1968 Oouncil Electoral Rolls. [OOUNOIL.] Bills Originated in the Oouncz'l.

Jones-" Certainly not.") The proposal of the leader of the Opposition was not so favorable as one he previously made. How­ever, after the assurance of the honorable gentleman that he would use pis influence with members on his side to get the Bill through committee on Tuesday, he (Mr. Deakin) could no IOllger resist the desire for an adjournment.

Progres.s was then reported. The House adjourned at five minutes past

one o'clock a.m., until Tuesday, NovemberS.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Tuesday, November 8, 1887.

North Yarra Province Election: New Member-Assent to nill-Council Electoral Rolls-Education EndowlUent -Bills Originated in the Legislative Council-South A).lstralian~ounuary-Juvenile Offenders Law Amend· ment Biil-Neglected Children Law Amendment Bill -Justices of the Peace Law Amendment Bill-Legis­lative Council Act 1881 Removal of Doubts Bill­Agricultul'ilol Collllges Endowment.

The PRESIDENT took the chair at twenty­five minutes to five o'clock p.m., and read the prayer.

NORTH YARRA PROVINOE ELECTION.

The PRESIDENT announced that he had received a return to the writ issued fo~ the election of a m'~mber of the Legislative Oouncil to serve for the North Yarra Pro­vince' (in the room of the HOI~. F. E. Beaver, deceased) showing that Dr. George Le Fevre had been elected.

Dr. Le Fevre was then introduced and sworn, and delivered to the Olerk the de­claration required by the Act No. 702.

ASSENT TO BILL.

Sir J. LORIMER presented a mes­sage from the Governor, intimating that, at the Government Offices, that day, His Excellency gave his assent to the Probate Act 1886 Amendment Bill.

OOUNOIL ELEOTORAL ROLLS.

The Hon. F. T. SARGOOD moved, by leave, without notice-

" That there be laid on the table of the Council a return showing-I. The n~mber of miners in each province holding residence areas under miners' rights. 2. The number of such in each l>roviuce who have applied to be placed on the Councill'oll as leaseholders. 3. The number of

such in el).ch province who have applied to b~ placed on ·the Council roll as 'owners.' 4. The mimber of such' leaseholders' in each province who voted at the last election for their respec­tive provinces. 5. The number of such' owners' ip each province who voted at the last election for their respective provinces. 6. The number of Crown tenants, licensees, and lessees of Crown lands in each provjnce rated at £10 and up to £25."

The motion was agreed to.

EDUOATION ENDOvVMENT.

The Hon. W. A. ZEAL asked the Min­ister of Justice whether the proposed land e'Qdowment for State schools, as detailed in a Melbourne journal, had been determined upon by the Government, or would the scheme be submitted for the consideration and approval of Parliament?

The Hon. H. OUTHBER T stated that the Government scheme on the snbject was embodied in the Education Endowment Commissioners Bill, now before another place.

BILLS ORIGINATED IN THE LEGISLATIVE OOUNCIL.

The Hon. F. T. SARGOOD asked the Minister of Defence whether the Govern­m~nt would endeavour to arrange for a

; joint committee of the two Houses, to tal~e into consideration the advisability of adopt­ing a joint stl\nding order defining the class of Bills th~t might be originated in the L~gislative Council? He said he put this qllestion to the Minister of Defence because the honorable gentleman had recently

. withdrawn two important measures from the Oouncil on the ground that they ought, under the present rule, to be originated elsew 11ere.

Sir .J. LORIMER said the question . raised by Colonel Sargood was one of great import~nce. Honorable members must have long felt that the usefulness of this Oham­ber was impaired, and its business was im­peded, by the many difficulties standing in the way of the origination of Bills in the Council. Those difficulties were, generally speaking, of a merely technical nature, and did not in,,"olve any question of privilege, or the rights of the Legislative Assembly, and their removal by the adoption of a joint standing order of the 4:ind indicated would do mnch practical good. At the present advanced stage of the session, however, and with the business of the two Houses stand­ing as it did, no practical result could be achieved by the immediate appointment of the joint committee suggested. Still 0010-llel Sargood's suggestion wouhl receive the

Juvenile Offenders Law [NoVEMBER 8.] Amendment Bi fl. 1969

serious attention of the Government, with the view of their taking steps early next sesHion towards gaining the desired end.

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN BOUNDARY.

The Hon. W. A. ZEAL asked the Min­ister of Justice when the text of the refer­ence embodying the case of this colony with regard to the disputed boundary between Victoria and South Australia, to be sub­mitted to the arbitrament of the Lords J us­tices of the Privy Council, would be laid before Parliament; and whether the Govern­ment would afford the Council an opportu­n'ity of discussing the details of the proposed reference, and expressing its opinion thereon?

The Hon. H. CUTHBERT replied that the text of the reference was in print, and the document would be laid on the table next week. He would be happy to afford Mr. Zeal or any other honorable member an early opportunity of bringing the subject before the notice of the Chamber.

JUVENILE O,FFENDERS LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

The House went into committee for the further consideration of this Bill.

On clause 51, rendering liable to imprison­ment "for any term not exceeding three years," any person who

"1. ]for the purpose of prostitution inveigles or entices any unmarried female ward of the Department for H.eformatory Schools nnder the age of 18 years from any reformatory school or from the house or other place where or from any person to or with whom she lllay be licensed, placed, or apprenticed under the provisions of this Act; or,2. Carnally knows any such female who is apparently under the a.ge of 16 yea.rs in any such school, house, or place; or, 3. Aids or assists any person in any of the foreg0ing offences,"

The Hon. F. T. SARGOO D moved the insertion after the word" prostitution" (line 1) of the words" or defilement."

The amendment was agreed to. The Hon. IT. WILLIAMSON thought

the 2nd sub-section ought to be somewhat altered in order to mitigate its tremendously sweeping effect.

The Hon. H. CUTHBERT submitted that, considering the extent to which practi­cally the same subject was discussed in con­nexion with the corresponding clause of the Negleeted Children Law Amendment Bill, it would be sufficient if the age" 16" (line 9) was altered to "14." He begged to

,move an amendment to that effect. The Hon. J. BALFOUR expressed the

opinion that, if the amendment was agreed

to, some exception should be made with regard to instances in which a girl's employer was the offender.

The Hon. T. DO\VLING thought that, as to the last-mentioned class of cases, it would be sufficient to leave the justices to inflict the maximum penalty.

The Hon. J. BALFO UR said that, with ,resped to a girl under 14 when her employer was the offender, three years' imprisonment would be an insufficient penalty. The man ought to be hanged.

The amendment was agreed to. The Hon. J. BALFOUR moved the

insertion of a new sub-section rendering any employer of afemale ward of the Department for Reformatory Schools who "carnally knows any such female who is apparently umler the age of 18 years" liable, on con­viction, to the penalty fixed in the clause.

The amendment was agreed to. The Hon. vV. I. WINTER moved the

reduction of the maximum term of imprison­ment under the clause from "three" to " two" years.

The Hon. H. CUTHBERT pointed out that the maximum term in the other Bill was three years, and he thought that in this respect the two measnres should correspond.

The amendment was negatived. The Hon. F. T. SARGOOD drew atten­

tion to the following proviso:-"Provided tbat no conviction shall be bad

under the provisions of this section on the un­supported -testimony of anyone witness nor unless proceedings be taken within six months after the commission of the offence,"

and moved the snbstitution of "twelve" for "six." He said there' was abundance of evidence to show that a girl would keep her secret as long as she possibly could before the birth of her child.

The Hon. J. WILLIAMSON remarked that six months was the period in the Ne­glected Children Law Amenument Bill. Besides, a girl keeping her secret beyond a certain time must always have a suspicious aspect.

The Hon. H. CUTHBERT considered that to give the reformatory school gid a protection over and above that afforded to the merely neglected child would be illcon­gruous.

The Hon. W. ROSS suggested that the period should be fixed at nine months.

The Hon. J. BALFO UR supported the amendment. He said it would be easy to alter the Neglected Children Law Amend­ment Bill to correspond with it. At the same time, he would consent to the period

1970 Juvenile OJ'enders Law [COUNCIL.] Amendment Bill.

being made ten months. A girl would almost always hold her tongue for six months.

The Hon. T. DOWLING expressed the hope that the Minister of tT ustice would adhere to the provision as it stood. If a girl kept these matters to herself for six months she would do the same for nine mont~s, and, moreover, the longer the time the more difficult it would be to obtain a conviction.

The Han. vV. A. ZEAL said the ques­tion raised by Mr. Balfour-the paternity of the child-was dealt with by the existing law, so that there was no need of legislation in that respect. (Mr. Balfour-" That is as to maintenance.") The clause referred to the commission of certain offences, and it was unreasonable that such a charge should be allowed to hang over a man's head for more than six months.

The Hon. "V. H. ROBERTS remarked that he was inclined at first to agree with Colonel Sargood's amendment to extend the time to twelve months, but considering the dangerous nature of the clause he thought it would be well to keep the period at six months. Owing to the peculiar wording of the clause some magistrates might consider any corroborative evidence, however slight­even the fact of the accused being seen to speak to the girl in the street at night­sufficient to justify a conviction, and there­fore it was desirable that only a moderate period should be allowed for bringing the charge, so that the accused might have an opportunity of defending himself.

The Hon. J. BALFOUR stated that the clause afforded more protection to accused persons than the existing law. The Neg­lected and Criminal Children Act only pro­vided that no conviction should be obtained "on the unsupported testimony of the female so inveigled or enticed," whereas the clause prevented a conviction "on the unlmpported testimony of anyone witness." The latter words were a great deal wider and gave more protection to any person accused of one of these offences than those of the existing Act. If the period was limited to six months the object of the clause would be defeated, as a female would make no complaint within that time.

The committee divided on the question that the word "six" stand part of the clause- '

Ayes ... 19 Noes ... 9

Majority against the amendment 10

Dr. Benney, Mr. Buchanan, Sir W. J. Clarke, Mr. Cumming, " Dougharty, " Dowling, " Gore, " D.Ham, " Hanna,

Dr. Le Fevre,

AYES. Sir J. Lorimer, Mr. McCulloch, " Roherts, " SimpsolI, " Willi ace, " WilliamsoD, " Winter. " Zeal.

Teller. Mr. Cuthbert.

NOES. Mr. Balfour, Mr. Melville, " Connor, " Hoss, " Fraser, " Thornley. " C. J. Ham, Teller. " James, Col. Sargood.

The Hon. G. LE FEVRE explained that, not quite understanding the mannerin which the question was put, he voted with the "Ayes," whereas he meant to vote on the side of the " Noes."

The Bill, having been gone through, was· reported with amendments, and, on the mo­tion of the Hon. H. CUTHBERT, was afterwards recommitted for the further con­sideration of clauses 7, 56, and 57.

The Hon. N. FITZGERALD drew at­tention to clause 7, providing that managers of approved private reformatory schools should be entitled to receive" out of any moneys which may be appropriated by Par­liament for that purpose" a Sl1m not ex­ceeding 5s. per week for every inmate main­tained in snch school" during the preceding year or any part thereof." If the latter words were retained, no money could be drawn by any school until the termination of the year. He understood, however, that the Chairman was of opinion that this was an appropriation clause, and, therefore, could not be amended by the Council.

The CHAIRMAN.-Having considered the matter since the clause was last before the committee; I am clearly of opinion that this is an appropriation clause, because, although it does not appropriate any par­ticular sum of money, it deals with "any moneys which may be appropriated by Par­liament for that purpose."

The Hon. H. CUTHBERT called atten­tion to clause 56, giving power to justices to award- "solitary or separate confinement" in certain cases to offenders 16 years or age or upwards. He observed that as the clause originally stood it only provided for" soli­tary" confinement, but in committee the words" or separate " were added so as to leave it within the discretion of the magis­trates which punishment they would impose. Since the alteration was made he had seen the Inspector-General of Penal Establish­ments, and asked him whether it would be possible in the present state of the gaols to

Juvenz'le Offenders Law [NoVEMBER 8.] Amendment Bill. 1971

give effect to the clause as it now stood, and Mr. Brett stated that it would be impractic­able to do so if the magistrates exercised t,he power conferred on them to any great extent. The Inspector-General had also sent him a report on the subject, portions of which he would read.

The Hon. J. BALFOUR suggested tl1at the whole of the report should be read if it were not too long.

The Hon. W. A. ZEAL remarked that there was no use in reading more of the re­port than was necessary. There was a pre­cedent in the Imperial Parliament for the course which the Minister of Justice pro­posed to take. Recently extracts from despatches were read by the Hon. A. J. Balfour, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in the House of Commons, and, on members claiming that the whole must be rea.d, he said-" No; they are for the information of the department, and I shall only read those portions which bear on the case."

The Hon. F. T. SARGOOD said the committee Yfere not pressing the Minister of Justice to read any portions of the report which he thought it would be prejudicial to read, but any information which could be given without injury the committee would be glad to have.

The Hon. N. FITZGERALD supported the reading of the whole report. "When the clause was previously under discussion there was a great deal of ignorance shown as to what" separate confinement" really meant, and any information on the question would be gladly received.

The Hon. H. CUTHBERT said the report stated-

"The Juvenile Offenders Bill 1887, section 56, makes no distinction in the punishment of juve­nile and adult offenders, and if solitary confine­ment is to be a.warded in certain cases the dis­cretiollary powerofthejustices should be defined, and further precautions are necessary witll re­gard to the medical otticer. The solitary con­finement likely to be inflicted under this section can only be carried out as the cellula.r accommo­dation of the gaols will allow, for, although there is room for more persons in associated cells, there is not sufficient for prisoners in solitary cells, and in the Melbollt'Oe Gaol especially, where most of the prisoners will be received, As to the 'separate confinement' of prisoners being awarded also, the accommodation will not admit of such being carried into effect to a greater extent than it is at present, namely-all male prisoners sentenced to two years and upwards are kept in sepa.rate confinement for the initial period of the sentence for terms varying from three to six months, according to the lellgth of the sentence; and all first convicted male pri­soners sent.enced to six months and under for the whole period of the sentence, or portion of it, according to circum~tances, By the Gaols Act 1887, the Governor in Council has power to make regUlations for the individual separation

of all or any prisoners, and as the accommodation becomes available the application of the sepa­rate treatment of prisoners may be extended gradually, and the particular class of offenders mentioned in section 56 brought under that treatment, which, in my opinion, is the only way in which the wishes of the Legislature can be met under existing circumstances," On the 19th February, 1886, there were re­gulations framed to meet the case of juvenile offenders, one of which provided-

" Every first convicted prisoner sentenced to a term of imprisonment in any penal establish­ment or gaol not exceeding six months either with or without hard labour, or with or without the option of a fine, shall while under/Zoing such imprisonment be kept in separate confinement." So that when the imprisonment was only for six months the juvenile offender was kept in separate confinement for the whole term of his sentence. This did not neces­sarily mean, however, that the prisoner was kept in his cell 23 hours out of the 24, as in many cases prisoners were allowed out of their cells for three or four hoUl's a day. Under the Gaols Act passed during the present session very large powers were con­ferred on the Governor in Council to make regulations, and he thought it would be much better if the clause were to say nothing about separate confinement, leaving the matter to be dealt with under the regula­tions as the accommodation was increased and extended.· He understood that at Pen­tl'idge alone additional accommodation was required which would cost £70,000. The cells there were sufficient to provide sleep­ing accommodation during the night, but there were not sufficient cells to carry out the system of separate confinement under which a prisoner was confined by himself 23 hours out of the 24. He thought it would not be desirable to alter the clause so far as solitary confinement was concerned, because he believed that punishment was absolutely necessary to, meet certain cases, such for instance as the perpetrators of the brutal assault committed the other day on a swagman at Mitcham. If the young fel­lows who acted so brutally in that case were sent to gaol, and got 14 days' solitary con­finement during the term of their sentence, it would. do them good. (Mr. Fraser­"The case is 8~lb judice.") He was not saying anything about who were the per­petrators or the assault, but merely that, whoever they were, solitary confinement would teach them a lesson. He would sug­gest to thA commi ttee, in view of the powers conferred on the Governor in Council to make regulations dealing with separate con­finement, that it would be best to place on the Government the responsibility of seeing

1972 Juvenile Offenders Law [OOUNOIL.] Amendment Bill.

tl1at sentences were properly carried out, and to eliminate any reference to separate confinement from the clause. If there was no accommodation, and magistrat.es ordered offenders to be kept in separate confine­ment, a difficulty would arise. The already crowded state of the Melbourne Gaol was shown from a report of the governor with regard to the number of prisoners received during the first ten months of the present year for assault, threatening language, in­decent or insulting behaviour, abusive lan­guage, and wilful damage to property. Tha number of males from 16 to 21 years was 204, and over 21 years 1,082; and the number of females from 16 to 21 years was 92, and over 21 years 525, making a total of 1,903 prisoners received at tIle gaol for these offences during the period mentioned. How could separate confinement be provided for a large number of juvenile offenders under these circumstances? He begged to move the omission of the words ,. or sepa­rate" after" solitary."

The Hon. J. H. OONNOR expressed the opinion that there were a large number of short-sentenced prisoners in Pentridge who ought to be made to work and earn their own maintenance. He ventured to say that if young men who were sent to gaol for not very serious offences were made to work fewer of them would be in prison. He would suggest to the Minister of Justice that a large number of these prisoners might be drafted away from Pentridge and made to work on some of the Government re­serves. Many of the reserves in the coun­try districts might be cleared in this way. In America prisoners were used to clear and improve the agricultural reserves, the result being that there were now a large n um bel' of valuable reserves there which had been cleared and improved by prison labour.

The Hon. D. ME L VILLE said that the committee amended the clause by inserting the words" or separate" after "solitary" because they thought that solitary confine­ment was a cruel punishment, and that it would be well to give the magistrates a dis­cretion to order that an offender should undergo separate confinement rather than solitary confinement. After the very strong feeling which llad been expressed against solitary confinement, and the statements made by Dr. Beaney and others that it was a system of punishment which tended to weaken the intellects of those upon whom it was inflicted, and, in fact, to make them lunatics, he was surprised at the Minister of Justice asking the committee to reverse

their decision, on the ground that it would cost £70,000 to build the additional cells that would be required at Pentridge if pri­soners dealt with under the clause were sen­tenced to separate confinement. If it was right to consider the question of cost in such a matter, the fact that a special expenditure of £70,000 might be involved was an addi­tional reason why juvenile offenders-youths of 16 years of age and upwards-should not be sent to gaol at all. . He agreed with the opinion that it was wrong to send lads of 16 and upwards to gaol when convicted of such offences as the clause contemplated. They ought to be employed in the fields, or in draining swamps, or in doing some kind of useful work which would teach them industrious habits. He believed that such lads could never be reformed by solitary confinement.

The Hon. J. A. W ALLAOE expressed the opinion that it was a great mistake to treat with leniency larrikins who were guilty or offences of the kind contemplated hy the clause. They ought to be flogged after they were convicted, and then set at liberty again. There was no doubt that putting such offen­ders into gaol along with other prisoners made them worse instead of better. He would like to see all prisoners compelled to earn their living by doing some kind of hard useful work.

The Hon. J. BALFOUR observed that the Minister of .J ustice asked the committee, on the strength of a communication which he had received from the Inspector-General of Penal Establishments, to undo the amendment which they had made in the clause. But they couid not attach any weight to the Minister's argument, becaus~ he had read only a portion of the comlllU­nication. The honorable gentleman had a right to withhold the remainder of it from the committee, if he thought proper to do so; but he was not entitlpd to say-" This is the opinion of the Inspector-General of Penal Establishments, anti you should act upon it," when he read only part of the re­port. If the whole of the report was read, honorable members would then be enabled to judge how far they would be influenced by it.

The Hon. N. FITZGERALD remarked that he understood the reason why the Minister of Justice had not read a portion of the communication was that it contained a recommendation that he did not approve of. The committee, however, might approve of it, although the Minister did not. The whole of the Inspector-General's report

Juvenile Offenders Law [NOVEMBER 8.J Amendment Bill. 1973

ought to be rea,d, and then honorable mem­bers would be able to take it for what it was worth.

The .Ron. F. T. SARGOOD submitted that,if a Minister or a private member quoted from a letter or other communication, it was competent for any honorable member to demand that the document he laid on the table of the House. He believed that a decision to this effect had recently been given in another place.

The OHAIRMAN.-In that case the communication was read by a private mem­ber, not by a Minister of the Orown.

The Hon. W. H. ROBERTS stated that he did not see how any more gaol accommo­dation would be required if the amendment already made in the clause was adhered to. The effect of the amendment was simply to give the magistrates power in certain cases to award separate confinement instead of solitary confinement; but that would not increase the number of prisoners, or render more accommodation necessary.

The Hon. H. OUTHBERT said he did not read the whole of the Inspector-Gen­eral's report, because he did not think it necessary to do so. In the portion which had not been read, the Inspector-General had very kindly taken upon himself to suggest how tbe clause might be drafted. (Mr. Fraser-" He had no right to do so.") At all events, he was not asked to do so. However, as some honorable members de­sired to hear the whole of the report, he (Mr. Outhbert) would read the remaining portion of it. It was as fo11ows:-

"It is suggested, therefore, that after the word 'offender,' line 19, the following be substituted: -' Being 16 years of age and under 21 years of age. be kept in solitary confinement for any portion or portions of his imprisonment or im­prisol1llleut with hard labour, not exceeding 7 days at any oue time, and not exceeding 21 clays ill the wholp, with intervals of not iess than one month between every term of solitary confine­ment. , . " Heiug 21 years of age and upwards. be kept in solitary confinement for any portion or portions of his imprisonment Or imprisonment with hard labour, not exceeding 14 days at any olle time, and 1I0t exceeding two months in the whole, with intervals of not less than one month betw~en every term of solitary confinement. Provided always that no such offender shall, by reason of such direction, be kept in solitary confinement without being pre­viously examined by the medical officer of the gaol, or within 24 hours after being put into solitary confinement; and, if he be of opinion that the offellder is not at any time able to bear the whole or any part of snch solitary cOllfine­ment, may from time to time order the infliction of the whole or any part of the said punishment to be postponed or modified, and also may order out of solitary confinement any offender if he be of opinion that he is not able to bear the whole or any part of the said punishment he is

then undergoing; and such medical officer shall, within seven days after the making of any order as aforesaid, report in writing, stating his reasons for ma.king such order, to the Inspector-General of Penal Establishments fQr the time being, and such Illspector-General shall forthwith transmit the same for the infol"matioll of the Chief Secre­tary for the time being. Provided that the cellular accolIIUlodation of the gaols and penal establishments is sufficient to allow of the offenders being kept in solitary confinement.'''

He thought it would be seen that, in having omitted to read tllis part of the Inspector­General's report, he had not kept back any­thing of importance from the committee. The chief point in the report, as bearing on the question before the cl)mmittee, was that there was not gaol accommodation to give effect to the sentences which would be passed under the clause, from time to time, if the justices awarded separate confinement. As to solitary confinement, the Inspector­General was of opinion that what the clause contemplated was not too severe a punishment for juvenile offenders of 16 years and upwards.

The Hon. F. T. SARGOOD stated that, with reference to placing on the table of the House documents quoted in the course of the debate, he de-sired to quote the fol­lowing from Brand's Decisions :-

"If official documents are quoted, it is the practice to lay them on the table of the House. . . . " . An official document, if quoted, should be laid on the table, unless the T>ublic interest is opposed thereto:'

The cases were mentioned in which these decisions were given by Mr. Brand, when Speaker of the House of OOllllllons, and there was also the following ruling :--

"Mr, SPIf.AKEIt.-The practice of tlte House is that. if an official docUllIellt is quoted by a Minister, it shall be l11.id hefore the House. At the sallie time, if the public interest should be opposed to tltat proceeding', that would be ac­cepted by the House 11.s a reason for withholding the documents."

The Hon. ,J. BUOHANAN urged that steps ought to be taken to make prisoners do some remunerative work, and thereby reduce the cost of the penal establishments and gaols. The late Mr. Duncan, when In­spector-General of Penal Establishments, strongly recommended that 200 prisoners should be employed in draining the Koo­wee-l'Up Swamp, but the Government of the day refused to give effect to the recommen­dation. At the present time, there were 1,500 men in Pentl'idge who were able to work, and who cost the country £40 per head per annum for maintenance and super­vision. A number of them might be pro­fitably employed in suc~ out-door labour as the drainage of swamps. If they were put to out. door labour in country districts it

1974 .Neglected Child1'en Law [COUNCIL.] Amendment Bilt.

would be easy tQ exercise supervision over them; in fact, they could be kept as safely as if they were in Pentridge, The employ­ment of prisoners on work of the description he llad indicated, while it would reduce the cost of the maintenance or the penal estab­lishments and gaols, would not injuriously affect the labour market; on the contrary, it would ultimately have the effect or increas­ing the demand for ordinary labour.

The CHAIRMAN.-I may remind the honorable member that. the subject of penal discipline is not before the committee. The only question is whether the words "or separate" shall be struck out of clause 56.

The Hon. J. BALFOUR said that time would have been saved if the Minister of Justice had, in the first instance, read the whole of the report of the Inspector-General of Penal Establishments. As it appeared quite clear that the Inspector-General was of opinion that if prisoners dealt with under the clause were sentenced to separate COI1-

finement there would not be room in Pent­ridge for their accommodation, he (Mr. Balfour) thought that the committee were bound to strike out the .words " or separate."

The amendment was then agreed to, and the words "or separate" were struck out accordingly.

The Hon. H. CUTHBERT called atten­tion to clause 57, authorizing the whipping of boys under 16 years of age who were con­victed of certain offences. vVhen the clause was previously before the committEe, strong objections were raised to the portion of it giving the magi~trates power to require the parent or guardian of a boy sentenced to be whipped to perform the whipping. He would therefore move that the clause be amended so that the parent or guardian could not be required to administer the whipping, and to provide that it should be administered" by a constable, in the presence of an inspector or other officer of police of higher rank than a constable, and also in the presence, if he desire to be present, of the parent or guardian of the child."

The amendment was agreed to, and the word "privately" was inserted before " whipped."

The Bill was then reported with further amendments.

NEGLECTED CHILDREN LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

This Bill was recommitted. The Hon. H. CUTHBERT called atten­

tion to clause 25, which required the Secre­tary of the Neglected Children department,

within 40 days after the passing of the measure, to make out a· list of the nllmes of all persons "who are or will probably be inmates of industrial schools at the com­mencement of this Act," and moved that it be amended so as to require that the return should be made out within 40 dllYs after the "commencement" instead of the" passing" of the measure, and that it should be limited to the names of persons who were actually inmates of the industrial schools at the commencement of the Act.

The amendments were agreed to. The Hon. J. BALFOUR proposed the

insertion of a new sub-section in clause 84 rendering any employer of a female ward of the Department for Neglected Children who "carnally knows any such female who is apparently under the age of 18 years" liable, on conviction, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding three years.

The amendment was agreed to. The Bill was then reported with further

amendments.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE LA VV AMENDMENT BILL.

The House went into committee for tl1e further consideration of this Bill.

The discussion of the postponea clauses was resumed.

The Hon. F. T. SARGOOD proposed the addition to clause 56 (setting forth the jurisdiction of courts of petty sessions) of the following proviso :-

"Provided always that, except by CODflent as aforesaid, where the sum claimed exceeds £50 and is nnder £ 100, the court of petty sessiollfl to hear and deterl1line the following causes of action (that is to sEl.y) :-For goods and chattels bar­gained and sold, for goods and chattels sold and delivered, for money lent and interest thereon, for llIoney paid, for money received, for work and lahollr done, for work and labour done and materials for the same provided, for mOlley due upon a hill of exchange, promissory note, or cheque-shall consist of a police magistrate Ilnd of at least one justice present and acting toge­ther dnring the whole time of the hearing and determination of the case."

The amendment was submitted in pursuance of a strong feeling on the part of alarge num­her of honorahle members that the time ha.d al'fived when there should be an extension of the jurisdiction of justices of the peace. When the clause was previously before the committee, he proposed that the jurisdiction of the justices in all the cases mentioned in the clause should be extended to £100. In the coun;;e of the discussion it was suggested by some honorable members that, while it might be well to extend the jurisdiction to £100 in simple actions, there were certain

Ju,stices of ,the Peace [NoVEMBER 8.] Law A.mendment Bill. 1975

causes of action which it was extremely de­sirable should be heard by a police magistrate and at least one iustice, and that such cases should never be· heard by a single justice unless by the 'consent in writing or both parties to the proceedings. The amendment would have the effect of carrying out this suggestion. There was no doubt that the extension of the jurisdiction of courts of petty sessions to £50 had been a great boon, espe­cially in country districts; and to him and other honorable members it seemed to have worked so well as to warrant' its further extension to £100 in simple actions.

The Hon. H. CUTHBERT asked what was the meaning of the phrase" except by consent as aforesaid"?

The Hon. F. T. SARGOOD said the consent referred to was the consent provided for in clause 55-the consent, in writing, of both parties to the proceedings, that a case should be heard by a single justice.

The Hon. H. CUTHBERT observed that until a comparatively recent period the juris­diction of justices of the peace in civil cases was limited to £20. However, the juris­diction had been extended within the last two years to £50. The Government, in introducing the Bill, did not intend to do anythinghmore than consolidate the laws re­lating to justices of the peace with a few small amendments. In substance the Bill was really a consolidation Bill. For that reason, he was opposed to so material an alteration of the law as was involved in the extension of the jurisdiction to £100. Moreover, it was calculated to do away with one of the greatest bulwarks of English liberty-trial by jury. It seemed strange that the amendment should have been sub­mitted by a gentleman who was in charge of a Bill-the County Courts Statute Amendment Bill-which empowered either party to a cause which having been heal'll in the County Court was re-heard in the Su­preme Court, to claim the right to have it tried by a jury. (Mr. Connor-" How does the amendment do away with trial by jury?") If a person now brought an action to recover £70 due on a bill of exchange or It promis­sory note, he had to proceed in the County Court, where, if he chose, he could have a jury. If the jurisdiction of justices were ex­tended as now proposed, such an action could be brou~ht in the court of petty sessions, but there was no provision under the J us­tices of the Peace Statute for the trial of cases by a jury. Then, again, the "consent" which would allow of a case being tried by a single justice seemed almost inconsistent

with that part of the amendment which provided that the conrt of petty sessions should" consist of a police magistrate and of at least one justice." It should also be recollected that nearly every small town in the colony had its County Court, that the expenses connected with proceedings in County Courts were comparatively trifling, and that the County Courts were presided over by men of ability, skill, and learning. One other fact which should be borne in mind was that, whereas formerly the police magistrates were selected from the legal profession, they were chosen now, for the most part, from persons who had served as clerks of courts. For these reasons. and inasmuch as the Council last session, ~hen they had a similar Bill before them, de tir­mined not to extend the jurisdiction beyond £50 he could not accept the amendment. He considered that more experience should be had of the operation of the present law bE'fore such large powers as the amendment contemplated were placed in the hands of justices of the peace, some of whom might know very little of commercial law, and were altogether unqualified to deal with the very nice questions arising under such actions as those on bills of exchange and promis­sory notes.

The Hon. W. H. ROBERTS opposed the amendment. He considered that jus­tices of the peace had quite sufficient juris­rliction already. No one could have any objection to the causes of action already set out in the clause, because dealing with them would, as a rule, require very little know­ledge beyond that ordinarily possessed by a justice, hut with the limit of jurisdiction increased to double the extent there woulcl be no knowing the intricacies thatmigbtarise. vVere the fact otherwise, the Oounty Conrt jurisdiction might be very soon merged into that of the police courts. But bow could that be done with the petty sessions courts constituted as they usuaUy were? For example, there was not one honorary magis­trate out of 20 who knew the real legal meaning and effect of a bill of exchange, or the distinction between implied agency and actual agency in connexion with money paill or received. Consequently, the result of adopting the amendment would be endless prohibitions, mandamuses, and appeals to a higher court, which would do something very different from cheapening litigation. On the contrary, police court litigation would probably become nearly the most expensive of any. No doubt the Melbourne police court was an exception to the general rule,

1976 Justices of the'PeaC8 [COUNCIL.J Law 11 mendment Bill.

because the presiding- magistrate there was quite the equal of a County Court Judge, but with the ordinary run of honorary jus­tices a very different state of things pre­vailed. How, indeed, could the Mayor of Melbourne or of any other' municipality; or the president of a shire, be expected to know all the bearings of the law relating to, say, promissory notes? It was observable that the amendment provided that every case coming under it should be heard by a police magistrate, but at present the attendance of such an official at any of the suburban metropolitan courts was a very rare occurrence. One did not sit at Wil­liamstown or Footscray once a month. In truth the police magistrates of the colony were already terribly overweighted with work. Another thing to remember was that in cases heard at petty sessions, where there was an appeal, there would be no depositions or .J udge's notes to go upon. That was of comparatively small conse­quence so long as appeals were rare, but with the proposed increase of jurisdiction appeals would be almost the rule rather than the exception, and the expense of explana­tory affidavits and so on would be tremen­dous. Upon the whole, the best thing to do would be to take the clause as it stood for the present, and see how it worked.

The Hon. T. DO WLING said he would support the amendment, because the limit of £GO would not cover the amounts of rates which were often sued for. The shire of Mortlake, for instance, annually lost hUll­dt'eds of pounds because it could not take all its rate cases into a petty sessions court. Again, what was practically the difference between a £50 and a £100 jurisdiction? For his part, he could not see why a man who claimed a debt of over £50 and Bot more than £100 should not be able to avail himself of the cheapness and expeditiousness attaching to a pl'Ocedure before justices.

The Hon.N. FITZGERALD stated that he would be sorry to see the jurisdiction of petty sessions courts raised in the way pro­posed. His chief objection to the change was that it would deprive plaintiffs and de­fendants of their present right to have, if they so desired, their respective cases tried by a jury. Of all Houses of Legislature, the Legislati \'e Council of Victoria ought to be about t.he last to interfere with that right. Then, while he had great respect for the hon­orary magistrates of the colony, he had an even greater respect for the principles of justice, and he would be no party to allowing the decisions of courts of petty sessions in ci vi!

cases to come under the slightest shadow of suspicion. Yet how could such a suspicion be avoided, with the vast majority of com­mercial actions, such as those for goods sold and delivered, for materials provided, and so on, rendered subject to the decision of representatives of the very class of the community amongst which most of the plaintiffs in such actions were to be found? Were not most of the justices of the colony, especially in the country districts, men who belonged, or had belonged, to the successful commercial class-storekeepers, and the like? It was an old and true maxim that it was less hurtful for a court to be actually corrupt than for it to be suspected of being corrupt. He was not now casting the slightest imputation on the unpaid magis­trates of the colony, who were wortlly of all honour, but simply endeavouring to save them from being placed in a false position -from it being open to be said of them at any time-" 'Vhat chance had I of getting a just verdict from such a bench?" Again, would it not be dangerous to hand over at least one-half of the litigation of the country to benches composed of magistrates of whose com petency, from lack of legal training or otherwise, no one could have any absolute assurance? As for the presence of a police magistrate on the bench, what guarantee would that be in the face of the fact that his decision might at any time be overruled by a majority of the sitting justices? He (Mr. Fitzgerald) hoped that the amendment would be rejected. Nevertheless, he would have no objection to increase the jurisdiction of the honorary justices in actions for municipal rates.

The Hon. D. MELVILLE thought that Mr. Fitzgerald must be the victim of some peculiar notions. On the one hand, he com­plained that, under the amendm611t, the hon­orary justices would know too much, from sympathy and other causes, of actions like those they would ha ve to try; and, on the other, he suggested that the public would ha\7e no assurance that they would be com­petent, from their knowledge, to deal with such cases at all. Now the honorable mem­ber could hardly be right on both points. Moreover, it was quite a fallacy, taking the experience of the suburban police courts as a standard, to suppose that the particular class to which the honorary magistrates, as a rule, belonged, were in any shape or way frequent litigants. The great point for hon­orable members generally to consider was that the change now proposed was one which wasstronglydernanded by the trading classes

. J,l.tstices of the Peace [NOVEMBER 8.J Law Amendment Bill. 1977

of the colony, and which would be hailed by them with enthusiasm.

The Hon. J. H. CONNOR said he con­sidered that the amendment would be of great benefit in the country districts. In many places County Court sittings were only held at intervals of from three to six months, and justice might be defeated by the delay. He could not see why, if magis­trates were intrusted with jurisdiction up to £50 now, they could not be allowed to decide on matters of fact up to £100, espe-. cially when it was provided that a police magistrate should be on the bench.

The Hon. W. P. SIMPSON supported the amendment. It would be a great con­venience to residents in country districts if the proposed jurisdiction was given to magis­trates, and he saw nothing in the list of causes of action included in the amendment which any man of ordinary capacity might not be trusted to decide upon. Mr. Roberts had referred to bills of exchange, but, al. though complications sometimes arose with regard to foreign bills of e}\.change, he believed that the law relating to ordinary bills of ex­change was well known to commercial men. Moreover, it was proposed that justices should be assisted by a police magistrate, who was generally a lawyer and a man of education.

The committee divided on the amend.., ment-

Ayes ... 9 Noes ... 16

Majority against the amendment 7

Mr. Connor, " Dowling, .. Fraser, .. Gor~, " C. J. Ham,

Dr. Beaney, Sir W. J. Clarke, Mr. Cumming, " Cuthbert, " Fitzgerald, " D. Ham,

Dr. Le Fevre, Sir J. Lorimer, Mr. McCulloch,

AYES.

Mr. Melville, Col. Sargood, Mr. Simpson.

Tellm· . Mr. Thornley.

NOES.

Mr. Ross " Stan bridge, " Sterry, " Williamson, " Winter,

Zeal.

Teller. Mr. Hoberts.

The clause was agreed to, as was also clause 70.

The Hon. W. A. ZEAL called attention to the following sub-section of clause 74, setting forth the rules to be observed in connexion with the hearing of cases of summary jurisdiction:-

" Where iu the case of any complaint the de­fendant does .not appear at the time and place

mentioned in the summon !I, if it appear to the court on oath that the sUlllmons was duly served at lel\!!t 48 hours before the time therein ap­pointed forn.ppearing,and if no sufficient grounds be shown for an adjo'llrnment, the court may either proceed ex pm·te to hear and determine the complaint, or may adjourn the hearing to a future day." He begged to move the snbstitution of " within a reasonable time," which was the phrase used in the present law, for "at least 48 hours" (line 5). It might pl'Ove a hardship in some cases if a defel1l1ant was compelled to appear within 48 hours of the service of a summons on pain of having the case heard ex IJarte. A leading member of the magisterial bench had expressed to him the opinion that it would be better to allow the law to stand as it was.

The Hon. W. H. ROBERTS remarked that, if the amendment was adopted, it would be necessary to insert a provision, as in the existing Act, enabling the magistrates to determine what constituted "a reasonable

. time." In practice the time now allowed was 48 hours.

'The Hon. H. CUTHBERT stated that the term used in the present Act was altered by the Bill, because it was vague and inde­finite. One court might hold 48 hours to be " a reasonable time." while another court might allow three or four days. He would poiut out that no injury could arise under the sub-section as it stood, because, if the justices were of opinion that unJer the cir­cumstances of the case 48 hours was not a reasonable time, they would not feel called upon to exercise their jurisdiction.

The amendment was withdrawn. The clause was agreed to, as was also

clause 100. The Hon. W. A. ZEAL stated that he

hp.d intended to propose two new clauses taken from the Imperial Statute 42nd and 43rd Victoria, cap. 49,giving justices certain powers in dealing with offences committed by children. As the leading provisions of the clauses, however, had been adopted in the Jnvenile Offenders Bill, he did not in­tend to proceed with them.

The Bill was reported with amendments.

LEGISLATIVE COUNOIL ACT 1881 REMOVAL OF DO UBTS BILL.

The House went into committee for the consideration of this Bill.

Discussion took place on the 1st and only clause, which was as follows:-

.• The term' owner' in the Legislative Council Act 1881 shall include and shall be deemed from the commencement of the said Act to have in": eluded any male person who is entitled to occupy

1978 Legislative Council Act 1881 [OOUNOIL.] Removal of Doubts Bill.

and who holds any lands as a residence area witbin the meaning Itnd under the provisions of the Mining Statute 1865 or any Act amending the same and relating to mining on Crown IlI.ndR or the occupation of Crown Innds o~gold-fields."

The Han. Ji"" T. SARGOOD said that, in view of the fact that the Council had agreed to a motion for a return of certain informa­tion bearing materially on the Bill, he begged to move that progress be reported. The question involved was a very important one, and the committee generally were not yet seised of sufficient information to form an opinion upon it. 'When it was remembered that the Minister in charge of the Bill esti­mated that the measure would affect about 2,000 miners, whilst another honorable mem­ber representing a mining constituency set down the number as much greater, it would be seen that it was desirable to have fuller information before proceeding further with so important a measure. The Bill was un­doubtedly an alteration of the Reform Act passed in 1881, inasmuch as it was intended to give to the word" owner" a meaning which it had never yet borne iu the Englieh language, and he did not think it was the custom of the Oouncil to rush hastily through important measures. He thought they might fairly allow the Bill to stand over for a short time until the return was furnished, when they would know exactly how many persons were affected by it, and could also consider whether it would be desirable to extend the franchise in other directions. He did not see how in fairness the fran­chise could be extended to these so-called "owners," who were really leaseholders, without extending it also to other persons occupying a similar position on the Orown lands of the colony.

The Hon. H. OUTHBERT said he was very anxious to proceed with the Bill, and he had no idea until that afternoon that so im­portant a return as that moved for by Oolonel Sargood would be asked for. The return called for much information which he feared it would be almost impossible to supply. (001. Sargood-" Strike out those por­tions.") He wished very much the honor­able member had called for the return before the principles of the Bill were sanctioned by the House by the second reading being agreed to, but now that the measure was in com­mittee he did not think its progress should be blocked if it was impossible to supply the information desired within a reasonable time. (001. Sargood-" Hear, hear.") He wished to point out that he had no desire to place the residence area holders in any better posi­tion than that which they could equitably

claim under the Act passed a few y'ears ago, w11ich provided that if a residence area holder had been in occupation of his holding for two years and a half he should have the right to purchase the land. To remove the objection which might be entertained to con­ferring the franchise on men who might only have been in occupation for six months, he intended to move the following addition to the clause :-

".Provided that buildings or other improve­ments have been erected or made on such land, and that such person has been ill possession of such land for a period of at least two and a half years, and has applied to purchase the same, but has not been permitted so to do in consequence solely of the Hoard of Land and Works objecting to the alienation of the same, on the ground that the same is auriferous, or for other reasons of a public nature."

This would do away with the objection which might be raised that this was class legisla­tion, and that residence area holders were being placed in a better position than "Orown lessees. If any residence area holders had

. not applied for permission to purchase, and thus showed that they had no desire to acquire the freehold, he thought they were not entitled to have the franchise for the Oouncil. (Mr. Fitzgerald-" They might not apply through knowing that it was use­less.") Many of their areas could not be purchased, because they were on auriferous ground, but, if they had applied, it would show their bona fides. If the proviso was adopted those who had been in occupation for 2i years could apply to purchase, alld if it were found that, for public reasons, the land they held could not be sold to them, they could then be enrolled as voters for the Oouncil. As the principle of the Bill had been affirmed, and as there was a large attendance of mem­bers, he saw no reason why the consideration of the measure should not be proceeded with.

The Hon. N. FITZGERALD observed that he wished the committee to understand that, if they accepted Oolonel Sargood's proposal, they would practically leave this question unsettled during the whole of next year. The rolls had to be made up on the 1st December, and, if there was a .further postponement for the return, would it be possible to have the Bill in operation by that time? It was quite evident that substan­tially the proposal of Oolonel Sargood was to prevent the Bill from having any effect on the rolls for the coming year. (Mr. Fraser-" These men are on the rolls now. ") Not in all cases. (Mr. Fraser-" Nearly all.") In one division of Ballarat. they were on the rolls, and in another they were not.

Legislative Council Act 1881 [N OVEl\1BER 8.] Removal of Doubts Bal. 1979

If there were no other reason for passing the Bill than that, at the present time, it was virtually left in the hands of an electoral registrar whether residence area holders should be enfranchised or disfranchised, that would be sufficient. It was not necessary for the Couneil, in dealing with this ques­tion, to give auy opinion as to whether selectors should or should not 'have the franchise. That question could be dealt with when it came before them, should it do so; and the consideration of the Bill should not be hampered by an issue which had 110

relation to it. If Colonel Sat'good was opposed to the principle of residence area holders having votes for the Council, it would have been .more in accord with his usual manliness for him to havesnid"No" to the Bill at once instead of giving it the indirect stab which was the necessarv con­sequence of his present proposition: He llOped the Government would be firm in de­termining to go on with the consideration of the Bill that night, and have it dis­posed of one way or the other. He also hoped the consideration of the subject would not be encumbered with the question as to whether another class of persons should have the franchise. This was a Bill "to remove doubts," and there were doubts as to whether residence area holders were en­titled to vote or not, whereas there was no doubt in t.he case of selectors. He trusted that Colonel Sargood would not press his motion for reporting progress.

The Hon. F. T. SARGOOD said he took exception to the chal'ge that he had sought to stab the Bill in an underhand way. He had been in the Council for 14 years, and his actions had always been straightfor­ward and above-board. He moved for the return simply with the view of obtaining, not only for himself but for other honorable members, information which they had not at present, and because he thought it was un­advisaBle for the House to take such an important step in the dark. He did not say that the Bill might not be desirable, but he was certainly justified in saying that, on the face of it, it was an anomaly. He had already stated that he was in favour of ex­tending the franchise of the Council, but he wished it to be done in a manner which would be satisfactory to himself and honor­able members generally, and it was solely that consideration which had induced him to take the action he had done.

The Hon. N. FITZ GERALD disclaimed the slightest idea of imputing any improper motive to Colonel Sargood, for whom he had

the highest respect. In using the term " indirect stab" he was simply speaking of the effect of the honorable member's sug­gestion, which, if adopted, would result in shelving the Bill for the session.

The Hon. 'V. A. ZEAL remarked that many honorable members had urged that if this concession was granted to the miners it should also be granted to the selectors. They seemed to forget, however, that it had been the usual practice in many districts to allow the names .of residence area holders to be placed on the Legislative Council rolls, so that, as far as those districts were concerned, no extension of the franchise was being asked for. But, inasmuch as he understood that instructions had been sent from the Crown Law department that in future this practice should cease, certain registrars were now doubtful of their powers, and the Minister of Justice, in a very straightfor­ward way, had introduced the present Bill to remove the doubt. Honorable members were not now a.sked to deal with the question whether or not selectors were qualified to vote for the Council, but with an important class of electors who, in some instances, had been deprived unjustly of their rights. There was a great difference between the case of selectors and that of the holders of residence areas under miners' rights. The house which a selector occupied was valued, and his land was also valued. If he eut down the timber growing upon the land, in order that he might sell it, and thereby ob­tain money to pay his rent with, that was regarded as an improvement. But the only improvement made by the miner which was subject to valuation for electoral purposes was the house which he had erected on his residence area. The -miners had borne the burthen and heat of the day; they had settled down in comparatively unproductive localities, they had done their best to develop the mineral resources of the country, and had, in fact, proved themselves to be, to all intents and pur­poses, the mainstay and backbone of the country. It was a manifest injustice that they should not be placed on the roll of Council electors as freeholders, if the dwell­ings which they had erected on their resi­dence areas were valued at £10 per annum. He would appeal to honorable members to grant the residence area holders the justice which had been denied them by the action of the Law department in issuing a certain circular to the electoral registrarR. The committee ought to come to a decision on the question at once. Nothing would be

1980 Legislative Council Act 1881 [COUNCIL.] Removal of Doubts Bill.

gained by waiting for the return which had been ordered, on the motion of Oolonel SargooJ, because it would simply show that in some distric.ts the holders of residence areas whose dwellings were valued at between £ I 0 and £25 had been placed on the roll, and that in others they had not.

The HOI!. O. J. HAM expressed the opinion that the information asked for in the motion which had been passed at the in­stance of Colonel Sargood ought to be fur­nished before the Bill was dealt with. Hon­orable members should certainly know how many additional electors-whether the num­ber would be 2,000 or 20,OOO-would be placed on the roll if the measure became la w. It must be remembered that only a short time since a circular, emanating from the Government, was issued cautioning the electoral registrars not to place on the roll holder~(of r~sidence areas who were rated at less than £25 per annum; but now there was a change of front on the part of the Government, and they had introduced a Bill to give the franchise to llU residence area holders rated at £10 per annum and up­wards. He was in favour of extending the franchise to that class, but honorable mem­bers, before they passed the Bill, ought to have full information as to what would be the effect of the proposed alteration of the law. They ought to wait for the in­formation asked for by Colonel Sargood, so that they might legislate on this question with the same caution and prudence as generally characterized the legislation of the Council. .

The Hon. W. P. SIMPSON said he failed to see that anything would be gained by delay. The matter ought to he definitely settled at once. Honorable members were fully seised of the facts. The Bill involved no new departure in legislation; its object was simply to get rid of an absurd anomaly whereby at the present time certain men living on one side of a street were placed on the Council roll of electors, while others residing on the opposite side, who were equally entitled to the franchise, were left off the roll. Surely it was not desirable that such a preposterous state of things should be allowed to continue. Some hon­orable members objected to the measure on the ground that it .was class legislation, but in a com plex state of society, such as existed in this nineteenth century, class legislation was very often just and reasonable. The Acts which had been passed in the old country to prevent women and children being employed in coal mines, to reduce the hours

of labour in factories, and to protect the lives of seamen going to sea in merchant ships, were samples of justifiable class le­gislation. He hoped that the Bill would be passed at once. His sympathips were strongly with the miners, who were the hardest worked and worst paid class in the community.

The Hon. D. HAM said that, as repre­senting an electoral province which comprised perhaps the most importnnt gold-field in the colony, he felt a deep interest in the Bill,. and he hoped it would be passed promptly. Its only object was to do justice to a large number of miners who were at present un­fairly deprived of the Council franchise. A residence area was held by virtue of a miner's right, and a miner's right might be con­sidered a Crown grant. If it was not a Orown grant, at all events it was a grant ft'OIll the Crown; and if a dwelling valued at £10 per annum was erected, on a residence area, the owner of it was entitled to be placed on the Oouncil roll. After the forcible re­marks made by Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Zeal, Colonel Sargood ought to withdraw his objPction to the measure being dealt with at once. To delay it until the return ordered by the House was furnished simply meant that the Bill would be shelved for the present session. Considering its great im­portance, the measure ought to be passed at once.

The Hon. T. DOWLING stated that he could not support the motion for reporting progress. It did not matter whether the Bill would add 5,000 electors to the roll, or only five. The question at issue was a very simple one, -namely, whether the men in whose interests the measure had been in­troduced were in the position of leaseholders or owners. It seemed to him quite clear that they were owners. (001. Sargood­"Upon what ground?") Because they had received from the Crown a right to erect dwellings on their residence areas, and they had done so. When the ~aluers went round, and asked-" Are you the owner? " the reply was-" Yes." (Col. Sargood­" That is not a proof.") The miners who had erected dwellings on their residence areas were certainly in a very different position from leaseholders or tenants-at­will. The Crown could not dispossess them, and, in the eye of the law, they were free­holders.

The Hon. J. H. CONNOR said he thought that the principal informa.tion asked for in the return which had been ordered on the motion of Colonel Sargood could very

Legislative Council Act 1881 [NoVEMBER 8. J Removal of Doubts Bill. 1981

easily be supplied. (Mr. Cuthbert-" I am afraid not.") There would be no diffi­culty in ascertaining the number of lease­holders residing on Crown lands and the number of miners living in houses built on residence areas. He had no objection to the Bill 011 its merits, but he thought that lease­holders of agricultural lands under the Crown were as much entitled to the Council fran­chise as residence area holders were. Selec. tors did as much to advance the interests of the country as miners, and ought to have the same electoral privileges.

The Hon. S. FRASER considered that the information referred to in the motion which had been adopted at the instance of Colonel Sargood ought to have been brought down by the Government before they intro­duced the Bill. They ought, at all events, to have been able to state approximately how many persons would be affected by the measure. He, however, heartily supported the Bill. Its object was simply to remove doubts, and to put a stop to the absurdity of the holders of residence areas whose dwellings were valued between £10 and £25 per annnm being omitted from the Council roll in a few districts, when they were put on in the great majority of districts. The ex· tension of the Council franchise to selectors was a totally different question, which could be dealt with at some other time. He hoped that honorable members would pass the Bill with a good grace, as an act of justice to the miners.

The Hon. D. MELVILLE observed that the Bill was called a measure for the" re· moval of doubts," but by whom had the doubts which it was intended to remove been created? By some blundering persons who had put an interpretation on the word "owner" in the Council Reform Actof 1881 which was contrary to common sense. No honorable member had adduced a single argument to show that it was the intention of the Legislature, when it passed that Act, that residence area holders should be re­garded as freeholders. That, in fact, was not intended. It was a mere subterfuge to say that the Bill was to remove doubts. The miners at Ballarat were a powerful body at the back of the Minister of Justice, and Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Zeal, and Mr. D. Ham, who strongly supported the measure, also represented electoral districts which con­tained a large number of miners; but why should not selectors, who worked as hard as miners, have the Council franchise, pro­vided that their holdings were of the annual

SES. 1887.-6 y

value of £10, if the franchise was to be given to miners who had erected dwellings of that value on their residence areas? A building worth only £10 per annum could not bea very extensive one. Why should such an important Bill be passed simply because some registrars had blundered? Why should the blunder be legalized? If the Go­vernment wished to reduce the leasehold qualification for the Council franchise to £10 or £12, let them bring in a general measure for that purpose. There was not a shadow of argument in favour of giving miner:3 the franchise if they lived in dwellings assessed at the annual value of £10 unless the same privilege was extended to butchers, bakers, and all other classes of the commu­nity. The Bill was a sort of indirect stab at the agricultural and other classes, who could not get on the Council roll even if they lived in houses which were assessed at £24 a year. Surely an agriculturist in the Goulburn Valley, or a man who had been growing potatoes in the neighbourhood of Hamilton or Warrnambool for the last 15 years, was as much entitled to the Council franchise as a miner who might have been only two or three years in the country. The Bill would transferthe balance of powerto the miners. It ought to be withdrawn, and if the Government desired to reduce the fran­chise, they ought to introduce a general measure to make the reduction apply to all classes of the community who occupied houses of a certain annual value.

The Hon. J. WILLIAMSON said that he represented both miners and selectors, but the claim of the latter to possess the Council franchise was not the question at present under consideration. He considered it absolutely necessary to pass the Bill at once, so that it might be definitely decided that the holders of residence areas whose dwellings were of the annual value of £10 or upwards should be placed on the roll. If the measure was postponed it would be im· possible for it to become law before the com. pilation of the next electoral rolls in the month of December. Men who belonged to houses erected on residence areas held by virtue of a miner's right had always been recognised as owners, and it was owing to the blundering of electoral registrars that some of them had been left off the Oouncil roll.

The Hon. W. ROSS submitted that no honorable member ought to throw any ob­stacle in the way of the holders of residence area, whose dwellings were assessed at £10

1982 Legislative Council Act 1881 [CO UNCIL.] Removal of Doubts Bill.

per annum, being placed on the Council roll because the Bill did not also propose to entitle selectors rated at the same amount to be put on the roll. He would, however, be willing to see the measure postponed until the return which had been ordered was produced, if the Minister of Justice could give an assurance that it would be furnished within a reasonable time.

The Hon. H. GORE stated that if the Bill was to become law before the next Council rolls were compiled it was absolutely necessary not to postpone it for the produc­tion of the return which had been asked for. He hoped that honorable members would carry the measure at once.

The Hon. N. THORNLEY congratu­lated the Minister of Justice on having arrived at the determination to propose an amendment which would certainly be an improvement on the Bill in its present shape. As the measure stood, it would give every holder of a miner's right, for which a fee of 5s. per annum was paid, the Council franchise, if he had erected a dwell­ing on his residence area of the annual value of £ 1 0; but the delay of a week or two had enlightened theMinister,and shown him that a residence area holder was not entitled to pre-emption until he had occu­pied his site for two years and a half. Selec­tors under the Land. Act of 1869, whose rent was actually part of the purchase money, were surely as much entitled to the Council franchise as the holders of residence areas, and so also were licensees of agricul­tural allotments uuder the Land Act of 1884. He intended to move that the fol­lowing words be added to the clause :.:-

"And shall also include any licensee of an agricultural allotment under part 2 of the Land Act 1884, and any licensee of an allotment under part 2 of the Land Act 1869, or any Act amendmg such last-mentioned Act; or of land held under section 49 of the said last-mentioned Act."

The motion for reporting progress was negatived.

The Hon. N. THORNLEY moved his amendment in the terms indicated.

The Hon. F. T. SARGOOD said the very fact of the amendment having been moved was an evidence to him that more time should be given for the consideration of the Bill. Although he had uniformly been strongly in favour of lowering the fran­chise for the Council, he strongly objected to any step in that direction being taken in such a manner that hereafter they might have reason to regret their action. He had

already pointed out that honorable members were in absolute ignorance as to how many electors the Bill would be the means of add­ing to the roll. At the time of the passing of the Reform Bill, great care was ta.ken to ascertain the probable effect of the red uction of the franchise to £25 for leaseholders and £10 for freeholders. The consequence was that, when the Bill was under consideration, honorable members' knew perfectly well to what extent they were going. At present they were asked by the Ministry to add largely to the electors for the Council; but they had no information as to the probable extent of the addition, and inrormation of that kind should be furnished without an honorable member being umiet' the necessity of moving for it. At the same time, he did not see why the privilege which the Bill would confer should extend to only one sec­tion of the community. He did not see why fair play should not be meted out to other inhabitants of the provinces. Certainly the persons referred to in the amendment had as large a stake in the country as miners. He might say that they had a larger stake in the country, because, while miners were more or less on the move, selectors w~re settled on the land. They were gradually working to convert their selections into freeholds. Resi­dence area holders were nothing but lease­holders. They could not buy the land they occupied; what they were possessed of con­sisted merely of the improvements on the land. However, he had a respect for both classes, and he hoped to see both classes largely represented in the Council. But let the thing be done in a business-like way. What the committee had now before them was simply an apology for a Bill, which sought to rectify what, as Mr. Melville had said, was a blunder. It was clear that the framers of the Reform Bill intended that "owner" should mean-what, according to the English language, it did mean-a free­holder. (Sir J. Lorimer-" The owner of a tenement.") A tenement meant some­thing more than a freehold-it meant some­thing on the freehold. In the present instance, because an error had occurred through municipal officers putting a certain number of citizens upon the electoral roll, it was sought to give an interpretation to the word" owner" which it was not intended by the House that it should bear. Would any honorable member venture to say that if a number of freeholders whose properties were rated at £8 instead of £10, or a number of leaseholders whose properties were rated at

Agricultural Colleges. [NOVEMBER 8.J ~Mining Leases. 1!J83

£23 instead of £25, were placed by mistake on the roll, it would be right to bring in a Removal of Doubts Bill to confirm their position on the roll? He had no hesitation in asserting that some honorable members who advocated the passage of this Bill would say " No" to that question. One of two courses should be taken: either to undo the mistake which had been made, and not allow residence area holders to vote as owners, or to introduce a comprehensive Bill which would place all leaseholders on an equality.

TheHon.N.FITZGERALD considered there was a great deal of force in Colonel Sargood's contention. Hewasalsoofopinion that the information asked for, if reasonably accessible, should be furnished before any further progress was made with the Bill. Under the circumstances, he would suggest that progress should now be reported in mder that the information, or as much of it as the Lands department could supply, might be in the hands of honorable mem­bers before they resumed the consideration of the measure.

The Hon. H. CUTHBERT remarked that Mr. Thornley'S amendment was of a sweeping nature; it would add materially to the number of electors intended to be enfranchised under the Bill; and, therefore, he was afraid that its acceptance would im­peril the passing of the measure. Selectors who had taken up land on probation, with the right to purchase at any time within 20 years, were at present nothing more than leaseholders, and, therefore, could not pro­perly be brought within the scope of the Bill. He would endeavour, by the following Tuesday, to obtain as much information as he possibly could to enable honorable mem­bers to judge of the number of person:::! who would be benefited by the passing of the Bill. Meanwhile, as the hour was late, he had no objection to the Chairman reporting progress.

Progress was then reported.

AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES ENDOWMENT.

The Hon. J. H. CONNOR moved-" That there be laid on the table of the Council

]llans showing the different sites of land reserved under the provisions of the amended Agricul­tural Colleges Act, together with particulars as to the exteut and the revenue derived from each reserve."

The Hon. N. THORNLEY seconded the motion, which was agreed to.

The House adjourned at a quarter past eleven o'clock, until Tuesday, November 15.

6 y 2

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. Tuesday, Novernbe1' 8, 1887.

Planetarium-Mining Leases-Railway Lands-Prince of Wales' Birthday: Adjournment of the House-Mel· bourne Tramways Trust Extension Bill-Personal Ex­planation: Mr. Graves-Ministerial Expenses-Public Instruction: Newlyn State School-Auctioneers' Li­cences-The Leeward Islands-The Goulburn River­Expiring Laws Continuation Bill-Assent to Bill­Military Reserves Sale Bill-Marine Board Bill-Rail­ways Compensation Limit Bill-Supply: Railway Department-Licensing (Public·houses) Act Amend· mentBill.

The SPEAKER took the chair at half­past four o'clock p.m.

PLANETARIUM.

Mr. JONES asked the Chief Secretary whether he had received a suggestion from Mr. Ellery, the Government Astronomer, as to the preparation of a planetarium or orrery, to be placed in the Exhibition-build­ing, at a cost not to exceed £200, for the information and instruction of the public as to the relative bearings of the solar system to the universe at large and to man; and also whether the Government would enter­tain the project?

Mr. DEAKIN said that no suggestion for the preparation of a planetarium or orrery; to be placed in the Exhibition-build­ing, had been made to him by Mr. Ellery, but that gentleman had been discussing the subject with the president and some of the members of the executive commission for the Centennial Exhibition, and was now preparing a proposal to be submitted to the commission. As far as lay in his power, he (Mr. Deakin) would be glad to further the proposal.

MINING LEASES. Mr. A. HARRIS asked the Minister of

Mines if he would, during the recess, con­sider the advisability of reducing the rent on mining leases with the view of introducing a Bill to give effect thereto in order that the charge at present payable on bona fide progressive companies might be decreased until they became dividend-paying?

Mr. GILLIES said the subject alluded to by the honorable member was one that required a good deal of consideration. A .large sum of money was now being ex­pended on mining, and there were two or three points which ought not to be over­looked in connexion with any proposal to reduce the rent on mining leases. However, both the question of reducing that rent in the case of progressive compa.nies which

1984 Prince of Wales' Bh·thday. [ASSEMBLY.] AdJournment.

were carrying on operations on Crown lands, alid the question of the alteration of the charge for leases for mining on private property, as well as the alteration of the conditions, would be considered by the Go­vernment during the recess.

RA~LWAY LANDS.

Mr. VV. MADDEN asked the Minister. of Railways if he intended introducing a Bill to prevent titles by possession being obtained against the Railway Commis­sioners?

MI'. GILLIES said he had communicated with the Railway Commissioners in regard to legislation to prevent titles by possession being obtained against the commissioners, and they saw no pressing necessity at pre­sent to take action in the matter. Two or three cases of adverse possession against the commissioners llad arisen, but no real diffi­culty had been experienced. Some time ago the commissioners ordered a correct survey to be made of the land comprised within their jurisd iction, and so far as regarded the suburban lines the plan had already been prepared. During the recess the Crown Law officers would be consulted as to any difficulty arising from the fact that railway lands were 110W under the jurisdiction of the Railwav Commissioners instead of the Crown. If the lands were absolutely in tIle hands of the Crown, the question ~f time would not affect the title; but he intended to bring the matter under the notice of the Law officers, in order that nothing serious might happen. .

PRINCE OF WALES' BIRTHDAY.

Mr. ZOX, without notice, asked the Premier what his intentions were in regard to the House sitting the following day, which would be the anniversary of the birth of the Prince of Wales? For the past 20 years and upwards it had been the invariable practice of the House to keep holiday on that day, and· he hoped that the custom would not be departed from this year. He might remind the Premier also that a ban­quet would be given by the Mayor of Mel­bourne, in the Town Hall, at which several illustrious visitors to the colony would be present.

Mr. GILLIES said it was quite true that for a. number of years past the. House had been in the habit of adjourning over the Prince of Wales' Birthday, but lIe was sorry that, as far as business was concerned, the House was in a more unfortunate posi­tion this session than it had been at the

corresponding period in previous sessions. He therefore proposed to ask the Assembly. to meet next day at three o'clock in the afternoon - the hour fixed by the new sessional order - and to adjourn at six o'clock.

Mr. JONES (who, to put himself in order, moved the adjournment of the House) said it was a great pity that the Premier had dealt in such a curt fashion with the suggestion that the House should keep holiday on t.he anniversary of the Prince of Wales' Birthday. He did not think that the public would like such a slight to be put on the eldest son of the Queen as that the Legislative Assemblyof Victoria should meet on that day for the transaction of business. (Mr. Gillies-" The House of· Commons has sat on a Sunday, and will

. sit any day if necessary.") But there was no necessity for the Assembly to meet next day; and it had never been found that the' House meeting on a holiday was conducive to the despatch of business. There was no rE'ason why the customary practice for the House to adjourn over the Prince of vVales' Birthday should be departed from this year. It would be exceedingly strange if the House were to sit on that day when all the Govern­ment offices would very properly be closed; according to custom.

Mr. BROvVN seconded the motion for adjournment.

Mr. BOSISTO suggested that the House might consent to sit an extra hour that night on the understanding that the Minis­try would agree that it should not meet on the Prince of Wales' Birthday.

Mr. ANDERSON (VillieTs) said he trusted that tlw House would not go through a similar farce to that which wa.s enacted in regard to " Cup" day. A distinct reso­lution was passed on the Thursday previous that the House should· meet at half-past seven o'clock in the evening on "Cup " day; and, at a later hour the same night, after several honorable members had left the chamber, the resolution was rescinded, and the House decided not to meet at all on " Cup" day. Whatever resolution was now arrived at in regard to sitting on the Prince or Wales' Birthday ought to be carried out, instead of llOnorable members making fools of themselves.

Mr. CARTER remarked that, if the House met at all on the Prince of Wales' Birthday, it should do so not merely for two or three hours but for an ordinary business sitting. He believed, however, that honorable mem­bers on both sides of the House were in

Prince of Wales' Bit,thday. ,[NOVEMBER 8.J Pet'sonal Explanation. 1985

favour of keeping holida.y. It would be rather hard on the officers of the House to prevent them having a holiday which was ~mjoyed by other public servants.

Mr. ZOX stated that he desired the House to adjourn over the Prince or 'Vales' Birthday tor two reasons-first, as a mark of loyalty; and, secondly, on account or the banquet to be given in the evening by the Mayor of Melbourne. If it was right ror , the House to keep holiday on " Cup" day, which was merely a day or pleasure, it cer­tainly ought not to sit on the Prince of 'Wales' Birthday.

Mr. McINTYRE characterized the Pre­mier's proposition as bunkum. The Go­vernment desired the House to adjourn over the following day as much as honorable 'members did, but, at the same time, they wanted to make it appear that there was so much business to do that they could not spare time to keep holiday. As a matter of fact, they were turther ad vanced with the Estimates than was usual at this period of the session. The Ministry ought not to place their supporters in the position of appealing to them to allow the House to adjourn over the Prince of 'Vales' Birthday.

Mr. TUTHILL observed that the Pre­mier proposed that the House should ad­journ at six o'clock the following day, in order to enable Ministers and a few favoured members to attend the banquet to be given in the evening by the Mayor of Melbourne. If the House adjourned for the evening out of respect to the Ma.yor, it might very well ~djourn over the whole day out of respect to the Prince of 'V'ales. The Government wished to pose berore the country as anxious to do business, but it was absurd to ask the House to meet at three o'clock in order to adjourn at six. Let it either have a rull sitting or none at all.

Mr. MUNRO said he trusted the Pre­mier would not persist in the farce of asking honorable members to meet. at three o'clock in the afternoon of the Prince of Wales' Birthday, and adjourn at six. He could assure the honorable gentleman that the country quite understoorl. this sort of game. The whole thing was mere humbug from be­ginning to end. The House intended to keep holiday this year as usual, and it would do so, as the PI'emier would find outif a straight vote was taken on the question.

Mr. RUSSELL urged that there could be no justification for the House keeping holiaay on "Cup" day, and then refusing to do so on the Prince of Wales' Birthday. The outside public would regard the latter

proceeding as an act of disloyalty. The people oE the colony were loyal to the Throne, and they would like the Legislative As­sembly to follow this year the customary practice oE adjourning over the anniversary of the birth oE the Queen's eldest son and the future King or the British dominions.

Mr. BENT stated that the Premier acted thoroughly straightforwardly in regard to the rescinding of the resolution which, in the first iusta nee, the House adopted to meet on "Cup" day, at half-past seven o'clock in the evening. The honorable gentleman distinctly announced that the resolution' could not be rescinded if any single member objected. As to the present question, see­ing that the following day was not only the Prince or "Vales' Birthday, but also the day for holding the Brighton Flower Show, he thought the Government might very well ask the House to a.djourn until Thursday.

Mr. DU FFY expres~ed the hope that the Government would give way to what appeared to be the almost unanimous wish or the House. He would not join in the taunts in whi.ch some honorable members had indulged against the Government. He assumed that their only object in proposing that the Assembly should meet next day was to push on the business of the country, but that object could scarcely be attained by sitting on a public holiday. Honorable members 011 all sides were anxious, for a variety of reasons, that the House should not meet, and, if the Premier yielded to the general wish, he would no doubt find that the despatch or business would be facilitated by doing so.

Mr. GILLIES said that, after the very loyal speech or the honorable member for Dalhousie, the Government could scarcely do otherwise than yield to the wish of honorable members.

The motion for the adjournment of the House was put and negatived.

Mr. GILLIES then moved that the House, at its rising, adjourn until Thursday.

This proposition was agreed to.

MELBOURNE TRAMWAYS TRUST EXTENSION BILL.

Mr. J. HARRIS brought up the report of the select committee on this Bill.

The report was ordered to lie on the table.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Mr. GHAVES said-Mr. Speaker, I desire to make an explanation regarding an incident which occurred at to-day's sitting of the select committee on the Tramways

1986 P'ublic Instr~lction. [ASSEMBLY.] J'lte Leeward Islands.

Trust Bill. In consequence of the views I expressed the other evening in regard to the Bill, the House appointed me a member of the committee, and in that capacity I con­sidered it my duty, in the interests of the public, to ask a few questions of one of the witnesses. One member of the committee then thought fit to say that my questions were delaying the committee, and that the committee were not to be delayed by my " fads." The gentleman I refer to made no attempt to explain or to palliate his remark. The language used was, in my opinion, most offensive and uncalled for; and, in conse­quence of it, I deemed it to be my dnty to withdraw from the committee, which I ac­cordingly did. The Bill referred to the committee is a very important one, and the committee have brought up their report upon it in a verv short time. I have not seen the report, hut I will take another opportunity of calling attention to the constitution of the committee, which, I think, is a breach of the standing orders.

PETITION. A petition was presented by Mr. McIN­

TYRE, from Daniel MacKinnon, Donald MacKinnon, and John William Curdie, praying that certain standing orders re­lating to private Bills might be dispensed with, to enable t,hem to iiltroduce a Bill to authorize the tmstees of the will ot the late J Ohll Hastie to distribute the estate in accordance with an agreement between the next of kin of the testator and the severnl parties entitled under the will.

MINISTERIAL EXPENSES. Mr. DEAKIN moved-

"That there be laid before this House a return showing-I. The expenses of the water cOllJmis­sion to America. 2. The expenses of the Hon. Sir James Lorimer in attending the Imperial Conference in London. 3. The expenses of the Hon. A. Deakin in attending the Imperial Con­ference in London." He said the motion was a formal one to enable him to fulfil a promise he had made to fnrnish a return showing the expenses in question.

Mr. GILLIES seconded the .. motion, which was agreed to.

Mr. DEAKIN laid the return on the table.

PUBLIO INSTR UOTION. NEWLYN SCHOOL.

Mr. McINTYR.E, without notice, asked the Minister of Public Instruction if he was causing strict inquiry to be made as to the sanitary condition of the premises connected

with the Newlyn State school; also, if he would give instructions for a regular inspec­tion to be made of the sanitary condition of all State schools throughout the colony; and whether it would not be advisable that the allowance granted for cleaning State schools should be intrusted for expenditure to the local boards of advice instead of to the head teachers?

Mr. PEARSON said he received the papers relating to the inquiry as to the sanitary condition of the premises connected with the Newlyn State school only half-an­hour before he came to the House. The inquiry had practically resulted in the acquit­tal of the master. There could be no doubt whatever that the master did his duty, but he (Mr. Pearson) was not clear as to whether the buildings were not too old for their pur­pose. He had given instructions that an inspector should immediately visit the place, and report as to what changes were required. He would request the honorable member for Maldon to allow the other questions to stand over for reply 011 a future day.

Mr. OOOPER inquired why the depart­ment had refused to supply a tank which hau been asked for, and had thus compelled the children attending the school to drink water trom a well ?

Mr. PEARSON stated that he could not definitely answer the question at a moment's notice. He was under the im­pression that there was a good supply of water at the Newlyn schoQl.

AUOTIONEERS' LIOENOES.

Mr. BROvVN reminded the Premier of a promise that he recently made regarding country nuctioneers' licences, and .asked whether the fees for the renewal of licences could not be paid on the prod uction of the old receipts at the local pay office?

Mr. GILLIES said there was no diffi­culty in any person who was furnished with a certificate obtaining a licence on applica­tion at the local receipt and pay office, and on payment of the fee there. (Mr. Brown -" But he must get the certificate from Melbourne.") The Law department inti­mated, a short t.ime ago, that a letter con­veying an application would be quite suffi-

. cient without personal attendance. Mr. BROvVN remarked that the fact

mentioned by the Premier was not generally known.

THE LEE,¥" ARD ISLANDS.

Mr. McINTYRE said that the news­papers of that morning announced that a

The Goulburn. [NoVEMBER 8.] Railway Department. 1987

message had been received from the Agent­General to the effect that the Imperial Go­vernment proposed to consent tothe Leeward Islands, off Tahite, being ceded to France. He begged to ask the Premier whether the Victorian Government intended to make any protest against that proposal?

Mr. GILLIES said the official intima­tion he had received from the Agent-Gene­ral was not sufficiently clear to enable him to form a judgment as to the particular islands that were referred to. There was some arrangement between Great Britain and France, but what the nature of it was he could not make out from the cablegram. Communication was now being made through His Excellency the Governor, in order that the exact facts ot the case might be ascer­tained. (Mr. McIntyre-" Will you pro­test in the meantime against the cession of these i!:llands to France ?") He could not protest when he did not know what had been done.

THE GOULBURN.

Mr. DUlfFY said that, a few evenings ago, he called the attention of the Minister of Public Works to the state of the town of Seymour,on the Goulburn River, and pointed out that it was not unlikely that the town would be flooded unless the river higher up was snagged. Since then a very heavy flood had come down the river. The Minister had promised to visit the district, and if he would do so as soon as possible he would see, while the town of Seymour was flooded, what measures should be adopted to protect it against such disasters in future.

Mr. NIM.MO obsen7 ed that, if the weir to which the honorable member for Dal­housie called attention the previous week had been completed, the flood would have been much more disastrous to Seymour than it had been. He would take an earlyoppor­tunityof visiting the place in company with a Govel'llment engineer.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUATION BILL.

Mr. WRIXON presented a message from His Excellency the Governor, recomm€:nd­ing an appropriation from the consolidated revenue for the purposes of a Bill to con-tinue various expiring laws. .

The message was ordered to be taken into consideration on Thursday, November 10.

ASSENT TO BILL. Mr., GILLIES presented a message

from the Governor, intimating that, at the

Government Offices, that day, His Excel­lency gave his assent to the Probate Act 1886 Amendment Bill.

PRINCES' HILL (CARLTON) STATE SCHOOL.

Mr. PEARSON, in compliance with an order of the House (dated November 2), laid on the table papers relating to the purchase of land at Princes' Hill, Carlton, for a State school. .

PILOT BOARD INQUIRY.

Mr. WALKER presented (pursuant to order of the House, dated October 26) papers in connexion with the late Pilot Board inquiry.

EAST BOORT IRRIGATION TRUST.

Mr. DEAKIN laid on the table (pur­suant to order of the House, dated October 19) papers relating to the formation ot the East Boort Irrigation Trust.

MILITARY RESERVES SALE BILL.

Mr. WRIXON moved for leave to intro­duce a Bill to regulate the sale of military reserves, and for other purposes.

Mr. GILLIES seconded the motion, which was agreed to.

The Bill was then brought in, and read a first time.

MARINE BOARD BILL.

Mr. WALKER moved-.. That this House will, on Thursday, resolve

itself into a committee of the whole to consider the fees and rates to be charged under the Marine Board Bill."

Mr. DEAKIN seconded the motion, which was agreed to.

RAILvVAYS COMPENSATION LIMIT BILL.

Mr. GILLIES moved for leave to intro­duce a Bill to limit the amount of compen­sation recoverable in certain cases from the Victorian Railway Commissioners.

Mr. WRIXON seconded the motion, which was agreed to.

The Bill was then brought in, and read a first time.

RAILWAY DEPARTMENT.

The resolutions relating to the Railway department, passed in Committee of Supply on October 13 and November 3, were taken into consideration.

1988 Licensing (Public-houses) [ASSEMBLY.] Act Amendment Bill.

Mr. LAURENS called attention to re­ports in the Age and Argus newspapers of remarks made, the previous Thursday night, by the hunorable member for East Mel­bourne (Mr. Zox) with reference to the re­ceipts and expenditure of the Railway de­partment, upon which he (Mr. Laurens) had previously commented, and stated that if his figures were wrong the honorable member for East Melbourne could call upon him for a cheque for £10 for the metro­politan charities, provided the honorable member would give him (Mr. Laurens) the same liberty to call upon him if his figures were right. (Mr. McIntyre-" Make it £50.") He had not the slightest objection to make it £50 on the same conditions. He would take this opportunity of directing attention to one matter concerning the Rail­way Commissioners. The combined salaries of the three commissioners amounted to £6,000 per annum. He found from the annual reports of the Railway department that the railway revenue for the first half­year the commissioners were in office was cllarged, on their account, with the'sum of £3,727, which was far in excess of half their salaries, and this although they were in office only five months, their appointment dating from the 1st February, 1884. In 1885-6, of the commissioners' salaries £4,000 was charged to revenue, and £2,000 to capital account. In 1886-7, the portion debited to revenue was £3,74:7, with the ill­tima.tion, conveyed in a foot-note, that one­third of the amount of the salaries was charged to capital. He was not going to enter into the question whether it was right to charge part of the commissioners' salaries to capital account. Suffice it for him to say that no portion was so charged during the first year they were in office.

Mr. L. L. SMITH suggested that the salary of the Secretary for Railways should be the same as was paid to the permanent heads of other departments-namely ,£1,000.

Mr. GILLIES stated that the salary attached to the office was £1,000.

The resolutions were then adopted.

LICENSING (PUBLIC-HOUSES) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

The House went into committee for the further consideration of this Bill.

Discussion (adjourned from the previous Thursday) was resumed on clause 14, which was as follows:-

" Section 86 of the principal Act shall be read and applied in manner hereinafter mentioned:-

" 1. The words 'city' or ' to\\' o· i>hall mean the city of Melbourne, the town of Geelong, and any city or town declared under any law for the time being in force relating to local govern­ment.

"2. Partitions between rooms other than bedrooms shall be deemed in sufficient com­pliance with the said section, notwithstanding that they may be constructed wholly or partly of glass, wood, or other material of wbich the Licensing Court may approve.

"8. In any apP'lication for the renewal of a licellce in respect of a house licensed before the commencemeu.t of the principal Act, it shall not be necessary that any room for the accommo­dation of the public containing 1,200 cubic feet be 9 feet high if the Licensing Court be satisfied that it is a reasonable height.

"4 A licence may be renewed for any house in use as an eating-house before the commence­ment of the principal Act at which during the three months preceding the commencement of this Act 100 persons on an average have been served with a meal or meals every day, not­withstanding that such house has 1I0t the sleeping accommoda.tion required by the said section, provided that the Licensing Court is satisfied that such house fulfils the purposes and objects, and has the accommodation, appliances, and attendance necessary for an eating-house. . " 5. This section shall apply, notwithstanding

any order which may have been served by any inspector of licensing districts unuer the provi­sions of section 50 of the principal Act previous to the comillencement of this Act."

Mr. BURROWES observed that, between' two and three months ago, the House passed a resolution, at the instance of the honor­able member for Ararat, in favour of extend­ing by another year the time within which the improvements to public-houses required by section 36 of the Licensing Act should be carried out. It was not proposed by the Bill to give legal effect to that resolution; and, if the measure should pass. within a week or two, there would not be sufficient time available for the making of the im­provement~. Section 36 of the Licensing Act applied to cities and towns. The city of Sandhurst embraced an area some s'ix miles long by four or five miles broad, and included in it were a number of gullies where t.here were public-houses-houses with four, five, or six rooms-sufficiently large for all the business they did; and he wished to know from the Chief Secretary whether it was intended to enforce, in the case of such houses, the provisions of section 36 of the Licensing Act, which required that they should have so many additional rooms?

Mr. DEAKIN remarked that section 36 of the Licensing Act, so far as its main pro­visions were concerned, dealt exclnsively with cities and towns. Public-houses in localities such as the honorable member for Sandhurst (Mr. Burrowes) referred to need ha ve only three rooms, exclusi ve of the rooms occnpied by the family; and, therefore, such houses were not affected by the clause.

Licensing (Public-houses) [NOVElIIBER 8.J Act Amendmwt Bill. 1989

Mr. BURROWES stated that he had in his mind a brick public-house of six rooms, the proprietor of which told him recently that he had not been asked for a. bed for two years; yet he had received a notice from the police requiring him to add additional rooms to his premises, which meant an outlay of from £300 to £400. The house did onlv a lunch and bar trade; but it was really ~e­quired in the district. However, the addi­tional accommodation which the proprietor had been called upon to provide was really unnecessary.

Mr. W. M. CLARK mentioned that a publican at Footscray had been compelled to add to his premises a room which was not required at a cost of £60; and no sooner was the addition made than the owner of the property raised the rent lOs. per week. This was an illustration of the prejudicial way in which section 36 of the Licensing Act operated.

Mr. BAILES said the Chief Secretary appeared to be under a misapprehension as to the locality in which the public-houses referred to by his honorable colleague (Mr. Burrowes) were situated. Although they were in out-lying gullies, they were not out­side but inside the city of Sandhurst, and, inconsequence, were subject to the provision that they should have as many as six rooms in addition to those required for the family. But for the purposes of the business which was carried on this additional accommo­dation was really not required. He knew of one house, which was well and faithfully built of stone, the proprietor of which had received notice that he must provide the additional accommodation which the Act prescribed, although it was not needed by the public, while on the other side of the street-which was outside the city-there was a publican's shanty, the occupier of which had not been troubled with any notice whatever.

Mr. MUNRO observed tha.t the honor­able member for Footscray, before ventilat­ing a grievance with regard to the loca.lity he represented, should have satisfied him­self that the place was affected by the licens­ing law. (Mr. W. M. Clark-" It is.") The law applied only to cities and towns. (Mr. W. M. Clark-" Footscrayis a town.") It was not a town when the Licensing Act was passed. (Mr. VV. M. Clark-" It is a town now.") Then Footscray had volun­tarily come under the Act, and therefore had nothing to complain of. The curious thing about the licensing law was that, whenever any amendment was needed, some concession

had to be made to the publican. In his opinion, there was too much thought for the publican and too little for the public. He would tell the· honorable member for West Melbourne (Mr. Carter), who was the cham­pion of the publicans, that if he would con­sent to the repeal of a line and a half in section 26 of the Licensing Act the publi­cans might get whatever they wanted. He did not desire to interfere with the publicans; he was willing that they should have fair play, provided that the public also had fair play. The gentlemen who shed tears over the grievances of the poor publican would give nothing to the public. The injustice of w bich the honorable member for Sand­hurst (Mr. Burrowes) complained, if it was an injustice, was perpetrated when the hon­orable member had a seat in Parliament. He (Mr. Munro) had not a seat in Parlia­ment at the time. He had no objection to make concessions to the publicans if they would concede to the public the right to deal with their own affairs. He was surprised that a House supposed to consist largely of liberals should not desire the public to have the right of voting as they thought proper. He considered it high time that the farce of shedding tears over the publicans because their accommodation was too small came to an end. Statements had appeared in the press as to what the Government intended to do with regard to the Bill. If t.hey were going to drop the Bill, let them say so. For his own part, he would not care if they dropped every Bill from the business paper.

Mr. CARTER pointed out that the ques­tIon of increasing or decreasing the number of public-houses in any locality was not now under consideration. He qtlite sympathized and agreed with what had fallen from the honorable member for Sandhul'st (Mr. Bur~ rowes), and if the honorable member would propose an amendment of the law to give effect to his views he would gladly support it; but let the committee restrict their at­tention, for the present, to the matter before them. He begged to suggest that the various sub-sections of which the clause was com­posed be taken seriatim.

Mr. DEAKIN said he would gladly fall in with tlle suggestion.

The CHAIRMAN.-I am perfectly will­ing to carry out the wishes of the committee.

The committee then proceeded to consider the 1st sub-section, which was as follows:-

"1. The words' city' or 'town' shall mean the city of Mel hourne, the town of Geelong, and any city or town declared under any law for the time bemg in force relating to loca.! government."

1990 Licensing (Public-houses) [ASSEMBL Y.] Act Amendment Bill.

Mr. BURROWES asked whether the Government would extend the time for com­pliance with the 36th section of the existing Act?

Mr. DEAKIN stated that the question was one which could not possibly be taken up in conn ex ion with this sub-section.

Mr .• JONES thought that the Ohief Sec­retary must see the difficulty indicated by the honorable member for Sandhurst (Mr. Burrowes), and that the Government ought to endeavour to meet it. There were in the outlying districts of Ballarat, as well as Sandhurst, a number of proprietors of small hotels who had delayed making the altera­tions required under the Act because they expected that its conditions, so far, would be mitigated. Now, however, they found that they would be insisted upon, and also that they had not time to mnke' the alterations before the date fixed by the law. Under these circumstances, justice as well as mercy demanded that some sort of concession should be made to them.

Mr. BU RROWES moved the omission of all the words of the sub-section after the wurd " Geelong."

Mr. DEAKIN remarked that the amend­ment would do a great deal more than what the honorable member desired to effect. It would, for instance, at oue blow, exempt every city and town in the colony save Mel. bourne and Geelong from the operation of section 36, which the committee had already e;x:pressed its intention to retain. Oonse­quently, if honorable members carried the amendment they would practically stultify tlleir own decision.

Mr. MUNRO inquired if the honorable member for Sandhurst (Mr. Burrowes) de-

,sired to alter the whole policy of the existing Act? Oertainly carrying his amendment would have that result. Why, he (Mr. Munro) would like to know, should a certain set of proprietors at Sandhurst be relieved from obligations which rested on the similar class of proprietors in Geelong? Again, why should the same difference be created between, say, the housfls on the Melbourne side of Nicholson-street and those on the Fitzroy side? The distinction the honor­able member appeared to wish to establish was really too absurd.

Mr. McINTYRE contended that the amendment was justified by the fact that in Melbourne and Geelong the rrovisions of section 36 had already been complied with. (Mr. Munro-" No.") The exceptions were too few to be worth notice. But in the large inland towns, such as Sandhurst

and Ballarat, the case was very different, and so also were the circumstances of the population. For example, there were in the outlying portions or both places a number of small hotels which practically, although not in the eye of the law, came under the category of the houses which were required, under section 36, to have each only three rooms besides those occupied by the family. Why then, in view of the resolution on the subject which the House adopted a few weeks since, should not some distinct con·· cession be made with regard to them? Why should they be compelled to have six rooms beyond those required for family purposes?

Mr. DEAKIN said the mischief was that the amendment would not only cover the cases just described, but, as he had already pointed out, a great deal morf'.

Mr. BAILES considered that if every public-house or the kind described by the honorable member for Maldon was required to contain three rooms besides those occu­pied by the family, its accommodation would be ample. No doubt even the smaller hotels or the metropolis were continually called upon to supply bedroom accommodation, but it was not so with the outlying hotels in Sandhurst, which were simply meant to meet the wants of the local mining popula. tion. There a bedroom was not asked for once in two years. Why should such houses, the circumstances being so different, be com­pulsorily raised to the Melbourne standard?

Mr. McOOLL said it was quite possible to look at the subject in a very different way. vYould it be fair to the public-house proprietors of Sandhurst as a whole that those of their number who had made no effort to bring their tenements up to the standard of the Act should be placed on the same level with those who had gone to great expense in order to comply with the provi­sions or the law? For example, one Sand­hurst hotel proprietor had recently spent £4,QOO on his property.

Mr. O. YOUNG expressed the opinion that to insist on mere road-side hotels being equipped with accommodation equal to that of city hotels, merely because, although they were to all intents and purposes situated in remote outside localities, they were actually within the boundary of a city 01' town, would be utterly absurd. vYhat practical good could be got from applying a hard-and-fast rule to both classes of cases? Why should hotel-keepers be compelled to keep up a long range of bedrooms when they were never asked for bedroom accommodation?

Licensing (Public-houses) [NOVEMBER 8.] Act Amendment Bill. 1991

Mr. GORDON stated that he could not sympathize with the amendment, because, for one reason, he regarded the argument of the honorable member for Mandurang (Mr. McColl) as wholly unanswerable. He knew, for instance, of some small hotels in his dis­trict, the proprietors of which had spent large sums in order to increa.se their accommoda­tion, and of others on which not a single penny had been expended for the purpose. In fa.ct, the original intention of the Act was to close the houses which the honorable member for Sandhurst (Mr. Burrowes) wished to preserve.

Mr. BURROWES said he was no cham­pion of public-houses-quite the reverse­and he would he sorry to persevere with his amendment if the Government would con­sent to do some sort of justice to the people whose interests he advocated, and who were

. in many cases very poorly off. A good few of the number were widows. As for the hotel un which £4,000 had been spent, it was in the centre of Sand hurst. But of what use would an expenditure of £4,000 be upon an hotel, say, at the head of New Chum or Long Gully? Would the Government leave the question of what improvements should be insisted upon to the decision of any local authority-say the police or the resident justices? If they would make even that small concession, he would withdraw his proposition.

Mr. McLELLAN begged to assure the Government that he had. every desire to assist them with the Bill; still he would ask them to consider what an overwhelming hardship it would be in many cases to insist upon the proprietors of hotels which, though small, were amply sufficient for the business done in them, addillg to them expensive improvements for which there was really no demand? He would suggest that, as a compromise, such proprietors should be al­lowed six months longer in which to make the alterations required by the Act. That would be like halving the difference between what they wanted and what was required under the law. Such a concession, he con­sidered, might well be made, if only in re­cognition of the services of himself and others in steadily supporting the Ministry and their predecessors in their attempts to reform the licensing system of the colony.

Mr. GAUNSON said he was rather sur­prised that the Chief Secretary had not told the committee that as the law stood no public accommodation whatever was required in the case of country public-houses. Six rooms outside those wanted for family use

were insisted upon with regard to hotels in cities and towns, but country houses need not have extra rooms for public accommoda­tion of any sort or kind. The words "for public accommodation" were omitted in their respect. Why then should the pro­prietors of public-houses which were to all intents and purposes mere country houses be harassed by being compelled to supply the maximum of public accommodation which the law could possibly demand?

The amendment was negatived. On the 2nd sub-section, which was as

fo11ows:-•• 2. Partitions between rooms other than bed­

rooms shall be deemed in sufficient compliance with the said sect.ion notwithstanding that they may be constructed wholly or partly of glass, wood, or other material of which the Licensing Court may approve,"

Mr. DEAKIN said he wished to call at­tention to the position occupied by the Bill and the intentions of the Government with regard to it. It would be utterly impossible for the Bill to become law if greater pro­gress was not made with it than had been made that afternoon. For example, nearly two hours had just been spent upon a mere technical point. Besides, other Bills of even greater importance were being kept in abeyance by these delays. Under these circumstances, what the Government pro­posed was that the purely machinery clauses of the measure should be taken without further waste of time, and that all the other propositions in it which were not mere amendments of the existing law, and calcu­lated to facilitate its operation, should be dropped. He cid not know what else the Government could do in the face of the fact· that the House was divided with respect to the Bill into two strong parties, each of which was determined to have matters according to its own way. He would therefore move the omission or the 2nd sub-section and the· 3rd sub-section.

Mr. OARTER observed that it was an extraordina.ry course for the Government to propose the rejection of their own proposal,. more especially as this sub-section was in the direction of giving effect to a resolntion carried by a majority of the House. If the Chief Secretary now moved that the sub­sectIOn be struck out, why did he put it in tlle Bill? Of course it was competent for the Government, if they wished to turn their backs on their own proposal, tp do so. There was a story of a woman in Russia,. who, when pursued by wolves, threw her children out of her sledge, 011e by one, to satisfy the animals, and thus saved her own

1992 Licensing (Public-houses) f ASSEMBLY. J Act A mendment Bill.

life; but when she arrived at the town to which she was travelling, and the people heard what she had done, they hanged her. These sub-sections were the children of the Government, and if to satisfy the teetotal wolves, as represented by the honorable member for Geelong (Mr. Munro), the Go­vernment were now going to abandon them, one by one, they would find that at the end they would meet with the fate of the Russian woman-they would be turned out. If they were not turned out by this Assembly they assuredly would be by the country. The reason they introduced the 2nd sub-section in the first instance was because it was an act of simple justice. As pointed out by the honorable member for Ararat, some time ago, to compel anyone to pull down a par­tition of cedar and glass for the purpose of substituting one of lath and plaster was a barbarism which was quite unnecessary. The resolution carried by the House, at the in­stance of the honorable member for Ararat, was as follows :-

"That, in the opinion of this House, it is de­sirable, pending an amendment of the Licensing Act 1885, that the duration of the Act of 1886 should be extended for another year."

What was the ohject of that resolution? It was that legislation should take place, and the Government, in conformity'with the ex­pressed will of the House, introduced these sub-sections into the Bill. The 2nd sub­section simply provided that partitions be­tween rooms, other than bedrooms, might be constructed wholly or partly of glass, wood, orother material, of which the Licens­ing Court might approve. Was there any honorable member in the House who could object to that provision? He asked 'the honorable member for Geelong, the other day, his views on the subject, and the hon­orable member replied that he had not the slightest objection to partitions being made of glass or wood; the matter had nothing to do with the principle of local option. And neither had it. How could the local option cause be benefited by compelling a publican to pull down plate-glass and cedar and put up lath and plaster? A man could get just as drunk behind lath and plaster as bellind glass or cedar. There was nothing in it. An enormous amount of time had been wasted over the Bill, and he was quite willing, as he suggested at the start, that the House should merely pass the machinery clauses and these two or three sub-sections. (Mr. Munro-" Oh! yes.") The honor­able member for Geelong would not deny that he told him (Mr. Carter) that he had

.Mr. Carter.

no objection to the proposal in the 2nd sub-section. (Mr. Munro-"No, I won't deny it.") Then why object to it now? He (Mr. Carter) agreed that if the Government found factious opposition offered to these sub-sections, or to any other part of the Bill, they would be quite justified in abandoning the whole measure, because the rest of the session could not be spent over this question. But he hoped they would not abandon the sub-sections until after there had been a vote of the committee. He did not think that even the honorable member for Geelong would offer any factious opposition in con­nexion with a matter which had nothing whatever to do with local option. The re­quirement in regard to partitions being made of lath and plaster inflicted a great injustice on persons who were compelled to pull down a handsome structure in order to put up an inferior one. He was sure the Assembly would affirm the policy which was adopted by carrying the resolution pmposed by the honorable member for Ararat.

Mr. MUNRO remarked that the honor­able member for West Melbourne (Mr. Carter) always wanted his own proposals agreed to, but the honorable member would not yield one inch to anyone else. Why was the 36th section of the Licensing Act passed? It was passed for the express purpose of reducing the number of public-houses. It was intreduced as a matter of policy, as one means of decreasing the number of public­houses. (Mr. Anderson (V.)-" And to raise the standard of the houses that were left.") The principal object was to reduce the num­ber because it was known that very many houses had not the accommodation required by the section. Since the Act was passed, a large number of persons had expended money in altering their houses so as to com­ply with the law, and a small number in Sandhurst and other places had given up their houses because they did not fulfil the requirements of the Act, and had received compensation. Another provision in the same Act was for reducing the number of public-houses by a vote of the people, and the reason he objected to the alteration now asked for was that the honorable member for vVest Melbourne would not allow the vote of the people to be effective. As he (Mr. Munro) had said before, he was quite willing to allow the total repeal of the 36th section if the honorable member for "rest Melbourne would allow the one-third proviso to be removed from the local option clauses. (Mr. Carter-" I have not the power to do it.") Then let the House do it. The

Licensing (Public-houses) [N OVEMBER 8.] Act A mendment Bill. 1993

honorable member over and over again spoke of the cruelty of compelling publicans to pull down their partitions, but the honorable member said nothing about the cruelty of thrusting on the people inferior houses which they did not want. He (Mr. Munro) was quite willing to concede all the Govern­ment amendments if they would grant the re­peal of the proviso to which he had alluded. Hewasentitled toask for that,andanymem­b~r who refused it was there under false pre­tences. If the voice of the people was not to be heard, what voice should be heard? Was it the voice of the honorable member for West Melbourne? He (Mr. Munro) would give up the whole of the present point if the honorable member would allow the people to manage their own affairs and deal with the matter of public-houses themselves. (Mr. Carter-" And if not ?") If not, he would do his utmost to pre\7ent anything in the direction of altering the policy of the Act of 1885. (Mr. Brown-" vVhat be­comes of the vote of the House the other day regarding the 36th section ?") It was on the same level as another vote which was passed some years ago by the House in favour of absolute local option with com­pensation, and to which the honorable mem­ber for vVest Melbourne was a con~enting party. (Mr. Carter-" I was not here.") The honorable member was sitting in the chamber when the resolution was carried unanim.ously, and he offered no objection to it. He (Mr. Munro) would stand on the right~ of the people, and if the honorable member would not yield he would not yield. He knew it to be the fact that if the honor­able member would yield the matter would be settled, and if the Bill was wrecked the cause of its wreck wonld be the honorable member for y.,Test Melbourne. The honor­able member had no right to make a whining appeal on behalf of individuals, and ask con­cessions for his friends when he would not trust the people to manage their own affairs. The people of this colony were entitled to deal with their own affairs, yet they were told that while they could be trusted to re­turn members to Parliament by a simple majority they could not be trusted to deal in the same way with the question of the de-, crease of public-houses. The honorable mem­ber for West Melbourne said to the people -" I cannot trust you to manage your own affairs, but I want concessions for my friends." The honorable member might rest assured he would not get the concessions.

Mr. DEAKIN stated. that the position of affairs was now indicated plainly by the

speeches which had just been made by the honorable member for West Melbourne (Mr. Carter) and the honorable member for Gee­long (Mr. Munro). The honorable member for Geeloug said frankly that unless the proviso for a; poll of one-third. or the elec­tors was removed he wonld use all the power he possessed-and it was known that there were a large body of members who sympa­thized with him-to prevent the Bill or any part of it from becoming law. The honor­able member for West Melbourne did not speak quite so plainly, but it was perfectly well known that, if the proposal to remove the proviso were carried, he and those who agreed with him-also a very considerable body-wonld in turn prevent the passage of the Bill. Thus if the Government attempted to carry out either policy, either or the two parties was quite strong enough to COlH3Ume the whole time during the rest of the session and succeed in preventing the Bill from pass­ing. Under these circumstances, what were the Government to do? (An Honorable Member-" Drop the Bill.") It was not necessary to drop the whole or the Bill. There were clauses, some of them already passed, on which both the honorable mem­ber for West Melbourne and the honorable member for Geelong could and did cordially agree. These were simple alterations to enable the machin,ery of the Elxisting Act to work more smoothly than it did at present, and to remove doubts and difficul­ties which had arisen. It was unfortunate that the Government were unable to do all they had hoped to do. They thought the provision for taking the local option poll on the day of the municipal elections was a very large concession to the temperance cause. He had thought so himself, and he had not heard anything to alter his opinion. The honorable member for Geelong, however, had stated distinctly that he would rather not have that provision in the Bill at all than as it stood at present-in fact, that the Bill in its present shape should not pass. The Government had thought that by their action in improving the local option poll,on the one hand, and removing the disabilities connected with the 36th section on the other, they were proposing a measure which was fair to each side. It was apparently impossible, however, to pass the Bill in its present shape at this period of the session, and honorable members would agree that it would be unreasonable for the Government to ask them to spend the whole of the remainder of the time in debating the measure, with an uncertain issue at the end.

1994 Licensing (Public-hmlses) [ASSEMBLY.] Act Amendment Bill.

There were some very important measures on which they could all agree with some slight amendments, and it was evidently use­less to devote further time to this Bill when they found representative members like the honorable member for West Melbourne and the honorable member for Geelong so dia­metrically opposed to each other aR regarded the provisions of the measure, and so bitterly hostile. Under these circumstances, he would ask the committee to assist the Go­vernment to reduce the Bill to the machinery clauses, pass them as rapidly as possible, and get on with other bu~iness.

Mr. BENT observed that the pt'evious Friday morning the Government were very anxious to get on with the Bill, and it was at first stated that they intended to force it through on that occasion. What was the position or the Government now in connexion with the matter? He regretted that two members on that (the opposition) side of the House were opposing each other publicly and using wrathful words, when, as a matter or fact, there were more members on the Go­,vernmentsideof the House who were opposed to the Bill and who sat quietly by. There were members on the Government side who got in on the strength of the publicans' vote to a greater extent than the honorable mem­ber for vVest Melbourne (Mr. Oarter), and there were teetotallers who were more op­posed to some of the provisions of the Bill than even the honorable member for Geelong (Mr. Munro). Why then not let the fight­ing take place on the other side? By some means a great change had taken place in the attitude of the Government towards the Bill since Thursday last. Then they wanted to force the Bill throngh, and now they wanted to get rid of the greater part of it. The Government reminded him of the coon in the tree-" Don't shoot and I'll come down." There had evidently been a great conflict in the Oabinet, notwithstanding the benign looks of Ministers in the House, and, indeed, it would be a delightful thing to see the Minister of Public Works discussing this measure in Oabinet with the Postmaster­General who got in by the publicans' vote.

The OHAIRMAN.-The Oabinet is not in this Bill.

Mr. BENT said he wished the Oabinet was out altogether. He did not call a meet­ing of the present Government a Oabinet. He called it a Oabinet when a measure was discussed, determined upon, and was then stuck to. He (Mr. Bent) had never got in by the publicans' vote. The policy he de­sired to se~ carried out was local option

with compensation, and he was prepared to force the Government to go in for one thing or the other. There were men sitting be­hind the Ministry as well as in the Minis­try who were pledged to give a straight vote on this question, and he would see that they were put to the test. He did not want mem­bers at election time to be able to go to the publicans on the quiet and say-" It's all right," and at the same time to lead the teetotal party to believe that they supported it. Why did not the_ Ministry go on with their Bill? He knew it was an abortion from the first, which was introduced simply to catch votes, and it had failed in its ob­ject. It was wrong to say that the honor­able member for vVest Melbourne. repre­sented the publicans, because the honorable member obtained universal support in his constituency. He believed the honorable member for West Melbourne would act wisely if he went on the broad principle of giving local option pure and simple-letting the majority rule-with fair compensation~ not the kind of thing that was given now. Then let the hotel-keepers carryon good houses, respectably conducted, with good grog, without being harassed in the manner they were now. He (Mr. Bent) would rei. peat that the policy he was pledged to was good houses, respectably conducted, good grog, fair compensation, and a vote of the people. If the honorable member for Gee­long wanted to see that policy carried out, let him place au issue before the committee so that honorable members could have a straight vote. Let the members of the Government remain in office if they liked and draw their pay, but let the Assembly affirm the policy ,,!,hich he had indicated. The Ministry, llOwever, l"ere trying to play off the teetotallers against the publicans. There was a division in the Oabinet, and the result was a hybrid Bill which no one understood, and no one believed in. He thought the Ohief Secretary had hardly played fair to the Alliance, although he (Mr. Bent) believed they used to make a special cup of tea for him with a little whisky in it at the public breakfasts. (Mr. Russell-" Give us local option, and give the publicans the Bill.") Why did not the honorable member force the Govern­ment to do it? (Mr. Hall- " We are waiting till we come to the clauses.") The Chief Secretary was withdrawing the clauses. That was not fair. He rose chiefly to ask the honorable member for West Melbourne and the honorable member for Geelong not to have any public differences. Let the

Licensing (Public-houses) [NOVEMBER 8.J Act Amendment Bill. 1995

gentlemen on the other side of the House have them. He saw at least ten members on the Ministerial side whom the pUblicans put into the House. (Mr. Baker-" I am not one or them.") The honorable member did not object to a publican's vote if he got one. He would not be surprised, if the ballot-papers were examined, to find tbat the honorable member had a few publicans' votes thrown inathiselection. (Mr. Baker­"I am quite sure I had.") Then the honor­able member should play fair to them. He wonld not mind paying more than opera prices to have been present at the meeting of the Oabinet when this little Bill was under discussion. He could fancy the Postmaster-General saying to the Minister of Public W orks-" This won't do; what will Sandridge say?" It was the hotel­keepers or Sandridge who put the Post­master-General into the House; without their help he would have been nowhere. Then he could imagine the Premier saying­" Steady! gentlemen; we will throw in a little sop to Munro and make him all right, and another for Oarter, and that will smooth him down." The result was this hybrid production which pleased nobody, and now there was the melancholy spectacle of the Government first introducing a mea­sure and then withdrawing it. It reminded him very much or the fireworks and the great scene in "The Fall of Pompeii." There were the grand priests running about with their ta.mbourines, and then down came the lot. The whole Bill was coming down rapidly. The 14th clause was proposed, the Chief Secretary gave one kick, and down it went. He would like the House to be in a position to give one straight vote on the question or local option, the majority to rule, and fair compensation. A dissolution must take place very soon, because everyone, ex­cept a few people holding Government con­tracts, called this Ministry the do-nothing Ministry. At a banquet, the other night, Mr. Nathaniel Levi, who had the contract for the railway advertising, said this was the best Ministry on the face of the earth. That was Mr. Levi's public opinion; privately,he said they were a lot of wretches, and the biggest curses the country could be afflicted with. His (Mr. Bent's) public opinion was the same as Mr. Levi's private opinion. The present Ministry had no opinions and no principles, and they could not carry any measure which would be of benefit to the country.

Mr. McLELLAN said he was very sorry to think that the whole of the legislation in

this Bill was going to be cast to the dogs on account or the discord which existed between the honorable member for Geelong (Mr. Munro) and the honorable member for West Melbourne (Mr. Oarter). (Ories of "No.") It seemed that that was the position they had come to. vVere there no moderate men in the Assembly who would insist on this measure being carried into law? As far as he was concerned, he accepted the 2nd sub­section of the clause as a fair compromise on the same lines as the resolution which he proposed in the House. At any rate it was a. concession in that direction; yet now the Chief Secretary said hewasgoingtoabandon the sub-section and leave a large number of unfortunate people to the mercy of the money lenders in order that they might put their houses in a condition to meet the re­quirements of the 36th section of the present Act. If that position was maintained, he u;light tell the Ohief Secretary that he had not acted fairly towards these people. He (Mr. McLellan) reminded. the honorable gentleman on a former occasion that by in­ference at all events he held out hopes that amendments would be made in the 36th section in the interests of these unfortunate people, and now the honorable gentleman, having submitted an amendment in the direction desired, was proposing to abandon it. It was not the wealthy publicans who kept houses in cities who would be in­juriously affected by retaining the require­ments of the 36th section. It was the widow and the orphan-people who were short of means and who had respectable houses-w ho would be ruined by the pro­vision. He was willing to assist any mode­rate party in the House and in the country to reform the public-house traffic. He was quite willing to snppress all disrept;ltable houses and to improve the character of public-houses generally. He was willing to do anything in that direction, but he re­fused to follow men who had neither con­science nor common sense in this matter. The evil of intemperance which existed in this country in times past had, to a great extent been suppressed, but had this been done by the rabid teetotallers in the As­sembly? Oertainly not. It was the mode­rate party who had brought about these re­forms, and he held himself to be one of that party. The large majority of the publicans of Victoria were as respectable a class as any other business men in the colony; but, no doubt, in times past, some undesirable persons had obtained pllblicans' licences, and it was the policy of the Legislature to

1996 Licensing (Public-houses) [ASSEMBLY.] Act Amendment Bill.

take the licences away from thoseindividuals. If that was what the honorable member for Geelong (Mr. Munro), the honorable mem­ber for "Villiamstown, and other teetotallers wanted, he was willing to assist them by his vote, but he was not prepared, without rhyme or reason, to give a. vot.e to destroy the vested interests of the whole of the public-houses in the colony. He desired to see a gradual reform brought about, and if the Go\'ernment had that object in view he was ready to help them; but it appeared to him that they had abandoned the Bill alto­gether. He certainly did not understa,nd the exact position which they occupied in regard to it at the present moment. He did not understand what the Government meant by machinery clauses, or what they wanted the machinery to do. The 2nd sub­section of clause 14 was a provision in the direction of what had been promised by the Government, but he had expected a great deal more. Nevertheless,he was willing to accept it as a srqall instalment of what had been promised, but now, at the last moment, he found that the Government had aban­doned the sub-section altogether. He was placed in a curious position by the action of the Government. He was forced either to go into the lion's den with the honorable member for Geelong, or to be thrown into the fiery furnace with the honorable member for West Melbourne. What moderate members were going to do under the cir­cumstances he really could not tell. The best thing, perhaps, would be for them to retire from the chamber, and leave the At­torney-General, the Ohief Secretary, the honorable member for West Melbourne, and the honorable membet' for Geelong to fight it out. If moderate members were not going to be taken into consideration at all, what was the use.of their debating the sub­ject? There was a sense of justice pervad­ing the minds of the great bulk of the people of Victoria, and it could not be destroyed by the rash statements either of rabid pub­licans on the one hand, or of rabid teetotal­lers on the other. It was of no use for him to occupy the time of the committee any longer. He repeated that he did not under­stand the position of the Government in this matter, nor did he understand the position of the honorable member for Geelong. The honorable member said that if local option was given-if it was left to the people in each district to decide ]lOW many public­houses there should be in the locality-he would be willing to concede everything else; but whom did the honorable member call

Mr. McLellan.

"the people "? If the honorable member desired to obtain machinery to secure the deliberate vote of aU the intelligent people in any locality on the question of reducing the nnmber of public-honses in that locality, he waa with the honorable member. Up to the present time there had been no such machinery. If it was desired that the pnb­lic-housps in a district should be reduced by a catch majority of three or four individuals, he did not think that would be a fair thing. In fact, it. would be a repetition of the old story or the three tailors of Tooley-street calling themselves the people of England. The decision on snch a momentous question as whether the number of public-houses in any district should be reduced and to what extent the reduction should be ought not to be in the hands of four or five isolated indi­viduals; but he was quite willing that it should be submitted to the ratepayers of the district, to the property-owners, or to any number of rational men who had a real in­terest in the colony, and who could fairly be intrusted to determine the case. The people of Victoria would always be ready to give a" just decision in all matters affecting the in­terests of any class in the colony.

Mr. BRO\-VN observed that some hon­orable members seemed to be straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. Honorable members ought to assert their privileges, and insist that the 2nd and following sub­sections of clause 14 should be" considered as machinery clauses. The Government would be justified in regarding those provisions as mach inery clauses in view of the resolution passed by the House on the 24th of August with reference to the 36th section of the present Act. That resolution ought not to be allowed to be vetoed or tabooed, but it would be unless the sub-section now under consideration and the subsequent sub-sec­tions were accepted as machinery clauses. Publicans whose houses d"id not contain the accommodation required by the 36th section of the preElent Act had been relying on the resolution of the Assembly, and the As­sembly would be placed in a very undignified po~ition if men were now summoned right and left for non-compliance with the re­quirements of that section.

Mr. 'VHEELER considered that honor­able members were placed in a very awkward position. The Government were dropping out the great principles of the Bill, and were going to retain only the machinery clauses to make the existing Act work more smoothly. The difficulty was to know which were the machinery clauses. It appeared to him that

Licensing (Publz'c-h01.tses) [N OYEMBER 8.] Act Amendment Bill. 1997

:the best thing the Government could now ·do would be to withdraw t4e Bill altogether, ,and bring in a Bill dealing with the machi­nery of the principal Act. Honorable mem­bers would then be able to see at a glance what was proposed to be done. He wished it to be clearly understood that he was in favour of local option by a majority, but with fair compensation in cases in which .public-houses were closed by the operation or that principle. He did not .consider the compensation fair when a man got only one­firth of the value of his property, as occurred in one instance recently when a publican surrendered his licence. He would again recommend the Government to simplify ,matters by withdrawing the Bill, with the 'View of introducing another measure con­-taining purel.v machinery clauses. There was plenty of other 'business for the House to br. going on with in the meantim~. The ·course which he suggested was undoubtedly the right one to pursue under the circum­stances. If the Government persisted in -the method they were now adopting, some provisions of the Bill would be struck out, and others would be carried, and the result would be nothing but confusion.

Mr. JONES remarked that aU this ses­·sion honorable members had been amused by the promise of the Government to amend the faults of the present Licensing Act. They had waited, expecting that a Bill would be brought in which would contain ·some of the merits that were very liberally promised, but, instead of such a measure as they had a right to expect, a miserable com­promise had been introduced which was satisfactory to no person either in Parlia­ment or out of it. After the Bill had been dangled under the noses of honorable mem­bers for nearly the whole of the session­first by promise and then by actual exhi­bition-they were told by the Chief Secre­tary that the Government proposed to with­draw all of it except the machinery clauses. But neither honorable members nor the country cared for the machinery clauses of the .Bill. They either wanted the substan­tial wrongs of the temperance public on the hand, and of the publicans on the other, dealt with, or else they did not want the time of the country and of the House to be occupied with the measure any longer. In­stead of submitting the propositions which they ought to submit, the Government were going to abandon their own ameuding Bill -their own child. The Government ought to be right well ashamed of their action. It was a kind of action that ought to earn for

SES. 1887.-6 Z

them the disesteem of the wllOle colony. He believed that if the Government persevered in their present proposal, the Assembly would administer such a vote to them as would teach them not to play with the House in future,. and not to attempt to play any further with the people of the colony.

Mr. ANDERSON (Yilliers) said it would be a great pity if the Bill was lost. It contained a good deal that was favorable to the temperance party, and also a good deal that was favorable to the licensed vic­tuallers. If honorable members on both sides could come to an arrangement to vote on each proposal as it was placed before them, and to submit to victory or defeat quietly, that would be the most regular and business-like way of proceeding. He was much surprised to hear the Chief. Secretary say that he was preparf.'d to withdraw any of the clauses of the Bill, although the hon­orable gentlemen would be perfectly right in doing so, if either side were determined, in the event of sustaining a defeat, to "stone­wall" the measure. He believed, howe\'er, that if the Government went on with the Bill, clause by clause, there would be found sufficient esprit de corps amongst honorable members to prevent "stone­walling."

Mr. GORDON stated that, the previous Thursday, a distinct understanding was ar­rived at that all the clauses up to clause 46 should be allowed to pass as far as the tem­perance party were concerned; but circum­stances had since occurred which entirely changed t.he position of affairs. He con­sidered himself entirely absolved from any promise he had made by the change of front on the part of the Ministry. The honorable member for Ararat seemed to think that there was a private quarrel between the hon­orable member for Geelong (Mr. Munro) and the honorable member for West Mel. bourne (Mr. Carter), but there was nothing of the kind. There were a large number of honorable members on the Ministerial side of the House who agreed with the honorable member for Geelong on this question, and who would do all they could to ad va.nce the' cause of local option. He (Mr. Gordon) was returned pledged to support local option, and he would fail in his duty if he did not do so. He would, therefore, aid the honorable member for Geelong in his efforts to get the Gth sub-section of clause 4G amended.

l\h. ANDERSON (Cresu:ick) expressed the hope that the Government would not

1998 Licensing (Public-houses) [ASSEMBL Y.] Act Amendment Bill.

abandon the Bill in the way they proposed to do. He voted for the further extension of the time allowed to licensecl victuallers to make the improvements required to enable them to comply with the provisions of the 36th section of the existing Act, and he thought that if the sub-section of clause 14 wllich was now under the consideration of the committee was struck out, a great in­justice would be done to a large body of men. He did not see any necessity for the heat which had been displayed during the discussion, nor could he see any reason why the Government should abandon the measure after so many nights had been spent over it. A division ought to be taken on the ques­tion now before the committee, and which­ever side was defeated should accept its defeat cheerfully. The proper course would then be to deal with the remaining provi­sions of the Bill seriatim. The Government ought not to court defeat before it overtook them. He intended to vote for local option with full compensation. He believed in dealing even-handed justice all round.

Mr. LAURENS said he understood that an agreement was arrived at, the previous Thursday evening, that the Government would abide by their proposals, and accept the decision of the committee upon them. It would now appear that they were not in­clined to do so, and this considerably in­tensified the difficulty with which honorable members were met. There was, however, no reason why the committee should not go to a straight vote on the different provisions of the Bill in the order in which they stood. As to the question of local option, it had already been discussed for three or four suc­cessive nights, and why should it be debated any longer? The only way to bring the matter to an issue was to take a vote upon it.

Mr. TUTHILL observed that the Go­vernment must, by this time, see the great mistake they had made by playing fast and loose with the House and with the country. This was one of the evils resulting from a coalition Ministry. The Ministry, being di­vided amongst themselves, had endeavoured to please both sides of the Bouse, and they had failed. Every assistan~e had been rendered to the Government in regard to the Bill. The second reading was carried without debate, and there had been no pro­longed discussion in committee. It was understood all along that there were two or three points which would be fought by the two contending parties, but a fair compro­mise had been offered by the honorable

member for Geelong (Mr. Munro), who was the spokesman p£ the Alliance or local­option party. The honorable member had told the committee that he was perfectly prepared to allow every clause from clause 14 to clause 45 inclusive to pass unchal­lenged if they would go to a straight vote· on the local option question. Let the committee go to a vote on that ques­tion. What was preventing them from doing so? Simply the fact that the Ministry had changed front, and had caused a para­graph to be inserted in the newspapers to the effect that they were divided amongst themselves, and could not see their way to face a division on the local option question. The g"reat majority of honorable members· were perfectly prepared to stand by their pledges. There were two ways of meeting the difficulty in which they were now placed. Either let the committee pass over clauses 14 to 45 for the present, and go to a straight vote at once on clause 46, or let them decide each question as it arose. If the former course was adopted, the .honorable member for Geelong would accept his defeat or his· victory, as the case might be, and the com-· mittee could then turn back and deal with clauses 14 to 45. It ought not to go forth to the country that honorable members were " stone-walling" the measure when it was the Ministry themselves who were doing so. The Government had dangled several Bills before the House during the session, but, with two exceptions, none of them had passed. There could be nothing more de­grading than for the Government to bring down an important measure, and then, after several nights had been spent in discussing it, drop it like a hot potato. The Ministry occupied a most humiliating position with reference to the present Bill, and they ought to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for' delaying business and making fools of the House.

Mr. CARTER said he desired to state­that it was a mistake to suppose that there was any ill-feeling existing between the­honorable member for Geelong (Mr. Munro)­and himself. The only fault he had to find' with the honorable member was that when he asked him to have a drink the honorable­member refused.

The committee divided on the question that the 2nd sub-section stand part of the clause-

Ayes ... 31 Noes ... 37

Majority against the sub-section 6

Lz'censing (Publz'c-houses ) [NoVEMBER 8.] Act Amendment Bill. 1999

AYES.

Mr. Anderson (C.), Mr. McColl, " Bailes, " McLellan, " Bent, " Murphy, " Bourchier, " Officer, " Brown, ., Peirce, " Burrowes, Dr. Quick, " Carter, Mr. Shiels, " Clark, " Smith,

Coppin, " 8taughton, " Donaghy, " Wheeler,

Feild, " Wright, " Forrest, " C. Young, " J. Harris, " Zox. " Righett, Tellers. " Langdon, Mr. Jones, " Langridge, " Shackell.

NOES.

Mr. Anderson (V.), Mr. Mirams, " Andrews, " Munro, " Bosisto, " Nimmo, " D. M. Davies, " Outtrim, " Deakin, " .Patterson, " Derham, " Pearson, " Dow. " Hees, ,t Gardiner, " Reid, " Gillies. " Russell, " Gordon, Lt.-Col. Smith, " Graham, Mr. Tucker, " Graves, " Tuthill, " Groom, " Vale, " Hall, ,. Woods, " A. Harris, " vVrixon, " Keys, " A. Young. " Laurens, Tellers. " Levien, Mr. Baker, " McLean, Dr. Rose. Mr. CARTER asked whether the Go­

vernment intended to insert a clause in the Bill to give effect to the resolution passed by the Assembly in August last for extend­ing the time allowed for compliance with the requirements of the 36th section of the Licensing Act? The time within which the alterations demanded by that section could be made had now expired, and licensees whose houses did not come up to the stan­dard required by the section had waited patiently, expecting that the Government would be prepared to give effect to the reso­lution of the House. The Government, however, had now by a majority of six de­feated their own proposal to give effect to the resolution.

Mr. DEAKIN remarked that the Govern­ment thought the resolution referred to by the honorable member for "Vest Melbourne (Mr. Carter) might be met in a certain way, and they embodied their proposal in regard to it in the Bill, but the honorable member knew what had taken place that night-­that a considerable number of honorable members had resolved that the Bill should not be gone on with. (" No.") What prospect was there of introducing and carry­ing in another form the proposition which had just been negatived? The Bill had now arrived at a stage when the Govern­ment must say what they could do in the

6z2

time at their disposal, and if they could not carry a proposition into law what was the use of their going on with it? The Govern­ment now asked the committee to deal only with the machinery clauses of the Bill, so as to give effect to the provisions of the existing Act. The only way in which the honorable member could possibly accomplish what he desired would be by bringing for­ward a new c1.ause, and the honorable member knew what the result of doing so would be.

Mr. CARTER remarked that the Chief Secretary had not answered the question.

Mr. MUNRO stated that the honorable member for West Melbourne (Mr. Carter) wag. alone responsible for the striking out of the 2nd' sub-section of clause 14. An offer had: been made to the honorable member overa-nd over again that, if he would consent to allow the people to have fair play in regard to local option, he could get all he wanted with re­spect to the 36th section of the Licensing Act; but he would not accept the proposal. The Government were not to blame for the vote which had just been given, and the committee were not to blame for it. The whole of the blame and the responsibility rested on the Ehoulders of the honorable­member for West Melbourne. If the hon­orable member' were not so stubborn, and would agree to the offer which had been made to him, the last vote could be rescinded, and he could get what he wanted even now.

Mr. BENT said it was hardly fair to throw the blame of the result of the last division on the honorable member for West Mel­bourne (Mr. Carter). The Government either believed in the 2nd sub-section of clause 14, when they put it in the Bill, or they did not. By their own treachery-for it was treachery and nothing else-they had gone against it, and they had succeeded in getting it struck out by 37 votes to 31. The Ministry should never have put honorable members in the position they had placed them in that night. It was unfair and' dishonest, and a Ministry who acted in that wa.y deserved to be kicked in the most igno­minious manner from the Treasury bench. It was a disgrace to Victoria that a Govern­ment should adopt such a course. The lowest larrikin had a little honour in regard to fighting. "Stick to your pals" was the­lan'ikin's motto. He (Mr. Bent) regretted. exceedingly that the honorable member for Geelong (Mr. Munro) had thrown the blame on the honorable member for West Mel­bourne. The Government were curs in this matter. The honorable member for West Melbourne was as independent of the·

'2000 Licensing (Public-houses) [ASSEMBLY.] Act Amendment Bill.

publicans' vote as any man in the House. 'To put the friends of sobriety in the fix 'in which the Government had put them was a disgrace to any party. The .honor­able member for Geelong ought to have placed the blame on the right shoulders. The proper course for the Government to have adopted was to postpone all the clauses 'up to clause 46. That was the true honest way of proceeding. They had the power in their own hands; and then, if they chose to go in for local option, what had the honor­able mem ber for West Melbourne (Mr. 'Carter) to do with it? That honorable mem­'bel' could not control him (Mr. Bent). Was there not an honest agreement, as far as two ,sides could agree, that up to clause 46 every­thing should be carried? (Mr. Tuthill­" Yes.") Then why did the honorable mem­ber vote as he did? (Mr. Tuthill-" Mr. 'Carter would not give way.") What had Mr. Oarter to do with it? That gentleman had nothing to do with the agreement sug­gested, the other night, by Ministers them­selves. It was true that the honorable member for West Melbourne had come out into the open; he should have done the diplomatic business, such as was practised 'by the Postmaster-General, who was more dependent upon the publicans' vote than the honorable member for West Melbourne. (Mr. Derham-" That is not true.") It was true. The Postmaster-General was mure 'dependent on the publicans' vote than any man in the Assembly.

TheOHAIRMAN.-The question before . the chair is that the 3rd sub-section stand part of the clause.

Mr. BENT said he would move that the Ohairman report progress. He would repeat that the proper course for the Government to pursue was to carry out the agreement made the other night, and postpone every clause up to clause 46, and on clause 46 take a vote. He must add that never, during the sixteen years he had been in Parliament, had he seen such a contemptible tl'ick played a·s that performed by Ministers on this occasion.

Mr. GILLIES observed that he would not have spoken, even in reply to the hon­orable member for Brighton, were it not for the fact that that honorable member occu­pied a semi-official position as leader of Her Majesty's Opposition. He ventured to think that the public, if they read the honorable . member's speech, reported verbatim, would ,not approve either of its language or its tone. The Assembly was not the proper place, it 'could not possibly be the proper place, in

which fitting words could be used to reply to the honorable member. Of course he could understand how it was that the honorable member did not like the Government. It was because the Government were where they were that the honorable member was so angry. When the honorable member had obtained the confidence of a majority of the members of the House, hut not till then, he might have the opportunity of sitting on the Treasury bench. Abuse of the Go­vernment, individually or collectively, or of honorable members who supported the Go­vernment, would not improve the honorable member's position in the slightest degree. The speech of the honorable member and his general conduct had caused honorable members on the opposition side of the House to say that a change of Government was impossible so long a~ he went on as he did. The assertion of the honorable member, that never during the sixteen years he had sat in the Honse had he witnessed such con­temptible conduct as that practised by this 'Government, must be taken for granted. Everything this Government did must be contemptible in the honorable member's eves. But if the honorable member's com­~and of language was so bare that he could not use words which ought to be listened to in a chamber of representatives, it would be well for him to wait until he had acquired that command of language. 'l'he tone which the honorable member had adopted would not be followed. Why? Because what he said was not worth an answer. The hon­orable member degraded himself as a re­presentative of the people, and he degraded the. gentlemen who served under him, by using language which was really un­,\'orthy of an answer. The reason why the Government had been forced to adopt the course tlH'Y had adopted on this occasion must be plain and palpable. The Govern­ment had not introduced this Bill, as one or two honorable members seemed to suppose, in obedience to the resolution which was carried atthe instance of the honorable mem­ber for Ararat. Last session, the Govern­ment proposed to introduce a Bill to amend the Licensing Act-to make it workable. 0ne or two questions had cropped up since then-one relating to the partitions and number of rooms that there should be in certain houses; the other relating to local option. It had been contended lately that those who desired to see a reduction in the number of public-houses were heavily handi­capped by the fact that they were called upon to vote on the question only on a.

Licensing (P'ltblic-houses ) [NoVEMBER 8.] Act Amendment Bill. 2001.

special day; that the result of that provision was that persons who recorded their votes in favour of reducing the number of public­houses became marked men, and were boy­cotted; and that under these circumstances it was impossible to have a fair trial of the local optionprillciple. When hewas appealed to to provide for taking the local option vote on the municipal elections day, he promised to see what could be done towards carrying out the suggestion; but it was distinctly under­stood that the Government did not propose to alter any fundamental principle of the Licensing Act passed by the last Parliament. When the Bill came on for consideration, honorable members were so much interested in the local option question that they discussed it to the exclusion of every other. What­ever clause might be taken up, local option was the one question that occupied at.tention. These discussions the Government could not close, so they waited patiently until they could see that honorable members had ex­hausted themselves. Eventually, clauses 11, 12, and 13-all relating to local option -were passed; and then the Government were faced by t.he circumstance that the advocates of local option, not having been able to effect any material amendment of the principle contained in the Act of 1885, llad determined to stand against any al­teration whatever. (Mr. Russell-" The House has never said that.") If the llOnorable member would wait, he would see that the course which the Government had taken was the only course which it was pos­sible for them to take if they were to obtain certain alterations in the existing law which would make the law workable. Cer­tainlya number of additional nights might have been wasted, by which he meant that if the Government could not attain their object in passing the BiH it was a waste of time to discuss principles which could not be given effect to. But the Government could not afford, at this stag(' of the session, and in the present state of public business, to spend another half-dozen nights over the

. -Bill. The honorable member for the Ovens (Mr. Tuthill) had said a lot of things against the action of the Government, but what as­sistance had the Government derived from that honorable member? The honorable member had never said a friendly word in favour or the Government since he entered the House. The honorable member, while sitting in the Ministerial corner, did not occupy his proper place in the House. The place of a good, true, genuine opponent of the Government-and the honorable

member for the Ovens was that, judging by his language-was not among the friends of the Government, but on the other side of the House. It was his duty to confront the Government. Certainly he (Mr. Gillies) would not sit behind a Government that he constantly flouted, disagreed with, and did not believe in. ~ "(Mr. Shieis-" You sat in

·tlie' M.inist~rial corner when you were an opponent of the Government.") The hon­orable member for N ormanby was referring to the time when he (Mr. Gillies) supported the O'Loghlen Government. (Mr. Shiels -" When you were opposed to them.") He was speaking in the face of those who knew the position he took up with reference to Sir Bryan O'Loghlen's Go­vernment. The members of the party to which he belonged asked him, over and, over again, at that time, to accept the leadership of that party, but he would not. They all knew the position he occupied; and so did a gentleman now present who worked harder, in a very responsible position, for that Government than any other member of the House. That gentleman knew more than anybody else who were the good sup­porters of the O'Loghlen Government, and. he would not say that he (Mr . Gillies) did anything he was ashamed of or wanted to conceal. At any rate, he was a good friend to that Go\'ernment, and he gave them ex­cellent advice over and over again, if they only would have taken it. So that any charge against him, with reference to his conduct at that time, might go like the breath of an idle wind. His conduct was unlike that of a certain honorable gentleman who declared over and over again that he had no faith in the O'Loghlen Government, and who denounced them on every possible occasion, and yet who coolly sat on the same side of the House with them. (Mr. Bent -" He gave his last vote with you.") He did not care so much about votes as the principles upon which votes were given. He repeated that it was impossible for the Go­vernment to adopt any other course with reference to the two proposals he had referred to, consistently with the idea of endeavouring to do what they could to make the existing Act workable. To make the existing Act workable was the primary object of the Bill. For the course which the Government had adopted, and with great regret, there was ample justification. They had a choice of evils, and they determined to limit them­selves to the perfecting of the present law rather than run the risk of losing the whole Bill.

2002 Licensing (P~tblic-llOuses) [ASSEMBL Y.] Act Amendment Bill.

Lt.-Col. SMITH remarked that, what­ever the Premier might say, it was the fact that the Government, in defarence to opi­nions of the press, had voted against pro­visions in their own Bill. What did they now propose to do? They were true neither to the licensed victuallers nor to the local option party. He (Lt.-Col. Smith) had always given in his adhesion to 'local option; and he was waiting to vote in favour of it on this occasion. It would have been better if the Premier, instead of getting into a towering passion, had adopted the course which he invariably pursued at the com­mencement of a session-that of being con­ciliatory and complimentary-which was the way to get business through. But the manner in which he had gone on on this occasion showed that the honorable gentleman almost despaired of any further business being done this session. However, the Government had been pursuing their usual tactics.' At the commencement of the session they let the House do pretty well as it pleased, only making a show of resistance now and then, but towards the close of the session, when tbey had got their Estimates through and the Appropriation Bill ready, they accused the Opposition of preventing them carrying as many measures as they desired. Accord­ing to the Ministry, it was the fault of the Opposition that the public business was not got through. However, they could not level that charge against him. Ne,er in any session had he addressed the House less. ABd why? Because he liked to see questions debated fairly. He liked, when a speech was delivered from the opposition side of the House, to see it answered from the other. But there had been nothing like fail' debate this session except in connexion with the Divorce Bill on nights dedicated to private members' business. The Government had adopted a policy of silence, and their supporters fol­lowed the example; and the measures which were introduced seemed to be only for the purpose of correcting blunders in legislation committed in previous sessions. Under these circllmstances, what encouragment was there for a public man to prepare himself to discuss important public questions? How­ever, it would be far more seemly for the Premier to allow what busine'ss had to be done to go on than to attack honora ble members on all sides of the House in the way he had done. vVith regard to the honorable member for Brighton, he did not recollect anyone who had acted with greater fairness to the Government than that

honorable member. He had gone out of his way on many occasions to propitiate and conciliate honorable members in opposition in order that public business might be faci­litated. And although the honorable mem­ber might have-let drop some rather warm observations on the abandonment by the Government of provisions in their own Bill, he (Lt.-Col. Smith) believed the language used was quite parliamentary. Oertainly none of it had caused the Ohairman of Oommittees to interpose.

Mr. SHIELS said he desired to make a few remarks in reply to what had fallen from the Premier. That honorable gentle­man, in the unwarrantable attack which he had made on the honorable member for the Ovens (Mr. Tuthill), showed a dazzling aUdacity, and a superb forgetfulness as to facts which transpired some five years ago. The Premier then sat in the Ministerial corner, as also did the present Mr. Justice Kerferd, and they were, for seven or eight months, the strongest opponents that the O'Loghlen Government had to encounter. At that time he (Mr. Shiels) made the bitterest speech he ever made against the leader of the present Opposition, and the Premier assisted in every onslaught, open and covert, which he and others made against the O'Loghlen Government. The Premier was always the master-mind; he was alive to every move that was made. Oertainly it was not for the Premier to order the honorable member for the Ovens to change his seat in the House, seeing that he himself occupied a similar position behind a former Government. If there was any difference between the two cases, it was in the honorable member for the Ovens showing less adroitness and more modesty. Under these circumstances it did not lie in the mouth of the Premier to charge any honor­able member with treachery to his principles, or with sitting where he ought not to sit. Let honorable members consider the career of the Premier. For the last 20 vears the honorable gentleman had been con~istent in one respect-when he was not sitting on the Treasury bench he was in hostility, open and- pronounced or secret and cunning, to those who were. He came into Parliament as a radical of radicals, as a liberal of liberals; but when he was denied office by Sir James McOulloch-when another was preferred before him-he forsook the liberal party and liberal principles, and attached himself to what was called the conservative or constitutional party. Then he became a bitter opponent of Sir James McOulloch;

Licensing (Pttblic-hmtses) [NOVE~IBER 8.J Act Amendment Bill. 2003

indeed, he contested Mornington against that gentleman and was beaten. Subse­quently, when Sir James McCulloch was in a position to offer the Premier place and pay and power, the Premier accepted office under him. True to himself, like the com..; pass, the Premier. opposed Mr. Berry year after year; but wfien it suited the interests of the Premier to take office with Mr. Berry, principles were thrown to the winds and for three years the two gentlemen sat on the Treasury bench cheek by jowl with each other. Then, again, who was despised more by the Premier than the present Chief Secretary ? Yet now, they were sworn brothers on the Treasury bench. Would the alliance last beyond the temporary arrangement which was made when the pre­sent Ministry came into power, and when trusted colleagues were thrust out of office, their places being taken by men of less ex­perience, and in some cases of less ability? Of course, when it became advantageous to either the Premier or the Chief Secretary, there would be a complete divorce, and the hostilities which had been suspended for the last few years would be resumed. And what had honorable memhers seen this ses­sion? "Vhy the champion of the free-trade party assuming the role of a protectionist, and proposing sugar and timber duties-for whom ? Not for our own colonists; but for persons who had gone to Queensland, and engaged in something like a nigger trade there, and for persons interested in the Tasmanian timber industry. The hon­orable gentleman, when out of office, op­posed the Vvoods brake, and denounced it as a corrupt bargain; but when in office his Ministry bought up the brake for something like £5,000. To no princ.iple had the Pre­mier been true. He had been a renegade liberal and a treacherous conservative. For years he was opposed to the plebiscite; he denominated it an engine of tyranny; but now he was taking the system to his heart just to appease the teetotallers. He and his Ministry had passed measures which would be a disgrace' to a school-boy, only to ask that they should be amended in a subsequent session. The year before last they passed a Licensing Act which they now sought to amend by means of a Bill of 49 clauses, one of them having no less than 21 sub-sections. \Vhen the O'Loghlen Government submitted their Railway Bill, providing for the construction of 800 Iniles 'I of railway, the Premier called it an octopus -a huge act of bribery and corl'l1ption. Yet, two years afterwards, the honorable

gentleman out-heroded Herod by proposing the construction of 1,500 miles of railway. Would anyone say that the labour market justified the State in engaging to so large an extent in railway construction-in under­taking the huilding of lines which could not be completed for eight, nine, or ten years? He (Mr. Shiels) would not have risen on this occasion to speak in these terms if it bad not been for the gross insolence and effrontery or the Premier in charging the honorable member for the Ovens with doing that which he did himself, and in regard to which he set the example.

~lr. DEAKIN stated that he did not desire to prolong the debate in the tone in which it had been carried on by the honor­able member for Normanby. He simply wished to bear testimony to a matter of fact of which he had reason for being as good a judge as the honorable member. He would not detain the committee by inquiring what was the honorable member's character for consistency, nor by asking t.he reason why they had bad once more to listen to the bitter, personal, and malignant attack which they had heard from the honorable member again and again. The speech just delivered had been nursed up for months; it had been made in his hearing three times already; and the honorable member for Normanby seemed prepared to repeat it thirty times if neces­sary. The speech was not the speech of a man who differed from the man he attacked on a question of a principle-who WtlS sepa­rated from him on a question of principle. On the contrary, the honorable member for Normanby bad occupied a position in the Assembly which did not reflect any discredit upon him, 'except perhaps in regard to this incident. But if there was one thing which might have been urged by a close and keen critic of the earlier portion of the honorable member's political career, which was so pro­mising, it was that there was one particular member of the House whom he followed with idolatrous and parasitical adulation , to whose judgment he wassubservient,and from whom he drew his principles. Who was that man? The very man whom the honorable member had just assailed with all the opprobrium he could command on this occasion. (Mr. Shiels -" No.") \Vha t he (Mr. Deakin) said was within the personal knowledge of honorable members who might certainly be pardonecl for qllestioningthe judgmentand impartiality of one whose extravagant love was suddenly converted into equally extravagant hate. When the O'Loghlen Government was in power, although he (Mr. Deakin) had a high

2004 Licensing (P1tblic.houses) [ASSEMBLY.] Act Amendment Bill. .

personal regard for several of its members, he was its consistent and unsparing oppo­nent. Sitting in the opposition corner, and having personal friends on both sides of the House, he was acquainted with every move­ment-and there were many-made to oust that Go,ernment by what the honorable member for Normanby called open and covert means. He knew how far certain members who sat on the Ministerial side could be trusted and counted upon, and he found that the honorable member for N or­manby could be had without asking. There was a coalition Opposition working against the O'Loghlen Government for eighteen months. According to the honorable member for Normanby, hewas acting with the present Premier, and his principles were the same as those of the Premier. (Mr. Shiels-"No, they were not.") Notthen? (Mr. Shiels­" His principles were self.") That was only a distinction; and perhaps he might be allowed to say a distinction without a difference. It was understood then that the principles professed by the honorable member were ostensibly the same as those professed by the present Premier, and he (Mr. Deakin) gathered that the honorable member now asserted that he was still true to those principles, and reproached the Premier for his subsequent coalition with the liberal party. But at the time the O'Loghlen Government were in nower the honorable member was himself i~l coalition with the liberal party. He was a powerful, acii\Te, and eloquent ally of that party in their opposition to the O'Loghlen Government. One of his best speeches wus an attack upon the very men they were attacking; and, no doubt, they were heartily glad of ·the assist­ance of such an audacions and effeetive supporter. ""Vhere, then, was the consist­ency of his present reproaches? At the same time, that party knew from many sources, including the honorable member himself, that the one obstacle to their obtaining a majority was the present Premier. (Mr. Shiels-"Rubbish! I had no relations with you at alL") Then what was stated at different meetings, by the friends and asso­ciates of the honorable member, was not the trutll. Yet 0,7er and over again was the story told-" We could give the Oppo­sition a majority to-morrow but for Mr. Gillies, whom we cannot move; he will not help to put the Government out; he will not stir from the Ministerial corner." Over and over again was it said of him with re­spect to some particular Government mea-8ure-" He does not agree with the Ministry

Mr. Deakin.

over the Bill, but he will do no more than' ask them to amend it." The then Opposi­tion knew that they could get the honorable' member for Normanby's vote against the Government at any time, but they could never get that of the present object of his· reproach. He was the one unmovable and unwinnable man on the constitutional side,. and so the liberal party regarded him. (Mr. Bent-" I am glad you are letting out a little of your dirt now.") Had the honor­able member for Brighton as little to be ashamed of in connexion with his conduct. in opposition as he (Mr. Deakin) had of his conduct when in opposition he would do· extremely well. (Mr. Bent-" My record is as clean as yours.") He would not touch

. upon the subject of the honorable member's record; it would take too long.

1\11-. BENT a.sked whether the Chief Secretary was in order in explaining all about. the dirty intrigues of the Opposition whea the O'Loghlen Government were in office?' He (Mr. Bent) did not want to hear any­thing more on the subject. He knew what the honorable gentleman and his friends did at the time well enough.

The CHAIRMAN.-The Chief Secre­tary is not, under the circumstances, trans­gressing the rules of order.

Mr. DEAKIN thought that the term "dirty," as used by the honorable member for Brighton, was as unparliamentary as its application was untrue, which was saying a

. great deal. At the time alluded to every one knew that the then Opposition were striving with all their might to turn out the· O'Loghlen Government, and also that they were assisted by the honorable member for Normanby; but whatever they did was fair and above-board. If the honorable member thought there was any ground for the as­sertions and taunts he threw out, he must have a most treacherous memory. The real fact was that the then Opposition could get. lots of support from the conservative side against the O'Loghlen Government, but,. try as they would, they' could not get that. of Mr. Gillies. For example, the honorable gentleman utterly spoiled the hopes of the· Opposition on the education question. A dozen other instances of the same kind could be cited. (Mr. C. Young-" He was got at last, however.") As time went on he· became enlightened and convineed. (Mr. Shiels-" When the Tramways Bill was· through.") (Mr. Gaunson-" And the pear was ripe.") When honorable members ha<1 come down to the question of the Tram­ways Bill, and the pear being ripe, they'

Licensing (Publz'c-ho'llses) [N OVEl\IBER 8.] Act Amendment Bill. 2005-

showed that they knew so little that it was high time for them to drop. the subject. What brought the present Premier into coalition with the late Chief Secretary was, as the honorable member for Normanby must recollect perfectly well, not an intrigue carried on in this Ohamber, but the actual vote at the general election of the people of the country, who returned an enormous ma­jority of members pledged on the platform to coalition. The honorable member for Normanby then went on to predict a divorce between the Premier and himself (Mr. Deakin). (Mr. Shiels-" For infidelity.") The honorable m~mber's mind being full of divorce, it was naturally continually revert­ing to infidelity. But when the time came for the divorce the honorable member had prophesied, the cause of it would assuredly not be the one he named. It would not be 3. cause entailing the slightest disgrace on either party. It might be his (Mr. Deakin'S) lot to leave the Premier some day, but the ground for the separation would be nothing less than a serious difference of political principle. Moreover, it would be impos­sible for him to leave the Premier on any ground, without being ready to attest that, in his opinion, the honorable gentleman was one of the most consisten t politicians the country had ever had. For his part, he could find it in his heart to wish that his honorable colleague was not quite so consistent-that ]le would follow a num­ber of other members of his party in what might be called the growing liberalization of their views. The unflinching fidelity of the honorable gentleman to his principles­a few other politicians were in the same category-had often been an obstacle to the Cabinet coming to an agreement on im­portant matters of legislation. It had pre­vented, for instance, the incorporation in the Licensing Bill of proposals which he (Mr. Deakin) supported, and which he be­lieved the majority of the country were anxious to see embodied on the statute­book. If, however, as was suggested, there was a divorce, and he and the Premier parted company, the honorable gentleman finding attractions elsewhere, certainly those attractions would not lie in the direction of the honorable member for Normanby.

Mr. BAKER thought that the patience of honorable members must almost be ex­hausted by the time of the committee, which ought to be taken up with the Licensing Bill, being absorbed by matters purely personal. As for the honorable member for Normanby, everybody who knew anything about past

affairs knew perfectly well that he was for­merly considered on every side as the puppet of Mr. Gillies. But to come to the Bill. He (Mr. Baker) was sorry the Premier was not a little more yielding to the wishes of the Chamber. If the Government did not in­tend that certain subjects sllould be dealt with in the Bill, why were they ever intro­duced? For himself, he (Mr. Baker) was­perfectly prepared to vote for local option pure and simple, and he felt sure that in so· doing he would act as a true representrttive of his constituency. Moreover, he believed. that, one way with another, a large majority of the House were pledged to local optionr Some honorable members seemed afraid to· touch the question; but why? 'Vhat ground had they for any fears? The honorable member for Emerald Hill (Mr. Gaunson) was not in the least afraid to act up to his­views on the qnestion. (Mr. Gaunson­" I would drown ali the teetotallers if I had my way.") He was perfectly sure the hon­orable member would do that, and do it cheerfully. It was to be hoped that the Government would see their way clear to let a straight vote be taken. The honor­able member for Geelong (Mr. Munro) had been charged with being hot, mad, and in­temperate, but, if the feelings by which he and the great temperance party were prompted were thoroughly known, a great deal would be forgiven to him and to them. He (Mr. Baker) would be perfectly willing to allow the publican interest a great deal more than they asked for if only they would consent to­local option pure and simple.

Mr. WOODS expressed the opinion that inasmnch as there was plenty of ground out­side the Chamber on which honorable mem­bers could, if they wished, settle all their' differences, it was rather too bad to occupy the time of the comm.ittee generally with them. As for the discussion on the. Bill,. much as there was to be deplored in con­nexion with it, there was this to be said in its favour, that it afforded an admirable illustration of the folly of departing from the wise old doctrine that, with regard to mea­sures of the present kind, their details should never be touched-never be laid before hon., orable members at all-until the general principles on which they were to be based had been fully thrashed out. Under the circumstances, he would suggest that hon­orable members should, instead of allowing a lot of not very agreable reminiscences to be gone into, postpone all the clauses of tlle Bill up to clause ~6, and then take a straigl1~ vote on that. There was a large attendanc~

2006 Licensing (Public-houses) [ASSEMBLY.] Act Amendment Bill.

of members, so the decision arrived at on the subject might be accepted as final. . Mr. SHIELS said he did not wish to .prolong the discussion, and he would not attempt to do so but for the Ohief Secretary, who was possessed of a lively imagination, having treated honorable members to a ro­mance respecting.his (Mr. Shiels') conduct in the past, and his supposed former adula­tion of the present Premier. There was an old expression which referred to some men as hating truth as the snail hated salt, and he would ask the Ohief Secretary to take it to heart. Not a word of what the honorable gentleman had said about his (Mr. Shiels') former praise of the present Premier and acceptance of him as his leader was true. He had had from time to time three leaders in the House, and to them he had, at all events, attempted to be utterly loyal. They were Mr. Sen7 ice, the late Mr. Francis, and one whom he esteemed as a scholar and a statesman, and who was known to be always So straightforward man, namely, Mr. Murray Smith. No other leader had he ever had from first to last. He definitely refused to follow the lead of the Premier, because he regarded him as a traitor to all the political principles he ever professed.

Mr. OARTER stated that he had always treated the Government with becoming con­sideration. From first to last he had given them all the support on the Bill he possibly could, and in return he only asked them for one thing, namely, that they would in­troduce in the Bill a clause to carry out the resolution adopted the other night by a majority of the House, namely, one post­poning for a certain time the coming into effect of the 36th section of the Licensing Act. (Mr. Deakin-" I have shown the honorable member that it is impossible for the Government to do so.") Then the best thing they could do with the Bill was to abandon it, because, if they intended to carry out section 36 unswervingly, their action would be so utterly repugnant to every sense of justice that honorable members generally would be sure to rebel against it. He re­commended them from the first to give up every clause in the Bill which was deemed objectionable by either side, and to stick simply to the machinery clauses, and they eventually agreed to that plan; but how were they carrying it out? Instead of giving up the whole of the clauses contain­ing any change of principle, they were simply giving up those which promised to be of service to the publican in~erest. That was most extraordinary conduct in view of the

way in which the honorable members who wished to see. justice done to that interest, when they found the clause making the municipal elections day the local option polling day carried against them, simply said-" So let it be." Why should the views of the' one side be conceded to, and those on the other side be treated with utter neglect? Perhaps the best plan would be to ask the Government straight what they intended to do. Did they intend to rescind the clause adopting the municipal elections day and the other clauses in connexion with it ? They could not be regarded as mere machinery clauses, for they altered some of the main principles of the Act. (Mr. Deakin-" The Government will do every­thing they have undertaken to do.") The Government were understood to have under­taken to pass none but machinery clauses; would they carry out that promise? (Mr. Deakin-" Yes.") Did the Government propose now to rescind clauses 11, 12, and 13? (Mr. Deakin-" ,\Ve propose to re­scind every clause that is not a machinery clause.") (Mr. L. L. Smith-" Let them state the clauses. ") Would the Govern­ment rescind clauses J 1, 12, and 13? (Mr. Deakin-" Yes.") He would next ask another question, and he wished the Ohief Secretary to consirler well before he replied to it. Many licensed victuallers had in good fa.ith, relying on the resolution carried by the House a few weeks ago, postponed the alterations to their houses required under section 36, and now they could not get the work done before the date fixed by the Act of last session. ,\V ould the Government introduce a proviso to enable them to tide over the difficulty? (Mr. Deakin-" Will the honorable member submit one ?") He would much prefer that the proposal should come from the Government.

Mr. DEAKIN said the Government would be perfectly willing to pay attention t.o any suggestion the honorable member for 'N est Melbourne (Mr. Oarter) and his friends might make. The honorable mem­ber for East Melbourne (Mr. Zox) had already submitted certain propositions on the subject, and the Premier had agreed to take them into consideration, although it was doubtful whether it would be found possible for Ministers to adopt them. There was, however, plenty of time to think over the question, which might be dealt with when the Bill came up for its third reading.

Mr. CARTER stated that he would con­sider whether he could not, at a later stage of the Bill, make some proposition which

Licensing (Public-houses) [N OYEMBER 8.J Act Amendment Bill. 2007

would save a certain number of the pub­licans of the colony from suffering a very rank injustice.

Mr. BEN'r said he would be happy to withdraw his proposal to report progress, but before doing so he would say a word or two. '''hen, a little while back, the Pre­mier was speaking about his great consist­ency, he appeared to appeal to the honorable member for Evelyn as a witness that he had never carried on intrigues against the O'Loghlen Government. "Vhat evidence that witness could give he (Mr. Bent) was unable to say precisely, but he knew that there were intrigues-he would not use a stronger term-and that they were carried on by the present Premier and Ohief Secre­tary. vVould the honorable n~ember for Evelyn venl;ure to say, without equivoca­tion, that the Premier was not night after night intriguing against the 0' Loghlen Government-intriguing upon nearly every measure they introduced? Would the Pre­mier himself say that, when he received a particular telegram from the late Robert Ramsay, he did not feel a different man altogether? That telegram was, it should be remembered, still in existence. He (Mr. Bent) could prove what he was saying. The honora ble gentleman told t.he commi ttee tha t night that it was he (Mr. Bent) wbo kept the Ministry in office. Well, he was glad to hear that. For himself, he would not take the honorable gentleman's office if it was offered to him. Indeed, he had on several occasions gone out of his way to save the Ministry, for they needed office mUllh more than he or his friends did. Would the honorable member for Evelyn dare to say that the Premier did not formerly in­trigue against the O'Loghlen Government? (Mr. Oameron-" I do say it.") That came well from the honorable member, because what was his own conduct? "The funeral baked meats did coldly furnish forth the marriage tables." The honorable member was" whip" to the O'Loghlen Government, and the ink on the last cheque he received in that capacity was scarcely dry when he became" whip" for the Service Government. (Mr. Oameron-" That is not true.") He would repeat the sta.tement. It was not possible to express in words the length of the interval that elapsed between the hon­orable member ceasing to be "whip" to the one Government, and beginning to be " whip" for their successors. If the only witness on the Premier's behalf was a witness of that character, he (Mr. Bent) would make the Government a present of

him. Had the O'Loghlen Government been put out by their opponents they would not have minded, but to be put out from behind their backs was too much. (An Honorable Member-" They were put out by false­hood.") Falsehood was nothing in com­parison to what was said against them­about the money for rolling-stock and other things. (Mr. Gillies-" "Vhat was said on that subject was said after the general elec­tion.") The honomble gentleman need not be too sure on that point. Poor Sir Bryan O'Loghlen was harassed out of his life by the intrigues of the present Premier and Ohief Secretary against him. (Mr. Shackell -" Yet he still lives.") Yes, he still li \7 ed as a true gentleman and honest politician, and he would probably continue to do so long after the names of those who successfully intrigued against him had sunk into political oblivion. (Mr. Cameron-" The O'Loghlen Governmeilt had no greater supporter than the present Premier.") The honorable mem­ber was in a position to know the value of the support he alluded to. Let him speak from his own stand-point. He (Mr. Bent) usedto say to Sir Bryan over and over again­" Y QU must give those hungry constitution­alists something or they will worry you to death." They worried him because he was the head of the Government whose motto was" peace, progress, and prosperity." Look at the amendments the present Premier used to move at the time-ten or a dozen in a night. Allusion had been made to the Tram­ways Bill, but could it be forgotten that he (Mr. Bent) always denounced that measure as an unfair one because the tramways would rob the railways? Then something had been said of the honorable member for the Ovens (Mr. Tuthill). Well, if he were the honor­able member he would cross the House. Nevertheless the very last vote the honor­able member gave was for the Government. He would ask what this Government hall done? One session they passed a Bill, and the next session they tried to amend it. The Premier spoke about the Government having the confidence of the House and the country, but could the honorable gentleman lay the flattering unction to his soul that he, the immaculate Duncan Gillies, had the confidence of the majority of the House or of the people of the country? Let him go to the country and try it. He (Mr. Bent) defied him to go to the country to-morrow. He dared not try it. He stuck to office just like a limpet. He had no principles. The honorable member for Norman by had sufficiently shown that. The Premier said

2008 Licensing (Public-houses) [ASSEMBLY.] Act Amendment Bill.

tbat if bis (Mr. Bent's) speech were printed verbatim the people would not approve of it, but if the Premier's speech were printed verbatim beside thut of the honorable mem­ber for Normanby, he would cut the sorriest figure that had ever been seen in the colony. It had been suggested to him by some hon­orable members that it would not be advisable to withdraw the motion for reporting pro­gress at present, and, in order to oblige them, he would allow the motion to remain.

Mr. OAMERON said the honorablemem­bel' for Brighton had challenged him to say whether he knew the present Premier did not intrigneagainst the O'Loghlen Government. In answer to the challenge, he might say that he never knew the honorable gentleman to intrigue against the O'Loghlen Govern­ment, or even to speak about them to the present Ohief Secretary. He knew the Premier and the honorable memberfor Nor­man by worked together, but not against the Government. He could also say that the Premier had a larger following during the time the O'Loghlen Government were in office than any other man in the House, and that following always supported the O'Loghlen Government. He would not say that the Premier did not speak on one or two occasions against the Government, but on other occasions, when members had spoken against the Ministry, he had known the present Premier to go to them and ask them to vote with him in order to prevent a defeat of the Ministry. He was perfectly satisfied also that the honorable member for Brighton was well aware of this at the time, whether he had forgotten it now or not. He (Mr. Oameron) challenged anyone to look up Ifansa1'd for the time the O'Loghlen Government were in office, and to show that the Premier voted more than four times against that Ministry. (Mr.L.L. Smith-"It was intriguing, not voting.") The gentle­man who did int.rigue time after time against the 0' Log-hlen Government was the honor­able member for Normanby. That honorable member was the" whip." (Mr. Shiels-" I never was' whip.''') The honorable mem­ber for Normanby was" whip," especially for Sir John O'Shanassy, who used to con­vene meetings in the Ministerial room. The llOnorable member worked in the interests of Sir John O'Shanassyand those who acted with him, and not in the interests of the present Premier. On two occasions he (Mr. Cameron) went into the room just to see if they would turn him out, and on neither occasion was the Premier present, but the honorable member for Normanby was there.

(Mr. ShieI8-" And I challenged your right. to be present.") It was the honorable mem­ber who was the intriguer. He flew from one corner to the other,likeafiying squirrel, with pencil and paper taking down the names of those who would act against the O'Logh­len Government. The present Premier was always the last to leave the House during' the regime of the O'Loghlen Government, and he always supported that Government,. and voted with them. He (Mr. Oameron} was sorry that the honorable member for Brighton, who was generally very fair, should be so unjust to the Premier in this matter. The statement had been made that· after having been" whip" for the O'.Loghlen Government on the day they left office he (Mr. Cameron) became "whip" for the Service-· Berry Government. That was quite untrue. The Service-Berry Government were in office a session before he accepted the position of " whip," and he did not accept it until he consulted Sir Bryan O'Loghlen, who was. out of the House, at that gentleman's own office. ~Vhen the position of " whip" was offered him by Mr. Service he said he could not take it, having been one of the" whips" of the O'Loghlen Government, but that he would support the Ministry. Several months· afterwards he saw Sir Bryan O'Loghlen at his office, and that gentleman ad vised him strongly to take the position, telling him that there were very few members he knew who would not have taken it when it was first offered to them.. In the case of the O'Logblen Government, he might say that he did not ask for the position of" whip" to­that Government. The position was offered to him, and he took a fortnight to consider the matter and consult his friends, among whom was the present Premier. The latter told him that they were determined to keep the O'.Loghlen Government in power as long as they shaped as they were then doing, and accordingly he felt that he was justified in accepting the position. He was not sorry he did so. He received the most handsome treatment from that Government, and espe­cially from the head of it. The honorable member for Brighton also treated him as if he was one of his own colleagues, and in-· trusted him with many confidential matters. He thought the honorable member would say that he did his duty to the O'Loghlen Government in the position he occupied. He hoped this explanation would be satis-·

. factory to the House. Mr. TUTHILL said he trusted that the·.

Government were satisfied by this time that. : they had made a nice mess of things that.!

Licensing (Public-houses) [NOVEMBER 8.J Act Amendment Bill. 2009

night. The Premier himself had provoked 'all the strife which had occurred by going -out of his way to make an indecent personal .attack on two or three honorable members. Who was the Premier that he dared attack bim (Mr. Tuthill) in the way he had done? '(An Honorable Member-" You began it.") He dared say he did see fit to speak 'the truth, and to tell the Premier some un­pleasant facts. He told the Premier that 'he did not think the honorable gentleman had any right to play fast and loose with the House and the country. (Mr. $hiels­"And all the newspapers tell him the same.") There was no doubt that the Premier had been playing fast and loose, and he should have taken his gruel in silence. The Premier had said that, sitting in the Ministerial corner, he had taken every opportunity of speaking and voting against the Government. Even supposing he had done so, was not that taking a manly and straightforward course? Oould the Premier point to one single instance in which he had intrigued against the Govern­ment, or in which he had said a word behind the Premier's back which he had not said 'before his face? The Premier, however, by his rash conduct, had had an ugly episode in his own political life laid bare. He stood charged, and, to his (Mr. Tuthill's) mind, <convicted, of having sat on that (the Minis­terial) side of the House with the O'Loghlen Government, while he was intriguing against them. (Ories of " No.") Vociferous ·cries proved nothing except the weakness of the case. All he (Mr. Tuthill) had said -or done had been in the open, but the Premier stood convicted of having, while giving the O'Loghlen Government apparent support, joined in the different cabals formed against them. He had heard the Premier say that his political character would bear the open light of day-that he did not object to every leaf of his political book being read-yet that evening, on the very first -occasion that he had provoked an old friend to speak the truth, he stood convicted of intriguing against a Government which he professed to support. How did the Premier come into office? Did he not shuflle into it by intrigue? Did he not form a Ministry ·on the eve of a general election in a fashion that the country did not approve of? It was only because the people did not wish to ·disturb the peace and prosperity which the ~ountry had been enjoying that they con­sented to give the present Ministry a fair trial. The country had given the Ministry .a fail' tdal, but was the country of the same

mind with regard to the Ministry now that it was a year and a half ago? He ventured to tell the Premier that it was not, and that a few more nights like the present would do his Ministry a great deal of harm in the country. Already the press was wavering, as could be seen by that day's A1·g~£8. The press would be true to the country, and if the Ministry deserved it the press would whip them just as it had wl1ipped the Op­position. The Premier told him that he was returned pledged to support the coalition Ministry, and that he would be judged by his constituents. Such a statement was the height of audacity, because it was not the fact that he was returned pledged to support the Ministry. (Mr. Gillies-" I made no such statement.") Then his ears must have deceived him. He never gave any pledge to support the Ministry, but he came into the House pledged to himself, as he stated in the first speech he made, to give the Min­istry a fail' Joyal support on trial. He also stated that he would only support them as long as he thought they deserved it, and he took an independent stand. A more loyal supporter than himself during last session the :V.1inistry did not have. (" Oh 1") He was in every sense a true supporter, because when he did not snpport them it was for their own good. He only omitted to sup­port them when it was utterly impossible for any man who wished well to his country to do so. He thought it was only due to him­self that he should tell the Premier that. he came into tIle House as an independent member, that as far as he saw fit he would support the Government, and that when 11e thuugllt they were going wrong he wouM oppose them.

Mr. GAUNSON remarked that there was one thing about the Premier's career which the country, and especially the As­sembly, should not forget. Nothing more disreputable had occurred in the history of Victoria, or in the history of any constitu­tionally-governed country, than the manner in which the present Government came into office. That schemer, the Premier-for he was nothing but a schemer-quietly waited. (Mr. Staughton-" That is not parliamen­tary.") It was. The Premier was nothing but a schemer, and a very miserable schemer as he (Mr. Gaunson) would prove. (Mr. L. L. Smith-" It is perfectly parliamen­tary.") He would show the scheming which the Premier indulged in.

The OHAIRMAN.-I do not think the honorable member's expression is parlia .. mentary.

2010 Licensi"ng (Public-houses) [ASSEMBL Y.] Act Amendment Bill.

Mr. L. L. SMITH submitted that the honorable member for Emerald Hill (Mr. Gaunson) was speaking in a political sense.

Mr. GAUNSON said he was going to prove the contemptible scheme which the Premier played. If the Premier was not a political schemer of the most contemptible character he did not know who was. That was perfectly parliamentary, and he would prove his statement up to the hilt. He would ask the honorable member for Fitzroy (Mr. Tucker) who sat behind the Ministry, and the honorable member for Collingwood (Mr. Langridge), and the honorable mem­ber for Barwon, who sat in the Ministerial corner-all of whom were only waiting the opportunity to kick the Ministry out­whether they thought the manner in which the Premier took office was honest and proper and in accordance with constitutional practice? What were the country told in ihe first instance? 'rVhile everyone was on the tiptoe of expectation, the redoubtable Duncan Gillies was carried to Echuca by express train, and there, in a speech which extended over ten columns of the Argus, he said to the electors-" Gentlemen, I am not in a position to tell you anything about the politics of the future, because, gentlemen, I ha.ve not yet been commissioned by His Excellency the Governor, and I don't know whether I may be or may not; it would be unconstitutional for metosay anything until I am commissioned." All the efforts of the Opposition were scattered to the winds by this little bit of deftness. Then" our Alfred" called a caucus, at which, he (Mr. Gaunson) believed, seven members of the liberal party deputed "our Alfred" to see Mr. Gillies. (Mr. Reid-" There were 24 members present; I was there.") " Our Alfred," " our Dow," and" our Professor" nobbled the Age; "our Duncan," "our W rixon," and" our Derham" Hobbled the Arg~ts; "our Nimmo" Bobbled the teetotal­lers; and Hour M. H. Davies," the present Speaker, Hobbled the land syndicate men and the Telegraph. What did'the great political schemer, the Premier, do? He waited until, to all intents and purposes, he seized the country by the throat-until Parliament ex­pired by effluxion of time-instead of going to seek re-election for himself and his Minii:?­tel'S independently of the general election. Such conduct was absolutely without prece­dent in this or any other country. The elections for Ministers and the elections for members were thrown into one, and the country were told this :_H Behold what the coalition Ministry have done for you! Have

we not administered the Lands department in an honest, straightforward,and truly mag­nificent manner, and in order to show our appreciation of the Minister of Lands, Mr. Tucker, have we not given llim 'the dirty kick.ont,' and substituted some one else? Have we not managed the Mining depart­ment in an equally honest and glorious fashion, and have we not rewarded Mr. Jonas Felix Levien by passing him into the whale's belly, to be spewed out on some future occa­sion? Again, has not Mr. Langridge man­aged the Customs department in a most earnest and satisfactory manner, and have we not given him the kick-out, too? Have we not made the Bay resound with the loud echoes of our Armstrong guns? Have we not put forts in all possible and impossible positions? Have we not purchased hulks for thousands of p.ounds which were not worth so many pence? And have we not shown our appreciation of the Minister of Defence, who did all this, by kicking him out also, and getting some one else ?" Would

'honorable members say that this was honest conduct, or that anything like it had ever occurred in the history of the colony before? (An Honorable Member-" What about Mr. Kerferd ?") He said nothing abou~ Mr. Kerferd, because he acted in a straightfor­ward manner. He stated, on the floor of the House, that he would take the J udge­ship, and he (Mr. Gaunson) congratulated him, and said he believed he would make as good a Judge as the best of them. The "Honorable Alfred" had stated that the honorable member for N ormanby was. a supporter of the Premier, and looked up to him as a paragon of virtue; but if the statement of the honorable member for Evelyn was to be believed-and he believed it-so far from the honorable member for Normanby looking up to the Premier as his model, he was found arranging and" col­loguing" with the late Sir John O'Shanassy, who had the greatest possible contempt for Mr. Duncan Gillies. As to the" Honorable Alfred," one episode in his political career was worth mentioning. When Mr. Service,. upon the masterly advice of the present Premier, dissolved the Assembly in 1880,. after an existence of a month or six weeks, the Honorable Alfred was one of those who met in the opposition room to draw up a programme. The honorable member for Fitzroy (Mr. Tucker) drew up certain reso­lutions, which embodied, to all intents and purposes, the Reform Bill. The Opposition went to the country on that platform, and came back with an immense majority. The·

Licensing (P'ublic-houS8S ) [NoVEMBER 8.] Act Amendment Bill. 201~

Honorable Alfred being one of those who had sworn to that platform, what did he do? "When the Reform Bill went to the Council and was turned inside out tllere, the renegade made Mr. Berry swallow the Upper House proposals, which were the very reverse of those to which he bad pledged himself at the general election. He was not an honorable man; no one could have any faith in him; be was the champion of all that was untruthful. He (Mr. Gaunson) challenged his conduct at the time, and told Mr. Berry that, if he accepted the Coun­cil's proposals, he would vote him out of office. It was true that "our Alfred," who had crossed swords with Lord Salis­bury, had been a great success. No one could deny that. He had gone up like a rocket; the sequel had yet to be deve­loped. He (Mr. Gaunson) thought that he would come down in the proverbial fashion. But the pear was not yet ripe. He was glad to have the opportunity or saying that no Ministry ever came into office under such dirty auspices as the present Ministry. 'Vith regard to the Bill, he (Mr. Gaunson) wanted to know whether Parliament intended to keep faith with the people? Vvas the reso­lution passed at the instance of the honor­able member for Ararat intended to deceive? Were people to be ruined on the faith of a parliamentary resolution? As to the ma­chinery clauses of the Bill, they were simply crushing machines; they were calculated to ruin the unfortunate many, and enrich the few who were enormously rich already. He had risen not to prolong the debate, but to entreat the committee to do something. If they were not going to do work, they might as well be allowed to go home straight.

Mr. OUTTRIM observed that he had been listening for three hours and a half to speeches which, however edifying they might be to those who were interested in the mat­ters to which they related, were calculated to disgust the majority of honorable mem­bers. If honorable members were ready, apparently on the least provocation, to fly, as it were, at one another's throats, they could not find fault with the press for put­ting their proceedings before the public in the worst light. For his own part, he could not understand why there should be this continued reference to matters which took placc years ago. He could not help feeling, as a member who spoke but rarely, that it was time thrown away for him to be brought from a remote district to listen to what had transpired that night; and that the public were paying dearly for what was done in

Parliament. He considered the suggestion that the committee should take, as soon as possible, a division on clause 46 a very sen-­sible one. If that clause were carried, there would be no difficulty in reinstating the 2nd sub-section of clause 14. He believed that by the adoption of clause 46 the publican class would be benefited, and the advocates­.of temperance views and ideas would, at the same time, derive certain advantages which they did not enjoy at present.

Mr. BROWN suggested that, as the­Government intended to abandon nearly all the clauses of the Bill, it would be as well for an adjournment to take place with the­understanding that, the following Tuesday, the G.overnment should afford to the House­a clear idea of the portion~ of the measure they intended to adhere to. After the ancient history to which the committee had been treated, it was clear that no more busi­ness would be done that night. An adjourn­ment was necessary, because half-past eleven .o'clock had arrived, and honorable members did not know what they were doing, for the­reason that the Government did not know what they were doing. It would be interest­ing to honorable members to know how much the preparation of the Bill had cost. According to statements in circles said to­be well-informed, the preparation of the­Bill to amend the Public Service Act had: cost about £1,000.

Mr. BAILES said the committee would no doubt be glad to be informed what sub­sections of clause 46 the Government in­tended to abandon.

Mr. WRIXON .observed that, with the exception of clauses 11,12,13, and 14, and a portion of clause 46, the whole of the Bill consisted of machinery. (Mr. Carter­"Clauses 17, 26, and 32 are not machi­nery.") What he stated was substantially correct. The Bill was most valuable from a public point of view; it would enable the law to be carried out. However, a difficulty had arisen about the question of local option on the one hand, and concessions to what was called the publican interest on the other, which difficulty seemed to threaten a dead­lock. What he would suggest was that the committee should complete their dealing with clause 14, striking out the 2nd and 3rd sub-sections, and allowing the 4th su b­section to stand; and that then they should go on with the other clauses up to clause 46. They were clauses about which no sub­stantial difference of opinion could exist. However, when the committee came to clause 46 a serious question would arise, and they

~012 !Licensing (Public-houses) [ASSEMBLY.] .Act Amendment Bill.

might ~eal with that clause in such a way as to render necessary the reconsideration of previous decisions.

Mr. BENT considered that several of the clauses between clause 14 and clause 46 were something more than machinery clauses. For example, it seemed to him that clause 26 would enable the owners of public-houses to exact bonuses. A case showing how that clause might operate had been brought under his notice. Mr. Timothy Harrington was the lessee or the Kingston Hotel, Highett-street, Richmond. He had been summoned before the police court for having his bar unlocked after haH-past eleven o'clock, and also for Sunday trading. The first case was dismissed; in the other a £ne was inflicted. Because of these circum­stances, the owner of the property-the hon­()rable memberfor Mandurang, Mr. Highett -refused to renew Mr. Harrington's lease, which expired on the 27th December next, and was ealling for tenders for the lease of the premises . No doubt the effect of clause 26 would be to encoura.ge owners to do things of this kind. Certainly it was any­thing but a machinery clause.

Dr. QUI OK stated that country mem­bers were anxious to know whether the Go­vernment would consent to the insertion in the Bill of a clause extending the time for increasing the accommodation of public­houses as required by section 36 or the Act of 1885. If the Government would grant this concession, he and a number" of other members were perfectly willing that the Bill should go through, and that the present squabbling shoulcl be brought to a termina­tion. He did not want to see hotel-keepers in various parts of the country, and espe­cially in Sand hurst, who had been expecting that effect would he given to the resolution passed at the instance of the honorable member for Ararat, treated with injustice.

Mr. CARTER expressed the hope that the Government would consent to the course suggested by the honorable member for SandhUl'st (Dr. Quick). Otherwise it would be better to report progress. As it was, the whole night had been wasted. vVith .regard to the historical reminiscences to \vhich the committee had been treated, he had only to say that Juring the reign of the O'Loghlen Government he sat in the Ministerial corner with the Premier, and he ,did not think that that Government had two truer supporters than the Premier and himself. It anything underhand went on .at the time, neither he nor the Premier had anything to do with it; but there were other

members of the constitutional party who took a very different course. He considered that the O'Logblen Government were in­debted to the late Mr. Francis, the present Premier, the honorable member for Villiers (Mr. Anderson), and a few more honorable members, including himself, for resisting the attempts made on different occasions to upset that Government on side issues. With regard to the Bill, he would suggest that clauses 11, 12, and 13 should be rescinded. (Mr. Gillies-" The Bill will have to be recommitted for that.") Then he would recommend that a vote should at once be taken on the 3rd sub-section of clause 14.

Mr. BURROvVES urged that fair time should be allowed those hotel-keepers who had been misled to some extent by the House passing the resolution moved by the honorable member for Ararat, to make the improvements required by section 36 of the Act of 1885.

Mr. MUNRO said he did not understand how an honorable member could solemnly and seriously ask the Government if they would agree to cancel a decision which was arrived at by an immense majority a few nights ago. An amendment proposed by the honorable member for Emerald Hill (Mr. Gaunson), on Thursday evening, to repeal the 36th section of the existing Act, was negatived by 36 votes to 13, and three or four hours ago the committee struck out the 2nd sub-section of clause 14. The rejec­tion of that provision also meant a refusal to repeal the 3Gth section of the present Act. It would be a breach of faith to do what was now proposed to be done. He wanteu to know when this game was to come to an end? He wanted to know when there was to he any finality in the resolutions of the committee? (Mr. L. L. Smith­"You must ask the Government.") He thought the best thing for the Government t·o do would be to bring in the Appropriation Bill, get it carried, and close the session. It was impossible to pass any legislation if honorable members were to come to one de­cision, say, at ten o'clock at night, and to a contrary decision at twelve o'clock. vVhat was the use of honorable members waiting there to pass clauses if they were to be re­scinded immediately afterwards? He trusted that the Government would not agree to any proposal to extend the time for complying with the requirements or section 36.

Mr. BAILES regretted that the Govern­ment were not going to proceed with the various clauses of the Bill in the order" in which they stood. If they were dealt with

Lz'censing (Publz'c-houses ) [NoVEMBER 8. j Act Amendment Bill. 2013

seriatim, be believed that sucb amendments might be made in them as would be satis­factory both to the licensed victuallers and to the ad vocates of local option.

Mr. DEAKIN said he had already inti­'mated, in reply to the honorable member for West Melbourne (Mr. Carter), that he did not think it would be competent for the Go­vernment to submit any proposal or the kind suggested by the honorable member for Sandhurst (Dr. Quick). If, however, the honorable member for Sandhurst brought forward such a proposal at a later stage, the Government would be prepared to con­sider it.

Dr. QUICK asked whether the Chief Secretary would give a pledge that the pro­position would not be made a Government ,question?

Mr. DEAKIN replied that he could not give any pledge about it until he saw what the proposition was.

Dr., QUICK stated that he would accept the suggestion to bring the matter forward ;at a later stage.

The motion for reporting progress was negatived.

Mr. BAILES moved that certain words ,or the 31'd sub-section be struck out with the view to insert other words, so that the sub-section would read as follows :-

,; In any application for the renewal of a licence in respect of a house licensed before the com­mencement of the principal Act containin~ six rooms for public accommodation, exclusive of those required for the use of the family or ser­vants, it shall not he necessary that any of such rooms, being bedrooms for the accommodation of one person only. shall contain more than 850 cubic feet, nor be more than 9 feet high, if the Licensing Court be sa.tisfied that it is a rea.son­.-able height."

It was unfair to expect publicans to provide, for the accommodation of lodgers, bedrooms ·containing not less than 1,200 cubic feet of space, as proposed by the sub-section. Anyone who knew anything about either hotels or coffee palaces must be aware that it was impossible to put more than one per­son in any bedroom in such establishm~nts. for the simple reason that no person would ·sleep in the same room with a stranger. Under the regulations of the Board of Health, 300 cubic feet of space in a bed­Toom in the city of Melbourne was ample for each person occupying the room pro­vided that it contained a door, a window, and a fire-place; and, if there was a door ,only, 500 cubic feet of space was considered ·sufficiellt. He believed that the great ma­jority of the bedrooms in the Melbourne Coffee Palace contained only 650 cubic feet

SES. 1887.-7 A

of space, and if that was sufficient for a person sleeping in a coffee palace surely it was unreasonable to require every bedroom in an hotel to contain 1,200 cubic feet. His amendment would remove a difficulty which existed at the present time in consequence of the requirements of the principal Act in regard to botel aocommodation, and it would be a fair and reasonable alteration. It would receive the approval, he believed, both of hotel-keepers a.nd the public generally, and therefore he hoped that the committee would adopt it.

Dr. QUICK considered that the amend­ment was one of vital importance, and appealed to the Government to accept it.

Mr. CARTER said he would vote for the amendment, but if it was not carried he would vote for the sub-section as it stood. He begged to ask whether he would have the opportunity of voting on the sub-section after the amend ment was disposed of?

The CHAIRMAN.-Yes. The amend ment was agreed to. On the question that the sub-section, as

amended, stand part of the clause, Mr. BROWN remarked that he believed

the Government intended to veto this sub­section as they had already vetoed sub-sec­tion 2, but that they were going to carry. s~b-section 4. The latter sub-section ap­plied purely to the metropolis, but the 2nd and 3rd sub-sections applied to the country.

Mr. GAUNSON said he hoped that the Government were not going to turn tail on another proposal in their own Bill. Surely they ought to do something to keep faith with the people. He believed that the sub­section, as amended, would be a very sub­stantial reI ief to the hotel-keepers, and he trusted that it would be carried.

Mr. CARTER stated that he had asked the Chairman whether the sub-section would be put as printed if the amendment was negatived, and he understood the Chairman to say" Yes." He noticed that the Attor­ney-General "laid low" when the question was asked.

The CHAIRMAN. - The amendment has been agreed to, and therefore, as the honorable member must be aware, the :mb­section cannot now be put to the committee as it originally stood.

Mr. BENT said the position, as he under­stood it, was that when the sub-section as a whole went to a division the Government would vote as they had promised, for rubbing out the entire affair.

Mr. CARTER expressed the fear that honorable members were being led into a

2014 Licensing (P,ltblic-houses) [ASSEMBL Y.] Act Amendment Bill.

trap. Else why did the Government vote for the amendment of the honorable mem­ber for Sandhurst (Mr. Bailes)? As a matter of fact, sub-section 2 would have been carried had it been divided upon half-an. hour before.

Mr. DEAKIN explained that the Go­vernment allowed the amendment of the honorable member for Sandhurst (Mr. Bailes) to go simply in order to save time. It was stated a long while since that Min­isters would ask for striking out the whole sub-section. At the same time they did not wish to put any unnecessary obstacle in the way of it being amended.

Mr. CARTER stated that he had no intention of proposing any amandment to the sub-section. His desire was to support it in the form in which it stood in the Bill, which it was now impossible for him to do. The Government were taking advantage of the forms of the House.

Mr. DEAKIN pointed out that when the Bill was reported the honorable member would be able to take any step he wished to take.

Mr. CARTER remarked that if the pub­lican interest was to get no concessions it would become necessary to stop the Bill.

Dr. QUICK thought that the course followed by the Government was an absurd one. Probably there was a good deal to be said on both sides of the question involved in the sub-section, but when there were vested interests there ought to be justice.

The committee divided on the question that the 3rd sub-section, as amended, stand part of the clause-

Ayes ... 26 Noes ... 37

Majodty against the sub-section 11

Mr. Anderson (0.), " Bent, " Bourchier, " Brown, " Burrowes,.

Carter, " Donaghy,

Feild, " Fink, " :Forrest, " Gaunson, " Jones, " Langdon, " McLellan,

AYES.

Mr. Murphy, " Murray, " Peirce,

Dr. Quick, Mr. Shiels, " C. Smith, " L. L. Smith, " Staughton, " Wheeler, " Wright.

Tellers. Mr. Bailes, " Shack ell.

NOES.

Mr. Anderson (V.), " Andrews,

Baker, " Bosisto, " Cameron, " D. M. Davies,

Deakin,

Mr. Derham, " Dow, " Gillies, " Gordon, " Graham, " Graves, " Groom,

Mr. Hall, " A. Harris, " J. Harris,

Keys, " Laurens, " McColl, " McLean, " Mirams, " Munro, " Nimmo, " Out trim, " Pearson,

On the 4th follows:-

Mr. Rees, " Reid, " Russell,

Lt.-Col. Smith, Mr. Tncker, " Tuthill, " Vale, " Wrixon, " A. Young.

Tellel·S. Mr. Gardiner, Dr. Rose.

sub-section, which was as.

" A licence may be renewed for any house in use as an eating-house before the commence­ment of the principal Act at which, during the three months preceding the commencement of this Act, one hundred persons on an average have been served with a meal or meals every day, notwithstanding that such house has not the sleeping accommodation required by the said section, provided that the Licensing Court is' satisfied that such house fulfils the purposes and objects, and has the accommodation, appliances, and attendance necessary for an eating-house,"

Mr. G A UNSON moved that progress be reported. (Mr. Deakin-" There are only this sub-section and an()ther to consider in, connexion with the clause.") The point was that, if a sop was to be thrown to the teetotallers, justice must at the same time· be done to the publican interest. Here were the Government trying to ruin one set of licensed victuallers in order to make another. set richer, and the teetotallers dishonestly joining in the game without there being the slightest chance of putting down a single­public-house. The teetotallers were simply. a set of miserable duffers.

The committee divided-Ayes ... 8 Noes ••• 53

Majority against reporting} 45-progress ... . ..

Mr. Bent, " Brown, " Jones, " Murphy,

Dr. Quick,

AYES.

Mr. L. L. Smith.

Tellers. Mr. Bailes, " Gaunson_

NOES.

Mr. Anderson (C.), Mr. Graham, ,,' Anderson (V.), "Graves, " Andrews, " Groom, " Baker, " Hall, " Bosisto, " A. Harris, H Bourchier, " J. Harris, " Cameron, " Keys,

Carter, " Langridge~ " D. M. Davies, Laurens,

Deakin, " McColl, " Derham, " McLean, " Donaghy, " McLe\lan~

Dow, " Mirams, Feild, Munro,

" Fink, " Murray, " Forrest, Nimmo,

Gillies, " Outtrim, " Gordon, .. Pearson~

Licensing (Public-houses) [NoYEMBER 8.J Act Amendment Bill. 2015

Mr. Peirce, " Rees, " Heid;

Dr. Rose, Mr. Russell, " C. Smith,

Lt.-Col. Smith, Mr. Staughton. " Tucker, Mr. JONES

leave the chair.

Mr. Tuthill, " Vale, " Wheeler, " Wright, " Wrixon, " A. Young.

Tellers. Mr. Gardiner, " Shackell.

moved that the Ohairman

Mr." BENT asked whether it was in­tended, under the 4th sub-section, to allow the Alexandra Theatre to have a licence, or whether there was any provision in the Bill at all which would allow a licence to be obtained for that place? (Mr. W rixon­" No.") He did not know whether the At­torney-General would oppose an amendment for the purpose of enabling a licence to be obtained for the Alexandra Theatre. The Academy of Music, Theatre Royal, Princess' Theatre, and Opera House all had bars at which visitors to the theatre could obtain refreshment during the intervals, and he saw no reason why the Alexandra Theatre should be made the exception. The matter had been brought under the notice of the Attorney­General.

Mr. WRIXON said the Government had carefully considered the subject, and they would stand by the sub-section as it appeared in the Bill. ,

Mr. BENT observed that he could see no reason against the Alexandra Theatre having a licence. He also thought that provision should be made for licences in connexion with skating rinks, which were becoming popular places of resort. He observed per­sons the other day bringing their own grog to one of the rinks, and he believed that they would drink more in that manner than if they could go to a bar.

Mr. WRIXON remarked that the Alex­andra Theatre had never had a licence. He would suggest that the honorable member for Brighton should allow the clauses of the Bill to go through, and then, if he thought proper, submit a proposition for considera­tion. The Government, however, could not support such a proposal, because they did not want to open fresh ground in the Bill.

Mr. L. L. SMITH said he could not un­del'stand the consistency of the Government in saying that they would not allow any new principle to be introduced, when they had just permitted the amendment of the honor­able member for Sandhurst (Mr. Bailes) to pass unchallenged. It was thoroughly un­derstood by M. J ules Joubert when he built the Alexandra Theatre, which was an ornament to the city, that he would be able

7A2

to get a licence, and he had been ruined through being unable to obtain one. The magistrates themselves stated that they re­gretted not having the power to grant a. licence for this theatre. He would suggest that the Government might allow the in­troduction into the sub-section of words enabling the Licensing Oourt to grant a. licence for a theatre if they thought proper. This would give them discretionary power, and allow them to refuse a licence if they thought it was undesirable to grant one in respect of any theatre in connexion with which an application was made. M. Jou­bert had told him personally that he had been ruined through persons not being able to obtain proper refreshment at the theatre, and it seemed very hard that a licence should not be allowed in connexion with a theatre which was visited by the Governor, while all the other theatres had licences.

Mr. BROWN considered that it was very unfair for the Government, after causing the committee to strike out the 2nd and 3rd sub­sections, which would have given relief to publicans in the country districts and which were really the outcome of a resolution passed by the House, to now proceed with the 4th sub-section, which was for the­benefit of eating-houses in Melbourne.

Mr. BAILES observed that the Govern­ment had knocked out of the clause the 2nd and 3rd sub-sections, which related to publi­cans who afforded accommodation to the public, although not the full accommodation required by the Act, yet now they were asking the committee to pass a sub-section for the benefit of houses which had no ac­commodation at all. The man whose house conta.ined bedrooms which were not quite in conformity with the Act was to be shut up,. but the man whose house contained no bed­rooms at all was to be allowed to carryon.

The committee divided on the questioIli that the Ohairman leave the chair-

Ayes ... 3 Noes ... 47

Majority against the motion 44·

AYES.

Mr. L. L. Smith.

Mr. Anderson (C.), " Anderson (V.), " Andrews, " Baker, " Bent, " Bosisto, " Carter, " D. M. Davies,

I Tellers.

Mr. Bailes, " Jones.

NOES.

Mr. Deakin, " Derham, " Donaghy. " Dow, " Feild, " Fink, " Gillies, u Graham,

2016 Licensz'ng (P~tblic-hoU8es) [ASSEMBLY.] Act Amendment Bill.

Mr. Graves, " Hall. " A. Harris, " .T. Harris, " Keys, " Langridge, " Laurens, " Mc[ .. ean, " McLellan, " Mirams, " l\1unro, " Murphy, " Murray, " Outtrim, " l'earson, " Peirce,

Dr. Quick, Mr. Rees, " l~eid,

Dr. Rose, Mr. C. Smith, Lt.-Col. Smith, Mr. Staughton, " Tucker, " Tuthill, " Vale, " Wright, " Wrixon, " A. Young.

Telle1·S. Mr. Gardiner, " Shackell.

Mr. L. L. SMITH moved that the 4th sub-section be amended to commence as follows :-

" A licence may be granted in respect of any theatre which has been or may hereafter be opeued, and."

He submitted this amendment because he considered the proprietors of· the Alexandra Theatre had been subjected to great injus­tice through being deprived of the opportu­nity of getting a victualler's licence. A theatre was destitute of one of it~ necessary accompaniments inhere were no facilities for members of the audience obtaining a drink on the premises between the acts.

At half-past one o'clock, business was suspended for half-an-hour. On the Chair­man resuming the chair,

Mr. BAILES spoke in support of the amendment. He did not see why the Alex­andra Theatre should not have the same licence to sell fermented and spirituous liquors as was enjoyed by the Theatre Royal, the Opera House, and the Princess' Theatre. The effect of the est.ablishment not having a licence was that persons who patronized the theatre, and wanted refreshment between the acts, had to seek it at public-houses in the neighbourhood. Then again, if a licence could be granted to an eating-house which had, on an average, 100 customers per day, why should a licence be withheld from a place of public amusement which was

- patronized by far more than 100 persons at a time?

Mr. MUNRO observed that the Alex­andra Theatre was built with the full know­ledge on the partof its promoters that, under the law, it could have no licence. If the amendment were agreed to, a hundred little halls would be able to obtain, as theatres, licences to sell i~toxicating drinks.

Mr. GAUNSON said he did not believe in certain theatres having licences and other theatres being deprived of them. People built theatres·with the expectation of making them pay. Theatres were not built, as

coffee palace~ were, for pure philanthropy. (Mr. Munro-" Philanthropy and 10 per cent.") He had given the promoters of coffee palaces credit for building those struc­tures as temples to the Most High. (Mr. Munro-" We go for the sugar as well.") That was the principle on which theatres were built. There was no need to be afr3id that a large number of theatres would be opened for the purpose of obtftining bar licences. The amendment proposed by the honorable member for Mornington did not compel the granting of bar licences for all theatres; but, assuming that it did, what objection could be offered to it on that ground? The only argument in favour of granting any licence for the sale of liquor was that it was required for the convenience of the public; and the public convenience required that people should have the oppor­tunity of obtaining refreshment when they attended a theatre. Bars existed already in connexion with some theatres, and the facility which they afforded for t.he visitors to those theatres to refresh themselves had not been abused.

The amendment was negatived wit,hout a division.

Mr. GAUNSON said the object of the sub-section was to enable certain establish­mentsin Melbourne, such as Gunsler's Care, Wolstenholme's Care, and Mrs. Burton's Exchange Hotel, to sell wines, beer, and spirits, without being compelled to comply with the requirements of the 36th section of the principal Act, but it did not appear to be so carefully dmfted as it ought to have been. He thought that the words" except Sunday" should be inserted after the words " every day," as the establishments he had mentioned, anda number of other restaurants, did not serve any meals on Sunday. An­other objection to the wording of the sub­section was that it applied exclusively to eating-houses. Some consideration ought to be shown for old~fashioned little inns or taverns, such, for instance, as that nice hotel in the vicinity of the lawyers' offices, known as the Mitre Tavern. The licensee of that tavern would be compelled to comply with the provisions of the 36th secti011 of the Licensing Act unless the words "in use as an eating-house before the commencement of the principal Act" were eliminated from the portioll of the clause at present under consideration; and yet many more than 100 persons had meals there every day of the week except Sunday.

Mr. BENT asked the Government to amend the sub-section so as to give effect to

Licensing (Public-houses) [NOYEMBER 8.J Act Amendment Bal. 2017

the suggestions or the honorable member for Emerald Hill (Mr. Gaunson).

Mr. 'VRIXON said he did not agree with the interpretation placed by the hon­orable member for Emerald Hill (Mr. Gaun­son) on the words" every day." He would, however, consider the point, and, if neces­sary, ha,e the sub-section amended at a. subsequent stage.

Mr. G A UNSON observed that the prin­cipal point which he wished to press on the Attorney-General was that the sub-section should be made to a.pply to hotels where 100 persons per day were supplied with meals, and not merely to establishments which were chiefly and almost solely used as eating-houses. He had given as an illus­tration the case of the Mitre Tavern, which, although it dis~ensed meals to hundreds of persons every week-day, would scarcely come within the meaning of the sub-section. For instance, he did not think the dining-room, which often accommodated 250 persons in a morning, was quite 9 feet high. Why should the landlord be compelled to run up a lot of bedrooms which were not wanted? Why should this admirable hotel, which served a special purpose, come under the application or a general law which was not intended to apply to it? However, if the Government would promise to consider the question, he would not press it upon them at the present time.

Mr. 'VRIXON said he would give special consideration to t1le matter.

Mr. GORDON stated that there was no machinery in the Bill for ascertaining the exact number of persons who daily dined at any particular establishment, and he was afraid that the circumstance would lead to· perjury in order, to secure the renewal of a licence.

Mr. BENT said he would like to know on what grounds honorable members were called upon to sit any longer? He under­stood that the Government, some time ago, agreed to adjourn when clause 14 was done with.

Mr. WRIXON remarked that. in the first place, clause 14 was not yet done with, and, secondly, the honorable member for Brighton promised last week to give the Government the utmost assistance in his power in order to get the Bill through without further delay. Still, when clause 46 was disposed of; Ministers might feel inclined to see how matters stood with a view to adjournment.

The sub-section was adopted, and the clause, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 16, which was as follows:-"If an information in writing be laid before

any justice that any person has committed, or is suspected to have committed, within the juris­diction of such justice, any offence against the principal Act, or any Act for the time being' in force amending it, which any Licensing Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine, und such in­formation be substantiated by the oath of the informant, or of some credible witness, such justice may, if he think fit, issue his warrant for apprehending the person against whom such in­formation has been so laid, and bringing him before such Licensing Court to answer the said information, and be further dealt with according to law,"

Mr. GAUNSON asked whether the clause was all right? Did it not mean that the warrant would issue first and the summons (which was provided for in clause 17) after­wards?

Mr. WRIXON explained that the clause was merelv intended to meet a technical difficulty ';ith respect to which there was no provision in the existing law. In effect it would simply furnish the means of taking an information on which a summons could issue. No matter of principle was involved.

Mr. BROWN begged to protest against the clause, which would, in his opinion, place every respectable publican at the mercy of an informer. And what sort of person was an informer, generally speaking? Was not to turn informer the last resource of the disreputable destitute? He would urge honorable members to read the clause for themselves, and, acting on their own judg­ment, to strike it out of the Bill.

Mr. BENT moved that clauses 16 to 45 be postponed, in order that clause 46 might be dealt with at once. The sooner it was disposed of, and the Bill was recommitted with the view of striking out clauses 11, 12, and 13, the beUer. For himself, he elid not intend to stop in the chamber much longer that night, for the whole proceedings were being managed with the utmost folly. The Government would not even stick to their own Bill. Never during the sixteen years he had been in Parliament had he seen such conduct on the part of Ministers. They had no sincerity, and the Bill had no truth. vVhy, if they were in earnest, did they not institute a grand whip up of their snpporters, and force the Bill down the throats of the Op­position? (Mr. Staughton -" vVere the Government to give way to you, you would be the first to laugh at them.") He had too much contempt for them to laugh at them. Practically, it was of them he spoke when, while the O'Loghlen Government were in power, he used to say to Sir Bryan-" You must give those hungry conservatives a billet

2018 L!'censing (Public-houses) [ASSEMBLY.] Act .A. mendment Bill.

of some sort." (Mr. Reid-" Why you were a conservative on'ce.") He was always a true liberal in every sense of the word. He knew that there was a strong feeling on the part of a great many honorable members, and also among the public outside, that landlords should not be allowed to impose whatever bonuses they chose on their unfortunate tenants, but that the bonuses should be determined by the Licensing Court.

Mr. OAR TER drew attention to the fact that the clause empowered a justice to issue a warrant, not only on an informa­tion that a person had committed an ()fience, but also merely on an informa­tion that he was "suspected" of having committed an offence. He considered that this provision was a blow at the liberty of the subject. (Mr. Munro-" The justice would issue the warrant at his peril.") He would run no peril whatever, because he would be acting in accordance with the law. Some discharged servant or informer could go to a justice, and say he "suspected" that two men had been shaking dice for drinks in a certain house-this was an " offence" under the principal Act-and the justice could forthwith issue a warrant for the apprehension of the licensee. Such a provision was monstrous, and, at all events, the words" or is suspected to have committed" should be struck out of the clause. The police had sufficient opportu­nities already for extorting money from publicans, and to increase the facilities for laying informations as proposed in the clause meant increasing the pay of the police. He would prefer that the whole clause should be struck out, but, if that was not agreed to, certainly the words he had referred to should be omitted.

Mr. GILLIES remarked that, if the honorable member read the whole of the clause, he would see that the information must be "substantiated by the oath of the informant, or of some credible witness."

Mr. DONAGHY stated that he quite .concurred with the remarks of the honorable member for West Melbourne (Mr. Oarter) with regard to the clause. It would have the effect of encouraging spies to go round hotels and cause a great deal of trouble and annoyance.

The committee divided on the question· that clauses 16 to 45 be postponed-

Ayes ... 23 Noes ... 25

Majority against the postponement 2

Mr. Bailes, . " Baker, " Bent,

. " Bosisto, " Carter, " Donaghy,

Fink, " Gaunson, " Gordon, " Graham,

Hall, " Keys,

AYES.

Mr. Munro, " Murphy, " Peirce, " Rees, " Rose, " Russell,

Lt.-Col. Smith, Mr. Tuthill, .. Vale.

Tellers. Mr. Brown, " Jones.

NOES.

,Mr. Anderson (C.), Mr. A. Harris, " Anderson (V.), "J. Harris, " Andrews, " McLellan, " Bonrchier, " Murray,

Cameron, " Nimmo, " D. M.Davies, Outtrim, " Deakin, " Pearson, " Derham, " Heid,

Dow, " Stanghton, " Gardiner, " Wrixon. " Gillies, Tellers. " Graves, Mr. McColl, " Groom, " A. Young. Mr. BAKER said he hoped the com­

mittee would now pass all the clauses up to clause 46 without any further discussion. He trusted that honorable members would settle down to work, and speedily dispose of the Bill.

Mr. GAUNSONremarked that the pro­position of the honorable member for the Wimmera (Mr. Baker) was simply impos­sible. There were clauses in the Bill which must be seriously debated and fought out to the bitter end, if the committee had to sit till Sunday night. They were not going to be ruled over by a pack of rabid teetotal­lers. It would be monstrously dangerous to allow the Bill to pass in its present shape.

Mr. OARTER moved the omission from the clause of the words" or is suspected to

. have committed" (lines 2 and 3). Mr. BAKER stated that he objected to

be stigmatized as a low villain, simply be­cause he was a total abstainer. He was quite willing that anything that was objec­tionable in the Bill, or· unduly interfered with the liberty of the subject, should be eliminated from it.

Mr. GAUNSON said that no one had called the teetotallers low villains. They had not the capacity to be such. But every one had a right to speak of the utterly de­graded tactics of the Government and their supporters.

The OHAIRMAN.-Not on the amend­ment.

Mr. G A UNSON stated that, if neces­sary, he would move that pl'ogress be re­ported. The Government wanted the com­mittee to postpone everything up to clause 46.· (" No.") The Government suggested

Licensing (Public-houses) [NOVEMBER 8.J Act A.mendment Bill. 2019

this in the first instance, so that the com­mittee might come to a straight vote on the local option question, but, when the honor­able member for Brighton submitted a motion .to that effect. the Government turned tail on their own p~oposition. The Government seemed to be under the heel of the honor­able member for Geelong (Mr. Munro); but the committee ought to legislate solely in the interests of the public, without regard to the drum-thumping teetotallers on the one hand, or the publicans on the other.

Mr. WRIXON observed that the lan­guage of the clause was that of section 54 of the Justices of the Peace Statute, and was rendered necessary by the number of offences which formed the subject of section 130 of the Licensing Act or 1885. One of the greatest drawbacks in connexion with that Act was the difficulty of enforcing it. He considered that the clause might as well be out of the Bill as subjected to amendment in the way proposed by the honorable member for West Melbourne (Mr. Carter).

Mr. GAUNSON stated that the section of the Justices of the Peace Statute re­ferred to by the Attorney-General did not apply. That section referred to persons who were suspected of being guilty of trea­.son, felony, or some indictable offence­something for which the offender must be tried at general sessions or before the Su­preme Court. There was no reason for supposing that offences under the Licensing Act could not be properly punished under the provisions of the existing law; and therefore there was no occasion to jeopardize the liberty of the Queen's subjects by means of the unnecessary powers which the clause provided for. Why, if magistrates could issue warrants against persons who were only suspected of having committed offences. against the principal Act, the landlord of Scott's Hotel could be taken up for having on his premises a drunken squatter, who might be sleeping off his drink; or the keeper of another public-house might be arrested simply on some scoundrel laying information that a respectable female, who might be partaking or refreshment in a private room, was a prostitute having drink at a part of the establishment other than the public bar.

Mr. BAILES considered the clause a disgrace to any Legislature. It was aimed at publicans; but pUblicans were people who were not going to run away. Why, then, should it be necessary to proceed against them otherwise than by summons?

Mr. RUSSELL expressed the opinion that the publicans could not have drawn a

better clause in their own interests. It con­tained three safeguards. First, a person had to be suspected; secondly, an information bad to be laid; and then it was at the option of the magistrate whether a warrant should be issued or not. What more could any publican wish?

Mr. GRAVES stated that in the event of a division he would vote for the clause as it stood. He regarded it as corresponding with section 58 of the Justices of the Peace Statute which related to the laying or an information before a justice as to any person who" has committed or is suspected to have committed an offence." There had been no complaint about the operation of that section.

Mr. GAUNSON said it was astonishing how some men quoted cases upside down. The section of the Justices of the Peace Statute to which the honorable member for Delatite had referred had no relation to arrests at all. It provided only for the issue of a summons. If the honorable mem­ber ror Delatite desired to support the Go­vernment, it should be on logical grounds, and not on nonsensical grounds. How could a provision which authorized the issue of a summons bethe same thing as aclause which authorized the issue of a warrant?

Mr. BROvVN observed that there was' no more similarity between the clause and the section quoted by the honorable member for Delatite than there was between heaven and earth. The one was directed against a licensee who could always be found; the other had relation to men who might be un­known-tramps and others who came from no one knew where.

Mr. CARTER stated that he did not ob. ject to the honorable member for Delatite persistently voting in opposition to him; but he objected to the honorable member getting up and wilfully misrepresenting a. section of an Act of Parliament.

The CHAIRMAN.-It is altogether un­parliamentary to say that an honorable member wilfully misrepresents.

Mr. CARTER said in that case he would state that the honorable member, by his own stupidity, in not being able to understand the effect of what he read, grossly misrepre­sented it. The honorable member llad asserted that he was compelled to vote with the Government. Why? Because a sec­tion of an existing Act provided that, under certain circumstances, a justice might issue a summons, therefore the committee ought to pass a clause which provided that, under similar circumstances, a justice might issue a warrant. But that was the very thing that

2020 Licensing (Publi'c-houses) [ASSEMBLY.] Act Amendment Bill.

honorable members were £ghting against. To provide that a man might be arrested merely on the suspicion that he bad com­mitted an offence was contrary to all existing legisla tion.

The committee divided on the question that the words "or is suspected to have committed" stand part of the clause-

Ayes ••• 33 Noes ... 17

Majority against the amendment 16

AYES.

Mr. Andrews, " Baker, " Bosisto, " Bourchier, .. Cameron, " D. M. Davies, " Deakin, " Derham. " Dow, " Gardiner, )I Gillies, " Gordon, " Graham, " Graves, " Groom, " Hall, " A. lIarris,

Mr. McColl, " McLellan, " Mirams, " Munro, " Nimmo, " Outtrim, " Peftrson, " Hees, " Reid,

Lt.-Col. Smitb, Mr. Staugbton, " Vale, " "Yrixon, " A. Young.

Tellel·S. Dr. Rose, Mr. Hussell.

NOES.

Mr. Anderson (V.), Mr .. Jones, " Bailes, " Murpby, It Bent, ." Murray, " Brown, Peirce, " Carter, " Shiels, " Donaghy, Tuthill. " Fink, Tellel·s. " Gaunson, Mr. Anderson (C.), " J. Harris, " Keys.

On clause 17, empowering the clerk of the Licensing Court to issue, on an infor­mation "either in writing or parol," a sum­mons against any person who had com­mitted or was suspected to have commit.ted an offence under the licensing law,

Ml·. 'VRIXON proposed the omiRsion of the words" either" and "or parol."

The amendment was agreed to. Discussion took place on clause 21, which

was as follows:-"Save as otherwise expressly provided, all

matters arising under the principal Act, or any Act for the time being in force amending it, may be heard and determined, and all forfeitures and penalties may be enforced and recovered, before any police magistrate."

Mr. DON AG H Y said that a very unjust system existed at present in connexion with the hearing of questions affecting licensed victuallers in country districts. Wherever a case was heard, police magistrates were brought from Hamilton, Stawell, Ballarat, or some other place to adjudicate upon it. It would be much fairer to revert to the method in operntion under the old law,

which was for the honorary bench to elect licensing magistrates. At all events, the tribunal to deal with licensing questions and aU complaints against publicans should con­sist of two honorary justices and a police magistrate.

Mr. BENT asked whether it was intended to give a police magistrate the right of forfeiture?

Mr. WRIXON replied that it was not intended to give a police magistrate the power of forfeiture. Under the clause a police magistrate would have power to hear all cases except those which involved forfeiture. By the principal Act it was provided that all cases involving forfeiture must be dealt with by the Licensing Court.

Mr. BENT stated that the- Attorney­General's explanation was not correct. By the clause a police magistrate would be per­mitted to hear first and second cases,of Sun­day trading, which counted in the direction of forfeiture, a third conviction being vir­tually forfeiture. Did the committee intend to allow the clause to give a police magis­trate the power of adjudicating on first and second charges of Sunday trading? (Mr. 'V rixon-" It will be a dead-letter other­wise.") He totally dissented from the Attorney-General's opinion. The honorable member for Geelong (Mr. Donaghy) was perfectly right in the remarks he had made. There seemed to be a wish on the part of the Government to send itinerating police magistrates all over the country instead of leaving local matters to be dealt with by the ordinary local justices. In fact, he re­garded the clause as an insidio\l.S attempt on the part of the Attorney-General to rub out the honorary magistrates. A police magistrate was apt to do the will of the Attorney-General's office. He (Mr. Bent) had actually known a police magistrate to go to the Attorney-General's office to- as­certain what sort of a verdict he should give. The clause ought to be amended so· 'as to provide that on the hearing of any of the cases to which he referred the bench should consist of a police magistrate and two honorary justices.

Mr. GRAVES remarked that he desired to reply to a statement made a short time previously by the honorahle member for Emerald Hill (Mr. Gaunson), in answer to his (Mr. Graves') contention that a magis­trate, in a case in which a person was suspected of an offence, could, if he thought fit, issue a warrant, instead of a summons. The honorable member had challenged his interpretation of the law, but a reference t()

Licensing (P'ublic-h01.tSes) [N OVElUBER 8.] Act Amendment Bill. 2021;

the 58th and 59th section of the Justices of the Peace Statute would show that he (Mr. Graves) was perfectly correct.

Mr. GAUNSON said the honorable member for Delatite was simply misleading himself. The 58th section of the Justices of the Peace Statute spoke of summary conviction, but the 59th section spoke of

, "on conviction," which meant that the case could be sent for trial by the justices. Moreover, the 59th section spoke of an offence, not of a " suspected" offence. The honorable member was wrong from be­ginning to end, and could not, by any legal argument, justify the vote he had given. He (Mr. Gaunson) altogether repudiated the language used by the honorable member for West Melbourne (Mr. Carter), because the honorable member for Delatite was quite incapable of doing anything improper from a wilful motive. The honorable member, however, had misled himself, and if he once took an opinion into his head, he stuck to it in spite of the devil. He had been voting in wrong company all through the night. vVith respect to the 21st clause, it was It most dangerous provision. To begin with, it took away from the Licensing Court, as now constituted, the power of investigat­ing the first and second charges of Sunday trading, and .of all other offences, a repeti­tion of which three times led to a forfeiture of the licence. (Mr. vVrixon-" I assure the honorable member that it does not.") It did not absolutely repeal the power of the Licensing Court to deal wit.h Sunday trad­ing cases, but it gave a police 'magistrate the power of adjudicating on such cases, and so filched from the Licensing Court the business which it would otherwise do. Honorable members knew what were the direful results of an hotel-keeper being con-

, vic ted of Sunday trading for the third time. His licence· was forfeited instanter-ipso facto. Surely honorable members were not going to place the power of dealing with cases of Sunday trading in the hands of a gentleman who might take his cue from the Attorney-General. Since the memorable Black YV ednesday, police magistrates did not care to exhibit over much backbone in cases in which the Government were litigants. The clause, he repeated, was a very dangerous one. Were honorable members going to hand over a jurisdiction of this sort to a Government servant who might fancy that he would ad­vance himself in Government favour when­ever he managed to shut up a public-house? Would they not see the danger that was being incurred, and insist upon every police

magistrate, dealing under the clause with cases affecting the publican interest, having' at least two honorary justices at his back? Why, at one time so great was the jealonsy in such matters that in the city of Melbourne the annual licensing day was expressly changed in order that the Mayor of Mel­bourne for the year, who happened to be a. teetotaller, should not be able to preside. Another pOint to be thought of was which, conviction was it that might ultimately lead to the forfeiture of the licence? But what· was the good of arguing in this fashion when every second honorable member was: asleep? He begged to move that progress· be reported.

The motion was put and negati\yed. On clause 25, repealing section 79 of the

principal Act, 1\1r. WRIXON mentioned that the

phraseology of section 79 of the Act had been found to be unintelligible. It was pro-­posed, in clauses 26 to 30, to re-enact it in a sensible way.

Mr. GA UNSON observed that the pro-· posals embodied in the five clauses imme­diately following the clause before the com­mittee went a considerable way beyond a. mere re-enactment or the provisions of section 79 of the Act. For examJ..>le, under the ex­isting law it was only new licences which could not be transferred within six months, from their issue; all other licences could, be transferred at every sitting of the court. But under the Bill no licence whatever wduld be transferrable within six months. Clause 28 made that perfectly plain.

Mr. GILLIES stated that it was not in­tended that the Bill should alter the exist­ing law in the way just indicated. The point raised by the honorable member for Emerald Hill (Mr. Gaunson) would, however, be in-· quired into, and if his representation was found to be correct a remedy would be applied.

On clause 33, enacting that when a licen· see who had been twice conyjcted transferred his licence to his wife, it would nevertheless remain under the saIDe liability to forfeiture as before,

J\ir. GAUNSON expressed the hope that this clause would be looked .at very carefully, for it was a terror. Surely having to trans­fer t11e licence at aU was a heavy punish­ment in itself. It could not be a trifle for a. man to have to practically make his wife the master. Would it not be rather unfair to, . press people in this way? Let it be borne in miud how frequently the conviction of a publican was due to an act or acts whichl

2022 Licensing (Public-houses) [ASSEMBLY.] Act Amendment Bill.

were committed without his cognizance. (Mr. Gillies-" The transfer to the wife is always a mere trick.") Admitting, for ar­gument's sake, that it was a trick, was it not·

. one which the law might fairly recognise? The CHAIRMAN.-I have been in the

chair for twelve hours, .and I think that ob­jections like the one just raised, which could be equally well raised at a later stage, might be allowed to lie in abeyance until then.

Mr. GAUNSON' said his objection was .n perfectly just one, but, in deference to the Chairman, he would let the clause go for the present.

On clause 38, empowering the Licensing Court to suspend the licence of an hotel for three months on the conviction of- three different licensees within two years of offences against section 130 of the principal Act,

Mr. CARTER said he thought it would be a mistake to pass the clause in its pre­sent form, as it would operate against a conscientious landlord. If a landlord evicted successive tenants because they did not com­ply with the law, he was liable to have the licence of his house suspended for three months, whereas a careless landlord, who did not evict anyone, would not suffer, as, although his tenant might be convicted .three times, the landlord would still have the licence.

On clause 41, providing for the forfeiture of the lease of any lessee of a railway re­freshment room who was declared disquali­fied from holding a licence,

Mr. OARTER observed that in con­nexion with this clause he desired to call the attention of honorable members to the 21st section of the principal Act, the pro­visions of which he thought few honorable members were aware of. That section, which was one of those extraordinary provisions passed, he supposed, by a fluke in the original Act, provided that-

" After the expiratioJl of any lease now exist­ing of any railway refreshment rooms within . the city of Melbourne, or within a distance of twenty miles thereof, nb licence shall be granted or renewed to any person for such rooms."

Thus at the expiration of the present leases ..an immense revenue would be lost to the Railway department, and no person travel-1ing within twenty miles of Melbourne would be able to get a drink at any of the railway refreshment rooms.

On clause 46, providing for the amend­.ment of various sections of the principal .Act,

MI'. "VRIXON moved the omission of .the 2nd sub-section, which was as follows:-

"In sections 24 and 31, the words' and the form in which the ballot.-papers shall be framed such poll shall be taken in the month of March in any year,' shall be repealed."

The amendment was agreed to . Discussion took place on t.he 6th sub­

section of the clause, which was as follows :-"In sections 26, 28, and 88, after the word

• votes,' in the first place where it occurs in each of the said sections respectively, the words fol­lowing shall be inserted (that is to say), ' com­prising one-third at least of the whole number of the electors on the rolls for the electoral division forming such licensing district,' and aiter the word 'recorded' in the second place where it occurs in each of the said sections re­spectively, the words following shall be inserted (that is to say), • and such proportion as afore­said of the electors on such rolls,' and for the proviso to each of the said sections shall be sub­stituted the words following (that is to say), 'and no determination of the electors at any such election shall be of any effect unless the majority in favour of it comprises one-third at least of the whole number of electors on such rolls.'''

Mr. GORDON moved the omission of the word" In" at the commencement of the Bub-section, with the view of making it read as follows:-

.. The provisos at the end of sections 26, 28, and 83 shall be and the same are hereby re­pealed." He observed that this amendment would enable the committee to have a direct vote on the local option question. The subject had been so fully thrashed out that there was no necessity for him to offer any re­marks on the amendment. He would only say that there was no more important ques­tion before Parliament or before the country at the present time than that of local option.

Mr. OARTER said he thought time should be given to honorable members to understand the effect of the amendment. The existing licensing law required that one­third of the electors must go to the poll in order to render a poll valid, and if one-third of the electors voted then the majority de­cided. The Government proposal in the Bill required that the majority should con­sist of one-third of the electors on the roll . He (Mr. Oarter) was content to leave mat­ters as they were. The amendment which was now so innocently presented was a very important one, and it would be well to post­pone going further until honorable members who left the House during the night had returned. They had been Bent for, and would be present shortly. He begged to move that the Ohairman leave the chair.

Mr. ""VRIXON said there could be no doubt ahout the object and effect of the amendment which, if carried, would make a most sweeping change, inasmuch as it would

Licensing (Public-houses) [NOVEMBER 8.J Act Amendment Bill. 2023

introduce local option without any limita­tion whatever. The proposal was that the question should be decided by a mere ma­jority of the votes polled, without any re­striction as to one-third or any other pro­portion of the electors on the roll being required to vote. The point he wanted the committee to consider was that they had not now this question before them as if it was a new one for them to deal with as they liked. From the beginning, the Govern­ment had stated that this was a Bill to amend the principal Act-to render it more workable-and that it was not intended to break new ground, or introduce any new principles. The Government, therefore, and those who took the GovernmenJ; view, would be compelled to oppose the amend­ment, not on its merits, but on the ground that the Bill did not propose to disturb the principles of the existing Act. In doing so, they did not pledge themselves as to what view they took of the proposal; they only said that this was not the time to open this great question. They wished to amend the Act and see how it would work, before attempting to effect any sweeping changes.

Mr. JONES remarked that he could readily understand the policy of the Govern­ment in this matter. It was a policy of seeing how the c~t jumped. They wanted to be quite free at some other time to approve of a principle which they had not the cou­rage to approve of now. The proposal of the honorable member for Oastlemaine (Mr. Gordon) was that local option shQuld really be local option, instead of being, as at pre­sent, a mere sham. The Assembly was the fruit of mere majorities, the policy of the country was determined by a mere majority, and the manner of dealing with the sale of intoxicating drink ought to be determined in the same way. If any man had not the will to express his purpose by a vote, he should be left out of account. The mere fact that he dare not yote should not enable him to control those who did vote. He believed honorable members knew precisely what they were going to vote upon, and he believed that the country was quite ready to deal with this proposal reasonably and deter­minedly. There was no fear of its leading to absolute prohibition, because public-houses could not be reduced below the statutory number. Of course, the country might here­after reduce the statutory number; but the present proposition could not at present, nor for a yery long time to come, lead to abso­lute prohibition, while, on the other hand, it could hardly be denied that the people had

a right, by local option, to have an oppor­tunity of determining whether the public­houses in their neighbourhood should be reduced to the statutory number.

Mr. CARTER stated that at a place in New Zealand called Blueskin a local option poll was held on the lines sought to be in­troduced here. There 'Were 55 persons en­titled to vote, but only two turned up, one of whom voted on the one side and the other on the other, and the question was decided by the casting vote of the returning officer. (Mr. Munro-" I inquired into that story and found it to be altogether untrue.") That case showed that a chance majority of two persons out of three might close up a number of houses, much to the subsequent annoyance of the rest of the inhabitants. There was a gre'at deal of difference between a vote for the election of a Member of Parliament and a local option vote. In the former a large number of people took a strong interest, and both sides were worked up, but in a local option vote the general public did not feel any interest on one side or the other. There were a certain number of men whose living depended upon keeping up the local option cry. If they did not their salaries would cease, and their sen,ices would be dispensed with. (Mr. Munro­"That is scandalously untrue; there has never been but one man paid.") There had not been an illustrious man who had come from America or the old country toJecture on the teetotal cause who had not been paid for his services. They could not live with­out being paid, and what was more, unless they got their tenus the same as any other actors they refused to show. He supposed the honorable roem bel' for Geelong (Mr. Munro) would say that was untrue. (Mr. Munro-" I know it is untme.") He would say broadly that teetotallers, as a rule, could not speak the truth. The honorable member himself did not serve teetotalism for nought; he had made it pay very well. When it suited the honorable member, he could buy a public-house and a theatre. (Mr. Munro-" You make your living out of the liquor trade, and you should not be allowed to vote on this question at all.") When the honorable member started his coffee palace, every hotel he shut up and every restriction he could put on the rival hotel was for his own pecuniary benefit. He would repeat that the honorable member did not advocate teetotalism for nothing. In fact, if it had not been for his having taken up the teetotal cry no one in Victoria would ever have heard of him. It was the one

2024, Lz'censing (Public-houses) [ASSEMBLY.] Act Amendment Bill.

glory by which be shone. What he (Mr. Carter) objected to was to the honorable member coming down to the House, and, whilst very much objecting to a minority dictating to him to drink whisky, wishing to enable a minority to dictate to the majority that they should drink tea. (Mr. Munro­" That is as true as the rest.") The honor­able member did not see that if it was right for a chance majority to decide that houses should be closed it must be equally right for a chance majority to decide any other question. Of course the Government would vote against the amendment, and he would en­deavour to occupy th\3 time of the committee until some more honorable members could arrive to support them, because he would be very sorry to see the Gover.nment defeated. He did not feel safe as to the result it a vote were taken now. To show what dreadful things might happen, and how crime might be encouraged by teetotalism, he would call attention to a recent occurrence in one of the suburbs. One night a house was broken into by a burglar, and the servant, on enter­ing the drawing-room next. morning, fonnd there an unaccustomed figure dead-drunk. It appeared that the master of the house, being a man of a convivial disposition, had always plenty or liquor about the premises. The burglar, being also of a convivial dis­position, having appropriated all that he had laid hanrls on, thought that, berore depart­ing, he would have a drink. He not only had one drink, but he had another; and the result was that he ~ll asleep on the sofa, and, when he awoke, he was in the hands of the police. Now, if. that burglar had gone instead to the residence of the honorable mem­ber for Geelong, in all probability, he would have got clear with his booty, and he would have continued in a long career of crime. Hence the growth of teetotalism might be accompanied. by an increase of criminality.

Mr. BENT suggested that the committee should now adjourn for an hour or two. (An Honorable Member-" You can't have breakfast yet.") But honorable members could have a wash. It was time for the Government to do one thing or another.

Mr. CARTER urged that, insteail of ad­journing for an hour, it weuld be more pro­fitable to adjourn until next day. Several honorable members who, ir present, would' vote against the amendment, left the House at the usual hour, not expecting that there would be an all-night sitting. However, he was quite willing to go on discoursing until some of those honorable members had the chance of returning.

Mr. GILLIES said that, the previous Thursday, it was distinctly understood that, if the Government agreed to progress being re­ported, every facility would be afforded for dis­posing of the Bill on Tuesday. It was now a. quarter-past six o'clock on Wednesday morn­ing, and what progress had been made with the measure? It was immaterial whether the amendment proposed by the honorable member for Castlemaine (Mr. Gordon) was carried now or not. Whatever might be­come of the amendment at present, there would unquestionably be a test vote taken upon the question on the report. He might remark, however, that the amendment pro­posed a complete change in the existing lawJ

and t.he understanding was that the Bill was· not to introduce any new principle.

Mr. STAUGHTON observed that since the Licensing Act of 1885 was passed there­had been a general election, and at that election the people decided that the measure should have a fair trial. The Act had only been in operation for two years, and it would be unfair to alter any of its prin­ciples until the people again had an oppor­tunity of expressing their views in regard to it.

Mr. TUTHILL said he had sat in his place all night to have an opportunity of recording his vote on the 46th clause. The Premier had told the committee that if the amendment of the honorable member for Castlernaine (Mr. Gordon) was carried there would be another test vote on the report; and, if that .was the case, what object could be gained by delaying the vote now? The honorable member for West Melbourne (Mr. Carter) would have the opportunity of rally­ing his forces when the report of the com­mittee was taken into consideration.

Mr. GORDON remarked that he would like a division to be taken on his amend­ment as soon as possible, if only for' the purpose of relieving the Chairman from attendance. The Government had stated that it was understood that no new principle was to be introduced, but they had them­selves embodied a new principle in the Bill;. they had increased the difficulties which the temperance party had to contend with in taking a local option poll. He had, there­fore, a perfect right to propose an amend­ment which involved a new principle.

The committee divided on the motion for the Chairman to leave the chair-

Ayes ... 11 Noes •.• 40

Majority against the motion 2!}

Licensing (Public-houses) [N OVEMBER 8. ] Act Amendment Bill. 2025

Mr. Andrews, " Bent, " Brown, " Carter. " Donaghy, " Gaunson,

AYES.

Mr. Murphy, " Peirce. ,. Staughton.

Tdlers. Mr. Shackell,

OJ L. L. Smith.

NOES.

Mr. Anderson (C.), Mr. McColl. " Anderson (V.), "Yf?Lellan, " Bak.er, " Mll'arus, t' BOSIStO! " Munro, " Bourchler, " M.urray, " Cameron, " Nimmo, " D. M. Davies, "Outtrim, " Deakin, " Pearson,

Derham, " Rees, " Dow, " Reid, " Fink It Hussell, " Gardiner, Lt.-Col. Smith, :: Gillies, 1'11'. Tuthill, " Gordon, " Vale, " Graham, " Wh.eeler, " Graves, " W nxon, " Groom, " A. Young. "Hall, . " A. Harns, Telle1·s. " J. Harris, Mr. Jones, ,. Keys, Dr. Hose.

Mr. L. L. SMITH said that the 6th sub-section or clause 46 and the amendment proposed by the honorable member ror Oas­tlemaine (Mr. Gordon) raised the whole question or local option. The feeling of the people at large was in favour or local option with compensation. The other evening he said that the encouragement of a taste for wine would tend to promote temperance. The French drank wine and they were a sober people. In Japan, which was a very .advanced nation, the authorities, finding that the people were taking to spirits, had ·determined to consider the desirableness of imitating the English and other people who drank beer. Two of the most learned Japanese professors of chemistry had been ·sent on a tour in Europe to obtain informa­tion on the subject. They had already in­spected some or the lager beer establish­ments in Germany, where they had learnt to brew that elegant decoction-lager beer -and they were going to visit some of the extensive breweries in London, Edinburgh, .and Dublin, in order to make themselves thoroughly acquainted with the art of manufacturing British beer.

Mr. BENT begged to know whether an .adjournment would be allowed for break­fast?

Mr. GILLIES stated that it had been .arranged that at seven o'clock the committee would adjourn for an hour.

Mr. HALL thought that, honorable !members having agreed early in the even­.ing that the House would adjourn over Wednesday in honour of the Prince of

Wales' Birthday, they were carrying out the arrangement in a rather queer way. What sort of holiday would the officers of the House have?

Mr. L. L. SMITH moved that the Ohair­man report progress. Honorable members might as well divide as do anything else.

The motion was put and negatived. At seven o'clock a.m., business was sus­

pended for one hour. On the committee resuming, Mr. OARTER suggested that, as the

Chairman was evidently unwell, he should be relieved for a .few hours. The honorable memberfor Ararat, who had freqnently acted as Deputy Ohairman before, might be re­quested to take Mr. Oooper's place.

Mr. GILLIES remarked that of course, if the Ohairman intimated that he was so unwell as to be unable to proceed, it would be his (Mr. Gillies') duty to move that some other honorable member take the chair.

The 0 HAIRMAN.-I would be very sorry to incommode the committee in any way, but, if the discussion is likely to last any length or time, I would be glad to be relieved. If it is not likely to continue much longer, I shall be able to remain.

Mr. McLELLAN stated that he would be most bappy to take the Ohairman's place, but it must be with the concurrence of the whole committee. It was a shame to hn·ve

. kept the Ohairman in the chair so long. It was more than any ordinary man could endure.

Mr. LAURENS observed that perhaps it was a shame that honorable members were there at all, but it would be a very material question who occupied the chair when the division on the main question took place.

Mr. GAUNSON stated that he was will­ing to take a division on the main question without any further delay, buthe didnotwant there to be any mistake with regard to the numbers. He wished to know whether, if a vote was taken now and the Government were defeated on the amendment, there would be a test division on the report? (Mr. Gillies-" It is quite certain t.hat there will be a vote on the report.") For once in his life he was compelled to vote with the Go­vernment. It was an unpalatable pill to swallow, but he would swallow it with a good grace. .

Mr. BENT said he understood that, If the amendment was carried, it was intenued to alter the mode of awarding compensation, and to have it settled by arbitration. (Mr. Munro-" If you carry the amendment.") He was going to vote for the amendment.

2026 Licensing (Public-houses) [ASSEMBL Y.] Act Amendment Bill.

It was well to have it understood that the great rna jority of those su pporting the amend­ment were in favour of compensation settled by arbitration instead of by the existing system.

Mr. DEAKIN expressed the hope that the committee would now proceed to a division. He desired to say that there were a number of honorable members on that (the Minis­terial) side of the House who were compelled to vote against the amendment being em­bodied in the Bill, although if it was a resolution in another form they would vote for it. (Mr. Munro-" That is a sham.") It was the amendment that was a sham, because the honorable member must know perfectly well tha.~, even if it were carried now, that would not make it law. The honorable member must know that at this period of the session it was hopeless to anticipate that such a proposal would become law. Under these circumstances, it was due to honorable members on the Ministerial side of the House to point out that, in voting against this amendment, they did so only on the same ground that they had voted against all previous proposals other than machinery clauses, namely, because they knew that nothing but machinery proposals could be­come law at the present period of the session.

Mr. MUNRO considered tha.t it was most unfair for the Ohief Secretary to make the statement he had done. Four or five gentle­men sitting on the Treasury bench were pledged to their constituents in favour of the present proposal, and this way of trying to evade their responsibility would not do with the country. If the Ohief Secretary knew that carrying the amendment could not give effect to it, then it was the duty of the honorable gentleman to follow his con­victions and vote for the principle. He (Mr. Munro) had been anxious to get a division from the time the clam;e was called on. He had not spoken or interfered in any way, or attempted to ascertain the state of parties, but the Ohief Secretary and his colleagues must not try to shirk their re­sponsibility. Honorable members were re­sponsible to their constituents, and the vote which would be taken now would be a vote that would be dealt with at the next general election. Let honorable members make no mistake on that point.

1\'11'. OARTER said the honorable mem­ber for Geelong (Mr. Munro) had stated that he had always been prepared to take a vote, but that was when the honorable mem­ber thought he had a majority .. He pre­sumed that the honorable member felt very

sanguine or else he would not take a vote now. (Mr. Munro-" I want to come to a decision.") He felt great delicacy in oppos­ing the wish of the committee to go to a. division, but he would like to have a hint from the Government" whips" as to whe­ther their party had arrived. He was really defending the Government from a very unfair attack, and if matters went on much longer he would become one of the most ardent Government supporters. Did the Government want to go to a division? (Dr. Quick-" Have it over.") When it was proposed to do something which would affect the revenue to an enormous extent, and also the trade of the country, it was of no use saying" Have it over." If it was seriously contemplated to alter the existing law with regard to local option, the legitimate man­ner w3:s to introduce a Bm for the purposet

and 11ave it debated on its merits on the second reading. It was very unfair to the House and the country that, when the Go­vernment were now agreeing to leave the law as it stood, they should be caught on the hop by an amend men t which had really nothing to do with their proposal at all. If the Govern­menthad withdrawn the Bill, as he suggested would be the best course in the event of any serious opposition, the committee would have been saved a lot of needless trouble, because now, when, in order to please the honorable member for Geelong (Mr. Munro), they pro­posed to strike out a sub-section he objected to, advantage was taken of the opportunity to propose something very different, and to seek, by a side-wind, to upset the existing law. He thought that was very unfair. He desired to say publicly that he admired the persistence with which gentlemen holding the opinions of the honorable member for Geelong worked at elections and voted on occasions of this sort. None of the teetotal party were found absent during the night;, they were all in their places. He had ex­plained to people connected with the liquor' trade over and over again the reason they had so many foes in the House. If a man stood as a teetotal candidate, he had a de­voted, if small, band of men who worked for him conscientiously and never charged him a brass farthing. They formed committees,_ canvassed and worked hard in every direc­tion, and, whether the candidate was elected or defeated, he was only out of pocket the­cost of advertising and some small expenses. If he was returned, he found that he had the greater part of his £300 at his disposal. But, if a man came out on the other side,. every publican in the district felt that he

Licensz'ng (Public-houses ) [NoVEMBER 8.] Act Amendment Bill. 2027

had a claim upon his purse, and that claim was put in with great vigour. When he stood for St. Kilda, he was charged even for permission to place his bill in an hotel win­dow, A man's £300 was gone before he got in, and people did not like that sort of thing. Again, in a constituency like Man­durang, for instance, if a man stood on the teetotal side he could travel from one end of the district to the other without spending any money, but if he was on the other side be could not pass an hotel without shouting or stopping to have something. He did not suppose that the honorable member for Williamstown had to pay a farthing for his election. (Mr. Mirams-" Not a sixpenny drink.") He was told that the licensed victuallers were going to turn over a new leaf at the next election, but he believed that what he had indicated was at the bot­tom of the warm feeling which existed against the trade. It was very hard that a candidate could get the support of any other interest without pay, but if he supported that particular interest he was charged.

Mr. vVHEELER considered that the suggestion made by the honorable member for Brighton, with regard to an alteration in the mode of determining the compensa­tion due to a publican, in the event of his licence being taken away, was well worthy of consideration. There was a strong feel­ing in the country that the present mode of awarding compensation was not satisfactory? and if the suggestion that compensation should be arrived at by arbitration-so that the compensation would be real and not a sham-were adopted, he believed there would not be so strong an opposition on the part of the publicans to local option by a simple majority, because they \yould feel that, if they were deprived of their licences, they would get a reasonable and fair compensa­tion. There should be some understanding that, in the event of local option pure and simple being carried, the system of compen­sation by arbitration would be adopted.

Mr. GRAVES intimated that he in­tended to support the amendment in favour of local option. When Sir Graham (then Mr.) Berry introduced his Licensing Bill, he led the country to understand that he wa.s going to put it to the constituencies whether there should be local option or not. The con seq uence was that, at the next elec­tion, there was not a candidate, as far as he (Mr. Graves) was aware, who was not asked -" vVill you support loca.l option ?" He was sorry the Ohief Secretary had said that this was not a vote on local option. (Mr.

Deakin-" I did not say that; I said it was not a vote that would make it law.") Members wh? were pledged to local option were bound to take the first opportunity or redeeming their pledges, and for that reason he would vote for the amendment.

Mr. GAUNSON said he had just a few words to say. The existing law declared tha.t no less than one-third of the electors on the roll, no matter whether they were ratepayers or manhood suffrage men, must poll in order to constitute a vote which would have the effect of depriving publicans of their property. On the other hand, the cham­pions of the teetotal party contended that any vote given for the purpose of decreasing the number of public-houses in a Iocality­it was nonsense to talk of a local option poll held for the purpose of increasing them­ought to be valid and effectual if it com­prised a majority of the electors polled. Well, he regarded the system so advocated as pernicious and indefensible. Let it be borne in mind that he said this having in view the fact that such a vote would be not for the election of a member of a municipal councilor of Parliament, but for depriving some person or persons of what at present belonged to them. At the same time, he would thoroughly agree with local option of that kind being exercised if voting was made compulsory-if every elector was com­pelled, by the threat of a penalty, to give his voice as to whether the property in ques­tion should or should not be taken away. He would say further that, in the event of property being taken away fruID any person by means of such a vote, there ought to be fair, just, and equitable compensation. Oer­tainly, he did not believe in a deprived pub­lican with a ten years' lease being compen­sated simply for the unexpired balance of the term of his annual licence. Oompensa­tion of that sort would be unadulterated robbery. Having thus delivered himself of his political creed, he begged to state that he had no quarrel with the teetotal party. They had endea.voured to do good, and were still doing some good, but they were going into a coalition which was bound, as all coalitions were, to do harm .. Moreovery

although martyrdom was said to be the seed of the church, he would have them beware of making martyrs of ~he publicans. An­other view he wished to express was as to the physical effect of teetotalism carried to an extreme. No one wished to see Vic­toria become an intemperate colony, for the results of over-indulgence in liquor were deplorable, not to say dreadful. But it was

'2028 Licensing (Public-houses) [ASSEMBLY.] Act Amendment Bill.

equally true-he spoke upon the authority . of Sir Henry Thompson, one of the greatest of living physicians-that the community

: suffered in the matter of diseases more from over-eating than from over-drinking. (An Honorable Member-" Over-eating does not ,ruin families.") He was by no means sure that that assertion was a correct one.

Mr. A. HARRIS remarked that he . could hardly credit the statement of the Chief Secretary that, if the proposition of the honorable member for Oastlemaine (Mr. Gordon) was carried, the Government would not be able to give effect to it. Why would they be unable to gi ve effect to it? This was a point with regard to which they ought to offer some explanation. For himself, he thoroughly believed in local option, but he also believed, like the honorable member for Ores wick (Mr. Wheeler), in compensation

,on the basis of arbitration. The compensa­tion system under the existing law he did ,not recognise as just. As to the argument set up by the Government that carrying the ·amendment would involve too great an in­terference with the existing law, he did not .attach much weight to it, because he con­sidered that the alterations in the law which were originally proposed in the Bill were ,quite as great.

Mr. OARTER moved that the Ohairman do leave the chair.

The motion was negatived without a division. . .

Mr. OARTER suggested that it would ·be a fair compromise for the gentlemen who 11ad pledged themselves to support local option to leave the law as it stood until the Government could bring forward a Bill to ·carry out the suggestion made by the hon­OI'able member for Oreswick (Mr. Wheeler), for giving compensation which would be ,fair and equitable in the case of public­·bouses that would be closed bv means of a local ?ption vote. Oertainly h~ objected to . any chance majority having the power to de­prive people of their means of living without any redress whatever. Such an arrangement was not fair or square. It was not honest. If the committee, in their wisdom, chose to say that a bare majority should settle the .question or how many public-houses there should be in a place, and that the one-third proviso should be s'.\'ept away, let them, at the same time, make pl'Ovision that the per­~ons who were deprived of their occupations should not be ruined. Here he would sug­gest that the committee should adjourn until ten o'clock, when he would offer no objection to a vote being taken, even though

honorable members who were now absent, and whose return he was expecting, did not then appear in their places.

Mr. GAUNSON asked what the Premier . had to say to this suggestion? At niI\e o'clock in the morning, the change for a short time from the Assembly chamber to the lawn would be pleasant to honorable members •

Mr. GILLIES said he was willing for a vote to be' taken forthwith.

Mr. GORDON observed that the sup­porters of the amendment were expecting reinforcements, and therefore they would be just as well pleased with a short adjourn­ment as honorable members on the other side. . Mr. L. L. SMITH said he would move that the committee adjourn until ten o'clock.

Mr. McLELLAN submitt.ed that such a motion could not be put. It was contrary to the standing orders.

Mr. McINTYRE suggested that the committee should adjourn during pleasure, with the understanding that the Ohairman would resume the chair at ten o'clock.

Mr. BAKER expressed the apprehension that, if the proposed adjournment were ac­ceded to, the discussion would be resumed when honorable members re-assembled, and might be kept up all day.

Mr. L. L. SMITH moved that the Ohairman report progress.

Mr. GAUNSON said, as it seemed to be understood that there would be no division until ten o'clock, he would appeal to the Premier to consent to a short adjournment. He (Mr.· Gaunson) was pot prepared to sacrifice himself on the altar of his country any longer. He felt that he was about pumped out. He hoped that the Govern­ment would agree to an adjournment for half-an-hour, in order that honorable mem­bers might enjoy the fresh air on the lawn outside .

The motion f~r reporting progress was put and negatived.

Mr. LEVIEN said he would take the present opportunity, the first he had had, of stating that he intended to vote for the law relating to local option being left for the time being in its present position. He was in favour of local opt.ion, and he knew that the present system had led to many mis­takes, but he considered that it would be well not to alter it until the community had had more experience of its working.

The question that the word" In" stand part of the sub-section was decided in the negative.

L£censing (Pltblic-~o~tses) [N OYEMBER 8.] Act Amendment Bill. 2029

The committee then divided on the ques­tion that the words "The provisos at the end of" be inserted at the commencement of the sub-section-

Ayes ... 28 Noes ... 33

Majority against the amendment 5

AYES.

Mr . ..Anderson (C.), Mr.Outtrim, " Anderson (V.), "Patterson, " Baker, " Hees, " Bosisto, " Reid, ". Gordon, " Russell, " Graham, Lt.-Col. Smith, " Groom, Mr. Tucker, " Hall. " Tuthill, " A. Harris, " Vale, " Jones, " Wheeler, " Keys, " A. Young. " Laurens, " McColl, " Mirams, " Munro,

Mr. Bourchier, " Brown, " Burrowes, " Cameron, " Carter. " D. M. Davies, " Deakin, " Derham, ,,' Dow, " Feild, " Forrest, " Gardiner, " Gaunson, " Gillies, " .T. Harris, " Langridge, " J.Jevien,

Telle1·S. Mr. Graves, Dr. Rose.

NOES.

Mr. McIntyre, " McLellan, II Murphy, .. Murray, " Nimmo, " Pearson, ., Peirce,

Dr. Quick, Mr. Shiels. " C. Smith, " L. L. Smith, " Staughton, " Wright, " Wrixon.

Telle1·s. Mr. W. M. Clark, " Shackell.

PAIRS.

Mr. Coppin, I Mr. Woods, " Fink. " Bent.

Mr. MUNRO said he thought that, as the Government had done all they professed to want to do this sitting, they ought not to ask honorable members to sit any longer for the present. Certainly the local option party desired to have time for further COll­

sideration. They had been ready to divide for the last six hours. Ever since four o'clock they had done nothing but wait for a division on the main question.

Mr. GILLIES said the Government felt perfectly justified in responding to the appeal just made to them. They had come to the point they wished to reach for the time being; they had done so in good faith and in good temper; and they would be sorry to interfere in the slightest way with the excel­lent feeling that had been maintained during the discussion. It was, however, ofimportance that they should know as soon as possible whether the Bill would be further resisted, because, if that was to be done, it would be

SES. 1887.-7 B

hopeless to attempt to go on with the mea­sure this session. He begged to move that the Chairman report progress.

The motion was agreed to, and progress was then reported.

The House adjourned at six minutes past ten o'clock a.m., until the following day.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. Thursday, November 10, 1887.

Disease in Vines-Police Sergeant Hall-Government Printing-office-Public Instruction: Chiltern: Water for Schools-Railway Department: Counsel's Fees: Sale of Old Rails-War Vessels in Australian Waters -Hansard-Money Bills-Council Electoral. Rolls­Labour Bureau-Ventilation of Mines-South Aus­tralian Boundary-Rilmore Gaol-Dromana. Jetty­Explosives-Additional Estimates-Juries La.w Con­solidation Bill-Intercolonial. Commerce-The Police: Promotions-Banking Companies Law Amendment Bill-Banks and Currency Statute Amendment Bill­Elsternwick Land Vesting Bill-Coroners' Juries Law Amendment Bill-Water Conservation Acts Consolida­tion Bill-Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill -Centennial Exhibition Liquors Sale Bill-Expiring Laws Continuation Bill-Licensing (Public-houses) Act Amendment Bill.

The SPEAKER took the chair at three o'clock p.m.

DISEASE IN VINES.

Mr. J. HARRIS asked the Minister of Agriculture if he would appoint a competent person to inspect the whole of the vineyards in the colony, so that any signs of pbylloxera might be detected, and the necessary steps taken to prevent its spread? He put the question because phylloxera was in existence for a number of years before it was dis­covered. Had steps been taken to eradicate it as soon as it was discovered, the colony would haye been saved at least £20,000. Probably the disease was in existence in many vineyards now.

Mr. DOvV observed that a competent in­spector was already employed, but his duties had hitherto been confined to the quaran­tined district. However, he saw no reason why there should not be an inspection of all the vineyards outside the Geelong district; and steps would be taken to institute such an inspection.

Mr. BOSISTO stated that, as chairman of the Phylloxera Board, he might mention that the fly would not be what might be termed fully alive until next month, when the board intended to thoroughly inspect the Geelong district.

2030 Public Instruction. [ASSEMBLY.] Railu'ay Department.

POLICE SERGEANT HALL. Mr. JONES asked the Chief Secretary

whether he intended to appoint the board asked for by Police Sergeant Hall, of Bal­larat, and, if so, whether the appointment would be made in time to permit of the officer participating in the promotions of 1888 ?

Mr. DEAKIN replied that the Govern­ment did not intend to appoint a board, first, because the evidence which would be required was not obtainable, inasmuch as nearly all the principal persons concerned in events which transpired some years ago were now dead or out of the colony; and, secondly, beca~se no board, outside the Police depart­ment, had yet been appointed to inquire into any particular appointment.

Mr. JONES said, in that case, the matter must go before a committee.

GOVERNMENT PRINTING. OFFIOE.

Mr. VV. MADDEN called the attention of the Premier to a notice which had re­ce.ntly appeared in the Government Gazette, intimating that vacancies existed in the com­posing staff of the Government Printing­office, and inviting candidates for 0xamina­tion for registration, and asked whether he was aware that the supernumeraries who were at present employed, and had been employed for upwards of three years con­tinuously, would be precluded from entering the competition on account of their age, and whether he was prepared to consider their claims for appointment?

1\11'. GILLIES stated that provision for dealing with the case referred to would be included in the Public Service Act Amend­ment Bill.

Mr. VV. MADDEN inquired whether the vacancies would be filled ,up in the mean-time? -

Mr. GILLIES said, as a matter of fact, there ware not any vacancies.

Ml'. 'vV. MADDEN remarked that appli­cations had been invited.

Mr. GILLIES intimated that nothing would be done pell:ding the passing of the Bill.

PUBLIO INSTRUCTION.

Mr. TUTHILL called the attention of the Minister of .Public Instruction to the question which he put, about a fortnight ago, relative to the filling up of the vacancy in the head teachership of the Ohiltern school. The answer then given by the Minister was that the appointment had been

declined by every teacher to whom it was offered. A member of the local board of advice had come to Melbourne on the sub­ject, and letters which he had received from the district informed him that the school attendance was falling off. He hoped some­thing would be done to prevent the school remaining in the charge of a junior teacher.

Mr. PEARSON stated thatin this matter it was impossible to do anything but what the law allowed. The law prescribed that a certain course should be taken, and the ob­servance of that course led to considerable delay in certain cases. However, an op­portunity for amending the law would be afforded when the Public Service Act Amendment Bill was under consideration.

Mr. A. HARRIS asked the Minister if he had any objection to lay on the table a return showing-I. The class of water sup­plied for the use of the S tate schools through­out the colony. 2. The means of supply. 3. The quantities available?

Mr. PEARSON said he had been fur­nished with the following memorandum, which gave the information desired:-

"In municipal districts, where there is a water supply provided, water is laid on from the mains. In a few cases where good water can be got from underground springs, wells are sunk, and in all other cases the raill water is conserved, in most cases from iron roofs.

"In municipal districts water is obtained from stand-pipes in each of the play-grounds. Where there are wells, a pump is usually provided; and, in other cases, brick underground tanks or iron tanks on stands are provided for the con­servation of rain water.

" Practically, there is no limit to the supply. except in the case of schools with tanks. Under­grouud tanks are built to hold 1,600 to 3,000 gal­lons. These tanks have been built principally I

in the dry northern and north-western districts of the colony. Smn.ll schools have one 400-gal\on iron tank, and an additional one is allowed in places where the rainfall is deficient, or where the average attendance exceeds 100 children."

HAlLWAY DEPARTMENT.

Mr. JONES moved, by leave, without notice-

"That there be laid before this House a. re­turn showing all fees paid to counsel, of the amount of ten guineas and upwards, from 9th June. 1882, to 8th June, 1887, in connexion with the Victorian Itail ways."

Lt.-Col. SMITH seconded the motion, which was agreed to.

Mr. GILLIES laid the return on the table.

Mr. C. YOUNG inquit'ed of the Minister of Customs whether he had been in com­munication with the Railway Commissioners upon the subject of the sale of old rails? It appeared that the Railway Oommis­sioners, in the exercise of their undoubted

Wur Vessels. [NOVEMBER 10.J Labour BUTeau. 2031

right, advertised for tenders for the pur­cha~e of a quantity or old rails, which were used in other countries for a great number of purposes-in mines, for sidings, and in .connexion with other works, for which new rails would be altogether too expensive. Tenders were sent in, and that of Messrs. Gibbs, Bright, and Co. accepted. Subse­quently an unsuccessful tenderer waited upo,n the Minister of Customs, and asked him to treat the rails as scrap iron, which was subject to an export duty of .£3 per ton. The Minister stated that he was unable to comply with the request, but pro­mised-so it was reported in the news­papers-to wait upon the Railway Com­missioners. But what object could the honorable gentleman have in waiting upon the commissioners, unless it was to influence them to accept another tender? The most extraordinary part of the whole matter was that the tenderer who wanted the rails to be treated as scrap iron had offered to buy the rails from the successful tenderers, at the price paid by them, thereby showing that his tender was below the true and proper value of the article.

Mr. WALKER observed that a deputa­tion waited upon 11im to represent that old rails should pay the duty of £3 per ton which was charged on the export of scrap iron. He inquired jnto the matter, and found that the question had been raised more than once during the tenure of office of the previous Minister of Customs, and that the llecision then arrived at was that scrap iron did not cover rails unless they were under 2 feet in length. However, he Tem.n.rked to the deputation that, if they felt :aggrieved, they could wait upon the Rail­way Commissioners to see if an arrangement lcould not be made that tenders for old rails .should not be accepted except on the con­dition that they were used locally. The idea of his waiting on the commissioners to make 'Such a request never entered his mind.

WAR VESSELS IN AUSTRALIAN "VATERS.

Mr. WOODS gave notice of motion for a return relative to the strength of French, Russian, and British war-ships available for 'action in Australian waters, and asked the Premier if he would allow the motion to go unopposed?

Mr. GILLIES observed that information of the kind referred to was always in the possession of the Imperial Government, and, if wanted by any of the colonies, was sup­plied to it : through its Governor, but the

7 B 2

information was uniformly regarded as confidential.

Mr. vVOODS said, under these circum .. stances, there was no use in placing the motion on the paper. .

HANSARD. Mr. JONES asked the Premier whether

he had any information to gi ve to the House concerning the proposed pUblication of Hansard daily? He would have thought that before this some information would be available as to the action which the Parlia­ment Buildings Committee had taken. It appeared to him that, so far, nothing had been done.

Mr. GILLIES said he understood that a report from the Parliament Buildings Com .. mittee would be ready the following week.

MONEY BILLS. Mr. JONES inquired of the Premier

whether his attention had been called to the fact that it was proposed that another place should have the power of primarily dealing with Money Bills under certain conditions, and whether the Government intended to assist in securing such a condition of affairs?

Mr. GILLIES replied that no suggestion of the kind had been made to him. Money Bills could not be initiated elsewhere without an alteration of the practice or Parliament.

COUNCIL ELECTORAL ROLLS. Mr. GRAVES reminded the Chief Sec­

retary of the discussion which recently took place in the Assembly with reference to the appearance on the electoral rolls for the Legislative Council of the names of resi .. dence area holders, and expressed the fear that, unless something was done by the 12th November, a number of persons who were entitled to vote would find themselves dis .. franchised.

Mr. DEAKIN stated that, since the discussion referred to, a Removal or Doubts Bill had been introduced into the Legis .. lative Council, but it.s progress had been delayed owing to the desire of members of that House for certain information. In consequence, the Bill could not become law by the 12th inst. Two alternative proposals, under either of which the present difficulty might be met, were now under the consider­ation of the Attorney-General.

LABOUR BUREAU. Mr. L. L. SMITH asked the Premier

what steps had been taken by the Govern­ment towards the formation of a labour

2032 Kilmore Gaol. [ASSEMBLY.] Explosives.

bureau? There were a great many persons out of employment who were unable to pay the fees demanded by the labour offices.

Mr. GILLIES stated that he was very anxious to do something practical in con­nexion with this matter, and he intended to consult with the Postmaster-General with the view of ascertaining whether any of the country post-offices could be utilized to bring together those who wanted employment and those who wanted labour.

VENTILATION OF MINES.

Mr. BURROWES called the attention of tIle Minister of Mines to a resolution, passed at a recent meeting of the Amalgamated Miners' Association, affirming the necessity for a strict inquiry as to the ventilation of mines. There was great trouble in the working of deep mines owing to the want of proper ventilation. The temperature, at times, was as high as 80 and 90 degrees. He believed an improvement could be effected if companies were compelled to let their drives run into one another.

Mr. GILLIES stated that the mat.ter would be inquired into. He believed that one remedy was to insist upon levels being connected, but he was doubtful whether the Mining department had power to do this.

Mr. BAILES said the Government had sufficient power under the Regulation of Mines Act.

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN BOUNDARY.

Mr. SHIELS asked the Premier when it was likely that the draft agreement be­tween Victoria and South Australia, rela­tive to the disputed territory on the boundary between the two colonies, would be circu­lated, and whether due notice would be given to honorable members of the time when they would be asked to consider it? The matter was of great importance, because, if the decision of the Privy Oouncil were to go against Victoria, this colony would lose a valuable strip of territory, and also a great number of colonists who could ill be spared.

Mr. GILLIES said the draft agreement would be circulated on Tuesday, and then he would be able to intimate when he pro­posed to invite the House to take it into consideration.

KILMORE GAOL.

Mr. HUNT called the attention of the Attorney-General to the delay connected with the transaction of judicial business at Kilmore. That day a prisoner had to be

brought from Melbourne to stand his trial, and Judge, jury, Orown Prosecutor, and officials were kept waiting for his arrival from ten until one o'clock. Inconvenience of this kind would be avoided if magistrates could commit prisoners to the local gaol. There was at Kilmore a gaol which cost something like £12,000 or £14,000, but it was not utilized. All the prisoners who were co'mmitted for trial had to be sent to Melbourne.

Mr. "\VRIXON stated that he would inquire into the facts. However, he might mention that very few prisoners were com­mitted from Kilmore.

DROMANA JETTY.

Mr. L. L. SMITH asked the Minister' of Oustoms whether his attention had been called to the condition of the Dromana. jetty? It was greatly in need of repair. There were holes in the flooring, in conse­quence of which some serious accidents had taken plact1•

Mr. WALKER said the matter had not been brought under his notice, but he would direct an inspection of the jetty to be made, and the repairs, if they could be effected for­a small sum, would be carried out.

EXPLOSIVES.

Mr. JONES called the attention of the, Minister of Mines to the fact that a resi­dent of Ballarat had suggested an improved method of exploding dynamite. whereby the fumes arising from the explosion were con-· siderably diminished, and the leaving of any portion of the dynamite charge unexploded was rendered extremely improbable. He would be glad to know if the Mining de­partment could render any assistance in making this new method available to miners· generally by diffusing information on the subject?

Mr. GILLIES stated that, if the dis­coverer would communicate with the Mining department, the merits of the discovery would be investigated.

Mr. BOSISTO inquired of the Minister whether anybody had been appointed to in-, spect the dynamite and nitro-glycerine that had come into the c()lony since Mr. Oosmo· Newbery received leave of absence?

Mr. GILLIES replied in the affirmative •.

ESTIMATES.

Mr. GILLIES presented a message from His Excellency the Governor, transmitting' further Additional Estimates for the year'

P'ltblic Service Act [NOVEMBER 10.J Amendment Bill. 2033

1887-8,and recommending an appropriation of the consolidated revenue accordingly.

The message was ordered to be referred to the Committee of Supply.

. JURIES LA VV CONSOLIDATION BILL.

Mr. WRIXON presented a message from His Excellency the Governor, recommending an appropriation out of the consolidated revenue for the purposes of a Bill to con­solidate the law relating to juries.

The message was ordered to be taken into consideration on Tuesday, November 15.

INTERCOLONIAL COMMERCE.

Mr. ZOX moved-"That there be laid before this House a return

showing-I. The value of the various articles of Australian produce and manufacture imported into Victoria from each of the various Australian colonies for the years 1884, 1885. and 1886. 2. The value of the various articles of Victorian pro­duce and manufacture exported to each of the Australian colonies for the years 1884, 1885, and 1886."

Mr. CARTER seconded the motion, which was agl'eed to.

THE POLICE.

Mr. GARDINER (in the absence of Mr. KEYS) moved-

"That there be laid before this House a return -showing-I. The promotions made in the police force during the past two years. 2. The length of service of each constable promoted."

Mr. MURRAY seconded the motion, which was agreed to.

BANKING COMPANIES REGISTRATION BILL.

The House having resolved itself into -committee to consider the law relating to banking companies,

Mr. GILLIES moved-.. That it is expedient to amend the law relat­

ing to banking companies."

The resolution was agreed to, and was reported to the House.

BANKS AND CURRENCY STATUTE AMENDMENT BILL.

The House having resolved itself into committee to consider the law relating to banks and currency,

Mr. GILLIES moved-"That it is expedient to amend the law relat­

ing to banks and currency."

The resolution was agreed to, and was ~eported to the House.

ELSTERNWICK LAND VESTING BILL.

Mr. WRIXON moved for leave to intro­duce a Bill t.o vest a certain piece of land situate at Elsternwick, in the borough of Brighton, in the Minister of Public Instruc­tion.

Mr_ PEARSON seconded the motion, which was agreed to.

The Bill was then brought in, and read a first time.

CORONERS' JURIES LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

The resolution affirming the expediency of a further appropriation for the purposes of this Bill (passed in committee on October 19) was considered and adopted.

'VATER CONRERVATION ACTS CONSOLIDATION BILL.

The House having resolved itself into committee to consider the Governor's mes­sage on the subject of this Bill, presented October 18,

Mr. DEAKIN moved-"That it is expedient that an appropriation be

made out of the consolidated revenue and of rates and penalties for the purposes of a Bill to consolidate the Water Conservation Acts 1881 and 1886. B.nd for other purposes."

The resolution was agreed to, and was reported to the House.

PUBLIC SERVICE ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

The House afterwards went into commit­tee to consider the Governor's message on the subject of this Bill, presented October 27.

Mr. GILLIES ruoved-" That it is expedient that an appropriation be

made out of the consolidated re,-enue for the purposes of a Bill to amend the Public Service Act 1883."

The resolution was agreed to, and was reported to the House and adopted.

Authority being given to Mr. Gillies and Mr. 'V'rixon to introduce a Bill to carry out the resolution,

Mr. GILLIES brought up a Bill "to amend the Public Service Act 1883," and moved that it be read a first time.

The motion was agreed to, and the B.ill was read a first time.

TRANSFER OF LAND STATUTE AMENDMENT BILL.

The House then went into committee to consider the Governor's message on the subject of this Bill, presented October 27.

203,1 Licensing (Public-houses) [ASSEMBLY.] Act Amendment Bill.

Mr. WRIXON moved-"That an appropriation be made out of the

consolidated revenue and of fees for the purposes of a Bill to alter and amend the Transfer of Land Statute and for other purposes."

The resolution was agreed to, and was reported to the House.

OENTENNIAL EXHIBITION LIQUORS SALE BILL.

The House having gone into committee to consider the Governor's message on the subject of this Bill, presented November 3,

Mr. DEAKIN moved-"That it is expedient that an appropriation be

made of fees for the purposes of a Bill to autho­rize the sale of liquors at the Centennial Inter-: national Exhibition, Melbourne, 1888."

The resolution was agreed to, and was reported to the House and adopted.

Authority being given to Mr. Deakin and Mr. Wrixon to introduce a Bill to carry out the resolution,

Mr. DEAKIN brought up a Bill "to authorize the sale of liquors at the Oenten­nial International Exhibition, Melbourne, 1888," and moved that it be read a first time.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was read a first time.

EXPIRING LAWS OONTINU ATION BILL.

The House then went into committee to consider the Governor's message on the sub­ject of this Bill, presented November 8.

Mr. GILLIES moved-"That it is expedient that an appropriation be

made out of the consolidated revenue for the purposes of a Bill to continue various expiring laws."

The resolution was agreed to, and waS reported to the House and adopted.

Authority being given to Mr. Gillies and Mr. Wrixon to introduce a Bill to carry out the resolution,

Mr. GILLIES brought up a Bill "to continue various expiring laws," and moved that it be read a first time.

The motion was ngreed to, and the Bill was read a first time.

LIOENSING (PUBLIO-HOUSES) AOT AMENDMENT BILL.

The House went into committee for the further consideration of this Bill.

Discussion (adjourned from the previous day) was resumed on the 6th sub-section of clause 46, amending sections 26, 28, and 33 of the principal Act so as to provide that a majority comprising at least one-third of

the whole number of the electors on the roll should be required to increase or decrease the number of public-houses in the licensing district.

Mr. MUNRO stated that the previous morning he asked that progress should be reported so that time should be allowed to the temperance party to consider what course they would adopt with regard to the BiU after the signal victory of the Government and their friends against them on the ques­tion of local option. Prior to making any statement on the subject, he desired to take the opportunity of thanking the gentlemen who stood so very faithfully by them during the whole of the night, and who gave the temperance party what was really a moral victory, although they had not an actual victory. He wished also to contradict most emphatically a report which had appeared in a portion of the press, especially in the Geelong Advertiser, to the effect that the tem­perance party were ., stone-walling" the Bill the whole of the night as well as the other party. He appealed to every member of the House whether they did not do everything in their power to get a division from the first. They were anxious to get a division, and, if a division had been taken earlier, instead of having a minority they would have had a majority. He quite admitted that. the honorable member for 'Vest Melbourne (Mr. Oarter), by his tactics, assisted by the Government, managed to get a certain num-· bel' of votes by a given hour which he would not have had previously. (Mr. Gillies-"That is not fair to the Government.") He could give an instance of the influence of the Go­vernment. An honorable mem ber promised to vote with the temperance party, and, after the impassioned speech of the Ohief Secre­tary, he voted on the other side. But for the action of the Ohief Secretary the pro.· bability was that, even at the last moment, the victory would have been with them. Having carefully looked into the matter,. the conclusion which he and his friends had arrived at was this. They did not intend to offer any factious opposition to the Bill in committee. Of course they would have the right of proposing any amendments they considered desirable-not with regard to the local option question, but the details of the Bill-and they particularly hoped that the Government would carry out their promise to make the clause relating to the closing of bars on Sunday effective. This being done, they would offer no objection to the Bill going through committee, but they reserved the right to make any proposal they thought.

Licensing (Public-houses) [NOVEMBER 10.J Act Amendment Bill. 2035

proper on the report or the third reading. Asfaras the committee stage was concerned, they would assist the Government to pass the Bill through as rapidly as possible, pro­vided they kept their promise faithfully.

Mr. CARTER observed that, following the example of the honorable member for Geelong (Mr. Munro) he wished to express his thanks to those honorable members who remained in the House so long during the Tuesday night, and also to those who came early in the morning in response to tele­grams. He desired to say that in the stand he took he was fighting for a great deal more than the question involved in the amendment of the honorable member for Castlemaine (Mr. Gordon); he was fighting for the honour of the Government. The Government had introduced a measure, and he, as a supporter, was bound to assist them in carrying it through. The Government succeeded in defeating him on two or three clauses, but, on the fundamental principle, he was successful in assisting the Govern­ment to carry out what they desired. The honorable member for Geelong was misin­formed in stating that the Government as­sisted him. The Government preserved an attitude of armed neutrality; they certainly did not assist his (Mr. Carter's) side. On the only portion of the Bill he cared about­the provision to prevent the barbarous de­struction of property in connexion with par­titions-the Government voted against him. If they had voted the other way the pro­vision would have been carried, as an enor­mous majority of the committee were in favour of it. From his and his friends' point of view, if the Government would now be good enough to withdraw the Bill they would be exceedingly obliged to them. There was not a single clause in it that was worth twopence, and if it was gone on with he reserved to himself the utmost freedom to do as he liked with regard to it.

Mr. DEAKIN said that theleadingmem­bers on both sides of the question having thanked their supporters, it remained for the Government to thank themselves for having persevered with the measure as they did through a long and tedious sitting. (Mr. Munro--" I wish you had gone away.") One comment remained to be made, and that was that,although the principle involved was an important one on which many honorable members felt strongly, the whole night passed without a single expression-with the ex­ception, perhaps, of two or three sentences -being used which was calculated to awaken animosity. (Mr. Baker-" What about the

abuse of the temperance party?") The temperance party could stand all the abuse they received. As both sides had now agreed to consider the Bill and the proposals which it contained of a machinery' character to improve the working ot the existing Act, he hoped they would be able to make rapid progress with the measure. If honorable members would consider the really valuable nature of those clanses, which had been some­what lost sight of in the discussion of other questions, they would see why the Govern­ment felt bound to save them rather than let the whole Bill be lost. It was not often that a speech changed votes in the Assem­bly, as the honorable member for Geelong (Mr. Munro) said his (Mr. Deakin's) speech did. (Mr. Munro-" One member made that the excuse.") All he could say was that the speech referred to was not intended in the least to change votes.

Mr. DUFFY regretted to say that he was generally absent when there was any fun on, and he knew nothing about the all­night sitting of Tuesday until he received a. telegram early next morning begging him to come in and save the country. When he arrived, however, a little after ten o'clock, he found that the country had saved itself without him. He had read the debate with great care in the newspapers, but he con­fessed that he had been unable to discover what honorable members sat up all night about. As far as he could gather, the night was spent by the Government in "stone. walling," or trying to get rid of their own Bill.

The sub-section was struck out. Discussion took place on the 18th sub­

section of the same clause, which was as follows :-

"In section 107, for the words' hours in' the words 'da)'s or hours during' shall, be substi­tuted, and before the word' hours' in both places where it subsequently occurs the words' days or' shall be inserted."

Mr. WRIXON said it had been pointed . out to him that there was what might be

considered a slight ambiguity in the sub­section, and, in order to remove any doubt, he begged to move the omission of the words "days or," with the view of substi­tuting the words" Sunday and the."

Mr. CARTER asked whether this was the sub-section relating to bar-locking on Sunday?

Mr. DEAKIN replied in the affirma­tive.

Mr. STAUGHTON suggested that the Attorney-General should explain bow the

2036 Lz'censing (Publz'c-ho'llSes) [ASSEMBLY.] Act .Amendment Bz'll.

section of the principal Act would read if altered as the Government now proposed.

Mr. WRIXON said that section 107 of the principal Act provided that-

"The bar on the premises of every licensed victualler shall, during the hours ill which the sale or disposal of liquor to the public is pro­hibited. have every door by which admission is gained thereto, whether from outside or inside the premises, shut and locked; and if any such door be found open, or if any person other than the licensee, his agent, and servant be found therein during any such hours as aforesaid, it 'shall be taken to be prima facie evidence of a sale of liquor during such hours," The Bill proposed to omit the words" hours in" (line 2), and to substitute the words "days or hours during"; but the amend­ment he now submitted would make the clause provide that" the bar on the premises of every licensed victualler shall, during Sunday and the hours during which the sale or disposal of liquor to the public is prohibited," have every door by which ad­mission was gained thereto locked. This would make the provision thoroughly clear.

Mr. L. L. SMITH said he understood that there was a loophole through which the publican could escape, and that the reason of the alteration now proposed was to make the provision more understandable.

Mr. DEAKIN remarked-that the amend­ment of the Attorney-General did not alter the meaning of the sub-section in the least, hut was only intended to make it more clear. n the honorable member for Mornington 'wished to challenge the whole policy of alter~ ing the law with regard to bar-locking on Sunday, the proper course for him would be to wait until the amendment was made, and then address himself to the sub-section as a 'whole. The honorable member, if he desired to leave the law as it was, could then move that the sub-section be struck out.

Mr. L. L. SMITH said he was afraid that, if he allowed the words" days 01'" to be omitted, it would be too late to go back.

Mr. OARTER moved that the Ohairman leave the chair. If the words "days or" were omitted the result would be to leave the present law nonsense, unless some other words were substituted, and thus the whole question arose on the present amendment. There was a great deal of misapprehension with regard to the 107th section of the prin­cipal Act. Any intelligent person who read the section could see that the intention of the Legislature in passing it was most

'simple; it was merely to prevent the public from obtaining refreshment inside a public­house bar on Sunday. The reason that the door was to be locked was to preven t the

public from getting into the bar; and the proof that it was not intended that the bar should never be unlocked during the Sunday, or that authorized persons were not to be served outside the bar from its inside, was found in the following words:-

"If any person, other than the licensee, his agent or servant be found therein during any such bours as aforesaid it shall lJe taken to be prima facie evidence of a sale of liquor during such hours." This implied that the licensee and his agent or servant were a.llowed to be in the bar, and how were they to get in if the door was always to be kept locked? VVere they to be locked in on Saturday night and remain

, prisoners until Monday morning, so as to be able to serve travellers and lodgers? The section provided that the bar was to be kept locked" during the hours in which the sale or disposal of liquor to the public is pro­hibited "-that was to say, between half-past eleven o'clock at night, and six o'clock in the morning. These were the hours durfng which any sale was an illegal sale-in fact, a sly-grog sale, because the pUblican was not licensed to sell during these hours. Sunday was not "prohibited" because the pUblican was permitted to sell on Sunday, between six o'clock in the morning and half­past eleven o'clock at night, to travellers and lodgers. In order to be able to sell, however, the publican must be able to get into the bar, and therefore it was not the intention of the Legislature, in passing the section, that the bar should never be opened on Sunday, but only that the public should be kept out of it. The proposal of the Go­vernment was that Sunday, not being a "prohibited" time, should be made a " pro­hibited" time, so that if a licensee wanted to serve travellers or lodgers on Sunday, he must enter the bar on Saturday night, and lock himself in. This was very ridicu­lous. He (Mr. Oarter) believed that, if a local option vote were taken on the question of Sunday trading, there would. be an enor­mous majority in favour of it. He did not intend to offer any factious opposition to the proposal of the Government, bnt he wanted to point out its absurdity.

Mr. ZOX expressed the opinion that if an amendment of the Licensing Act was to be passed at all, it should be passed in such a form as to be understandable. Whatever the effect of the sub-section might be, he be­lieved that honorable members on all sides of the House were now desirous to assist the Government in making the Bill as perfect as possible. vVhen they remembered the grave erro'rs which were contained in the

Licensing (Public-houses) [N OVEMBER 10.J Act Amendment Bill. 2037

principal Act, surely they ought to endea­vour to amend it in such a way that the courts could administer it without falling into mistakes. He would be glad to hear from the Attorney-General some explana­tion as to how the difficulty which had been pointed out by the honorable member for West Melbourne (Mr. Oarter) was to be avoided. Permission was given to an hotel­keeper to sell liquor on Sunday to lodgers and travellers, ano. yet at the same time it was provided that the bar must be kept strictly locked on that o.ay. Would the Attorney-General be good enough to explain how these two provisions could be reconciled? . Mr. OOPPIN thought the Government gave the committee to understand that it was not their intention to alter any of the principles of the original Act-that they only wanted to pass what they called the machinery clauses. Now, he begged leave to remind the honorable gentleman in charge of the Bill that by altering the 107th sec­tion of the Act in the manner proposed, one of the principles of the Act would be altered. It was one of the principles of the Ad that travellers and lodgers should have the right to obtain refreshment on Sunday, but if the alteration now proposed was agreed to that would be impossible, because the bar would have to be kept locked. If the Go­vernment desired to amend the machinery sections of the Act so as to make them work­able, he would be very glad to give them all the'assistance in his power to do so, but if they wanted to alter the principle of the Act so as to debar travellers and lodgers from obtaining refreshment on Sunday, he would .certainly do everything he could to prevent that.

Mr. JONES said the business would be very considerably advanced if honorable members would only take into account that, 'by making the proposed amendment in the sub-section they would be making no altera­tion in the law. Until the clause itself came to be dealt with, the alteration in the sub­section would not alter the law. A great deal of time would be saved if honorable members would allow the amendment to be made, and reserve discussion until the sub­,section, as a whole, was under consideration. It was far better that they should get on 'with business than see the matter "stone­walled " by an argument such as was now :goingon.

Mr. L. L. SMITH st.ated tllat he did not want to " stone-wall " at all. He could not :help seeing, however, that if the words which were proposed to be omitted were allowed to

be struck out, the whole point for which several honorable members were contending would be lost. He understood that the Su­preme Oourt had decided that the bar-lock­ing provision did not apply to Sunday, but only to the hours between half-past eleven o'clock at night and six o'clock in the morn­ing. He(Mr. Smith) was opposed to Sunday closing, but if the amendment was agreed to it would affirm the pl'inciplethat the bar must be kept locked on Sunday as well as within the prohibited hours. This was the proper time, therefore, for those who wished to oppose that proposal to do so ..

Mr. O. YOUNG considered that it was incumbent on the Attorney-General to state honestly how he intended, if he did intend, that travellers and lodgers were to be served with refreshment on Sunday if this sub-sec­tion was passed. It was to be presumed that the object of providing'that the bar must be kept locked was that no liquor should be taken out of it, but if that were the case how did the Attorney-General propose to enable the honest publican, who was anxious to carry out the law, to serve travellers and lodgers on Sunday? The Attorney-General, on the second reading, said something about a trap-door, but he (Mr. Young) assumed that that was merely intended as a joke.

Mr. MUNRO stated that, under the Act as it stood, it was expressly pro­vided that it was not compulsory upon the publican to sell to lodgers or travellers on Sunday. The intention of the law was, in fact, to strictly prohibit the sale of intoxi­cating liquors on that day, with a permissive exception in favour of lodgers and travellers • On other days, if a person demanded liquor of a publican during the hours he was allowed to keep open, he must serve him, but on Sunday there was no compulsion. The publican might serve a lodger or a traveller who had come a distance of ten miles or not, just as he pleased. Under these circum­stances he would al wa.ys know on Saturday how much liquor he would require to have in hand on Sunday. He would know the number of his lodgers, and how many travellers he might expect, a.nd be able to make arrangements accordingly, by taking from his bar the necessary supplies. \Vhat the temperance party wanted was simply that the law as laid down in the Act should be made effective.

Mr. BURROWES asked the honorable member for Kyneton to consider whether there would be anything to prevent a land­lord from setting up a side-board on Sun­day from:which he could supply his friends

2038 Licensing (P~tblic-luYltses) [ASSEMBLY.] Act Amendment Bill.

or his lodgers, or travellers. Was not lay­ing such stress on a publican being able to get at his bar on Sunday rather a farce?

Mr. DUFFY expressed the fear thllt the remedy suggested by the honorable member for Sandhurst (Mr. Burrowes) would be worse than the diseasE'. What would such a plan mean, save that, instead of one bar open in an hotel on Sunday, there might be a dozen? If a policeman on duty entered a public-house on Sunday, and found a number of gentlemen sitting round a num­ber of bottles and glasses, the landlord would say to him-" Oh! this is not my bar, but merely my little supply for lodgers and travellers." 'Vhat would follow? That, practically, the landlord would be able to open a bar in every room of his house. As for the argument of the honorable memher for Geelong (Mr. Munro) he (Mr. Duffy) was unable to follow it. The honorable member said it was the intention of the Licensing Act that no liquor at all should be sold on Sunday, but that was not the fact. What the Legislature had declared was that no intoxicating liquor should be sold on Sun­day except to travellers and lodgers. There­fore, it would be the height of absurdity to provide in one portion or the law that such persons might be supplied with liquor on Sundays, and in another that they must not be served from the bar. The Attorney­General had, with the facetiousness familiar to him, suggested that they should be served from the bar through a trap.door, but such an arrangement would be a trap indeed, because a door was always a door, and if all doors leading to the bar must be closed on Sunday, all trap-doors leading to it must also be closed. It was a pity to waste so much time over this question. If the At­torney-General could point out any feasible means under the sub-section whereby lodgers and travellers could be served wit.hout re­course to the bar he (Mr. Duffy) would vote for it, but otherwise, the law, he thought, should not be altered. A publican was obliged to serve lodgers and travellers on Sunday. (Mr. Munro-" No; he is merely permitted to serve them.") In point of fact he was compelled in the matlier, for no publican could afford to lose his customers. He kept his hotel open not for pleasure but for business. Certainly it would not be wise to adopt the sub-section on the strength of any new-fangled theory to the effect that a trap-door opening into a bar would not be regarded by the law as a door. That would only mean a trap for publicans.

Mr. WRIXON observed that the real question before the committee was whether or not they intended to put down Sunday trading in hotels. The object of the law was undoubtedly to put down such trading; hence the phraseology of section 107 of the Licensing Act. But the Supreme Court had decided that Sunday did not technically come within" the hours in which the sale or disposal of liquor to the public is prohibited," and consequently it had become necessary to amend the section so as to carry out what the Legislature wanted to carry out. It was with that view that the sub-section before the committee was framed. Several honorable members had asked how the sub .. section would work. Well, he could assure

, them that there were, at present, not a few respectable publicans who regularly kept their bars closed on Sunday. Some might manage one way and some another, but they all succeeded; a nd their success showed that it was perfectly possible for other publicans to follow their example. Of course, diffi­culties in the way of the practice might be raised by the bushel by those who wanted to raise them; but that the system could be carried out was beyond a doubt. Neither under the Act nor \lnder the Bill would a publican, or his agent, or his servant be pro­hibited from going into his bar on Sunday for the purpose of obtaining supplies for his lodgers or for travellers. It was plain, therefore, that, while the sub-section would meet the technical view taken by the Su .. preme Court, 'it would also not be productive of any real inconvenience.

Mr. BAILES stated that, if the sub­section, which would render it practically impossible for a publican to serve his Sunday customers, was not a direct interference with one of the main principles of the Act of 1885, and therefore the reverse of a mere machinery provision, he did not know what it was. If the principles of the Act were, after all the Government had said, to be utterly upset and altered, would it not be bet­terfor Ministers to avow thefactin a straight .. forward way? Supposing a publican took his Sunday supplies out of his bar on Saturday night, and placed them where he could get at them, what would be the view of the arrangement taken by the police l' They would simply act on the theory that the stuff was put where it was in order to· facilitate illegal sales. Probably the Attor­ney-General was correct when he asserted that, in a number of Melbourne hotels, the bar was strictly closed on Sunday; but it, w~uld invariably be found, in such instances"

Licensing (Public-houses) [NOVE~[BER 10.J Act Amendment Bill. 2039,

that more drinking was carried on in up­stairs rooms than formerly. Perhaps, how­ever, it would meet the case if it was provided under the Bill that, where a bar door was open on Sunday merely for the purpose of enabling the landlord to get refreshment for lodgers or travellers, he would not be liable to a penalty.

Mr. LANGRIDGE asked whether hon­orable members were or were not afraid to speak out on the present question? To a certain extent he was prepared to go with the Government, but what, if the sub-section was carried in its present shape, would be the result? It was true that many publicans closed altogether on Sunday, but why? Be­cause they had no Sunday trade. On the other hand, there were many hotels which did a larger trade on Sunday than on any other day. Take the hotels at Brighton Beach, "Villiamstown, and elsewhere, for instance. How could the customers there -travellers from Melbourne, and out for the afternoon-be served without recourse to the bar? He believed that the sub-section would not meet the case that had to be met, and he objected to legislation which was only a farce. How could a publican at Brighton Beach deny refreshment to travellers? (Mr. Munro-" They are not legally entitled to be supplied.") Really the extremes to which the temperance party insisted on pushing their views frequently made it impossible for their friends to take a single step to their assistance.

Mr. L. L. SMITH stated that the last speaker had anticipated some of the remarks he (Mr. Smith) was about to make. Many of the seaside hotels were supported almost wholly by their Sunday customerR. People who had travelled ten miles often needed refreshment. Possibly the difficulty that now presented itself would be met if the provision in section 107 of the Act of 1885, to the effect t.hat every door by which ad­mission was gained to the bar "whether from outside or inside the premises," must be shut and locked on Sunday, was amended by the omission of the words "or inside." Then a publican would be able to supply his lodgers. (Mr. W rixon-" Such an amend­ment would alter the whole meaning of the section.") Still, some alteration was neces­sary. Supposing a publican took a lot of bottles froul his bar on Saturday night, and put them in a particu1ar p1ace for the con­venience of his Sunday customers, would not that place be construed to be to all in­tents and purposes a second bar? There could be no doubt that a pUblican must go

to his bar on Sunday' in order to supply his lodgers, but how could he do so if he was not allowed to open the bar door? (Mr. W rixon-" Leaving the bar door open is what section 107 prohibits.") But if the door was only open for a moment an in-· former could claim that the law had been. broken. If the Legislature insisted upon adopting a provision which was clearly against the feeling of the community, there­could be no question that it would he evaded •. In London, the public-houses were open for a certain number of hours on Sunday, and the arrangement, being thoroughly under­stood, gave universal satisfaction. Why not try such a common-sense plan in Mel­bourne?

Mr. 'NIMMO thought that, inasmuch as a distinct understanding had been entered into to the effect that no new principle should be introduced into the Bill, it ought to be strictly adhered to. Were he to follow his own views he would propose something very different from the sub-section before the­committee, but, as an honest man, he felt compelled to abide by the arrangement that had been made on both sides. (Mr. L. L. Smith-" 'Vhat I suggest involves no new principle.") He differed from the honorable member. As a matter of fact the proposi .. tion of the Attorney-General was simply one to cure a technical defect which a recent Supreme Oourt decision had brought to light, and as such it ought to be rega.rded.

Mr. SHIELS said he had risen for the purpose of assisting the Government in curing the phraseology of section 107 of the Act of 1885. vVhat was the object of that section? Certainly not to prevent licensed victuallers from having the means of sup­plying their lodgers and bonafide travellers on Sunday. Taking that yiew, honorable members would hardly agree with the argu­ments of the honorable member for Geelong (Mr. Munro). The point was that a li­censed victualler having the right to be in his own bar on Sunday, say to take a hottle or so from it for the use of a lodger or a traveller, it followed, as a mere matter of common sense, that he should also have the right of going into it or coming out of it. To make the whole thing perfectly clear he (Mr. Shiels) would suggest the addition to the sub-section of the following proviso:-

" Provided that it shall be lawful for the licen­see, his agent, or servant, to have means of in­gress and egress to ana from his bar on Sunday for the purpose of supplying lodgers and bonti fide travellers." . The words "found open" in section 107 had never yet been interpreted clearly, so

2040 Licensing (P~tblic-house8) [ASSEMBLY.] Act Amendment Bill.

that an informer who had witnessed the instantaneous act of opening the door of a bar on Sunday to allow of the licensee of the house passing into it or out of it might be held to have found it open. Taking a general view of the matter, almost anything 'would be better than, on the one hand, compelling a licensed victualler to keep his bar close shut on Sunday, and, on the other, allowing him to have what would be practically a second bar rigged up on that day. Really, hearing the honorable member for Geelong contend that a publican could always exactly estimate on Saturday the quantity of liquor he would require for his customers on Sunday would almost make one imagine another Galatea on the floor of the House. Such charming simplicity was almost U11precedented.· How could any pub­lican in the habit of serving travellers on Sunday determine beforehand how many he \Vould have to serve on any particular Sun­.day ? How, for exam pIe, could he foretell the weather? And a few more or a few less than he expected would disconcert all his preparations. Estimating the quantity of liquor that might be consumed on Sunday in any hotel much frequented by travellers was a very different thing from estimating the quantity of tea that would be consumed by the honorable member himself Sunday after Sun­day. He would ask the Government and honorable members generally to look at the question from a straiglltforward and common­sense point of view. It was necessary that the proviso which he had suggested, or some such words, should be added to the sub-section in order to give the publican the right to go into the bar on Sunday, by the ordinary means of communication, to supply liquor to those whom he was legally entitled to serve on that day.

Mr. RUSSELL said he did not und~r­stand why so many honorable members were anxious not to have the word "Sunday" put in the sub-section. What objection -could there be to its insertion if publicans were legally entitled to serve liquor to lodgers and travellers on Sunday in any room ex­cept the bar? The intention of the l07th section of the existing Act was to prevent .drinking in bars and about bars on Sunday. It had worked admirably in the interests of the public until the Supreme Court decided that it did not apply to Sunday. The 1icensed victuallers would not have had the .question tested before the Supreme Court if they had not found that the section was working prejudicallyto them and beneficially to the public. If the restriction contained

in the 107th section of the Act was ex­tended so that it would apply to Sunday, it would do everything that was required. The other night the temperance party had a great struggle for local option, and they

. would have succeeded at any time up to six o'clock in the morning, but ultimately they were defeated. Seeing that the other side had scored a victory on that question, the present point might very well be conceded. The sub-section now under consideration, with the amendment proposed by the At­torney-General, was the only provision left in the Bill which would give the teetotal party, and those who believe~ in the Sab­bath, anything like satisfaction. It was necessary in order to render the I07th sec­tion of the Act intelligible, and make it work fairly. Even with this provision it would be almost impossible to prevent Sun­day trading. Men might go into a public­house by the dozen on Sunday, and sit there with drink before them, but unless they were seen actually drinking a conviction could not be got against the licensee. (Mr. Gaunson-" Rubbish.") It was not rub­bish. A case of the kind had occurred at Ballarat. Six men were drinking for two hours in a public-house one Sunday, the police saw the men there, and saw the pub­lican take drink into the room where they were sitting; and yet, when the publican was prosecuted, the court dismissed the case.

Mr. GAUNSON remarked that it was astonishing what deplorable ignorance pre­vailed with respect to the] 07th section of the Licensing Act and what was termed Sunday trading. The most lamentable in­stance was that afforded bv the honorable member for Sandhllrst (Mr. uBurrowes), who said that a lodger in a public-house could invite his friends to come and see bim on Sunday and give them a glass of wine. (Mr. Burrowes-" I did not say that.") When the honorable member read the re­port of his speech, he would find that he did say so. The fact was that a licensed vic­tualler was liable to a penalty for permitting liquor to be drunk on his premises on Sun­day by persons other than bona fide lodgers or travellers. He had a most lively recollec­tion of several decisions of the Metropolitan Licensing Court to that effect. One case he specially remembered in which a lodger at a public-house invited some friends to drink with him on Sunday, and the result was that the licensee of the house was sum­moned and convicted, not for selling liquor on Sunday, but for permitting liquor to be drunk on his premises by persons otheJ;

Licensing (Public-houses) [NOVEMBER 10.] Act Amendment Bill. 204~

than lodgers or bonafide travellers. It was also want of knowledge which led the hon­orable member for Creswick (Mr. 'Wheeler) to advocate, when the Bill of 1885 was under consideration, that public-houses should be required to be closed at half-past eleven o'clock at night instead of at mid­night. The honorable member said that until half-past eleven o'clock at night was quit.e late enough to compel publicans in country districts to keep open their houses, but there was no law compelling a publican to keep open his house to any particular hour. Gunsler's Cafe, Wolstenholme's Cafe, and Burton's Hotel were closed every night at eight o'clock. If a licensed vic­tualler kept his house closed for a longer period than 28 days he might have his licence forfeited, but he was not bound to keep his house open up to any particular hour on any night of the week. Another illustration of lamentable ignorance was af­ford en by the honorable member for Geelong (Mr. Munro), who had also suggested that licensed victuallers should break the law. A more audacious and more ignorant pro­posal was never made. The honorable member said that it was not compulsory on publicans to supply lodgers or bona fide travellers on Sunday; but there were such persons as boarders whom pub­licans were compelled to supply with liquor on Sunday. A little learning was a dan­gerous thing. (Mr. Munro-" "Yhat is the difference bet,,:,een a lodger and a boarder ?") There was a very great difference. A boarder at a public-house was a person who per­manently lodged there; a lodger was a person who obtained a mere lodgment for a night or for an hour or two. The Minister of Public "Yorks said that the law was passed to prohibit Sunday trading. That was not the exact truth; it was only part of it. The law was passed to prohibit the supply of liquor on Sunday in public-houses to all persons except lodgers, travellers, and boarders. If it was permissible to su pply those persons on Sunday, why should the hotel-keeper or his servant be excluded from serving them in the bar, and going into the bar for the purpose of serving them? Were not honorable members to all intents and purposes a set of whited sepulchres? There was no use in concealing the fact that they were a thoroughly dishonest crew in regard to what was called Sunday trading.

The CHAIRMAN .-Order ! Mr. GAUNSON regretted to say that

this was his honest conviction, and he in­cluded himself when he said that honorable

members were all open to the charge of being a dishonest political crew in regard to what was called Sunday trading. If they wanted· to be honest in the matter, why not say that no person, called by any name under heaven, should be permitted to drink in a public-house on Sunday? (Mr. Munro­"If you propose that we will tote with you.")· Why were the teetotallers so crooked?' (Mr. Nimmo-" That is what we would propose if we had the power to carry it.") Then why not make the proposal and be straight? That would show, at any rate,. who were the whited sepulchres. Although the law said that there should not be more than one bar, except by permission of the Licensing Court, conscientious and extreme teetotallers, like the honorable member for' Geelong, were found advocating in the most brazen and shameless manner that a licensed victualler should have grog in a side room and supply it to all who were by law entitled to be supplied with it. As the law allowed travellers, boarders, and lodgers to be sup­plied with liquor on Sunday, upon what principle of reason could honorable members refuse to permit the bar to be opened on Sunday, so that they might be served in the' bar? If honorable mem bel'S were in earnest in professing to stop what was called Sun­day trading, why not D1ake it penal for any one to apply for drink on Sunday in a public-house? Why not enact that whoever asked for a drink in a public-house on a Sunday should be sent to gaol without the option of a fine? A law of that kind \'Vould,. at all events, be intelligible. But, for his part, he never could understand the craze against what was ca.lled Sunday trading. Why should he be shut out of a public-house· -the house of the public-on Sunday r The churches were only open during certain hours on Sunday, so that a man could not go to church on Sunday at any time he liked, nor could he visit the Public Library,. or the art gallery, or museums at all on Sunday. Even the public gardens were closed until one o'clock in the afternoon on Sunday, and they were shut up again in the evening. (Mr. Officer-" The Zoological Gardens are open on Sunday.") Butif a man took his youngsters to the Zoological Ganlens on Sunday he could not give them a ride on "Jumbo," for "Jumbo" was shut up on Sunday. That reminded him or the story about the old maiden lady in Scotland, who invariably shut up her rooster on Sunday. The legislation in regard to Sunday trading was simply a case of. making the inside of the platter clean. He would recommend

2042 Licensing (P'ltblic-houses) [ASSEMBLY.] Act Amendment Bill.

honorable members to ask themselves whe­ther they had ever stopped Sunday trading, or ever would stop it? What had been done under the present law? There were to be three convictions for Sunday trading, and then the publican was to be ruined; but 'had there been one case of a publican being ruined by the operation of the law? How many thousands were there who had not yet been hauled up for the first time; and what were they doing? Simply making liars of Members of Parliament. He could not give the teetotallers a character for con­sistency. He believed that they sought to go in a certain direction, but they were very much like Mr. Service, who brought in a Bill to abolish drinking, though he ran a whisky still himself. They rowed in the same boat. In fact, they, as well as other members, were whited sepulchres.

Mr. STAUGHTON said that the inten­tion of the Sunday closing section of the Licensing Act was to prevent the ordinary public from obtaining drink at an hotel on Sunday, but to allow lodgers and travellers to be served. The Government were not dealing fairly with honorable members by the proposal now before the committee. If it was their desire simply to amend the phraseology of the existing Act so that there should be no liquor sold on Sunday except to lodgers and travellers, why did they not accept the proviso suggested by the honor­-able member for Norman by ? If that pro­viso was added to the sub-section, t.he 107th section of the existing Act would be made perfectly clear and intelligible, while, at the same time, the intentions of the Legislature as to Sunday trading would be carried out. If the proviso was not adopted, and publican:: had to resort to the subterfuge of having what would be practically a second bar in which to serve lodgers and travellers on Sunday, they would be inclined to set their wits to work to evade the Act by supplying other persons on Sunday. No doubt they were under great temptations to do so at present, for those publicans who refused to supply their week-day customers with drink -ran the risk of losing their custom altogether. A person who tempted a publican to break the law should be liable to punishment as well as the man who actually broke the law. He hoped that the Attorney-General would consider the desirableness of accepting the proviso suggested by the honorable mem ber for Normanby.

Mr. GRA '\rES observed that the inten­tion of the Legislature, when it passed the

. Act of 1885, was to stop Sunday traffic in

intoxicating liquors and to prevent the bars of public-houses from being open on that day, but the Supreme Court had decided that the 107th section did not give effect to what it was intended to accomplish. Legislation to put a stop to Sunday trading was not peculiar to this colony. An Act had been passed by the Imperial Parliament to prohibit the sale of intoxicating drinks on Sunday in Ireland. A coach and four horses could not be driven through that measure. (Mr. Munro-" Victorian draftsmen did not frame it.") The present Victorian drafts­men disgraced the Parliament and the colony by their work. The drafting of Bills was splendidly done for years by a gentleman who now sat at the table. His Bills were copied in the other colonies, but now measures were framed in a very loose manner. If the 107th section of the Licensing Act of 1885 had been properly drafted, there would have been no necessity to amend it now. The intention of that section was that the bars of public-houses should be closed on Sunday. (Mr. L. L. Smith-" No.") That was his opinion, at all events. No doubt the Legislature intended to stop the

. sale of liquor on Sunday. (Mr. C. Young -" To the general public.") Hotel-keepers were to be at liberty to supply lodgers and travellers on Sunday if they chose, but ~hat did not in any way affect the general prin­ciple that Sunday trading was to be pro­hibited. It was understood that Sunday was within the prohibited hours, but the Supreme Court had decided that the prohi­bited hours did not include Sunday~ All that the Attorney-General now asked the committee to do was to amend that section, so as to give effect to the intention of the Legislature. That was the object of the ] 8th snb-section of clause 46, and, to make the matter perfectly clear, the Attorney­General proposed to amend it by introducing the word "Sunday." He (Mr. Graves) would certainly support the Government in their endeavour to give effect to the original intention of the Legislature.

Mr. BAKER stated that he agreed with the honorabJe member for Delatite that Parliament, when it passed the Act of 1885, meant to stop Sunday trading, and that the intention of the 107th section was that the bars of public-houses should not be open on Sundays. The provision now before the committee was to carry out the intentions of the Legislature in that respect. If the Ministry were going to give way on the point let them say so, and then honorable members opposite might cease to "stone-wall." (Mr •

Licensing (Public-houses) [NOVEMBER 10.J Act Amendment Bill. 2043

L. L. Smith-" Weare not' stone-walling'; it is you who are.") He was prepared to go to a vote on the question at once. Noone knew better than the honorable member for Emerald Hill (Mr. Gaunson) that the inter­pretation now proposed to be given to the 107th section of the existing Act was simply what Parliament intended that section to mean at the time that it was passed.

Mr. C. YOUNG considered that the At­torney-General had not treated the com­mittee fairly. 'Vhen he, in all simplicity, asked the Attorney-General how a publican could comply with the law and yet supply lodgers with liquor on Sunday, the honor­able gentleman made the extraordinary state­ment that section 107 of the Act allowed a publican to supply liquor to lodgers and travellers out of the bar. But if that was the law, what was the good of the committee debating the question of locking up the bar? If the Attorney-General could assure the committee that a publican could not be convicted of breaking the law if he or his barman or agent was found in the bar on Sunday supplying liquor to boarders and travellers, the information would be satis­factory to many honorable members. More­over, the necessity for handing out liquor through a trap-door-or, as the honorable member for Geelong (Mr. Munro) had sug­gested, of stowing it somewhere away from the bar on Saturday night-would be done away with. But how, under these circum­stances, could Sunday trading be pre­vented?

Mr. COPPIN observed that, if the At­torney-General had answered the question of the honorable member for Kyneton when it was put, two hours' discussion would have been saved. (Mr. Wrixon-" I did answer it.") Not in a clear and distinct manner. A number of honorable members, who were thoroughly acquainted with the Licensing Act, did not understand section 107 to bear the interpretation put upon it by the honorable member for Kyneton; and it was important that the meaning of the sec­tion should be made clear. The amendment suggested by the honorable member for Nor­manby would make it as clea'r as possible. If it was not the desire or honorable members to deprive lodgers and travellers of liquor on Sunday, w hy should not the matter be set forth in distinct terms, so that there should be no quibble? It should be recollected that the same law which could be observed in Mel­bourne could not be carried out in localities 20 or 30 miles from Melbourne. For example, take sucu places as Sorrento, Queenscliff,

Dromana, and Portsea. He was sure there was not an honorable member who did not enjoy a trip down the BaYi but, while hon­orable members could go down the Bay any day they thought proper, a very large por­tion of the community could get away only on Sunday. Of the 1,000 or 1,500 persons who might travel to Queenscliff and Sorrento on Sunday, some 300 or 400 would make their way to hotels to get dinner and drinks. But how was a landlord, at either of those places, to comply with the law, if the inten­tion of section 107 of the Act was as some honorable members had represented? There­fore, it was important that the law should be made clear in the interests of people who were cooped up in town on week days, and could get a little fresh air only on Sunday, and who ought to be able to go straightfor. wardly into an hotel, and obtain what they wanted. It had been stated that there was nothing in the law to prevent the publican now supplying travellers and lodgers with drink on Sunday, and what was wanted was that that should be made clear. Any inter­ference with that arrangement would be a viob,tion of the understanding on which the Bill was introduced, namely, that no attempt would be made to alter any of the principles of the existing Act.

Mr. "VRIXON remarked that the hon­orable member for East Melbourne (Mr. Coppin) appeared to be exceedingly indig­nant that he (Mr. Wrixon) did not address the committee more frequently, but anyone who had had the pleasure of sitting, as he had only two days ago, seventeen honrs at a stretch, would sympathize with his wish to keep silent and to allow business to progress. 'Vhen he did address the committee before, he stated what he believed to be the true position of the question, namely, that under section 107 of the Act, no difficulty had been found in closing absolutely on Sunday and during the other prohibited hours. To supply travellers and lodgers,some publicans acted in one way, and some ill another way. Some might take liquor out of the bar alto­gether, and some might have a trap-door or window through which the liqnor might be removed. But section 107 clearly contem­plated that the landlord or his servant or agent might be inside the bar during pro­hibited hours. The law was against the bar being found open. (Mr. Gaunson-" If it be found open, it is prima facie evidence of sale.") The bar door must be shut and locked. Any person other than the licensee, his servant or agent, being inside was p1'l'mO­facie evidence of sale.

2044 Licensing (Public-ho~eses) [ASSEMBLY.] Act Amendment Bill.

Mr. GAUNSON stated that the amend­ment suggested by the honorable member for Normanby would not alter the l:1w; it would . only make section 107 plainer. Why, then", should it not be adopted ?

Mr. WRIXON said, in his opinion, sec­tion 107, though not drafted as he would have drafted it, served the purpose for which it was framed; and therefore he objected to any amendment under which it would be possible for a looseness to arise in dealing with bars on Sunday. The use of the words "'ingress and egress," though it might not change the law, might beget a looseness in dealing with the matter.

Mr. SHIELS observed that, under section 107, the publican was punishable for the mere unlocking and opening of the bar door on Sunday, and yet the section evidently contemplated that he would be inside the bar. Therefore it was important that words should be added empowering the publican to go in and out of the bar.

Mr. CARTER stated that the necessity for some such amendment as the honorable member for Normanby had suggested was not at all imaginary. At N ewstead, one night after half-past eleven o'clock at night, a constable called the attention of a publican to the fact that there was a light in his bar. The publican opened the bar door to put out the light, and then the constable charged him with having the bar unlocked. (Mr. l\funro-" That was not on Sunday.") It was during prohibited hours. The case was brought before the court, but was dismissed. However, the publican had to be at the ex­pense of defending it.

Mr. BENT said he would like to know whether the committee meant to have public­houses shut on Sunday. The honorable member for East Melbourne (Mr. Coppin) had advocated the sale of liquor on Sunday at Sorrento. But why should drinking be allowed at Port Phillip Heads and be pro­hibited at places nearer Melbourne, and particularly in view of t.he fact that the poor man might not afford the expense of a trip down the Bay-that he might be unable to go further from Melbourne than Brighton? Then, again, why should a Melbourne man be able to get, on Sunday, at Oheltenham, as much drink as he liked while he could get none at all at Brighton? Both places were in the same electoral district. He was prepared to vote for shutting public-houses clean up on Sunday; yet, as a man of the world, he believed the more prudent course would be to allow the sale of drink on that day during certain specified hours.

Mr. MURPHY stated that he was quite astonished at the time which had been lost over the Bill. No doubt this was an age of science, but it was also an age of crazes • In 1885, when the Licensing Act was passed, what was known as the blue-ribbon craze prevailed; and, under its ina uence, the Government of the day obtained the passage of a licensing law wllich was a disgrace to the statute-book. A respectable English journal, referring to that law, stated that it showed that Australia had not got rid of its convict element or taint. It was all very well for the Attorney-General and the Chief Secretary to try to bring in a Bill to please the teetotallers; but what could tee­totallers know of the way in which public­houses should be regulated? At the same time he did not wish to say a word against teetotallers. The teetotallers of Ballarat East were among his best friends. They were not fanatics like the honorable member for Geelong (Mr. Munro). With regard to the locking of the bar, he knew of a case of a publican at Ballarat being fined because, while talking to a friend outside his house, a. little after half-past eleven o'clock at night, his bar did not happen to be locked. He considered that this was treating respectable men as if they were criminals. He was astonished that the Attorney -General could not see his way to accept the suggestions of the honorable member for East Melbourne (Mr. Ooppin), and he hoped the suggestion of the honorable member for N ormanby would be adopted.

The motion that the Chairman do leave the chair was withdrawn. .

The sub-section was then amended to read as follows :-

.. In section 107, for the words" 'hours in' the words' Sundav and the hours durini' shall be substituted, and before the word' hours' in both places where it subsequently occurs the words 'Sunday or' shall be inserted."

Mr. SHIELS moved the addition to the sub-section of the following words :-

"Provided that it shall be lawful for the licen­see, his agent or servant, to haye ingress and egress to and from the bar on Sunday, for the purpose of servin~ lodgers, boarders, and bona fide travellers only."

The amendment was negatived without a. division.

Mr. BAILES suggested the insertion of words which would allow of a bar door being recognised as " shut and locked " if it was only bolted. The other day a publican at Sand hurst was summoned for having his bar door unlocked. It was not open, but it was bolted.

Licensing (Public-houses) [N OVEMBER 10.] Act Amendment Bill. 2045

Mr. WRIXON said an amendment of the kind indicated could be proposed when the Bill was reported.

On clause 47, providing that certain licences should not be issued in that portion of Victoria known as the Mildura irrigation ·colony,

Mr. CARTER suggested the insertion ·of a provision to allow of a local option vote under which all teetotallers might be trans­ported to Mildura.

Mr. MUNRO called attention to the fact that the clause stated that no licence should be granted in Mildura "other than a grocer's licence, a colonial wine licence, a brewer's licence, or a spirit merchant's licence," and ·said he was anxious to know whe.ther any of these licences could be thrust upon the people of Mildura against their will? (Mr. Wrixon -" Certainly not.") vVhere was there any provision to prevent it?

Mr. WRIXON said the clause provided that" no licence at all authorizing the sale ·of liquor in such part of the colony of Vic­toria shall be granted except with the con­sent of the Governor in CounciL"

Mr. MUNRO remarked that he had no -confidence in the Governor in Council in ·connexion with matters of the kind. He recollected Gardiner being constituted a "special licensing district" under the Act of 1876, merely to enable a particular friend of the Minister of Justice of the day to get a licence.

Mr. "VRIXON stated that the people of Mildura would have all the rights which were enjoyed by the other people of Victoria with the additional safeguard provided by the clause.

The whole of the clauses having been :gone through,

Mr. WRIXON proposed the following new clause:-

"Where before the passing of the Licensinl! Act 1886 any licensed victualler's premises did not contain the accommodation required by the principal Act. and the person or persons entitled under the provisions of section 59 of the princi­pal Act, instead of bringinl! the accommodation of such premises into con formity with the re­quirements of the principal Act to surrender the licence for such premises bonafide, notified the intention of surrendering such licence accord­ingly, and that is established to the satisfaction of the Licensing Court, and application was not made for a renewal of such licence at the sitting of the Licensing Court for hearing such applica­tions next after the passing of the Licensing Act 1886, ana such licence has not since been Tenewed, or a new licence has not been granted for such premises, the owner or occupier of such premises shall be entitled to receive compensa­'tion in the same manner, to the same extent, and to be determined in the same way as if the

SES. 1887.-7 C

licence had been taken away in consequence of a determination of the electors of the licensing district."

He observed that tbe object of the clause was to remedy a technical difficulty which had arisen. Certain persons were anxious to surrender their licences under the princi­pal Act, but, owing to there not being a court ready, their claims for compensation could not be heard in time, and then came the amending Act of last session, suspend­ing further proceedings under the 36th section of the principal Act. The present clause would enable compensation to be granted to those persons who notified their intention of surrendering their licences, and bad not since renewed them.

The clause was agreed to. Mr. WRIXON proposed the following

new clause:-" In any case where the lessee's tenancy in any

railway refreshment room shall have ceased during the currency of any railway refreshment room licence. the new lessee of any such railway refreshment room shall, so long as such licence has to run, be deemed to be the transferree of such licence, and shall have all the rights and privileges conferred by the licence on the licen­see, and be subject to all the obligations, penal­ties, and disqualifications imposed on a licensee of a railway refreshment room by this Act nnd the principal Act from the time he became the lessee of such railway refreshment room."

Mr. MUNRO observed that in the prin­cipal Act there was a provision that, when the leases of the railway refreshment rooms in the neighbourhood of Melbourne ex­pired, there would be no further licences granted in respect of them. Was the object of this new clause to provide for the exten­sion of the term of the lease or licence?

Mr. WRIXON said it was not. The clause was simply intended tu meet a tech­nical dilIiculty in connexion with section 11 of the principal Act. Sometimes the lessee of a railway refreshment room had to he got rid of or dropped out, and when that occnrred the new lessee could not get a licence until the end of the year. This clause would meet the difficulty, by allowing the licence to run with the tenancy.

Mr. MUNRO remarked that if the Rail­way department ousted a lessee, that action cancelled his lease, and if the lease was can­celled the licence ought to cease too, because it was provided in the principal Act that when the lease terminated the licence wonld also cease. If provision was made now for a new lease and a new licence that would be a breach of faith.

Mr. 'VRIXON stated that the provision to which the honorable member alluded only related to Melbourne and railway

2046 Licensing (P~lblic-houses) r ASSEMBLY.] Act Amendment Bill.

stations within a radius of 20 miles of l\Ielbourne. He (Mr. 'Vrixon) was refer­ring to cases outside that limit.

Mr. BENT asked whether the Bill in any respect repealed the section of the principal Act referring to railway refreshment rooms in Melbourne, or within a radius of 20 miles?

Mr. WRIXON replied in the negative. The clause was agreed to. Mr. VALE moved the following new

c]ause:-"Notwithstanding anything contained in t.his

or the principal Act, no new licence shall be' granted, nor any licence be transferred, to any person whatever who is not a natural born or a naturalized subject of Her Majesty," He stated that the principal object of the clause was to prevent Chinese obtaining furtber licences-he understood that no more letters of naturalization were to be granted to them-and he thought the ex­perience of the country generally had been that Celestials as licensees were not a suc­cess. He believed the reports of the police would show that they had much more diffi­culty in controlling public-houses kept by Chinese than those of which the licensees were Europeans. He would like ~n expres­sion of opinion from the committee as to whether it should not be the policy of the colony, as far as possible, to restrict the various rights of citizens to natural born or naturalizeu subjects of the Queen.

Mr. JONES said he could have wished that the clause was a little more distinct in pronouncing against licences being held by Chinamen, but he believed its main pres­sure would rest upon the Celestial, and for that reason he had much pleasure in sup­porting it. He believed that the people would be very glad when Parliament arrived at the conclusion that the Chinese must go.

Mr. GAUNSON expressed the opinion that the clause should go a little further and provide that no licence should be renewed to aliens. (Mr. Carter-" That would be unfair.") He did not believe in any person being allowed to hold property in the colony unless he was a natural born or naturalized subject. Any foreign licensee who did not take .the trouble to get naturalized between this and the next annual licensing meeting he would cut off. The colony was getting too many enterprising foreigners amongst its inhabitants, and the unspeakable China­man was perhaps not the rery worst of them. However, as perhaps it would be better to proceed one step at a time, he would not press his suggestion.

Mr. ZOX observed that he was very glad that the honorable member for Emerald

Hill (Mr. Gaunson) did not press his sug­gestion, because he (Mr. Zox) hoped that Parliament would never make a Jaw so retrospective as to prevent any man who had purchased land or invested capital in any undertaking from reaping the benefit of it. He would suggest to the proposer of the clause that if the great question of the treatment of aliens was to be opened up, it would be better, considering the important principles involved, to deal with the question on its merits by itself instead of inserting a clause of this kind in an amending Licens­ing Bill. There might be a great deal in what the honorable member for Ballarat West (Mr. Vale) had said, but, in justice to persons of other nationalities who had settled in this colony under British protection, a clause of this sort should not be allowed to be rushed through without the consideration it deserved. A clause of. so important a character ought i·o have been printed and circulated instead of being brought forward without notice at the last moment.

Mr. WRIXON said he would point out to the honorable member for East Mel­bourne (Mr. Zox) that the clause only pro­vided that before an alien could hereafter attain the position of a licensed victualler 110 must become naturalized. Considering that there were peculiar duties cast upon the keepers of licensed houses-that the authorities often looked to them to assist in carrying out the law-it did not seem un­reasonable to provide that if a foreigner wished to become a licensed victualler he should become naturalized. Every faci­lity was afforded to foreigners to become naturalized.

Mr. ZOX stated that it was not his in­tention to oppose the clause. All he desired to urge was that important clauses should not be passed unless honorable members had been afforded an ample opportunity of analyzing their provisions.

The clause was agreed to. Mr. W. MADDEN proposed the follow­

ing new clause :-"The word' mountainous' in section 20 of the·

principa.l Act is hereby repealed." He observed that the 20th section of the principal Act was as follows:-

"The Licensing Court for any licensing district. may grant in excess of the statutory number,. and may from time to time renew, on the COll­ditions hereinafter mentioned, road-side victua.l­lers' licences to any persons who are, in the opinion of the court, fit and proper persons, and who keep houses within such licensing district which, in the opinion of the court, contain suffi­cient accommodation for the probable require­ments of the public travelling in that locality;,

Licensing (P~tblic-7wuses) [NOYEMBER 10.J Act Amendment Bill. 2047

such houses shall be situated in mountainous districts not within ten miles of any village or township, and at least ten ~iles c1istan~ from the nearest licensed victualler s house whIch at the time of the issue or renewal of such licence affords accommodation to the public."

There was no reason why mountainous dis­tricts should have the advantage conferred by this section and those districts which were not mountainous be denied it. There was much greater necessity for the section ap­plying to the dry northern districts where there was no accommodation to be obtained for miles, and where there were no natural streams or water-courses at which a traveller and his horse could get a drink. That the section should apply only to the mountainous districts was an anomaly. He knew several cases of great hardship where people had had to drive 40 or 50 miles across the nor­thern plains without being able to obtain any refreshment, and it would be a great boon to the dry northern districts if the word " mountainous" were struck out of' the section.

Mr. MUNHO remarked that the plea upon which the section was inserted in the original Act was that persons who were very much distressed after climbing mountains could not obtain refreshments. If the word " mountainous" were removed from the sec­tion, the reason for the section itself would be, gone and it should be repealed. He hoped the committee would not agree to the clause.

Mr. McINTYHE considered that there was less necessity for way-side public-houses in the mountainous districts that there was for them on the plains. vVater could always be obtained on the mountains, but on the plains a man might travel 40 or 50 miles without seeing a water-hole. (Mr. Munro-" This proposes houses in excess of the statutory number.") The honorable member who sub­mitted the clause only desired that the same privileges should apply to the plains as wa!:! now granted to mountainous districts, and he (Mr. McIntyre) would support the clause.

Mr. BOUROHIER concurred in the opinion that there was much greater neces­sity for way-side houses 011 the northern plains than there was in the mountainous districts. In view of the tact that no public-house under the 20th section could be established within ten miles of any town­ship 01' any other public-house, he thought that ample protection was afforded against the too grent multiplication of such houses.

Mr. WRIXON observed that, without discussing the merits of the proposal, he would point out that if the committee

7 c 2

adopted it they would be breaking new ground altogether, and it had been agreed that that should not be done ill the Bill. The Act fixed the statutory number of public­houses but by this clause the Licensing Oourt ~ould be enabled to grant licences for houses in excess of the statutory number in other places than mountainous districts, and that was quite a new proposal.

Mr. BOSISTO said he thought it would be very dangerous to remove the word " mountainous" from the 20th section. He was an employer or labour in the country, and he knew that if a public-house was esta­blished within four or five miles his industry would soon come to a stand-still. A person travelling through the northern districts could always arrive at some station byeven­tide where he could get rest and refreshment.

Mr. WHEELERremarked thattheargu­ment of the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Bosisto) was a very poor one. The honorable mem ber considered that if a licence was granted for a house in the neighbour­hood where he employed labour it would in­jure his establishment and those who worked there, but the houses contemplated by the 20th section of the Act were not intended for the accommodation of men who worked in the locality, but for the accommodation of travellers, and there was no doubt that the travelling public really required accom­modation of this kind. vVhen the 20th sec­tion was being passed, he (Mr. Wheeler) pointed out that there was much more neces­sity for its provisions applying to the plains, where a man might travel 20 miles without being able to get a drink, than to mountain­ous districts where there was always abund­ance of water. He had no desire to increase the number of public-houses, but if the dry northern districts could be accommodated without interfering with the principal Act it should be done.

Mr. NIMMO observed that when the 20th section or the principal Act was being passed, the Assembly fully consi?el'ed a similar proposal to that now submItted by the honorable member for the Wimmera. (Mr. Madden), and deliberately decided that the section should only apply to moun­tainous districts. To adopt the clause would be to disturb one of the principles of the Act, and a compact had been entered into that that should not be done in connexion with the Bill, which was simply intended to, improve the machinery of the Act.

.Mr. DUFFY stated that he believed about one half the colony was mountainous,. and the other half not. As far as he knew,.

2048 Licensing (Public-ho~lses) [ASSEMBLY.] Act Amendment Bill.

the section of the principal Act had not been abused. In fact, there had been only one licence granted under it. (Mr. Munro -" One too many.") He was sorry that the honorable member should not have suffi­cient charity to allow travellers in moun­tainous districts to have a little refresh­ment. Seeing that only one licence had been granted under the section in the moun­tainous half of the colony, he thought the committee might well consider that there was no danger of the concession being abused if the small increase of accommoda­tion asked for in the other half was granted. (Mr. Anderson (V.)-" The fact of only one licence being granted shows there was no necessity for the section at all.") It showed that Parliament misconceived the position when passing the section-that the necessity for the accommodation was not in the mountains, but on the plains, where people might go for miles and miles without meeting a habitation, and without being able to get a drop of water. He believed that the extension proposed by the honor­able member for the Wimmera (Mr. Mad­den) was absolutely necessary for the safety of the traveller, and he would support it. There was no question of principle involved, as Parliament had already affirmed the principle as far as the mountainous districts were concerned, and it was now only asked to extend it to the plains where experience had shown the accommodation was more required.

Mr. JONES said the exception was made not, he believed, with reference to mountain­ous districts generally, but with reference to one particular mountainous district. (Mr. Deakin-" Aud that is where the licence has been granted.") It would be remem­bered that, not very long ago, t.he son of a former Attorney-General died from the effects of the terrible frosts and snows by which he was overtaken in the region of Harrietville, which was, he (Mr. Jones) believed, the only place where a licence had been granted under the 20th section of the principal Act. It was now proposed that a provision which was specially intended for a mountainous district should apply to the whole colonv. If the committee wished to do that, the"n they should increase the statu­tory number, if honorable members had the courage to do so. He did not think that honorable members would dare to vote to increase the statutory number; they knew it was high enough already. There might be some' special reasons why this departure from the statutory number should be allowed

in mountainous districts, but he was not aware of any reason why it should be ex­tended to the plains .. If water was wanted every ten miles on the plains, let artesian wells be sunk, so that the thirsty traveller might be relieved. If the clause was car­ried, the only kind of 110uses which would be established under it would be grog­shanties, which would not afford accommo­dation to the traveller, but would merely offer an inducement to the shearer to knock down his cheque. The Assembly did not want to encourage that kind or thing, and he hoped that the clause would not be assented to.

Mr. OARTER said that, if he considered the clause a new departure, he would concur with the Attoruey-General that it should not be introduced into the Bill. But he did not see that it introduced any new principle at all. In the 20th section of the principal Act the word" mountainous" was merely descriptive, and had nothing whatever to do with the principle of the section. The principle was contained in that portion of the section which provided that none of these houses should be situated within ten miles of any village or township, or within ten miles from the nearest licensed victual­ler's house. When he was allowed to get refreshment if he walked ten miles up a mountain, he did not see what principle was involved in granting him a similar privilege if he walked ten miles over a burning plain.

The clause was negatived. Mr. BAILES proposed a new clause pro­

viding, inter alia, that no licence should be granted or renewed in respect of any house in the city of Melbourne unless such house contained. for public accommodation not less than six rooms, besides the rooms occupied by the family of the applicant, and that no victualler's licence should be granted in respect of any house elsewhere than in Mel­bourne unless it contained not less than three rooms besides those required for famil,Y purposes.

Mr. DEAKIN said the proposal was in effect one to limit the principal requirements of section 36 of the existing Act to the city of Melbourne-a question which the com­mittee had practically already decided.

Mr. BAILES submitted that that was scarcely a fair description of a clanse which would reduce the requirements of section 36 in only a few municipalities.

The clause was negatived. Mr. OARTER moved the following new

clause:-

Licensing (Public-houses) [NOVEMBER 10.] Act Amendment Bill. 2049

"Whenever the owner of licensed premises who is willing to extend the tenancy of a licensed person shall directly or indirectly seek to ohtain a consideration for extending the tenancy of such licensed person, whether by way of bOllus,or by an increase of rent, or by both of those means, such licensed person may npply in writing to the Licensing Court for the district in which such licensed premises are situate to decide whether such bonns or increase of rent, or such bonus and increase of rent as the case mav be.is or are fair and equitable. and until such application be heard and determined such licensed persou may retain possession of the licensed premises at the same rental he was paying at the time of making such application, and the Licensing Court on receiving such application shall fix a time not exceeding 28 dfl,Ys, when it shall be heard"and shall cause not less than seven days' notice to be given to the owner and licensed person to attend thereat, and after hearing the evidence which may be produced, the Licensing Court shall decide and fix the consideration that shall be charged by the owner and paid by the licensed person in respect of the extension of his tenancy, and such decision shall be absolutely final and binding." He said he regarded it of great importance that, with respect to the licensed victualling trade as to others, the State should always be ready to step in for the protection of the poor man as against the rich one. As for the particular proposal he now brought for­ward, he had no expectation of carrying it; but he was anxious to see it ventilated, in order that the public might get some idea of the reasons which tempted some licensed victuallers to break the law by selling during prohibited hours or inferior liquor. At the present stage, he would not even say whether he would press the clause to a division. Honorable mem bers should know that, in tIle licensed victualling trade, the relations between landlord and tenant were strikingly different from those which existed with re­spect to any other business. If that was not the case, he would not dream of asking the Legislature to interfere with them. Sup­posing the ten members of the Ministry were compelled to live in ten particular houses, would not the arrangement result in the landlords of those houses enjoying an enormous monopoly? 'Y ould not the la,nd­lord of the ]lOuse rented, say, by the Attor­ney-General, be inclined, whenever the lease

,wanted renewal, to put down his foot and . declare that he would not renew without a bonus or an increase of rent ? Naturally he would consider that his terms must be com­plied with, because it would be almost im­possible for his tenant to find another house to live in. The case was much the same with the public-houses of the colony. As a matter of fact there were, under the law, only some 4,000 houses in the col<tny in which liquor could be sold retail, and the number could. not well be increased. 'V hat

was the practical effect of that state of things? vVhom did it benefit ? Not the public, or the brewers, or the spirit merchants, or the li­censees, but simply the owners of the premises. Because, when a licensee wanted a renewal of his lease, his landlord was able to say to him with the utmost assurance-" I will not renew without a bonus of so much;" 01'­

" I must raise your rent by so much, and if you don't like it you may clear out." The law practically placed the tenant under the landlord's heel. He became a mere servant. He (Mr. Carter) apprehended that honor· able members would agree with him that the good-will of a licensed house, which had been created by the ten'ant, hardly belonged to the mere owner of the bricks and mortar. Yet the special legislation adopted by the Parliament of Victoria went the length of saying in effect to the latter-" Although the good-will of your premises is in no sense your property, but the property of some one else, we give it to you." So, the landlord was now able to take the good-will or a house from the tenant to whom its existence was due, and give it to another tenant. vVhat had been the outcome so far? In the case of the United Service Hotel a bonus of £700 was demanded and received for the extension of the lease, and the rent was raised by £52 a year. The Station Hotel, Hicl)lllond, paid a bonus of £500 fOT a five years' lease; the Kilmore Hot.el a bonus of £300, and a large increase or rent; the vVest Bourke Hotel, a bonus of £400; Fearuley's Hotel, Bourke-street, a bonus of £1,000, and £104 a year additional rent; the Castlemaine Hotel, a bonus of £500; the Erlinburgh Castle Hotel, one of £400; the Camberwell Inn, one of £500; the Kil­kenny Hotel, one of £700, and so on. There were numerous other cases of the same kind in the same list, the whole of them having come under the notice of a single firm in Melbourne. They could, therefore, only be looked at as mere samples of what was going on throughout the colony. He (Mr. Carter) would not say precisely that Parliament should interfere and do the th ing now, but he trusted that, if the landlord monopoly was to continue, the Legislature would step in soon and provide some means of protecting tenants from these undoubted exactions. He did not wish to see the land­lord prevented from getting the utmost fair price for his property. If his property in­creased in value-if any circumstances, ex­cept the passing of an Act of the Legisla­ture, occurred to enhance its worth, in the market, he was fully entitled to get it.; but

2050 Licensing (Public-houses) [ASSEMBL Y.] Act Amendment Bill.

he was not entitled to take advantage of an Act or Parliament passed for other pur­poses in order to make unfair demands. It was not as though the tenant was in any shape or way a free agent. There was no other house for bim to go to but the one he held. All his money was sunk in it, and he was bound to comply with his landlord's demand or seek the refuge of the Insolvent Court. What was he driven to do, in order to raise the extra money demanded from him? Often to sell on Sunday, to serve the cheapest liquor he could buy-in short, to resort to all the evil practices which the Legislature wanted to put a stop to. No doubt, when a landlord wished to change his tenant he should have the full privilege of doing so. It had never been his (Mr. Oar­ter's) desire that the landlord's unquestion­able rights should be interfered with. AU he wanted was that, whenever the owner of any licensed premises was willing to extend the tenancy of the occupier, and he and the tenant were unable to agree as to the bonus or the increased rent to be pa~d, there should be some court of arbitration to decide what was fail' between the two. He was quite aware that his proposal would have the opposition of almost every owner of public­house property in the colony, but he was perfectly ready, so far, to accept the position. He had witnessed too much not to be will­ing to make some stand in the matter. He had seen families turned into the street with nothing but what they stood up in-com­pletely beggared and ruined. On the other hand, he had seen tenants reluctantly driven to illicit courses in order to satisfy the exorbitant claims of their landlords. If a tenant had to go, why he had to go; but he ought to have some court to appeal to, to say what the good-will he was compelled to leave behind him was worth, and to secure it for him. In SOUle instances it would, probably, be worth nothing; well, in such cases nothing would be awarcleu. If the Assembly would adopt the clause he (Mr. Carter) proposed, and also the other clause hanging to it of which he had given notice, it would do more to purify public-house keeping than anything previous legislation had accomplished. He would add that, with all the antagonism he might expect, he was, nevertheless, speaking on behalf of one of the largest hotel-owners in the colony, who was perfectly willing to accept the scheme the two clauses embodied.

Mr. O. YOUNG stated that the ]lOn­orable member for Vvest Melbourne (Mr. Oarter) had talked of exorbitant terms being

demanded by landlords, but his own propo­sition was one of the most exorbitant ever heard of. (Mr. Gaunson-"It simply means the Ulster tenant right.") The Ulster tenant-right law was framed to meet a wholly different state of things. It applied to cases where a tenant had redeemed land from almost a state or nature, and made it productive, but public-house property stood on a footing which could not possibly come into comparison. vVhy should a court in­terfere between one set of landlords and tenants, and not between others? (Mr. Carter-" Because the law has placed pub­lic-house property in an exceptional posi­tion.") No doubt public-house tenants were perfectly able to look after themsel ves, and he thought that Parliament should in no shape or way come between them and the owners of the property they made use of.

Mr. GAUNSON said he heartily con­gratulated the honorable member for vVest Melbourne (Mr. Carter) upon his having the courage to invite the committee to deal, even in the pal,tial and limited way proposed, with what were called the rights or property. vVhat, for example, was the substantial dif­ference between property represented by the investment of time and brains, and that represented by, say, a certain portion of land? On what ground of justice was the Legislature entitled to' interfere with the property of the tenant licensed victualler, by restricting his hours and business and so on, if it was not entitled to interfere with the property of his landlord? It might be contended that the public health was the supreme law, but let honorable members look at how that argument might be ex­tended. Moreover, the State having by interference rendered public-house property a very peculiar commodity, why should it not, in the interests of justice, carry that interference a little further? What was there in Ulster tenant right,. which, in accordance with natural justice, allowed the tenant to claim the benefit of the im­provemellts effected by him, that it, should be inapplicable to, say, a t.enant publican who had by his industry, foresight, and knowledge of mankind brought extra. custom to the hotel leased by him? vVhy should the latter be rendered by the law subject to his landlord declining to renew his lease unless he paid him for the improvements he himself had effected? To show how far some landlords would go, he (Mr. Gaunson) would ask the committee to glance at the details of a case whieh appeared in a recent number of ·Ghe Licensed Victuallers' Gazette.

Licensing (Public-houses) [NOVEMBER 10.J Act Amendment Bill. 2D51

He had not the newspaper with him, but he would state the facts from memory. There was a little hotel in Richmond kept by a man named Harrington, who enjoyed for his landlord an individual of the name of Highett. (Mr. McIntyre-" Highett, the M.P. ? ") He did not know whether the Highett he referred to was a Member of Par­liament or of any other loafing association. This Harrington had the misfortune to have been convicted twice. In the first place he was proceeded against for not having the door leading to his bar 10yked during pro­hibited hours. It appeared that the door not being locked was due to the fact, not that the landlord was selling, but that he was exercising hospitality to some friends just starting for Sydney, and the magis­trates dismissed the case. But the police, thinki~1g the justices were wrong, appealed to the Supreme Court, with the result that the justices found themselves compelled to inflict a penalty of £5, which Harrington llad to pay. He was convicted at another time of being a few minutes late in shutting and locking his doors during certain other prohibited hours. The next conviction recorded against him was the conviction in the mind of his landlord that he would turn him out. How did that leave him? When he entered the hotel he had to pay, it was to be supposed, to the out-going tenant some £800 for the good-will, but this Highett was one who wanted to destroy the man, body and soul, by thrusting him out of the premises without a moment's consideration or a moment's grace, although in every just sense the man had only one conviction against him. He was, however, still in the house. "Vith this case before him he (Mr. Gaunson). would like the clause to go a little further. Honorable members might depend upon it that the mischief it was intended to cure was more deep-seated than most people imagined. He wanted to see the law take public-house landlords by the scruff of the neck as well as their tenants, so that this le\'ying o~ black-mail, in the shape of bonuses, might be put a stop to. It was truly delightful to see a man with so large an interest ill public-house propertya.s that held by the honorable member for West Mel­bourne come forwa.rd in the wa.y he wa.s doing in the interests of the tenants. But, as he (Mr. Gaullson) had said, he thought the proposal might go further, and hence he intended to move the a.ddition to the clause of the following proviso :-

" Provided further that, whenever the tenant desires to transfer the remainder of his term in

a.ny licensed premises, he may app1y in writing to the Licensmg Court for the district in which such licensed premiseS! are situated, to decide whether or not any bonus or other payment shall be receiva.ble by or paid to the landlord in respect of such proposed transfer."

He would read what he said on this subject on the second reading of the Licensing Bill of 1885. His remnrks, which pnt the case succinctly, were as follows:-

"I may state my views about the landlords of public-houses. I hold that, as you interfere with the common-law right of an individual to sell anything he pleases by saying he shall not sell liquor without a licence, on the same principle you can and ought to interfere with the owners of licensed premises, place them under the dominion of the Licensing Court, and say to them-' You shall not ask too much rent for your houses.' The exorbitant rent charged comes out of tbe pockets of the people, because, on Rccount of these rents, every time we go into an hotel we get either a less quantity or an inferior quality of liquor. Then a mon­strous system exist:;! with regard to the renewal of leases, nnder which bonuses arc exacted by the landlord. These bonuses may be illegal, but hitherto tennnts have put up with the exaction rather than fight it."

Mr. HIGHETT said his name had been mentioned in a way which rendered it neces­sary that he should make an explanation to the committee. It had been stated that he was the owner of a certain hotel which had been mentioned, but that was not the fact. He was merely acting as trustee for the owners. In the second place, it had been insinuated that he had obtained a large bonus from the man now in occnpation of the honse. He hnd never received any bonus. The only people who had obtained any bonus on account of the hotel were the hotel brokers, who had been in the habit of getting the licence transferred from one pe~son to another, and making a profit for themselves by requiring the licensee to take any liquor they chose to supply him with, and at any price they liked to charge for it. The lease of the hotel was to expire at the end of this year, and the man who now oc­cupied the hotel applied to him to get a renewal of the lease; but the police in formed him that the house was condncted in snch a manner that if he (Mr. Highett) did not take steps to remove the man they would take steps to have the licence cancelled. He was told that the hotel was conducted in such a wa,y that it was a disgrace to the neighbourhood and to the property. Under these circumstances, he felt it was his duty to himself, to the owners of the property, to the licensed victuallers as a body, and also to the country, to see that the hotel was placed in the hands of some one who would conduct it properly. He accordingly

2052 Licensing (Public-houses) [ASSEMBLY.] A.ct Ame'fltdment Bill.

informed the tenant that when the lease ex­pired he would not renew it. Great pressure had been brought to bear, chiefly by the hotel brokers, to get him to rescind that de­cision, but he insisted on having a change of licensee. He had never received one penny in the shape of bonus for the house, and his only desire had been to do the best he could for those whom he represented, and also for the community at large.

Mr. DEAKIN stated that he did not think that the honorable member for Man­durang (Mr. Highett) could have done a better service to the community than by taking the steps he had taken to ensure that the public-house in question would be re­spectably conducted. As to the proposition ofthe honorable member for West Melbourne (Mr. Oa.rter), it raised a very tempting sub­ject for debate, but he would ask honorable members not to discuss it on the present occasion. The cases quoted by the honor­able member were amply sufficient to justify the bringing forward of a proposal of the kind, and it was one which-especially as far as the clause now before the committee was concerned-had his (Mr. Deakin's) strong personal sympatlly. He did not speak on behalf of the Government in the matter; but, while he sympathized with the object which the honorable member had in view, he confessed he was a little surprised that such a good, sound, radical pr(lposition should come from the source from which itemanated. He did not think it was as severe on land­lords as the honorable member for Emerald Hill (Mr. Gaunson) imagined, but it recog­nised the truth of the principle of taxing what was called the unearned increment. The honorable member for "Vest Melbourne had very properly pointed ont that public­houses were a peculiar property, inasmuch as they had a special value given to them by Act of Parliament, for which they returned not}ling, and that therefore Parliament had a right to take something from them in taxes for the special value thus created. (Mr. Carter-" I did not say so.") He took it that the honorable member, in supporting his case, was really laying down that good and wholesome principle. The clause was also similar in principle to Mr. Gladst0ne's Irish Land Bill, which enabled a court of law to step in and fix the fair value of land instead of leaving the question to be decided by the owner. However, what he chiefly rose to say was that while personally he not only sympathized with the clause now before the committee, but was also favorable to the other clause of which the honorable

member had given notice, with some amend­ment, the Government would feel bound to oppose the proposal, as it had been decided that the Bill should be limited to an amend­ment of the machinery of the existing Act. If the honorable member pressed the proposal to a division, he would find that many hon­orable memberR who sympathized with it would be obliged to vote against it on the present occasion for the same reason.

Mr. McINTYRE said he was astonished at the position taken up by the Government on such a proposal as this, after they had agreed to a proposition by the honorable member for Ballarat West (Mr. Vale), de­claring that no foreigner should be allowed to hold a publican's licence. The latter was surely an extraordinary doctrine, and it was strange that the Government, after accept­ing it, should say that the Bill was only a. machinery Bill. The Government, as the owners of the railways, were as great sinners as any other persons with respect to the practice aimed at by the clause submitted by the honorable member for West Melbourne (Mr. Oarter). There were no more tyran­nical landlords of public-houses than they were, for they were always ready to squeeze out enormous rents for the railway refresh­ment-rooms when the leases of any of them had to be renewed. At one railway station in his (Mr. McIntyre's) district, £1,200 a year rent had hitherto been paid for the refreshment-rooms, and the lessee had con­ducted the business for several years with thorough satisfaction to the public; but what did the Government do recently? TIleyad­vertised for tenders, and squeezed some few hundred pounds m0re from the incoming tenant. The honorable member for "Vest Melbourne ought to persist in his proposal, and the Government should meet the matter fairly.

Mr. ZOX stated that he regarded the proposal of the honorable member for "Vest Melbourne (Mr. Oarter) as a most extra­ordinary one, and the fact that he had brought it forward spoke a great deal for the courage of the honorable member, repre­senting as he did a large and important con­stituency which contained a great many pro­perty-owners. He (Mr. Zox) did not think that the committee would be justified in coming to a hasty conclusion on a proposi tion which involved such a fundamental and vital principle. No doubt there were landlords of public-house property who were graspingt but were there no other landlords who were ready to obtain the very best terms they could when the leases fell in? Business

Licensing (Pttblic-ho~tses) [NOVEMBER 10.] Act Amendment Bill. 2053·

premises in the cityof Melbourne had greatly increased in value of late years, and as the leases fell in the owners of the property re­quired a large additional rent-perhaps an increase of from 50 to 200 per cent.-which it might be very hard for the lessees to pay, especially if they were struggling men. If the State had a right to interfere between the owners of public-house property and their tenants, and fix the terms on which such property should be leased, it had a right to interfere for the same purpose with the owners of other property. In his opinion, the State had no right to interfere in such matters, unless it was shown that some great injustice, which could not be grappled with in any other way, would be done. To a large extent he sympathized with the arguments of the honorable member for West Melbourne, and the time might come when be would be prepared to agree with the honorable member's view; but the pro­posal was such an important one that it ought not to be accepte,l without a full and mature consideration. He hoped that for the present the honorable member would withdraw it.

Mr. JONES said he trusted that the honorable member for 'Vest Melbourne (Mr. Carter) bad not been indulging in a mere flash in the pan. The honorable mem­ber ought to persevere with his proposal, and not withdraw it. It was the most sensible proposition that had been submitted to the Legislature for a very long time. It was the desire of honorable members to keep the licensing interest under proper control, and it was their duty to show that Parlia­ment intended to give those who were en­gaged in the hotel business-the licensees of public-houses-fair play; while, at the same time, it demanded fair play from them. He believed that, at the present time, licen­sees were being jumped upon to an extent that had not been even hinted at. He believed that a very great deal of harm was being done to the public, by the mere fact that one set of licensed holders of public­houses after another were being squeezed out, because of the opportunity which the Legislature had given the owners of public­house property to build up a gigantic mono­poly. It was the duty of honorable mem­bers to guard that monopoly from being abused. It was nonsense for the honorable member for East Melbourne (Mr. Zox) to object to the clause because the owner of any business premises would exact all he could in the way of rent. As a matter of course, he would. But if a tailor found

himself being interfered with by his landlord he could move next door, or across the street, or into another street; he had not to consult a bench of .magistrates as to whether or not he would be allowed to con­duct his business elsewhere. The Legisla­ture had created a monopoly for the owners of public-house property, and it must con­trol that monopoly. It was right for it to show that property had duties as well as· rights. The owner of the premises must be held in check if the licensee was to show fair play to the drinking public. He (Mr. Jones) was not one of the drinking public, but be claimed to have a right to look after those who were drinkers. If the Legislature put too great pressnre on the licensee, and did not protect him against the landlord, it increased the probability that the drinker would have to drink worse liquor than would otherwise be supplied to him. He hoped that the honorable member for 'Vest Mel­bourne would persevere with his proposal; if he did, he would carry it. The honorable member should not be intimidated by the fact that the Government must oppose the clause. The Government could not control the Assembly, and they would be shown that the common sense of the Assembly was against them, and that the common sense· of the country would endorse its decision.

Mr. CARTER stated that he had con­sulted several honorable members, who told him that they had not had time to study the clause, and had urged him to let its further consideration stand over until the third reading of the Bill, when there would no doubt be a larQ'e attendance or members, and probably more votes would be recorded in favour of the clause than he could expect to obtain now. It was scarcely fair, perhaps, to rush the clause through that night, even if he could do so. It woulu be much better to postpone it, so that, before it was dealt with, thorough publicity would be given to the proposal, and honorable members would have time to reflect upon it. He felt so· satisfied as to its justice that he was quite willing to leave it entirely in the hands of the House. He did not wish to make it a party question. He regretted that the honorable member for Emerald Hill (Mr. Gaunson),. who had always felt a warm interest in this matter, had, in his zeal to support the pro­posal, made personal allusion to the honor~ able member for Mandllrang (Mr. Highett). The introduction of personal matters into the discussion had a tendency to estrange the votes of honorable members who might. otherwise support the clause. He (Mr.

2054 Licensing (Public-lw2£ses) [ASSEMBL Y.] Act A.mendment Bill.

Carter) had simply rererred to certain public­houses by their titles, but had not men­tioned the names of any of the owners. He desired to point out that the honor­able member for East Melbourne (Mr. Zox) was quite wrong in comparing the position ()f the owners of public-house property to that of any other landlords. The Legis­lature had enacted that there should only be a certain number of public-houses, but it had not declared that there should only be a certain number of places for carry­ing on any other business. However, he rose principally to say that he would with­draw the clause for the present, and bring ,it forward again on the third reading of the :Bill.

Mr. GRAVES remarked that he did not think the honorable member for vVest Mel­bourne (Mr. Carter) was acting wisely in withdrawing the clause. The proposal which it contained was one which he (Mr. Graves) would fully support. It was based on the same principle as recent Imperial legislation in regard to landlords in Ireland. The Parliament of Victoria had created a, mono­poly in public-houses, and had thereby gi ven a special value to them; but while the land­lords of those houses were entitled to a fair rent, it was not right that the legislation which had been passed should be allowed to be made use of as the means of oppressing the tenants or licensees of the llOuses. The sooner the question raised by the proposal of the honorable member for West Mel­bourne was dealt with the better. If neces­sary,he could quote cases which had occurred ill the country districts of as great hardship as those mentioned by the honorable mem­ber. vVhen the clause was brought forward again, he would certainly give it his utmost support.

Mr. G A UNSON said that an explanation had. been made by the honorable member for Mandurang (Mr. Highett) which, on the face or it, looked very plausible; but he was in­formed that it really made matters worse than they were before. The honorable member had described himself as a trustee-for whom? Was he trustee for strangers? Whether he was a trustee for strangers or for blood. relations made no difference from the point of view that a trustee was not at liberty to act in an illiberal and harsh manner any more than any other individual. No one had ever said that the honorable member had received a bonus. What was said was that the honorable member would not permit -the unfortunate man who paid £800 to go :into the house to sell out to any person;

because the honorable member was calling for tenders for a lease of the house, in order to get the highest price. Let the honorable member say whether that charge was true or untrue. The tale told by the police might be a cock-and-bull story. The police could not turn the man out of the house, or de­priye him of his licence; that could be done only for certain causes, of which the Licens­ing Oourt was the judge. The honorable member's explanation was worse than the original offence. The case was a good illus­tration or that sort or blood-sucking on the part or landlords which the proposal of the honorable member for West Melbourne (Mr. Carter) was intended to put a stop to. Whatever might become or the pro­position for the present, such cases would righteously seal the doom of blood thirsty landlords.

The clause was then withdrawn. Mr. W. M. OLARK proposed the fol.

lowing new clause:-"Section 35 of the principal Act shall be re­

pealed, and the following inserted instead there­of :-No person shall at anyone time, either by himself, servant, or agent, hold or have any beneficial interest in more than one victualler's licence, nor shall any persoll, either by himself, servant, or agent, hold or have any beneficial interest in more than one grocer's licence in any one licensing district in the metropolitan group, nor in anyone division of any licensing district in other parts of the colony unless such houses be not less than teu miles apart. Any interfer­ence by any licensed victualler or grocer with the business of any licensed victualler's or grocer's premises other than the premises for which he is licellsed shall be deemed primafacie evidence of a beneficia.l interest within the mean­ing of this section. Any person offending a.gainst the provisions of this section shall be liable to a penalty of not less than £2 nor more than £5 for every day during which he holds or has any beneficial interest in more than one victualler's licence or more than one grocer's licence, except under the provisions of this section." He said that the 35th section of the prin­cipal Act prevented a person holding more than one grocer's licence. That caused no illconvenience in towns, but it was a great hardship in some country districts, and the object of the clause was to remedy the in­convenience by allowing a person in any licensing district outside the metropolitan group to hold more than one grocer's licence for premises which were not less than ten miles apart.

Mr. WRIXON expressed the hope that the honorable member would not press the proposal. The Act provided that no person should hold more than one grocer's licence, but, if the clause was agreed to, a person might hold any number of such licences out­side the metropolis, provided that the pre­mises were ten miles apart. The change

Licensing (P.ublic-hmtses) [NovE~IBER 10.J Act Amendment Bill. 2055

would be a fundamental and serious one. Many persons, including himself (Mr. W rixon), believed that grocers' licences had done more harm in the way or bringing liquor into domestic use than the public generally were aware of. But, whether that was the case or not, he would ask the hon­orable member not to press a proposal which would make a fundamental change in the present law.

The clause was withdrawn. Mr. GORDON proposed the following

new clause:-

" Section 98 of the principal Act shall be re­pealed, and the following shall he inserted in­stead thereof:-Every licensed person or persons registered under section 5 of this Act on whose licensed premises any sale or barter of or traffic in liquor takes place or on which any liquor is drullk on Sunday, except by lodgers in such bouse or by bonafide travellers shall for a first offence be liable to a penalty of not less than· £2 nor exceeding £ 1 0, for a second offence shall be liable to a penalty of not less than £10 nor exceeding £20, and for a third offence shall, on cOllviction thereof, forfeit his licence, and shall also, in the case of the third as well as any sub­sequent offence, be liable to be declared a dis­qualified person by the Licensing Court for a period not exceeding one year."

The only alteration which the clause would make in the 98th section of the existing Act was the substitution of the words " person or persons registered under section 5 of this Act" for the word "victualler." The object was to prohibit the sale of liquor on Sunday by the holders of grocers' licences and colonial wine licences, as well as by licensed victuallers. The matter was all important one, and it appeared to have been overlooked when the Bill of 1885 was under the consideration of the Legislature. He trusted that the clause would receive the support of the Government.

Mr. vVRIXON said he thought that the committee ought to accent the proposal of the honorable member. Section 98 of the principal Act only referred to licensed victu­allers, amI there might be some doubt, from the terms or that section, whether the holders of grocers' licences and colonial wine licences were prohibited from selling on Sunday. As the clause would expressly a.pply to them the same restriction as the Act imposed on licensed victuallers, it would be advisable to adopt it.

Mr. GAUNSON asked whether theclanse would prevent persons who went down the Bay by the steam-ship Ozone on Sundays from obtaining liq nor on board?

Mr. 'VRIXON intimated that it would not do so.

The clause was agreed t').

Mr. 1VIURRAY (in the absence of Mr. J. J. MADDEN) proposed the following new clause :-

"Section 10 of the principal Act shall be amended by the addition thereto (after the last word) of the following words :-' Provided that the Licensing Court may, if it think fit, extend such hours until half-past eleven at night.'''

Section in or the principal Act provided for the issue of a temporary licence which en­abled the licensee, being also the holder of a victualler's licence, to seH and dispense liquors at agricult.ural shows, cir(tllses, bazaars, and other entertainments between the hours of ten o'clock a.m. and seven o'clock p.m. But such a licence was not of the slightest use in the case of a bazaar, unless it had force during the evening-say from seven o'clock until half-past eleven. Bazaars were usually held for some charit. able object-at all events, for some good purpose; they were always properly con­ducted ; and they were frequently patronized by gentlemen who, after seven o'clock in the evening, were accustomed to have a "nip." Owing to the sale of liquors being prohibited after seven O'clock, bazaars were deprived of theil' very best customers. He, believed there had been successful evasions of section 10; but it was far better that the refreshment business in connexion with bazaars should be conducted in a legitimate and legal manner. It was for these reasons that he submitted the clause.

Mr. BAILES said he hoped the Govern­ment would consent to this clause. (Mr. Munro-" Certainly not.") It was a re­markable thing that every new clause which came from the temperance party was ac­cepted and that every new clause which came r'rom anyone else was opposed. The fact of the temporary licence not having operation beyond seven o'clock in the even­ing had a material influence upon the receipts derivable from charitable organiza. tions. For example, owing to the existence of section 10 or the Licensing Act, the

. receipts at the la.st Easter Fair, at Sand. hurst, were £60 less than on previous occa· sions, and the local charities suffered to that extent. It should be observed that the clause left it optional with the Licensing Court to extend the hours under which a temporary licence had operation. .

1\11'. MUNRO remarked that the clause would introduce a· new principle. (Mr. Gaunson-" It only extends an old prin­ciple.") Section 10 or the existing Act provided that, in connexioll with entertain­ments and sports; temporary licences should

. have force up to seven o'clock at night.

2056 Licensing (P~tblic-houses) [ASSEMBL Y.] Act Amendment Bill.

What did that mean? Why that tempo­rary licences should have operation only during daylight. (Mr. Gaunson-" No.") What was now proposed was that temporary licences should have operation until half­past eleven o'clock at night. Let honorable members imagine what would be the appear­ance of the Friendly Societies Gardens if liquor could be sold there until that hour.

Mr. O. YOUNG said he considered seven o'clock a late enough hour for drink to be sold in connexion with any out-door enter­tainment; but in-door entertainments did not usually commence until seven o'clock; and it was to meet the case of those enter­tainments that the clause had been proposed. He would take this opportunity of asking whether the licences for the sale of liquor at the Oentennial Exhibition would be temporary licences or not?

Mr. DEAKIN intimated that the sale of liquor at the Oentennial Exhibition would be provided for by separate legislation.

Mr. L. L. SMITH observed that the receipts derivable from the entertainments given in the Exhibition-building for chari­table purposes were largely augmented by the sums paid for the privilege of selling refreshments, but this source of revenue would be much increased if liquor could be sold after seven o'clock in the evening. He considered that temporary licences in con­nexion with in-door entertainments should have operation until half-past eleven o'clock at night. Most of those entertainment.s did not commence until seven o'clock.

Mr. DEAKIN remarked that the clause, as proposed, was a very wide one, and any attempt to limit it would be certain to pro­voke discussion, which would only delay the passage or the Bill.

The clause was negatived. Mr. M URRA Y submitted the following

new cla-use:-"In section 99 of the principal Act the words

'ten miles in a direct line' shall be repealed, and the words • six miles by ordinary route' shall be substituted therefor." This clause was entirely in the interests of the country districts, which felt themselves, and justly felt themselves, neglected in con­nexion with the legislation which had been under consideration for the past two or three weeks, and which had. concentrated itself almost entirely upon the requirements of Melbourne. The country districts were denied the same privileges in connexion with their local exhibitions which were about to be granted, by a special Bill, to the Centennial Exhibition. He believed that

one of the most rigid teetotallers in the· colony was among the fathers of that measure. (Mr. Munro-" No; I entered my protest against it at a meeting of the executive.") The honorable member, t(} show his sincerity, should have entered his protest on the initiation of the measure in the Assembly. (Mr. Munro-" You don't· need to tell me my duty.") He supposed there was very little use in pressing the clause after the decision which the committee had come to with respect to locking the bar' door. However, he would point out that there was a great deal of difference, as t(} facilities of travelling, between the metropo-· lis and the country districts. Travelling six miles in a country district was quite as· arduous, and as thirst-inducing, as travelling from Melbourne by railway to a suburb ten miles distant, or travelling twenty miles in a magnificent steam-boat down the Bay. In his opinion, to impose any condition as to· the distance a person should travel on Sun­day before he became entitled to take a drink at a public-house was an altogether' unnecessary ·piece of legislation. The Ulan who went ont for the benefit or his health on Sunday was not likely to neutralize the· good effects of fresh air by taking too much liquor. However, as it had been suggested to hiUl that the clause was likely to receive more consideration if brought forward on the third reading of the Bill than it could re-· ceive now, when there seemed to be a dis­position to determinedly obstruct legislation which was in the right direction, he would not detain the committee further.

The clause was withdrawn. At this stage, progress was reported. The House then resolved itself into com-

mittee pursuant to resolution passed on November 2.

Mr. vVRIXON moved-" That, on and after the coming into operation

of the Licensing Amendment Bill 1887, the following fees shall be chargeable:-

"For registration of ever.y person intending to sell wine in quantities not less thau two gallons. at anyone time, the produce of grapes of his own growth, for consumption elsewhere than on his­own premises, 5s.

"For copy of entry of any such registration,. Is."

Mr. L. L. SMITH asked why a resolu­tion of the kind was necessary?

Mr. WRIXON· explained that the reso­lution referred to clauses 5 and 6 in the Bill which provided that the sellers of colonial wine should be registered ..

Mr. L. L. SMITH objected to the reso­lution as placing an embargo upon the man

Licen~ing (Pub lic-houses) [N OYEMBER ,10. ] Act Amendment Bill. 2057

who sold wine the produce of his own vine­yard. Why should such persons be pre­·cluded from selling wine in less quantities than two gallons? Such a thing was not ·done in France or in any other part of the world. The proposal that in a protectionist country like this a fee should be charged men who sold wine of their own growth was in­defensible, and he entered his protest against it at this initial stage of the proceedings. The consumption of Australian wine should be encouraged. in every way, because it was a means of Rtopping drunkenness and the desire for spirits.

Mr. GRAVES observed that the prin­.cipal Act provided that no fee should be -charged persons who sold wine of their own growth. The Government had stated that they would oppose any amendment in this Bill whieh interfered wit.h the principles of the origi nal Act, yet now they were making a proposal themselves which was in direct -contravention or one of those principles. In view of their own announcement, the Go­vernment ought not to press the present proposition. .

Mr. G A UNSON considered that the con­,duct oE the Government in the matter was ·open to serious challenge. They were now seeking to charge men who had never been charged before, and to impose a tax upon -one of the most industrious and most im­portant classes of the community. All who 11ud the interest of the vine-growers at heart must resist the proposal.

Mr. WRIXON said the proper Gourse would be for honorable members to defer dis­<cussing the matter until the clauses of the Licensing Act Amendment Bill to which the 'resolution related were under consideration. But, as the Government could not afford to lose time, he might explain at once that it was quite a mistake to talk about taxing the wine-growers. The only object of the reso­lution and of the 5th and 6th clauses was to secure the registration of such persons. He <could assure the committee that there was a very good reason for that. Although the .great majority of wine-growers were men worthy of trust and respect, there were ex­-ceptions, and it had been represented to the 'Government on good authority that it was highly desirable, in the public interest, and in the interest of the vast majority of the wine-growers, that there should be a regis­tration of the premises where the sale of wine was carried on. ,This was the only object of the 5th and 6th clauses of the Bill. Tax­ing the wine-growers was not contemplated for a .moment, because t?e only charge made

was a nominal fee or 5s. for regi~tration. Therefore, the talk about taxing a colonial industry and putting down the sale of colo­nial wine was all in the clouds-mere imagi­nation. The whole object was simply to secure registration, so that tbere might be some authentic record of the places where wine was sold. If, after the assurance of the Government that in making this pro­posal they were acting on information which the committee did not possess, honorable members determined to waste hours over the matter, the proposition would simply have to be given up, because there was not the time to spare.

Mr. McLELLAN stated that he regarded this proposal as a violation of the principle wbich the Government themselves had laid down, and, as the representative of one of the largest wine-producing districts of the colony, he felt bound to say that it was a vexatious interference with an industry which had done more to wake the people of the colony moderate drinkers than anything else. It was not the amount of the fee that was objected to, but the vexatious meddling with the wine-growing industry -giving the policeman a right of entry, as it were, into the premises of these people. "Vhat was the need for a policeman or any one else connected with ·the excise or the colony looking after this industry? A man who went into one of the vineyards might drink a bucket of the wine; he might drink till he burst himself, but he would never get drunk. There was no warrant for the Go­vernment interfering with the industry at all. If the wine-growers had known that this vexatious fee was tu be imposed they would have petitioned the Assembly against it, but it came as a surprise. He did not think the Government could hav~ any in­formation which would justify them inter­fering with the wine-growing industry in the manner proposed. In justice to a very hard-working class of men, he was bound to vote against the proposition, and if it was persisted in he would divide the com­mittee on it. In the interests of a large number of his constituents, he could not allow this paltry fee to be imposed, not on account of the amount, but ot the inter­ference it would cause to their legitimate business.

Mr. "VHEELER considered that a great deal or time was being wasted over a very small matter. He thought the Government would do wisely if they would intimate that they would be satisfied with registration ouly, and would not require any fee. (Mr.

2058 Licensing (Public-houses) [ASSEMBLY.] Act Amendment Bill.

W rixon-" I am willing to do that.") He knew that it was absolutely necessary that there should be registration, for reasons which had been indicated by the A ttorney­General. (Mr. L. L. Smith-" vVhat are they?") It was not necessary to mention them, furtl1er than to say that it was possible to do something else than make wine, and it was necessary that the whereabouts of these places should be known, so that some super­vision should be exercised over them. He believed the wine-growers did not object to registration, but they felt that although the fee proposed was a small one, the farmer was allowed to grow produce of various kinds without paying any fee, and they ought not to be subject to the payment of any fee either. He believed that simple re­gistration at the office of the nearest clerk of petty sessions would effect the object which the Government had in view.

Mr. McINTYRE said it was not a ques­tion of the fee at all, but of the supervision of the police. There had been enough of police supervision in other directions, and he thought the serious circumstances which were supposed to render this proposition necessary ought to be explained by the Attorney-General. A reflection had been conveyed upon a very industrious and highly respectable class of the community, and if information had reached the Attorney­General as to the necessity of special super­vision over the wine-growing industry, was it not right that the Assembly should be made acqoainted with it when a proposal of this kind was eubmitted? The principle of the proposal was wrong altogether. Why should a man who grew grapes and made wine be compelled to register himself if he wished to sell a few gallons of it? I-Ie thought the Government would do well to adhere to the agreement which had been come to that nothing should be passed in the amending Licensing Bill except machi­nery clauses.

Mr. 'VIUXON intimated that, as it was absolutely necessary to get on with the business, he would abandon the proposal. .

Progress was then reported. . The House again went into committee for

the further consideration of the Bill. On the motion of Mr. vVRIXON, clause

5, providing for the registration of persons selling wine, not less than two gallons at a time, the prod uce of grapes of their own growth; and clause G, imposing a penalty in default of registration, were struck out.

The Bill was then reported with amend­ments ..

Mr. 'VRIXON moved that the Bill be recommitted for the further consideration of clauses 11, 12, and 13. He said the object of the motion was t.o carry out the arrange­ment which was entered into that these clauses should be struck out. (Mr. Munro -" We made no arrangement.") A dis­tinct arrangement was come to. (Mr.Munro -" By whom? ") An arrangement was corne to on all hands that the proposed change with regard to local option should not be carried out. The honorable member for Geelong (Mr. Munro) himself stated that he would not allow the proposals which these clauses contained to be carried out. (Mr. Munro-" I voted to keep thGm in.") In order to have some portion of the Bill passed, the Government had to agree to give up clauses 11,12, and 13, and, in pursuance of that agreement, they now proposed to recommit the Bill with the view of having them omitted.

Mr. BAKER stated that he was taken by surprise by the proposal of the Govern­ment. This was the first he }lad heard of any arrangement to strike out the clauses referred to. He did not know who made the arrangement; he was no party to it; and he certainly would object to anything of the kind. This was a part of the Bill which was offered to the temperance party as advanta­geous to them, and they had accepted it as. such.

Mr. C. YOUNG expressed the opinion that the clauses in question were the only clauses in the Bill that were worth a button. He had never heard any expression of opinion on the part of the House to the effect that. they ought to be struck out.

Mr. GORDON thought the Government should bear in mind that, e,'en with the clauses retained, a successful local option vote would be most difficult to obtain. He· thoroughly objected to their being struck out.

Mr. McLELLAN said it was stated by the Attorney-General all along, in the most distinct way, that the Bill would have to be recommitted for the purpose of striking out these clauses, therefore it could not be con-· tended that the Government were acting in any way unfairly. They were strictly fulfil­ling the pledge they had given.

Mr. MUNRO asked the House to re­member the difficulty with which the clauses were originally passed-how two or three nights were spent in discussing them, and the Government had to use every possible argument and persuasion in their support .. Still, he was glad to hear Ministers praying

Lz"censing (Public-houses) [N OVEMBER 10.] Act Amendment Bill. 2059

that the Bill should be recommitted in order that the clauses might be eliminated from it, because he wanted to see the extent to which the supposed temperance members of the Administration would go in swallowing their own principles. He would like also to see the sort of lesson they would get on the subject in the daily pross next morning. They had talked for hours and hours, and with the utmost stress, of the immense advan­tages that would accrue to the local option party from having a local option vote taken on the municipal elections day; but what was their story now? They had come to the conclusion that everything . they previously said on the subject was wrong. Their convictions were not what they used to be, but exactly the reverse. Would it not be useful to have some sort of indicator to show, on occasions like the present, which way Ministers were going? Otherwise, these changes were becoming so rapid that 11Onorablemembers would be unable to follow them-to know whether, if they wished to support the Government, they must vote this way or that. He did not believe in that sort of thing, and, therefore, he intended to press a division on the point. How many times could Ministers turn round on themselves in the course of 24 hours? He would make the Government this offer. He had distinctly told them that the tem­perance party in the House would reserve to themselves the right of moving any clause they liked when the Bill was reported; but 110W he would say, without, however, abso­lutely pledging any other honorable member in the matter, that if the Government would stand by these clauses, the party would, in all probability, give them no further trouble. Yet he was assured, on yery good authority, that if another division was taken on the question on which the party were beltten the other morning, they would win by a considerable majority. The course the Government were pursuing was nbsolutely monstrous. It was a sort of thi.ng that would ruin the credit of any Ministry. No country would ever stand it.

Mr. PEARSON said that the honor­able member 1'01' Geelong (Mr. Munro) had twitted the Governmentwithhavingchanged their opinions with regard to the Bill within a very few hours, but the fact was that from first to last they had not yaried either their opinions or their policy on the subject in the least. Before the Bill was brought in they said they were not prepared to propose any change in the fundamental principles of the Licensing Act. He, with other honorable

members, who subsequently became mem­bers of the present Government, took a strong and active part in ad vocating tem­perance principles in connexion with that Act when it was before the Legislature, and the honorable member for Geelong was absent from the country enjoying himself; and they all felt, when a settlement of the question of which the community approved was arrived at, that if it was llOt held to be absolutely final, it should, at least, last for some years, and that no Government had a right to propose, for a long time to come~ to alter it. Ministers expressly declared, before the present Bill was brought in, that it would be simply remedial; but that, inas­much as one of the changes the licensee1 victuallers desired to see effected embodied a rather important concession to them, they thought themselves bound to propose also a corresponding concession on the other side. Neither concession involved any consider­able change; yet he would venture to assert that, had they been accepted, the one in favour of the temperance party would have given them a greater advantage than they could expect to gain for the next six or ten years. (Mr. Munro-" 'Ve will have you turned out before then.") That was as might be. The honorable member talked of the country, but let him tell the honorable member that what the country at large wanted-what it was perfectly determined to have-was justice done between man and man. What damaged the temperance cause more than anything else was men like the honorable member proposing in Parliament schemes of confiscation; to change in a mOIDen t the legislation on which the cou ntry had rested for years. No member of the community had done more to damr.ge the temperance cause than he had done during the past week by the line which he had taken with respect to the Bill. Had it not been for the influence of his exaggerated talk upon men whom he (Mr. Pearson) respected from the bottom of his heart, but who sometimes allowed them­selves to be carried away by their convictions, the temperance cause would have secured the right of having the local option yote taken on the day they wished it to be taken-the right of having the local option principle tried under the fairest possible circumstances. The plan was thwarted-how? The honor­able member wanted to go" one higher"than the Ministry-to pose before the country a. year hence as the only real advocate of the temperance principle, and to make it ap­pear that the Government had opposed the

2060 Licensing (Public-houses) [ASSEMBLY.] Act Amendment Bill.

temperance party. But every.human being .in the colony who knew anything knew that ··six or eight members of the Ministry were .as strong for the temperance cause as ever :the honorable member had been. In the ,first place, they had not made the compro­mises the honorable member had. Talk of ·the Government changing their opinions! The honorable member had consented in the House to the principle of compensation, but ·he had already disowned it; and if he got the . chance be would place himself before the .country to-morrow as one who had ever been dead against it. (Mr. Munro-" I never consented to the principle; I was always against it.") The records told a different story. But there was no need to delay the House. Thanks to the honorable member and his tactics, a number of honorable gen­tlemen who were utterly true to the cause -of temperance were placed for awhile in a false position. The Government had simply acted on the belief that they were not en­titled to gi ve something to the publican party without, on the other hand, giving something to the temperance party. They were not prepared, and they were sure the country was not prepared, to overthrow in a moment the basis on which the Licensing Act of lI..885 was passed. As for what they were now doing they were doing it in fulfilment {)f a pledge made the other night on the. foundation of an understanding which was .accepted by the whole HOUSEl, and which no party in the House had a right to go :against.

Mr. McINTYRE stated that he could not refrain from congratulating the Minister ·of Public Instruction on the vigorous speech of which he had just delivered himself. He {Mr . .McIntyre) was no supporter of the Government; but unquestionably what they were doing now was as right as right could be. In fact, they were simply fulfilling the solemn pledge they gave to the House. It was most strange that the honorable mem­ber for Geelong (Mr. Munro) did not admit that snch a pledge was given. "Vere the -clauses not omitted, the Bill would be left in a ridiculous shape, because the other por­tionsof it which hung upon them had already been knocked out. Really the honorable member was allowing' his temperance ideas to carry him altogether too far. If this sort of thing went on the time was not far distant when the country would rise against it, and rush to the opposite extreme ..

Mr. HALL said he wal:'! verv much astonished when he heard that the Govern­ment intended to strike out these clauses,

and he was sure that his astonishment would be equally shared by the country; for wha~ the clau'ses contained was exactly what the country most wished for. It would be felt that local option was practically lost for the time being. In fact, the clauses contained the provisions which constituted the leading feature of the measure-the one thing which the Bill was mainly designed to accomplish. The Government said they would retain all the machinery clauses, but what were these particular clauses except machinery clauses? At any rate, the different members of the Government ought to vote on the question' as though it was an open one with them.

Mr. GRAVES remarked that what the Government asked honorable members to do was to surrender the fruit of many hours of debate-provisions which were adopted at their own earnest solicitation. He was no teetotaller, and never had been one, therefore he could not be' said to be in­stigated by the strong feelings referred to by the Minister of Public Instruction; but he believed none the less that if these clauses were struck out-after all, they were strictly machinery clauses-the Bill would be no­thing but a fraud and a sham. vVhat did the Attorney-General say when he intro­duced the measure but that it would. carry out the instructions of the Legislature with respect to local option? But here were honorable members asked to abandon pro­visions which contained the key to local option. For himself, he was thoroughly in favour of local option: with the stipulation, however, that fair compensation would be gi ven in every case. Over and over again did the Attorney-General point out the dis­ad vantages attendant upon the local option poll being held on the day fixed in the Act of 1885, but now he asked the House to adhere to it. (Mr. Gaunson-" That was part of the bargain made.") But t.he Go­vernment had no right to make a bargain which upset the common understanding arrived at all round the House. They were committing a great mistake in blowing hot one da.y and cold the next. The country was perfectly ~atisfied-of this he had ample proof in the communications he had received on the subject, not only from teetotallers but from people who had nothing to do with teetotalism-to have the local option poll held on the municipal elections day, because the arrangement would save tronble and expense, and the true feeling of the com­munity would be ascertained. 'Vhy was popular feeli ng, so far, to be utterly disre­garded? It was to be hoped that the Honse

Lz'censing (P~tblz'c-hO'ltses) [N OVEMBER 10.] Act Amendment Bill. 2061

would stick to the Bill as it was. A majo­rity of honorable members were pledged to local option, the clauses were brought in to make local option effectual, and to abandon them would be both ridiculous and disastrous. He did not think that the House ought to be asked to go into committee to undo what had been carried after a great deal of trouble.

Mr. RUSSELL stated that nothing had caused him greater surprise than to learn that the Government had agreed that clauses 11, 12, and 13 should be expunged from the Bill. He sat in his place during the whole of the discussion on Tuesday night, and he never heard any resolution adopted or any arrangement made that those three clauses were to be expunged. He heard the honor­able member for Geelong (Mr. Munro) say to the Government something to this effect -"If you don't acquiesce in those clauses, strike them out," and the Attorney-General l'eplied-" We will strike them out." But the fact of two honorable members bandying words with each other did not bind the House to give effect to anything that they said. It was unfair for the Minister of Public Instruction to say that the Govern­ment had been placed in a false position. The temperance party had done nothing to put the Government in a false position. To strike out clauses 11, 12, and 13 would be inimical to the whole Bill. In fact, the measure would not be worth a penny with­out those clauses. Moreover, they were purely machinery clauses, and to prove that such was the case it was only necessary to read the marginal notes, which were-

"11. Power to the Governor to direct poll for the purposes of the principal Act.

"12. Days for holding polls of electors for the purposes of the principal Act.

"13. Power to the Governor to make regula­tions for the conduct of elections for the pur­poses of the principal Act."

It was a perversion of the plain meaning of the English language to assert that these three clauses were not machinery clauses. He felt more grieved at the proposal of the Government to strike out these clauses than at anything that had occurred in connexion with the Bill. It was a shame for the Government to adopt such a course.

Mr. DEAKIN said that he had not been a member of the House for many years, but during the time he had been he had seen many movements in connexion with which unfair tactics had been resorted to. He had, however, never witnessed anything that had filled him with greater disgust and regret than the action of honorable members in

SES. 1887.-7 D

connexion with these clauses. (Mr. Ander ... son (V.)-" You ought to be ashamed of yourseIL") From the remarks which he had heard, it was perfectly plain that the posi­tion taken up by the Government had been entirely and absolutely misrepresented. Even the remarks of the honorable member for Ballarat East (Mr. Russell) were unjust and unwarranted. He believed that the honor. able member did not know all the facts of the case-tllat he spoke in partial ignorance -but he could not understand how the hon­orable member could have forgotten what was stated on the floor of the House during Tuesday night's sitting. The Government were challenged by the honorable member for 'tVest Melbourne (Mr. Carter) as to their intentions in regard to clauses 11,12, and 13, and they stated distinctly that they intended to strike them out. What occurred was reported as follows:-

" Mr. CARTER.-Did the Government propose now to rescind clauses 11, 12, and 13? They were not machinery clauses. On the contrary, they altered the principles of the Bill.

"Mr. DEAKIN.-We will rescind everything that is not a machinery clause.

"Mr. CARTER.-Will you state the clauses? "Mr. DEAKIN.-Clauses 11, 12, and 13."

The same statement was reiterated, either by himself or by the Attorney-General, not once or twice merely, but several times. The hon­orable member, of course, might have been out of the chamber on two or three occasions when the statement was made, but he did not understand how he could have been absent on every occasion. But there were other facts even more unpleasant than the circumstance that the honorable member appeared to be ignorant of what occurred during Tuesday night's sitting. The honorable member had asked how it was that members of the Go­vernment who supported local option had been placed in a false position. He would tell the honorable member. When the Bill was under the consideration of the Cabinet, he and other members of the Goverllluent strongly supported the view, as against the opinion of some of their colleagues, that some alteration of the local option clauses of the existing Act was necessary, and he argued especially that the vote should be taken on the day of the municipal elections. At the close of last year he had several con­versations with some of the most active workers in the temperance cause, and they stated that that was an amendment which would give -them entire satisfaction. He had been informed that since then that opi­nion had been altered, but he was not aware of it when the measure was under discussion

2062 Lz'censing (P1lblic.houses) [ASSEMBLY.] Act Amendment Bill.

in the Cabinet, and, in fact, not until he heard of it in the House. When he was urging it upon the Oabinet, he believed that changing the day of polling to the day on which the municipal elections were held, though it would not give absolute satisfac­tion to the local option party, who wanted local option pure and simple, would be re­.garded as a decided step in the right direc­tion. It was only with the greatest difficulty, and on tbe principle whicb prevailed in every Cabinet, especially on questions of tbis kind -the principle of compromise-that some of his colleagues could see their way to agree to tbe introduction of this provision into the Bill, in order to balance the concessions made on the other side. Having agreed upon the Bill, it was believed that by the 14th clause a reasonable concession was made to the publicans, and, on the other band, that the 12th clause was a decided gain to the tem­perance party, inasmuch as it would give them a fuller opportunity of expressing their opinion at a local option poll. But since the introduction of the Bill what had the Government been told both in the House and out of it? They had been told that the loeal option clauses were not worth having. That had been said by several mem-

. bers of the temperance party inside the House, and still stronger language had been used by prominent and active members of .the party outside the House. He had, therefore, reluctantly come to the conclusion that the proposal was not satisfactory to the temperance party. If any further evidence was needed of the com~ctness of this con­clusion, it was afforded by the fact that dur­ing the last three weeks he had been deluged with resolutions passed at temperance meet­ings in all parts of the colony, about 100 or 150 resolutions having been sent to him, showing tbat tbe local option provisions contained in the Bill were not acceptable to the temperance party, and that no proposal would be satisfactory unless it was to repeal the one-third proviso in the existing Act. Some of the resolutions even went so far as to state that unless the one-third proviso was repealed the ·temperance party would rather see the Bill thrown out. The Go­vernment had for some time feared that the way in which the discussions on the Bill were being prolonged might render it neces­sary to abandon some part of the measure, but they had no intention of dropping any particular portion of it until what occurred at the end of last week. Towards the close of that week a gentleman, who was the head of the body who had charge of all

Mr. Deahin.

the political action of the temperance party waited upon him, and submitted to him the result of a gathering of 400 temperance delegates from all parts of the colony, who had met together to consider the question, and had resolved to have either the aboli­tion of the one-third proviso or nothing at all. Oould anything be more significant than the fact of the head of the political organizat.ion of the temperance party wait­ing on tbe Government to tell them that the party had resolved that either the one­third proviso must be struck out of clause 46 or the Bill would be lost? Could the honorable member for Ballarat East be surprised at the action of the Government under these circumstances? Could he be surprised that the Government were aston­ished at the antagonism with which they had been met by the temperance party? But that was not all. He (Mr. Deakin) asked the gentleman who waited upon him a specific question. He said-" Suppose I were to ask the Cabinet to strike out that provision in clause 46, and leave the one­third proviso as it is under the present law, would you then be prepared to accept the Bill ? " The reply was-" No, we would not accept the Bill on any such terms." He then asked-" Don't you think the local option provision would still be much better than that contained in the existing Act?" The answer was-" It would be a little better, but so little that it is not worth having." This gentleman distinctly stated that he spoke not for himself, but for the whole temperance body. The next day the honorable member for Geelong (:\1r. Munro), who was thoroughly in the confidence of the temperance party, called at the Government Offices to see the Premier, and, failing to see tbat gentleman, he saw the Attorney­General. Afterwards the honorable mem­ber saw him (Mr. Deakin), and told him most emphatically the same thing that had been stated the previous day by the presi­dent of the Victorian Alliance. (Mr. Munro - "I am the president of the Alliance.") He was wrong in describing the gentleman who had an interview with him the previous day as the president of the Alliance; he was the chairman of the executive committee of the Alliance. He (Mr. Deakin) did not suppose that the honorable member for Ballarat East would have done the Government an injustice if he had known these facts-if he had known the action taken by the recognised political leader of the temperance party in the Legis­lative Assembly. (Mr. lVIunro-" I don't

Licensing (P~lblic-hou8e8) [N OVEMBER 10.] Act Amendment Bill. 2063

think there is any jnstification for these statements.") The honorable member for Geelong repeated exactly what the chairman of the executive committee of the Alliance said the day previous. They both said that the Bill would be opposed unless one of two t11ings was done, namely, unless the 011e­third proviso was struck out, or unless every­thing except machinery clauses was removed from the Bill.

Mr. MUNRO remarked that he never said anything of the sort.

The SPEAKER.-I must ask the hon­orable member not to interrupt. Interrup­tions are disorderly.

Mr. G A UNSON said that the Speaker's ruling was thoroughly incorrect. Interrup­tions were not disorderly. To prevent in­terruptions was to prevent fair debate.

The SPEAKER.-The honorable mem­ber for Emerald Hill (Mr. Gaunson) is out of order in making that remark to the chair.

Mr. GA UNSON said he did not think so.

The SPEAKER.-I must call upon the honorable member to withdraw the remark. Will the honorable member withdraw it ?

Mr. GAUNSON replied that he would not j but he would move that the House disagree with the Speaker's ruling.

The SPEAKER.-I shall be obliged to ask the House to take other measures if the honorable member does not withdraw the remark; but I trust the honorable member will spare me that necessity. I don't think the honorable member intended to make any remark objectionable to the chair, and I feel satisfied that a moment's reflection will lead him to see the propriety of with­drawing it.

Mr. GAUNSON asked the Speaker to kindly state the remark which he considered out of order, and wished withdrawn.

The SPEAKER.-I understood the hon­orable member to say, notwithstanding my objection, that he was at liberty to inter­rupt an honorable member if he thought proper.

Mr. G A UNSON said he believed that was perfectly correct according to parlia­mentary law. Moreover, he believed that an interruption was calculated to promote debate so long as it was not made for the purpose of improperly interrupting. If the Speaker was of opinion that this was not according to parliamentary law, he was bound for the time being-a proper opportunity being afforded him hereafter to dispute the ruling-to acquiesce; and, as there was a

iikelihood of a row with the Government on some matters of more moment, he would withdraw the remark.

Mr. DEAKIN, in resuming his remarks, stated that he was sorry the honorable member for Geelong (Mr. Munro) should have intimated that there was any difference between his recollection of what transpired at that interview and his (Mr. Deakin'S) own. He could scarcely understand why there should be any difference, seeing that the honorable member was generally explicit in putting forward his views.

Mr. MUNRO asked whether it was fair, without authority from himself or Mr. Hunt, for the Chief Secretary to give a version of a private conversation, when 11e knew that his (Mr. Munro's) mouth was shut-that he could not reply?

Mr. DEAKIN said l1e understood that,. during his absence from the chamber, the honorable member for Geelong made re­marks with reference to this matter even stronger than those made by the honomble member for Ballarat East (Mr. Russell). But did the honorable member think it fair to come to Ministers and make representa­tions to them, and then to seek to make out. that they were private conversations?

Mr. MUNRO here interjected a remark .. The SPEAKER.-I did not quite catchl

the statement which the honorable member for Geelong (Mr. Munro) object.s to, but if the honorable member denies a statement made by the Chief Secretary concerning what the honorable member for Geelong himself said, the Chief Secretary is bound· to accept that denial.

Mr. DEAKIN observed that there would be plenty of opportnnities, if opportunities were necessary, for refreshing the honorable member for Geelong's recollection. Not only did the interview already referred to take place, but the honorable member, in response to a request from him (Mr. Deakin), came up a second time when the Cabinet was sitting. He went out to him with a copy of the Licensing Bill in his hand, having first marked it with his colleagues. He had a conversation with the honorable member, and pointed out the marked clauses, includ­ing these very three. (Mr. Muuro-" Does the Chief Secretary say positively that I consented to the rescinding of clauses 11, 12, and 13?") Most positively and de­cidedly. (Mr. Munro-" It is absolutely untrue.") 'Vhen he went through the Bill with the honorable member, and he turned back to these clauses, the honorable mem­ber said-" These clauses are passed." He-

2064 Licensing (Public-houses) [ASSEMBLY.] Act Amendment Bill.

(Mr. Deakin) replied-" Yes, of course they are passed." (Mr. Munro-" I said 'you won't rescind them'?") He said-tO These clauses form part of the local option pro­posal which you ask us to strike out, and what is the good of striking out one part if the other is not struck out also? " " Well," replied the honorable memher for Geelong, " I never cared for them; I don't care for them." (Mr. Munro-" I never said any­thing of the sort.") He then walked straight from the room where he saw the llOnorable member to the room where the Cabinet sat, and laid the marked Bill before his colleagues.

Mr. GRAVES rose to order. He under­stood the Speaker to rule just now that if the honorable member for Geelong (Mr. Munro) denied a statement made by the Chief Secretary, it was irregular for the Chief Secretary to pursue the matter any further.

Mr. McLELLAN, speaking to the point of order, said he hoped it was not going to be laid down as a precedent that a leading member or a Ministry, when his honour and veracity were impugned, must not be allowed to defend himself. (Mr. Munro-': He is not defending himself; he is making charges against me.") It might be necessary for an honorable member, when defending him­self, to accuse another honorable member of something which might seem inconsistent in his conduct. The Chief Secretary, so far, had not said a single word beyond what was necessary in defence of his own conduct and the action of the Government.

The SPEAKER.-I have said already that if a statement made by the Chief Secretary concerning what the honorable member for Geelong (Mr. Munro) said is contradicted by the honorable member for Geelong, the Chief Secretary is bound to accept the contradiction. At the same time the Chief Secretary is perfectly at liberty to state what led him to arrive at Lis belief as to the facts of the case.

Mr. DEAKIN remarked that he was merely giving his recollection, which was very positive and clear, as to what transpired. The honorable member for Geelong had alluded to the conversation as private, and, no doubt, there were parts which ought to be treated as private, but how a conversa­tion could be regarded as private in which the Government were asked either to drop the Bill altogether or to expunge material portions, he was utterly unable to imagine. (Mr. Munro-" It is the first, not the se­cond, conversation that I allude to.") He

had referred to the first conversation only so far as it was necessary to explain mat­ters. Honorable members would see that, if what he had stated had not happened, it would have been an altogether extraordinary and inexplicable thing for him, with the Bill in his hand, and the clauses marked, to go from the room where he saw the honorable member to the room in which his colleagues sat, and point out to them that the choice distinctly put to him was between striking out the one-third proviso, and abandoning everything except machinery clauses. After a prolonged discussion it was agreed that it was impossible to touch the one-third pro­viso, and so it was resolved to strike out the local option clauses, and thus reduce the Bill to a Bill dealing simply with ma­chinery. This was done in order to save something of the measure. The Govern­ment had thus to drop proposals which they considered to be perfectly fair and just to the temperance party-proposals which they all along thoroughly believed in, and believed in now. Instead of the honorable member for Ballarat East (Mr. Russell) and those associated with him having any ground of complaint against the Government, the Government had the right to complain of the treatment they had received from those gentlemen. The Government had acted in obedience to a request addressed to them authoritatively on behalf of the temperance party. (Mr. Baker-" That is a disputed point.") ""Vhat could be more authorita­tive? The two gentlemen 11e had referred to spoke as mouth-pieces and delegates of the temperance party, and he considered their representations were entitled to every credit. ""Vhat reason had he for doubting or questioning them? Did not honorable members who belonged to the temperance party vote solidly against the second read­ing of the Bill, although it included clauses 11, 12, and 13? Bearing in mind that fact, and also the language which those honorable members had indulged in with regard to the Bill-that the concessions which it made were not worth having unless the one-third proviso was repealed-was he not justified in believing that what the hon­orable member for Geelong and Mr. Hunt said was true? How could the Government be blamed for believing what was said? The Government, in order to save a part of their Bill which they believed to be va.luable, did a most unpleasant and ungrateful thing. They consented to ask the House to strike out parts of their own measure-provisions which they believed to be just and wise.

Licensing (Public-houses) [N OVElIIBER 10.] Act Amendment Bill. 2065

They considered it would be a great advan­tage to have the local option vote taken on the municipal elections day; they also con­sidered that the amendments which the Bill made in section 36 of the Act valuable a.mendments; but they consented to strike out those provisions in order to save the remnant oE the measure. IE the honorable member for Geelong had been acting in the interests of the temperance cause, and the temperance cause only, he would not have behaved as he had. The honorable mem­ber had been acting rather as one of the most prominent members of the Opposition, seeking to embroil the Governnment with their supporters, and to place honorable members who, while agreeing with the tem­perance platforru, supported the Govern­ment in a false position. The honorable member accused the Government of chang­ing front, and of a breach of faith, whereas, as a matter of fact, the Government had been led into a trap. In conclusion, he had only to say, what he said at the beginning, that he had never experienced anything in connexion with politics which he more re­gretted or was more disgusted at.

Mr. MUNRO observed that he did not desire to take any part in the debate. He simply rose to say, with regard to the state­ment that he agreed to the rescinding of clauses 11, 12, and 13, that he would ask the Government to propose the appointment of a select committee of five members from their own side of the House, to hear wit­nesses who saw him immediately after he left the Chief Secretary; and, if they did not prove that his words were true, he would resign his seat.

Mr. DEAKIN said he was prepared to accept the challenge. He desired to add that the honorable member for Geelong (Mr. Munro) was present in the House on Tuesday night, when he (Mr. Deakin) stated that clauses 11, 12, and 13 would be struck out as part of the agreement, .and yet the honorable member did not offer any contradiction or say one word on the -subject.

Mr. JONES remarked that the excited harangue which the House had listened to -during the last three-quarters of an hour must have convinced honorable members tha.t it was not a. safe thing to receive t,heir inspira­tion as to the laws which were wanteJ in the colony from private interviews with Mr. Hunt -or anyhody else. The Chief Secretary had given to the House his recollection of what -occurred in the course of two or three or more conversations which took place between

him and gentlemen who had not been elected to hold private conversations with him, and who practically held no representative char. acter whatever. He had not one word to say against Mr. Hunt, who occupied, he believed, the position of secretary or chair­man of the Alliance committee. It by no means followed that Mr. Hunt was a teeto­taller. He might. be or he might not be. But, whether he was or not, he was not en­titled to dictate to the Government what Bills should be brought before Parliament, or in what way those Bills should be dealt with. The Assembly was the proper place in which to deal with questions oE the kind. He (Mr. Jones) reckoned that among the teetotallers or Victoria there was not a man older than himself as a teetotaller. For 52 years he had been a teetotaller. And yet he did not consider himseH entitled to wait upon the Chief .Secretary and dictate to him, in a private conversation, what should be done with any measure. He was entitled to speak, in his place in Parliament, upon any measure brought beEore Parliament to be dealt with by fair and reasonable debate -debate which could be reported. vVhat they had to consider now was whether or not the A ssembly had given any pledge that it would strike out these clauses. As a. fact, it had given no pledge of the kind. He followed the debates as closely asany hOll­

OI'able member. From the time the House assembled until it adjourned he made it a point to be in his place, and he could not charge his memory with any bargain having been arrived at by the committee that these clauses should be omitted. He could not be bound by anything Mr. Hunt said-byany­thing said in private conversation by any individual. He could not recognise the con­versation between the honorable member for Geelong (Mr. Munro) and the Chief Secre­tary as binding members on either side of the House. This was not a question of Op­position or Ministeria.l support. He did not ally himself with the teetotallers, and say, "I will go for anything you go for." In every question that came before the House he felt his personal responsibility to.his constituents and to his convictions. He would be no party to an injustice to the publican, but he would be no party to an abandonment of principle so far as that principle might be carried out. He had yet to disco,er that a private conversation outside the House should be cited in the course of debate as a reason why the Assembly should forget its duty to its constituents. It was a most ill-judged thing of the Chief Secretary to have brought

2066 Licensing (P~tblic-house8) [ASSEMBLY.] Act Amendment Bill.

those conversations into the House at all. The Ohief Secretary, he trusted, would'have many years of political life; and 20 years hence, should the honorable gentleman re­member this episode, he would recall it as a thing to be ashamed of that he had cited a private conversation in the Assembly. Mr. Hunt had nothing to do with debates in that Ohamber except to listen to them. Mr. Hunt might criticise members of the Assembly after they had done their work, but the members of the Assembly sat there to take their part in the debates and in the making of laws, and when those laws were carried through they must then look to their constituents to a.pprove or dis­approve of what they had done. But a private conversation outside the Chamber ought never to be cited inside of it, and would never be cited there by gentlemen who knew what was due to the representative capacity. He had no wish to interfere be­tween the honorable member for Geelong and the Chief Secretary, but he might say that the honorable member for Geelong was not the leader of the Opposition, and that be had not concerted with the Opposition on the measures to be taken in relation to this question. They had each of them followed their particular "bent." The honorable member for Brighton-whose name he had just accidentally introduced-was in favour of local option. The honorable member for Emerald Hill (Mr. Gaunson) was not in favour of local option, any more than his colleague, the Minister of Public VY orks, who voted against it. (Mr. Nimmo-" His colleague never voted against it.") At all' events it looked very much like it. When local option might have been carried in the Assembly it was defeated by five votes, and three of those votes were given by Ministers who were pledged to local opqon. Had those three votes been recorded on the other side they would have given a majority for local option. If men showed their love for local option by making vigorous speeches on one side of the question on temperance platforms where they were cheered to the echo, and then came to the Assembly and recorded their votes on the other side, the

. people outside would be able to distinguish between mere wiud and work; and it was work that men would be valued for. The Minister of Public vVorks had declared that he would sever his connexion with any Minis­try rather than he would allow himself to be false tothe principlewhich hehad now "sold." There was no getting away from that fact. The honorable gentleman's menacing finger

Mr. Jones.

would not get rid of the facts. This question was being dealt with by men on their per­sonal responsibility. The honorable member for Emerald Hill (Mr. Gaunson), one of his (Mr. Jones') closest friends, 'was against him on this question. What did that matter? Did that absolve him from his duty? He· helieved in local option, and was doing his best to secure it. The Minister of Public­Works was supposed to believe ill local option, and the best possible proof that he­did believe in it was that he voted against. it. This he (Mr. Jones) supposed was the­result of Ministerial action. It would be easy to name honorable members who were· compelled to vote against local option by the Min istry. vYhell it was discovered that local option would be carried unless those honorable members crossed the floor at the Ministerial bidding in order to give the coup de grace to the hope of the temperance party, it was very natural that one ·Minister after another should try to explain away himself and his position on that question. Meantime, it was unfit that any private conversation should have been trotted out in the Assembly in order to obscure the great issue that the Government were now asking the Assembly to go back from the work which had actually been done because of some conversation between Mr. Hunt and the Chief Secretary.

Mr. BOSISTO said he was bound to­acknowledge that, the other evening, the­Attorney-General stated that he intended to recommit the Bill for the purpose of striking out these clauses. At the same time he must express his deep sorrow that such a thing was about to be done. He held that the three clauses, 11, 12, and 13, were the mainstay of the whole Bill, and, as far­as he was concerned, if they were now struck out, he would have to consider whether he would support the third reading of the measure. He thought it was a sad thing for honorable members to remain there night after night discussing a measure of this character, and that then, when they had passed certain clauses, after a good deal of discussion, it was to end in their being thrown on one side simply because some gentlemen outside had gone to the Chief Secretary and told him that they were not­in favour of the Bill. (Mr. Munro-" We never said that.") The opinion he held was that, if members of the Assembly were re-­presentatives of the people, their views ought to be consulted, and he certainly thought that no Minister-he said it with all respect­-should pay lllore attention to gentlemen!

Licensing (Public-houses) [NOVEMBER 10.J Act Amendment Bill. 2067

'Outside the House than to those who were Members of Parliament. He was very sorry that the time of the House had been wasted in the way it had been, because he believed that a very good amending measure in re­lation to the licensing question might have been pa,ssed if the M.inistry had kept to the Bill in its entirety from the commencement. They were willing, he knew, to withdraw 'certain things which were not acceptable to honorable members, and to insert clauses which would probably have' made the Bill better than when it was first introduced; but it seemed to him that the House had been playing fast and loose from the very begin­ning, and now they would have to reconsider the licensing question de novo, because there would be nothing left in the present Bill, if these three clauses were withdrawn, which would be of any advantage whatever. These were machinery clauses; to say they were not was not in conformity wit.h the provi­sions of the clauses. He thought it would be far better to have t.he vote with reference to the question of local option taken on the ,day app()inted for the election of municipal councillors than on an independent day, .because, by the former plan, there would be ·a full expression of the opinion of the rate­Jlayers of the various localities, and it would be seen what their views were on the ques­tion of the reduction of public-houses. Dur­ing the time the Bill had been before the House he had given it all the support he possibly could, because he held, with refer­ence to local option, that the people should be given a full opportunity of saying whether they were in favour of having public-houses above the statutory number or not. He had expressed himself thus warmly because he felt that they had wasted their time, health, .and energy over a measure which was now of no service or value whatever with reference ·to the r('form of the licensing system.

Mr. GAUNSON remarked that there was no doubt that the Government, in ;abandoning these clauses, were acting in a very honorable spirit. He could not say that he commended them for taking their inspiration from outside sources as they had done; but as they were usually intriguing. ·on this subject with some twopenny-half­penny association outside, it was not sur­prising that they had been doing the same -thing in the present inetance. He hoped that they now saw the pitfall into which they had tumbled. There was no doubt that the abandonment of these clauses meant . smashing up the local option princi pIe in -every shape and form, and he was only too

delighted to congratulate the Ministry on the result of their playing fast and loose.

Mr. ANDERSON (Villiers) said he had never felt so pained as he did that night when he heard the Ministry intimate their intention to abandon these three clauses. The clauses were carried in committee, and surely the Ministry were placing themselves in a humiliating position when they asked that the Bill should be recommitted in order that the clauses might be expunged. (M.r. McLellan-" You were here when the state­ment was made that they would be struck out.") He never heard it, and never could have agreed to such an arrangement, because these clauses were the very reason why he voted for the Bill. He saw from the first that if they were can'ied as they appeared in the Bill they would do good, not to the temperance party-it was not a temperance party's matter at all-but to the country. People who lived in cities had no difficulty in going to the poll on any day, but it was a very different thing in the country, where there were bad roads. It was most impor­tant that the clauses should be retained, and there was no doubt whatever that the Go­vernment had fallen into a nice trap. That was sufficiently evidenced by the fact that the honorable member for Emerald Hill (Mr. Gaunson) was found lauding and up­holding them. He (Mr. Anderson) had sup­ported this Government as constantly and faithfully as he had supported any Govern­ment-the O'Loghlen Government and this Government were those which he had fol-19wed-but if they continued to bring in measures and then withdraw clauses and alter and amend their own work and the work of the House, he would have to consider whether he could follow them any further.

Mr. vVRIXON observed that honorable members seemed not to understand the position. The other evening there were before the committee two distinct proposi­tions. One was a proposition which might be described as in favour of the total ab­stainers, and the other was a proposition in favour of the publicans. This might be taken as a rough description of the two pro­posals. The committee proceeded with the work of dealing with the Bill, and they passed clauses 11, 12, and 13 in a body as a concession to the total abstaining party.

. After those clauses had been passed the committee then came to clause 14, which embodied the concession to the publican party. '\Then they reached that clause, from certain causes which need not be dis­cussed now, the committee determined no

2068 Licensing (P,ltblic-houses) [ASSEMBLY.] Act Amendment Bill.

to adopt that concession to the publican party. (Mr. Oarter-" Th~ Government you mean.") At all events the committee decided not to adopt it, and it was not adopted. The Government were then placed in this position-that whereas they had originally come before the House and the country with a Bill which contained a con­cession on the one hand to the total abstain­ing party and a concession on the other hand to the publican party, when the Bill got into committee the committee, after adopting the concession on the one side, drew back and refused to adopt the con­cession on the other. vVhen that state of things arose the Government at once felt that it would not be a matter of fair play for them to have led on the committee to make the concession to the total abstaining party when they were not able to make the con­cession t.othe other Ride. That was their view, and they then announced to the committee that they intended to withdraw these clauses. Nothing could have been said more clearly or explicitly. What was the conduct of the honorable members who exclaimed now when that announcement was made? Did they say a word? Did they jump up and say­"You must give us our .clauses" ? Did they give the Government the least notice that although the Government were not able to carry out the concession to the publican party the total abstaining party would insist on the concessions to them being granted? They did nothing of the kind. The Govern­ment told the committee, and through the committee the public, that as they could not carry their Bill in its entirety-as they could not make the concession they proposed to both parties, they would make it to neither. Having let the Government put that view before the committee without the slightest protest or objection those honorable mem­bers now stood aghast because the Govern­ment were simply carrying out their promise. If any honorable members thought the Go­vernment were going to act on such a principle as they seemed to desire they were vastly mistaken. He would say further that, while he was second to no one in the cause of temperance, he ]lad a profound conviction that the cause of temperance or any other honest cause would never be ad­vanced by adopting crooked or intricate courses. The Government, and not only the Government but honorable members would be doing that, if, after what took place in committee without question or 'rebuke, they were now to seek by a catch vote to undo the arrangement which was made in the face of

Mr. Wrixon.

day before the whole Assembly. He wished to see the cause of temperance, as well as every other noble cause promoted, but, if they wanted to promote it, they must act in a straightforward and honorable way.

Mr. ANDERSON (Creswick) stated that he was one of those honorable members who· both spoke and voted in favour of clauses 11,. 12, and 13, and he felt very warmly on the subject of those clauses, because he considered them an important factor in the Bill. At the ' same time there could not be the slightest doubt that, when the committee came to clause 14, and the 2nd and 3rd sub-sections of that clause were struck out at the instance of the Government, there was a clear under­standing that, as the portion of the BiH favourable to the publican party had been omitted, the clauses which were favourable to the total abstinence party would also be struck out, and only the machinery clauses left in the Bill. That this was the distinct understanding was proved by the fact that it was explained over and over again by the Chief Secretary, and also by the Attorney­General, that the Governmen t were compelled to take that course. They stated that, see­ing they could please neither party, they would simply confine themselves to making the principal Act efficient in its working. The Government were now in the position of the proverbial old man and his ass-they commenced by trying to please everybody, and they had ended by pleasing nobody. Nevertheless, they had not failed to accom­plish something. The Bill, as it stood now, would make the Act of 1885 workable, and" if nothing else was effected, that in itself would be a valuable result. In his opinion', honorable members having entered into a compact, were now bound to let these clauses­go, more especially as the 3rd and 6th sub .. sections of clause 46, which related to the same subject, had been already struck out. He confessed that he could not see any reason for the heat which some ]lOnorable members had displayed over the matter. He considered that the Governm.~nt had done their best, and he, for one, as an inde­pendent member· standing between' the two parties-for, at the last general election, he was in the position of being congratulated by the teetotallers, and, at the sa'me time,. being congratulated by the publicans-felt bound to support the Ministry in. the course, they were now taking in pursllance of a distinct compact. He was neither rabidly in favour of one side nor the other. He was in favour of temperance principles, and no

. one was more desirous to see ·temperance

Licensing (Public-houses) [NOVEMBER 10.J Act Amendment Bill. 2069:

and morality prevail throughout .the whole community. At the same time, he could not honorably break a clear agreement which was arrived at, and therefore he would vote for the recommittal of the Bill.

Mr. STAUGHTON remarked that, ac­cording to Hunsard, the honorable member for Geelong (Mr. Munro), speaking on the 11th elause the previous Thursday, said-

" As for the clause before the committee, be did not care a straw about it. He did not intend, however, to vote against it; he simply meant to let it go."

Mr. MUNRO said the report was quite correct. He did say so.

Mr. "VHEELER said he thought it necessary, in justice to himself, to explain the position which he occupied in relation to this matter. When clauses 11, 12, and 13 were under consideration in committee he supported them. But when clause 14 was discussed and the Government were not successful in carrying it there was a distinct understanding, to his (Mr. ,\Vheeler's) mind, that the whole Bill except merely the ma­chinery clauses was to be abandoned. He himself got up and said that there was no use in going any further with the local option clauses. He urged that the Goyernment should take back the Bill, re-cast it, and introduce it again with only the machinery clauses, so that honorable members might see exactly what they were voting for, be­cause the Bill was so complicated that hon­orable members could scarcely sever the clauses referring to local option and the mere machinery provisions to render the principal Act workable. The fact that he made that statement would show the im­pression he was under at the time. He now felt placed in a very awkward position. He had been anxious to see the local option clauses carried into effect, and he would be very glad if the whole Bill as introduced by the Government could now be passed. There was nothing one-sided about it; in his opinion the Government made a great effort to please both parties, and the measure seemE-d, under the circumstances, to be a fair compromise. It now looked very much like as if the Bill would have to be withdrawn altogether. At the same time, personally he did not desire to see that coursr taken, because the principal Act was defective in so many respects that it abso­lutely required the machinery provisions of this BW to make it work. Having spent so much time over the matter, it would be better for the Assembly to accomplish that·

SES 1887.-7 E

result than to do nothing at all. The whole' thing from beginning to end had been most embarrassing to honorable members who, like himself, took an independent course. He could endorse the statement of his hon­orable colleague (Mr. Anderson) that on the platform they announced their iutention of. adopting a medium line of action. They stated that it was of no use to attempt to· legislate in advance of public opinion, and· that they would he prepared to assist in the passage of any measure which would be fair" to both parties. They thought it would be only just to the publicans that they should have a measure which would ensure them at all events fair compensation in the event of their being deprived of their licences, and at the same time, that the temperance party should have a workable Act which would assist them to reduce the number of public-. houses to the statutory number. He believed that if parties would unite this could be done even now. With regard to these clauses,. he felt that there was a compact which must be adhered to, and in view of that fact he could not possibly vote for the retention of' the clauses.

Mr. McCOLL said he could not agree· with the honorable member for Creswick (Mr. Wheeler) when he said that the Bill would ha\'e to be withdrawn. He (Mr. McColl) thought it would be a very great pity indeed if the Bill were to be withdrawn,. because, afterwhat had occurred in connexion with this measure, he felt that it would be many years before any Ministry would' venture to touch the licensing question again. He thought, therefore, that wllilo the Assembly had a chance it should set· to work in a common-sense manner, and endeavour to pass a measure which would remedy the defects in the existing Act anel give satisfaction to the country. He had fully recognised from the first that the Bill was one of compromise, and he de­clined to regard it in any other light. At the same time, he was thoroughly in favour of local option, and would always record a vote in its favour whenever he had the opportunity. But, looking at the Bill as a compromise, how did it stand? Why was it introduced? It was brought in not only to remedy the machinery defects of the Act of 1885, but also, on the one hand, to relieve the stringency of section 36, and, on the other, to remove the difficulties under which­local option laboured. Under these circum-· stances, what did honorable members find ?' That the sub-sections of clause 14, which

:2070 Licensing (Public-houses) [ASSEMBLY.] Act Amendment Bill.

would amend section 36, had been thrown out. Were honorable members then, in ·connexion with a measure so introduced, to make an immense concession to the temper­ance party, and, on the other hand, to refuse everything to the publican interest? He, for one, felt that he could do nothing of the kind. Like the honorable member for Creswick, who occupied a thoroughly inde­pendent position, he held that, unless equal justice was done to both sides, clauses 11, 12, and 13 must be withdrawn. Oould not, however, something be done in the way of retaining both the sub-sections and the clauses?

Mr. GORDON stated that, some little time since, he charged the Government with having broken faith with the temperance party, but he did so under a misapprehen-' sion. He was not aware of what had taken place previously in connexion with the with­drawal of the clauses. He now begged to withdraw the imputati9n.

MI". OFFIOER said he felt so disap­pointed on Tuesday night at the Ohief Secretary'S statement that these clauses, which constituted a most important feature of the Bill, would be abandoned, that he straightway ceased to take any further in­terest in the measure. Accordingly, he left the chamber before midnight. In express­ing his regret at the way things had gone, he wished it to be understood that he was not an extremist either way. He was in

. favour of neither the party represented by the honorable member for Geelong (Mr. Munro), nor that represented by the honor­ttble member for 'Vest Melbourne (Mr. O~l.l·ter). In fact, he wanted moderation, ,and he thought he saw it in the Bill, especi­.ally in clauses 12 and 13. At the same time he sympathized with the Government. They were in an unfortunate position, but undoubtedly they were now taking a proper step. It would be hopeless, indeed, for them to take any other, save the one he himself would have preferred-namely, to throw up the Bill altogether.

Mr. LEVIEN stated that he understood ,all along, after a certain stage had been reached, that the Government intended to abandon all but the machinery clauses of the Bill, and, in giving the vote on the ,question of local option which he did the' o()ther morning, his main object waS to pre­serve the Bill, and enable it to pass into law. No doubt it would be beneficial, for it would remove many difficulties which now .obstructed the operation of the principal

Act. As for the clauses at present in ques­tion, the Government were bound to with­draw them in order to keep faith.

Mr. CARTER said he wished to express his satisfaction with the honorable course the Government were taking. However much he differ,ed from them before, he agreed with them now. Having given a pledge they were carrying it out. The honorable member for Dundas referred to him as an extremist, but he objected to be called an extremist. He had no extreme views on any subject. He had fought for a principle, but in no extreme way. ,He had never haunted the departments with deputations, nor done anything in the hole-and-corner way that had been described that evening. He never asked the Government to put a line in the Bill. He never saw the Bill until it was printed. All that he did was to ask the Government, when certain sub­sections of clause 14 had been knocked out, what they were going to do with clauses 11, 12, and 13. Supposing they had said that those clauses would not be knocked out, would the Bill have gone further? Honor­able members all round the House knew perfectly well that it would never have advanced another inch. Many honorable members openly expressed their surprise at the honorable mem ber for Geelong (Mr. Munro) and the honorable member for Ballarat East (Mr. Russell) remaining dumb when the Ohief Secretary stated that the clauses would be withdrawn. They never uttered a word. Their silence having given consent, it was too late for them to take objection now. His own view was that he would much rather see the Bill withdrawn.

Mr. A. HARRIS stated that he was present when the Chief Secretary and At­torney-General both gave honorable mem­bers to understand that sub-sections 2 and 3 of clause 14 would be dropped, and also that clauses 11, ] 2, and 13 would be struck out. He thought, however, with the hon­orable member for Mandurang (Mr. McOoll), that it would be an excellent plan to re­insert the former and adhere to the latter. The Bill would then become of immense practical value.

The House divided on the question that the Bill be recommitted for the reconsidera­tion of clauses 11, 12, and 13-

Ayes ... 40 Noes .. , ] 9

Majority for the recommittal 21

Licensing (P'ublic-houses) [NOVEMBER 10.] Act Amendment Bill. 2071

AYES.

Mr. Anderson (C.), Mr. Langdon, " Bailes, " Langridge, " Bourchier, " Levien, " Brown, " McColl, " Cameron, " McLellan, " Carter, " Murphy, " D. M. Davies, " Murray, " Dea.kin, " Nimmo, " Derham, " Pearson, " Donaghy, " Heid,

Dow, " Shiels, " Feild, " C. Smith, " Fink, " Staughton, ." Forrest, " Toohey, " Gardiner, " "Vheeier, " Gannson, " "Vright, " Gillies, " Zox. " Groom, .. A. Harris, " J. Ha.rris, " Highett,

Tellers. Mr. McIntyre, " L. L. Smith.

NOES.

Mr. Anderson (V.), Mr. Munro, " Anorews, " Outtrim, " Baker, " Hussell, " Ferguson, " Uren, " Gordon, " Vale, " Graves, " A. Young, " Hall, " C. Young. " Jones, Tellers. " Laurens, Mr. Graham, " Mimms, Dr. Hose. On the question that the Speaker do leave

the chair, Mr. ANDERSON (Villiers) suggested

that the Bill should only be recommitted 1)1'0 forma, so that the question at issue might be calmly discussed on Tuesday.

Mr. MUNRO asked if he could speak to the motion before the House?

The SPEAKER.-The honorable mem­ber can only speak on the motion that I do now lea\'Te the chair.

Mr. MUNRO moved the adjournment of the debate. He said he did so in order to enable himself to speak with greater freedom. The Ohief Secretary made a statement a little while ago which he (Mr. Munro) chal­lenged, and he further challenged the hon­<>rable gentleman to refer the point in dis­pute between them to a select committee of his own friends. He now repeated both challenges. He did not charge the honorable gentleman with having made a wilful mis­take. On the contrary, he believed the hOll­orable gentleman was under the impression that his sta,tement was currect. What he (Mr. Munro) said over and over again in the House, and what he would repeat, was that the clauses it was now proposed to rescind would not answer the purpose of the temper­ance party, but he never said he would vote against those clauses. In any case it was a breach of good faith for the Ohief Secre­tary to repeat a private conversation without the consent of those who were parties to it.

Mr. McLELLAN rose to order. He contended that the adjournment of the de­bate could not be moved at the present stage. The rule laid down in May was as follows:-

"When the order of the day is read in the Commons for the House to resolve itself into committee on the Bill, the Speaker puts a ques­tion 'That I do now leave the chair,' to which the proper amendment is, to leave out from the word' That,' to the end of the question, in order to add, 'This House will on this day "three months," or" six months," resolve itself into the said committee.' . . . It is not competent to move any amendment by way of addition to the question that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair."

The SPEAKER.-The honorable mem­ber for Geelong (Mr . Munro) is quite in order.

Mr. MUNRO said he never stated to the Chief Secretary or to the Attorney-General that the party with which he was associated would consent to the rescinding of clauses 11, 12, and 13, and, when speaking on the subject in the House, he always expressed the hope that the clauses would not be re­scinded. The Chief Secretary also went so far as to say that he (Mr. Munro) had acted with regard to the Bill not only as a mem­ber of the temperance party, but also as a leading member of the Opposition. But what had the Opposition done? 'Vas it not they who enabled the Government to defeat the temperance party? Did the honorable gentleman believe that he (Mr. Munro) ever consulted with the Opposition on the subject at all? Oertainly he consulted with the honorable member for Oastlemaine (Mr. Gordon) and with others, but, as for the Opposition, why the matter was never once mentioned in the opposition room in his hearing. He never asked about it. The honorable member for Oastlemaine had just made a statement which was rather severe upon himself (Mr. Munro). It was that when he charged the Government with a breach of faith with the temperance party he spoke under a misapprehension. Well, he would ask the hOllorable member this: would he confirm the statement of the Ohief Secretary with respect to it ?

Mr. GORDON remarked that thf3 effect of the statement made by him a few minu'tes ago was that, when he charged the Govern­ment with a breach of faith, he was not aware that the Ohief Secretary anu the Attorney-General had both stated. in the chamber that the clauses would be with­drawn. He considered that the honorable membet· for Geelong (Mr. Munro) was labor­ing under a misapprehension. .

2072 Licensing (Public-houses) [ASSEMBLY.] A.ct Amendment BUl.

l\fr. MUNRO stated that immediately after his interview with certain members of the Government-immediately after he left the Ohief Secretary-he met another gentle­man, to whom he communicated what had taken place, and he told that gentleman distinctly that he (Mr. Munro) did not know whether the Government would want to strike out the clauses, but he hoped they would not. Moreover, he said the same thing to the Iferald reporter who called upon him next day. All this went to show that he never consented to the withdrawal of the clauses. Possibly the Ohief Secretary had allowed his own excitement to lead bim into a misapprehension. Then, as to what had taken place in the Assembly. He heard the honorable member for vVest Melbourne (Mr. Oarter) ask about the clauses, and get an answer, but he (Mr. Munro) said nothing, being anxious that business should be gone on with. 'Vould the Chief Secretary assert that his reply to the honorable member for West Melbourne bound the House? When the honorable gentleman made his state­ment, what could honorable members do but listen to it quietly? The time to make ob­jections would arrive when the matter to be objected to came under debate. He (Mr. Munro) waited for the proper time to deal with the matter. He would again repeat that he never, under any circumstances, consented to the clauses in question being expunged. If the Chief Secretary persisted in stating that he did do so, the Govern­ment ought to consent to the appoilltment of a select committee to inquire into the facts, as the matter was one which affected the honour of the House, and the veracity of two of its members. He (Mr. Munro) would be content to leave the nomination· of the committee to the Government.

Mr. DONAGHY said it appeared, from what had been elicited during the discussion, that the laws of the country, instead of being settled in Parliament, were concocted and arranged in private. He would ask honor­able members whether thn,t was a fair and square thing? He thought it was very unfair.

Mr. GAUNSON remarked that it was just as well it should be understood that there was no occasion for the Bill being brought forward at all, except for the pur­pose of in some way relieving a number of hotel-keepers from the grinding operation of the 36th section of the existing Act, or, in other words, keeping faith with the pub­licans. Otherwise the present Act was not

defective in the slightest degree-there waS· not a section in it which wanted amendment .. The Government had "sold" the teetotallers, and he was voting with the Government simply because they l]ad done so.

The motion for the adjournment of the· debate was negatived.

The House then went into committee for' the further consideration of clauses 11, 12,. and 13.

The OLEHK annonnced that the Ohairman· of Oommittees was unable to take the' chair.

On the motion of Mr. GILLIES, Mr .. McLellan was appointed Ohairman pro tern.

The committee divided on the question, that clause 11 stand part of the Bill-

Ayes ... 18 Noes ... .... 40

Majority against the clause 22 AYES.

Mr. Andrews, II Ferguson, II Gordon, II Graham, II Graves, II Hall, I! Lauren~, I! Mirams, II Munro, I! Outtrim,

Dr. Rose, Mr. Russell,

II Uren, II Vale, II A. Young, II C. Young.

Tellers. Mr. Baker,

II Jones. NOES.

Mr. Anderson (C.), Mr. Langdon, II Bailes, " Langridge, II Bourchier, II I.evien, I! Brown, II :Mc.Col1, I! Cameron, II McIntyre, I! Carter, " Murphy, I! D. M. Davies, Murray, I! Deakin, II Nimmo,

Derham, Pearson, I! Donaghy, II Reid,

Dow, I! C. Smith, II Feild, " Staughton, I! ]'ink, II Toohey, II li'orrest, II Wheeler, II Gardiner, II Wright, II Gl1unson, II 'Vrixon, II Gillies, II Zox. II Groom, I! A. Harris, Tellers. II J. Harris, Mr. Shiels, II Highett, II L. L. Smith. On the question that clause 12 stand part

of the Bill, Mr. GRAVES said he extremely re­

-gretted that the cla.use wa.s going to be struck out, because, if it had become law,. it would have facilitated, to some extent,. the taking of local option polls, especially in country districts.

The committee .divided­Ayes ... Noes ...

18 37

Majority again~t the clause 19·

Licensing (Public-houses) [N OYEMBER 10.] Act Amendment Bm., 2073

Mr. Andrews, " Baker,

Ferguson, " Gordon, " Graham, " Graves, " Hall, " Laurens, .. Mirams, " Munro,

AYEs. Mr. Outtrim, " Russell, " Uren, " Vale,

A. Young, " C. Young;

Telle1·s. Mr. Jones, Dr; Rose.

'NOES.

Mr. Anderson (C.), Mr. Highett, " Bailes, " Langdon, .. Bourchier, " Levien, " Cameron, " McColl, " Carter, " McIntyre, " D, M. Davies, " Murphy, " Deakin, " Nimmo, " Derham, " Pearson, " Donaghy, " Reid, " Dow, " Shiels, " Feild, " C. Smith, " Fink, " Toohey, " Forrest, " Wheeler, ,t Gardiner, " Wright, " Gaunson, " 'Vrixon, " Gillies, " Zox. " Groom, Tellers. " A. Harris, Mr. Langridge, " J. Harris, " L. L. Smith.

On the question that clause 13 stand part of the Bill, the committee divided-

Ayes ... 18 Noes ... 38

Majority against the clause 20

AYES.

Mr. Andrews, " Baker, " Ferguson, " Gordon, " Graham, " Graves, " Hall, " I .. aurens, " Mimms, " Munro,

Mr. Outtrim, " Russell, " Uren, " Vale, " A. Young,

C. Young.

Telle1·s. Mr. Jones, Dr. Rose.

NOES.

Mr. Anderson (C.), Mr. Righett, " Bailes, " Levien,

Bourchier, McColl, " Brown, " McIntyre, " Cameron, " Murphy, " Carter, Murray, " D. M, Davies, " Nimmo, " Deakin, " Pearson, " Derham, " Reid, " Donaghy, " C. Smith, " ])ow, " Staughton, " Feild, " Toohey,

'Fink, Wheeler, " Forrest, " Wright, " Gardiner, Wrixon, " Gaunson, " Zox.

Gillies, " Groom. Tellers. " A. Harris, Mr. Langridl!c,

J. Harris, ., L. L. Smith.

The Bill was then reported with further amendments.

The House adjourned at two o'clock a.m., until Tuesday, November 15.

SES, 1887.-7 F

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Tuesday, November 15, 1887.

Nelson Province Election: New Member-Estates of Deceased Persons: Valuation for Probate Duty­Juvenile Offenders Law Amendment Bill-Neglected, Children Law Amendment Bill-Justices of the Peace Law Amendment Bill-Legislative Council Act 1881 Removal of Doubts Bill-County Courts Statute Amendment Bill-Ballarat Waterworks Bill-National Trustees, Executors, and Agency Company's Bill­Wesleyan Church Properties Bill.

The PRESIDENT took the chair at twenty­five minutes to five o'clock p.m., and read the prayer.

NELSON PROVINCE ELECTION.

The PRESIDENT announced that he had received a return to the writ issued for the election of a member of the Legislative Council to serve for the Nelson Pro vinca (in the room of the Hon. Thomas Bromell, deceased), showing that Mr. James Philip MacPherson had been elected.

Mr. MacPherson was then introduced and sworn, and delivered to the Clerk the declaration required by the Act No. 702.

AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES ENDO ""VMENT.

The Hon. J. BELL presented a return to an order of the House (made November 8) relating to the sites of land reserved under the provisions of the amended Agricultural Colleges Act.

LITIGATION. The Hon. H. CUTHBERT laid on the

table, pursuant to order of the House (dated October 5), a return with respect to the cases tried before Judges of the Supreme Court and before County Court Judges during the year 1886-7.

ESTATES OF DECEASED PERSONS.

The Hon. N. THORNLEY asked the Minister of Justice the following ques­tions :-

"1. Whether the Crown, before referring a valuation of an estate in country lands, sub­mitted for the purpose of paying probate duty, for the advice of a valuer as to its correctness or otherwise, makes any inquiry-(a) As to his special knowledge and qualifications in every respect for giving such advice. (0) As to whether he has ever inspected the property, and when?

"2. Whether in all, or in what percentage of cases such advice is acted upon?

"3. After the Crown, on such advice, bas de­termined upon a re-valuation, whether instruc­tions are given-(a) To inspect the estate. (0) To make a declaration upon what date or dates

2074: Estates of Deceas'ed Persons. [COUNCIL.] F01'~St Conservation.

such inspection was made. (c) To value upon the basis of a sale by auction for cash?

"4. Is there any scale adopted in t.he office by which the fees payable to valuers are fixed? If 80, what is such scale?

"5. Whether it has ever come to the know­ledge of the Crown that a re-valuation has been made by a valuer without any inspection having been made?"

The Hon. H. CUTHBERT stated, in reply, that he had recp-ived the following memorandum from Mr. 'V. R. Stephen, the officer appointed for the assessment of duty under section 6 of Act No. 388 :-

"Assuming that these inquiries relate only to cases in which the services of professional (paid) valuers have been employed, the replies to them are as under:-

"1. Excepting in a very 'few instances, when a local valuer has been employed, on the recom­mendation of a clerk of courts, Messrs. Wilmot and Cowderoy have been employed to make valuations, and generally Mr. Wilmot has been engaged to value country lands and Mr. Cow­deroy to value land and buildings in Melbourne and the suburbs. (a) No inquiry as to the special qualifications of these gentlemen is made in such cases. They have both high reputations for ability in this branch of their business, and, in fact, it was intimated to me. when I was ap­pointed to the office I now hold, that these two were the professional valuers from whom I was at liberty to obtain assistance ill such matters. (b) No special inquiry is made as to whether the valuer has alreadr inspected the particular pro­perty under notlCe. The papers are usually handed to him with a request to be informed whether he considers an inspection advisable; if he does, be is requested to make one.

n 2. Speaking for myself (I have been barely ,nine months at the duty), I reply that in every case where I have thus sought the advice of a professional adviser, I have acted upon that advice.

"8. No special written instructions are given in such cases. (a) Generally, Mr. Wilmot, hav­ing looked over the papers, calls at my office, and states that for such and such reasons he thinks it advisable to inspect the property, and is asked to do so accordinglr. Mr. C:owderoy, on the other hand, if he thmks an inspection unnecessary, usually forwards a written memo­randum stating his opinion. (b) No such declar­ation as that referred to in the question has ever been asked for. (c) No; no principle has ever been laid down (by me) as to the basis upon which the value is to be calculated. Valuers are left quite unfettered.

"4. The fees charged by Messrs. Wilmot and Cowderoy are not in accordance with any for­mally approved scale, but have nevertheless been approved from time to time by the Attorney­General of the day. Mr. Wilmot's charge for inspecting is £10 lOs. per diem, plus his actual travelling expenses. Mr. Cowderoy's charg,es, since my present duties devolved on me, have varied from a few shillings to a maximum of about £6. As before explained, Mr. Wilmot's valuations relate to large country properties; Mr. Cowderoy's, in the great majority of cases, to properties in Melbourne and the suburbs.

"5. In a very few cases a re-valuation has been made by Mr. Wilmot without inspection, e.g., 26 estates are set down in the return to the order of the Legislative Council dated 81st August last (on the motion of the Hon. N. Thornley), as valued by Mr. Wilmot during the period from 1st July, 1885, to 1st July,1887. Of these valua­tionsfive, namely, in the estates of J. Henderson,

Eliza A. Hopkins, R. Crow, F. Robertson, and C. Podgers, were made, I have been given to understand (they were before my time), without special inspection, in one case as the result of an agreement arrived at after discussion with the valuer on the part of the executor. From Mr. Cowderoy I have more frequently obtained an opinion as to the value of a particular pro­perty, arrived at without special inspection, but based on other considerations, as, for instance, personal knowledge of the prices at which simi­lar properties in the same street have been sold. It should be remembered that the charge for a professional inspection is much greater than for a valuation arrived at without one." .

He (Mr . Cuthbert) would add that he was informed by Mr. Stephen that in cases in the country districts where the amounts were compa'ratively small he nearly always put hims,elf in communication with some local Crown officer, such as the clerk of courts, in order to obtain from him a valu­ation based on his local knowledge. If that officer had no means of ascertaining the value, the practice was for him to inform the officer to that effect, and then a regular valuator was appointed. If the valuator considered that the estate was undervalued there was usually an inspection, and very often the difference between the private valuation and the Crown valuation was made the subject of a compromise.

On the motion of the Hon. N. THORN­LEY, the memorandum read by the Min­ister of Justice was ordered to be laid on the table.

FOREST CONSERVATION.

The Hon. W. ROSS asked Ministers if a Forest Conservation Bill was to be intro­duced this session? He said this was no new subject with him. He pressed the Go­vernment with respect to it last session; ill accordance with the promise then made to him, it was constituted a part of the pro­gramme announced by the Government at the commencement of this session; and he could not see why the bringing in of the desired measure was delayed. It could not arise from want of sufficient information, because, to go no further, that furnished by the Vegetable Products Commission was ample. It was also most reliable and most valuable. It should be remembered that the question of forest conservation was not one with respect to which there was likely to be any difference of opinion. At all events, the Government ought to try and carry an initiative measure this session.

The HOll. J. BELL replied that a Forest Conservation Bill had been prepared, and was ready for introduction, and he deeply regretted, especially in view of the valuable

Legislative Co·uncil Act 1881 [NOVEMBER 15.J Removal of ])oubts Bill. 2075

information afforded by the Vegetable Pro­ducts Commission, that the state of public business prevented the measure being brought forward. (Mr. Zeal-" 'Vhy not introduce it here?") The Bill necessarily involved the question of fees, and therefore it could only be initiated in the Assembly. Unless a very considerable amount of busi­ness was done in another place during the present week, it was to be feared that the whole question of forest conservation would have to stand over for another session. Meantime the Minister of Lands had done and was still doing everything he possibly could to promote the conservation of forest land. For example, within the last eighteen months the area of State forest land had been increased from 1,250,000 acres to 2,000,000 acres.

JUVENILE OFFENDERS LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

This Bill was recommitted-the Hon. W. A. Zeal in the chair.

Verbal amendments having bE'en made in several clauses,

The Bill was reported with further amendments, and the report was adopted.

On the motion of the Hon. H. C UTH­BERT, the Bill was then read a third time and passed.

NEGLECTED CHILDREN LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

This Bill was recommitted. Verbal amendments were made in clauses

8 and 10. The Bill was reported with further amend­

ments, and the report was adopted. On the motion of the Hon. J. BELL, the

Bill was then read a third time and passed.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE LAW AMEND.MENT BILL.

This Bill was recommitted. Formal amendments were made in clauses

106 and 119, and in the 2nd schedule. The Bill was then reported with further

amendments.

LEGISLATIVE COUNOIL AOT 1881 REMOVAL OF DOUBTS BILL. The House went into committee for the

further consideration of this Bill--":the Hon. IT. BaHour in the chair.

Discussion (adjourned from November 8) was resumed on the 1st and only clause, providing that the term "owner" in the Legislative Oouncil Act 1881 should include a residence area holder.

7F2

The Hon. F. T. SARGOOD said he would call the attention of the Minister of Justice to the fact that the committee were no further advanced, so far as information was concerned, than they were the previous Tuesday. The amendments which were gi Yen notice of by the Minister of Justice and Mr. Thornley had not, by some over­sight, been printed, and the return which the House ordered at his (Col. Sargood's) instance had not been presented. As it would be impossible to discuss the Bill properly under these' circumstances, he begged to move that the Chairman report progress with the view of asking leave to sit again the following Tuesday.

The Hon. H. OUTHBERT remarked that there was some reason for the motion to report progress, but he thought it was not necessary to postpone the further considera­tion of the Bill beyond the following day, when he hoped to be able to supply a por­tion of the return ordered. Some of the information asked for he believed it would be impossible to obtain. In connexion with Mr. Thornley's amendment, he had had a return prepared which would give honorable members some idea of the great number of voters who would be added to the roll if the amendment were carried. The total nllmber of holders of land under the 49th section of the Land Act 1869 who had not yet ob­tained their grant in fee was 5,393. The number of licensees under the 19th section of the same Act was 18,800, and the num­ber of lessees was 22,228. Of course a great number of the lessees-probably 20,000 out of the 22,000-were already entitled to vote for the Oouncil. The number of lessees under the Land Act 1884 was 6,164, a,nd of licensees 95. These different classes of land. holders added together made a gross total of 52,690, and, allowing for 20,000 being already entitled to vote, Mr. Thornley's amendment, if it were carried, would add 32,690 voters to the roll. (Mr. Williamson -" Some of these men have only 20 acres; would that be sufficient to qualify them ?") If they were rated at £10 a year, and no man holding 20 acres with a house upon his land would be rated at less than £10 a year. The really important part of the information desired by Colonel Sargood was the number of residence area holders who would be placed on the roll if the Bill, in its present form, became la.w. He was not in a position to 'supply that information at present, but he hoped to be able to do so next day, and he trusted the committee would be prepared to go on with the Bill then. .

2076 Legislattve Council Act i88! t CO UNCIL. ] Removal of Doubts Bill.

The Hon. F. T. SARGOOD said he thought there was little probability of the House meeting next day, as there would be little business on the notice-paper to t'raIis­act. He considered' that the Oouncil should not rush hastily irito Ii proposal of this kind, which was practically reversirig tlie Act of 1881, which was framed with great care. He would strongly urge that the further consideration of- t,lie Bill should be post­poned until the following Tuesday, as the return and' the amendments required to be circulated and corisidered by honorable members.

The Hon. D. MELVILLE observed that the rolls for the Council were made up on the 12th of the present month, and, therefore, the residence area liolders, whom it was' pi"'oposed by the Bili to place on the r.oll', could' not be, enfranchised' this' year. Oorisequently he saw no reason for' hurryirig on with the Bill, and its further considera­tion might be postponed until the following Tuesday.. ,_

The Hon. T. DOWLING concurred in the opinion tliat the Bill would be of no use this year. So far, however, as placing the residerice area holders on the roll was con­cerned', he would ask what matter would it be if the Council had' 10,000 more electors? In his opinion, it would be better for the country if tho Council had double t1he 11l1m­ber of electors.

The Hon. D. C. STERRY considered that the measure ought to be dealt wi'th at once, and that no advantage co'uld be gained by delaying it. He was quite sure that hon­orable members need not be afraid of the addition to tlie Cotincil roll of any number Of owners who' "V ere rated at £10 per annum and upwards. Residence area holders were virtuallyowners~they hela their land against a,l,l ~omers, ~he Ctown excepted-and the Bill should be passed even if it would place 20,000 or 30~OOO of them on the roll. He would support an amendment in the direc­tion which had been indicated by Mr. Thorn­ley; at the Same time, he was prepared to vote for the measure as it stood rather than residerice area holders s'hould be disfran­chised.

The Hon. W. H. ROB'ERTS said that the Bill ought not to be rushed throu'gh com­mittee too quickly. Before coming to any decision Upon it, hono!able members ought to have before them the information which would be contained in the return that had been ordered on the motion of Coloriel Sar­g'ood, so that they might see how many ad­ditional electors the Bill would place on the

r'oli. It was absurd to call the measure one for'the removal of doubts. There could be no doubt' tHat the word "owner" in the Legislati ve Council Reform Act was not in­tended, when that Act was passed~ to include the holdel;s of residence areas under miners' rights. They were not the owners of tlie land on which they resided, and the ques:. tion as to their being owners had only arisen in consequence of some blundering registrars having placed some of them on the roll as owners. Selectors' were certainly as Ihucn entitled to the Council franchise as the holders of residence areas. If honorable mem bers were going to lower the franchise in favour of the one class, they ought also tb lower it in favour of the other.

The Hon. H. OUTHBERT intimated that he was willing to consent to the further reading of the Bill being postponed until the following Tuesday.

The motion for reporting progress was, agreed to.

Progress was then reported.

CO UNTY COURTS STATUTE AMENDMENT BILL.

The House went into committee for the furtlier consideratiori of this Bill~the Hon. N. Thornley in the chair.

The Hon. W. A. ZEAL said that, on the last occasion that the Bill was before the committee, he brought under the notice of honorable meinbers the great inconvenience suffered by the public in COD sequence of the infrequency of the sittings of the County Court in country districts, and he proposed the following new clause:-

" On and aft,er the 30th day of June, 1888, tb~ interval between the adjournUlent of any County Court and the time appointed for its re-opening for the conduct Of public business shall not ex,­ceed three calendar months. Provided a.lways that, if no case is set down for hearing at any County Court, it shall be lawful for the Gover­nor iu Couricirto prorogue such court for a fur­ther terUl of three months." He had since been advised that the object which the clau:se had in view couhl be ac­complished by a slight alteration of the 7th section of the County Courts Statute 1869. He would therefore withdraw the clause which he had proposed, and mOve the fol­lowing Dew clause:-

" The words' such interval' in section 7 of the County Court Statute 1869 are hereby repealed, and the words 'every three months' sha.ll be substituted in lieu thereof." The object was to ehSure that a County Court should be held once in every three months at all places appointed for the holdillg of COtinty Court sittings. He had been told that if the clause was passed

County Courts Statute [NOVEMBER 15.J Amendl(lent Bill. 2077

it would necc$sitate the appointment of more County Court Judges, but the Go­vernment had power under the existing Act to increase the number of Judges to nine, ~nd he was quite sure that neither House of Parliament would object to any increase of the present number that might be requisite to provide for the proper administration of justice. The Bill proposed to extend the jurisdiction of the County CO~lrt to £500, and that extension would make such an increase in the number of cases tried bef~~e the Oounty Court that it would be abso­lqtely ~ecessary to have more Judges than there were ,at present. (Mr. Williamson­~'The jurisdiction of courts of petty sessions is being increased in civil cases.") Any diminution th~t might be caused in the County CO:\ll't business by the increase of the jurisdiction of the courts of petty ses­sions was nothing in comparison with the increase which would take place by the ex­tension of the jurisdiction of the Coq,nty Court to £500. The work of the County Court Judges would probably be nearly trebled.

The Hon. F. T. SARGOOD remarked that when this question was last before the committee a pretty general feeling was enter­tained that some change ought to be made whereby County Courts would be, held more frequently in country districts than they were at present, and that an interval of three months between one sitti~g and apother was not too short; but a difficulty was raised to the acceptance of Mr. Zeal's proposition, namely, that it would necessitate an in­creased number of County Court Judges. The honorable member had now shown that that difficulty migl1t be met by Jy.Iinisterial action-that the Government had power, under the existing County Court Statute, to increase the number of Judges to nine, which number would, no doubt, be sufficient to allow a court to sit every three months at every place at which a County Court was held. It was a question, however, whether it was right ror Parliament to interfere with what, after all, was a matter for the admin­istrative action of the Government. The Government surely ougbt t~ be the best judges as to the number or County Courts that were required, and the number of Judges necessary to administer justice in those courts. He thought that it would be wise for Parliament not to interfere in mere :departlllental or adll1inistrati ve affairs, but to throw as much responsibility on Ministers as it fairly could do, in 'regard to such matters. His main objection to the clause,

however, was that if it wa,sadopted there would be great risk of the Bill being 10Rt for this session, as very little time woq.ld be available for the consideration of the clause in another place, especially as the BHl was not a Government, mea.sure, b~t in charge of a private member. He hoped, therefore, that the honorable member would not press his proposal, so that the country might, ,at all events, get the benefit of the Bill as it stood.

The Hon. N. FITZGERALD stated that he did not see tpat there was any ne­cessity for the clause. He thoroughly con­curred with the opinion of Colonel Sargood that it was not desirable that Pafliament should relieve the Government from the perrormance of their propel' executive func­tions. If any change in the' present ar~ rangements for holding County CO,urts was req uired, the best course would be ~o leave the Government to consider the matter, with the view of making such alterations a's would promote the public convenience, and do substantial justice to suitors. To have a sitting every three months at every small country town in which a County Court was now held wO,uld certainly necessitate an in­crease of the number of Judges, or else the present Judges would not have sufficient time to attend to the interests of Ballarat, Sandhurst, and other large centres or popu­lation. He did not think there was any general dissatisfaction with the present ar­rangements, or that they caused any serious public inconvenience. Had that been the case, the press would have teemed with complaints on the subj~ct.

The Hon. W. A. ZEAL observed that no weight ought to be attached to the argu­ment that the adoption of the clause might lead to the loss of the Bill for the present session. The measure was a very importan,t one, and it was the duty of the Government, if necessary, to take it up and see that it was carried into law. He regretted tha:t Mr. Fitzgerald appeared to consider only the claims of the centres or population, and to ignore those of the outlying country districts. The centres of population cO,uld look after themselves-they could, bring a sufficient force of public opinion to bear to get justice done to them-but outlying dis­tricts were not in that position. On the last occasion that the Bill was berore the com­mittee, he gave some ~acts to show the 101~g intervals that took place in some of the smaller country towns between the holding of one Oounty Court and another. In some cases there was an interval of six months

2078 Co~tnty Courts Statute [COUNCIL.] Amendment Bill.

or upwards. At Alexandra the last sitting of the County Court was held on the 29th of September, 1887, and the next would be on the 21st March, 1888; at Beechworth the interval was from October 5 to February 9 ; at Bright, from July 12 to February 29; at Rutherglen, from July 5 to February 14; at Seymour, from July 19 to February 28; at Shepparton, from October 21 to February 23; at Yackandandah, from July 24 to some day in Febrllary; and at Yea, from September 30 to March 22. This was not a desirable state of things. It practi­cally amounted to a denial of justice to the people living ill those places, and it ought to he remed ied.

The Hon. H. CUTHBERT said he must oppose the clause" first, because it was likely to imperil the passing of the Bill, and, secondly, because it was unnecessary. Under the County Courts Statute, the Governor in Council had power to direct the holding of courts at such intervals as he might think fit. Thus responsibility was put in the proper place-on the Government of the day. (Mr. Zeal-" Is that desirable? ") He had not been convinced by Mr. Zeal's arguments that it was at all improper. Mr. Zeal had referred to places, such as Bright, where County Courts had been held only once in six months. (Mr. Zeal-" Seven months and a half.") That included the long vacation of two months. Now, accord­ing to a return laid upon the table that evening, the number of cases tried at Bright during the year ending the 1st July, 1887, was only two. In the one case, the amount sued for was £38, and the amount recovered was £30; in the other, the amount involved was £5 2s. 8d., and the verdict was for £1 13s. 8d. (Mr. Zeal-" vVhy hold a court there at all?") In the e\7ent of it being represented to him that it was desir­able that a court should be held at a par­ticular place every two or three months, the first thing he would do would be to ask for a return of the amount of business, and if he found that only two cases had been heard there during the previous twelve months, it would not be reasonable to expect him to pay any attention to the representation. Alexa.ndra was another place to which refer­ence had been made, but the business trans­acted there was trifling; in fact it was of such a character that it might be dealt with by justices in petty sessions. The number of cases tried there within twelve months was 12,0£ which 10 were for sums under £20. At Mansfield, within the same period, only four cas'es were tried. Judge Chomle~ had

21 courts to attend to, and tllOse included Beechworth, W odonga, Mansfield, Wood's Point, and Kilmore. The total number of cases tried by 11im, d uringthe year ending July 1, 1887, was 331, the total amount sued for being £11,997, and the amount recovered £5,836. Judge Quinlan presided over 14 courts, and they extended from Bacchus Marsh to Portland, on the one hand, and to Sale on the'other. During 1886-7, that Judge tried 501 cases, the total amount sued for being £18,324, and the amount recovered £9,333. Judge Worthington had charge of 17 courts, including Kyneton, Avoca, Echuca., and WalhalIa. During 1886-7 that Judge tried 569 cases, the total amount sued for being £22,760, and the amount recovered £10,715. JudgeCasey had 13 courts to attend to, including Horsham, Ararat, and Dandenoug. During 1886-7 that Judge tried 200 cases, the total amount sued for being £7,668, and the amount re­covered £4,737. At the Mornington court, which was presided over by the Insolvency Judge, Mr. Molesworth, only one case was tried during the twelve months-the amount involved being £35. There had been a great falling-off in the County Court busi­ness outside Melbourne during the last few years. The number of cases tried at Ara­rat in 1866 was 373; in 1876, it was 96 ; and in 1886, it was only 7. At BnlIarat~ the number of cases in 1866 was 1,500; in 1876, 745; and in 1886, 25. At Beech­worth, the number in 1866 was 343; in 1876, 146; and in 1886, 24. At Castle­maine, the number in 1866 was 667; in1876, 132; and in 1886, 14. At Geelong, the number in 1866 was 785; in 1876, 434 ;. and in 1886,56. AtMaryborough, thenum­bel' was in 1866, 237; in 1876, 113; a.nd in 1886, 21. At Sand hurst, the number of cases in 1866 was 1,987; in 1876, 405; and in 1886, 241. In 1866, there were seven County Court Judges, and the places at which courts were held was 52. Ten years later, there were still seven Judges, and courts were held at 66 places. In 1886', courts were held at 67 places, and there were only four Judges; and experience showed that there was no necessity for in­creasing the num bel'. vVhile t.he business in the country districts had decreased, the business in Melbourne had continued very large, so large indeed that it was impossible for one Judge to deal with the, whole of the cases set down for trial. With regard to the proviso attached to the vote for County Court Judges in the last Appropria­tion Act, that the Judges should reside

Count.'IJ Courts Statut~ [NOVEMBER 15.J Amendment Bill. 2079

." within the districts in which they discharge their duties, if it be necessary in the public interest," he might mention that he had re­ceived from the Secretary to the Law depart­ment a report to the effect that it had been found quite impracticable to make any change with regard to the residence of County Court Judges. When the Judges resided in the country, small districts were assigned to them, and they had a large amuunt of busi­ness, particularly Court of Mines business, to attend to. Now there was not much County Court work anywhere outside Melbourne, while in the Courts of Mines there was, for the most part, absolutely nothing. Of late years the County Court districts 11ad been enlarged from time to time, while the number of tludges had been reduced; and, the facilities for travelling having been in­creased, it became necessary that the Judges should reside in 01' about Melbourne. so that their services might be more readily ~vailable in connexion with the several courts. With only four Judges, it would not be consistent with the public interest to require them to reside in any particular parts of the colony. (Mr. Zeal-" Every thing for centraliza­tion.") No doubt the question of centrali­zation might be said to be to some extent involved, but, after all, what would the system advocated by Mr. Zeal do for the inland communities? How, for example, would Ballarat be benefited I by the County Court Judge for the district residing at Horsham, or vice versa? Again, how, under such an arrangement, could a County Court Judge residing in a remote inland district be made available for duty in tlle metropolis when, as had happened more than once, a press of business demanded that the Melbourne court should receive assistance? As to the clause immediately before the committee, <me thing against it was that if it was accepted it would necessarily have to be amended in a w/:l,y which would unques­tionably imperil the passage of the Bill into law this session. For example, supposing, with courts to be held 'every three months, there was in a particular court only one or two cases awaiting trial, it ought to be in the power of the Judge, in order to carry out the general County Court business of his dist,rict, to remove their trial to another locality. Clearly, a system of that kind should be a concomitant of the system Mr. Zeal had in view, but it was extremely doubtful whether another place would assent to thechallge. Besides, drawing a hard and fast line in favour of tl'i-monthly sittings in every place appointed for County Court

sittings would infallibly lead to a great deal of unnecessary expense. Under all the cir­cumstances it was to be hoped, if there was any desire on the part of the Council that the Bill should become law this session, that Mr. Zeal would withdraw his proposition.

The Hon. W. A. ZEAL said he wished to make two remarks. The first was that he would be quite willing, if in any par­ticular locality the County Court business fell off so that there were only one or two cases to try per sitting, to see the court removed to a more advantageous centre of population. Secondly, there was no ignor­ing the bitter complaints made at Sandhurst at the delays to which the County Court business of the district was subjected. The consequence of those delays was that legal business was driven from Sandhurst to Mel­bourne, which was most unfair. Did it not amount to a practical denial of justice when so many litigants were forced to the Mel­bourne court that in 1885 no less than !jths of the cases tried in the entire colony were tried in the metropolis?

The Hon. 'V. H. ROBERTS sta.ted that he quite sympathized with the ohject Mr. Zeal had in view, and he was satisfied t'hat something must be done to expedite the transaction of the County Court business in the country districts. . Nevertheless, the honorable member's particular proposition was open to most serious objection. For instance, carrying it into operation would clash with the working or section 5 or the County Courts Statute, which stated-

"If on the trial of any plaint . . . it shall appear that at the time of the commencement of the suit the defendant or one of the defendants did not reside or carryon business, and that the cause of action or suit did not arise either wholly or iu some mat.erinl point, within 100 miles of the court in which such plaint was entered, . . . the plaintiff shall be nonsuit unless the de­fendant shall forego bis right to such nonsuit." But the effect of the clause would neces­sarily he to close up all the courts in which there was only a small amount of business done, and what would be the result? That plaintiffs would often be forced to bring t.heir actions under circumstances which would subject them to the chance of a nonsuit. For want of a nearer court a plaintiff would be compelled to enter his plaint in a court over 100 miles away from where the cause of action arose. That would be a worse denial of justice than the one Mr. Zeal com­plained of. At the same time it could hardly be expected that the Legislature would con­sent to alter section 5 of the Statute merely to meet the honorable member's ideas. Again, if the power of transferring cases was

2080 County Cow'ts Statnte [COUNCIL.] Amendment 'Bill.

given, wllat might'it not lead to? Perhaps to a plaintiff at Warrnambool being brought all the way' to -BanClhurst. On another occa­sion, and untIer different circumstances, the clause proposed might be entitled to support, but for the present it ought to be withdrawn.

The Hon.'D. C. STERRY expressed the hope that the clause would not be withdrawn. He considered that Mr. Zeal had made out a strong case. As for the Btatements and figures of the Minister of Justice, they only went to show that the up-country districts were thoroughly neglected in the matter of County Court accommodation. Everything was being made subservient to Melbourne. According to the Government view, a County Oourt Judge was not to live in the country, because he could not be summoned to Melbourne at any moment. That was the system which drove so many country litigants, whose cases ought to be heard in their own localities, up to Melbourne. Some day the people of Melbourne would wake up to find that the country cow had gone dry. If there were not enough Judges to do the County Court business of Melbourne, others ought to be appointed.

The Hon. G. YOUNG stated that he was very eager to support everythin'g in the direction of decentralization. Nevertheless, he was, he regretted to say, unable to support Mr. Zeal's clause. ~e represented a country district which became settled only compara­tively recently, but experience showed that, whenever a fair case was made out for the establishment of a new County Court there, the Government were always ready to es­tablish it. Moreover, whenever more 'fre­quent County Court sittings were applied for, the request always received prompt at­tention. Upon the whole, he regarded the statement that the country districts were being ignored, with respect to County Court interests, in favour of Melbourne, as one which was made without due authority. Certainly he had heard no com plain ts on the subject in the North-Western Province. He knew of sittings there being adjourned because two courts too close together were about to be held, but he never heard of an adjonrnment taking place because the local <

Judge wanted to get back to Melbourne, and he was convinced that, had such a ground for complaint arisen, it would have been mentioned to him. Even with regard to adjournments from the former cause, a great improvement had taken place recently. Mr. Sterry contended that country cases were often improperly carried for trial to Melbourne, but how could that sort of thing

be done at all, in view of the provisions of section 5 of the County Courts Statute which Mr. ,Roberts had cited? In short, the argument on that head had completely broken down.

The Hon. W. P. SIMPSON remarked that he could not agree with Mr. Young's statements. On the other hand, what Mr. Zeal and Mr. Sterry had said about a great deal of country County Court business, espe- " cially at Sandhurst, being improperly taken to town was perfectly true. The local com­plaints on the subject were loud and deep. (Mr. Cuthbert-" I never heard of one genuine complaint of the kind.") Never. theless they were continually being made, more particularly with regard to the local Insolvent Court. Over and over again had country County Court Judges had to adjourn business because' they had not time to finish their work. In the old days of Sandhurst the place had' two excellent County Court Judges-first, J'udge Skinner, and after­wards Judge Macoboy-residing there; but now the case was very different. Perhaps the fact that fewer complaints came from Ballarat was because the Minister of Justice resided there, and was careful to look after the interests of his own locality; but Sand­hurst had no such luck. Unquestionably such a city as Sandhurst was entitled to a resident Judge. 'The clause proposed by Mr. Zeal was a step in the right direction, and he (Mr. Simpson) would support it.

The Hon. D. MEL VILLE observed that if Mr. Zeal's proposal had done nothing else i,t had brought forth an array of figures from the Minister of Justice which, to say the least of it, were very alarming. They showed a large falling off in County Oourt business throughout all the country districts. A de­crease in litigation no doubt was an advan­tage, but he feared that this was a case of one serpent swallowing up all the others. Even in law, Melbourne was swallowing up everything. The figures quoted by the Min­ister were, in his opinion, very melancholy, as another proof of the centralization which was going on. No doubt, however, the long intervals which elapsed between the sittings of the County Courts in the country districts' might have something to do with the falling off in litigation, as the difficulty of obtain­ing justice caused men to compromise their claims.

The committee divided on the clause-Ayes ... 9 Noes ... 18

Majority against the clause 9

County Cow'ts Stat~tte [NOVEMBER 15.J Amendment Bill. 2081

Mr. Buchanan, " Melville, " Pearson, ,. Simpson, " l:;tanbridge,

Mr. Bell, Sir W. J. Clarke, Mr. Coutts, " Cumming. ." Uuth bert, " Dowling. " Fitzgerald,

Fraser,

AyF.s.

NOES.

Mr. Sterry, " Williamson, " Zeal.

Telle7·. Mr. Winter.

Dr. Le Fevre, Sir J. Lorimer, Mr. MacPherson, " Hoherts, .. Hoss, " Thornley, " Young.

" Gore, Teller. " James, Col. Sal' good.

The Hon. 'V. A. ZEAL proposed the following new clause:-

" l:;uh-section 7 of section 7 of the Administra­tion of Justice Act 1885 is hereby repealed, and the following clause shall be substituted for and read as such sub-section, that is to say:-When­ever judgment by default under this section has been entered, the registrar of the County COllrt shall send a letter by post or by the bailiff of the court to such defendant. stating" that judg­ment has been entered, and that such defendant may apply to the Judge of such County Court to set aside such judgment, and may forward or deliver such application to the registrar, and that unless he so applies within seven days from the day on which it \Uay reasonably be supposed that such letter will be delivered (which day will be specified in such letter), a warrant of execu­tion shall be issued for the satisfaction of such judgment, and no warrant of execution shall Issue and no certificate under section 93 of the County COllrt Statute 1869 shall be granted or delivered by the registrar until the expiration of seven days from such day aforesaid. Provided al ways that the Judge may at any time, on ap­plication, order the immediate issue of a warrant of execution if, under the circumstances, he shall think fit to do so." He observed that the object of the clause was to give a County Court J·udge increased power in dealing with cases on w bich judg­ment had been obtained. At present, 24 days must elapse before practical effect could be given to a judgment. The clause would curtail the period to fourteen days, with the proviso tllat the Judge, if the debtor was shown to be attempting to defeat justice, should ha \Te power to order immediate execu­tion. This was such a necessary provision that he believed the committee must approve of it.

The Hon. F. T .SARGOOD expressed the opin ion that the clause was one which the comlllittee might safely adopt. It would rectify a very material blot in the present Act.

The clause was agreed to. The Hon. 'V. H. ROBERTS proposed

the following new clause:-co Any party to any action, suit, matter, or

proceeding in any County Court may appeal to the :Full Court under section 120 of the County Court Statute 1869 from the order of any Judge granting a new trial."

He remarked that it had been decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Cooper and another (appellants) v. Higgins .and anothe1' (respondents), which was heard in 1880, that there was no appeal from the order of a Judge of the County Court granting a new trial. In some cases this amounted to a denial of justice, and he believed that the adoption of the clause would greatly im­prove the Bill.

The Hon. H. CUTHBERT regretted that so important an amendment as that proposed by Mr. Roberts had not been printed and circulated, so that honorable members might have an opportunity of con­sidering it. He thought it would be a pity to grant an appeal against the order of a Judge granting a new trial. Judges were slow to grant a new trial, and only did so w hen very good grounds were shown, such. as the absence of a material witness or that the party applying for the llew trial had been taken by surprise. The Judge had also the power of granting the new trial only on the condition that the applicant paid the costs of the former trial. Under these circum­stances, he thought it would be unadvisable to adopt the clause.

The Hon. 'V. H. ROBERTS submitted that if it was necessary to give justice by apr peals in cases where an action came before a Judge and jury, it was equally necessary to do the same thing when a case was heard before a .Tudge alone and he went wrong. If it was to be said that there was to be no appeal from the decision of a County Court Judge, he would be given more power than was possessed by the Judges of the Supreme Court, from whom there was an appeal to the Privy Council if the amount involved was over it certain sum. Why should not a party have the right to appeal if he was willing to run the risk of having to pay the costs? The County Court Statute was never intended to preclude such appeals as those referred to in the clause, and that it did so was due to a defect in the section dealing with the matter. If the clause was a good one, the fact that, being a young member, he had not known how to get it printed and circulated should not prevent its consideration on its merits.

The Hon. N. FITZGERALD opposed the amendment. It was well known that a man must establish a strong case for a new trial before a Judge would grant it, and when he did establish such a case and showed that, owing, say, tosome accident pre­venting the attendance of a material witness at the first trial, the verdict then given was

2082 Ballamt [COUNCIL.] WaterwQ1'ks Bill.

not in accordance with the justice of the case, this clause would help the party who snatched the verdict to prevent the new trial. In other words, it was proposed that the denial of justice at the first trial should be perpetuated if the Judge granting the new trial was shown before the Supreme Court to have committed some informality. This was not a proposal which he thought would commend itself to the committee.

The Hon. W. H. ROBERTS remarked that if County Court Judges were infallible there would be no appeals from their deci­sions to the Supreme Court, bu t as a matter of fact there were frequent appeals, many of which were allowed, and he did not see why an appeal should not be allowed in this case as well as in others. He had not framed the clause without taking the advice of members of the profession, and all those whom he had consulted agreed that it was a necessary amendment of the County Court Statute.

The clause was negatived. The preamble having been agreed to, the

Bill was reported with amendments.

BALLARAT WATERWORKS BILL.

The Hon. H. CUTHBERT moved the second reading of this Bill. He said that it was a short measure "to further amend the Waterworks Act 1880, and for other purposes." The Government had advanced to the Ballarat vYater Commission the sum of £281,438, which was secured by mort­gage on the very valuable property belong­ing to the commission. On this loan the commissioners paid interest amounting to £12,664 per annum, being at the rate of 4!­per cent. They also owed £32,018, which was payable, without interest, in the year 1904. 'He believed that they had hitherto paid interest regularly and punctually, but they now found it was necessary to incur con­siderableexpense in order to keep their works in proper repair, and, to enable them to do so, they had entered into an agreement with the Government, by which payment of the sum of £9,850 (being interest at the rate of £1,407 per annum for seven years) should be deferred until the 1st .July, 1904. The object of the Bill was to give effect to that agreement; or, in other words, the measure was to grant an application for the post­ponement until that period or a portion of the interest payable by the Ballarat Water Commission. The commissioners diel not ask for anything beyond that except that they should participate in the benefit which would accrue in the eventof the Government,

when the present water supply loans fell in, borrowing money at a lower rate of interest. It was anticipated that money would become cheaper, and that the Government would be able to borrow at 3~ per cent. At present the Ballarat Water Commission were pay­ing 2i per cent. towards a sinking fund, and 4i per cent. interest, but they desired to have the benefit or a lower rate of interest when the Government were able to bor}ow·at a cheaper rate than they were paying for the existing water supply loans. The Bill accordingly conferred power on the Govern­ment to enter into a fresh arrangement with the commissioners in 1904, and give them the advantage or any fall in the rate of in­terest at which money could be borrowed by the State. There was provison in the Bill that the £9,850, payment of which was to be deferred, was to be expended by the com- . missioners on the extension of their works, and that accounts, duly audited, were to be furnished to the Treasurer of the colony, from time to time, showing how the money was being expended. He thought that the Bill was one to which no objection could be taken.

The motion was agreed to. The Bill was then read a second time,

and was afterwards passed through its remaining stages.

NATIONAL TRUSTEES, EXECUTORS, AND AGENCY

COMPANY'S BILL.

The Hon. F. T. SARGOOD moved the second reading of this Bill. He said that, with very little exception, the measure was a transcript of several Bills which lJad been passed in previous sessions. Its object was to enable a certain company to act as trus­tees, executors, and agents. There were several similar companies already in exist­ence. It was evident that there was a de­mand for such companies, and that they had met, and would continue to meet, a public want. The only difference between this Bill and the last or the same character that was passed was that the present mea­sure proposed to give the directors power to act as gua.rdians of children and as guardians under the Lunacy Statute.

The motion was agreed to. The Bill was then read a second time,

and committed pro forma.

WESLEYAN CHURCH PROPERTIES BILL.

The Hon. D. HAM moved the second reading of this Bill. He explained that the

Centennial Exhibition. [NOVEMBER 15.J Public Instruction. 2083

object of the measure was simply to adapt anLl assimilate the trusts of Wesleyan church properties in Victoria to the present con­stitution of that church in this colony, and to carry out other collateral purposes. The measure did not interfere with any other religious denominations, and it had already been passed by the Legislative Assembly "ithout a dissentient voice.

The Hon. S. FRASER said he had great pleasure in supporting the second reading of the Bill.

The Hon. W. A. ZEAL remarked that the object of the Bill was only to' give the 1.;Vesleyan church powers similar to those which other religious denominations had obtained, and there could be no possible objection to it.

The motion was agreed to. The Bill was then read a second time,

and committed 1)1'0 forma. The House adjourned at five minutes past

ten o'clock, until Tuesday, November 22.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. Tuesday, Novernbe1' 15, 1887.

Melbourne Centennial Exhibition: Distinguished Visitors­Coburg Railway-Public Instruction: Truant Officers: School Sanitation: Terang-Fire Brigades Bill-Rose­bud Jetty-Public Service: Telegraph Department­Victorian Worsted Woollen Tweeds: Competition for Bonus: Motion for the Adjournment of the House­Local Government Act Amendment Bill-The Leeward Islands- Public Health Law Amendment Bill-De­spatch of Business-Election of Speaker: Mr. Cooper and Mr. J. Harris-Rail way Works Bill-" The Closure" -Juries Law Consolidation Bill-Banking Compa.nies Registration Bill-Banks and Currency Statute Amend­ment Bill-Water Conservation Acts Consolidation Bill-Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill­Marine Board Bill-Centennial Exhibition Liquors Sale Bill-Neglected Children Law Amendment Bill­Juvenile Offenders Law Amendment Bill.

The SPEAKEU took the chair at half­past four o'clock p.m.

MELBOURNE CENTENNIAL EXHIBITION.

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS.

Mr. L. L. SMITH asked the Treasurer if, considering the Jubilee year, and the next Exhibition year, he would place a suitable sum upon the Additional Estimates to fit­tingly entertain the distinguished visitors from all parts of the world who would visit Victoria? It seemed to him very desirable that some provision of the kind should be made, and the fact that the suggestion came

from the opposition side of the House might facilitate any action thnt the Government contemplated.

Mr. GILLIES stated that he proposed, when submitting the Additional Estimates, to make a short statement with reference to the matter referred to by the honorable member for Mornington.

COBURG RAILWAY.

Mr. LAURENS asked the Minister of Railways when the new Macaulay-road sta­tion, in North Melbourne, would be opeBed for traffic?

Mr. GILLIES said he believed the Macaulay-road station would be opened for traffic on the 1st December.

PUBLIC INSTRUCTION.

Mr. JONES, without notice, asked the Treasurer whether, in view of the decision unanimously arrived at by the House, some weeks ago, in favour of increasing the sala­ries of the truant officers, 11e would adopt the necessary steps to gi ve effect to the reso­lution without further action being taken by the House?

Mr. GILLIES said if he was of opinion that a deliberate judgment had been given by the House on the q uestioll it would be his duty to act upon it as soon as possible. He was not quite certain on that point, but per­haps the honorable member would be able, on some other occasion, to convillce him.

Mr. JONES intimated that he would repeat the question the following night.

Mr. McINTYRE asked the Minister of Public Instruction if he would make ade­quate provision for the cleansing of State schools, and for the allowance set apart for the purpose to be expended under the direc­tion of the boards of ad vice, and, also, whether he would give directions for an efficient sanitary inspection of all schools, and for the furnishing to the department of periodical reports as to the sufficiency and quality of the water supplied?

Mr. PEARSON stated that the allow­ance made to teachers for the maintenance of schools had been carefully calculated, and he had reason to believe that by the great majority of teachers it was considered adequate. The only cases in which it might not prove sufficient were those where the school buildings were large and the population had fallen off. There were diffi­culties in the way of the expenditure being controlled by boards of advice. In the first place, members of those boards might live at

. \ ~ .. ~. \.'

2084 Fire Brigades .Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Public Service.

some distance from the schools, and, there­fore, could not possibly exercise the control that was desirable. For example, they could not dismiss, at a moment's notice, a house­keeper who refused to perform her work. In the next place, such an arrangement might lead to friction between teachers and boards of advice. The State schools were already subject to a system of sanitary inspection. The ordinary school inspector was instructed to ascertain the sanitary condition of each school, and reporton the matter twice a year; and the serrices of a meQical inspector were employed when deemed requisite~ Moreover, one of the duties of boards of advice was to see that the sanitary reqllirep:lents of the schools were attended to. With regard to water, wherever it was found to be bad a filter was supplied by the department.

Mr. ANDEHSON (Villiers) inquired of the Minister of Public Instruction whether he had taken steps to have the school at Terang enlarged? At present the building was altogether inadequat~, and summer was coming OIl.

Mr. PEAHSON observed that he was under the impression that the school at Terang suffered more from faulty. construc­tion than deficiency of accommodation. However, the matter would be inquired into, and whatever was required would be done as early as possible.

Mr. ANDEHSON said the school was altogether too small.

PETITION.

A petition was presented by Lt.-Col. SMITH, from the Church of England Assem­bly for the diocese of Ballarat, against the Divorce Law Amendment Bill.

FIRE BRIGADES BILL.

Mr. LANGRIDGE asked the Premier whether an opportunity would be afforded him of proceeding with the Fire Brigades Bill? The measure stood on the notice­paper for second reading, but, as the only tim6l allotted for the discussion of private members' business was a portion of each Wednesday evening, there was very little chance of it passing into law this session unless the Government would gi\7e some facility for it to ue dealt with. Although nominally a private member's Bill, it was of great public interest, and he had been under the impression that the Government them­selves intended to ask the :House to pass legislation on the subject to which it related. The measure had been circulated ~mongst . honorable members, and he had

not heard a single objection taken to it. The Bill did not interfere with anybody's rights. Its object was simply to place the various fire brigades of the colony, which numb~red between 80 and 90, on a pl"Oper footing, so as to secure efficient m;mage­ment and discipline. The .members of the brigades approved of the measure, and it was very desirable that the Government should afford facilities for it to be pl1ssed into law before the close of the session.

Mr. GILLIES said that, in view of the condition of the notice-paper, he thought that the honorable .member could scarcely ask that a portion of the time allotted for de~ling with Government business should be given up for the consideration of a measure which was in the hands of a private member. (Mr. Langridge-" The Government were going to bring in aFire Brigades Bill themselves.") Their Bill was in print, and if there was any chance of it being carried through this session they would gladly introduce it; but, considering the present state of public business, he did not see that there would be the slightest prospect of it becoming law even if it was brought in at once.

ROSEBUD JETTY.

Mr. L. L. -SMITH asked.the Minister of Customs when the promised jetty at Rose­bud would be constructed?

Mr. VV ALX{ER replied that the money for the jetty had been voted,. and the work would be proceeded with without delay.

PUB-LIC SERVICE.

Mr. MUNHO s.aid that a letter had been received by a constituent of his from the Secretary of the Public Service Board, inti­mating that, Qnder amended regulations framed by the boar~, candidates for appoint­ment in the clerical division of the Post and Telegraph department were required to pro­duce certificates of competency signed by one of the officers duly authorized by the Secre­tary, of the department. These officers in­cluded the Inspector of the department and the postmasters at Sale, Hamilton, Warr­nambool, Kyneton, Maryborough, and other country towns, but Geelong was not one of them. The effect of this was that candi­dates from Geelong, who had been paying for instruction in telegraphy, and who had received certificates of competency from offi­cers hitherto authorized to give such certifi­cates, would be unable to present themselves at the examination in telegraphy which commenc.ed next day, as they had only just

Worsted Tweeds. [NOVEMBER 15.J Worsted .Tweeds. 2085

heard of the new regulation. He hoped that the Postmaster-General would take some steps to prevent such an injustice.

Mr. DERHAM stated that his attention had been called to the circumstance referred to by the honorable member, and he had arranged that candidates from Geelong who were entitled to certificates should be etiabled' to obtain them from an officer in M'elbourne.

WORSTED WOOLLEN TvVEEDS.

Lt.-Col. SMITH (who, to put himself in order, moved the adjournment of the House) called attention to the recommendation made hy the board appointed to consider the applications for the £5,000 voted by the House last session as a bonus for the manu­facture, in the colony, of 10,000 yards of worsted woollen tweeds. The conditions on which the bonus was offered were that 10,000 yards of woollen worsted cloth should be manufactured in Victoria, of a marketable quality, and that it should be manufactured in the way in which worsteds were manufao­tured in other parts of the world~ There were only two competitors, namely, the Sunriyside Woollen Mill, Ballarat, and the Williamstown Woollen Mill. He might mention that the proprietors of the Sunny­side mill would not have entered into the competition had they not been informed that the Williamstown mill did not intend to compete. However, the directors of the Sunnyside mill, having resolved to compete, sent their manager to England to procure the requisite machinery to enable'them to manufacture woollen wotsteds. They im­ported special machinery of the very best kind, at a costof about£15,000, and erected a sepamte building for it, so that their worsted manufactory was entirely distinct from their ordinary tweed manufactory. A board was appointed to decide between the competitors, but it consisted entirely of Mel­bourne gentlemen, and one of them was tlirectly interested in the matter. (Mr. Munro-" I, don't think you should" say that.") The gentletllan to whom he referred was a member of the firm which purchased the whole of the 10,000 yards of worsted cloth manufactured by the successful competitors. One of the conditions on which the bonus was offered was, as already mentioned, that the material should be of marketable quality, but it waS well kriown that several retailers had returned the material of the Williamstown mill as not being marketable at all. It was also stated that the Williamstown firm had, to a large extent, used their ordinary ma­chinery to make their worsteds, and that

altogether they had not earned the bonus in a fair' and legitima.te way. The directory of the Sunnyside mill asked the board, be­fore coming to a definite decision, to go too Ballarat and inspect the worsteds made at that factory', but the request was refused. As quality was an essential condition, the Minister of Customs ought now, before giving his final award, to visit both mills, taking an expert with him, and compare the quality of the material. The people of Bal­larat would be quite satisfied to accept the decision which the Minister arri\Ted at after adopting that course. The directors of the Sunnyside mill were, at all events, entitled to, very fair consideration. Although the Williamstown mill had produced 10,000 yards of worsteds first; they had succeeded in doing so by using' ordinary tweed ma­chinery; but the directors of the Sunnyside mill had thoroughly proved their bona fides, by sending to England for the necessary machinery, and manufacturing worsteds of undeniable quality. It was to be hoped that the Miilister would take care that justice was done in regard to the bonus~

Mr. MUNRO (who secondl~d the motion for adjournment) stated that he wished to put the honorable member for Ballarat West (Lt.-Col. Smith) right. The truth of the matter was that the mill which hud got the award had fairly and honestly earned it. The question that the experts had to de­cide was which was the first factory that produced 10,000 yards of wl)rsted cloth up to the proper standard. 'Vhat machinery was used in the manufacture had nothing whatever to do with the question at issue. The competitors might have made the wor­steds with an old spinning jenny if they had thought proper, provided that they produced the required article. But he wished to sub­mit, for the consideration of the Minister of Customs, the fact that the owners of t.hese two mills had shon'n a marvellous amount of courage to go into the matter at all; and he thought that the country would support the Government in giving £5,OUO to each milL They really and' honestly deserved it. Both of them went to work with a determi­nation to succeed, and both of them had succeeded. He had grave doubts whether eventually the project would pay, but that remained to be seen. As for the board which had considered the claims of the two com­petitors, he did not think that there was any justification for finding fault with it. A more honest or capable board could not have been appointed. He believed that the mem­bers of the board did their duty well, and

2086 Worsted Tweeds. [ASSEMBLY.] Worsted Tweeds ..

had given a proper award. At the same time, he was of opinion that the proprietors of the Sunnyside mill ought to have a cer­tain amount awarded to them. If they were not awarded the same amount as the owners of the Williari1stown mill, they might be given half the sum for second place. They honestly deserved some recognition for what they had done.

Mr. W. M. OLARK remarked that the honorable member for Ballarat West (Lt."": Col. Smith) was crying out that there had been foul play simply because the Ballarat mill had been beaten by the Williamstown mill. If the proprietors or the Williams­town mill were the first to manufacture 10,000 yards of worsted cloth, no matter by what machinery, or by what means, they were entitled to the bonus. This was about the only woollen mill in the colony which was entirely in private hands, and it was almost the only one that had been a success. No doubt that was owing to it being man­aged by private enterprise, instead of by a company. Whatever claim the proprietors of the Ballarat mill might have to receive some consideration from the Government, the owners or the Williamstown mill had honestly earned the £5,000, and they ought to get it.

Mr. ANDREWS stated that he thought the honorable member for Ballarat West (Lt.-Col. Smith) must have been misin­formed as to the facts of the case; at all events he had made a great mistake in try­ing to cast any insinuation against the winners of the bonus. The owners of the Williamstown mill had complied with all the conditions imposed by the Government and had won the race hands down. Though the proprietors of the Ballarat mill had not been able to come up to time, they might make an appeal to the Government for some consideration to be shown fOl' the skill and enterprise which they had displayed, but there was no ground for disputing the claim of the Williamstown mill to be the first which had manufactured 10,000 yards of worsteds. The board appointed by the Go­vernment had testified to that fact, and also to the marketable quality of the article. The owners of the Williamstown mill were therefore entitled to the bonus of £5,000. It was unfair to mak.e any imputations against the board, who had fully cal'l'ied out their instrnctions. The Ballarat mill had been completely out-distanced in the race; and he did not think that the House wonld entertain any proposal to cut down the amount to which the successful competitor

was entitled, or to delay the payment of the money.

Mr. JONES said he did not think l1is honorable colleague (Lt.-Col. Smith) wished to build up the Ballarat woollen mill upon the defeat of the woollen mill at Williams­town; but it would be remembered that when the question of granting a bonus of £5,000 for the manufacture in the colony of the first 10,000 yards of worsted woollen goods was debated, during the consideration of last year's Estimates, it was suggested by several honorable members that it was quite pos­sible that some person would import the machinery to enable them to win the bonus, and then re-ship the machinery after he had obtained the £5,000. It was also urged that the only thing which would pay the colony for giving the bonus would be the bona fide establishment or the industry in the colony. The proprietors of the Sunny­side Woollen Mill, at Ballarat, had com­pleted their 10,000 yards of worsted woollen goods with machinery which had been ex­pressly imported forthe manufacture of those goods. The Sunnyside mill had made no attack on any other mill. The members for Ballarat knew very well that they had in the Minister of Customs a gentleman who firmly intended to give fair play to all parties; but they also knew that, in considering the value of the competition for the prize, the quality of the goods of the respective competitors must be taken into consideration. The goods produced at the Sunnyside mill were so excellent that already orders had come in to the extent of 50 miles. The proprietors of the mill did not merely take orders by the yard or by the thousand yards, but by the mile, and 50 miles of woollens had been ordered from them in consequence of the excellence of the goods they supplied. Under these circumstances, he felt sure that the Minister of Customs would cause their goods to be inspected, and would make his award according to the quality of the article sup­plied. As to the statement of the honor­able member for Geelong (Mr. Andrews) that the Williamstown mill had won the bonus hands down, he would simply remark that it was very easy for any competitor to win the bonus when those who had the awarding of it looked only to the one com­petitor. The quality of the machinery, the amount of work done, and the employment of 253 people continuously in the Ballarat woollen mill must command attention, and he was sure that the Minister of Customs would take all these matters into good consideration.

W07'sted Tl~·eeds. [NoYEMRER 15.J Worsted Tweeds. 2081

Mr. Walker and Mr. Mirams rose to­gether. Mr. Walker was called upon by the Speaker, but he gave way before the cry of "New member."

Mr. MIRAMS stated that he had no doubt that the arguments of the honorable member for Ballarat West (Mr. Jones) would weigh with the Minister of Customs in coming to a decision as to whether an additional bonus should not be awarded to the proprietors of the Ballarat mill for the enterprise they had shown in importing new machinery to make worsted cloth; at the same time, he was quite sure that the Minister could not allow those arguments to induce him to withhold the payment of the £5,000 to the proprietors of the Williams­town mill. They had fairly and justly earned the bonus voted by Parliament. The quality of the cloth was not under considera­tion at all. The only condition as to quality which had to be taken into account was contained in the 9th clause of the conditions under which the various mills were invited to compete for the bonus. That condition was as follows:-

"That the worsted cloth must, in the opinion of the board, be of good marketable quality." The board had satisfied themselves that the cloth manufactured at Williamstown was of good marketable quality, or otherwise they would not have certified that it was entitled to the bonus. That it was of the requisite quality was also proved by the fact that the whole of the 10,000 yards manufactured at the Williamstown mill, to compete for the bonus, had been sold in one line to a firm in the city of Melbourne. There could, therefore, be no doubt that the proprietors of the Williamstown factory had established their claim under the 9th clause of the con­ditions. The attempt to detract from their claim on the ground that the machinery used in the manufacture of their 10,000 yards of worsted cloth was of a different stamp from that used in the Ballarat factory would not hold water. There was nothing in the conditions which said that any kind of machinery-new or old, or of any particular pattern-was to be used. The only clause which referred to the kind of material which must be employed was the 8th, which said--:-

" Worsted cloth for which such bonus is claimed 'must be the manufacture of one mill only, permanently established in Victoria, and must bewhoJly manufactured from woollen yarns made in Victoria of Victorian-grown wool:" Nobody attempted to say that the 10,000 yards of worsted cloth manufactured at vVil­liamstown had been made partly in one mill

and partly in another. Thewholeofithad been manufactured in one mill. Nobody said that the ~Tilliamstown mill was not established permanently in Victoria. It had been estab­lished for many years and was one of the most successful woollen mills in the colony. He was also not aware that anybody had alleged that the yarns from which this worsted cloth was manufactured were not made here, or .that they were not made from wool grown in the colony. As the wool was grown here, as the yarns were manufactured here, and as the cloth was made from those yarns in one mill, which was permanently established in the colony, the whole of the conditions under which the competition took .place had been thoroughly fulfilled. He thought that the Government might very gracefully and pro­perly give a supplementary bonu!:! of £2,500 to .the second in the race, but he was quite sure that it could not with justice withhold any part of the £5,000 which had been fairly earned by the Williamstown mill.

Mr. WALKER said that the honorable member for Geelong (Mr. Munro) had very truly stated that there could not have been a better board to consider the claims for the bonus offered for the first 10,000 yards of worsted cloth manufactured in the colony than the one which had been appointed1 The chainnan of the board was a woollen manufacturer, well known to be thoroughly efficient and thoroughly impartial. There­fore the award of the board was entitled to every consideration. The regulations framed for the guidance of the board were governed hy the terms of the vote, which said that the bonus was to be given" for the manufacture in the colony of the first 10,000 yards of worsted woollen tweeds." If any objection had been raised to that condition before the vote was passed, he could have understood the posit jon now taken up by some honor­able members; but no objection of the kind was offered. As a matter of fact, the vote was passed in two successive sessions, so that the House eyidently intended that the bonus should be paid to the manufacturer of the first 10,000 yards of worsted cloth. The report of the board was very emphatic as to the character of the worsteds made at the Williamstown mill. It appeared that the board took stringent precautionary mea­sures to prevent any material other than Victorian-grown wool being manufactured, and to see that all cloth which came below the standard that was fixed after due de­liberation was rejected. They were of opi­nion that the worsteds manufactured were of good marketable quality, and they were

2088 W01'sted· Tweeds. [ASSEMBLY.] Worsted Tweeds.

thoroughly satisfied that Messrs. E. and ",.,.. Gaunt had permanently established the manufacture of worsted cloth in Victoria. Accompanying thereport was a list of the machinery specially' imported by the firm for the manufacture of worsteds, which the board regarded as an evidence that the firm had entered upon the undertaking with the bonafide intention of continuing the manu­facture. It Was perfectly true that the Ballarat mill had also imported machinery at very large cost, and had succeeded in manufacturing worsted cloth in a highly satisfactoryemanner. He was glad to notice the different tone which some honorable members took on this occasion from the tone taken on the occasion when the Go­vernment proposal was first mentioned to the House. It was anticipated' then that the offer of the bonus would be a perfect failure, but it was now recognised by hon­orable members, who had special knowledge of the subject, as a very great success; not only had the article been produced, but there was a great demand for it, and the demand was likely to increase. With re­spect to the award, he considered it would be difficult for him to escape, if he wanted to do so, from awarding the bonus to the mill recommended by the board. vVith regard to the other suggestion thrown out by honorable members, he begged to say that, under all the circumstances, seeing that both mills had gone to the same ex­pense, and that the Ballarat mill had undoubtedly established tbe industry in a highly creditable and. successful manner­soeing, moreover, that t'he article which it produced was equal to anything imported­he would be disposed to recommend to the Cabinet that some recognition of the work turned out by.the Ballarat mill should be made. More than that he could not do. lt would be highly improper for him to attempt to override the decision of the board, and he was sure the Honse would not expect him to do so.

Mr. L. L. SMITH stated that, as he was instrumental in' introducing the bonus sys­tem some years ago, he would take the opportunity of stating that, in connexion with such matters, the rule which should guide the awarding of the bonus should not be as hitherto; the bonus should be given not to the first person who made the article, but to tlie perSOll who produced the article of best quality. He desired to add that he had been requested by the Chamber of Manufactures to call attention to the way in which that chamber had been ignored in

connexion with this bonus. Among the members of that chamber were a number of experts, and it was considered that one of them ought to be included on all boardR like that which bad just adjudicated on the worsted question. If this were done, it would be only a proper compliment to the Chamber of Manufactures.

Mr. ZOX said it was a matter for con­gratulation that worsted tweeds could be produced in the colony. Whether they were equal to imported goods it was impossible to say from a mere casual inspection, but he sincerely hoped they were. The Minister of Customs had stated that he would take into consideration the advisability of placing on the Estimates a sum of money for the pur­pose of recouping the proprietors of the Ballarat mill the expense they had incurred in importing worsted-manufacturing ma­chinery. (Mr. Wallrer-" I did not say that;

. I said I would consult the Cabinet.")' As far as the £5,000 bonus was concerned, he considered the Minister of Customs had done quite right in awarding it to the pro­prietors of the Williamstown mill. They had fulfilled all the conditions required of them; and no one begrudged them their success. However, one thing should be recollected, and that was that the 10,000 yards of worsted cloth produced at Williamstown had really been subsidized to the extent of lOs. per yard; and therefore the competition with the imported article could not be said to have been established on a fair basis. At the same time he hoped that it would be found profitable to continue the manufac­ture. He was afraid the honorable member for Ballarat West (Mr. Jones) was drawing on his imagination when he said that 80,000 or 90,000 yards of the article had been ordered. It seemed rather extraor­dinary, in connexion with competition for a bonus, that after the award the unsuccessful competitor should put in any plea for re­muneration. Therefore he held that what­ever proposal the Minister of Customs might think fit to make with regard to the Ballarat mill should have very careful con­sideration. One point which should have close attention Was whether the industry was likely to be permanently established in the colony. He hoped it was. But it was per­fectly possible to pay too much for a thing. lt had been proved that a diamond could be manufactured, but the cost of manufacture would be more than a natural diamond of corresponding size was worth.

The motion for the adjournment of the House was put and negatived.

Election of Speaker. [NOVEMBER 15.] The" Closure." 2089

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

Mr. KEYS asked the Premier when he expected to be able to introduce the Bill to amend the Local Government Act?

J\1r. GILLIES said he proposed making arrangements forintroducing the Bill, miuus the clauses relating to a special appropria­tion, in the Legislative Council.

THE LEEWARD ISLANDS. Mr. McINTYRE inquired of the Pre­

mier whether he had received any further information with reference to the Leeward Islands question?

Mr. GILLIES said he had not.

PUBLIC HEALTH LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

Dr. ROSE asked the Premier whether the Bill to amend the Public Health Act would be brought forward this session?

Mr. GILLIES replied that he feared there was very little prospect of the Bill being proceeded with.

DESPATCH OF BUSINESS.

Mr. BURROWES called attention to the fact that there were 26 Government orders of the day on the paper, and sug­gested that the Ministry should take steps to reduce the number, for the reason that it was almost a matter of impossibility for the whole of them to be dealt with. He con­sidered that the Government should confine themselves to those Bills which were of real importance.

Mr. GILLIES said he believed that if the honorable member for Sa.ndhurst (Mr. Burrowes) would assist the Government the whole of the orders of the day would be got througll.

ELEOTION OF SPEAKER. Mr. OOOPER said-Mr. Speaker, I

desire to offer one word of personal expla­nation. On Friday evening last, the honor­able member for St. Kilda (Mr. Harris) stated, at a public banquet at Prahran, that when the election for Speaker was approach­ing he promised to vote for Mr. Oooper; that when he knew that his honorable col­league, Mr. Davies, was a candidate for the position, he asked Mr. Oooper to release him from his promise; and tha~ Mr. Oooper, in an ungentlemanly manner, refused to do so. I have to inform the House that, a few moments before the election of Speaker took place, the honorable member for St. Kilda was III my room. He did not ask me to

SES. 1887.-7 G

relieve him from his promise, but he told me that he was in a fix. I said-" I admit the unpleasant position in which you are, and, as I am quite willing not to press the pro­mise, I would suggest that you should not vote at all, or I am quite willing to pair you as in favour of Mr. Davies." There were other gentlemen present at the time; and I don't think the honorable member was justi­fied in making the statement he did last Friday.

Mr. J. HARRIS.-It is quite true that I waited on Mr. Cooper on the afternoon of the election, and asked him to release me from my promise to vote for him for the Speakership. He said he did not see 110W

he could release me from the promise, but he thought I might leave the chamber and not vote, or he was willing to pair me with some other gentleman. So far the honorable member is correct. But when I asked him directly to release me from my engagement to him he said, most decidedly, he would not. I am sure I am correct in saying this; and there are honorable members who can corroborate the statement.

RAILWAY WORKS BILL.

Mr. GILLIES presented a message from His Excellency the Governor, recommending an appropriation from the consolidated re­venue for the purposes of a Bill to apply a sum temporarily out of the Public Account or the Railway Loan Account 1885 for railway works and other purposes.

The message was ordered to be taken into consideration next day.

THE POLICE.

Mr. DEAKIN laid on the table a return to an order of the House (dated November 10) of promotions made in the police force.

THE "OLOSURE." Mr. BENT observed that, at the banquet

at Prahran to which the honorable member for St. Kilda (Mr. Harris) had referred, the Ohief Secretary indulged in a little" hifa­lutin " about the necessity for introducing the" closure" into the Assembly. He (Mr. Bent) was disposed to treat such an an­nouncement with the contempt it deserved. It was made after wine had been taken, and people, after drinking wine, especially cheap wine, were apt to say foolish things. He believed it was made with a view of inform­ing the public that business in Parliament had been obstructed, or something of that kind. He had been bothered by two or three memberR of the press coming to him

2090 Marine [.ASSEMBL Y.] Board Bill.

and asking what he thought about tlie matter. His reply to them was that when the matter came before the House he would give his opinion. As to obstruction, if there had been any, it W'as owing to the Govern­ment themselves. Why the Opposition had had to redraft Government Bills. (Mr. Gillies-'" That is not correct; you could not do it.") He could draft a Bill quite as well as the Premier.

The SPEAKER.-There is no question before the chair.

Mr. BENT said he thought he might pleiid privilege for 'his action. He did not attach much importance to the statement made after wina at Prahran, and he mentioned the matter now simply because he had been asked to do so. He would be glad to hear from the Premier when the Government intended to introduce the closure?

Mr. GILLIES stated that, whenever the Government intended to resort to anything of the kind, the House w'ould have ample notice.

JURIES LAW OONSOLIDATION BILL.

The House went into committee for the considetation of the Governor~s message on the subject of this Hill,. presented Novem­ber 10.'

Mr. WRIXON moved-"That it is expedient that 'an appropriatfon he

made out of the consolidated revenue for the purposes of a Bill to consolidate the law relating to juries."

The resolution was agreed, to, and was reported to the House:

BANKING COMPANIES REGISTRATION BILL.

The re90Iuti'0~ affil:ming the expediency of amending the law relating to bankers' (passed in committee on November 10) was considered and adopted. "Authority being given to Mr. Gillies and ¥r. W rixon to introduce a Bill to' carry out the resolution, ,

Mr. GILLIES, brought up a Bill cc'to further amena the Oompanies Statute 1864/' and moved that it be read a first time.

The motion wasa,greed to, and the Bill was read a first tim'e.

BANKS AND' OURRENOY' STATUTE AMENDMENT BILL .. The resolution affirming the expediency

of amending the law relating to banks and curre'ncy (passed in cbmmittee on November 10) was considered and adopted.

Authority being given to Mr. Gillies and Mr. Wrixon to introduce 3. Bill to carry out the resolution;

Mr. GILLIES brought up' a Bill "to amend the Banks and Ourrency Statute 1864," and moved that it be read a first time.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was read a first time.

WATEROONSERVATION AOTS OONSOLIDATION BILL.

The resolution on the subject of this Bill (passed in committee on November 10) was considered and adopted.

Authority being given to Mr. Deakin and Mr. W rixo.n to introduce a Bill to carry out the resolution,

Mr. DEAKIN brought up a Bill "to con'solidate the Victorian Water Oonserva­tion Acts 1881-1886, and for other pur­poses," and moved that it be read a first time. '

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was read a first time.

TRANSFER OF L·AND STATUTE AMENDMENT BILL.

The resolution on the subject of this Bill (passed in committee on November 10) was considered and adopted.

Authority being given to Mr.·vVrixon and Mr. Dow to introduce a Bill to carry out the resolution,

Mr. WR1XON brought u'p a Bill "to alter and amend,the Transfer of Land Statute and for other purposes," and moved that it be relid' a first, time.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was read a first time.

MARINE BOARD BILL.

Mr. WALKER moved that the Marine Board Bill be read a second time. He said­Mr. Speaker" this is a Bill to make better provision for the safety or life and property at sea; and although this maS not be so exciting a subject as some that have beert occupying the attentIon of the House lately, it is none the less important on that account. The necessity for fresh legislation on this subject has be'en recognised for the last 20 years. No subject has been more thoroughly thrashed out tha~ the particular question involved in the BiH; and' if the Bill is not sufficient to settle the difficulties which now exist; it ought to be, because, in connexion with its preparation,we have had the benefit of the experience of many Ministers of Ous~ toms and many Governments. The fact

Marine [NoVEMBER 15.] Board Bill. 2091

remains that during all these years, although the subject is one acknowledged to be of the highest importance and the greatest in­terest, from one cause or another legislation has not taken place upon it. The necessity for legislation has arisen, to a great extent, from the fact that there has been a complete change in navigation and in ship-building. The substitution of steam for sailing vessels which has taken place during the last quarter -of a century has altered very much the con­ditions which are necessary for legislation ·of this character. During that time there have been frequent amendments of the law in force in Great Britain-there have been· amendments almost yearly-and during that time we have stood still. We are abso­lutely behind, not only English legislation, but the marine legislation of the other -colonies. Therefore I must express my gratification that the House has at last an opportunity of dealing with this very important subject. The deficiencies in our law are both known and to some extent unknown. One fact not generally known which shows the necessity for new legis­lation is that a sailing vessel, which does not carry passengers, is not obliged to have a certificated officer of any kind. An­-other defect in the law which has lately come to light is that in the event of a ship being stranded through gross neglect, if the vessel sustains no damage, the person to blame escapes punishment. In fact, the number of defects is so great that it is im­possible for me to enumerate them. How­ever, those to which I have alluded afford can idea of the necessity which exists for legislating on the question as quickly and :as effectively as possible. Now the Bill <leals with a number of subjects, including the better supervision of unseaworthy ships; the over-loading of ships, and particularly the practice of carrying deck cargo-a prac­tice fraught with very much danger to life­and the carrying of explosives and dangerous .compounds. It also deals with the general equipment of vessels, with the accommoda­tion necessary for the seamen and passen­;gers, and with the better provision for the ·saving of life at sea. The principal draw­backs of our present 'system arise from the nature and constitution of the existing ma­rine boards. vVe have two boards. One is the Pilot Board, which deals entirely with pilots and pilotage. That board consists of five members, one of whom is appointed by the pilots, the others being appoillted by the -Governor in Council. The other board is the Steam Navigation Board, which deals

7G2 '

with the general subject of the safety and management of ships. The whole of the members of that board are appointed by the Governor in Council. One difficulty in con­nexion with these boards is that in the legislation under which they are constituted there is no provision for changing the mem­bers; consequently members,once appointed, are virtually appointed for life; and however much they may get out of harmony with the existing state of things, it is impossible to make any change in the personnel of the boards. That, I think, is a defect which modern legislation has always remediedo It is a defect which is got rid of by the Mel­bourne Harbour Trust Act and other Acts of a similar character. One great objection to the Steam Navigation Board arises from the fact that, in cases of accident at sea, the board is really in the position of prosecutor, jury, and judge, all in one; and, the mem­bers not possessing any legal knowledge, it is not to be wondered at that frequently the decisions of that board have not given uni­versal satisfaction. I quite admit that both the boards have done the State good service in their time, and that the defects arising from the present state of affairs are defects owing. more to the state of the law than the action of the boards themselves. It is only just to the boards to make this statement. Now the Bill before the House provides that one board shall take the place of these two; in other words, the existing boards will be abolished, and one new board will be created in their stead. From the beginning of the agitation for fresh legislation on this ques­tion, the constitution of the board has been a matter of grave consideration on the part of everybody interested. Various sugges­tions have been made, from time to time. As far back as 1872, I think, it was sug­gested that the members should be nomi­nated by the shipowners, on the one hand, and the Governor in Council, on the other. In 1882, a conference was held of all par­ties interested in the question, and the con­clusion to which that conference came' waS that the board which would m.ost fairly re": ",' present all interests and be most efficient was .. a board constituted in vpry much the same way th'at this Bill provides for. Theideaof gi1ting representation to employes is a tofltI1r."nd(v departure. There is no precedettt~ °In lahy English-speaking community, ft*l'giving employes on boarel ship any representation on boards created to manage marine affairs. Every port in England has its marine board, and each board is composed of the mayor of the port, the stipendiary magistrate, four

l' t,.

2092 Marine [ASSEMBLY.] Board Bill.

membera appointed by the Board of Trade, and six elected by the registered shipowners. Thus the shipowners of each port have the power of electing half the members of the marine board. In New South Wales, the marine board consists of a president and seven wardens, four of whom are appointed by the Governor in Council, the shipowners electing three. Thus the Governor in Coun­cil appoint a bare majority of the board. In South Australia, where the most recent legis­lation on the subject has taken place­namely, in 1881-the marine board consists of eight members, a president and seven wardens, four of whon) are elected-one by the underwriters' association, one by the chamber of commerce, and two by the ship­owners. In Tasmania, the marine board consists of the mayor, the collector of cus­toms, and three members appointed by the Government on the nomination of the cham­ber of commerce. As I was saying, in all English-speaking communities, and, as far as I know, throughout the whole world, there is no precedent for giving representa­tion to employes on board ship. Therefore, the proposal contained in this Bill is an ex­periment-one which, no doubt, will be watched with considerable interest wherever these matters receive attention. We have a precedent for an elective board in the Melbourne Harbour Trust, the constitution of which is yery much on the lines of the constitution proposed for the Marine Board, and which has hitherto worked very suc­cessfully. On the whole, I think the House will be of opinion that a. similar system for the election of the members and the appoint­ment of the officers of the new body will operate in a satisfactory manner. The Marine Board will consist of ten members, three of whom will be appointed by the Go­vernor in Council, two by the persons on the roll of merchants and traders, two by the registered owners of ships registered at any port in Victoria, one by the Port Phillip pilots and exempt masters, and two

. by the masters (not being exempt masters) and seamen on the roll of masters and sea­men. The number of masters coming within the last-mentioned category are so few that they are hardly worth mentioning. As will be seen by the interpretation clause, the term "seamen" will include every person engaged in any capacity on ~oard ship, ex­cept masters, pilots, l\n~ apprentices. It will not mean sailor.~. only, so it~ will really embrace all the emp,loyes concernec,i. More­over, we have taken care that all these parties shall have a fair opportunity of

.Mr. Walker.

exercising their franchise. Of course, if the. election was limited to one day of the year it would become impossible for many of them to vote, because they would be at sea, but the poll will be kept open for three weeks, so that no one need be excluded from it. The conference held in 1882, at which all the different interests concerned, includ­ing that of the underwriters, were repre­sented, proposed to constitute the board in practically the same way, with the excep­tion that they placed the Minister of Cus­toms for the time being at the head or the board, which the Government consider would be a great mistake. They think that the result would be to make the Govern­ment of the day responsible to Parliament.

. for whatever the board might do, and they regard it as unadvisable that any such responsibility should exist. .They think it will be amply sufficient for all purposes that three mem bel'S of the board are to be appointed- by the Governor in Council,­especially as the Bill does not make it ne-· cessary for any of the three to belong to any particular section of the community. . Mr. SHACKELL.-The underwriters. ought to be represented.

Mr. 'tV ALKER.-No doubt, as the Bill goes through the House, a claim will be made for some representation of the under­writers, and I believe that the' question will then receive ample consideration. In fact, the constitution of the board will form one of the chief subjects for discussion in con­nexion with the Bill when it is in committee ... And now as to the Bill generally. If we never before had submitted to our considera­tion a subject which was entirely free from anything calculated to excite party feeling,. unquestionably we have one now. We are all interested alike in the preservation of life and property at sea, and, therefore, I say that if the House will give the Government any assistance in making the measure per­fect, we will gladly accept it. This univer­salityof interest should be remembered in connexion with the constitution of the board. The important point to keep in mind is that the parties most in need of protection are the travelling public, who have even less opportunity than the seamen of knowing the condition of the ship in which they happen to be sailing, or the direction in which she is going, and so on. Therefore, it has been attempted to make the Marine Board, as far as possible, representative of the whole public rather than of any particular section of the public. The conference of 1882 expressed the opinion t.~at the board should have the

.lJ£arine [NOVEMBER 15.J Board Bill . 2093

charge and control of all light-houses, buoys, beacons, moorings, and jetties throughout the colony; and it also strongly urged that the Shipping-office, where seamen and others are shipped, should come under the same authority. The Bill, however, does not propose anything of the kind. In consider­ing the matter, one of the first obstacles to such an al·rangement which the Government met with was tho fact that a large revenue would be required for the purpose. 1'0 meet that requirement, either there must be a special appropriation for the board, or Parliament would have to be asked every year for the necessary funds. Well, I am

. quite sure that a special appropriation is entirely out of the question, and I am almost as certain that Parliament would nevor be willing for long to vote any large sums for disbursement by a body which was not responsible to the Legislature. Indeed it would be utterly impossible to deal satisfactorily in any such way with the claims for wharf and jetty accommodation throughout the colony, which in some years represent a sum equal to £40,0000r £50,000. Besides, Parliament might strongly object to any change from the present system. As far as I know, the plan of placing these concerns in the hands of the Customs de­partment has been very successful. There has never been the slightest complaint with respect to its management in the matter, and really no cause for any alteration has yet been shown. One important considera­tion in connexion with handing the control ·of the light-houses to the Marine Board or to any board is that they constitute the chief signal stations of the colony, and that in time of war the Defence department will be wholly dependent on the signal offices at these stations for early information of the ad vance of any hostile ship. On tha t ac­·count alone, I think it is highly necessary that the light-houses and the officers in them should be under the control of the Central ·Government. At all events the latter should be responsihle to this House. Then as to the Shipping-office being under the authority· of the board, the Government do not con­sider that there is ground for any change of the kind. The Shipping-office is of great importance to seamen, many of whose in­terests are necessarily under the protection of the Government Shipping-master, and :::tS the present system has been in existence many years and has acted well, and as the ·seamen are thoroughly satisfied with it and protest strongly against any alteration, Min­isters do not see why any should be made.

Had different management been required, perhaps the Government would not have laid much stress on their objection, but it is not at all called for. The Shipping-office will therefore be still left under the control of the Customs department. Next as to the authority the board will have. It will have power to regulate the appointment of examiners to examine persons desirous to obtain certificates of competency as masters, mates, and engineers. These examinations will, or course, comprehend such subjel.,ts as nautical knowledge, engineering, and pilot­age. Due provision is made in the Bill for the protection of vested interests in this direction. There are many masters of Yes­sels who, although they have been sailing iii the coasting trade of the colonies for many years, have not been able, for a num­ber of reasons-want of opportunity among the rest-to pass an examination, but whom the experience of many years has shown to be perfectly competent to manage the vessels in their charge. Well, they will be able to obtain certificates of service. That will be a ,~ery desirable arrangement. The board will not, however, of itself, issue certificates for anything. As to the inspec­tors under the board, they will be appointed to make personal inquiries into accidents, the way in which the board's regulations are carried out, and so forth, and to report thereon. They will have large powers, such as to go on board any ship and inspect the same, and to make due investigation into all matters on which the safety of sea-going persons depends. I am in a position to tell honorable members that, with the exception of the constitution of the board, which is, of course, of a local character, the whole of the legislation in the Bill is derived from the most modern legislation of the sort now in existence in England and elsewhere. So that once the constitution of the board is decided, there will, perhaps, be no difficulty in the way or Parliament agreeing promptly with the other features or the measure. vVith regard to the functions of the board, I may mention that it is proposed to make some important departnres from the exist­ing Victorian law. The Steam Navigation Board inquires into accidents; but no one win deny that those inquiries are not always of a satisfactory character. I do not say this as any reflection upon that body, or its method of management. The only reflec­tion cast is on the nature of the legislation upon which we have at present to rely. Under the Bill, the Marine Board will have nothing to do with inquiries, except to take

2094 Marine [ASSEMBLY.] Board Bill.

preliminary steps for the appointment of the Oourt of Marine Inquiry. That court will consist of three members, one of whom will be a police magistrate;the other two 'being-at any rate, in all cases where nautical skill is needed-experts in nautical matters, such as navigation, survey, &c. As occasion arises, the· court can be turned into the Court of Survey, to survey vessels which have been injured, or which have been detained as unsafe, or for other reasons, and to take such action in the matter as it may think fit. In the constitution of these two courts the lines of recent English legislation have been followed very closely indeed, and I am convinced that the new system will be found to work as well here as it does else­where. The proposed courts will posBess precisely the knowledge required to enable them to exercise their functions properly. They will each have, on the one hand, a member skilled in legal matters, and, on the other, members skilled in all marine and nautical matters. There are many diffi­culties in the way of dealing with any subject touching unseaworthy vessels belonging to foreign· nations, so that all we can do is simply to adhere to what is done in the old country. Still, foreign vessels which take in passengers or cargo in any port of Vic­toria will come under the operation of our law. A foreign vessel visiting our shores which does neither will, of course, be so far beyond our jurisdiction. I bE'g to point out here that we have to accept the certificates of other colonies and countries, the same as they accept our own. In order to carryon the naval commerce of the world, it is abso­lutely necessary that reciprocity should be' shown. I come now to the equipment of vessels, especially with life-saving apparatus. Many honorable members know well, with respect to such apparatus-boats particu­larly-that, when it is wanted, it is often found to be of no use. Frequently, when, 011 a sudden occftsion, a boat has to be lowered, one of its ends gets jammed, and it cannot be utilized. . Our present regula­tions require all life-saving apparatus to be of a certain fixed character-to be according to a schedule which sets forth every par­ticular. This has led to some peculiar results. Strange to say, the number of boats we require a vessel to carry does not depend upon the number of persons on board, but upon her tonnage. So that a vessel of large tonnage, which carries few passengers, has to carry more boats than a small vessel bearing a large number of passengers.

,Mr. Wallter.

Mr. WOODS.-The arrangement ought to be on a passenger basis.

Mr. W ALKER.-That is what it wiII be under the Bill. Regulations will be· rnacle for the purpose by the Marine Board,. and they will be subject to the sanction of the· Governor in Oouncil. With regard to life­saving apparatus generally, we propose to go under rules which will admit of a certain amount of latitude. Our idea is that it shall always be open to adopt the newest inventions, because inventors in such matters are continually at work. The matter will be settled under proper regulations, which will be alterable as occasion arises. There is also provision in the Bill for collisions at sea. Honorable members know that often, when a collision occurs between two vessels,. only one is damaged by th~ accident. The· vessel that strikes the other end on is rarely much hurt. Tllis has sometimes led to the· vessel not damaged leaving the other, in 81

heartless manner, to her fate. Not many years ago a case of the kind happened in the British Ohannel. A vessel connected with the Australian trade was run into by a foreign steamer, and out of 500 passengers only 15 were saved. The steamer escaped in the darkness of the night, and it was nof until some time afterwards that it was discovered that she was Spanish. What occurred then may occur at any other time. The Bill makes it a misdemeanor, punish­able by both fine and imprisonment, for the captain of a vessel which has run inte) another vessel to desert her. Of course, in cases where both vessels are damaged', and each has to look out for herself, the particular crime I refer to cannot be com­mitted. The Bill also imposes a severe penalty for the carriage of dangerous goods on board ship without the fact of them being dangerous being specified and made known. In the past, people have been found quite ready to ship dangerous goods, even explosive compounds, as ordinary goods, but we propose to make an offence of that kind punishable by fine up to the limit of £500. I think honorable mem­bers will agree with me that there ought to be severity in such matters. It is necessary that dangerous goods should be carried, but it is also necessary that the danger should be known, so that it may,. by the exercise of caution, be minimized. Honorable members will doubtless have noticed what a large amount of damage has occurred of late years on the Australian coast from shipwrecks, and I think the general feeling is that those shipwrecks.

Marine [NOYE¥BER 15.J Board Bill. 2095

b~ve not been al}Vays due ~o wholly acci­dental causes. Honorable members will re­cog'nise 'that a sailing .vessel is always, to a .cer.;tain extent, at the mercy of wind and tide, but they will doubtless hold .that a ~teamer which can go ahead in almost any direction ought to be almost proof against .suc~ running ashore as. has been' lately wit­nessed. Experience shows indeed t1;l,at most ,Qf those so~called :accidents ·w.ere ,simply caused by reckless navigation. With qases where no casualty has resulted from reck­less navigation, it is most difficult to ,deal. ,If you say that no. master of a steamer shall navigate a vessel to within a qertain dis;tance of the coast, what happens? The question will continually arise as to whether she was .actually within that distance. It will almost ~lways be impossible to define the position of a particular Yessel, so .as to be able ·to say with certainty that she was within such and such a limit. Consequently, ,all that we can do in the Bill is to make reckless navi­.gation-any navigation. which imperils the safety of the vessel concerned-distinctly punishable. That is about as far ,as we can go, but it will, at all events, be a very decided improvement upon our pr.esent sys­tem, which is, in effect, that howev.er heed­less the master of a vessel may be, if he gets off witllOut damage he cannot be touched. We say that, whether he strands his vessel, or she sustains any damage or not, if by heedless or reckless conduct he imperils her safety, he should be punished. I think hon­orable members will admit that to be a desirable change in the law.

An HONORABLE MEl\1BER.-Is that Eng­lish law?

Mr. W ALKER.-It is. When we re­member what has been done in the past­how these colonies were discovered ,by means of sailing vessels which would nowadays be deemed scarcely fit to trade between Melbourne and Queenscliff, which had no chart for their guidance, and which were subject to many dangers which are now, thanks to science, almost unknown; how some of them remained a.way for years together, and then returned in safety-we lUust be almost lost in astonishment at the fact, which occurred the other day, of a magnificent steamer, which had just left port, and which had one light-house blazing before her, and another alight behind her -her position marked out to ~lmost an inch-running ashore to her destruction, most of her passengers and crew losing their lives. To speak more particularly, when we hear ,of such well- equipped

steat;Ilers as the Ly-ee-;-1ltoon aI;ld the Goran­gamite-steamerscapable of goi~g in any direction their masters choose - running ashore in the way they did, .we feel that such disasters can . only 1?e attributed to the .r~cklessness or heedlessness of the. per­son in charge, and that as far .as possible there should be,legislation to punish ,every offence of the kind. I quite admit that the sailors and navigators of the present time are fully equal in skill .and courage to those of the past age, but, w~1atever .J?ilay be the cause, there is exhibited nowa~ays a reck­les~ness in hugging the coast, w,hen there are' miles and miles of sea-way on the other side, which is almostcrirninal, and which ought to be put a IS~OP to, if possible, by illlpo~ing ~he severest penalties that can r.etJ,sonably be adopted.

Mr. CARTER.-:--Captains try to make q1,lick passages to please owners, a,nd they feel that their vessels are insured.

Mr. WALKER.-That could not be tlle case with the Ly-ee-moon, for she was un­insured. Besides, one cannot contemplate that, for the sake of an insurance, either master or owners would be agreeable to run­ning ashore a vessel. worth from £25,000 to £30,000.

Mr. CARTER.-The Ly-ee-moon was an isolated case.

Mr.WALKER.-I will not ~my whether the honorable member is or is not right to some extent. But there is no need to fix the reason for this intense desire to hug the coast. J ust~magine the driver of a coach preferring to skirt the edge of a pre­cipice when he had on the other side of bim D;liles and miles of ltlvel country! The heed­lessness I refer to is, to my mind, almost beyond comprehension, and everything the Legislature can do-it may not be much­to punish such conduct in the future ought to be done. I now come to the matters relating to pilots and pilotage, with regard to which the Bill makes two very distinct provisions. At the present time the Pilot Board is allowed to appoint pilots without any supervision whatever. No qualifica­tions are demanded except those required by. the board, to whose arrangements in the matter we have to trust wholly, for the law makes none. We have, however, provided in the Bill for certain qualifications which I w.ill mention. In the first place: every exempt master, which will eventually ~ean every pilot, must be a British subject, for a reason w hieh I will mention. In the pastT

foreigners have come here in charge of vessels, have ob.~a~ned .exempt certificates1

2096 Marine [ASSEMBLY.] Board Bill.

and then, after navigating our coast and harbour for a number of years, have returned to the country from whence they came. Well, it has occurred to the Government that in the case of war with the country to which such an exempt master belongs, it will have at its command a person fully qualified to pilot vessels into our waters. He will, in fact, be authorized by law to do so. Therefore we make the condition I refer to, and I think the House will agree that, in view of the contingency I have described, it is a very proper stipulation to make. Next, as to pilots proper-the licensed pilots of the port. The present custom is for the Pilot Board, when an additional pilot is wanted, to adver­tise for some one to fill the place. But my attention has been drawn by a deputation of local shipmasters, some of them born in the colony, who have been taking vessels in and out of the port for years and years, that that arrangement has operated very unfairly to them. Instances were given of men being appointed pilots although they bad never passed any proper examination, and wel'~ practically strangers to the port. In one case a gentleman was sent forfrom England, and appointed to be a pilot before he arrived in the colony. So we make it a pro­vision in the Bill that before a master can be appointed a pilot he must be the holder of an exempt certificate. There are a number of exempt masters-between 200 and 300-who are recognised by the Pilot Board as competent to pilot their own vessels, and there ought to be no difficulty in selecting from among their number such men for pilots as may be required from time to time. We say, in effect, that we have no objection to tlmploy strangers as pilots, but that our own people ought to have the first chance. D uder these circumstances, clause 148 is worded as follows :-

.e The board shall not grant a licence to llny person to act as a pilot for Port Phillip unless such persoll has, during the three years imme· diately preceding the granting of snch licence, served as master of an intercolonial or home­trade ship for a period of twelve months, nor unless such persoll has been the holder of an exemption certificate for twelve months con­tinuously, and has navigated his ship twelve times in and twelve times out of Port Phillip Bay."

So far, then, the absolute selection of men for pilots is not made discretional with the pilots as a body. They will be so far con­fined in making their choice. With respect to pilots and pilotage, I have to refer to a matter to which I would rather not alluue; but it is absolutely necessary to mention it. A document has, I am informed, been

Mr. Walker.

circulated among honorable members wl1ich bears upon the interests of the pilots. It is unsigned and undated, and it contains state­ments, some of which are true, but others are misleading. It also casts a serious re­flection upon myself. I presume that it is intended that honorable members should suppose that the document emanates from the pilots; but I have spoken to the chair­man of the Pilot Board on the subject, and he told me that he did not know that to be the case. I only refer to the fact because I know that, at all events, some honorable members have received copies of the docu­ment, and I think it right to warn them that it contains some allegations which are true and others which are not quite true. W"hen the Bill is in committee, I will be ready to answer any question any honorable member may put to me with respect to the contents of the paper, or, indeed, to any other matter touched upon in the Bill. It seems to me that, if any men wish to make a statement in writing, they ought to put their names to it. I do not think I would have noticed the subject but for the underhand and secret manner in which the document has been circulated. For example, no copy of it has been sent to me. But for the courtesy of an honorable member to whom a copy was sent, I would have been totally ignorant of the whole affair. Well, as I have said, if, when we are in committee, any llUnor­able member asks any question upon this or any other matter relating to the Bill, I will give him every explanation possible. To return tothe Bill itself. Honorable mem­bers must bear in mind that it is absolutely necessary that we should have reciprocity­that we should do nothing in legislation which will prevent us recognising the certificates of other colonies and other countries. On the other ha,nd, it is most desirable that we should avoid legislation bearing in any way harshly upon our own shipowners. We ought to do nothing which would make it unde­sirable for a ship to belong to Victoria, or advantageous to register ships elsewhere than in this colony. Because it will always be easy to do that. All that shipowners will have to do will be to register in Adelaide or in some other colonial port outside Vic­toria. How can they be expected to volun­tarily conform to laws in Victoria which are penal as compared with the laws in other ports? Therefore, I say, the House must keep within the lines on the present subject that are laid down in England and the other colonies, otherwise we will run the danger of obliterating shipowning in Victoria. As for

Marine [NOVEMBER 15.] Board Bill. 2097

British legislation, one of its chief objects of late years has been to prevent the over­valuing and over-insuring or ships. We have not here, however, the same danger -that exists in the old country, because our field is so small. I think it would be im­.possible for any person to insure a ship in Melbourne for more than its value. The ireal value of each vessel is well known to the offices, and they will not go beyond it. I repeat that the measure is not a party one at all, and the Government hope for and expect the cordial co-operation of honorable members on all sides, not only in passing it into law, but also in making it as perfect as possible before it becomes law. Any sug­gestions that will improve the Bill, let them come from where they may, we will accept, our sole object being to secure the safety of life anti property at sea.

Mr. LANGRIDGE.-Sir, early in the evening, I asked the Premier to allow me the opportunity of proceeding with a Bill­the Fire Brigades Bill-which I consider of great importance to the community. The honorable gentleman replied, as I antici­pated, that the state of public business would not permit him to do so, yet shortly after­wards he gave notice of three new Bills. We are now asked to consider this important measure, containing upwards of 170 clauses, at the fag-end of the session. No doubt the Minister of Oustoms placed the Bill before the House in a very reasonable ana. excellent way, and very clearly explained the scope of ·its provisions. I consider, however, that the Government have made a mistake in bringing the Bill before the House at the end of the session, and I cannot help think­ing that it has been done, to a certain extent, to carry out an object which has been held 'in view for a very long time. The Minister stated that no legislation in this direction has been attempted for the last twenty years, .and, as a matter of fact, although one or two small measures have been passed within the last eight (If ten years, Parliament has not adopted any important legislation con­nected with maritime matters since 1865. After a lapse of so' many years, it is to be regretted that the Government should now 'introduce a Bill at the end of the ses­sion, and that only an incomplete measure, I myself, when Minister of Oustoms, in­troduced a Shipping Bill, in 1885, which embodied all the most recent English 'legislation up to date, adapted, of course, ,where necessary, to the requirements of the -colony. Nearly twelve months were spent by me, with the assistance of experts, in the

preparation of that measure, which got as far as the first reading, but, for some reason I never could account for, was kept back, and never got any further. I found, at that time, that Victoria, however advanced in other respects, was the only colony in the group which had lagged behind in marine legislation. All the other colonies had adopted measures very similar to t hat which is now under our consideration, but I may point out that the Bill of 1885 contained a vast deal more matter than the. present measure. All the most important clauses in this Bill are copied from the same source as those of the Bill of 1885, but the dift'erence is that in this measure a large amount of matter is left out which would be of great service to the people of the colony connected with ship­ping. The part omitted is that which more particularly concerns the protection of sea­lllen, and I am sure that every honorable member will admit that seamen are the class least capable of taking care of their own in­terests, and should, therefore, be protected by Parliament in every way possible. The clauses on this subject in the Bill which I introduced would, I believe, if they had been embodied in the present measnre, be passed without any difficulty. The Minister in his speech referred to the Bill not handing over the control of light-houses, buoys, beacons, &c., to the proposed board. I do not know whether the honorable gentleman meant it to be inferred that my Bill did so, but, if so, I may state that I particularly guarded against anything of the kind, because I had a strong objection to handing anything over to a board if I could have avoided it. An­other matter I may mention is that, in con­nexion with my measure, I took a precaution which the Minister oE Oustoms has not taken with regard to his, I sent copies of it to every body of men interested in it 01'

affected by it-shipowners, merchants, sea­men, masters, pilots, and others. They had three months in which to examine the measure before it was brought forward in the House, and, strange to say, considering the nature of the subject, I did not receive a single complaint from any body of men in Melbourne regarding the Bill except one. As soon as the Bill was brought before the House, and the constitution of the board was seen, I found out where the weak spot WtlS. The Bill proposed that the board should be cOilstituted as follows :-Three members to be appointed by the Governor in Council; one member to be elected by the merchants and traders; one by the ship­owners; one by the licensed pilots; one by the

2098 Marine [ASSEMBLY.] Board Bill.

masters and mates; one by the Engineers' Union; ~nd one by the Seamen's Union. ' The weak point in that proPQsal was that it did not give en~ugh representation to the merchants and .shipowners, but if the .Bill had been considered an alteration might' have been made in that respect, and I con­fess that I .canrwt see why the same Bill should not have been introduced now in­stead of a different and less GOQlplete mea­sure, especially in view of the fact that the present Premier and Ohief Secretary were members of the Government which submitted the former measure. I believe that my Bill was not allowed to go on owing to the strol1g opposition it ,enconn­tered through not giving two .members each to the merchants and shipowners, and I am quite sure: that had that been done the measure would have been law now. I re­gret to say that the present Bill is framed on lines somewhat calculated to dO,an injury to a very deserving class of men. I have noticed at different times an attempt on the part of a certain section of the community to injure the pilot service of the colony­and let me say in passing that I do not think there is a finer pilot service in any part of the world. Whilst I was 0n a visit to the old country, I noticed that there had been an inquiry granted by the Minister of Oustoms into the working of the pilot ser­vice, and I must say that, after reading the evidence taken at that inquiry, and the re­port of the board, I could not help being struck with the fact that the report was directly against the evidence. There was also testimony tendered on behalf of the pilots which ought to have been inserted in the minutes of the board but which has been omitted, and consequently the pilots have adopted the only method open to them of showing the estimation in which they are held by those who have had most to do with them by publishing a pamphlet containing expressions of opinion as to the character of the service by experienced masters of vessels who have visited this .port. The following is one testimonial:-

"We, the undersigned shipmasters, regular traders to this port for many years, have been much astonished at the unfavomble comments that have recently appeared in the public press concerning the pilot service of Victoria. Hitherto this service has enjoyed the reputation of being second to none in the world, and we think de­servedl.y so; and are of opinion that it never was more efficient than at present.

"From years of experience we are in a posi­tion to state that in no part of the world are ships better attended to than at Port Phillip Heads. The pilot schooners are kept at sea in all weathers, and shipmasters who run for the

Mr. Langridge.

pilot station can. alway's rely uponobtainipg the services of a pilot Dlght or day, and, m our opinion, we do not see any necessity for any change whatever in the .pr~sent system of the working of the ser-vice."

This testimonial is signed· by 35 leading shipmasters who·have been visiting this port for years, among them being the captains of large steamers like the Massilia and the ·Orient. This, I think, should be sufficient to con vince honorable mem bers that the pilots of .Port Phillip are carrying out their duties in a manner which is creditable to them. ,There is also a testimonial from masters of foreign vessels, almost equally numerously signed, and a testimonial from masters of intercolonial traders, who aU speak in the highest terms of the manner in which they are served when they enter or leave the port. I will read one of the letters sent to the Pilot Board, as it is the testi­mony of a master-Oaptain D.R. Holt, of the ship Hat·binger-who gave evidence on the question of the pilot service before a committee, and who is considered a high authority on all matters connected with shipping. It states-

" After due considemtiou of what has been published as to the non-efficiency of the pilot ser­vice of this port (at which I am not a little su~­prised) I consider it my duty to add my testI­mony a~ to the efficiency of that seI:vice and those engaged in it. I have BeYer had auy difficulty, either by day or night, in obtaining the se~vices of a pilot during the time I have been tradmg to this port, often having run to leeward with per­fect confidence of finding the boat on her station; nor have I been disappointed. A,nd if my ~x­perience of thirty-five years in command tradlllg to all parts of the world is of any value, I am pleased to 'say that your service compa.res most favorably with those of Falmouth, Plymouth,. Dungeness, Liverpool, and Queenstown, or the pilot service of Calcutta; in fact, any other pilot service known to me."

The reason I allude more particularly to the· pilots is that they are seriously affected by this Bill, which seems framed in this respect simply to carry out the views of the board that was appointed to inquire into tIle pilot service. There are many of these officers who have grown gray in the service, and in my Bill I thought it only right that pro­vision should be made for compensation being given to them on retiring. There is no such provision in this Bill, but they are handed over to the tender mercies of the Public Service Board, and we all know what that means. The Bill also contemplates that the proposed Marine Board shall take over the supera.nnuation fund of the pilots .. I may say that the pilots were perfectly satisfied with the mode which I adopted of dealing with that fund, but they strongly'

Marine [NOYEMBER 15.] Board Bill.

object to the provisions on the subject con­tained in this Bill.

Mr. W ALKER.-The provisions relat­ing to the superannuation fund are copied from your Bill. The only difference i~ that we give them the right to nominate, and you did not.

Mr. LANGRIDGE.-There is not the slightest doubt that this is one of those Bills which must be fought out in com­mittee. These men are to be handed over to an almost irresponsible board. At the same time, if I mistake not, the expenses of ad­ministration will come out of their earnings, and therefore they are entitled to be as well represented on the board as they are on the present Pilot Board. It is their money we are dealing with, and I do not see why we should be asked at the end of the session to pass a Bill which only does half what was formerly proposed and agreed to by all parties, and the principal object of which is to hand over the pilots to an almost irre­sponsible body. There is no disguising the fact that a dead set has been made against the pilots, and that it is desired to bring them under the heel of authority in some way. For the last six or eight months they have been badgered and worried until their lives are almost harassed ont of them. If some of those gentlemen who complain stayed out in one of the pilot schooners for 10 or 11 days, and saw the pilots boarding vessels in all weathers, we should not hear so much on the subject. I think that the Go­vernment would have acted more wisely if they had brought down a Bill dealing with the whole question of the shipping laws, and that they would have had a better cl1ance of carrying such a measure at this period of the session.

Mr. GRA VES.-Mr. Speaker, it is not my habit to congratulate the Government on the Bills they introduce, but I do most sincerely congratulate the Minister of Cus­toms on having formulated and submitted to the House a measure of this character, which was so badly wanted. No doubt the honor­able gentleman will meet with some diffi­culties in connexion with the Bill-notably one referred to by the honorable member for Collingwood (Mr. Langridge); I allude to the question of the pilot service, and the position of the Pilot Board. The honorable member, however, appeared to consider that was the only matter dealt with in the Bill, whereas it occupies only a very small part of the Bill. The measure contains 177 clauses, the greater part of which are taken from the most recent English legislation, and it is in

aqopting this course tl1at I consider the Minister has acted so judiciously. The Bill appears to have been carefully considered and well designed to meet the circumstances of the case. During the time I was Minister of Customs, I obtained the services of the best professional talent in Melbourne with the view of introducing a Bill on this sub­ject, but I had not the advantage of the new legislation which has been passed in ,Eng~' land. It must be remembered that this is not altogether a local measure, because English interests and English trade are so largely concerned in any Bill we pass dealing with shipping matters that it is desirable that our legislation should be on the lines, as far as possible, of the most recent English· laws. This Bill fulfils that requirement. The Bill of the honorable member for Col­lingwood was read a first time, but it never' went anyfurther,and no one knew what were its provisions, because the honorable member never explained it.

Mr. LANGRIDGE.-I never got the chance.

Mr. GRAVES.-The Government of which the honorable member for Colling­wood lVas a member could do almost any;. t.hing they chose. They passed the largest number or Statutes ever passed in the same time at the instance of any Government.

Mr. C. YOUNG.-They all 11ad to be amended.

Mr. GRAVES.-The principle of that, Government was-" Place the Bill on the statute-book and amend it afterwards." But now we are finuing' how difficult it is to amend their measures. As far as I am concerned, I shall give the Minister or Cus­toms the utmost assistance I can in passing' this Bill; and I think the best course is to let it Fass as it stands, because if honorable members attempt to botch it up, owing t() the way the clauses are connected with each other, the result will be to spoil the measure. The best thing we can do is to place the Bill on the statute-lYook, and I do not think it will require to be amended, because it is in accordance with the most advanced legis­lation of the Imperi:,l.l Parliament.

Mr. LANGRIDGE.-Both Bills are' copies of English legislation.

Mr. GRAVES.-No doubt; but this· Bill is brought up to date. As to the ques,· tion of the pilots, I admit that the money earned by them is theil' own, property., Everyone must acknowledge that, when public servants out of their own earnings create a fund which is not augmented by the Government, Parliament should be very:

2100 Marine [ASSEMBLY.] Board Bill.

carerul before interfering with it; but I am quite sure that, when the Bill gets into committee, the Minister will give satisfac­tory reasons for the proposals he makes on the subject. I trust honorable members will assist the Minister to pass the Bill as 1300n as p.ossible, because the trade of the port or Melbourne is increasing so rapidly that the want or a good maritime law is be­coming more and more pressing. To show how the shipping trade or the colonies has been increasing, I may mention that a dis­tinguished statesman now in Victoria stated in the House of Lords that, on the acces­sion or Her Majesty, the shipping or Lon­don-tonnage and men-was about equal to the present shipping of the adjoining colony of New South Wales. I think the soouer we pass a Bill which will render a law, which is abstruse and difficult to ad­minister, intelligible, complete, and satis­factory, the better it will be for the country. If ever a Bill deserved the support or the House it is this one, because it has been a crying wrong that our shipping laws have been so long in the defective state in which they are:

Mr. \VOODS.-Sir, I think every hon­orable member will agree that the Min­ister of Customs is to be congratulated on the manner in which he submitted this Bill. I think honorable members will also agree with the Minister that, politically speaking, this is a colourless Bill-one of those measures in connexion with which there can be no party feeling, and the only desire or honorable members can be to assist the Government to make it as perfect as possible. I concur with the honorable mem­ber for Delatite that the absence of proper shipping laws in this colony does not reflect credit on the Legislature of the colony. The question of the safety and comfort of pas­'13engers by vessels, and of sailors employed on them, has not engaged the attention of this House to the extent'it would have clone had the latter persons been in the active exercise of political rights.

Mr.LANGRIDGE.-Theprovisions re­lating to seamen in my Bill are left out of this measure, and I object to that.

Mr. WOODS.-I merely rose with the view or suggesting that, in order to save time, the Bill should be got into committee at once. It is one of those Bills which re­quire no second-reading speeches. It is a Bill for consideration in committee, with perhaps an amendment here and an amend­ment there in order to make it as perfect as possible. I trust that one amendment with

regard to the constitution of the l\f arine Board will be adopted-namely, providing for the direct representation of the marine engineers as proposed in the Bill of the honorable member for Oollingwood (Mr. Langridge ).

Mr. W ALKER.-The term" seaman" is made to include every person employed on board ship.

Mr. WOODS.-That won't do. The marine engineers are not seamen in the proper sense of the word.

Mr. ANDERSON (Villiers).-They are bracketed with seamen.

Mr. WOODS.-But we don't want them bracketed with seamen. Everyone knows that the safety of the ship and passengers depends, perhaps, as much upon the marine engineers as upon the captain, seamen, or anyone else, and I cannot imagine how the Minister of Customs, who is fair enough in his way, has failed to recognise their claims to direct representation. I also trust that in committee he will see his way to give the pilots a representative of their own on the board, instead of joining them with the exempt masters. I would point out that, while the marine engineers and the pilots are treated in this way, the merchants and traders are given two representatives, and the shipowners two representatives, although it appears to me that the two classes are so closely allied as almost to form one electoral body. I may state that, when the Bill is in committee, I shall endeavonr to get the marine engineers, as a recognised associated body, to whom so much is due in regard to the safety and comfort of passengers, directly represented on the board.

Mr. ZOX.-Sir, this Bill contains nearly 180 clauses, and there is no doubt that a great amount of consideration and some technical knowledge will be required in order to enable any honorable mem ber to thoroughly understand it. In my opinion, the merits of the measure can only be thrashed out in com­mittee, and the sooner we get into committee upon it the better. Nevertheless, I desire to make one or two observations before the Bill is read a second time. In the first place, I would like to know whether the Govern­ment have used any influence with the other colonies for the purpose of getting what I may call a federal law in relation to shipping. However good a law this colony may pass, it will fail to accomplish what we desire if vessels belonging to other colonies can carry passengers to and from the port of Mel­bonrne, although they are not efficiently equipped with life-saving apparatus, and are

Marine [NOVEMBER 15.J Board Bill. 2101

not subject to proper rules and regulations. Therefore, the Government should use every means in their power to get uniform legis­lation on this subject adopted by the various colonies. During the visit of the Ohief Secretary to England, a Royal commission was sitting in that country on the question of life-saving apparatus on board sea-going vessels, and the Premier, at the request of myself and other members of the Victorian Royal Humane Society, cabled for informa­tion on the matter. I would like to know whether any information has been received, because the Bill, in my judgment, although making certain pro\Tision on the subject of life-saving apparatus, only does so to a limited extent. There is not such ample provision on this matter in the present mea­sure as there was in the Bill introduced by the honorable member for Oollingwood (Mr. Langridge), when Minister of Oustoms. The question of life-saving apparatus on board vessels, which has been frequently mooted in this House, is one of the greatest importance, and itdeservesmostcarefulatten­tion. If the provisions relating thereto which are con tained in the Bill are not deemed suffi­cient, it will be the duty of honorable mem­bers, in committee, to assist the Minister of Oustoms in making them as stringent as possible. Sunday after Sunday, as many as 500 or 600 excursionists go down the Bay on board of one steam-ship alone, and it is most important that the life-saving apparatus on board all vessels carrying ex­cursionists should be of such a character as to provide for their safety in the event of any accident occurring. The question of overcrowding is, also, a matter for serious consideration. I have seen hundreds of persons crowded on particular vessels on leaving Sandridge Pier. I do not, of course, know whether those vessels had more pas­sengers on board than they were allowed to carry by law; but, at all events, there was no supervision, and it is absolutely neces­sary that this should be provided for. Proper regulations ought to be framed, and <,>fficers ought to be appointed to see that they are carried into effect. In a Bill of this kind, justice should be done to all par­ties concerned. If there is not time to make the Bill as perfect as possible this session, it will be better for the present law to remain in existence until next session. I thoroughly coincide with the observations of the honorable membet: for Oollingwood in regard to the necessity for having a Marine Board so constituted that the men who will be subject to its authority will have

confidence in it. With respect to the pilot service, I consider that it is a credit to the colony. The pilots, from their hard earn­ings, have contributed a certain amount of money to a sick and superannuation fund,. and it is a matter for serious consideration whether those contributions should go to­one common fund, under the supervision of the Governor in Oouncil. It will not do to allow an important portion of the public service to become dissatisfied immediately on the initiation oE a Bill of this kind. I hope the House will see that justice is done to the pilots, and that theil' rights are con­served, so that any feeling which now exists amongst them in opposition to the scheme of the Government may be removed. The constitution of the proposed Marine Board is also a matter demanding the careful attention of honorable' members. It is proposed that the firemen and seamen shall have a voice in the election oE two of the members of the board. The Minister of Oustoms admitted that this was an innova­tion and an experiment-that it is not re­cognised in the constitution oE similar boards in the old country or in the various Austra­lian colonies. Now I do not object to this­innovat.ion at all. I believe that every section of the community who are interested in a law relating to shipping ought to have fair and proper representation on any board elected to administer that law; but I will ask the Minister why, having made an inno­vation on the established practice in one direction, he has not proposed that the underwriters of the colony shall have rcpre­sen ta tion on the board? A most important deputation waited on the honorable gen­tleman the other day, and put before him very strongly the case of the underwriters to be represented on the board. He, how-­ever, declined to accede to the suggestion~ stating that he did not see any necessity for the underwriters to be represented, and that they did not press their claim for repre­sentation, as they might have done, when the Marine Board Bill of 1882 was before Parliament. But the fact that they did not. urge their claim to representation in 1882-is no reason why those claims should not be considered now. Everyone connected with shipping must admit that the underwriters have special claims for representation on the board. There are 50 or 60 underwriters in the colony, and they contribute £6,000 or £8,000 a year to the public revenue in the shape of a tax on the premiums they receiver Irrespective of thid fact, the underwriters are men possessing technical knowledge on.

:2102 j-farine [ASSEMBL Y.] Board Bill.

marine questions, and therefore their repre­sentative would be a most valuable member of the board. Moreover, the underwriters' associations have over 3,000 shareholders, and are interested in maritime affairs to the extent of millions of money. I would ask the Minister of Oustoms to consider whether it is not desirable, from a national point of view, that important bodies like these should have representation on the Marine Board. I trust that the honorable gentleman will -see his way to arrive at a different conclu­sion on this matter from the one that he has already come to, and to agree to the underwriters being represented on the board. There nre many matters in connexion with the Bill to which I might refer, but I will refrain from doing so, as I know that the Government are anxious to get into com­mittee .on the measure. In conclusion, I would urge upon the Ministry the desira­bility of communicating with the Govern­ments of the other Austr~lasian colonies, with the view of endeavouring to bring about reciprocity of legislation on the import.ant .questions with which the Bill deals.

Mr. W ALKER.-That is really a matter for the Federal Oouncil.

Mr. ZOX.-To my mind no Bill is more worthy of thE' consideration of the Federal Council than the one now before this House. It would be a great ad vantage to have a measure of this kind passed by the Federal Council, and applied to the whole of the colonies.

Mr. VV. M. OLARK.-Mr. Speaker, I trust that honorable members will deal most carefully with this measnre when it is in .committee. The Argus, in an article in to-day's issue, describes it as a Bill of one clause, which is to swallow uptwo old boards. To put the matter in a nutshell, I would say that it is a Bill to wipe out -the pilot service, and all the officers connected with that service. The pilot service of Victoria is the most efficient in the world, and yet its interests are to be handed over to a board {!onsisting of three persons appointed by the Governor in Oouncil, two elected by the mer­-chants and traders, two elected by the ship­owners (who are virtually the same persons as the merchants and traders), one by the pilots and exempt mast~rs, and two by seamen and by masters who are not exempt. The pilots are bracketed with the exempt masters, and, as there are only 30 of the former and 400 of the latter, it is evident that the pilots will be left out in the cold. It is -really monstrous not to allow the pilots a representative on the board, especially when

it is proposed that the merchants shall have two members, and that the shipowners, who are practically the same body of men as the merchants,shall also have two. I have heard it asked-Ie Why should the pilots be re­presented on the board?" Has not a man who is tried for any offence the right to challenge the jury-the right, to a certain exten-t, to select his own jury? On the same principle, the pilots, against some of whom charges may be made which will have to be investigated by the Marine Board, ought to have a voice in the selection of the members of the board. At the very least the pilots are entitled to equal representation with the shipowners, and so are the underwriters. Until this is conceded, I shall offer every possible opposition to the Bill.

Mr. OARTER.-Mr. Speaker, the first object of a Bill of this description-indeed, its only object-is to endeavour to afford better protection to life and property at sea. What we have to consider, therefore, is how far the measure goes in that direction-how far it will effect the object which alone justifies its introduction. 'Vill itgive greater security to persons travelling by sea, or will it afford greater security to those interested in goods sent by sea? The persons most interested in the preservation of life and property at sea are those who travel by sea, and those who insure the lives of the pas­sengers, the goods, and the ships. But neither of these parties will be represented on the Marine Board proposed by the Bill, except so far as they may be said to be repre­sented by the three members to be appointed by the. Governor in Oouncil. The other members of the board will represent distinct interests. I do not believe that there is any man in our country who would wilfully send­a ship to sea with the hope that it would be lost; but we know that self.interest is the main-spring of human action~ Oonsequently, when a man sends a ship to sea his self­interest may, unknown to himself, make him think that a smaller number of men is neces­sary to work the vessel, or that a smaller equipment in- the way of sails, boats, cables, or anything else is necessary than would be considered requisite by a person who was en­tirely disinterested in the matter. Therefore, whileshipownersand merchants havea perfect right to be represented on the Marine Board, surely the persoIls who are personally and directly interested in the safety or vessels sent to sea ought to be represented on the board. On comparing the board proposed in the Bill introduced by the honorable mem­ber for Oollingwood (Mr. Langridge), when

Marine [NOVEMBER 15.] Board Bill. 2103

Minister of Customs, with that proposed by the present measure, it seems to ml'1 that the former would give a better sort of repre­sentation. The present Bill mixes up two parties whose interests are not identical­the exempt masters and the pilots-and gives them all votes for one member of the board, but the pilota, who are in a minority, might just as well be without votes at all. In the Bill introduced by the honorable member for Collingwood, it was proposed that the licen~ed pilots should have one representative on the board,. the Masters and Mates' Union one, and the engineers ~me. Under that arrangement, each of those bodies would have a distinct representative on the board to look after their interests; but, if the 400 exempt masters and the 30 pilots are mix~d up together and elect one member conjointly, what will become of the interests of the pilots?

Mr. W ALKER.-Their interests are exactly the same.

Mr. CARTER.-I am not quite clear that their interests are the same; indeed, it 'Seems to me that their interests are very difiermit. I think that each body should elect one member of the board. Mix the two to­gether, and the pilots will have no representa­tion at all. A great deal has been said about Englishlegislation; but, as far as I can judge, I don't think that we need go to England for an example as to legislation in regard to marine affairs. If the English marine laws had been anything near perfect there would have been no necessity for the reforms ad­vocated by Mr. Plimsoll. The revelations which he brought about showed that if ever any body or men required looking aftetthe shipowners did. Mr. Plimsoll has done a great deal towards the preservation of life and property at sea-"-in fact, more than any other man living-but I think that there is a great deal to be done yet. I agree with the honorable member for East Melbourne' (Mr. Zox) that it would be better to post­pone the passing of the Bill until next, session'than to pass a bad measure now, for, if it is once placed on the' statute-book, it may be difficult to a~end or repeal it. If the Government are willing to accept amend­men'ts, I think we can make a good Bill of it; but if they are determined to adhere to it precisely as it has been drafted, I don't think that it will be a good measure if it is passed. Allusion has been made to tIle excursion stea'm~ships which go down the Bay, and I may c~~ them as an, example of the truth of the'remarks which I have already m'ade in regard to self-interest.

Those boats go down the Bay almost every day of the week, during the summer season, loaded with passengers. Supposing that an accident happened to one of them~ what would become or the people on board? Is there the slightest provision on board by which life could be saved? I don't blame the owners or the vessels. There is no law compelling them to have the vessels fur­nished with life-saving appliances; but an accident might occur any day- imperilling the safety- of the 'passengers-such casual­ties have taken place on the Thames and on the Clyde-and, therefore, it is necessary that precautions should be adopted. Plea­sure steam-shi ps should, in fact, be ,compelled to carry adequate life-saving apparatus; but there is no provision of the kind in the Bill so far as I can sec. With respect to the underwriters, their claim to direct repre­sentation on the Marine Board. is very for­cibly put in a document they have issued, from which I will make the following quota..; tion:-

" The shareholders in the underwriters' com­panies and associations are virtually the only pecuniary sufferers by maritime casualties, and by the mal-administration of Illaritime affairs, merchants and shipowners being indemnified by them. Merchants and shipowners Illay be de­terred by expense, and by other considerations, from adopting precautions against accident; but the underwriter can have no other motive than the utmost possible security of property-and consequently of life-at sea . .Every vote he gives will be influenced by the knowledge that a wrong decision may entail upon him the loss of thou­sands of pounds. Whilst other members of the board may have become connected with maritime affairs through accident or the force of circum­stances, and may possess little or no practical acquaintance with them, the underwriter has in nearly every case been chosen for his post by reason of his experience of shippinll and sea­borne commerce, and is necessarily versed' in maritime law and practice."

The man that I have confidence in is the underwriter. If lowe a man money, and I happen to become a little indisposed" I find that there is no one who takes so much interest in my health~ as he does. And so it is with the underwriter. As soon as he has insured a ship or the goods that are put on board it, his object is that the vessel shall get to her destination; but the owner and the merchant are in quite a differen,t position. They have insured the ship and the cargo, to protect themselves, and, if the vessel is wrecked, they regard the occurrence as very lamentable-they head a subscri ption for the relief of the survivors-but they do not feel the same pecuniary loss as the under­writers. Although I never take a voyage, if I can avoid it-I am not a " fellow" de se-1 want to have a feeling of security

2104 .llfarine [ASSEMBLY.] Board Bill.

when I go on board a vessel for the purpose of taking a voyage; and, if there was any member of a Marine Board in whom I would feel confidence, it is the underwriter. His object, I say, is to preserve life. The owner of the ship, though he would not do any­thing that would lead to its destruction, would, nevertheless, not suffer pecuniarily by its loss in the same way as the under­writer. As to the proposal to put the pilots' superannuation fund into the Treasury, I am afraid that, if it goes there, it will meet the same fate as the police superannuation fund. That fund occasionally figures as an asset in the annual balance-sheet submitted by the Treasurer, but where it has gone to I don't think the police or anybody else knows. If the pilots' superannuation fund once gets into the Treasury, I am afraid that the pilots will not see much more of it.

Mr. 'V ALKER.-The proposal in the Bill is made at the pilots' request.

Mr. OARTER.-I am informed that it is not. I am told that the pilots have accumulated a fund of £40,000, anel that they have plant, ill the shape of vessels and fittings, valued at £10,000. With this money tl1ey could buy annuities which would bring them in a great deal more than· they are ever likely to get from the Govern­ment out of any superannuation fund. Why should the money which has been accumu­lated by the present pilots be utilized. to create a superannuation fund for future pilots? To take a fund which has accu­mulated out of contributions that have been going on for many years, and to hand it over to the Government to give to some­body else;' seems on the face of it to be very unjust. There is one small matter about which I desire to ask a question. I would like to know what provision is to be made for the secretary of the Pilot Board, whose office is to be abolished? The secretary of the Steam Navigation Board is, I believe, to be provided for by being appointed the secretary of the Marine Board. He is under the Public Service Act, but the secretary ef the Pilot Board is not. I hope, however, that the latter is not on that account to be shunted into the cold, and left without being provided for in any way whatever. As the one officer is to be taken care of, it would only be just that the other should also be provided for. I think I may say that all honorable members will be glad to assist the Government in passing the Bill, but we would like to see some amendment.s made in it in committee.

Mr. ANDERSON (Villiers).-Sir, I must, along with other honorable members, congratulate the Minister of Customs upon the manner in which he has submitted the Bill to the House, and I am sure that we. are all glad that he has been so far restored to health as to enable him to take an active part in debate. I cannot endorse the re­marks of the honorable member for East Melbourne (Mr. Zox) that this Bill should be dealt with as a federal measure. If it was left for the Federal Council to deal with, this country would have to wait too long for legislation of this important char­acter. Moreover,one portion of the measure would have to be omitted altogether if only federal legislation was adopted, became part 5 relates to the pilot service, and our pilot service is unique~ I don't think that any other colony has a pilot service which has such an accumulated fund as the pilot service of Victoria. The Bill deals with many.other important matters to which the House should address itself, as speedily as possible, in committee. It is a great blot on our marine· system that a sailing vessel not carrying passengers can leave our shores without the master hold ing any certificate of competency. I am glad to find that the measure will remove that defect. A certain amount of guarantee will, at all events, be offered for­the safety of the lives of sealJlen if all vessels, whether carrying passengers and cargo, or cargo only, are required to be in charge of certificated officers. The pro-· posed constitution of the Marine Board will, I think, require considerable revision. To bracket the pilots with the exempt mas­ters is to swamp the representation of the pilots altogether. The exempt masters can have no interests in connexion with the pilots. They have interests in common with the shipowners and the merchants, but they have none whatever in common with the pilots. Neither can it be contended that the interests of the shipowners are identical with those of the pilots, because it is to the interest of the shipo'Yners to get the pilotage fees reduced as much as possible. Most of the representatives of the board, in fact,. will have an interest in reducing the fees of the pilots, and they may get them reduced to starvation point.

Mr. W ALKER.-N 0 reduction can be made without the sanction of the Governor' in Council.

Mr. ANDERSON.-But the Governor in Council will be slow to refuse to act on the· recommendations of the board. If the board is supposed to be worthy of confidence, the:

Marine [NOVEMBER 15.] Board Bill. 2105

Governor in Council must give effect to its recommendations unless some flagrant act of injustice would be perpetrated by doing so. I would suggest that a schedule should be attached to the Bill fixing the amount of the fees, and then there would be no danger of the Board reducing them below the pro­per limit. I quite agree with the opinion that the underwriters should have represen­tation on the board, because they are speci­ally interested in securing the safety of life and property on board ship. I think there will be a little difficulty in regard to the in­vestment of the pilots' accumulated fund when it is paid into the Treasury.

Mr. W ALKER.-The money will be properly invested.

Mr. ANDERSON.-It is probable that not more than 4 per cent. interest will be paid on it, so that, as the greater part of the fund is now invested at 6 per cent., there will be a loss of 2 per cent. per annum to the pilots. I hope that the Government will consent to such amendments being made in the Bill, in committee, as seem to be really desirable.

Mr. C. YOUNG. - Mr. Speaker, no doubt there are many provisions of this Bill which will pass without dispute. I allude to those which are a transcript from the English Act. I noticed that the Minis­ter of Customs did not include in his state­ment any reference to the matter of the pilot boats.

Mr. W ALKER.-No. Mr. C. YOUNG.-The boats belong to

the pilots, and I wonder that the honorable gentleman did not attempt to confiscate the pilot boats as he has confiscated the super­annuation· fund.

Mr. LEVIEN.-No. "Mr. O. YOUNG.-He has confiscated

it in tllis sense: that he takes it from the pilots and their control. I think the sub­ject of pilot boats a most important one; and I would have been glad to hear from the Minister whether he proposes to get a better class of pilot boats. Supposing there is a consensus of opinion that a steam pilot boat should be employed, is there any pro­vision in the Bill to allow of such a vessel being obtained? vVill the Marine Board have power to direct that new boats shall be provided ?

Mr. W ALKER.-Certainly. Mr. O. YOUNG.-The honorable gentle­

man made no mention of the circumstance. With respect to the proposed representation of the pilots on the ..Marine Board, I think it a blot on the Bill. The present Pilot

SESe 1887.-7 H

Board consists of five members, one of whom is elected by the pilots. Therefore, one-fifth of the representation on that board is in tIle hands of the pilots. Under this Bill the pilots will virtually have no representation at all. The Marine Board is to consist of ten members, one of whom is to be eleded by the pilots and the shipmasters who hold exemption certificates for Port Phillip. Now, as the exempt masters number 400-odd--

Mr. VV ALKER.-No. About 200. Mr. O. YOUNG.-Taking the number

at 200, the pilots, of whom there are 30,. will practically have no representation at all. As the body most intimately associated with the pilots' superannuation fund, they have

. a right to elect one member to the Marine· Board.

Mr. W ALKER.-They will have the right to elect one member to the superannu­ation board.

Mr. O. YOUNG.-If they have the· power to elect one member to the Marine Board, they will have only one-tenth of the­representation, or one-half what they pos­sess now; but under the Bill as it stands,. they will really have no representation at all. The Minister of Oustoms has stated that the exempt masters have similar inter­ests to the pilots. For my part, I think the interests are antagonistic. Owing to· the existence of exempt masters, so much less money is received in the shape of pilot fees. Oertainly their interests are not iden­tical, and to allow the pilot vote to be swamped by the exempt masters' vote is as much as to say that the pilots shall have no­representation at all. With respect to the· pilots' superannuation fund, it is provided that, as soon as the Bill becomes law, th~ whole of the money forming that fund shall be handed over to the Treasurer; but I agree with the honorable member for West Melbourne (Mr. Oarter) that the people have no confidence in trust funds being handed over to the Government. I consider that a very serious wrong will be done to· the pilots by clause 160. Superannuated pilots and the widows and children of de­ceased pilots now derive an income from the· superannuation fund altogether below what they might receive from it. In point of fact,. the amount of income derivable from the fund was declared when the fund was only half the amount that it is now-when it was· only £20,000 instead of nearly £40,000~ Moreover, it should be recollected that the fund has been accumulating at the rate of more than £1,400 per year. Yet clause

2106 Marine [ASSEl\IBLY.] Board Bill.

160 provides that any allowance, gratuity, or pension heretofore granted by the Pilot Board "shall be payable, and continue to be payable, to the recipients thereof in the same way as it would have been if this Act had not been passed." I say that under this clause there is a distinct con­fiscation of £20,000. If £20,000 gave. a certain income to superannuated pilots and the widows and children of deceased pilots, and if the Government continue to pay only that income, although th~ fund amounts tQ £40,000, they absolutely confiscate £20,000. It should be recollected that the fund has been created out of the pilots' earnings-it may be called an insurance fund-and to divert any portion of it for the benefit of future pilots, people who have not contri­buted anything to it, is utterly absurd, and not exactly honest. Whatever returns may be derived from the money invested should be given to those who, out of theirown earnings, contributed the capital sum, or their repre­sentatives-to the superannuated pilots and the widows and children of dece~sed pilots. There are some other parts of the Bill which will bearamending; but I presume the clause which constitutes the Marine Board will be the crucial point of the measure. "vVith regard to one matter raised by the honorable member for East Melbourne (Mr. Zox), and also by the honorable member for Villiers (Mr. Anderson), the Minister of Customs was perfectly right when he said it was 'utterly impossible to bring foreign vessels under our law. If we attempt to do this, we will simply drive shipping away from Melbourne. "Vbatever our desires may be, we can go only to a certain extent with legis­lation in that direction. Foreign vessels must be left, toa large extent, to be governed by the law of their own country. In conclu­sion, I must express the belief that the Bill, when it becomes law, will be a great benefit to the port. I shall be glad to assist in passing "the measure, because there is no doubt that the greater portion of it is urgently required.

Mr. LEVIEN.-Sir, it seems to me that the provisions of this Bill are much more stringent than those of the existing law, and I think the Government are to be congratu­lated upon producing such a measure. I think the honorable member for Kyneton is under a misapprehension with regard to the pilots' superannuation fund. The clause which the honorable member has referred to enables those who at present benefit by that fund to'r~ceive in the future what they have received in the past. The fund will merely ''Pass from the custody .of the Pilot Board to

the Government-the money will be placed on trust in the consolidated revenue-and those who are entitled to benefit by the fund will do so to the fullest extent possible. I think one matter which deserves considera­tion is whether the amount proposed in the Bill to be deducted from the earnings of the pilots is not too large. In view of the fact that the superannuation fund is increasing, and must continue to increase, it might perhaps only be prudent to provide for a smaller deduction, if the Marine Board think fit to make it. vVhile it is desirable that superannuated pilots should have a proper allowance in their old age, it is un­desirable that this fund should so accumu­late as to assume undue proportions. How­ever, the chief matter which the House will have to consider in connexion with the Bill is the constitution of the Marine Board. I must say I have been much impressed with the representations on that subject which have appeared in the press. I think the proposed constitution is not the wisest that could be devised. I consider that the under­writers should have representation on the Ma.rine Board. All they ask is that they should have one representative on the board; and I think that request is only fair and reasonable. '~N ith regard to provision for the protection of life, I think the Bill COll­

tains ample provision, not perhaps in definite terms, but in the authority which it gives to the Marine Board to regulate these mat­ters. I repeat that the chief question for the Honse to consider is the constitution of the new board. It is desirable that those who have large interests to be protected should be fairly represented; and I submit that if the statements contained in the circular issued by the pilots are correct, it is only proper that their claim to elect one member of the board should be conceded. I also consider that what they ask with regard to the superannuation fund should likewise be conceded.

The motion for the second reading of the Bill was agreed to.

The Bill was then read a second time, and committed.

Discussion took place on clause 8, which was as follows :-

"The said Marine Board of Victoria. herein­after called the 'board,' shall consist of ten persons of whom (subject to the provisions hereinafter contained) three shall be appointed by the GOTernor in Council; two sl~all be elected by the persons whose names are on the roll of merchants and traders for the time being in force; two shall be elected by the registered owners of ships registered at any port in Vic­toria whose names appear upon the roll of ship-

Marine [NOYEMBER 15.J Board Bill. 2107

<mners for the time being in force; one shall be elected by Port Phillip pilots and masters who hold exemption certificates for Port Phillip and whose names appear on the roll of pilots and exempt masters for the time being in force; two shall be elected by masters (not holding exemp­tion certificates for Port Phillip) and seamen whose names appear on the roll of masters and seamen for the ~ime being in force."

Mr. ZOX expressed the hope that t.he underwriters would be allowed to have one representative on the board.

Mr. 'LANGRIDGE suggested that in view of the importance of the clause, and the probability that it would be subjected to material alteration, the Minister of Ous­toms should consent to its postponement.

Mr. WALKER stated that if honorable members desired any alterations to be made "in the clause it would be better to propose them now. The Government would be glad to entertain any reasonable proposition which might be submitted. vVith regard to the underwriters it should be recollected that, as a rule, those underwriters who were not shipowners were merchants or traders, and as such would have representation on the Marine Board. If, however, honorable members thought that the underwriters should have direct representation, he would suggest that the matter should be arranged by giving the merchants and traders one representative instead of two, because he considered it unadvisable to enlarge the board. He was of opinion that a board of ten members was sufficiently large.

Mr. ZOX considered that the merchants and traders would not have undue repre­.sentation on the board by returning two members. All sections of the community, that were interested in the well-working of ,the Bill should be represented on the board, and therefore he would recommend that the total number of members should be increased from ten to twelve.

Mr. BOSISTO urged that it was not necessary for three members to be appointed by the Governor in Oouncil. He did not know what interest those members would represent; but if "two" were substituted for

"" three," one member would be available for the underwriters.

Mr. WALKER remarked that the three members appointed by the Governor in 'Council would be expected to represent the ,travelling public. All the other members would represent special interests. Of the ,ten persons composing the two boards now in existence, nine were appointed by the Governor in Oouncil. Thus the proposal that only three members of the Marine Board should be appointed by the Governor

7 H 2 .

in Oouncil was a great come-down. If the pilots, and also the underwriters, were to have special representation, it would be ne­cessary to increase the board to twelve; but, in his opinion, a board of ten was quite large enough.

Mr. LANGRIDGE urged that the mem­bers of the board should be increased from ten to twelve.

Mr. vVRIXON said if he understood it to be the wish of the committee that the Marine Board should consist or twelve mem­bers, and that one should be elected by the pilots and another by the underwriters, the necessary amendment would be made on the report.

On clause 14, relating to the preparation of the roll of merchan ts and traders,

Mr. SHAOKELL asked whether mer­chants and traders in ports other than Melbourne would be placed on the roll ?

Mr. WALKER explained that the roll would include all merchants and t.raders, no matter where they resided, who paid su much per annum in wharfa.ge rates.

Mr. FEILD remarked that it seemed to him that one man might be able to vote as a merchant and also as a shipowner and an exempt master, in which case he would have three votes. Was it intended that there should be plurality of voting under the Bill?

Mr. WALKER said the Bill contained no provision against plurality of voting; but what the honorable member for Oollingwood (Mr. Feild) appeared to apprehend was not likely to occur. It would be a rare thing for an exempt master to be also a shipowner and a merchant. He might mention that, for the purposes of the board elections, the Bill adopted the machinery of the Melbourne Harbour Trust Act.

On clause 33, empowering the Governor in Oouncil, subject to the provisions of the Public Service Act, to a,ppoint a secretary and such other officers or servants of the board as might seem necessary,

Mr. WALKER observed that this clause raised the question as to what should be done with the officers of the present Pilot Board. He considered they ought to be treated in the same way as other public ser­vants; but as there might be some difficulty in transferring them to the public service, he was disposed to recommend to the Oabi­net that provision for their compensation should be made on the Estimates. It would be necessary for the Bill to be forwarded to England for the Queen's assent, and there­fore it could not become law for some months.

2108 Marine [ASSEMBLY.] Board Bill.

to come. During that time the officers of the board would continue to occupy the positions they now held.

Mr. O. SMITH remarked that with most officers compensation was not an equivalent for continuance in office. Therefore he would suggest the amendment of the clause so that it would provide-as the Bill introduced by the honorable member for Collingwood (Mr. Langridge) did-that persons at present holding office in connexion with the Pilot Board should, without further or other appointment, hold the corresponding office created under the Bill, or, if there were none such, should be transferred to the first vacant office in the department of equal value.

Mr.W ALKER stated that if the hon­orable member for Richmond (Mr. Smith) would put himself in com~unication with him, he would endeavour to have a clause drafted which would meet the honorable member's views.

Mr. W. M. CLARK expressed the fear that, if the officers of the Pilot Board had to depend for their transfer to the public service on the Public Service Board, they might have to wait and want. After wait­ing, they might be told that they were too old. Therefore he hoped that the interests of those officers would be securely protected by a provision in the Bill.

Mr. LAURENS stated that, after the assurance given by the Minister of Cus­toms, he thought honorable members might rest satisfied that the interests of the offi­cers referred to would be sufficiently protected by the Bill.

Clause 40 was postponed. On clause 46, providing that no ship

should ply or trade in Victorian waters un­less in charge of officers holding valid cer­tificates of competency or service,

Mr. SHACKELL expressed the fear that the clause would act prejudicially to the Murray trade. At present, Murray barges were placed simply under the charge of barge­masters.

Mr. WALKER begged to 'draw the hon­orable member's attention to clause 53, which would empower the Governor in Council to declare that part 3 of the Bill should not apply to ships or steam-ships trading solely on any particular river or rivers within the boundary of the colony.

On clause 80, imposing penalties on masters and owners neglecting to provide the proper equipments for a ship proceeding to sea,

Mr. CARTER asked if the clause would apply to vessels trading inside the Heads?'

Mr. WALKER stated that the dause­included all vessels except those specially exempted. The character of the life-saving apparatus each vessel would have to carry could, however, be varied at will by the Governor in Council. The object was that all the latest inventions of such apparatus should be utilized.

Clause 100 was postponed. On clause 107, providing that steam-ships

carrying Board of Trade or foreign certifi­cates would be exempted from the survey required under the Bill,

Mr. GRAVES drew attention to the fact disclosed in the marginal notes to the Bill, that a portion of it was taken from a New Zealand Act, and asked how far the taking extended?

Mr. 'VALKER replied that only two­slight provisions had been copied from the New Zealand Act in question. They ap­peared to be valuable, and they were not to· be found in the English Act.

On clause 119, limiting the amount or deck cargo to be carried by home-trade vessels,

Mr. SHACKEL L asked whether the operation of this clause would be limitable under clause 53? He was anxious that tlle Murray trade should not be unduly inter­fered with.

Mr. WALKER replied in the affirmative. On clause 139, providing that every

skilled member of the Court of Marine In­quiry would be paid for his attendance at the rate of £2 28. per diem,

Mr. GRAVES expre~sed the opinion that, in view of the immense amount of work that might at any time be thrown on the court, this sum ought to be susceptible­of increase.

Mr. WRIXON replied that it would always be susceptible of increase.

On clause 147, the first of the series. (contained in part 5) relating to pilots and pilotage,

Mr. LANGRIDGE asked if the Minis­ter intended to go o~ at once with this por­tion of the Bill? He put this question because the Bill proposed to hand over the pilots, together with their rights and privi-. leges, to a new board, and also to interfere with their salary, and sick and superannu~ ation funds. At the same. time they had not been consulted in the matter.

Mr. W. M. CLARK inquired if the Bill would make any alteration with respect to­compulsory pilotage?

Marine [NoVEMBER 15.] Board Bill. 2109

• Mr. WALKER said the Bill would not interfere with compulsory pilotage. He would prefer to deal with the question of the pilots and the funds belonging to them in connexion with clauses 152-60.

On clause 149, requiring all fees receiv­able in connexion with pilots, except fees with respect to exemption certificates, to be set apart and accounted for separately from other moneys received under the Bill,

Mr. OARTER pointed out that no pro­vision seemed to be made in the Bill with regard to pilots carried away, in out-going vessels, by stress of weather.

Mr. WALKER replied that the matter referred to was the subject of existing legis­lation which the Bill did not repeal.

On clause 152, providing that, before the monthly division of the pilots' salary fund, 7i per cent. thereof should be deducted-5 per cen t. to be paid into the consolidated Il'evenue in lieu or the sum hitherto payable to the Pilot Board, and 2! per cent. to go to the Treasurer on account of the pilots' sick and superannuation fund,

Mr. ANDERSON (Villiers) remarked that the proposed taking over, and rein­vestment by the Government, of the pilots' sick and superannuation fund appeared likely to operate very injuriously to them. Government securities yielded only 4 per cent., whereas the fund, as ilH'ested by the pilots themsel ves, yielded 6 per cent. There­fore, they were threatened with a loss of 2 per cent.

Mr. WALKER said the superannuation fund which at present existed, and all future payments on its account, would be dealt with in such a way as to meet, as far as possible, the views of the pilots themselves. The Government had no feeling in the matter at all. If the pilots would suggest ~ny better method of investing their money, it would, if possible, be adopted when the .Bill was reported. The Government would have no objection to the fund being invested at 10 per cent. if it could be safely done. Probably the pilots would like one of their number to manage the fund; and, if he could meet their views so far, he would be glad to do so. If representatives of the pilots would wait on him next day, he would be happy to consult them as to any alterations in this portion of the Bill they might require.

Mr. W. M. OLARK inquired if any pilot dissatisfied with the new system would be able to retire at once, and take his share of the sick and superannuation fund?

Mr. WALKER stated that the Bill would not come into operation for several months, during which interval any pilot who thought proper, and was entitled so to do, could retire under the existing arrangement. The matter was wholly one for the pilots themselves to decide.

Mr. O. YOUNG asked if the full amount of the income from the fund would go to those who had created it? If that was made clear in the pilots' favour, much or the ground of difference between them and the Govern­ment would be covered.

Mr. ANDERSON (Villiers) said he did not see why the sick and superannuation fund should be interfered with by the Go­vernment at all. The existing arrangement had worked well enough.

Mr. OARTER stated that he was in­formed that during the last three years the administrative expenses of the Pilot depart­ment, together with the contribution to the sick and superann uation fund, only amounted .to 5i per cent. Why, then, should the de­duction under the Bill be 7 ~ per cent. ?

lVIr. WALKER replied that an officer of the Customs department, who had examined the accounts of the Pilot department, had reported to him that the existing adminis­trative expenses amounted as nearly as pos­sible to 5 per cent. He (Mr. vValker) would make further inquiries, and if there appeared to be any error in the matter it would be remedied. It was extremely hard that hon­orable members all round should be informed of the particular views of the pilots with regard to the Bill, while he had been care­fully kept in the dark.

On clause 153, providing for the transfer or the money standing to the credit of the pilots' sick and superannuation fund to the Treasurer, to be entered in the stock-ledger to the account of "The Port Phillip Pilot Sick and Superannuation Fund,"

Mr. OAR TER said this was a provision to which the pilots greatly objected. The money in question was their own.

Mr. WALKER replied that the fund was in the hands of the Pilot Board, which body was to be superseded by the Marine Board, and therefore the money must be handed over to somebody. Besides, why should the pilots object now to an arrangement to which they did not object in connexion with the Marine Bill introduced by the honorable member for Oollingwood (Mr. Langridge) when he was Minister of Oustoms? Un­questionably, it was the duty of the Govern­ment to guard against the fund being in­vested in a risky wa.y. He (Mr. Walker)

2110 Marine [ASSEMBL Y.l Board Bill.

would be glad to hear what the pilots had to say in the matter, and he would do all he could to meet their wishes.

Mr. ZOX suggested that, in order to ascertain exactly how the fund stood, the servi~es of Mr. Owen, the able actuary for friendly societies in connexion with the Go­vernment Statist's department, should be utilized.

Mr. LEVIEN expressed the belief that what the pilots wanted most was a voice in the management of their fund.

Mr. WALKER said h~ could only repeat the promise he had already made. If the pilots' representatives, when they interviewed him, made out a good case, he would give the fullest weight to their views. Of course, the investment of the fund in Government securities meant only 4 per cent., but if it was shown that the money could be safely invested at a higher rate of interest, he would not stand in the way of the trans­action.

On clause 158, empowering the Governor in Council to appoint three persons, one of them to be selected by the majority of the pilots, to be a Pilot Superannuation Board,

Mr. GRAVES suggested that the clause should be amended, so that all rights of existing pilots should be preserved in the same way that the Public Service Act pre­served all the rights of officers appointed under Act No. 160. The Minister had said that, if pilots did not like this measure, they could retire before it came into operatioIl; but it was very unfair that they sbould be forced to retire until it was necessary for them to do s@ through inability to perform their duties. He thought it would be only fair to provide that pilots now in the ser­vice, at whatever time they retired, should be allowed to do so on the same terms as at present.

Mr. ANDERSON (Villiers) asked the Minister of Customs how the present super­annuation fund was managed?

Mr. WALKER stated that the present fund was managed under regulations passed by the Pilot Board. He recognised the force of the view urged hy the honorable member for Delatite. and there would be no objection to add wo~ds to the clause which would protect the vested interests of those pilots already in the service, as far as their claims on the fund were concerned. The Attorney-General had made a note of the matter. (Mr. C. Young-"Why should they . not have the whole of the fund ?") There were interests which did not now appear

which ~ight have a claim on the fund, and therefore the suggestion of the honorable member for Kyneton could not be carried out.

On clause 160, providing for the con­tinuance of the existing regulations with respect. to the present pilot fund,

Mr. C. YOUNG remarked that the con­cluding part of the clause provided that any allowance, gratuity, or pension heretofore granted by the Pilot Board should be a first charge upon the annual income of the super­annuation fund, and that" such allowance, gratuity, or pension shall be payable, and continue to be payable, to the recipients thereof in the same way as it would have been if this Act had not been passed." 'Vhat was the meaning of these words?

Mr. WALKER observed that the inten­tion of the clause was to conserve the rights of all pensioners on th~ fund, and the mean­ing of the words quoted by the honorable member for Kyneton was that new legisla­tion should not in any way interfere with the rights of existing pensioners. There was a surplus of income now being capital­ized, and he understood that the honorable member claimed that that surplus should be distributed amongst the existing pilots. There were many persons, however, who were not now pensioners who would become so, and the surplus might disappear. He would not like to adopt the suggestion that the whole of the surplus should be divided amongst the pilots.

Mr. C. YOUNG said he did not ask that. All he urged was that the money should be dealt with in such a manner that it would always be available for the benefit of those who contributed it.

On clause 177 (the last in the Bill), pro­viding for. the dissolution of the Steam Navigation Board and local boards, and of the Pilot Board,

Mr. FEILD asked the Minister of Cus­toms whether any provision was made in the Bill for pilots having the right to appeal in case they were dissatisfied with the decision of the Marine Board?

Mr. WALKER stated that pilots had the right at present of appealing to the Governor in Council. He knew it had been circulated that that right had been taken away from them by the Bill, but it was not so. The right was given by the 65th sec­tion of the Passengers, Harbours, and N avi­gation Statute, and that section was not repealed by the Bill.

The clause having been agreed to, pro­gress was reported.

Ma'rine [NoVEMBER 15.] Board Bill. 2111

The House then resolved itself into com­mittee, pursuant to resolution passed on November 8.

Mr. WALKER moved-" That, in lieu of the fees now payable, the fol­

lowing fees he paid by applicants for examina­tion for certificates of competency as masters, mates, or engineers of ships, and on the issue of certificat.es of service to masters and mates, that is to say:-Fees to he charged for the examination of candi­

dates for certificates of competency, and upon the issue of certificates of service.

For certificate as master ... £3 0 0 For certificate as mate 2 0 0 For first-class engineer's certificate 3 0 0 For second-class engineer's certifi-

cate ... ... 2 0 0 For third-class engine-driver's cer-

tificate 1 10 0 "That, in lieu of the fees now payable, the

following fees be paid on the issue of certificates that the provisions of the law with respect to the survey of steam-ships have been complied with:-

Fees for Surveys of Steamers. Steamers whose register~d tonnage

does not exceed 30 tons ... . .. £2 0 0 For steamers not exceeding 100

tons 4 0 0 For steamers exceeding 100 tons

and not exceeding 300 tons 6 0 0 For steamers exceeding 300 tons

and llot exceeding 600 tons For every additional 300 tons, an

8 0 0

additional 2 0 0 " And whenever an application is made for a

special official survey, a fee is to be charged at per above schedule rates.

For specially measuring and deter­mining the number of deck pas-sengers a steamer can carry ... £1 1 0

"If, however, this measurement is made at the same time that the ordinary survey on hull and machinery is held, this fee is not to be charged."

'These fees (said the honorable member) were just the same as at present.

Mr. GRAVES asked the M.inister of Customs whether there were any means provided in the Marine Board Bill by which a master who held a certificate granted by the Steam Navigation Board could obtain a new certificate from the M.arine Board in lieu of that which he held? He understood that there was some objection in some of the adjoining colonies and in England to the certificates issued by the Steam Naviga­tion Board, and, as the certificates issued under the Marine Board Act would be of a higher character, it would be well to make some arrangement for enabling masters to obtain fresh certificates.

Mr. C. YOUNG said he apprebended that there would be no objection to any master passing another examination, and obtaining a new certificate from the Marine Board. (Mr. Walker-" The honorable member for Delatite does not mean that.") Did the

honorable member for Delatite mean that a master should be enabled simply to exchange one certificate for another? (Mr. Walker -" Yes.") If the certificates of the Marine Board were to have a higher value, it would be because the examinations would be of stricter character, and he thought that any one who wanted a certificate from the board should be obliged to pass an examination.

Mr. GRAVES observed that the Marine Board Bill would create a new class of cer­tificates, so that there would be two kinds of certificates existing-those under the old Act, and tbose under the Marine Board Act-which would be invidious. What he wanted was that hoiders of certificates under the present law should be enabled to get certifLcates under the Bill, so that there would be only one class of certificate under the law of Victoria.

Mr. ",V ALKER said the Marine Board would have power, under the 8th sub-section of clause 40 of tbe Marine Board Bill, to make regulations for the conduct of the ex­amination of persons desiring to obtain cer­tificates, and also "as to the qualifications to be possessed by such person." Under this provision, the board could make a regulation that the fact of a person having held a certificate for a certain number of years under the existing law would be a sufficient qualifLcation to entitle him to a certificate from the board.

The resolution was agreed to, and was reported to the House and adopted.

The House again went iuto committee for the fmther consideration of the Bill.

Postponed clauses 40 and 100 were agreed to.

On tIle second part of the 4th schedule, containing regulations to apply to the River Murray,

Mr. SHACKELL remarked that one of the regulations was that every steam-ship should carry two white lights, one on each side, and no provision was made for coloured lights. Coloured lights, howeyer, were ab­solutely necessary on the Murray.

Mr. WALKER said these regulations bad been specially drawn to meet the case of vessels on the Murray, and, if they were not as they should be, some mistake had been made. If the honorable member would consult with him on the subject, he would see that the regulations were made satis­factory.

Mr. GRAVES remarked that, if vessels on the Murray were only required to have white lights, serious damage would be done during the forthcoming season.

2112 Oentennial Exhibition [ASSEMBLY.] Liq~tOrs Sale Bill.

Mr. L. L. SMITH asked wl1ether any examination was made of men employed on vessels on the Murray with regard to colour­blindness?

Mr. GILLIES intimated that the matter was attended to by officers of the Customs department.

The Bill, having been gone through, was reported with an amendment.

CENTENNIAL EXHIBITION LIQUORS SALE BILL.

Mr. DEAKIN moved that this Bill be read a second time. He said it merely gave the commission for the forthcoming Exhi­bition the same power that had been given to previous commissions.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was read a second time, and committed.

On clause 1, providing for permits for the sale of liquor at the Centennial Ex­hibition,

Mr. ANDERSON (Villiers) suggested that progress should be reported. Per­sonally, he was not opposed to the measure, but there were honorable members now ab­sent who wished to discuss it, and, if the Government went any further that night, they would have a difficulty by-and-by.

Mr. O. YOUNG expressed the opinion that the power of granting permits for the sale of liquor in the Exhibition should not be taken away from the Licensing Oourt, and the Exhibition Oommission constituted a court for licensing. He thought the Bill should provide that the Licensing Court should give a licence for the sale of liquol' in the Exhibition to the person whose tender was accepted by the commission.

Mr. GILLIES pointed out that the Li­censing Oourt had a discretion with regard to granting licences which they were bound to exercise, and if the power was placed in their hands it was possible that they might refuse to grant a licence. Now this Bill was being passed with the view that a licence should undoubtedly issue. On the other hand, it would not be a nice thing to compel the Licensing Court to issue a licence.

Mr. GRAVES observed that if a licence was issued by the Licensing Oourt it would be subject to all the rules and regulations of the licensing law, and it would be unde­sirable to have a double jurisdiction inside the Exhibition. The commissioners them­selves would adopt all the regulations neces­sary in connexion with the sale of liquor in the building.

Mr. VALE remarked that there was no provision in the Bill compelling licensees to

close their bars at a certain time. (Mr. Gillies-" It will be a condition in t'heir licence.") He saw no power to enforce closing at any particular time.

Mr. L. L. SMITH suggested that the clause should be amended so as to enable the Exhibition trustees to' grant permits for the sale of liquor. In connexion with bazaars and temporary exhibitions the power would be very desirable, and, as the trustees were all magistrates and men of position, the power would not be abused.

Mr. DEAKIN remarked that to intro­duce such an amendment would alter the whole character of t.he Bill, and honorable members who were not now present would naturally say that advantage bad been taken of their absence.

Mr. ANDERSON (Villiers) stated that the licensed victuallers would object to the Exhibition-building being used as a place for selling liquor.

Mr. VALE expressed the opinion that no drink should be allowed to be sold during the hours in which the Exhibition would be closed. (Mr. O. Young-" Such a thing is never allowed.") The terms and conditions of the licence might permit refreshments to be sold at all hours of the day, and it should be clearly provided that the sale of liquor would only be permitted while the Exhibi­tion was open to the public.

Mr. DEAKIN said he would point out that the purport of the Bill was not to legislate, but to place in the llands of the commissioners the power of legislation, and surely honorable members had sufficient con­fidence in the gentlemen who had been ap­pointed commissioners to believe that they would make proper regulations.

The Bill, having been gone through, was reported without amendment.

On the motion of Mr. DEAKIN, the Bill was then read a third time.

Mr. ANDERSON (Villiers) said he ob­jected to the third reading of the Bill being ta.ken that night. A number of honorable members who were adverse to the sale of liquor at the Exhibition were absent, as it was never anticipated that the Marine Board Bill would be disposed of so rapidly, and he thought it was only fair that they should have an opportunity of expressing their opinions.

The SPEAKER.-I have already de­clared the third reading' passed. Apart from that, under the 247th standing order, the House is perfectly at liberty, without any suspension of the standing orders, to read a third time, at the same sitting, a Bill

Tntst Moneys and [NOVEMBER 16.J Colonial Securities. 2113

which has been passed through committee without amendment.

On the question that the Bill do pass, Mr. ANDERSON (Villiers) expressed

the opinion that the House should not finally ·dispose of the measure until honorable mem­bers who were opposed to it had had an -opportunity of stating their views in regard to it.

Mr. BOSISTO said this was not the first time such a Bill had been passed, and the experience of past Exhibitions proved that everything was properly conducted.

Mr. L. L. SMITH mentioned that the executive commission were about to ap­point a refreshment committee, who would supervise everything connected with the sale of liquor in the strictest way.

Mr. V ALE considered that there was no need for any violent hurry in passing the Bill. He believed that, in times past, the Exhibition Oommissioners had some trouble with officials, owing to' the fact that the bars were open for the sale of liquor during the time that the Exhibition was closed to the public. Although a total abstainer, he had no desire to interfere with the sale of liquor during the time the Exhibition was <>pen, but he thought it would be wise not to allow the sale of drink when it was closed.

Mr. GRAVES observed that the regula­tions connected with the sale of liquor at the last Exhibition were so stringent that complaints were made that they were more penal than the provisions of the licensing law. He thought that the matter might safely be left in the hands of the executive .commission.

The Bill then passed.

NEGLEOTED OHILDREN LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

This Bill was returned from the Legisla­tive Oouncil, with a message intimating that they had agreed to the same with amend­ments.

The amendments were ordered to be taken into consideration next day.

JUVENILE OFFENDERS LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

This Bill was returned from the Legisla­. tive Oouncil, with a message intimating that they had agreed to the same with -amendments.

The amendments were ordered to be taken into consideration the following day.

The House adjourned at a quarter past ·eleven o'clock.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. Wednesday, November 16, 1887.

The Aborigines-English Trust Funds and Colonial Securi­ties-Disease in Wheat-Public Instruction: Truant. Officers - Technological Commission -l\fagistrate~­Standing Orders Committee - Australasian Naval Force Bill-Sandhurst Water Supply - Juries Law Consolidation Bill- Licensing (Public-hoilses) Act Amendment Bill-Expiring Laws Continuation Bill­Elsternwick Land Vesting Bill-Coroners' Juries Law Amendment Bill-Resumption of Lands Bill-Water Conservation Acts Consolidation Bill-Railway Works Bill-Marine Board Bill-Education Endowment Com­missioners Bill-Dentists Bill-Ballarat City Lands Bill-Boilers Inspection Bill-Hastie Bequest Bill­Colonial Permanent Trustee, Executor, and Agency Company's Bill-Police Regulation Statute Amend­ment Bill-Veterinary Bill- Intercolonial Uniform Tariff-Sebastopol Plateau-Employers' Liability Act Amendment Bill-Slander and Libel Law Amendment Bill-Cultivation Licences (Auriferous Lands) Bill.

The SPEAKER took the chair at three o'clock p.m.

THE ABORIGINES. Mr. TOOHEY asked the Ohief Secretary

whether he was aware that the blacks at Framlingham were employed on stations shearing at red uced wages in opposition to the Shearers' Union, and asked whether he would take steps to prevent this clashing with white labour?

Mr. DEAKIN said he had 110 knowledge of the matter, but he had asked the Secre­tary of the Board for the Prot~ction of the Aborigines to inquire into the circumstances.

TRUST MONEYS AND OOLONIAL SEOURITIES.

Mr. G RAVES asked the Premier whether any action was being taken by the Govern­ment to secure Imperial legislation to enable trustees in Great Britain and Ireland to invest trust funds, with consent of court, ill colonial securities?

Mr. GILLIES said the desirableness of such legislation was advocated at the Im­perial Oonference; and it was promised that the Imperial law officers would be consulted on the subject. He would endeavour to ascertain whether it was likely to be dealt with in the next session of the Imperial Parliament.

·DISEASE IN WHEAT. Mr. LANGDON inquired of the Minister

of Lands whether he was aware that a blight of a withering character, somewhat simi­lar to the disease known as take-all, had

2114 P~tblic Instruction. [ ASSEMBLY.] Magistrates.

recently attacked the wheat crops in certain portions of the colony, threatening serious loss to the growers, and whether he would, with the view of ascertaining the cause, send an officer to investigate and report upon the matter generally, and bring specimens for examination by Baron von Mueller, the Government Botanist? He had received from a farmer who resided near Korong Vale a letter pointing out that from land which he expected, a short time ago, would yield at least six bags of wheat to the acre, he did not expect to get one bag, owing to the ravages of this blight. Seeing that, when any disease affecting cattle broke out, a veterinary surgeon was despatched I by the Government to investigate the matter, he considered that a similar course should be followed when anything detrimental to agri­culture came into existence.

Mr. DO W stated that he had not heard anything of the outbreak referred to until the question of the honorable member for the Avoca (Mr. Langdon) appeared on the notice-paper. He would be glad to receive whatever information the honorable member had to impart, and then to direct the obtain­ing of a special report on the subject.

PUBLIC INSTRUCTION. TRUANT OFFICERS.

Mr. JONES asked the Premier whether, in view of the resolution passed by the As­sembly two months ago, to consider in com­mittee an address to the Governor in favour or increasing the salaries of the truant officers, the Government would take action without requiring further proceedings on the part of the Chamber? The resolution referred to might be said to have been passed almost unanimously, because when a division was called for, and sides were taken, there appeared to be 39 members in favour of the resolution, and no more than 7 against. Under those circumstances, a division was not pressed.

Mr. GILLIES said he was not prepared to admit the statement of the honomble member for Ballarat West (Mr. Jones) as correct, because it frequently happened that, on the occasion of a division, honorable mem­bers did not take their places on the side on which they intended to vote until the last moment. However, as he stated the pre­vious night, if he was satisfied that the majority of the House were in favour of the honorable member's proposition, he would have no objection to act upon it. The Govern­ment had no feeling about the matter. All that they desired was that the thing should

be done in the right way. Perhaps the hon­orable member would take another opportu­nity of testing the opinion of the House.

TECHNOLOGICAL COMMISSION. Mr. L. L. SMITH asked the Chief Sec­

retary what were the functions and powers of the present Technological Commission,: what reports had been sent in, and whether: he would lay them on the table?

Mr. DEAKIN stated that the Techno­logical Commission were appointed on the 6th January, 1869, to promote, by lectures and otherwise, technological and industrial instruction among the working classes of Victoria. Reports from the commission were laid on the table on the 14th Septem­ber, 1886, and the, 7th July, 1887.

MAGISTRATES.

Mr. LANGDON called the attention of the Attorney-General to the insufficiency of magistrates in 'the Tarnagulla district, whereby the ]101ding of an inquest on a man accidentally killed in that part of the COUll­

try recently was seriously delayed, and asked what action the Government intended to take with the view to prevent any such de­lays in the future? The following para­graph relating to the matter had been published by the Inglewood Advertiser:-

" A magisterial inquiry relative to the death of the late John Ashworth, who was found dead in an abandoned reef shaft on the 10th inst., was held at Taruagulla on the 12th, when a verdict of accidental death was recorded. The inquiry could not be held before as there was no justice of ' the peace to be found in the distriet to con­duct the case. The matter has been severely commented upon by the public, as the case was urgent, and should have been promptly dealt with after finding the body, which was in a very decomposed state, death having occurred on the 4th inst. A numerously signed requisition was sent to the Government nearly three months since requesting the appointment of additional justices for 'l'arnagulla, showing that there is only one justice resident there, and he is fre­quently absent for several days at a time." The gentleman who held the inquiry was· a shire officer, and was scarcely ever at home.

Mr. WRIXON said it was the intention of the Minister of Justice, whose attention had been called. to this matter., to include certain gentlemen in the Tarnagulla district in the provision he was making for additional justices of the peace.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.

Mr. WRIXON presented the third re­port from the select committee on standing orders.

The report was ordered to be printed.

Licensing (Public-houses) [NoVEMBER 16.J Act Amendment Bill. 2115

AUSTRALASIAN NAVAL FORCE BILL.

Mr. WRIXON presented a message from His Excellency the Governor, recommend­ing an appropriation out of the consolidated revenue for the purposes of a Bill to provide for the payment by Victoria of a propor­tional part of the cost of establishing and maintaining an additional naval force to be employed for the protection of the floating trade in Australasian waters.

The message was ordered to be taken into consideration next day.

SANDHURST "VATER SUPPLY.

Mr. BAILES called the attention of the Minister of Water Supply to the condition of the water available at Quarry Hill, Sand­hurst. A sample was submitted to him the previous Monday, and it was completely black.

Mr. DEAKIN said he would have the matter inquired into.

JURIES LA VV CONSOLIDATION BILL.

The resolution in favour of an appropria­tion for the purposes of this Bill (passed in committee the previous day) was considered and adopted. .

Authority being given to Mr. W rixon and Mr. Deakin to introduce a Bill to carry out the resolution,

Mr. WRIXON brought up a Bill "to consolidate the law relating to juries," and moved that it be read a first time.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was read a first time.

LICENSING (PUBLIC-HOUSES) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

On the order of the day for the consi­deration of the amendments made in this Bill, in committee,

Mr. MUNRO said he desired to take this opportunity of making a statement with regard to the position in which honorable members who supported the local option principle now stood. The previous day they received a communication from the honor­able member for Sandhurst (Mr. Bailes), stating what he and his friends were willing to do if they had conceded to them the amendment he desired in the 36th section of the Licensing Act, and also the settle­ment of compensation by arbitration. (Mr. McIntyre-" Who are his friends?") Never mind. In return for those concessions, the honorable member and bis friends would agree to the repeal of the proviso to the 26th

section of the Act. The local option mem .. · bel'S, having taken the communication into consideration, agreed to its terms; and they adjourned until that day in order that the· necessary amendments might be put into proper form and submitted. However, before· they re-assembled, he was met in the street by the honorable member for Sandhurst, who told him that he had been requested by members of the Licensed Victuallers' Asso-· ciation to have the matter postponed until the following Tnesday, so that they might have time to meet and consider the subiect •. At the meeting, a letter was received from the honorable meml;>er stating that he was· not prepared to submit any amendment ex­cept his own, that he was acting alone, but that he expected others to meet and consider­the matter, and that it was very likely some conclusion would be arrived at. As far as the local option members were concerned,. they did not think it wise to go on witb the matter any further. However, he had spoken to a large number of members oE the House,. and it was within his knowledge that, if this compromise were taken up, a clear majority of members would be in favour of· it. He made this statement aEter receiving the consent of honorable members whose names were now in his pocket. The local option members were willing to carry out this arrangement so as to make the Bill workable, and to resist any other amend-· ments, come from whatever quarter they might. If honorable members were not willing to accept this compromise, they must not say in future that it was the fault of the local option party that the Bill was not a proper and workable measure.

Mr. L. L. SMITH observed that the· licensed victuallers did not know anything oE the action taken by the honorable mem­ber for Sandhurst (Mr. Bailes), and there­fore, in connexion with this so-called com­promise, they had been taken at a disadvan­tage. They knew nothing of the overtures made by the honorable member to the local option party until they heard of them through the press; yet it had gone forth to the pUblic'that the licensed victuallers them­selves were party to the proposals. (Mr •. Munro-" No.") He was merely stating the impression ·produced upon the publio mind by the statements in the newspapers. (Mr. Gillies-" vVhat use is there in dis.·· cussing this? ") He was simplyendeavour­ing to show why the order of the day should be postponed until Tuesday. (Mr. Gillies· -" I don't care for the opinion or the· licensed victuallers.") Honorable members·

:2116 Licensing (Public-houses) [ASSEMBLY.] Act Amendment Bill.

~new why the Premier did not care. The honorable gentleman had played off one side against tbe otberwitb regard to this Bill with a view of ascertaining which would win. (Mr. Deakill-" You misunderstand him.") He heard what the Premier said, and he could interpret it as he pleased. The Govern­ment had been vacillating right through. They could not lead the House, and it was only when the Opposition took matters in hand that progress with business was made. This arose through the Ministry being

· "infirm of purpose." Now that the Premier fancied the temperance party would give him a majority, he W(l,S not for doing justice to the licensed victuallers. There was no doubt a general election would tnke place shortly, and did honorable members want that elec­tion to turn on the general policy of the country, or did they wish it fought simply on the issue raised between the publir,ans and the teetotallers? He considered that time should be allowed those who were op­posed to the compromise of which the honor­able member for Geelong (Mr. Munro) had talked to formulate their case, and, therefore, he hoped the order of the day would be post­poned until Tuesday, when a final division on the question at issue could be taken.

Mr. SHIELS said he rose for the pur­pose of disabusing the Hoase and the public of the idea that the struggle which had been going on during the last week or two was

· merely a struggle between the licensed vic­tuallers and the teetotal party. Honorable members who opposed local option did so not merely in the interests of the 4,000 licensed victuallers who obtained their living by the sale of liquor. They had a much

· higher object in view. The principles for which they fought were far deeper, far more vital, far more extensive; they were the principles of liberty. They fought for the .privileges of the many-the right of the

· general public to buy liquor properly and legitimately. Theysought to resist an innova­tion upon representative institutions which they conceived to be dangerous-which, wherever it had been tolerated, had been fraught with evil consequences. They' felt that if the licensed victualler could be at­tacked one year there would be nothing to

; prevent the butcher and the baker being attacked another year. Simply because one section of the community belie\Ted that a certain thing was evil and ought to be re­moved, Parliament was asked to sanction

· the destruction by the l?cal option vote, by the vote of a mere majority, of businesses

· which had existed under the sanction of

the law from time immemorial-businesses many of which were admitted by the teeto­tallers themselves to be properly conducted. Under these circumstances, he was very sorry that the idea should get abroad that those who voted against local option were the champions simply of the licensed vi~tual­lers. Any honorable member who regarded only his own ease, comfort, and security would unhesitatingly throw in his lot with the teetotallers, because the teetotallers were a much more formidable electioneering body than the licensed victuallers. Hence those who voted against local option did it with the full knowledge that they were sacrificing their own interests,and rushing upon danger for the sake of the higher principles which were involved in the issue. At the same time they did not desire that the rights of the publicans and the rights of the majority behind them should be bargained away for a compensation which savoured distinctly of corruption .

. Mr. BAILES stated that he hoped no one would imagine that he was desirous of bargaining away the rights and privileges of the licensed victuallers. It was not with any view of that kind tha.t he took up the question. It would be recollected that some time ago the Assembly passed a resolution expressive of the desire that the provisions of section 36 of the Licensing Act should be held in abeyance for some time. Upon that the pUblicans in the country districts -and it should be borne in mind that the public-houses in the metropolis had not the shortness of accommodation that public­houses in the country had-felt that there was no necessity for them to hurry in adding to their houses, so that they might afford the accommodation required by the Act. vVhen the Bill was introduced, he was under the impression that with some amendments it might be made to meet the requirements of country public-houses. However, the Government suddenly abandoned the pro­visions which were calculated to remove the disabilities under which country publicans laboured; they caused the three clauses relating to local option, after they had been passed, to be struck out; and they deter­mined upon limiting the Bill to machinery provisions. When he returned to Sand­hurst, last week, the idea struck him that it was quite possible for an understanding to be come to between the different parties interested in the Bill. Accordingly he sketched out a resolution which he submitted to the leading brewers and several pUblicans of Sandhurst, including the president of the

Licensing (Public-houses) [NOVEMBER 16.J Act Amendment Bill. 2111

local licensed victuallers' association, and they all agreed that it was a fair compromise. On his return to Melbourne On Tuesday, he mentioned to the honorable member for Ballarat West (Mr. Jones) what he had done, and in consequence he was invited to attenC}. a meeting of temperance members in the room known as the "den. ~J He did not say one word to those gentlemen which was calculated to lead them to believe·that he was acting as the representative of any party. He told them what his proposition was, and said he thought it so fair that he believed he could rely upon several moderate members of the House supporting it. That morning, in consequence of the statements published by the newspapers, he felt it his duty to write to the temperance members, intimating that those statements were cal­culated to make the licensed victuallers party believe that he was sailing under false colours-as acting under their authority when he had it not. He never went to them for any authority, and it was not likely he ever would. He had not come to Par­liament to represent either the licensed victuallers or the teetotallers. He came to Parliament to represent the majority of the people of Sandhurst who had honoured him with their confidence. He considered that in their interests, and in the interests of the entire people, the course he had sug­gested was the be9t one. The gentleman who claimed to be the leader of the licensed victuallers' party told him (Mr. Bailes) the previous night that he had no right to take up the position he had. He had .no wish to take it up. All that l1e wanted was to arrive at an understanding with the temperance party as to how far they were favorable to his proposition, and, when he had ascertained that, to meet members belonging to the section which was supposed to be identified with the licenl:!ed victuallers' interest, and to see whether l1e could not also get them to agree with him, and by that means obtain a satisfactory solution of the difficulty-a so­lution which he believed would last for years. He met the honorable member for Geelong (Mr. Munro) that day, and requested him to ask the Government to postpone the con­sideration of the report until the following Tuesday, in order to enable him to call a meeting of gentlemen who were supposed to represent the licensed victuallers' interest, with the object of arriving at some deci'sion. Local option was the law of the land, and what he wished to see was that, if local option pure and simple was allowed, real compensation should be given to be settled

by arbitration. He acted under the belief that there were a sufficient number of moderate men in the Assembly, desirous of seeing this vexed qnestion settled, who would support him in coming to some satisfactory understanding. He had given notice of a new clause, identical with that which he submitted to the local option members, although he did not expect to get it carried .. The whole cause of the trouble had been the false security into which the country publi­cans l1ad fallen through the resolution passed by the House at the instance of the honorable member for Ararat some time ago. If the law was enforced in its entirety next licensing day, more public-houses would be closed than would be shut up by local option.

Mr. FEILD observed that he had listened with great pleasure to the remarks which had just been made, more especially as they came from a gentleman who happened to be a member of the trade which honorable mem·· bers were continually having flouted in their faces. It had been stated that many hon­orable members had been returned by the licensed victuallers. He denied that he, for one, had been returned by the licensed vic­tuallers. He bad supported their claims when he thought they were just and fair,. but when he considered their demands too great he had taken the other course .. It was 'Yrong for the honorable member for Mornington to say that members of the Assembly should wait until the licensed victuallers decided what should be the law of the colony. While he (Mr. Feild) had the honour of being a member of the As­sembly, he would never submit the rights of those he represented to the dictation of the licensed victuallers. He would use his own individual judgment, paying every respect to the views of the licensed victuallers as he

. would to the views of any other section of the community. (Mr. L. L. Smith-" That is all I want.") Certainly the honorable member used words which were capable of a: very different meaning. He (Mr. Feild) thought the proposals of the honorable­member for Sand hurst (Mr. Bailes) were­very fair and equitable ones. He did not care whether the honorable member was authorized by anyone to make the proposals or not; he would judge of them on their merits. He voted against the honorable member for Geelong (Mr. Munro) and his party the ot1ler night because, the com­mittee having carried the clauses allowing· the local option vote to be taken on the same day as the municipal elections, he

2118 Licensing (Public-houS~8) [ASSEMBLY.] Act Amendment Bill.

thought the honorable member should have . assisted the other party to remedy the griev­ance which certainly existed in connexion with the 36th section. When the sub-sec­tions dealing with this matter were struck out, he considered that he was justified in vot­ing against everything coming from the tem­perance party. He admitted that there were far too many hotels even in his own district, and he thought it 'would be well for the pub­lic, and ali=lo for those engaged in the trade, .if the number were reduced one half. At the same time he would make it a condition that, when any houses were closed by the local option vote, fair compensation should be paid, in the same manner as the State compensated those whose lands were taken for railway or other public purposes. Let .the compensation be settled under the pro­visions of the Lands Oompensation Statute,

.and if the public-houses could be reduced one-half, so much the better for the country, for the district, and for the more respectable .houses which remained. No doubt this would necessitate a very large expenditure, and he 'thought the hotel-keepers whose houses must benefit by increased business, owing to the closing up of rival houses, should either pay a larger licence-fee or in some other way assist the State in paying the compensation Iequired. There was a great deal of talk about the public not taking any interest in the local option vote; but what need publi­cans care about that, provided they were liberally compensated if their houses were ·closed, and were thus enabled to go into .some other business? Those who would suffer would be the brewers, who had the .publicans under their thumb, or the wine and spirit merchants, who compelled them to take inferior liquor. If all licensed 'victuallers were independent, so that they .could go into the open market and buy the :best beer and the best spirits, there would be lessdrunkenness; but, unfortunately, "under the rose," a great many brewers and wine and spirit merchants held an indirect interest in hotels, and the licensees of those hotels were compelled to take their liquor from them. The House should see that those who re­mained in the trade after other houses had been closed by local option should be at liberty to go into the open market and obtain the .best article. The hotel-keeper would then be able to supply his customer with liquor which, while not making him drunk so soon, would be calculated to do him some benefit. . Mr. PATTERSON said the position of the honorable member for Sandhurst (Mr. ,Bailes) was immensely strengthened by the

fact that he seemed to be speaking for the public rather than the publican, and the House had been waiting for that kind of expression for some time. He (Mr. Patter­son) believed that the settlement suggested by the honorable member was the settlement which would eventually have to be arrived at-namely, that on the one hand the hotel­keeper would not be harassed, and on the other local option would be given fair piay. As far as the Bill was concerned, there was nothing in it in its present shape. All the important points had been taken out of it, and it was practically of no use. The ob­jections of the honorable member for Nor­manby to the principle of local option would apply just as much to the existing law as to any future law, because there was local option already. Although the liquor trade was a special trade by itself, he believed that the principle or local option might be applied to any trade-the butchers, the bakers, or the grocers-and the public would not do an injustice. The honorable member for Sand­hurst was not bound to consult any party berol'e making his suggestions. He was a representative of an important city, and had a right to make proposals on his own account, and 'no one was entitled to detract from them because he had not a lot of interested people outside supporting them. He believed that, if a proposition was submitted on the lines indicated by the honorable member, it would be carried by the House.

Mr. \V HEELE R considered that there sho'uld be no insuperable difficulty in pass­ing the Bill with the compromise suggested, seeing that it had been agreed to by the honorable member for Geelong (Mr. Munro) on the one side, and the honorable member for Sand hurst (Mr. Bailes) on the other. The offer appeared to him to be a very rea­sonable one, and he thought that the House and the Government should accept it. The other morning, after the all-night sitting, he suggested to the honorable member for Brighton and the honorable member for Ballarat West (Mr. Jones) that if compen­sation was settled on the basis of arbitra­tion, instead of on the present system, a great deal of the sting would be taken out of the adverse feeling of the publicans to local option, because they would not suffer in the event of their licences being taken away. The honorable member for Ballarat \Vest informed him shortly afterwards that he had spoken to the honorablemem ber for Geelong, and that that gentleman was per­fectly agreeable to the proposal, if the pro­viso to th~ 26th section of the Act of 1885

Licensing (Public-houses) [NOVEMBER 16.J Act Amendment Bill. 2119

were repealed. The honorable member for Brighton brought the suggestion before the committee, and it seemed to be accepted by both sides. He (Mr. vVheeler) considered that the temperance party had made a fair otier, and he could only say that the other side, if they did not accept it, would make a great mistake, and he, for one, would assist the teetotal party by every means in his power. He believed that the licensed vic­tuallers' party would never get such good terms again. He would counsel both sides to exhibit a spirit of compromise, and endea­vour to pass the Bill in a form which would be satisfactory to all parties. He believed that the compromise suggested would be ~cceptable to the country.

Mr. LAURENS said the honorable mem­ber for Normanby had contended that this was not a publicans' question at all, but a question of the liberty of the public-that it was being sought to introduce something which would sap the very foundations of public liberty. The honorable member seemed to be unmindful of the fact that in 1876 a Licensing Statute was passed whieh gave local option to the people-the power of preventing any increase in the number of 'public-houses-and yet none of the evils which the honorable member had conjured as the result of the direct vote had followed from the passing of that measure. The House had never received a petition to put an end to it. Again, when the Local Go­vernment Act was passed in 1874, local -()ption was provided for, and so far no one bad petitioned against it. Only the other day the residents of the aristocratic suburb of St. IGlda took a vote as to whether the town hall should be erected in oue part of the municipality or in another. He was astonished that the honorable member for Normanhy should make the direct vote his bete noire, considering that the bonorable .member was in the Assembly by the direct vote of the people, and by nothing else. He

. would remind the honorable member that, when the local option vote failed the other ·day at Williamstown in consequence of the stringent conditions which surrounded it, a member was afterwards returned to the As­sembly who was in favour of local option. This would go to show that the system which the honorable member favoured, of 'representation by individuals elected for the purpose, was worse for the interests of the :publicans than the direct vote. The hon­orable member would never convince him that it was improper, under certain circum­.stances, to give some direct authority to the

people. More than that, he believed that every Licensing Statute which had been passed ~n the colony professed to give some kind of local option to the people. Under the old law the people were authorized to petition against the issue of a licence, and if that had any meaning, it surely meant local option to the locality in which it was attempted to establish a public-house. He considered that the proposal which had been made was a fair compromise under existing circumstances, and it might be that, if it was not accepted, time would show that the publican party had missed an occasion of securing terms which were fair even from their point of view. There were very few honorable members who had not said that they would agree to local option, provided that there was fair compensation, and the moment this was conceded the real objection on the other side fell to the ground.

Mr. C. YOUNG expressed the opinion that unless the Bill contained some provi­sionson thelinesof the compromise suggested it would be of no value. It was a most cowardly thing of the GMernment, after introducing a Bill to render the principal Act workable, and to make more clear the intention of the Legislature, to withdraw from their position and strike out all the clauses which were of the slightest import­ance. The proposition of the honorable member for Sand hurst (Mr. Bailes) did him great credit, and if those who represented the licensed victuallers did not avail them­selves of it they would have to swallow something very much worse before long. He believed the majority of the House were of opinion that if compensation was given on a fair and legitimate basis local option should have free play, and he certainly thought that those 'who represented the licensed vic­tuallers should close with the offer and have the matter settlEd once for all. In his opinion the most useful clause in the Bill as introduced was that providing that the local option vote should be taken on the day of the municipal elections. He was perfectly satisfied that the publicans themselves would have availed themselves of the poll on that day to record their votes. The pUblicans recognised as much as any other class the necessity for reducing the number of public-houses, and they "ould be found voting in that direction, because the trade would go into fewer hands and become more respectable. For his part, he would be exceedingly glad, if the opportunity was afforded him, to record his vote in favour of the co~promise. suggested-namely, local

'2120 Licensing (Public-houses) [ASSEMBLY.] Act .A. mendment Bill.

option coupled with compensation on a fair and legitimate basis.

Mr. TUTHILL observed that com­promises must always be made on important questions, and there never was ,a question on which compromise was more essential than that now under discussion. He considered that the compromise suggested by the honor-

, able member for Sandhurst (Mr. Bailes) was one which should be accepted. He would suggest that the Bill should be allowed to be reported now, and that the third reading should be fixed for the following Tuesday, in order that in the meantime arrangements for carrying out the compromise might be effected. He did 'not think that the oppos­ing parties had ever been at closer terms than they were now, and he would suggest that the Government should assist in bring­ing about the compromise, inasmuch as it would be a very easy way out of their diffi­culties. It would be hard for the Govern­ment to explain why, after bringing down a Bill which contained important concessions to the local option party on the one hand and the publicans on the other, they were now passing a measure which practically meant nothing of any moment. The origi­nal Bill was a most valuable measure, but there was not a clause in it now that was

I worth the paper that it was printed on. Mr. GRAVES remarked that what the

country wanted was local option with reason­able compensation, and the sooner this was obtained the better, so that a much-vexed question might be disposed of. When the Bill was introduced, the extreme teetotallers went in for local option, but they did not take into consideration the question of fair compensation at all. Most honorable mem­bers, however, were pledged to local option with reasonable compensation. He might say that he had lately had an opportunity of seeing how the local option vote worked, and he was bound to state that where it had come into effect it had worked badly. In the district of North Gippsland a local option vote was taken at a place where there were 16 public-houses, of which eight were sup­posed to be closed. The first house closed was that of a Mrs. Warren, who got com­pensation to the amount of £150. What was the result? The woman had now a house about a chain and a quarter away at which she was doing a larger business, and for that house she only paid a licence-fee of £5 a year, whereas for the house which was closed she had paid a licence-fee of £15. In regard to the other seven houses which were .closed, very low compensation was paid, and

in the locality of the closed houses sly grog .. shanties of the very worst character had sprung up, at which gambling and Sunday trading were carried on. He mentioned this matter for the purpose of showing that local option must be accompanied by fair com­pensation, for people who were turned out of their houses must live, and if they were not afforded the means of entering on an honest business they would Ii ve by illegal means. He desired to say that, while hewas in favour of local option, he did not wish in any way to support those of the teetotal party whose interest was in coffee palaces. He did not think it was the part of the House to sup­port men who went in to make fortunes out of coffee palaces, nor, on the other hand, to­unduly oppress those who lived by licensed houses. At the same time, he would strongly ad vise those gentlemen who were interested in the licensed victuallers' business to change the policy which they had enunciated to the public, and accept the arrangement proposed of local option with full and reasonable, compensation.

Mr. ANDERSON (Creswick) obsetved that a great deal had been said about par­ties, but, in his opinion, it would have been much better if the two parties had come to­gether in the first instance, instead of at the fag-end of the proceedings in connexion with the Bill. The teetotal party voted against the second reading of the Bill, as a measure­containing nothing good, and now they wanted several of the clauses which were struck out reinstated, in order that a rea­sonable compromise might be arrived at. eMr Munro-" We want new clauses.") He contended that the teetotal party had no right to bring pressure to bear on the Government to take a certain course, and then, when they had gained their end to a large extent, to come to the Government and ask them to bring back the Bill to the condition in which it was when introduced. (Mr. Munro-" Not at all.") He was aware that the teetotal party wished to go further than the Ministry went, but, when the Bill was in committee, why did they not deal with'it clause by clause, and endeavour to carry their views? If the Bill did not go far enough in the direction of local option~ he would have assisted the teetotal party to obtain local option pure and simple. He­considered that the Government had been treated in a' very unfair way from the be­ginning. They certainly vacillated, but they vacillated because of outside pressure brought to bear upon them by members of the House, and, under the circumstances,

Licensing (Public-ho~b8es ) [NoVEMBER 16.] Act A mendment Bill. 2121

he did not see that they were much to be condemned. The point had now been reached at which a reasonable compromise could be arrived at, and, as it was very pro­bable that it would be many a long day be­fore any other Government would deal with this question, he thought that some com­promise should be come to. He would sug­gest to the Government that they should allow the Assembly to amend the Bill so as to provide for full local option with rea­sonable compensation. He believed that, if this was done, a measure would be passed which would be in the best interests of the country at large.

Mr. ANDREWS urged the Government to accept the proposal which had been sug­gested. He hoped that they would not stand iiI the way or a question being settled which evoked a great amount of party feel­ing, and which, unless disposed of, was likely to occupy the attention of the consti­tuencies at the next general election. The people whose minds and hearts were set on local option felt that, although the principle was contained in the Licensing Act, owing to defective machinery, they could not bring it into operation effectually, and they had been looking to the Government for some time to afford them efficient means of doing so. He believed that unless the question was soon settled there would be such a feel­ing of irritation throughout the country that it would be difficult to settle it except on a more arbitrary basis than was now offered. Now that there was a disposition to com­promise on both sides, he would ask that in the interests of the country, and in order to prevent further waste of time, the simple proposal which had been suggested that afternoon should be adopted. He ventured to pred ict that, unless the presen t opportun i ty was seized, the question would be so warmly taken up in the country that no Miilistry would be able to meet the House without proposing to give effect to the wishes of the people with regard to local option. The arrangement which had been proposed could be carried out without any injustice being committed, because fair compensation was provided for those who might be deprived of their licences.

Mr. BURROWES considered that his honorable colleague (Mr. Bailes) having taken a great interest in this question, and having had several interviews with people who were in the trade, was quite justified in making the proposal he did. He (Mr. Burrowes) wished to know from the Govern­ment whether if, as appeared to be the case,

SESe 1887.-7 I

there was a large majority of the House in favour of an equitable settlement of the question as between the teetotallers and the pu blicans, the Govern men t would be prepared to support the insertion of amendments in the Bill to give effect to such an arrange­ment? He was informed that clauses were to be moved relaxing the effect of the 36th section, and allowing a certain time for country houses to be brought up to the re­quirements of the Act, and that clauses were also to be submitted dealing fairly with the localoptionists. He hoped the Government would be prepared to accept those provisions so as to dispose of the Bill as soon as possible. .

Mr. GILLIES said he had been in hopes that the House would have gone on with business somewhat earlier, because the re­newal of t.his discussion uncler the present circumstances could not adva.nce matters in the slightest degree. Of course, after all the discussions which had taken place on this question, and the variety of proposals and amendments which had been made and con­sidered, the Government were bound to­adhere to the Bill as it now stood. It would be iD;lpossible to get on with business if they one day c'ame to some conclusion, the next· day reversed it, and the third day went back to the original decision. They had been bad enough as it was, but they would never be able to dispose of this question unless they were prepared to go straight on and settle it. The Government were bound to adhere to the Bill, because the amend­ments which had been made in committee,. and which were now being reported to the House, were the amendments carried by the majority.

Mr. HALL said the honorable member­for N ormanby had told the House that the opposition which he gave to the proposals of a certain party in connexion with the Bill was not offered in the interest of the publican, but the honorable member had not stated in what other interest he acted. (Mr. McIntyre-" The l'ublic interest.") If it was in the public interest, then why did not· the honorable member for N ormanby let the· public settle the question? That was all that was asked for in the principle of local option. It had been said that the local option clauses could not now be included in the Bill, but he did not think there was any real necessity for including them in this measure at all. Why could not a separate Bill be introduced? Surely it was not essential that the local option question should be dealt with in a ~icensing Bill.

2122 Li~ensing (Public-houses) [ASSEMBLY.] Act Amelzdment Bill.

He did not say the present Bill was' worth­less-there were some good things in it­but it had been crippled as the result of two strong parties opposing each other, and he thought it would be a good thing if the local option proposals were submitted in a sepa­rate measure. The temperance party had been twitted with voting against the second reading of the Bill,although it contained cer­tain clanses which they afterwards clamoured to have retained. The temperance party, however, were quite justified in voting against the second reading, because any honorable member who voted for a Bill at that stage was supposed to express his approval of its principles, and this measure maintained the one-third proviso to which the temper­ance members were strongly opposed. There seemed now to be a strong feeling in favour of a compromise, and, if the Government could see their way to assist the two parties in carrying out the arrangement which had been suggested, he thought the matter might be settled after an hour's discussion. , Mr. JONES remarked that the spirit of

compromise was in the House, and every one knew that law-making, to be effective, must be carried out upon lines of compro­mise. He had been pleased to note in the honorable member for Geelong (Mr. Munro) a willingness to concede a great deal to the other side, but he must say that he had not seen on the part of the honorable member for "Vest Melbourne (Mr. Carter) a willing­ness to' concede anything at all. He had simply demanded that everything should be cOlleeded to a certain trade, and nothing to the public. If this spirit was maintained, the result would be that at the next general election there would be one of the most vivid "blue-ribbon" fights tha.t had ever been seen in the colony, and there would probably he, an Assembly returned which would be anxious for extreme measures being taken against the drink traffic. He would he very sorry to see any such extreme measures, because extreme measures always produced a reaction. They had now an opportunity of agreeing upon a line of action which, he believed, would be satisfactory to those who desired to limit the drink traffic, and also to those in the drink traffic who did not wish to see it breaking all bounds, and which would cause a settlement that would last for years. He was pleased to have been the means whereby the honorable member for Sandhurst (Mr. Bailes) was brought in contact with his (Mr. Jones') friends assembled in the " den" to insist on some recognition' of local option. It was

simply absurd to talk about the recognition of local option meaning the breaking down of the rights of property. The House should now avail itself of the chance which was offered of securing reasonable legislation upon the lines of compromise which had been suggested, and he trusted that the honorable member for Geelong or the honor­able member for Ballarat. East (Mr. Russell) would move that the Bill be recommitted, with the view to its amendment in that direction. He believed that the majority of the House were determined that there should be straight local option. It did not matter, w hen once the one-th ird proviso was removed, whether the voting took place on the day of the municipal elections or not. Let it be understood that the majority of those who voted would determine whether there should be a reduction in the number of public­houses, and that would be satisfactory to the temperance party; and, on the other hand, let such concessions be made to the licensed victuallers as would satisfy them that the House was not legislating for the mere purpose of antagonism. The majority of the House wanted a full recognition of the principle of local option, and they were willing to give concessions in return, which would be a full equivalent.

Mr. U REN said he had hoped that the Government would see their way to adopt the compromise suggested. The principle of local option was a fair and reasonable one, as it remitted to the electors the right to say whether they would maintain the ex­isting number of public-houses or whether the number should be reduced, and, when it' was coupled with fair compensation to those hotel-keepers whose houses were closed, he thought that nothing more could be wished for or expected. He regretted that he was not preMnt the previous Wednesday morn­ing, as, if he had been, he would have voted with the local option party, whom he would always be round supporting.

Mr. CARTER observed that the Premier had put the matter in a nutshell. It was rather late to discuss this subject now . No amendment could be moved at the present stage; at all events there was no amend­ment before the House, and all the proposals which had been talked about were as yet in the clouds. He did not see them on the notice-paper. (Mr. Andrews-" "Ve can soon put them there.") He very much ob­jected to the honorable member for Ballarat West ( Mr. Jones) and one or two other honorable members always alluding tohim as being particularly interested in this question.

Licensing (Public-houses) [NOVEMBER 16.J Act Amendment Bill. 2123

He had far larger pecuniary interests in other directions, and even if he had not he did not think that he would allow his private inter­ests to influence his manner of voting. The honorable member for Ballarat vVest said he (Mr. Oarter) was insisting on everything, but he had asked for nothing. The Go­vernment proposal was that the law should remain as it was, and they distinctly stated that the only alterations they would assent to were alterations in the machinery clauses, with the object of making the principal Act work more smoothly. That position had been accepted by all honorable members­with the exception perhaps of the honorable member for Geelong (Mr. Munro) and a few <>thers-and were they now, after going through their work, to turn back and start a fresh Bill altogether? It was unreasonable under those circumstances to ask the Go­vernment virtually to introduce a new Bill. Supposing that they did so, and that they proposed to take away the restriction which was now the safety valve of the local option .question, did honorable members think it -could be carried between this and next year? It could not, unless the forms of the House were altered, and the clot~lre or something of that kind introduced. Therefore, to ask the Government t.o propose something which they could not carry was an absurdity. How -could they carry it? (Mr. Munro-" You -could not stop them.") They could be stopped unless the forms of the House were .altered, and provision was made against -" stone-walling." Moreover, it would be most unfair tha.t a proposition which had never been submitted to the constitu­·encies should be carried at this particular stage. Why not have local option on -every other subject if it was to be allowed on this particular subject? Let the consti­tuents of the honorable member for Geelong llave local option on the question of taking his money from him and dividing it amongst the poor people of the constituency. There was no doubt that that proposal would be -carried by a big majority, and he (Mr. Carter) would undertake to get one-third -of the electors to vote. (Mr. Patterson­" It would not be carried.") The well-to­.do would not poll one way or the other, and the poor would vote, and the proposition would be carried. (Mr. Munro-" The 'people of Geelong are more honest than you give them credit for.") They would say that the honorable member's wealth was a barrier to his entrance into heaven, that they were starving a.s the woollen mills were not paying, and that if they could di vide his

712

boundless riches among themsel ves, although they might lose heaven at all events, they would not starve on earth. He (Mr. Oarter) took the same view as the honorable mem­ber for N orman by. He was not prepared to barter away his birth-right for a mess of pottage. To give up the principle of repre­sentative government for any absurd ple­biscite was to sacrifice all their fathers had fought for. He objected to local option about loans. The ratepayers elected repre­sentativestothe localcouncil,and it should be for them todecidewhetheraloan was needed or not. N odoubt, in the LocalGovernment Act there was the safeguard that a certain num­ber of ratepayers must poll in opposition to a proposed loan in order to secure its rejec­tion. In the same way Parliament, in its wisdom, provided that unless one-third of t.he electors went to the poll in connexion with a local option vote the poll should be invalid. What objection could there be to such a provision? It allowed one-sixth of the electors to sweep away the public-houses they objected to. What the honorable member for Geelong wanted was that a chance majority should be able to alter the status and position of people and take away their property. Apart altogether from the interests of any particular class, he objected on principle to local option votes, and whether his views lost him his seat or won it, he would al ways say the same, and would never vote for Iocal option on any subject under the sun. U ndel' the present system of government the people elected re­presentatives, and it was forthoserepresenta­tives to act on their behalf. If there was local option at all, it must be accompanied by compulsory voting. He would not object so much if everyone was compelled to vote, because then the sense or the people would be obtained. He did not object to the majority ruling; but, in order to get the views of an absolute majority, compulsory voting was neces~ary. Local option without com pulsory voting was dangerous to the liberty of the subjE'ct. With regard to the action taken by the honorable member for Sandhurst (Mr. Bailes), he quite recognised that the honorable member had acted with the very best intentions, but he must say that he (Mr. Oarter) would not take the liberty of making a proposal materially affecting any branch of trade without asking its re­cognised representatives whether t.hey were in favour of it. (An Honorable Mem­ber-" He consulted the trade at Sand­hurst.") He had received a telegram from the pre~ident of the Licensed Victuallers'··

2124 Licensing (Public-houses) [ASSEMBLY.] Act Amendment Bill.

Association at Ballarat, which was as follows :-" This association unanimously opposes local option." He had also re­ceived the following telegram from a leading brewer in Sandhurst :-" Bailes's motion dangerous."

Mr. JONES' asked who was the brewer who 11ad sent the telegram?

Mr. OAR TER aaid he would show the telegram to the honorable member for Sand­hurst (Mr. Bailes).

Mr. MUNRO submitted that, in accord­ance with the ruling of the late Speaker, the telegrams should be laid on the table.

Mr. CAR TER stated that the House had now a new Speaker. Old things had passed away and all things had become new. He had no objection to show the telegrams to any honorable member who wished to see them. The president of the Licensed Victuallers' Association of Victoria, which included the associations of Sandhurst and Ballarat, had

. also informed him that they were thoroughly opposed to the proposal which had been made, because they objected to local option on any subject. It would have been well if the honorable member for Sandhurst had consulted more people than the few he con­ferred with in Sandhurst before he made his proposal. He (Mr. Oarter) could not help thinking...,-and he suggested this view to the honorable members on the Government side of the House-that in the union of the wolf and the lamb, the honorable member for Geelong and the honorable member for Sand. lmrst, there was more of the idea of damag­ing the Government than there was any love for local option, and those honorable mem­bers on the Government side who voted for this so-called compromise would be voting not for local option, but to put the Govern­ment out. If a new Bill were brought in embodying the proposals which had been mentioned, ~he Government could not hope to pass it in less than three months, and therefore, considering the stage of the session, he hoped honorable members would agree to allow things to remain as they stood. He beli~ved that persons who had been injured by the 36th section, and who were led to believe that time would be allowed to alter their houses, ought to have it, but he was ad vised that they were prepared to accept the inevitable.

Mr. BENT remarked that honorable members knew that the honorable member for 'Vest Melbourne (Mr. Oarter) had always been consistent, and he did not join with those who had found. fault with the honorable member; but he certainly could

not agree with him when he said the Go­vernment had been consistent. (Mr. Carter -" I did not say so; I said we agreed to accept the Bill as it stands now.") Although the Bill might suit some of the hotel­keepers, he had consulted. publicans in his district, and they said they were not content with the Bill. Some of them complained bitterly of it; and, although he did not re­present the hotel-keepers, he would say that there neyer was a better opportunity of settling the question than was now afforded. If there was local option by a majority, and' the people whose houses were shut up ob­tained compensation, to be settled by arbi­tration, he was inclined to think that there would not be much to grumble about. If, the honorable member for West Melbourne was strong enough, on a division, to rub out the Government and the Bill, by all means let him do it; but, if that was not the case, the best course would be to re-draft the measure, inserting provisions for local option,. with compensation by arbitration .. He did not see how the Government could object to this, because compensation in respect of land taken for public purposes was settled. by arbitration. He rose principally to say that, if a straight proposition was submitted for local option by a majority, with compen.· sation by arbitration, he would vote for it .. (Mr. Shiels-"If I were a publican, I would· accept that; it is for .the public I oppose it.") As a member of the public, he would be prepared to pay his share to secure the reduction of unnecessary public-houses. Under the old law he had known a licence to be refused time after time on the petition' of 20 people; and surely local option, pure and simple, was better than that system •. There were houses on Brighton Beach which were solely used by the people of Melbourne. He believed that the publicans, in their in-· terests, would act wisely in accepting the' compromise which had been suggested.

Mr. MIRAMS said it was late in the· session and late in the day to enter upon an. argument in favour of local option, but one or two of the points raised by the honorable member for West Melbourne (Mr. Carter) were so absurd as to require some reply, if not for the benefit of honorable members for the benefit of the gentlemen outside whom the honorable member represented. The honorable member objected to remitting any' question to a decision of the electors under' the name of local option on the ground that a minority was called upon to decide the question; but he stated that he would be·· quite prepared to accept local option on.'

Licensing (Public-h01tSes) [NOVEMBER 16.] Act Amendment Bill. 2125

every question if there was coupled with it compulsory voting. If the honorable mem­ber would propose that addition to the local <>ption clause which was to be submitted, he (Mr. Mirams) believed he would find the House prepared to take it up. The local -option party had no desire to snatch a chance majority in any district. They were .quite satisfied that if the who~e of the elec­tors on both sides voted the majority would be with them in most cases. He would point out to the honorable member, how­ever, that if a minority in a constituency was justified in choosing a Member of Parlia­ment, surely it was justified in deciding a secondary question such as wl1ether the num­ber of public-houses should be reduced or not. What member of the Assembly re­presented a majority of the electors on the Toll? On every electoral roll there were a large number of doubles, and names of men who had left the district, 'or who had died since the roll was compiled. Take the most recent election, which had sent him into the House. There were 2,900 electors on the roll for Williamstown, and he was elected by 1,035, his opponent receiving the support of 714. Thus altogether 1,749 electors voted, which did not make two-thirds of the number on the roll. If two-thirds of the electors of \Villiamstown could not be in­duced to go to the poll in an election at which both sides were using their utmost efforts, how could it be expected that one­third would record their votes on the ques­tion of reducing the number of public-houses, especialiy when all those who stayed away, whether they were living or dead, were counted as being against the reduction? If the objections or the honorable member for West Melbourne to local option had no -other ground to support them, they were not worthy of the consideration or the House or the constituencies. The pub­licans, or "the trade" as they were now usually spoken of in the House, had an opportunity offered them to make capital terms-such an opportunity, he ventured to think, as would not be afforded to them again if they refused the offer made on the present occasion. He would advise those gentlemen who considered themselves more or less entitled to speak for the trade in the House to accept the fair and equitable terms proposed, and thus settle the question on a basis which was not likely to be disturbed. The honorable member for N ormanby had stalied that this was not a question of what would suit the publicans, but of what would suit the public. He (Mr; Mirams) ventured

to think that the public would look after themselves. After they had adopted local option, if the public were not in favour of it it would be a dead-letter, It was upon the public that they depended to see that it was carried into effect. It had been hinted that, in the event of the compromise being car­ried, the fate of the Government would proba.bly be involved; but he did not look at the matter in that light. There was no

. question of the fate of the Government. The proposal would give those members of the Government who were in favour of local option, and who were elected to support it, an opportunity of voting for the system which they should be glad to accept. The ground on which they had refused to vote for it up to the present was that it was use­less to vote for a proposal which, if put into the Bill, would cause it to be "stone-walled" out of the House, parties being so evenly divided, But if the local optionists now carried with them, on this compromise, nine­tenths of the members who previously op­posed them, and if they got the support of the Government into the bargain, it would be impossible for the remaining small mi .. nority to "stone-wall" the measure. He trusted that, on all these grounds, the oom­promise would be accepted, so that this vexed question would be set at rest for soma years to come. Honorable members could then go before their constituents at the next election on other questions of possibly mOre importance, without being embarrassed by this disturbing element.

Ml'. W. M. OLARK stated that, when the Bill was in committee, he voted with what was called "the trade," because he considered that the demand then made by the total abstinence party of local option without compensation was extreme. Now, however, that the temperance party had wisely agreed to grant fair compensation, he thought the compromise offered was a reasonable one, and he would be prepared to support it.

The amendments made in committee were adopted.

Mr. WRIXON remarked that in com­mittee a question was raised as to whether the 4th sub-section of clause 14, which pro­vided for the renewal of licences to eating­houses which served 100 persons with meals "every day" would cover those houses which closed on Sunday. In order to make the matter clear, he proposed to amend the sub-section so as to make it apply to every

, eating-house which, during the three months preceding the corn mencement of this measure,

2126 Expiring Laws [ASSEMBLY.] Continuation Bill.

had served meals to 100 persons during the days on which it was open.

The amendment was agreed to. Verbal amendments were made in the 5th

and 18th sub-sections of clause 46, and in the new clause passed in substitution of section 98 of the principal Act.

On the question that the Bill be read a third time the following day,

Mr. MUNRO said he had been asked by a large number of honorable members, as . the feeling of the House was evidently in favour of the compromise which had been proposed, to request the Government to postpone the third reading of the Bill until Tuesday, in order that time should be allowed for framing the provisions necessary to gi "€I effect to the proposal. He believed that nine-tenths of the House were in favour of the arrangement suggested. (" No.") If necessary he would take a division, with the understanding that those who were in favour of the compromise would vote for the third reading being postponed until Tuesday.

Mr. O. YOUNG expressed the hope that the Premier would agree to the suggestion of the honorable member for Geelong (Mr. Munro).

Mr. GILLIES remarked that the Go­vernment desired to consult the convenience of honorable members, but it mnst be dis­tinctly understood tha.t the Government could not afford to lose another whole night. (Mr. Munro-" We won't talk at all.") He would ask that some time early on Tues­day evening honorable members would go to a dennite division.

The third reading of the Bill was then made an order for Tuesday, November 22.

EXPIRING LAWS OONTINUATION BILL.

Mr. WIUXON moved the second read­ing of this Bill. He observed that it was the usual measure brought in at the end of every session to continue various expiring laws.

Mr. L. L. SMITH asked the Government whether they would, as they had partially promised, appoint a Royal commission on the fisheries of the colony?

Mr. GILLIES said he understood that his honorable colleague, the Minister of Customs, had had the matter under consi­deration, and he believed that he intended to recommend that a commission should be appointed. The question had not been ab­solutely determined, but he thought that on ~uesday the Minister of Oustoms would be

in a position to state the intentions of the Government.

Mr. L. L. SMITH observed that he als() wished to draw the attention of the Minis­ter of Railways to the fact that the fish market was about to be removed before a substitute had been found for it.

Mr. GILLIES said the Railway COlll­missioners required to take the fish market for the purpose of making necessary altera­tions, but he believed they would be able t() arrange with the City Oorporation not to move the portion of the building fronting Flinders-street until another fish market was provided.

The motion was agreed to. The Bill was then read a second time, and

was afterwards passed through its remaining stages.

ELSTERNWICK LAND VESTING . BILL.

Mr. PEARSON moved that this Bill be· read a second time. He stated that the municipal authorities of Elsternwick had liberally granted two acres of land set apart for their use for the purposes of a school,. which was very much wanted in the district .. The Bill would give effect to the wishes of the people, and would save the money which it would be otherwise necessary to expend in. the purchase of a school site.

Mr. BENT remarked that the Minister of Public Instruction had made one mistake .. The land was given by the town conncil of Brighton, who had much pleasure in grant-­iug it for so good a purpose.

The motion was agreed to. The Bill was then read a second time, and

was subsequently passed through its remain-· jng stages.

OORONERS' JURIES LAYV' AMENDMENT BILL.

The amendments made in this Bill, in' committee, were taken into consideration.

Mr. vVRIXON stated that, in accordance with the arrangement made in committee, he begged to move the omission of dause 4, and the substitution therefor of the following new c1ause:-

"Every juror who has been summoned to a. coroner's illquest, and who has duly attended whether he has actually served or not, shall be· entitled to receive compensation out of any moneys voted hy Parliament for the purpose at· such rate as may be determined by a responsible Minister of the Crown after considering any re-­commendation made by the coroner holding such •. inquest; such rate shall not exceed, save in ex­ceptional cases, Is. for each hour's attendance: .Provided that the payment to anyone juror shall-' in no case be less than 4s."

Resumption of [NOVEMBER 16.J Lands Bill. ' 2127

Olause 4 was struck out, and the new clause was agreed to.

The other amendments were adopted. On the motion of Mr. WRIXON, the

Bill was then read a third time and passed.

RESUMPTION OF LANDS BILL.

Mr. WRIXON moved the second read­ing of this Bill. He remarked that under the Lands Compensation Statute authority was given to the Government to take land for certain public purposes, mainly to meet the requirements of the Public Works de­partment, but the authority stopped short at those purposes, so that land could not be acquired for any other purposes than those mentioned in the Statute. The object of the Bill was to extend the operation of the Sta­tute by enabling land to be acquired for cer­tain other public purposes on the Minister certifying thn.t it was necessary to obtain it, the Goveruor in Council approving, and Parliament pro\7iding the money. Thus every transaction would come under the notice of Parliament. The case which had particularly called the attention of the Go­vernment to the necessity for such a mea­sure' was the action of the Supreme Court in regard to the occupant of certain lands near the Law Courts. There were, however, several public departments which required land for different purposes, but they wanted the authority of this measure before they could obtain it. The Bill would give them that power on the Executive undertaking the responsibility and asking Parliament to grant the money.

Mr. V ALE said he could not see why a difference should be made in clause 4 with regard to land obtained by the Education department and land obtained by other de­partments. He thought all departments should be placed on the same footing.

Mr. WRIXON intimated that he would give an explanation in committee.

Mr. GRAVES presumed that the main provision of the Bill was that contained in clause 2, which provided for the removal of any business whose close proximity inter­fered with the due and efficient transaction of public business. He apprehended that this was the clause which would enable the property occupied by Mr. Dakin to be obtained. Of course, Mr. Dakin would have to be compensated as well as the owner of the land. He would like to know from the Attorney-General whether there were any other cases in addition to Mr. Dakin's to which the Bill at, present would apply.

Mr. O. YOUNG stated that the Bill appeared to be a very reasonable one, as the latter part of clause 2 virtually left the decision of the matter to the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly. He wished to know whether the Lands Com­pensation Statute gave power to compensatg a man for the removal of his business­whether it dealt with a business apart from taking the land on which it was carried on? (Mr. Wrixon-" It includes everything.") He thought there was no power under the Lands Compensation Statute to compen­sate a man merely for the removal of his business, unless the land was taken pre­viously, and, therefore, he could not carry on his business.

Mr. PATTE RSON observed that he was, not sure that this was a safe Bill, because there was a possibility tllat it might induce people owning land to create nuisances and provoke difficulties in the transaction of pub­lic business with the object of being bought out. He believed the power held by the Minister of Public Instruction with regard to buying land ought to be exercised with great care, and the land should be purchased through the Lands department which con­tained officers who knew something about land. He noticed that the Minister of Pub­lic Instruction had been purchasing land at Carlton in anticipation of it being required for school purposes in the distant future. That was going into land speculation. (Mr. Gillies-" If we waited, we would have to pay three t.imes as much.") The Bill intro­duced a new principle, and he feared that people would be found pressing on the Go­vernment the necessity of buying their land on the plea. that it would facilitate the work­ing of some public institution. (Mr. Gillies -" The Government are not very likely to give way to such offers.") The objection was one which should be discussed.

Mr. BENT considered that the Attorney­General should have gi \Ten the House a little more information with regard' to the Bill. It was reported that it was their intention, to buy the land occupied by Mr. Dakin at the price of £400 per foot. The property was not worth that amount. He believed the old way of obtaining land was much the safer. There was no difficulty in purchas­ing the timber yard neal' the Titles-office without a measure or this kind. (Mr. Wrixon-" There was a special Act.") It would be much better to have a special Act for each case than to pass a Bill of this de­scription. He considered that tlHl Bill was a very dangerous one indeed. If it was

2128 Resumption of [ASSEMBLY.] Lands Bill.

passed, there was no doubt that £450 per foot would be paid for the land leased by Mr. Dakin, whereas there had been land sold for £310 or £320 per foot not far away. He could see no reason at all for the Bill, and if a division was taken he would vote against it.

Mr. LAURENS remarked that it had been stated that no land could be purchased under the provisions of the Bill unless Par­liament first voted the money, but accord­ing to the 2nd clause if a Minister of the Crown gave a certificate that a certain piece of land was required, and it was ap­proved of by the Governor in Council, all that was necessary was that the certificate should lie on the table of Parliament for 30 days, and the Government, or rather the Board of Land and Works, could enter upon and take possession of the land. The moment that was done, Parliament would be bound to provide the purchase money. It was, therefore, scarcely correct to say that no land could be purchased under the Bill without the money being first ,'oted by Parliament. As to the piece of land re­ferred to by the honorable member for Brighton, he (Mr. Laurens) did not believe that it was worth £150 per foot, and, if he had the opportunity or doing so, he would vote against any snch sum being paid for it as that mentioned by the honorable mem­ber. The man who was at present in occu­pation of the land, and whose business had been abrnptly stopped by the decision of the Supreme Court, was entitled to some com­pensation, hut that was no reason why the position in which the Government were placed should be allowed to be taken ad­vantage of by the owner to the extent of obtaining some £300 or £400 per foot for the land.

Mr. L. L. SMITH said he did not see any means by which the purchase of any land that tIle Government chose to buy could be stopped when the formalities re­quired by the 2nd clause were gone through. The Bill, at all events, d,id not indicate how the purchase could be prevented. If any other Ministry had brought in such a mea­sure, ugly statements would have been made about their integrity. V\T ould the Govern­ment say that the Bill was not to enable them to acquire the property purchased by Mr. Dakin and for no other' purpose? No answer had been given to this question. The Attorney-General avoided rraking any reply to it, on the plea that, having already spoken on the motion for second reading, he would be out of order in speaking again j

but, with the leave of the House, the hon. orable gentleman could make a second state­ment, and, at all events, there was nothing to prevent one of his colleague,s from reply­ing to the question. The Bill would enable the Government to purchase any piece of land which they thought fit to buy. All that was necessary was for a certificate given by a responsible Minister of the Crown to be approved of by the Governor in Council -which meant the Minister himself-and then to lie for 30 days on the table or the House, where no notice would be taken of it. Under such a measure, a large quantity of land might be bought by the Government without Parliament having any control over it. But what he wanted to pin the Minis­try to was this-'Vas not the sole purpose of the Bill to enable them to buy the land occupied by Mr. Dakin? It was openly asserted that such was the object of the Bill. (Mr. Walker-" Look at clause 2.") He had read clause 2, but nevertheless he would like an answer eto his question. If the object of the Bill was to enable the Government to buy the land occupied by Mr. Dakin it would be much more honest for them to say so, and bring down a straight. forward proposition for the purchase, so that the House could discuss it. Honorable members certainly did not wish to see Mr. Dakin, whose business had been stopped, and who had been subjected to the trouble and anxiety of a public prosecution, left without compensation, while a large price was paid to the owner of the land for his property. As he could not get an answer to his question, he would move,as an amend­ment, that the Bill be read a second time " this day six months." This would afford the Attorney-General an opportunity of speaking again.

Mr. HUNT seconded the amendment. Mr. GRAVES said that there was no

necessity for the Bill, because the Govern­ment, under the existing law, could purchase any land which was required for public pur­poses if the money was voted by Parliament. The pract,ice which had been acted upon for the last 20 years in that respect had been found effective, but the measure proposed to make a fundamental and organic change in that practice. He therefore regretted ex­tremely that the Bill had been introduced. I~lstead of giving the Ministry the power that would be conferred upon them by the 2nd clause, he hoped that the House would adhere to the custom w~ich had hitherto obtained when it was deemed necessary to purchase land for public purposes, which

Res~tmption ~f [NOVEMBER 16.J Lands Bill. 2129

was to let Parliament deal with each case on its merits. Parliament would never re­fuse to vote a proper sum of money to buy any land that was required in the interests of the public.

Mr. \VRIXON said he was glad of the opportunity of offering an explanation. The Bill did nothing more than slightly extend the provisions of the Lands Compensation Statutl'. That Statute enabled land to be resumed for a great many purposes, but it did not authorize its resumption for other necessary purposes. This was the reason why the measure had been introduced. There was no new principle contained in it. It simply enabled the well-known machinery of the Lands Compensation Statute to be applied for the purchase of land in cases in which it was necessary to buy land for pur­poses that were not provided for by that Statute, and thus obviated the necessity for the introduction of a separate measure on each occasion. It was true that the Govern­ment had brought it forward owing to the difficulty about Mr. Dakin's land; but it was also intended to apply to other cases as necessity arose. As the country progressed, land would have to be resumed by the Government from time to time. (Mr. Bent -" Can you name any other ca.se than Mr. Dakin's for which the Bill is required at present? ") The Government were engaged in very important negotiations about land, which it would not be wise for him to state -openly to the House at present; but he had no objection to tell the honorable member for Brighton privately what they were. (Mr. Bent-" It will be better to state them pub­licly than privately.") There were reasons why publicity should not be given to the negotiations at present. The Bill would not interfere with any of the rights or privileges of the Assembly. A vote would have to be placed on the Estimates for every purchase that was made uncler the provisions of the Bill; but the advantage would be that it would not be necessary to go through the -cumbersome process of passing a separate measure to coyer every separate transaction. The honorable member for Brighton seemed to fear that the Government were going to pay an extravagant price-some £400 per foot-for certain land, but he could assure the honorable member that no such ar­rangement had been made. The Govern­ment had no intention of giving anything like that price for the land, a.nd any claim -that was made on account of it would have to be submitted to arbitration in the ordi­.nary way. Moreover, the money to be paid

for the land would have to be voted by Parliament.

Mr. CARTER inquired whether the Bill provided for compensation being paid to the tenant of any land of which the Crown re­sumed possession, and also to the mort­gagee, if there happened to be one, as well as to the owner?

Mr. WRIXON said that tenants and mortgagees were not expressly mentioned in the Bill any more than in the Lands Com­pensation Statute; but their rights must be respected under the genemllaw.

Mr. CARTER remarked that in cases in which compensation was to be given under the Licensing Act it was specially provided that owners, licensees, and mortgagees should be compensated. In fact, the rights of all parties who were entitled to compen­sation were assured. "Vould it not be pos­sible to introduce similar provision into the present Bill? (Mr. Wrixon-" An legal rights must be respected.") The only per­son mentioned in the Bill was the owner. (Mr. Gillies-" Everyone interested in the land will get compensation.") He would like to know if the Attorney-General was quite satisfied that every person interested would have a claim for compensation? (Mr. "V rixon-" Existing rights are not in any way interfered with.") This was scarcely a satisfactory reply to the question. The Government were proposing to resume pos­session of the land occupied by Mr. Dakin, and, of course, the owner would have to be compensated, but the tenant ought also to receive compensation. Although the tenant might not have a long lease, if the Govern­ment did not step in and take possession of the land, it was possible that he might carry on his business there for the next 20 years. No harm could be done by inserting words in the Bill expressly providing that, in the event of any land being resumed in pursu­ance of the measure, compensation should in every case be paid to the tenant and to the mortgagee, if there was one.

Mr. ZOX considered that the honorable member for West Melbourne (Mr. Carter) had raised a serious point. The Premier said that when any land was resumed by the Crown every person interested in it would receive compensation, but a tenant occupy­ing a shop or a warehouse erected on that land, and carrying on business there, could scarcely say that he was interested in the land.

Mr. WRIXON stated that the rights of tenants were fully protected by the Lands Compensation Statute. Under the 61st

2130 Resumption of [ASSEMBLY.] Lands Bill.

section of that Statute a tenant was entitled to compensation for damage done to him in his tenancy in consequence of the Crown resuming possession of the land.

Mr. ZOX said that he approved of the general object of the Bill, and he would he satisfied if the Attorney-General assured the House that everyone who sustained damage by reason or the resumption of any land would be compensated.

Mr. BENT observed that he felt com­pelled to support the amendment. He had heard nothing to justify the introduction of the Bill. The Attorney-General had not stated for what purpose it was required, except to enable the Government to pur­chase the land occupied by Mr. Dakin. The honorable gentleman had offered to give the information privately, but if anything of the kind was communicated privately, the infor­mation was sure to leak out, and it was much better that it should be announced publicly in the first instance. 'Vhen the Government wanted to purchase the timber-yard adjoin­ing the Titles-office they introduced a Bill to authorize them to do so, and why should they not adopt the same course in regard to any other land which they wanted to buy if the Crown was not entitled to resume pos­session of it under the Lands Compensation Statute? The House would then know what it was proposed to give for the property, and would be able to judge whether the price was a fair one or not. Although the At­torney-General said there was no intention to pay any such price as £400 per foot for the land occupied by Mr. Dakin, it had been stated by a member of the other House that negotiations had been opened for the pur­chase of the land, and that the price was over £400 per foot. Everybody in the vicinity of the Law Courts said the Go­vernment intended to buy the land; in fact, people went so far as to say that it was the intention of the Government to purchase the property all the way down to Queen­street, and, upon the strength of that state­ment, certain speculations had taken place within the last month or two. (Mr. Gillies­" The speculators may lose their money.") On the other hand, they might make money. Why should not the Government state publicly what necessity had arisen for this particular Bill? (Mr. Zox-" They are quite right not to do so.") Instead of com­municating the information privately they ought to state it publicly. (Mr. Zox-" If the honorable member was going to buy anything he would not let everyone know.") He would not tell persons privately of his

intentions. He begged to repeat that there was no justification for the introduction of the Bill. It seemed to have been prepared by somebody in the Attorney-General's office. The honorable gentleman did not. appear to be at all warm about it, for his remarks were characterized by a kind of red­tape or officialdom. It would be well for him to ascertain from those who had prepared the measure what their intentions were, and t

perhaps, when the House was fully informed it would assist to pass the Bill.

Mr. GILLIES said that the Government were often placed at a great disadvantage in negotiating for the purchase of land required, for public purposes, because they had to apply to Parliament sufficiently early to enable Parliament to judge of what was proposed to be done. In other words, the Government had to disclose their hand; and, in every case in which they had been compelled to do so, the value of the property that they wanted to secure in the interests of the public had immediately gone up 100 per cent. He was sure that honorable members did not wish the Government to be placed at a disadvant.age in such transactions. If the Bill would enable the Government t(} purchase land at any price irrespective of the approval of Parliament, the argument of the honorable member ·for Brighton against it would be unanswerable; but it would not enable the Government to do anything of the kind. Every transaction which the Governmententered into under the authority of the measure wonld have to be submitted to Parliament for its approval.

The amendment was negatived, and the motion for the second reading of the Bill. was agreed to.

The Bill was then read a second time, and committed.

On clause 1, Mr. GRAVES remarked that the At­

torney-General had stated that the BilL would simply continue and extend the powers granted under the Lands Compensation. Statute, nevertheless he (Mr. Graves) ob­jected to it altogether, mainly because it did not adopt the procedure of the Statute. In fact it only accorded with the Statute in so far as it made provision for" full satisfac.· tion " being given to the persons deprived of their property . Now he thought that they should have the advantage of all the conditions and safeguards the Statute con-· tained. For instance, they ought to have the full notice there provided for. Still,. inasmuch as he did not wish to put the Government to any inconvenience, he would

Resumption of [NOVEMBER 16.] Lands Bill. 213}

content himself with having pointed out wherein the Bill was defective.

Mr. WRIXON thought it was due to the honorable member for Delatite that some attention should be paid to his representa. tions. The Government believed that the Bill as it stood would bring in the whole of the machinery of the Lands Compensation Statute, but they would reconsider the point, and if any amendment was found to be called for it would be made in another place.

On clause 2, providing for the resump­tion of land by the Crown for certain purposes,

Mr. TUTHILL moved the addition to the clause or the following words:-

.. In manner provided for the resumption of land by the Lands Compensation Statute 1869, and subject to all the conditions imposed by the said Act, or any Act amendillg the same."

He said that this amendment would meet the views of the honorable member for Dela­tite, and also supply the great want of the Bill.

Mr. WRIXON accepted the amendment. He stated that if it was found to require modification that could be done elsewhere.

Mr. TUTHILL asked if the Govern­ment would take the present opportunity of amending the flaws of the Lands Compen. sation Statute?

Mr. 'YRIXON replied that it would be inconvenient to do so.

The a mend ment was agreed to. Discussion took place on clause 4, which

was as follows:-" All lands taken under the authority of this

Act by the said board, for the purposes of tbe Education Act 1872, or any Act amending the same, shall be conveyed or transferred to the responsible Minister of the Crown and his suc­cessors for the time being administering such Act; and all lands taken under the authority of this Act, for any other purpose by the said board, shall be conveyed or transferred to Her Majesty the Queen, her heirs and successors.; and shall not be alienated in fee simple by her or her successors without the express authoritl, of an Act of Parliament passed in that behalf. '

Mr. TUTHILL asked why so striking an exception was made in this clause in favour of lands held by the Education department?

·Mr. WRIXON replied that the existing law vested all education properties in the Minister of Public Instruction.

Mr. V ALE moved the omission of all the words beginning with "by" (line 2) and ending with "board" (line 9). He said that the plan of vesting all educational properties in the Minister of Public Instruc­tion might have answered very well in the past, but the time had come when it ought

to be discontinued. If it was thought wise to' restrict every other department of the State in the matter of acquiring and dis­posing of land, the same principle ought t() be equally applicable to the Education de­partment. He knew of several instances in which it had sold pieces of land im-· properly.

Mr. WRIXON thought it would be wrong to press the amendment. If the prin. ciple it embodied was a good one, it ought to be applied to all the properties acquired by the Education dt'partment, and not to only the very small portion of them which the· clause would cover.

Mr. PEARSON pointed out that the Education department was constantly buy-· ing and selling small areas of land in country districts because new schools were continu­ally being established and old schools given up, and it would be very inconvenient for it to be unable to transact any business of the kind unless a special Act of Parliament was passed for the purpose. No sale was ever made by the department without an in­spector and a valuator being called in.

Mr. CARTER expressed the opinion that· the clause was shaped in a very sensible way. The Education department was continually wanting sman pieces of land for a particular' purpose, and of course it ought to be able, . when that purpose changed, to dispose of them ag~in.

Mr. G RA VES remarked that there were a great many reasons why the Education department should, and also why it should not, have the power of selling. For himself, . he thought, upon the whole, that no depart­ment of the State which had acquired land' ought to be able to sell it except by means of a special Act of Parliament.

Mr. BROWN expressed the hope that the amendment would be withdrawn. It seemed only reasonable that when a public' department was continually wanting to pur­chase small pieces of land in order to estab- . lish schools in particular districts, and also to sell them again, when pO'pulation had moved from those districts, it should have' perfect freedom of action in the matter. Of what possible good could it be to the State to own a couple of acres here and a couple of acres there all over the colony?

Mr. VALE said experience had amply proved that the lands held by the State were· altogether too small for the future require­ments of the country.

The amendment was negatived. The Bill, having been gone through, was·

reported with an amendment.

.2132 Ed,ltcation Endowment [ ASSEMBL Y.] Commissioners Bill.

WATER CONSERVATION ACTS CONSOLIDATION BILL.

Mr. DEAKIN moved the second reading of this Bill. (Mr. Bent-" What! a Bill which was only circulated this morning.") He was under the impression that it was

· circulated a fortnight ago. However, it was not a. measure which honorable mem­bers need have much anxiety about. The

· whole of the portions of the water conser­vation law which related to irrigation hav­ina' been re-enacted in the Irrigation Act

· ot' last session, those relating to water conservation for domestic and stock pur­poses was left in a rather ragged state. Hence the need for this Bill, which, with

· two trifling exceptions, contained no new proposition ~f any kind or sort. vVh~t those exceptIOns were, he would explaIn when the Bill was in committee,

Mr. BENT moved the adjournment of the debate. He said it would not be fair to go on with a Bill when copies of it had only just been circulated, and only a. few members were present to discuss it. In any case the honorable member for Kyneton, who was the first to introduce water conser­vation legislation, ought to have a chance of looking over the measure. If the Go­vernment would not consent to the adjourn­ment, he would simply proceed to occupy the interval that rema.ined before the time arrived for calling on pri·vate members' business.

The motion for the adjournment of the · debate was agreed to ..

The debate was then adjourned until the following day.

RAILvVAY WORKS BILL.

The House having resolved itself into committee for the consideration of the Go­vernor's message on the subject of this Bill, presented the. previous day,

Mr. GILLIES moved-.. That it is expedient that an appropnatlOn be

made out of the consolidated revenue for the purposes of a Bill to apply a sum temporarily out of the .Public Account or out of the Railway Loan Account 1885, for railway works and other purposes."

The resolution was agreed to, and was reported to the House and adopted.

Aut.hority being given to Mr. Gillies and Mr. W rixon to introduce a Bill to carry out the resolution,

Mr. GILLIES brought up a Bill" to . apply out of the Railway Loan Account

1885, <;>1' temporarily out of the Public Ac­, count, certain SUms· for railway works and

other purposes," and moved that it be read a first time. .

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was read a first time.

MARINE BOARD BILL.

Mr. WALKER presented a message from His Excellency the Governor, recommend­ing a further appropriation out of the co~­solidated revenue for the purposes of thlS Bill. .

The message was ordered to be taken into consideration next day.

EDUCATION ENDOWMENT COMMISSIONERS BILL.

Mr. DOvV moved that this Bill be read a second time. He explained that the object of the measure was to provide an endowment for the education system of the colony by means of a grant of land. The land was known as Fishermen's Bend, on the Yarra. The area was 1,180 acres, of which 240 acres formed what was known as Ooode Island-an island which had been created by the cutting of the new canal. The estimated value of the land at present was something like £1,000 per acre; but no doubt within the next five or six years its value would be largely increased. The Bill vested the management of the land in five commissioners. One fea.ture of the arrange­ment was that the land could not be alien­ated' it could only be leased on terms not exce~ding 21 years. The opera~ions o~ t~e commission would be kept strlCtly wlthm the purview of Parliament, provision being made that a report of the commission's operations should be submitted annually to the Assembly. All moneys obtained by the commissioners from the leasing of the lands would be paid into the consolidated revenue, and would form the subject of a separate account kept by the Treasurer. No dou?t in time the land, which at present was entirely unoccupied, would be of considerable value, and would afford a permanent endowment for the support of the ed uca,tion. sy'ste?I' which they all wished to mamtam.m ItS integrity. A strip of land on both SIdes of the road leading from Port Melbourne to­wards Williamstown had been excised from the plan, which showed the area originally intended to be reserved for endowment purposes. This had been done in. the in­terests of the residents of South Melbourne, Port Melbourne, and Williamstown, who were naturally anxious that the road should be made, and the land abutting upon it settled.

Dentists Bill. [NOVEl\IBER 16.J Dentists Bill. 213~

Mr. WOODS expressed the hope that the land which formed the subject of the Bill would not share the fate of some 213 acres with which the Railway department was at one time endowed, but which Par­liament thought fit to hand over to the Melbourne Harbour Trust. That land, if the Railway department had retained it, would have added immensely to the railway revenue, and would have allowed of a cheaper working of the lines. He believed the Edu­cation department would absorb all the money that the Assembly might cllOose to vote, and the money derivable from this land as well. It seemed to him that the effect of passing the Bill would be to create fat billets for more clerks in the Education department.

Mr. BRO\VN submitted that the Bill was one which should not be passed too hurriedly. He questioned the wisdom of handing over a large area of land to a body outside Parliament. Why already no less than 156,000 acres had been handed over to the Council of Agricultural Educntion, which was an irresponsible board.

At this stage,. the time for taking busi­ness other than Government business hav­ing arrived, the debate was adjourned until the following day.

DENTISTS BILL.

Dr. ROSE moved that this Bill be read a second time. He stated that the measure had been before the country for the last three years, and had been amended and" modified to meet the requirements of the two sections specially interested in it-the dentists on the one hand, and the chemists on the other. (Loud cries of "Aye.") If honorable members were anxious to get into commit­tee, he would not detain them with further remarks.

Mr. STAUGHTON said it might be all very well for certain honorable members to cry" Aye," but other honorable members would like to have an explanation of the Bill.

Mr. PEARSON remarked that it was to be regretted that the honorable member for North Melbourne (Dr. Rose) was not al:.. lowed to finish his speech. Certainly a Bill of the kind ought not to pass without hon­orable members being acquainted with its provisions. The sole object of the measure was to protect the public against uneducated and unskilful dentists. For the future, all practising dentists would be registered in the same way as medical practitioners, and every unregistered person who ventured to

call himself a "dentist," "dental practi"l tioner," or " dental surgeon "would be liable to a penalty. The Bill provided for no pre­cautions which were not usual in other' countries-countries like England. In fact tbe measure was a copy or-the English Act. He might add that it bad been the practice, in the country districts, for chemists and other persons to extract teeth, and the rights· of those persons would not .be interfered with by the Bill. I

Mr. BOSISTO expressed his approval of the Bill, at the same time intimating his in­tention to propose one or two amendments in committee.

The motion was agreed to. The Bill was then read a second time,

and committed. On clause 12, requiring all dentists to be'

registered from and after the 1st January, 1888,

Mr. BOSISTO proposed that "1st March" should be subst.ituted for "1st January." \

Dr. ROSE intimated that he was willing' for such an amendment to be made when the Bill was before the Legislative Council.

Mr. BOSISTO submitted that whatever' amendments the Bill needed should be made' prior to the Bill leaving the Assembly.

Dr. ROSE observed that, if amendments were made at this stage, the third reading' would have to be deferred to another sit­ting, and he was afraid that that meant, at this period of the session, the loss of the' Bill.

Mr. STAUGHTON stated thatir amend. ments were necessary, they should be made 110W, lest there should be no opportunity of making them in the Legislative Council.

Dr. ROSE said an opportunity would be afforded for submitting the amendment on the third reading.

On clause 15, providing that the Dental' Board might dispense with certificates, ex­aminations, and other conditions for regis.· tration in the case of students who had commenced studying dentistry at least six' months before the passing of the Bill,

Mr. McCOLL suggested that the six. months condition should be omitted, and that the dause should apply to everyone who had commenced his apprenticeship' before the passing of the Bill.

Dr. ROSE said he considered tbe six months provision a very reasonable one, and that it ought not to be disturbed.

On clause 16, empowering a dentist wh<> had practised for ten years in some other. British possession, and held some recognised:

2134 Dentists Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Dentists BiU.

.certificate, to be registered as a colonial dentist without examination,

Mr. BOSISTO called attention to the fact that clause 17 made a similar provision with regard to "foreign" dentists, and sng­gested that, instead of using the word " colonial" or "foreign," the term" ordi­nary dentist" should be employed.

Dr. ROSE said he was willing for an amendment to carry out the suggestion to be made on the third reading.

On clause 21, setting forth the proceed­ings necessary to be taken preliminary to registration, .

Mr. L. L. SMITH took exception to the provIsion that-

" A person resident in Victoria shall not be disqualified for being registered by reason only .that he is not a British subject." He considered that dentists who practised here ought to become British subjects. (Mr. McIntyre-" But some American den­tists are the best in the world.") Let them become British subjects. (Mr. vVoods­"They won't.") In America, every resident had to become an American citizen; and why should not the same principle be car­ried out here? Such a number of dodges were used with regard to American diplomas that the Medicnl Board had to take everv precaution to ascertain whether the diplom~ holder was qualified to practise before they registered him as a medical practitioner.

On clause 29, providing that" all persons registered under this Act shall be exempt from serving on juries and inquests and from senring in the militia,"

Mr. TUOKER remarked that there was no militia force here snch as there was in England, and therefore he would suggest the omission of the words" and from serv­ing in the militia."

Dr. ROSE said thev would be struck out on the third reading .•

Mr. GRAVES observed that it would be necessary to insert the words "if actually practising" to secure the exemption of den­tists from serving on juries. Medical prac­titioners were exempt under the Juries Statute only" if actually practising."

Mr. BOSISTO suggested that it would be necessary to add a clause which would allow chemists and druggists in remote parts of the country, where dentists were few and far between, to extract teeth. He considered that some such clause as the following was required:-

"Nothing in this Act shall be deemed or taken to in any way affect any rights or privileges of any registered chemist or druggist in the cus­tomary practice of extracting teeth."

Mr. McINTYRE submitted that such a clause was unnecessary, because every regis­tered pharmaceutical chemist who practised dentistry was already protected by the Bill.

Dr. ROSE said that the amendment sug­gested by the honorable member for Rich. mond (Mr. Bosisto) was quite unnecessary. Any man or woman in the colony, whether a chemist or anything else, was at liberty to extract teeth. The Bill only provided that persons not duly qualified sllOuld not style themselves dentists or dental surgeons, so as to lead the public to believe that they were duly qualified; but there was nothing to prevent them putting a placard in their shop window bearing the announcement " Teeth extracted."

Mr. MURRAY stated that he would like to correct the idea that any man could draw teeth. He had found by experience that some men who professed they could, were unable to perform the operation. Terrible pain was inflicted by unskilled persons who attempted to extract teeth. There was really no necessity for any amendment of the kind suggested by the honorable mem­ber for Richmond (Mr. Bosisto), for the difficulty nowadays was not to find a dentist, but to keep out of the way of one. Dentists were as plentiful as insurance agents; and in places where they could find no shop in which to carryon their opera­tions, they would extract teeth under a gum tree. There was not a village in Australia which was not visited by some men who were ready either to extract teeth, or to stop them with what they.called gold, but which, after a time, was discovered to be brass. These dentists not only carried brass in their face, but in a little bag attached to the pommel of the saddle on the horse on which they rode from place to place. If any hon­orable member wished to have ocular demon­stration of the terrible results that accrued from the attempts of unsldlled dentists to extract teeth, he had only to look into the fearful chasm which did duty as his (Mr. Murray's) month.

Mr. W.MADDEN expressed the opinion that a provision of the kind suggested by the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Bosisto) was desirable in order that t.he public might be protected against unqualified persons.

Mr. McLELLAN said he understood that the Bill did not render any person liable to a penalty for extracting teeth unless he falsely represented himself to be a qualified dentist. It was quite right that it should not

. do so, because in the outlying districts of

Boilers Inspection Bill. [NOVEMBER 16.J Hastie Bequest Bill. 2135

the colony there might be no duly qualified dentist. Therefore a blacksmith or any other person should be at liberty to extract a tooth if any man or woman asked him to do so.

Progress was then reported, and the House afterwards resolved itself into com­mittee to consider the fees to be charged under the Bill.

Dr. ROSE moved-"That the following fees be charged under

the Dentists Bill 1887:-0n application until Slst January, 1888, £2 2s.; on application after that date, £5 5s.; certificate of registration, 5s. ; inspection of register, 5s.; alteration of register, .lis."

The resolution was agreed to, and was reported to the House and adopted.

The House again went into committee for the further consideration of the Bill.

The Bill, having been gone through, was reported without amendment.

On the motion of Dr. ROSE, the Bill was then read a third time and passed.

BALLARAT CITY LANDS BILL.

On the order of the day for the second Teading of this Bill,

The SPEAKER said-This is a private Bill, and has been dealt with in accordance with the standing order relating to Bills promoted by municipal bodies.

The CLERK read the report of the Exami­ners of Petitions for Private Bills, which was as follows :-

" Weare of opinion that this Bill should be exempted from compliance with all the standing rules and orders relating to private Bills."

Lt.-Col. SMITH moved that the Bill be now read a second time. He said that the measure WfiS simply to extend an Act which was passed last session. It would enable the Ballarat City Council to lease certain lands for mining purposes.

The motion was agreed to. The Bill was then a second time, and was

afterwards passed through its remaining 5tages.

BOILERS INSPECTION BILL.

The House having resolved itself into committee for the further consideration of the resolution proposed by Dr. Rose on July 13, affirming the expediency of amend­ing the law relating to boilers, and setting forth a scale of fees to be chargeable on the inspection of boilers (see p. 375),

Mr. GILLIES said he hoped that hon­orable members would not be committed to the proposed scale' of fees if they now agreecl to the resolution.

Dr. ROSE intimated that the resolution was not intended to bind honorable members to any particular scale of fees.

Mr. McLELLAN stated that, at a future stage, he would certainly oppose the imposi­tion of the scale of fees set forth in the resolution, which would amount to a very serious tax.

Mr. WOODS remarked that he would not object to the resolution passing on the understanding that it did not bind honorable members to sanction any particular fees.

The resolution was agreed to, and was reported to the House and adopted.

Authority being given to Dr. Rose and Mr. Jones to introduce a Bill to carry out the resolution,

Dr. ROSE brought up a Bill " to make provision for the inspection and regulation of boilers," and moved that it be read a first time.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was read a first time.

HASTIE BEQUEST BILL.

Mr. McINTYRE moved-"That Standing Orders Nos. 10 and 26, relating

to private Bills, be dispensed with so far as re­gards n. Bill to authorize the trustees of the late John Hastie, Esquire, to dist.ribute the estat.e of the said .J ohn liastie, in accordance with an agreement between the next of kin of the testator and the seleral parties entitled under the will."

M.r. BURROWES seconded the motion. The OLERK read the report of the Ex­

aminers, which was to the effect that in certain details Standing Orders Nos. 10 and 26 had not been complied with, but that the Examiners were of opinion that fuil com­pliance with the said standing orders might be dispensed with.

The following extract from the report of the Standing Orders Committee waa also read:-

" That the committee approve of the report of the Examiners on the Hn.stie Bequest Bill, and are of opinion that full compliance with Stand­ing Orders Nos. 10 and 26 may be dispensed with, and that the petitioners should be permitted to proceed with the Bill."

The motion was agreed to. Mr. McINTYRE moved for leave to

introduce a Bill to authorize the trustees or the will of the late John Hastie, Esquire, to distribute the estate of the said ,John Hastie, in accordance with an agreement between the next of kin of the testator and the several parties' entitled under the will.

Mr. BURROWES seconded the motion, which was agreed to.

The Bill was the.a brought in, and read a first time.

2136 Public Instruction. [ASSEMBLY.] .Truant Officers.

COLONIAL PERMANENT TRUSTEE, EXECUTOR, AND AGENCY COMPANY'S BLLL.

Mr. LEVIEN moved the second reading of this Bill. The measure (he said) was of precisely the same character a.s the one which the House passed the other evening respecting another company.

The motion was agreed to. Mr. LEVIEN then Illoved-

"ThA.t Standing Orders Nos. 120 and 130, relating to private Bills be dispensed with so far as regards a Bill to confer powers upon the Colonial Permanent Trustee, Executor, and Agency Company Limited."

Mr. ZOX seconded the motion, which was agreed to.

Mr. LEVIEN also proposed-"That the select committee on the Colonial

Permanent Trustee, Execlltor, A.nd Agency Com­pany's Bill consist of Mr. Gardiner, Mr. Graves, Mr. Langdon, Mr. McColl, and tile mover, and that the promoters have leave to print the evi­dence taken before such committee; four to be the quorum."

Mr. ZOX seconded the motion, which was agreed to.

POLICE REGULATION STATUTE AMENDMENT BILL.

The amendments made in this Bill, in committee, were considered and adopted.

Mr. McOOLL (in the absence of Mr. J. J. MADDEN) moved that the Bill be read a third time.

Mr. GILLIES said 11e desired to state that the Government opposed the Bill on principle, acting on the advice of the re­sponsible heads of the police force, whose deliberate opinion was that it would be detrimental to the force to give the police the right to vote at parliamentary elections.

Mr. ANDERSON (Villiers) stated that most of the members of the Police Commis­sion were in favour of a measure of this kind before the inquiry made by the commission was entered upon, but, after taking evidence on the subject from both officers and men, the commission repo"rted against giving the police the right to vote at parliamentary electionR. In view of the evidence elicited by the commission, be would feel compelled to vote against the Bill if there was a division upon it.

The Bill was then read a third time and passed.

PUBLIC INSTRUCTION. TRUANT OFFICERS.

The House having resolved itself into committee, pursuant to a resolution passed on September 14,

Mr. JONES moved-"That an address be presented to His Excel..,

leney the Governor, requesting that he would be· pleased to place on the Additional Estimates a sum sufficient to permit of an increase in the salaries of truant officers to a minimum of £168· per annum, and a maximum of £208."

To save time, he was quite willing that the committee should at once go to a vote on the motion without discussion.

Mr. GILLIES said that he did not see· his way to concur with the motion. Par­liament, by passing the Public Service Act, had placed on the shoulders of the Public­Service Board the responsibility of deter­mining what salaries should be paid to the officers of the public service, and, therefore, the Assembly ought to be very chary about interfering in the matter, and deciding for itself wbat salary should be paid to any particular officer or class of officers. Under the amending Public Service Bill the board would have the power of reviewing salaries, and increasing the salaries of any officers if they thought fit to do so. Many years ago, before there was any Act regulating the salaries of public servants, night after night was occupied in discussing proposals for in-. creasing the salaries of individual officers beyond the amounts provided. for them on the Estimates; but the system which en­couraged that undesirable state of things was deliberately abandoned when the Act No. 160 was passed. By that Act it was recognised that Parliament was not the proper tribnnal to fix the salaries of public officers, and the same principle was further acknowledged by the adoption of the Public Service Act 1883. No doubt the Assembly had the power to either raise or reduce any salaries, but, in his jndgment, it would not be wise for the House to interfere for the purpose of raising the salaries of any parti­cular class of officers. If it did so, he be­lieved that it would undertake a responsibi­lity wbich, by-and-by, would become very irksome indeed. He sincerely hoped that honorable members, befure adopting the present motion, would at all events wait until the Public Service Board had an op­portunity of reconsidering the salaries of the truant officers, which they would be able to d.o when the amending Bill was passed.

Mr. JONES observed that if honorable members had to wait until the Public Ser­vice Board increased the salaries of the truant officers they would have to wait in vain. They were not asked to wait for the board to take action if the question was one of increasing the salary of an officer who got £900 a.:

Veterinary Bill. [NOVEMBER 16.J Sebastopol Plateau. 2137

year; and why should they wait in the case of the truant officers? These men were -employed day out and day in all the year round, at a salary of 'lOs. per day for six days in the week. They had very important .duties to discharge, and they were allowed so small an amount for travelling expenses that they could not possibly keep within the .allowance unless they almost starved them­selves during the time that they were travel­ling. Their case ought to have been miti­gated by the board long ago. He trusted that the committee would at once say -whether they considered that the truant ,officers were sufficiently rewarded by a pay aVflraging very little, in the most favoured -cases, above lOs. per day.

The mot.ion was carried without a division. The resolution was reported to the House.

VETERINARY BILL. The House resolved itself into committee

to consider the Governor's message on the :subject of this Bill, presented August 2.

Mr. BOSISTO moved-" That it is expedient that an appropriation be

made of fees and penalties for the purposes of a Bill to establish a Veterinary Board. and to regulate veterinary practice in Victoria."

The resolution was' agreed to, and was >reported to the House and adopted.

Authority being given to Mr. Bosisto and Mr. Officer to introduce a Bill to carry out the resolution,

Mr. BOSISTO brought up a Bill "to -establish a Veterinary Board, and to regu­.late veterinary practice in Victoria," and moved that it be read a first time.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill -was read a first time.

INTEROOLONIAL UNIFORM TARIFF.

On the order of the day for resuming the ·debate upon Mr. L. L. Smith's motion for the House to resolve itself into committee for the purpose of considering certain pro­positions (see p. 475) for the establishment of a uniform Tariff in the Australian colonies (adjourned from October 19),

Mr. GILLIES said the Government were so sensible of the pains taken by the honorable member for Mornington in pre­,paring the propositions he had brought for­ward, that if he would consent to withdraw ihe final one, which was that a Bill should ,be brought in by the Government for the purpose of carrying out the previous proposi­tions, they would pay him the compliment -of not objecting to the House going into -committee pro forma.

SES. 1887.-7 K

Mr. L. L. SMITH stated that he would accept the offer. He begged to move the omission of the proposition indicated by the Premier.

The amendment was adopted. The motion, as amended, was then agreed

to, and the House went into committee pro forma .

SEBASTOPOL PLATEAU.

Mr. JONES (in the absence of Lt.-Ool. SlIlITH) moved that the report of the select committee appointed to inquire into the ques­tion of the drainage of the Sebastopol Plateau and Durham Lead be taken into consideration.

Mr. GILLIES said he had recently had an interview with the honorable member for Ballarat West (Lt.-Ool. Smith) on the sub­ject of the committee's report, and he under­stood the honorable member to state that, at the present late period of the session, he would content himself with impressing on the Government, first, the importance of the question involved; and, secondly, the desira­bility of their taking into consideration the proposals submitted by the committee, in order to ascertain whether some practical step, which would be satisfactory to the Ballarat community, could not be adopted. Being well aware of the nature of the case which formed the subject-matter or the com­mittee's report, he (Mr. Gillies) thereupon promised that the whole question would re­ceive the careful attention of the Govern­ment, and that he, as Minister of Mines, would himself consider whether something could not be done to assist the prosecution of the important enterprise in view.

Lt.-Ool. SMITH (who had just entered the chamber) said he had hoped to bring forward this subject at an earlier period of the session. As for the report of the com­mittee, it was only due to say that, although some of its meinbers might be regarded as to some extent personally interested in the matter, there was a sufficient number besides to make their report a thoroughly indepen­dent one. Moreover, everyone who had read the report must be convinced that, valuable as the work it recommended would be, it was impossible to get it done through a combined effort of the mining companies concerne.d. At one time there were, as the Minister or Mines well knew, for he was an old Ballarat man, and was his (Lt.-Oo1. Smith's) colleague in 1861, no less than 23 mining companies on the plateau, each with a pumping plant, although they each held only a small area of ground, and all of them

2138 Slander and Libel [ASSEMBL~.] Law A. mendment Bill.

were getting gold. But no:w the. case was different, although unquestionably gold was there to get. The great point was, however, to prevent the labours of the committee being lost. Therefore, if the Government would promise to favorably consider, during the recess, the best way of carrying out the recommendations of the report, he (Lt.-qol. Smith) would simply leave the matter in their hands.

Mr. GILLIES stated that he had already given the assnrarice the honorable member required. He would be most happy if he

. could see his way to do something of sub­stantial good to Ballarat.,

Mr. COOPER mentioned that formerly, when the question of draining the Sebastopol Plateau was first brought forward, he op­posed the project. Believing that only alluvial gold was obtainable there, he could not imagine that the enterprise would pay. Now, however, the developments in quartz reefs, which had recently taken place, having totally changed the aspect of affairs, he was satisfied that the undertaking would prove successful.

On the motion of Lt.-Col. SMITH, the order of the day for the consideration of tbe report was discharged from the paper.

EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

The order of the day for the second reading of this .Bill was discharged from the ,paper.

SLANDER AND LIBEL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

Mr. SHIELS moved the second reading of this Bill. He said he would not occupy the time of honorable members at any length in advocating a principle which he was sure must recommend itself to the favorable consideration of everyone. Some years ago Mr. Purves and the late Mr. Ramsay, when members of the Assembly, bro\lght in a Bill of exactly the same character, and last year the honorable member for Sand hurst (Dr. Quick) inserted a clause to the same effect in his County Courts Act Amendment Bill. The Legislat~re of South Australia had also gone in e,xactly the same direction. There-' fore the subject was familiar. The state of the law, 'as regarded the question to which the Bill related, was that if words were used imputing a particular kind of contagious disorder to a man or woman, or assailing any person in his business capacity-calling a trader a bankrupt, a lawyer a knave, or a doctor a quack-they were actionable. The same was the case ~ith respect to imputing

unjust or immoral conduct to a clergyman. But, by a strange anomaly, a married woman could be called an adultress, or a single woman could be called ~nchaste, without the words used being actionable,in themselves. The Bill consisted practically of one clause,. which was to the effect that words imputing unchastity to any fen:iale should be action­able without a.llegation or proof of special damages. That was to say that an accusa­tion calculated to affect a woman more deeply than any other words that could be uttered would be placed in the same category with the accusations which, if used against a man, would render the person using them liable to an action at law. Each of the Supreme Court Judges had from time to time called attention to the deficiency of the statute­book in this respect.

The motion was agreed to. The Bill was then read a second time, and

committed. Discussion took place on clause 2, which

was as follows :-"Words uttered after the passin~ of this Act

imputing unchastity to any female shall be· actionable without allegation or proof of special damages."

Mr. ANDERSON (Villiers) said he­quite agreed with the main object of the Bill,. but really where was it that the most un­bridled licence in the matter of accusing women of unchastity was allowed? What he would like to see would be the clause­taking a step further, and doing something' to'put a stop to the gross charges which were frequently made by barristers and soli­citors in courts of law, in consequence of the­lengths to which they were allowed to go in cross-examining female witnesses. It was they who ought to be brought under the lash. He had known them to act in the most olltrageous way.

Mr. SHIELS stated that he quite en­dorsed the remarks just made. Perhaps. the honorable member for Villiers (Mr. Anderson) would recollect that some time ago he (Mr. Shiels) and the honorable mem­ber for Sandhurst (Dr. Quick) introduced a . Bill to put a stop to the gross libels on women and others which were sometimes the outcome of the line of cross-examina.· tion' adopted in different courts of law. Every honorable member. would probably have in his mind the extent to which this· practice had lately been carried. Frequently the grossest injustice was done by such means. Nevertheless, it would be quite out

. of the question to propose to tack provisions of the kind the honorable.member wanted to·

Slander and Libel [NOVEMBER 16.J ' Law Amendment Bill. 2139

see to a measure like the present. Nothing less than a Bill of fifteen or sixteen clauses would be sufficient for the purpose.

Mr. DONAGHY remarked that the clause was excellent in one sense, but not in another. He did not see why it should not embody some attempt to check not only barristers and solicitors, but also superin­tendents and sergeants of police, whose con­duct in court often seemed to imply a notion on their part that they could say anything they liked. Many a tinle they thought nothing of uttering the most blackguard things, and making the most blackguard insinuations. He had frequently sat on the bench and heard respectable women taunted by an officer of the police as though they were the lowest of the low, when in reality he knew nothing whatever against them. Once, quite lately, he heard a poor woman, who, years and years ago, had a little mis­fortune, brought to task about it as though it had ha ppened only the day before - as though no subseq uent cond uct was to be taken into ac­count. Why should a certain class of persons be allowed to cast up affairs of that sort and go scot-free? ,",Vas a respectable married woman's family to be held up to public shame because of something that occurred nearly half a lifetime ago, and had been not a little atoned for? If the honorable member for Normanby would embody in his Bill a provision against the shameful conduct he (Mr. Donaghy) complained of, he would give the Bill all the support he could.

Mr. STAUGHTON said he was in ac­cord with the Bill, but it was not aggressive enough. 'Vhy did it not interfere with some of the barristers in the courts? Did not every honorable member recollect with in­dignation what took place at the inquest on the poor girl Swain, who committed suicide by throwing herself off the Victoria-bridge? Why the imputations then made against some persons' reputations were so scandalous that one's blood boiled to hear them. It was the unlimited licence of the lawyers that the honorable member for N orman by ought to aim at.

Mr. LEVIEN moved the addition tothe clause of the following words:-

" Whether the same shall be made or uttered by any solicitor or barrister in any court of justice cr elsewhere."

He was a great admirer of the honorable member for Normanby, because of the way in which he upheld the rights of women. Nevertheless, he proposed to go, on the pre­sent occasion, a step further than the hon­orable member. There could hardly be a

7K2

single member who had not, some time or other, heard a woman grossly slundered in a court of law. In short, there was more necessity for the amendment than there was for the clause itself.

Mr. TUTHILL remarkedthattheamend­ment would put more into the' Bill than its title would carry. If its principle was adopted at all, it ought to be made the subject of a separate enactment. Besides, forcibly intro­ducing it into the Bill would almost surely mean the loss of the measure, and it was too good to lose. Another thing to consider was whether the effect of carrying the amendment would not be sometimes to prevent the truth coming out.

Mr. JONES expressed himself as satis­fied that the preamble would not cover the amendment. Consequently, to adopt the latter would mean the loss of the' Bill.

Mr. PEARSON said he hoped the amend­ment would be withdrawn, because it could not be agreed to except after a long dis­cussion, and even then its adoption might be the means of defeating an admirable measure. He wonld not, for himself, hesi­tate a moment to take almost any step in order to restrict the licence of counsel, were it not for the fear that the blow would miss the mark. The real remedy lay with the Judges and public opinion. To attempt to apply it through the statute-book would almost always fail for want of definiteness. When an advocate who abused the privileges confided to him for the purposes of justice, and justice alone, was treated by the whole world as a black sheep, the nuisance would soon disappear-it would die out of itself.

Mr. PEIRCE stated that he approved of the amendment, but he could not vote for it if it was likely to endanger the 13i11. He hoped that, on some future occasion, the, honorable member for Normanby would in­troduce a Bill which would be the means of' stopping the cruel practices now carried on in the courts.

Mr. LAURENS observed that the Bill professed to provide a remedy for females whose character was aspersed; and it was, not a little strange that every honorable member who had spoken, including the hon­orable member in charge of the Bill, had declared that aspersions of the kind were more indulged in in courts of law than any­where else. It was almost a pity that advantage could not be taken of this op­portunity to put a stop to proceedings of that kind. However, he would express the hope that, next session, the honorable mem- . ber for Normanby would introduce a Bill

2140 Cultivation Licences [ASSEMBLY.] (Aw'ijero'lts Lands) Bill.

calculated to restrict, if not stop altogether, the latitude now practised in courts of law.

Mr. HALL said he was glad to hear the remarks which had been made with regard to the licence of professional men in the courts. He considered that was an evil which required to be dealt with even before the evil against which the Bill was directed. With such examples in the courts, it was not mat­ter for surprise that slanderous words about women should be indulged in outside.

Mr. LEVIEN remarked that he would be sorry to jeopardize the passing of the Bill, and he did not see how the amendment would jeopardize it. The necessity for such a provision was admitted on .all hands, and it would be much better to incorporate it in the Bill than to make it the subject of a special measure of two lines next session.

Mr. SHIELS expressed the hope that the amendment would be withdrawn. To amend the Bill would be to prevent it being read a third time that night, and unless the mea­sure was passed through its remaining stages before the House adjourned, there would not be the slightest hope of it becoming law this session. He was heart and soul with those honorable members who had spoken in favour of curbing the undue and gross licence of counsel; but the question which the amendment opened was altogether too wide-involving as it did matters very de­batable-to be dealt with in a hurried manner.

Mr. TUTHILL stated that the object of the honorahle member for Barwon was a good one, but the amendment was too crude altogether. The subject was too large to be dealt with in the summary manner now proposed. It would require several clauses, or, at all events, a clause of several lines. It should be recollected that, in the interests of justice, cou!1sel must have a certain amount of licence. What was complained of was the abuse of that. licence.

The amendment was withdrawn. The Bill, having been gone through, was

reported without amendment, and was then read a third time and passed.

Mr. SHIELS moved that the words "and libel" be omitted from the title. When the Bill was introduced, he had in view the add ition to it of clauses dealing with libel, but, for convenience and other reasons, he afterwards determined to limit the Hill to the offence of slander on females. Therefore the words "and libel" were in­appropriate.

The title was amended to read "a Bill to amend the law of slander."

OULTIV ATION LIOENOES (AURIFEROUS LANDS) BILL. Mr. HALL moved that this Bill be read

a second time. He explained that the object of the measure was to enable persons to occupy the surface of land, which at present was not applied to any purpose, but which was called auriferous land. It had been stated that what he sought was pro­vided for under sections 65 and 67 of the Land Act 1884; but, as a matter of fact, repeated applications had been made for land under those sections, and those appli­cations had been refused. A return which had been laid on the table at his instance showed that of 404 applications in the In­digo mining district for land under the 65th and 67th sections of the Land Act, 153 were refused, and refused for no other rea­son than that endorsed on the back of them by the mining surveyor, namely, "mining objections. " No explanation was given, although the applications had been recom­mended by the local land board . Now there were within the district of Moira thousands of acres of so-called auriferous land, which had not been used for mining purposes for years. Applications for permission to use the surface of that land had been sent in by the score, and almost every applica­tion had been recommended by the local land board, but, as a rule, when the appli­cation came before the Mining department, the words" mining objections" were written across it by the mining surveyor, and then there was an end of it. In consequence thousands of acres were Jyin~ idle. Many of the applicants were themsel\Tes old miners, who were satisfied that no more gold was to be extracted from the land, and were anxious to turn the surface to account by dedicating it to vine-growing and other industries. They asked to be allowed to take up the land in 20-acre allotments sub­ject to the condition that the holder of a miner's right might come npon the land and search for gold. They were quite willing to forego any advantage which they might be deriving from the cultivation in the event of gold being discovered in the land. It was to enable this desire to be satisfied that the Bill had been introduced. The measure provided for the issue of yearly licences, each licence to contain a condition that the holder of a miner's right might enter on the land at any time and search and dig for gold, and also a condition that the licensee should place in a conspicuous position on the land a notice to the effect that the. land .wa.s open to the operations of

Cultivation Licences [NoYEl\IBER 16.J (AUl'lfe1'ous Lands) Bill. 2141

miner's right holders. In order that the Bill should in no way interfere with any mining operations already going on, it was provided that no land should be taken up under the measure which was within five chains of any shaft that had been in use during the previous three years. It was also provided that no licence should be issued in respect of any land on or over any known lead or reef containing gold, or of land beneath the surface of which any mining had taken place within three years. It was further provided that a licensee should not be able to recover compensation for any da.mage done to the surface of the land or any improvements thereon through the prosecntion of mining operations. It was intended at first to limit the Bin to certain districts, but he had received urgent appeals-among others from the United Farmers' League of the Avoca electorate­in favour of the measure embracing the whole colony, and accordingly it would have general application.

Mr. LEVIEN said he approved of the idea of turning the surface of auriferous or so-called auriferous land to account by vine­growing and kindred pursuits, but he believed the purpose could not be effected by the Bill in its present shape. It seemed to him that clause 2, which authorized the Go­vernor in Council to issue 20-acre licences, was rendered inoperative by subsequent clauses.

Mr. BURROWES stated that he must enter his protest against the passing of the Bill, which, be believed, would interfere seriously with the interests of the mining community. As the hour was late he was not disposed, at this stage, to state his ob­jections to the measure at length, and there­fore he would move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. COOPER seconded the motion. Mr. TUCKER observed that power to

grant licences of the kind contemplated by the Bill was given by section 65 of the Land Act 1884. \Vhat the Bill really proposed was to set aside the wholesome restraint exercised, in connexion with the granting of licences, by the Miningdepart­ment, which bad always proved a great safeguard to the mining interest. No doubt it was above all things desirable not to bring into collision the two classes of persons who sougllt after land. One could easily under­stand the propriety of land which was not auriferous, or which merely had the reputa­tion of being slightly auriferous, being used for occupation or cultivation under 20-acre

licences; but honorable members must re­collect how jealous the House was for the conservation of the auriferous areas of the country when the Land Act of 1884 was under consideration. Clause 5 of the Bill provided that no licence should be issued" in respect of any la.nd on or over any known lead or reef containing gold." If applications were lodged for blocks of land so situate, who was to decide whether the land was auri­ferous or not? To what department was the matter to be referred? Of course, to the Mining department. In that case the Bill would offer no greater facilities for the taking up of land than existed at present. The whole matter was one to be dealt with by administration. He presumed that officers of the Mining department did not carelessly stamp" miuing objections" on these appli­cations for land. (Mr. Hall-H They do.") Then a vexatious interference of that kind should be reported to Parliament. If he represented a mining district he would rather that the Mining department should err on the safe side, and lock up a few thousand acres from occupation, than tbat it should, in a careless way, allow the occupa.tion of land which might ultimately become useful for mining purposes. He did not see what could be gained by the Bill if it were passed, and therefore he hoped it would be with­drawn.

Mr. WHEELER supported the motion for the adjournment of the debate. He would like to hear what the views of the Government were in regard to the Bill. It seemed to him that the measure would vir­tually close the Mining department-that it wuuld pre'\ent the department from exer­cising any supervision whatever over auri­ferous land. (Mr. Gillies-" The depart­ment will be bound to exercise supervision.") The Bill was certainly a very important one, and further time should be allowed for its consideration.

Mr. TUTHILL remarked that the pro­vision in clause 2 was embodied in section 65 of the present Land Act, and the provi­sion in clause 3 was embodied in section 67 of the same Act.

Mr. LANGDON said that, as reference had been made to an agitation which had been carried on in his district, he was desirous of stating what the agitation was for. Its object was to secure protection for persons occupying land under the 67th section of the Land Act 1884. Those persons felt that, unless they had some protection in the shape of fencing and some power to clear the land, it would be of no

2142 Cttltivation Licences [ASSEMBLY.] (Aurifel'ous Lands) Bill.

value to them for grazing. purposes. They also desired to obtain the right to cultivate about 30 a..cres of their land, but without a claim to pre-emption. At present they had a rent of 2d. per acre to pay, and yet wood­splitters were allowed to enter upon their land, cut down trees, and leave the tops lying about. By this practice the value of the land for pasturage was destroyed, and the

. tops of the trees which were left on the ground formed a harbour for rabbits. He

. hoped that the Minister would make a note of the matter, with the view of granting some concession to the occupiers of the land.

Mr. HALL read the following extract from a lettpr written in August last by the organizing secretary of the United Farmers' League of the Avoca electorate:-

"I have the honour, by instruction from the United Farmers' League of the Avoca electorate, to inform you that, at the annual meeting of the said league, held at Burke's Flat on the 13th inst., a resolution was unanimously carried re­turning YOIl and Mr. G. Graham the thanks of the meeting for the action YOIl gentlemen have taken in the introduction of the Cultivation Licence Bill."

This letter bore out the statement he made that the .farmers in the Avoca electorate approved of the Bill.

The motion for the adjournment· of the debate was agreed to, and the debate was adjourned until Wednesday, December 14.

The House adjourned at five minutes past eleven o'clock.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. . Thursday, November 17, 1887.

Public Service: Postal and Telegraph Department: An­nual Report of the Public Service Board-Contagious Diseases-Public Instruction: Berrimal West School -Diseases in Stock: Pleuro-pneumonia and Scab­Colonial Wine Licences-Prorogation of Parliament­Railway Department: Free Passes-Pentridge Penal Establishment-Australasian Naval Force Bill-The Governor: Proposed Special Allowance - Supply: Additional Estimates: Education Department: Cas­tlemaine School. of Mines: The University: Windsor Railway Collision: Adelaide Jubilee Exhibition: Jubilee Musical Festival: Imperial Institute: Truant Officers : Defence of the Colony: The Chaffey Agree­ment: Wells in the Mallee: Public Works: Life-boat at Point Lonsdale: Postal and Telegraph Department: Prospecting: Water Supply: Agricultural Depart­ment: Railway Department-Ways and Means­Appropriation Bill'-:"'l\Iarine Board Bill-The Chinese.

The'SPEAKER took the chair at tl~ree o'clock p.m.

PUBLIC SERVICE. Mr. STAUGHTON asked the Post-

. master-General if his attention had been called to the fact that the employes of the Postal and Telegraph department were not paid for overtime at the rates prescribed and authorized by the Public Service Board, and published in t.he daily press?

Mr. DERHAM said that the Public Ser­vice Board had authorized certain rates of payment for overtime, but they were maxi­mum rates, and were above what the Postal and Telegraph department had been in the habit of paying for the last 20 years. It was his intention to ask his collengues to consider the desirableness of fixing uniform overtime rates throughout the sef\Tjce.

Mr. GRA YES called the attention of the Premier to the fact that the 97th section of the Public Service Act required the Public Service Boaru to furnish a report every year in regard to the operation of the Act. He believed that the last report was for the year 1885, and he would like to know whether a later report could not be obtained, so that it might be laid on the table of the House be­fore the Public Service Act Amendment Bill was dealt with.

Mr. GI.LLIES said he expected that a report -from the Public Service Board as to the operation of the Public Service Act would be presented to the Governor in Coun­cil the following Monday, and copies of it could be laid on the table of the House immediately afterwards.

OONTAGIOUS DISEASES.

Mr. OOPPIN asked the Premier if, in the event of the Public Health Law Amend­ment Bill not being dealt with this session of Parliament, the Government had any objection to introduce a Bill of one clause making it compulsory to report all cases of contagious disease to the Oentral Board of Health? He believed it was very unlikely that the Public Health Law Amendment Bill would be passed this session, and he wished to point out to the Government· that at present there was no direct way of as.cer­taining the number of cases of contagiOUS disease which took place in the colony. There was no compulsory registration of such cases, nor was there any law compelling them to be reported to the authorities. Many medical men who attended cases of contagious disease in private families, while taking every pre­caution to prevent the disease spreading, did

. not report the cases out of considerat~on ~o the family. Oonsequently, the publIc dId

Colonial Wz'ne Licence8. [N OVE~IBER 17.] Railway Dep'artment. 2143

not know the extent to which contagious diseases existed in the colony at any par­ticular period.

Mr. GILLIES said the Ohief Secretary, whose department was charged with the .administration or the law relating to public health, had informed him that he would be very glad to introduce, before the close or the session, such a Bill as the honorable member for East Melbourne (Mr. Ooppin) suggested, ir there was an opportunity of doing so.

PUBLIO INSTRUOTION.

Mr. LANGDON asked the Minister of Public Instruction what action had been taken for the appointment of a teacher for Berrimal West School? He believed that some hitch had occurred, but the residents in the district were exceedingly anxious that a teacher should be appointed to the school as soon as possible. If the difficulty in the way was the question of lodgings, it -could easily be removed, as some of the inhabitants would be glad to accommodate the teacher.

Mr. PEARSON said that no hitch had occurred in the matter. As soon as the 13chool building was finished and declared ready for occupation, a teacher would be sent to the school.

DISEASES IN STOOK.

Mr. HUNT asked the Ohief Secretary if he was aware that cattle suffering from pleuro­pneumonia were arriving from Queensland daily, and infecting the stock of this colony; .and what steps he proposed taking in the matter?

Mr. DEAKIN said tllat the arrange­ments for the inspection of stock were under the control of the Department of Agriculture, .and he would call the attention of his hon-

, orable colleague, the Minister or Agriculture, ·to the matter referred to by the honorable member for Kilmore. Honorable members would be sorry to leal'll that a telegram had been recei ved announcing that scab had once more made its appearance amongst sheep in New' Zealand.

OOLONIAL WINE LIOENOES.

Mr. HALL asked the Ohier Secretary 'what' action the Govemment proposed to take with regard to colonial wine licences,

. with the view of encouraging the sale or -colonial wine?

Mr. G RAVES said that, b"efore the ques­tion was replied to, he wi'shed to mention

that he had directed the attention of the Attorney-General to this subject, and the honorable gentleman had promised to give it consideration. Nothing, however, had yet been done in the direction desired.

Mr, DEAKIN stated that the action of the House the other evening, in connexion with the Licensing Act Amendment Bill,

. had rendered necessary the striking out of the provision with reference to the sale by vignerons or wine, the produce of their own vineyards, in quantities exceeding two gal­lons. The sellers of colonial wine would, therefore, be dealt with under the existing law.

PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Mr. BENT a.sked the Premier whether the statement in the newspapers that it was the intention or the Government to have Parliament prorogued on the.15th December was correct?

Mr. GILLIES replied that he was not in any way responsible for newspaper reports, and he declined to be made responsible for them. (Mr. Bent -" Is the statement correct ?") All he could say was that he hoped Parliament would be prorogued on the 15th or 16th of December.

RAILWAY DEPARTMENT.

FREE PASSES.

Mr. OOOPER moved-"That there be laid before this House a re­

turn of all free passes issued on the Victorian Railways during the year ending 31st October, 1887; also of all free press tickets issued on the Creswick to Daylesford line from the open­ing to 31st October, 1887. showing to whom issued, stations where issued, and to what station available."

Mr. PEIROE seconded the motion, which was agreed to .

PENT RIDGE. PENAL ESTABLISHMENT.

Mr. BENT (in the absence of Mr. McINTYRE) moved-

" That there be laid before this House a c'opy of all papers and correspondenc~ up to -date directly connected with the proposed removal of the Inspector-General of Penal Establishments from his quarters at Pentridge."

Mr. JONES seconded the motion. Mr. DEAKIN said he had informed the

honorable member for Maldou' that he could see all the papers, and point out ~hose ~ hich he wished to have laid on the table of ~he Honse, in order that they might be printed.

The motion was agreed to.

2144 The Governor. [ASSEMBLY.] Special Grant.

AUSTRALASIAN NAVAL FOROE BILL.

The House went into committee to con­sider the Governor's message on the subject of this Bill, presented the previous day.

Mr. GILLIES moved-"That it is expedient that an appropriation be

made out of the consolidated revenue for the purposes of a Bill to provide for the payment by the colony of Victoria of a proportional part of the cost of the esta.blishment and maintenance of an additional naval force, to be employed for the protection of the floating trade in Austral­asian waters."

The resolution was agreed to, and was reported to the House and adopted.

Authority being given to Mr. Gillies and Mr. Deakin to introduce a Bill to carrv out the resolution, .

Mr. GILLIES brought up a Bill "to provide for the payment by the colony of Victoria of a proportional part of the cost of the establishment and maintenance of an additional naval force, to be employed for the protection of the floating trade in Aus­tralasian waters," and moved that it be read a first time.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was read a first time.

THE GOVERNOR. SPECIAL GRANT.

On the order of the day for going into Committee of Supply,

Mr. GILLIES said - Mr. Speaker, a question was asked the other evening, by the honorable member for Morningt0n, with reference to the extra expenditure which will probably have to be incurred next year by His Excellency the Governor, in entertaining dis­tinguished visitors to the colony, on the oc­casion of the Centennial Exhibition. I will, therefore, take this opportunity of informing the House that the Government propose to submit, on next year's Estimates, a special vote for the purpose of enabling the Go­vernor to meet the extra expenditure which he will be put to in dispensing hospitality during the Exhibition season. From all I can learn, I believe that some very distin­guished men in literature, science, and art, from Europe, America, India, and the Aus­tralasian colonies, will visit Victoria next year. It is well known that the hospitali­ties dispensed hy the Governor this year have been more extensive than usual, and I believe that next year they are likely to be more extensive still, and to entail a very large expenditure. There is every prospect that the Exhibition of next year will be a re­markable success-that it will be successful

almost beyond what is hoped-and it is extremely desirable that the colony of Vic­toria, through the head of society here, should be in a position to do what I am sure will be the wish of honorable members and the public generally, namely, to show such hospitality to distinguished visitors as will enable them to see the colony under the most advantageous circumstances. The Government accordingly propose to place a sum of £6,000 on next year's Estimates as a special allowance to the Governor for that purpose. I know that some persons are under the impression that the Government contemplate a permanent addition to the special appropriation for the Governor's salary. The Government never contem­plated anything of the kind; nor do I think it would be wise to do so. Next year, how­ever, will be a special year ill the annals of the colony; and it would be unreasonable to expect the Governor to defray out of his own private purse the large expenditure which I believe it will be desirable, in the interests of the colony to incur, in entertaining the distinguished visitors who are likely to COlle here during the Exhibition.

Mr. WOODS.-Hasanythingof this sort ever been done before?

Mr. GILLIES.-I believe that in India~ on great occasions, very considerable provi­sion has been made for the extra expenditure entailed on the Governor-General. I men­tion the intentions of the Government now, because if any special allowance is to be made to the Governor next year, it ought to be known beforehand. It will, of course, be too late to object to the proposal when next year's Estimates are brought down. It is only fair that honorable members should have the opportunity of stating their views on the subject before anything is done in the matter,

, and for that reason 1 have mentioned the proposal of the Government now. The Go­vernor, no doubt, is quite prepared to under­take the usual hospitalities; but he cannot be expected to defray out of his own pocket the extra claims which will be made upon him during the ensuing year.

Mr. PATTERSON.-Sir, I would be sorry if this matter led to anything like debate. I rise) therefore, at the earliest opportunity to express my acquiescence in the Premier's proposal. It would be very un­gracious for honorable members to take up a hostile attitude with respect to it. The extraordinary hospitality of our present Go­vernor has attracted the attention of every one. Although it may be perfectly true that the great mass of the community are

The Go~·el'nor. [NOVEMBER 17.J Special Grant. 2145

not able to enjoy that hospitality, it cannot be denied that indirectly the whole colony reaps immense ad vantage from it. No doubt the visits of influential persons from other parts or the world are or great benefit to Victoria. The colony is very prosperous at the present time, and its prosperity is largely due to the position which it holds in the old country. The Governor has done a great deal to bring about this state of affairs. His Excellency and Lady Loch are beloved by all the people of the colony. I believe no one in the colony will object to the special allowance which it is proposed to make to the Governor next year.

Mr. SHIELS.-Plenty will object. Mr. P ATTERSON.-I feel perfectly

satisfied that the Governor is spending more money than he receives from the State, and what he does in the way of hospitality is purely in the interests of the colony at large.· I trust that the proposal of the Go­vernment will be heartily concurred in by honorable members on both sides of the House.

Mr. V ALE.-Mr. Speaker, no doubt it is a somewhat ungraciolls task to oppose a proposition or this kind, but I am sent here as the representative of a large up-country district, and I believe that the sentiments which I am about to express on the subject are those of the people or that district. They view with a certain amount of alarm the enormous increase in the public expendi­ture, and more especially upon items which have no reference to the general welfare of the masses or the people. I feel certain that they will view the proposed vote to a great extent in the same light as the free-pass resolution was regarded. They will consider that the contemplated expenditure is not for the benefit of the colony generally but for the special benefit or the members of this House. (" No.") I am expressing my own opinion, at events. I say that the proposed expenditure is an unwise expenditure, and I feel confident that it will not be endorsed by the mass of the people of the colony.

Mr. WOODS. - Hear, hear. Snobo­cracy. That is the meaning of it.

Mr. V ALE.-The hospitality at Govern­ment HOllse is far in excess of what the bulk of the people believe is necessary. No doubt it is very pleasant to be invited to garden parties and dinners, but our func­tions are of a different character. Our duty is to promote the general welfare or the people. We have nothing to do with social life; and we shall be going entirely out of our way by making a grant for the purpose

contemplated by the Government. For my part, I cannot see what right every globe ... trotter who visits Victoria has to call upon the Governor and claim his hospitality. It is absurd to suppose that every man who. happens to have a seatin the British Parlia­ment should consider that he has a right,. when he comes here, to call at Government House and to be lodged there for a month at the expense of this country.

Mr. WOODS.-Why don't they go to' Scott's Hotel?

Mr. V ALE.-We are fully prepared to pay the Governor a good salary-a salary sufficient for his requirements as Governor or the colony, and sufficient to enable him to lay by a certain sum for a future day­but we have no right to agree to a vote of the kind intended by the Government. There· is no need for the colony to advertise itself in the way proposed. The benefits derived by the colony by visitors of the sort alluded to are few and far between. Neither the­natural resources of the colony nor its future prosperity will be promoted in any shape or form by the Governor giving a few more or' a few less dinners.

Mr. OOOPER.-Mr.· Speaker, I would be very sorry to say one word in ::my way reflecting on the gentleman who at present occupies the position or Governor of this colony. I believe that he has done his duty as fairly as, and perha.ps a great deal better' than, some other Governors; but, at the same time, I believe that the proposed vote will not be acceptable in the country dis­tricts. Personally, I have no objection to it; as a representative, I have a great ob .. · jection to it; and I am of opinion that, if my constituents were polled on the question, 19 out of every 20 of them would vote against any increase of the kind. The feeling amongst them is that the salary of the Governor is quite high enough. The general feeling is in favour of a decrease of expenditure. The people believe that whilst the country is enjoying a time of prosperity it ought, like private individuals under similar circumstances, to be husbanding its resources, and, if possible, reducing its ex­penditure. "Ve have had several Exhibitions here before, but I am not aware that a vote of the kind now proposed has ever been con .. templated or vindicated. It may be men .. tioned that the country has been led into· very considerable excess of expenditure in connexion with the Governor during the last few years. When the proposal for the Go .. vernor's country house was agreed to a year" or two ago, honorable members were told,

-2146 The Governor. [ASSEMBL Y. ] Special Grant.

that it would lead to very little expense as - far as the public were concerned-that it was

simply buying a piece of land, the increment on the value of which would be an asset to set against any expenditure that the country was put to-but we find that from year to year very considerable items appear on the Estimates in connexion therewith. As far 8S I am concerned, I shall have to oppose the proposed vote.

Mr. OARTER.-Mr. Speaker, I venture to suggest that the honorable member for Ballarat West (Mr. Vale) and the honor­.able member for Creswick (Mr; Cooper), both of whom have told us what their con­stituents will think of the proposal of the ·Government, should read the old fable of ." The Belly and the Members." In that fable exactly the same idea is expressed as those honorable members have given utter­ance to. They contend that Melbourne -the belly-is swallowing up everything at the expense of the country, which is the hands and the feet.

Mr. V ALE.-I did not say so. Mr. CAR TER.-The argument of the

honorable member for Ballarat West was .based on that idea. I will repeat what he said. He said that it was all very well for people in Melbourne to have dinners, balls, garden parties, and other entertainments given to them at Government House, and ·that the proposal of the Government was to increase those entertainments, but that the people in the country districts did not parti­.cipate in them. (" No.") That was the argument of the honorable member as I understand it, and the honorable member for Creswick repeated it.

Mr. COOPER.-I did not. Mr. CARTER.-I notice that, when I

am interrupted, I have always said some­thing which strikes home. Any intelligent man listening to the statements of those honorable members must have come to the ~ameconclusionas Ihavedone, because there is noother reasonable conclusion to be drawn from their remarks. I thoroughly endorse what was said by the honorable member for ·Castlemaine (Mr. Patterson), namely, that this is a subject which should not be debated at all.

Mr. SHIELS.-Why not ? Mr. CARTER.-I mean not in anoffen­

-£live manner. Mr. WOODS.-Isexpressinga difference

·of opinion being offensive? Mr: CARTER.-Not at all. I take a

. somewhat different view of the case from -.that .which has been expressed either by the

Premier or by the honorable member for Oastlemaine. I at once dismiss from the question all reference to the present occu­pant of the high position of Governor of this colony. I don't care, for the purpose of my argument, whether he has filled the office with satisfaction to the country or not. That has nothing whatever to do with the question. He is our Governor, and any honour we confer on him, or anything we do for him, is simply honouring ourselves.

Mr. WOODS.-Of course there is no limit to that.

Mr. OARTER.-There is a limit; but when I set up an idol I don't object to put a little gold upon it. In every way in which we exalt the Governor of the colouy we exalt the people of the colony . No greater mistake was ever made in this country than when, in consequence of some little tiff that occurred between thelate Sir John O'Sha­nassy ahd Sir Henry Barkly, the then Go­vernor, the salary of succeeding Governors was reduced from£15,000a year to £10,000. It was an improper thing to do, and we have suffered for it ever since. The remark of the Secretary of State for the Colonies at that time-I think it was the Duke of New­castle-was very significant. " We can give you a Governor," he said, "at any price you like to pay." Instead of the salary being £10,000 a year, I would like to see it increased to £20,000. There are two per­sons in Victoria who are expected to show hospitality to strangers coming here from other countries, namely, the Governor of the colony and the Mayor of Melbourne; and the result of their hospitality is that millions of money ha\re rolled into the colony during the last two years. We did not get English capital to the same extent before, because we were distrusted-the people of England did not know us, and were afra'id of us. It is an absurd and narrow':'millded idea that expenditure in Melbourne does an injury to the country districts. There is not a ball or an entertainment given in Melbourne which does not also benefit the country districts. A Mayor's ball, for in­stance, means the expenditure of thousands of pounds amongst the cabmen and shop­keepers of the city of Melbourne; and I presume that money enables those people to buy more of the products of the country than they would be able to do without it, and, perhaps, also to visit country districts. But, like the ha'nds and the feet in the fable to which I have already referred, many of the ~epresentatives of country dist.ricts say -" What does ~he belly mean by taking all

The Go't'ernor. [N OVEl\1HER 17.] Special Grant. 2147

the food, and leaving us without any 1" The fact, however, is that the country districts could not live without Melbourne. Mel­bourne, though apparently the consumer, is in reality the backbone and support of the. country. The more honour we confer upon the Governor-the greater facilities we give him for dispensing hospitality to strangers -the more we will benefit the whole colonv. I decline to admit that there is any separ~­tion of the interests of the town and those ()f the country; the interests of the one are bound up with the interests of the other. If the Government bring in a proposal to in­crease the salary of the Governor to £20,000 a year, I will gladly support it. I say this not with any special reference to the pre­sent Governor, but because I like to see a Governor well paid. It is better to pay a Governor well than to pay him badly and see him file his schedule, as an ex-Governor of a neighbouring colony recently did. That occurrence is one calculated to reflect dis­credit on the people of New South Wales, though probably they are not in any way responsible for it. The Governors of this colony have, as a rule, behaved splendidly in regard to entertaining strangers, and none more so than Sir Henry Barldy, in whose time the salary was reduced to what, in my opinion, is the ridiculously small sum of £10,000 a year. I shall be glad to see the salary increased to £20,000 a year. If the Government bring in any proposal to in­crease it for one year or permanently, there will be no warmer supporter of the proposal than myself.

Mr. SHIELS.-Mr. Speaker, my honor­a.ble friend, the member for West Mel­bourne (Mr. Carter) is very nice and very learned in apothegms and fables. The ap­plication which he wishes this House to make of the fable about the belly and the members is that Members of Parliament are to fill the bellies of well-born nobodies and titled strangers with·chicken and cham­pagne out of the pockets of the taxpayers ·of this country.

Mr .. CARTER.-That is unworthy of . you. .

Mr. SHIELS.-W earetold that when en­tertaining strangers we may be entertaining angels unawares; and no doubt the honorable· member thinks that gentlemen-scions of noble houses-who come here with letters cof introduction to His Excellency the Governor are strangers and angels too. I rise not for the purpose of answering the .argument of the honorable member that we :should increase the salary of the Governor

of this colony to £20,000 a year, but to enter my emphatic protest against, and un­qualified dissent from, the Government pro­posal. I do not desire to say one word that can be construed as a reflection upon the Governor or upon his wife. The unanimous verdict of the country will probably be that the vice-regal position has never been graced better or more efficiently than by Sir Henry Loch and Lady Loch. I am sure that His Excellency is a gallant, genial, English gentleman, and I am also sure that his wife is a gracious, genial, English gentlewoman. I say this because I am going to speak strongly against the proposal of the Go­vernment. Now let us look a.t the exact position which the Governor occupies. I want the House to understand thnt I am not going to make any personal reflections -that I s·hall not be open to the imputa­tion of saying anything which has any re­ference to the present Governor or his wife. What salary does His Excellency receive? Sir, the Governor of Victoria-a colony numbering about 1,000,000 souls-receives at present a salary of £10,000 a year; he has a house and grounds which are worth at least from £150,000 to £200.000; we have recently built for him a country residence, which his successor may not care to occupy; and we have also recently expended a very large sum of money, said to be several thousand pounds, on extra additions and fittings to a ball-room. Altogether, in various ways, the colony is paying the oc­cupant of the position of Governor at least £20,000 or £25,000 a year. And yet the honorable member for West Melbourne regrets that the salary was reduced from £15,000 a year to £10,000, and actually wishes to see it increased to £20,000. . Let us look at what the other colonies are doing. South Australia is paying its Governor '£5,000 a year, and we have the Chief Sec­retary of that colony distinctly saying, as part of the Government policy, that they will reduce the salary from £5,000 to £3,000, not in Sir William Robinson's time, but so that the reduction will apply to the next Governor. In New Zealand there is at present a proposition to reduce the salary of the Governor of that colony from £7,250 a year to £5,000. Then we must take into account that we have been not decreasing but lavishly increasing the cost to the coun­try of the Governor of this colony. We have been increasing his allowances, though the cost of living is cheaper in Victoria now than it used to be, so that £10,000 a year: at the present time is worth at least as much

2148 The Governor. [ASSEMBLY.] Special Grant.

as .£14,000 or £15,000 was at the time that we paid the Governor a salary of £15,000 a year. There is another view of the matter. We have seen the character of the Gover­nors who have been sent out here. 'Ve all adniit that in name the Governor is the representative of Her Majesty, but that is a mere political figment of the British Constitution. The Governor is in reality simply an officer in the department of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. It is the frown of the Secretary of State-tIle permanent head of his department-that he must fear, and,it is his smile that he must court. If we regard the duties which a Governor performs, if we look at them from the point of view or the severity of the labour demanded, the intellectual character of the work done, or the arduonsneEs of his undertakings, I venture to say that the work of the best Governor with whom the Australian colonies have ever been blest is far beneath, in public estimation in a de­mocratic community, the work performed by our Judges, by our magistrates, and by our permanent heads of departments. Yet we are going to increase the already large salary which we pay to our Governor. The in­crease will have to come out of the pockets of the ordinary taxpayers of the country.

Mr. GILLIES.-It is not salary at all. Mr. SHIELS.-I am going to speak

directly to the proposal to increase the Go­vernor's salary for next year by £6,000; but I wish to point out that one ground which the honorable member for West Melbourne urges in support of the proposal is that the Governor's salary should be permanently increased to £20,000 a year. The honorable member charged the honorable member for Ballarat West (Mr. Vale) with raising the cry of the country against the tOJVn; but the honorable member for Ba.llarat West did not say anything which could be fairly charac­terized as doing anything of the kind. The accusation of the honorable member for 'Vest Melbourne is simply an adroit attempt on his part to drag a red herring across the trail. Let us look a little more closely at the position occupied by the Governor. He is merely an ornamental figure-head of our Constitution. Wehave had this fact brought prominently before us recently by a discus­sion which has taken place in another colony, where a strong feeling is rising that the best means of appointing Governors has ·not yet been found. The people are not satisfied that we shall have broken-down noblemen sent out here, for the opportunity of nursing their estates, as has been done in this and

other colonies; or that we shall have wife­beaters, or drunkards, or debauchees placed at the head of colonial society, as has been done; or that we shall have Governors ap­pointed on account of the backstairs influ­ence which wives or other friends have been able to use with the Secretary of State; or that we shall have Governors, who probably did their duty consistently to the people over whom they were set, removed simply because they refused to advance the powerful rela­tives of Premiers or other officers of State in the old country. Do honorable mem bers suppose that we get the elite of the diplo­matic service-the cream of England's talent -to come ont here?

Mr. CARTER.-Not for £10,000 a year.

Mr. SHIELS.-No. In some cases we certainly get men who are thoroughly worthy of their sphere, but in many other cases we get men who are far beneath some of the common laboring men in this community for honour and honesty. In New Zealand this is as strongly felt as it; is elsewhere, and there is now actually brought within the domain of practical politics a proposal that the colonies shall not rest satisfied with having their official head of society, and head of the Government, appointed simply as the creature and as the creation or the Secretary of State for the Colonies, or of one who was referred to on a memorable occasion as "the man Rogers." The colo­nies are going, I believe, to demand that they shall have some choice in the appoint­ment of the man who is to lead society, who is to set us an example, and who is to govern us in the Queen's name. The sug­gestion of the honorable member for West Melbourne that we should increase our Governor's salary to £20,000 a year fairly startled me.

M.r. PATTERSON.-That is his own idea.

Mr. SHIELS.-But it is an idea which underlies the Governm.ent proposal.

Mr. GILLIES.-There is not an item of foundation for that statement, and you don't believe it.

Mr. SHIELS.-I am the only one who­can say what I do believe. I have seen the Government kites sent out to test the wind" through the ordinary Government channels -the newspapers. We have all seen it. Are we children not to know that newspaper reporters wait upon the head of the Govern­ment and various Ministers, and that,. through them, doubtful proposals are sent, abroad, so as to ascertain how the wind is·

The Governor. [NoVEMBER 17.] Special Grant. 2149

blowing? We all know it. Did not the Premier to-night, in reply to a question by the honorable member .for Brighton, first deny that he was responsible for a news­paper statement that Parliament is to be prorogued on the 15th December, and then immediately afterwards admit that that is the date on which the prorogation is in­tended to take place? I believe that, but for the expression or opinion first or all in the Age newspaper, and then in various country newspapers, against the proposal eitber to increase the salary of the Governor or to give him an allowance for the ensuing festivities, the Government would haye brought down a serious proposal to add to his yearly salary. They have abandoned that proposal because they see that the country is opposed to it.

'Mr. GILLIES.-That is not true. Mr. SHIELS.-I accept the denial of the

Premier that it is true, but, at all events, we had grounds for believing it to be true. People outside the House believed it to be true, and upon the strength of the impression which prevailed leading articles were written. I will now reply to the remarks of the honor­a.ble member for vVest Melbourne about the festivities at Government House. I do not think that it is the duty of a Governor to entertain at all in the way in which Sir Henry Loch has entertained. I am willing to admit that His Excellency has been most lavish, most generous, in his invitations to all and sundry. I certainly cannot for the life of me see how His Excellency, out of his £10,000 ayear,can stand the drain upon his resources. But I go further. Without singling out individuals, I must say it is my honest belief that two-thirds of the guests who have been drawn to Government House, a.nd there boarded and lodged at the Go­vernor's expense, have been ladies and gen­tlemen to whom His Excellency was not called upon, on any grounds whatever, to extend any hospitality at all.

lVIr. GILLIES.-How do you know? lVIr. SHIELS.-I am expressing myown

opinion. We have had titled globe-trotters, men of utterly insignificant position, who have never emerged from obscurity in Eng­land, living at Government House.

Mr. CARTER.-Lord Rosebery and Mr. Froude are men of some influence.

Mr. SHIELS.-If the honorable mem­ber for West Melbourne thinks that Mr. Froude's Oceania has raiEed the colony in the estimation of the peop]e of England, I totally dissent from him. The honorable member can appreciate the charm of literary

excellence, but I think that the slobber in Oceania must be offensive to his English instincts. That book, the production of an eminent historian, and a cultured Oxford man, absolutely disgnsted me, and, when I read it, I thought-" How are the mighty fallen." What good a few titled globe­trotters, who spend a few fleeting weeks or months here, do for the colony I fail to see. They have exhibited us as merely a servile crew, willing to gush at all times upon men who come out here with letters of introduc­tion to the Governor, and they have lowered us as an independent democratic community. VVe have seen the growth here of abomin­able snobbism. vVe recently had an exhi­bition of it, when the chief magistrate of the city of Melbourne actually perpetrated the old vulgar barbarism of placing one set of guests below the salt, and having another set or guests in a separate room, with dif­ferent viands and different wines. It was a vnlgar odious insult to offer to anybody.

Mr. CARTER.-That is not fair. Mr. SHIELS.- The honorable member

introduced the subject of the hospitalities of the Governor and the hospitalities of the Mayor of Melbourne; and I am pointing out that we 11ave seen, in connexion with these hospitalities, a growth of snobocracy in this country which ill befits a democratic community. I wish to protest against it. I wish also to make a furt,her prot,est. I don't see that luxury is of any service to a community. I <;1.on't think that lavish en­tertainments, sumptuous hospitalities, and the vulgar l)stentatious extravagance of wealth raises a community either in its own estimation or in the estimation of anybody else. \Ve have seen instances of luxury enervating a community and sapping its independence. In the name of my consti­tuents, and as the result of the principles which I have held for years, I desire to utter an emphatic protest against the State setting its seal on the proposition that it is the Governor's duty to entrrtain lavishly; to give garden parties, balls, and sumptuous banquets-to whom? Only to the very few. To those w bo ocell py public or official positions (and to those who have great wealth. Do the mass of the people in this community receive any benefit from these entertainments? 'They do not. It is only those who occupy public or official positions -it is only those who are supposed to be the cl'eme de la creme of the community­who are invited to Government House. It is not the toiling struggling masses of the community-it is not the honest worthy

2150 The Governor. [ASSEMBLY.] Special Grant.

taxpayers-who participate in these festivi­ties; but it is from their pockets that we are filching the means by which free feeds, cheap lodgings, and free board are given to people who come out here, and who ought to go to Scott's Hotel or to the Ooffee Palace instead of to Government.House. I say that we are departing from the ideal of democracy, and establishing a miserable system of court usages which ill befits a young community.

Mr. WOODS.-It is Liliputian. Mr. SHIELS.-The court usages of an

old country are just as ill befitting a young colony like this as the feathers of a pea­cock would be on a jackdaw. I feel per­fectly unembarrassed in speaking on this question, because I have never accepted either bite or sup at Government House. n I had been a guest there times out of number, as other honorable members have been, if I had put the Governor or his wife to any expense, I would' hardly have been able to rise and say what I am now saying. Of course, if the Governor likes to spend all his means in lavish entertainment, that is his look-out. I don't wish to interfere with him in the matter. But, in my capa­city as a representive of the people, I cer­tainly object to supply him with more money for that purpose. I object to the Legisla­ture countenancing or supporting the idea that a Governor is to spend all his means in entertaining all and sundry. I have heard complaints about the stinginess and greed of Governors who, on account of their age or other causes, have disliked to give entertainments; but it is an abomin­able idea that it is part of a Governor's duty to give balls, garden parties, or other enter­tainments. I desire, on behalf of future Governors, to protest against it. I do not wish to make bitter reHections on the past, but within the last month or two we have heard charges made of positions of. dignity and honour being given not to the most meritorious men but to men who could entertain the best. We have heard that years ago, when positions were vacant in another body, they were given on this ground, and men were passed over whose qualifica­tions far transcended those of their rivals. We know, as a positive fact, that positions like those to which I have alluded in guarded and vague terms so as not to be disrespect­ful to anybody, have, in the public estima­tion and in the estimation of a portion of the members of both Houses, been given not in the way in which public appointments by Act of Parliament ought to be given, but

for outside reasons and because the men upon whom they were conferred had the means and the inclination to spend lavishly on entertainments.

Mr. REID.-That is your opinion. Mr. SHIELS.-It is my belief, and it is

a belief which has been given utterance to both on the floor of this House and in the press. We ought not to let it go forth to the people of this democratic country that certain positions are to be given only to men who can jingle their guineas. The highest positions in the public service should be given to men who have proved their merit-not to men ""ho are wealthy or well born, but to those who have made use of their God-be­stowed faculties and have proved their ability to apply them properly. If we say that only gentlemen who are wealthy shall be appointed Governors, or shall be appointed to fill the chair .of the Mayor of Melbourne, or the President or Speaker's chair, we shall simply be setting up here a plutocracy of the very worst America.n character. . Aristocracies are bad, but in the estimation of every think­ing man a vulgar plutocrat far exceeds in baseness and potency of evil even a well­born aristocrat. There is another matter to which I wish to call attention. The Ohief Secretary told us one day, on the Hoor of this House, that the forthcoming Exhibition would cost the country nothing, but in the short space of one revolving moon-in less than an hour-the cost wa.s raised to £20,000. The sanction of the House and the .country to the Exhibition was really ob­tained by improper means and on fraudulent repre.sentationj and we are now told that it will cost the country from £130,00Q to £150,000.

Mr. STAUGHTON. - Sir, I rise te> order. I wish to know whether the honor. able member for Normanby is in order in discussing the Exhibition?

The SPEAKER.-The question is that. I do now leave the chair, in order that the House may go into Committee of Supply; and I think that, on that question, the hon­orable member is in order in referring to the Exhibition.

Mr. SHIELS.-I am only alluding to· the Exhibition by way of illustration. The proposal which we are now discussing is bro'nght before us because the Government consider that it will be necessary for the Governor to entertain very largely during the Exhibition year. Therefore, I am not travelling away from the subject. Where is this expenditure going to stop? First we were told that the Exhibition was to cost

The Governor. [NOVEMBER 17.J 2151

the country nothing, next that it would cost £20,000, then that it would cost £130,000 or £150,000, and now we have a special allowance of £6,000 proposed for the Go­vernor on account of the Exhibition. God knows how much more will be wanted. I dare say we shall have the Premier bringing forward some of those cunningly devised kites which, from his long experience, he is so well able to fly in order to test how the wind is blowing in regard to pro­posals for expenditure in other directions. Now let me point to another view of this question. I would like to ask the experi­enced head of the Government how the Go­vernor will be able, consistently with the Queen's instructions for his guidance, to sanction any measure authorizing the hand­ing over to him of this £6,000, because, in those instructions, His Excellency is ex­pressly forbidden to give his assent to any Bill " whereby any grant of land or money or other donation or gratuity may be made to himself" ? This raises a very interesting and very delicate constitutional question. There is another aspect. Supposing it fell to the lot of the present Governor, in the exercise of the prerogative of Her Majesty's representative, to decide whether the present Government should have a dissolution or not, would anyone feel that His Excellency would be unembarrassed in deciding that question? Here we have a Government who have voted him first a country residence, who have spent a large sum of money in fitting up his house, and who now bring down a proposal to give him £6,000 in ad­dition to his salary for one particular year. Why, at once the Governor's bona fides would be bitterly disputed. Those who ob­jected to the grant would say that the Go­vernor was not free to consider the claims of the Government apart from the obligation he was under to them for their bounty. In all these aspects-that. it is not the duty, and the people of the country will say it is not the duty, of the Governor to lavishly entertain; that it is not the duty of this House to vote the taxpayers' money for the purpose of lodging and boarding those who ought to be lodged and boarded at their own expense; that the people of this country have too much sense to say that entertainments an~ luxurious and sumptuous hospitality are of any service to the community; that we should not make it an understood thing that only a man of great wealth, can occupy our public stations; and that no Governor should feel himself under obligations to his Ministers for bounties or privileges-I think that if

this question had to be decided by the people, they would give to the proposal of the Go­vernment an emphatic" No."

Mr. McLELLAN. - Mr. Speaker, I submit that it is quite within the province of this Assembly either to ,grant or refuse this money; but it is altogether beyond our' province-it is altogether opposed to good taste....:....to criticise or 'interfere with the Go­vernor'sguestR, orto venture to say whom His Excellency should invite or not invite to his own private table. This House has no more right to interfere with the Governor's pri­vate affairs than it has to interfere with the private affairs of any private gentleman. Therefore, so far as that question is con­cerned, I hope this discllssion will drop. vVhat we have to consider is this: we have entered upon a great national undertaking. We are all members of the Exhibition Com­miSSlOn. As a member, I have done my best to make the Exhibition of next year a. success. The whole of the commissioners, by correspondence and otherwise, have done their best to induce the best talent of the world to visit Victoria next year; and the question is whether we shall allow distin­guished artists, soldiers, statesmen, and writers--

Mr. W. MADDEN.-Not forgetting distinguished capitalists.

Mr. McLELLAN.-For them, I have not the smallest consideration, because any fool can be a capitalist; but the distin ... guished men I refer to have been invited to come to Victoria next year in order to witness our enormous wealth; and are we to allow them to come and go without taking any notice of them? I expect the unanimous verdict of Victoria would· be that. such a thing could not possibly be allowed. The question then arises-Who is the proper party to undertake the entertaining or taking· notice of these distinguished visitors? We can scarcely expect it of the honorable mem­ber for N ormanby . We can scarcely expect it of the Premier or of any of his colleagues. I believe the Speaker might be disposed to undertake a part of the duty, and I have no doubt, from what I have witnessed already,. that he would be able to discharge it to the satisfaction of his guests. Can we expect the duty to be performed by the President;. of the Exhibition Commissioners? There­are few gentlemen who have the residences or the means to become the hosts of distin­guished visitors. Therefore it will be neces­sary for this House to vote a sum of money -whether it is handed over to the Governor or J:!.ot-to allow Qf some entertainment being.

2152 The Governor. [ASSEMBLY.] Special Grant.

given to the distinguished visitors who may come hither next year, whether the enter­tainment be in the shape of banquets or in expeditions to localities where an adequate idea may be formed of the resources of the .colony. Certainly the visitors will come, and somebody must take notice of them. Now do honorable members expect, do the people of Victoria expect, that any gentle­man can do this to a large extent at his own expense? It would be unreasonable to ex­pect any such thing. I consider, no matter what a few captious individuals may say~ that it is only a fair thing for the Legisla­tive Assembly to vote a sum of money for .the purpose. More than that, I am prepared to justify my action to my constituents. If they are displeased with me on that account, they can reject me at the next election.

Mr. \VOODS.-Sir, I think this is a most unfortunate discussion. I am very ·sorry it has been brought about. The worst enemy of the Governor could not have in­vented anything !llOre calculated to damage that gentleman's prestige and well-deserved and well-earned popularity. I don't suppose that anybody in this country has a better or higher appreciation of Sir Henry Loch than I have. I am speaking of him in his <tapa­city as an English gentleman, and I don't think I can give him a higher title. I need not remind honorable members that when the question about a summer residence for the Goveruor was raised, it was very doubt­ful how the democratic section would regard the proposal. I took a very lively interest in that matter. I thought it a perfectly -correct thing that the Governor should have the opportunity of retiring from city life now and then for a sojourn in the country. That proposal was carried. Now I am not quite in the position of the honorable mem­ber for Normanby. On two occasions, if not three, I have accepted the invitation of the Governor to entertainments at Govern­ment House.

Mr. PATTERSON.-It is everybody's duty to accept them.

Mr. vVOODS.-A duty is something which a man must perform or fail in doing what he ought to do. I recognise it as no duty of an honorable member to go to Go­vernment House. It may be his pleasure and will to do so, but certainly not his duty. With regard to the matter which tIle House has been discussing, I would like to ask, because certain English visitors come out here, is that any reason why Government House should be turned into a kind of cara­vansary ? W h0 are the people that find

their way there? Weare told that they are scions of the aristocracy. My Lord Tom Noddy, and my Lord Bareacres, and my Lord Fitz Nobody are all to be found there. But the simple question is, whether it is the business of this democratic colony to keep a kind of open house which is as a treacle-pot to flies to people of that sort? I don't think it is. It seems to me that in this we are departing entirely from the spirit and meaning of the Constitution under which we live. A great deal has been said about the vast ad vantage to be derived from dis­tinguished visitors honouring Victoria with their presence. What do distinguished visi­tors do when they go to Calcutta, Benares, or Bombay?

Mr. SHACKELL.-What did you do when you were there?

Mr. WOODS.-I did not ask the Hin­doos to pay for my lodging. But I am not a distinguished man. I never distinguished myself like Lord Ailesbury on the turf. But what mythical benefits do the colony get from these distinguished visitors? Let it be understood that there is no hospitality where there is a q'ldd pro quo. The idea of hospitality Ilnd the idea of a quid pro quo are .utterly abhorrent to each other. Is hospitality something which induces the expenditure in the colony of some millions of money?

Mr. CARTER.-No, it is not. Mr. WOODS.-But what did the lIOn.

orable member say just now? He said­" vVhat have we got? Why, we have got millions of their money."

Mr. CARTER.-I said that was the natural result of the hospitality-not that the hospitality was given to secure it.

Mr. COPPIN.-What about the recep­tion given to Australians in England last year?

Mr. WOODS.-That is susceptible of a very good explanation. The Australians were treated as they were in England, partly because they were relatives and friends, and partly out of astonishment that they were not niggers. The Australians were found to be white, and almost as well bred, well behaved, and well spoken as Cockneys. But I never heard tell of any of them hang­ing up their carpet bags at Buckingham Palace, or being feasted at the expense of the nation. The House of Commons was never asked to pass a vote to cover the ex­pense of hospitably entertaining the Aus­tralians. The Premier was not in his place when I commenced my remarks, and, there­fore, I will repeat what I then said-that

The Governor. [N OVElIIBER 17.] Special Grant. 2153

I am an admirer of Sir Henry Loch and his administration, and that I would like his well-won popularity to continue. But I fear that this discussion will place the Governor in a very false position-that it will have a tendency to make him unpopular throughout the country.

Mr. G1LL1ES.-1n order to dispel any misapprehension which may prevail, per­haps the honorable member will allow me to state that the Governor made no applica­tion at all in regard to this matter. I want that to be distinctly understood. The Go­vernment are anxious, on public grounds, to induce His Excellency to entertain the distinguished visitors whom the Exhibition will bring to the colony.

Mr. vVOODS.-1 am quite satisfied that tlle Governor would make no application; and I am sorry that the Governor's name and functions should luwe been drawn into the debate.

Mr. G1LL1ES.-It was not necessary. Mr. WOODS.-It would not have been

necessary if all of us were agreed on the subject, bnt some conscientiously differ. If an allowance such as is contemplated is necessary, which I deny-because I dissent altogether from the theory that this colony is called upon to entertain people who come here-1 could have wished that the Premier had been a kind or despot, who could have placed the amount to the debit of the colony without risking a debate like this at all.

The SPEAKER.-Perhaps I have no right to interpose, but I would like to re­mind honorable members that this matter does not emanate in any way from His Excel­lency the Governor. It is merely a proposal from the Ministry. Therefore, I would sug­gest that, as fal' as possible, His Excellency'S name should be kept out of the debate.

MI'. BROWN.-Sir, honorable members should bear in mind that this question has arisen through the determination of Parlia­ment that an Exhibition shall be held in Melbourne next year. It is a question with me whether it is fair to introduce, into this debate, the question of the Governor's salary or the question as to what His Excellency has done in the past. I concur with the honorable member for W cst Melbourne (Mr. Carter) that the Governor's unbounded hos­pitality lias been the means of attracting attention to the resources of the colony, and of inducing the importation of capital to assist in developing those resources; and yet there has been .no drain upon the public purse in connexion with that hospitality. I think that hospitalities of the kind are things

SESe 1887.-7 L

to be proud of and not deprecated. My own opinion is that the Governor is one of the hardest worked men in the colony. One day he is at an agricultural show held 150 miles away from Melbourne, and the next day he is attending a meeting of the Executive Council.

Mr. GRAVES.-And he has to read the Parliamentar.1J Debates.

Mr. BROWN.-1 hope he won't be troubled to read the debate of this evening. As to His Excellency's popularity, it was signally shown on the occasion of the open­ing of t.he Sandhurst Exhibition, when one could have walked upon the heads of the

. people who crowded the thoroughfares be­tween the rail way station and the Exhibition­building. !tis idletotalkaboutthe Governor being over-paid. Reference has been made to the hospitable way in which Australians have been treated in the old country. The honorable member for N ormanby says we did not send the right men; but that is a matter of opinion. 'Vhether we did or not, the fact remains that those who went from this colony were received with great hospi­tality, were taken through the length and breadth of the land, and were treated as re­presentatives of Australia. Under these circumstances, I say that similar courtesy should be extended to statesmen and other distinguished personages who may come here from the old country next year. Let it be borne in mind that we have invited them to come. What did we vote £150,000 for an Exhibition for? Because we thought we would thereby lift up this country in the estimation of the world. 'tVe desire that Exhibition to be graced by the presence of representative men from all parts of the world; but who is to entertain them? We have not the men with long purses and country mansions that there are in England. That being so, it is only right and proper that Parliament should step in, and see that the highest man in the land is sustained in the hospitalities which he will have to dis­pense during the Exhibition year.

Mr. OFF10ER.-Mr. Speaker, I admire the fearless manner in which the honorable member for N ormanby, on every occasion, rises to give utterance to his views, even when those views are singular .. On this occ~sion, he is decidedly singular in his views. The honorable member holds the opinion that the hospitalities at Government House are not acceptable to the community, because only a small portion of the commu­nity participate in them. The honorable member is young. He has not yet had

2154 The Governor. [ASSEMBLY.] Special Grant.

much experience of a certain kind or social life. I hope he will live long, and have around him a large family. I believe the honorable member is not in the habit of ac­cepting invitations to public entertainments, and especia.lly entertainments at Govern­ment gouse; but, if the day should come when the honorable member has to chaperon half-a.-dozen handsome daughters, he will find that he will be obliged to accept such invitations, and, above all, Government House invitations. Moreover, he will be reminded, by milliners' and other bills, that hospitalities involve a. large expenditure of money. There is no doubt that the com­munity, as a whole, benefit largely by the hospitalities exercised by His Excellency the Governor, and by various gentlemen of for­tune and position throughout the country. I believe there is no more popular man in the community than our respected Governor. No doubt he has been most lavish in the exercise of hospitality, and there is an evi­dent desire on the part or the Government that the willing horse should not be pressed too hard. The present occupant of Govern­ment House is a gentleman who will enter­tain-who will exercise the hospitality which is enjoined by Scripture. Let me tell the honorable member for Normanby that we are enjoined by Scripture to "use hospi­tality one to another without grudging." " Luxury" is not the term at all. Seeing that that is the case-seeing, moreover, that we are going to have an Exhibition which is to outrivnl anything that has been done in the past-I think it is only a reasonable proposition that the Governor should be as­sisted in this matter of entertaining visitors, and particularly as there is no doubt that the bringing hither of gentlemen of position and influence from England doesan illlmense deal of good to the country.

Mr. GHAVES.-Sir, I intend to support the GO\7crnment proposal, and, if my con­stituents are mean enough to reject me in consequence, I don't want to be their mem­ber. I co.nsider we owe a great deal to Lord Rosebery and other distinguished travellers for the way they have brought the colony into prominence, showing what an admirable field it offers for investment. I belie,e that some of the best writers who have drawn attention to the colony and its resources have written their works from Government House; and this is what Baron von Hubner says of that establishment in his book, Through the British Emph'e :-

"Government House, which crowns a height Dutside the town on the left bank of the Yarra

Yarra, was built a few years ago at the expense of the colony, at a cost of £100,000. The ball room. is 18 feet longer than the great hall of BuckIngham Palace. The Victorians wish to outstrip all the world. They are found fault with and ridiculed for this ambition but as it s~e~s to me, unfairly. People who ha~e n~ mis­giVIngS, whose enterprise is unlimited, and who are checked hy no obstacle-these are made of t~le right stuff, and can go a long way. It is not Simply ostentation; it is a proof of force and daring, and force and daring lead to success when they do not lead to ruin.

" Th,e size of th}s edifice, and especially of the receptIOn rooms, Increases the expenses of the Governor, and becomes socially a cause of em­barrassment. Every Victorian has a right to be present at the ball given by the Governor whose hospitality knows no limits but those 'of the locality. Thus, the larger the rooms the more mi.xed is the company, out no one is shocked at thiS except those who cannot or do not wish to understand things as they really are."

That enormous establishment was built by this Parliament, but what was the good of building it if we are not prepared to vote money to enable it to be properly maintained? What was it built for but that the Governor of the colony should fittingly dispense hos­pitality, .ll?t to loafers, but to men of ability and pOSition, who have only to visit the colony to be induced to take an interest in its prosperity. If we build a Government House with a ball-room larger than the great hall of Buckingham Palace, surely we ought not to begrudge furnishing the Governor with ample means to entertain those who may be the guests of the colony during the Exhibition year.

Mr. SHIELS.-The House of Oommons never voted one penny to the Queen to do anything of the kind.

Mr. G RA VES.-The sum of £60000 was voted from the funds of the Indian'Go­vernment to fitly entertain the Prince of Wales when he went to India' and the Oolonial-office List gives many' instances of allowances being granted for similar purposes.

Mr. 'V. M. OLARK.-Sir, I vield to no one in respect to the Governor; but I hold that there is snch a thing as payinO' too dear for one's whistle. As to the al'g~lment of the honorable member for Dundas, that £6,000 of the people's money should be expended on entertainments at Government House merely in order that the future daughters of the honorable member for Nor­manby may have the chance of picking up husbands, I must say that I never heard anything more extraordinary.

Mr. OFFIOEH.-That is your con-struction of the argument. . .

Mr. W. M. OLARK.-That is the only construction which it will bear. 'Y ith respect

The Governor. [NoVEMBER 17.] Special Gmnt. 2155

to the money voted for the entertainment of the Prince of vVales on his visit to India, I may mention that, not long afterwards, £20,000 was subscribed in this colony to­wards saving people in India from perishing by starvation. I object to vote any portion of the people's money for the entertainment of titled paupers who come to the colony. If such persons are not able to pay their hotel bills, they had better stay away.

Mr. JONES.-Mr. Speaker, I think there has been a great deal of matter im­ported into this debate which might with very great advantage have been kept outof it. I don't think it is at all necessary to criticise the people who come here, or the motives which may prompt them to come here. The matter we have to consider is what is our duty, and what is the best way in which we can carry it out. I wish that before the matter was mentioned to the House by the Premier it had been first discussed among honorable members, so that we would have known precisely how it would be dealt with in this Chamber. Of course it is very easy to be eritical after the event. The honorable member for Delatite has referred to the fact that the Indian Government allotted £60,000 f-or the entertainment of the Prince of Wales when he went to India; but I may tell the honorable member that when the brother of the Prince of Wales came here, we voted in the first place £100,000, and afterwards an additional £25,000 to entertain him. Be­sides that, the people expended an enormous sum. Not one borough in the colony which was visit.ed by the Duke of Edinburgh but ,gladly drew from its own funds, as well as from the pockets of private citizens, money to adequately celebrate the event. I have no desire that this country should go back in its sense of what is due to the rites of hospitality, but I think it is not a wise thing to spring this subject upon the House without previous concert among honorable members.

Mr, GILLIES.-The honorable member for Mornington asked me a question on the ·subject the other day; and I said I would make a short statement when I submitted the Additional Estimates.

Mr. ,JONES.-I think the statement might have been very well discussed before-11and with the leader of the Opposition. I have not one word to say against His Excel­lency the Governor. I believe he is deservedly popular; and I consider that his name ought not to come into this debate at all. It is al­together a blunder for the Governor's name to be flung from side to side of this chamber.

7L2

I believe £6,000 will not be enough, that more money will be required, to do jus­tice to the hospitalities of the Exhibition year; but, as the honorable member for Normanby has suggested, it is not within the record for the Governor to assent to anything in the way of a gratuity being made to him for this particular purpose. His Excellency is precluded from doing anything of the kind by instructions which we cannot annul.

Mr. GILLIES.-There will be no gra­tuity.

Mr. JONES.-Call it what you will, it will be impossible to hand over the money in such a way as not to corne within the lines of the very carefully drawn instructions quoted by the honorable member for N or­man by. I think it is worthy of considera­tion whether we c(Juld not go over ground like t.hatwhich was traversed when the Duke of Edinburgh came here. Then a Royal commission was appointed. Why should there not now be a Royal Reception Com­mission, presided over by some prominent citizen, say the Chief Justice; and why should not that gentleman-who enjoys the respect, nay more, the love of the people-be repre­sentative of the colony in this matter of dispensing hospitality? The arrangement would relieve the Governor from a most onerous position. His Excellency has quite enough work to do without being called upon to disburse £6,000 in dispensing hospitality to persons who have no personal claim upon him. It has been suggested that £10,000 a year is not enough allowance-I don't like the word salary-for the Governor of this colony. Well, the President of the United States, who rules over 60,000,000 people-sixty times the number of people in this colony-and rules with more power than is exercised by the Queen within her dominions, only receives 50,000 dollars or £10,000 a year, precisely the allowance that we give our Governor. It has been suggested that as India allotted £60,000 for hospitality _ on the occasion of the Prince of vVales' visit, we should do something extensiveduring the Exhibition year. India, with 300,000,000 of inhabitants, gave £60,000, and we, with 1,000,000 people, are to give £6,000. I dare say we would as readily give £10,000 or more; but let the mOIley be placed under the control of a commisRion, and let the hospitalities be dispensed in the name or the people. Let them be so dispensed that they will give pleasure to the common people as well as to the wealthy. These views are not offered in any grudging spirit; they

2156 The Govern01·. [ASSEMBLY.] Special Grant.

are not offered with any desire to detract one feather from the Governor's popularity; nor are they intended to detract from the reputation for luyalty well earned by the people of Victoria. But I feel satisfied that it is not possible for His Excellency to re­ceive this sum supposing it should be voted; and that we can carry out all the neces­sary hospitalities a thousand times better by means of a Royal commission· than by any vote given to any gentleman whatsoever.

Mr. BOSISTO.-Sir, I did not intend to speak on this occasion, and I would not have ventured to rise but for the references made by one or two honorable members to the hospitality showed by the people of Eng­land to colonists who visited that country last year. Hospitality was shown to those colonists by corporations, by noblemen, and even by the poorer people. None of the visitors from Australia could go to a small village without the place being decorated and other outward expressions of welcome being indulged in. In fact, rich and poor were unbounded in their hospitality. They seemed as if they could not do enough by way of welcome for people who came from the Australian and other colonies.

:lVIr. SHIELS.-The House of Commons did not vote the taxpayers' money for the purpose.

Mr. BOSISTO.-Money was spent by the Imperial Parliament, during the holding of the Colonial and Indian Exhibition, in extending hospitalities to colonists; and corporations, both large and small, also spent money freely in the same direction. The fact was that the colonists were re­cognised as brotl;1ers-with a desire that every respect should be shown them for the work they were doing in distant lands. Under these circumstances, I consider it would be a very ungracious act on our part if we were in no way to recognise the pre­sence of distinguished gentlemen who may be expected here from Great Britain during the Exhibition year. I say that we should show those gentlemen every welcome and hospitality we possibly can, if only as a re­turn for the kind treatment bestowed by English people upon colonial visitors last year.

Mr. J. HARRIS.-Mr. Speaker, I shall never vote for anything more cheerfully than for this proposal of the Government.. It commands my entire approbation. I repre­sent one. of the largest constituencies in Victoria-the largest in point of numbers; a constituency that includes a large. pro­P?rtion of the democratic element; and I

am quite convinced that my constituents will approve most heartily of the scheme propounded by the Treasurer. The honor­able member for N ormanby bas a::lserted that the people won't agree to the arrange­ment. I was suprised to hear the honor­able mem ber make such a statement. The honorable member, who came into Parlia­ment in the conservative interest, bas de­livered one of the strongest democratic· speeches I ever heard.

Mr. SHIELS.-I never entertained other opinions since I have been capable of forming any.

Mr. J. BARRIS.-The honorable mem­ber came into this House in the constitu­tional and conservative interest.

Mr. SHIELS.-In the constitutional interest; but I always claimed to be a liberal.

Mr. J. HARRIS.-I can only say that the money spent by the Governor does a· large amount of good. It benefits hundreds and thousands of our tradesmen and working people; and I am quite convinced that al­most every person outside will go in heartily for this proposal.

Mr. BO U RCHIER.-Sir, I think the remarks of the honorable member for Rich­mond (Mr. Bosisto) clearly show that the' Government proposal wBI only serve half the purpose it should achieve. It is clear that the money which may be expended under that proposal will be for the enter­tainment only of distinguished visitors­persons of high rank; but I hold that some­consideration should be extended to the' artisans who are likely to find their wa.y here during the Exhibition year. I cannot concur in the remarks of the honorable· member for Mandurang (Mr. Brown) and the honorable member for West Melboume· (Mr. Carter) as to the hospitality extended to distinguished visitors hitherto having hall

· the effect of advertising the colony to such , an extent that people here have benefited.·

The natural resources of Victoria are the· best in Australia.

Mr. BROWN.-vVhat has helped to develop them?

Mr. BOURCHIER.-The energy and ability of the people, which have done more·

· for the colony than all the recommendations of distinguished visitors. I can only sa.y

· that, whenever the proposal is submitted to· the House, I shall vote against it.

Mr. GORDON.-Mr. Speaker, I quite· concur in the views expressed by my honorable

, colleague (Mr. Patterson) about this matter. ; I am quite satisfied that our constituents.

Supply. [NoVEMBER 17. ] Public Instruction. 2151

.will not blame us for supporting the Go­vernment proposal. I think it would be very discreditable to the colony if, during the next year, when we expect a large in­flux of distinguished visitors, the cost of entertaining them should be drawn from the ,Governor's private resources. I think the least we can do is to cheerfully fall in with the Treasurer's proposal.

The House then went into Committee or Supply, for the consideration of the Addi­tional Estimates.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.

On the vote of £5,057 for the Education -department,

Mr. PA1'TERSON drew attention to the item or £200 "in aid of Castlemaine School of Mines," and expressed surprise at this institution not being placed more on a level with the Schools of Mines of Sandhurst and Ballarat. Why was it not allowed to share in the general vote for Schools of Mines?

Mr. GILLIES stated that in placing a grant for the Oastlemaine School of Mines on the Estimates for the first time, it was

'found convenient to deal with it separately. Next year it would appear in conjunction with the other institutions of the same kind.

Mr. PATTERSON said the Oastlemaine School of Mines was already a great success, for it had made most rapid progress. The people of the district were evidently most anxious to avail themselves of the means of technical education it afforded. Under the .circumstances, the vote ought to be increasea to £500. The obligations of the institution, which the public had supported with money .as well as they could, amounted to fully £700 or £800.

Mr. GILLIES observed that £200 was all that was asked for on its behalf. (Mr. Patterson-" No one knew then how it would tum out.") At any rate, the fact that the amount was not more was hardly the fault of the Government. Still he could promise the honorable member that the Minister of Public Instruction would not be .chary of a little extra assistance if it was needed.

Mr. VALE called attention to the item 'oof £2,000 for a school of biology at the Melbourne University, and asked the Min­ister of Public Instruction whether anything had come of the promise made by him, when the general vote for the U ni versity was 0

under consideration, that he would endea­vour to iHduce the University authorities to lower their special charges in connexion

with matriculation examinations in the country districts? It was unbecoming in such an institution to make charges of such an outrageous character as those were.

Mr. PEARSON stated that, on the oc­casion alluded to by the honorable member, he (Mr. Pear~on) expressed the opinion that it would be wise for the University to make its cbarges to country students as moderate as possible. Since then he had written to the Ohancellor pressing the subject upon his attention, but as yet he had received no reply.

Mr. BENT asked the Minister of Public Instruction whether the officials or his de­partment had directed his attention to the case or the retired Heathcote teacher, whose house the department promised to buy. That promise had, however, not been ful­filled, with the result that the property had remained unoccupied for nine or ten months.

Mr. PEARSON inquired whether the honorable member for Brighton could give the teacher's ~ame? (Mr. Bent-" I have forgotten it.") He fancied the case referred to must be identical with one in which the honorable member for South Bourke had interested himself. No definite promise to buy the house was given, but the department unquestionably expressed a wish to purchase it. U nrortunately, the inspector reported against such an arrangement, and the matter was further complicated by the use of language by the late teacher which was anything but discreet. Under all the cir­cumstances the At.torney-General was asketl to arbitrate, and, he having adjudged in the teacher's favour, the latter would receive the full amount of the purchase money.

The vote was agreed to.

WINDSOR RAILWAY OOLLISION.

On the vote of £1,750 forthe Law officers of the Orown,

Mr. BENT observed that this money was asked for to defray" costs and expense:::! of legal proceedings, &c.," and he presumed that the vote would cover the cost of the inquiry into the Windsor railway accident • \Vollld the Attorney-General give some ex­planation with respect to the fees paid to the counsel engaged in that business?

Mr. \VRIXON said he had a list of fees paid which he would be happy to hand to the honorable member. (Mr. Bent-" I want an explanation which will go to the public.") The amount paid to Mr. Purves was £974, which seemed rather large, while that received by Mr. Coldham, the junior

2158 S~tpply. r ASSEMBLY.] Imperial Institute. ,I

counsel, was £159, apparently a more rea­sonable figure. Several points had, however, to be taken into consideration. .The pro­ceedings lasted a fortnight, during which period there were several outside courts sit­ting, and Mr. Purves had to give up all his business in connexion with those courts, in order to devote his whole attention to the inquiry. It was the wish of the Govern­ment and also the Railway Oommissioners that he should do so.

Mr. BENT said he wanted it to be under­stood that he was not raising any special objection to the sum paid to Mr. Purves, whom everybody knew to be an eminent counsel. But why did not the different amounts appear separately on the Estimates? Votes of a com paratively similar kind in con­nexion with other departments-the Rail­way department, for example-were always set out in detail.

Mr. GILLIES explained that the prac­tice was, and had been for many years, to embrace all these fees in a lump sum, which was intended to meet the expenses in that direction for the year. Frequently the entire amount was not expended.

Mr. LAURENS expressed the opinion that the cost of the vVindsor accident inquiry ought to come out of the railway revenue.

Mr. GILLIES stated that it was the Government who ordered the inquiry, and the Attorney-General undertook to employ proper counsel for the purpose.

The vote was agreed to.

ADELAIDE .JUBILEE EXHIBITION.

On the vote of £12,343 forthe Treasurer's department,

Mr. 'Y. M. CLARK called attention to the following item:-

"To reimburse Hailway department cost o£ conveyance of mem bers of the Metropolitan Lie­dertafel, Melbourne to Serviceton, en 1'oute to Adelaide, £320 11s. 9d." and asked for some explanation of the ex­penditure.

Mr. GILLIES stated that the Adelaide J ubiIee Exhibition Oommissioners intend­ing to give a grand musical entertainment, in honour of the opening of their Exhibition, the Government of Victoria were asked, through His Exc\=lllency the Governor, whether they could not arrange to pass the members of the Metropolitan Liedertafel free over the Victorian portion of the line between Melbourne and Adelaide. As a friendly act towards the sister colony, Minis­ters thought they might go as far as that,

but, not caring to ask the Rail way Com­missioners to make the concession, they deemed it best to put the amount of the fares on the Estimates.

JUBILEE MVSIOAL FESTIVAL. Mr. BENT said he would take the oppor­

tunity to inquire how many free tickets were issued in connexion with the Jubilee Musical Festival held at the Melbourne Exhibition­building? (Mr. Gillies-" I do not know of any.") 'vVell, that was strange, for although the hall was well filled, and the tickets were lOs. 6d. each, the result of the affair was a loss of some £400, which the Government had bad to pay. He was at the concert, and, in view of the number of people assembled there, he imagined, at the time, that a financial success was certain. Under the circumstances one would fancy that there must have been any number of "dead­heads ~, among the audience. .

Mr. GILLIES stated that the Govern­ment were very anxious to make the jubilee celebration a success, and, when it was sug­gested that there should be a grand musical entertainment at the Exhibition-building, in which all the great musical societies would

. take part, Ministers were i,nclined to look upon the proposal with favour. Subse­quently, it being represented that, in order to make the co-operation of the musical societies certain, there must be a guarantee against loss, the Government eventually consented to give one. It was never ex­pected that the country would be put to the cost of a single £1, but, as matters turned out, the festival was not the financial suc­cess that was anticipated. All he could say was that, as far as he knew, not a single free ticket was issued. It was understood: from the first that e,erybody would pay .. For himself, he was so extremely dissatisfied with the way the affair was managed, that he was not likely to allow the Government. to be a party to any more guarantees of the· kind.

THE IMPERIAL INSTITUTE.

Mr. SHIELS drew attention to the following item:-

"Contribution by Victoria towards the Im­perial Institute of the United I{ingdom, the Colonies, and India - the national memorial of' the completion of fifty years of the reign of Queen Victoria, £5,922."

He stated that everyone knew that the Imperial Institute had had, from the first, the advantage of Her Majesty's sincerest good wishes and most e~rnest efforts to make it a.

Supply. [NoVEMBER 17. ] Imperial Institute. 2159

success, and that, in addition, HIe loyal as­sistance and co-operation of the beir apparen t had been gi\7 en in the samedirection. N ever­theless, the scheme could not be said, taking the sense or the newspapers of England, or, at all events, of a large proportion of them, to have the unanimous support of the people of England. A very considerable section of the English community had expressed thorough disapprobation, not only of the enterprise generally, but also of the site on which the institute was to be established. They belie\7ed tllat the affair was undertaken with ulterior objects-with distinct under­lying motives. Of course, everyone had heard of the cry raised against the" South Kensington gang," and of the demands made upon them for the accounts of certain South Kensington exhibitions which had been represented as achieving a great suc­cess-demands which were repelled for a length of time. On this point, however, he would not say more than that, no matter whether the feel ing he alluded to was well or ill founded, the sanction the institute hnd recei vecl from the greatest sovereign that ever ruled over the Empire had not caused it to obtain the cordial support or the Eng­lish people. Nor, he would undertake to say, had it received the cordial approbation of 1.he people of Victoria. l,T nceasing efforts had been made to get the assent to it of the various municipal bodies throughout the col­ony, but, speaking for some of the municipal bodies of the district which he represented, what they had done, so far as he knew, was this: they had asked-" "Vhat benefit can the colony hope to get from the institute ?" And because they had received no satisfactory answer on that head, they had distinctly refused to take any further notice of the invitation to contribute. The Go\'ernment now asked the Legislature to vote a large sum for the institute, and while he was not prepared to say definitely whether it would be wise or unwise to fall in with their view, he certainly thought it would very well be­come the Treasurer to explain, not only to the House but to the country generally, what advantage was likely to accrue to the colony from the contemplated expenditure. Particularly should he explain what benefit could be expected in view of the very strong objections there were to the site chosen. But he (Mr. Shiels) would not go into that question. The practical line for honorable members to take was for them to ask them­selves whether they, as trustees of the public revenue, would be justified in voting close upon £6,000 in aid of erecting a huge

superstructure, 12,000 miles away, in order to celebrate the event of Her Majesty's jubilee? Of what possible use would the institute be to the colony? Could the proposed contri­bution be vindicated on the ground of sen­timent? On the other hand, were honorable members to a3sent to the vote simply in response to the anxious canvass of certain persons in high position-to the almost undue solicitation with which the scheme had been pressed forward ? No scheme was ever so pressed forward in England as this scheme had been pressed forward. To some extent, indeed, demands had been made for support in its behalf upon those who could ill afford to give it.' Honorable members had doubtless heard of how the different services-naval, military, and civil-had been urged in the matter by people whose favour or the reverse might be deemed im­portant. They had also perhaps heard of cards or invitation being sent throughout the length and breadth of the land. Had not some of the radical pnpers described the con­tributions so obtained as no better than forced contributions, because they could not have come from the heart? For llimscH, to whatever views the Government might haye been brought round, he was by no means st,rongly impressed with the case set up for tIle institute. Therefore he felt that, berore honorable members allowed. them­selves to be induced to lend their sanction directly or indirectly to the proposed expen­diture, they should insist upon having some just.ification for it placed before them.

Mr. GILLIES said he wondered whether he was not taking too much for granted when he assumed that the honorable mem­ber for Norman by, among other hOllorable members, had read the papers relating to the Imperial Institute which had been dis­tributed, and which afforded all the infor­mation he asked for. (Mr. Shiels-" I have seen no papers on the subject.") They had Leen both laid on the table and for­warded to every honorable member. The movement in favour of the Imperial Insti­tute was practically the outcome of the Colonial and Indian Exhibition. It was thought desirable to raise a permanent memorial in honour of the Queen's Jubilee, and, after considerable discussion, it was decided that it shouIn take the form of an Imperinl Institute, which would include, not only Great Britain, but all the colonies and India. At the beginning of the year, and before any communication on the subject had been received by any of the colonies, it was decided in England that there should be

2160 Strpply. [ASSEMBLY.] Imperial Instz'tute.

a permanent exhibition in London of the products a'nd manufactures from time to time of the Empire l and it was thought that the various colonies would join in contributing to the scheme. The idea was that the in­stitute should be "acentra.l source of information upon all matters relating to the natural and industrial resources, the tmdes and handicrafts, and the commerce of every part of the Empire; and afford facilities to all classes for acquiring practical knowledge regarding' known and new materials, and infor­mation relating to inventions made and industrial achievements accomplished at home, in the colo­nies, and in foreign countries."

In another paper the organizing committee stated-

"Their desire, therefore, in the outline of the scheme which they recollJmend, is to combine in a harmonious form, and with a view to some practical and useful purpose, a representation of the colonies and India on the one hand, and of the United Kingdom on the other. They submit that this object will be best indicated by giving to the memorial the title of the Imperial Insti­tute of the United Kingdom, the Colonies, and India."

(Mr. W. M. Olark-" vVill this vote be a recnrring one ?") No. The" outline'" referred to in the extract he had just read contained the following :-

" As to contributions from the colonies, it is distinctly understood that colonies contributing a lump sum will not be asked for annual contri­butions, and that the lump sum will be the only financial responsibility."

When he first received information upon the subject, he sent communications to the Governments of the other colonies, in order to ascertain their views in respect to it, with the result that he gathered that they were all prepared to join in the movement, and to recommend to their several Parliaments to grant surns which would in the aggregate make up a total contribution of £20,000. The individual contributions would be­Victoria, £5,922; .New South Wales, £5,915; New Zealand, £3,479; Queens­land, £2,019; South Australia, £1,845; and so on. The allotment was strictly on the basis or population. Since then the Government of New Zealand had agreed to grant, in lieu of a lump sum, an annual allowance of £1,000 for ten years. This amount capitalized would make up a larger contribution than that of either Victoria or New South Wales. He did not see how, with all the other colonies joining in, Vic­toria could refrain from taking the share it had done. It had often been said that it was most difficult to obtain in London full and direct information with regard to any of the colonies, but, with the Imperial In­stitute in working order, there would be no

Mr. Gillies.

longer any ground for the complaint. Every one who went to it would be able to gather the most comprehensive, as well as the most minute, particulars that could be required with respect to every colony of the Empire, and, at the same time, the institute would include a permanent exhibition, showing the precise industrial advance made by each of them. The cost of periodically sending ex­hibits to the institute wuuld possibly be an occasionally recurring expense, but it would be very small. Perhaps it would never be more than about £200 per annum.

Mr. WOODS inquired if the authorities of the institute would publish a balance­sheet? The" South Kensington gang " refused to publish one.

Mr. GILLIES said that what the hon­orable member for Stawell had in his mind arose from the circumstance that one or two London journals-one in particular-had tried to write down a certain number ofgen­tlemen connected with the Oolonial and In­dian Exhibition; but that exhibition had no connexion whatever with the institute. The institute was a totally different affair, and would be constituted in an entirely different way. The following would show how it was to be managed-

"The governing body of the institute is pro­P9sed to be constituted as follows :-A gene­ml council of 100 members, viz. :-10 to be nominated by the Queen, 45 to represent the United Kingdom and isles in the British seas, 30 to represent the colonies, 15 to represent the Indian Empire. Tota.I.100. The 30 Colonial re­presentatives to beas follows:-Canada Dominion and Provinces, and Newfoundland, 10; Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia, Queens­land, and Tasmania, two each, 10'; New Zealand, 2; Cape Colony, 2; Crown Colonies, 6. Total, 30. Half the entire space in the institute, in no way inferior to the other half, to be reserved for the colonies and India, and each colony to have control of its own section."

The contribution of Oanada would be the same as that of Australia, namely, £20,000, the Oanadian population being 4,500,000 as against the 3,350,000 which constituted the population of the Australian colonies. This difference was, huwever, not worth noticing. He did not see how, under all the circum­stances, the Government could very well

. help taking the part they had done, and mak­ing the proposal which hono'rable members were now asked to adopt.

Mr. PATTERSON stated that he did not know that the Government could do anything else than join with the other colo­nies in this affair. There did not appear to be very much sympathy in the colony with the institute, but, arter all, that did not very much matter. Perhaps the proposal was too

Supply. [NoVEMBER 17.] Imperial Institute. 2161

novel. Certainly it was rather novel to him­self. Nevertheless, he was pp,rrectly ready to accept it. The institute was intended to manifest the loyalty of the old country, and it would not do for the colonies to be behind­hand. Some honorable members had talked .about snobbery, but he did not care for re­rnarksor that kind at all. Wherever one went, one found snobbery. He dare say there was as much snobbery in Buckingham Palace as there was anywhere else. The point was that being an Englishman, and belonging to the English nation, was some­thing to be proud or, and that British sub­jects ought to be brought together as much as possible. After all, they were one family, and, in one sense, each was dependent on the other. England was proud of her colo­nies, and her colonies were proud of her. It would be of mutual benefit for both to work hand in hand, and, because the present move­ment went in that direction, he would sup­port it.

Mr. LANGRIDGE expressed the opinion that no money could possibly be bette I' spent than this £5,922 would be. When he was in England he was grieved to find how little was known of the colonies. This ignorance existed with respect, not to Victoria par­ticularly, but to all the colonies. They seemed to be a sealed book, so far as E ng­land generally was concerned. One of the best things that ever occurred at home in fa\Tour of the colonies was the Colonial and Indian Exhibition, and the main objection ·offered to it by the enemies of the "South Kenf::ington gang" was on the ground that it was kept open at night, and drew the ·crowd. Frequently there were 50,000 people there in the evening. As to the site or the institute, to which the honorable member for N ormanby had referred, it was adopted by one of the strongest committees ever formed, and they had so \Tery difficult a question to tackle that it was natural enough to find that there was still some difference or opinion ·on the subject. One thing was certain, namely, that honorable members could not do a wiser thing than carry this vote. The institute would help immensely to make the colonies known.

Mr. VALE remarked that, nowadays, there was a strange reeling abroad, namely, that every colony must be advertised. People seemed to forget that the prosperity of a colony was derived not from ad ver­tising it but from the development or its natural resources. As for attracting popu­lation to Victoria, that would solely depend upon the strain iu which the people here

wrote to their friends at home. He had no objection to the vote, nor did he think any one in the colony would object to it; but honorable members were justified in in­quiring as to how the institute would be managed. No doubt many of the charges brought against the "South Kensington gang" had a certain. amount or truth in them, and it would be most unbecoming for the colony to contribute money which would simply be handed over to a body of that kind. But, if he was not mist.aken, none of those against whom those charges were brought had anything to do with the man­agement of the institute. Another thing was that he most thoroughly objected to be lectured about his loyalty because he hap­pened to raise some question about an item or expenditure. He was as loyal and as anxious to keep up the BI'itish connexion as any man in the Empire; but he claimed the right to object to every item or the Estimates which he did not think was needed.

Mr. ANDREWS stated that he quite concurred in the proposal emuodied in the vote; but it seemed rather unfair that Vic­toria, which would contribute nearly one­third of the entire amount to be sent from Australia, would have no more representa­tion in the governing body of the institute than the smallest colony of the group.

Mr. LAURENS thought the honorahle member for Normanby was perfectly justi­fied in asking that the vote should be ex­plained; but he (Mr. Laurens) regarded the information afforded by the Treasurer as eminently satisfactofy. That Victoria should stand out in the matter was not to be heard of. At the same time, he would point out that, if each colony was to have charge of its own court, it would have to incur some sort of annual expenditure.

Mr. GILLIES said that, in referring to the financial responsibility or the colonies which would contribute lump sums, he merely quoted the language or the Agent­General. At the same time he believed that the governing body of the institute would provide for the general expenditure. (Mr. C. Y onng-" "Vhat income will it have ?") Probably a large one, from admis­sion fees. It was intended that the institute should be thoroughly self-supporting.

Mr. LAURENS considered it was now clear that the institute would not involve an annual charge upon this colony, and he was glad that its real nature had been made l~nown. It was to be a permanent exhibi­tion, and as such it would recommend itself to the people of the colony generally.

2162 Supply_ [ASSEMBLY.] Imperial In8tit~tte.

Mr. BOSISTO stated that the movement in favour of the Imperial Institute began at a meeting of the commissioners of the Colo­nial and Indian Exhibition, which he at­tended. Canada was the first to come to the front, and the other colonies quickly followed. All along Canada had been very fervent in the matter. Quite at the begin­ning of the affair, two Oanadia.ns in London gave £5,000 each towards it. It was in that way the Imperial Institute was started. As to the details of its working, they had not been d iscllssed when he left Engla~d, nor had he seen them set out in any of the reports. Nevertheless so much had then been decided upon that, shortly after his return to the colony, he was able, in reading to the Chamber of Manufactures a paper on the Colonial and Indian Exhibi­tion, to make the following reference to the institute :-

"The object of the institute does not appear to be clearly understood. The intention is not to confine its use to any particular class of colo­nists, but anyone presenting a credential as to his being a bond fide colonist, will be entered in the visitors' book of the colony to which he belongs. This will entitle him to all the rights and privileges offered throughout the institute. Some of the privileg-es will be free access to the newspaper rooms, the library, the lecture hall, and nlU~eUIl1. also to the writing rooms and sit­ting rooms. Every facility will be a1forded for each colonist in tile matter of correspondence. He will be privileged to address his letters from thence, and to receive his letters also. It is intended tIl be the centrai meeting-place for colonists, and a place where meetings can be held on colonial questions, or one can chat with friends or while away a wet afternoon in the library, or look over newspapers; in short, it will be a place in London where a.colonist can go in and out freely, and fcel himself at home."

It was Euggested at first that the Agents­General of the different colonies should have their offices at the institnte, but the point wa.s not decided when he left England, and he llad since heard that it was thought that such a scheme would not work well. As to no balance-sheet of the accounts of the Colonial and Indian Exhibition having been afforded, he could assure the honorable mem­ber for Stawell that the contrary was the case. A balance-sheet had been furnished, and it showed a profit or £30,000, which had been handed over to the Imperial Insti­tute.

Mr. PEIRCE said that at first he was not very well inclined towards the vote, but after reading the paper~ laid on the table, and hearing the remarks made by different honorable members with respect to the in­stitute, he had become decidedly impressed in its favour. He believed that when the institute was established, people at home

would know more of the colonies than they did at present.

lVIr. C. YOUNG stated that he had never seen the papers mentioned by the­Treasurer until that evening. Under the­circumstances, the Government could hardly do otherwise than join with the other colo-­nies in going in for the institute .. At the­same time, he was convinced that the fact or the colonists having no real control over' the expenditure in connexion with the insti­tute would lead to money being muddled, away, and to an extent no one out here· would ever know anything at all about.

TRUANT OFFICERS.

Mr. JONES asked the Treasurer whether' provision would be made for the extra allow-­ance t.o the truant officers which the House had determined upon?

1\1r. GILLIES replied that the will of the House, whatever it was, would be re-­spected. • The vote for the Treasurer's department

was agreed to.

DEFENCE OF THE OOLONY.

On the vote of £7,543 for the Defence­department,

M.r. V A LE complained that in the De­fence estimates the salaries and allowances or the different officers were so set out that it was almost impossible to ascertain the exact remuneration each of them received. He did not think that there ought to be any difference in this regard between the Defence department and the other depart­ments of the service.

Mr. STA UG HTON called attention to the item-" 2,000 Martini-Henry rifles, £6,000," and expressed the opinion that the Government would not act wisely if they tied themselves down to this particular kind of rifle. Other countries, including England, were arming themselves with repeating rifles, and he thought Victoria should follow the example, even though the newer weapon would cost double the money. He would suggest that the kind of rifle to be obtained should not be specified in the vote.

Mr. GILLIES said there appeared to be some mistake abroad as to what rifle had been recently adopted by the Imperial Go­vernment. A series of experiments made· in England and on the Continent with different kinds of repeating rifles were at· first very successful, but closer investigation seemed to prove the success to be no suc-­cess at all. As a matter of fact, the Im­perial Government were holding their hands

Supply. [NOVEMBER 17.J The Chaff~Y Agreement. 2163

on the subject, and awaiting the issue of further experiments. If they had any plan at all, it was to nlter the Martini-Henry rifle so that it should carry a magazine, and the rifles about to be purchased for Victoria would be susceptible of the same alteration.

The vote was agreed to.

THE OHAFFEY AGREEMENT.

On the vote of £9,093 for miscellaneous purposes in connexion with the Lands de­partment,

Mr. GRAVES called attention to an item of £4,250 to pay the Oommercial Bank of South Australin the "amonnt due by the Government of Victoria in connexion with the purchase of the said bank's share in the interest in mallee blocks Nos. 8, 9, and 10, and in the leases thereof, possession of which has been resumed by the Orown." The blocks in question formed a portion of the Mildnra run, which had been handed over to the Ohaffey Brothers under the agree­ment entered into with them by the Govern­ment. During the debate which took pla'ce on this subject last session, it was sta.ted that the Orown wOl~ld not pay anything for the resumption of these blocks, but that all the expenses in connexion therewith would be borne by the successful tenderers for the land which the Government originally pro­posed to let the Ohaffey Brothers have pos­session of without inviting any competition.

Mr. GILLIES remarked that the As­sembly was informed, at the time when it was agreed that tenders were to be called for, that the Government would be willing, under certain circumstances, to pay half the cost of compensating the parties in possession of the land which would have to be resumed by the Orown.

Mr. URA YES said he understood that the terms dn which tenders were invited included a condition that the successful tenderer should pay the cost of the resump­tion of the land required to be resumed by the Orown. (Mr. Brown-" That is so.") However, he would like to know whether the sum of £4,250 included all the liability on the part of the Government. (Mr. Gil­lies-" Yes.") Unless the Government got a clear receipt, they might find that further claims would afterwards be sent in on ac­count of the area which the Orown had resumed. (Mr. Gillies-" YVe are perfectly secure.") The Ohaffey Brothers had shorn 30,000 sheep on a portion of the Mildura run this year, which meant a profit of at least £5,000. This fully corroborated the statement he made last session that the

land was not so worthless as it was repre­sented to be. The character of the Mildura run was not then generally understood, but he spoke from personal knowledge", hen he' said that it would carry 60,000 sheep. See­ing that the Ohaffey Brothers had shorn 30,000 sheep this season, that the land, for which they paid nothing, would have been worth £600 or £800 perannumonits grazing' capabilities, and that they would be able to sell some of the land for £8 or £10 an acre" or, perhaps, £20 an acre, he thought that they had got an extremely good bargain" and that they would make money out of it. He, however, did not say that they did not deserve all that they would make. He wished. them luck, while at the same time he felt it his duty to point out that the statements which were made as to the land being of poor quality had not been borne out by actual facts. As the Government had un­dertaken to pay a moiety of the cost of resuming the blocks in question, he thought they had got very easily out of it for £4,250. If the station had not been in the hands of. liquidators, the amount which would have had to be paid for its resumption would have been £20,000 or £30,000.

Mr. BROWN said that he wished to­put on record his protest against the ar­rangement by which the Government had agreed to pay £4,~50 towards the cost of resumption of lands which wete now in pos­session of the Ohaffey Brothers. The ad­vertisement calling for tenders notified that the successful tenderer would have to pay all the costs in connexion with the resump­tion; and the fact that there were no ten­derers did not justify the Govermellt in setting aside this condition under the agree­ment into which they had entered with the Chaffev Brothers. He admitted that £4,250 wa~ infinitely less than what was anticipated would be the cost of resumption, but the Goyernment had no right to go behind the arrangement which was corne to in Parliament and incur this expense. It was an expense which ought to be borne not by the country but by the Chaffey Brothers. He desired also to mention that events had proved that those honorable members who were called obstructionists, " stone-wallers," and other offensive names, becHuse they cri­ticised the measure which was intended to give effect to the original agreement with the Ohaffey Brothers, really deserved the approbation of the country for the action which they toolc

Mr. ANDREWS inquired whether the item of £4,250 included the cost of resuming

Supply. [ASSEMBL Y. ] Roadq and Bridges.

9ther land besides that occupied by the Chaffey Brothers?

Mr. DEAKIN replied that it included the cost of resuming the whole of the Mil­,dura station.

Mr. PATTERSON observed that, after the Assembly carne to an understanding with the Government, last session, as to the course to be adopted in regard to the land that thtl Ohaffey Brothers desired to ,obtain, he asked whether it was part of the agreement that compensation to the existing ~enants should be paid by the successful tenderer, and the Premier replied that-

"It might be that the Government would be willing to pay half, under certain circum­stances," 'Were the Government paying the whole of the cost of resuming the land?

Mr. GILLIES said that the Govern-, ment were paying only half the cost of reo sumption.

Mr. MUNRO stated that he wished it to be clearly understood whether the Go­vernment were paying £4,250, and the Chaffey Brothers £4,250, making £8,500 -altogether? (Mr. Gillies-" Yes.") One ,of the conditions of the contract was that the Ohaffey Brothers were to spend £10,000 ,during the first year. Was that exclusive ,of the £4,250 ?

Mr. DEAKIN said that the £10,000 was exclusive of, and in addition to, the £4,250.

WELLS IN THE MALLEE. Mr. LANGDON called attention to an

atem of £2,500 for" making wells in the manee country," and asked for some infor­mation as to the portion of the mallee in which it was proposed to make the ,veIls.

Mr. DOW said it was intended to expend ,the money in sinking wells in the unoccupied ,portion of the mallee country adjoining the ,South AU;:3tralian border. The geological indications were most encouraging; and, if water could be obtained, the land would be .occupied, and would yield a handsome re­venue to the State.

Mr. LANGDON urged that some steps should be taken to find water in the east portion of the mallee country. '

Mr. DEAKIN intimated that the "Vater ,Supply department was putting down a series of bores towards the cast portion of the mallee.

The vote was agreed to.

ROADS AND BRIDGES. Ou the vote of ;£24,870 for roads, bridges,

,~nd other public works,

Mr. BROWN said he was dissatisfied to find that the vote contained no pro­vision for the continuation of the Huntly storm-water channel. Some years ago the sum of £15,000 was actually promised for the construction of this channel, and £2,000 had been expended on the work, but that expenditure would be absolutely use­less unless the channel was completed. It was very much to be regretted that the Go­vernment had not seen their way to go on with the work. He presumed that they never would have agreed to an expenditure of £15,000 for the construction of this storm-water channel unless they were con­vinced that the work was a proper one to carry out; indeed, if they were not satisfied on that point, they ought not to have in­curred a preliminary expenditure of £2,000 in connexion with the work. During the recent winter, which had been a particularly wet one, a great deal of harm had been done in consequence of the non-completion of the channel. There had been four feet of sludge on acres of land worth £10 an acre. It was a reflection upon the Government and upon Parliament, that the work had not been carried out. He . also desired to call attention to the fact that the vote included an item of £5,000 " to assist certain muni­cipalities in repairing damages to roads, bridges, and main channels caused by recent floods." He objected to the councils of the municipalities in the district which he re­presented, such as Swan Hill-shire, Gordon­shire, and Echuca-shire, having to go cap in hand to the Minister in order to obtain a grant from this £5,000 to enable them to under~ake works which were absolutely ne­cessary in consequence of the damages which had been caused by floods. It was to be regretted that the distribution of this money was left to the discretion of the Minister, which meant that it was left to the log­rolling influences that might be brought to bear. (" Oh !") Did honorable members mean to say that there was no log-rolling? (Mr. Reid -" "Ve never log-roll.") Then, honorable memhers were like Oresar's wife -above suspicion.

Mr. GILLIES stated, with reference to the item of £5,000, that the Government were obliged to put a lump sum on the Estimates to help municipalities to repair damage.s which had been caused by recent floods, or otherwise they would have had to leave those municipalities which had suffered from floods without anv assistance whatever. Some applications fo~ grants had already been sent in, but the Government

Supply. [NOVEMDER 17.J Roads and Bridges. 2165-

had not yet received all the information necessary to enable them to determine how the £5,000 should be allocated.

Mr. BROvVN contended that a specific sum ought to have been placed on the Estimates for repairing damages in Echuca­shire. The requirements or the shire had been forcibly brought under the notice of the Government by deputation. The re­quirements of Swan Hill-shire and Gordon­shire ought also to have received some recognition from the Treasurer. The area under the jurisdiction of the Tragowel Irri­gation Trust was situated within the latter shire, and it had been shown time after time

. that, during the late wet season, some of the roads or the shire, owing to the hen,v}, traffic on them caused by works which were being carried out in connexion with the trust, were cut up to such an extent as to be absolutely impassable.

Mr. LANGRIDGE remarked that the ]lOnorable member for Mandurang (Mr. Brown) and other country representatives often complained of the Government favour­ing Melbourne and its vicinity in the ex­penditure on public works, but, with the ex­ception of an item or £5,000 to assist the South Melbourne Council in forming ap­proaches to the new Prince's-bridge, every penny or the vote of £24,870 was to be spent in country districts. At the same time, he sympathized with the honorable member's desire to see the Huntly sludge channel completed.

Mr. McCOLL expressed his satisfaction that £5,000 had been placed on the Addi­tional Estimates to assist different munici­palities in repairing damages caused by recent floods. He thought that the Go­vernment had responded liberally to the appeal of the country districts for help in the matter.

Mr. LANGDON called attention to an item of £300, to assist the Inglewood Borough Council in walling the storm-water channel in that district, on condition that the council expended £300 additional, and urged that this condition should be struck out. The council had no funds from which to provide the money.

Mr. GILLIES said that the item referred to by the honorable member was are-vote, and consequently it had to appear now in the same form in which it was originally voted.

Mr. GRAVES asked the Minister or Public vVorks what would probably be the total amount of the claims for grants out of the £5,000 to assist different municipa­lities to repair damages caused by floods?

Mr. NIMMO stated that claims were coming in every day. He could not say what they would amount to. (Mr. Graves­" What do they represent at present ?") He did not know. .

Mr. GRAVES considered that the reply of the Minister of Public Works was un-· satisfactory. It was not likely that the Treasurer would place £5,000 on the Addi­tional Estimates for the purpose or assisting municipalities to repair damages unless he· had some idea or the claims which would be sent in.

Mr. GILLIES intimated that he believed £5,000 would be sufficient to meet all reasonable claims .

Mr. G RAVES said he believed that the claims which had been brought under the notice of the Government by deputations represented double the amount provided by the Treasurer. (Mr. Gillies-" Some of them were not for flood damages at all."} In his district two bridges had been wholly carried away. He would suggest that, in the event of the claims exceeding £5,000, berore any grants were made an officer of the department should inspect the damaged roads and bridges on account of which the claims were sent in, and report on the· various applications.

Mr. GILLIES said that the final dis­tribution of the £5,000 would not be made until the department was placed in posses­sion or all the information which would en­,able it to form a correct judgment as to how the money should be allotted.

:Mr. LEVIEN stated that the Port­arlington road had sustained very heavy damage by flood, and he desired to know if provision would be made to assist in repair­ing the damage out of the item of £5,000 ?

Mr. NIMMO said that all claims for grants out of the £5:000 would be consi­dered, and he would do his best to distri­bute the money equitably.

Mr. OUTTRIM called attention to an item of £250 to assist the Carisbrook Borough Council in constructing !l, main drain on condition that the council expended £250 additional, and to an item of £350 to­assist the M,arborough Borough Council in completing their main drain, on condition that they expended £300 additional. He hoped that the Government would be able to­see their way to consent to the striking out of the condition attached to those items.

MI'. GILLIES said that both items were re-votes.

Mr. PATTERSON remarked that th~ : fact of these items being re-votes showed'

,2166 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Postal JJepartment.

that the local councils for whom they were intended did not obtain the money because they could not comply with the conditions .attached to the grants.

The vote was agreed to.

LIFE-BOAT AT POINT LONSDALE.

On the vote of £1,159 for the Customs .department,

Mr. LE VIEN asked whether provision had been made for an additional life-boat to he stationed at Point Lonsdale?

Mr. GILLIES replied in the affirmative. The vote was agreed to.

POSTAL DEPARTMENT.

On the vote of £9,74.9 for the department ,of the Postmaster-General,

Mr. MUNRO said that he desired to call the attention of the Postmaster-General to the outcollle of a matter which he brought under the honorable gentleman's notice the other eveniug. A serious and gross wrong had been done to two of his (Mr. Munro's) ~onstituents. They had passed an ex­amination in telegraphy, and received cer­tificates of competency from an officer who was supposed to be authorized by the Government to give the certificates, but in consequence of new regulations being framed the certificates were rendered useless, inasmuch as the postmaster at Geelong was no longer authorized to grant certificates of (!ompetency in telegraphy, although the postmasters at Talbot, Sale, and a lot of small ~ountry towns, could issue such certificates. The new regulations, being published only in the Government Gazette, were unknown to the persolls in question until the day before they were going up for another ex­amination to which the possession of a cer­tificate of competency in telegraphy was a necessary pl·eliminary. To meet the diffi­culty, the Postmaster-General promised to have the two candidates examined by an .officer in Melbourne, and they came to Mel. bourne for that purpose. The officer passed them in practical telegraphy, but not in theoretical telegraphy; and the result was that all their labour to obtain the certificates which they had previously got ·had been in va.in. He hoped that some steps would be taken to remedy the injustice which had been <lone them.

Mr. DERHAM said that the persons referred to were examined by a proper officer in Melbourne, but they failed to pass be­~ause they were not competent. As to Geelong being placed in the same position

as other country towns where tIle post­master was authorized to grant certificates of competency in telegraphy, he would see that was done .

Mr. MUNRO remarked that it was most unfair that the two Geelong candidates should be required to submit to another examination in telegraphy after they had undergone a previous examination, and had received certificates of competency from an officer who was suppoiled, at the time, to be duly authorized by the Government to give such certificates. He wa.s informed by the persons in question that the mannerin which they were received by the officer who ex­amined them in Melbourne indicated that he did not want to pass them. In fact, it was stated that the officer's manner was most offensive and rude, and that the infer­ence to be drawn from it was that he did not intend to allow them to pass.

Mr. ZOX said that the honorable mem­ber for Geelong (Mr. Munro) had made a most serious charge against an officer of the Postal department, and the Postmaster­General should not fail to investigate the case.

Mr. MUNRO observed that he had made no charge; he had simply stated the infer­ence which the candidates drew from the officer's manner. He did not know who the officer was, nor anything about him.

Mr. DERHAM said the honorable mem­ber for Geelong (Mr. Munro) had stated that the officer's manner of receiving the candidates was offensive. (Mr. Munro­"I did not say so on my own authority; I was told so.") If it was all hearsay, the committee would know what value to place on the honorable. member's statements. The officer in question was a,most quiet and in­offensive gentleman, and thoroughly com­petent to discharge his duty. It was his duty, in conducting the examination, to take care that none but properly qualified candidates were allowed to pass. The department had been compelled to make the examination more stringent, in order that only efficient persons should be appointed to the staff.

Mr.l\i UNRO stated that the Postmaster­General had charged him with saying what he did not say, but the honorable gentleman had not attempted to deny or to justify the fact that, after the persons in question had got their certificates of competency from a recognised institution-from an officer duly authorized by the Government to grant cer­tificates-they were told that their certifi. cates could not be accepted.

Supply. [NoVEMBER 17.] Postal Department. 2167,

.Mr. DERHAM said that the change in the regulations was made months ago, and it was the business of all the candidates to acquaint themselves with any alterations. The special examination of the candidates iu question was held to ohlige the honorable member and his friends.

Mr. MUNRO stated that the candidates in question passed the special examination ill practical telegraphy, hut not in theoretical telegraphy. The fact was that they had been trained in practical telegraphy, but not in theory. It was unjust that they should have been called upon to pass another ex­amination after receiving certificates of com­petency. He hoped that the wrong which had been done them would be remedied.

Mr. ANDRE WS said he considered the department made some mistake in allowing the candidates to believe that the certificates they had obtained were adequate for the pur­pose for which they were required, namely,

. qualification for the Government service. He hoped the Postmaster-General would arrange that further inquiry should be made into the matter, and that, if he found in­justice had been done to the candidates, he would give them another chance.

Mr. PATTERSON called attention to the item of £1,430 for" telephone switch­board attendants at from £4 lOs. to £7 lOs. per month," and suggested that the Post­master-General should make some state­ment as to the operation of the telephone branch of his department.

Mr. RUSSELL complained of the way in which the telephone system was conducted at Ballarat. A change for the worse, so marked, had taken place that a number of persons were going to relinquish the use of the telephone. Whether the difficulty arose from the crossing of the Ii nes, or some other cause, he could not say, but his partner had to wait, the other day, as much as ten minutes for an answer to a message. The telephone now seemed to be worked on the Government stroke.

Mr. L. L. SMITH inquired whether the staff of officers employed by the Telephone Exchange Oompany had been taken over by the Goyernment?

Mr. ZOX observed that since the tele­phone system had been tran~ferred to the Government there seemed to be a greater amount of difficulty in connexion with the transmission of messages t han ever preyailed when a private company had control of the lines.

Mr. LANGRIDGE remarked that he . bad the telephone in use at five different

places, and he must say that it did not work so well as when the system was in the hands of the company. Yet the service could not be conducted better than under Government if only it were properly managed.

Mr. BOSISTO called attention to the item of £30 for arrears of salary due to the late Mr. S. W. McGowan, Deputy Post­master-General, and asked whether it was not possible to do something more for the family of the deceased gentleman than pay­ing them an equivalent to nine months' salar.v? Mr. McGowan was for 33 years in the service of the State, and only a short time before 11i& death he collected a large amount of valuable information with respect to telegraphy and telephony, of which the Government got the benefit. It seemed hard that the family of a deceased public officer who had served the State for 33 years should get no larger gratuity than would be granted to the family of an officer who had served for only ten or twelve years .

Mr. J. HARR IS suggested that., if the Government were not disposed to do any­thing in this matter, the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Bosisto) should move, next session, for an address to His Excel­lency the Governor, praying for a sum to be placed on the Estimates.

Mr. ZOX said he was informed that, shortly before he died, Mr. McGowan re­turned to the colony after twelve months' leave of absence, during which he worked hard in obtainina- yaluable information re­lating to teleph~1ic communication, infor­mation which materiallv assisted the Post­master-General in his ~egotiations with the Telephone Exchange Company. Moreover, it should be recollected that Mr. McGowan was the introducer of telegraphy to Victoria. It would thus be seen that the family of the deceased gentleman had exceptional claims upon the Statp.

Mr. LEVIEN remarked that the tele­phone system was by no means perfect, but he did not think it was worse than it was when under the management of a company.

Mr. JONES called attention to the fact that the vote inclnded a grant of £50 as a "gratuity to the father of the late J. Grieve, letter-carrier;" and asked that a similar gratuity should be given to the mothet· or a letter-carrier who died recently at Ballarat-that mother having depended very largely on her son's earnings for her support.

Mr. DERHAM said he would inquire into the case mentioned by the honorable member for Ballarat West (Mr. Jones).

2168 Supply. [ASSEMBL Y.] Agricult~tral IJepartment.

He quite agreed with all that had been said with respect to the late Mr. McGowan, who was a very efficient officer, and the pioneer of telegraphy in Victoria; but he must re­mind the committee that Parliament was not usually- disposed to encourage the Go­vernment to bring down estimates to meet such cases. The matter was one entirely for the Assembly. If the honorable mem­ber for Richmond (Mr. Bosisto) chose to bring forward a motion in favour of a grant to the late Mr. McGowan's family, no doubt it would be considered fairly on its merits. With reference to the telephone system, he was surprised to hear what the honorable member for Ballarat East (Mr. Russell) had to say, hecause it was the first complaint from Ballarat that had come under his notice. However, he would be glad to make inquiries with a view to the adoption of immediate measures for placing the system on as efficient a footing as was possible. He believed that what Ballarat complained of was not the efficiency of the system, but the cost. Telephones at Ballarat had cost £7 per annum, as against £16 in Melbourne. But the cost of Melbourne telephones was now reduced to £12-a reduction of 25 per cent.-and Ballarat, although the payment there was only £7, thought it was entitled to a reduction also. However, he had gone into the fignrcs, and he found that the cir­cumstances would not allow of any reduction. vVith regard to the Melbourne system, it was scarcely fair of honorable members to indulge in any criticism as yet. The system had been transferred to the Government only a couple of months, and they were now engaged in overhauling it with a view to make it as perfect as possible. Of course the over­hauling of a system embracing 1,000 sub­scribers must neceasarily take some little time. However, he believed the subscribers would be able shortly to congratulate them­selves and the Government on having at command a most excellent system at a moderate price. Since the Government took over the business, 50 new subscribers had been added to the list. So that the public evidently appreciated the reduction which had been made in the rates. He might add that the iron wire previously used for telephone purposes was now being replaced by copper wire, which was a little more expensive, but much more satisfactory.

Mr. ZOX suggested that the PO::Jtmaster­General should take into consideration the propriety of establishing an exchange, where the gelleral public- could despatch and receive telephonic messages for a small fee. He'

had heard that such exchanges were a soutce of profit in America and other places.

Mr. DERHAM said he would give the matter his attention.

The vote was then agreed to.

PROSPEOTING. On the vote of £8,140 for the Mining

department-prospecting, Mr. LANGDON asked whether any por­

tion of the vote would be dedicated to prospecting for tin and silver?

Mr. GILLIES replied in the negative~ The amount was a re-yote to parties who received only a portion of the sum allocated to them last year.

Mr. LANGDON stated that silver had been found near the boundary of the Avoca. and St. Arnaud districts; tin had been dis­covered in the Beechworth district and in Gippsland; and persons were prepared to go prospecting if they were stimulated by the Government.

Mr. GILLIES said he would consider the matter.

WATER SUPPLY.

On the vote of £600 for the Water Supply department,

Mr. MUNRO asked ,when the repre­sentations which had been made with refer­ence to the Geelong water supply would receive attention?

Mr. DEAKIN stated that they would receive attention as soon as the Loddon waters and other urgent matters which were engaging the attention of officers of the department had been dealt with.

Mr. LANGDON inquired whether any progress had been made with the application forthe formation of the East Boort Irrigation Trust?

Mr. DEAKIN replied in the affirmative.

AGRIOULTURAL DEPARTMENT.

On the vote of £1,790 for the Agricul­tural department,

Mr. W. MADDEN called attention to the promise which had been made that the' Agricultural Ohemist would be provided with an assistant, amI which had not yet been fulfilled. It was necessary that Mr. Pearson should have an assistant in orde!" that he might efficiently carryon the work of analyzing soils-a work which was esse'n­tially in the interests of farmers, to whom it was most important to know how the land could be turned to the most profitable account. It was matter for regret that the laboratory'

Supply. [NoVEMBER 17.] Ag1'ic~dtural Department. 2169

for the use of the Agricultural Chemist, commenced some time ago, had not yet been completed.

Mr. L. L. SMITH expressed his regret that nothing had yet been done in the direc­tion of appointing a Government entomolo­gist. Such an appointment would no doubt be the means of saving thousands upon thousands of pounds to the colony. The present vote included a sum of £500 for" a board of vine-growers to be appointed by the Governor in Council"i but he did not know that such a board could do more than the vine-growers' associations already in existence were competent to perform, pro­vided the Government would place some money at their disposal. He would take this opportunity of again impressing upon the Government the necessity for establish­ing a school of viticulture.

Mr. LANGDON stated that the vote in­cluded a grant of £500 for the National Agricultural Society. This, with the sum already voted, would make £1,000 which that society would receive during the current financial year.

Mr. DOW observed that, with regard to the appointment of a Government entomo­logist-the necessity for making which had been brought under his notice on several occasions by the honorable member for St. Kilda (Mr. Harris)-he desired to say that he hoped to be able shortly to take steps which would be satisfactory to honorable members. With respect to the proposal to create a board of vine-growers, that was made in order that the vine-growing interest might have at command an organization similar to those which agriculturists and horti­culturists possessed at present. The mem­bers of the board would be appointed by the Governor in Council, on the recommenda­tion of the vine-growers' associations, and the £500 on the Additi(mal Estimates was provided to give them a start. Afterwards they would have to raise a certain sum them­selves, as the ngricultural societies did, before the Government would see their way to subsidize them. It would be the business of the board, when constituted, to determine whether they should have a travelling in­spector or a school of viticulture, or in what other way the vine-growing industry might be advanced.

Mr. LEVIEN remarked that the Minis­ter ·of Agriculture had not enliglltened the committee to any large extent as to the functions which the proposed board of vine­growers would have to fulfil. He presumed

SESe 1887.-7 M

that the board would have to raise money for prizes, and that Parliament would be asked to provide a subsidy. If that was so, he had no particular objection to offer. At the same time he thought it an organization which was altogether unnecessary in view of the agricultural societies already in existence. However, what he rose more particularly for was to impress upon the Minister the necessity for taking some action with regard to the vignerons of the Geelong district. Those vignerons were suffering a great hard­ship in not being allowed to replant their land with vines. Of course it would not be right to allow replanting until the phylloxera was eradicated. But he hoped that, when that time arrived, the vignerons would be fairly dealt with. (Mr. Munro-" When will that time be ?") That was the diffi­culty. When the Disease in Vines Act was passed in 1881, it was thought that the insect would be destroyed in three years, and that then the vignerons would be able to replant. But replanting was still pro­hibited. Some of these people had sold their properties, but others were hanging on to their holdings. If the insect was not sufficiently destroyed this year to allow or replanting next year, he would feel it his duty to call upon the Government to place a further sum on the Estimates for the com­pensation of the vignerons-a hard-working and deserving body of people who had been suffering in the interests of the country. They had suffered in order tl1at an important colonial interest should not be jeopardized. So far as the compensation which had already been granted was concerned, he must say that it was unevenly distributed, and that the men to whom most compensa­tion was given were not half compensated for their losses.

Mr. REID called attention to the fact that the vote included an item of £150 as a " gratuity to IJ ohn Forrester, late inspector of stock." This was in addition to a sum of £352 which was paid in 1886. But why should a person who was able to perform his duty-who was walking about quite we11-be allowed to leave the service on compen­sation?

Mr. DOW explained that Mr. Forrester left the service on account of ill-health duly certified to. When he left, he was given to understand that he would be allowed com­pensation at the rate of one month's salary for every year of service, because it was announced at the time that the office which he had held would be abolished. However,

2170 Supply. [ ASSEMBL Y. ] Disease in Vines.

in the interests of the department, the office had not been abolished.

Mr. ANDREWS mentioned that the vote included a sum of £400 "to defray expenses in connexion with trenching in­fected land in the Geelong vine disease dis­trict," and asked whether this was a final provision? Three years ago trenching was recommended by Government experts, and, if then carried out, would probably have destroyed the insects where they were known to exist. As to the Disease in Vines Act, that mea!:mre, which ruthlessly deprived vignerons of vineyards that were without a shadow of disease, was passed in one night without hardly any consideration. (Mr. L. L. Smith-" It was founded on the report of a select committee.") It was the most violent nction ever taken by the Assembly in one night. The idea of authorizing any­body to go and take possession of people's homesteads, whether there was anything the matter with them or not, without providing that they should have adequate compensa­tion! The whole proceeding was harsh and despotic. Why, although six years had elapsed, some of the vignr,rons had not yet received any compensation whatever. What trenching was required should be done at once, whether it cost £400 or £1,400. It seemed to him that £400 was miserably inadequate for grappling with what was really a national matter. He considered that the vignerons deserved tho sympathy of tbe House, and it was his intention, if the Government failed in their duty beyond this season, to go in straight for a resolu­tion that these men should be compensated for being deprived of their homesteads and their livelihood.

Mr. BOSISTO stated that there was no doubt that the phylloxera in the Geelong district had received the attention of the present Government and past Governments. Eight years ago phylloxera was rampant in the Geelong district, and, if prompt mea­sures llad not been taken for stampingit out, there would have been scarcely a vine in the colony at the present day. He could under­stand the honorable member for Geelong (Mr. Andrews) speaking strongly with re­ference to this matter, but, if the honorable member had seen, as he (Mr. Bosisto) saw last year, how vineyards in France had been destroyed by phylloxera, he would realize the importance of what had been done to exter­minate phylloxera from the Geelong district. It was thought, eight years ago, that the insect lived upon the free juice of the roots

of the vine. In consequence, the uprooting of vineyards was insisted upon. It now ap­peared that the insect lived not only upon the free juice of the root of the living vine, but also upon the gelatinous juice of the decayed root; and therefore, unless decayed roots were thoroughlyex.terminated, the in­sect would continue to live year after year. Hence it was the practice of the Phylloxera Board to visit the Geelong district regularly every year, with the view of ascertaining whether the insect was alive upon the decayed roots or not. One of these visits would be made in about another fortnight. If the phylloxera did live underground upon the decayed roots, no vines could be grown in the locality. As to compensation, the hon­orable member for Geelong would make it appear that nothing had been given to tho vignerons; but, as a matter of fact, they had been compensated twice. He regretted that it was necessary to treat the Geelong district as it had been treated; but the question was a national one. The Geelong district could not be allowed to disseminate a disease which would destroy the entire vine-growing in­dustry not only of this colony but of the other colonies.

Mr. MUNRO stated that the people of Geelong were certainly under an obligation to the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Bosisto) for the stand he took some years ago against the proposal or the O'Loghlen Government, which wont to the length that anyone bringing away from the Geelong district even a rose in his coat was to be made liable to a penalty of £50. The hon­Ol'able mem ber's scien titic know ledge enabled him to then present such a case to the House that the proposition was seen to be utterly absurd. (Mr. L. L. Smith-" It said no­thing about roses.") It included almost every sort or vegetable. (Mr. L. L. Smith -" And quite right, too.") Still the hon­Ol'able member for Richmond proved to the satisfaction of the House that the O'Logh­len Government were in utter ignorance as to the subject they were dealing with. At the present time, however, the honorable member was unintentionally doing the Gee­long people a wrong. What was the fact? That although a large proportion of those who formerly grew vines in the Geelong and Barwon districts were never visited by the phylloxera at all, their vineyards were never­theless destroyed, and that the compensation awarded them was simply on the basis of deprivation or the use of their property for three years. But they had actually been

Supply. [N OVE~IBER 17.] Disease in Vines. 2171

deprived for seven years, and it should be remembered that the soil which was fit for vine-growing was, generally speaking, unfit for any other purpose. Now compensation for three years would not pay men' for a deprivation which extended over seven years. Under the circumstances, it was felt by those concerned that the State should either tho­roughly eradicate the phylloxera from the vineyards of the infected districts, or else purchase the land. If the question was a national one it ought to be treated in a national way. As for the vignerons them­sel ves, they would be perfectly prepared-if they were permitted to do so-to replant their vines, and take upon themselves the responsibility, should the phylloxera re­appear, of eradicating it at their own expense. (Mr. Gillies-" The Government are taking steps towards eradication now.") Certainly it was high time they did something.

Mr. REES expressed the opinion that the State would not act justly towards the vignerons who had been deprived of the proper use of their property for four years without any c0mpensation whatever, unless it purchased their land, and so allowed them to establish themselves elsewhere.

Mr. LEVIEN stated that, although tile law provided compensation for a consider­able proportion of the Geelong vignerons on a three years' basis, they had practically been awarded, under instructions from the Secretary for Agriculture, only two years' compensation. Moreover, he was quite cer­tain that, had it not been for certain reasons, the Government would not have hesitated before now.to give them further compensa­tion. The case was peculiar. As for the delay of the Government in taking some­thing like final steps for the eradication of the phylloxera pest, they were not to blame. It was intended to uproot the land and trench it, but the people concerned cried out against that being done, because they had replanted the ground with raspberries, gooseberries, and such like fruit. When he was Minis­ter of Agriculture he was anxious to trench every inch of the infected land, but the vignerons prevented him for the reason he had just stated, and at the present day affairs remained in much the same position. Had the vignerons been enabled to replant their vines at the end of three years no fur­ther claim for compensation would have been made by them, but as matters stood now the whole country must be regarded as indebted to them on account of the sacrifices they had been compelled to make. Even

the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Bosisto) must feel in his heart that they had not been properly compensated.

Mr. J .. HARRIS admitted that there were exceptions to the rule, but he was con­vinced that opon the whole the Geelong vignerons had been fairly enough compen­sated. vVhen the Phylloxera Board or which he, the honorable member for Rich­mond (Mr. Bosisto), and the honorable mem­ber for Mornington were members, last visited the infested land they found traces of phylloxera to a small degree, but still they thought that the planting of vines out­side might be permitted. The vignerons in the other parts of the colony, however, in­terfered and prevented the permission being given. '¥ithin a week or two the board would make another inspection, and it was to be hoped that it would result in the re­planting of the vineyards being allowed to proceed forthwith.

Mr. STAUGHTON expressed the opi­nion that the Geelong vignerons had re­ceivell very fair compensation. Any way they had been far better treated than the Bungaree farmers had been, with respect to the Californian thistle, which was as great a pest in its way as the phylloxera. They were made to eradicate the thistle for them­selves and the State gave them no help whatever.

Mr. GAUNSON considered that the vignerons had no case at all- no claim whatever upon the Government. If a man was incarcerated because he happened to have small-pox, or, if a person who had come into contact with him while suffering from the disease was also placed in durance vile, neither of them could claim compensa­tion on that account. The Gedong vignerons occupied a precisely similar position. As for their being ruined by having their vine­yards uprooted, as a matter of fact they were ruined the moment phylloxera appeared. (Mr. Levien-" The other colonies joined in paying compensation.") That was merely an independent act of generosity, and of course the Victorian community was not willing to shut up its bowels of compassion for any person. At the same time, it was proper to point out how far right and justice prevailed in the business. Unquestionably every man was compelled to use his property so that it did not become a cause of injury to his neighbours, and by the same rule a vigneron who found phylloxera in his vine­yard was required to eradicate it. To all appearances the members for the Geelong

2172 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Railway Department.

district were simply banded together for the purpose~of making a raid upon the Treasury.

1\1:1'. JONES stated that he wished to bring under the notice of the committee and also of the honorable member for Emerald Hill (Mr. Gaunson) the case ~f a Geelong vigneron named Tribolet, who had been almost ruined by the action of the Govern­ment with respect to phylloxera. He had, when phylloxera appeared in other parts of the district, a vineyard in excellent bearing which he was compelled to destroy just at the time it was expected to yield its annual fruitage; he had not received anything like reasonable compensation; and, in conse­quence, simply because some of his neigh­bours had phylloxera and it was expected to spread, he was now reduced to a condition which looked so like ruin that it was hardly to be distinguished from it.

Mr.' BAKER said he had no objection to the Geelong vignerons getting compensa­tion, but there were in his district hundreds and hundreds of farmers who had been abso­lutely ruined by the rabbit pest, and what compensation were they likely to get? But for the rabbits they would have been prosper· ous yeomen, whereas they were now com­pelled, in order to get their livelihood, to work for other farmers.

Mr. 'V. MADDEN said he deeply re·­gretted that the Government were unable to bring in their Forest Conservation Bill this session, for the question of forest conserva­tion was second in importance to none. Time, however, did not appear to permit of it being taken in hand at present. He would also mention the fact that, owing to the death of the late Mr. Ferguson, the office of chief of the Forest department had to be filled up. This he drew attention to in order to point out that, if the appointment was made in the same way a similar appointment was made in South Australia, the department would be at once placed in an excellent position. He would urge the Government to do no­thing in this direction hastily, but to set themselves deliberately to work to obtain the best man available for the vacant position.

The vote was agreed to.

RAILWAY DEPARTMENT.

On the vote of £96,168 for the Railway department,

Mr. ANDERSON (Creswick) called at. tention to the item of £500, " gratuity to the father of the late J. H. McNab, fireman, killed at the collision at Windsor, 11th May,

1887." He wished the Government to notice the striking want of proportion there was between this amount and the £2,000 proposed for the widow and children of the late W. F. Maskell, who was killed at the same accident. McNab was a yo'ung man who had been some four years in the Rail­way department, and he was absolutely and completely the sole support of his parents. Taking a mere actuarial view of the question, if £2,000 was the right amount in Maskell's case, £1,135 would be the right amount in N cN ab's case. He observed that the Go­vernment proposed, in connexion with the present vote, to give £300, in addition to the amount formerly awarded, to the parents of the late R. Hutchinson, the fireman killed at Sunbury, and he thought they ought to extend similar consideration to the case he was now advocating.

Mr. LAURENS stated that he wished to refer t9 the item, "Compensation, £85,000, " which he presumed related to the claims made with respect to the Windsor accident. (Mr. Gillies-" It does.") That being the case, it was plain that had the expenses at­taching to that accident been included in the railway accounts for 1886-7 the latter would have shown, not a balance of £40,000 to the good, but a deficit of £45,000. Besides, the £85,000 was probably not the whole of the amount that would be required for compen­sation. (Mr. Gillies-" It represents the amount paid up to the present time.") Would further liabilities arise? (Mr. Gil­lies-" Possibly.") Then the case he put was all the stronger. In short, but for the reduction in the rate of interest on the rail­way loan, and the exclusion from the railway accounts for 1886-7 of the cost of the Wind­sor accident, the Railway Oommissioners would have had to show a deficit for the financial year just over of no less than £203,000. Here was clear evidence that the management of the commissioners had not brought about a better financial result than that achieved under the old system. What care, then, should be taken by those administering the Railway department be­fore they went in for a gener~l reduction of charges.

Mr. OUTTRIM said he desired to thank the Minister of Railways for awarding £300 more to the parents of the unfortunate man Hutchinson, who was killed at Sunbury in 1884.

Mr. PEIROE stated that he also begged to tender his thanks to the Minister of Rail­ways for the extra consideration shown by

Supply. [NOVEMBER 17.J Railway Department. 2173

him with respect to the Hutchinson ca~e. But he was not altogether satisfied with his action 'in not adding to the compensation awarded last year to the unfortunate man Smith, who lost both his legs through an accident at the Spencer-street station, which occurred simply because a train from Williamstown was behind its tiQle. In both instances the sufferer was the sole support of his parents. Smith's case was a most deplorable one. His £300 was dwindling away, and he was utterly dis­abled from doing anything for his support. (Mr. Gillies-" I promised that I would look into the matter.") Then he (Mr. Peirce) would, for the time being, rest satisfied with that promise. Nevertheless, he would seize the present opportunity of repeating what he said some evenings ago, namely, that he was scarcely surprised at the way the public commented upon the difference, in cases of injury from accident, between the scale of compensation adopted by the H.ailway department with respect to officers or the lower grades, and that adopted by them with respect to officers of the higher grades. (Mr. Gillies-" There is no fairer treatment in the world than that of the Railway Commissioners.") The difference in the treatment of the Hutchinson and Smith cases hardly bore out the honorable gentleman's theory.

Mr. VALE asked the Minister of Rail­ways to explain the system upon which the Railway department went in defining the period within which a new line should be constructed. It was unquestionable that, in many instances, the shortness of the time allowed had had the effect of increasing the price of the tenders sent in.

Mr. GORDON said he desired to add to the arguments already offered in favour of the vote with respect to the McNab c~se being increased. True, Maskell left a wife and children, but McNab, although un­married, had others equally dependent upon him. He was practically the sole support of his father, who was almost blind, and also of his mother and several brothers and sisters. Yet the Maskell family were to get £2,000, and the McNab family only £500. Really the discrepancy was too great. He (Mr. Gordon) trusted this matter would be fully considered when the Estimates for next year were being prepared.

Mr. GAUNSON expressed the opinion that there ought to be some special allow­ance with respect to both these cases, be­cause the unfortunate men unquestionably

. SES. 1887.-7 N

lost their lives not from mere accident, but from the practice of the Railway depart­ment, first, in running trains at too short intervals-why, no less than twelve trains were run wit.hin the hour preceding the col­lision-and, secondly, in letting engines, from the want of turn-tables at the terminal stations, be driven bunker first, instead of, as they ought always to be, funnel first. Because the engine carrying Maskell and McNab was driven bunker first, the distance between them and the train collided with was only some 2 feet, and they had for their protection only a sheet of iron half-an-inch thick; whereas, had the engine been turned round at the proper place, and, consequently, been driven funnel first, the distance would have been some 30 feet, and the space would have been occupied by a comparatively in­destructible iron framework. Moreovflr, the driver would have been able to see the right distance round the curve. It was perfectly absurd to say, as some honorable membe.rs did-:-" Oh! the engine-drivers don't com­plain of the system," because it was ex­tremely rare to find men of that class ever complaining of a danger that happened to be familiar to them. If honorable members. would look into the matter, they would find the very highest English authority on safe railway travelling-the gentleman who was consulting engineer for almost all the rail­way lines of the United Kingdom-insisting that all tank engines should be driven funnel first. To all intents and purposes these men were done out of their lives, not by an accident in the ordinary sense, but by the pernicious system under which the Railway authorities did their level best to carry out the great aim and object of the department, namely, to present a good balance-sheet ... Therefore, he thought that, under these extraordinary circumstances, the cases of both Maskell and McNab were entitled to extraordinary consideration.

Mr. GRAVES called attention to an item of £239 "towards repairing roads ill the town of Hawthorn damaged during con­struction of Hawthorn to Kew Railway." It had always been held that the Railway department should not pay for work done outside the limits of their property, and it seemed to him that this item was an inno­vation on that principle. (Mr. Gillies­"The commissioners did not put it on the Estimates; I did.") It was the Minister's duty, as well as the duty of the Railway Commissioners, to protect the public inter­ests. He thought this was a charge which

2174. [ASSEMBLY.] Board Bill.

ought more properly to fall on the contrac­tors who made the railway.

The vote was agreed to. The resolutions were then reported to' the

House, and adopted.

WAYS A,ND MEANS. The House having resolved itself into

Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. GILLIES moved-

"That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the· year ending the 30th June; 1888, the sum of £2,425,329 be granteri out of the consolidated revenue of Victoria."

The resolution was agreed to, and was reported to the House.

APPROPRIATION BILL. The resolution passed in Committee of

Ways and Means was considered and adopted.

Authority being given to Mr. Gillies and l\ir. Wrixon to introduce a Bill to carry out the resolution,

Mr. GILLIES brought up a Bill "to apply a sum out of the consolidated revenue to t~ie service of the year ending on the 30th day of June, 1888, and to appropriate tbe Supplies granted in this session of Par­liament," and moved that it be read a first time.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was read a irst time.

MARINE BOARD BILL. The amendment made in this Bill, in

committee, was considered and adopted. Mr. WALKER said that, in committee,

several points were raised, and he promised that certain amendments would be submitted on the report. He had had the amendments which he intended to make printed on a separate sheet, so that honorable members could see exactly what was proposed to be done. One amendment was to increase the number of the members of the Marine Board from. ten to twelve, giving one representative to the pilots and one to the underwriters, and providing that the representative who was to be elected, as the Bill now stood, by the exempt masters and pilots should be elected by the exempt masters and certifi­cated engineers. Another amendment pro­vided that the officers of the Pilot Board should, if practicable, be appointed to similar positions under the Marine Board, and, if not practicable, that they should be ap­pointed to offices of equal value in the public service. The remaining amendments con­..served the interests of the pilots in regard

to their fund and in other ways. He had had several interviews with the pilots, and they approved of the proposed. alterations which affected them. He begged to move that the amendments be adopted.

Mr. GRAVES remarked that theamend­ments appeared to carry out the promises

. niade by the Minister of Oustoms when the Bill was in committee. He noticed tha.t by the amendments proposed in clause 152 the amount to be deducted from the sum stand­ing to the credit of the pilots' fund each month was to be 6 instead of 7! per cent., and that seven-twelfths, instead of two­thirds, of the amount to the credit of the fund was to be paid into tl1e consolidated revenue.

Mr. V ALE said he was rather disap­pointed that no amendment was proposed in the 2nd sub-section of clause 5, which exempted any" public or national ships " from the operation of the measure. It seemed to him that any foreign power might de­clare its vessels to be "public and national ships," although they carried freight and passengers, and thus get them exempt from the Act.

Mr. WALKER stated that the phrase " public or national· ships" was used in the Merchant Shipping Act. It referred to ships not engaged in trade.

Mr. GAUNSON said he understood the Government proposed to preserve to the pilots the right which they had at present to appeal to the Governor in Oouncil from the decisions of the board which investigated any charges against them. (Mr. Walker­" Yes.") The Bill would not preserve that right, because it repealed Act No. 800, which gave the pilots the right of appeal. That Act was not re-enacted in any way.

Mr. ,V ALKER said he would take steps to have the necessary amendment made in the Legislative Oouncil.

Mr. GAUNSON asked the Government to consider whether the terms of clause 143 would enable the Marine Board to order a person who prosecuted a pilot unsuccessfully to pay the defendant's costs.

Mr. OARTER inquired if the Bill would allow the Harbour Trust to retain their jurisdiction over the ferry boats?

Mr. WALKER replied in the affirma­tive.

Mr. ANDERSON (Villiers) suggested that some amendment should be made to protect the pilots against an unfair reduc­tion of their fees. The new board would have a direct interest in reducing the fees, .

Marine [N OYEl'lIBER 17. J Board Bill. 2175

and there should be a minimum scale fixed below which it would be impossible for any reduction to be made.

Mr. WALKER stated that he 11ad had two long interviews with the pilots on this subject. Their request to him was that their interests in the present superannuation fund should be conserved. And this would be carried out by one of the amendments now before the House-the amendment for the insertion in clause 159 of the following words:-

"Nothing in this Act or in any regulations made hereunder contained sha1l affect any rights or claims which under any law or regulation in force immediately before the commencement of this Act any pilots licensed before snch com­mencement or any persons claiming through them may have had against or upon the lund."

Thus, the promise which he had made at the instance of the honorable member for Delatite had been faithfully carried out. He made no othE'r promise.

Mr. LANGRIDGE observed that he must bear testimony to the fact that the Minister of Customs had loyally kept llis pledge to the pilots.

Mr. GAUNSON remarked that, acting upon the requirements of the Government­the result, he presumed, of suggestions made by a special board-the pilots had been compelled to purchase a third pilot boat. Now, supposing the pilots were re­quired, under the new regime, to provide a steam pilot boat, and to get rid of the sailing vessels, and had thereby to submit to con­siderable loss-quite apart from the differ­ence between the price of such vessels when they were obtained and when they were sold -would any compensation be made to them, or would they have to rely upon the con­science of Parliament? If the matter could be provided for by legislation, it ought to be, because it was simply protecting vested interests. With regard to the red uction of pilot fees, what the honorable member for Villiers (Mr. Anderson) desired was that, in making provision for a sliding scale, it should not be possible to go below a certain standard. The more the pilots made, the better for the public interest, because the greater care would they take in the per­formance of their duties. Certainly their earnings ought not to be so decreased as to. make it a matter of indifference as to whether the pilots were good or bad men.

The amend ments were agreed to. Mr. WALKER moved that the Bill be

read a third time. Mr. GAUNSON expressed the hope that

the Government would give the assurance 7N2

that the matter to which he had called at­tention would be cQnsidered, and that, if the language used did not place the question beyond all doubt, the necessary amendments would be made in another place.

Mr. WALKER said if he felt it to be necessary, after consultation with the drafts­man, the amendments should be made. His intention was to do exactly what the honorable member for Emerald Hill (Mr. Gaunson) wished should be done.

The Bill was then read a third time and passed.

THE CHINESE.

Mr. GAUNSON asked the Premier whe­ther he would afford him an opportunity, on an early day, of bringing forward the reso­lution which he had tabled with reference to the Chinese?

Mr. GILLIES observed that the resolu­tion embraced two prQPositions-one declar­ing that greater restrictions should be placed on the incoming of Chinese to the colQny; the other, directing the Government to intro­duce a Bill. He had communicated with the other colonies with reference to legislation on the question, and he found that the feel-

, ing of all Qf them was in the directiQn of imposing greater restriction. But to make the thing effective the legislation in all the colonies should be uniform.

Mr. GAUNSON stated tllat he had no. objection to withdraw the second part Qf the resolution. He considered the matter one which should be discussed with great moderation and temper.

Mr. GILLIES said he would consider the language of the resolution, and inform the honorable member, early next week, whether the Government could accept it as it stood, or whether they would require any alteration.

Mr. GAUNSON observed that, although the Government might see their way to. accept the resolution as it stood, Qr with such alterations as they might suggest, it would be very undesirable, in the present aspect of the question, to avoid discussion. If the resolution could be discussed, as he thought it could, temperately and carefully, with the view not simply of showing the sister colonies what the House desired, but also of impressing the Imperial Govern­ment in their dealings with the Chinese Government, that course would be most desirable.

The House adjQurned at ten minutes past eleven Q'clQck, until Tuesday, NQvember 22.