motions, and that the only on ing in the way was the hon. memher for

Mr. McDONALD did not think there was any necessity for the Chairman to give a ruling a t all, or i f he did i t was competent for any hon. member to move that it be diszgreed to.

Mr. HIGGS was inclined to support the hon. member for Cairns in his decision to adhere to hi4 amendment. The Chairman had given a ruling that both the motion and the amendment were in order, and he failed to see what difference it would make in the position if all the motions before the Committee were withdrawn. Most of them had made up their minds, and they might as well a t once go to a division on the motion of the hon. member for Brisbane South, and after- wards on that of the hon. member for Cairns.

Mr. HARDACRE hoped they wonld not go to a division at all, but that the him. member for Cairns would withdraw his amendment and let them get back to the original question. They would then get the Chairman’s ruling, upon which any hon. member could move an amendment.

Mr. T U R L E Y : With the permission of the Committee I will withdraw my motion.

Motion withdrawn accordingly. Question-That the words proposed to be

Mr. McDONALD : What are the words 1x0- omitted stand part of the questi~)n-put.

posed to be omitted ? The q H A I l t M A K : The words “chapter by

chapter, with the view of inserting the words “ clause by clause. ”

Mr. McDOXALD said heunderstond the hon. member for Cairns had withdrawn hi3 amend- ment, and that that was the reason why the hon. member for Brisbane South had withdrawn his motion.

Mr. GIVENS : The hon. member for Flinders had never had any intimation from him that he had withdrawn his motion, and until some way could be shown out of the difficulty they were in

~YBBB.] Criminal Code Bill. 191

he did not intend to withdraw it. H e distinctly declined to give up what he claimed to be the privilege of diacodsing the schedule clause by clause, and nobody had shown him how he could reserve that privilege if he withdrew the motion.

Mr. HARDACRE: The hon. member would have the same chance of moving it again when they got back to the starting-point.

Mr. GIVENS declined to do anything so stupid as go back to the starting-point. If the Attorney-General or the Chairman could show him any way to get oat of the tangle, without any hon. member forfeiting his right to have the schedule discu-sed clauie by clause, he bhould be only too happy to facilitate the settlement of the question.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : The hon. member for Briabane South had withdrawn his amendment. If the hon. member for Cairns would withdraw his amendment, then he (the Attorney-General) wonld withdraw his motion, and they woiild be exactly as they were-nothing would have been done with the schedule. Then he would get up and state that it was his inten- tion to ask that the schedule be taken chapter by chapter, and wonld ask for the ruling of the Chairman as to whethcr it was competent for hiin to do that. If the Chairman ruled that it waR not competent fur him to deal with the schedule in that way, then it would be competent for any hon. member to move that his ruling be disavreed to. If the Chairman ruled that it was witfin his competency to take the schedule in that way, then it would be competent for any hon. meinher to move that his ruline he disagreed to. When they had got a decision on that- supposing the Chairman said ha could take the schedule as he proposed-and a motion on that that his ruling be disagreed to was negatived, then he could take it chapter by chapter, and i t would be competent for any hon. inember to move that it be taken clause by clause.

An HONOURABLE MEMBER : Let us start afresh. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : They could

not start afresh if the hon. member for Ca,irns would not withdraw his amendment; the hon. member was putting a block in the way.

Mr. GIVENS failed to see why he should be spoken t o in those menacing tones.

The ATTORXEY-GENERAL : Yon invited me to show you a way out of the difficulty.

Mr. GIVENS : H e had asked for that inform. ation very courteously, and he was just getting up to ask the permission of the Committee to withdraw Lis amendment when the hm. gentle- man spoke to him in that dictatorial tone.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : I did not intend to be dictatorial.

Mr. GIVENS : He accepted the hon. gentle- man’s assurance, and, in deference to the witih of the Committee, and with a view to facilitate business, he asked leave to withdraw hia amend- ment. But he did so on the distinct nnder- standing that he would have a n opportunity Of moving a similar motion by-and-hy, and fighting for the privilege of getting the Code dealt with clause by clause.

The CHAIRMAN : Is i t the pleasure of the Committee that the amendment he withdrawn ?

Mr. HIGGS : Before that question was answered, would the Attorney-General reply to the hon. member for Cairns, and say whether he would hare an opportunity of nioving his amendment a t a later stage?

Mr. G I V E N S : What he wanted from the Attorney-General was an assurance that hy with- drawing his aniendni~nt he did not forfeit his right to fight for the schedule being dealt with clause by clause.

The *~TTORXET-GEWRAL : Htar, hear !

192 Criminal Code Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Criminal Code Bill.

The CHAIRMAN : I think i t is just as well that hon. members should clearly understand the position. If the motion and amendment are withdrawn, and I adhere to the ruling I gave in the first instance, we shall have to fall hack upon our Standing Orders.

Mr. LEAHY: Yes ; but we shall not have two suhstantive motions before the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN: I take it that the Attorney-Genwal will move that the schedule be taken chapter by chapter, and that the hon. member for Cairns will then move hisamend- ment, so that most likely we shall he where we were. I s it the pleasure of the Committee that the amendment be withdrawn?

Mr. HIGGS : Beforethatquestion wasauswered he thought they might as well know exactly where they were.

The CHAIRMAN: I think we had better get an answer to my question.

Mr. HIGGS : He objected to the amendment being withdrawn, because hon. members seemed to be desirous now, not of deciding the question whether the schedule should be taken clause by clause, but of expressing an opinion regarding the ruling of the Chairman. He wanted to know whether, when the Attorney-General moved that the schedule be taken chapter by chapter-

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : I won’t do that. I am going to movenothing. I am going to ask whether it is competent for me to propose a certain motion. Then we shall get a decision on the question, and we can agree or disagree to it. If it is decided that I can propose the motion, then I shall moye my resolution, and the hon. member for Cairns can move his amendment.

Mr. H I C G S : That was just the fault he found with the proposal. Hon. members ap- peared to he anxious to make the bone of con- tention the Chairman’s ruling. H e did not want that a t all ; he wanted a vote to be taken on the amendment of the hon. member for Cairns. H e presumed the Chairman was not going to with- draw the ruling he had already given, and, if that was so, then in ten minutes’ time they would be in the same position as thsy were a t the present moment.

Rlr. LESINA hoped the hon. member for Fortitude Valley would not object any further to the withdrawal of the amendment, as mem- bers on that side would be blarned outside for wasting time, thongh the whole thing was due to the indecent haste with which the Government had endeavoured to ram that Bill down their throats.

My. F I S H E R assured the hon. member for Fortitude Valley that they would not lose their rights if the amendment were withdrawn. Ho was fighting on the same line as the hon. member, and if he thought there was the slightest chance of losing their privileges he should cbject to the withdrawal of the amendment. The Attorney- General had stated that he would ask for per- mission to take the schedule clause by clause-

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : No, he pro- posed to ask the Chairman if i t was permissible for him to tske the schedule chapter by chapter. That would open up the whole question whether they could Pplit i t up into chapters or clauses, or whether they must take i t in globo. That was the question he wanted to get decided.

Mr. F I S H E R was glad to hear the remarks of the Attorney-General. The condition the hon. meiriber for Cairns mzde was that the motion should be withdrawn, and he asked that the schedule should be submitted clause by clause.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : No: he onlv wants his rights preserved.

t o the Chairman’s ruling they would be safe. Mr. F I S H E R thought if they left, the matter

Mr. HIGGS: I decline to withdraw my objection.

Mr. DAWSON: Then they might as well proceed to discuss the point raised by the hon. member for Bribbane South, Mr. Tnrley. There was no object in the hon. member for Bris- bane South withdrawin his motion unless the motions moved prior to f i s were also withdrawn. If he understood matters correctly, the original propoeition a as that the schedule stand part of the Bill. Then there was an amendment by the Attorney-General.

The CHAIRMAN : The proposition was khat the schedule should be considered chapter by chapter.

Mr. DAWSON : That was exactly the point. H e had pointed out a t thetime that the proposition put from the Chair was, “ That schedule 1 stand part of the Bill,” and that had not been with- drawn since. He had also pointed out that they had allowed a practice to spring up of the Chair- man putting a clause, or proposition, without the proposer formally moving it, and the Chair- man explained that it was found to be a con- venient custom. But it had been understood that when put from the Chair the roposer had actually formally proposed it. b i t h o u t the original proposition being disposed of, another proposition had come from the pro- poser, the Attorney -General, “That the schedule be taken chapter by chapter,” and they were in this position : that they had two motions before them from the same proposer a t one time. On top of that the hon. member for Cairns moved an amendment on the second motion of the Attorney-General, which amend- ment the hon. member for Fortitudevalley, Mr. Higgs, point blank refused to allow him to with- draw. If Mr. Higgs had waived hie objection they would have got over the difficulty and been able to start afresh and et through a lot of business in half an hour. a u t that hon. member was not prepared to do so ; for what reason he did not know. What he wanted to know was this : seeing that i t was only competent for the Attorney-General to move one motion, and that the amendment of the hon. member for Cairns was on the motion which the Attorney-General was not competent to move, was that amend- ment in order or not ?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. member is mistaken when he makes the statement that the Attorney. General hasmoved twomotione. H e has not done so. My duty,according to the Standing Orders, was merely to call the schedule on before the Committee;‘ The Attorney-General then moved that the schedule be considered chapter by chapter.” 9: that there was an amendment moved that chapter by chapter” be omitted, with a view of inserting ‘‘ clause by clause.” The thing is perfectly in order, and if hou. members will allow it to go to division, i t will come out clearly.

Mr. DAWSON: Did he understand the Chairman to rule that the Chairman of Com- mittees was the prc,poser of the motion.

The CHAIRMAN : I bring the schedule before the Committee by mentioning it, and then a motion has been moved by the Attorney- General that the schedule be conqidered chapter by chapter, and upon that the amendment of the hon. member for Cairns wa8 moved. The ques- tion now is “ tha t the words yoposed to be omitted stand part of the clause.

Mr. DAWSON : Some member of the Com- mittee moved a proposition, and the Chairman’s duty was to put it to the Committee. H e was not the proposer of that question.

Mr. ANREAR : The AttorneyGeneral in this case moved the uestion.

Mr. GIVEN# :If he did he withdrew it,

Criminal Cods Bill. [28 SE~TEMBEB.] Crimina2 Code BiU. 193

Mr. DAWSON : H e could not withdraw it. That was exactly what he wanted to point out. For the sake of convenience they had allowed a practice to spring up of not calling upon the member in charge of a Bill to read the clause he proposed. The Chairman did t h a t ; he put the question, and it was undeistood that in so doing he way acting for the mover. That was the yxesent podition When the Chair- man moved that “Schedule 1 stand part of the Bill,” i t meant to hon. member* that the Attorney-General had moved that as a formal proposal. Subsequently the Attorney-General moved another resolution before the first one was disposed of, so there were two propositions before the Committee by one hon. member-a state of things which could not properly exist. Then the hon. member for Cairns moved another amend- ment, on the second motion of the Attorney- General, which he was not competent to put. He wished to know whether that was in order.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : Following the SEnding Order the Chairman put the ques- tion, that the schedule stand part of the Bill,” and i t was quite competent for him (the Attorney- General) to move the amendment he had moved -that was, that the schedule be taken chapter by chapter. Then the hon. member for Cairns moved another amendment-that the schedule be taken clause by clause-and he was quite right in so doing. The Chairman ruled that it waaquite competent for the hon. member for Cairns and himself to move these amendments. and the hon. member for South Brisbane moved that the Chairman’s ruling be disagreed to. If the hon. member for Cairns was not allowed to with- draw his amendment, then he took i t that his (the Attorney-General’s) amendment stocd. H e now wiahed the Chairman to sa,y wheiher he was in order, and if any hon. member dispnted the Chairman’s kuling, they could take a division at once. If they got that foundation to work on, they could go on with all the rest of the businem

Mr. McDONALD said the objection he had to that was that what the Attoruey.Genera1 proposed would not clear the way in the slightest.

Mr. HIGGS (Fovtitude VaZLey) assured hon. members that he had no desire to appear unduly obstinate, but he could not withdraw from the position he had taken up, became, as hon. mem- bers had said, there was no Standing Order bearing on the case. He saw considerable danger in the amendment that the schedule be taken chapter by chapter, because a t some later stage the Ministry might wish to bring in a Bill in the form of a schedule, and rush it through in the same manner. That he was anxious to avoid, and he was perfectly right in standing by the Chairman’s rulina, so he objected to’ the with- drawal of the amendment of the hon. member for Cairns.

Mr. HARDACRE argued that by allowing the amendment to be withdrawn, hon. members would lose nothing, but would ain in the end, especially as the same ainenfment could be moved over again, but if they went to a division on the Chairman’s ruling, they would lose that right.

The CHAIRMAN : The question is-“ That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.”

Mr. DAWSON (Charters Towers) : If he was not mistaken, he had asked for a ruling as to whether the second motion of the Attorney- General and the amendment of the hon. member for Cairns were in order.

The CHAIRMAN : I have already given my ruling on that. I simply put the schedule be- fore the Committee, by naming i t as schedule l of the Bill. Upon that the Attorney General moved a motion, and 1 may say that my action

1899-0”

is thoroughly in accordance with the Standing Orders. Upon the original motion the Attorne General moved a direct motion that the ached& beconsidered chapter by chapter. I put that motion, which was not an amendment, but a substantive motion. Upon that the hon. mem- ber for Cairns, moved as anamendment, that the worda “chapter by chapter” be omitted with the view of inserting “clause by clause.’: The ques- tion now is that the worda to be omitted stand part of the question, and if hon. members will vote on i t a t once, they will find that the whole thing will come out perfectly straight.

Mr. DAWSON : H e for one did not think i t would come out straight. He rose now par- ticularly to ask whether thechairman, as Chair- man, was the proposer of the original proposition, that tho 1st schedule stand part of the Bill? If the Chairmen was not the proposer of tho motion who was the proposer? And if there was no proposer was that question before the Committee ?

The CHAIRMAN : I am not the proposer of the motion. The Standing Orders provide for that.

Mr. HARDACRE : Clause 256. Mr. DAWSON: Was it com etent for any

question to be considered by the Eommittee if it was not proposed ?

The CHAIRMAN : The question is put but not proposed.

Mr. DAWSON : It must Le proposed by some member of the Committee. Standing Order No. 256 was an instruction to.tho Chairman that when Be received a proposition from an hon. member it was his bounden duty, as Chairman, to put that question before the Committee. His attention had also been directed to No. 161, which provided that “ the same order in debate should he observed in Committee as in the Housc.” What was the rule of the House.?. A member rose in his placo and made a proposition, and when that was seconded, the proposition wais put from the chair b Mr. Speaker. The only difference between tge two was that in Com- mittee it was not necessary to have a seconder.

The CHAIRMAN : I t is not necessary to have a proposer.

Mr. DAWSON : Were they to understand that the Chairman, of his own opinion, could propose something to the Committee? Under what Standing Order had he the power to do that ? Could a solitary instance be quoted from the history of parliamentary procedure in any of the British dominions where a Chairman had been the propoeer of the question to be taken into consideration by the Committee ? H e did not think so, and he intended to force the matter to a division.

The P R E M I E R : The hou. gentleman seemed to be oblivious of the fact that since 1892 there had been fredh Standing Orders. H e sym- pathised with all the hon. gentleman said referring to the time before 1892 when i t was customary for the rnoverof a Bill to rise a t every clause and propose that clause so-and-so stand part of the Bill ; hut i t had been wholly altered since 1892, and now it devolved upon the Chair- man to call out the clause with the marginal note and put i t to the Committee without the proposer of the Bill interferingin any wayunleas he had occasion to introduce an amendment or call attention to some particular feature of the Bill. And that, of course, applied to the schedules as well. Standing Order 256 expresely said--

The Chairman shall put a question on each clause oi the Bill, “That the clause, as read, stand part o l the Bill.” And the mover of the Bill tool? no part whatever unless he h3.d to defend the clauee or explain its

194 Criminul Code Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Cvirninal Code Bill.

provisions. This was further proved by May’s Parliamentary practice, where it was laid down-

The Chairman proceeds t o rend the number of each clause, which is thus brought under the consideration of the Committee, and to call on the members who have given notice of amendments. Then i t says-

If no amendment be offered to any part of a clause, the Chairman at once puts the question, “ That this clause stand part of the Bill.” S o i t was a misconception that the same practice existed now as existed in former years. There- fore, the Chairman was perfectly right in saying that he submitted a clause or schedule to the Committee without any action of the meniber or hon. member in charge of the Bill.

Mr. DAWSON pointed out that the practice the Premier had referred to was not discontinued in 1892. I t was discontinued for the first time in 1894. What he had pointed out was that thc practice had been allowed to grow up, for the sake of convenience and saving time, for the Chairman not to insist on the ploposer formally moving his uro~osition. but for the Chairman to put th‘e; q u e ~ t i o k

M r GIVENS (Cawns) rose to a point of order. He took it that the Chairman Lad already ruled that the motion and amendment were in order, and that it was competent for any member who disputed his ruling to move a definite motion to that effect ; bnt all the members who had sp(Ikc*n for a considerable time had not been discuseing either the motion or the amendment. His point of order was that hon. members, in order to put themselves in order, should have questioped the Chairman’s ruling hy a definite motion.

Mr. DAWSON was surprised at the hon. member for Cairns offering any objection to him replying to the Premier.

The CHAIRMAN : I do not think the hon. member for Charters Towers is quite in order in following this line of discussion. The question is-That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Mr. DAWSON : Was the question before the Committee exactly the same as when the Premier rose to address the r House? H e did not know that there had been any alteration, and he should like to know why he should be called to order and the Premier not.

The PREMIER : I was replying to you. *&fr. DAWSON : And I was replying to the

Premier. The CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for

Cairns having risen to a point of order, I had to I

take i t up. Mr. DAWSON : The House had never

denarted from the strict Standing Order that there must be a proposer to a resol&on.

The CHAIRMAN : I call the hon. member to order. H e is not discussing the question before the Committee.

Mr. DAWSON : Why did the Chairman not call the Premier to order ?

The CHAIRMAN : My attention has been called to it on a point of order, and I rule that the hon. member is out of order in following the line of discussion he is doing.

Mr. DAWHON: H e should like t o point out that the Chairman’s attention was not called to the Premier being out of order.

The PREMIER: If I tramgressed I should be called to order.

Mr. DAWSON : The hon. gentleman happens to be a respectable gentleman, and it was not necessary to call him to order ; but an ordinary Labour ’ragamuffin could he called to order a t any time. H e was entirely against the proposal before the Committee, and was very sorry that a number of hon. members had got somewhat worn out and wearied and retiied to their bods, because he should have liked to have had a very full vote.

They might be establishing a precedent which was very dangerous, and more particularly to those who happened to be in the minority in this Chamber.

Mr. FISHER rccollected when the alteration in regard to putting the question

[ll p.m.1 had heen made. The hon. member for Maryborough was then in the

Chair, and he (Mr. Fisher) called his attention to the innovation, and the answer the Chairman made-he could not find it in Hamsurd-

The CHAIHMAN: I must call thz hon. member’s attention to the question before the Committee-“ That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the qaeation.”

Mr. F I S H E R : The then Chairman had stated that thongh the practice was not in accordance with their Standing Orders, i t was in accordance with the practice of the House of Commons.

Mr. T U R L E Y : Some time ago he had obtained the permission of the Committee to withdraw his motion that the Chairman’s ruling be disagreed to, but he knew of nothing to pre- vent his moving that motion again. A s the Chairman had said that the Committee should take the responsibility, they should take the responsibility of saying whether they would abide by thi, Standing Orders or not, and he therefore moved that the Chairman’s ruling be disagreed to.

The CHAIRMAPI’ : I cannot put that ques- tion as other business bas intervened since my ruling was given. I therefore decline to put the motion.

Mr. McDOSALD asked the ruling of the Chairman as to whether the two motions before the Committee were in order. They would have no quibbling about i t now. They had got into a hole, and they would have to get out of i t the best way they could.

The CHAIRMAN : The question is : “That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the qwstion.”

Mi-. McDONALD asked for a distinct ruling, and that was the first time since he had been a member of the Houee that the Chairman had been so discoui teous that he was not prepared to give a ruling.

HONOURAELE MEMBERS : Order ! Mr. McDONALD : There were two distincc

questions before the Committee. No House of Assembly could have two questions before it a t one timr, and if the Chairman did not under- stand his duties he was not fit for the position.

The CHAIRMAN : Order ! I have ruled on this question three or four times during the evening, and I decline to repeat my ruling.

Mr. T U K L E Y : There was nothing in the Standing Orders which said that the Chairnian could simply brush asidea motion that his ruling be disagreed to, and he now moved, if he was in order, that the Chairman’s ruling be disagreed to.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL wished that, under the ctrcumstances, the Chairman would give an answer to the hon. member for Flinders. The hon. member for Brisbane South had with- drawn his motion that the Chairman’s ruling be disagreed to on the understanding that the amendment he had moved and the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cairns would both be withdrawn, and that they would begin de nowo. H e should be very soriy if the hon. member was deprived of his right by the refusal of the lion. member for Fortitude Valley to allow the withdrawal of the amendment of the hon. member for Cairns. If the Chairman would answer the hon. member for Flinders, the hon. member for Brisbane South could then move his motion.

Mr. HARDACRE : If the Attorne General would consent to move that the segedule be taken clause by clause, he believed everybody

Criminal Code Bill. [28. SEPTEHIBEB.] Crimidal Code Bill. 195

wonld withdraw their amendments and motions, and they would get back to the original question straight away.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : But an hon. mem- ber said that he wanted to discnss every clause.

Mr. HARDACRE : They were only refusing to withdraw their amendments because they were afraid they would not have the right to discuss particular clauses.

Mr. F I S H E R assured the Attorney-General that he never expressed any intention of dis- cussing every clause, bnt he would be very glad to get the assistance of the hon. gentleman in elucidating some of the clauses. If the hon. gentleman would only accede to their request, the Bill would gct through in a very short time.

Mr. TURLEY : I have moved a motion, but i t has not get been put from the chair.

The CHAIRMAN : The hon. memher did not move the motion immediately after the ruling was given. There has been a long d w cussion since, and I do not think that it is com- petent for him to move it after this lapse of time. However, I do not wish to prevent the hon. member taking up the same position that.he was in before, and I again suggest that it 1s com- petent for the Attorney-General to move the motion that he hss done, and for the Committee to discuss i t and take a vote.

Mr. T U R L E Y : Then I shall move that your ruling he disagreed to.

Mr. McDONALD wanted a distinct ruling as to the point he had raised-namely, was i t in order to have two questions before the Committee a t the same time? ~

The CHAIRMAN: I have all the evening maintained that there are not two questions before the Committee. I put the queshon that theschedule stand part of theBill. That was not a motion ropofied by me; it is merely the action of the 8hairman according to the Standing Orders. Then a specific motion was made by the Attorney-General, upon which an amend- ment was moved bv the him. member for Cairns.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not think i t fair to put abstract questions to the Chairman which he was not bound to answer. The hon. memher was assuming that there were two questions before the Committee.

Mr. MoDONALD maintained that there were two questions before the Committee. When the Chairman put the question that the schedule stand part of the Bill, that was the question before the Committee. Since then a fresh

uestion had been moved as to whether the p: omniittee should take the schedule chapter by chapter or clause by clause. The Chairman gave his ruling in the first instance that the schedule could only he dealt with as a whole.

The CHAIRMAN : Tho hon. member is mis- taken. I said that was the way provided in the Standing Order, and that I should have to abide by the Standing Order unless otherwise directed by the Committee. Then a motion was moved which would have the effect of directing me if i t was carried, followed by an amendment ; and that is the only question now before the committee.

Mr. MoOONALD : He still maintained that there were two questions before the House.

The CHAIRMAN : Surely the hon. member must understand that when I call a clause in a Bill it is competent for anyone to move an amendment in that clause. If an amendment is moved my call stands in abeyance until it is dis- posed of. Afterwardn I put the question, that the clause as amended, or as printed, stand part of the Bill. That is the position we are in with reference to this schedule.

Mr. McDONALD : The question before the Committee must be that schedule 1 stand part 3f the Bill. Although the AttorneyGeneral

I did not say that was the only way.

did not move the question, it wits exactly the same .as if he had done so. It waa merely a convenience, and to save time, that the Chairman put the question to the Committee. Anything done after that, in the way of adding or omitting words, was an amendment to that proposition. A way had been suggested hours ago of getting out of the tangle into which they had got, and if that had been adopted i t was probable that 200 or 300 clauses of the schedule would have been passed by this time.

Mr. TUILLEY: The motion he had moved had not been put from the Chair, and he would like to know whether it had been accepted as a motion.

The CHAIRMAN : What motion is that? Mr. TURLEY : That your ruling be disagreed

to. The CHAIRMAN : Which ruling? Mr. TURLEY : The ruling that the amendment,

and the amendment on that amendmenb are in order.

The CHAIRMAN : I have not given a ruling that the Attorney-General's motion is an amend- ment on the question.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. member challenges your ruling a4 to whether either the motion or the amendment is in order.

The CHAIRMAN : I.have ruled that i t is competent for the Committee to deal with both the motion and amendment.

Mr. T U R L E Y : Then I move that your ruling be disagreed to.

Mr. HARDACRE agreed with the hon. member for Flinders that there were two distinct and separate questions before the Committee, but contended that there should not be, and thati the motion of the Attorney-General, though framed in such a way as to make i t a distinct substantive motion, was really an amendment on the question put by the Chairman that schedule 1 stand part of the Rill. He should be compelled to vote against the Chairman's ruling, because he thought there were two distinct aues- tions before thecommittee.

four hours to-night io useless diucussion. The TREASURER : They had spent about

What they wanted to"6nd out was how the schedule should be put-whether in one question, or chapter by chapter, or clause by clause. He thought it would have been better if that matter had been decided before the Chairman put the question that schedule 1 stand part of the Bill, but he was of opinion that it was atill competent for the Committee to take a vote on the question, and establish a precedent. The only way to do that now was first to take a vote on the motion of the hon. member for Brisbane South, and find out what was the will of the Committee.

Mr. KIDSTON (Rockhhampton) thought they should clearly understand what they were doing if they voted for or against the motion of the hon. member for Brisbane South. If they supported the motion that the present ruling of the Chairman be disagreed to, then they should be asqerting his first ruling that the Attorneg-

General could not move the motion [11'30 p.m.1 he had submitted to the Committee.

They would then have to take the schedule en bloc. So that the question now before them really settled the whole matter before the Committee, and it was just as well for members to understand that clearly.

Mr. MoDONALD would like to point out that although they would then have to take the schedule as a whole. i t did not prevent them debating every line and word of it.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No one ever s u p gested otherwise.

Mi-. MoDONALD : He only wanted to show that that: course could have been followed from the first. He would not like the Committee to

196 CrimiBal Code Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Criminal Code Bill.

be under the impression that if the Chairman’s ruling was disagreed with it would prevent any- body from dimiming the schedule in detail. They would simply be in the same position as if they had accepted the original motion.

HONOURABLE MEMBERS : We understand that. Mr. McDONALU : There were a number ?f

young members who might not understand It, and he therefore wished to make i t clear. H e took that opportunity of sayin that. he ahould on the first available occasion, wten the Speaker was in the chair, move a motion similar to that which had been moved in Committee, in order to force the House to give an expression of opinion upon whether two questions could be before the House a t one time.

Mr. L E A H Y (Bulloo) : Before he cast his vote he should like to know whether the question was exactly the same as when the hon. member for Brisbane South moved that the Chairman’s ruling be disagreed to. If the motion proposed by the Attorney-General was in the shape of a distinct proposition he should vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Biisbane South, but if i t was in the shape of an amend- ment he would vote against it. I n giving his vote he would be guided by what the Chairman said.

The CHAIRMAN: I think i t is hardly necessary for me to state again what I have said so often-that I consider the motion of the Attorney-General a distinct proposition.

Mr. MCDONALU: There are two motions before us a t the same time.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not admit that. I hold that the calling on of the schedule and putting the yuestion that it stand part of the Bill is nut a substantive motion. The qiies- tioii now is that the Chairman’s ruling be disagreed to.

Question put ; and the Committee divided :- Auas, 14.

Ycssrs. Lesina, Leahy, Damson, Ryland, Dunslord, McDonald, Ridston. Kerr, Hitrdacre, W. Hamilton, Fitzgerald, Fisher, Maxwell, and Turley.

NOES, 26. Messrs. Dickson, Rutledge, nalrymple, Foxton, Philp,

Jdurray, Chataway, Givens, Armstrong, Newell, Tooth, Bridges, T. B. Cnbb, Annear, Stephens, J. C. Cribb, Moore, Bartholomew, Stewart, IIanran, Hood, Stodart, J. IIamilton, Yackmtuxh, Story, and Higgs.

Resolved in tha negative. Question stated-That the words proposed

to be omitted stand part of the question. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL accepted the

assurance of hon. members on the other Ride of the House that they were anxious to see the Bill go through, and, being supported in his views by the leader of the Opposition, he thought i t only a fair thing to take the schedule chapter by chapter. As the Bill was noi a party one, he hoped that hon. members on both sides would give the Government loyal help in getting i t through, so a s t3 let all sections of the com- munity have the criminal law placed before them on a sound and satisfactory basis.

Mr. McDONALD (Flisders) : Seeing that the hon. gentleman was prepared to deal with the schedule clause by clause, he would appeal to hon. membew, on both Rides of the House, to allow these two amendmentn to be withdrawn, because, if that were not allowed, difficulties would arise.

An HONOURABLE MEXBER: What do you propose ?

Mr. McDONALn : H e did not propose any- thing ; he only suggested that these two amend- ments should be withdrawn, so that the House would not be put into an awkward position.

The HOME SECRETARY: The Chairman will put i t in globo.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIU LANDS : What’s the use of going on, if you start another debate on procedure?

Mr. McDONALD : Although the Govern- ment had a majority a t present a t some future time they might find themselves sitting on the other side of the House, and would be compelled to defend the Standing Orders. There were going to be certain tilotions carried in com- mittee, and if one of theee amendments was carried what was the House going to do with i t ?

Question-That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question-put and ne atived.

tuestion -That the words proposed to he in- serted be so inRerted-put and passed.

Question-That schedule 1 be considered clause by clause-put and passed.

Mr. McUONALD asked wbat was the question before the Hnuse ?

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that clause 1 of the bchedule stand part of the Bill.

Mr. McDONALU understood the Chairman to state that the question-That schedule 1 be taken clause by clause-was the question before the Committee.

HONonRaBLE MEMBERS : That has been carried on the voices.

Mr. MvDONALD rose to a point of order. Tbe question that schedule 1 stand part of the Bill was put some time ago, and was negatived ; since that, another question had been put to the Committee, so now they were going back to the very question they had negatived. They were getting into a nice tangle.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thoiight that the Committee could not do better than adopt his suggestion and get on with the Bill.

Mr. DAWSON (Charters Towers): They had had a long debate, which was somewhat heated a t times. and as the hour was late he suggested that the Attorney-General should let the thing slide for to night.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Let us do some york first.

Mr. DAWSON : They had done a consider- able ainounb of work to-night. They had decided one of the most important things that had arisen under the Standing Orders since 1892.

The HOME SECRETARY: It could have been decided in five minutes. Mr. DAWSON: I t could, if the Standing

Orders made provision for an appeal to the Speaker. The debate to-night had taught them that there should be, under the Standin Orders, the right to appeal to Mr. Speaker, w%o could settle the question in about five minutes. I f the Attorney-General wanted to get hi3 Bill through i t would be j w t as well for him to consider members nu both sides, and indicate how far he was prepitred to go with the Bill to-night.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : I am prepared to do a reasonable amount of work.

Mr. DAWSON : Would the hon. gentleman indicate to the Committee the number of clauses he wanted to get through?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: H e re retted having to introduce personal matters, % u t he had received a telegram within the last two hours informing him of the probable death, very shortlv, of his aged father. He might have to go to Sydney within the next few days, and he would like to be ahle to put the Bill forward to some reasonable extent.

Mr. DAWSON : What do you call “ a rcason- able extent ” ?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : They ought not to talk about adjourning ui.til they had got through 100 clause8 a t least. Mr. McDOATALD fF/iraders) Dointed out that

clauqe 18 of the schedule was ’the one on which

there would probably he most discussion, and he thought that i t would be well to adjourn after clause 17.

Mr. DUNSFORD ’ (Churters Toiuers) also thought i t would he advisable to adjourn after clause 17. The 18th clause related to the kinds of punishments that might be inflicted, and a number of hon. members complained of im- pfisonment in irons, aolitary confinement, whip- ping, and the death penalty. Though he had marked seventy claubes which he would like to see amended, he would he wiliing to go on the broad principle and see whether the Committee agreed to the forms of nuniahment enumerated in clause 1s or not. H e would like to see a good att.eudance of members when thnse puuish- rneuts were taken into consideration.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the hon. memher might do that ; but what

[I2 p.m.1 guarantee was there as to what other members would d,. The bon.

member could not bind hon. members on either side of the House.

Clause 1 of the schedule put and passed. Clauses 2 to 17 of the schedule, inclusive, put

and passed. . On clause 18 of the schedule-“Kinds of

punishment ”-- Mr. LESINA moved the omission of the

word “death,” in line 35. H e had on the second reading fully explained his reasons for moving this amendment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL could not accept the amendrncnt. No doubt there was a tendency on the part of civilised men of fine notions to inflict the death penalty only in extreme cases ; hut the Government had gone as far as i t could in the direction of reducing the number of cases in which the death penalty was imposed to three. The case of t,reason wa8 one, but it was verv seldom indeed that a man was executed for that crime. A t the same time, i t was a very salutary provision to retain because tlie man who inatigitted treason was guilty, not only of the major acts which constituted crime and struck at one inrli\idunl, hut struck a t the atability of tlie life hf the nation of which he formed a part. The next crime was piracy. The man who would go with arms, and, with brute force, 8iick np vesirels on the high seas, and commit the crimes of robbery and murder, was very little better than a common enemy of mankind. The two crimes-piracy and murder-were nearly alwayR associated, because i t was liardly likely a well-diaciplined crew would allow themselves to he bound up like a lot of sheep in order that they might be despoiled. There was no commander worthy of the name who would submit without a fight and Rive his crew nver to the mercy of pirateM. Then there w u the case of wilful murder. The Code made large provisions for ascertaining the possibility of a man’s being irresponsible for his acts, and the punishment of death would only he inflicted where there could be no doubt as to his sanity. They could not go into questions of erimiual Jieredity, and in reducing the number of crimes in which the death penalty was inflicted from five to three the Government have gone a# far as they could see their way to go.

Amendment put and negatived. Mr. CUNSFORD mpved the omission of the

words imprisonment in irons.” The time was past for prisoners to be loaded with irons as they were in the old daya. There was not much of that form of punishment at the present day, but he might mention the case of the man Schofield, who had died in irons a t St. Helena. It was nne of the most hrut,al forms of torture that could be inflicted, and had a brutalising effect on prisoners.

Q

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : Imprison- ment in i rms was so seldom inflicted that he really did not feel very strongly about its retention. H e would like to hear the opinions of hon. members on the question, and if there was any consensus of opinion in favour of the omission of those words, he was not going to resist t,he views of lion. members.

Mr. DAWSON : It was 1.er.y cheerful to hear the hou. gentleman take that attitude. The feeling of the age was thatiniprisonment in irons was h:trharous and out of date. There were very few cases in which it was inflicted, but the Attorney-Genrral had been a member of a Government the head of which had refused to allow the irons to be taken off oneof the “Hope- ful ” prisoriera named Schofield, even when he was dying. Since then Rome &ke prisoners who had been arrested a t Augathella had been put in irons befnre they were tried, and had suffered fearful torture, and i t was not the desire of anyone that criminals should suffer unneces- sarv torture. The dav had gone bv when pri&mtrs were actually ‘torture?:

The SECRETARY F O R PUBLIC LANDS nntirelv agreed with what had been said ahout

~Y c , .~ ~~~

torturing prisoners, but he was not quite clear as to what was meant by “iniprisonment in irons.” H e snpposed i t meant fettering them in some way. Would i t he possible to Recure violent prisoners in any other way ? I f a really dangerons prisonrr might not be put in irons i b would he necesrary to immure him in some place where he could not breathe the air of heaven. He wanted snme light on the question as to under what circumstances irons were used. If i t was simply for the purpose of torture, he would prefer to see the punishment struck out.

MI-. DUNSFORI): If the hon. gentleman would turn to clause 654 he would pee the elasrl nf crimes for which punishment in irons might be inflicted, and that it was open to a judge to order a man to be kept in irons for the first three years of his term of imprisonment. But as hardly any of the uffences mrntioned in that clause woulrl justify a judge in inflicting such a punishment, it would he just as well to wipe it out. As it stood it was a stain on the Code.

Mr. HARDACRE : The question was not one of restraining violent and dangerous prisoners, but, inflicting imprisonment in irons as a matter of punishment.

Question-That the words propoaed to be omitted stand part of the clause-put and negatived.

Mr. GIVFNS moved that the words “ solitary confinement, in line 40, be omitted. There was no more dangerous form nf torture for any prisoner, not even excepting irons or whipping or death, or more calculated to drive a sane man intoinsanity than this. And i t was often inflicted, without a fair trial, ’for breaches of discipline inside the prison walls. It was much more likely to hrubalise criminals thau to reform them.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL.: H e could not accept the amendment. Solitary confine- ment did not mean putting a man in a black hole. It was only applied to refractory prisoners of the worst type, who were utterly unamenable to discipline. It really meant putLing a man into a cell by himself, and W B R limited to one month a t any one time. There were some

criminals who might be moue the [12’30 a.m.] worse for having a term of isolat,ion

from their fellows, and time for reflection 011 the error of their ways, and he did not think that form of punishment would hruta- lise them.

Mr. GrVENS knew by unfortunate experience what solitary canfinemrnt meant, for he had been in gaol, and though he was not sentenced to solitary confinement, he suffered that punishment

198

for two months, being only allowed out for one hour each morning CO wash, and had to walk round the prison yard, without speaking to any of his fellow prisoners. A prisoner undergoing that sentence could not read, because he waR required to pick oakum, and was given only one book a week, which he had to put outside the door of his cell every morning in front of the warder. But there was a still more brutal form of solitary confinement, in which the prisoner was not allowed out a t all or to see the light of day. Society would be the loser by perpetuating such a system of punishment, because instead of tending to reform criminals, i t tended to nurse in them the bitterest and most hateful feelings.

Mr. W. HAMILTON (Gregory) had also had a little experience in gaol, and he was not aehamed of the actions for which he had suffered. Solitary confinement in Queensland meant that a man was locked up, and never saw the light of day or any human being except the warder who brought him 1 lh. of bread and one quart of water every twenty-four hours. The punishment of solitary confinement was bad ennugh, but why torture a man by starving him? When a prisoner was under separate treatment he got half of what was called “No. 1 ”-namely, half of 2 oz. of meat three times a week. He quite agreed that solitary confinement was a brutal and depraving form of punishment, and a disgrace to civilisation at this the end of the 19th century.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : Hon. mem- Fers were confusing solitary confinement under the Code with solitary confinement for breach of prisondiscipline. The latter could at any time be remedied b Parliament, and it certainly was nob essential tgat solitary confinement should be accompanied by half-starving a man or shutting out the light of day. With that feature of i t he did not agree, and a man must be of a very brutal and violent type to merit it. H e would point out that aman upon whom solitaryconfine- ment could be inflicted was one who was sen- tenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

Mr. DUNSFORD : You are quite wrong ; there is life imprisonment and solitary.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : There might be a few exct,ptions, hut that was the rule. Hon. members would find on inquiry that in all those cases where prisoners were put on half-rations and did not see the light of day, i t was punish- ment for breaches of prison discipline.

N r . DUNSFORD : The Attorney-General was misleading the Committee when he Raid that solitary confinement was only inflicted where the term of ilnprisonment was under two years.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : I admit that there are exceptions.

Mr. DUNSFORD : There were thirty-right crimes where life and soljtary confinement were combined, and there were sixteen clauees con- taining thirty-four crimes for which flogging and solitary confinement could be inflicted. The clause before them only covered cascs not other- wise expressly provided for.

Mr. OAWSON regretted that the Attorney- General could not see his way to accept the amendment. Members of the Committee had already agreed that imprisonment in irons was a mode of punishment that was out of date, that it was barbarous and not in accord with civilised notions. That was certainly more true in the case of solitary confinement. No system of torture ever devised by man was more cruel than that and 99 per cent. of modern writers on the trea,tment of criminals had denounced the system in scathing terms. One of the most eminent authorities on the subject, Michael Davitt, was a man who not only spoke from what hr had read on the subject, but from actual experience. John Dillon and William O’Brien were also sub-

jected to solitary confinement, and i t was generally admitted that it would be far better to hang a man straight away rather than subject him to that form of punishment. Referring to the case of the hon. member for Cairns, he mlghb explain that that hop. member had been sen- tenced to two months’ imprisonment in Stenart Creek Gaol, brcause he had horsewhipped an individual who it was proved in court had been the means of getting him dibcharged fiom a certain mine and then liersecuted him because he was politically obnoxious to him.

Mr. ANNEAR: I was in the court when this case was heard, and many of the statements made by the hon. membcr were denied by the prosecutor, Mr. Casry.

Mr. DAWSON: The hm. member had described -hat he had suffered in that gaol, buh he was not sentenced to solitary confinement ; if he had been so sentenced his sufferings would have been ten times accentuated. Men could be punished severely enough without solitary con- finement, and he would point out that prison &cials could really sentence 8* prisoner to this barbarous punishment without trial a t all. He hoped hon. members would recognise the fearful punishment soiitary confinement was, and the bitterest complaint of the hon. member for Cairns was that he was suhjected to a system of punishment which was very severe on a sensi- tive man of nervous temperament. The gaoler used to invite his friends to look over his do- mains on Thursdays, and every prisoner had to stand to attention while some weed came along and looked at him through his eye-gla-s, and le- marked what a murderous looking man the pri- soner was.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL R as very sorry to hear-he did not know it before-that the hon. menibrc for Cairns had had such unfortunate experiences. H e could not think that was the normal condition of things, and he did not think any system of that hind was one that could not be remedied on proper representation to Parlia- ment. H e wiHhed to point out that the poner of a judge to order d i t a r y confinement was limited to cases in which the prisoner was sen- ttnced to a term not exceeding two years. H e al-o wished to point out that i f thix were wiped out here it would still remain as a puniah- ment for breaches of prison discipline.

Mr. FISHER (Gympie) : Solitary confinement was perhaps the most severe kind of punishment, yet nobod could define the method of its appli cation, a n i he thought anyone ordering i t should know exactly what he was ordering. H e made the experiment of this punishment for twelve minutes on the prison hulk “Success,” and subsequently he took the opportunity of going into one of the dark cells a t St. Hrlena, and although it was not so solitary as that hell of the “SUCC~SR,” i t was bad enough, and likely to lead to insanity. The superintendent said snlitary Confinement WRS necessary for purposeR nf dis- cipline, but f i w short periods; but he did not pee th:d it was necessary for judges to ordzr it. H e did not shiver a t the death malty-it had no qualms for him ; but he did siiver a t the ideb of being subjected to the living torture of solitary confinement.

Mr. LESINA (CZermont) said a person who had jupt about enough intellect to fine the average “ drunk ” 5s. waR prepared to go to St. Helena, and, in D star c’iamber way, in the presence of the warder and the governor of the gaol, for petty offences, order a man to solitary confinement. That was a system which should not be permitted in a colony like this. What was the use of mpmbers being sent to Parliament to pass laws for offences against property and the person,if they had not the power to influence the regulatious under which sentences imposed

in the pnlice courts were carried out. To his mind, the prison regulations were more important than the statutes. The judges should be deprived of the power of adding to penal servitude the additional torture and pictureslue horror of solitary Confinement. He trusted the good sense of the Committee would permit this amendment to be carried.

Mr. ANNEAR: The hon. member for Charters Towers had made a charge against a justice of the peace who resided ab Charters Towers-Mr. Casey-by saying that it had been proved in court that he had been the means of the hon. member for Cairns being discharged from a cer- tain mine. H e (Mr. Annear) was present in the court dnring the hearing of the trial, and he heard Mr. Casey swear that he had never induced the manager of any mine or anyone else to do anything of the kind. Mr. Cnsey was a gentle- man of seventy years of age and weighed 8 stone, while the hon. member for Cairns was a young man weighing 13 stone. The hon. member had no reason to be prond of his conduct towards a worthy citizen like Mr. Casey.

Mr. GIVENS (Cuirns) had no wish to import personalities into the discussion, and i t had re- mained for the hon. member for Maryborough to do so. H e wished to say that not only was i t proved fully in the court from the evidence of Mr. Casey himself that he had been discharged from the mine, in which he had been a share- holder for years, a t the instigation of Mr. Casey, hut i t was also proved by the evidence of Mr. Plant, the chairman of directors. I t was also proved that not only did Mr. Casey object to him as an agitator, hut, although an Irishman himself, he had objected to the manager having too many Irishmen working in the claim. That was the sort of renegade who was held up by the hon. member for Maryborough as a worthy citizen. As to the insiniation that he hadmeant to do Mr. Casey grievous b d i l y harm on account of his youth and strength, if he had int,ended anything of the kind he would not have used a horsewhi .

Mr. LgSINA contended that solitary confine- ment was an inmnity-producing system, which tended to make men nume feelings of revenge against society ; and that being so, it would be much better to adopt a more humane system.

Mr. BARTHOLOMEW (Maryborouyh) thought thz expert information they had received that evening was a revelation to many hon. members, but he could say, although he had no personal experience of prisons, that he had never seen .a man come out of their gaols a wreck. If hon. members wished to show their good feeling by doing away with solitary confinement, he was willing to meat them to the extent of assiat- ing to reduce the term of incarceration when they came to the proper clause. A t the same time there must he a certain amount of discipline.

Mr. F I S H E R : If the hon. member thought they should have solitary confinement, i t was a mere matter of detail whether the time was long or short. The position was that judges were not competent to say whether prisoners should suffer solitary confinement. H e could quite under-

stand why lawyers were opposed to [1’30 a.m.] the omission of that particular item

of punishment. They were naturally hardened, and thought that if some of those punishments were done away with, society would go to chaos.

The CHAIRMAN: In accordance with Standing Order No. 171, I call upon the hon. member for Bulloo, Mr. Leahy, to re!ieve me in the chair.

Mr. LEAHY therenpon took the chair. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : He was not

prepared to go the length of saying that there should not be, under any circnmstances, the

possibility of inflicting a punishment which inflicted a short term of solitary confinement, because there were ruEans who could only be reached by a severe form of pnnishmenf. w h a t was called “ the dark cell” was not his idea of Politmy confinement, and he would be no party to including that as part of a punishment for an offence.

Mi-. W. HAMILTON : H e could assure the hon. gentleman that in the prisons regulations solitary cnnfinement meant confinement in a dark dungeon underground, where the prisoner never yaw the light of day.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS : His idea of the solitary confinemenb which a judge could order, was simply that a prisoner should live by himself for a time, and was quite distinct from incarceration in a dark cell.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : H e would promise when they came to clause 665, which dealt with solitary confinement, to insert certain words which would exclude pnnishment by incarceration in what was known as “ the dark cell.” Solitary confinement would t.herefore be something distinct from that. But he could nob say that that would exclude the possibility of a man who was absolutely refractory from being put in that cell under the prison regulations.

Mi-. KIDSTON : The concession made by the hon. gentleman was good enough as far as it went, but it was really not very much when it was considered that incarceration in the dark cell was no part of the punishment inflicted by judges, and that i t was only inflicted as a matter of prison discipline. Unless it could be shown that such severity was likely to reform a criminal the punishment of solitary confinemenb should not he retained.

Mr. GIVENS : It might seem ungenerous, after the concession made by the Attorney- General, not to accept his xuggestion, but he could not do so, because the object of prison dis- cipline should be to punish for crime, and not to inflict torture ; and solitary confinement was simply tortiire. Moreover, a prisoner sentenced to imprismment with hard labour really suf- fered solitary confinement as severe as anyone could desire, for under the prison law he was kept in his cell for twenty-three hours out of the twenty-four. H e would not arque the question any further, hut would press i t to adivision.

Mr. J. HAMILTON (Cook) thought there was snme confusion in the minds of some hon. mem- hsrs in regard to solitary confinement and separate treatment, which appeared to be quite

Mr. Townley, who was generally con- 2dered a humane man, stated in one of his annnal repnrts that he was strongly in favour of strict separabion of offenders between the ages of twenty-one and twenty-five, and that the results elsewhere had proved very satisfactory.

Mr. KIDSTON (Rockhumpton) : It was true that some criminals were already debased ; but the question was whether continued severe solitary confinement made them better or worse. Prison discipline provided for a dark punishment cell ; but that was a matter which was not dealt with by the Criminal Code a t all, and surely the Attorney-General would admit that the power of imprisoning in a cell alone for twenty-three hours out of twenty-four for a whole month a t a stretch was as much punishment as would serve any good purpose ! Even if they struck the objectionable provision out of the Code that power would still be left.

Mr. HARDACRE (Leichhardt) : Hon. mem- bers Rhould recogniqe the very generous way in which the Attorney-General had met them, but he would ask the hon. gentleman whether he could not see his way to drop solitary confine- ment altogether. There were still left any

istinct.

900 &mina1 Code BiU. [ASSEMBLY.] Criminat Code Bill.

number of severe punisblnents, and solitary con- finement was so rarely inflicted that it did not a p eal to the imagination in preventing offenccs. hr. STEWART (Ruckhumpton North) : The conclusion he had arrived a t after listening to the debate was that they were not fit to sit in judgment upon the Codo, for, with few excep- tions, they did not know what solitary confine- ment was. The Attorney-Genera1 knew nothing about prison discipline, and it would have been a good thing if each member of the House had had the same experience as the hon. member for Cairns, t,hen they could a11 speak from experience on this subject. So far as they could judge by the experience of centuries the effect of eolitary confinement was not curative, but just the opposite. H e thought that there was something radically wrong about the present system, and why were not experiments tried with regard to criminals, in somewhat the same manner as doctors experimented with their patients ? H e was pleased to notice the reasonahle attitude of the Attorney-General, and would like to add his request to the hon. gentleman to consent to the total nbolition of solitary confinement.

Mr. F I S H E R (Gympie): The great difficulty, to his mind, was the fact thet in this case they really did not know what they were doing. If they were voting for solitary confincment as defined in the Century Dictionary, he could not vo.te for it, whatever compromise was made.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS argued that under certain circumstances no punishment was more natural or more fitting than solitary confinement in the caee of persons who persisted in quarrelling with society.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that as the hon. member for Cairns had

[2‘30 a.m.] been willing to bring the debate to a close’three-quarters of an hour

ago, he hoped, now that the matter had been fully thrashed out, they would go to a division.

Mr. KIDSTON said the matter had been fairly thrashed out, and he conaidered the balance of the arguments used was strongly in favour of the amendment.

Ah-. GIVENS, as the mover of the amend- ment, traversed the ground taken by the opponents of the amendment, and contended that a cotn lete case had been made out for the abolition o f that particular form of punishment.

Question-That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause-

[3 a.m.] put ; and the Committee divided :- AYES, 12.

Messrs. Dickson Rutledge, Philp, Dalrymple, Foxton, Murray, Chataway, Newell, Tooth, Stephenson, Story, Armstrong, Grimes, Hood, Bridges, J. 0. Crihb, Hanrau, T. B . Oribh, Mackintosh, Aonear, J. Hamilton, and Bartholomew.

Nom, 14. Xessrs. Dawson, Lesina, Kidston, T. Hamilton, Kerr

Rylund. Hurdacre, Dunsford, McDonald, Turley, Qivens: Maxwell, Stewart, and Fisher.

Resolved in the atfirniative. Mr. LESINA moved that the word

“ whipping,” in line 41, be omitted. H e intended to divide the Committee on the amendment, in order to let the country know who were in favour of perpetuating the iiee of the lash, and who were opposed to such a barbarous and degrading punishment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : H e could not accept the amendment. There were a few casee, not many, in which punishment with whipping was prescribed, and experience had shown that there was a certain class of beings whom nothing but the lash would deter from crime. Garroting, for instance, was ripe until whipping was resorted to, when it entirely ceased. While he would not be entirely opposed to the elimination of the provisions of that

punishment in the case of some offences specified in the Code, as regarded others, he should strongly resist an

Mr. DAWSOdthought i t was now a fair time tlJ adjourn. The Attorney-General

[3’30 a.m.] ought to he very well satisfied with the prngress that had been made.

They had disposed of several contentious matters, and the present question was a very cnntentious one ; and, besides, many hon. members had gone home.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : H e did not feel inclined to move the Chairman out of the chair until the clause under discussion had been

attempt to abolish it.

disrJosed of. Mr. DAWSON : H e was entirely in accord

with the amendment ; hut if he could he shown a single instance where the use of the lash had proved a deterrent from crime he might he induced t n chanae his opinion.

Mr. ANNEAR : The hon. member was very inconsistent. X o t two hours ago he had applauded and justified the flogging of an old man by a young man in a public street, and now he expressed himself as being strongly opposed to flogging as a punishment for serious crime. That flogging was a’ deterrent of crime wae proved by the way i t had put a stop to garroting.

Mr. DAWSON : €Je had never justified the flogging of an old man by a young man. H e had pointed out why the hon. member for Cairns found a lodgment in the Stewart Creek Gaol for t w o months, hut he had never attempted any justification of the attack on the old man. H e would point ont to the Attorney-General that if the Criminal Code retained the power by which a judge could order a whipping it would neces- sarily empciwer the gaol officials to give prisoners a whippinp without trial.

Mr. J. HAMILTON agreed that gaol officials should not he allowed to sentence anyone to the punishment of flogging for offences committed in gaol ; but for certain offences against women it certainly ought not to he abolished.

Mr. BARTHOLOMEW Raid experience had taught them that fur certain offences flogging wax the only deterrent, one of which, garroting, had been entirely stopped by it.

Mr. LESINA pointed out that in Switzerland eight; cantons had abolished both

[4 a.m.] capital punishment and flogging, and yet the Swiw were the most

law-abiding people in Europe. No hon. member could say conscientiously that hanging and flogging were deterrents against crime, and he trusted that the Committee would think twice before including whipping in this clause.

Mr. KIDSTON (Rockhnmpton) argued that the real deterrent to crime was not the

[4’30 a.m.] severity of punishment, but the certainty of detection and punish-

ment. Why could not this country do without flogging as other countries, where crime was no greater than it was here, had done? H e urged that, they should adjourn, as the Committee was not in a properstate to properly discuss such an important matter.

Mr. MAXWELL entered his protest against the punishment of whipping, as the lash w a s not a benefit to society, hut was adegradation to hnmanity. He would support the amendment.

Mr. GIVENS (Cairns) contended that it was time to adjourn, as members felt very Rtrongly on the matter. They all desired the passage of the Bill ; hut he objected to flogging, as it waa merely a class punishment. Solitary confinement

was not so physically brutalising as [5 a.m.] flogging, and the records showed

that when the punishments were more barbarous crimes were more prevalent.

Mr. R Y L A N D (Gympie) also appealed for a.n adjournment, considering the hour and the state

&?riminal eode Bill. [28 SEPTEMBER.] &mina2 code BUE. 201

of the Committee. H e did not believe in the lash, as i t brutalised human beingcr, and should be abolished. It was not generally used on the cultured villain, but was reservkd for the poorer classes.

Mr. W. HAMILTON (Gregory) argued that flogging should he abolished here, as it had been done away with in the Enqlish navy, as it was

absolutely inhuman and brutalising. [5'30a.m.] He descrihed a flogging at St.

Helena, which he said was not fit for any. human being to witness.

Mr. F I S H E R (Gympie) said it was high time that there was some investigati(m into the flogging operations in prison3 in this colony, especially a t St,. Helena, and he entered his protest against the inclusion of whipping in the clause.

At 5.36 a.m. Mr. GRIMES resumed t,he chair. Mr. LESINA (CZermont) again contended that

flogging should he altogether eliminated from the Bill. H e affirmed that no argumentshad been used to justify flogging any more than burn- ing or boilicg, as was inflictid a few centnries ago.

Mr. KIDSTON again urged that, considering the importance of the question, the clause bo postponed, and that the Attorney-General should not t ry and force it through at that hour.

Mr. STORY (Balonne): No ma.n hod a greater horror of flogging than himself, but i t had heen the means of doing away with certain offenceq, to a great extent, in many countries. The suffer- ings of criminals had been talked a great deal about, but nothing had been said about the sufferings of the unfortunate victims.

Mr. HARDACRE (Leichhurdt) admitted that in some caRes offenders deserved

[6 a.m.] flnggin . He thought the proposi- tion o f the hon. member for Xock-

hamrJton a reasonable one. and he advised the Att&xy-General to accept'it.

Mr. STEPHENSON (Ipszuieh) pointed out that, although prominent memhers of the Labour party had assured the Attorney-Genernl that if he consented to take the schedule clause by clause and not in globo, they would render him every help to proceed rapidly with the Bill, immediately the Minister gave way to them, they rewarded him by discussing two or three lines for six or seven hours. He agreed with the hon. member for Balonne, that while nothing had been said about the sufferings of the victims of serious crimes, the snfferings of the criminals had been dilated on a t great length.

Mr. DUNSFORD quoted from an article in the Westminster Review for 1695 to show that p t i n g , in spite of its being punishable by

ogging, was on the increase in Great Britain. Mr. HARDACRE urged that the debate

should be adjourned, and the [6'30 a.m.] division taken in a full Com-

mittee. Mr. K E R R said he felt so strong!y on the

snhject that he was prepared, with others who were oppoRed to it, torenlain there if they had to remain all day.

The HOME SECRETARY said every hon. member had made up his mind how he was going to vnte on the question, and to ask that the debate be continued in order that the Govern- ment supporters might be convinced by the arguments on the other side was perfect rubbish. Nor did he suppose anything that might be said on the Government side would alter the opinion of any hon. member opposite.

The SECRETARY FOR P U B L I C LANDS urged that i t was necessary to retain

[7 a.m.] the use of the lash for certain offences ngainnt women and children,

and said that to men degraded enough to commit such outrages ordinary imprisonment had no terror.

Mr. GIVENS restated his arguments why the lash should be abolished, and denied that: the lash had a deterrent effect even with regard to garroting and outrages on young children.

Mr. KIDSTON protested against being kept there until that unreasonable hour of the morning by reasonof Ministers stonewallingtheir own Bill. H e contended that no justification had been shown from the Attorney-General attempting to maintain the position that these barbarous punishments acted a s deterrents.

A t 8 a.m. the Chairman vacated thechair, and resumed it a t 9'30.

Question stated. The PREMIER (Hon. J. R. Dickson,

Bulimbu) said that i t waa now incumbent on the leader of the Oouosition and himself to endeavour to restore parliakentilry procedure to its normal condition. H e thought a great want of judg- ment had been exhibited by the leader of the Opposition, and a good deal of insubordination by the members of his party. This was not a pnrty measure, but one affecting the welfare of the whole community, and the Attorney-General had been most conciliatory all through. Although with victory insight, hehadgivenway to theviews of him. menihers opposite, and the result had been most deliberate obstruction, which not only reflected injuriously upon the intelligence of hon. meinbera, but might deprive the puhlic of a greater mcasure of security than they had hitherto enjoyed. H e appealed to the leader of the Opposition to make some progress with the Bill, so as to make up for lost time.

The CHAIRMAN : Although the Premier's remarks arenot in accordance with the Standing Orderz, I have not interrupted the hon. gentle- man, because I regarded his statement as a Ministerial one in order to get over a difficulty. I shallallowtheleaderof the Opposition toreply, but I trust hon. members will not pursue the matter further.

Mr. McUONALD (Flinders) maintained that neither the Premier nor the leaader of the Opposi- tion had any more Iirivilcge than any other member of the Committee. H e thought this business would lead to a discussion, as other members would want to reply to certain state- ments made by the Premier, and then the Chairman would rule them out of order. If the Premier was nut of order, the C!iairman should hare pulled him up, as he would any other mem- ber of the Committee.

Mr. DAWSON (Charters Towers) : The state- ment the Chairman had made had saved him a lot of trouble. In the ea.rly part of the proceetl- ings he was not allowed to reply to the Premier, notwithstanding the f w t that he (Mr. Dawson) was the leader of that side of the House. The Premier had no more authority than any other member of the Committee. If either the Premier or himself, or any othermember of the Committee was out of order, the Chairman shonld call any one of them to order. The lecture the Premier had given wm unjust., unkind, and not a t all generous. H e absolutely denied the statement that he had exhibited any want of judgment, or that there had been insubordination in tLe ranks of his party. It was not the members of his party who kept the Committee up 811 late.

MEMBERB on the Government side : Oh, oh ! Mr. DAWSON: It was the action of the

Attorney-General, who was exceedingly stub- born, and who was supported in his detemina- tion by the majority behind him. On two or three occasions he desired to adjourn the debate, for good reasons, which, if combined, would be unanswerabl?. H e pointed out that the debate was not bring fully reported; that the Committee was thin ; that many hon. mem- bers had gone home to bed; that if it division

Criminal Code Bilt. [ASSEMBLY.] Oriminal Code Bill

took place then it would not express the feeling of the House on the question. Clause 18 was one of the most important in the Bill, and as the hon. gentleman had refused to adjourn when they reached that stage, they were sitting now. There was no question of deliberate obstruction, but hon. member8 on his side of the House were entirely opposed to this clause 18 as it stood. He absolutely denied the statement of the Premier that they had obstructed. H e wished it to be thoroughly understood that the debate had beeu a legitimate one ’all througb, and the reaflon why it had been irrotracted was owing to tbe stubborntiess of the Attorney- General in not postponing clause 18.

Mr. KIDSTONdesired toreplyto the charge of the Premier.

The CHAIRMAN : I must now insist on hon. members speaking to the queation.

Mr. KIDSTON : This was most unfair. The Premier was allowed to make a charge, and hon. members were not allowed to reply.

The CHAIRMAN : I again call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that he is digressing from the question.

Mr. KIDSTON : Those who opposed flogging did so because they believed it was opposed to the best interests of society, and they defired the House to vote on the question in a collected frame of mind, and when there was a good atten- dance present.

The CHAIRMAN : I again ask the hon. mem- ber to confine himself to the question.

Mr. KIDSTON quite understood the question, and desired to come to it. When he showed the Attorney-General that there was no desire to obstruct generally, was that not a reasonable thing to point to ? He thought it grossly unfair to make the accusation that had been made.

The CHAIRMAN : I call the hon. Tnem- ber’s attention, for the third time, that he IS out of order.

Mr. BROWNE argued that flogging wa8 a disgrace to humanity and Christianity. There

wasno doubt that the lash had a [lo a.m.] most brutalising effect both upon

the sufferer and Ppectator, and its application in years gone by for trivial offences in the navy was a shocking disgrace. He did not believe a man who had suffered the lash was ever the same man again, and the men who adminis- tered the lash were, as a rule, qreater criminals than those who suffered the punishment.

Mr. FORSYTH contended that whipping was too good for some crimes. Suppose come brute ravished the sixteen-yeai-old dnnghter of some member and ruined her for life, was any punish- ment too severe for such a brutalised wretch? He thoroughly approved of the abolition of whipping for many of the offences for which it used to be inflicted, but he would retain i t to hold terror over the class of ruffian he referred to.

Mr. KIDSTON : The Code did not provide whipping in such cases, but for such cases ay attempted arson and child stealing. In the case mentioned by the hon. member for Carpentaria, he would punish the offender by castration. If the most atrocious crime mentioned by the hon. member could be punished without whipping, why should any offence be punished in that way ? It was illegitimate and unfair to appeal to sen- timent to retain the lash for offences for which i t was not intended by the Code to be applied.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL agreed with a great deal of what had been-said by the hon. member for Croydon. No hon. member had a

reater horror of the lash for ordinary cases than aimself. I t was a punishment which should never be inflicted except in extreme cases, such as the offence mentioned in clause 212. Hon. mem- bers persistently lost sight of the fact that two rf

the death penalties were to be abolished, and that i t was intended that the lash should be retained in very few cases. Although he was not prepared to abolish it in cases of garroting or offences againsb young femalw, he did not think there was much use in retaining it in cases of wounding with intent to maim, or child- stealing, or the technical offence of robbery with violence, arson, and so on. There was no doubt that in those more serious caaes whipping had a deterrent effect.

Mr. GIVENS objected to the use of the lash in any case, and, according to the Code, I t could be applied not only to hardened criminals bnt to first offenders, who were generally comparatively young people who, if they were not criminals a t the time, would, after having undergone the degradation, tend to become so. If the hon. gentleman could show him one case in which an offrndcr who was highly connected and had in- flnrntial friends had been punished with the lash he would cease his opposition at once. It seemed to be entirely reserved for those in the lower ranks of life, and had a most degrading effect.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS : No one could pomibly feel anything

[10’30 a.m.] but horror of the lash, but accord- ing to the hon. member for Rock-

hampton i t was not bad enough for some offences, which the hon. member would have punished by mutilation. That was the remedy suggested, in the spirit of mercy and humanity, by a membcr of the Labour party.

Mr. DUNSFOBD objected to the lash in all cases, on the ground that it was brutalising, and was not deterrent. He submitted that the public did not want men t n come out of gaol as desperadoes, who would, through having been flogged, try and revenge themselves on society.

Mr. STEWART (Rockhampton North) was astonished a t the tenacity with

[11 a.m.] which the Attorney-General clung to this last remnant of a barbaric

age. Most men who committed those abomin- able offences on young girls really suffered from “sex mania” arising from heredity or environ- ment.

The CHAIRMAN : The hon. gentleman is out of order in discussing the question as he is now doing.

Mr. STEWART : He would not pursue that line of argument any further, but he would point out that flogging had been abolished by almost 311 the civilised nations on the face of the earth. The abolition of this punishment in the army had done good, and the more they lightened punishment and shortened sentences, the more humanitarian feeling that was displayed, the more likely was that leniency to be appreciated.

The CHAIRMAN : I think the lion. member is again digressing, and I trust he will confine himself to the question.

Mr. STEWART: He was pleading for a more liheral treatment of criminals. The eye for eye and life for life idea might have been dl right in the days of Moses, who was a well-mean- ing man in many respects. ’

The CHAlRMAN : I again, for the third time, call the attention of the hon. member to his digression, and call upon him to desist.

A t 11’28, Mr. LESINA called attention to the state of

the Committee. Quorum formed. Mr. STEWART pointed out the possibility Of

an innocent man being flogged, and contended that it was better to let ninety-nine guilty men escape than convict one innocent man.

Mr. BROWNE point$ out that there was no definition of the word whip.” “Whipping ” was a simple operation as generally understood,

but flogging was brutal and barbarous. And there should be some definition of the kind of instrument of torture to be wed.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : Clause 656 provides that the court was required to give directions as to the kind of whip to be y d . H e had no objrction to define the word whip”; but he could not agree to an amendment that would make whipping a farce. H e did not approve of a whip that would cut a man to pieces.

Mr. HIGGS (Fortitude Valley) suggested that the hon. gentleman should postpone the clause until the word “ whip” was defined.

Mr. KIDSTON pointed out that the reduction of punishment, as instanced by the abolition of the lash in the army and navy and the abolition of the death penalty for mincr offences, had not been accompanied by an increase in crime ; and that convinced him that severe punishments were not a deterrent of crime. I n fact, the whole case for retaining the whip in their Criminal Code had broken down.

A t ten minutes to 12 o’clock, Mr. McDONNELL called attention to the

state of the House. Quorum formed. Mr. McDONNELL: H e agreed with his hon.

colleagues in their opposition to whipping, with one exception -namely, outrages on young females. With that exception, the infliction of punishment by flogging was a disgrace to a young colony like Queersland. H e should be sorryto see the Bill withdrawn, but hehoped the Government would accept the amendment with the modification he had mentioned.

A t ten minutes past 12 o’clock, Mr. HIGGS called attention to the state of the

Committee. The CHAIRMAN : I have so recently satkficd

myself that there is a quorum within the precincts of the House that I decline to interrupt the pro. ceedings of the Committee by again calling for a quorum.

Mr. McDONNELL : H e wonld be glad if some compromise could he arrived at, bct they should not sacrifice principle to a t fa in that object.

Mr. RROWNE (Croydon) was totally opposed to the punishment of flogging, but the matter had been urettv well thrashed out. and he thought a division should be taken at once.

Mr. P L U N K E T T (Albert) believed that it would be a seriousmistake to do away with flng-

-

ging in some instances. The m q d effects of this punishment had to be taken into consideration, and there was no doubt that It was a deterrent to the commission of crime.

Mr. HIGGS thought flogging was necessary for some crimes; but he suggested that the fullest discussion should take place on the subject as a protest agaas t the action of members opposite, because they had a brute majority.

The CHAIRMAN : The hon. member cannot discuss the matter in this way, and I ask him to confine his remarks to the question before the committee.

Mr. McDONALD (Flinders) asked how far the Attorney-General intended to go with the Bill ?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : H e did not propose to adjourn until they had got to clause 36.

Mr. LESINA (Cly7)ront) argued at length in favour of the abolitim of flogging, which, he contended, was only another name for mutilation.

Mr. GIVENS was glad that the Attorney- General had undertaken to help in framing a definition of the word “ whip,” and expressed the hope that before !ong this instrument of torture would be entirely abolished.

Question--That the word “ whipping” pro- posed to he omitted stand part of theclause-put ; and the Committee divided :-

A Y E S , ~ ~ . Messrs. Dickson, Rutledge, Philp, Dalrymple, Foxton,

Murray, Bell. Smitb, G . Thorn, Borsyth, Callan, Binney, Stephenson, IIiggs, Petrie, Curtis. Plunkett, J. a. Cribb, Bartho‘omew, Campbell, Armstrong, O’Connell, Stodart, Story, Bridges, IIood, Newell, Mackintosh, Tooth, J. Hamilton, T. E. Cribb, and Moore.

Nom, 15. Messrs. Dawson. Kidston, Dnnsford, Ken. McDonnell,

McDonald, Jackson, Turley, Erowne, Givens, Ryland, Fisher, R-. Hamilton, Lesma, ahd Stewart.

PAIR. dye-Vr. Chataway. No-Xr. Maxwell. Resolved in the affirmative. Mr. DAWSON (Charters Towers) : As themost

contentious portion of the Bill had been passed, he would aak whether ,it was desirable to go further with clause 15 at the present sitting.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought they might complete the ohapter by taklng the next three sections. There was nothing contentions in them.

Mr. DAWSON : Sohsectiou 3 is contentious. The ATTOBNEY-GENERAL : H e did nob

want to Dress undulv uuon hon. members. hut if hon. members were”gohg to discuss everything in every clause i t would not facilitate the passing of the Bill.

Mr. DAWSON : H e noticed that the puiiish- ment of whipping was not to be inflicted upon women. He would like to know how many inemhers on the other side had been in the habit of whipping females. As flogging wa8 to be maintained because it was a deterrent-if that was the case with the male. whv should it not

I ”

be applied to the female? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : I t would be

an out rue on the sex which thev all admired and protectea, and i t #odd involvd;ndecency, which he was sure they would all deprecate.

Clause. as amended. nut and nassed. I _

On c1a;i~e 19- Mr. LESINA asked what was the meaning

of the 3rd subsection. which nrovided that- ~~ ~~

A person liitble to imprisonment, either with or with- out hard labour, may be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding fSOO in addition to, or instead of, such imprisonnient.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : The sub- section enabled a judge, a t his discretion, either to imprison a man or to order him to pay a fine in addition to or in substitution for imprison- ment. As a matter of course, that would only bo done under special circumstances.

Mr. DAWSON : The man with the broad- cloth coat and the infliiential friends would D ~ V - “ the fine and ercape the imprisonment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : They might deuend unon it. that if the case merited it. he w&ld ge; both fine and imprisonment.

Mr. KIq,STON objccted to the words “ o r instead of. Persons liable to imprisonment might get their sentences commuted for a monev paymeiit.

Mr. LESINA moved the omission of the words “or instead of.” It might verv well uav a fraudulent insolvent to p a y a fine k t exc6ed”ing $500 rather than go to prison for two or three years.

The HOME SECRETARY pointed out that only during the last two or three days a deputa- tion consisting, among others, of seven hon. members opposite, had waited upon him, asking him to do, with regard to a certain person, cxactly what they were now protesting against.

Mr. DAWSON : They had every confidence in the fairness of the judges, hut

[2p.m.] under subsection 3 a judge would have no option but to send an

offender to gaol, because i t was not absolutely

204 Orimkal Code Bill. [COUNCIL.] Presentation of AdJress in Reply.

necessary that a person shonld be a first offender to obtain relief under the Offenders Probation Act.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL. : The hpn. member was perfrctly correct in his designation of the Act referred to, but clause 6.57 of the Code provided that conditional suspension of punishment should be applicable to “ a person who has not been previously convicted in Queens- land or elsewhere,” etc., so that, although it was not called the ‘‘first” Offenders Probation Act, it really applied to first offenders.

Mr. DAWSON maintained that i t was not a matter of first offence a t all, but that if a person was sentenced to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months, and the punishment was suspeuded under the Offenders Probation Act, he could obtain relief for a second offence under that Act. H e supported the amend- ment because the idea of iniprisonment was not to torture criminals, but to protect society from the effects of their criGina1 instincts. The clause provided that the poor man with criminal propensities was sent to gaol while a wealthy man escaped imprisonment by the pay- ment of a fine, although he had been the ruin of thousands, and had been the direct cause of many cases of suicide.

Mr. BROWNE : If fhe clause applied to all classes of offences, as he believed it did, he was not going to vote for the amendment, as a rich man would have no adrantage over a’poor man. If, on the other hand, i t would enable a wealthy man to escape by the payment of a fine while a poor man would have to go to gaol, he would vote for the amendment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL explained that the clause applied to all the offences which were mentioned in the Code in respect of which any judicial authority had the right to impose hnprisonment.

Mr. BROWNE : you mean that a justice of the peace has judicial authority ?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : Yes ; he has power to send a man to gaol for six months.

Mr. DAWSON : The clause could not, pt~s- sibly apply to the ordinary “drunk,” or theman who destroyed a policemm’s uniform, because it was an absolute contradiction of the Justices Act. The very rienalty in the shape of a fine that was provided in the clause showed that it was not intended to cover any offence that i t was competent for a justice of the peace to try, becauae the police court bench could not impose a penalty of &500.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : The clause stated that the Act should a ply in the con- struction of the Code, except ,\en i t was other- wise expressly provided. H e would refer to clause 506, which dealt with the forgery of sea- men’s tickets, or documents under the Shops and Factories Act-the punishment for which was imprisonment with hard labour for one year or a fine of 250. Offences under that clause were thus expressly excluded from the operations of clause 19, which provided that in all cases which were not expressly excluded from its operations a fine conld be imposed up to BWO.

Mr. DAWSON contended that clause 506 had no reference to clause 19, as i t dealt with a par- bicular class of offence under a special Act of Parliament, and not under their general criminal law.

Question-That the words “or instead of,” proposed to be omitted, stand part

[2’30 p.m.1 of subsection 3 of clause 19 of the schedule-put ; and the Committee

AYES, 30. Messrs. Foxton, Rutledge, Dickson, Pbilp, Dalrymple,

Murray, Cowley, G . Thorn, Forsytb, Browne, Pinney, T. B. Cribb, Noore, Bell, Story, Ourtis, Pluwtt , Slodart,

divided :-

Campbell, Stephenson, J. C. Cribb. Armstrong. O’Connell, Bartholomew, N ewell, Hanran, Bridges, Mackintosh, Tooth, and J. namilton.

Nom, 11. J.lessrs Turley, McDonnell, Dawso , Kidston, Kerr,

Dunsford, W. Hamilton, Maxwell, Pitegerald, Lesina, and Xcl~onald.

Resolved in .the affirmative. Question-That clause 19 stand part of the

schedule-put and passed. On clause 20 of the schedule-“Calculatinn-of

term of sentence ; cumulative sentences ; escaped primners”-

Mr. I)A WSON (Charters Towers) understood that when a prisoner attempted to escape and was brought back he was tried by the gaol officials and sentenced to an extra, term.

The ,4TTORNEY-GENERAL : No. Escap- ing from gad was made a speciSc offence under the Code, and the prisoner would he tried before a jndge.

Mr. UAWSON and Mr. GIVENS referred to the sentelices imposed upon prisoners for breaches of prison discipline, and deprecated a system which allowed a man’s sentence to he increased in that way.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he would do what he could to assist in effecting improve- ments with respect to the Prisons Act and its administration.

Clause put and passed. Clause 21 of the schedule put and passed. The House resumed ; the CHAIRMAN reported

pmgrew, and the Committee obtained leave to sit again on Tuesday next.

ADJOURNMENT. The P R E M I E R (Hon. J. R. Dickson,

BuE~rrJ,a) :Imove that this House donowadjourn. The business on Tuesday willbe, first, the Fiuan- cia1 Statament, to be fdllowed by the Criminal Code Bill, and, if time permit, the Harbour Board8 Bill and the University Bill.

Mr. L)AWSON : What about the Address to Her MFjesty on Federation ?

I.he PRF:i:I\IIEtL: I have every prospect of rccciving the certificate from the chief returning officer in time to enable me to give notice on Tueeday for the consideration on Wednesday of the Address to Her Majesty.

Question put and paqsed. The House adjourned a t ten minutes to 3

o’clock.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. TUESDAY, 3 OCTOBEB, 1859. - ___

The PRESIDENT took the chair a t half-past 3 o’clock.

APPROPRIATION BILL, No. 2. ’ ASSENT.

The PRESIDENT announced the receipt of a mensage from the Administrator of the Go- vernment intimating that hhe Royal assent had been giren to this Bill by His Excellency the Governor on the 2Sth September last. RESULT O F T H E R E F E R E N D U M VOTE.

The PRESIDENT announced t,he receipt of a memage from His Excellency the Administrator of the Government, forwarding the result of the referendum vote taken under the provisions of the Australasian Federation Enabling Act. [Vide page 205, proceedings of the Legislativc Assembly.]

PRESENTATION O F ADDRESS I N REPLY.

The PRESIDENT: I have to report that the Address in Reply to His Excellency the Governor’s Speech, as agreed to by this Council

MESSAGE FROM THE ADMINISTRATOR.